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

12728303233298

Comments

  • Posts: 4,602
    Re the story (the foundation of any great movie), I think we have to consider: how much effort is taken to get Bond back into service, tie up the loose ends AND give DC a big send off. After all that, there is little narative space for a great Bond movie. Some key decisions were taken early on and that was that. IMHO does not mattter about the stunts, lighting etc etc. The story was always going to be compromised by those key decisions. Its more of a "recover from SP" and "farewell DC" movie than it is a Bond movie. DC's arc has perhaps become more important than the standalone product - "the cart pushing the horse" ?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,682
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I didn't even know we were having that discussion. I was under the impression we were talking about Bond being a womaniser and about the sexiness in the films.

    I have no problem with broader representations, and the inclusion of gay characters. I thought that wasn't even a discussion.

    And about that "wokeness" thing or the feminist agenda, I didn't feel it in the film. Not at all.

    That being said, gone is much of the sexiness oriented for the heterosexual males who got into Bond because of it, amongst other reasons. I thought this was the discussion we were having. The Nolan films, for example, are known to have no sexiness at all.

    I guess I was mistaken, and took part in a discussion I didn't know was getting on.

    My bad. Carry on.


    I fell in love with the books and films as a young boy, and Bond will always work best for me when that boyhood's adventure quality shines through. A big part of that, for me, will always be The Bond Girls and the fantasy world that they exist in (secondary to the interplay with his adversaries, of course). I do feel that these latest films aren't made for me, but that's how I've felt about the world fro quite a few years now. I'm about seven years away from retirement, and when I get there I see myself stepping back from most of society (I'm looking to buy a decent amount of property out in the woods of Upstate NY), focusing on my surviving friends, and basically regaling in the music, films and books of my past.

    Man, if I lived near you, we'd have a drink and a cigar, @Birdleson my friend. I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with you.
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Here's hoping. I've been waiting an awfully long time for the Bond I know and love to come back with a vengeance.

    I believe you're a huge Brosnsn fan, right? After watching NTTD I watched DAD just to make me feel better. DAD is still a silly and heavily flawed film but it's certainly more enjoyable than NTTD (I can't believe I'm typing this). I sense the Brosnan era is going to receive a fond reappraisal.
  • Posts: 3,289
    Anyway, it is a well made film and after the 60 minute mark I was really impressed. I came away hating it by the end. I am off now to see it again and we will see if my opinions even out over time.
    That's pretty much how it went for me too.

    I was annoyed by the use of WHATTITW by the end credits too. I don't want that song from a brilliant movie associated with this garbage.

  • Posts: 207
    Anyway, it is a well made film and after the 60 minute mark I was really impressed. I came away hating it by the end. I am off now to see it again and we will see if my opinions even out over time.
    That's pretty much how it went for me too.

    I was annoyed by the use of WHATTITW by the end credits too. I don't want that song from a brilliant movie associated with this garbage.
    It just doesn’t fit the scene for me. Feels like it was tossed in because OHMSS is loved by so many.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Yes, it's a cheap trick. It's a key indicator re a lack of creative ideas and originality. We can't be blamed for thinking what music will be recycled next.
  • Posts: 3,289
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    Anyway, it is a well made film and after the 60 minute mark I was really impressed. I came away hating it by the end. I am off now to see it again and we will see if my opinions even out over time.
    That's pretty much how it went for me too.

    I was annoyed by the use of WHATTITW by the end credits too. I don't want that song from a brilliant movie associated with this garbage.
    It just doesn’t fit the scene for me. Feels like it was tossed in because OHMSS is loved by so many.

    It was a cheap shot, hanging on the coat tails of a classic, something this film aspires to be but falls way short of the mark. I honestly thought they were going to go back to Fleming with this one, instead of that garbage they drew up instead (no doubt done by a box-ticking committee).
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    patb wrote: »
    Re the story (the foundation of any great movie), I think we have to consider: how much effort is taken to get Bond back into service, tie up the loose ends AND give DC a big send off. After all that, there is little narative space for a great Bond movie. Some key decisions were taken early on and that was that. IMHO does not mattter about the stunts, lighting etc etc. The story was always going to be compromised by those key decisions. Its more of a "recover from SP" and "farewell DC" movie than it is a Bond movie. DC's arc has perhaps become more important than the standalone product - "the cart pushing the horse" ?

    Good point.
  • JohnBarryJohnBarry Dublin
    Posts: 34
    The 18 month pandemic delay doesn't sit well with the downbeat ending. After such a long delay, I'm sure many fans wanted to leave the cinema with a sense of elation rather than deflation.
  • Posts: 15,906
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I didn't even know we were having that discussion. I was under the impression we were talking about Bond being a womaniser and about the sexiness in the films.

    I have no problem with broader representations, and the inclusion of gay characters. I thought that wasn't even a discussion.

    And about that "wokeness" thing or the feminist agenda, I didn't feel it in the film. Not at all.

    That being said, gone is much of the sexiness oriented for the heterosexual males who got into Bond because of it, amongst other reasons. I thought this was the discussion we were having. The Nolan films, for example, are known to have no sexiness at all.

    I guess I was mistaken, and took part in a discussion I didn't know was getting on.

    My bad. Carry on.


    I fell in love with the books and films as a young boy, and Bond will always work best for me when that boyhood's adventure quality shines through. A big part of that, for me, will always be The Bond Girls and the fantasy world that they exist in (secondary to the interplay with his adversaries, of course). I do feel that these latest films aren't made for me, but that's how I've felt about the world fro quite a few years now. I'm about seven years away from retirement, and when I get there I see myself stepping back from most of society (I'm looking to buy a decent amount of property out in the woods of Upstate NY), focusing on my surviving friends, and basically regaling in the music, films and books of my past.

    I'm in Upstate NY, rural community and I love it. Quiet, community, people don't act so PC, and just are themselves. When not working I find myself chatting with my old friends and indulging in classic movies and music.
    Back to Bond- I'm hoping there is a bit of sexiness in this film. I don't expect to see Bond getting laid much. For that I can always watch Connery in TB, or even more so, NSNA.
  • Posts: 6,682
    Anyway, it is a well made film and after the 60 minute mark I was really impressed. I came away hating it by the end. I am off now to see it again and we will see if my opinions even out over time.
    That's pretty much how it went for me too.

    I was annoyed by the use of WHATTITW by the end credits too. I don't want that song from a brilliant movie associated with this garbage.

    Zarozzor wrote: »
    Anyway, it is a well made film and after the 60 minute mark I was really impressed. I came away hating it by the end. I am off now to see it again and we will see if my opinions even out over time.
    That's pretty much how it went for me too.

    I was annoyed by the use of WHATTITW by the end credits too. I don't want that song from a brilliant movie associated with this garbage.
    It just doesn’t fit the scene for me. Feels like it was tossed in because OHMSS is loved by so many.

    It was a cheap shot, hanging on the coat tails of a classic, something this film aspires to be but falls way short of the mark. I honestly thought they were going to go back to Fleming with this one, instead of that garbage they drew up instead (no doubt done by a box-ticking committee).

    These are spot on. Agree on everything. They aped a 1969 film that had more soul and heart than everything they did with this one. Shame on them. Fan service? Not for this fan.
  • Posts: 3,289
    patb wrote: »
    Re the story (the foundation of any great movie), I think we have to consider: how much effort is taken to get Bond back into service, tie up the loose ends AND give DC a big send off. After all that, there is little narative space for a great Bond movie. Some key decisions were taken early on and that was that. IMHO does not mattter about the stunts, lighting etc etc. The story was always going to be compromised by those key decisions. Its more of a "recover from SP" and "farewell DC" movie than it is a Bond movie. DC's arc has perhaps become more important than the standalone product - "the cart pushing the horse" ?

    Good point.

    That's how it felt watching it. Craig and Babs pushing their own agendas to indulge in their own fantasies, at the expense of anything that Fleming ever wrote.

    If Babs and Wilson quit now and hand the baton over to someone else, that is the only thing that would make me optimistic for the next film, and the survival of the franchise. It desperately needs new blood.
  • Posts: 4,602
    It's beyond the pandemic. Mendes knew it for SF, you see it in Star Trek 2, 1st Bourne movie etc and many other movies. It's a convention to give the audience a ray of hope (OHMSS must have been remarkable to watch in the cinema although the hope of revenge is there) So many forum members suggested an open or ambiguous ending or some suggestion of survival. I cant remember any forum members or any friends of mine saying "what would be great if they blew him to pieces on top of a WW2 missile silo" the more I think about this film, the more frustrated I get.
  • Posts: 15,906
    imranbecks wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Exactly. Why did they even have to go that route? Was it really necessary. I'm just questioning the future of the franchise now. I can't stand another reboot tbh. Do we really have to see how Bond got his license to kill again? Just like how many times Spider-Man got rebooted, it can get pretty tiresome. But I liked the way Marvel handled it from the start when Andrew Garfield took over the role though. But I don't know, with Bond, another fresh start... Hmmmm... Is that where its headed..

    I doubt they’ll do another origin story.

    We’ll likely jump mid-career with the new Bond, just like it was done with Ben Affleck’s Batman and Tom Holland’s Spider-Man. It’s pretty simple.

    I do hope that's the case.
  • Posts: 6,682
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Exactly. Why did they even have to go that route? Was it really necessary. I'm just questioning the future of the franchise now. I can't stand another reboot tbh. Do we really have to see how Bond got his license to kill again? Just like how many times Spider-Man got rebooted, it can get pretty tiresome. But I liked the way Marvel handled it from the start when Andrew Garfield took over the role though. But I don't know, with Bond, another fresh start... Hmmmm... Is that where its headed..

    I doubt they’ll do another origin story.

    We’ll likely jump mid-career with the new Bond, just like it was done with Ben Affleck’s Batman and Tom Holland’s Spider-Man. It’s pretty simple.

    I do hope that's the case.

    Hear, hear. And just have him show up and say: "The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated". Just for the sake of fun.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    I'm sure they will make fun of it and play with it :).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    For the sake of fun, I’d kill the new Bond. Surprise! Another one-off Bond! Then cut to a random character saying “this also happened to the other fellow”
  • Posts: 15,906
    Univex wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Exactly. Why did they even have to go that route? Was it really necessary. I'm just questioning the future of the franchise now. I can't stand another reboot tbh. Do we really have to see how Bond got his license to kill again? Just like how many times Spider-Man got rebooted, it can get pretty tiresome. But I liked the way Marvel handled it from the start when Andrew Garfield took over the role though. But I don't know, with Bond, another fresh start... Hmmmm... Is that where its headed..

    I doubt they’ll do another origin story.

    We’ll likely jump mid-career with the new Bond, just like it was done with Ben Affleck’s Batman and Tom Holland’s Spider-Man. It’s pretty simple.

    I do hope that's the case.

    Hear, hear. And just have him show up and say: "The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated". Just for the sake of fun.

    They could simply nod to SKYFALL by having the villain of B26 say "....and what's your hobby?"

    "Resurrection".
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,289
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Does anyone else think this is a bigger mistake than Die Another Day?

    I’m really quite angry about the way they see the character as disposable. There’s 60 years of love and investment in him. Thrown away for a mediocre melodrama that passes as emotion.

    In a way, yes. I thought DAD was laughably bad, but I didn't come out of the cinema angry when I saw that mess.

    But last night I came out fuming. I guess the Craig films have led me down a path that I thought we were going down. Back to the Dalton era, going back to the Fleming novels.

    And this is because the promise that was shown with CR, and made me think every film that followed would be like this.

    After last night, boy was I wrong yet again. Only this time I feel far more let down.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    It’s a pity many of you aren’t open to the idea of giving Bond a death scene. Guess that’s how it is.
  • Betty_May_KthatuBetty_May_Kthatu Hong Kong
    Posts: 10
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    The 18 month pandemic delay doesn't sit well with the downbeat ending. After such a long delay, I'm sure many fans wanted to leave the cinema with a sense of elation rather than deflation.

    100%. My feeling is that I can appreciate the artistry, I can tolerate the melodrama, I don't have a problem with any of the apparently controversial points, there was plenty to enjoy, and I even laughed out loud when M said "FFS". However coming out, I was left feeling "well there's some good stuff, but I'm pissed off and a made to feel melancholy about the difficulty of finding a pathway to true happiness." At the risk of sounding self-indulgent, that's how I feel every other day of the ###%ing week, and was hoping a Bond film would make me feeling like punching the air and going straight back in. Cheers!
  • Posts: 15,906
    It’s a pity many of you aren’t open to the idea of giving Bond a death scene. Guess that’s how it is.

    If ..............
    there can be an insert of Sir Roger's iconic OOOOOOOOOHHHHHH sound during Bond's final moments on this planet.....
    ....then I'm all for it.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,351
    So this is maybe more of a thought for "Where will Bond go after Craig", but due to spoilers, I think it's better here:

    Is there anything in the Craig era that any future filmmaker can call back, the way this film (and the whole Craig era) does with WHATTITW, the cars and many other things?

    This isn't supposed to be a massive knock or anything. I am just stuck on this idea of Craig's era being this seperate thing that then constantly works off of and references the things that have come before and incorporates them to enhance the things that are inherent in the film itself. But does it leave anything that could maybe be called back later?
    Iconic car: DB5, I don't think a lot of people will clamor for a return of the classic DBS ^^
    Music: I'm not a massive score guy, but in NTTD they work a lot to make WHATTITW an iconic song, but it already is that and because of another movie.
    Settings: Skyfall, maybe but they blew that one up. Safin's base could be an ultra-meta call-back in 30 years or something, but that is really stretching it, plus "island bunker" is already a classic trope. Maybe the underground MI6 in SF?

    Not that every Bond needs to re-invent the wheel, quite the contrary. But the various eras leave their mark and right now it kind of feels a bit like this one was so backwards looking, that there isn't all that much to be called back to. Which is nuts, now that I write it down, because it is such a specific seperate thing that I am sure will leave a huge mark on the franchise and the fandom, but maybe more internal than in external things we can see and name and make lists and elimination games about.

    Edit:
    Villains: Not the greatest slate. Silva and Le Chiffre are the stand-outs, but not something you could take further per se. Waltz-Blofeld is a minefield right now, but of course already a call-back itself.
    Misc: Will Bond
    having a daughter
    replace Bond having been married once in the distant path? I would hardly think so. It's not from Fleming (I don't think the YOLT epilogue counts in this regard) and is so heavily tied up in this one film and
    him dying
    basically right after getting that confirmed.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    edited October 2021 Posts: 972
    There's a different gunbarrel apparently. This one is without the Universal logo transitioning into the gunbarrel which to me looks better. But still no blood...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    I would be incredibly relieved if the MGM logo for the US print does not have the atrocious CGI lion.
  • Posts: 3,289
    It’s a pity many of you aren’t open to the idea of giving Bond a death scene. Guess that’s how it is.

    Only if it was true to something written by its original creator Ian Fleming, and not something dreamt up by the indulgence of a lead actor, a female producer who is ashamed of anything Fleming wrote, and instead listens to the latest team of tick-boxing, PC correct, snowflake trendy writers, brought up on cheap Netflix dramas.
  • Bond 26 needs to be a GE-type reboot but with an all new cast. No one from the Craig era should return.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,062
    It’s a pity many of you aren’t open to the idea of giving Bond a death scene. Guess that’s how it is.

    Only if it was true to something written by its original creator Ian Fleming, and not something dreamt up by the indulgence of a lead actor, a female producer who is ashamed of anything Fleming wrote, and instead listens to the latest team of tick-boxing, PC correct, snowflake trendy writers, brought up on cheap Netflix dramas.

    The Flemimg ending of YOLT being used as Craig’s end would have been unsatisfying for me. I’d rather he do TMWTGG as the capper. Besides, I don’t believe in being slavish to Fleming and Cubby. Allow future filmmakers to do their own thing.

    Even Cubby was guilty of going astray from Fleming, and thank goodness because that gave us MOONRAKER.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Bond 26 needs to be a GE-type reboot but with an all new cast. No one from the Craig era should return.

    Agreed. Do something drastic too to really differentiate the new era.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 312
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Does anyone else think this is a bigger mistake than Die Another Day?

    I’m really quite angry about the way they see the character as disposable. There’s 60 years of love and investment in him. Thrown away for a mediocre melodrama that passes as emotion.

    Yes... you could argue the decision was morally indefensible. However, Barbara Broccoli is a smart , cunning lady. She is fully aware casual fans/general film goers will be in the queue for Bond 26. They won't care if Bond is dead because they have no emotional connection to the character. Next week they'll see Venom 2 or Dune or whatever and they'll forget Bond is dead. And three years later (maybe, if Amazon want a quick return on their investment) the first Bond 26 teaser trailer drops and it's rebooted Bond and 80 percent or more of the global film-going audience will say "Bond is back!" They'll get excited for a day or so then forget about it until the next trailer comes along.

    The recent "Bond should be a woman" debate/bandwagon is due to zero emotional connection to the character. Anyone with a strong emotional connection to James Bond will know he is a middle class/upper middle class white man with a privileged education. There is no debate. But when you have little or no emotional connection to the character, he's just another action hero that should be deconstructed or reinvented.
Sign In or Register to comment.