No Time to Die production thread

17727737757777781208

Comments

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Wow, Scooby gang, Q on the field with a portable Q-lab with Q-mugs for his Q-tea.

    :-B

    Sorry, not happy about this. Not one bit. But hey, there'll be plenty of other good stuff in the film, I suppose. I just think Moore's Bond isn't compatible with Craig's Bond. But if they want to make a mix-it-all last film, what can ya do, right?

    Yeah just from hearing these remarks about the script, it seems like instead of scaling back from the ridiculousness of SP they decided to turn the knob up a few notches. I have a bad feeling that they didn’t learn lessons from SP.

    That's certainly what it looks like. NTTD is a sequel to an unloved film from 5 (maybe 6 when it finally comes out) years ago. Imagine if Goldeneye followed on from LTK and had Bond have to come back to Mi6 from Florida and get reinstated. Bringing Pam Bouvier with him.

    Yeah, I think that has always been a slight worry for most fans, Coz I think very few like SP. EON could have easily gone with a new narrative(something i would have really cherished, considering am a fan of Standalone Bond Adventures) But I have a feeling, EON wants to make SP more relevant by broadening it's myth....so fans in retrospect, will look back at SP with a warmer reception. I liked QoS from the first day I saw it, but i noticed some fans later liked it when SF came out....even without the films having any connection.

    Am 100% sure SF was the beginning of Standalone adventures for Craig's Era....I mean, I love the Mission Briefing between M & Bond. it means SP might not have been called SP, meaning a different plot. SP might have been RISICO, SHATTERHAND, SCORPIUS or SEAFIRE.

    As Brilliant as Craig's Bond is, most happenings in his era looks contrived, Coz EON were not really sure if they wanted his era to be serialized or standalone. If we heard Silva or Blofeld's name in CR, then it would have been much cooler. The link between CR & QoS is understandable though. I really do think EON adamantly continued SP's narrative in NTTD to prove SP wasn't a mistake, by making it's narrative better in NTTD.

    Agreed. Hard to believe that they fudged it so badly, making the films serialised but only after (!!!!!) they had already made three of them. Yes, if it had been this way from the beginning of Craig's era then fine. But to do it retrospectively is a bad move - possibly compounded by NTTD.

    What I don't get is why they would want to make SP more relevant. They could just have left it. Bond doesn't explicitly state he is retiring at the end. When Q says he 'thought he had left', he could have meant on leave or something. Nobody would have cared. And nobody apart from sad obsessives like us would have remembered all the rubbish from SP anyway. Now they are going to dredge it all back up again.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 564
    Bentley007 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Wow, Scooby gang, Q on the field with a portable Q-lab with Q-mugs for his Q-tea.

    :-B

    Sorry, not happy about this. Not one bit. But hey, there'll be plenty of other good stuff in the film, I suppose. I just think Moore's Bond isn't compatible with Craig's Bond. But if they want to make a mix-it-all last film, what can ya do, right?

    Yeah just from hearing these remarks about the script, it seems like instead of scaling back from the ridiculousness of SP they decided to turn the knob up a few notches. I have a bad feeling that they didn’t learn lessons from SP.

    That's certainly what it looks like. NTTD is a sequel to an unloved film from 5 (maybe 6 when it finally comes out) years ago. Imagine if Goldeneye followed on from LTK and had Bond have to come back to Mi6 from Florida and get reinstated. Bringing Pam Bouvier with him.

    That argument ignores the current state of blockbuster films. The trend currently is to connect all films within an IP. Looking at Marvel, Star Wars, DC, Fast and Furious, MI and Harry Potter World. All major films must have a through line as the audiences now expect this to a certain extent. Cliffhangers across films and multi part films are becoming the norm. As many have stated Bond movies can act as markers for what film was like at the time of their release. This era is no different, it started with gritty real action after bourne, went to a character driven film with Skyfall and is now ending with interconnected storylines across films. Comparing this to pervious Bond films and eras does not account for what films are like now outside of Bond.

    Oh I completely agree. I hate it. Can't stand Marvel, Fast and Furious etc. MI maybe, but only because I like that sort of action. What's the one thing I cannot stand about MI though? Hunt's marriage. To be fair the team aspect was also a feature of the programme anyway, but the soap opera elements I really don't like.

    Bond does not deserve a relationship to be a success. The price he has to pay for his job and his vices is perpetual loneliness.

    Anyway, I am going off topic. I agree with what you are saying about modern franchises, but i don't have to like it.

    I dont care for it much either but weirdly enjoy that it is in keeping with the Bond tradition of appropriating trends in film. I also worry that because villain reveals are popular now that Dr. No may make an appearance in NTTD. Hopefully they got that out of the way with Spectre though.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Wow, Scooby gang, Q on the field with a portable Q-lab with Q-mugs for his Q-tea.

    :-B

    Sorry, not happy about this. Not one bit. But hey, there'll be plenty of other good stuff in the film, I suppose. I just think Moore's Bond isn't compatible with Craig's Bond. But if they want to make a mix-it-all last film, what can ya do, right?

    Yeah just from hearing these remarks about the script, it seems like instead of scaling back from the ridiculousness of SP they decided to turn the knob up a few notches. I have a bad feeling that they didn’t learn lessons from SP.

    That's certainly what it looks like. NTTD is a sequel to an unloved film from 5 (maybe 6 when it finally comes out) years ago. Imagine if Goldeneye followed on from LTK and had Bond have to come back to Mi6 from Florida and get reinstated. Bringing Pam Bouvier with him.

    Yeah, I think that has always been a slight worry for most fans, Coz I think very few like SP. EON could have easily gone with a new narrative(something i would have really cherished, considering am a fan of Standalone Bond Adventures) But I have a feeling, EON wants to make SP more relevant by broadening it's myth....so fans in retrospect, will look back at SP with a warmer reception. I liked QoS from the first day I saw it, but i noticed some fans later liked it when SF came out....even without the films having any connection.

    Am 100% sure SF was the beginning of Standalone adventures for Craig's Era....I mean, I love the Mission Briefing between M & Bond. it means SP might not have been called SP, meaning a different plot. SP might have been RISICO, SHATTERHAND, SCORPIUS or SEAFIRE.

    As Brilliant as Craig's Bond is, most happenings in his era looks contrived, Coz EON were not really sure if they wanted his era to be serialized or standalone. If we heard Silva or Blofeld's name in CR, then it would have been much cooler. The link between CR & QoS is understandable though. I really do think EON adamantly continued SP's narrative in NTTD to prove SP wasn't a mistake, by making it's narrative better in NTTD.

    Agreed. Hard to believe that they fudged it so badly, making the films serialised but only after (!!!!!) they had already made three of them. Yes, if it had been this way from the beginning of Craig's era then fine. But to do it retrospectively is a bad move - possibly compounded by NTTD.

    What I don't get is why they would want to make SP more relevant. They could just have left it. Bond doesn't explicitly state he is retiring at the end. When Q says he 'thought he had left', he could have meant on leave or something. Nobody would have cared. And nobody apart from sad obsessives like us would have remembered all the rubbish from SP anyway. Now they are going to dredge it all back up again.

    Yeah, all true....looks that way. But we Bond fans hope for the best this time, considering Bond's lengthy Absence & Bond's Redeeming history of making the upcoming film, better than the previous one.
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    edited April 2020 Posts: 524
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Wow, Scooby gang, Q on the field with a portable Q-lab with Q-mugs for his Q-tea.

    :-B

    Sorry, not happy about this. Not one bit. But hey, there'll be plenty of other good stuff in the film, I suppose. I just think Moore's Bond isn't compatible with Craig's Bond. But if they want to make a mix-it-all last film, what can ya do, right?

    Yeah just from hearing these remarks about the script, it seems like instead of scaling back from the ridiculousness of SP they decided to turn the knob up a few notches. I have a bad feeling that they didn’t learn lessons from SP.

    That's certainly what it looks like. NTTD is a sequel to an unloved film from 5 (maybe 6 when it finally comes out) years ago. Imagine if Goldeneye followed on from LTK and had Bond have to come back to Mi6 from Florida and get reinstated. Bringing Pam Bouvier with him.

    Yeah, I think that has always been a slight worry for most fans, Coz I think very few like SP. EON could have easily gone with a new narrative(something i would have really cherished, considering am a fan of Standalone Bond Adventures) But I have a feeling, EON wants to make SP more relevant by broadening it's myth....so fans in retrospect, will look back at SP with a warmer reception. I liked QoS from the first day I saw it, but i noticed some fans later liked it when SF came out....even without the films having any connection.

    Am 100% sure SF was the beginning of Standalone adventures for Craig's Era....I mean, I love the Mission Briefing between M & Bond. it means SP might not have been called SP, meaning a different plot. SP might have been RISICO, SHATTERHAND, SCORPIUS or SEAFIRE.

    As Brilliant as Craig's Bond is, most happenings in his era looks contrived, Coz EON were not really sure if they wanted his era to be serialized or standalone. If we heard Silva or Blofeld's name in CR, then it would have been much cooler. The link between CR & QoS is understandable though. I really do think EON adamantly continued SP's narrative in NTTD to prove SP wasn't a mistake, by making it's narrative better in NTTD.

    What I don't get is why they would want to make SP more relevant. They could just have left it. Bond doesn't explicitly state he is retiring at the end. When Q says he 'thought he had left', he could have meant on leave or something. Nobody would have cared. And nobody apart from sad obsessives like us would have remembered all the rubbish from SP anyway. Now they are going to dredge it all back up again.

    Remember that 'finishing the story line' and 'tying up loose ends' was the big motivation for Craig to come back on board. We don't know how Purvis and Wade started that very first draft, if they were going for a standalone or if they planned a sequel from the beginning. What we do know is that BB chased Craig for a few years, asking him to return. And Craig came back because he felt there were aspects of the character and of the ongoing story line that he hadn't explored yet, and he also had ideas about where Bond would go next. Craig seemed to like the challenge to continue a story that didn't exactly need continuing, and to grab familiar characters (Madeleine, Blofeld) and then do a complete 180 turn with their motivations. Blofeld is no longer torturing Bond from the shadows, but is in custody and Bond somehow needs him. Madeleine isn't your typical Bond girl that we never see again once the credits roll, instead she betrayed Bond in some way.
    Again, we do not know this, but I personally doubt Craig would've returned if BB and MGW pitched him a standalone adventure, totally removed from the previous film.

    And to be honest, I doubt the marketeers and studio heads were very happy when they heard the news: how to market a continuation from a film not many people liked? That's a hard task, because you need to re-familiarise the public with characters they didn't care about or downright hated. Marketing Skyfall was much easier: they (figuratively) said: "Look, we know you hated QOS, so that's why this next film is a complete standalone. Quantum is gone, we're moving in a new direction."

    As for the creatives, they might might've done it because of the challenge: Mendes put a bow on Bond with SP's ending, and instead of moving on, they decide to unwrap the bow, totally change what Mendes set up (no happy sunset, Bond leaving has implications for MI6, Blofeld locked up has implications for the Spectre organisation), and then try to wrap a different bow around it, since this is definitely the closing chapter. That's extremely difficult.

    Yes, moving on and starting fresh is way easier and might be an easy option to market, to write and even for us fans to accept. But they chose the difficult road, which might turn out good as well. But if they crash, they'll crash really spectacularly. That's the danger.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Am choosing not to believe the DR NO-SAFIN thing. After what happened with the last film, I really don't think it would be wise to reboot another Classic Bond Villian.

    I don't think he is Dr No. Blofeld and SP return makes sense as Blofeld has been played by many actors before, why is Dr No so important? Just because he was the first Villian of the series or a member of SP, it's hard to believe.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Am choosing not to believe the DR NO-SAFIN thing. After what happened with the last film, I really don't think it would be wise to reboot another Classic Bond Villian.

    I don't think he is Dr No. Blofeld and SP return makes sense as Blofeld has been played by many actors before, why is Dr No so important? Just because he was the first Villian of the series or a member of SP, it's hard to believe.

    Yeah, I sincerely hope he isn't. I think the way Joseph Wiseman played him, made Dr. No iconic & important. More reason for EON to keep it that way. Coz up till date, they still haven't found another Telly Savalas as Blofeld....who knows Waltz might get it right in NTTD. But it's still a risk, rebooting classic Villains....as it's evidently a delicate process.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited April 2020 Posts: 467
    How much screen time does Dr. No actually get in the finished film? He just shows up for the last 20 minutes. He's only "iconic" as he's the title character at the centre of the mystery and he's the prototype for the much more colourful and entertaining villains who came up next. But the character itself is rather terse, and he's mostly memorable because of the hands. Ask people to pick between Blofeld, Goldfinger, Largo, Stromberg, Janus, Scaramanga, Le Chiffre, Silva and Julius No, and I doubt that hardly any serious fan would have No as their iconic villain.

    Besides, it's definitely not a good idea for EON to celebrate now a character played by a Canadian actor in yellowface in 1962.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Like Fukunaga said, “continuity is fun”.

    The great thing about the “continuity” within the Craig era is that every film has its own identity, flavor and distinctive look - even when the new film is a direct sequel set minutes after the end of the previous one - and this approach makes every film stand as a proper fulfilled adventure, without annoying cliffhangers or heavy ties plot wise (like in the comic book franchises realm).

    NTTD is conceived as the culmination of 15 years of stories based upon the concept of “deconstructing Bond”. We’ve seen the character evolving through the films, we’ve seen famous characters being re-interpreted, we’ve seen different approaches being brought to the table dealing with a pop icon and its heritage. NTTD following this path is just the most natural thing to do, like it or not. Personally, I’m glad they’re doing this. Back in 2015 my first desire was for Craig to come back for another one in order to explore even more the mythology established in SP, so I could not been more excited.
  • Posts: 9,730
    I am looking forward to this film... whenever it comes out
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    How much screen time does Dr. No actually get in the finished film? He just shows up for the last 20 minutes. He's only "iconic" as he's the title character at the centre of the mystery and he's the prototype for the much more colourful and entertaining villains who came up next. But the character itself is rather terse, and he's mostly memorable because of the hands. Ask people to pick between Blofeld, Goldfinger, Largo, Stromberg, Janus, Scaramanga, Le Chiffre, Silva and Julius No, and I doubt that hardly any serious fan would have No as their iconic villain.

    Besides, it's definitely not a good idea for EON to celebrate now a character played by a Canadian actor in yellowface in 1962.

    Not trying to cause problems but I would have Dr No as my iconic villain out of that lot. I understand he is not the most famous though.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,247
    matt_u wrote: »
    Like Fukunaga said, “continuity is fun”.

    The great thing about the “continuity” within the Craig era is that every film has its own identity, flavor and distinctive look - even when the new film is a direct sequel set minutes after the end of the previous one - and this approach makes every film stand as a proper fulfilled adventure, without annoying cliffhangers or heavy ties plot wise (like in the comic book franchises realm).

    NTTD is conceived as the culmination of 15 years of stories based upon the concept of “deconstructing Bond”. We’ve seen the character evolving through the films, we’ve seen famous characters being re-interpreted, we’ve seen different approaches being brought to the table dealing with a pop icon and its heritage. NTTD following this path is just the most natural thing to do, like it or not. Personally, I’m glad they’re doing this. Back in 2015 my first desire was for Craig to come back for another one in order to explore even more the mythology established in SP, so I could not been more excited.

    Yeah, sure. the only slight problem is, am sure if many of us including EON were told that Craig's last Bond film will connect with his first film, we would have vehemently doubted that. Let's imagine we saw Silva's photo as early as CR or Blofeld's Voice talking to Le Chiffre. Like for example, in SHERLOCK HOLMES we are introduced to a lurking Professor Moriarty & in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, we heard the names of Davy Jones & Bootstrap....so when these Characters surfaced in future installments, nothing seemed contrived about it.

    But we're still Bond fans who really love the character even if we see flaws. I prefer Standalone Bond films, but if it must be serialized, it would be much better, if we start hearing names of future characters or events in the present film.....just like how we might see Madeleine's train story from SP in NTTD.

    And I think we can all agree that apart from CR's ending, all of Craig's films ended with a touch of conclusion....it's just so happens that the closed chapters keep getting extended. But at the end of the day we're huge Bond fans, and must live with the flaws....I even watched DAD yesterday

    :D
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    I can live with, and even like, the flaws of previous Bond films if they are made with the right intentions. If it's a moment of naffness, or it's outdated, or a camp tone etc. then I don't mind. But I think with Craig's films that they genuinely believe they are making better films than what came during the pre-Craig era. There's a certain smugness, as if they are being made by people who don't like James Bond films. (I don't get this with CR - i think that one is incredible).

    Consider the moment in SF when Q makes the exploding pen quip. Ok, it's quite funny I suppose. But it would have been even funnier, and far less smug, if they had included a moment later in the film where Bond could have done with an exploding pen - such as when he's in the tube tunnel and can't get through the door with the train coming; "You know what I could do with now Q? An exploding pen." - that sort of thing.

    I think that by giving all the power over to the director, there is far too much emphasis on a single vision that never used to be the case when Broccoli and Saltzman would come up with ideas for set pieces etc. I genuinely don't believe for one second that Forster or Mendes are fans of James Bond, or have any appreciation of the history or what fans might like.

    I say all this knowing that evolution is inevitable and necessary, and that you don't need die hard fans of the franchise directing to make good films (and might even be counter productive). I am just giving my thoughts.

    I still have hopes for NTTD of course, and everyone involved in production is making the right noises, but personally I don't really like where it seems they are taking it and for the first time ever I am not looking forward to seeing what its like.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Not all that standalone though, in retrospect. SP changed that.

    Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.

    Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Not all that standalone though, in retrospect. SP changed that.

    Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.

    Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.

    Thanks, I didn't know any of this before now.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,518
    Not all that standalone though, in retrospect. SP changed that.

    Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.

    Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.

    Thanks, I didn't know any of this before now.

    Alright... you argued Skyfall is not that standalone, and I'm arguing that it is standalone. There's no need for sarcasm.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    Universal is just distributing NTTD internationally, correct? Assumably NTTD will still play in North America in AMC Theatres, as distributed by United Artists.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Not all that standalone though, in retrospect. SP changed that.

    Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.

    Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.

    Thanks, I didn't know any of this before now.

    Alright... you argued Skyfall is not that standalone, and I'm arguing that it is standalone. There's no need for sarcasm.

    I thought it was obvious I was referring to it being in retrospect, thanks to Silva being retconned as a Spectre agent and the Skyfall story being directly linked to Spectre's. Hence why I said "in retrospect". My sarcastic comment was in response to what was read as a smart-ass response. I don't require dictionary definitions. Thanks.

    None of the Craig films are truly standalone films. Everything that happens in one is a consequence of what happened in a previous one. Such is the effect of focusing (rightly or wrongly, depending on your taste) on continuity.
  • Posts: 3,164
    Red_Snow wrote: »

    Universal is just distributing NTTD internationally, correct? Assumably NTTD will still play in North America in AMC Theatres, as distributed by United Artists.

    Correct
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Not all that standalone though, in retrospect. SP changed that.

    Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.

    Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.

    Thanks, I didn't know any of this before now.

    Alright... you argued Skyfall is not that standalone, and I'm arguing that it is standalone. There's no need for sarcasm.

    I thought it was obvious I was referring to it being in retrospect, thanks to Silva being retconned as a Spectre agent and the Skyfall story being directly linked to Spectre's. Hence why I said "in retrospect". My sarcastic comment was in response to what was read as a smart-ass response. I don't require dictionary definitions. Thanks.

    None of the Craig films are truly standalone films. Everything that happens in one is a consequence of what happened in a previous one. Such is the effect of focusing (rightly or wrongly, depending on your taste) on continuity.

    I didn’t mean for it to come out as smart assed so I apologize if it did. By your own logic CR must be a standalone film as nothing came before it in the Craig era. I’d still say Skyfall is a stand-alone film; I don’t think anything that comes *after* a film does anything to a films standalone status.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 467
    Before American theaters reopen, Universal and AMC will have ample time anyway to settle their differences. At this point, such announcements are quite meaningless.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Of all this VOD movies, I haven't watched and won't watch it as a stream. In that case I wozuld wait for the DVD. I am not on Netflix, which means, I have not seen THE IRISHMAN (but what I heard about it, it's not that sad. Me missing it, that is.)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,009
    Not all that standalone though, in retrospect. SP changed that.

    Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.

    Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.

    Thanks, I didn't know any of this before now.

    Alright... you argued Skyfall is not that standalone, and I'm arguing that it is standalone. There's no need for sarcasm.

    I thought it was obvious I was referring to it being in retrospect, thanks to Silva being retconned as a Spectre agent and the Skyfall story being directly linked to Spectre's. Hence why I said "in retrospect". My sarcastic comment was in response to what was read as a smart-ass response. I don't require dictionary definitions. Thanks.

    None of the Craig films are truly standalone films. Everything that happens in one is a consequence of what happened in a previous one. Such is the effect of focusing (rightly or wrongly, depending on your taste) on continuity.

    I didn’t mean for it to come out as smart assed so I apologize if it did. By your own logic CR must be a standalone film as nothing came before it in the Craig era. I’d still say Skyfall is a stand-alone film; I don’t think anything that comes *after* a film does anything to a films standalone status.

    No worries. Casino Royale obviously has the distinction of being the first film in a rebooted timeline, so it doesn't really qualify to be used as an example against my argument, which relies (in comparison with yours) on a film being completely narratively separate from the films surrounding it, therefore standing on its own. Skyfall was that when it was released, but Spectre retrospectively changed that.

    I appreciate the difference in viewpoint on the meaning of the word "standalone" in this context, though.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,247
    I think CR & SF to an extent are standalone Bond films....maybe not entirely, but one doesn't need DAD to enjoy CR or QoS to understand SF. I've always thought if EON really knew they were going to serialize the Craig films, they might not have killed-off Mathis....they killed off Mathis, coz they thought QoS would close-off the arc.

    And who knows?....maybe Camille might have returned. And maybe YKMN might have served as Craig's Bond '007' theme, returning in QoS, SF, SP & NTTD. All these didn't happen, coz EON never knew they were going to serialize Craig's Era....that's just the thing & we must accept it, why?....coz it's still our man BOND.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Not all that standalone though, in retrospect. SP changed that.

    Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.

    Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.

    Thanks, I didn't know any of this before now.

    Alright... you argued Skyfall is not that standalone, and I'm arguing that it is standalone. There's no need for sarcasm.

    I thought it was obvious I was referring to it being in retrospect, thanks to Silva being retconned as a Spectre agent and the Skyfall story being directly linked to Spectre's. Hence why I said "in retrospect". My sarcastic comment was in response to what was read as a smart-ass response. I don't require dictionary definitions. Thanks.

    None of the Craig films are truly standalone films. Everything that happens in one is a consequence of what happened in a previous one. Such is the effect of focusing (rightly or wrongly, depending on your taste) on continuity.

    I didn’t mean for it to come out as smart assed so I apologize if it did. By your own logic CR must be a standalone film as nothing came before it in the Craig era. I’d still say Skyfall is a stand-alone film; I don’t think anything that comes *after* a film does anything to a films standalone status.

    No worries. Casino Royale obviously has the distinction of being the first film in a rebooted timeline, so it doesn't really qualify to be used as an example against my argument, which relies (in comparison with yours) on a film being completely narratively separate from the films surrounding it, therefore standing on its own. Skyfall was that when it was released, but Spectre retrospectively changed that.

    That’s fair. I suppose then I take issue with your definition of standalone then, so maybe we can agree to disagree on what we view as standalone.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    I think having different director's can definitely affect continuity. Terence young directed the first two bond film's and then they made Goldfinger and again they brought back Young to continue with Spectre storylines in TB & later with YOLT,OHMSS, DAF. If Craig Era was directed by one director even for 3 film's it might had a different approach than the one we have got but we would have lost the variety of 3 different director's take on bond, may be that's why standalone film's would be better from bond26 with different director with little to no continuity or maybe if Nolan or any other direct bond film, we might get the first properly made trilogy. It would be nice as no bond actor has done 3 film's yet, Roger-7, Connery-6, Craig-5, Brosnan- 4, Dalton-2, Lazenby- 1
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Not all that standalone though, in retrospect. SP changed that.

    Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.

    Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.

    Thanks, I didn't know any of this before now.

    Alright... you argued Skyfall is not that standalone, and I'm arguing that it is standalone. There's no need for sarcasm.

    I thought it was obvious I was referring to it being in retrospect, thanks to Silva being retconned as a Spectre agent and the Skyfall story being directly linked to Spectre's. Hence why I said "in retrospect". My sarcastic comment was in response to what was read as a smart-ass response. I don't require dictionary definitions. Thanks.

    None of the Craig films are truly standalone films. Everything that happens in one is a consequence of what happened in a previous one. Such is the effect of focusing (rightly or wrongly, depending on your taste) on continuity.

    I didn’t mean for it to come out as smart assed so I apologize if it did. By your own logic CR must be a standalone film as nothing came before it in the Craig era. I’d still say Skyfall is a stand-alone film; I don’t think anything that comes *after* a film does anything to a films standalone status.

    No worries. Casino Royale obviously has the distinction of being the first film in a rebooted timeline, so it doesn't really qualify to be used as an example against my argument, which relies (in comparison with yours) on a film being completely narratively separate from the films surrounding it, therefore standing on its own. Skyfall was that when it was released, but Spectre retrospectively changed that.

    That’s fair. I suppose then I take issue with your definition of standalone then, so maybe we can agree to disagree on what we view as standalone.

    Conceded! And apologies for the sarcasm.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited April 2020 Posts: 280
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think CR & SF to an extent are standalone Bond films....maybe not entirely, but one doesn't need DAD to enjoy CR or QoS to understand SF. I've always thought if EON really knew they were going to serialize the Craig films, they might not have killed-off Mathis....they killed off Mathis, coz they thought QoS would closed-off the arc.

    And who knows?....maybe Camille might have returned. And maybe YKMN might have served as Craig's Bond '007' theme, returning in QoS, SF, SP & NTTD. All these didn't happen, coz EON never knew they were going to serialize Craig's Era....that's just the thing & we must accept it, why?....coz it's still our man BOND.
    In retrospect, I do wish Mathis lived. But having only one song for all of Craig's films wouldn't have been a good idea IMO.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,518
    Agent_One wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think CR & SF to an extent are standalone Bond films....maybe not entirely, but one doesn't need DAD to enjoy CR or QoS to understand SF. I've always thought if EON really knew they were going to serialize the Craig films, they might not have killed-off Mathis....they killed off Mathis, coz they thought QoS would closed-off the arc.

    And who knows?....maybe Camille might have returned. And maybe YKMN might have served as Craig's Bond '007' theme, returning in QoS, SF, SP & NTTD. All these didn't happen, coz EON never knew they were going to serialize Craig's Era....that's just the thing & we must accept it, why?....coz it's still our man BOND.
    In retrospect, I do wish Mathis lived. But having only one song for all of Craig's films wouldn't have been a good idea IMO.

    Maybe not one Bond Theme for the entire Craig era, but maybe callbacks to YKMN in the scores for all the Craig Bond films, is more what @GadgetMan meant?

    I agree, I wish Mathis had lived. His death didn't seem to mean much to the story.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Sure @NickTwentyTwo, having YKMN in different Renditions in the score, not having it as the opening song of each film. @Agent_One that's why I said much like the '007' theme from the older films.
Sign In or Register to comment.