Fukunaga also doesn't say anywhere that he "pitched" it, just it was an idea he had. Third-party sites extrapolate "pitched" and "shot down" but he never even says it was anything he spoke out loud. 8-)
Before this goes off the rails, Fukunaga says it's an idea he had, not where they went in the film.
Nolan is not going to save this franchise. Nolan would give you the incel fanboy version of Bond you didn't know you didn't want. (Name one sexy scene Nolan has ever done. One.)
Bond needs journeymen directors, meat and potatoes guys who can deliver reliable populist entertainment with grace notes of "new and different." There's a reason Casino Royale is still held as Craig's best. That said, I'm grateful for this weird "auteur" era of Bond, with its only *real* misstep being going back to a guy (Mendes) who'd already given his all in the previous film.
No reason for anything to go off the rails. But he did pitch the idea. Even though they aren't using it. And I had to look up what "incel" meant. I would doubt something like that happening.
IMO it's a just "ok" interview done by someone who admits to never even seeing a Bond film. Nothing Fukunaga said put up any red flags for me. I think he was pretty candid about some of the challenges of having to step in to such a difficult situation. It does appear that Fukunaga is a pretty self aware type of personality and that he was able to get on well with the producers and Craig.
With regards to Nolan as a Bond director: IMO, it's one thing to be influenced to a certain degree or including a sequence that's an "homage" to your favorite Bond film and another to make a Bond film / steward an iconic franchise.
What worried me was when he mentioned Casino Royale and playing the Goldeneye video game. It just makes me worried that an action movie is coming with a so so plot. That old stuff will be thrown in because the audience wants to see it. Not because it should be there. Like the DB5 scene in Skyfall. And possibly now Dalton's Aston scene in No Time to Die.
But I keep hearing that his detective show is real good. So perhaps he'll make a good Bond movie where Bond has to figure something out.
I've said the same thing before. Nolan's characters seem to have no libido.
Make no mistake, I'm a fan of (most of) his films. But his take is always the deep dive into motivation. People have complained loudly here for years about how everything is personal for Craig's Bond.
Nolan might surprise, but I'd expect him to want to go the same route, as he did with his Batman films.
If anything with Skyfall, the Bond series used Nolan's Batman as influence. I don't think Nolan would go that route for Bond. I would bet that it would be more classic given the scenes that he has in his movies. Off the top of my head right now I remember From Russia With Love and of course On Her Majesty's Secret Service homage scenes.
I would imagine that he would start with the origin of Bond as I believe he said he wanted a fresh start. If it's modern day or even past, I would think he would show Bond in some war conflict. And build up the world of Bond over a few movies. It would be really exotic too with big locations.
But sadly, they can't really do Spectre anymore or another big group since it's been kind of ruined with these recent movies. It's just so sloppy, I wouldn't think a director would want to make a big hidden group villain again even if it would be easy to make it better.
Maybe the final film of a Nolan trilogy could be a some group that has knowledge of Bond's activities at the end. But wasn't plotting anything against him. Kind of like how some of the villains in Roger Moore's movies know who his is.
Anne Hathaway is hot in Dark Knight Rises. Also, I would add that I liked Marion Cotillard's introduction scene in Inception. And I would think that Elizabeth Debicki will be great in Tenet.
Wow NTTD won't be shown on AMC and Odeon cinemas because of a massive disagreement between AMC, Odeon's owner, and Universal Pictures!
That would be a huge loss for those cinemas, so I can see this being revoked before long.... However, it will be interesting to see how the theatre climate changes after this... Could it be that streaming could overtake traditional releases in the cinema, especially if covid hangs around and people are reluctant to gather in large numbers for some time to come... years v months. I feel, increasingly, folk like their home set-ups and the hassle free comfort it allows... along with the way streaming gives you that instant access hit many now seem to crave.
It would be a disappointment for me, as I love the cinema experience, which I can't replicate at home, but I fear big changes are afoot.
Sounds to me like a lot of posturing with a big theater chain sending a message to the film companies. The reality is, at some point the theaters will reopen and the film companies will need those screens for their big releases (AMC has the most IMAX screens in the USA). It is interesting that they went after Universal which is actually owned by COMCAST which I think is the largest cable TV provider in the USA (may be the world). It's also interesting to note that Adam Aron, CEO of AMC is from Philadelphia, PA which is also the home of COMCAST and the Roberts family which owns COMCAST. My guess, it will get resolved by the time the theaters reopen.
Cineworld, a UK based cinema chain which also owns the Stateside Regal chain of theatres, has joined AMC/Odeon in potentially banning Universal Pictures' movies. The anger seems to have come from the VOD releases. I can't see NTTD being simultaneously on VOD but it's one more uncertainty for a movie that has been said to be cursed and doomed. https://www.screendaily.com/news/cineworld-says-it-will-not-show-films-that-fail-to-respect-windows/5149450.article
If that's true, it would appear that the producers are determined to have a theatrical run for NTTD ......
On a positive note, this was nice to see in the article: "Meanwhile I'm hearing good things (as you would, I guess) from the tiny number of people lucky enough to have been allowed to see it. As I noted a few weeks back, the film is locked up in a vault so impregnable not even Daniel Craig's 007 could crack it". Unlike most tab "reporters" Baz tends to get things right and isn't given to as much click baiting hyperbole.
An odd phrasing, why not "Films Framestore has recently worked on that will be released later this year and next year are...." Why are they 'upcoming projects'?
More anti-Bond woke BS in this Harper's Bazaar (or is that bizarre?) Lea Seydoux interview, which is strangely late if it was originally planned to help promote NTTD (or maybe they delayed its publication because they could?) and it also apparently has big news none of us have been aware of; "Despite the various controversies surrounding the release of No Time to Die...". Controversies? https://www.harpersbazaar.com.sg/exclusives/lea-seydoux-film-family-me-too-movement/
The article is also quite gushing about Lea, while, as lovely as she is, "she still has the air of a cat in the sun: those wide-set, half-closed eyes, a wave of golden-blonde hair and a private, invisible energy that you might mistake for sleepiness, or disengagement, yet is the kind of introversion that contains profound sensibility," seems a bit over the top.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Blimey, talk about the writer being self-indulgent.
More anti-Bond woke BS in this Harper's Bazaar (or is that bizarre?) Lea Seydoux interview, which is strangely late if it was originally planned to help promote NTTD (or maybe they delayed its publication because they could?) and it also apparently has big news none of us have been aware of; "Despite the various controversies surrounding the release of No Time to Die...". Controversies? https://www.harpersbazaar.com.sg/exclusives/lea-seydoux-film-family-me-too-movement/
The article is also quite gushing about Lea, while, as lovely as she is, "she still has the air of a cat in the sun: those wide-set, half-closed eyes, a wave of golden-blonde hair and a private, invisible energy that you might mistake for sleepiness, or disengagement, yet is the kind of introversion that contains profound sensibility," seems a bit over the top.
IMO, there is nothing in that "interview" that we don't know already and nothing I would find troubling. No question I concur that the author is very self indulgent and really interjected their own agenda into the content. People who obsess on this "woke Bond" thing relative to NTTD appear to either be completely tone deaf or just have not seen the Craig films and noticed that Bond has evolved in that area to better reflect contemporary culture. The approach the film makers have appear to have taken (based upon what little we know about NTTD and what they have said) is that in NTTD Craig's Bond will continue to pretty much who he has has been but that the landscape around him has changed.
"... Whoever’s been in the role, he has always been brave, strong, white, straight. So how do you make a Bond film now, when a number of those things seem a little out of keeping with the times? “Yeah,” says Seydoux with a half smile. “We had to adapt." "
Which of those seem out of keeping with the times? Being sexist, misogynistic or racist are. But being brave, strong, white or straight?
"... Whoever’s been in the role, he has always been brave, strong, white, straight. So how do you make a Bond film now, when a number of those things seem a little out of keeping with the times? “Yeah,” says Seydoux with a half smile. “We had to adapt." "
Which of those seem out of keeping with the times? Being sexist, misogynistic or racist are. But being brave, strong, white or straight?
I missed that. Comes to something when a strong, brave, white, straight male has to be adapted because they’re considered out of date. That’s pretty disgusting. But they’re the only people it’s OK to be blatantly sexist and racist too it seems. So carry on regardless.
But the article does suggest there is something wrong about being white and straight I think, or at least that anything not involving people who aren't those things is somehow wrong. Don't get me wrong, the white and straight has been clearly over-represented in film in general, including Bond films. I'm just worried they take the next step and say Bond can't be white or straight and still be relelvant.
or at least that anything not involving people who aren't those things is somehow wrong.
Is there much excuse not to in a major media event that millions of people will see? If we can cope with being somehow preached to that smoking is bad because Bond doesn’t do it any more is it really so hard to cope with seeing some non-white faces?
I remember this site when Craig was cast, and it was horrible, frankly. Full of people saying Craig looked like a monkey and how he couldn’t possibly play Bond. Bond fans (on the forums anyway) aren’t hugely progressive in general. It only took 15 years but they managed to get onboard on with Craig largely, other changes are possible.
or at least that anything not involving people who aren't those things is somehow wrong.
Is there much excuse not to in a major media event that millions of people will see? If we can cope with being somehow preached to that smoking is bad because Bond doesn’t do it any more is it really so hard to cope with seeing some non-white faces?
I remember this site when Craig was cast, and it was horrible, frankly. Full of people saying Craig looked like a monkey and how he couldn’t possibly play Bond. Bond fans (on the forums anyway) aren’t hugely progressive in general. It only took 15 years but they managed to get onboard on with Craig largely, other changes are possible.
I tend to side with your views more than most do here, but even I stumbled over this:
"Whoever’s been in the role, he has always been brave, strong, white, straight. So how do you make a Bond film now, when a number of those things seem a little out of keeping with the times?
I am white and straight, and every day, I try to be brave and strong. Does this mean I am out of keeping with the times?
Basically, this is just featherheaded writing. It's a writer throwing out "woke" platitudes to make themselves look on trend.
I can object to the laziness of the language (and the non-thinking behind it) and still accept, for instance, Henry Golding as Bond. Although he wouldn't be my choice for reasons that have nothing to do with his ethnicity.
Comments
What an outfit
. Risico.
Gun In My Hand
Never Dream of Dying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=32&v=zQJ9MwH11u4&feature=emb_logo
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/28/21240637/amc-theaters-universal-trolls-world-tour-disney-warnermedia-digital-streaming
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1275238/Odeon-cinemas-Universal-movies-Trolls-World-Tour-AMC-cinemas
That would be a huge loss for those cinemas, so I can see this being revoked before long.... However, it will be interesting to see how the theatre climate changes after this... Could it be that streaming could overtake traditional releases in the cinema, especially if covid hangs around and people are reluctant to gather in large numbers for some time to come... years v months. I feel, increasingly, folk like their home set-ups and the hassle free comfort it allows... along with the way streaming gives you that instant access hit many now seem to crave.
It would be a disappointment for me, as I love the cinema experience, which I can't replicate at home, but I fear big changes are afoot.
Sounds to me like a lot of posturing with a big theater chain sending a message to the film companies. The reality is, at some point the theaters will reopen and the film companies will need those screens for their big releases (AMC has the most IMAX screens in the USA). It is interesting that they went after Universal which is actually owned by COMCAST which I think is the largest cable TV provider in the USA (may be the world). It's also interesting to note that Adam Aron, CEO of AMC is from Philadelphia, PA which is also the home of COMCAST and the Roberts family which owns COMCAST. My guess, it will get resolved by the time the theaters reopen.
https://www.screendaily.com/news/cineworld-says-it-will-not-show-films-that-fail-to-respect-windows/5149450.article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8276207/BAZ-BAMIGBOYE-Jodie-Cromer-sweet-playing-Miss-Honey-Matilda.html
If that's true, it would appear that the producers are determined to have a theatrical run for NTTD ......
On a positive note, this was nice to see in the article: "Meanwhile I'm hearing good things (as you would, I guess) from the tiny number of people lucky enough to have been allowed to see it. As I noted a few weeks back, the film is locked up in a vault so impregnable not even Daniel Craig's 007 could crack it". Unlike most tab "reporters" Baz tends to get things right and isn't given to as much click baiting hyperbole.
But how will people pee without having to crowd into the toilets?
I guess they have to pee six feet apart, the car will be fine then
. Risico.
Gun In My Hand
Never Dream of Dying
"Upcoming projects from Framestore include Mulan, No Time To Die, and The King’s Man."
https://deadline.com/2020/05/vfx-framestore-key-hires-film-division-1202927186/
An odd phrasing, why not "Films Framestore has recently worked on that will be released later this year and next year are...." Why are they 'upcoming projects'?
they are all Upcoming from our point of view, whether they are complete or not.
Reading anything more into that is silly.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com.sg/exclusives/lea-seydoux-film-family-me-too-movement/
The article is also quite gushing about Lea, while, as lovely as she is, "she still has the air of a cat in the sun: those wide-set, half-closed eyes, a wave of golden-blonde hair and a private, invisible energy that you might mistake for sleepiness, or disengagement, yet is the kind of introversion that contains profound sensibility," seems a bit over the top.
IMO, there is nothing in that "interview" that we don't know already and nothing I would find troubling. No question I concur that the author is very self indulgent and really interjected their own agenda into the content. People who obsess on this "woke Bond" thing relative to NTTD appear to either be completely tone deaf or just have not seen the Craig films and noticed that Bond has evolved in that area to better reflect contemporary culture. The approach the film makers have appear to have taken (based upon what little we know about NTTD and what they have said) is that in NTTD Craig's Bond will continue to pretty much who he has has been but that the landscape around him has changed.
Which of those seem out of keeping with the times? Being sexist, misogynistic or racist are. But being brave, strong, white or straight?
I missed that. Comes to something when a strong, brave, white, straight male has to be adapted because they’re considered out of date. That’s pretty disgusting. But they’re the only people it’s OK to be blatantly sexist and racist too it seems. So carry on regardless.
I don’t think so. Is there much excuse not to in a major media event that millions of people will see? If we can cope with being somehow preached to that smoking is bad because Bond doesn’t do it any more is it really so hard to cope with seeing some non-white faces?
I remember this site when Craig was cast, and it was horrible, frankly. Full of people saying Craig looked like a monkey and how he couldn’t possibly play Bond. Bond fans (on the forums anyway) aren’t hugely progressive in general. It only took 15 years but they managed to get onboard on with Craig largely, other changes are possible.
I tend to side with your views more than most do here, but even I stumbled over this:
"Whoever’s been in the role, he has always been brave, strong, white, straight. So how do you make a Bond film now, when a number of those things seem a little out of keeping with the times?
I am white and straight, and every day, I try to be brave and strong. Does this mean I am out of keeping with the times?
Basically, this is just featherheaded writing. It's a writer throwing out "woke" platitudes to make themselves look on trend.
I can object to the laziness of the language (and the non-thinking behind it) and still accept, for instance, Henry Golding as Bond. Although he wouldn't be my choice for reasons that have nothing to do with his ethnicity.