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

1234235237239240298

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2022 Posts: 7,526
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Also, there are no stakes if these characters are immune to death.

    There are also no stakes if they just keep rebooting characters after killing them.

    You're not wrong, it's a balance. 1 out of 25 doesn't feel like too much.

    I suppose the stakes here are that it is a definitive end to this iteration, for sure. I'd agree with you that it would disregard all stakes if Craig were to come back and the Swann storyline to be resumed.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited January 2022 Posts: 8,019
    I think it would be cool if an actor signed up for two films with the intention of his Bond dying, but EON never discloses how many films he’s actually doing so to keep his fate a secret. Just the standard “three films with an optional fourth” is all we hear. So we come to theaters, expecting to see what would be the guy’s second Bond film, but what we don’t realize is that it’s his last. End it like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE where Bond turns purple and drops right on the floor. Hold the shot for ten seconds just to let it sink in, and cut to black for end credits.

    And for the next film, they could either reboot or just do a DR. NO “we conveniently saved him with an antidote at the last minute, close call!”
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,442
    While I enjoy the ending of NTTD, I don't want them to get into the habit of killing off Bond in each subsequent era.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Also, there are no stakes if these characters are immune to death.

    There are also no stakes if they just keep rebooting characters after killing them.

    I agree.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2022 Posts: 7,526
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    While I enjoy the ending of NTTD, I don't want them to get into the habit of killing off Bond in each subsequent era.

    5132_500.jpg
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,442
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    While I enjoy the ending of NTTD, I don't want them to get into the habit of killing off Bond in each subsequent era.

    5132_500.jpg

    "That's not what I said." - Ernst Stavro Blofeld
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Also, there are no stakes if these characters are immune to death.

    There are also no stakes if they just keep rebooting characters after killing them.

    I agree.

    There are also no stakes if last season was all a dream & Bobby's in the shower...
  • Posts: 1,394
    Having watched the film a second time, I have to say it’s...ok I guess? It’s technically well made but the writing is very sloppy and Bonds death leaves me indifferent.It reinforces my belief that we’ve only gotten one really good Bond film in the last 16 years ( CR ).

    Strangely enough though,I guess it’s my second favourite of the Craig era as it isn’t as silly and ridiculous as Skyfall,not as boring and misjudged as Spectre,or as incoherent as Quantum Of Solace.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Having watched the film a second time, I have to say it’s...ok I guess? It’s technically well made but the writing is very sloppy and Bonds death leaves me indifferent.It reinforces my belief that we’ve only gotten one really good Bond film in the last 16 years ( CR ).

    Strangely enough though,I guess it’s my second favourite of the Craig era as it isn’t as silly and ridiculous as Skyfall,not as boring and misjudged as Spectre,or as incoherent as Quantum Of Solace.

    As uneven as QOS is, it's still my favourite of the Craig era, with CR just behind & SP following (the LOL of Bond landing on the couch in the PTS goes a LOOOONG way for me in making up for the other nonsense).
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    chrisisall wrote: »
    ..Bond landing on the couch in the PTS goes a LOOOONG way…

    When that occurred, during my first viewing, I was so happy and optimistic that we were heading in that direction, and then it didn’t follow through. The rest was flat, with no joy, or anything else to compensate (solid action, drama, any cool element) for the lack of further fun. The other attempts at humor, during that bland chase scene, didn’t work. At least not for me.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    ..Bond landing on the couch in the PTS goes a LOOOONG way…

    When that occurred, during my first viewing, I was so happy and optimistic that we were heading in that direction, and then it didn’t follow through. The rest was flat, with no joy, or anything else to compensate (solid action, drama, any cool element) for the lack of further fun. The other attempts at humor, during that bland chase scene, didn’t work. At least not for me.

    @Birdelson SP isn't a great Bond, but after the nonsense of SF I found it to be lighthearted relief. Honestly, we haven't gotten a good Bond movie in 14 years.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited January 2022 Posts: 2,161
    I found SF to be the more lighthearted and fun of the two, by far.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2022 Posts: 7,526
    I like them both, a lot, but more often than not when pressed to pop one in or the other, it's Spectre. I just find it more "interesting", for lack of a better word.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    SF is a better film but SP is a better Bond film, IMO.

    SF is more coherent and has the best cinematography of the series, but the "old ways are the best" mantra is redundant and quite annoying if you ask me.
  • I re-watched The Spy Who Loved Me recently, and as daft as it is in places, you really get the feeling that the team had 'Bond fun' on their mind when they made it.
    SP is more watchable than SF for me, even though I can see SF is the better made film. CR is obviously the Craig masterpiece, and QoS is all over the place really. But still watchable, pretty much because of its short runtime and quick changes. Some of it is fabulous (opera scene).
    It's strange how Casino Royale totally broke the mold on what a Bond film was. But looking back on it now, is it the only Craig film where he was handed a proper assignment and followed it through? I think it might be!
    NTTD for me, just re-visited a lot of ideas that I didn't like in the Craig era, and added some more, even worse. So as impressive as the film is, as a Bond movie it didn't work for me. I haven't bought the DVD and my Craig collection ends with Spectre.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Also, there are no stakes if these characters are immune to death.

    There are also no stakes if they just keep rebooting characters after killing them.

    I agree.

    There are also no stakes if last season was all a dream & Bobby's in the shower...

    The trouble is, when the next film comes around every comic on every chat show will make the 'Bobby in the shower' joke and audiences will politely laugh at its originality. 8-|
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,019
    That’s assuming today’s audiences even get the joke about a show that aired before they were even born.
  • KenAustinKenAustin United States
    Posts: 226
    That’s assuming today’s audiences even get the joke about a show that aired before they were even born.

    They'll be too busy scrolling social media crap posts on their phones while sitting in the theater missing important plot points from the next film, and when called on it they'll label you something ridiculous.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,019
    KenAustin wrote: »
    That’s assuming today’s audiences even get the joke about a show that aired before they were even born.

    They'll be too busy scrolling social media crap posts on their phones while sitting in the theater missing important plot points from the next film, and when called on it they'll label you something ridiculous.

    That’s unlikely, since they aren’t even attending Bond films according to demographic reports. Bond has become an old codger’s franchise.
  • KenAustinKenAustin United States
    Posts: 226
    KenAustin wrote: »
    That’s assuming today’s audiences even get the joke about a show that aired before they were even born.

    They'll be too busy scrolling social media crap posts on their phones while sitting in the theater missing important plot points from the next film, and when called on it they'll label you something ridiculous.

    That’s unlikely, since they aren’t even attending Bond films according to demographic reports. Bond has become an old codger’s franchise.

    Considering the films released this year, I'd have rather gone to see another bond film even if I did not like the ending.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,019
    Will you still say that when they cast someone half your age?
  • KenAustinKenAustin United States
    Posts: 226
    Will you still say that when they cast someone half your age?

    The more they drift away from the literary character the less likely I'll be willing to go to the theater to see the movie...and the more they corrupt the general theme or story surrounding the character or characters the less likely I'll be willing to see the film. I did the same thing with Star Wars. Once they killed off Han Solo in TFA and introduced characters that mastered the force in 5 minutes I lost total interest and didn't bother going to theaters to watch the two films following TFA, which went against my core character after being a fan since the 70s. Instead I'll wait until the film is either free or so cheap on streaming services that it won't bother me to fall asleep on my couch half way through the movie.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    That’s assuming today’s audiences even get the joke about a show that aired before they were even born.

    That's true, but Bobby in the shower has somehow entered TV folklore as bywords for terrible and desperate plotting, like The Fonz jumping the shark in Happy Days.
  • edited January 2022 Posts: 998
    KenAustin wrote: »
    The more they drift away from the literary character the less likely I'll be willing to go to the theater to see the movie...and the more they corrupt the general theme or story surrounding the character or characters the less likely I'll be willing to see the film.

    I can see what you mean, but when it comes to being close to the literary character, there's been a lot of Fleming in the Craig era. Certainly more than the Brosnan era. I remember when Bond had the "You're not my type", "smart?" "No, single" dialogue in CR, I though that not many moviegoers would realise that they were referring to the book Bond, who usually made love 'with cold passion' to one of three married women in London.
    Then there's the pills, no other incarnation of the screen Bond has addressed the pill-popping. And of course, the parent's graves, the home near Glen Coe, and in QoS, Bond is actually a bit drunk at last. Anyone that's read Fleming will know how much booze Bond puts away, (he seems to spend most of You Only Live Twice sucking a jug I noticed on a recenr re-read). And of course, Craig was the first Bond to order the proper Fleming Vesper.
    NTTD also put a fair bit of Fleming in there. Although, like you Ken, I was very unhappy with the plot points, and their willingness to unnecessarily (in my opinion) kill off characters all over the place, I have to be fair and say they did pay due respect to the books through the Craig era. The real Fleming departure in the film series came in the seventies, (they even had Moore's Bond studying at Oxford).
  • KenAustinKenAustin United States
    Posts: 226
    KenAustin wrote: »
    The more they drift away from the literary character the less likely I'll be willing to go to the theater to see the movie...and the more they corrupt the general theme or story surrounding the character or characters the less likely I'll be willing to see the film.

    I can see what you mean, but when it comes to being close to the literary character, there's been a lot of Fleming in the Craig era. Certainly more than the Brosnan era. I remember when Bond had the "You're not my type", "smart?" "No, single" dialogue in CR, I though that not many moviegoers would realise that they were referring to the book Bond, who usually made love 'with cold passion' to one of three married women in London.
    Then there's the pills, no other incarnation of the screen Bond has addressed the pill-popping. And of course, the parent's graves, the home near Glen Coe, and in QoS, Bond is actually a bit drunk at last. Anyone that's read Fleming will know how much booze Bond puts away, (he seems to spend most of You Only Live Twice sucking a jug I noticed on a recenr re-read). And of course, Craig was the first Bond to order the proper Fleming Vesper.
    NTTD also put a fair bit of Fleming in there. Although, like you Ken, I was very unhappy with the plot points, and their willingness to unnecessarily (in my opinion) kill off characters all over the place, I have to be fair and say they did pay due respect to the books through the Craig era. The real Fleming departure in the film series came in the seventies, (they even had Moore's Bond studying at Oxford).

    I was mostly referring to the character of Bond himself, starting with his description. Reference to Hoagy Carmichael has been made numerous times, and while Ian always said that Bond was a culmination of all of the agents and commandos he interacted with during WWII, I'm sure he likely modeled the character after his brother Peter...and if you study those people they all had very similar features. I honestly didn't think Roger Moore "looked the part". Brosnan appeared to come very close after Connery in my opinion...then comes another light brown haired Bond with Craig which threw me off. The application of the occasional book reference while introducing major changes around them doesn't quite cut it for me to be honest. They are certainly nice references, but they aren't "complete Bond" in my opinion. As for the pills, I think it is obvious that topic likely wasn't appropriate for the screen while the booze was acceptable. I'm sure there could have been ways to taper those things a little and make them fit though. Same with the smoking. In the novels originally he was basically a chain smoker of a certain type of cigarette, while Brosnan gravitated toward cigars which I preferred and in CR Vesper did reference Oxford on the train. I suppose reasonably speaking most people don't mind a small change here and there but when you introduce enough of them you end up rewriting the character and the story altogether, and it seems at this point in time that is what they are trying to do without anyone noticing...for example the line about 007 only being a number...small change, but a total lead in for them to introduce an entirely different agent altogether that is NOT James Bond when for 50 years James Bond, a black haired white British agent of Scottish decent has been 007.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,914
    I think we'll be all right - Bond's death seems to have been Craig's idea and the main condition that had to be met before he'd agree to make NTTD. BB and MGW seem to have gone along with it primarily in order to get Dan back. Realistically, Barbara Broccoli will probably never be as enamoured of any future Bond as she was with Daniel Craig, so she's unlikely to make any more concessions of this magnitude. Chances are it's a one-off.
  • Vesper's Oxford mention was her guessing at his education, it wasn't actually stated that Bond studied there, like it was in Spy. But I'm being pedantic here, sorry.
    Yes, I didn't care for Craig's appearance either. Too short, not classically handsome, too blonde. Yep, I can see all that. The nearest to the book Bond I've seen on screen is Connery in his first few, or Dalton when he's pissed off.
    The trouble with reading fiction, is we all have a different vision in our mind's eye. My Bond, when I'm reading is more like the Daily Express cartoon Bond. And not really like any of the actors at all.
    Trouble is, how many people going to see a James Bond movie give a fiddler's fart if he looks the same as the one described in the books? One in a hundred, one in a thousand? I suppose we should be glad of what little Fleming we get on screen, this far down the pike.
  • edited January 2022 Posts: 3,279
    The real Fleming departure in the film series came in the seventies, (they even had Moore's Bond studying at Oxford).

    Don't agree with this. Some of Moore's films still reference Fleming characters and scenes (DAF and LALD has quite a few). The biggest departure came in the 90's with Brosnan. Not one Fleming scene or character was adapted throughout his tenure (despite claims that DAD shambles-of-a-film is an adaptation of MR).
  • Posts: 12,248
    Brosnan era is easily the least Fleming of any actor’s films.
  • KenAustinKenAustin United States
    Posts: 226
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Brosnan era is easily the least Fleming of any actor’s films.

    Likely because Ian didn't write those...there were only occasional references made to the original content...at least Brosnan looked the part though.
Sign In or Register to comment.