I do wonder if that Spain filming was actually for an advert, as we now know that one of the Bond25 location managers specialises in Spanish locations, and London. And if there has been clandestine filming I wonder what has really been going on over the last three years.
I'm almost certain that the filming in Spain was not for Bond 25 because Danny Boyle was not there. But they may have filmed the advert there if the location is later going to be used for Bond 25.
An official statement from the Producers, on the Bond question ......
"A question which will be hanging on the lips of the world quite soon. If I were to break the news to anyone, it would be to
you first (AJB007) You know that, But it's late, I'm tired, and there's so much left to do".
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I should think DoP and composer should be the next major info?
JamesbondRadio says Danny Boyle and David Arnold has been on the phone lately, so I've got my fingers crossed :007)
Rachel Morrison was the DoP on Black Panther and is the first woman to be nominated for Best Cinemography for Mudbound this year. Sounds like an interesting candidate to me. So is Emmanuel Lubezki who stunned me with his work on The Revenant.
Saw MI:Fallout this weekend and I thought it was absolutely great! If Bond doesn't fully commit to going in the same direction, it's dead as a franchise IMO ...
Kidding!
I really did enjoy MI:FO and the action was spectacular. I sincerely doubt another film is going to top it anytime soon. But that is both the strength and the flaw in the MI franchise. I was invested in the action because it was Cruise performing the stunts. Replace Cruise with a stuntman and what do you have? As others have said, despite recent MI efforts to give Hunt a deeper emotional core, the character is pretty shallow.
I think that's what's at the center of MI vs. Bond debate. When you think of a cool Hunt moment, 99% of the time it will be Cruise risking his neck. When you think of a cool Bond moment? Well, for me at least, it's the Dent scene, kicking Locque off the cliff, the hotel scene with Pushkin, "I never miss", the final poker hand in CR, Bond and Green at the party, etc. The best Bond action scenes (again, IMO) haven't been the biggest set pieces. It's the FRWL train fight, climbing across the cables in OMHSS, FYEO rock climbing, the CR stairwell fight, the QoS hotel room fight, etc. For me, the 007 films always win when they just let Bond be Bond and then put the character in believable jeopardy.
But it seems that as every actor (except Lazenby obviously and perhaps Dalton) has gone further into his tenure, Eon forgets this. Instead they try to make the character more invincible and the stunts bigger, louder and more outlandish. I'm sorry to say, Bond fighting in a helicopter over Mexico City (or shooting a helicopter out of the sky with a handgun) can no longer compete with Cruise actually flying a real helicopter. Even when both characters are dressed identically :v . On the other hand, watching Cruise gambling at a casino or quietly executing someone in an office in Prague would bore the hell out of me.
So my advice (not that anyone asked ) is to stop trying to compete and get back to the basics of what makes Bond great: genuinely cool character moments; smaller, tension filled action scenes that put the character at serious risk; and a plot that let's him be a well dressed spy on a proper mission to exotic locations. Bonus: a movie like that would play to Craig's strengths in the role.
Sorry, sidenote: Does anyone else notice that when critics and writers compare another franchise to Bond, it's always about the big action? I even seem to remember a writer comparing one of the Fast and Furious movies to Bond because of the stunts. It's so rarely about the character. The last time I can recall another franchise character being called "As cool as Bond" was Fassbender's Magneto in X-Men: First Class (specifically the scenes with the banker and in the bar in Argentina).
Sorry, sidenote: Does anyone else notice that when critics and writers compare another franchise to Bond, it's always about the big action? I even seem to remember a writer comparing one of the Fast and Furious movies to Bond because of the stunts. It's so rarely about the character. The last time I can recall another franchise character being called "As cool as Bond" was Fassbender's Magneto in X-Men: First Class (specifically the scenes with the banker and in the bar in Argentina).
Because many critics these days are lazy uniformed dolts who fall back on superficial comparisons to make up for their lack of insight and shallow depth of thought.
One thing that isn't getting enough attention here is the increased importance of the international audience.
Today there is enormous pressure on filmmakers to create stories that diverse cultures can appreciate. When people complain about the glut of superhero films, it's partly because anyone, no matter where you live, will pay to see the Avengers kick ass. The same goes for many animated movies. Comedies, on the other hand, have trouble translating. It's one reason that every comedy you see now, no matter how sophisticated it is supposed to be, features a trailer with someone falling down — it is lowest common denominator humor.
Big action scenes work well internationally since what is there to understand? Tom Cruise is piloting a helicopter through a gorge. Vin Diesel is driving a car out of a plane.
That, I believe, is the pressure Eon faces. Skyfall and Spectre did huge business around the world. Some of us here might not have been fans of the Mexico City helicopter stuff but I bet it worked for the audience in China.
The key to the action is to make it visceral. SPECTRE train fight? VISCERAL. SPECTRE car chase? Not visceral. It just felt like some doldrums had set in. THE SPY WHO DUMPED ME actually had action sequences - including a car chase and some one-take (for real, not cgi) stunts - that were more visceral than the bulk of the stuff in SPECTRE.
I recently saw MI: Fallout as well and to be honest I don't get what the fuss is all about. Like the previous 2 MI films it was solid but the praise heaped on this one has been huge and i'm a bit miffed. Some of the action was great, the helicopter battle at the end was very impressive, but I couldn't describe the plot to you and it went far too long.
For me, the MI films are very disposable. Use once or twice and throw away. Bond is much more memorable, and hasn't got anything to worry about I don't think. I reckon it's just American critics trying to stir the pot.
MI has been copying Bond, but they can't copy the soul. However, they take both the good and the bad action sequences in Bond and think about how they can do it better. And they succeed at that. It's putting Bond to shame. The stories are always forgettable, but the stories in Bond of late have been memorably bad. The stories in MI are not the point. There's not supposed to be substance to the films, but the stunts are incredibly memorable. They're the best at something. What has Bond been the best at lately?
MI has been copying Bond, but they can't copy the soul. However, they take both the good and the bad action sequences in Bond and think about how they can do it better. And they succeed at that. It's putting Bond to shame. The stories are always forgettable, but the stories in Bond of late have been memorably bad. The stories in MI are not the point. There's not supposed to be substance to the films, but the stunts are incredibly memorable. They're the best at something. What has Bond been the best at lately?
MI has been copying Bond, but they can't copy the soul. However, they take both the good and the bad action sequences in Bond and think about how they can do it better. And they succeed at that. It's putting Bond to shame. The stories are always forgettable, but the stories in Bond of late have been memorably bad. The stories in MI are not the point. There's not supposed to be substance to the films, but the stunts are incredibly memorable. They're the best at something. What has Bond been the best at lately?
Memorably bad? Spectre perhaps. Though MI: 5 mirrored it quite closely in some respects. But Skyfall had a very interesting story line and most people (critics and audiences) responded to it with great enthusiasm so I wouldn't lay that charge on Skyfall.
A story with substance is not necessary I agree. A story line that you can recall in detail a couple of days after seeing the film is a different matter, and I feel that I wasn't able to do that with the last 3 MI films at all. I guess what I'm saying is is that they are the current flavour of the month. Like Bourne was in the 00s. They don't pose any serious threat to Bond at all. They have had some great action sequences of late but they will run out of ideas soon and Cruise will be over 60 by the time the next one comes out and then they will really be left with nothing.
I would say that in blockbuster cinema Bond is currently the best at production value, cinematography, set design and art direction and attracting a marque cast
MI has been copying Bond, but they can't copy the soul. However, they take both the good and the bad action sequences in Bond and think about how they can do it better. And they succeed at that. It's putting Bond to shame. The stories are always forgettable, but the stories in Bond of late have been memorably bad. The stories in MI are not the point. There's not supposed to be substance to the films, but the stunts are incredibly memorable. They're the best at something. What has Bond been the best at lately?
Clothing? )
I'd say Kingsman is doing clothing better than Bond. Even Tom Cruise wears suits that fit him.
Saw MI:Fallout this weekend and I thought it was absolutely great! If Bond doesn't fully commit to going in the same direction, it's dead as a franchise IMO ...
Kidding!
I really did enjoy MI:FO and the action was spectacular. I sincerely doubt another film is going to top it anytime soon. But that is both the strength and the flaw in the MI franchise. I was invested in the action because it was Cruise performing the stunts. Replace Cruise with a stuntman and what do you have? As others have said, despite recent MI efforts to give Hunt a deeper emotional core, the character is pretty shallow.
I think that's what's at the center of MI vs. Bond debate. When you think of a cool Hunt moment, 99% of the time it will be Cruise risking his neck. When you think of a cool Bond moment? Well, for me at least, it's the Dent scene, kicking Locque off the cliff, the hotel scene with Pushkin, "I never miss", the final poker hand in CR, Bond and Green at the party, etc. The best Bond action scenes (again, IMO) haven't been the biggest set pieces. It's the FRWL train fight, climbing across the cables in OMHSS, FYEO rock climbing, the CR stairwell fight, the QoS hotel room fight, etc. For me, the 007 films always win when they just let Bond be Bond and then put the character in believable jeopardy.
But it seems that as every actor (except Lazenby obviously and perhaps Dalton) has gone further into his tenure, Eon forgets this. Instead they try to make the character more invincible and the stunts bigger, louder and more outlandish. I'm sorry to say, Bond fighting in a helicopter over Mexico City (or shooting a helicopter out of the sky with a handgun) can no longer compete with Cruise actually flying a real helicopter. Even when both characters are dressed identically :v . On the other hand, watching Cruise gambling at a casino or quietly executing someone in an office in Prague would bore the hell out of me.
So my advice (not that anyone asked ) is to stop trying to compete and get back to the basics of what makes Bond great: genuinely cool character moments; smaller, tension filled action scenes that put the character at serious risk; and a plot that let's him be a well dressed spy on a proper mission to exotic locations. Bonus: a movie like that would play to Craig's strengths in the role.
# what he said.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Saw Fallout for the second time last night (some friends wanted to go) it struck me that one of the chief differences is that I can watch my favourite Bonds endlessly but Fallout did not sustain as second watch. Also it had been moved to one of the smaller screens in my local cinema. I know the Manager and asked why and he said it started strongly but faded quickly. The auditorium was sparsly attended. Still a great theme park thrill ride but no substance. Enjoyed Cavill much more though and feel that if the right Director could coax a great performance from Georgy boy then Cavill might be fine. Still not my choice, but I could defo live with it.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Craig's Bond films gross more money than Cruise's MI films so if that box office trend continues Bond 25 will gross more than MI:Fallout. Beyond the confines of internet chat forums, people may not care if Bond 25 doesn't feature Craig hanging from a rocket or not jumping down a vast chasm into the depths of the Earth. Besides, Daniel Craig hurt his knee filming SPECTRE so he to be careful. His stuntman can do all the hard stuff like walking, running, sitting down.
MI has been copying Bond, but they can't copy the soul. However, they take both the good and the bad action sequences in Bond and think about how they can do it better. And they succeed at that. It's putting Bond to shame. The stories are always forgettable, but the stories in Bond of late have been memorably bad. The stories in MI are not the point. There's not supposed to be substance to the films, but the stunts are incredibly memorable. They're the best at something. What has Bond been the best at lately?
This view is not widely shared. Spectre was rubbish, but I would say Bond was getting on quite well before that. Skyfall was both stylish (despite the too-right suits) and had soul. The Macau casino scene, for instance, has now been copied several times, including in the wildly popular Black Panther film. Bond continues to set the standard for that type of thing in film.
Spectre felt so stagnant because too many of the same creative team was back, but out of ideas. They’ve definitely brought in fresh blood this time. So in my view, the biggest concern with Bond 25 has already been remedied.
In fairness to Logan and Mendes, their script wasn't shot, so we'll never know how good (or bad) it would've been. Instead, the powers that be substituted a tired generic Bond plot that (with the exception of the foster brother angle) could've been made forty years ago.
In fairness to Logan and Mendes, their script wasn't shot, so we'll never know how good (or bad) it would've been. Instead, the powers that be substituted a tired generic Bond plot that (with the exception of the foster brother angle) could've been made forty years ago.
That's a really good point and summation of where things may have went off the rails with SPECTRE.
However, the other side is, as long as the foster brother angle was in play, the film would remain a mess and adding the generic Bond action and plot at least allowed the film to play to the general public's Bond expectations. I will say the car chase in SPECTRE was just awful and probably the low point of all the Craig films for me.
Spectre felt so stagnant because too many of the same creative team was back, but out of ideas. They’ve definitely brought in fresh blood this time. So in my view, the biggest concern with Bond 25 has already been remedied.
That's a great way to put it and why I wasn't that excited going into Spectre's production as I am Bond 25's. I'm thankful Mende's and co created my favorite Bond movie in Skyfall but I knew lightning wasn't going to strike twice because as Mendes said "I put everything I ever wanted in a Bond film into Skyfall". It seems they're really shaking things up now. No Purvis and Wade, no Dennis Gassner, no Jany Termime, etc.
I do wonder if that Spain filming was actually for an advert, as we now know that one of the Bond25 location managers specialises in Spanish locations, and London. And if there has been clandestine filming I wonder what has really been going on over the last three years.
I'm almost certain that the filming in Spain was not for Bond 25 because Danny Boyle was not there. But they may have filmed the advert there if the location is later going to be used for Bond 25.
I do wonder if that Spain filming was actually for an advert, as we now know that one of the Bond25 location managers specialises in Spanish locations, and London. And if there has been clandestine filming I wonder what has really been going on over the last three years.
I'm almost certain that the filming in Spain was not for Bond 25 because Danny Boyle was not there. But they may have filmed the advert there if the location is later going to be used for Bond 25.
I do wonder if that Spain filming was actually for an advert, as we now know that one of the Bond25 location managers specialises in Spanish locations, and London. And if there has been clandestine filming I wonder what has really been going on over the last three years.
I'm almost certain that the filming in Spain was not for Bond 25 because Danny Boyle was not there. But they may have filmed the advert there if the location is later going to be used for Bond 25.
That we know of... Or it was a second unit.
Danny Boyle is a human, as far as we know, so he cannot be in two places at once. He was in the UK the day Craig was spotted filming in Spain. Second unit is a possibility, but highly unlikely to be working with Daniel Craig during pre-production. Filming an advert by far makes the most sense here.
Connery wore it, moore wore it. Even pierce brosnan wore it. What are the chanses of seeing craig in the naval commander uniform for his possible last film?
Connery wore it, moore wore it. Even pierce brosnan wore it. What are the chanses of seeing craig in the naval commander uniform for his possible last film?
Connery wore it, moore wore it. Even pierce brosnan wore it. What are the chanses of seeing craig in the naval commander uniform for his possible last film?
Is Daniel Craig's Bond a naval commander?
According to the James Bond Wiki (not sure how accurate it is) page James Bond (Daniel Craig), yes he is—Craig era Bond is/was (is he still a reservist?) an RN officer with experience in the SBS, promoted to Commander after being recruited into the RNR Defence Intelligence Group.
Connery wore it, moore wore it. Even pierce brosnan wore it. What are the chanses of seeing craig in the naval commander uniform for his possible last film?
I don't think he could pull it off convincingly, just would not look right I feel.All the actors you mention have a very different body shape and proportions to Daniel. I think he may look like he was dressing up in Daddy's clothes. He looks better in different types of clothing, more casual and understated. For example all of the Bonds have at some point wore a three piece suit but that also would be wrong for Daniel (please correct me if I'm wrong and he has worn one)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Comments
I'm almost certain that the filming in Spain was not for Bond 25 because Danny Boyle was not there. But they may have filmed the advert there if the location is later going to be used for Bond 25.
"A question which will be hanging on the lips of the world quite soon. If I were to break the news to anyone, it would be to
you first (AJB007) You know that, But it's late, I'm tired, and there's so much left to do".
JamesbondRadio says Danny Boyle and David Arnold has been on the phone lately, so I've got my fingers crossed :007)
Rachel Morrison was the DoP on Black Panther and is the first woman to be nominated for Best Cinemography for Mudbound this year. Sounds like an interesting candidate to me. So is Emmanuel Lubezki who stunned me with his work on The Revenant.
Kidding!
I really did enjoy MI:FO and the action was spectacular. I sincerely doubt another film is going to top it anytime soon. But that is both the strength and the flaw in the MI franchise. I was invested in the action because it was Cruise performing the stunts. Replace Cruise with a stuntman and what do you have? As others have said, despite recent MI efforts to give Hunt a deeper emotional core, the character is pretty shallow.
I think that's what's at the center of MI vs. Bond debate. When you think of a cool Hunt moment, 99% of the time it will be Cruise risking his neck. When you think of a cool Bond moment? Well, for me at least, it's the Dent scene, kicking Locque off the cliff, the hotel scene with Pushkin, "I never miss", the final poker hand in CR, Bond and Green at the party, etc. The best Bond action scenes (again, IMO) haven't been the biggest set pieces. It's the FRWL train fight, climbing across the cables in OMHSS, FYEO rock climbing, the CR stairwell fight, the QoS hotel room fight, etc. For me, the 007 films always win when they just let Bond be Bond and then put the character in believable jeopardy.
But it seems that as every actor (except Lazenby obviously and perhaps Dalton) has gone further into his tenure, Eon forgets this. Instead they try to make the character more invincible and the stunts bigger, louder and more outlandish. I'm sorry to say, Bond fighting in a helicopter over Mexico City (or shooting a helicopter out of the sky with a handgun) can no longer compete with Cruise actually flying a real helicopter. Even when both characters are dressed identically :v . On the other hand, watching Cruise gambling at a casino or quietly executing someone in an office in Prague would bore the hell out of me.
So my advice (not that anyone asked
Because many critics these days are lazy uniformed dolts who fall back on superficial comparisons to make up for their lack of insight and shallow depth of thought.
Today there is enormous pressure on filmmakers to create stories that diverse cultures can appreciate. When people complain about the glut of superhero films, it's partly because anyone, no matter where you live, will pay to see the Avengers kick ass. The same goes for many animated movies. Comedies, on the other hand, have trouble translating. It's one reason that every comedy you see now, no matter how sophisticated it is supposed to be, features a trailer with someone falling down — it is lowest common denominator humor.
Big action scenes work well internationally since what is there to understand? Tom Cruise is piloting a helicopter through a gorge. Vin Diesel is driving a car out of a plane.
That, I believe, is the pressure Eon faces. Skyfall and Spectre did huge business around the world. Some of us here might not have been fans of the Mexico City helicopter stuff but I bet it worked for the audience in China.
For me, the MI films are very disposable. Use once or twice and throw away. Bond is much more memorable, and hasn't got anything to worry about I don't think. I reckon it's just American critics trying to stir the pot.
Clothing?
Memorably bad? Spectre perhaps. Though MI: 5 mirrored it quite closely in some respects. But Skyfall had a very interesting story line and most people (critics and audiences) responded to it with great enthusiasm so I wouldn't lay that charge on Skyfall.
A story with substance is not necessary I agree. A story line that you can recall in detail a couple of days after seeing the film is a different matter, and I feel that I wasn't able to do that with the last 3 MI films at all. I guess what I'm saying is is that they are the current flavour of the month. Like Bourne was in the 00s. They don't pose any serious threat to Bond at all. They have had some great action sequences of late but they will run out of ideas soon and Cruise will be over 60 by the time the next one comes out and then they will really be left with nothing.
I would say that in blockbuster cinema Bond is currently the best at production value, cinematography, set design and art direction and attracting a marque cast
I'd say Kingsman is doing clothing better than Bond. Even Tom Cruise wears suits that fit him.
# what he said.
This view is not widely shared. Spectre was rubbish, but I would say Bond was getting on quite well before that. Skyfall was both stylish (despite the too-right suits) and had soul. The Macau casino scene, for instance, has now been copied several times, including in the wildly popular Black Panther film. Bond continues to set the standard for that type of thing in film.
Spectre felt so stagnant because too many of the same creative team was back, but out of ideas. They’ve definitely brought in fresh blood this time. So in my view, the biggest concern with Bond 25 has already been remedied.
That's a really good point and summation of where things may have went off the rails with SPECTRE.
However, the other side is, as long as the foster brother angle was in play, the film would remain a mess and adding the generic Bond action and plot at least allowed the film to play to the general public's Bond expectations. I will say the car chase in SPECTRE was just awful and probably the low point of all the Craig films for me.
That we know of... Or it was a second unit.
That early? Seems very unlikely.
Danny Boyle is a human, as far as we know, so he cannot be in two places at once. He was in the UK the day Craig was spotted filming in Spain. Second unit is a possibility, but highly unlikely to be working with Daniel Craig during pre-production. Filming an advert by far makes the most sense here.
Is Daniel Craig's Bond a naval commander?
According to the James Bond Wiki (not sure how accurate it is) page James Bond (Daniel Craig), yes he is—Craig era Bond is/was (is he still a reservist?) an RN officer with experience in the SBS, promoted to Commander after being recruited into the RNR Defence Intelligence Group.
If you look closely, "RN" is listed.
I don't think he could pull it off convincingly, just would not look right I feel.All the actors you mention have a very different body shape and proportions to Daniel. I think he may look like he was dressing up in Daddy's clothes. He looks better in different types of clothing, more casual and understated. For example all of the Bonds have at some point wore a three piece suit but that also would be wrong for Daniel (please correct me if I'm wrong and he has worn one)