No Time to Die production thread

15465475495515521208

Comments

  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    I feel like "spy thriller" or "adventure" are better classifications for Bond. They've never been straight up action films. Touches of fantasy, drama, and comedy along the way too. Obviously there's lots of action in them and plenty of set pieces, but it's not like they're Stallone or Schwarzenegger in terms of being action driven.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.

    Most people here don't seem to understand Bond or even think they understand it better than its own creator. It doesn't surprise me, fans seem to do it with every property.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    Ryan wrote: »
    I feel like "spy thriller" or "adventure" are better classifications for Bond. They've never been straight up action films. Touches of fantasy, drama, and comedy along the way too. Obviously there's lots of action in them and plenty of set pieces, but it's not like they're Stallone or Schwarzenegger in terms of being action driven.
    Walecs wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.

    Most people here don't seem to understand Bond or even think they understand it better than its own creator. It doesn't surprise me, fans seem to do it with every property.

    Bingo
  • Posts: 6,677
    Bond films are a genre of their own. A unique family franchise like no other thing around. Discussing where to file it under is a moot conversation. Just like Fleming's books, this storytelling is filled with practically every other genre, whether its drama, action, sci-fi, comedy, horror, romance, adventure, crime, epic, mystery, thriller,... All concocted into a formulaic dish of exoticism and escapism.

    So there you have it.

    Now can we go back to discussing why Barbara Broccoli thinks this (NTTD) is the quintessential Bond flick? Are they Dieanotherdaying this thing, kitchen sink and all, or are they Goldfingering it (now that just sounds naughty)?
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited December 2019 Posts: 4,247
    I do respect a fellow Bond fan's opinion or vision of what a Bond film should look like. But I think Bond films aren't just the usual action films. That's why Bond Directors are carefully chosen. Michael Bay would have been first choice....if the Bond films were only about action. Am sure that's why John Woo turned down Goldeneye when he was approached.
  • GatecrasherGatecrasher Classified
    Posts: 265
    Damn, DC looks great in that new photo, particularly the hair. I’ve always associated his Bond with shadows, especially in CR, QoS, and SF. I’m really glad to see they’re bringing that same aura of mystique back.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 3,167
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.

    I agree, But I wasn't referring to a library. The Bond movies are action-movies, first and foremost. They inserted a couple of action setpieces in the very Bond-movie that follows one of his novels the closest, to remind us.
    Ryan wrote: »
    They've never been straight up action films.

    No one wants a two hour car chase. But there has to be set pieces. In between them: Bondgirls women, gambling, humour, great one-liners and dialogue, a scheming villain, a fistfight or two and some glamorous location.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    So, rolling back to your original argument, what about NTTD leads you to fear these elements won’t be present?
  • Posts: 12,506
    Really like that new image! :-bd
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,497
    Ryan wrote: »
    I feel like "spy thriller" or "adventure" are better classifications for Bond. They've never been straight up action films. Touches of fantasy, drama, and comedy along the way too. Obviously there's lots of action in them and plenty of set pieces, but it's not like they're Stallone or Schwarzenegger in terms of being action driven.
    Walecs wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.

    Most people here don't seem to understand Bond or even think they understand it better than its own creator. It doesn't surprise me, fans seem to do it with every property.

    Bingo

    Like THE JACKMAN IS TOO TALL TO PLAY TEH WOLVERINE...
    He did rather well imho.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.

    The Bond movies are action-movies, first and foremost.

    A little reminder: all of Craig films are genuine action movies.

    Injecting the plot with a little drama and more emotional weight doesn't make those films less action driven.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 3,167
    Minion wrote: »
    So, rolling back to your original argument, what about NTTD leads you to fear these elements won’t be present?

    I try not to worry too much and hope for the best. And all the elements are more or less there. Like they were there in SP. But still I found something missing there somehow. Judging from the trailer, my worry for NTTD is primarily that I think the action-scenes look like they could have been from any other big budget action-movie (except the clip with the DB5 guns). No new crazy gadgets helping him out of an impossible situation, no prototype vehicle from Q branch, no something outlandish as Bond trying to stear a snowplane on the ground towards two landrovers or driving a CAT on top of a moving train. NTTD looks more low-key to me. Bond drives a couple of cars and steals a bike. Well...okay.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.
    And, ironically, Fleming was the first to admit that his novels wouldn´t work for the screen if adapted without alterations.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    Fine by me.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 5,767
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Ryan wrote: »
    I feel like "spy thriller" or "adventure" are better classifications for Bond. They've never been straight up action films. Touches of fantasy, drama, and comedy along the way too. Obviously there's lots of action in them and plenty of set pieces, but it's not like they're Stallone or Schwarzenegger in terms of being action driven.
    Walecs wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.

    Most people here don't seem to understand Bond or even think they understand it better than its own creator. It doesn't surprise me, fans seem to do it with every property.

    Bingo

    Like THE JACKMAN IS TOO SMALL TO PLAY TEH WOLVERINE...
    He did rather well imho.
    to tall, not to small.

    But yes, he did very good.



    Zekidk wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    So, rolling back to your original argument, what about NTTD leads you to fear these elements won’t be present?

    I try not to worry too much and hope for the best. And all the elements are more or less there. Like they were there in SP. But still I found something missing there somehow. Judging from the trailer, my worry for NTTD is primarily that I think the action-scenes look like they could have been from any other big budget action-movie (except the clip with the DB5 guns). No new crazy gadgets helping him out of an impossible situation, no prototype vehicle from Q branch, no something outlandish as Bond trying to stear a snowplane on the ground towards two landrovers or driving a CAT on top of a moving train. NTTD looks more low-key to me. Bond drives a couple of cars and steals a bike. Well...okay.
    I´m having a real hard time imagining they have this fantastic new Q and don´t have him dish out some gadgets in the 25th Bond film, but a lot of Bond films did pretty well with not many gadgets. Anyhow, many times there´s just one action sequence where Bond uses all his gadgets, and the rest of the film he manages without.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,930
    Ryan wrote: »
    I feel like "spy thriller" or "adventure" are better classifications for Bond. They've never been straight up action films. Touches of fantasy, drama, and comedy along the way too. Obviously there's lots of action in them and plenty of set pieces, but it's not like they're Stallone or Schwarzenegger in terms of being action driven.

    Are there many action films without laughs or drama? I struggle to think of many Schwarzeneggers without jokes in. Bond films are in many ways the original action films. There’s nothing wrong with that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    I think calling them adventure films is more precise, as that covers all bases.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,930
    Yeah I always call them adventure films. Much like Indiana Jones flicks: very similar tonally.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 3,167
    Adventure films.... that's Indiana Jones.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´m having a real hard time imagining they have this fantastic new Q and don´t have him dish out some gadgets in the 25th Bond film.
    This fantastic new Q has over the course of two movies given us:
    - a signature gun
    - a radio transmitter
    - a watch
    - a car with some gadgets

    "An exploding pen. We don't really do that anymore."

    Well, please do. A wristdartgun, a ski-pole gun, X-ray polaroid. Anything! Has Q branch lost its ingenuity? I didn't notice one single gadget in the NTTD trailer, except the well-known DB5 guns. Maybe Bond will use acid cat litter picked up from Q's apartment or something, since the once and beloved Q-lab looks like a thing from the past.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Adventure films... that can also be Bond. :)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited December 2019 Posts: 8,021
    Bond films are definitely adventure. Speaking of Indiana Jones, Peter Hunt gave high compliments to the filmmakers of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK for nailing what they originally did in the 60s. Of course, Spielberg did Indy because he always wanted to make a Bond film as he was influenced by the Connery pictures. Indy was his outlet, and it’s no coincidence Connery was later cast as Indy’s father. Very meta.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I think adventure films is definitely a better way to describe them, they have action in them but they aren't action films.

    I just don't see giving Bond gadgets that good an idea, just handing him something random and it happening to get him out of a tight spot worked in the previous era, although it got quite contrived after a while then.

    They can't do that in this era, maybe they'll come up with an idea to introduce them more with the next Bond but I think they are wary and I don't blame them.

    Just because a bunch of fans what a return to the vintage Bond doesn't mean something that would likely look dated and contrived should be bought back.
  • Posts: 3,167
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Just because a bunch of fans what a return to the vintage Bond doesn't mean something that would likely look dated and contrived should be bought back.

    Yes, we should just throw the very things that made us become Bond-fans in the first place out with the bathwater. No wonder I have found the last three MI-movies to be much more fun, than the last two Bond-movies. Bond should be using those gadgets.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    Gadgets aren’t a requirement, they’re icing on the cake.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited December 2019 Posts: 1,165
    I wouldn’t presume to speak of what led someone else to become a fan of this franchise. Each film needing to follow an unwavering structure and cross off a checklist of cliches is certainly not why I like Bond.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 3,167
    Actually for me... gadgets are. Because they define Bond. Bond without gadgets is like Indiana Jones without the whip.
    Minion wrote: »
    Each film needing to follow an unwavering structure and cross off a checklist of cliches is certainly not why I like Bond.

    Some things just need no changing. Like having a PTS or fancy main titles and a title song. Having gadgets in the movie, Bond travelling to foreign countries, getting briefed by M etc.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    That’s like saying Star Wars isn’t Star Wars if there isn’t a lightsaber. Stories shouldn’t be bound by such surface level iconography. That line of thinking is precisely what compromised TWINE from reaching its full potential.
  • Posts: 3,167
    @Minion

    That's a poor example, because if I remember correct there are lightsabers in every Star Wars movies. And I do believe in icons. That's why I loved the return of the Millenium Falcon in EP VII.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,930
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Adventure films.... that's Indiana Jones.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´m having a real hard time imagining they have this fantastic new Q and don´t have him dish out some gadgets in the 25th Bond film.
    This fantastic new Q has over the course of two movies given us:
    - a signature gun
    - a radio transmitter
    - a watch
    - a car with some gadgets

    "An exploding pen. We don't really do that anymore."

    Well, please do. A wristdartgun, a ski-pole gun, X-ray polaroid. Anything! Has Q branch lost its ingenuity? I didn't notice one single gadget in the NTTD trailer, except the well-known DB5 guns. Maybe Bond will use acid cat litter picked up from Q's apartment or something, since the once and beloved Q-lab looks like a thing from the past.

    Well just because the gadgets aren’t in the trailer doesn’t mean they aren’t in the film. Do gadgets often make it to the trailers?
    The DB5 has a button marked ‘flame’ incidentally...
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Just because a bunch of fans what a return to the vintage Bond doesn't mean something that would likely look dated and contrived should be bought back.

    Yes, we should just throw the very things that made us become Bond-fans in the first place out with the bathwater. No wonder I have found the last three MI-movies to be much more fun, than the last two Bond-movies.
    Ah no; you’re not allowed to think that around here ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.