Do you have any concerns or niggles about NTTD ,or are you full of confidence ?

1353638404145

Comments

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    00Agent wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    But why is that so important or special? Serious question, i would like to understand what the problem with that is?

    Bond had so many female "equivalents" over the years.
    Triple X being his russian counterpart, Goodhead being his CIA counterpart, Wai Lin his chinese counterpart, JINX NSA... etc etc etc... even Fiona being his female Spectre counterpart.

    Now NOMI is part of his own team, ok, so what? The 007 designation has zero meaning as it doesn't even give Bond any superpowers, he could be 006 and it would have no meaning other than a symbolic one. There is nothing distinct about that number.

    That's fine if you feel that way. 007 is synonymous to James Bond to many, but not everyone may agree. I'm not opposed to creating fresh storylines. For the record, if this new 007 was a white male telling Bond to get out of his way, I would still be annoyed.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited March 2020 Posts: 5,185
    pachazo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    But why is that so important or special? Serious question, i would like to understand what the problem with that is?

    Bond had so many female "equivalents" over the years.
    Triple X being his russian counterpart, Goodhead being his CIA counterpart, Wai Lin his chinese counterpart, JINX NSA... etc etc etc... even Fiona being his female Spectre counterpart.

    Now NOMI is part of his own team, ok, so what? The 007 designation has zero meaning as it doesn't even give Bond any superpowers, he could be 006 and it would have no meaning other than a symbolic one. There is nothing distinct about that number.

    That's fine if you feel that way. 007 is synonymous to James Bond to many, but not everyone may agree. I'm not opposed to creating fresh storylines. For the record, if this new 007 was a white male telling Bond to get out of his way, I would still be annoyed.

    I do feel that 007 and James Bond are absolutely synonymous, and the number is there in all the posters right behind him, so why worry? They are not omitting it at all.
    4x5-Daniel-Break-DOM-1536x1920-640x800.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-poster-600x888.jpg
    But i mean in the context of the movie, do you really think James Bond would care what MI6 does with his number? Especially if he's the one who quits? It just a story telling device for this film, nothing more. I'm sure it will be resolved in a satisfying manner.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    I will explain why this doesn't bother me @pachazo : it's the same gig with a "twist"; it's the same as we've seen before, but... Now she has the 007 number!!

    It's not any more shocking to me than Wai Lin being his exact counter part in TND, or XXX in TSWLM. It's the same thing with a "twist".

    A familiar note in scriptwriting/filmmaking-- "make it the same, but different."

    This doesn't seem forced, nor does it seem "new".

    And it has nothing to do with my great fondness for Craig. It's no secret he and Connery are my favourites. I admit that-- with all the faults attached. You should suffer as my wife does when I go on about Daniel-- I'm pathetic. Truly I am.

    But my point of view re: Nomi and her 00-status has nothing more to do than cinematic and screenwriting tropes of Bond and filmmaking and writing in general. They're not breaking the mold here. Not even close. It's familiar with a twist.

    This is a mere sub-plot to further develop the characters (or players), and drive the main character to the main plot... That's it. No more. No less. And certainly not radical in any way.

    There is a certain agreeableness to you @peter, even when I'm strongly opposed to your thinking. In the end it makes me chuckle. We will not come to a resolution on this. You want me to believe it's the same old story, but I couldn't disagree more. A woman taking the 007 mantle is indeed new, no matter how much tweaking on the old plotlines you want to make it out to be. I'm out of time now but I will be thinking of you and hope we can continue this debate later. Peace.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,498
    pachazo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    But why is that so important or special? Serious question, i would like to understand what the problem with that is?

    Bond had so many female "equivalents" over the years.
    Triple X being his russian counterpart, Goodhead being his CIA counterpart, Wai Lin his chinese counterpart, JINX NSA... etc etc etc... even Fiona being his female Spectre counterpart.

    Now NOMI is part of his own team, ok, so what? The 007 designation has zero meaning as it doesn't even give Bond any superpowers, he could be 006 and it would have no meaning other than a symbolic one. There is nothing distinct about that number.

    That's fine if you feel that way. 007 is synonymous to James Bond to many, but not everyone may agree. I'm not opposed to creating fresh storylines. For the record, if this new 007 was a white male telling Bond to get out of his way, I would still be annoyed.

    Fair enough, @pachazo ... i'm 46. I've been a Bond fan since the age of four. I can only read Fleming (and Markham, aka, Kingsley Amis), but the producers have to "poke" at the edges to open up their "tent" for a wider audience. The trick and the magic about the Bond films (whether I like some eras or not), is they've done this under the umbrella of James Bond. They're amazing at what they do (with, admittedly, some major misfires: some say it's DAF, TMWTGG, MR, LTK, DAD, SP (personally my hateful bottom is SP, MR, DAD)).

    But, out of 25 films, these guys know what they're doing. It's remarkable. Consistently giving us films since 1962-- about this one character.

    It is magical!

    And as an aside:

    My "efforts to defend Craig"? I'm not sure where I have defended him, but if I did, those "efforts" were effortless. I just love the guy. Simple as that, mate.

    I'm more tired of the blinkers that people put on and think this Nomi 007 thing is so radical and jolting and so outside of the franchise that this has a political agenda. That's what exhausts me...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 2020 Posts: 8,498
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    I will explain why this doesn't bother me @pachazo : it's the same gig with a "twist"; it's the same as we've seen before, but... Now she has the 007 number!!

    It's not any more shocking to me than Wai Lin being his exact counter part in TND, or XXX in TSWLM. It's the same thing with a "twist".

    A familiar note in scriptwriting/filmmaking-- "make it the same, but different."

    This doesn't seem forced, nor does it seem "new".

    And it has nothing to do with my great fondness for Craig. It's no secret he and Connery are my favourites. I admit that-- with all the faults attached. You should suffer as my wife does when I go on about Daniel-- I'm pathetic. Truly I am.

    But my point of view re: Nomi and her 00-status has nothing more to do than cinematic and screenwriting tropes of Bond and filmmaking and writing in general. They're not breaking the mold here. Not even close. It's familiar with a twist.

    This is a mere sub-plot to further develop the characters (or players), and drive the main character to the main plot... That's it. No more. No less. And certainly not radical in any way.

    There is a certain agreeableness to you @peter, even when I'm strongly opposed to your thinking. In the end it makes me chuckle. We will not come to a resolution on this. You want me to believe it's the same old story, but I couldn't disagree more. A woman taking the 007 mantle is indeed new, no matter how much tweaking on the old plotlines you want to make it out to be. I'm out of time now but I will be thinking of you and hope we can continue this debate later. Peace.

    I must have sent my last reply as you sent yours, @pachazo ... I also find your point of view interesting and debatable (although against my grain); I am not saying you have blinders on, but in general, the Nomi conversation seems to have lots on.

    I love this chat and debate.

    I won't ever change your mind (and I don't want to!!; I want the film to do its job, dammit!!), and I'm comfortable with where I am coming from (and the film BETTER prove my point, dammit!).

    We can pick up at another point. We can continue on here. But others know you can also PM me, or email me.

    EDIT: Sorry to the mods for the double reply.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    peter wrote: »
    No, no, problem @FatherValentine ... I think if I take ego to mean self-importance or self-worth/value, self-esteem, James Bond has loads of this, and this is his cross to bear. He has to learn that his innate self-importance has to be tempered, but it is this self-worth/value/esteem that drives him to WIN.

    I see what you mean. Very interesting, thanks!
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited March 2020 Posts: 3,126
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    I will explain why this doesn't bother me @pachazo : it's the same gig with a "twist"; it's the same as we've seen before, but... Now she has the 007 number!!

    It's not any more shocking to me than Wai Lin being his exact counter part in TND, or XXX in TSWLM. It's the same thing with a "twist".

    A familiar note in scriptwriting/filmmaking-- "make it the same, but different."

    This doesn't seem forced, nor does it seem "new".

    And it has nothing to do with my great fondness for Craig. It's no secret he and Connery are my favourites. I admit that-- with all the faults attached. You should suffer as my wife does when I go on about Daniel-- I'm pathetic. Truly I am.

    But my point of view re: Nomi and her 00-status has nothing more to do than cinematic and screenwriting tropes of Bond and filmmaking and writing in general. They're not breaking the mold here. Not even close. It's familiar with a twist.

    This is a mere sub-plot to further develop the characters (or players), and drive the main character to the main plot... That's it. No more. No less. And certainly not radical in any way.

    There is a certain agreeableness to you @peter, even when I'm strongly opposed to your thinking. In the end it makes me chuckle. We will not come to a resolution on this. You want me to believe it's the same old story, but I couldn't disagree more. A woman taking the 007 mantle is indeed new, no matter how much tweaking on the old plotlines you want to make it out to be. I'm out of time now but I will be thinking of you and hope we can continue this debate later. Peace.

    I must have sent my last reply as you sent yours, @pachazo ... I also find your point of view interesting and debatable (although against my grain); I am not saying you have blinders on, but in general, the Nomi conversation seems to have lots on.

    I love this chat and debate.

    I won't ever change your mind (and I don't want to!!; I want the film to do its job, dammit!!), and I'm comfortable with where I am coming from (and the film BETTER prove my point, dammit!).

    We can pick up at another point. We can continue on here. But others know you can also PM me, or email me.

    EDIT: Sorry to the mods for the double reply.

    Its clearly a radical thing and meant to push a political narrative why give her it if it's meant for Bond and they print it next to his name they don't give some else but superman his logo or Batman I know it's a job but still they own it because it's part of thier character and what Fleming wrote he never gave it to anyone else nor Cubby whatever they are running it into the ground anyway need to start over they have totally botched the Craig era even Craig admits it that they kind of are tying things together randomly. I don't want to get into this debate too exhausting and don't want to bother my time the film seems cursed for a reason anyway. All this pc stuff which it looks to be way too much of it really hampers what would be a pretty decent film. Doesn't matter how long the delay is if they try and sell woke stuff they got away a little bit of it in the past but it won't sell period now not in this generation its been proven time and time again with recent woke flops. I'm done with my spiel. Hopefully its just a nightmare and nothing is what it is but Carry on.
  • Posts: 3,279
    Birdleson wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    To answer the OP's question, yes I have many concerns regarding NTTD. It seems to have doubled down on all the things that I have grown weary of in the DC era. The long runtimes, the continuation of the SP storyline and the soap opera qualities of Bond and Madeleine bickering. The almost desperate attempt to recreate Skyfall on any level, including the inevitable return of the DB5 and our supposed awe at seeing the guns firing again.

    This ever growing idea of seeing a woman put Bond into his place has metastasized into Nomi as 007 and mocking our hero for (once again) being too old and out of touch. Of course Bond's "brother" must also have a homecoming as Hannibal Lecter. Also, I'm sorry to say, some of the forum's most outspoken Craig supporters have gone so overboard in their underpinnings that it's completely turned me off altogether. It makes me sad because I remember all the misplaced hostility when DC was announced as the next Bond. It made me cheer him on all the more. Now, in the new times his followers have come to beggar belief.

    With all that being said, I still wish for a great Bond film. Of course I want to see a great success. Here's hoping. It's just my honest assessment, nothing less. It would be great to see DC finish on that high note he's reaching for. Color me surprised if I had my druthers.

    Can't disagree with a word.

    +2
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 3,279
    pachazo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    But why is that so important or special? Serious question, i would like to understand what the problem with that is?

    Bond had so many female "equivalents" over the years.
    Triple X being his russian counterpart, Goodhead being his CIA counterpart, Wai Lin his chinese counterpart, JINX NSA... etc etc etc... even Fiona being his female Spectre counterpart.

    Now NOMI is part of his own team, ok, so what? The 007 designation has zero meaning as it doesn't even give Bond any superpowers, he could be 006 and it would have no meaning other than a symbolic one. There is nothing distinct about that number.

    That's fine if you feel that way. 007 is synonymous to James Bond to many, but not everyone may agree. I'm not opposed to creating fresh storylines. For the record, if this new 007 was a white male telling Bond to get out of his way, I would still be annoyed.

    I have many concerns, but my biggest issue with this film is there has been not one single mention anywhere about the film going back to its roots, going back to Fleming.

    My other alarm bells ringing are Babs hinting about strong female types, so we know this could be a basis for the film.

    We also know there is the nasty whiff of TWINE type soap opera in the air with Bond and Madeleine, and we get more of the dark evil whispers from the baddie again, just like we've seen time and again throughout the Brozza era, and now the Craig era. I'm so bored of this melodramatic crap.

    Every time these films steer clear of Fleming and try to be clever, give us something new, something different, we usually know what the outcome is. P&W don't have enough talent to write Bond from scratch. They are light years away from Richard Maibaum, who really understood Fleming and Bond.

    I can see all the hallmarks of this being Craig's TWINE and DAD all rolled into one.

    I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

  • Posts: 154
    pachazo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    But why is that so important or special? Serious question, i would like to understand what the problem with that is?

    Bond had so many female "equivalents" over the years.
    Triple X being his russian counterpart, Goodhead being his CIA counterpart, Wai Lin his chinese counterpart, JINX NSA... etc etc etc... even Fiona being his female Spectre counterpart.

    Now NOMI is part of his own team, ok, so what? The 007 designation has zero meaning as it doesn't even give Bond any superpowers, he could be 006 and it would have no meaning other than a symbolic one. There is nothing distinct about that number.

    That's fine if you feel that way. 007 is synonymous to James Bond to many, but not everyone may agree. I'm not opposed to creating fresh storylines. For the record, if this new 007 was a white male telling Bond to get out of his way, I would still be annoyed.

    I have many concerns, but my biggest issue with this film is there has been not one single mention anywhere about the film going back to its roots, going back to Fleming.

    My other alarm bells ringing are Babs hinting about strong female types, so we know this could be a basis for the film.

    We also know there is the nasty whiff of TWINE type soap opera in the air with Bond and Madeleine, and we get more of the dark evil whispers from the baddie again, just like we've seen time and again throughout the Brozza era, and now the Craig era. I'm so bored of this melodramatic crap.

    Every time these films steer clear of Fleming and try to be clever, give us something new, something different, we usually know what the outcome is. P&W don't have enough talent to write Bond from scratch. They are light years away from Richard Maibaum, who really understood Fleming and Bond.

    I can see all the hallmarks of this being Craig's TWINE and DAD all rolled into one.

    I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

    There is a video somewhere where Malek says that they go back to Fleming with this one. Apologies, I cannot remember which video it is, if I find it I'll post a link!
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 3,279
    Matt wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    But why is that so important or special? Serious question, i would like to understand what the problem with that is?

    Bond had so many female "equivalents" over the years.
    Triple X being his russian counterpart, Goodhead being his CIA counterpart, Wai Lin his chinese counterpart, JINX NSA... etc etc etc... even Fiona being his female Spectre counterpart.

    Now NOMI is part of his own team, ok, so what? The 007 designation has zero meaning as it doesn't even give Bond any superpowers, he could be 006 and it would have no meaning other than a symbolic one. There is nothing distinct about that number.

    That's fine if you feel that way. 007 is synonymous to James Bond to many, but not everyone may agree. I'm not opposed to creating fresh storylines. For the record, if this new 007 was a white male telling Bond to get out of his way, I would still be annoyed.

    I have many concerns, but my biggest issue with this film is there has been not one single mention anywhere about the film going back to its roots, going back to Fleming.

    My other alarm bells ringing are Babs hinting about strong female types, so we know this could be a basis for the film.

    We also know there is the nasty whiff of TWINE type soap opera in the air with Bond and Madeleine, and we get more of the dark evil whispers from the baddie again, just like we've seen time and again throughout the Brozza era, and now the Craig era. I'm so bored of this melodramatic crap.

    Every time these films steer clear of Fleming and try to be clever, give us something new, something different, we usually know what the outcome is. P&W don't have enough talent to write Bond from scratch. They are light years away from Richard Maibaum, who really understood Fleming and Bond.

    I can see all the hallmarks of this being Craig's TWINE and DAD all rolled into one.

    I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

    There is a video somewhere where Malek says that they go back to Fleming with this one. Apologies, I cannot remember which video it is, if I find it I'll post a link!

    If you can, please post. That will give me some hope.... ;)

    Still would have been nice for the director Craig himself to talk up Fleming though. I really wouldn't care less about all the talk of strong females becoming temporary 007, if at the same time we had the director saying things like `yes, we are also returning back to the spirit of the novels with this one. Craig really wanted to do this and we felt it was the right thing to do. Fleming fans will recognise lots of moments in this one....etc. etc.'

    Then I would be ecstatic and November couldn't come quick enough.
  • Posts: 154
    Matt wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    But why is that so important or special? Serious question, i would like to understand what the problem with that is?

    Bond had so many female "equivalents" over the years.
    Triple X being his russian counterpart, Goodhead being his CIA counterpart, Wai Lin his chinese counterpart, JINX NSA... etc etc etc... even Fiona being his female Spectre counterpart.

    Now NOMI is part of his own team, ok, so what? The 007 designation has zero meaning as it doesn't even give Bond any superpowers, he could be 006 and it would have no meaning other than a symbolic one. There is nothing distinct about that number.

    That's fine if you feel that way. 007 is synonymous to James Bond to many, but not everyone may agree. I'm not opposed to creating fresh storylines. For the record, if this new 007 was a white male telling Bond to get out of his way, I would still be annoyed.

    I have many concerns, but my biggest issue with this film is there has been not one single mention anywhere about the film going back to its roots, going back to Fleming.

    My other alarm bells ringing are Babs hinting about strong female types, so we know this could be a basis for the film.

    We also know there is the nasty whiff of TWINE type soap opera in the air with Bond and Madeleine, and we get more of the dark evil whispers from the baddie again, just like we've seen time and again throughout the Brozza era, and now the Craig era. I'm so bored of this melodramatic crap.

    Every time these films steer clear of Fleming and try to be clever, give us something new, something different, we usually know what the outcome is. P&W don't have enough talent to write Bond from scratch. They are light years away from Richard Maibaum, who really understood Fleming and Bond.

    I can see all the hallmarks of this being Craig's TWINE and DAD all rolled into one.

    I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

    There is a video somewhere where Malek says that they go back to Fleming with this one. Apologies, I cannot remember which video it is, if I find it I'll post a link!

    If you can, please post. That will give me some hope.... ;)

    I'll see if I can find it later! :-)
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited March 2020 Posts: 5,185
    https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/film/a30875686/rami-malek-interview-no-time-to-die/?utm_campaign=likeshopme&utm_term=www.instagram.com/p/B8gS3Afnyh1/&utm_medium=social&utm_source=instagram&utm_content=post

    "I figure I may as well ask him, even though we both know what he’s going to say. Is he actually Dr No, the villain played by Joseph Wiseman in the very first James Bond movie, from 1962?

    “I heard that,” he says, perfectly pleasantly. “Am I? I mean, isn’t that an exciting thing to consider all the way up to the release?” He does, however, acknowledge that “there is a resurgence of an Ian Fleming influence on this film"."
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    pachazo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I never used that dumb word "woke", please don't place me in that camp, but the idea of a female replacing Bond and taking his job is indeed something new @peter. I see you are arguing towards a natural evolution but it feels quite forced to me.

    @pachazo ... the guy quit the service and left. Someone else took the number. I don't think there's anything radical in this at all. I don't find it forced; it is nothing more than "dramatic irony"-- something used in script writing and filmmaking. It helps develop layers of tension and humour.

    This has been around for eons (pun intended), however it certainly seems to have got up a few rear ends around here and all sense of irony is, indeed lost.

    In the end, I suppose, perception's reality-- even when it's short-sighted.

    Yes, he quit and of course a replacement was found. However, the idea of a woman replacing him and becoming 007 is obviously something we've never seen before. There is no denying this. It is something new. Your exhaustion might be a result of your tireless efforts to defend DC and not being able to even consider another point of view.

    But why is that so important or special? Serious question, i would like to understand what the problem with that is?

    Bond had so many female "equivalents" over the years.
    Triple X being his russian counterpart, Goodhead being his CIA counterpart, Wai Lin his chinese counterpart, JINX NSA... etc etc etc... even Fiona being his female Spectre counterpart.

    Now NOMI is part of his own team, ok, so what? The 007 designation has zero meaning as it doesn't even give Bond any superpowers, he could be 006 and it would have no meaning other than a symbolic one. There is nothing distinct about that number.

    That's fine if you feel that way. 007 is synonymous to James Bond to many, but not everyone may agree. I'm not opposed to creating fresh storylines. For the record, if this new 007 was a white male telling Bond to get out of his way, I would still be annoyed.

    I have many concerns, but my biggest issue with this film is there has been not one single mention anywhere about the film going back to its roots, going back to Fleming.

    My other alarm bells ringing are Babs hinting about strong female types, so we know this could be a basis for the film.

    We also know there is the nasty whiff of TWINE type soap opera in the air with Bond and Madeleine, and we get more of the dark evil whispers from the baddie again, just like we've seen time and again throughout the Brozza era, and now the Craig era. I'm so bored of this melodramatic crap.

    Every time these films steer clear of Fleming and try to be clever, give us something new, something different, we usually know what the outcome is. P&W don't have enough talent to write Bond from scratch. They are light years away from Richard Maibaum, who really understood Fleming and Bond.

    I can see all the hallmarks of this being Craig's TWINE and DAD all rolled into one.

    I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

    +1
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2020 Posts: 10,512
    This film is doing nothing different. It’s nodding to current trends in pop culture - something they’ve always done. It just so happens that the current trends don’t align with certain people’s views. You just need to accept it and lean towards the positives. It’s happening whether you like it or not.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Maybe I'm naive but I honestly and truthfully cannot get upset about the Nomi character at all, whether she turns out to be 007 or not.
    On the point she seems to be antagonist towards a Bond. So what, many characters have been during the last 24 films and our man always comes out on top. Also many, many other films start out with 2 characters opposed to each other only to fight together later either for the greater good or because they genuinely become friends.
    On the 007 thing; if NTTD was a real world and Bond retired a new agent would become 007, his number wouldn't retire with him. If NTTD was a real world a woman could become 007, so based on that 50% chance a woman it is.
    What's the issue, I don't understand.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I don’t think it’s an issue because I haven’t seen it yet and I’m reserving judgement.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited March 2020 Posts: 4,043
    I think that is the point a lot of us are making.

    Once you have seen the film then come and complain about the Nomi character if it plays out like you expected.

    Although so far you've seen a few minutes of out of context footage yet for some it is the end of the world and Barbara needs to relinquish control so some fans can get their Fleming filled wet dreams on the screen.

    I haven't seen it and nobody here has, watch it then complain if you still aren't happy with the finished results.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    One way to assure Fleming purists is to spread the word that Bond will fight a North Korean at one point and say he's putting him in his place "like all Koreans, which is lower than the ape".

    Pure unadulterated Fleming-esque-esque-ian

    I kid of course. I'd love to see The Garden of Death one day, but after 55 years since that book's release I'm not really expecting to see it until the producers say they're adapting that material.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Which is why I never hold it against EON, because their films have ultimately become their own thing. They'll dip back into Fleming material every now and then, but I never set my expectations up for something faithful to a Fleming novel because I know I'd only set myself up for disappointment. I can only imagine how purists felt in 1979.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It was horrible. I was very disheartened leaving the theatre. I thought that would be Bond from then on; slapstick, cartoon antics and no PPK. That’s why most people on here my age can never really square with MR. I can appreciate many of the elements, but as a whole it was devastating, especially since it was my favorite book.

    I can’t put my finger on why, but Moonraker the novel sticks out in my mind more than any other of the novels.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    For me it's Drax. He's really the first fully formed villain that Fleming wrote, and started the whole trope of "the villain explains everything". The whole Blades section is very strong, perhaps the best part of the whole novel and the very unique ending where Bond doesn't get the girl at the end.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,498
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It does for many, and I think it is simply that it gets everything right: Bond, M, the villain, the story, the suspense, the horror...all perfect.

    Moonraker is my favorite novel.......... Second place belongs to OHMSS, FRWL, CR
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Read the novels after a long while and i can say without any doubt that MOONRAKER is the best Novel of all.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Agree on Moonraker (the novel) - definitely would love the Blades chapter on screen. Maybe we will in NTTD ... it would somehow make sense M asks his former employee, the one who defeated LeChiffre, to help in his private club to uncover this strange guy who seems to betray the other players. Excellent book, outstanding chapter in Fleming‘s work.

    NTTD seems to have quite a long running time ... so there‘s hope for a scene as mentioned above AND Craig‘s Bond back at the cards table would fit the „bookending“ topic quite nicely. There‘s hope as well as Safin having his own „Garden Of Death“ ... there is plenty of room to bring in these Fleming tropes.

    I am confident about NTTD. I think the casting is marvellous, I like the title track and the bits I‘ve seen so far let me believe the film will be at least on par with „Skyfall“ which would (to me) be a huge distance to the (to me) disappointing SP.

    November ... can‘t wait! I bought tickets the day the preorder startet but they got refunded of course. So I‘ll wait until I can buy new ones.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I'm reading Moonraker now and I'm lovin it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I’ve always enjoyed the fact the novel and film are wildly different, and I love them both. If I want Fleming I read the novels, the films can never deliver the same hit.
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 3,279
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve always enjoyed the fact the novel and film are wildly different, and I love them both. If I want Fleming I read the novels, the films can never deliver the same hit.

    True, they can't - but they sometimes get close, even as direct novel interpretations (Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, CR), or as short stories or scenes fully adapted (FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK) or as Fleming inspired (centrifuge scene in MR, large parts of LTK, etc.)

    It's no coincidence that most fans and critics alike have the Fleming adapted films in their top 5. The `original' (usually naff) storylines that deviate too far way from the tone of Fleming typically end up in the bottom 5.

    This ain't rocket science.

  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve always enjoyed the fact the novel and film are wildly different, and I love them both. If I want Fleming I read the novels, the films can never deliver the same hit.

    True, they can't - but they sometimes get close, even as direct novel interpretations (Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, CR), or as short stories or scenes fully adapted (FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK) or as Fleming inspired (centrifuge scene in MR, large parts of LTK, etc.)

    It's no coincidence that most fans and critics alike have the Fleming adapted films in their top 5. The `original' (usually naff) storylines that deviate too far way from the tone of Fleming typically end up in the bottom 5.

    This ain't rocket science.

    You can say that but this is partially true. If we didn't have such a variety of film's in the series it would have shut down years ago but they will keep coming to Fleming roots no doubt about that.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve always enjoyed the fact the novel and film are wildly different, and I love them both. If I want Fleming I read the novels, the films can never deliver the same hit.

    True, they can't - but they sometimes get close, even as direct novel interpretations (Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, CR), or as short stories or scenes fully adapted (FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK) or as Fleming inspired (centrifuge scene in MR, large parts of LTK, etc.)

    It's no coincidence that most fans and critics alike have the Fleming adapted films in their top 5. The `original' (usually naff) storylines that deviate too far way from the tone of Fleming typically end up in the bottom 5.

    This ain't rocket science.

    +1 no source no brand
Sign In or Register to comment.