No Time To Die: Production Diary

1157615771579158115822507

Comments

  • Posts: 1,407
    I thought MI3 gave Ethan Hunt pretty good character development. And I look forward to that continuing in the next one now that his wife is back in play.

    Bond is an archetype who has been given good character arcs through his 20 plus films. And that's totally fine
  • Posts: 319
    I'm glad this thread title gets update with useful information. Not that I can ever figure where the posts are but still.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    I'm glad this thread title gets update with useful information. Not that I can ever figure where the posts are but still.

    First post on the first page contains every single update.
  • Posts: 319
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    I'm glad this thread title gets update with useful information. Not that I can ever figure where the posts are but still.

    First post on the first page contains every single update.

    Cool thanks.
  • Posts: 5,767
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    I thought MI3 gave Ethan Hunt pretty good character development. And I look forward to that continuing in the next one now that his wife is back in play.

    Bond is an archetype who has been given good character arcs through his 20 plus films. And that's totally fine
    Bond did splendidly without character development for 20 films. What I demand of both Bond and Hunt is a certain character presentation. I don´t get tired of mentioning Michael Mann, who manages to let even the smallest roles show character and past experiences, even if they don´t talk at all.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I enjoyed the first MI film, but I don't care about Ethan Hunt, no.

    Anyway - JAPAN would be amazing. I keep thinking how cool a fight during a Kabuki theatre performance would be. It could be dazzling! Let alone a different kind of fight on a bullet train ... eating poisonous fish for sushi ... Samurai and kimonos, or blood among the falling cherry blossoms (so many chances for juxtaposition and stark contrasts) and OMG it could be a cinematic feast! Truly.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    I thought MI3 gave Ethan Hunt pretty good character development. And I look forward to that continuing in the next one now that his wife is back in play.

    Bond is an archetype who has been given good character arcs through his 20 plus films. And that's totally fine
    Bond did splendidly without character development for 20 films. What I demand of both Bond and Hunt is a certain character presentation. I don´t get tired of mentioning Michael Mann, who manages to let even the smallest roles show character and past experiences, even if they don´t talk at all.

    The problem with Hollywood is that it’s been through a prolonged phase where ‘character’ is conflated with backstory. The fleshing out of character built retrospectively. Character is about how one reacts to people, scenarios, difficulties, triumphs, its about decision making, emotional response. There’s an element of history that informs character, but it doesn’t need to be spelled out. With good writing it can be implied.

    Case in point: SF. The idea of an ageing Bond and his place in the world is interesting and authentic. By comparison the explicit references to (and exploration of) childhood seem trite and hackneyed.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Yes, I agree, RC7. Again it points out how incredibly important a good script is, no matter who is in the film.
  • topolinitopolini Cymru
    Posts: 1
    Heavily guarded filming ( "crowd scenes") taking place in either the Principality Stadium or the Millenium Centre in Cardiff. Spoke to one of the crew this afternoon. Ed Sheeran is also heavily favoured for the theme song a la Sam Smith.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Ed?!
    Oh how I want an awesome theme song!!!!! Sigh ...

    Happy with pretty much anywhere in England for a location; I always enjoy that.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    topolini wrote: »
    Heavily guarded filming ( "crowd scenes") taking place in either the Principality Stadium or the Millenium Centre in Cardiff. Spoke to one of the crew this afternoon. Ed Sheeran is also heavily favoured for the theme song a la Sam Smith.
    This is for Boyle's Beatles film or Bond 25?
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 12,837
    I'm actually weirdly excited at the idea of a UK set Bond film but if that's true, I hope they do it in a certain way.

    I think the best comparison to make with something similar to Bond is, weirdly (since it's an American show), the last season of 24. The geography was way off because of the real time format but London itself I thought was really well portrayed, it actually felt like the city I grew up in. Kieffer said in an interview leading up to it that he didn't want to be "taking cover by Westminister Abbey" or something similar and I think they did that really well. Sure they had the moneyshots of the tourist locations but there was more to it than that, and even when they did make use of a landmark (Wembley) it made perfect sense in the context of the story.

    In SF London was basically just there for the Whitehall stuff and one chase scene, and Scotland was just the moors. None of it felt very lived in and real aside from the brief bit on the tube. So I think there's still untapped potential in a UK set Bond film. It could feel really different and fresh if they do it well imo.
    TripAces wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Locations. New Zealand.

    You'll be able to see the New Zealand countryside in the upcoming Mission Impossible : Fallout, if you like.
    Don't think Bond needs to follow suit again with MI

    No. MI already lead the way in death defying stunts.

    Problem is, I don't care if Ethan Hunt lives or dies. He's not a character worth investing in.

    I'd have a hard time even calling him a character to be honest, he's that bland and generic. More just a vehicle for Tom Cruise to do insane stunts. And that's fine, the stunts are pretty cool, and sometimes the films themselves are decent too (the fourth one especially felt so fresh and exciting at the time). But MI just feels so soulless compared to Bond for me. It's hard to describe but I just don't feel like it still has the same magic/heart there.

    I actually enjoyed the MI films more when they did their own thing and each one was pretty unique to the others. They just seem to be aping Bond now, exploiting the gap in the market the Craig era left them. And they ape it well to be fair. But it'll never be the same as the real thing.

    I know it's fashionable to bash Bond and praise MI nowadays but the two don't even compare imo. I know it was a TV show (part of a craze that Bond inspired) but I think MI will die with Cruise. I'm sure they'll try and carry on without him and we'll get some sort of reboot further down the line but it's pretty much all about Cruise and the stunts he pulls off. Once he's too old I think that's pretty much it. But Bond has more substance to it than that and will outlive all of us.

    Also, this isn't bitterness. I'm not one of those Bond fans who immediately craps on any rival series. Loved the Bourne trilogy and I really liked both Kingsman films. But MI as a series just doesn't do it for me.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, again, I really agree with you, @thelivingroyale. (So many times over the years ...)
  • Posts: 4,622
    Bond is the ultimate. If done well. There is nothing better. I would encourage Eon to continually strive to catch the tone of the '60s films. The essence of the character can be found there too.
    I do like the MI films. I've got them all on Blu-ray. It's good modern action spy fare.
    An MI film followed by a DC Bond film makes for a smashing comtemporary spy double bill.
    I'm a bit of a Jason Bourne purist. I love the original Ludlum novels and the earlier film takes on Bourne Identity, especially the tv mini-series.
    The newer Damon-Greengras efforts I don't like, although their updated take on Identity wasn't bad
    They lost me after they killed the wife and went off reservation from there.
    Kingsmen - it gives me a headache. It had such potential. I can't quite pin down what I don't like, but its almost like it tries too hard.
    Anyway Bond 25 is what matters. Do a good job on this for Craig's final fling and the genre is in top shape.
    I'll soak in Bond 25 (Shatterhand still, I wonder?) 10x before I watch any of the rival stuff even twice.
    The Bond persona , Bond on mission, is that appealing!


  • Posts: 11,425
    jake24 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @4EverBonded is absolutely correct, I will say!

    Japan truly is a beautiful country and we haven't visited it since 1967.
    You mean 2012.
    Wasn’t that Shanghai?
    They used exterior shots of Hashima Island off the coast of Nagasaki.

    I thought it was all CGI?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @4EverBonded is absolutely correct, I will say!

    Japan truly is a beautiful country and we haven't visited it since 1967.
    You mean 2012.
    Wasn’t that Shanghai?
    They used exterior shots of Hashima Island off the coast of Nagasaki.

    I thought it was all CGI?

    They shot a few plates of the island. The establishing shot is a composite of the island and footage of the Chimera, shot in Turkey.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Okay. Not sure it really counts as using Japan as a location.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    Okay. Not sure it really counts as using Japan as a location.

    Me neither.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    I thought MI3 gave Ethan Hunt pretty good character development. And I look forward to that continuing in the next one now that his wife is back in play.

    Bond is an archetype who has been given good character arcs through his 20 plus films. And that's totally fine
    Bond did splendidly without character development for 20 films. What I demand of both Bond and Hunt is a certain character presentation. I don´t get tired of mentioning Michael Mann, who manages to let even the smallest roles show character and past experiences, even if they don´t talk at all.
    I agree, although I think they did do character development during the progression of the earlier films. It was just subtle and cumulative within the context of the narrative unfolding, rather than via expositional layering, with the exception being OHMSS (essentially a one-off reboot).

    Like you, I think Cruise and Co. do something similar with the MI line, with the exception being MI3 which delved deeper into his personal life. It didn't work for me, and I'm glad they ditched it for the last two, although I gather the wife is back for MI:6.
    TripAces wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Locations. New Zealand.

    You'll be able to see the New Zealand countryside in the upcoming Mission Impossible : Fallout, if you like.
    Don't think Bond needs to follow suit again with MI

    No. MI already lead the way in death defying stunts.

    Problem is, I don't care if Ethan Hunt lives or dies. He's not a character worth investing in.

    I'd have a hard time even calling him a character to be honest, he's that bland and generic. More just a vehicle for Tom Cruise to do insane stunts. And that's fine, the stunts are pretty cool, and sometimes the films themselves are decent too (the fourth one especially felt so fresh and exciting at the time). But MI just feels so soulless compared to Bond for me. It's hard to describe but I just don't feel like it still has the same magic/heart there.

    I actually enjoyed the MI films more when they did their own thing and each one was pretty unique to the others. They just seem to be aping Bond now, exploiting the gap in the market the Craig era left them. And they ape it well to be fair. But it'll never be the same as the real thing.

    I know it's fashionable to bash Bond and praise MI nowadays but the two don't even compare imo. I know it was a TV show (part of a craze that Bond inspired) but I think MI will die with Cruise. I'm sure they'll try and carry on without him and we'll get some sort of reboot further down the line but it's pretty much all about Cruise and the stunts he pulls off. Once he's too old I think that's pretty much it. But Bond has more substance to it than that and will outlive all of us.

    Also, this isn't bitterness. I'm not one of those Bond fans who immediately craps on any rival series. Loved the Bourne trilogy and I really liked both Kingsman films. But MI as a series just doesn't do it for me.
    For me, he's as bland and generic as cinematic Bond was prior to this reboot (OHMSS and MI:3 being exceptions), and I'm perfectly fine with that. There have been enough films now so that fans have become accustomed to Hunt's personality and approach (as they did with Bond before him). Those of us who are invested in both characters can sense how he would act when confronted with a certain scenario. As Lane said in the last one, Hunt is essentially a gambler and risk taker, but with limits and morals.

    I don't think he's soulless at all, but that's a personal opinion. If one can't connect with a characterization, then I can appreciate how it could seem vacuous. I'm sure some said that of some of the more extravagant Bond entries, although I love them. So to each their own on that.

    Regarding the last two films aping Bond: yes, that's true. McQuarrie and Cruise are on record stating that they saw a gap and filled it. I'm extremely grateful to them for that, because I personally think the last two entries have been perfectly executed examples of how to create light, action oriented spy entertainment. To me at least, they capture the tone, spirit and style of some of the Gilbert and Glen films, with larger than life threats and death defying action set pieces executed to perfection.

    I absolutely love the Bourne series (due a rewatch soon), really liked the first Kingsman film (not too keen on the 2nd one though), and think MI, MI4 and MI5 are great (not keen on the 2nd or 3rd ones although they certainly have their moments). From what I've read, McQuarrie/Cruise are going to take a slightly different approach with the next one and I can't wait to see what they come up with. It's my most anticipated film of this year.

    Regarding broader discussion of Bond vs. MI (which always gets conflated with the conversation about the last few films for some reason), there is absolutely no comparison and I think most fans on this site would agree. Bond craps all over MI from a great height. It is by far the more iconic series, full of character, history, pedigree and culture. It is a series that transcends the actor playing him at any point in time, while MI exists as a vehicle for Cruise's vision, ambitions and bravado.

    I'm very happy that I'm a huge fan of both of these series, and any other well executed series in this genre.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Nice to see some love for Bourne (original trilogy only though) and MI. Those first 3 Bourne films are pretty awesome IMO. It still feels like Bond is dealing with the aftermath in a way, as the character arc dimension to Craig's era must surely have been as much influenced by Bourne as it was by Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy (more so, I'd say).
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    For me the first 3 Bourne films are much more atmpspheric, creatively salient, engaging and more gripping than any Bond film in recent memory and it's frustrating that since 2007's Boune Ultimatum, with the arguable exception of CR, Bond hasn't given us anything near as good. I'm really hoping that Bond 25 corrects this. Bond is numero uno and needs to be treated as such.
  • Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    I thought MI3 gave Ethan Hunt pretty good character development. And I look forward to that continuing in the next one now that his wife is back in play.

    Bond is an archetype who has been given good character arcs through his 20 plus films. And that's totally fine
    Bond did splendidly without character development for 20 films. What I demand of both Bond and Hunt is a certain character presentation. I don´t get tired of mentioning Michael Mann, who manages to let even the smallest roles show character and past experiences, even if they don´t talk at all.
    I agree, although I think they did do character development during the progression of the earlier films. It was just subtle and cumulative within the context of the narrative unfolding, rather than via expositional layering, with the exception being OHMSS (essentially a one-off reboot).

    Like you, I think Cruise and Co. do something similar with the MI line, with the exception being MI3 which delved deeper into his personal life. It didn't work for me, and I'm glad they ditched it for the last two, although I gather the wife is back for MI:6.
    TripAces wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Locations. New Zealand.

    You'll be able to see the New Zealand countryside in the upcoming Mission Impossible : Fallout, if you like.
    Don't think Bond needs to follow suit again with MI

    No. MI already lead the way in death defying stunts.

    Problem is, I don't care if Ethan Hunt lives or dies. He's not a character worth investing in.

    I'd have a hard time even calling him a character to be honest, he's that bland and generic. More just a vehicle for Tom Cruise to do insane stunts. And that's fine, the stunts are pretty cool, and sometimes the films themselves are decent too (the fourth one especially felt so fresh and exciting at the time). But MI just feels so soulless compared to Bond for me. It's hard to describe but I just don't feel like it still has the same magic/heart there.

    I actually enjoyed the MI films more when they did their own thing and each one was pretty unique to the others. They just seem to be aping Bond now, exploiting the gap in the market the Craig era left them. And they ape it well to be fair. But it'll never be the same as the real thing.

    I know it's fashionable to bash Bond and praise MI nowadays but the two don't even compare imo. I know it was a TV show (part of a craze that Bond inspired) but I think MI will die with Cruise. I'm sure they'll try and carry on without him and we'll get some sort of reboot further down the line but it's pretty much all about Cruise and the stunts he pulls off. Once he's too old I think that's pretty much it. But Bond has more substance to it than that and will outlive all of us.

    Also, this isn't bitterness. I'm not one of those Bond fans who immediately craps on any rival series. Loved the Bourne trilogy and I really liked both Kingsman films. But MI as a series just doesn't do it for me.
    For me, he's as bland and generic as cinematic Bond was prior to this reboot (OHMSS and MI:3 being exceptions), and I'm perfectly fine with that. There have been enough films now so that fans have become accustomed to Hunt's personality and approach (as they did with Bond before him). Those of us who are invested in both characters can sense how he would act when confronted with a certain scenario. As Lane said in the last one, Hunt is essentially a gambler and risk taker, but with limits and morals.

    I don't think he's soulless at all, but that's a personal opinion. If one can't connect with a characterization, then I can appreciate how it could seem vacuous. I'm sure some said that of some of the more extravagant Bond entries, although I love them. So to each their own on that.

    Regarding the last two films aping Bond: yes, that's true. McQuarrie and Cruise are on record stating that they saw a gap and filled it. I'm extremely grateful to them for that, because I personally think the last two entries have been perfectly executed examples of how to create light, action oriented spy entertainment. To me at least, they capture the tone, spirit and style of some of the Gilbert and Glen films, with larger than life threats and death defying action set pieces executed to perfection.

    I absolutely love the Bourne series (due a rewatch soon), really liked the first Kingsman film (not too keen on the 2nd one though), and think MI, MI4 and MI5 are great (not keen on the 2nd or 3rd ones although they certainly have their moments). From what I've read, McQuarrie/Cruise are going to take a slightly different approach with the next one and I can't wait to see what they come up with. It's my most anticipated film of this year.

    Regarding broader discussion of Bond vs. MI (which always gets conflated with the conversation about the last few films for some reason), there is absolutely no comparison and I think most fans on this site would agree. Bond craps all over MI from a great height. It is by far the more iconic series, full of character, history, pedigree and culture. It is a series that transcends the actor playing him at any point in time, while MI exists as a vehicle for Cruise's vision, ambitions and bravado.

    I'm very happy that I'm a huge fan of both of these series, and any other well executed series in this genre.

    Cinematic Bond prior to the reboot still had more character for me. There might not have been much character development, he started off fully formed and stayed pretty much the same throughout, but Bond himself has always been an interesting and unique character, probably because the essence of Fleming's Bond has always been there. Hunt is just Tom Cruise in generic action hero mode imo. I'd struggle to list off any memorable traits of his like I could with Bond. Bond has always had that edge to him as well that makes him cool and dangerous. I think Hunt is just a lot more bland and forgettable in comparison.

    Put Bond in a small scale detective film like DN and he still shines because he's a great memorable character. If you did that with Hunt I think it'd be boring. The MI films are for the most part good blockbusters but once you get past the stunts and the action I don't think you're left with much else.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    I thought MI3 gave Ethan Hunt pretty good character development. And I look forward to that continuing in the next one now that his wife is back in play.

    Bond is an archetype who has been given good character arcs through his 20 plus films. And that's totally fine
    Bond did splendidly without character development for 20 films. What I demand of both Bond and Hunt is a certain character presentation. I don´t get tired of mentioning Michael Mann, who manages to let even the smallest roles show character and past experiences, even if they don´t talk at all.
    I agree, although I think they did do character development during the progression of the earlier films. It was just subtle and cumulative within the context of the narrative unfolding, rather than via expositional layering, with the exception being OHMSS (essentially a one-off reboot).

    Like you, I think Cruise and Co. do something similar with the MI line, with the exception being MI3 which delved deeper into his personal life. It didn't work for me, and I'm glad they ditched it for the last two, although I gather the wife is back for MI:6.
    TripAces wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Locations. New Zealand.

    You'll be able to see the New Zealand countryside in the upcoming Mission Impossible : Fallout, if you like.
    Don't think Bond needs to follow suit again with MI

    No. MI already lead the way in death defying stunts.

    Problem is, I don't care if Ethan Hunt lives or dies. He's not a character worth investing in.

    I'd have a hard time even calling him a character to be honest, he's that bland and generic. More just a vehicle for Tom Cruise to do insane stunts. And that's fine, the stunts are pretty cool, and sometimes the films themselves are decent too (the fourth one especially felt so fresh and exciting at the time). But MI just feels so soulless compared to Bond for me. It's hard to describe but I just don't feel like it still has the same magic/heart there.

    I actually enjoyed the MI films more when they did their own thing and each one was pretty unique to the others. They just seem to be aping Bond now, exploiting the gap in the market the Craig era left them. And they ape it well to be fair. But it'll never be the same as the real thing.

    I know it's fashionable to bash Bond and praise MI nowadays but the two don't even compare imo. I know it was a TV show (part of a craze that Bond inspired) but I think MI will die with Cruise. I'm sure they'll try and carry on without him and we'll get some sort of reboot further down the line but it's pretty much all about Cruise and the stunts he pulls off. Once he's too old I think that's pretty much it. But Bond has more substance to it than that and will outlive all of us.

    Also, this isn't bitterness. I'm not one of those Bond fans who immediately craps on any rival series. Loved the Bourne trilogy and I really liked both Kingsman films. But MI as a series just doesn't do it for me.
    For me, he's as bland and generic as cinematic Bond was prior to this reboot (OHMSS and MI:3 being exceptions), and I'm perfectly fine with that. There have been enough films now so that fans have become accustomed to Hunt's personality and approach (as they did with Bond before him). Those of us who are invested in both characters can sense how he would act when confronted with a certain scenario. As Lane said in the last one, Hunt is essentially a gambler and risk taker, but with limits and morals.

    I don't think he's soulless at all, but that's a personal opinion. If one can't connect with a characterization, then I can appreciate how it could seem vacuous. I'm sure some said that of some of the more extravagant Bond entries, although I love them. So to each their own on that.

    Regarding the last two films aping Bond: yes, that's true. McQuarrie and Cruise are on record stating that they saw a gap and filled it. I'm extremely grateful to them for that, because I personally think the last two entries have been perfectly executed examples of how to create light, action oriented spy entertainment. To me at least, they capture the tone, spirit and style of some of the Gilbert and Glen films, with larger than life threats and death defying action set pieces executed to perfection.

    I absolutely love the Bourne series (due a rewatch soon), really liked the first Kingsman film (not too keen on the 2nd one though), and think MI, MI4 and MI5 are great (not keen on the 2nd or 3rd ones although they certainly have their moments). From what I've read, McQuarrie/Cruise are going to take a slightly different approach with the next one and I can't wait to see what they come up with. It's my most anticipated film of this year.

    Regarding broader discussion of Bond vs. MI (which always gets conflated with the conversation about the last few films for some reason), there is absolutely no comparison and I think most fans on this site would agree. Bond craps all over MI from a great height. It is by far the more iconic series, full of character, history, pedigree and culture. It is a series that transcends the actor playing him at any point in time, while MI exists as a vehicle for Cruise's vision, ambitions and bravado.

    I'm very happy that I'm a huge fan of both of these series, and any other well executed series in this genre.

    Cinematic Bond prior to the reboot still had more character for me. There might not have been much character development, he started off fully formed and stayed pretty much the same throughout, but Bond himself has always been an interesting and unique character, probably because the essence of Fleming's Bond has always been there. Hunt is just Tom Cruise in generic action hero mode imo. I'd struggle to list off any memorable traits of his like I could with Bond. Bond has always had that edge to him as well that makes him cool and dangerous. I think Hunt is just a lot more bland and forgettable in comparison.

    Put Bond in a small scale detective film like DN and he still shines because he's a great memorable character. If you did that with Hunt I think it'd be boring. The MI films are for the most part good blockbusters but once you get past the stunts and the action I don't think you're left with much else.
    Oh no doubt. I couldn't agree more with your comments. There really is no comparison between Hunt as a character and Bond.

    To be frank, I think there are very little characters in this genre who can compare with Bond. How can they really? Not only is there the literary canon to draw from, but also the rich (and arguably genre defining and iconic) cinematic history. It's night and day. Bond easily transcends the actor. Hunt certainly does not.

    Having said all that, I don't think we should take anything away from what Cruise has been able to achieve with Ethan Hunt and the MI series. They really are very entertaining films which punch well above their weight. As you said, this is a character that he took from a tv series no less, and due to his vision, commitment and flair he has created something which resonates with many people, and which fills a void for many Bond fans too in some respects (certainly those who aren't very enamoured with the current direction at least). It's certainly true that Hunt almost seems to be an exaggerated extension of Tom Cruise, but I'm perfectly fine with that.

    Like I said, I'm really happy he's still doing them, and putting his all into it. They fill a market gap and satiate fans of this genre. I look forward to more entries in this space, including the new female lead films.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Yes, having the MI films and even the Bourne films is a nice genre sidebar to Bond.
    Kind of like Man From Uncle and The Avengers in the '60s, although not quite.
    Those two series were very iconic in their own right. Uncle even had 8 cinema releases.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Put Bond in a small scale detective film like DN and he still shines because he's a great memorable character. If you did that with Hunt I think it'd be boring. The MI films are for the most part good blockbusters but once you get past the stunts and the action I don't think you're left with much else.
    I guess that´s why the stunts are the focus of the marketing. Well, as long as they dish the action out like in the last two films I´m happy :-).

  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    edited June 2018 Posts: 189
    TheBondExperience shared this very interesting post on instagram:

    Mark Strong in Bond 25?

    E925_C112-23_BB-441_A-8_C45-00627_B126937.jpg
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    I'd be fine with him as an ally of some sort, but definitely not as a villain.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    It'd be great if he joined, considering a lot of us thought he might join SP after he shared a photo alongside Craig before production was set to begin.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Isn't he on some new tv series called Deep State? I believe it's been renewed for a 2nd season for next year. So it's doubtful he will be in B25 but one never knows.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 12,837
    jake24 wrote: »
    I'd be fine with him as an ally of some sort, but definitely not as a villain.

    Same, I think he'd be good as another 00.

    I think it'd be nice for Bond to have more actual mates in general really. I know he has allies but I mean people you could imagine him going to the pub with when he's not on a mission. There's only really Felix and Moneypenny that fit the bill. They don't have to go all buddy cop or anything and it doesn't have to be a recurring character. Just a couple of lines and dialogue to sell it. Could just be some minor character in London, another agent or someone else at MI6 who would otherwise just be spouting exposition. Show Bond being friendly with them to make it all seem a bit more real.

    One of the things I really like about the Brosnan era is how they did that with Robinson (honestly one of my favourite minor characters, way better than any Tanner imo). He's barely in the films at all but him and Bond actually seem to be friends. He's the only person at MI6 Bond is on first name terms with. He seems genuinely concerned for him at the start of TND, and in DAD when he's traded for Zao Bond immediately goes to say hi once he notices him. He didn't need loads of screentime or forced banter (I think GE is guilty of that in the PTS, love Brosnan and Bean together but I do cringe a bit the whole "buy me a pint" exchange). Little moments like that go a long way I think. It's nice and it makes Bond seem more like a real person.
Sign In or Register to comment.