› › ›

No Time to Die production thread

1…545546548550551…1208

Comments

  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2019 Posts: 2,541
    Resurrection wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    SF was more about M than bond, so no bond films are not always about celebrating bond's character.
    Nah: we follow Bond for the whole thing and stuff like his entrance to the casino, unveiling his car etc. is purely about this man and how great he is. The plot was about a baddie chasing M but the film, as always, was about Bond.
    M:I films show Hunt doing equally impressive stuff but they're never really a celebration of the character (which is fine: they both do things in different ways).

    What God no , SF plot was Silva getting his revenge on M. Bond was just played supporting. Mind you it's the only bond film where bond was missing for quite sometime after title sequence- mi6 opening/ M & Mallory conversation/ headquarters attack.

    That was only five minutes, maybe even less.

    More I would say but my point was M has far more screen time than any of the supporting characters or previous M's. After Silva got captured M was almost there for every single scene and what film doesn't have a lead Characters Rambo/Jason Bourne you name it. Bond film's don't just create style or show beautiful landscapes, it's more about creating an atmosphere which happens twice in Craig era which I mentioned above.



    [/quote]

    This is not true. Many Bond films have plots which aren’t about Bond (YOLT is about some rockets going missing for example) but all of the films are about him. [/quote]

    YOLT is a bad example to be honest.
    What about LTK where bond was getting revenge for his buddy. There are loads of it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Resurrection wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    SF was more about M than bond, so no bond films are not always about celebrating bond's character.
    Nah: we follow Bond for the whole thing and stuff like his entrance to the casino, unveiling his car etc. is purely about this man and how great he is. The plot was about a baddie chasing M but the film, as always, was about Bond.
    M:I films show Hunt doing equally impressive stuff but they're never really a celebration of the character (which is fine: they both do things in different ways).

    What God no , SF plot was Silva getting his revenge on M. Bond was just played supporting. Mind you it's the only bond film where bond was missing for quite sometime after title sequence- mi6 opening/ M & Mallory conversation/ headquarters attack.

    That was only five minutes, maybe even less.

    More I would say but my point was M has far more screen time than any of the supporting characters or previous M's. After Silva got captured M was almost there for every single scene and what film doesn't have a lead Characters Rambo/Jason Bourne you name it. Bond film's don't just create style or show beautiful landscapes, it's more about creating an atmosphere which happens twice in Craig era which I mentioned above.

    That's because Judi Dench isn't just playing a supporting character in SF, she's upgraded to a full blown leading actress, joining the ranks of Eva Green, Olga Kurylenko, and Lea Seydoux. Bond is still very much the star of the film, but Dench's M was a very important component to the story.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2019 Posts: 2,541
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    SF was more about M than bond, so no bond films are not always about celebrating bond's character.
    Nah: we follow Bond for the whole thing and stuff like his entrance to the casino, unveiling his car etc. is purely about this man and how great he is. The plot was about a baddie chasing M but the film, as always, was about Bond.
    M:I films show Hunt doing equally impressive stuff but they're never really a celebration of the character (which is fine: they both do things in different ways).

    What God no , SF plot was Silva getting his revenge on M. Bond was just played supporting. Mind you it's the only bond film where bond was missing for quite sometime after title sequence- mi6 opening/ M & Mallory conversation/ headquarters attack.

    That was only five minutes, maybe even less.

    More I would say but my point was M has far more screen time than any of the supporting characters or previous M's. After Silva got captured M was almost there for every single scene and what film doesn't have a lead Characters Rambo/Jason Bourne you name it. Bond film's don't just create style or show beautiful landscapes, it's more about creating an atmosphere which happens twice in Craig era which I mentioned above.

    That's because Judi Dench isn't just playing a supporting character in SF, she's upgraded to a full blown leading actress, joining the ranks of Eva Green, Olga Kurylenko, and Lea Seydoux. Bond is still very much the star of the film, but Dench's M was a very important component to the story.

    Yeah sure but not many actress aside from Diana rigg or Eva green had much screen time. The plot was about M and Silva, bond was leading the plot.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited December 2019 Posts: 4,247
    I think Bond needs to be isolated a bit....so the movies can just be all about him. I would like the movies to go back to that style, where Bond gets briefed about the mission by M, and we don't see any mi6 member until Bond completes the mission. Not really a fan of M, Q & Moneypenny joining Bond in the field. When Bond is alone, it's much more exciting.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Not disputing that, I'm just saying Bond is still very much the star of the film.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Once the end credits of Fallout rolled, I remember a friend telling me 'James bond might feel intimidated by this film'. I sincerely think Bond's lack of Gadgets, might be the reason for all the comparisons with other Spy franchises.Even Michael Caine's Harry Palmer had to be done in a minimalist way to standout, even if he had little traits of Bond.it's just that DAD took the Gadget thing too far, but Bond started the whole Gadget thing & that's what made him different from other franchises.I think if Bond returns back to the style of GF, TSWLM, TLD, GE, etc which showcased gadgets but never forgot the plot, he will standout again.

    Bond is about style and atmosphere. When they get it spot on it can’t be bettered. Something like M:I doesn’t even come close. Gadgets are window dressing.

    Yes definitely: that's its USP- they're fairly average adventure films made with much more artistry than they really have any right to be: beautiful sets, music etc. M:I doesn't try to do the same thing (they're also not about celebrating the main character in the way the Bond films are), but Bond films do need to be exciting and have a satisfying plot too, and when it comes to comparisons with Fallout, Spectre didn't even come close.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    BonSimonLeBon_1 wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    EON isn’t obligated to copy Tom Cruise’s vanity projects, so it’s no big deal to me if that bike jump is the most elaborate stunt.

    Story is key.
    Storytelling is key.



    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Once the end credits of Fallout rolled, I remember a friend telling me 'James bond might feel intimidated by this film'. I sincerely think Bond's lack of Gadgets, might be the reason for all the comparisons with other Spy franchises.Even Michael Caine's Harry Palmer had to be done in a minimalist way to standout, even if he had little traits of Bond.it's just that DAD took the Gadget thing too far, but Bond started the whole Gadget thing & that's what made him different from other franchises.I think if Bond returns back to the style of GF, TSWLM, TLD, GE, etc which showcased gadgets but never forgot the plot, he will standout again.
    Who was it Cubby or Harry said, Bond stands out from the competition because he got style. Bond had films with gadgets and films without gadgets, and he always made a good impression.

    Sure...he always did. Am just saying those comparisons started when he was stripped off his Gadgets. People won't compare him to Bourne or Hunt...if he still used Gadgets of some sort.
    Hardly anyone would compare Bond with Bourne or Hunt, if the media wouldn´t invent stories.

    They're both action films aimed at the same market: comparisons are very valid. Bond even ended up poaching some of the Bourne people- it would seem odd to say they're utterly unrelated.
    I didn´t say they´re unrelated. But if it weren´t for media stories, most people would just happily watch all those films without too much thoughts about who´s better. Perhaps here and there a bit, but not in the amount it is done by some people. Sure you can compare the level of action in M:I and Bond, but if you like both of those series, you quickly realise that even with lots of influence from each other and other films, they both do their thing and are not really competing one another.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    As far as the media trying to make it look like there's a competition between these spy films, the best was when Tom Cruise didn't give into the kind of questions like "would Hunt beat Bond?" and instead just said "I love those movies, it's a great franchise, I look forward to Daniel Craig, he's a great Bond" and then walks on. It's at the end of this video.




    The point being there's no competing between the two, they do their own thing and that's what enriches the spy genre.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2019 Posts: 14,957
    Resurrection wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Resurrection wrote: »
    SF was more about M than bond, so no bond films are not always about celebrating bond's character.
    Nah: we follow Bond for the whole thing and stuff like his entrance to the casino, unveiling his car etc. is purely about this man and how great he is. The plot was about a baddie chasing M but the film, as always, was about Bond.
    M:I films show Hunt doing equally impressive stuff but they're never really a celebration of the character (which is fine: they both do things in different ways).

    What God no , SF plot was Silva getting his revenge on M. Bond was just played supporting. Mind you it's the only bond film where bond was missing for quite sometime after title sequence- mi6 opening/ M & Mallory conversation/ headquarters attack.

    That was only five minutes, maybe even less.

    More I would say but my point was M has far more screen time than any of the supporting characters or previous M's. After Silva got captured M was almost there for every single scene and what film doesn't have a lead Characters Rambo/Jason Bourne you name it. Bond film's don't just create style or show beautiful landscapes, it's more about creating an atmosphere which happens twice in Craig era which I mentioned above.



    This is not true. Many Bond films have plots which aren’t about Bond (YOLT is about some rockets going missing for example) but all of the films are about him. [/quote]

    YOLT is a bad example to be honest.
    What about LTK where bond was getting revenge for his buddy. There are loads of it. [/quote]

    It’s a very good example of what I’m saying. The plot isn’t about him (as you’re saying is true in Skyfall, although actually to a much lesser extent as plenty of the plot is about Bond and his upbringing, his place in the world etc.) but the film is all about him and celebrating him.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Once the end credits of Fallout rolled, I remember a friend telling me 'James bond might feel intimidated by this film'. I sincerely think Bond's lack of Gadgets, might be the reason for all the comparisons with other Spy franchises.Even Michael Caine's Harry Palmer had to be done in a minimalist way to standout, even if he had little traits of Bond.it's just that DAD took the Gadget thing too far, but Bond started the whole Gadget thing & that's what made him different from other franchises.I think if Bond returns back to the style of GF, TSWLM, TLD, GE, etc which showcased gadgets but never forgot the plot, he will standout again.

    Bond is about style and atmosphere. When they get it spot on it can’t be bettered. Something like M:I doesn’t even come close. Gadgets are window dressing.

    Yes definitely: that's its USP- they're fairly average adventure films made with much more artistry than they really have any right to be: beautiful sets, music etc. M:I doesn't try to do the same thing (they're also not about celebrating the main character in the way the Bond films are), but Bond films do need to be exciting and have a satisfying plot too, and when it comes to comparisons with Fallout, Spectre didn't even come close.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    BonSimonLeBon_1 wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    EON isn’t obligated to copy Tom Cruise’s vanity projects, so it’s no big deal to me if that bike jump is the most elaborate stunt.

    Story is key.
    Storytelling is key.



    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Once the end credits of Fallout rolled, I remember a friend telling me 'James bond might feel intimidated by this film'. I sincerely think Bond's lack of Gadgets, might be the reason for all the comparisons with other Spy franchises.Even Michael Caine's Harry Palmer had to be done in a minimalist way to standout, even if he had little traits of Bond.it's just that DAD took the Gadget thing too far, but Bond started the whole Gadget thing & that's what made him different from other franchises.I think if Bond returns back to the style of GF, TSWLM, TLD, GE, etc which showcased gadgets but never forgot the plot, he will standout again.
    Who was it Cubby or Harry said, Bond stands out from the competition because he got style. Bond had films with gadgets and films without gadgets, and he always made a good impression.

    Sure...he always did. Am just saying those comparisons started when he was stripped off his Gadgets. People won't compare him to Bourne or Hunt...if he still used Gadgets of some sort.
    Hardly anyone would compare Bond with Bourne or Hunt, if the media wouldn´t invent stories.

    They're both action films aimed at the same market: comparisons are very valid. Bond even ended up poaching some of the Bourne people- it would seem odd to say they're utterly unrelated.
    I didn´t say they´re unrelated. But if it weren´t for media stories, most people would just happily watch all those films without too much thoughts about who´s better. Perhaps here and there a bit, but not in the amount it is done by some people. Sure you can compare the level of action in M:I and Bond, but if you like both of those series, you quickly realise that even with lots of influence from each other and other films, they both do their thing and are not really competing one another.

    Maybe, I don’t know. I can’t think of anything I’ve seen in the media which compares them more than I do myself. I don’t read film magazines or movie tittle tattle websites; just places like this. I do like them both so I compare them as they do very similar things. I’m hoping NTTD can bring the level of storytelling and excitement that Fallout had. I’m not too worried about it having classier visuals or nicer sets because I’m sure it will. It probably won’t have stunts which are as impressive, which is also fine
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    @mtm, I did compare the two franchises too, for instances when I got the impression that Rogue Nation ripped off several Bond scenes. But I also realised it didn´t keep me in the least from thorroughly enjoying the film. And when I didn´t enjoy SF or SP, it wasn´t because those films weren´t as good as M:I, but because they simply didn´t click with me.
    I think where it becomes moot is when people lose the overall picture by sinking their teeth into comparisons that by that process become meaningless by themselves. I´m not necessarily talking about you ;-).
  • PDJamesBondPDJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    As far as the media trying to make it look like there's a competition between these spy films, the best was when Tom Cruise didn't give into the kind of questions like "would Hunt beat Bond?" and instead just said "I love those movies, it's a great franchise, I look forward to Daniel Craig, he's a great Bond" and then walks on. It's at the end of this video.




    The point being there's no competing between the two, they do their own thing and that's what enriches the spy genre.

    I know I have said this before, and it's off-topic, but it bears repeating: Tom Cruise is an odd duck but he seems like a really classy guy.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    @mtm my point was, bond isn't just about celebrating only his character. Comparing to MI bond film's have focused on other characters as well over the years which MI have yet to do(gave several examples above on that) .
    Let's just focus on NTTD here, this isn't MI thread anyway.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    PDJamesBond wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    As far as the media trying to make it look like there's a competition between these spy films, the best was when Tom Cruise didn't give into the kind of questions like "would Hunt beat Bond?" and instead just said "I love those movies, it's a great franchise, I look forward to Daniel Craig, he's a great Bond" and then walks on. It's at the end of this video.




    The point being there's no competing between the two, they do their own thing and that's what enriches the spy genre.

    I know I have said this before, and it's off-topic, but it bears repeating: Tom Cruise is an odd duck but he seems like a really classy guy.

    He's full of shit sometimes, like most movie stars are. But he works bloody hard and he's a damn good entertainer - always striving to make the best film possible for me to enjoy. And that's all I ask for.

    A lot like Daniel Craig, really.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,957
    boldfinger wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Once the end credits of Fallout rolled, I remember a friend telling me 'James bond might feel intimidated by this film'. I sincerely think Bond's lack of Gadgets, might be the reason for all the comparisons with other Spy franchises.Even Michael Caine's Harry Palmer had to be done in a minimalist way to standout, even if he had little traits of Bond.it's just that DAD took the Gadget thing too far, but Bond started the whole Gadget thing & that's what made him different from other franchises.I think if Bond returns back to the style of GF, TSWLM, TLD, GE, etc which showcased gadgets but never forgot the plot, he will standout again.

    Bond is about style and atmosphere. When they get it spot on it can’t be bettered. Something like M:I doesn’t even come close. Gadgets are window dressing.

    Yes definitely: that's its USP- they're fairly average adventure films made with much more artistry than they really have any right to be: beautiful sets, music etc. M:I doesn't try to do the same thing (they're also not about celebrating the main character in the way the Bond films are), but Bond films do need to be exciting and have a satisfying plot too, and when it comes to comparisons with Fallout, Spectre didn't even come close.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    BonSimonLeBon_1 wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    EON isn’t obligated to copy Tom Cruise’s vanity projects, so it’s no big deal to me if that bike jump is the most elaborate stunt.

    Story is key.
    Storytelling is key.



    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Once the end credits of Fallout rolled, I remember a friend telling me 'James bond might feel intimidated by this film'. I sincerely think Bond's lack of Gadgets, might be the reason for all the comparisons with other Spy franchises.Even Michael Caine's Harry Palmer had to be done in a minimalist way to standout, even if he had little traits of Bond.it's just that DAD took the Gadget thing too far, but Bond started the whole Gadget thing & that's what made him different from other franchises.I think if Bond returns back to the style of GF, TSWLM, TLD, GE, etc which showcased gadgets but never forgot the plot, he will standout again.
    Who was it Cubby or Harry said, Bond stands out from the competition because he got style. Bond had films with gadgets and films without gadgets, and he always made a good impression.

    Sure...he always did. Am just saying those comparisons started when he was stripped off his Gadgets. People won't compare him to Bourne or Hunt...if he still used Gadgets of some sort.
    Hardly anyone would compare Bond with Bourne or Hunt, if the media wouldn´t invent stories.

    They're both action films aimed at the same market: comparisons are very valid. Bond even ended up poaching some of the Bourne people- it would seem odd to say they're utterly unrelated.
    I didn´t say they´re unrelated. But if it weren´t for media stories, most people would just happily watch all those films without too much thoughts about who´s better. Perhaps here and there a bit, but not in the amount it is done by some people. Sure you can compare the level of action in M:I and Bond, but if you like both of those series, you quickly realise that even with lots of influence from each other and other films, they both do their thing and are not really competing one another.

    Maybe, I don’t know. I can’t think of anything I’ve seen in the media which compares them more than I do myself. I don’t read film magazines or movie titll
    Resurrection wrote: »
    @mtm my point was, bond isn't just about celebrating only his character. Comparing to MI bond film's have focused on other characters as well over the years which MI have yet to do(gave several examples above on that) .
    Let's just focus on NTTD here, this isn't MI thread anyway.

    You’ve lost me a bit there. Bond films really are about Bond, I can’t see what you mean when you say they’ve focused on other characters.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Has Triumph appeared in a Bond film before? The MI6-HQ articles says it is returning
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/no-time-to-die-triumph-motorcycles-partner-announcement?id=04624
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    For a moment I thought you were referring to the sock puppet dog that smokes a cigar and tells people he'll poop on them.


    Triumph%2C_the_Insult_Comic_Dog.png
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2019 Posts: 14,957
    w2bond wrote: »
    Has Triumph appeared in a Bond film before? The MI6-HQ articles says it is returning
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/no-time-to-die-triumph-motorcycles-partner-announcement?id=04624

    It’s a good question: I can’t think of one off the top of my head. In fact the only British bike I can even think of ever being in a Bond film is the BSA in Thunderball. (There’s a Norton in Q’s lab in Spectre -with machine guns!- but I’m not sure that counts). Funny really, you’d think there would have been more British bikes.
  • linglingqilinglingqi
    Posts: 51
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    For a moment I thought you were referring to the sock puppet dog that smokes a cigar and tells people he'll poop on them.


    Triumph%2C_the_Insult_Comic_Dog.png
    I had the same reaction :))
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,630
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,957
    Lovely!
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    w2bond wrote: »
    Has Triumph appeared in a Bond film before? The MI6-HQ articles says it is returning
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/no-time-to-die-triumph-motorcycles-partner-announcement?id=04624
    Bond drove a Triumph Daytona 600 in the video game Everything or Nothing, though I'm not sure if that's what they're referencing.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    So cool.
  • antovolkantovolk
    Posts: 3,164
    [Daniel’s] been the most extraordinary Bond,” producer Barbara Broccoli tells our sister publication Total Film magazine in their new 2020 Preview issue, which includes the exclusive new image of Craig’s Bond, above. “When you trace the evolution of the Bond character from Casino Royale to now, it feels very epic. This film feels like a culmination.”

    Franchise newcomers in No Time to Die include Lashana Lynch’s Nomi, Ana de Armas' Paloma and, of course, Rami Malek’s mysterious villain, Safin. Is there somebody worse than Blofeld?” teases producer Michael G. Wilson of 007’s new adversary. “Well, maybe there is, out there...”
    Ultimately, though, No Time to Die’s most crucial mission is giving Craig’s Bond the send-off he deserves. “We always set out to make the best Bond film ever,” says Broccoli. “Our feeling is that we’ve achieved that on this one.”
    https://www.gamesradar.com/uk/james-bond-no-time-to-die-picture-exclusive/
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    antovolk wrote: »
    [Daniel’s] been the most extraordinary Bond,” producer Barbara Broccoli tells our sister publication Total Film magazine in their new 2020 Preview issue, which includes the exclusive new image of Craig’s Bond, above. “When you trace the evolution of the Bond character from Casino Royale to now, it feels very epic. This film feels like a culmination.”

    Franchise newcomers in No Time to Die include Lashana Lynch’s Nomi, Ana de Armas' Paloma and, of course, Rami Malek’s mysterious villain, Safin. Is there somebody worse than Blofeld?” teases producer Michael G. Wilson of 007’s new adversary. “Well, maybe there is, out there...”
    Ultimately, though, No Time to Die’s most crucial mission is giving Craig’s Bond the send-off he deserves. “We always set out to make the best Bond film ever,” says Broccoli. “Our feeling is that we’ve achieved that on this one.”
    https://www.gamesradar.com/uk/james-bond-no-time-to-die-picture-exclusive/

    Hard to argue with her.
  • duke_togoduke_togo france
    edited December 2019 Posts: 138
    deleted
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,677
    That’s one cool pic, isn’t it? Bond’s back to his trusty grey t shirt. Probably the same from 06 going by the state of it. Blue eyes piercing through the shadows. Cool.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    AgentJamesBond007 wrote: »

    That's a great shot.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Univex wrote: »
    That’s one cool pic, isn’t it? Bond’s back to his trusty grey t shirt. Probably the same from 06 going by the state of it. Blue eyes piercing through the shadows. Cool.

    It does remind me of CR boat Scene where bond was wearing that.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Very Arty pic. 'Bond in a somewhat Lurk-ish mode....Fukunaga clearly understands Bond. It even shows in Craig's Haircut....might be his best as Bond.
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,169
    boldfinger wrote: »
    BonSimonLeBon_1 wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    EON isn’t obligated to copy Tom Cruise’s vanity projects, so it’s no big deal to me if that bike jump is the most elaborate stunt.

    Story is key.
    Storytelling is key.

    And TSWLM was a huge success because it recycled YOLT.

    I'd take a new far out escapist adventure with a villain off to destroy the world - like seen several times before - over a storydriven Bond-movie focusing on Bond's past, feelings and familyrelations, any time. As long as the setpieces are original and Bond is acting cool and suave.

    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Zekidk wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    BonSimonLeBon_1 wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    EON isn’t obligated to copy Tom Cruise’s vanity projects, so it’s no big deal to me if that bike jump is the most elaborate stunt.

    Story is key.
    Storytelling is key.

    And TSWLM was a huge success because it recycled YOLT.

    I'd take a new far out escapist adventure with a villain off to destroy the world - like seen several times before - over a storydriven Bond-movie focusing on Bond's past, feelings and familyrelations, any time. As long as the setpieces are original and Bond is acting cool and suave.

    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."

    This may be a bit of both. In fact I’d say everything points to that.
Sign In or Register to comment.