SirHenryLeeChaChing's For Original Fans - Favorite Moments In NTTD (spoilers)

1206207209211212225

Comments

  • Posts: 4,045
    NTTD doesn’t remind me of a Fleming title. It doesn’t have that panache.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2019 Posts: 12,480
    Sure we can chat about the title here - but nothing about plot speculation or cast. B-)

    I'm happy with the new title, No Time To Die.
    It's Bondian, clear, has a better vibe to it than the others tossed around. I am hugely relieved A Reason To Die was rejected, as it carries the opposite feeling and is just a downer.

    I don't care if the title is not "clever", "different" or steeped in Fleming from the novels. I just wanted a solid title that the general public could get on board with and that keeps me satisfied as a longtime Bond fan. I'm not going to pick on it being a well used phrase (in novels and tv, and film, etc.) - that's fine with me. For me, Spectre was the most boring of titles and a slap in our face. So much so that I thought "OK, just get it over with, yeah." Not an ounce of creativity or excitement in it. At least with this one, it carries direct emotion with it, like a statement of intent and determination - and that is Bondian enough for me.

    Actually, I find it fits Fleming for me personally. It is direct enough, brings with it a certain ambiance that is suitable to who Bond is and what he does to serve his country.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I think it is, in regards the general public, a popular title - not divided. Longtime Bond fans, from what I have read, are more positive than you may think; I believe a majority are okay with the title. But that is simply my impression from reading on various social media.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2019 Posts: 12,480
    As noted by several members here, there is a Bond family connection with this title ...


    And I found a link to that film ;)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,272
    I think it is, in regards the general public, a popular title - not divided. Longtime Bond fans, from what I have read, are more positive than you may think; I believe a majority are okay with the title. But that is simply my impression from reading on various social media.

    Could be, I've only carefully looked at the reactions on these boards. Personally I'm not too impressed. I loved Skyfall as a title, as it was intrguing. I agree on SP beeing bland and boring, but NNTD to me smells too much like cheap writing. I'm quite interested in what the other originals and original thinkers think.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited August 2019 Posts: 8,272
    As noted by several members here, there is a Bond family connection with this title ...

    Ha, as a war movie I do like the title better. And they already worked with Luciana? Wow!

    edit: some very familliar names here: Richard Maibaum, Terence Young, Luciana (very young here!)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    No Time To Die makes a statement that solidly fits Bond, in many situations. Sure past Bond films have "Die" in the title; that does not bother me a bit. I liked Skyfall because it was intriguing and the title song soared.
  • I'd been intending to use this title as the springboard for a discussion. So here goes:

    LOVE, LIFE & DEATH in the titles of the James Bond Films

    Generally, the titles of Bond films follow a template: Some of the most popular titles involve one word, generally the name of the villain, sometimes the codename for the operation. Goldfinger, Thunderball, Moonraker and others follow this lead. Doctor No qualifies in this area to my mind. Occasionally, the titles involve a clever saying: Diamonds Are Forever, For Your Eyes Only, The World is Not Enough, and others follow this format.

    And sometimes, the titles involve variations of the themes of Love, Life, and Death.

    Going in Chronological Order:

    LOVE: From Russia with Love
    LIFE: You Only Live Twice.
    MULTIPLE REFERENCE: Live and Let Die
    LOVE: The Spy Who Loved Me
    DEATH: From a View to a Kill
    LIFE: The Living Daylights
    DEATH: License to Kill
    DEATH: Tomorrow Never Dies
    DEATH: Die Another Day
    DEATH: No Time to Die
    (And just as an honorable mention, let us consider the Theme Song to QoS: "Another Way to Die.")

    Looked at in order of the films' release, I think it irrefutable to note that these titles have been a bit "Death" heavy over the past few decades. I think it's also worth noting that the Fleming-related titles were more life- and love-oriented than they were prone to dwell on death. Speaking just for myself, I'd like to see the earlier tendencies revived...

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Yes, because spy and thrillers give us usually: death, surviving/triumphing (life), and often love (of some kind). Bond is such a romantic (I mean that as worldly, adventurous, too) iconic character.

    I think my own personal choice was End Game. But of course, The Avengers took that earlier. It would have suited. No Time To Die does fit a final Bond arc, which this is for Craig.

    Perhaps Bond 26 will have something more directly about life, birth, renewal, etc. in its title.
  • Assuming that B25 is indeed Craig's last outing, it's an easy guess that B26 may very well have some sort of renewal theme. With any luck, we'll see it before 2030...
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Yeah, I'm still an optimist. So 2020 for No Time To Die, and I'll give EON 3 years to get the next one in the theatre. Hoping for not four, but I don't sweat over future stuff much. At least not in regard to films. And that's a different topic.

    The font is retro; I like that, too. From The Love Boat tv show to several movies and other tv shows, this font is so blunt and stark. I like it for Bond.


    So who else can chime in here? What are your feelings about the title, No Time To Die? My feelings are the same as I first had, instinctively, when I read it. I'd like to hear from other members here, especially Originals (us older fans) but everybody is welcome to chat with us about the title.

    Please remember, though, this thread has NO spoilers for the story or cast, or anything else re this upcoming Bond film.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,842
    Ha, as a war movie I do like the title better. And they already worked with Luciana? Wow!

    edit: some very familliar names here: Richard Maibaum, Terence Young, Luciana (very young here!)
    Not to mention Anthony Newley, Ted Moore, Syd Cain, Bob Simmons.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2019 Posts: 12,480
    Yes, I know you don't like the title at all, @Birdleson. Some people won't; fans will differ.

    Titles I dislike: Octopussy. And the very simple Spectre. That's about it. Tomorrow Never Lies would have been better, in my opinion, but I don't mind TND. And I suppose Quantum of Solace is just okay, not ever really pleased with it.

    No Time To Die is a rather common phrase, for many situations. I don't find it silly for Bond. It fits Bond for me; I like it. Other members don't; you are not alone, Birdleson. I think the general public will like it; certainly more than Quantum and even Skyfall (strictly speaking about the title, not the film).



  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,842
    Hmm. Not automatically better than Skyfall or Quantum of Solace but I like it fine.

    And of course those two titles are VERY familiar at this point. Best to take the long view with each new reveal and add it all up after a couple viewings of the film once it's in release. Once the film exists.

  • I think LTK, TND, and DAD are among the least impressive titles in the series... so I'm not generally impressed by "No Time to Die"... but at least it's not as bad as these first three. "License to Kill" was just too generic for me, and I would have greatly preferred this film to have gone with "License Revoked." In much the same way, I'd have preferred "Tomorrow Never Dies" to have been "Tomorrow Never Lies." And "Die Another Day" ... eh. Try another way please, this one just bores me. If it were up to me, I'd rather see something from the golden typewriter of Ian Fleming... "The Property of a Lady" is still out there waiting to be used more fully (no, one quick line of dialogue in OP doesn't burn the title as far as I'm concerned) and several chapter titles from the novels themselves ("Undertaker's Wind" for example) could also be used. I don't expect Eon to use any of the non-Fleming continuation novels -- but this one just doesn't move me. I don't dislike it as much as some do, but I sure hope Eon is working a lot harder on the script than they did with "Spectre."
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,842
    I love the book and film title On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

    On the other hand a cold clinical view could put it on the same level as Licence to Kill. Of course there's a huge opportunity to present a great title up front, difficult as it seems. And the remaining Fleming titles are golden to me, they should build future films around them.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2019 Posts: 12,480
    Well the title reminds me a lot of Licence (License) to Kill. Both okay, both fit Bond even if not exciting for longtime Fleming, James Bond fans. I do doubt EON is going to use POAL, Risico, or Shatterhand; probably not ever.
  • Posts: 1,921
    No Time to Die sounds like one of those cheap thrillers Brosnan made in the early '90s or Steven Seagal, Van Damme and just about any other action star of the time.

    I guess it wouldn't have been bad had we not had 3 other Die titles, not to mention a title song called Another Way to Die. These may all blend together for a casual fan of the series, easily confusing which was which. Bring back Beyond the Ice.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Yes, it's a classic, throwback line - reminiscent of old pulp novels and old movies from decades ago. Not original, just suitable for so many spy/thriller, etc. situations.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,272
    I love the title Quantum of Solace as it covers the film as much as the sentece was meant by Fleming: after Vesper's death he does find a redeement in what she did to him, a quantum of solace. I never liked the Die Another Day title, but it's redeemed a bit in the way it is used in the film. I love the way BrosBond delivers that one to Moon/Graves.

    So No Time To Die might find some redemption in the film itself, but it doesn't appeal to the imagination at all. If it's a foreboding to any dialogue, I probably won't like the dialogue either as indeed it's more fitting to a nineties action flick.

    I wish it were different.

    Shatterhand could be a fine title if you ask me, and, whilst reading 'Thrilling cities', I think there's plenty of lines that can be lifted from Fleming's work that would make for intreguing titles. I think it was @ericaAmbler who ones coined the phrase 'benign bizarre'. Bond films should have a little of that and it would be nice if that came back in the title (Live and Let Die beeing a very good example there).
  • Quantum was a fine title for me but I can understand why some might not have liked it. Shatterhand would be a perfectly usable title to my mind, especially if Eon were to create a villain with that name. Heck, I'd even be willing to consider "Thrilling Cities" as a title if it means more Fleming content in an Eon Bond movie! @Forever, one question: why do you think that Eon isn't likely to consider POAL, Risico, or Shatterhand as potential titles?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I don't think it would carry any weight with the general public and all seem bland to me. I like Property Of A Lady but don't see it fitting a Bond film title well. I know it's Fleming; that is not my point. My point is I think EON, or any production company in charge of a Bond film in the future, would usually go with a stronger, punchier title and their priority is not in using all the possible ones from Fleming that are left. Risico is closest to being able to be used, in my opinion, but it sounds like an Italian film (also fine with me) but carries no meaning with it for the general public.

    Members here are not really like "the general public". And as a chorus of "Thank God for that!" comes shouted at me; yeah, I hear you. I'm just saying I understand why EON would want the title to appeal to a broader, global audience - and personally, I have no problem with that. The title is about the least important thing to me in a Bond film.
  • Which brings up an interesting question: what is the order of importance for the various elements of a great Bond film? Villain and Heroine, sure; plot, action/stunts, locations (of course); gadgets, music, sense of glamor, humor, art direction (villain's lair) -- what else? If the title is literally "the least important thing...in a Bond film" to you then what is the most? This question goes out to all of Sir Henry's agents: what would you add or subtract to the list above and what order do you rank them in?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2019 Posts: 12,480
    That's an interesting thing to muse on, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Off the top of my head, my "important" list for Bond films is:

    Important Elements in a Bond Film:
    • Actor playing Bond (I have to believe he's Bond - which is why Laz never makes my list)
    • Great script
    • Director who respects the series and not way too "out there" different
    • Cinematographer (always want one of the best available)
    • Music (incorporate the Bond theme at some points, but I'm open to different kinds of music)

    Title of almost no importance to me, truly a marketing icing on the cake.
    Only a few more details from me:

    I want great stunts and action in the story
    Adventurous story (at least in part)
    Some intrigue (not stupid; "great script" covers a lot of territory)
    Love/sexual chemistry interest for Bond
    A fairly well wrapped up ending (not too ambiguous)

    That's all from me for now. Happy for everybody else to chime in. Make your list short and sweet or as detailed as you'd like.

    However, I am off now for a while. I shall return ... just don't know when (probably a couple of weeks). I may peek in, but I need a definite break from the forum and from the internet. I'm okay; just ploughing ahead with work stress takes a toll.

    Meanwhile, I'll have one of those Vesper drinks that Bond is having - you can keep the fruit. Cheers! B-)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Please do join us with your list of what you consider to be the most important elements in a Bond film - but I also ask that everybody PLEASE remember this thread is totally SPOILER FREE for Bond 25 No Time To Die. Only the title can be discussed - no cast, locations, news, photos ... nothing here please. Tons of other threads for that.

    Thanks!
  • edited August 2019 Posts: 3,566
    @4EverBonded is quite correct: the most important element of a great Bond movie is an actor the viewer can enjoy as Bond. For those of us who are true Originals, Connery is the definitive article. Accept no substitutes...but really, we have to be able to get past this point, otherwise there'd have only been 6 films! To my eyes, Laz & Moore are very nearly mirror images: I can accept Laz when he's fighting but not when he's speaking, and I can accept Moore when he's speaking but not when he's fighting. Lazzer WAS able to pull off the climactic scene of sorrow at Tracy's death so good for him on that one...Moore's nadir as Bond was having to be rescued by the karate schoolgirls in TMWTGG. With TSWLM I was able to accept that Moore was simply going to be a different Bond and appreciate him for the qualities that he did bring to the table...but I approved of the grown-up Bond of FYEO far more than the space cowboy of MR. Dalton's emphasis on Fleming was his saving grace in my eyes, while Brosnan's attempt at being EveryBond was well intended...but ultimately, less than completely successful. Craig, again, is his own Bond and I appreciate him for that...but he started on a high note with CR and is going to have to work really hard to go out on a comparable level after the mess that was SPECTRE.

    So does anyone have any additions to my list of required elements? It occurs to me that a first-rate Bond film needs a strong Ally for Bond as well as a great Henchman for the villain. Oddjob, of course, is probably the definitive henchman...while Kerim Bey was certainly one of the great allies. And an entire thread could be dedicated to the various Felix Leiters! What say the rest of you?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited August 2019 Posts: 8,272
    Important elements in a Bond film:
    • Sense of glamour
    • Script/plot
    • Director
    • Sense of adventure
    • music
    • Cinematogrophy
    • Villain
    • Bond actor
    • Love interest/ Bondgirl
    • Great action/stunts
    • Ally
    • Gadgets
    • Henchman/men m/f
    • title
    • ending

    As Brosnan was my first cinematic experience, perhaps that's why the actor I think isn't that important. I'll never deny Connery setting the standard, but for me Thunderball and FRWL i.e. are miles ahead of GF, which can be explained by the director and script/plot. For me it's the storytelling that counts. I want to be brought into the film, I want to live it. And whomever plays Bond of course needs a certain standard, but as Young basically made Connery what he became, so a good director can mold most actors into believable characters. Take Lazenby: all the guy hadwas tha cavalier attitude to life Bond has as well, but there's where the similarities end. And without any acting experience or education he's still made into a beleivable Bond.

  • As Brosnan was my first cinematic experience, perhaps that's why the actor I think isn't that important.

    Fairly scant praise for Brosnan, don't you think? Personally, I rather liked him at that time; now I only wish he'd brought something of his own take to the role.
    Take Lazenby: all the guy hadwas tha cavalier attitude to life Bond has as well, but there's where the similarities end. And without any acting experience or education he's still made into a beleivable Bond.

    Maybe now, 50 years after the fact, we can say that. At the time OHMSS was released, there was a strong concern that the franchise's days were numbered, due in no small part to the lack of acceptance the public had for Lazzer's performance as Bond.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 3,566
    If anyone has any other input on the importance of the fellow playing the role of Bond you're welcome to give it. For now I'll move on to the importance of the villain:

    I think a villain whose mere name can serve as a film's title has an advantage over other (dare I say lesser?) villains. Dr. No and Goldfinger are indelibly linked in the public mind with James Bond 007. Others, even Blofeld himself, are not similarly well-known to the general public. Even The Man With the Golden Gun has this leg-up on the likes of Drax or Le Chiffre (although the general public might not really be aware that TMWTGG's given name was Francisco Scaramanga.) I think a Bond film named "Shatterhand" stands a good chance of enticing more ticket buyers than a generic title like "Die Another Day" or "No Time to Die." A great villain needs some sort of identifying shtick: Dr. No's metal hands, Goldfinger's gold fetish and Scaramanga's golden gun all come to mind. Why are Stromberg or Drax less memorable than the trio noted earlier? It can't be the imaginative nature of their respective plots! I am particularly fond of Elliot Carver, whose media mogul as Big Bad Villain was very much ahead of its' time--but Carver's stature in the public mind is about equal to that of Franz Sanchez, which is to say, it takes a real Bond fan to remember them at all!

    And then we have the importance of the Bond girl. Here we have a bit of a quandary: there is more than one type of Bond Girl! There is the brief dalliance, the sacrificial lamb, and the Main Attraction. Certainly Ursula Andress, with her bikini-clad entrance from the sea, is one of the most memorable Bond girls, and she is clearly the M.A. of the first film -- but Sylvia Trench, the first Bond girl we are shown in DN, is little more than a brief dalliance, and yet she is a memorable presence all these years later. Jill Masterson, the Golden Girl of Goldfinger, is a sacrificial lamb who will live in the public mind forever... and of course Pussy Galore, the M.A. of that same movie, is remembered by the public for her provocative name, as (perhaps to a lesser degree) is Octopussy. Does a first-class Bond film need more than one Girl to meet a standard of some sort? The Living Daylights has only Kara Milovy -- the very next film, License to Kill, has both Pam Bouvier and Lupe Lamorra. Is it automatically a better film because it has double the number of Bond Girls on view?

    Please, if you have any opinions on these or similar topics, by all means chime in!
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    April 2013 after Skyfall look at or around page 26 for the list Jay.
Sign In or Register to comment.