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

1152153155157158298

Comments

  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    This is easily the best,most well balanced ( He really likes Craig as Bond ) ,and funniest review of the film yet...


    From the guy who whined about Cardi B’s song and embarrassed himself for not understanding female anatomy? Lmao, no thanks.

    @AstonLotus: It supports my ridiculous agenda, therefore it’s worth posting! 8-}
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,526
    Deleted: Off Topic
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    I've just being catching up on the last few pages of what is usually and in the main s very enjoyable forum to be involved in.
    I must say though that the way some members personally attack others for having nothing more than a different opinion is shameful. Throwing insults around, questioning others fan credentials as if they are the arbiters of what a fan is etc etc. Shame on you.
    Yes this film is

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    Oh and my wife and I do make decisions together. Nothing wrong with that at all. But she also doesn’t mind me making decisions for the both of us (especially when she’s unavailable). She just doesn’t feel like I have to run everything by her. She trusts my judgment and according to her the husband is the man of the house. It’s in the Holy Bible.

    @ringfire211
    I agree that the past is the past, and not everything about the past is, by default, evil or bad. Norms and social constructs change and will continue to change. It would be silly to assert that the Connery Bond, for example, showcased some Evil Masculinity 50 years ago. What the Bonds showed us 50 years ago doesn't have to face either formal or informal censorship today, several culture wars later. So far, we agree.
    Oh and my wife and I do make decisions together. Nothing wrong with that at all. But she also doesn’t mind me making decisions for the both of us (especially when she’s unavailable). She just doesn’t feel like I have to run everything by her. She trusts my judgment

    When you put it like that, I see no reason to disagree. Your original wording is what confused me. "Take charge" and all that. I entered my marriage on the strict condition that my wife and I are perfectly equal; no one "takes charge". I don't believe in concepts like "the man in the house". There are areas of expertise where my wife is my superior, and vice versa.
    It’s in the Holy Bible.
    Okay... Let me be the better man and avoid another "religion battle" here. All I can say is that your interpretations of certain Iron-Age texts, which seem to fuel your denial of transgenderism, may be in dire need of a reality check.

    If we take this back to Bond, I'm not worried. They won't give us a transgender Bond any time soon. There's no particular reason why they would or should.
    I find the idea of transgenderism or recognition of any genders aside from male or female to be evil. And I’m not just Biblically speaking. Even if you believe in evolution you have to admit that the birth of a human being (either male or female, we’re not born under any other gender) is a sacred concept. So how anyone can accept the idea that someone can just decide to be something other than what they’re born as being normal.. I don’t understand that. Obviously there’s a mental disorder there. We shouldn’t be encouraging that kind of behavior. But treating this as something not normal. Because it isn’t. Never was. Never can be. So a guy wants to be a woman? Well that’s tough. We can’t have everything we want. I mean where do we draw the line? A pedophile wants to have access to kids because that’s the only thing that makes him happy. Should we allow this? I mean why deny his chance as happiness when that’s the only thing in life that brings him joy? Believe it or not we’re headed in that direction. Things that at one time we’re considered bizarre and even criminal are now considered perfectly normal. Things that are criminal today will someday also become the new normal. Something to think about.

    I don't 'normally' respond to such ignorant comments but simply can not resist.
    Firstly this is a James Bond forum where we can discuss James Bond things, namely NTTD. This is not the place for those sort of opinions, spouted without any knowledge of the subject other that what your religion says. In addition, you haven't the first clue about the audience you are preaching to or the offence it causes. (I am not trans or any thing else that invites bigotry BTW, just someone who feels the need to respond. I also speak for no one else because no one else needs me to)
    Secondly to compare the feelings of a transgender person to the predilections of a pedophile is THE single most fucking disgusting thing I've ever read on this forum. Shame on you. Trans people are not 'evil' as you say, just people trying to get by in life in a world populated by too many bigoted people like you judging and persecuting them. Imagine for 1 minute how it might feel to join a forum to discuss enjoyable make believe like Bond only to read comments like yours. Surely a Bond forum should be a safe space.
    Thirdly I actually can't believe I'm responding at all to someone who uses the phrase "even if you believe on evolution". That should have to me every thing I need to know.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Pretty disgraceful to belittle and negatively characterize people one doesn t know anything about and that never hurt anyone or tried to do the same the other way. People should live their own life the way they want, and let others be unless you want to help or offer support. And yes, the relevance in this thread eludes me as well.
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    edited October 2021 Posts: 22
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    Oh and my wife and I do make decisions together. Nothing wrong with that at all. But she also doesn’t mind me making decisions for the both of us (especially when she’s unavailable). She just doesn’t feel like I have to run everything by her. She trusts my judgment and according to her the husband is the man of the house. It’s in the Holy Bible.

    @ringfire211
    I agree that the past is the past, and not everything about the past is, by default, evil or bad. Norms and social constructs change and will continue to change. It would be silly to assert that the Connery Bond, for example, showcased some Evil Masculinity 50 years ago. What the Bonds showed us 50 years ago doesn't have to face either formal or informal censorship today, several culture wars later. So far, we agree.
    Oh and my wife and I do make decisions together. Nothing wrong with that at all. But she also doesn’t mind me making decisions for the both of us (especially when she’s unavailable). She just doesn’t feel like I have to run everything by her. She trusts my judgment

    When you put it like that, I see no reason to disagree. Your original wording is what confused me. "Take charge" and all that. I entered my marriage on the strict condition that my wife and I are perfectly equal; no one "takes charge". I don't believe in concepts like "the man in the house". There are areas of expertise where my wife is my superior, and vice versa.
    It’s in the Holy Bible.
    Okay... Let me be the better man and avoid another "religion battle" here. All I can say is that your interpretations of certain Iron-Age texts, which seem to fuel your denial of transgenderism, may be in dire need of a reality check.

    If we take this back to Bond, I'm not worried. They won't give us a transgender Bond any time soon. There's no particular reason why they would or should.
    I find the idea of transgenderism or recognition of any genders aside from male or female to be evil. And I’m not just Biblically speaking. Even if you believe in evolution you have to admit that the birth of a human being (either male or female, we’re not born under any other gender) is a sacred concept. So how anyone can accept the idea that someone can just decide to be something other than what they’re born as being normal.. I don’t understand that. Obviously there’s a mental disorder there. We shouldn’t be encouraging that kind of behavior. But treating this as something not normal. Because it isn’t. Never was. Never can be. So a guy wants to be a woman? Well that’s tough. We can’t have everything we want. I mean where do we draw the line? A pedophile wants to have access to kids because that’s the only thing that makes him happy. Should we allow this? I mean why deny his chance as happiness when that’s the only thing in life that brings him joy? Believe it or not we’re headed in that direction. Things that at one time we’re considered bizarre and even criminal are now considered perfectly normal. Things that are criminal today will someday also become the new normal. Something to think about.

    So now you’re comparing transgenders to pedophiles.

    Sorry, but YOU are evil.

    It's almost a shame I don't believe in his god, because this guy would definitely be going to hell. Imagine calling yourself a Christian but having no kindness or forgiveness in your soul, only hate.

    Another one who can't understand the difference between two consenting adults doing things that harm or interfere with no-one else in any way, and paedophillia, in which of course one person cannot consent, so no, we are not 'heading that way'. In fact paedophillia is now far more acted upon by the authorities now than it used to be not so long ago when lots of boys were being abused institutionally but who was it, oh yes, the church. And he has the cheek to acuse the rest of us of tolerating sin. Take a look closer to home.

    Why get outraged about what other people do privately that hurts no-one, and invent imaginary futures where apparently the rest of us have decided paedophillia is just fine. If someone has to invent absurdities to prove their point because actually reality bears no relation to their wild claims, they never had a point.

    Anyway sorry, this forum isn't the place so I shouldn't be engaging and dragging this on. God it's depressing though the negative influence religion still has in the world and how it is used to justify bigotry, hate, and making people, who have done nothing to hurt anyone, miserable. I kind of hope this guys son is gay, because he really needs that life lesson.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,526
    Deleted: Off Topic
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 8
    First time I saw it, I walked out in kind of a stunned silence, so stunned and shocked that I found it difficult to process and “assess”, although I knew I’d enjoyed it. I was shocked when even Felix died, never mind the ending! I’m up to multiple viewings now (lost count lol) and I still love this film.

    In my opinion, from the beginning right through to the scene in Q’s flat, it is quite simply amazing and at this point is seriously threatening to overhaul Casino Royale as the best Bond film of all time. From the scene when Madelaine re-appears, it does drop down in terms of how much I enjoy it, not massively, but enough to prevent it from being my favourite of the Craig era. As many have said, it just kind of sags a bit, although I do think it picks up again once we go to Norway, never quite reaching the dizzy heights of the first half of the film, but still very good.

    On my first viewing, the thing that jarred the most for me was actually something many of you may well think is pedantic or nothing, but is when Bond asks Paloma if she would mind turning around as he gets dressed. I just found this a bit strange and out of character for Bond. It just felt a bit weird to me on first viewing. It almost came across quite insecure? Although admittedly Craig sells the scene quite well through his cheeky smile, mitigating any thoughts that it’s insecurity and more like just playful banter. Interestingly, on second and subsequent viewings, it didn’t jar anywhere near as much, it just did on my first viewing for some reason!

    I know some took issue with the way Bond was in M’s office but I loved this scene so much and actually thought it was very fitting of the character in the context of what had happened and the fact Bond had been retired for 5 years and was at this point literally a visitor. If M had still been Bond’s boss at this point or even if it was only shortly after he’d left the service, then yes I would understand the frustration at the way Bond speaks to M, but in the circumstances I thought it was spot on. In fact, one of my favourite lines from the entire film was “My God you’re thirsty today!” The delivery and timing of it was just brilliant.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,526
    Nice post @James007Hill. I actually had more of an issue with the Bond and M scene in Spectre; it felt as though he was being disrespectful to M for no reason ("You're right, you do have a tricky day ahead"), whereas in NTTD, I didn't mind it as much because the Heracles project was clearly something Bond had strong feelings about. It was two strong minds butting heads with one another. "My God you're thirsty at the moment" also got a big laugh in my viewings as well, and I too thought it was a brilliant line!
    I don't know, to me, Bond being frustrated with M is yet another OHMSS nod, but I suppose it's true he didn't really show it in that film the same way he does in NTTD.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    echo wrote: »
    After all the buildup on the train when she handles the gun, they needed to pay off Madeleine's ability with a gun in SP, somewhere, somehow...not wait until the next film. It's Chekov's gun.

    But we do see that:

    During the fight on the train with Hinx .... she shoots Hinx in the arm just at the point where it appears that he is getting the best of Bond.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    You’re right. Still, she wasn’t successful; the Morocco escape would have been a more satisfying resolution of that mini arc in my opinion.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    You’re right. Still, she wasn’t successful; the Morocco escape would have been a more satisfying resolution of that mini arc in my opinion.

    Not at all ... in doing so, on a moving train, she physically incapacitates Hinx and distracts his attention long enough for Bond to get the rope around his neck.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    I suppose you’re right about that. Still, my feelings Stand regarding Morocco.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Feyador wrote: »
    You’re right. Still, she wasn’t successful; the Morocco escape would have been a more satisfying resolution of that mini arc in my opinion.

    Not at all ... in doing so, on a moving train, she physically incapacitates Hinx and distracts his attention long enough for Bond to get the rope around his neck.

    She saved Bond's life twice in SP. Which is why I find it confusing Bond suddenly distrusts her in NTTD.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    Oh and my wife and I do make decisions together. Nothing wrong with that at all. But she also doesn’t mind me making decisions for the both of us (especially when she’s unavailable). She just doesn’t feel like I have to run everything by her. She trusts my judgment and according to her the husband is the man of the house. It’s in the Holy Bible.

    @ringfire211
    I agree that the past is the past, and not everything about the past is, by default, evil or bad. Norms and social constructs change and will continue to change. It would be silly to assert that the Connery Bond, for example, showcased some Evil Masculinity 50 years ago. What the Bonds showed us 50 years ago doesn't have to face either formal or informal censorship today, several culture wars later. So far, we agree.
    Oh and my wife and I do make decisions together. Nothing wrong with that at all. But she also doesn’t mind me making decisions for the both of us (especially when she’s unavailable). She just doesn’t feel like I have to run everything by her. She trusts my judgment

    When you put it like that, I see no reason to disagree. Your original wording is what confused me. "Take charge" and all that. I entered my marriage on the strict condition that my wife and I are perfectly equal; no one "takes charge". I don't believe in concepts like "the man in the house". There are areas of expertise where my wife is my superior, and vice versa.
    It’s in the Holy Bible.
    Okay... Let me be the better man and avoid another "religion battle" here. All I can say is that your interpretations of certain Iron-Age texts, which seem to fuel your denial of transgenderism, may be in dire need of a reality check.

    If we take this back to Bond, I'm not worried. They won't give us a transgender Bond any time soon. There's no particular reason why they would or should.
    I find the idea of transgenderism or recognition of any genders aside from male or female to be evil. And I’m not just Biblically speaking. Even if you believe in evolution you have to admit that the birth of a human being (either male or female, we’re not born under any other gender) is a sacred concept. So how anyone can accept the idea that someone can just decide to be something other than what they’re born as being normal.. I don’t understand that. Obviously there’s a mental disorder there. We shouldn’t be encouraging that kind of behavior. But treating this as something not normal. Because it isn’t. Never was. Never can be. So a guy wants to be a woman? Well that’s tough. We can’t have everything we want. I mean where do we draw the line? A pedophile wants to have access to kids because that’s the only thing that makes him happy. Should we allow this? I mean why deny his chance as happiness when that’s the only thing in life that brings him joy? Believe it or not we’re headed in that direction. Things that at one time we’re considered bizarre and even criminal are now considered perfectly normal. Things that are criminal today will someday also become the new normal. Something to think about.

    So now you’re comparing transgenders to pedophiles.

    Sorry, but YOU are evil.

    It's almost a shame I don't believe in his god, because this guy would definitely be going to hell. Imagine calling yourself a Christian but having no kindness or forgiveness in your soul, only hate.

    Another one who can't understand the difference between two consenting adults doing things that harm or interfere with no-one else in any way, and paedophillia, in which of course one person cannot consent, so no, we are not 'heading that way'. In fact paedophillia is now far more acted upon by the authorities now than it used to be not so long ago when lots of boys were being abused institutionally but who was it, oh yes, the church. And he has the cheek to acuse the rest of us of tolerating sin. Take a look closer to home.

    Why get outraged about what other people do privately that hurts no-one, and invent imaginary futures where apparently the rest of us have decided paedophillia is just fine. If someone has to invent absurdities to prove their point because actually reality bears no relation to their wild claims, they never had a point.

    Anyway sorry, this forum isn't the place so I shouldn't be engaging and dragging this on. God it's depressing though the negative influence religion still has in the world and how it is used to justify bigotry, hate, and making people, who have done nothing to hurt anyone, miserable. I kind of hope this guys son is gay, because he really needs that life lesson.
    I never said I hated anyone so please do not put words into my mouth. Jesus loves the sinner but hates the sin. That’s where I stand. If that makes me a bigot then so be it. I guess Jesus was a bigot too. In that case I’m in great company and I consider it a great honor to be in HIS company. You don’t know the first thing about me nor which church I attend. I’ll tell you right off the bat that I’m not a Catholic so no need to cast stones or presume anything about me or my convictions. To throw all Christians under the bus because of the Catholic Church says something about you and your understanding/tolerance of others or of Christianity in general.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,022
    You compared transgenders to pedophiles @ringfire211
  • You compared transgenders to pedophiles.
    Twisting things that I said. I made a comparison about what is acceptable nowadays but at one time would have been unthinkable. A man becoming a woman. Then I said that in the near future what is unthinkable now (the rights of pedophiles) will become normal. You may think it ridiculous but I firmly believe we’re coming to that. Let’s face it - we have the blood of so many babies on our hands. They don’t have a say in their happiness, do they? As long as the adults are happy. As long as the mother is happy. The baby is secondary. I notice that the little ones are always the ones who end up suffering. It’s shocking but some day the rights of pedophiles will be more important than the rights of the little innocent ones.
  • Posts: 1,001
    Just ignore the idiot.

    He's got a friend in Jesus.


  • Posts: 12,260
    Yikes. How did it get to that even?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    Let’s bring it back to Bond.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,969
    Feyador wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    After all the buildup on the train when she handles the gun, they needed to pay off Madeleine's ability with a gun in SP, somewhere, somehow...not wait until the next film. It's Chekov's gun.

    But we do see that:

    During the fight on the train with Hinx .... she shoots Hinx in the arm just at the point where it appears that he is getting the best of Bond.


    Good point.

    I guess I just wanted Madeleine to have more agency in the final third of SP. I don't mind Vesper being tied up and left in the middle of the road--it's true to Fleming, after all, and she's a physically "weaker"/more vulnerable character--but Madeleine is set up as feisty, not unlike Tracy.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,534
    Back to Bond, people. Back to Bond. Either leave the bible and pedophilia at the door when you walk in, or leave your account at the door when you walk out. We're not having any of that here.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    Feyador wrote: »
    You’re right. Still, she wasn’t successful; the Morocco escape would have been a more satisfying resolution of that mini arc in my opinion.

    Not at all ... in doing so, on a moving train, she physically incapacitates Hinx and distracts his attention long enough for Bond to get the rope around his neck.

    She saved Bond's life twice in SP. Which is why I find it confusing Bond suddenly distrusts her in NTTD.

    Good point ... but, of course, Bond is primed for distrust (and is still looking over his shoulder when he & Madeleine arrive in Matera).

    Think what we might about it, but Blofeld is preying on Bond's insecurity about his past with Vesper, and has had Primo repeat to Bond during their fight that, "Madeleine is a daughter of SPECTRE," which of course she is, literally.

    And then there's the phone call from Blofeld himself while she and Bond are in the DB5.

    So Bond mistakenly assumes Madeleine is another Vesper ... traitorous ... and like Vesper, perhaps because she, too, has her secrets.

    So as a result, he spends five years alone in Jamaica. No wonder he attempts to strangle Blofeld ... it was all his doing.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,534
    Back to Bond, people. Either leave the bible and pedophilia at the door when you walk in, or leave your account at the door when you walk out. We are having none of that here.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Feyador wrote: »
    You’re right. Still, she wasn’t successful; the Morocco escape would have been a more satisfying resolution of that mini arc in my opinion.

    Not at all ... in doing so, on a moving train, she physically incapacitates Hinx and distracts his attention long enough for Bond to get the rope around his neck.

    She saved Bond's life twice in SP. Which is why I find it confusing Bond suddenly distrusts her in NTTD.

    Yeah I didn’t buy that at all.This focus on Bond being in love so much really brought down the quality of the Craig era for me.It worked for one film ( CR ) but the following films should have focused on the MISSIONS.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,895
    I was traveling when No Time to Die premiered and didn't get a chance to see it until a week ago. I’m not sure why it’s taken so long to collect my thoughts, especially since I wasn't able to get anything major done until I did. This is a film that gives you plenty of food for thought, and unlike its predecessor you can't be indifferent to it. Apologies in advance for the length of my comments.

    It’s certainly the best-directed Bond film in years. Skyfall had moments of style and Spectre had a stylish precredits sequence, but No Time to Die is genuinely stylish. And what is a Bond movie without style?The compositions, camera placement and angles, and production design (by Mark Tildesley) are a pleasure. Cary Joji Fukunaga and Linus Sandgren can take a richly deserved bow and are welcome to return for a future outings.

    The lengthy pre-credits sequence had more verve, excitement, and style than all of Spectre, though I wish Craig hadn’t speedwalked through the gunbarrel again. Michael Wood in the London Review of Books makes a fascinating point: this is the first Bond film to devote so much time to memory via flashback, and the flashback is within the memories of the female protagonist. When was the last time so much of a Bond film took place in the heroine’s head?

    The pre-credits action sequence is also the most memorable in the entire film. The “Oh s%&*” moment when the Aston was surrounded gave real chills, while the machine gun donut is the sort of clever solution required to prevent action from growing stale (as it does toward the end). As Bond took on Spectre's minions I thought back to Raymond Chandler's comments on Bond in his review of Diamonds Are Forever: "I like him when he is exposing himself unarmed to half a dozen thin-lipped professional killers, and neatly dumping them into a heap of fractured bones."

    The film also succeeds in balancing sex appeal with the modern obligation for strong/"badass” female characters. Paloma is charming; her scenes are the only universally praised part of the film, perhaps because they have a lightness and playfulness that the remainder of the movie lacks. Finally, someone who's really enjoying themself! As for new 007 Nomi, she gets to be competent and feisty without overshadowing or thoroughly one-upping Bond, as Wai Lin did.

    However, I did find her switch in attitudes toward Bond sudden, as if a page had been dropped from the script. I didn’t think there was an issue with Bond not sleeping with Paloma or Nomi; the audience got to feast its eyes on the pretty ladies without having to worry about how awkward an aging Craig might look with them in bed. One thing that slightly bothers me: as several people have said, both characters could be excised from the script without major damage to the story. I wouldn’t want that, but it suggests the script wasn’t fully developed.

    Many have remarked on M’s behavior, and how feckless and/or malevolent it looks. I think the film missed a trick by not giving M a chance to express his motivations. Presumably he thought he was saving lives, by avoiding messy drone strikes. The film also doesn’t stress that his scheme would have also made the double-O section redundant. More could have been done with this and the reaction of the double-O section if the movie wasn’t so focused on “Bond’s story.”

    What’s the point of Tanner in these movies? What does he do that Moneypenny can’t? In the books he was Bond’s closest friend in the Service and a refuge from M’s coldness, a way of figuring out what the old man was really thinking. In these films he’s M’s lapdog, a boob of a bureaucrat. Get rid of the character or repurpose him. Moneypenny could have used his screentime.

    Felix’s death was a shock. “How will they deal with this in the future?” I thought oh so innocently.

    No Time to Die charges out of the gate and gradually slows and sags, especially in the third act. The action sequences become less inventive and more laborious; the shoot-em-up toward the end was something out of a bad video game and badly needed trimming. A film like this should tighten up toward the end.

    Zimmer’s score is adequate, if not memorable. If I was doing the score I would not want to quote John Barry—that inevitably makes me the lesser presence. Bond’s death music was pretty but so generic I wondered if it was recycled from somewhere else too.

    The Slavic scientist is way too broadly played, right down to his cartoon accent. He’s a refugee from another film and hamfisted comic relief. His vicious racist turn is out-of-the-blue and he might have been a more interesting villain if we'd gotten hints of its earlier. It's like the film decided at the last minute to make an analogue of the trolls who whined about a black female 007. That would have been a good idea if explored earlier on. His death cues the corniest line in the film. I can take bad puns and wordplay--I liked "blew his mind" because it capped a truly violent death--but they have to be really good if they're also going to reference the film title.

    The film does a fine job tying up and redeeming the loose ends from Spectre—whether that was worthwhile obligation is another matter—but gives shorter shrift to newer material. Rami Malek has a good creepy villain voice and demeanor but his character is an underwritten afterthought. His interest in Madeline and Matilde remains sketchy and abstract (as the film was afraid of just making him a pervert). He has to carry two plots—the destruction of Spectre and the exploitation of Project Heracles—and while his motivation for the first is simple and clear, the second is conveyed in a vaporous speech of convenience. It might have been better to just make him venal: he wants big bucks from selling the nanobot-virus and doesn’t care how many die as a result.

    I wish Spectre and Blofeld hadn’t been introduced into the Craig era—introducing them in one film and killing them off in the next just wasn’t worth it. The organization and its leader were always meant to have more mileage. The first cycle of Bond films understood that, even with their shambolic approach to continuity.

    I guess as an amateur Fleming scholar I should have been pleased by “Die Blofeld, die!” and the garden of death. But I’d rather see these elements not introduced rather than presented as sawn-off allusions. Don’t bother with the Garden of Death if you’re not going to do much with it. I don’t need or want Easter Eggs. If you can’t adapt Fleming without ripping sections out of context and drastically foreshortening them, you needn’t bother. Save the Fleming stuff for a later film. I’ll be satisfied if there’s material in his spirit instead of letter.

    I was shocked to hear Bond say “we have all the time in the world,” then even more shocked to hear the song quoted on the soundtrack. And requoted. And then the end credits not merely quoted but recycled Louis Armstrong’s “We Have All the Time in the World.” I found this vampiric and cynical: the film knows older fans are predisposed to love this material and transfer its emotional weight to the film doing the quoting, while audiences unfamiliar with OHMSS will immediately incorporate the borrowings into the film.

    But the recyclings hammer in the message—this is Craig’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. It too will have epic length, an extra-emotional special story, and a stunning ending. The film is a going-away present for having the longest and most commercially (and probably critically) successful run of any Bond actor.

    You can retroactively hear the wheels turning in the filmmakers’ heads: Let’s give Craig a big send-off, his very own OHMSS—the template for a special Bond film. That had Bond falling in love and getting married, but we can’t simply repeat that. Let’s raise the ante—Bond re-falls in love, gets a “wife”--and a kid! Now for the special tragic ending…well, we can’t just kill the Bond girl again, and killing the kid would be too much. And we can't have Bond settling down with his family--that'll leave people wondering if they’ll be in later films. Solution: Kill Bond. Don't just kill him though, give him the complete heroic death, sacrificing himself for country and family. That'll complete his personal arc!

    The deck is stacked for death, what with Bond getting shot to pieces, having to staying behind to reopen the base doors, getting nano-poisoned in a way that threatens his new family, etc. Substituting Fleming's YOLT ending wouldn't work--it was already done in Skyfall and it would still leave Bond with a "wife" and kid out there. Bond's genuine death signals a mandatory reboot and continuity wipe of his new family.

    Spectre, structured to be Craig’s last film in case he didn't return to the series, ended with him happily driving off into the sunset with his true love, his “personal arc” resolved. Craig’s return required restarting the “personal arc” machine because that became the formula of his tenure—Bond undergoing various stations of the cross. The second opportunity to bid Craig farewell meant he couldn’t just ride into the sunset again. Something bigger was needed.

    So the Craig era wraps up in over-compensation. Bond re-finds true love! Bond has a kid! Bond dies the ultimate hero’s death! Bond cures cancer! (I might have made the last one up.) Sensing the grandiose contrivance behind this self-conscious self-apotheosis is part of what left me emotionally uninvolved by the finale. I wasn’t angry or outraged depressed…or tearful and happy. The problem is that I didn't feel much of anything. I just thought, “Oh. They’re going there.”

    I'm not necessarily dead-set against the idea of Bond dying, and the idea of Craig’s era being a separate continuity that can be closed off with Bond’s death is indisputable. But since my allegiance is to the series as a whole, part of me still thinks no Bond actor should enjoy the privilege of portraying the character’s death, regardless of his personal issues. That said, I don't think much of the audience will be confused or outraged by this—Bond is doing what plenty of superhero films and comics have already done. That’s part of my problem with the last act, but more on that later.

    I’m still trying to figure out why I wasn’t moved and why the death scene didn’t strike me as the way for Bond to go. In scripts terms it seems overdetermined and schematic. Visually it consists of Bond waiting around for rockets to vaporize him while he holds last minute cellphone conversations. I was moved more by Bond cheerfully proposing to light a cigarette under the rocket in Moonraker. (“ ‘Cheer up,’ he said, walking over to her and taking one of her hands. ‘The boy stood on the burning deck. I’ve wanted to copy him since I was five.’”) It goes to the core of the character in all his incarnations.

    Part of my problem might be that Bond's new family is not one I find very involving. Craig and Lea Seydoux have more chemistry here than in Spectre, but not enough to make their characters’ relationship flame into life. Madeline still seems over-determined as Bond’s last and greatest love. Seydoux is recessive performer, without the charisma and inner fire of Diana Rigg or the siren presence of Eva Green. She looks perpetually uncomfortable, as if she was waiting to go back to arthouse films. There isn’t a deep sense of connection with Craig, whose own performance style is minimalist and closed-off; his rhythms and hers never meet. No sparks fly because their acting styles refuse to complement.

    The child actress who plays Matilde is adorable, but the character doesn’t have much personality—she’s there to look innocent and wide-eyed and be symbolic. Bond getting a woman pregnant and walking away has been done; Bond acting as a full-fledged father, and having a child play a large part in Bond film, is unprecedented. And perhaps a violation of the character’s fundamental appeal. Much of Bond’s attraction lies in being an escape from the humdrum real world, including domesticity. It’s why children never figured in the books or films up to now. Fleming took Bond up to the threshold of domesticity in OHMSS--and then dashed the prospect at the devastating last minute, because domesticity is what Bond is supposed to be an escape from. NTTD crosses that threshold; now we see Bond preparing breakfast for his child, driving his family around in a Range Rover, guarding his child from supervillains, etc. I found something deflating in this. Turning a powerful fantasy character into yet another devoted dad and husband—one of us—brings him too far down to earth.

    I also disliked how the film treats having a (de facto) wife and child as the apex of human existence, rather than an embodiment of the everyday world Bond—whether on film or on the page—is in perpetual flight from. Bond is a “man of war”; when not on the job he is bored and subject to accidie. He ceases to be interesting in the real world, including the world of domesticity. He needs his job to save him from boredom. He feels most alive when on the job, and the idea that a “wife” and child would really compensate for his job's absence would be depressingly sentimental if true.

    Every Bond story has to find a balance between fantasy and its emotional counterweight. In return for living a life of danger and hardship, Bond reaps the rewards of the high life. For that danger to ring true there must be moments when Bond’s emotions are engaged, when “death is so permanent” and suffering is real. The deaths of Tracy and Vesper are painful reminders of this. At the back of an effective Bondian fantasy there should a whisper of melancholy, which ultimately makes the fantasy stronger. But the whisper shouldn't become a scream: the novel of You Only Live Twice has a chapter of outright depression, but it’s also the Bond novel with the most quips. The right balance gives the fantasy a seductive plausibility and emotional foundation. The wrong balance results in a Bond who’s a hedonistic, callow, fop--or a glum and joyless bruiser.

    Craig’s Bond is obviously keyed to an age where everyone is working through trauma and mental health issues. But his films have occasionally strained the fantasy they were ostensibly made to project. The relentless insistence on Bond being broken and neurotic, in need of healing, the ponderous approach to these issues, the bloated running times and awkward plot structures, the heaviness

    The fact that numerous screenwriters have tried giving Bond a child and making him a father perhaps points to a sense of exhaustion. There’s a limited number of novelties that can be wrought upon the character's personal life. What’s left? Nor is giving him a child a step into uncharted territory. The trope of a cold-hearted protagonist discovering his humanity through a lost child has been done everywhere from superhero films to TV shows like The Blacklist. Bond’s death will also seem a familiar trope to anyone raised on comics and fantasy-based films. It’s what you do nowadays when your series has played itself out. Kill everyone off, then return with new actors, crew, and continuity a few years later. (Some critics have also compared NTTD's ending to that of Armageddon.)

    “I want to tell you a story of a man. His name was Bond, James Bond.” This sounds less like plausible dialogue between mother and daughter than high-flown self-mythologizing. Tom Sawyer got a laugh out of enjoying his own funeral. The franchise gets Christopher Nolan-style self-importance.

    NTTD is less an organically-germinated story than a series of objectives around which a story was built—Bond must complete his “story arc” and “personal journey”, enjoying his apotheosis and glorious finale. I grant that NTTD closes out Craig’s “personal arc.” Though I sometimes ask which personal arc? The one resolved at the end of Quantum of Solace? Skyfall? Spectre? How many endings does this arc require? Is he having one in the afterlife as we speak? So many personal journeys. And now he’s journeyed into having a partner and child, which means journeying out of being James Bond. I don't want to see a personal arc where James Bond learns how to be ordinary. I don’t think it adds anything to the character to know that he would sacrifice himself for his family. Who among us wouldn't, aside from deadbeats? It was more unusual and special to have a hero so ready sacrifice himself for his country.

    Comic book & comic book film continuity is less a floating continuity—that of the old Bond films, where Roger Moore could briefly reveal he was the same character Lazenby played and then get back to fighting Jaws—than a thousand continuities. Hard reboots are profitable, attention-getting, and easy to find excuses for. You can start and restart stories ad infinitum. Just bring in the new talent and start a new timeline. Batman rides off into the sunset as Christian Bale but returns a few years later as Ben Affleck in a different world from an entirely different creative team and vision. Now we do the same thing with Bond actors, except that the next Bond film after NTTD will be produced by the same people (even if Michael G. Wilson stands down, his son will take over). I wouldn’t be surprised if Purvis and Wade returned either.

    If the next actor to play Bond is popular with the public and appears in several well-regarded films over the course of a decade of more, he’ll probably get his own death and apotheosis too. And if later actors enjoy the same luck, fans 60 years from now might be comparing Bond’s deaths the way we compare Bond’s cars. The door’s been opened.
    I know that floating continuity started collapsing with Casino Royale, but its maintenance had kept Bond different from other action franchises. Those had to have complete reboots because each really was a separate series, whereas Bond was a family affair stretching back to 1962. Bond’s death in NTTD marks a full admission that the comic book/ comic book film approach to continuity and death has prevailed.

    But just as floating continuity gave plenty of opportunities for starting over, so does NTTD, which has taken the Craig approach as far as it can go. (A glorious apotheosis or a dead end, depending on your mindset.) And I hope when the series returns it rely less on cannibalizing its past (OHMSS will forever remain unique for being the first "personal" Bond story and being the least self-conscious about it) or repeating tropes set by bigger-grossing franchises. I would like Bond films to stand on their own merits again. How long has it been since a Bond film set the trends for action/adventure films? Not just in content but in style. Moviegoers went out of something like Goldfinger thoroughly dazzled—there was nothing else like it on the screen. Now I go out of a Bond film thinking about all the tropes it’s emulating. You don't need ever more elaborate personal problems to wring emotion out of Bond--a well-told story can do that instead. It's time for the series to ensure first and foremost that it's delivering sophisticated, dazzling thrillers.

    Congratulations to Daniel Craig on all his achievements as James Bond. No Time to Die won't dethrone Casino Royale and Skyfall as his finest outings as 007, but third place is still an honorable one. On with the next Bond and the inevitable--and much desired--series course correction.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 646
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
    Just a general observation around here where masculinity is attacked. And where certain people feel that everything in the past was somehow evil and bad (the “bad old days”) and today everything is so much better because we’ve made “progress” and now we’re “enlightened” and can easily pass judgment on how things used to be. It almost seems like certain people feel that civilization started 10 or 15 years ago. And before that, what? I guess we were a bunch of grunting knuckle-draggers? Quite frankly I find that offensive. Hey I was born in 1980 and grew up in the 80s and 90s and guess what? I had a blast!!!! Best times of my life!!! And my parents grew up in decades before that. And guess what? They’ll tell you that life was better back then too. So I just have little patience for those who want to “school” us on how things are “supposed” to be because the way things were back in the day were somehow WRONG and are no longer acceptable. So I was just adding my 2 cents.

    Oh and my wife and I do make decisions together. Nothing wrong with that at all. But she also doesn’t mind me making decisions for the both of us (especially when she’s unavailable). She just doesn’t feel like I have to run everything by her. She trusts my judgment and according to her the husband is the man of the house. It’s in the Holy Bible.

    As a Christian do you not want to rid the world of injustice wherever it exists? I thought Jesus was quite big on that.
    Actually Jesus was not a social justice warrior.
    In Matthew 26:11 Jesus says “You will always have the poor with you, but you won’t always have me”. Hell tells his disciples to follow him instead. He also says in Matthew “seek ye first the Kingdom of God”. Clearly he’s putting that as the most important thing of all. Since that’s the whole reason why He came to Earth. To save the world from sin. Not to save the poor from poverty or create equal rights between slave and master. After all, Israel was under Roman rule at the time and everybody believed that He, being the Messiah, would finally deliver Israel from Roman oppression. But of course this did not happen. In fact Jesus said that’s not why he came. He came for one reason only. And that’s too deliver mankind from sin. To offer salvation through the shedding of His blood on the cross. He healed the sick and the blind through miracles which was to show that he was really the Son of God. And any sinner He encountered He always told them to “go forth and sin no more”. Never did he condone their actions or tell them to go on doing what they did previously. He showed compassion but also told them to change their ways.

    Oh, and me and my wife do give to the poor and to those in need. By the by.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    @AstonLotus I get the impression you have not enjoyed Craig's films at all, just not bought the stories or the women in Bond's life, none of it, except for Casino Royale. Is that correct? You seem to prefer the previous Bond films take on Bond, in general. If that is so, then you should be relieved to have no more Daniel Craig Bond movies and be happy to anticipate who the next Bond will be. I hope you can find some enjoyment in the future. I say this because cannot remember reading anything positive from you regarding any of Craig's films. Please fill me in if you have. I could easily have missed several of your earlier posts.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,261
    Maybe we should keep religion out of this thread? Leads to an unhealthy atmosphere.
    EDIT. Darth Dimi gave a stern warning. Good call, Sir.
  • Posts: 1,394
    @AstonLotus I get the impression you have not enjoyed Craig's films at all, just not bought the stories or the women in Bond's life, none of it, except for Casino Royale. Is that correct? You seem to prefer the previous Bond films take on Bond, in general. If that is so, then you should be relieved to have no more Daniel Craig Bond movies and be happy to anticipate who the next Bond will be. I hope you can find some enjoyment in the future. I say this because cannot remember reading anything positive from you regarding any of Craig's films. Please fill me in if you have. I could easily have missed several of your earlier posts.

    I actually love Casino Royale.It’s one of my favourites.I just think the Craig era just declined in quality after that.I also think Craig could have been an awesome Bond if they had just stopped making him so miserable and quitting all the time.

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    And over here in Germany, Bond's death is not really a big thing. It got mention in some reviews, but I did not sense any heated debates. Maybe because Bond is British, and not German? Or maybe because other issues are more important over here.
Sign In or Register to comment.