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

1173174176178179298

Comments

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,256
    Draco20 wrote: »
    @NickTwentyTwo

    I agree with you bro. After the shock of the ending passes, some of the haters will appreciate this film. Just like OHMSS was not well received in 1969 but by the Nineties hard core fans came to appreciate it. In the Mi6 survey of ranking the films for the 50th anniversary in 2012 prior to SF release, OHMSS came in a strong Fourth.

    And I have to say that Craig went out with a bang (no pun) in his final outting. Most Bond Actors final films (save for LTK) stunk.

    I loved Swan since seeing her in that green dress in SPECTRE and she just looks so good in her clothes in both of her Bond films. Malik is a good villain, good to see Q, Moneypenny, and Fiennes as M as well as the final turn for Jeffrey Wright's Leiter. I give the film two thumbs up and eventually the haters will come around.




    Quite right, but back then in 1989 (before even the Berlin Wall came down), when it came out, neither Dalton nor Cubby nor anbody else, knew, that LTK would be his last Bond movie. Same with Brosnan. That is maybe a reason for Brosnan feeling hurt, when he got the boot, realising, that his final outing would be such a stinker. Connery and Moore (and Lazenby) knew, that DAF (almost) and AVTAK were their final movie.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 660
    I'd say it's a combination of both. He had just barely enough time to escape before being shot and before needing to re-open the blast doors, but once he was injured and poisoned, he clearly knew there the chances were none.

    I think what helps make it all so moving is the knowledge, acceptance & consolation, especially, that if he is not going to survive - it is for the best given the implications of having been poisoned with the nanobots targeted for Madeleine & Mathilde.

    So it's not that he chooses to die, only that he embraces his imminent death in the knowledge of the above.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 642
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @slide_99
    Who claimed that Craig defined the character "more" than the others? How do you even do such a thing? Craig re-defined the character, but only in the smallest of ways because the "definition" of Bond is pretty thin anyway. Every actor re-defined Bond to some extent. But to define Bond "more" than others? I guess when you get to do more films (e.g. Craig vs. Lazenby) and slightly more personal stories (e.g. Lazenby vs. Moore) you end up crawling under Bond's skin a bit more than the other guy. But "define more"? I can't tell you that much more about Craig's Bond than about Connery's, except for circumstantial details, i.e. things that have happened to him.

    What was the point of Craig's tenure? I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Since when is there a "point" to an actor's tenure? What was the point of Moore's? Of Brosnan's? What does that mean? They went from adventure to adventure, and we love them. Craig's Bond simply faced more bumps in the road by design. But let's be fair. If Dalton's films had been better received, they might have gone there too. He went from "M can fire me!" to "piss off, I'm just doing what I want!". Brosnan wishes (and so do I) that his stories could have been a little edgier too. (The "rogue" portion of DAD feels like a compromise.) Craig is the first Bond whose uneven loyalty to the system was embraced by audiences, enough to make it a staple of his films.

    That is part of the zeitgeist, by the way. The heroes of now operate for us, not for their masters (I have to kill a bombmaker and beat LeChiffre because I am convinced it's the right thing to do); they follow their orders but not unconditionally (we are a part of the State but the State doesn't own us). It's the culmination of fifty years of neo-liberalism; in the end, the individual will fight for itself rather than for the "status quo". Craig's Bond doesn't fit the ultra-loyal, no-questions-asked "Golden Generation mentality" because modern audiences wouldn't find that appealing. Craig's Bond is obedient but only on his own terms, the paradoxical way of thinking that many of us carry over to our job, community and other institutions every day in this day and age (there really is an "I" in the team of 2021). It's no wonder then that the "here's your assignment Bond, now go and do your job" formula doesn't work anymore. For England, James? No, for me.
    Craig was finished in 2015. Why on earth did they wait 5 years (not including the one-year delay) to bring him back for this? To give him a big sendoff? Why? Why does he need a sendoff? He's not the first actor to play Bond, he's the sixth, and while he may have revitalized the role in 2006 he certainly didn't define it any more than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan did. It feels like they broke Cubby's rule of the actor becoming bigger than the character.

    They waited five years because that's how long it took to get this film made. Why is James Cameron taking 14 (!) years to give us another Avatar? Because that's how long it's taking him. Don't overthink this. We have followed the various stages of the film's development. No one decided to wait 5 years. That's what happened. There were setbacks they had to face: the suits were quarrelling, COVID happened, it didn't work out with Boyle, ... None of this was desirable, but it happened. There's no plan behind the five-year gap, only a linear sequence of events that led to this point.

    Why he needs a sendoff? He doesn't. They chose to give it to him. Craig is a popular Bond. And some folks felt that he definitely had one more Bond in him. If the rights to CR hadn't landed in EON's lap, Brosnan would most likely have gotten a 5th film. Could have been a symbolic sendoff to, in some shape or form. We don't know. Doesn't matter. Why did they keep Moore on, when some--not me!--were screaming he was getting a bit long in the tooth? Same thing. He was popular, he was reliable. Don't overthink it.

    It's all a culmination of events, my friend. Frankly, I think it's a victory they got this film made and released. It's cost them though, costs that will require years to recuperate. NTTD was birthed in a very difficult climate, arguably the most difficult of any of the Bonds so far. I applaud the fact that they finally got here. I'm confident that if they had known this is what was coming to them, NTTD wouldn't have happened. But all the struggles will lend the film some sympathy too. It will always be remembered, I'm sure, as the Bond film that had to fight for its life and barely made its money back, if at all, mostly because of a global pandemic that neither allowed the film to be shelved indefinitely, nor to be released with guaranteed financial success.

    So basically the response is, "They did it because they wanted to." Yeah, I get that. It's their franchise and they can do what they want with it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.

    I don't see how it adds richness to anything. Felix dies. Blofeld dies. Craig-Bond dies. Was there no other way for the filmmakers to give exits to these characters? And that's not even including Mathis and Dench-M. Reading the plot rundown on wikipedia, this movie comes off as a controlled demolition to me, just burning everything down so they can start fresh or whatever for the next "reboot" (ugh).

    Hold on, are you telling me you've been blowing up the forums about this and still haven't even watched the bloody film?

    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,517
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    What a waste of time. Seriously, if you have no intention of even seeing the movie, stop discussing the movie. We're not here talking about the Wikipedia plot rundown, we're talking about the film.

  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 660
    One of the odder things, for me, that takes place during the conclusion of the film is the grave, disconsolate, even depressed expression both on M's face and in the funereal sound of his voice as he signals the Admiral to launch the missile strike.

    It's the strangest thing - as if he somehow had a premonition of Bond's death (which seems unlikely), and yet, there it is ....
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    Feyador wrote: »
    One of the odder things, for me, that takes place during the conclusion of the film is the grave, disconsolate, even depressed expression both on M's face and in the funereal sound of his voice as he signals the Admiral to launch the missile strike.

    It's the strangest thing - as if he somehow had a premonition of Bond's death (which seems unlikely), and yet, there it is ....

    Well, I mean he knows Bond is on the island; I think M's delivery here made sense contextually, even if Bond had made a daring escape and survived.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 642
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    What a waste of time. Seriously, if you have no intention of even seeing the movie, stop discussing the movie. We're not here talking about the Wikipedia plot rundown, we're talking about the film.

    Literally in my first post here I said I wasn't going to watch it. And unless the movie has a different plot, I can still criticize its major beats based on the rundown. I haven't at all commented on its acting, camerawork specifically because I haven't seen it.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    slide_99 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    What a waste of time. Seriously, if you have no intention of even seeing the movie, stop discussing the movie. We're not here talking about the Wikipedia plot rundown, we're talking about the film.

    Literally in my first post here I said I wasn't going to watch it. And unless the movie has a different plot, I can still criticize the creative decisions behind the movie.

    I mean, of course, you can do whatever you want.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited November 2021 Posts: 12,459
    @slide_99 I hear John McEnroe bellowing "You CANNOT be serious?!!!!" and picture him breaking his racket over your thick skull. All your blathering and ranting, and bloated posts, is actually opinionated posturing because you have not seen the movie.

    Plenty of members - before seeing NTTD -were adamantly against Bond dying. Me, included. Plenty of us were moved and surprised by having an ending that (although against our longstanding conviction) was so very well done, appropriate, and overall satisfying for us. Others have mixed reactions, and we do vary in our feelings, naturally.

    But we at least SAW the movie. Gave it a chance. I now wish more than ever there was a mute button on this forum, because every time you will comment on NTTD you are commenting from a point of view of hearsay and not your own personal experience of watching it, and therefore your comments are not of any interest to me. You should have been upfront about not seeing the film. And there are other threads you can enjoy on the forum. But for now, you are hopefully off my radar.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,955
    slide_99 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @slide_99
    Who claimed that Craig defined the character "more" than the others? How do you even do such a thing? Craig re-defined the character, but only in the smallest of ways because the "definition" of Bond is pretty thin anyway. Every actor re-defined Bond to some extent. But to define Bond "more" than others? I guess when you get to do more films (e.g. Craig vs. Lazenby) and slightly more personal stories (e.g. Lazenby vs. Moore) you end up crawling under Bond's skin a bit more than the other guy. But "define more"? I can't tell you that much more about Craig's Bond than about Connery's, except for circumstantial details, i.e. things that have happened to him.

    What was the point of Craig's tenure? I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Since when is there a "point" to an actor's tenure? What was the point of Moore's? Of Brosnan's? What does that mean? They went from adventure to adventure, and we love them. Craig's Bond simply faced more bumps in the road by design. But let's be fair. If Dalton's films had been better received, they might have gone there too. He went from "M can fire me!" to "piss off, I'm just doing what I want!". Brosnan wishes (and so do I) that his stories could have been a little edgier too. (The "rogue" portion of DAD feels like a compromise.) Craig is the first Bond whose uneven loyalty to the system was embraced by audiences, enough to make it a staple of his films.

    That is part of the zeitgeist, by the way. The heroes of now operate for us, not for their masters (I have to kill a bombmaker and beat LeChiffre because I am convinced it's the right thing to do); they follow their orders but not unconditionally (we are a part of the State but the State doesn't own us). It's the culmination of fifty years of neo-liberalism; in the end, the individual will fight for itself rather than for the "status quo". Craig's Bond doesn't fit the ultra-loyal, no-questions-asked "Golden Generation mentality" because modern audiences wouldn't find that appealing. Craig's Bond is obedient but only on his own terms, the paradoxical way of thinking that many of us carry over to our job, community and other institutions every day in this day and age (there really is an "I" in the team of 2021). It's no wonder then that the "here's your assignment Bond, now go and do your job" formula doesn't work anymore. For England, James? No, for me.
    Craig was finished in 2015. Why on earth did they wait 5 years (not including the one-year delay) to bring him back for this? To give him a big sendoff? Why? Why does he need a sendoff? He's not the first actor to play Bond, he's the sixth, and while he may have revitalized the role in 2006 he certainly didn't define it any more than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan did. It feels like they broke Cubby's rule of the actor becoming bigger than the character.

    They waited five years because that's how long it took to get this film made. Why is James Cameron taking 14 (!) years to give us another Avatar? Because that's how long it's taking him. Don't overthink this. We have followed the various stages of the film's development. No one decided to wait 5 years. That's what happened. There were setbacks they had to face: the suits were quarrelling, COVID happened, it didn't work out with Boyle, ... None of this was desirable, but it happened. There's no plan behind the five-year gap, only a linear sequence of events that led to this point.

    Why he needs a sendoff? He doesn't. They chose to give it to him. Craig is a popular Bond. And some folks felt that he definitely had one more Bond in him. If the rights to CR hadn't landed in EON's lap, Brosnan would most likely have gotten a 5th film. Could have been a symbolic sendoff to, in some shape or form. We don't know. Doesn't matter. Why did they keep Moore on, when some--not me!--were screaming he was getting a bit long in the tooth? Same thing. He was popular, he was reliable. Don't overthink it.

    It's all a culmination of events, my friend. Frankly, I think it's a victory they got this film made and released. It's cost them though, costs that will require years to recuperate. NTTD was birthed in a very difficult climate, arguably the most difficult of any of the Bonds so far. I applaud the fact that they finally got here. I'm confident that if they had known this is what was coming to them, NTTD wouldn't have happened. But all the struggles will lend the film some sympathy too. It will always be remembered, I'm sure, as the Bond film that had to fight for its life and barely made its money back, if at all, mostly because of a global pandemic that neither allowed the film to be shelved indefinitely, nor to be released with guaranteed financial success.

    So basically the response is, "They did it because they wanted to." Yeah, I get that. It's their franchise and they can do what they want with it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.

    I don't see how it adds richness to anything. Felix dies. Blofeld dies. Craig-Bond dies. Was there no other way for the filmmakers to give exits to these characters? And that's not even including Mathis and Dench-M. Reading the plot rundown on wikipedia, this movie comes off as a controlled demolition to me, just burning everything down so they can start fresh or whatever for the next "reboot" (ugh).

    Hold on, are you telling me you've been blowing up the forums about this and still haven't even watched the bloody film?

    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    Do everyone a favor and stop wasting everyone’s time posting and responding in this thread. Every word you’ve put up here has been invalid.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited November 2021 Posts: 4,343
    MI6 folks should just add the ignore button.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 642
    You should have been upfront about not seeing the film.

    I was. I flat-out said so in my very first post.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,517
    slide_99 wrote: »
    You should have been upfront about not seeing the film.

    I was. I said so in my first post.

    What on earth makes you think that every time you post, every member that sees your post is going to go back and reference your first post?
    Maybe put it as your location or something? lol
    I mean, a rational person would know not to discuss at length a film they haven't seen, but for you, maybe that little constant reminder would be helpful.
    matt_u wrote: »
    MI6 folks should just add the ignore button.

    For threads, and yes, now for posters, it would be helpful.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    @slide_99 then I concede that one point; I missed that. Your posts since then are the ones I must have read. Okay then, thank you for saying that in your first post.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 660
    Feyador wrote: »
    One of the odder things, for me, that takes place during the conclusion of the film is the grave, disconsolate, even depressed expression both on M's face and in the funereal sound of his voice as he signals the Admiral to launch the missile strike.

    It's the strangest thing - as if he somehow had a premonition of Bond's death (which seems unlikely), and yet, there it is ....

    Well, I mean he knows Bond is on the island; I think M's delivery here made sense contextually, even if Bond had made a daring escape and survived.

    Hmm, I suppose so ....

    But an understandable concern for Bond's life is one thing. This seems a different level entirely ... like he knows what's going to happen, as crazy as that might sound - so maybe it's just me.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2021 Posts: 10,512
    slide_99 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @slide_99
    Who claimed that Craig defined the character "more" than the others? How do you even do such a thing? Craig re-defined the character, but only in the smallest of ways because the "definition" of Bond is pretty thin anyway. Every actor re-defined Bond to some extent. But to define Bond "more" than others? I guess when you get to do more films (e.g. Craig vs. Lazenby) and slightly more personal stories (e.g. Lazenby vs. Moore) you end up crawling under Bond's skin a bit more than the other guy. But "define more"? I can't tell you that much more about Craig's Bond than about Connery's, except for circumstantial details, i.e. things that have happened to him.

    What was the point of Craig's tenure? I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Since when is there a "point" to an actor's tenure? What was the point of Moore's? Of Brosnan's? What does that mean? They went from adventure to adventure, and we love them. Craig's Bond simply faced more bumps in the road by design. But let's be fair. If Dalton's films had been better received, they might have gone there too. He went from "M can fire me!" to "piss off, I'm just doing what I want!". Brosnan wishes (and so do I) that his stories could have been a little edgier too. (The "rogue" portion of DAD feels like a compromise.) Craig is the first Bond whose uneven loyalty to the system was embraced by audiences, enough to make it a staple of his films.

    That is part of the zeitgeist, by the way. The heroes of now operate for us, not for their masters (I have to kill a bombmaker and beat LeChiffre because I am convinced it's the right thing to do); they follow their orders but not unconditionally (we are a part of the State but the State doesn't own us). It's the culmination of fifty years of neo-liberalism; in the end, the individual will fight for itself rather than for the "status quo". Craig's Bond doesn't fit the ultra-loyal, no-questions-asked "Golden Generation mentality" because modern audiences wouldn't find that appealing. Craig's Bond is obedient but only on his own terms, the paradoxical way of thinking that many of us carry over to our job, community and other institutions every day in this day and age (there really is an "I" in the team of 2021). It's no wonder then that the "here's your assignment Bond, now go and do your job" formula doesn't work anymore. For England, James? No, for me.
    Craig was finished in 2015. Why on earth did they wait 5 years (not including the one-year delay) to bring him back for this? To give him a big sendoff? Why? Why does he need a sendoff? He's not the first actor to play Bond, he's the sixth, and while he may have revitalized the role in 2006 he certainly didn't define it any more than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan did. It feels like they broke Cubby's rule of the actor becoming bigger than the character.

    They waited five years because that's how long it took to get this film made. Why is James Cameron taking 14 (!) years to give us another Avatar? Because that's how long it's taking him. Don't overthink this. We have followed the various stages of the film's development. No one decided to wait 5 years. That's what happened. There were setbacks they had to face: the suits were quarrelling, COVID happened, it didn't work out with Boyle, ... None of this was desirable, but it happened. There's no plan behind the five-year gap, only a linear sequence of events that led to this point.

    Why he needs a sendoff? He doesn't. They chose to give it to him. Craig is a popular Bond. And some folks felt that he definitely had one more Bond in him. If the rights to CR hadn't landed in EON's lap, Brosnan would most likely have gotten a 5th film. Could have been a symbolic sendoff to, in some shape or form. We don't know. Doesn't matter. Why did they keep Moore on, when some--not me!--were screaming he was getting a bit long in the tooth? Same thing. He was popular, he was reliable. Don't overthink it.

    It's all a culmination of events, my friend. Frankly, I think it's a victory they got this film made and released. It's cost them though, costs that will require years to recuperate. NTTD was birthed in a very difficult climate, arguably the most difficult of any of the Bonds so far. I applaud the fact that they finally got here. I'm confident that if they had known this is what was coming to them, NTTD wouldn't have happened. But all the struggles will lend the film some sympathy too. It will always be remembered, I'm sure, as the Bond film that had to fight for its life and barely made its money back, if at all, mostly because of a global pandemic that neither allowed the film to be shelved indefinitely, nor to be released with guaranteed financial success.

    So basically the response is, "They did it because they wanted to." Yeah, I get that. It's their franchise and they can do what they want with it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.

    I don't see how it adds richness to anything. Felix dies. Blofeld dies. Craig-Bond dies. Was there no other way for the filmmakers to give exits to these characters? And that's not even including Mathis and Dench-M. Reading the plot rundown on wikipedia, this movie comes off as a controlled demolition to me, just burning everything down so they can start fresh or whatever for the next "reboot" (ugh).

    Hold on, are you telling me you've been blowing up the forums about this and still haven't even watched the bloody film?

    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    The long line of angry little men has a new member.
  • Posts: 2,400
    The "stealthy bird" is still there. He can't achieve flight with it from the sea, but it can be used as a submersible/boat. I assume that was his plan.

    Probably. But the heavy injuries and the poisoning made this impossible. If Safin had not re-closed the blast doors, plus the injury made this obsolete, as time was running out with the missiles approaching the island very fast.

    Yes, I meant Bond's original plan, before the blast doors were re-closed and whatnot.
  • Posts: 371
    I'm sure there's a fridge somewhere...
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,256
    The "stealthy bird" is still there. He can't achieve flight with it from the sea, but it can be used as a submersible/boat. I assume that was his plan.

    Probably. But the heavy injuries and the poisoning made this impossible. If Safin had not re-closed the blast doors, plus the injury made this obsolete, as time was running out with the missiles approaching the island very fast.

    Yes, I meant Bond's original plan, before the blast doors were re-closed and whatnot.

    Agreed.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,333
    @slide_99
    Wait, I had missed the fact that you haven't watched NTTD... (That's on me, by the way, since you did apparently state this before.)

    Still, you have read the wiki summary and based on what you know, you--okay, look, this is absolutely outrageous. It means you are in literally no position to judge this film! Image, sound, acting, pace, the "overall feel", a holistic reading of the film, emotional build-up... It makes your entire "case" preposterous. Well, senior, you've got some cojones. Burning a film you haven't seen based on factual knowledge of the plot but no experience of the entire work is like saying a painting that you've never been able to look at sucks based on a description of what it shows. It also means that your partners in criticising NTTD's ending must feel quite embarrassed by your "contributions" to the debate.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    What a waste of time. Seriously, if you have no intention of even seeing the movie, stop discussing the movie. We're not here talking about the Wikipedia plot rundown, we're talking about the film.

    Literally in my first post here I said I wasn't going to watch it. And unless the movie has a different plot, I can still criticize its major beats based on the rundown. I haven't at all commented on its acting, camerawork specifically because I haven't seen it.

    Exactly why you have zero business being here! It's an au-dio-vi-su-al medium. Take notice: you see things and you hear things. It's the sum total (and more) of those things that you judge when you judge a film. Don't tell me: you judge books based on their covers too?
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    All the time you've spent here (wasting ours) could have allowed you three dozen viewings of the film. Then at least you had some qualifications for contributing to this thread. Your opinion is literally inferior to ours since we have actually seen the bloody movie! And saying that,

    "[you] know what happens and [you're] not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music,"

    makes you even more laughable! Reducing the merits of a film to its plot is a fool's game. Hey, good luck discussing half the Bond films then. There's one with a diamond-lasered killer satellite and an invisible car and face swapping and Madonna as a fencing instructor. And someone says "yo momma!". Let's discuss. God, you're a joke, mate, a joke.

    @slide_99 I hear John McEnroe bellowing "You CANNOT be serious?!!!!" and picture him breaking his racket over your thick skull. All your blathering and ranting, and bloated posts, is actually opinionated posturing because you have not seen the movie.

    Plenty of members - before seeing NTTD -were adamantly against Bond dying. Me, included. Plenty of us were moved and surprised by having an ending that (although against our longstanding conviction) was so very well done, appropriate, and overall satisfying for us. Others have mixed reactions, and we do vary in our feelings, naturally.

    But we at least SAW the movie. Gave it a chance. I now wish more than ever there was a mute button on this forum, because every time you will comment on NTTD you are commenting from a point of view of hearsay and not your own personal experience of watching it, and therefore your comments are not of any interest to me. You should have been upfront about not seeing the film. And there are other threads you can enjoy on the forum. But for now, you are hopefully off my radar.

    Couldn't have said it better, @4EverBonded! Now I'm feeling bad for having spent the past four weeks trying to reason with @slide_99. Makes me feel like an unintentional school bully. @-)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    Wait wait wait, these James Bond stories are actually films??
    I thought they were stories you all just told to each other around this forum… well, hopefully there are only a couple, so I can get caught up! At least they aren’t novels… ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes This is the boodanaychur.
    Posts: 6,648
    This latest twist about slide_99 is absolutely hilarious! (Grabs popcorn)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    @slide_99 what are your thoughts on Dune 2?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2021 Posts: 23,333
    Wait wait wait, these James Bond stories are actually films??
    I thought they were stories you all just told to each other around this forum… well, hopefully there are only a couple, so I can get caught up! At least they aren’t novels… ;)

    Yes, imagine that. But hey, I judge my pizzas too by that one ingredient in its dough... that I haven't even tasted myself. I just read about it.

    Christ, what a turn of events. Maybe we should open up a new thread: judge films you haven't seen. That should be fun. I have never watched Mean Girls 2 but I already hate that film because according to wiki, some charity money meant to be spent on an animal welfare group gets stolen. So I hate that movie because that is immoral and you just . don't . do . that! And whoever disagrees with me is unworthy of calling himself a "Mean Girls" fan! Acting and such don't interest me. You don't steal charity money and that's it.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »

    All the time you've spent here (wasting ours) could have allowed you three dozen viewings of the film.


    LOL. Yikes.
  • mattjoesmattjoes This is the boodanaychur.
    Posts: 6,648
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    For a movie you have no interest in seeing, you sure have great interest in discussing it. I would think you would be a little curious to see it? A little? Just a bit? A teeny tiny little bit?
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Yes. I have no intention of spending 3+ hours in a theater during a pandemic for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. I've read the plot rundown. I know what happens and I'm not interested in discussing stuff like cinematography and music.

    I'm going to gleefully beat the dead horse here and thank you for coming in here with a "My opinion won't change, so I'm just going to make all the people who liked the film regret their own opinions" attitude without ever actually bothering to know what it is you're talking about.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    @slide_99 what are your thoughts on Dune 2?

    Oh, I enjoyed this.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 7,493
    @slide_99 what are your thoughts on Dune 2?

    :)) :))

    I am sure he hates it.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    @slide_99 what are your thoughts on Dune 2?

    I'm sure he's disappointed with the viewers enjoying it.
Sign In or Register to comment.