No Time To Die: Production Diary

1176017611763176517662507

Comments

  • Posts: 6,665
    The lack of news is turning this thread into a cuckoo's nest. Now we're discussing the virtue of wearing the right type of glasses? What's next? Sock colour? Oh, I know, I know, how about the Director's height? And if he or she go to the gym? And are they blonde or brunettes? Jeez, I'm felling like Jack talking to the Chief. Everybody get a grip.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Univex wrote: »
    The lack of news is turning this thread into a cuckoo's nest. Now we're discussing the virtue of wearing the right type of glasses? What's next? Sock colour? Oh, I know, I know, how about the Director's height? And if he or she go to the gym? And are they blonde or brunettes? Jeez, I'm felling like Jack talking to the Chief. Everybody get a grip.

    It’s not a lack of news, people are just A) Dicks, or B) have little to nothing happening outside of this forum.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 385
    bondjames wrote: »
    Has Clarkson been overtly political in her tv shows in the past?

    That's not something I'd want to see in a Bond film so hopefully not. If she hasn't, then I don't see the problem, despite her glasses.

    Also, is she a serious contender for this role? She's being considered, sure, but I can't imagine she's a front runner based on her resume. If they want a female director, then there are other choices with more experience. Whether they'd want the gig is another question. Bigelow has declined in the past, as has been noted here already so I can't see her going for it now.


    As I understand it, Collateral was rather ham-fisted in its political depictions, among other issues. She didn't write it, but she did direct it. Between that and other considerations, I have to agree with @PanchitoPistoles in spirit (perhaps not exactly in tone). She's not right for Bond.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 19,339
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Yes, you made that very clear. Nevertheless, she and her stepbrother have delivered 8 Bond movies, and only 1 of them were way below par, SP.

    Fixed that for ya.

    I have to rewatch DAD soon. That's something I won't be saying about SP!

    I won't rewatch DAD soon.

    Me either! Couldn't think of anything worse!
    I'd even watch CR'67 over it!

    come on- DAD is much more hilarious than CR67

    DAD is a beautiful bit of bollocks. Very entertaining.

    Absolutely...the fact that cr67 shit is even mentioned on here is disgusting.
    Also 'Knives Out' is a detective ,cluedo mansion affair,so there wont be any action in it,at least with Craig.
    That would have been a stipulation with B25 being sorted out,so a quick filming time and no risk to DC means he will be fine for B25 and no delay.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    bondjames wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    David Mackenzie Talks TIFF Opener 'Outlaw King' and Those Persistent James Bond Rumors
    https://hollywoodreporter.com/news/outlaw-king-director-david-mackenzie-q-a-2018-tiff-1140669

    Would you like to direct a Bond, when you did have time?

    I really don’t know how to answer the question. I like Barbara and Neil and Rob and that’s all I can say really.
    Very interesting. Note that he doesn't mention Craig. This probably confirms that he was only under consideration prior to Craig's announcement of return in August 2017. Then they started hunting down Villeneuve, as was reported at the time.

    David Mackenzie for Bond 26 or a post-Craig-era Bond film, perhaps?
    Also, can people stop saying I hate Daniel Craig. Yes he's my least favourite Bond actor, I just don't think he is Bondian, and never does portray Bondian behaviours well. I liked him in CR, because that truly was a "Bond begins" where the character is still a little "green". Craig's portrayal made sense. I just feel the later stories have been hampered by the limitations of his portrayal in that the character has to always be in a bad place, having "lost a step". This is also why I disagree whenever I hear any "best Bond since Connery" comments, because all the previous Bonds had to portray different aspects of the character, and not just play to their strengths everytime. SP was the first time Craig dipped a toe outside his comfort zone, and the results were not impressive IMO.

    I can agree with this.

    I don't agree with this, Craig has undoubtedly given Bond a more layered portrayal than a good number of actors in the role, especially Brosnan. I think his acting is just too subtle for some, the quiet torment of his performance is in his body language and eyes.

    Brosnan has none of this and rarely showed any conflict in his portrayal, it was quite one dimensional and he only attempted to add depth rarely and when he did it was quite embarassing. You might not hate Craig but you have a real problem with him being referred to as highly as he is.

    Craig is the one actor that has not had all the tropes to portray the character until SPECTRE, I'd like to see what Brosnan would have done without the safety net of all the tick the box moments of the series, without that greatest hits direction they took with him from TND onwards.

    They did try something different with him for GE but obviously didn't feel comfortable so just went to default setting and just churned out substandard Roger Moore entries and never asked him to stretch himself much.

    Fair enough if you want something very familiar with no gear changes but some of us wanted something different and Craig delivered a layered portrayal that tapped into a lot of what Fleming wrote. Also Craig has played different aspects to the character he just doesn't do it with all the subtelty of a sledgehammer.

    I'm sick to death of hearing people say Craig is stone faced and has no change in the character it's there it's just not sign posted for you or put up on the screen screaming at you in block capitials.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    MooreFun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Has Clarkson been overtly political in her tv shows in the past?

    That's not something I'd want to see in a Bond film so hopefully not. If she hasn't, then I don't see the problem, despite her glasses.

    Also, is she a serious contender for this role? She's being considered, sure, but I can't imagine she's a front runner based on her resume. If they want a female director, then there are other choices with more experience. Whether they'd want the gig is another question. Bigelow has declined in the past, as has been noted here already so I can't see her going for it now.


    As I understand it, Collateral was rather ham-fisted in its political depictions, among other issues. She didn't write it, but she did direct it. Between that and other considerations, I have to agree with @PanchitoPistoles in spirit (perhaps not exactly in tone). She's not right for Bond.

    I take it that you didn't see it, by the way that was phrased. It was about as ham-fisted as any other BBC thriller. It reminded me a lot of State Of Play, in a good way. It was exceptionally well-directed.

    Of course, I'm not sold on Clarkson when it comes to Bond - she may not be a good fit at all despite what I've seen of her work being more than stellar. That notwithstanding, the current logic being applied to the argument of why she definitely is not is bafflingly inane and childish.

    Interested to hear these "other considerations", for arguments sake.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    Shardlake wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    David Mackenzie Talks TIFF Opener 'Outlaw King' and Those Persistent James Bond Rumors
    https://hollywoodreporter.com/news/outlaw-king-director-david-mackenzie-q-a-2018-tiff-1140669

    Would you like to direct a Bond, when you did have time?

    I really don’t know how to answer the question. I like Barbara and Neil and Rob and that’s all I can say really.
    Very interesting. Note that he doesn't mention Craig. This probably confirms that he was only under consideration prior to Craig's announcement of return in August 2017. Then they started hunting down Villeneuve, as was reported at the time.

    David Mackenzie for Bond 26 or a post-Craig-era Bond film, perhaps?
    Also, can people stop saying I hate Daniel Craig. Yes he's my least favourite Bond actor, I just don't think he is Bondian, and never does portray Bondian behaviours well. I liked him in CR, because that truly was a "Bond begins" where the character is still a little "green". Craig's portrayal made sense. I just feel the later stories have been hampered by the limitations of his portrayal in that the character has to always be in a bad place, having "lost a step". This is also why I disagree whenever I hear any "best Bond since Connery" comments, because all the previous Bonds had to portray different aspects of the character, and not just play to their strengths everytime. SP was the first time Craig dipped a toe outside his comfort zone, and the results were not impressive IMO.

    I can agree with this.

    I don't agree with this, Craig has undoubtedly given Bond a more layered portrayal than a good number of actors in the role, especially Brosnan. I think his acting is just too subtle for some, the quiet torment of his performance is in his body language and eyes.

    Brosnan has none of this and rarely showed any conflict in his portrayal, it was quite one dimensional and he only attempted to add depth rarely and when he did it was quite embarassing. You might not hate Craig but you have a real problem with him being referred to as highly as he is.

    Craig is the one actor that has not had all the tropes to portray the character until SPECTRE, I'd like to see what Brosnan would have done without the safety net of all the tick the box moments of the series, without that greatest hits direction they took with him from TND onwards.

    They did try something different with him for GE but obviously didn't feel comfortable so just went to default setting and just churned out substandard Roger Moore entries and never asked him to stretch himself much.

    Fair enough if you want something very familiar with no gear changes but some of us wanted something different and Craig delivered a layered portrayal that tapped into a lot of what Fleming wrote. Also Craig has played different aspects to the character he just doesn't do it with all the subtelty of a sledgehammer.

    I'm sick to death of hearing people say Craig is stone faced and has no change in the character it's there it's just not sign posted for you or put up on the screen screaming at you in block capitials.

    Agreed-- an excellent actor, and excellent Bond. I think some have been influenced by others (media reporting, or the constant slagging on this thread), but as @RC7 said above...
  • Posts: 19,339
    All the Bond's have their weak and strong points...so far we have been blessed with great films compared to the shit that is churned out elsewhere,from all the actors IMO.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 644
    That film actually sounds interesting. If Rian Johnson's "subverting expectations" schtick works well in any genre, it's the whodunnit.
    Univex wrote: »
    The lack of news is turning this thread into a cuckoo's nest. Now we're discussing the virtue of wearing the right type of glasses? What's next? Sock colour? Oh, I know, I know, how about the Director's height? And if he or she go to the gym? And are they blonde or brunettes? Jeez, I'm felling like Jack talking to the Chief. Everybody get a grip.
    I think a good cure for this might be a nice FYEO vs RAIDERS debate ;)

    FOR YOUR EYES ONLY - best film of 1981
    Bill Conti - best score of 1981, yes I prefer his score to Williams’
    Alan Hume - best cinematography (Greece and Corfu have never looked more alluring)

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,890
    I go with Raiders on both; Conti’s score almost makes FYEO unwatchable for me.
  • Posts: 19,339
    No comparison...Raiders wins in every component apart from Ford vs Moore which are both brilliant.

    Raiders destroys FYEO.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Can someone download the fight scene in 'The Matrix Reloaded 'between Leo and the baddies'...ignore the action just listen to the score,THAT is the kind of action score Bond needs back.

    I cant download it on my bloody laptop !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Shardlake wrote: »

    I don't agree with this, Craig has undoubtedly given Bond a more layered portrayal than a good number of actors in the role, especially Brosnan. I think his acting is just too subtle for some, the quiet torment of his performance is in his body language and eyes.

    Brosnan has none of this and rarely showed any conflict in his portrayal, it was quite one dimensional and he only attempted to add depth rarely and when he did it was quite embarassing. You might not hate Craig but you have a real problem with him being referred to as highly as he is.

    Craig is the one actor that has not had all the tropes to portray the character until SPECTRE, I'd like to see what Brosnan would have done without the safety net of all the tick the box moments of the series, without that greatest hits direction they took with him from TND onwards.

    They did try something different with him for GE but obviously didn't feel comfortable so just went to default setting and just churned out substandard Roger Moore entries and never asked him to stretch himself much.

    Fair enough if you want something very familiar with no gear changes but some of us wanted something different and Craig delivered a layered portrayal that tapped into a lot of what Fleming wrote. Also Craig has played different aspects to the character he just doesn't do it with all the subtelty of a sledgehammer.

    I'm sick to death of hearing people say Craig is stone faced and has no change in the character it's there it's just not sign posted for you or put up on the screen screaming at you in block capitials.

    Ah yes, the old "If you don't like it, it's because you're too stupid to grasp it.

    The funny thing is, I could say a lot of people miss Brosnan's depth, but I wouldn't call them stupid for doing so.


  • The Matrix Reloaded had a fantastic score.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 19,339
    Craig in SP just pouts the whole way through..his perfomance is arrogant,cocky,never bleeds,lazy......just like the whole film...its cashing in on SF ,which demeans SF for the so much better film it is.,and the viewer .
  • I generally like Craig, but I certainly wouldn't call his acting subtle or even particularly deep. And when he's less engaged in the material, he comes off like a mobile wax figure.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    MooreFun wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »

    I don't agree with this, Craig has undoubtedly given Bond a more layered portrayal than a good number of actors in the role, especially Brosnan. I think his acting is just too subtle for some, the quiet torment of his performance is in his body language and eyes.

    Brosnan has none of this and rarely showed any conflict in his portrayal, it was quite one dimensional and he only attempted to add depth rarely and when he did it was quite embarassing. You might not hate Craig but you have a real problem with him being referred to as highly as he is.

    Craig is the one actor that has not had all the tropes to portray the character until SPECTRE, I'd like to see what Brosnan would have done without the safety net of all the tick the box moments of the series, without that greatest hits direction they took with him from TND onwards.

    They did try something different with him for GE but obviously didn't feel comfortable so just went to default setting and just churned out substandard Roger Moore entries and never asked him to stretch himself much.

    Fair enough if you want something very familiar with no gear changes but some of us wanted something different and Craig delivered a layered portrayal that tapped into a lot of what Fleming wrote. Also Craig has played different aspects to the character he just doesn't do it with all the subtelty of a sledgehammer.

    I'm sick to death of hearing people say Craig is stone faced and has no change in the character it's there it's just not sign posted for you or put up on the screen screaming at you in block capitials.

    Ah yes, the old "If you don't like it, it's because you're too stupid to grasp it.

    The funny thing is, I could say a lot of people miss Brosnan's depth, but I wouldn't call them stupid for doing so.

    @Shardlake is not calling anyone stupid-- I know this guy, and he is NOT saying you, me , or anyone is stupid. He's made a thesis that right now DC is being beaten up by false reports in the media, one weaker film, more slanderous and unsubstantiated reports in the media... and, he rightly suggests, GE presented a fresh Bond, but they decided to default to Moore-lite for the rest of the PB era.

    I agree, but I also believe the reason they went backwards with Brosnan is because of his ability-- he wasn't a complex Bond like Dalton, he was the Cali-Bond (with an accent to match). It's my opinion that he could not stretch far enough to give varied performances (as someone who posted TAFFIN showed-- or watching his dramatic scenes in Bond and beyond...)....

    Shardlake was not being offensive. He has a clear point. Don't twist this into something it's not-- there's too much of that on this forum.

    Best,

    P
  • This thread should be renamed FYEO vs. Raiders / Craig/SP Bashing Production Diary
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    SP Bashing would do it. But that would lend itself to repetition to properly represent other discussions.

    So no, probably shouldn't do that after all.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    I generally like Craig, but I certainly wouldn't call his acting subtle or even particularly deep. And when he's less engaged in the material, he comes off like a mobile wax figure.

    Very true. I have nothing against Craig or his fans. I just can't stand the hyperbole and arrogance, to suggest he is simply better than the other actors who played Bond? Not "my favourite", but "the best". If he's definitely the best, then why does he struggle to step out side his comfort zone, with results like SP? Roger Moore always played Bond for laughs, but when he was called upon to play a scene "straight", he could do it more than convincingly. It wasn't his strength, but he could still pull it off. I don't get the sense that Craig can pull off the comedic, or ladies man Bond. He can only do broken Bond well, or up and comer (CR). This is not necessarily a knock against him, that's fine, it just annoys me to hear arrogant hyperbole about how he the best ever, without ever feeling the need to back a statement like that up. I don't hate Craig, I just appreciate what the other actors brought to the role too. I also think that Bond 25 would be better off without him, as the directors like Chris Nolan will all be waiting to direct a Bond soft-reboot. No one want to be the guy to close out the Craig era, four years after the lacklustre SP. EON dug themselves into a hole here, no one else, and the only director they'll be able to find for this thing will be someone hungry enough, and desperate enough for a big job. Not the directors that have a pile of scripts to pick and choose through. Some might say this is a good thing, going back to a lesser known filmaker, but I think Craig going out on a average nuts and bolts adventure will actually seem pretty limp after such build up, and how the rest of his tenure is so different. Returning to that would be more effective in a reboot, where the shift in style would accompany a new actor.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    OwenDavian wrote: »
    This thread should be renamed FYEO vs. Raiders / Craig/SP Bashing Production Diary

    You're correct.

    The sane voices have gone running for the hills.

    The rest have stayed.

    Which is my way of saying: I'm out.

    My manager's wife was one of the producers on American Animals, which means, I've been told a little more of the insight that goes into EoN approaching a director and why.

    We have Colonel Sun, kicked in the goolies every time he comes on. He's just telling it like it is; but there's one voice that whips up a frothing frenzy, with his three or four disciples. CS has clarified everything-- and has done so for weeks-- but is only now believed (and vindicated) because Variety and James Bond Live reports it is so. He's been saying everything, all of this (against the grain of losing release dates, re-boots and all of that nonsense), the entire time. He has, in other words, been the most consistent voice on this thread.

    In the past, the Colonel's been called a liar; more recently some smart ass said he had said nothing new. Wow, how insulting to @ColonelSun...

    @RC7 has rightly said there is plenty of news.... And he's right.

    But as @RC7 has pointed out, the peeps who don't want to hear the news are either A$$holes or; they've got nothing more going in their lives beside this forum.

    This thread has been turned into an attack on Craig and BB, and on some woman-- who's talented enough to make it in an unforgiving business-- because of her glasses... Seriously??? Her glasses??? Jesus-- Too much from those who know too little.

    There are so many great people on this forum, from the Mods to the people who PM'd the Colonel and myself. But the vocal minority has twisted this thread (and others) into a clusterf&*K.

    I'll sign in to read the voices of the friends I've made. But, to the happiness of some, I have nothing more to add to this dialogue.

    Best of luck.

    I can always be reached at [email protected]

    P
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    Very true. I have nothing against Craig or his fans. I just can't stand the hyperbole and arrogance, to suggest he is simply better than the other actors who played Bond?
    Sounds like you do.

  • edited September 2018 Posts: 3,333
    I’ve just woken up to read @peter’s comments. I’m extremely sad to see you go, but not surprised in the least. It seems to me that some posters here have been given a free reign and an impunity to trash other members thoughts and insights, whilst continually posting their own inane comments, because it appears to generate discussion, when the direct opposite appears to be the case, sinking the entire topic into a quagmire of juvenile posturing. Now we’re in that position again where we’re losing another valuable, mature and trusted member because things have been allowed to escalate without little or no redress. It’s painfully obvious to me who the culprit(s) are. Surely it’s time to clip a few wings again and restore order to this bear-pit of a discussion thread?
  • Posts: 12,243
    @peter I'm going to miss your discussions here, but I understand your decision to leave. Good luck - I'm sorry it had to end this way.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    MooreFun wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Has Clarkson been overtly political in her tv shows in the past?

    That's not something I'd want to see in a Bond film so hopefully not. If she hasn't, then I don't see the problem, despite her glasses.

    Also, is she a serious contender for this role? She's being considered, sure, but I can't imagine she's a front runner based on her resume. If they want a female director, then there are other choices with more experience. Whether they'd want the gig is another question. Bigelow has declined in the past, as has been noted here already so I can't see her going for it now.
    As I understand it, Collateral was rather ham-fisted in its political depictions, among other issues. She didn't write it, but she did direct it. Between that and other considerations, I have to agree with @PanchitoPistoles in spirit (perhaps not exactly in tone). She's not right for Bond.
    Thanks. Ham-fisted politics I can handle, but honestly I'd rather they try to stay apolitical as they've done for the better part of their history. I believe she directed a few episodes of Jessica Jones. I have the first season at home but haven't viewed it yet. Somehow I doubt she will get the job though.
  • In light of the tremendous success of the last 3 M:I films which are in equal measure well-made films as well as very rewatchable and entertaining, what would you say were the last 3 Bond films (that’s 3 in a row) that could compare in terms of excitement and rewatchability?

    I’d probably have to go back to TLD-LTK-GE. All 3 are well-made with a great story and very entertaining and rewatchable. Even though admittedly LTK is the weaker of those 3 and doesn’t crack my top 10 (the other 2 do). And even though at times LTK lacks that Bond flavor and feels a bit too “American action” it still packs a punch in the action department and has an engaging story and is rewatchable. Plus it beautifully ended the Cubby era with that lovely closing ballad by Patti LaBelle. That song always gets me.

    Unfortunately since then we haven’t had a three-peat like this. TND is fun and rewatchable but TWINE unfortunately is not (despite having a stronger story). CR and SF are sabotaged by QOS. And then there’s SP :(

    Bond needs to find its mojo the way M:I has done.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited September 2018 Posts: 2,541
    Can we please stop compare bond with mi/ROTLA, the only mi film that came close to bond was RN and most of mi scenes have nothing new to offer but ripping other films off, even plot seems very predictable to me.
  • SF and CR are sabotaged by QoS? What does that mean? CR and SF have great rewatchability.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 214
    peter wrote: »
    OwenDavian wrote: »
    This thread should be renamed FYEO vs. Raiders / Craig/SP Bashing Production Diary

    You're correct.

    The sane voices have gone running for the hills.

    The rest have stayed.

    Which is my way of saying: I'm out.

    My manager's wife was one of the producers on American Animals, which means, I've been told a little more of the insight that goes into EoN approaching a director and why.

    We have Colonel Sun, kicked in the goolies every time he comes on. He's just telling it like it is; but there's one voice that whips up a frothing frenzy, with his three or four disciples. CS has clarified everything-- and has done so for weeks-- but is only now believed (and vindicated) because Variety and James Bond Live reports it is so. He's been saying everything, all of this (against the grain of losing release dates, re-boots and all of that nonsense), the entire time. He has, in other words, been the most consistent voice on this thread.

    In the past, the Colonel's been called a liar; more recently some smart ass said he had said nothing new. Wow, how insulting to @ColonelSun...

    @RC7 has rightly said there is plenty of news.... And he's right.

    But as @RC7 has pointed out, the peeps who don't want to hear the news are either A$$holes or; they've got nothing more going in their lives beside this forum.

    This thread has been turned into an attack on Craig and BB, and on some woman-- who's talented enough to make it in an unforgiving business-- because of her glasses... Seriously??? Her glasses??? Jesus-- Too much from those who know too little.

    There are so many great people on this forum, from the Mods to the people who PM'd the Colonel and myself. But the vocal minority has twisted this thread (and others) into a clusterf&*K.

    I'll sign in to read the voices of the friends I've made. But, to the happiness of some, I have nothing more to add to this dialogue.

    Best of luck.

    I can always be reached at [email protected]

    P

    Sorry to see you go. I'm tempted to do the same. I come back after 5 years and its a shame its to this.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    I generally like Craig, but I certainly wouldn't call his acting subtle or even particularly deep. And when he's less engaged in the material, he comes off like a mobile wax figure.

    +1

    The fact he rarely actually does any work - I.e. acting - hasnt helped either. I suspect his relatively stilted performance in SP reflects the fact he had been away from the day job for quite a long time.

    imagine an artist who hasn't painted for 3 years or a surgeon whose been on a 2 year sabbatical. the first canvas or patient are probably heading straight to the incinerator
Sign In or Register to comment.