NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1145146148150151298

Comments

  • NoWisemanNoWiseman Germany
    edited October 2021 Posts: 34
    JazzyBond wrote: »
    When was the last time a Bond movie actually touched people and made them feel something?

    2012. I dont't think, it needs the death of the hero to be emotional relevant. And yes, the ending of NTTD ruined the whole movie experience for me.

    But as i said before, it's all about personal taste and feelings. You can't argue about that. I don't want to badmouth the movie for people like you, who liked it a great deal.

    Beeing on this forum for the last 3 weeks, expressing my obvious problems with NTTD and reading, how others react to the movie, helped me to deal with it.

    I think, it's time to move on now.

  • Posts: 526
    JazzyBond wrote: »
    Geez, treating Craig’s films as a trilogy and forgetting the last 2? Can we say unnecessary drama?!? I mean say what you want about Brofeld and the end to NTTD (the former I loathe even though I quite love SP, the former I accept and appreciate doing something different) there were some fabulous Bond moments in these two movies and to just cover your ears and eyes and say they never happened is nonsense. My point earlier was fluffed off by saying “read the previous 150 pages” my point is we, I would hope would know that CR was Bond Begins why not have Bond Ends”. This actor’s tenure is incapsulated into a 5 movie run. They never knew the stop date for the other Bond actors. They knew going in this was Craig’s last so now is the best time,if they were ever going to do it, to kill Bond. Also for the ones who want a cookie cutter Goldfinger, TLD every movie, do you really think the series would last this long if they went that route? With streaming movies now and this younger generation having the attention span of maybe 5 seconds? It would crash and burn. They HAD to make Bond different this go around with Craig they HAVE to change things up from time to time (kill Bond off etc) to keep interest and to generate buzz! There are so many platforms out there now (Netflix, Hulu etc). Just retreading a man in a tux being cool over and over and not tweaking it from time to time isn’t going to get it done anymore.

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, there are those of us that find the storylines and endings of SP and NTTD so distasteful, that we can’t enjoy it, therefore, why watch them? Skyfall, narratively, provides a perfect end for Craig’s Bond(IMO). Exhilarating mission, thrilling, and he ends the film better than ever. The hero, standing tall, ready to go out and do his thing. Essentially, SP and NTTD are like one long, discombobulated and uninteresting yarn. Blofeld and the brother deal, we all know, but how boring and uninspiring was that? Tons of camp. Basically, Bond in this film was the opposite of the Bond we saw in Casino Royale. Then, Bond let’s Blofeld live. That did not seem natural for him. Why would he leave perhaps the most dangerous man in the world alive? Made no sense. And it was a very FLAT and deflating ending. The Madeline romance felt unnatural and tenuous at best. Tying Mr. White in as a dying man, and making a deal with his greatest enemy (Bond) to save his daughter...I’m getting exhausted just typing all this trope. And then, we get more of the very same in NTTD. Eon is like, “this is a series, not a movie. What can we do that we haven’t done before? Oh yeah, let’s kill Bond!” And we are taking about 5 hours and 15 minutes or so of this? Are there some good action sequences and scenes? Sure. But is the payoff of Bond dying and exploring his romance with Madeline worth it? Not for me. And I’m not alone.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 68
    I’m not saying I’m doing backflips for the ending either and yes it bothered me at first and it took a few days to wrap my head around it. But I eventually did. It’s just so well done with the acting and dialogue and the finality of it. It’s really a disbelief and awe when you realize even after multiple viewings that Bond isn’t going to make it out of this one. Craig Bond didn’t have a happy ending he started us off on a new timeline with CR and “Bond Begins” and he closes the chapter with “Bond Ends”. I guess me being a comic book guy as well the whole multiverse and different timeline is not that much of a stretch for me and I have always seen each actor as his own take on the James Bond character. No way is Dalton the same Bond in AVTAK etc. Again, I’m not disputing or arguing with anyone’s feelings about NTTD my whole point here was people saying they are disregarding the last 2 movies because the series didn’t go in the direction they envisioned it after SF. If people are choosing to disregard certain films because of an unfavorable direction for the character then how about we back it up one movie and disregard SF as well? It started all of the past Bond memories coming back to haunt him and also it made him suddenly over the hill in his 3rd movie! He was a badass in QOS and then he was suddenly an “Old Dog”! Also if we don’t like the direction the franchise went then please disregard DAF! We had a classic setup after OHMSS and it was pissed away to have Blofeld in drag!! That by far is the worst decision the franchise ever went with going slapstick and quirky after the brilliance of OHMSS. But you know what? I still watch and enjoy DAF because I find the good in all of the movies. I don’t let it taint the whole film and ruin it for myself.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,847
    Seriously, if people can't handle the last two Craig films, what about the 70s Bonds? Is MR a never-happened? Is DAD a never-happened? Are we really going to punch holes in a film series (or as some wrongfully call it, a "franchise") because some films pose a bit of a challenge here or there? It's everybody right, of course. I just find it laughably immature. It's the KOTKS effect.
  • Exactly, DarthDimi, exactly!
  • Finally saw the film. My reaction? Very disappointed. Maybe more so because this was supposed to remove the bitter aftertaste of SP. Instead it just wallowed more in what made the previous film a mess. Yes the action scenes were more impressive and had more energy but the melodrama, combined with the sacrificial savior of the world (something out of Star Wars or Marvel I guess) really bring the film down to “follow the latest trend” drivel. It has a feeling of “written by committee” all over it - let’s include some Bondian touches but let’s not forget that this is Bond of the Marvel era so we have to follow those trends or people won’t watch us. Never mind Fleming or what came before, going back to 1962. At the end of the day it feels like a sell-out of the franchise. No passion that involves being faithful to the character and the franchise. But more about making a buck! Yes, we can kill Bond and then slap on the end that “Bond will return”. How? Why? Make sense? Doesn’t matter. Nothing has to make sense anymore. We do it because we can and the audience is too stupid to ask such questions. Makes a buck, right? Follows the trends, right? Well then that’s all that matters. We can just reboot again. Will worry about that when we get there. But here in the now we need to give people something shocking so here goes. We killed M, we killed Felix, we turned Blofeld into a brother, so why not kill Bond too? There are no rules except those we make up ourselves. Death sells and beloved characters getting knocked off is cool so that’s what we go with.

    The film is too long and nothing that happens at the poison garden or the factory at the end is interesting. In fact nothing with Rami Malek or his half-baked scheme is interesting. Why is he doing what he is doing? None of that is explained. We’re supposed to just accept that he’s a crazy who fancies himself as a “savior” of mankind. But even in his warped mind what he’s doing is supposed to make some kind of sense. He babbles something about people wanting to be led and told what to do. Ok, that’s fine but what does that have to do with you trying to wipe out large segments of the population with your smart DNA virus? How does that make you a savior? Again, what’s the scheme here? It’s never explained to us. Is this supposed to be some kind of population control scheme a la Bill Gates? If so that’s never clarified. So we have a boring mumbling villain with a scheme which we don’t know what it is. That’s great. And then the secondary villain - Brother Blofeld. Another fail. Bringing back someone who didn’t work in the previous film and putting him in a Hannibal Lector cage for more of the same boring nonsense - “I’m the author of all your pain and can really get under your skin”. Blah.

    Madeline is back (yawn) and now Bond has a child with her. Great. Need I say anything else about this? What’s the point? And of course Bond can’t be a daddy so that’s yet another reason to kill him. And speaking of killing Bond, I just can’t fathom this. Isn’t that precisely why Danny Boyle was fired? Because he wanted to kill Bond. So they bring Fukunaga on board and go ahead and do the same exact thing anyway? How does that make sense? Baffling.

    So what did I like? Only 4 scenes. That’s it. The snowy opening in Norway, the scenes in Matera, loved Bond at his home in Jamaica and his bathing waterfall outside (that stuff feels right out of Fleming, could be Fleming’s home where he wrote the novels), and my favorite is the stuff in the forest in Norway. Everything from the Land Rover chases to the suspense in the forest is extremely well executed and shot. We’ve never really had a scene like this in Bond and this was a welcome addition for sure. The closest we ever came to forest action would be Corinne being chased by dogs in MR and the twins stalking 009 in OP. Both had some eerie horror film overtones without going into actual horror, both very well done. This one fits the same bill as well except done on a grander scale. And that’s pretty much all that I liked about the film. I did not like the Cuba scenes (the SPECTRE meeting was ridiculously bad with Blofeld talking to them through some cheesy eyeball) and the whole shootout that followed left me completely disengaged. None of it felt tense or exciting. Just a bunch of people firing machine guns. I don’t get what people enjoy in that entire sequence. Even the praise for Ana de Armas from all the critics is strange. I just don’t get it. Her giddy school girl routine was annoying. Good looking she is for sure but that’s it.

    Black female 007? Woke, anyone? No thanks. So I guess 007 is just a number that anyone can carry. Not only that but now apparently even James Bond is a code name too that anyone can carry. Because this Bond is dead. So we’ll have another agent who will be James Bond next. Oh man, it just gets more and more painful.

    So because of the few exciting scenes I guess I’ll place it just above QOS and SP but it’s nowhere near SF and CR. Not even close. And I don’t even consider those 2 masterpieces. What’s really interesting is that I have zero interest in seeing the film again. Even QOS and SP I wanted to see again in the theater, even after being disappointed on first viewing. I mean it’s Bond after all, right? But with this one I just don’t care anymore.


  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,025
    Hang on, Bond's not crocked in SF due to age - he's crocked because he's got a depleted uranium bullet in him. See how quickly he got up to speed once it was removed and the effects of the chemical toxicity started to wear off?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    Someone mentioned Star Wars episodes 7-9. I watched them, but to me they don’t exist. I thought they were beyond awful. Is it wrong that I don’t recognize them? Don’t see how or why it is. There are plenty of Bond movies that I don’t watch. As I’ve stated: I’m really a Daniel Craig Bond fan, and enjoy the books. Dalton was good. The rest of them? Not a big fan at all. Do I acknowledge they exist? Sure. In Star Trek Generations *spoiler if you’ve never watched it* Kirk dies. I have never watched it since. And I love Captain Kirk. The Kelvin Trek with Abrams came out: new Kirk, Spock, etc. Do I watch them or consider them canon? Absolutely not. I can’t stand them. We are fans, and we can take creative license with what we like or don’t like. What’s wrong with me deciding that Skyfall is a good end to the Craig arc and that Spectre and NTTD are garbage? Just my prerogative. I don’t see how that makes me immature? Simply a matter of perspective. Some here think you a fever or are ill if you don’t like NTTD or can’t accept Bond’s fate. It is a reality for many of us.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 676
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Seriously, if people can't handle the last two Craig films, what about the 70s Bonds? Is MR a never-happened? Is DAD a never-happened? Are we really going to punch holes in a film series (or as some wrongfully call it, a "franchise") because some films pose a bit of a challenge here or there? It's everybody right, of course. I just find it laughably immature. It's the KOTKS effect.

    When producers make extreme decisions, it results in extreme reactions from fans. NTTD has pretty much the most extreme ending a Bond movie can have. Alienating fans was inevitable, not because the fans are unreasonable, but because the producers seemingly structured an entire movie just to shock people, following what is currently the worst trend in Hollywood. We don't know the fallout yet from this movie, but if it permanently fractures the fanbase like the awful Star Wars sequels did, it wouldn't surprise me.

    People got over missteps like MR and DAD because they were only cosmetic missteps, not narrative ones. The envelope was pushed, but the envelope could always be pushed back. With NTTD, Eon doesn't push the envelope, it burns it. And for no natural reason. They could have given Craig's swan song (why does he even need a swan song?) a more hopeful ending. They could have had him turning down a knighthood like in the last Fleming novel. They could have shown him as a retired old man reflecting on his past. That would have allowed for a younger actor to start up a new continuity without resorting to a cheap, sentimentality-infused shock death.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    slide_99 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Seriously, if people can't handle the last two Craig films, what about the 70s Bonds? Is MR a never-happened? Is DAD a never-happened? Are we really going to punch holes in a film series (or as some wrongfully call it, a "franchise") because some films pose a bit of a challenge here or there? It's everybody right, of course. I just find it laughably immature. It's the KOTKS effect.

    When producers make extreme decisions, it results in extreme reactions from fans. NTTD has pretty much the most extreme ending a Bond movie can have. Alienating fans was inevitable, not because the fans are unreasonable, but because the producers seemingly structured an entire movie just to shock people, following what is currently the worst trend in Hollywood. We don't know the fallout yet from this movie, but if it permanently fractures the fanbase like the awful Star Wars sequels did, it wouldn't surprise me.

    People got over missteps like MR and DAD because they were only cosmetic missteps, not narrative ones. The envelope was pushed, but the envelope could always be pushed back. With NTTD, Eon doesn't push the envelope, it burns it. And for no natural reason. They could have given Craig's swan song (why does he even need a swan song?) a more hopeful ending. They could have had him turning down a knighthood like in the last Fleming novel. They could have shown him as a retired old man reflecting on his past. That would have allowed for a younger actor to start up a new continuity without resorting to a cheap, sentimentality-infused shock death.

    Nicely said. Yes. Turning down the knighthood would have been perfect.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    3 weeks since my first viewing and I still can’t believe how great NTTD turned out to be. Monumental, emotional, gorgeously shot. A solid #2 within the Craig era after having seen it four times.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,622
    I can't believe it's been 3 weeks since my first viewing of NTTD. It's been weird not looking forward to it but looking back at it
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,025
    slide_99 wrote: »
    They could have had him turning down a knighthood like in the last Fleming novel.
    I can see it now: 'A knighthood? I'd rather slash my wrists.'
  • Posts: 7,506
    If Purvis & Wade came up with a giant squid, or a killer who's most dangerous when there's a full moon, or had Bond believe he saw a statue move in response to his prayer, or did a comedy dream sequence of Bond's married life, I feel confident it would not be loved.

    As is, Fleming soaked Blofeld's story arc in coincidence, and people don't like that movie Blofeld is steeped in it as well. :-??

    I don't have issues with Blofeld in YOLT. Had NTTD played out the same way, I would have much preferred that. Safin as a villain meant nothing to Bond, whereas Blofeld did. There was a much bigger payoff. Safin was a waste.

    As for giant squid's, this seems to be one of the things Fleming haters keep falling back on to emphasise their point that going back to the books for unused material is bad.

    The point is that there’s a thing with fans giving weird Fleming elements a pass that they never would if it were under a different name.

    Like if Purvis & Wade came up with the girls being brainwashed into poisoning earth’s agriculture, there would be many fans talking about how ludicrous that is and how it brings down the film for them the same way nanobots brings down NTTD.

    But because Fleming came up with that nearly 60 years ago we don’t give it much thought like we would with a brand new film because in everyone’s minds it’s always been part of Fleming’s canon.

    Just like how in 40 years fandom will have reached a point of accepting NTTD as something that was done at one point in the franchise’s history and not really be all that bothered because by then it’s not seen as a novelty.

    I’ve seen this with Star Trek, where fans are so used to original TOS episodes having ludicrous storylines but if done today would balk at how silly it is.

    There are certain things from the novels you would never adapt, and the giant squid is probably one of them, so is a nodding statue. So I agree that not all Fleming is sacrosanct.

    There was never a literal nodding statue in Fleming. Just Bond second-guessing whether a statue had nodded while feeling particularly superstitious. The same as people jumping at shadows.

    The giant squid, on the other hand, is well overdue and hopefully will turn up during the next Bond's run.

    I know, but I have to try and reach some compromise with the Fleming haters.... ;)

    Is there really a cabal of people here who hate Ian Fleming's novels?

    Of course not.
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,609
    marc wrote: »
    Spectre should have been Bond vs Mr. White. And not even introduce Spectre; keep Quantum. Take the supposed Quantum of Solace ending and tie it up. Guy Haines and White, Bond gets both. Write DC Bond 4 based around the ending, and CR plus QOs. Forget Skyfall in the 4th movie.
    Oh right, Guy Haines isn't tied up yet. They'll have to do more tying up in Bond 26. 🙂
    [/irony off]

    :))

    Yes, so I guess because of his closeness to the British prime minister, Haines wasn't in the Cuban SPECTRE meeting (although he was part of its South American branch and the meeting was in Cuba, and it said all of SPECTRE are dead). So they should hurry to tie up Haines before the targeted Nanobots reach him. One reason more to bring Bond 26 quickly. 🙂
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,609
    Venutius wrote: »
    marc wrote: »
    Oh right, Guy Haines isn't tied up yet.
    Ah, but this multiverse stuff means there's a version of Bond's life where the deleted scene from QOS actually happened, right? Which means that Bond didn't just kill Haines in 2008, he killed Mr. White too - so, in that iteration, Bond never even met Madeleine, let alone the rest of it! ;)
    Sounds right. But then, that kind of universe is only relevant to us if it also includes us as talking about NTTD (the same NTTD as the one in our universe). So, Madeleine isn't really Mr. White's daughter? The guy in SP was a doppelganger of Mr. White? So, perhaps Madeleine is Blofeld's daughter? Confusing universe, this. 🤔 😁
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 676
    The whole multiverse/multiple timeline stuff doesn't make sense. It's about what's canon and what isn't. I don't view the post-T2 Terminator movies as canon, or the Star Wars sequels, or the Aliens vs. Predator movies. When people go out of their way to subvert established series for the sake of shock, or if the movies are just plain bad, that's a deal-breaker for me. There's a way to introduce new elements to a series to freshen it up without destroying it. For me, NTTD (and possibly SF and SP) isn't canon.
  • Minion wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I could do without closure.

    Yes. We've never really had it in a Bond story before and that formula is obviously working. Why do we have to start now...

    Because it makes sense? Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen every other film.

    I don't think it will ever happen again, which is what will ultimately make NTTD a classic.

    Precisely. People standing on principle that a fictional character should never die should consider expanding their literary and film horizons to include classics in which the main character, gasp, dies at the end to fulfill a thematic point. We should all encourage this franchise to be taken seriously for a change after years and years of being perceived as a thing only midlife-crisis guys really get into. That doesn’t mean it can’t still be popcorn entertainment, but that shouldn’t be all it is.

    One of the points you are zeroing in on is that Bond had reached an impasse when they went with Daniel. It had reached a point where it was not only being caricatured but it was a losing battle to simply offer up even more far fetched action sequences someone would better it next week including plots. However its trump card was the character itself and if you found the right actor you could begin to turn a mirror in on the inner bond. Start telling stories and moving the character through an arc. Grip a wider audience by making the stories have more emotional resonance.

    If you do that you can then make the plot thematic and symbolic. Manipulation of money, the environment and intelligence were handled with a degree of symbolism rather than looking for a literal big bang.

    If they had carried on with mission movies rolled out in the tradition as popcorn I think the franchise would be in an entirely different place.

    That is quite separate from my being being very happy with stories and characters that inhabit the key note James Bond qualities.

    I would finish by saying we have just seen a movie where a member of the older generation had a life threatening condition which would impact on those he cared for sacrificed himself and put his child first.

    They could never have anticipated how such a story would be played into a world which has spent the last 20 months turning the lives of the young and healthy upside down for the sake of the old where the notion of sacrifice for a future is entirely missing. Bond had a reason to die, to let go and did it with all the panache I would have expected of the character because it is all right .. to die.








  • edited October 2021 Posts: 68
    In YOUR opinion they aren’t canon. These are Bond movies so they are canon they are Bond 23-25. Saying what is and what is not “canon” is silly. What IS canon then and why is that so imperative and important? Define canon in how it relates to a 60 year old franchise that has continuity problems galore throughout its history! This argument is laughable! These are great movies and even if they aren’t your cup of tea doesn’t mean they aren’t “canon”! I dislike a lot of DAF and AVTAK but they are canon. I’m not sure I’m seeing your point. What, they differ from what you think Bond should be or how he should act? I’ve said it many times CR was a complete reboot, is that also not canon? You can’t have it both ways.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    You can make continuity or canon whatever you choose. It’s a perk of being a fan. Does that mean the world views it that way? Of course not. Does Eon view it like that? No. But if it makes you happier as an individual to say AVTAK or Casino, or whatever isn’t canon, that’s ok. All a matter of perspective. When you radically alter one’s perception of a franchise (or film series), there will be fans that don’t buy into the new/updated/rebooted version I.e. If you don’t believe me, just read the past 150 pages or so. Would we be discussing this had Eon not made NTTD what it is? Probably not.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 676
    JazzyBond wrote: »
    In YOUR opinion they aren’t canon.

    Yeah that's what I said.
    These are Bond movies so they are canon they are Bond 23-25. Saying what is and what is not “canon” is silly. What IS canon then and why is that so imperative and important? Define canon in how it relates to a 60 year old franchise that has continuity problems galore throughout its history! This argument is laughable! These are great movies and even if they aren’t your cup of tea doesn’t mean they aren’t “canon”! I dislike a lot of DAF and AVTAK but they are canon. I’m not sure I’m seeing your point. What, they differ from what you think Bond should be or how he should act? I’ve said it many times CR was a complete reboot, is that also not canon? You can’t have it both ways.

    I like CR and QOS. There's such a big disconnect between them and SF-SP-NTTD that in a way, I've always felt that when Craig-Bond walks off into the night at the end of QOS, he didn't really return. We never got that energized, youthful Bond back. They did a soft reboot (again) with SF, turning him into an old man, and then tried to connect it to QOS with its follow-up SP, and it resulted in a mess that I can't really wrap my head around. So much of the SF-SP-NTTD continuity doesn't make sense to me and doesn't line up with any previous era of Bond, not even Craig's first two movies.

    Yeah this is just my opinion, but SF-SP are really bizarre movies to me. I've said it before but they come off as metatextual commentaries on Bond movies rather than proper Bond movies. They are made in a self-aware style, treating Bond as some kind of legend everyone knows, and the themes are handled in such an expository way that they seem like the filmmakers are openly talking about Bond as a character, if you get what I mean.
  • Of course every Bond film exists and none can simply be willed or imagined out of the canon. But we're all free to decide our own timelines and which films we want to revisit and how often and which we may or may not want to regard as a part of the whole in our own minds.

    Heck, the thought crossed my own mind to basically regard Craig's tenure as CR, QOS, and SF, as those are three of my favorites and all comfortably in my Top 10, and SP and NTTD are very much the opposite and if anything serve to retroactively blemish (to my mind) the greatness from the first half of Craig's run. No one has to accept a filmmaker's vision if that vision dampens their enjoyment of some other part of the story.

    Two of my favorite action flicks from the early '00s are The Matrix Reloaded and Kill Bill Vol. 1, and yet both of those films hinge on enormous cliffhangers that were answered in both cases by a film that overwhelmingly disappointed me: The Matrix Revolutions and Kill Bill Vol. 2. I occasionally revisit Revolutions just to discover all over again what an abysmal film experience that is but haven't bothered with Kill Bill Vol. 2 in years and likely will never see it again.

    As odd as it may seem, I am still able to enjoy The Matrix Reloaded and Kill Bill Vol. 1 as contained film experiences despite both ending on cliffhangers that lead to a sequel that failed my expectations on every possible level. But none of that matters. The Matrix Revolutions and Kill Bill Vol. 2 don't have to mean anything to me, and they don't.

    I'm not saying I'm never going to revisit SP or NTTD again. I will. I'll enjoy the parts of each that I like. In an odd way, I think NTTD has actually helped me come to appreciate the comparative simplicity and cohesiveness of vision in SP and who knows how the years ahead may help me come to reappraise NTTD. But more so than with any other era of Bond, it makes sense for someone to decide SP and NTTD in particular are for them not the end of Craig's Bond's story.

    Skyfall has a fantastic ending in and of itself. An ending with a beginning. I see no problem with viewing CR, QOS, and SF as a perfect, contained trilogy for the purposes of one's own enjoyment. That takes nothing away from how anyone else views or enjoys the series.
  • I do, just like they do in DAF…. “You just killed James Bond”! Like everyone in the world knows this “secret spy” lol! That’s my point, the franchise has been doing things like this for years. You said earlier that if a movie is plain bad it’s a deal breaker. Hello? DAF? AVTAK? Last half of DAD? These last 3 movies are head and shoulders above any of these. I get your point about their being a shift after QOS but let’s face it, even though I loved QOS, it didn’t resonate with audiences. Barbara and MGW have a lot to consider when they make a new Bond movie. I can’t even begin to fathom what they have to do to keep this franchise humming after nearly 60 years and at the time of SF it was 50 years. They wanted to explore Bond’s past, build up his character and background. I personally like that. Others may not but it’s still canon. It’s what the same producers that have been doing these movies their whole lives chose to take their beloved character. It reenergized the franchise and also made billions.
  • It's also worth noting that the filmmakers themselves have considered over the years a great many things that could have spectacularly impacted one's enjoyment of another film: turning Fiennes' M into a traitor working for SPECTRE, giving Goldfinger a twin brother who's obsessed with diamonds. Should any of those things have come to pass, would anyone begrudge another soul to say "Yeah, I'm still going to watch Goldfinger pretending he doesn't have a twin" or "Yeah, I'm still going to watch Skyfall pretending Mallory isn't a SPECTRE agent." It takes a single stroke of the pen to rewrite Bond history, and a single skip and a hop of one's imagination to undo it.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Could Heracles be spread by mosquito? And was this an underlying issue that somehow got dropped in editing?

    Because Mathilde asks about mosquitoes in the car and eventually asks if mosquitoes have friends. Yes...they do...and they spread disease. I didn't think about this until the third viewing and it occurred to me that this bit of dialogue isn't random and meaningless.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    One thing I can’t wrap my head around. Won, the producers, BB, MGw, etc. had to know that this movie would not resonate with all fans, and that it would be extremely divisive. When you decide to kill James Bond after 60 years of him saving the day, being the hero that can’t be stopped, that’s as radical a move as cinema has experienced in many years (and never in Bond’s history). Cost th a minimum of $100 to $200 million in the states, and who knows how much overall. The object of any film is to be successful, and that means to make as much $ as possible. So, why were they so hell bent on killing Bond (an enormous calculated risk, destined to bring disdain from many fans), instead of just playing it safe? Doing a good job, pushing the envelope, but not breaking the 4th wall (killing Bond). They could have killed off Q, Moneypenny, Felix, M, and Leiter -even Madeline, and had an enormous impact. Safin (Dr. No) is killing everyone that Bond cares about, and he must seek out Blofeld for help. But again, why do it? They must not h e cared about the box office. And it is a disappointment there. At least it hurts them in the pocketbook; that’s my Quantum of Solace. Maybe it will teach them a lesson.
  • I think there were a number of factors that led to the decision. Craig had a great amount of creative control. I'm sure a big part of it was him wanting to leave his mark—and what bigger mark to make than the actual death of 007? But as for how it would play with audiences, killing off a beloved hero for the sake of pathos is a trend that has played out successfully a number times for both DC and Marvel over the past eight or so years. It's just Bond chasing another trend. They wouldn't have done it ten years ago, but after so many other examples I doubt they saw any risk in the move at all. To the contrary, I'm sure they saw it spelling huge buzz and a lotta dollars.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2021 Posts: 23,847
    Quite frankly, I'm glad they don't build a film just from parts that are guaranteed to be "dollar-proof". Then we'd be stuck with more F9 type of crap. I want a good Bond film, not a hyper-commercial, gold-digging checklist film. Knowing this would be a polarizing film, and still releasing it as such, earns the producers a lot of credit from me. It's bold, but it also means they are standing behind their daring film instead of merely feeding us more of the same sweet honey and nectar that we are sure to swallow down without complaints (but may end up finding boring quickly because it really is more of the same.)

    And dividing fans is not a goal in itself; it's a natural consequence of how diverse any large fandom these days is. I submit that it is impossible in 2021 to make a film that won't leave some fans screaming for more while others are screaming in horror. The gray area is growing smaller; the extremes are getting louder. We can spot the same trends within the DC / Star Wars / ... fanbases. And reading some truly insulting responses online ("Babara Broccoli should be fired; she doesn't understand Bond; she's taking a dump on her father's legacy; she and Kathleen Kennedy are ruining cinema; ..."), I actually applaud the producers for sticking to their ideas instead of succumbing to those of entitled fans. And those same entitled fans can't take it that 'their' ideal Bond isn't the Bond we're given. I'm sorry children, but that's the way it is.

    Like the film or don't, but please don't try to reason that they are wrong in not making a guaranteed cash-grabber or a film that was put together from ideas drooled by entitled, more-creative-than-thou fans all over the low-IQ comment section of YouTube. It's their film, not ours. Want to make your own Bond movie? Find the money, purchase the rights, start your own production company and go ahead. Until that day, no matter how creative, smart or talented you are, it's not your call. You can complain all you want, dislike and even hate all you want, but there's a certain line we oughtn't to cross, in my humble opinion.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    One thing I can’t wrap my head around. Won, the producers, BB, MGw, etc. had to know that this movie would not resonate with all fans, and that it would be extremely divisive. When you decide to kill James Bond after 60 years of him saving the day, being the hero that can’t be stopped, that’s as radical a move as cinema has experienced in many years (and never in Bond’s history). Cost th a minimum of $100 to $200 million in the states, and who knows how much overall. The object of any film is to be successful, and that means to make as much $ as possible. So, why were they so hell bent on killing Bond (an enormous calculated risk, destined to bring disdain from many fans), instead of just playing it safe? Doing a good job, pushing the envelope, but not breaking the 4th wall (killing Bond). They could have killed off Q, Moneypenny, Felix, M, and Leiter -even Madeline, and had an enormous impact. Safin (Dr. No) is killing everyone that Bond cares about, and he must seek out Blofeld for help. But again, why do it? They must not h e cared about the box office. And it is a disappointment there. At least it hurts them in the pocketbook; that’s my Quantum of Solace. Maybe it will teach them a lesson.

    Yeah, I’m sure they’ll all be queuing for the discounted food at Waitrose on a Thursday morning. “If only we’d played it safe, like that guy on the internet said.”
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    edited October 2021 Posts: 22
    Madeline is back (yawn) and now Bond has a child with her. Great. Need I say anything else about this? What’s the point? And of course Bond can’t be a daddy so that’s yet another reason to kill him. And speaking of killing Bond, I just can’t fathom this. Isn’t that precisely why Danny Boyle was fired? Because he wanted to kill Bond. So they bring Fukunaga on board and go ahead and do the same exact thing anyway? How does that make sense? Baffling.

    Black female 007? Woke, anyone? No thanks. So I guess 007 is just a number that anyone can carry. Not only that but now apparently even James Bond is a code name too that anyone can carry. Because this Bond is dead. So we’ll have another agent who will be James Bond next. Oh man, it just gets more and more painful.

    It doesn't make sense because it's not what happened. If you just watched a film in which they killed Bond, and still think the reason they sacked the previous director is because he wanted to kill Bond, I won't take the rest of what you say too seriously either.

    This is such an infuriating aspect of the internet age. People see an unsubstantiated rumour in social media, and not only take it to be 100% true, but then repeat as fact in support of their argument. Please try to engages bit of critical thinking. It was just a rumour, and it has already been cleared up (again not from the horses mouth so treat with caution) that Boyle actually left because he didn't want to kill Bond.

    As for 'black female 007', woke anyone? Yes of course 007 is a number anyone can have, it isn't a person, it's a position. Someone had it before Bond, someone will have it after him. There was actually a good gag in reference to this in the film where Nomi asks him 'did you think they'd retire the number?' as if he's an iconic footballer having his shirt retired.

    This labelling of anything people don't like as woke, because the media have told them to be on constant alert to be outraged is so dull. A large number of people will say if there is any black, female, homosexual representation where there wasn't previously, then it is 'woke' whatever you think that means. Now, given that they have been underrepresented in cinema and culture for the entire modern age, casting a black woman is just making the film normal. Rather than some weird fantasy universe some people seem to like where women and minorities don't exist except to satisfy male fantasies. What you are saying is 'I don't like seeing black women in films', because the reality is if Bond is retired, there is no reason whatsoever 007 shouldn't be a black woman, in fact I imagine MI6 absolutely needs diversity in its agents no? Your ability to launch undercover operations are quite limited if you only have white men! This is only reflecting real MI6. It is your demand, not woke, that is demanding tokenism and divergence from reality, in order to satisfy a rather sinister need not to see black women.

    If having one black woman iin a film is too much for you, or one gay man for those who were upset about Q, I suggest you go and quietly reflect on why. I wonder how you'd feel if black female culture had dominated everything for 200 years and a white man was suddenly allowed to appear prominently. You'd probably like it and think of it as progress no? I for one am glad black female kids no longer have to grow in a world they are airbrushed out of. Try and walk a mile in their shoes, as they say.

    Roger Moore had less to do with Connery's character or Fleming than anything Daniel Craig has done. There is no way in a million years he and Connery are the same man. But some people don't mind as long as he occasionally slaps a woman and treats them as objects, which for some here is clearly the only character trait of Bond that they really care about. Some of them may even be grown men.

    Imagine if Goldeneye came out today how angry the internet would be about the sexist mysogynist dinosaur bit. Bit there was no internet and people hadn't been told they needed to get angry then so they just accepted it and had a laugh about it. Maybe think about that?

Sign In or Register to comment.