NO TIME TO DIE- is it divisive?

1456810

Comments

  • edited August 2022 Posts: 2,882
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
    I was talking with my Dad about Bond films recently (he's been watching them since he was growing up in the 80s) and he called QOS "the biggest load of sh*te they ever put on screen."

    Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,462
    Venutius wrote: »
    I've certainly not changed my mind on QOS - I loved it the first time I saw it and I love it to this day! ;)

    You and I both! If anything, my love for the film has only grown over the past decade-plus.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,390
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    I've certainly not changed my mind on QOS - I loved it the first time I saw it and I love it to this day! ;)

    You and I both! If anything, my love for the film has only grown over the past decade-plus.

    It's also a good film for me, well that's also coming from someone who likes SPECTRE too.

    From my first viewing, I really liked it, while the editing leaves a lot to be desired, it's still good, especially the performance of the cast were great, Mathieu Amalric's performance was good despite of his character not being well written.

    No Time To Die is the only Craig Bond film I can't really stand, the film focused too much on Madeleine and her love story with Bond which wasn't interesting, for a such a boring character like Madeleine, she don't deserve an arc like this.
  • I think NTTD is just solid. It’s not Top Tier Bond for me, it’s not amongst the worst of the series, it’s just solid middle. There are elements I like, and elements I don’t like. I don’t want to delve too deep into those elements because I plan on going more in-depth in the future, but what annoys me is no matter how many great elements NTTD has, it’s always silenced out by the fanboys upset over killing Craig’s Bond off. Thankfully I think the storm has settled, but for those few months after the films release, the forum felt like a war zone in some places.
  • Posts: 2,882
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
    I was talking with my Dad about Bond films recently (he's been watching them since he was growing up in the 80s) and he called QOS "the biggest load of sh*te they ever put on screen."

    Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.

    Haha, all not uncommon opinions. Especially in regards to Lazenby and Dalton.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,390
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
    I was talking with my Dad about Bond films recently (he's been watching them since he was growing up in the 80s) and he called QOS "the biggest load of sh*te they ever put on screen."

    Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.

    Haha, all not uncommon opinions. Especially in regards to Lazenby and Dalton.

    I wonder what's his opinions on Brosnan.

    And quite a bit surprising because it's Moore who's his favorite, while millions of people telling their favorite was Sean Connery, especially those older ones.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited August 2022 Posts: 554
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
    I was talking with my Dad about Bond films recently (he's been watching them since he was growing up in the 80s) and he called QOS "the biggest load of sh*te they ever put on screen."

    Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.

    Haha, all not uncommon opinions. Especially in regards to Lazenby and Dalton.

    I wonder what's his opinions on Brosnan.
    He was fond of Brosnan - said he was the "right man at the right time."

    His most controversial opinion was that he was pretty positive on NSNA. For the sake of our relationship I'll put it down to nostalgia...
  • MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
    I was talking with my Dad about Bond films recently (he's been watching them since he was growing up in the 80s) and he called QOS "the biggest load of sh*te they ever put on screen."

    Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.

    Haha, all not uncommon opinions. Especially in regards to Lazenby and Dalton.

    I wonder what's his opinions on Brosnan.

    His most controversial opinion was that he was pretty positive on NSNA. For the sake of our relationship I'll put it down to nostalgia...

    Man that is pretty controversial, I don’t know how anyone could have any shread of nostalgia for that turd of a movie.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
    I was talking with my Dad about Bond films recently (he's been watching them since he was growing up in the 80s) and he called QOS "the biggest load of sh*te they ever put on screen."

    Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.

    Haha, all not uncommon opinions. Especially in regards to Lazenby and Dalton.

    I wonder what's his opinions on Brosnan.

    His most controversial opinion was that he was pretty positive on NSNA. For the sake of our relationship I'll put it down to nostalgia...

    Man that is pretty controversial, I don’t know how anyone could have any shread of nostalgia for that turd of a movie.
    Well, Connery's return was pretty significant at the time, and he was relatively good in it.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 2,054
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
    I was talking with my Dad about Bond films recently (he's been watching them since he was growing up in the 80s) and he called QOS "the biggest load of sh*te they ever put on screen."

    Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.

    Haha, all not uncommon opinions. Especially in regards to Lazenby and Dalton.

    I wonder what's his opinions on Brosnan.

    His most controversial opinion was that he was pretty positive on NSNA. For the sake of our relationship I'll put it down to nostalgia...

    Man that is pretty controversial, I don’t know how anyone could have any shread of nostalgia for that turd of a movie.
    Well, Connery's return was pretty significant at the time, and he was relatively good in it.

    I don’t think Connery was bad in it, but I don’t think he was particularly good either. He seemed to be sleep walking in the role, only occasionally bringing back some of that twinkle of the early days.
  • Posts: 2,882
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.
    I was talking with my Dad about Bond films recently (he's been watching them since he was growing up in the 80s) and he called QOS "the biggest load of sh*te they ever put on screen."

    Other interesting comments he had were that Dalton was a decent actor but didn't have the charisma to carry a franchise, Moore was his favourite, and he forgot who George Lazenby was.

    Haha, all not uncommon opinions. Especially in regards to Lazenby and Dalton.

    I wonder what's his opinions on Brosnan.

    And quite a bit surprising because it's Moore who's his favorite, while millions of people telling their favorite was Sean Connery, especially those older ones.

    People tend to forget how popular Moore was as Bond, going from what my own Father tells me on this subject. There's also an element that if you grow up with a certain Bond, especially those who had the role for a relatively long time, you're likely going to be more favourable towards them.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,005
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    And OHMSS.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,797
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    And OHMSS.

    DAD would be another one that comes to mind.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    People seem pretty united in their DAD disdain. But I suppose there maybe are a group of devoted fans?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,005
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    And OHMSS.

    DAD would be another one that comes to mind.
    People seem pretty united in their DAD disdain. But I suppose there maybe are a group of devoted fans?

    TND took heat for many years, and gets nods in recents times I see.

  • 007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.

    Well, I’m not sure about general impressions, but when we did that board ranking of the Craig era (and there were a good number who voted, nearly 175 members), a majority ranked SF in the upper half and a majority ranked QOS in the lower half. Maybe QOS is a bit more loved than it used to be and maybe there are a few fewer fans of SF, but this board at least generally feels the same about those two films as when they first came out. CR of course has always been loved on here, and SP perhaps experienced the strangest reversal possible, going from almost board-wide praise when it first came out to sudden widespread lack of enthusiasm after its release on home video. I suppose anything is possible, but as far as trying to project what the general sentiments of NTTD will be 10 years from now, we can only really look at how feelings in general have changed towards Craig’s first four films, which is not very much.
  • Posts: 2,882
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.

    Well, I’m not sure about general impressions, but when we did that board ranking of the Craig era (and there were a good number who voted, nearly 175 members), a majority ranked SF in the upper half and a majority ranked QOS in the lower half. Maybe QOS is a bit more loved than it used to be and maybe there are a few fewer fans of SF, but this board at least generally feels the same about those two films as when they first came out. CR of course has always been loved on here, and SP perhaps experienced the strangest reversal possible, going from almost board-wide praise when it first came out to sudden widespread lack of enthusiasm after its release on home video. I suppose anything is possible, but as far as trying to project what the general sentiments of NTTD will be 10 years from now, we can only really look at how feelings in general have changed towards Craig’s first four films, which is not very much.

    In terms of raw numbers I can imagine SF will broadly continue to be ranked in the upper half, while QOS will be middling/lower. I suppose it's more in the substance of what posters say about these two films that I got those impressions from.

    That's interesting about SP. I always assumed it was divisive among in part because of the Blofeld/Bond knowing each other as children subplot (much like NTTD with its ending), but also because it has a lot of character problems in that regard.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 6,844
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.

    Well, I’m not sure about general impressions, but when we did that board ranking of the Craig era (and there were a good number who voted, nearly 175 members), a majority ranked SF in the upper half and a majority ranked QOS in the lower half. Maybe QOS is a bit more loved than it used to be and maybe there are a few fewer fans of SF, but this board at least generally feels the same about those two films as when they first came out. CR of course has always been loved on here, and SP perhaps experienced the strangest reversal possible, going from almost board-wide praise when it first came out to sudden widespread lack of enthusiasm after its release on home video. I suppose anything is possible, but as far as trying to project what the general sentiments of NTTD will be 10 years from now, we can only really look at how feelings in general have changed towards Craig’s first four films, which is not very much.

    In terms of raw numbers I can imagine SF will broadly continue to be ranked in the upper half, while QOS will be middling/lower. I suppose it's more in the substance of what posters say about these two films that I got those impressions from.

    That's interesting about SP. I always assumed it was divisive among in part because of the Blofeld/Bond knowing each other as children subplot (much like NTTD with its ending), but also because it has a lot of character problems in that regard.

    In the poll, SF was of course not as highly rated as CR and QOS was not rated as low as SP, so you very well may be right that there has been some cooling on one and some warming on the other. I've seen my own opinions on Bond films change over time. I was initially disappointed in QOS but fell in love with it on Blu-ray, and it took me a bit of time to come around to really enjoying SF. SF was actually probably the greatest personal turnabout I've experienced with any Bond film. I've gradually warmed on parts of SP though I'm not sure it's a movie I'm ever going to completely love. It's been kind a long while since I've watched NTTD now. I'm hoping I might be able to see it and appreciate it in a new light eventually. There are quite a few different issues I have with the film, but with time and a fresh perspective anything is possible.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 2,882
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    There definitely are fans of both LTK and QOS. I'm one of them. Even so, more people on this board ranked QOS in the lower half of the Craig era than in the upper. I don't know there has been a great reappraisal or shifting of views of QOS since 2008.

    Amongst fans it's definitely more warmly received now than it used to be. I actually get it from that perspective. Now that the entire Craig era is finally done a lot of the creative choices in that film stand out a lot more (stylistically it can be a mixed bag, especially the editing, but from a story stand point there are a lot of great ideas in there). Amongst general audiences I think it's still seen as a weaker Bond film, but isn't by any means the most disliked.

    It's kinda the opposite case with SF. I've noticed most people my age I've talked to outside of the Bond fandom would say it's probably the best Bond film. Like, not just the best Craig Bond film, the best Bond film. Here, I get the sense there's a lot of fatigue towards it. I suspect a chunk of it has to do with the fact that it's a film with tropes that were repeated throughout the next two Craig films - the villain with a somewhat sympathetic revenge motive, the more fatalistic tone, breaking with the traditional formula, the constant self-references to the series, Bond's past being a more prominent element of the film etc.

    Well, I’m not sure about general impressions, but when we did that board ranking of the Craig era (and there were a good number who voted, nearly 175 members), a majority ranked SF in the upper half and a majority ranked QOS in the lower half. Maybe QOS is a bit more loved than it used to be and maybe there are a few fewer fans of SF, but this board at least generally feels the same about those two films as when they first came out. CR of course has always been loved on here, and SP perhaps experienced the strangest reversal possible, going from almost board-wide praise when it first came out to sudden widespread lack of enthusiasm after its release on home video. I suppose anything is possible, but as far as trying to project what the general sentiments of NTTD will be 10 years from now, we can only really look at how feelings in general have changed towards Craig’s first four films, which is not very much.

    In terms of raw numbers I can imagine SF will broadly continue to be ranked in the upper half, while QOS will be middling/lower. I suppose it's more in the substance of what posters say about these two films that I got those impressions from.

    That's interesting about SP. I always assumed it was divisive among in part because of the Blofeld/Bond knowing each other as children subplot (much like NTTD with its ending), but also because it has a lot of character problems in that regard.

    In the poll, SF was of course not as highly rated as CR and QOS was not rated as low as SP, so you very well may be right that there has been some cooling on one and some warming on the other. I've seen my own opinions on Bond films change over time. I was initially disappointed in QOS but fell in love with it on Blu-ray, and it took me a bit of time to come around to really enjoying SF. SF was actually probably the greatest personal turnabout I've experienced with any Bond film. I've gradually warmed on parts of SP though I'm not sure it's a movie I'm ever going to completely love. It's been kind a long while since I've watched NTTD now. I'm hoping I might be able to see it and appreciate it in a new light eventually. There are quite a few different issues I have with the film, but with time and a fresh perspective anything is possible.

    With SF it's very much a fan thing. Again, I suspect that much of it has to do with a sense of fatigue towards the Craig era and the tonal/plot elements that were repeated from that film into the last two. I'm not saying it's a perfect film (no film is) but it's my second favourite Bond film, and certainly one of those Bond movies that I suspect the series will want to emulate for years to come in one form or another. It's certainly their most successful and proves that something more character based and thought out, heck even more low key in many aspects, can be financially and critically rewarding.

    I always got the sense that SP was received much more lukewarmly among general audiences after SF. It actually surprised me when you wrote fans liked it more when it first came out. NTTD seems to have more positive reactions, although certainly not to the extent I saw with SF (honestly, I remember in 2012 being constantly invited by friends to see that film in the cinema, with people going back 2-3 times. Most weren't even Bond fans. Never seen anything like it with a Bond film released in my lifetime).
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    My 8th viewing of NTTD the other night. It just gets better with each viewing. I can safely say I now love the film. It's polar opposite to how I feel about SP.

    What still amazes me is how quick this film moves. It never feels like it's actual run time.
    Beautifully paced. And very well directed.

    Has certainly moved up my rankings.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,536
    My 8th viewing of NTTD the other night. It just gets better with each viewing. I can safely say I now love the film. It's polar opposite to how I feel about SP.

    What still amazes me is how quick this film moves. It never feels like it's actual run time.
    Beautifully paced. And very well directed.

    Has certainly moved up my rankings.

    I predict a bit of a QOS effect, with more and more members seeking out second, third, ... viewings of the film and finding it giving more each time.
  • Posts: 6,808
    My 8th viewing of NTTD the other night. It just gets better with each viewing. I can safely say I now love the film. It's polar opposite to how I feel about SP.

    What still amazes me is how quick this film moves. It never feels like it's actual run time.
    Beautifully paced. And very well directed.

    Has certainly moved up my rankings.

    Am looking forward to seeing it again on the big screen Tuesday week! I havent watched it since having the 4k disc, a much more positive viewing than my first in the cinema ( where I wasnt sure what to make of it!)
    Agree mate that its pacing is spot on, and its beautifully made!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    My 8th viewing of NTTD the other night. It just gets better with each viewing. I can safely say I now love the film. It's polar opposite to how I feel about SP.

    What still amazes me is how quick this film moves. It never feels like it's actual run time.
    Beautifully paced. And very well directed.

    Has certainly moved up my rankings.

    Am looking forward to seeing it again on the big screen Tuesday week! I havent watched it since having the 4k disc, a much more positive viewing than my first in the cinema ( where I wasnt sure what to make of it!)
    Agree mate that its pacing is spot on, and its beautifully made!

    Enjoy mate. Personally I'm happy watching it on Bluray at home. My local cinema is crap!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,511
    My 8th viewing of NTTD the other night. It just gets better with each viewing. I can safely say I now love the film. It's polar opposite to how I feel about SP.

    What still amazes me is how quick this film moves. It never feels like it's actual run time.
    Beautifully paced. And very well directed.

    Has certainly moved up my rankings.

    You're totally right about the pace of it mate. It does fly by, I thought that on first viewing and every subsequent viewing

    I love thrilling the fight sequences, I just wish they were a little longer
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,024
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    And OHMSS.

    I’d say OHMSS is held in higher regard than LTK/QOS combined, to the point there have been prolific filmmakers over the years like Nolan and Soderbergh giving it high praise.

    I haven’t seen that happen for LTK/QOS, at least not yet. So far their dedicated fans seem to be largely those that prefer gritty Bond compared to the more pop culture oriented Bonds like GF/SF.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,975
    Agreed. Everyone always points to GF as being the film that improves on the novel, but OHMSS does so too, by dovetailing the Tracy and Blofeld plots.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 2,882
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. Everyone always points to GF as being the film that improves on the novel, but OHMSS does so too, by dovetailing the Tracy and Blofeld plots.

    The more faithful early Bond scripts are underrated in how they adapted the novels effectively. GF obviously took a rather nonsensical plot and made it convincing, FRWL added an extra layer of deception to the whole thing, and yes, even OHMSS streamlined much of the narrative (I doubt a film at the time would have effectively been able to start in media res, and it certainly works at building up Bond/Tracy's relationship. Also Tracy in the film is much better suited to being less overtly mentally ill and a part of the narrative by the end).

    I'll always say that OHMSS suffers from the fact that Lazenby's Bond isn't a bit older/more cynical as he is in the novel (it definitely makes his weird resignation scene in the film make more sense) but I agree, they did a great job.
    It’ll be more interesting to see where this rests among fans in ten years.

    LTK and QOS were very divisive for their time, but they clearly have a loyal following of fans that swear by them as real gems.

    And OHMSS.

    I’d say OHMSS is held in higher regard than LTK/QOS combined, to the point there have been prolific filmmakers over the years like Nolan and Soderbergh giving it high praise.

    I haven’t seen that happen for LTK/QOS, at least not yet. So far their dedicated fans seem to be largely those that prefer gritty Bond compared to the more pop culture oriented Bonds like GF/SF.

    It helps that OHMSS includes pretty 'modern' cinematography for its time, and is obviously a very early example of a Bond story being more 'personal' thanks to its more faithful adaptation of the novel. QOS and LTK by contrast are very much stories (and are certainly cinematography wise) of their times. It's not a bad thing, and I like all of them but I can see why OHMSS gets praise more immediately by such directors.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited September 2022 Posts: 554
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'll always say that OHMSS suffers from the fact that Lazenby's Bond isn't a bit older/more cynical as he is in the novel (it definitely makes his weird resignation scene in the film make more sense) but I agree, they did a great job.
    The film portrays it more as an impulse based off his obsession with getting Blofeld, which I think works alright.
  • Posts: 2,882
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'll always say that OHMSS suffers from the fact that Lazenby's Bond isn't a bit older/more cynical as he is in the novel (it definitely makes his weird resignation scene in the film make more sense) but I agree, they did a great job.
    The film portrays it more as an impulse based off his obsession with getting Blofeld, which I think works alright.

    It might just be me, but it's not a scene I could ever take seriously. I think when you remove that jaded quality to Bond's character the decision to quit comes off as petty and a bit random. It'd be different if, say, Dalton's Bond in TLD had made such a decision because he'd pretty much said point blank early on that he doesn't care about being fired.

    I also feel those moments in the film contain some of Lazenby's worst acting.
Sign In or Register to comment.