No Time to Die production thread

15485495515535541208

Comments

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,497
    duke_togo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I guess I am the type of Bond fan who likes Bond front and center... The gadgets that appeal to me most are grounded in this spy-verse and are weaved into the story: the FRWL briefcase (hidden weaponry, believable), the breathing apparatus in TB (being in the Bahamas), the safe crackers from YOLT and OHMSS I can certainly buy-- (the larger safe-cracker needed in OHMSS is, to me, for a more sophisticated safe), the Walther WA2000 Sniper Rifle and infra-red goggles in TLD... Anything with a tracker system is great...

    I get turned off when the gadgets are a Deus Ex Machina device (and there's an argument to be had that James Bond's car in Casino Royale is loaded with a heart defibrillator; luckily this saves him from a very sticky situation; I have an argument for that, lol).

    It's tough for me to swallow that before each adventure, Q would know exactly what Bond would need at all times, and these gadgets became co-stars.

    If Bond has gadgets, I hope it is grounded in the spy-verse. In our world of advancing technology (where someone could build an explosive device from their I-phone), we are not impressed with toys anymore since the average person could buy these toys at the local shopping mall. Bond's gadgets must be grounded, yet something not yet available for us.

    +1.

    Nail on the head, @peter

    I've always enjoyed the gadgets that could have more than one use in any one scenario more than anything else.

    +2

    Also, why not reuse old gadgets instead of constantly making new ones? I'm all for an update of the briefcase from FRWL. Still the best gadget of the franchise imo.

    The jet pack is my favorite, weird that they didn't use it again...

    A proper sendoff would be Craig's Bond flying off with that jet pack while saying "Never Say Never Again".

    If they would ever start to use "old" gadgets again, half the Bondfandom would complain "TEH IDEAZ"...
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited December 2019 Posts: 4,247
    Bond's watch in NTTD might have a few optional extras installed.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 5,767
    imranbecks wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »

    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.
    *30 years...
    I stand corrected. Still a lot mor than half my lifetime ;-).



    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?
    As long as it´s presented well I don´t mind it. James Bond in the novels likes odtimers, so that fits. What I cannot stand is the seeming necessity to have the DB5 in the films, and when I read that it´s Bond because he drives the DB5. In GF it wasn´t his car, in TB it wasn´t his car, then he drove compeltely different cars for decades without losing any of his mojo. Only in GE was it suddenly his personal car. But in GE it was also all of a sudden very Bond to have surreal action scenes with stunts defying the laws of physics.



    JamesCraig wrote: »
    duke_togo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I guess I am the type of Bond fan who likes Bond front and center... The gadgets that appeal to me most are grounded in this spy-verse and are weaved into the story: the FRWL briefcase (hidden weaponry, believable), the breathing apparatus in TB (being in the Bahamas), the safe crackers from YOLT and OHMSS I can certainly buy-- (the larger safe-cracker needed in OHMSS is, to me, for a more sophisticated safe), the Walther WA2000 Sniper Rifle and infra-red goggles in TLD... Anything with a tracker system is great...

    I get turned off when the gadgets are a Deus Ex Machina device (and there's an argument to be had that James Bond's car in Casino Royale is loaded with a heart defibrillator; luckily this saves him from a very sticky situation; I have an argument for that, lol).

    It's tough for me to swallow that before each adventure, Q would know exactly what Bond would need at all times, and these gadgets became co-stars.

    If Bond has gadgets, I hope it is grounded in the spy-verse. In our world of advancing technology (where someone could build an explosive device from their I-phone), we are not impressed with toys anymore since the average person could buy these toys at the local shopping mall. Bond's gadgets must be grounded, yet something not yet available for us.

    +1.

    Nail on the head, @peter

    I've always enjoyed the gadgets that could have more than one use in any one scenario more than anything else.

    +2

    Also, why not reuse old gadgets instead of constantly making new ones? I'm all for an update of the briefcase from FRWL. Still the best gadget of the franchise imo.

    The jet pack is my favorite, weird that they didn't use it again...

    A proper sendoff would be Craig's Bond flying off with that jet pack while saying "Never Say Never Again".

    If they would ever start to use "old" gadgets again, half the Bondfandom would complain "TEH IDEAZ"...
    I wouldn´t want to have recycled gadgets too much. Already as a kid I found it lame that in OHMSS we see Grant´s watch. Granted, as an adult I understand better the meaning of that scene, but as a kid my only thoughts were, ´they´re trying to be as cool as the old films.´ Logically it would of course make sense for Bond to recycle his gadgets, but gadgets always were the coolest when they gave the impression of being a fresh invention.

    But anyhow, @JamesCraig, what is it with the ´TEH´? It´s supposed to be ´the´, right? Who writes it this way? I feel so teribly unkulturny.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    boldfinger wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »

    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.
    *30 years...
    I stand corrected. Still a lot mor than half my lifetime ;-).



    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?
    As long as it´s presented well I don´t mind it. James Bond in the novels likes odtimers, so that fits. What I cannot stand is the seeming necessity to have the DB5 in the films, and when I read that it´s Bond because he drives the DB5. In GF it wasn´t his car, in TB it wasn´t his car, then he drove compeltely different cars for decades without losing any of his mojo. Only in GE was it suddenly his personal car. But in GE it was also all of a sudden very Bond to have surreal action scenes with stunts defying the laws of physics.



    JamesCraig wrote: »
    duke_togo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I guess I am the type of Bond fan who likes Bond front and center... The gadgets that appeal to me most are grounded in this spy-verse and are weaved into the story: the FRWL briefcase (hidden weaponry, believable), the breathing apparatus in TB (being in the Bahamas), the safe crackers from YOLT and OHMSS I can certainly buy-- (the larger safe-cracker needed in OHMSS is, to me, for a more sophisticated safe), the Walther WA2000 Sniper Rifle and infra-red goggles in TLD... Anything with a tracker system is great...

    I get turned off when the gadgets are a Deus Ex Machina device (and there's an argument to be had that James Bond's car in Casino Royale is loaded with a heart defibrillator; luckily this saves him from a very sticky situation; I have an argument for that, lol).

    It's tough for me to swallow that before each adventure, Q would know exactly what Bond would need at all times, and these gadgets became co-stars.

    If Bond has gadgets, I hope it is grounded in the spy-verse. In our world of advancing technology (where someone could build an explosive device from their I-phone), we are not impressed with toys anymore since the average person could buy these toys at the local shopping mall. Bond's gadgets must be grounded, yet something not yet available for us.

    +1.

    Nail on the head, @peter

    I've always enjoyed the gadgets that could have more than one use in any one scenario more than anything else.

    +2

    Also, why not reuse old gadgets instead of constantly making new ones? I'm all for an update of the briefcase from FRWL. Still the best gadget of the franchise imo.

    The jet pack is my favorite, weird that they didn't use it again...

    A proper sendoff would be Craig's Bond flying off with that jet pack while saying "Never Say Never Again".

    If they would ever start to use "old" gadgets again, half the Bondfandom would complain "TEH IDEAZ"...
    I wouldn´t want to have recycled gadgets too much. Already as a kid I found it lame that in OHMSS we see Grant´s watch. Granted, as an adult I understand better the meaning of that scene, but as a kid my only thoughts were, ´they´re trying to be as cool as the old films.´ Logically it would of course make sense for Bond to recycle his gadgets, but gadgets always were the coolest when they gave the impression of being a fresh invention.

    But anyhow, @JamesCraig, what is it with the ´TEH´? It´s supposed to be ´the´, right? Who writes it this way? I feel so teribly unkulturny.

    I know, I just pretended to troll. It's kind of like lulz. Bad Engrish. ;-)
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 870
    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.

    I think there's nothing wrong with that. I know I'm not saying anything new here, but every work of art or fiction starts to live its own life after being released for public consumption, and it's perfectly fine for consumers to have an impression that doesn't necessarily coincide with creator's intentions. That's quite common, especially with more complex art forms. I don't see Bond novels and films as huge works of art, but they are complex enough to be interpreted in various ways.

    I don't care about gadgets at all, and I wouldn't mind an action-lite Bond movie, but gadgets and action scenes were ingredients of Bond films since the beginning. If someone thinks that gadgets and action scenes are a must, I think it's not accurate to say they don't understand what Bond is about.

    So, unless a person says something outlandish like 'Bond should fight against zombies and vampires', it's better to say 'I disagree with your view on Bond' than 'You don't understand Bond'.

    For example, I don't like a lot of things Sam Mendes did with the series. I think he has taken it in the soap opera direction to a degree, and that appears to be continuing in NTTD, but he is an artist and I can appreciate his desire to do something different.


  • Posts: 3,160
    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
    You must do a lot of reading!
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,494
    New Behind the scenes NTTD picture hidden in this collage from Universal:



    I’m loving the militaristic Bond in action.

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,157
    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.

    I think there's nothing wrong with that. I know I'm not saying anything new here, but every work of art or fiction starts to live its own life after being released for public consumption, and it's perfectly fine for consumers to have an impression that doesn't necessarily coincide with creator's intentions. That's quite common, especially with more complex art forms. I don't see Bond novels and films as huge works of art, but they are complex enough to be interpreted in various ways.

    I don't care about gadgets at all, and I wouldn't mind an action-lite Bond movie, but gadgets and action scenes were ingredients of Bond films since the beginning. If someone thinks that gadgets and action scenes are a must, I think it's not accurate to say they don't understand what Bond is about.

    So, unless a person says something outlandish like 'Bond should fight against zombies and vampires', it's better to say 'I disagree with your view on Bond' than 'You don't understand Bond'.

    For example, I don't like a lot of things Sam Mendes did with the series. I think he has taken it in the soap opera direction to a degree, and that appears to be continuing in NTTD, but he is an artist and I can appreciate his desire to do something different.


    Yeah, my post was overly succinct but ultimately that's what I meant (you worded it way better than me). Nothing wrong with having a different opinion, it just bugs me when people say, for example, "Bond is meant to be a cold assassin who just shags every girl he can find" when Fleming clearly wrote the character in a different way.
    Of course other elements such as action scenes fall into a "your mileage may vary" category. Nothing wrong with wanting Bond, for example, to be an action movie à la Mission: Impossible - but there's a difference in saying "this is my opinion and this is what I wish more than anything from a Bond film" (which is legit) and "this is what Bond should be like".
    Zekidk wrote: »
    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
    You must do a lot of reading!

    Unfortunately I read some pretty bad "Bond should go to Mars" and "Bond is just a codename" posts.


  • Posts: 3,160
    @Walecs

    Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    mtm 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.

    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.

    I highlighted the drama bit because that was exactly my point in response to the original post that said that Bond should be filed under "action" and not "drama" which I think makes the film series seem a lot more narrow than it is. Bond has always had some drama, some comedy, and plenty of fantasy.

    I get that many people are tired of the personal drama of the Craig films but it does the series a disservice if we lump into under one genre. It wasn't meant to be derogatory towards other films of the action genre in particular.

    From Russia With Love is more plot-driven than action-driven, for example. It has much more in common with Alfred Hitchcock than it does with Commando. That's all I was trying to say.

    I'd disagree that Bond is the original action film but I digress. That's for the general film thread.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited December 2019 Posts: 8,009
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Walecs

    Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?

    That's an oversimplification, considering the book likely didn't stop with Gilbert when it comes to those films' concepts. But yes, I would say those are examples of extravagant "movie Bond" rather than "Fleming's Bond". It's not always a bad thing, of course; Spy is still a cracking adventure flick - but it wouldn't be the one I'd reach for if I was introducing someone to the series who wanted to get a real grasp on the essence of the character. I'd go with the first two Connery flicks, OHMSS, TLD, or CR for that.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,157
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Walecs

    Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?

    IMO getting the character is more important than lifting story and dialogue straight from the novels (as much as I like when they do it). I think TSWLM and MR are still very fun movies and I always enjoy them. I'd also say they mostly got Bond right.

    Also, I don't know whether Gilbert understood Bond or not. Maybe he understood Fleming's Bond but simply didn't care about adapting it into the screen and, as I said, whether it's for the best or the worst, well, that's subjective. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Walecs

    Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?

    That's an oversimplification, considering the book likely didn't stop with Gilbert when it comes to those films' concepts. But yes, I would say those are examples of extravagant "movie Bond" rather than "Fleming's Bond". It's not always a bad thing, of course; Spy is still a cracking adventure flick - but it wouldn't be the one I'd reach for if I was introducing someone to the series who wanted to get a real grasp on the essence of the character. I'd go with the first two Connery flicks, OHMSS, TLD, or CR for that.

    Agreed.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?

    It’s lazy.
    Oh honestly. They can’t do it right: either you lot complain if they don’t put the gunbarrel in the right place or use David Arnold or the 007 theme or whatever, or you complain if they do bring back old things like the car! :D
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?

    It’s lazy.
    Oh honestly. They can’t do it right: either you lot complain if they don’t put the gunbarrel in the right place or use David Arnold or the 007 theme or whatever, or you complain if they do bring back old things like the car! :D

    Weird to imagine that there might be different people who enjoy different things. Nah, that's impossible.

    Also, I don't think comparing the gunbarrel, a 10-second-scene which appeared at the beginning of every Bond film since Dr No and the DB5, an element which is almost a character itself in the movie and never was Bond's only car, is really fair.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Walecs wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?

    It’s lazy.
    Oh honestly. They can’t do it right: either you lot complain if they don’t put the gunbarrel in the right place or use David Arnold or the 007 theme or whatever, or you complain if they do bring back old things like the car! :D

    Weird to imagine that there might be different people who enjoy different things. Nah, that's impossible.

    No, there are. But folks being so vehement about these small things is a bit funny! :)
    Walecs wrote: »
    Also, I don't think comparing the gunbarrel, a 10-second-scene which appeared at the beginning of every Bond film since Dr No and the DB5, an element which is almost a character itself in the movie and never was Bond's only car, is really fair.

    Are you saying one is more important than the other? I’m not really getting the comparison. I think most folk would look at either and say ‘James Bond’.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    For anyone who doesn't post here, the DB5 is Bond.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    mtm wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?

    It’s lazy.
    Oh honestly. They can’t do it right: either you lot complain if they don’t put the gunbarrel in the right place or use David Arnold or the 007 theme or whatever, or you complain if they do bring back old things like the car! :D

    Weird to imagine that there might be different people who enjoy different things. Nah, that's impossible.

    No, there are. But folks being so vehement about these small things is a bit funny! :)
    Walecs wrote: »
    Also, I don't think comparing the gunbarrel, a 10-second-scene which appeared at the beginning of every Bond film since Dr No and the DB5, an element which is almost a character itself in the movie and never was Bond's only car, is really fair.

    Are you saying one is more important than the other? I’m not really getting the comparison. I think most folk would look at either and say ‘James Bond’.

    The thing is, if Fukunaga for some reason were to remove the gunbarrel from NTTD and make a Bond movie without the gunbarrel, I'd be very pissed for sure but at the end of the day that wouldn't really change how I view the film itself. Heck, I'd may just edit the movie myself, include the gunbarrel at the beginning and that it's it.

    Seeing the DB5 in every movie, on the other hand, might be repetitive. Having a new car in every movie creates some variety. I love that we had the Lotus in TSWLM, for instance. It also creates some kind of hpye around the movie before I get to see it. What will Bond drive this time? An Aston Martin? A Rolls Royce? A Jaguar? Who knows? :D

    It's just my opinion, of course. I'm not saying this thought is right or wrong, just stating how I feel about both and why I think that some users are fed up with the DB5.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2019 Posts: 14,861
    I think if you don’t want repetitive, Bond films aren’t the movies to be watching! :D

    You’re even asking them to repeat the way they used to do it, with him having different cars because ‘that’s the way it used to be’ with the Lotus in the 70s etc. (Let’s ignore he had the DB5 for two consecutive films in the 60s ;) ) You’re asking for the same thing to continue i.e repetition! :D
  • Posts: 3,160
    Walecs wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Walecs

    Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?

    IMO getting the character is more important than lifting story and dialogue straight from the novels (as much as I like when they do it). I think TSWLM and MR are still very fun movies and I always enjoy them. I'd also say they mostly got Bond right.

    Also, I don't know whether Gilbert understood Bond or not. Maybe he understood Fleming's Bond but simply didn't care about adapting it into the screen and, as I said, whether it's for the best or the worst, well, that's subjective. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

    You argued that Bond movies wouldn't be Fleming if they were in the "action"-section. I disagree. Someone mentioned the FRWL movie as a perfect example of Fleming, but they still inserted several action setpieces that have nothing to do with the novel. Why? Because the Bond-movies primarily rhyme with action. Of course there will always be drama. We will never see a two hour action movie with only set pieces.

    Also, I don't agree that the Bond character is important, if that is what you are saying. He is not. In the first 20 movies Bond has been more or less the same. The producers were very careful not to embrace Bond's past, familyrelations, shortcomings etc. It has always been about the supporting cast, getting especially the villains and henchmen right. IMO.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Walecs

    Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?

    Well, in the case of TSWLM you can't complain, that the film does not have anything to do with Fleming's novel. Flemin allwed Cubby and Harry only to use the title, but not the plot of the novel. But, yes, one could say, Gilbert made three almost identical movies or with a similar plot line.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited December 2019 Posts: 1,165
    No offense, @Zekidk, but I'm losing sight of what point you're actually trying to make here. FRWL is an almost perfect adaptation of the book, which is purely a moody spy drama, with the sole exception of those tacked on action sequences at the end which I feel confident saying most fans agree are superfluous and to the determent of the film. There isn't even a "action rhythm" as I think you called it, those moments just sort of happen and don't fit with the theme of the rest of the film. An obvious case of shoving a square peg through a round hole.

    You've more than made your point that you feel Bond should exist within very specific parameters, but I guarantee you that had Bond stuck with the DAD formula post Jason Bourne, EON would have been absolutely been buried. They have always - always - throughout their entire history adapted 007 to the current trend, and that is precisely why they have remained a cultural icon for five-decades. Personal angles aside, it is readily apparent from the NTTD trailer that EON has once again drawn from what is popular and injected the film with more color and levity, while honoring Daniel's legacy and interpretation of the character.

    If you're not open to these changing times, that's absolutely fine. Maybe the next Bond will be more your cup of tea. In the meantime, you're welcome to stick with the John Glen and Brosnan years and I bet you'll be more than satiated.
  • Posts: 3,160
    Minion wrote: »
    You've more than made your point that you feel Bond should exist within very specific perimeters, but I guarantee you that had Bond stuck with the DAD formula
    DAD formula? Meaning what? Lasers and invisible cars?
    Minion wrote: »
    post Jason Bourne, EON would have been absolutely been buried. They have always - always - throughout their entire history adapted 007 to the current trend

    You've clearly missed the point. Twice lately have I been arguing this exact point:
    Zekidk wrote: »
    I would love for a "clean slate" - standard stuff and wellknown territory, but only for a one off. After that they have to do something entirely different. For the Bond franchise not to become obsolete it has to evolve. One thing they could do is start catering more to the younger generation, meaning more outlandish stuff and escapism and less personal drama.
    Minion wrote: »
    If you're not open to these changing times, that's absolutely fine. Maybe the next Bond will be more your cup of tea. In the meantime, you're welcome to stick with the John Glen and Brosnan years
    Yes, the DAD formula, I guess. Disliked by most Bond fans. Like me. No... I just want more fun, bigger setpieces and more - or better - gadgets, like I said earlier. Lewis Gilbert for a new generation.
  • Posts: 5,767
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I know, I just pretended to troll. It's kind of like lulz. Bad Engrish. ;-)
    And there are people who don´t feel embarrassed to communicate like that?

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Walecs

    Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?

    IMO getting the character is more important than lifting story and dialogue straight from the novels (as much as I like when they do it). I think TSWLM and MR are still very fun movies and I always enjoy them. I'd also say they mostly got Bond right.

    Also, I don't know whether Gilbert understood Bond or not. Maybe he understood Fleming's Bond but simply didn't care about adapting it into the screen and, as I said, whether it's for the best or the worst, well, that's subjective. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

    You argued that Bond movies wouldn't be Fleming if they were in the "action"-section. I disagree. Someone mentioned the FRWL movie as a perfect example of Fleming, but they still inserted several action setpieces that have nothing to do with the novel. Why? Because the Bond-movies primarily rhyme with action. Of course there will always be drama. We will never see a two hour action movie with only set pieces.

    Also, I don't agree that the Bond character is important, if that is what you are saying. He is not. In the first 20 movies Bond has been more or less the same. The producers were very careful not to embrace Bond's past, familyrelations, shortcomings etc. It has always been about the supporting cast, getting especially the villains and henchmen right. IMO.
    Getting the character right doesn't mean he should evolve, have an overarching arc or that we need to know his family relations. These things were pretty much absent from the novels. Getting his personality right is what I meant. Imagine if they did a Bond movie where he decides to join the villain at the end (for instance). That would not be understanding the character.

    I can't believe I had to explain this when it should be really obvious.

    Also no, I wasn't saying that the Bond character is important (I believe it but that was not the point of my conversation, but you keep pinballing out of it). I was just criticising the fact that some believe they understand Bond better than Ian Fleming which is, by definition, ridiculous since Fleming is the man who created him. Whether his version of the character is the best one is another matter, one which I don't really care to argue about since it would all fall into the realm of subjectivity.

    @mtm I'm afraid I'm lost and I don't get what your point is.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Can somebody give me a link so I can see when NTTD will open in Japan? We are usually a full month later. I really need to know. Thanks.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Can somebody give me a link so I can see when NTTD will open in Japan? We are usually a full month later. I really need to know. Thanks.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/releaseinfo
    IMDB haven't mentioned Japan yet.
    SF and SP was released a month after it's UK premiere. Don't know why it gets so late to release in other Asian countries because here in India it release within a week.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Can somebody give me a link so I can see when NTTD will open in Japan? We are usually a full month later. I really need to know. Thanks.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/releaseinfo
    IMDB haven't mentioned Japan yet.
    SF and SP was released a month after it's UK premiere. Don't know why it gets so late to release in other Asian countries because here in India it release within a week.
    Could it have anything to do with piracy concerns?
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,630
    Can somebody give me a link so I can see when NTTD will open in Japan? We are usually a full month later. I really need to know. Thanks.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/releaseinfo
    IMDB haven't mentioned Japan yet.
    SF and SP was released a month after it's UK premiere. Don't know why it gets so late to release in other Asian countries because here in India it release within a week.

    The Japanese posters confirms it will be released on 10 April 2020.

    B25_DIGTAL_1SHEET_CHARACTER_DANIEL_JPN_R.jpg
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2019 Posts: 2,541
    Minion wrote: »
    Can somebody give me a link so I can see when NTTD will open in Japan? We are usually a full month later. I really need to know. Thanks.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/releaseinfo
    IMDB haven't mentioned Japan yet.
    SF and SP was released a month after it's UK premiere. Don't know why it gets so late to release in other Asian countries because here in India it release within a week.
    Could it have anything to do with piracy concerns?

    Could be but bond film's here has always been released within a week here, to avoid spoilers or leak they should release it within a week or two in other countries as well . Although it won't matter much because it's releasing on 3rd April here(I'll be watching on 5th April on Sunday with friends) but I may have to avoid this site for a few days in that time to avoid spoilers :D
    Can somebody give me a link so I can see when NTTD will open in Japan? We are usually a full month later. I really need to know. Thanks.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/releaseinfo
    IMDB haven't mentioned Japan yet.
    SF and SP was released a month after it's UK premiere. Don't know why it gets so late to release in other Asian countries because here in India it release within a week.

    The Japanese posters confirms it will be released on 10 April 2020.

    B25_DIGTAL_1SHEET_CHARACTER_DANIEL_JPN_R.jpg

    Thanks for that. Good that it is releasing early.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 3,160
    Walecs wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Walecs

    Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?

    IMO getting the character is more important than lifting story and dialogue straight from the novels (as much as I like when they do it). I think TSWLM and MR are still very fun movies and I always enjoy them. I'd also say they mostly got Bond right.

    Also, I don't know whether Gilbert understood Bond or not. Maybe he understood Fleming's Bond but simply didn't care about adapting it into the screen and, as I said, whether it's for the best or the worst, well, that's subjective. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

    You argued that Bond movies wouldn't be Fleming if they were in the "action"-section. I disagree. Someone mentioned the FRWL movie as a perfect example of Fleming, but they still inserted several action setpieces that have nothing to do with the novel. Why? Because the Bond-movies primarily rhyme with action. Of course there will always be drama. We will never see a two hour action movie with only set pieces.

    Also, I don't agree that the Bond character is important, if that is what you are saying. He is not. In the first 20 movies Bond has been more or less the same. The producers were very careful not to embrace Bond's past, familyrelations, shortcomings etc. It has always been about the supporting cast, getting especially the villains and henchmen right. IMO.
    Getting the character right doesn't mean he should evolve, have an overarching arc or that we need to know his family relations. These things were pretty much absent from the novels. Getting his personality right is what I meant. Imagine if they did a Bond movie where he decides to join the villain at the end (for instance). That would not be understanding the character.
    Yes, or Bond having a fosterbrother who becomes his nemesis and a global threat while at the same time dating the daughter of a guy who was his employee.
    Walecs wrote: »
    I was just criticising the fact that some believe they understand Bond better than Ian Fleming which is, by definition, ridiculous since Fleming is the man who created him.
    There's a difference between understanding Fleming's Bond and having their take on what Bond should be like and act in the movies. Personally I couldn't care less if the Bond I prefer is Fleming or not. I grew up on the movies, not the books.
Sign In or Register to comment.