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

1150151153155156298

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The missiles raining down on him were so fake, weren t they? Complete failure. Tom Cruise would have done it for real.
  • The missiles raining down on him were so fake, weren t they? Complete failure. Tom Cruise would have done it for real.
    Oh the engrams that would produce for his fellow scientologists...
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    I must say I'm surprised how many people on here don't see killing off Bond as a massive problem. I can only assume that because I'm not a superhero or sci-fi fan, that I'm somehow out of the loop in how acceptable it is these days to just ignore the plot of a previous film in a series. I always approached the Bond films as a series of movies about the same person, who was portrayed by different actors. But now I'm being asked to accept that Daniel Craig was somehow in a different reality. It's all a bit Star Trek for me I'm afraid.
    And yes, I know it's also impossible that Bond was in his fifties in 2021 and his thirties in 1962, but that stretch wasn't nearly as problematic as blowing him to smithereens on screen and then saying "it's okay, he'll be back".
    Eh? So he didn't die?
    As I've said before, how can we invest any emotion in the death scene when they'll just bring him back for the next film anyway. Is he like Wile E Coyote where he can get blown up but still survive or something?
    Beep beep!
    What bollocks!

    I'm always keep hoping Wiley will win one day, but he never does...

    I mean is it really that different from other drama we watch?
    Like different actors playing Hamlet or Othello, we know it always ends badly

    However you've got me thinking, perhaps for me the actor is paramount over the character, so I can accept Craig-Bond dying because, to me, it has no ramifications for Connery-Bond etc or even Book-Bond, in my World

    Clint Eastwood as a cop can be called Harry Callaghan or Walt Coogan or Wes Block, but he's really always Clint in my mind. Ditto for John Wayne or Arnie (apart from when he's the terminator) etc

    So I can easily accept one dead Bond when I still have five "live" ones and I doubt Babs intends to kill him again any time soon
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The missiles raining down on him were so fake, weren t they? Complete failure. Tom Cruise would have done it for real.

    Hahaha
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    imranbecks wrote: »
    So I was reading about nanobots. Apparently they can be deactivated using an EMP. Then it just dawned on me.. Bond's watch had an EMP device installed by Q! Why didn't Bond use it to deactivate the nanobots inside him???? Was it not powerful enough??

    51592049089_98c2a3c4cc_b.jpg

    Probably the same reason his ear piece communication wasn't knocked out of action. The script didn't require it, even though an EMP would have disabled it.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    Yes. It wouldn't have been a stretch to imagine some way, especially in a world where Q exists, to neutralize the nanobots. But as above, it wasn't what the script required.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    I liked the movie as a regular action flick but as a bond movie nope.

    As an action definitely delivers in entertainment factor and peace, it’s definitely an engaging spy movie but ughh it doesn’t feel like a Bond movie.
    Terrible idea to keep Madeline as Bond girl having bond become sort of a family man breaks the magic of the character bond is a playboy and should have stayed that way.
    Also killing him at the end was a terrible idea.

    The director tried to do with him what marvel wonderfully did with Logan and Tony Stark but it just didn’t fit.

    My score would be 6.7 out of 10
    Craig still was fine but he ain’t bond this time
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Talking of being unnecessarily negative @RC7 what are you current thoughts on using the OHMSS Theme and WHATTITW in NTTD? I can distictly recall you saying that both these musical cues didn't belong in a Craig Bond movie because they belong exclusively to OHMSS. Has your view now changed after watching NTTD? Just curious as you were very adamant and unnecessarily negative about it a few year's ago when I made the suggestion.

    I don’t think it does belong. But here we are. It is what it is.

    Yes, the use of those pieces of music seems really odd to me, the Craig-Bond series has always been presented as an "alternative Bond timeline", unconnected to past Bonds, yet as they approach the end suddenly they introduce music connected to the death of Tracy Draco over 50 years ago. A character who was never mentioned or used in the Craig-Bond saga. Some kind of musical theme connected with Vespa Lynd would have made sense, but not Tracy.

    Many Directors resort to using a popular song as an quick and easy way to elicit emotion from the audience, in lieu of doing the hard work needed to achieve the same result via images and dialogue, or come up with an original piece of music written specifically for the movie. It's a practise which I consider to be pure laziness.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, trying to catch up here and it mostly reads like a group therapy session for insecure males. Trying to figure out "masculinity" and Bond from the 60s and now; and how awful "woke" is (the most triggering word in the English language apparently for many men). And yet I hope to read civil discussion on NTTD.

    OK, I will drop this article also on this thread as it may be of general interest. I am reading it in a few minutes. My scientist friend, huge Bond fan, sent this to me. Click in to get to the article. It should be interesting, and hopefully spark a bit other kinds of discussion on this forum. "A Flu To A Kill" and more, written by actual scientists, I believe ... ;)
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    Ooh. That one given my questions in the questions thread sounds right up my alley. Thank you @4EverBonded
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,459
    Re the music in NTTD: I found it to really fit the movie well. I think Hans did a very god job. I personally like WHATTITW song in it; very appropriate.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    slide_99 wrote: »

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular,

    NOT to be popular, but to be subversive. I've said this plainly many times: Hollywood is obsessed with destroying popular male action heroes and NTTD clearly and obviously followed this trend, based on quotes from the filmmakers themselves. I don't see how anyone can deny that.
    at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    I didn't say nobody likes it. It currently has a 6.5 average user score on Metacritic, which is definitely mixed. As for EON, there's no way they didn't know that the ending would piss people off.

    @slide_99 And yes, Eon needs to go back to simple, yet entertaining plots. For me, you cannot beat Casino Royale. “You realize if you lose (at the poker game), that our government will have directly financed terrorism.” Simple, intense, and believable. I was hooked.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Oh heck yes - look at this excerpt from the opening and DO read the rest of this article. I think it's going to be a treat! (I am just beginning to read it ...)
    ***
    sciencedirect.com article]

    ... To examine our hypothesis, we examined adherence to international travel advice during the 86 international journeys that James Bond was observed to undertake in feature films spanning 1962–2021. Scrutinizing these missions involved ∼3113 min of evening hours per author that could easily have been spent on more pressing societal issues. We uncovered above-average sexual activity, often without sufficient time for an exchange of sexual history, with a remarkably high mortality among Bond's sexual partners (27.1; 95% confidence interval 16.4–40.3). Given how inopportune a bout of diarrhea would be in the midst of world-saving action, it is striking that Bond is seen washing his hands on only two occasions, despite numerous exposures to foodborne pathogens. We hypothesize that his foolhardy courage, sometimes purposefully eliciting life-threatening situations, might even be a consequence of Toxoplasmosis. Bond's approach to vector-borne diseases and neglected tropical diseases is erratic, sometimes following travel advice to the letter, but more often dwelling on the side of complete ignorance. Given the limited time Bond receives to prepare for missions, we urgently ask his employer MI6 to take its responsibility seriously. We only live once.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,314
    I don’t see it as an attack on male action heroes I see it as a wider issue with “emotive” [cheap] story telling - it just so happens that most heroes historically have been men.

    Princess Leia/black widow etc are dead in their respective universes
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,114
    Seve wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Talking of being unnecessarily negative @RC7 what are you current thoughts on using the OHMSS Theme and WHATTITW in NTTD? I can distictly recall you saying that both these musical cues didn't belong in a Craig Bond movie because they belong exclusively to OHMSS. Has your view now changed after watching NTTD? Just curious as you were very adamant and unnecessarily negative about it a few year's ago when I made the suggestion.

    I don’t think it does belong. But here we are. It is what it is.

    Yes, the use of those pieces of music seems really odd to me, the Craig-Bond series has always been presented as an "alternative Bond timeline", unconnected to past Bonds, yet as they approach the end suddenly they introduce music connected to the death of Tracy Draco over 50 years ago. A character who was never mentioned or used in the Craig-Bond saga. Some kind of musical theme connected with Vespa Lynd would have made sense, but not Tracy.

    Many Directors resort to using a popular song as an quick and easy way to elicit emotion from the audience, in lieu of doing the hard work needed to achieve the same result via images and dialogue, or come up with an original piece of music written specifically for the movie. It's a practise which I consider to be pure laziness.

    I was hoping for the disco version.
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    edited October 2021 Posts: 22
    Seve wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Talking of being unnecessarily negative @RC7 what are you current thoughts on using the OHMSS Theme and WHATTITW in NTTD? I can distictly recall you saying that both these musical cues didn't belong in a Craig Bond movie because they belong exclusively to OHMSS. Has your view now changed after watching NTTD? Just curious as you were very adamant and unnecessarily negative about it a few year's ago when I made the suggestion.

    I don’t think it does belong. But here we are. It is what it is.

    Yes, the use of those pieces of music seems really odd to me, the Craig-Bond series has always been presented as an "alternative Bond timeline", unconnected to past Bonds, yet as they approach the end suddenly they introduce music connected to the death of Tracy Draco over 50 years ago. A character who was never mentioned or used in the Craig-Bond saga. Some kind of musical theme connected with Vespa Lynd would have made sense, but not Tracy.

    Many Directors resort to using a popular song as an quick and easy way to elicit emotion from the audience, in lieu of doing the hard work needed to achieve the same result via images and dialogue, or come up with an original piece of music written specifically for the movie. It's a practise which I consider to be pure laziness.

    A popular song? What percentage of people seeing this film do you think even know OHMSS exists, let alone its theme? I can't keep up with the logical leaps being made here. Even in the UK if 10% of people recognised it at first screening I'd be surprised. OHMSS is generally disregarded by the public because of the Lazenby factor. Funny enough when Cary was watching the films it stood out, rightly, and guess what, it's the one with the sad ending!

    It makes absolute sense in this film. We've spent four films with people complaining they don't use Bond themes enough, they use an all time classic Bond piece, people complain. If your heart didn't swell when that started playing, something those of use under 60 thought we'd never hear at the cinema, I'm not sure you really like Bond, you were obviously determined not to enjoy yourself.

    This film essentially does an inverted OHMSS, which I should have realised as soon as Bond said the words in the PTS. They weren't going to kill Madeline and do the same again, so that music and Bond saying those words was one hell of a clue to where this film was going. There were some signposts.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,088
    I’ve seen the film for a third time, and it gets more emotional with each visit (and my wife and I were left in puddles of tears the first time out!); this was a slick film which balanced classic Bond with the Craig Era as the emotional anchor…. Craig was magnetic and Lea was stunning, beautiful and she was the archetypal Mother. She was wonderful.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    peter wrote: »
    I’ve seen the film for a third time, and it gets more emotional with each visit (and my wife and I were left in puddles of tears the first time out!); this was a slick film which balanced classic Bond with the Craig Era as the emotional anchor…. Craig was magnetic and Lea was stunning, beautiful and she was the archetypal Mother. She was wonderful.

    Glad you're still loving it, Peter :). I found that on my third time I got more emotional at different parts of the movie than I did the first and second time out (Bond at Vesper's grave and his speech to Madeleine in Norway in particular). It's an emotional rollercoaster and I can't wait to see it again (My poor husband though!)
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357

    A popular song? What percentage of people seeing this film do you think even know OHMSS exists, let alone its theme? I can't keep up with the logical leaps being made here. Even in the UK if 10% of people recognised it at first screening I'd be surprised. OHMSS is generally disregarded by the public because of the Lazenby factor. Funny enough when Cary was watching the films it stood out, rightly, and guess what, it's the one with the sad ending!

    It makes absolute sense in this film. We've spent four films with people complaining they don't use Bond themes enough, they use an all time classic Bond piece, people complain. If your heart didn't swell when that started playing, something those of use under 60 thought we'd never hear at the cinema, I'm not sure you really like Bond, you were obviously determined not to enjoy yourself.

    This film essentially does an inverted OHMSS, which I should have realised as soon as Bond said the words in the PTS. They weren't going to kill Madeline and do the same again, so that music and Bond saying those words was one hell of a clue to where this film was going. There were some signposts.

    The "popular song" aspect was intended to be part of a general comment which formed the second paragraph.

    I am aware that most of the audience will barely or never have heard WHATTITW and I'm not suggesting that it doesn't work as a piece of music in the context of the movie itself, just that it seems an odd choice to make given that, after establishing the Craig-Bond saga as a completely separate time line for 4+ movies, they suddenly want to introduce an element of continuity with a timeline which they have previously chosen treat as if it didn't exist.

    IMO when people talk about "not using the Bond theme enough", they are referring to the main Bond theme (the Monty Norman one) , not suggesting that the makers should recycle "Goldfinger" or "Diamonds Are Forever"

    Please try to refrain from making snide remarks like "I'm not sure you really like Bond" as they can only lead to escalating levels of rudeness
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,088
    00Heaven wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I’ve seen the film for a third time, and it gets more emotional with each visit (and my wife and I were left in puddles of tears the first time out!); this was a slick film which balanced classic Bond with the Craig Era as the emotional anchor…. Craig was magnetic and Lea was stunning, beautiful and she was the archetypal Mother. She was wonderful.

    Glad you're still loving it, Peter :). I found that on my third time I got more emotional at different parts of the movie than I did the first and second time out (Bond at Vesper's grave and his speech to Madeleine in Norway in particular). It's an emotional rollercoaster and I can't wait to see it again (My poor husband though!)

    That scene in Norway, @00Heaven , Bond’s emotion-confession, kills me. As melodramatic as it sounds, I was literally shaking as my emotions were yo-yo-ing all over the place.
    I’m a big fan of Safin as well. His cruelty is born from being a pathetic soul… Loved this character.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    People: “It’s unrealistic and hokey for villains to monologue their masterplan.”

    Same people: “I don’t understand Safin because they didn’t overexplain his motivation.”

    He’ll be the most re-examined character of the Craig era, mark my words.
  • Minion wrote: »
    People: “It’s unrealistic and hokey for villains to monologue their masterplan.”

    Same people: “I don’t understand Safin because they didn’t overexplain his motivation.”

    He’ll be the most re-examined character of the Craig era, mark my words.

    Yeah, I’m wondering if you’re right. I thought Safin improved on repeat viewings, and Rami certainly acted the hell out of the part. I remember when Rami gave interviews saying that out of all of the villains, he was the one that really gets under Bond’s skin. And now we know why as not only did he target Bond’s family but he literally got under his skin with the nanobots.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    I must say I'm surprised how many people on here don't see killing off Bond as a massive problem. I can only assume that because I'm not a superhero or sci-fi fan, that I'm somehow out of the loop in how acceptable it is these days to just ignore the plot of a previous film in a series. I always approached the Bond films as a series of movies about the same person, who was portrayed by different actors. But now I'm being asked to accept that Daniel Craig was somehow in a different reality. It's all a bit Star Trek for me I'm afraid.
    And yes, I know it's also impossible that Bond was in his fifties in 2021 and his thirties in 1962, but that stretch wasn't nearly as problematic as blowing him to smithereens on screen and then saying "it's okay, he'll be back".
    Eh? So he didn't die?
    As I've said before, how can we invest any emotion in the death scene when they'll just bring him back for the next film anyway. Is he like Wile E Coyote where he can get blown up but still survive or something?
    Beep beep!
    What bollocks!

    I think I most fans have no problem differentiating Bond between Craig’s Bond and his predecessors. It’s not about “ignoring” what came before, but rather acknowledging that it’s all fictional. It’s make believe.

    And the idea of different iterations of the same character isn’t unique to sci-fi tropes. Look at how many different iterations of Sherlock Holmes there is. Nobody had trouble understanding that the Sherlocks portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr. are in different realities.

    Also, I’m surprised you assumed Craig’s was supposed to be the same Bond as others. Most fans had already understood that Craig’s Bond is not the same as his predecessors. Connery thru Brosnan were 00 agents at least during the Cold War, whereas Craig’s Bond only became 007 after 9/11. How did that not register for you?
  • peter wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I’ve seen the film for a third time, and it gets more emotional with each visit (and my wife and I were left in puddles of tears the first time out!); this was a slick film which balanced classic Bond with the Craig Era as the emotional anchor…. Craig was magnetic and Lea was stunning, beautiful and she was the archetypal Mother. She was wonderful.

    Glad you're still loving it, Peter :). I found that on my third time I got more emotional at different parts of the movie than I did the first and second time out (Bond at Vesper's grave and his speech to Madeleine in Norway in particular). It's an emotional rollercoaster and I can't wait to see it again (My poor husband though!)

    That scene in Norway, @00Heaven , Bond’s emotion-confession, kills me. As melodramatic as it sounds, I was literally shaking as my emotions were yo-yo-ing all over the place.
    I’m a big fan of Safin as well. His cruelty is born from being a pathetic soul… Loved this character.

    Loved the Norway scene as well. They both were wonderful in it.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    ringfire211
    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 “saviour” 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 saviour? 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

    Thanos

    People have previously mentioned how Craig-Bond movies have been influenced by the "Bourne" movies or "The Dark Knight" (or "Austin Powers - Goldmember")

    In the same way Safin's half baked second scheme reflects an element of Marvel influence

    "Thanos believes the universe is becoming over-populated... Thanos appears and justifies his plans as necessary to guarantee the survival of a universe threatened by overpopulation... Thanos activates the completed Gauntlet by snapping his fingers before teleporting away. Half of all life across the universe disintegrates"
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    I’ve had to explain this more often than I should, but Safin sees himself as an arbiter of justice, cleansing the world of villains one massacre at a time. They lay this all out in the exchange he has with Bond sitting down at the table.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    And some of us thought people would never stop picking Skyfall apart. Plot holes! And so much more to dissect ...
    NTTD will take the forever Champion cake as most argued and analyzed.
  • peter wrote: »
    I’ve seen the film for a third time, and it gets more emotional with each visit (and my wife and I were left in puddles of tears the first time out!); this was a slick film which balanced classic Bond with the Craig Era as the emotional anchor…. Craig was magnetic and Lea was stunning, beautiful and she was the archetypal Mother. She was wonderful.

    Lea was remarkable in her scenes with Mathilde. She is the gateway to both worlds the traditional world of family and domesticity and Bonds world this for me mines the theme of the "The Spy Who Loved Me." As Bond says with incredulity I've got a family.

    Up until that point family was a concept for everyone else. Orphaned then even worse the surrogate family with the Oberhauser's (given the success of the opening scene in NTTD should we have seen a flash back to Hannes death when a young bond sees the avalanche but not the cause and then the revelation).

    Minutes before he dies he knows what it is to be a father and we can believe in that because Lea's performance is so authentic.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,088
    Minutes before he died he knows what it is to be a father and we can believe in that because Lea's performance is so authentic

    Thank you, you nailed it. What a beautiful scene, @Michelle_Johnston_55 ...
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    imranbecks wrote: »
    So I was reading about nanobots. Apparently they can be deactivated using an EMP. Then it just dawned on me.. Bond's watch had an EMP device installed by Q! Why didn't Bond use it to deactivate the nanobots inside him???? Was it not powerful enough??

    51592049089_98c2a3c4cc_b.jpg

    Probably the same reason his ear piece communication wasn't knocked out of action. The script didn't require it, even though an EMP would have disabled it.

    Talk about a huge plothole. The thing that could've disabled those nanobots in him was around his wrist and they didn't even think about trying to use it.
Sign In or Register to comment.