No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

17747757777797801211

Comments

  • belleswannbelleswann britain
    Posts: 34
    It is but from Russia with love was great and quantum wasn't even Daniel Craig and the people involved talk of what a mess it was to make which they don't really do with the others.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,941
    Today it's Ana de Armas 32nd birthday. Wohoo!!

    kyR172Z.jpg
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    She doesn't look like 32 😳
    Still Happy birthday Ana
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,941
    She doesn't look like 32 😳
    Still Happy birthday Ana

    Photoshop/airbrush/studio lightning maybe since it's a photoshoot. Still, she's damn gorgeous
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited April 2020 Posts: 1,756
    TripAces wrote: »
    I can live with, and even like, the flaws of previous Bond films if they are made with the right intentions. If it's a moment of naffness, or it's outdated, or a camp tone etc. then I don't mind. But I think with Craig's films that they genuinely believe they are making better films than what came during the pre-Craig era. There's a certain smugness, as if they are being made by people who don't like James Bond films. (I don't get this with CR - i think that one is incredible).

    Consider the moment in SF when Q makes the exploding pen quip. Ok, it's quite funny I suppose. But it would have been even funnier, and far less smug, if they had included a moment later in the film where Bond could have done with an exploding pen - such as when he's in the tube tunnel and can't get through the door with the train coming; "You know what I could do with now Q? An exploding pen." - that sort of thing.

    I think that by giving all the power over to the director, there is far too much emphasis on a single vision that never used to be the case when Broccoli and Saltzman would come up with ideas for set pieces etc. I genuinely don't believe for one second that Forster or Mendes are fans of James Bond, or have any appreciation of the history or what fans might like.

    I say all this knowing that evolution is inevitable and necessary, and that you don't need die hard fans of the franchise directing to make good films (and might even be counter productive). I am just giving my thoughts.

    I still have hopes for NTTD of course, and everyone involved in production is making the right noises, but personally I don't really like where it seems they are taking it and for the first time ever I am not looking forward to seeing what its like.

    $1.2B at the box office. I think Mendes knew Bond pretty damn well and knew what Bond fans might like.

    How much these films make at the box office doesn't really mean they can't learn anything from critique. And the majority of the people watching them just want a good entertaining flick. Bond guarantees an instant box office hit. Skyfall hit the mark in every regard, in terms of creating a slam-dunk of a blockbuster. Spectre had the goodwill from Skyfall. And I think NTTD will still reep Skyfall's goodwill to an extent. I'm really curious, if NTTD released in April, how well it would have done.

  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 280
    TripAces wrote: »
    I can live with, and even like, the flaws of previous Bond films if they are made with the right intentions. If it's a moment of naffness, or it's outdated, or a camp tone etc. then I don't mind. But I think with Craig's films that they genuinely believe they are making better films than what came during the pre-Craig era. There's a certain smugness, as if they are being made by people who don't like James Bond films. (I don't get this with CR - i think that one is incredible).

    Consider the moment in SF when Q makes the exploding pen quip. Ok, it's quite funny I suppose. But it would have been even funnier, and far less smug, if they had included a moment later in the film where Bond could have done with an exploding pen - such as when he's in the tube tunnel and can't get through the door with the train coming; "You know what I could do with now Q? An exploding pen." - that sort of thing.

    I think that by giving all the power over to the director, there is far too much emphasis on a single vision that never used to be the case when Broccoli and Saltzman would come up with ideas for set pieces etc. I genuinely don't believe for one second that Forster or Mendes are fans of James Bond, or have any appreciation of the history or what fans might like.

    I say all this knowing that evolution is inevitable and necessary, and that you don't need die hard fans of the franchise directing to make good films (and might even be counter productive). I am just giving my thoughts.

    I still have hopes for NTTD of course, and everyone involved in production is making the right noises, but personally I don't really like where it seems they are taking it and for the first time ever I am not looking forward to seeing what its like.

    $1.2B at the box office. I think Mendes knew Bond pretty damn well and knew what Bond fans might like.

    How much these films make at the box office doesn't really mean they can't learn anything from critique. And the majority of the people watching them just want a good entertaining flick. Bond guarantees an instant box office hit. Skyfall hit the mark in every regard, in terms of creating a slam-dunk of a blockbuster. Spectre had the goodwill from Skyfall. And I think NTTD will still reep Skyfall's goodwill to an extent. I'm really curious, if NTTD released in April, how well it would have done.

    I'm somewhat curious too, especially as it would've been the first Bond film not released in November/December since LTK.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,284
    Denbigh wrote: »
    In my eyes, the issue with Spectre wasn't the ideas, it was the execution of those ideas. I think that Quantum of Solace was also in same boat.

    I'm of the other mindset. I think Mendes did the best that he could with the material. He was not happy with the script, expressed this, brought in people to try to fix it, was pinned down to the November 2015 release date, needed more time, went into production without the script finished. And it is what it is. He directed the hell out of it. It still gave us the greatest opening minutes of a Bond film and one of the greatest fight sequences (Bond vs Hinx).

  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 699
    Spectre had such great talents at hand in front and behind the camera. The script was just no good in many parts and it ruined the film ... if it would have been better even the boring car chase I would not mind. To me, it‘s all down to brothergate, that stuipid MI6 building crap and the whole third act.

    I did my own cut of it and removed a lot from it and it‘s about 60 minutes long. I will watch this the night before I see NTTD but I can‘t stand the whole film anymore - the videogame-like escape and all the above mentioned crap. Being a huge fan of the Craig era this film is the absolute low for me. I mean Moonraker (the film) is junk food but at least it is FUN! SP is everything and nothing yet has some strong secenes worth re-watching but not the whole film.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 713
    TripAces wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    In my eyes, the issue with Spectre wasn't the ideas, it was the execution of those ideas. I think that Quantum of Solace was also in same boat.

    I'm of the other mindset. I think Mendes did the best that he could with the material. He was not happy with the script, expressed this, brought in people to try to fix it, was pinned down to the November 2015 release date, needed more time, went into production without the script finished. And it is what it is. He directed the hell out of it. It still gave us the greatest opening minutes of a Bond film and one of the greatest fight sequences (Bond vs Hinx).

    I'd say that's a matter of opinion but fair enough.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 713
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    Spectre had such great talents at hand in front and behind the camera. The script was just no good in many parts and it ruined the film ... if it would have been better even the boring car chase I would not mind. To me, it‘s all down to brothergate, that stuipid MI6 building crap and the whole third act.

    I did my own cut of it and removed a lot from it and it‘s about 60 minutes long. I will watch this the night before I see NTTD but I can‘t stand the whole film anymore - the videogame-like escape and all the above mentioned crap. Being a huge fan of the Craig era this film is the absolute low for me. I mean Moonraker (the film) is junk food but at least it is FUN! SP is everything and nothing yet has some strong secenes worth re-watching but not the whole film.

    When you recut it did you leave any coherence, or was it just your own favourite scenes strung together? Basically, does your 60 minute edit work as a coherent piece of drama? If so, any chance of seeing it?
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,845
    SP simply needed an Original Villain like Silva....and all it's problems won't exist today.
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 3,133
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8276207/BAZ-BAMIGBOYE-Jodie-Cromer-sweet-playing-Miss-Honey-Matilda.html

    Baz's sources saying that the film, if need be, may be delayed to 2021 - ruling out a straight to home launch for now.

    But of course that doesn't take into account the financial question of how quickly MGM's investors and promotional partners want their money back from NTTD, even if it's less...and more importantly, if November release doesn't happen if cinemas are closed still, will the whole exhibition sector be the same...
  • Posts: 2,534
    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. I miss the part in bold too.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,413
    I can live with, and even like, the flaws of previous Bond films if they are made with the right intentions. If it's a moment of naffness, or it's outdated, or a camp tone etc. then I don't mind. But I think with Craig's films that they genuinely believe they are making better films than what came during the pre-Craig era. There's a certain smugness, as if they are being made by people who don't like James Bond films. (I don't get this with CR - i think that one is incredible).

    That's all in your head a bit I think.
    Consider the moment in SF when Q makes the exploding pen quip. Ok, it's quite funny I suppose. But it would have been even funnier, and far less smug, if..

    the exploding pen being a reference to GoldenEye of course, the film in which Bond is called a 'sexist misogynist dinosaur' by his boss, a comment on the previous films. :)
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,941
    Craig on the cover of Train magazine

    RKqHT56.jpg

    Ana's birthday bash

    NZoB3RL.jpg
    mGQjshb.jpg
    kbKUkis.jpg
    2aD2WCC.jpg

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 713
    mtm wrote: »
    I can live with, and even like, the flaws of previous Bond films if they are made with the right intentions. If it's a moment of naffness, or it's outdated, or a camp tone etc. then I don't mind. But I think with Craig's films that they genuinely believe they are making better films than what came during the pre-Craig era. There's a certain smugness, as if they are being made by people who don't like James Bond films. (I don't get this with CR - i think that one is incredible).

    That's all in your head a bit I think.
    Consider the moment in SF when Q makes the exploding pen quip. Ok, it's quite funny I suppose. But it would have been even funnier, and far less smug, if..

    the exploding pen being a reference to GoldenEye of course, the film in which Bond is called a 'sexist misogynist dinosaur' by his boss, a comment on the previous films. :)

    Of course it's all in my head. All of this is about perception, including your opinions. I do think though that the total reluctance to use the Bond theme, in any of Craig's films, is based in part on an embarrassment at the conventions of Bond.

    If SP was about getting back to the fun of Bond, why not include the theme? I can say hands down that had the plane bursting through the shed been accompanied by the theme then it would have been a far better sequence. The climax in the speedboat, absolute rubbish that it is, would have had far more punch had the theme been blasting out. I can honestly say I wouldn't hate the film half as much had there been moments I could actually enjoy in it.

    The same goes for the lack of Gunbarrel. Mendes said that it didn't feel right to have the Gunbarrel at the start of SF because it clashed with the opening shot of Bond in the hallway. The solution to this dilemma would be to change the opening shot, or design the sequence with the Gunbarrel in mind. Not to just throw one of the most iconic elements out of the window for the third film in a row.

    As for the exploding pen line being a reference to previous films. I know that. But there was due to be a line in TWINE where M says something like 'the world isn't full of bad guys in hollowed out volcanoes, staffed by big breaths girls in bikinis, you know'. Or something like that, anyway. From my memory it is still included in Benson's novelisation. They did, however, wisely take it out of the finished film and didnt attempt to piss on the legacy that they were building on top of.

    I also remember Martin Campbell laughing on the set of CR that DAD's climax took place on a plummeting plane and how ridiculous it was. Well, Martin, your film ends in a sinking house. CR is hardly Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Yes, CR is better than DAD (goes without saying) but is there a need to so publicly distance yourself from something, especially if you weren't the one responsible for making it. It's discourteous to fellow professionals.

    Everyone time one of the female actors says that 'this time the women are real characters and not just arm candy' or words to that effect, they are throwing shade at every other Bond girl in history. (I am aware that they have all said that throughout the production history of every film).

    I think that it is possible to be reflexive, and poke fun at yourself. The films have always done that. I do think that some of the creative moves during the Craig era have been a concerted effort to draw a line over the parts of the series from 1962-2002 that they are embarrassed about.

    Craig once said that Austin Powers had ruined that type of camp Bond film and that it couldn't be done again. Really? One of the reasons Austin Powers is crushingly unfunny is because all of the gags aimed at Bond had already been dealt with in the films themselves. They were just repeating what the EON had already done since Dr No.

    What I am trying to say is that you can poke fun at yourself and evolve without trashing your legacy and shaming everyone involved.

    Anyway, apologies for the long post.

    Also, it might seem like a rant and that I am angry, but I'm not. Just enjoying the debate.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,413
    mtm wrote: »
    I can live with, and even like, the flaws of previous Bond films if they are made with the right intentions. If it's a moment of naffness, or it's outdated, or a camp tone etc. then I don't mind. But I think with Craig's films that they genuinely believe they are making better films than what came during the pre-Craig era. There's a certain smugness, as if they are being made by people who don't like James Bond films. (I don't get this with CR - i think that one is incredible).

    That's all in your head a bit I think.
    Consider the moment in SF when Q makes the exploding pen quip. Ok, it's quite funny I suppose. But it would have been even funnier, and far less smug, if..

    the exploding pen being a reference to GoldenEye of course, the film in which Bond is called a 'sexist misogynist dinosaur' by his boss, a comment on the previous films. :)

    Of course it's all in my head. All of this is about perception, including your opinions. I do think though that the total reluctance to use the Bond theme, in any of Craig's films, is based in part on an embarrassment at the conventions of Bond.

    But then John Barry did much the same from about Moonraker onwards. If you actually watch the opening of Spectre you'll notice the Bond theme gets quoted pretty much every time Bond does anything. It actually gets a bit much!

    If SP was about getting back to the fun of Bond, why not include the theme?

    It does.
    As for the exploding pen line being a reference to previous films. I know that. But there was due to be a line in TWINE where M says something like 'the world isn't full of bad guys in hollowed out volcanoes, staffed by big breaths girls in bikinis, you know'. Or something like that, anyway. From my memory it is still included in Benson's novelisation. They did, however, wisely take it out of the finished film and didnt attempt to piss on the legacy that they were building on top of.

    Yes I was going to mention that. The writer thought it was a good idea and they even filmed it. So several people including the writer and director did try and 'piss on it', others thought it was a bit much. Ideas get thrown out all of the time. To be honest I don't think the lines are comparable: that volcano one is a terrible idea. Mentioning an exploding pen is hardly turning to the audience and saying 'Roger Moore was shit, wasn't he!'.
    I also remember Martin Campbell laughing on the set of CR that DAD's climax took place on a plummeting plane and how ridiculous it was. Well, Martin, your film ends in a sinking house. CR is hardly Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Yes, CR is better than DAD (goes without saying) but is there a need to so publicly distance yourself from something, especially if you weren't the one responsible for making it. It's discourteous to fellow professionals.

    Don't watch his films then. I'm not sure what you're looking for here? An apology from him? Did his not being keen on DAD make CR worse? By which I mean the film is the important thing. To me, anyway.
    Everyone time one of the female actors says that 'this time the women are real characters and not just arm candy' or words to that effect, they are throwing shade at every other Bond girl in history. (I am aware that they have all said that throughout the production history of every film).

    Indeed. It's just publicity. Don't take it personally, just enjoy the films.

    I think people who get upset about these things, about Craig joking about slashing his wrists or whatever, are a bit too emotionally involved in these things. We don't know these people, you shouldn't feel responsible for them or let down by them- they're nothing to do with us. They just make some products we enjoy. Their actions could only put me off the films they make if they turned out to be terrible racists or secretly funding child abuse or something. One of them saying how he wasn't keen on the ending to one of the films is neither here nor there to me. It's certainly not any sort of betrayal to me, he's welcome to have his opinions.
    I see a bit of this in all of these fans who say they know that dear Cary has definitely made the best Bond film ever and he's so dishy and it's great. I can just imagine them crashing really hard when they finally see NTTD and it has some faults.
    What I am trying to say is that you can poke fun at yourself and evolve without trashing your legacy and shaming everyone involved.

    Indeed, and they do that.

    I don't think you're angry by the way, nothing wrong with replying. I'm not angry either: I know folks get oddly abusive if anyone dares to reply to a conversation more than once around here! :)
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 713
    I am not upset about any of this. Literally none of it bothers me at all. It's a bit rich to chide me for commenting on films I enjoy on a space dedicated for that purpose. It's not like I am in Speakers Corner on a milk crate!

    I am just giving evidence for a turn during Craig's era towards demonstrating embarrassment towards everything pre-Craig.

    And yes, there is evidence of it happening prior to Craig. Maybe, on reflection, it is when Wilson and Barbara Broccoli became the principle producers. The '9 years later' caption in GE, that completely discounts the Dalton era always irked me. So maybe it is something EON turned to once Cubby was ill/passed on the reins.

    I know there are snippets of the Bond theme during all of Craig's films. Apologies if I forgot that SP contains the theme more prominently. If so, that's my error (only seen it 3 times).

    Either way, the one thing I'm not budging on is that SP is complete trash and should be thrown in a fire. (don't know how to use emojis so consider this a wink).
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 3,506
    There’s a specific thread for complaining about everything.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,413
    matt_u wrote: »
    There’s a specific thread for complaining about everything.

    I thought that was all of the threads! :D
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 8,413
    I am not upset about any of this. Literally none of it bothers me at all. It's a bit rich to chide me for commenting on films I enjoy on a space dedicated for that purpose. It's not like I am in Speakers Corner on a milk crate!

    I'm not saying you're upset about it but it certainly seems like something you're not keen on? Would that be fair?
    I am just giving evidence for a turn during Craig's era towards demonstrating embarrassment towards everything pre-Craig.

    And yes, there is evidence of it happening prior to Craig. Maybe, on reflection, it is when Wilson and Barbara Broccoli became the principle producers. The '9 years later' caption in GE, that completely discounts the Dalton era always irked me. So maybe it is something EON turned to once Cubby was ill/passed on the reins.

    So you are irked then! :)
    I mean, I don't see a mention of an exploding pen massively showing a huge derisiion to the past when you've got the triumphant return of the DB5 (in both GoldenEye and Skyfall), M's office, Q and Moneypenny and Blofeld being brought back as characters, the LALD-riffing Spectre poster etc. etc. Your evidence isn't very convincing.

    Are you still irked that FYEO threw away all of the fun stuff of the previous couple of Bonds? That his Lotus didn't go underwater so they were obviously telling you that you were wrong to enjoy it?
    Either way, the one thing I'm not budging on is that SP is complete trash and should be thrown in a fire. (don't know how to use emojis so consider this a wink).

    Heh! I don't think it's superb myself, it definitely has issues. But it's not a disaster. And it's a Bond film, we like them, don't we? I'm always surprised at how few people seem to enjoy the movies around here. I don't think any of them are bad.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    mtm wrote: »
    Heh! I don't think it's superb myself, it definitely has issues. But it's not a disaster. And it's a Bond film, we like them, don't we? I'm always surprised at how few people seem to enjoy the movies around here. I don't think any of them are bad.

    You can be critical of things you love. You don't have to like every film to be a fan.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 8,413
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Heh! I don't think it's superb myself, it definitely has issues. But it's not a disaster. And it's a Bond film, we like them, don't we? I'm always surprised at how few people seem to enjoy the movies around here. I don't think any of them are bad.

    You can be critical of things you love. You don't have to like every film to be a fan.

    Critical is fine, I can see the problems with some of them; I don't even think all of the Bonds have been perfectly cast. But a lot of people on here seem to hate large swathes of these films. Look at that Skyfall thread.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Heh! I don't think it's superb myself, it definitely has issues. But it's not a disaster. And it's a Bond film, we like them, don't we? I'm always surprised at how few people seem to enjoy the movies around here. I don't think any of them are bad.

    You can be critical of things you love. You don't have to like every film to be a fan.

    Critical is fine, I can see the problems with some of them. But a lot of people on here seem to hate large swathes of these films. Look at that Skyfall thread.

    Are there no films you heavily dislike? No films that you feel hurt the quality of franchises you love? I say this is as fan of Skyfall.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 8,413
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Heh! I don't think it's superb myself, it definitely has issues. But it's not a disaster. And it's a Bond film, we like them, don't we? I'm always surprised at how few people seem to enjoy the movies around here. I don't think any of them are bad.

    You can be critical of things you love. You don't have to like every film to be a fan.

    Critical is fine, I can see the problems with some of them. But a lot of people on here seem to hate large swathes of these films. Look at that Skyfall thread.

    Are there no films you heavily dislike? No films that you feel hurt the quality of a franchise you love? I say this is as fan of Skyfall.

    No, I think they're all good films. Some are weaker than others, but they're all better than most action adventure films out there.
    There are poor Bond films, but there aren't any (Eon) Bond films that are bad films.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Heh! I don't think it's superb myself, it definitely has issues. But it's not a disaster. And it's a Bond film, we like them, don't we? I'm always surprised at how few people seem to enjoy the movies around here. I don't think any of them are bad.

    You can be critical of things you love. You don't have to like every film to be a fan.

    Critical is fine, I can see the problems with some of them. But a lot of people on here seem to hate large swathes of these films. Look at that Skyfall thread.

    Are there no films you heavily dislike? No films that you feel hurt the quality of a franchise you love? I say this is as fan of Skyfall.

    No, I think they're all good films. Some are weaker than others, but they're all better than most action adventure films out there.
    There are poor Bond films, but there aren't any Bond films that are bad films.

    Yes, but I'm talking more generally. About other films, games, shows etc.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,413
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Heh! I don't think it's superb myself, it definitely has issues. But it's not a disaster. And it's a Bond film, we like them, don't we? I'm always surprised at how few people seem to enjoy the movies around here. I don't think any of them are bad.

    You can be critical of things you love. You don't have to like every film to be a fan.

    Critical is fine, I can see the problems with some of them. But a lot of people on here seem to hate large swathes of these films. Look at that Skyfall thread.

    Are there no films you heavily dislike? No films that you feel hurt the quality of a franchise you love? I say this is as fan of Skyfall.

    No, I think they're all good films. Some are weaker than others, but they're all better than most action adventure films out there.
    There are poor Bond films, but there aren't any Bond films that are bad films.

    Yes, but I'm talking more generally. About other films, games, shows etc.

    What, are there films I don't like? Sure..?

    But Bond is a specific case. These aren't thrown together like the 2,348th episode of Star Trek, they're crafted over several years and I don't think they've messed up yet.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Heh! I don't think it's superb myself, it definitely has issues. But it's not a disaster. And it's a Bond film, we like them, don't we? I'm always surprised at how few people seem to enjoy the movies around here. I don't think any of them are bad.

    You can be critical of things you love. You don't have to like every film to be a fan.

    Critical is fine, I can see the problems with some of them. But a lot of people on here seem to hate large swathes of these films. Look at that Skyfall thread.

    Are there no films you heavily dislike? No films that you feel hurt the quality of a franchise you love? I say this is as fan of Skyfall.

    No, I think they're all good films. Some are weaker than others, but they're all better than most action adventure films out there.
    There are poor Bond films, but there aren't any Bond films that are bad films.

    Yes, but I'm talking more generally. About other films, games, shows etc.

    What, are there films I don't like? Sure..?

    But Bond is a specific case. These aren't thrown together like the 2,348th episode of Star Trek, they're crafted over several years and I don't think they've messed up yet.

    Several of them were rushed production wise. But still, other people feel differently about the quality of certain films, and have arguments to back them up.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 713
    When I said I was 'irked' I didn't mean I was hurt. I just meant I didn't like it and wouldn't have included it if I had the choice.

    I think the comments about FYEO are off. I haven't said things have to stay the same, I have repeatedly made clear what it is I don't like about SP and it has nothing to do with things not being the same - it is entirely to do with the retconning and the backstory. The fact that it is also not very exciting, or funny, or interesting, and is deathly boring compounds the point.

    As for the other elements during the Craig era that celebrate the history, that is true. Those elements are there. But I think that there is a lack of confidence about what style/avenue they should take. That's understandable with such a history. I can't criticise them for that.

    (for the record I don't like SF all that much, don't like the presence of the DB5 etc).

    I do love all of them in their own way however, even if there are individual parts I don't like. Like family members, if that makes sense? That is except for SP, for the reasons I have mentioned in previous posts.

    Anyway, back to the point of the thread (before anyone else gets a bit annoyed we're off topic). The reasons why this is relevant now is that NTTD seems to be doubling down on the elements of SP I didn't like. And, as I have written multiple times, I DON'T MIND! I just made the point that if it does go that way, I won't like it and will have to accept that my love of the cinematic Bond is over (if they continue this path).

Sign In or Register to comment.