No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

17737747767787791214

Comments

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 712
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm only hypothesising some of the other arguments that have been made about it. My own are that it's fine - not awful, not great either. I could do with less of them as I don't find them particularly interesting to watch, hence why I described it as inoffensive but not exactly good. If you feel different, that's cool.

    As I said, it's a criticism that's a bit overblown, but I also get it at the same time. They are featured more prominently than previous supporting characters were.

    I disagree that it's a complaint that she wasn't in it enough. She has plenty of screentime in SP for the type of character that she is, more screentime wouldn't have solved the issues for people, considering it would have likely just been more of the same under the circumstances. The stuff she did have just needed to be better written, as did the film as a whole.

    I don't think Spectre was superb either and I get that she should have had better stuff to do, but again, that's not really the same as this 'Scooby Gang' complaint people have been trotting out. I thought M got some good material. The ending was good for him and I liked the restaurant scene. Q was handled pretty well too I'd say.

    Bear in mind this whole conversation has sprung up just because people reacted to a photograph of the MI6 team standing... in MI6. It's one of these automatic responses like 'I don't like Bond having any sort of personal involvement in the mission' which I'm not sure people are even thinking about any more because then they say how great it was when Bond's wife died in OHMSS or when Q went on the mission in LTK.

    I think that's a bit of a disingenuous argument. I don't think people have an issue with Bond being personally involved in missions, so much as the retconning in SP makes him the centre of the whole universe. Targeting Bond because he disrupted Spectre's previous plans is one thing, but the coincidence of him also growing up with Blofeld was too much in my opinion.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,397
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm only hypothesising some of the other arguments that have been made about it. My own are that it's fine - not awful, not great either. I could do with less of them as I don't find them particularly interesting to watch, hence why I described it as inoffensive but not exactly good. If you feel different, that's cool.

    As I said, it's a criticism that's a bit overblown, but I also get it at the same time. They are featured more prominently than previous supporting characters were.

    I disagree that it's a complaint that she wasn't in it enough. She has plenty of screentime in SP for the type of character that she is, more screentime wouldn't have solved the issues for people, considering it would have likely just been more of the same under the circumstances. The stuff she did have just needed to be better written, as did the film as a whole.

    I don't think Spectre was superb either and I get that she should have had better stuff to do, but again, that's not really the same as this 'Scooby Gang' complaint people have been trotting out. I thought M got some good material. The ending was good for him and I liked the restaurant scene. Q was handled pretty well too I'd say.

    Bear in mind this whole conversation has sprung up just because people reacted to a photograph of the MI6 team standing... in MI6. It's one of these automatic responses like 'I don't like Bond having any sort of personal involvement in the mission' which I'm not sure people are even thinking about any more because then they say how great it was when Bond's wife died in OHMSS or when Q went on the mission in LTK.

    I think that's a bit of a disingenuous argument. I don't think people have an issue with Bond being personally involved in missions,

    Oh I really think they do.
    so much as the retconning in SP makes him the centre of the whole universe. Targeting Bond because he disrupted Spectre's previous plans is one thing, but the coincidence of him also growing up with Blofeld was too much in my opinion.

    Yes that's fair enough, I don't think that can be defended! :)
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 3,765
    There is a litle mistake in one of ansers, but positive thing be is that big part is looking forward to see the movie. There asking what delayd cinema movie you whant to see moost.

    Naar welke uitgestelde bioscoopfilm kijkt u het meest uit?
    7% Minions: The Rise of Gru
    37% James Bond: No Time to Die
    3% A Quiet Place: Part II
    14% Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
    6% Top Gun: Maverick
    33% Andere film

    Source: GFK.
  • In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 11,528
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.
    Mod edit coming up. ;)
  • Posts: 5,654
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.

    Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.

    The mythos and the so called formula had Bond going through several stages of prep to go on a mission. That's where the Mi6 employees came in. It was, simply put, marvellous. You could change the story, the themes, but not Bond, and not those stages of prep. The "let's kill the formula", "let's shake things up" crowed ruined that, probably for good.

    Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.

    I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Fiennes as M. And the rest of the cast. Hey, wanna make them go in the field? Then have Mallory show his old army skills alongside Bond in an adventure to clear up some old trouble of his. At least you'd have someone the caliber of Fiennes having some repertoire with Bond, as they often did in the books. Take Moonraker and their bridge game at Blades. Oh, so many lost opportunities...
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2020 Posts: 3,845
    I think they should have featured different 00 Agents after QoS, since EON never really wanted Craig as the 'Loner Bond', which is what even suits the Character more. Maybe Create very Complex 00 Agents, instead of this 'Scooby' thing. Anyway, it's good we have Nomi this time...so the narrative can change a bit.

    I was so scared for Sean Connery's Bond in FRWL....coz he was all alone on that train.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 712
    Univex wrote: »
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.

    Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.

    The mythos and the so called formula had Bond going through several stages of prep to go on a mission. That's where the Mi6 employees came in. It was, simply put, marvellous. You could change the story, the themes, but not Bond, and not those stages of prep. The "let's kill the formula", "let's shake things up" crowed ruined that, probably for good.

    Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.

    I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Fiennes as M. And the rest of the cast. Hey, wanna make them go in the field? Then have Mallory show his old army skills alongside Bond in an adventure to clear up some old trouble of his. At least you'd have someone the caliber of Fiennes having some repertoire with Bond, as they often did in the books. Take Moonraker and their bridge game at Blades. Oh, so many lost opportunities...

    I agree with every single word of this. Well said.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,397
    Univex wrote: »
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.

    Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.

    No it's definitely the term made up by Bond fans that's more annoying.

    Univex wrote: »
    Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.

    I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.

    How did you not get that in Spectre and Skyfall? They went out of their way to give you that, the gang you find so offensive actually ensured that Bond couldn't be traced by his smart blood as he went to Blofeld's lair. Like it or not, the world is full of mobile comms devices. For Bond not to have any would be bizarre.
    What you're complaining about so tiresomely is a, what, two minute scene of them driving through a tunnel in London at the end of Spectre, from where Bond is rapidly removed and left... what's that? On his own and left to his own devices?

    Do you hate it when Q turns up in LTK out of interest?

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 712
    If it's the case that Bond has to be in constant communication with the team then it's morphed into something I am not interested in any longer. No issues, no regrets, no problems with people who enjoy the new films and who enjoy those elements. If that's the way it it is going to be from here on, so be it. But this is a forum for us to discuss our involvement with Bond, right?
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 5,654
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.

    Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.

    No it's definitely the term made up by Bond fans that's more annoying.

    Univex wrote: »
    Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.

    I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.

    How did you not get that in Spectre and Skyfall? They went out of their way to give you that, the gang you find so offensive actually ensured that Bond couldn't be traced by his smart blood as he went to Blofeld's lair. Like it or not, the world is full of mobile comms devices. For Bond not to have any would be bizarre.
    What you're complaining about so tiresomely is a, what, two minute scene of them driving through a tunnel in London at the end of Spectre, from where Bond is rapidly removed and left... what's that? On his own and left to his own devices?

    Do you hate it when Q turns up in LTK out of interest?

    So, let's see if I can answer to all of that, shall we? ;)

    1) If you find a term made up by Bond fans annoying, then you should revise your status in the forums, you see, fans coining terms to show their liking of disliking of their fandom is normal. And quite fun. "brothergate"; the 3 letter film (LTK, QOS,...);... are all examples of fans being fans. Besides, the term "Scooby Gang" is used by multiple fans in multiple forums, that can't be an outlier, your opinion, on the other hand, is, and there's no problem with that, as each of us has theirs.

    2)SF's beginning was all about the earpiece and the team dynamic, I get that. But the single best scene of all the film (and I love the film, so I'm exaggerating here) is when Bond throws his earpiece into the champagne glass. I wanted to cheer. I have no complains about SF, as it gave me that escapism sense I was talking about for the most part. Specially in Silva's island, where he depended on a tiny radio alone. SP on the other hand had a car chase interrupted by Moneypenny's nightly activities, Q showing up in Austria, A secretary of the head of intelligence meeting with a pubescent Quartermaster and said head of intelligence to conspire to help their buddy Bond.

    3) Most films since CR skipped formulaic elements, even those elements that worked in order to make a Bond film a unique and incomparable experience. Mostly to a good effect, but the "anti formula" aspect gets it wrong because they think a hardcore Bond like Craig can't be put into it. The truth is, you could have a Connery tough Bond, a Moore light Bond, a Dalton serious Bond, all inside that formula of events. They all worked. The so called formula was never the problem. Their take on Bond was. The problem was always feeling ashamed of a hardcore Spy thriller that used to make no excuses regarding where it came from and what it stood for.

    4) "Like it or not, the world is full of mobile comms devices. For Bond not to have any would be bizarre", you said. Well, that would be Bond to a tee. The world changes, Bond does not. He likes to do things the old way (Love SF for that, really do).

    5) "Do you hate it when Q turns up in LTK out of interest?" - I do, I really do hate it. Always thought it was ridiculous, to say the least.

    6) "What you're complaining about so tiresomely" - I am not. I made one or two commentaries about it. Chill.

    7) On a final note, I get it that Bond is influenced by other franchises throughout the times. And I'm very much appreciative of Craig's era. I am, after all, his fan as Bond, as I was of Dalton and Brosnan before him. I wished I lived throughout Connery's and Moore's eras. But we have to get out of this Bourne/24h/gritty stuff and find our own niche. And that's in espionage and escapism, exoticism and class, not in earpieces, spy teams, fellow agents, ... Other spy/action franchises are all about that. Bond is different, and the bits I love about the recent things are expressions of this. The few other bits that indulge these team dynamics I'm critical of, I don't find them particularly alluring. Yes, I don't like to know about other 00s. That was the mythos. Not knowing of them. It seems we live in a mythos-destructive fase, where remakes are done endlessly to break apart well established things. There's no true innovation. And there's no respect for the past.

    That being said, good talk @mtm ;)
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Univex wrote: »
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.

    Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.

    The mythos and the so called formula had Bond going through several stages of prep to go on a mission. That's where the Mi6 employees came in. It was, simply put, marvellous. You could change the story, the themes, but not Bond, and not those stages of prep. The "let's kill the formula", "let's shake things up" crowed ruined that, probably for good.

    Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.

    I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Fiennes as M. And the rest of the cast. Hey, wanna make them go in the field? Then have Mallory show his old army skills alongside Bond in an adventure to clear up some old trouble of his. At least you'd have someone the caliber of Fiennes having some repertoire with Bond, as they often did in the books. Take Moonraker and their bridge game at Blades. Oh, so many lost opportunities...

    +1
  • Posts: 784
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond lives in the 21st century though, who has a live-in maid? Apart from very rich people? I tend to think it would actually make him look incapable of looking after himself.

    Agreed, I feel like it just doesn't work in 2020.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,397
    If it's the case that Bond has to be in constant communication with the team then it's morphed into something I am not interested in any longer. No issues, no regrets, no problems with people who enjoy the new films and who enjoy those elements. If that's the way it it is going to be from here on, so be it. But this is a forum for us to discuss our involvement with Bond, right?

    But have you not noticed how they find lots of ways for Bond to be out of constant communication with MI6 in these films?
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 5,654
    mtm wrote: »
    If it's the case that Bond has to be in constant communication with the team then it's morphed into something I am not interested in any longer. No issues, no regrets, no problems with people who enjoy the new films and who enjoy those elements. If that's the way it it is going to be from here on, so be it. But this is a forum for us to discuss our involvement with Bond, right?

    But have you not noticed how they find lots of ways for Bond to be out of constant communication with MI6 in these films?

    That should be established in the beginning of the adventure, and apart from the ocasional useful report, Bond should be left to his own devices. But I guess that would simply rely too much on the writer's imagination.

    I love CR, but the overuse of handhelds is annoying as hell. Not to mention they all put a very ugly timestamp on the film. Not the kind a DBS from 2006 puts, mind you, but the sort of overused reference that is clearly there just to move along the narrative. Plain poor writing.

    Yes, Bond is now in the 21st century, but the best thing about Bond is his character, which is timeless, and referencial to an old school of thought that harkens back to the Empire days. And before you say it, no, I'm not saying he is imperialistic. But the romantic notions of it, such as the sun rising and setting over the empire and so on, are pretty much there in Fleming's novels. St. George vs the Dragon, Bond as an example of British fortitude, a relic, an old dog, are all brilliant ways to describe the character (almost all from the Craig films, btw). Sure, Mi6 gives him earphones, but he dips them in champagne and throws them aback with swagger. That's the "Bondian" way. There's another fan made word for ya ;)

    And an interesting point: as the world relies in electronics and communications so much these days, wouldn't be intelligent for 00s to use analog, mechanical, untraceable stuff? A lighter that is a gun, a tie as a garrote, ... Have the analysts do their thing, give Bond their intel and then instruct him to go in alone, and not have him go rogue by allergenic process to the service every single time.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,397
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.

    Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.

    No it's definitely the term made up by Bond fans that's more annoying.

    Univex wrote: »
    Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.

    I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.

    How did you not get that in Spectre and Skyfall? They went out of their way to give you that, the gang you find so offensive actually ensured that Bond couldn't be traced by his smart blood as he went to Blofeld's lair. Like it or not, the world is full of mobile comms devices. For Bond not to have any would be bizarre.
    What you're complaining about so tiresomely is a, what, two minute scene of them driving through a tunnel in London at the end of Spectre, from where Bond is rapidly removed and left... what's that? On his own and left to his own devices?

    Do you hate it when Q turns up in LTK out of interest?

    So, let's see if I can answer to all of that, shall we? ;)

    1) If you find a term made up by Bond fans annoying, then you should revise your status in the forums, you see, fans coining terms to show their liking of disliking of their fandom is normal. And quite fun. "brothergate"; the 3 letter film (LTK, QOS,...);... are all examples of fans being fans. Besides, the term "Scooby Gang" is used by multiple fans in multiple forums, that can't be an outlier, your opinion, on the other hand, is, and there's no problem with that, as each of us has theirs.

    By that logic if you don't like something in a Bond film you should also leave this forum as it's for fans of Bond films.
    It's quite possible, you see, to strongly dislike one aspect of something whilst not disliking every example of it. So you're guilty a logical fallacy there I'm afraid.
    Univex wrote: »
    2)SF's beginning was all about the earpiece and the team dynamic, I get that. But the single best scene of all the film (and I love the film, so I'm exaggerating here) is when Bond throws his earpiece into the champagne glass. I wanted to cheer. I have no complains about SF, as it gave me that escapism sense I was talking about for the most part. Specially in Silva's island, where he depended on a tiny radio alone. SP on the other hand had a car chase interrupted by Moneypenny's nightly activities, Q showing up in Austria, A secretary of the head of intelligence meeting with a pubescent Quartermaster and said head of intelligence to conspire to help their buddy Bond.

    SP also started with Bond completely without backup, featured him going to Rome again completely on his own (yes he phones Moneypenny for some help with some filling), then Austria completely on his own. Q turns up, gives him some technical help with. a clue (as he gets help from Q in many films- FYEO springs to mind). From there he goes to Tangier and doesn't need to be in touch with MI6, then travels to Blofeld's crater at which point in the film we see M deciding that he must be completely on his own. After he deals with Blofeld completely on his own he returns to London and meets with MI6 (much like at this point in the film he does so in OHMSS, for example) and they agree on a plan to end the problem. He is then captured and taken to the derelict MI6 building where he has to escape completely on his own. From there he and Madeline take down Blofeld. M and the police turn up after he has taken down Blofeld completely on his own.

    Compare that to something like From Russia With Love where he spends most of his mission with the MI6 chief in Turkey and sends constant communication back to London to keep them abreast of his progress, including recordings of his conversations. And after that he's helped by other officers from Station I and arranges to meet another MI6 agent on the train home.
    Univex wrote: »
    3) Most films since CR skipped formulaic elements, even those elements that worked in order to make a Bond film a unique and incomparable experience. Mostly to a good effect, but the "anti formula" aspect gets it wrong because they think a hardcore Bond like Craig can't be put into it. The truth is, you could have a Connery tough Bond, a Moore light Bond, a Dalton serious Bond, all inside that formula of events. They all worked. The so called formula was never the problem. Their take on Bond was. The problem was always feeling ashamed of a hardcore Spy thriller that used to make no excuses regarding where it came from and what it stood for.


    I find this talk of formula extremely tiresome. I can't think of a Bond film which chucks out the sacred 'formula' more than something like Live and Let Die or OHMSS, but fans who go on about it don't seem to be able to see that. Old = good and New = bad.
    Univex wrote: »
    4) "Like it or not, the world is full of mobile comms devices. For Bond not to have any would be bizarre", you said. Well, that would be Bond to a tee. The world changes, Bond does not. He likes to do things the old way (Love SF for that, really do).

    And that's what you see in pretty much all of Craig's films. Yes, he's able to use a phone when he needs to, what is the problem exactly?
    Univex wrote: »
    5) "Do you hate it when Q turns up in LTK out of interest?" - I do, I really do hate it. Always thought it was ridiculous, to say the least.


    Well at least you're consistent then.
    Univex wrote: »
    6) "What you're complaining about so tiresomely" - I am not. I made one or two commentaries about it. Chill.

    'Tiresome' does not equal 'incessant'. What is tiresome and what isn't is rather subjective, I'm afraid. I, and others, find the 'Scooby Gang' complaint tiresome.
    Univex wrote: »
    7) On a final note, I get it that Bond is influenced by other franchises throughout the times. And I'm very much appreciative of Craig's era. I am, after all, his fan as Bond, as I was of Dalton and Brosnan before him. I wished I lived throughout Connery's and Moore's eras. But we have to get out of this Bourne/24h/gritty stuff and find our own niche. And that's in espionage and escapism, exoticism and class, not in earpieces, spy teams, fellow agents, ... Other spy/action franchises are all about that. Bond is different, and the bits I love about the recent things are expressions of this. The few other bits that indulge these team dynamics I'm critical of, I don't find them particularly alluring. Yes, I don't like to know about other 00s. That was the mythos. Not knowing of them. It seems we live in a mythos-destructive fase, where remakes are done endlessly to break apart well established things. There's no true innovation. And there's no respect for the past.

    I find it bizarre that anyone would watch these and find no respect for the past in them.

    What was the first Bond where he wore an earpiece? Living Daylights? They put a phone in his Bentley in the second film and he carried a pager. He's got a homing device in his shoe in Goldfinger and swallows a tracking device in Thunderball.
    Is the main complaint that he uses modern communications technology occasionally? Is that you don't like him working for a Government security service that has other personnel? I'm trying to define what the problem is.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 5,654
    For most of a fairly suitable answer to your latest post, @mtm, please refer to my post above it, particularly my point in bold.

    Listen, it's an interesting discussion, no need to get all rallied up. I, for the most, am not discontent with the way they've handled things so far in the Craig era. Not that much, anyway. I don't like it that the Mi6 employees have that much of antenna time and protagonism. And I find that the writing of Bond films has been consistently poor and it relies too much on communication gimmicks. All my opinion, of course, as fallacious as it can be, in you own wording.

    And you are absolutely right, "'Tiresome' does not equal 'incessant'". You surely are incessant, but not tiresome. See? That was a compliment ;) And yes, I 'm perfectly aware we've had this conversation before. No need to repeat ourselves in that regard. Cheers
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,397
    Univex wrote: »
    For most of a fairly suitable answer to your latest post, @mtm, please refer to my post above it, particularly my point in bold.

    Well no, it doesn't contain answers to those, that was my point and why I was replying to it. If you can't reply to those points then that's fine, I've proven mine and shown where you're wrong.
    Univex wrote: »
    Listen, it's an interesting discussion, no need to get all rallied up.

    I'm not sure what 'rallied up' means, but if you're trying to infer I'm angry or something then that's rather a deflection. I think it's interesting too.
    Univex wrote: »
    I, for the most, am not discontent with the way they've handled things so far in the Craig era. Not that much, anyway. I don't like it that the Mi6 employees have that much of antenna time and protagonism. And I find that the writing of Bond films has been consistently poor and it relies too much on communication gimmicks. All my opinion, of course, as fallacious as it can be, in you own wording.

    So it is that you don't like them using phones then? Do you include something like FRWL in this, in that he's in communication with HQ and working with MI6 personnel?
    I think this is something rather fundemental about Bond: he's not on his own ever, he's part of a Government service and work with and talks to his superiors and colleagues. I think if that's not an idea you like then perhaps James Bond actually can't ever satisfy you.


  • edited April 2020 Posts: 5,654
    I was wrong. I do find your response dynamics to be a bit tiresome, and I can't answer to all your points one by one like you so very often do. I can't, because I use the forums for escapism, as I have a demanding job in the healthcare branch and I have many people to attend to. Right now, I have no time or energy for this. Trust me, I'd love to further extend my points. But I won't. Ad nauseam rhetorics are not my thing, not since the debate club.

    And fishing for every film reference to counter your own would be stuff for a über-geeky-fan. "Q did this here but he did that there" or "In SF this but in SP that" just isn't the way I like spending the little time I usually spend in the forums. Mind you, it's fair game, just not my game. Do carry on.

    That being said, as I can't reply to every point you make, I'll retreat my presence in the discussion. I do think I've made my point, btw.

    Oh, and I didn't imply that you are angry, but I did imply that this point by point technique is aggressive. I suppose some other members will agree. Sometimes it's rather organised and simple to follow, other times it's just napalm in a forum's page.

    For the last time: I have no love for the Mi6 team stuff, I have no love for the overuse of info tech gismos and cell phones in Bond films, I have no love for poor writing and narrative shortcuts. This was my point. I won't discuss it sine die. As you said, at least I am consistent.

    And I've praised your opinions and works many times over for you to know I'm not aggressive or abusive or angry. So I hope we can leave it at that.

    I've got a life to get to. Cheerio.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,282
    Univex wrote: »
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.

    Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.

    The mythos and the so called formula had Bond going through several stages of prep to go on a mission. That's where the Mi6 employees came in. It was, simply put, marvellous. You could change the story, the themes, but not Bond, and not those stages of prep. The "let's kill the formula", "let's shake things up" crowed ruined that, probably for good.

    Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.

    I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Fiennes as M. And the rest of the cast. Hey, wanna make them go in the field? Then have Mallory show his old army skills alongside Bond in an adventure to clear up some old trouble of his. At least you'd have someone the caliber of Fiennes having some repertoire with Bond, as they often did in the books. Take Moonraker and their bridge game at Blades. Oh, so many lost opportunities...

    I have no problem with the amount of screen time provided to Moneypenny, Q, and M. In fact, I did not find it at all troublesome in SP (probably because the film had more serious issues).

    I do think we have all these things not because of MI films, but because it is the 21st century, and espionage is different. So are terrorist networks and crime syndicates. I think Bond films have done a good job of placing MI6 (and its struggles) within the shifting paradigms of the 21st century. Where they struggled in SP is doing the same with the villains. CR, QoS, and SF did a much better job of demonstrating that the villains are actually out in the open, walkign among us, posing as people they aren't, outsourcing their evil deeds to people like Patrice.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,036
    About Dalton, the version I had heard is that, around 93-94, MGM had appointed John Calley as the head of United Artists. Calley was the one who argued against getting Dalton back, because of the hiatus, the so-so box office for TLD, and LTK flopping in the US. The Broccoli family stood by Dalton, but Calley was adamant that they couldn't take the risk for the franchise to have three disappointing results in a row, and he got the upper hand.

    The Broccolis, who were in very good terms with Dalton, allowed him to save face by making the announcement that he was leaving the part on his own. And, in 1996, Dalton was even a pallbearer at Cubby's funeral. That may also explain why they didn't care that much about Brosnan. It wasn't really his fault, it's just that he was the only time the studio forced them to pick a new actor (even if they had already picked him a decade earlier).

    Also, remember that if Dalton had stayed for one more film, Goldeneye may have not been directed by Martin Campbell, who didn't like his take on Bond.

    *straying slightly offtopic here*
    Read this about Dalton in SOME KIND OF HERO. John Glen, Richard Maibaum, and Maurice Binder also were asked to leave in 1991, even if there was a a third Dalton Bond. Binder died in 1991. There were three directors considered by Cubby, Ted Kotcheff, George Pan Cosmatos, and John Landis.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Wasn't Michael Canton-Jones also considered for the director's chair?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,471
    Univex wrote: »
    The_Return wrote: »
    In my honest opinion "Scooby gang" is the single most annoying, stupidest term ever made up by Bond fans.

    Probably because it's the single most annoying, stupidest dynamic Bond writers have come up with.

    The mythos and the so called formula had Bond going through several stages of prep to go on a mission. That's where the Mi6 employees came in. It was, simply put, marvellous. You could change the story, the themes, but not Bond, and not those stages of prep. The "let's kill the formula", "let's shake things up" crowed ruined that, probably for good.

    Now, we have Bond with ear devices, Moneypenny's fridge talk, Q-mini portable labs, the "gang" in a car, ... Undeniably influenced by the MI films.

    I miss seeing Bond, alone, to his own devices, in a remote part of the world, preferably for most of the film, soaking in the culture and the escapism.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Fiennes as M. And the rest of the cast. Hey, wanna make them go in the field? Then have Mallory show his old army skills alongside Bond in an adventure to clear up some old trouble of his. At least you'd have someone the caliber of Fiennes having some repertoire with Bond, as they often did in the books. Take Moonraker and their bridge game at Blades. Oh, so many lost opportunities...

    I agree that the "teamwork" trope has become an annoyance and needs to go.

    But I really don't want to see M--any M--in the field again. It is a disservice to the character.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    Since Craig's Bond is more of a 'Buddy Agent' and considering how minimalistic SP's Finale was, it might have worked better if his only Buddy in the Finale was M....a Sparse Population, would have helped more in achieving Bond's Atmospheric feel....the density of those characters in SP's finale made it somewhat Muddled & visibly Contrived. Thankfully, from what we've seen from NTTD's trailer....that eerie atmosphere is set to return. E.g-Safin Visiting the Cabin, The Norway Sequence, The Visit to Safin's Lair & the Ethereal look of the Lair, etc.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 2,404
    On the subject of VOD, Universal's Trolls World Tour has earned $100 million from digital rental fees. They're talking of releasing films theatrically and digitally at the same time when cinemas reopen. Of course, there is still the 90 day window between theatrical and home release. The film industry is changing. Gross of theatrical releases are split evenly between between studio and cinemas, Universal will keep about 80% of the digital take for Trolls World Tour.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 712
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Since Craig's Bond is more of a 'Buddy Agent' and considering how minimalistic SP's Finale was, it might have worked better if his only Buddy in the Finale was M....a Sparse Population, would have helped more in achieving Bond's Atmospheric feel....the density of those characters in SP's finale made it somewhat Muddled & visibly Contrived. Thankfully, from what we've seen from NTTD's trailer....that eerie atmosphere is set to return. E.g-Safin Visiting the Cabin, The Norway Sequence, The Visit to Safin's Lair & the Ethereal look of the Lair, etc.

    I am probably being a huge curmudgeon, but am I the only one who looks at the NTTD trailer and just sees quite run of the mill action and cinematography? Genuinely, apart from it being a Bond film, and so far more likely for me to give it the benefit of the doubt, I just don't see anything special about any of the shots or snippets we are shown...

    I think it looks dull. And, coupled with the doubling down on everything SP did, really doesn't fill me with any confidence whatsoever.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Since Craig's Bond is more of a 'Buddy Agent' and considering how minimalistic SP's Finale was, it might have worked better if his only Buddy in the Finale was M....a Sparse Population, would have helped more in achieving Bond's Atmospheric feel....the density of those characters in SP's finale made it somewhat Muddled & visibly Contrived. Thankfully, from what we've seen from NTTD's trailer....that eerie atmosphere is set to return. E.g-Safin Visiting the Cabin, The Norway Sequence, The Visit to Safin's Lair & the Ethereal look of the Lair, etc.

    I am probably being a huge curmudgeon, but am I the only one who looks at the NTTD trailer and just sees quite run of the mill action and cinematography? Genuinely, apart from it being a Bond film, and so far more likely for me to give it the benefit of the doubt, I just don't see anything special about any of the shots or snippets we are shown...

    I think it looks dull. And, coupled with the doubling down on everything SP did, really doesn't fill me with any confidence whatsoever.

    Yeah, None of us can tell what to really expect from NTTD. But one thing that's Certain is, it's surely going to be better than SP....so that's a huge step forward. And it might sound minor, but another reason my interest in NTTD went a notch higher, is Zimmer's Involvement.
  • Posts: 553
    *straying slightly offtopic here*
    Read this about Dalton in SOME KIND OF HERO. John Glen, Richard Maibaum, and Maurice Binder also were asked to leave in 1991, even if there was a a third Dalton Bond. Binder died in 1991. There were three directors considered by Cubby, Ted Kotcheff, George Pan Cosmatos, and John Landis.

    I'm surprised they were even considering that scumbag Landis after the TWILIGHT ZONE debacle.

    Dalton and Cosmatos ended up working together on CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: THE DISCOVERY (Cosmatos was fired and Dalton quit).
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 862
    On the subject of VOD, Universal's Trolls World Tour has earned $100 million from digital rental fees. They're talking of releasing films theatrically and digitally at the same time when cinemas reopen. Of course, there is still the 90 day window between theatrical and home release. The film industry is changing. Gross of theatrical releases are split evenly between between studio and cinemas, Universal will keep about 80% of the digital take for Trolls World Tour.

    Universal Just Told the World That Theaters Are No Longer the Priority

    https://www.indiewire.com/2020/04/universal-vod-trolls-world-tour-theaters-1202227804/

  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    edited April 2020 Posts: 2,941
    Oscars:
    COVID-19 UPDATE
    For the health and safety of our staff, members and guests around the world, the Academy has postponed all screenings, events, tours, public programs and public access to our library and archive.

    We appreciate your understanding, support and cooperation at this time. We look forward to welcoming everyone back when it is safe to do so.

    The Academy

    https://www.oscars.org/about/covid-19-update


    Oscars Will Consider Films That Didn’t Play in Theaters as Part of New Academy Rules

    https://variety.com/2020/film/awards/new-oscar-rules-movies-not-in-theaters-1234591702/
Sign In or Register to comment.