› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…16191620162216241625…2507

Comments

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    talos7 wrote: »
    The thought that military, specifically special forces personnel who are muscular got that way from lifting weights and not their field training is ludicrous, and shows a complete lack of understanding the scope and physical demands of their sssignments and training. The gear they wear and carry weights 60 to 100 lbs . They hike for unbelievable distances . These are the elite who in large part earn their physiques in brutal conditions carrying out exhausting missions . Weights may play a part in their conditioning but these are not gym rat posers; to imply that is insulting to this special breed of soldier.
    Now aesthetically, some may not like Craig’s look, but his is a modern Bond and his physique is more than realistic considering the character’s background.

    Bingo!
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Craig's muscles were never an obstacle for me. They were shown once or twice but that's it.

    Yeah, very firm. Mine are more or less the same, they’re just fractionally more flaccid. Apart from that, I’ve got a smooth chest with a ring of hairs round each nipple, and a thin line that sort of builds towards the usual place.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    DCisared wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Craig's muscles were never an obstacle for me. They were shown once or twice but that's it.

    Yeah, very firm. Mine are more or less the same, they’re just fractionally more flaccid. Apart from that, I’ve got a smooth chest with a ring of hairs round each nipple, and a thin line that sort of builds towards the usual place.

    Hahaha love it...I even have a nipple ring...kinky.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    DCisared wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Craig's muscles were never an obstacle for me. They were shown once or twice but that's it.

    Yeah, very firm. Mine are more or less the same, they’re just fractionally more flaccid. Apart from that, I’ve got a smooth chest with a ring of hairs round each nipple, and a thin line that sort of builds towards the usual place.

    Excellent.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    I can't wait for more news about the production. The conversations here are getting a bit weird.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,496
    jake24 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    IMAX has released its US schedule for 2019, and Bond25 currently isn't listed.

    The November slots are taken by 'Wonder Women 1984' and 'Frozen 2'.

    Not word on international markets yet.
    Hugely disappointing news.
    Goldeneye0094 wrote: »
    Don't give up yet @jake24 like I said bond 25 might not be scheduled for IMAX until early 2019

    The issue is not so much if/when an announcement will be made regarding B25 (likely Feb/Mar as the article states), but that WW84 is shooting select scenes using 70mm IMAX cameras, and therefore is guaranteed at least a two week run at US IMAX.

    Pushing the release forward to October globally would make far more sense from a box office perspective, especially given there currently isn't anything on the IMAX schedule for October.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    jake24 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    IMAX has released its US schedule for 2019, and Bond25 currently isn't listed.

    The November slots are taken by 'Wonder Women 1984' and 'Frozen 2'.

    Not word on international markets yet.
    Hugely disappointing news.
    It certainly is disappointing, but isn't surprising at all given the crowded release schedule next November and the relative US box office pull of Bond vs. such powerful competition. It's what I anticipated.
    Goldeneye0094 wrote: »
    Don't give up yet @jake24 like I said bond 25 might not be scheduled for IMAX until early 2019
    It could get a few theatres later in its run, but that would only pull in some hardcore. Most would already be anticipating a home release by then. Plus, SW9 will probably still have a lock on IMAX in early Jan.
  • Goldeneye0094Goldeneye0094 Conyers, GA
    Posts: 464
    That's why I felt like it would have been wise to bring up the US release of bond 25 but unfortunately they stuck with the Nov 8th release despite growing competition since the original announcement
  • TR007TR007
    Posts: 1,165
    Goldeneye0094 wrote: »
    That's why I felt like it would have been wise to bring up the US release of bond 25 but unfortunately they stuck with the Nov 8th release despite growing competition since the original announcement

    The competition is a concern. I don't know how Bond is going to hold up against Wonder Woman 2 in the US.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2018 Posts: 8,114
    NicNac wrote: »
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.

    That's the problem with Craig's Bond, he doesn't pull you in. In the whole of CR I can think of only a few examples or actually emotion or expression or personailty. Even when he is poisoned, he's still hard to feel any empathy for or connection to. Moore may have been silly, but when he had a moment of seriousness, you bought it. Craig is one note, and chooses to portrays the character almost solely through blank and vacant stares. The Craig Bond has no character to speak of.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.

    That's the problem with Craig's Bond, he doesn't pull you in. In the whole of CR I can think of only a few examples or actually emotion or expression or personailty. Even when he is poisoned, he's still hard to feel any empathy for or connection to. Moore may have been silly, but when he had a moment of seriousness, you bought it. Craig is one note, and chooses to portrays the character almost solely through blank and vacant stares. The Craig Bond has no character to speak of.

    One of the silliest posts, you have ever done and that means something. Stick to him being ugly, but don't try this "water"
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.

    That's the problem with Craig's Bond, he doesn't pull you in. In the whole of CR I can think of only a few examples or actually emotion or expression or personailty. Even when he is poisoned, he's still hard to feel any empathy for or connection to. Moore may have been silly, but when he had a moment of seriousness, you bought it. Craig is one note, and chooses to portrays the character almost solely through blank and vacant stares. The Craig Bond has no character to speak of.

    Wow... Ok...
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.

    That's the problem with Craig's Bond, he doesn't pull you in. In the whole of CR I can think of only a few examples or actually emotion or expression or personailty. Even when he is poisoned, he's still hard to feel any empathy for or connection to. Moore may have been silly, but when he had a moment of seriousness, you bought it. Craig is one note, and chooses to portrays the character almost solely through blank and vacant stares. The Craig Bond has no character to speak of.

    Wow... Ok...

    Like I said, a typical Mendes post :)
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited August 2018 Posts: 3,157



    Yeah, definitely no character to speak of
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,492
    @Walecs, the same exact scene I thought of reading that Craig's Bond has "no character." All the proof one needs.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I needed a good laugh.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,842
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.

    That's the problem with Craig's Bond, he doesn't pull you in. In the whole of CR I can think of only a few examples or actually emotion or expression or personailty. Even when he is poisoned, he's still hard to feel any empathy for or connection to. Moore may have been silly, but when he had a moment of seriousness, you bought it. Craig is one note, and chooses to portrays the character almost solely through blank and vacant stares. The Craig Bond has no character to speak of.

    He doesn't pull you in? Both critical and popular receptions of CR and SF would disagree with that statement. He's got far more emotion and personality than pretty much any previous Bond tenures.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    I'm obviously a huge craig & bond fan , but in all honesty for me i know something is off when I appreciate mi rogue nation & fallout more than I do bond lately. Fallout is critically acclaimed Cruise brings his absolute best to his franchise in terms of acting , action & stunts, the last three films receiving 90% or higher score reflect this. Have Craig's last three done this well critically? This is what eon need to reflect on. Craig needs a dose of some of cruises upbeatness/energy imo.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I'm obviously a huge craig & bond fan , but in all honesty for me i know something is off when I appreciate mi rogue nation & fallout more than I do bond lately. Fallout is critically acclaimed Cruise brings his absolute best to his franchise in terms of acting , action & stunts, the last three films receiving 90% or higher score reflect this. Have Craig's last three done this well critically? This is what eon need to reflect on. Craig needs a dose of some of cruises upbeatness/energy imo.

    There is merit to what you are saying (I haven’t seen fallout yet) however I think the MI rotten tomatoes scores are heavily inflated I mean Rogue nation is an okay film, but it’s not better than like a Brosnan film and those are all in the fifty’s.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    Am I alone in finding the MI films to be some of the dullest action films around?
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Remington wrote: »
    Am I alone in finding the MI films to be some of the dullest action films around?
    I can´t say I love them all equally, but dull is certainly not a term that comes to my mind when I contemplate M:I.

  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I enjoyed many of them, will go and see Fallout, too. But it ain‘t James Bond (to me) which holds something special - a legacy/nostalgia thing on the one hand nothing can deal with, anyway and some re-newed or new excitement for the character since CR came out and I re-read all novels again.

    It will be easy for me to enjoy MI:Fallout more than SP - but with the rest as stated above I never found something better so far.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.

    That's the problem with Craig's Bond, he doesn't pull you in. In the whole of CR I can think of only a few examples or actually emotion or expression or personailty. Even when he is poisoned, he's still hard to feel any empathy for or connection to. Moore may have been silly, but when he had a moment of seriousness, you bought it. Craig is one note, and chooses to portrays the character almost solely through blank and vacant stares. The Craig Bond has no character to speak of.

    He doesn't pull you in? Both critical and popular receptions of CR and SF would disagree with that statement. He's got far more emotion and personality than pretty much any previous Bond tenures.

    That’s going a bit far IMO. Moore was definitely more empathetic.

    I understand those whose feel Craig is a bit one note. I thinks it’s slightly unfair but he’s definitely a bit monotone at times.

    That clip was a nice reminder of why I still consider QOS amongst Craig’s best entries - perhaps the best.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Getafix wrote: »
    That clip was a nice reminder of why I still consider QOS amongst Craig’s best entries - perhaps the best.
    I am sure many, many great scenes ended up on the cutting floor to keep the superfast pacing. QoS has it‘s flaws but at a whole it‘s a wonderful Bondfilm I enjoy more and more each year. But I would love to see a slightly slower-paced version with less insane editing and more and longer scenes to get more out of those awesome locations and visuals in general.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.

    That's the problem with Craig's Bond, he doesn't pull you in. In the whole of CR I can think of only a few examples or actually emotion or expression or personailty. Even when he is poisoned, he's still hard to feel any empathy for or connection to. Moore may have been silly, but when he had a moment of seriousness, you bought it. Craig is one note, and chooses to portrays the character almost solely through blank and vacant stares. The Craig Bond has no character to speak of.

    Ow...that's a brave assessment @Murdock ..I hope you have your armour back on ! ')
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    @barryt007 you got the wrong guy again. ;)
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Murdock wrote: »
    @barryt007 you got the wrong guy again. ;)

    Hahaha am I getting senile or what ?? apologies old chum....*gets coat*.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    No worries. :D
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    We shouldn't confuse the world of Bond with any degree of realism. Saying that Craig/ Bond wouldn't realistically look so muscle bound is no different to saying Moore/Bond from 1985 wouldn't realistically look so old and flabby.

    In Bond world it's all about how much the character appeals to an audience. Craig coming out of the sea in speedos did wonders for the film because the girls loved it. As much as the die hards scream that Dalton's slim-line Bond was Fleming's Bond it makes not a jot of difference if the ladies are put off by the sight of a shirtless Bond.

    Audiences have no time to get swept along with a character study of Bond because the action gets in the way. So, we are left with animal magnetism. Audiences need to be attracted to the character, thrilled by him. Connery had it, Craig had it early on. The rest come down to personal preference.

    That's the problem with Craig's Bond, he doesn't pull you in. In the whole of CR I can think of only a few examples or actually emotion or expression or personailty. Even when he is poisoned, he's still hard to feel any empathy for or connection to. Moore may have been silly, but when he had a moment of seriousness, you bought it. Craig is one note, and chooses to portrays the character almost solely through blank and vacant stares. The Craig Bond has no character to speak of.

    He doesn't pull you in? Both critical and popular receptions of CR and SF would disagree with that statement. He's got far more emotion and personality than pretty much any previous Bond tenures.

    That’s going a bit far IMO. Moore was definitely more empathetic.

    I understand those whose feel Craig is a bit one note. I thinks it’s slightly unfair but he’s definitely a bit monotone at times.

    That clip was a nice reminder of why I still consider QOS amongst Craig’s best entries - perhaps the best.

    Yep, much better than anything we've got in SPECTRE.
Sign In or Register to comment.