No Time To Die: Production Diary

1215821592161216321642568

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 997
    echo wrote: »
    The editing of SF is so much better than SP.

    I agree. But with the exception of comparing Mr. Hinx with Patrice, Skyfall is better in every category.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    edited February 21 Posts: 1,408
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    The editing of SF is so much better than SP.

    I agree. But with the exception of comparing Mr. Hinx with Patrice, Skyfall is better in every category.

    Agreed. The only things better in SP are the henchman, the gunbarrel, and Craig's haircut.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 3,265
    echo wrote: »
    The editing of SF is so much better than SP.

    I agree for the most part but there's some really dodgy editing during the PTS of SF, imo. That also has to do with some of Mendes' shot choices, especially as Bond uses the digger on the train.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Dancing at midnight under the BeBop Moon
    Posts: 11,427
    I love the PTS in Skyall. So at least we have real news; the editor.
    It's good Fukunaga has already worked with him a bit.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,960
    Remington wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    The editing of SF is so much better than SP.

    I agree. But with the exception of comparing Mr. Hinx with Patrice, Skyfall is better in every category.

    Agreed. The only things better in SP are the henchman, the gunbarrel, and Craig's haircut.

    I'd argue the PTS, too.
  • Posts: 188
    The films of Graham's that I've seen (Superman Returns, Milk, Steve Jobs) are very well cut IMO so that's a tick.

    I too would have liked Baird back as he's the safest pair of hands in the business who isn't Paul Hirsch, but he's understandably winding down. Would be happy for Kate Baird to come back though, who obviously contributed significantly enough to be credited alongside... her father? Husband?
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya “We are thrilled to delay B25”
    Posts: 2,539
    echo wrote: »
    The editing of SF is so much better than SP.

    Not saying I disagree, but what exactly do you mean
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 21 Posts: 3,445
    echo wrote: »
    The editing of SF is so much better than SP.

    Not saying I disagree, but what exactly do you mean

    Well, the Spectre meeting leaps to mind...there was something so off about the pace in that scene, but really there's an editing problem throughout the film. (Maybe they didn't have the footage, although Mendes is known for shooting a LOT of footage--or maybe they couldn't get the script to work.)

    A lot of the film feels like it's held a beat too long...e.g. Bond looks at the Spectre ring for what seems like an eternity when I'd rather have seen that beautiful shot of the helicopter over Mexico City.
  • Posts: 1,177
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    The editing of SF is so much better than SP.

    Not saying I disagree, but what exactly do you mean

    Well, the Spectre meeting leaps to mind...there was something so off about the pace in that scene, but really there's an editing problem throughout the film. A lot of the film feels like it's held a beat too long...e.g. Bond looks at the Spectre ring for what seems like an eternity when I'd rather have seen that beautiful shot of the helicopter over Mexico City.

    I wish bond stayed in Austria longer.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 21 Posts: 3,445
    Agreed. Also Morocco. And the fight in the train is too fast.

    I do think the climax should have been in Morocco, with London as a coda. The whole exploding MI6 building sequence, and London in the film in general, is such a bore. They should have gone with the traitor within MI6--M, Tanner?--on the bridge. C is completely unnecessary.
  • Posts: 1,177
    Spectres run time is fine with me now knowing it'll be near five years until the next one
  • Posts: 3,443
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. Also Morocco. And the fight in the train is too fast.

    I do think the climax should have been in Morocco, with London as a coda. The whole exploding MI6 building sequence, and London in the film in general, is such a bore. They should have gone with the traitor within MI6--M, Tanner?--on the bridge. C is completely unnecessary.

    The purpose of C was to have an MI6 traitor without it being Tanner or M. They must’ve thought about doing that. M as a traitor would have been horrible and Tanner would have been too wet.
  • Posts: 188
    Should have used Guy Haines. Make him Lord Haines and make it so that Bond and Tanner are trying to convince everyone else he's a crook.
  • edited February 21 Posts: 12,140
    FourDot wrote: »
    Should have used Guy Haines. Make him Lord Haines and make it so that Bond and Tanner are trying to convince everyone else he's a crook.

    But Guy Haines had already been exposed in QOS. (Otherwise yes, I'd rather have had Guy Haines, Paul Ritter is a far better actor imo and looks far more menacing).
  • Posts: 188
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Should have used Guy Haines. Make him Lord Haines and make it so that Bond and Tanner are trying to convince everyone else he's a crook.

    But Guy Haines had already been exposed in QOS. (Otherwise yes, I'd rather have had Guy Haines, Paul Ritter is a far better actor imo and looks far more menacing).

    Yes but not followed up on. Hence why Bond and Tanner are onto him but nobody else. Build in some exposition about the previous M's Intel being dismissed by the PM or some such.
  • Posts: 12,140
    FourDot wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Should have used Guy Haines. Make him Lord Haines and make it so that Bond and Tanner are trying to convince everyone else he's a crook.

    But Guy Haines had already been exposed in QOS. (Otherwise yes, I'd rather have had Guy Haines, Paul Ritter is a far better actor imo and looks far more menacing).

    Yes but not followed up on. Hence why Bond and Tanner are onto him but nobody else. Build in some exposition about the previous M's Intel being dismissed by the PM or some such.

    It's true that Haines could have defended himself and got away with it. I've never been a fan of Andrew Scott and never convinced by his evil civil servant shtick. Paul Ritter has the right gravitas and veneer of authority. Plus Guy Haines sounds more menacing than Max Denbigh.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 3,323
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    Should have used Guy Haines. Make him Lord Haines and make it so that Bond and Tanner are trying to convince everyone else he's a crook.

    But Guy Haines had already been exposed in QOS. (Otherwise yes, I'd rather have had Guy Haines, Paul Ritter is a far better actor imo and looks far more menacing).

    Yes but not followed up on. Hence why Bond and Tanner are onto him but nobody else. Build in some exposition about the previous M's Intel being dismissed by the PM or some such.

    It's true that Haines could have defended himself and got away with it. I've never been a fan of Andrew Scott and never convinced by his evil civil servant shtick. Paul Ritter has the right gravitas and veneer of authority. Plus Guy Haines sounds more menacing than Max Denbigh.

    You could have had both, definitely Ritter back as GH and had him being involved with Denbigh. Though Denbigh is more Mallory's age and from his past, M would trust his old friend and wouldn't realise till it was too late.

    Gary Oldman, Mark Strong or Jason Isaacs for this role.

    It would be quite easy to explain GH alluding being arrested due to his connections with the PM, it would also tie nicely into Dench's M investigating Quantum and secretly since QOS. Bond could have just been reassigned after then. When White comes on his radar through his Pale King name is Bond's first hint that Quantum is still active.

    Bond although rogue still with Q would save the day. The story would act as opportunity to get Mallory to stage where he'd trust Bond and recognise his worth.

    Come the next film no awkwardness to each just mutual respect, a relationship can begin just like Sean, Lazenby and Roger had with Bernard Lee had.
  • Posts: 7,181
    Bond 25 Is Shatterhand… at least according to this article

    https://comicbook.com/2019/02/21/james-bond-25-working-title-revealed/
  • Posts: 8,961
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Bond 25 Is Shatterhand… at least according to this article

    https://comicbook.com/2019/02/21/james-bond-25-working-title-revealed/

    Old “‘news.” Been the working title for a long time.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 21 Posts: 1,511
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Bond 25 Is Shatterhand… at least according to this article

    https://comicbook.com/2019/02/21/james-bond-25-working-title-revealed/
    They've got their facts wrong, Production Weekly didn't add the working title this week. It's been there for ages.

    To be honest, the title was discussed so much by fans after Spectre was released that I wouldn't be surprised if this was added in all the confusion.
  • edited February 21 Posts: 2,184
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Bond 25 Is Shatterhand… at least according to this article

    https://comicbook.com/2019/02/21/james-bond-25-working-title-revealed/

    They're got this from Production Weekly, which we've used for this bit of news since August.
  • Posts: 7,181
    still the fact they haven't changed the title but changed everything else leads me to believe that much to my shagrin Bond 25 is Shatterhand

    so Bond 26 can be Smersh
    Bond 27 Stavro
    Bond 28 Shadow

    lets just see how man one word s titles we can do ….
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 21 Posts: 2,960
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. Also Morocco. And the fight in the train is too fast.

    I do think the climax should have been in Morocco, with London as a coda. The whole exploding MI6 building sequence, and London in the film in general, is such a bore. They should have gone with the traitor within MI6--M, Tanner?--on the bridge. C is completely unnecessary.

    Bond films end in two ways: 1. A final battle (Bond going to someone or something, for confrontation); 2. A getaway (Bond trying to escape with someone or something, and being chased). I think we have seen too little of the latter (a la FRWL). SP would have worked great with this latter type of climax in mind.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 137
    FourDot wrote: »
    The films of Graham's that I've seen (Superman Returns, Milk, Steve Jobs) are very well cut IMO so that's a tick.

    There's a terribly edited scene in Steve Jobs, the one with the flashback over the board meeting during a stormy night in 1985 where Jobs was fired, interspersed with a conversation in "present times" (1998) between Jobs and John Sculley (Jeff Daniels). It's actually one of the few times during the film where Danny Boyle tries to shine over the script by Aaron Sorkin, and it's a pathetic failure. The guy is no David Fincher. This and the amount of hyperactive moments in the editing and camera work of Slumdog Millionaire were enough to make me sigh with relief the very minute Danny Boyle left the project.

    I don't think that the editor is directly to blame for the way the flashback is woven into the story. The scene just rings fake by itself, due to the dramatic licence. For starters, why would a board for a quite large company meet in the middle of the night on a one hour notice? Even if it's an emergency, it's not as if nuclear missiles were about to strike the Silicon Valley. Couldn't they wait until morning at least? And then, there's the fact it takes place in the middle of a storm. Yeah, we get it. The meeting was conflictual. We know it from the melodramatic music and the fact that your characters state repeatedly it was a violent confrontation. Danny, you didn't need to bring something more to symbolize obviousness.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 21 Posts: 1,511
    I can't believe some of the articles that are coming out about the (w/t), Shatterhand. Firstly, it's very rare that a film will use its (w/t) as the actual title and we don't actually know if this true. To be honest, my theory is that it's based on the speculation of fans. Also, one article I read said, and I quote, "we don't know what this means." Do your research! It's your job :D
  • Posts: 394
    I don't think that the editor is directly to blame for the way the flashback is woven into the story. The scene just rings fake by itself, due to the dramatic licence. For starters, why would a board for a quite large company meet in the middle of the night on a one hour notice? Even if it's an emergency, it's not as if nuclear missiles were about to strike the Silicon Valley. Couldn't they wait until morning at least? And then, there's the fact it takes place in the middle of a storm. Yeah, we get it. The meeting was conflictual. We know it from the melodramatic music and the fact that your characters state repeatedly it was a violent confrontation. Danny, you didn't need to bring something more to symbolize obviousness.

    Do we know that this scene was the fault of Boyle and not Sorkin?

    Because Sorkin is certainly capable of being pretty bloody awful himself.

  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited February 21 Posts: 137
    Sorkin focuses on the relationships between characters and the dialog, with a lot of conversations. A director is supposed to cut lines or to adapt things from a script, unless the writer has the upper hand on the production (The original 50 Shades of Grey was terrible but the director managed to bring some camp. On the sequels, the novelist assumed total control, got the original director fired, and had her husband write the adaptations, which were more faithful to the books, and thus even more terrible).

    If Boyle read in the original script that the board meeting was supposed to take place at night in the middle of a storm, it is his duty to tone this thing down, because Sorkin was being too much on the nose. That's what a director is supposed to do. Or maybe it wasn't actually in the script and he decided on his own to make the flashback even more dramatic. Actually, the score emphasizes even more the drama, and it was Boyle's full responsibility. So, Boyle supported the idea.

    Steve Jobs may be a much more interesting person than Mark Zuckerberg, but The Social Network is a much better film than Steve Jobs, partly because Sorkin had managed to stay out of his usual pet peeves and to write a truly illuminating work on our times, and partly because David Fincher removed some stuff, on-the-nose statements that worked on a blank page but not on the screen, and developed the visual aspect of the film instead, making it his own.

    And I agree that Sorkin can be bloody awful. In his own Molly's Game, the scene at the ice rink between Molly and her father is just laughable, as it spells out for the audience everything we are supposed to think about the character, the entire message of the film. Any good director would have torn these pages of dialogue.

    To go back to Bond (in some way...), Cary Fukunaga had second thoughts over the script for True Detective. He thought there were too many conversations in closed rooms, which could end up being boring, and he decided to add the police raid in the bikers camp, which was barely related to the main plot, to introduce a change of pace and to give him an opportunity to shoot a long take on the project. These changes, which resulted in one of the most fondly remembered sequence in the first season, were heresy to writer Nic Pizzolatto, and his relationship with Fukunaga deteriorated during production. When Fukunaga won an Emmy for directing, he didn't mention Pizzolatto in his speech.
    But Pizzolatto was more important to the show than Cary for HBO. Fukunaga wasn't asked back (he may have turned down the offer anyway) for season 2, and Pizzolatto wrote into the plot an Asian-American director wearing his hair in a bun, that everybody in the season describes as a pretentious jerk. On season 3, Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) was supposed to shoot three episodes. He left production after completing two, over "scheduling conflicts" or, as reported by various trade magazines, creative differences with Pizzolatto.

    Even in a franchise run by producers such as Bond, there are power struggles. It's more difficult to put precise responsibilities on a mess. TWINE was ruined mostly due to poor casting choices (Denise Richards, of course) and characterization (Renard worked better in theory than in execution). DAD had a run of the mill script, but also fake-looking CGI, idiotic action scenes (the tsunami surfing of course, but the car chase INSIDE the ice palace may be the icing on the crap cake), and a terrible song by Madonna. And whoever let Lee Tamahori get away with the CGI bullet on the barrel roll deserves to be shot.
    Pierce could, as shown in Goldeneye, be a fine, even great, Bond. But he never managed to express convincingly his opinion about the scripts he had to work with in the next entries. Craig has had some misfires, but you get a sense that he has a clear idea of what Bond would or wouldn't do in a particular situation and that he managed from day one to get adjustments on the character to suit his style, something that Roger Moore needed three entries to get. In a few years, we may know the truth about his involvement with the Spectre script, and how much he was happy with the foster brother turning out to be the head of SPECTRE angle, but there are a lot of moments where his acting is flat, something he had never done on his other films, as if he didn't even try to bother with the non-sense. And then, there are a few glimpses of his better take on Bond, the conversation with Moneypenny or Mister White, the drunken words to the mouse in the hotel. On Logan Lucky, however, he truly has a blast with the character. He needs a good script or some scenes he can relate to, to shine with a part.
  • edited February 21 Posts: 10,700
    TripAces wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. Also Morocco. And the fight in the train is too fast.

    I do think the climax should have been in Morocco, with London as a coda. The whole exploding MI6 building sequence, and London in the film in general, is such a bore. They should have gone with the traitor within MI6--M, Tanner?--on the bridge. C is completely unnecessary.

    Bond films end in two ways: 1. A final battle (Bond going to someone or something, for confrontation); 2. A getaway (Bond trying to escape with someone or something, and being chased). I think we have seen too little of the latter (a la FRWL). SP would have worked great with this latter type of climax in mind.

    Yep. We don't see enough of Bond being chased full stop. Although SP had the car chase, which was rubbish.

    The Sean and Rog films were really tense when Bond was being pursued through a crowd or on foot.

    Perhaps OHMSS has the best example of all, with the extended chase on skis, foot and by car. Awesome and so tense.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 21 Posts: 1,511
    In a few years, we may know the truth about his involvement with the Spectre script, and how much he was happy with the foster brother turning out to be the head of SPECTRE angle.
    Lets hope we get another Everything or Nothing-type documentary for the 60th Anniversary, and we'll get to hear some of his honest thoughts. If all goes to plan, he would've been out of the role of James Bond for a couple of years, so he can be as honest about the scripts as he likes :D
  • Posts: 10,353
    Craig has had some misfires, but you get a sense that he has a clear idea of what Bond would or wouldn't do in a particular situation and that he managed from day one to get adjustments on the character to suit his style, something that Roger Moore needed three entries to get.

    Roger had his portrayal in place within minutes of LALD, IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.