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

1156157159161162298

Comments

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    Venutius wrote: »
    Pity Forster cut the last scene from QOS - Mr. White would've been dead in 2008 and none of this would've happened. Mr. White is Bond's kid's grandad? That's like having Jason Bourne's dad create Treadstone and Jason only joining up to avenge his pa. Oh, wait...

    @Venutius I really enjoy reading your posts. You and I think much alike about NTTD and Bond. Bond and White should have faced off in Craig’s 3rd move (The Pale King), and concluded it all with Skyfall. No, Skyfall as no. 3 , then Bond faces off with White in The Pale King in no. 4 Spectre. White is the boss of Spectre by then. They agree to meet on an island, and finish it. No Madeline. But I love your idea and thought there. It just felt like we went into soap opera land in the last 2 Craig Bonds. In the end, they really wasted the most talented actor they’ve ever had on 2 films that did not work. Imo. Grandpa White, it sounds so ridiculous. What a plot thread. Smh.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,027
    Cheers, sworddevil. But, yes, wasn't there a version of that last scene where Bond killed Haines but White scarpered? A QOS-style Pale King movie in 2010 would've been brilliant. I dunno, when you think of what they'd created with CR and then you think that they ended up with Blofeld as Bond's sort-of foster brother and Mr. White as his girlfriend's dad, you can't help thinking they squandered something great.
  • Posts: 372
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Did you really mate? I only ask because I find it interesting, I never thought that Bond would die.
    I was only slightly nervous when Daniel declared it his last film in interviews and then the trailers for NTTD, saying "the 25th film changes everything"

    Yes, I was active on the other board then. I thought CR was so hard hitting, and taking so many risks, that they would up the ante for the next one. Instead they hammed it up on the go.

    Skyfall IMO re-adjusts, but it suffers a bit in the structure dept. (plus there is that Joker inspired pre-planned subway escape which makes no sense). I also can't help thinking while 007 and Joker slide on the ramp in the subway, that suspension of belief has jumped the shark. I mean we all now there are small metallic stumbling blocks on all ramps to prevent people from sliding (and thus cause accidents).

    I accept anything in a Bond film, but to make the ramp slide free makes the scene totally unrealistic.

    But back to Bond dying, I'm a big Fleming buff, and I wanted a FRWL style ending ever since they rebooted, as it was one of the last stuff they didn't do on screen from the novels.

    IMO they should have done this at the end of QOS, and have Mr White shoot Bond, cut to black.

    Of course, they took that idea and made it the Skyfall pre-credits.

    But you can see it was floating ever since Craig started as 007.
  • Posts: 526
    Venutius wrote: »
    Cheers, sworddevil. But, yes, wasn't there a version of that last scene where Bond killed Haines but White scarpered? A QOS-style Pale King movie in 2010 would've been brilliant. I dunno, when you think of what they'd created with CR and then you think that they ended up with Blofeld as Bond's sort-of foster brother and Mr. White as his girlfriend's dad, you can't help thinking they squandered something great.

    Agree 100%. All this family stuff is so implausible. Hokey. Waltz and Seydoux give excruciatingly lackluster performances. No energy. Instead of Bond vs White, Bond visits him and he says take care of my daughter-and Bond falls for her. Didn’t he learn anything from Vesper? And this guy is one of the world’s most dangerous assassins, and your sworn enemy—likely caused Vesper to die. That’s just mentally exhausting and dumb.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,624
    That's really interesting thanks for sharing your thoughts @Stamper it's interesting to hear people's thoughts on the Craig era pre Spectre.

    I always felt like it was a reboot that hinged on the passage of the Casino Royale novel describing his first two kills to Mathis. The toll they took on him and the journey to becoming the Bond we know and love.

    When I saw that final M scene in Skyfall, I remember being elated because I thought the last 3 films lead to this, Bond 24 have Bond on a stand alone mission then Daniel bows out. I'm glad he stayed longer but I do wish things were done differently in hindsight
  • Posts: 7,506
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    I've been waiting for Bond to get killed since QOS (I expected he would get it, killed by Mr White at the end), so better late than never!

    Did you really mate? I only ask because I find it interesting, I never thought that Bond would die.

    I was only slightly nervous when Daniel declared it his last film in interviews and then the trailers for NTTD, saying "the 25th film changes everything"

    Here’s my story. I vaguely remember something around 2019 about Boyle (think that’s his name) the director quitting. Last movie, so that started to make me nervous. I would even start doing Google searches about it pretty regularly. I just thought, “no way will they do it...or will they?” I git on the mi6 forum after the world premiere, knowing if it happened it would leak—and I had decided I wound the watch it if he died. When I read that, wow, what a gut punch. I was gutted. Debated heavily on going to watch it. Finally I did, and it was absolute brutal. BRUTAL. The ending ruined the entire movie for me. I enjoyed it up until the end, but there’s no getting around Bond dying. Don’t plan on ever watching it again, and for me it is the worst Bond film ever made. Such a shame they had to go that unnecessary route. If it had been any other Bond actor, I wouldn’t have cared, but Craig is my all time favorite actor and Bond.



    That’s interesting. Why? I was under the impression it was a matter of principle. But it's only a problem because it's Craig?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,027
    Maybe because CraigBond resonated with him in a more personal and emotional way than the others did?
  • Posts: 7,506
    Venutius wrote: »
    Maybe because CraigBond resonated with him in a more personal and emotional way than the others did?


    Yes, but we have had endless discussions about supposed continuity issues, how it "breaks with the spirit of Fleming", how it "ruins the character forever" etc, etc... So if it boils down to "watching a character I like dy made me sad, if it was another actor it would be fine", it kind of defeats the purpose of all that.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Stark wrote: »
    So if I understand correctly, Hodge's script had to include the DNA targeted poison, the new 007 and Bond's death. It's a shame he wasn't allowed to write a totally original script.

    Danny Boyle said, that EON paid him and Hodge for the script, therefore they owned it. And Boyle said something like "they can do with it, what they want, use it, use bits of it, or throw it away." But he also said, that if they used even bits of it, they should have given Hodge a mention or a story credit. That was an interview with Boye in 2019 with Ferman magazine "Der Spiegel" in aninterview about his "Yesterday" movie. So I can't give the exact source for that He also was asked about the Hodge script, and his ideas, but he refused to do so, as he said, it would be unfair, now that Cary Fukunaga is doing the movie, and the focus should be on thois movie, not his abandoned film.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    I've been waiting for Bond to get killed since QOS (I expected he would get it, killed by Mr White at the end), so better late than never!

    Did you really mate? I only ask because I find it interesting, I never thought that Bond would die.

    I was only slightly nervous when Daniel declared it his last film in interviews and then the trailers for NTTD, saying "the 25th film changes everything"

    Here’s my story. I vaguely remember something around 2019 about Boyle (think that’s his name) the director quitting. Last movie, so that started to make me nervous. I would even start doing Google searches about it pretty regularly. I just thought, “no way will they do it...or will they?” I git on the mi6 forum after the world premiere, knowing if it happened it would leak—and I had decided I wound the watch it if he died. When I read that, wow, what a gut punch. I was gutted. Debated heavily on going to watch it. Finally I did, and it was absolute brutal. BRUTAL. The ending ruined the entire movie for me. I enjoyed it up until the end, but there’s no getting around Bond dying. Don’t plan on ever watching it again, and for me it is the worst Bond film ever made. Such a shame they had to go that unnecessary route. If it had been any other Bond actor, I wouldn’t have cared, but Craig is my all time favorite actor and Bond.

    Thank you again, for sharing your opinion again. No harm intended.
    matt_u wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    That “secret idea” Craig talked about wanting to do for so long had to be either having the daughter or him dying I would imagine.

    Killing off Bond comes down even from CR. Again from the Archives:

    Gregg Wilson There were three core elements from the original Purvis and Wade script that we wanted to keep. Since Bond retires at the end of Spectre we liked the idea of introducing a new 007; she’s competitive with Bond and represents the new guard at MI6. Secondly, the DNA-targeted poison was the core idea fr the threat. And lastly, we wanted a satisfying way for Bond to sacrifice himself at the end.

    Daniel Craig When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara and Michael was that I would like to kill off Bond when I finished.

    Barbara Broccoli We had considered killing Bond in Spectre, but decided against it.


    So guys, if you hate the idea, Daniel is the one to blame. :D

    They hired him for Casino Royale and had discussions then. This clearly says Barbara and Michael discussed killing Bond off in Spectre. They knew from the beginning of associating with Daniel that they had an actor with the talent to pull that off, with the right script. All 3 of them were in favor of this idea, if they could get the story and the timing right. So no, you can't "blame Daniel" for this alone. If indeed hating NTTD's ending and/or cannot stand Daniel Craig's Bond anyway is what you are inclined to feel, it only happened due to all three of them agreeing on this idea.

    And personally, I'd like to thank all three for waiting for the right moment and the right script to do so. I am glad to have this story in the Bond film set of stories. It is fitting and so very, very well done. I understand some fans will never accept Bond dying, but for others we can accept it. This particular story did give Bond a noble, heroic ending that particular fits Daniel's Jame Bond. I really respect them for waiting for the right script and timing and then following through with this without flinching. The ending has integrity. The whole film is a beautiful, interesting, meaningful Bond film that also has plenty of fun earlier on. A really good balance overall.

    As you all know, James Bond will return. Different actor, different tone, and I hope those who are so unhappy now will enjoy the next run. I think I will, too. So nice to have a fresh start. Daniel left the Bond films in superb shape.

    + 1
    Couldn't have said it better!
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,027
    This comparison between Ana and Lea gets to the nub of the type of Bond Film people do and do not want. Those who think Ana had more chemistry must be defining chemistry as pizazz, overt energy, humour and a lightness of touch and in Bond terms full of quips.
    Oh, I dunno - I think most of the comments about the lack of chemistry between Craig and Seydoux are referring to the actors themselves, not the characters or their actions. Lea auditioned for SP with the train scene from CR - same dialogue, same scene, but I'd guess it didn't spark like it did between Craig and Eva Green. And that's because there seemed to be genuine, personal, unscripted chemistry between Dan and Eva, as people. Have you ever met someone and, within a week, felt like you've known them forever? Chemistry. Can you fake that or write it into a script? Dunno, but I'd doubt it. I totally agree with you about Madeleine and everything that Lea's portrayal of her brought to NTTD, but on this point of natural chemistry between individuals, I'm still not convinced. It's not a Bond and Madeleine thing because as, DarthDimi rightly pointed out to me, given their characters and experiences, their relationship wouldn't be a headlong, head-over-heels young love gush. It's more to do with Craig and Seydoux themselves. In contrast, Craig and Ana de Armas did seem to spark off each other - not just Bond and Paloma, but Dan and Ana too. That indefinable, unscripted stuff again. Mind you, if it's true that they actually barely filmed any of those scenes together, all of this could be complete hogwash and me just seeing what I want to see! Reinforcing one's unconscious biases? Surely not...cough.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 676
    Venutius wrote: »
    Pity Forster cut the last scene from QOS - Mr. White would've been dead in 2008 and none of this would've happened. Mr. White is Bond's kid's grandad? That's like having Jason Bourne's dad create Treadstone and Jason only joining up to avenge his pa. Oh, wait...

    The people who've been writing these recent Bond movies have no clue what they're doing. They don't even know what a plot is. All they can do is retcon and create contrivances by having everyone be related to one another, negating the need for actual motivation and tangible goals.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 372
    I think the whole point is that glacial Lea Seydoux look, and that she's not a "sparks" girl with him. If she didn't felt cold and distant, it would be a repeat as they've done this in CR already. So the intent was always a very different woman.

    I agree there's a bit of chemistry lacking, but Lea lacks chemistry with everyone and everything. She is glacial, a director who worked with both of them said Monica Belluci was fire, and Lea Seydoux ice. That covers it.

    About Daniel Craig, my feeling is that his stint as Bond will be remembered as unique.

    Cubby said no actor is bigger than Bond, but I think what happened with Craig is that he equalled the character, which is the first time it happened since Sean Connery. He also got everything that was denied to Sean, a producer credit (thus the money that goes with it), and his way with the directors and the scripts. That's insane, when Pierce had to fight against everybody for days just to preserve a ferocious close up of him looking at the guy he just shot in the pre-credits of WINE.

    It's going to be a hard act to follow, and I think they should do something completely different from anything they have done next time.

    For example, adapt The Spy Who Loved Me, a.k.a "Motel 007", and keeping the intent (the whole film is told through the eyes of the woman and Bond is just a guest in the story), while going R rated.

    Think about it, a stylish noir style 007 film that will be set mostly in one location, done for 100 millions max, where you introduce the actor who will play Bond next, that breaks all the blockbuster rules, while still being quintessential Bond. It's an assured win.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,690
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Pity Forster cut the last scene from QOS - Mr. White would've been dead in 2008 and none of this would've happened. Mr. White is Bond's kid's grandad? That's like having Jason Bourne's dad create Treadstone and Jason only joining up to avenge his pa. Oh, wait...

    The people who've been writing these recent Bond movies have no clue what they're doing. They don't even know what a plot is. All they can do is retcon and create contrivances by having everyone be related to one another, negating the need for actual motivation and tangible goals.

    You are, sadly, correct.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,027
    So much so, that when I heard they were going to retcon absolutely everything together, I'd've put a tenner on Craig's last film being called 'Ellipsis'!
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    matt_u wrote: »
    Stark wrote: »
    So if I understand correctly, Hodge's script had to include the DNA targeted poison, the new 007 and Bond's death. It's a shame he wasn't allowed to write a totally original script.

    Those three anchor points were all part of the P&W’s script and they say Boyle produced a whole new treatment once he came in. P&W’s script featured Madeleine as well. Here Gregg is talking after Boyle’s left so at that moment they went back to what was developed before Boyle’s involvement…

    Gregg Wilson: There were three core elements from the original Purvis and Wade script that we wanted to keep. Since Bond retires at the end of Spectre we liked the idea of introducing a new 007; she’s competitive with Bond and represents the new guard at MI6. Secondly, the DNA-targeted poison was the core idea fr the threat. And lastly, we wanted a satisfying way for Bond to sacrifice himself at the end.

    There were rumours that Hodge's script also had a rookie agent, a villain with a bacteriological weapon and Bond death so maybe Hodge also had an obligation to include these three core elements in his script.
  • Posts: 131
    Stamper wrote: »
    Think about it, a stylish noir style 007 film that will be set mostly in one location, done for 100 millions max, where you introduce the actor who will play Bond next, that breaks all the blockbuster rules, while still being quintessential Bond. It's an assured win.

    Actually, it sounds intriguing so long as the Fleming estate allows it if a bit too much like Sin City... but without the action "crutch", the new guy better have tons of charisma to pull it off!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Stark wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Stark wrote: »
    So if I understand correctly, Hodge's script had to include the DNA targeted poison, the new 007 and Bond's death. It's a shame he wasn't allowed to write a totally original script.

    Those three anchor points were all part of the P&W’s script and they say Boyle produced a whole new treatment once he came in. P&W’s script featured Madeleine as well. Here Gregg is talking after Boyle’s left so at that moment they went back to what was developed before Boyle’s involvement…

    Gregg Wilson: There were three core elements from the original Purvis and Wade script that we wanted to keep. Since Bond retires at the end of Spectre we liked the idea of introducing a new 007; she’s competitive with Bond and represents the new guard at MI6. Secondly, the DNA-targeted poison was the core idea fr the threat. And lastly, we wanted a satisfying way for Bond to sacrifice himself at the end.

    There were rumours that Hodge's script also had a rookie agent, a villain with a bacteriological weapon and Bond death so maybe Hodge also had an obligation to include these three core elements in his script.

    Yeah that's very likely.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 372
    Ian Fleming didn't want the novel TSWLM to be adapted on screen back in the early 60's, but that was a completely different time.

    Now that Joker has demonstrated that you can pull off worldwide R rated hits with inprint characters that are more profitable as they cost way less, it's probably where Babs & Michael are looking to go, at least as an experiment.

    Regarding action, there is still plenty in TSWLM, and I'm sure Purvis (what happened to his hair?) and Wade can add plenty extending the film to 2h50 :)
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    Stamper wrote: »
    It's going to be a hard act to follow, and I think they should do something completely different from anything they have done next time.

    For example, adapt The Spy Who Loved Me, a.k.a "Motel 007", and keeping the intent (the whole film is told through the eyes of the woman and Bond is just a guest in the story), while going R rated.

    Think about it, a stylish noir style 007 film that will be set mostly in one location, done for 100 millions max, where you introduce the actor who will play Bond next, that breaks all the blockbuster rules, while still being quintessential Bond. It's an assured win.

    Yeah, we definitely need something really different. Craig has been brilliant but I think they’ll have to radically change course to escape his shadow.

    I’m not sure about an R rated Bond though. If it was a more regular series then I’d welcome it, but I don’t think these films are made often enough anymore to justify that sort of experimentation. With four years between films, an R rated film would mean eight years of younger viewers not getting to see a Bond film. And that’s the demographic they’re struggling with in the US.

    I’m not really keen on the idea of a TSWLM adaptation either. I think American gangsters were always Fleming’s weakness. But I do love the idea of a stripped down Bond film told from the perspective of a Bond girl. I think there’s a lot you could do with that.
  • Posts: 372
    I think it would be the opposite, a R rated Bond would mean every kid wants to see it :))
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,261
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Pity Forster cut the last scene from QOS - Mr. White would've been dead in 2008 and none of this would've happened. Mr. White is Bond's kid's grandad? That's like having Jason Bourne's dad create Treadstone and Jason only joining up to avenge his pa. Oh, wait...

    The people who've been writing these recent Bond movies have no clue what they're doing. They don't even know what a plot is. All they can do is retcon and create contrivances by having everyone be related to one another, negating the need for actual motivation and tangible goals.

    So, the writers, who penned the screenplays for Craig's Bond did not know, what they were doing? So, who would have been a better choice?
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,261
    Stamper wrote: »
    I think it would be the opposite, a R rated Bond would mean every kid wants to see it :))

    LTK got a 15 certificate instead of a 12 or PG certificate (quite adequate), which meant, that actually kids being younger than 15, could not watch it, when it came out. And MGM actually weighes in, that the graphic and gory violence did cost the company a lot of money at least when the movie came out in 1989, which (what we know now) finally lead to Dalton being dismissed, as MGM felt, that Dalton was the person, who wanted that more brutal and violent BNond movies. Four years after Roger Moore, audiences were not ready to that more grittier Bond. In 2006, they were.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 372
    I don't think this factored at all. At the time, R rated films were all the rage.
    People were fighting to see Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. MGM excuse was bull. They just marketed the film wrong. I think the marketing fiasco is recorded in print somewhere.

    BTW good evening, Err Doctor. My master!
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,261
    Stamper wrote: »
    I don't think this factored at all. At the time, R rated films were all the rage.
    People were fighting to see Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. MGM excuse was bull. They just marketed the film wrong. I think the marketing fiasco is recorded in print somewhere.

    BTW good evening, Err Doctor. My master!

    That much for German efficiency!

    And I believe, LTK was the first Bond movie, who did not get the 12 certificate. About PG,, I don't know. And as I said, it was not the darker, more gritty edge of LTK, it was the way it was presented. Leiter maimed by shark, Kilifer fed to the shark, Krests head exploding, Dario shreddered, Heller being impaled by a forklift, and, last but not least, Sanchez dying as a living torch tumbling into inflamed heroin-petrol.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 676
    So, the writers, who penned the screenplays for Craig's Bond did not know, what they were doing? So, who would have been a better choice? And was Craig for you the wrong choice, to start with?

    I was on board with Craig from the day he was announced, and through QOS. SF is when I started to dislike him in the role. I didn't think he played "old" Bond as well as played young Bond. I believe that was around the time when he started having direct influence on the movies, as well.

    As for the writing, I keep seeing evidence that these movies are being crafted around plot elements, instead of plots themselves, NTTD being a good example.

    "We want this movie to include a new 007, DNA poisoning, and Bond's self-sacrifice."

    They also apparently wrote QOS around a bunch of action sequences, and it shows, even though I enjoy that one. It also gets a pass because it was made during the writer's strike. NTTD has no excuses. They had years to make it.

    The point is that you should develop a story first and then see what fits in it, instead of trying to wrap a story around a few plot elements. Honestly I could probably sketch a better finale for Craig's Bond in a few minutes.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    slide_99 wrote: »
    So, the writers, who penned the screenplays for Craig's Bond did not know, what they were doing? So, who would have been a better choice? And was Craig for you the wrong choice, to start with?

    I was on board with Craig from the day he was announced, and through QOS. SF is when I started to dislike him in the role. I didn't think he played "old" Bond as well as played young Bond. I believe that was around the time when he started having direct influence on the movies, as well.

    As for the writing, I keep seeing evidence that these movies are being crafted around plot elements, instead of plots themselves, NTTD being a good example.

    "We want this movie to include a new 007, DNA poisoning, and Bond's self-sacrifice."

    They also apparently wrote QOS around a bunch of action sequences, and it shows, even though I enjoy that one. It also gets a pass because it was made during the writer's strike. NTTD has no excuses. They had years to make it.

    The point is that you should develop a story first and then see what fits in it, instead of trying to wrap a story around a few plot elements. Honestly I could probably sketch a better finale for Craig's Bond in a few minutes.

    First of all, I edited my post and cut the Craig bit. And regarding QOS, without the writer's strike and a fully crafted, revised and polished scripts, it could have been a very good Bond movie, but as Craig said, he was no writer, neither was Marc Forster. I tend to say, that somewhere inside, there is a great Bond movie in QOS, which only occasional shines through, but too rarely. As for NTTD, I don't think, they wrote the script around some action sequences. More or less it looks like they had the P&W script, and the Boyle/Hodge script, Haggis and Brown handed in rewrites we don't know, then Fukunaga penned his draft, and finally Pheobe Waller Bridge came on board. Like TND, where they had sevaeral mscript drafts by several authors, and Feirstein finally had to merge them to the final script. Brosnan said: "It was like pulling teeth." And apparently there was a problem with the director abnd some actors, e.g. Brosnan, Pryce and Judi Dench. And I reas somewhere, that Spottiswoode was - up til then - the first director, who was not offerd to direct the next Bond movie. I suppose, they also did not ask Tamahori, whether he wanted to come back.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    Draft
    slide_99 wrote: »
    So, the writers, who penned the screenplays for Craig's Bond did not know, what they were doing? So, who would have been a better choice? And was Craig for you the wrong choice, to start with?

    I was on board with Craig from the day he was announced, and through QOS. SF is when I started to dislike him in the role. I didn't think he played "old" Bond as well as played young Bond. I believe that was around the time when he started having direct influence on the movies, as well.

    As for the writing, I keep seeing evidence that these movies are being crafted around plot elements, instead of plots themselves, NTTD being a good example.

    "We want this movie to include a new 007, DNA poisoning, and Bond's self-sacrifice."

    They also apparently wrote QOS around a bunch of action sequences, and it shows, even though I enjoy that one. It also gets a pass because it was made during the writer's strike. NTTD has no excuses. They had years to make it.

    The point is that you should develop a story first and then see what fits in it, instead of trying to wrap a story around a few plot elements. Honestly I could probably sketch a better finale for Craig's Bond in a few minutes.

    I actually agree with all of this. I think I like Post-QoS Craig better than you do, though, but that's just opinion.

    I was talking to a friend of mine after we watched the film, and he was saying that there were basically three different films in NTTD, each one basically a plot point that you outlined, and I tended to agree. Still enjoyed NTTD though.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    NTTD does have a very episodic set-piece feel to it. Sometimes the transitions between scenes work beautifully, as when a young Madeleine under the ice in Norway turns into her grown-up self surfacing above the water in Italy; but I was rather baffled on one occasion, as when Bond in the yellow dinghy abruptly dissolves into Bond at his lockup in London. 'Huh, did I miss something?'
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    Feyador wrote: »
    NTTD does have a very episodic set-piece feel to it. Sometimes the transitions between scenes work beautifully, as when a young Madeleine under the ice in Norway turns into her grown-up self surfacing above the water in Italy; but I was rather baffled on one occasion, as when Bond in the yellow dinghy abruptly dissolves into Bond at his lockup in London. 'Huh, did I miss something?'

    I *loved* that transition. Very dramatic.
Sign In or Register to comment.