NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1119120122124125294

Comments

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,579
    I liked the ending of NTTD just fine, but I must be missing something, because the theory that "I don't want James Bond to die" equals "I think women are disposable" seems like a moronic non sequitur.... :-?
  • Minion wrote: »
    That's a very level-headed approach 00heaven. I like your style, and will endeavor to proceed in the manner to which you suggest.

    One question I'd ask people that are on board with the movie; do you think the death of James Bond improved your overall experience of seeing the movie, or detracted from it.
    I can't imagine there were many fans of this movie series who were pleased that he died on-screen.
    On a second viewing, Bond’s death didn’t rub me as sad. It was a heroic, triumphant moment of him giving his life to something bigger than himself and knowing his family is safe. There’s only one other way this movie could have ended, and that’s with Craig fully retired and kicking back with his family in Norway. You’d still need a continuity reset next time, so I’d imagine those same people would complain about that being anti-Bondian and berate EON for not having the balls to kill him properly. Context is key, and a few of you - not saying ‘all’ - would have left in a huffy even with a different ending.

    Unless you’d prefer Nomi or Madeleine to stay behind to die, which would only support my “You view women as disposable” theory. It’s ok, EON did too… fifty-years ago.

    I'm with you on how I don't think a retired family-man Bond would have satisfied anyone disappointed with the ending. Most of the suggestions offered up on how it could have ended differently write out Bond's family completely in efforts to get him back to being a fully committed member of MI6. If this Bond had wanted that, he would have just gone back to MI6 after Matera.

    One moment I do love in the film is in Jamaica when Nomi accurately appraises Bond as having nothing to live for. He hangs his head for a while at that before raising it to meet her eyes. She's right. Obviously, MI6 wasn't enough for Bond at this point in his life.

    While I wish Bond could have been able to finally enjoy his life with his family, I'm not sure I'd be willing to give up the last bit of Craig's performance to make that happen. It was just too good. Plus Bond was finally able to ensure the women in his life don't "end up dead."
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 616
    The issue here is one of custodianship. BB and MGW didn't create Bond, and neither did DC, so it's not for them to destroy him just so DC can have a big, emotional send-off for a character that he inherited from others, and is apparently going to hand off to someone else. If the filmmakers thought NTTD's ending would make it easier for yet another reboot, they're wrong. It's actually harder now, as the reason why it was always easy for them to bring a new actor into the role was because the previous actor wasn't killed on-screen. As I've said before, the Bond serious only works because of Bond's sense of immortality. Destroy that and you've fundamentally destroyed one of the primary draws of the series.

    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras. They can't have it both ways. They can't say that DC's tenure is its own thing while making 50th anniversary movies. Bond isn't 6 different characters, he's one character. If you kill DC's Bond, it may not literally affect the previous Bonds, but it does affect the overall image of the character. People are angry not because they specifically killed DC's Bond but simply because they killed ANY Bond. Like someone else said, it was an unwritten rule of the Bond series that you just don't do that. There's a reason why Bond has survived all these decades, he doesn't die, not any iteration. Now that Eon has destroyed that, they've alienated fans, burned bridges, and made it harder for audiences to accept Bond returning to the screen, if he does.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 872
    NoWiseman wrote: »
    2. I wouldn't have complained. My problem is, that they committed themselves to the basic idea of letting Bond die. Everything in NTTD is constructed around that premise. It's a storytellers choice, and i don't like it one bit.

    Nor me. But we are in danger of becoming like Star Wars fans and letting ourselves get annoyed because they didn't film the movie we wanted.
    That said, I would still argue that I'd happily take the rough (Italian bloke fainting into his airbag) with the smooth (the first true order of Fleming's Vespa), as long as Bond was still around to die another day as the credits rolled.
    NoWiseman wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I just want to say a hearty welcome to @ColonelAdamski, @Benjamin, @NoWiseman, and @astansill. I'm enjoying your new imput into the topic of NTTD.

    Thank you, sir. Very much appreciated.

    And thanks from me. I've enjoyed the debate today, (and don't worry, I won't normally post this much, it's my day off today).

    I actually enjoy reading how people who obviously love the franchise, are on board with the film and the ending. I'm hoping in time I can come round to their point of view. But I can't decide not to care that they've killed James Bond, then said he'll return.
    M said "I've no compunction about sending you to your death, but I won't do it on a whim"*
    But it feels like EON did just that.

    *I bet I've got that wrong, sorry. It was something like that.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    One thing that kinda bothers me is that NTTD wasn't able to match M:I - Fallout's greatness actionwise. I'm not a fan of those Cruise nonsense, the action and stunts are the only interesting thing about M:I, but still kinda sucks that Bond wasn't able to match it. One of the few things that disappointed me about NTTD was the Norway chase for example.
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    Posts: 469
    One thing I am truly sick of in the Craig era is the nostalgia baiting. Now, it's not like older Bond movies didn't themselves use nostalgia. However, unlike the older films, the nostalgia isn't only relegated to heeky nods in Q's lab, or a flirty race in a non-mission scene, it's now front and center, reliant on a Bond fan's knowledge and history with the original reincarnation of the item. I find this a rather cheap tactic for getting an instant connection with something - I just want Bond to make his own nostalgia already, and stop relying on the old. Carve out your own history.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Hi everyone. Long-time browser, first time poster here. I'm afraid I'm another Bond fan that feels let down by the ending, and I think perhaps it's a generational thing. My first Bond movie experience was as a seven year old watching Live and Let Die, and I've always enjoyed my visits to the cinema to see the latest Bond flick. This has changed with the recent movie though, I'm sad to say.
    The idea of killing off James Bond is ludicrous to me, and even a few weeks in I'm still surprised they actually went there. I've been reading this thread and many people seem okay with it, which is a good thing, and means they can enjoy the movie much more than me. I don't really understand the idea of a 'reboot', and if I'm honest, I wish I'd never heard the word. As far as I can tell, it's something that usually happens in superhero movies and sci-fi. I always approached the James Bond movies as drama, based on a literary character. So I don't see the 'it's good for Batman, so it's good for Bond' argument standing up.
    I just can't get my head around seeing a screen character killed off, only to be told, "don't worry, he'll be back" in the credits. Is he dead or not?
    I can't see how it works. Do we now have to think that the next Bond is in an 'alternate universe' like in sci-fi movies? And now he's been killed off once, he can be killed off as many times as they want, because he'll return anyway in the form of a 'reboot'.
    I can't be alone in thinking the series has lost a great deal of its narrative credibility. How are we supposed to care that he died, when he's not really dead, (which he can't be if he's going to return, right?).
    And I know people will be reading this screaming inwardly don't you get it? it just means he's dead in Craig's timeline!!!. Okay, well does that mean he can die and come back as many times as he wants, and the reason he can do that is because 'it's a timeline'.
    Oh, right. A timeline. Silly me, I didn't know it was a timeline. Whatever that is.
    Sorry to start off my first post with a moan. I'll enjoy contributing here, (particularly in the literary section, I'm a big Fleming fan), but after reading all these reactions I felt the need to put my two-penneth in!

    Great first post @ColonelAdamski
    I was a similar age when my dad took me to see Live And Let Die 😁

    I get where you're coming from regarding this strange Bond film. I enjoyed it immensely and admire the balls it took to go through with that ending.

    Like you, I'm also a massive fan of the Fleming books 👍
  • drumvandrumvan Michigan
    Posts: 1
    58 yr old loooong time bond fan and 1st time poster. saw the movie yesterday, completely gutted by the ending :( feel like all the emotional investment over the years was just ripped from me. puts a pale over the entire series for me knowing how things end up for our hero. right now i have no interest in seeing nttd again or any other bond film for that matter. maybe that will change over time but not right now. as a movie i thought nttd was pretty good. i didn't care for the more slapsticky russian scientist, felix's chatty "partner" or the "new" 007. i thought the rest was good...except for the end.
  • slide_99 wrote: »
    The issue here is one of custodianship. BB and MGW didn't create Bond, and neither did DC, so it's not for them to destroy him just so DC can have a big, emotional send-off for a character that he inherited from others, and is apparently going to hand off to someone else. If the filmmakers thought NTTD's ending would make it easier for yet another reboot, they're wrong. It's actually harder now, as the reason why it was always easy for them to bring a new actor into the role was because the previous actor wasn't killed on-screen. As I've said before, the Bond serious only works because of Bond's sense of immortality. Destroy that and you've fundamentally destroyed one of the primary draws of the series.

    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras. They can't have it both ways. They can't say that DC's tenure is its own thing while making 50th anniversary movies. Bond isn't 6 different characters, he's one character. If you kill DC's Bond, it may not literally affect the previous Bonds, but it does affect the overall image of the character. People are angry not because they specifically killed DC's Bond but simply because they killed ANY Bond. Like someone else said, it was an unwritten rule of the Bond series that you just don't do that. There's a reason why Bond has survived all these decades, he doesn't die, not any iteration. Now that Eon has destroyed that, they've alienated fans, burned bridges, and made it harder for audiences to accept Bond returning to the screen, if he does.

    marvelous summary of my own feelings on this. I could be speaking to my own reflection.
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    ....But, if Fleming had been alive for a few more years, he might also have been appalled with the creative direction the franchise took as soon as the early seventies, and the lack of development for the character he had created. So, if we accept Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker, we have to accept Syfall and No Time to Die.

    Good point!

    @bondsum : thanks for the welcome. We may be new here, but as you can tell we've been Bond fans for a while.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 13,735
    I mean, if I read a book series, and the main character died, I wouldn't expect another book to come along afterwards with the same character in it, as if nothing had happened. I'd expect a Holmes-like explanation of how they cheated death. I doubt we'll get that with Mr Bond. It'll just be assumed he's a different character.
    No, sorry, same character, different arc.
    I think that's how it works.

    But then the book series a few years back had Bond using his modern smartphone and driving a brand new 2010s Bentley Continental GT with bluetooth and LED headlamps and all that, and in the next novel he was the same age in Africa in the late 60s; we struggled on :)
    Minion wrote: »
    That's a very level-headed approach 00heaven. I like your style, and will endeavor to proceed in the manner to which you suggest.

    One question I'd ask people that are on board with the movie; do you think the death of James Bond improved your overall experience of seeing the movie, or detracted from it.
    I can't imagine there were many fans of this movie series who were pleased that he died on-screen.
    On a second viewing, Bond’s death didn’t rub me as sad. It was a heroic, triumphant moment of him giving his life to something bigger than himself and knowing his family is safe. There’s only one other way this movie could have ended, and that’s with Craig fully retired and kicking back with his family in Norway. You’d still need a continuity reset next time, so I’d imagine those same people would complain about that being anti-Bondian and berate EON for not having the balls to kill him properly. Context is key, and a few of you - not saying ‘all’ - would have left in a huffy even with a different ending.

    Yup, he was never going back full-time to MI6 (because he's already left and he's too old) so it had to end one way or the other.
    Maybe one other alternative is his becomes M or something (bit weird), but it was clear from the end of Spectre that the story wasn't going to end with him just going back to being 007 full time.
    echo wrote: »
    I think the relevant comparison point for us, as fans, is that we are almost at the same point of uncertainty as when the FRWL novel was released.

    Precisely.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I don't think that the plan, when Craig was hired, was to do some self-contained arc. With Casino Royale, they wanted to do some origin story, a reboot that would have brought the new actor close to "classic" film Bond within a couple of adventures, with a few updates that could be worked out in the meantime.
    There's a recent interview with Martin Campbell on JBR where he admits that when he was making CR there were no plans to make the next Bond movie a continuation story. As far as he was concerned, when Craig says the line "Bond, James Bond" that's the moment when Craig's Bond connects with all the other Bonds, leaving the next movie to be its own thing. They could have made CR a self-contained origin story, but by making QoS a direct sequel, they made it more difficult for themselves moving forwards.

    My main gripe with SF was that it never truly kicked on from where CR left off. Yes, we got a standalone Bond movie, but we also got a hugely damaged Bond who was no longer in his prime. We'd gone from young Bond to old Bond in the space of just three movies, the second of which was a direct sequel to the first. The growth had mostly happened off-screen rather than on it.
  • Posts: 6,209
    matt_u wrote: »
    One thing that kinda bothers me is that NTTD wasn't able to match M:I - Fallout's greatness actionwise. I'm not a fan of those Cruise nonsense, the action and stunts are the only interesting thing about M:I, but still kinda sucks that Bond wasn't able to match it. One of the few things that disappointed me about NTTD was the Norway chase for example.

    Yep, and Bond never will top Cruise's M:I action. And it shouldn't, IMO. Bond should go back to being a spy thriller, with a detective story at its core, granted, with some action pieces, but not be defined organically by them, as the latest M:I films are.
  • bondywondy wrote: »
    1. hate the title and really am pissed The Garden of Death was not the title (did Ian Fleming stipulate they couldn't use chapter titles or something I thought the only thing they couldnt use was the spy who loved me though they did) hell name the Nanovirus Risico and there ya go

    I think Fleming stipulated they could only use the title of The Spy Who Loved Me. I think he virtually disowned the contents of the book.
    As regards the chapter titles, chapter five of Thunderball is called Spectre, so perhaps they are allowed to use chapter titles as film titles?
    Perhaps they could title the upcoming Bond films after every fifth chapter in the books. Let's see how that works; starting from the first book, chapter five of Casino Royale is tited The Girl from Headquarters. Not bad! I could go with that.
    Next book, Live and Let Die..

    ... shit!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 13,735
    matt_u wrote: »
    One thing that kinda bothers me is that NTTD wasn't able to match M:I - Fallout's greatness actionwise. I'm not a fan of those Cruise nonsense, the action and stunts are the only interesting thing about M:I, but still kinda sucks that Bond wasn't able to match it. One of the few things that disappointed me about NTTD was the Norway chase for example.

    Yup, agreed. Matera is decent but after that it falls off. And there's only the bit where he grabs the motorbike (and they don't even have to bother showing us him getting on it because they know we know he's Bond- of course he's getting on it) which has any sort of Bond-y swagger to it. It's not particularly good action and it's not Bondy either.

    When the Norway chase opens and all of the baddies' vehicles are leaping dramatically in the air that's what the chase should have been: everyone driving way too fast over rough ground with cars -including Bond's- spending more time in the air than on the ground. Something new that we haven't seen before.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The issue here is one of custodianship. BB and MGW didn't create Bond, and neither did DC, so it's not for them to destroy him just so DC can have a big, emotional send-off for a character that he inherited from others, and is apparently going to hand off to someone else. If the filmmakers thought NTTD's ending would make it easier for yet another reboot, they're wrong. It's actually harder now, as the reason why it was always easy for them to bring a new actor into the role was because the previous actor wasn't killed on-screen. As I've said before, the Bond serious only works because of Bond's sense of immortality. Destroy that and you've fundamentally destroyed one of the primary draws of the series.

    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras. They can't have it both ways. They can't say that DC's tenure is its own thing while making 50th anniversary movies. Bond isn't 6 different characters, he's one character. If you kill DC's Bond, it may not literally affect the previous Bonds, but it does affect the overall image of the character. People are angry not because they specifically killed DC's Bond but simply because they killed ANY Bond. Like someone else said, it was an unwritten rule of the Bond series that you just don't do that. There's a reason why Bond has survived all these decades, he doesn't die, not any iteration. Now that Eon has destroyed that, they've alienated fans, burned bridges, and made it harder for audiences to accept Bond returning to the screen, if he does.

    marvelous summary of my own feelings on this. I could be speaking to my own reflection.

    :))
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,721
    bondsum wrote: »
    I don't think that the plan, when Craig was hired, was to do some self-contained arc. With Casino Royale, they wanted to do some origin story, a reboot that would have brought the new actor close to "classic" film Bond within a couple of adventures, with a few updates that could be worked out in the meantime.
    There's a recent interview with Martin Campbell on JBR where he admits that when he was making CR there were no plans to make the next Bond movie a continuation story. As far as he was concerned, when Craig says the line "Bond, James Bond" that's the moment when Craig's Bond connects with all the other Bonds, leaving the next movie to be its own thing. They could have made CR a self-contained origin story, but by making QoS a direct sequel, they made it more difficult for themselves moving forwards.

    My main gripe with SF was that it never truly kicked on from where CR left off. Yes, we got a standalone Bond movie, but we also got a hugely damaged Bond who was no longer in his prime. We'd gone from young Bond to old Bond in the space of just three movies, the second of which was a direct sequel to the first. The growth had mostly happened off-screen rather than on it.

    Six years had passed since CR and they just wanted to go straight to veteran Bond for the 50th anniversary. I think that was the correct impulse. I wish the second had been less a direct sequel and more of its own thing while still serving as a follow up (like how LALD novel picked up from Bond’s desire for payback).

    So just because they made a mistake with the second film and that there was a delay with MGM’s issues, I’m not holding any of that against them for doing a story that shows Bond as a vet. Thankfully, neither were audiences as they rolled with that conceit. It’s just a few Bondphiles crossing their arms over it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,518
    Didn't Craig say something back in 2011 about 'we're done with that storyline' when asked if SF would reference Vesper and Quantum? Ironic, really.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Good in depth review from The Bond Experiences David Zaritsky
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 616

    marvelous summary of my own feelings on this. I could be speaking to my own reflection.

    Thanks. The Craig era has been frustrating for me since SF and its lousy script riddled with contrivances and incongruities with CR-QOS.
    bondsum wrote: »
    There's a recent interview with Martin Campbell on JBR where he admits that when he was making CR there were no plans to make the next Bond movie a continuation story. As far as he was concerned, when Craig says the line "Bond, James Bond" that's the moment when Craig's Bond connects with all the other Bonds, leaving the next movie to be its own thing. They could have made CR a self-contained origin story, but by making QoS a direct sequel, they made it more difficult for themselves moving forwards.

    My main gripe with SF was that it never truly kicked on from where CR left off. Yes, we got a standalone Bond movie, but we also got a hugely damaged Bond who was no longer in his prime. We'd gone from young Bond to old Bond in the space of just three movies, the second of which was a direct sequel to the first. The growth had mostly happened off-screen rather than on it.

    The idea of Craig's tenure being a self-contained arc is something very recent. When CR was released, the common perception was that the Craig tenure was supposed to showcase how Bond became the Bond we all know and love, not how an "alternate universe" James Bond became 007, sort of, and then died. Now we have to deal with all this "timeline" nonsense.

    The Craig era was supposed to be a reconstruction of James Bond but all it did was end up deconstructing him to the point where this whole era comes off as some botched experiment, and now they have to do yet another reboot to set things right. Almost makes me feel like DAD (which I dislike) was the "real" Bond movie and the Craig ones are just some kind of "what if?"
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras.

    That's not true. One thing is homaging stuff, another thing is recycling stuff. The Craig era toyed with the past but always with a fresh take. The only scene where they went 100% nostalgic was in SF during the DB5 reveal. The Craig films never lacked a strong personal identity. In fact, they proved to be the most distinctive and tonally independent era since Connery when they started it all.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 39,441
    matt_u wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras.

    That's not true. One thing is homaging stuff, another thing is recycling stuff. The Craig era toyed with the past but always with a fresh take. The only scene where they went 100% nostalgic was in SF during the DB5 reveal. The Craig films never lacked a strong personal identity. In fact, they proved to be the most distinctive and tonally independent era since Connery when they started it all.

    Though it is always funny to me how SF derides GE with the "exploding pen" comment, only to use an exploding watch in the very next film.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 549
    matt_u wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras.

    That's not true. One thing is homaging stuff, another thing is recycling stuff. The Craig era toyed with the past but always with a fresh take. The only scene where they went 100% nostalgic was in SF during the DB5 reveal. The Craig films never lacked a strong personal identity. In fact, they proved to be the most distinctive and tonally independent era since Connery when they started it all.
    I think the Blofeld reveal in Spectre totally relied on nostalgia, though, stupidly so.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    matt_u wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras.

    That's not true. One thing is homaging stuff, another thing is recycling stuff. The Craig era toyed with the past but always with a fresh take. The only scene where they went 100% nostalgic was in SF during the DB5 reveal. The Craig films never lacked a strong personal identity. In fact, they proved to be the most distinctive and tonally independent era since Connery when they started it all.
    I think the Blofeld reveal in Spectre totally relied on nostalgia, though, stupidly so.

    On the other hand Waltz's Blofeld is the less nostalgic Blofeld you can ever possibly imagine.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    Six years had passed since CR and they just wanted to go straight to veteran Bond for the 50th anniversary. I think that was the correct impulse. I wish the second had been less a direct sequel and more of its own thing while still serving as a follow up (like how LALD novel picked up from Bond’s desire for payback).

    So just because they made a mistake with the second film and that there was a delay with MGM’s issues, I’m not holding any of that against them for doing a story that shows Bond as a vet. Thankfully, neither were audiences as they rolled with that conceit. It’s just a few Bondphiles crossing their arms over it.
    And therein lies my problem with it. Outside forces dictating the storyline rather than what should have been naturally organic. A similar hiatus didn't prevent Bond from coming back stronger in TSWLM and Moore was much older than Craig was when he made SF. Just for the record, Moore was 49 when he made TSWLM and Craig was only 44 when he made SF.
    Benjamin wrote: »
    @bondsum : thanks for the welcome. We may be new here, but as you can tell we've been Bond fans for a while.
    You're most welcome @Benjamin. I too was an older Bond fan when I first joined the forum back in 2002, so it doesn't matter how old you are, so long as you're here and you get your opinion out there. Not everyone will agree, but that doesn't matter either.
  • mattjoesmattjoes I think I've been hurt sir.
    Posts: 6,317
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras.

    That's not true. One thing is homaging stuff, another thing is recycling stuff. The Craig era toyed with the past but always with a fresh take. The only scene where they went 100% nostalgic was in SF during the DB5 reveal. The Craig films never lacked a strong personal identity. In fact, they proved to be the most distinctive and tonally independent era since Connery when they started it all.

    Though it is always funny to me how SF derides GE with the "exploding pen" comment, only to use an exploding watch in the very next film.

    I've more or less come to terms with these inconsistencies seeing them for what they are, an attempt at experimenting and playing with certain tropes of the Bond films, but fleetingly so, rather than making a definitive statement on the place gadgets should have from now on in the Bond films (for example). Thus, each new film can offer a different set of subversions than its predecessors.
  • NoWisemanNoWiseman Germany
    edited October 2021 Posts: 34
    But we are in danger of becoming like Star Wars fans and letting ourselves get annoyed because they didn't film the movie we wanted.

    I think, one can have a strong personal opinion about the basic premise of a controversial movie, without losing touch with reality.

  • bondsum wrote: »
    Moore was 49 when he made TSWLM and Craig was only 44 when he made SF.

    Was he 49 then? He was such a dude. You just know that if he walked in a room, even if he wasn't famous, you'd be going "who the f*ck is that!"
    Like Sammy Davis with Connery.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,721
    bondsum wrote: »
    Six years had passed since CR and they just wanted to go straight to veteran Bond for the 50th anniversary. I think that was the correct impulse. I wish the second had been less a direct sequel and more of its own thing while still serving as a follow up (like how LALD novel picked up from Bond’s desire for payback).

    So just because they made a mistake with the second film and that there was a delay with MGM’s issues, I’m not holding any of that against them for doing a story that shows Bond as a vet. Thankfully, neither were audiences as they rolled with that conceit. It’s just a few Bondphiles crossing their arms over it.
    And therein lies my problem with it. Outside forces dictating the storyline rather than what should have been naturally organic. A similar hiatus didn't prevent Bond from coming back stronger in TSWLM and Moore was much older than Craig was when he made SF. Just for the record, Moore was 49 when he made TSWLM and Craig was only 44 when he made SF.

    Not sure how that’s a “problem”. They did it their way in the 1977 and they did it their way in 2012. Both paid off immensely. Even more so for SF as that not only outdid Moore’s effort but is a more highly rated film by fans and critics alike. So good on them for pulling it off.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    Was he 49 then? He was such a dude. You just know that if he walked in a room, even if he wasn't famous, you'd be going "who the f*ck is that!"
    Like Sammy Davis with Connery.
    Roger Moore was actually 1-year older than Craig was in SF when he starred in Live & Let Die!!
    Not sure how that’s a “problem”. They did it their way in the 1977 and they did it their way in 2012. Both paid off immensely. Even more so for SF as that not only outdid Moore’s effort but is a more highly rated film by fans and critics alike. So good on them for pulling it off.
    I did say, therein lies my problem with it. Clearly, it didn't bother you or the access media. As we're using BO, fans and critics as a yardstick, then I suppose that means TB and GF are still vastly superior to SF as they both managed to out-perform the movie in every category. Case closed, I guess.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 872
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Craig era was supposed to be a reconstruction of James Bond but all it did was end up deconstructing him to the point where this whole era comes off as some botched experiment, and now they have to do yet another reboot to set things right. Almost makes me feel like DAD (which I dislike) was the "real" Bond movie and the Craig ones are just some kind of "what if?"

    I remember thinking that the end of Skyfall was the great 'reset'. It was like, yea, now we have M, M's office, Moneypenny, Q, Bond wanting to get back to work.
    That was the time when we could have had any adventure with any actor going forward. This 'reboot' thing had done its job, and we were okay.
    I honestly thought we'd be back to the original vision of the films post Skyfall, (and the novels to a lesser extent).
    But no, they've killed Felix, killed Bond, but it's all okay, really, because they'll all be back in another reboot.
    Riiiight... nothing messy there then.
Sign In or Register to comment.