› ›

No Time To Die: Why It Should Not Have Been Made (The Way It Was)

1…1314161819…32

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,447
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Also, given certain PMs I've received, please, if you think someone is genuinely being racist or homophobic or what have you, flag it or reach out with why you think it's the case. If that's clearly the case, we'll be more than happy to act. But please, do so with certainty, not out of retaliation.

    In the meantime, anyone who wants to sneakily balance the line between not breaking rules while clearly sharing racist or homophobic thoughts that perhaps aren't blunt or obvious, we'll lose no sleep over instabanning you. This isn't a safe haven for such thoughts, as some seem to think, and we've instantly removed several loyal members in the past (even some with a high post count) for doing exactly that.

    DMd

    I've already responded.

    And that goes for any of you: feel more than free to link me (or other mods) with anything you think is outright racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, you name it, and we'll be happy to deal with it. Having said that, not every flag translates to something dealt with. If we're to ban members who call others anti-white because they're supportive of inclusion and an accurate depiction of our world today, that's as extreme as banning someone who says someone who hates a particular character is racist. If I've overlooked something more direct or apparent in that respect, point me in the right di
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Just watching the concluding episodes of Showtimes Dexter New Blood, and Ray Donovan this week, and BBC's The Tourist, and there is definitely a trend at the moment of killing off the main characters, or giving the series a depressing, gloomy ending.

    I couldn't help but think of NTTD as I watched these episodes unfold. It's a new craze in Hollywood circles at the moment. All flawed heroes no longer deserve happy endings.

    Here's a radical notion: consider the possibility that those in Hollywood circles aren't trying to upset you; rather, they are trying to create storylines that have some resonance to our times. If all the "flawed heroes" (which is to say, all heroes period) are meeting depressing, gloomy endings, then what does that say about the times we are living in? Sorry if you don't like these gloomy, depressing times -- who does? -- but maybe that's why the creators of fiction are telling these sorts of stories. They're just reflecting the times we live in.

    PS: "Dexter" is a flawed hero? That's strange, I thought he was a serial killer. You have an interesting definition of the term "hero." Or maybe that's just why I don't watch Dexter, I'm not inclined towards sympathy for serial killers.

    Dexter only kills bad people, so in my book that makes him a flawed hero (no different to Bond in many respects). But then again, you haven't watched the series, so you shouldn't really comment on something you haven't watched.

    And nothing `radical' about you said with the Hollywood circles. It is reflecting the times we live in, which is why I think some light hearted relief wouldn't go amiss in these gloomy times we are now in. Isn't that what we go to the cinema for?

    Just to get technical, Dexter doesn't "only" kill bad people; he's had reasons to do otherwise, like saving his own skin or doing someone a favor. The biggest example for me is his actions in New Blood, kills that felt completely out of character for him and got some negative reactions out of me. They should've left that show in the past, as excited as I was for more.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Just watching the concluding episodes of Showtimes Dexter New Blood, and Ray Donovan this week, and BBC's The Tourist, and there is definitely a trend at the moment of killing off the main characters, or giving the series a depressing, gloomy ending.

    I couldn't help but think of NTTD as I watched these episodes unfold. It's a new craze in Hollywood circles at the moment. All flawed heroes no longer deserve happy endings.

    Here's a radical notion: consider the possibility that those in Hollywood circles aren't trying to upset you; rather, they are trying to create storylines that have some resonance to our times. If all the "flawed heroes" (which is to say, all heroes period) are meeting depressing, gloomy endings, then what does that say about the times we are living in? Sorry if you don't like these gloomy, depressing times -- who does? -- but maybe that's why the creators of fiction are telling these sorts of stories. They're just reflecting the times we live in.

    PS: "Dexter" is a flawed hero? That's strange, I thought he was a serial killer. You have an interesting definition of the term "hero." Or maybe that's just why I don't watch Dexter, I'm not inclined towards sympathy for serial killers.

    Dexter only kills bad people, so in my book that makes him a flawed hero (no different to Bond in many respects). But then again, you haven't watched the series, so you shouldn't really comment on something you haven't watched.

    And nothing `radical' about you said with the Hollywood circles. It is reflecting the times we live in, which is why I think some light hearted relief wouldn't go amiss in these gloomy times we are now in. Isn't that what we go to the cinema for?

    I'm telling you why I don't plan on watching it; not commenting on the content of the show itself. Certainly you understand the difference.

    And again, Bond's "License to Kill" is issued by Her Majesty's government; Dexter's decision to kill is entirely his own. Repeating myself: "certainly you understand the difference."

    Repeating myself again:


    I see your Point and think the difference you mentioned is understandable. However, Bond also killed a few times without the authority of her Majesty's government. Think of Licence to kill, the PTS of Spectre, parts of QoS.
    Does that bother you? I must admit that I sometimes feel a bit uncomfortable regarding Bond as a cold blooded assassin who kills unarmed people.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited January 2022 Posts: 3,564
    I take your point, and in general I'm not in favor of Bond going off-mission. That stated: LTK is the most extreme of these events, and the point is made a few times: by going off-mission Bond jeapordizes other ongoing operations that he was simply unaware of. He is perhaps welcomed back to MI-6 at the end of this film a little too easily. In both Spectre and QoS he is operating within the parameters of his mission if we stretch the definition of those missions a bit -- and if we stipulate for SP that Judi Dench's M retains some sway over the 00 section in a post-mortem fashion. But Craig's Bond was a bit too eager to show disrespect to his superior(s) in a variety of ways; I have mentioned elsewhere that I'd prefer to see the next Bond performing with substantially more oversight from the likes of M -- and for that matter, I'd rather not see future Ms getting involved with any more Heracles projects. Let's have our various secret services operating in a manner that holds the interests of the public paramount, just for originality's sake!
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,040
    This conversation has me thinking, I don’t think Bond has ever gone on a full blown, revenge mission where he actively disobeys orders in the novels does he? Granted I haven’t read all the Fleming novels, but my understanding is when the character is brutal and harsh, perhaps out of some retaliation of some kind, it’s not like he’s going off on tangents and killing every single person associated with the villain, and putting his government as risk.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,918
    Who is Bond to decide that someone deserves to die? Well, who are we to say they deserve to live? ;)
    Have to say, off the top of my head, I don't think that CraigBond killed anyone who hadn't earned it for one reason or another. There was one guy on AJB years ago who had a theory that it was Bond who'd tortured and killed Solange (!), but I don't buy into that one!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    This conversation has me thinking, I don’t think Bond has ever gone on a full blown, revenge mission where he actively disobeys orders in the novels does he? Granted I haven’t read all the Fleming novels, but my understanding is when the character is brutal and harsh, perhaps out of some retaliation of some kind, it’s not like he’s going off on tangents and killing every single person associated with the villain, and putting his government as risk.

    This is why many felt LTK was way out of character for Bond. The closest is probably in YOLT where he decides to withhold his discovery of Blofeld so he can avenge Tracy, but it’s still in the service of his government, and the mission is deemed a success by the British government after his presumed death. Killing Sanchez was really not on anyone’s behalf except Bond.

    I’m okay with where LTK takes the character because they reestablish Bond’s widower status to give you an understanding that he’s doing it more than just for Felix and Della. But it is kinda funny how just one film ago Pushkin remarked how professional Bond was and that he doesn’t kill out of reason.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited January 2022 Posts: 3,564
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    Tell that to members of your country's army...
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 650
    LTK lines up with TLD very well. In the start of TLD, Bond says, "Stuff my orders" and "If he fires me I'll thank him." There's a sense that he's already fed up with his job in that movie. It would have been interesting to see where a third Dalton entry would have taken his character after what he pulled in LTK.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,001
    Yes. There's nothing in the Dalton era that deviates from Fleming though. He's pissed off with his job a few times in the books*, but only when red tape and mundane paperwork gets in the way of the missions he enjoys, (the dangerous ones). And his remark to Saunders came across more as a dig at Saunders than being a real 'fuck you' to the service.

    *There was a quite wordy long resignation letter drafted by Bond in the OHMSS novel if I remember right.


  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    slide_99 wrote: »
    LTK lines up with TLD very well. In the start of TLD, Bond says, "Stuff my orders" and "If he fires me I'll thank him." There's a sense that he's already fed up with his job in that movie. It would have been interesting to see where a third Dalton entry would have taken his character after what he pulled in LTK.

    I concur!
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,350
    James Bond Producer Regrets Not Making Daniel Craig Do More Movies

    "We had opened up [Casino Royale] and it was a big success and everybody embraced him and it was all great excitement. And, he and I were in the back of the car in Berlin, going from the screening there to the hotel. And, he brought the idea up then. He said, 'What about if I die at the end?' Well, first of all, he said, 'How many of these pictures have I got to do?' Which made me laugh. All the negotiating we'd been doing with the agents and everybody and we thought he was really up to speed, which he would've been, but he kind of put it to the back of his mind. And, he said, 'How many?' And, stupidly, I said four. I should've said nine or ten. I should've lied. But, I said four, which is what the deal was at the time."

    https://screenrant.com/daniel-craig-james-bond-movies-number-barbara-broccoli/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited January 2022 Posts: 40,447
    007InAction wrote: »
    James Bond Producer Regrets Not Making Daniel Craig Do More Movies

    "We had opened up [Casino Royale] and it was a big success and everybody embraced him and it was all great excitement. And, he and I were in the back of the car in Berlin, going from the screening there to the hotel. And, he brought the idea up then. He said, 'What about if I die at the end?' Well, first of all, he said, 'How many of these pictures have I got to do?' Which made me laugh. All the negotiating we'd been doing with the agents and everybody and we thought he was really up to speed, which he would've been, but he kind of put it to the back of his mind. And, he said, 'How many?' And, stupidly, I said four. I should've said nine or ten. I should've lied. But, I said four, which is what the deal was at the time."

    https://screenrant.com/daniel-craig-james-bond-movies-number-barbara-broccoli/

    The crazy thing is, in a perfect world, had they kept with the schedule of releasing one film every other year, we could've had 8 or 9 installments with Craig.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,401
    We really needed one in 2010 as a bridge between QOS and SF. A regular mission given by M with all of the usual Bond tropes. Instead of Bloodstone the game, I wish we could have gotten Bloodstone the film. I mean the ending of the game even hints of what's to come and still fits perfectly in his continuity time-line.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2022 Posts: 2,918
    I'm not a gamer, so I've only read the Wiki entry for Bloodstone but, yes, I'd've liked to have seen that.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,401
    Venutius wrote: »
    I'm not a gamer, so I've only read the Wiki entry for Bloodstone but, yes, I'd've liked to have seen that.

    YouTube it without the game play. Its like watching an abbreviated Craig film in digital form
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    It’s pretty much Craig’s EVERYTHING OR NOTHING.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,918
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    YouTube it without the game play. Its like watching an abbreviated Craig film in digital form
    A-ha - stealth and guile, LastRat. I like it!

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,401
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,524
    I loved that game. Too bad it won't work on W10.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,962
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Just watching the concluding episodes of Showtimes Dexter New Blood, and Ray Donovan this week, and BBC's The Tourist, and there is definitely a trend at the moment of killing off the main characters, or giving the series a depressing, gloomy ending.

    I couldn't help but think of NTTD as I watched these episodes unfold. It's a new craze in Hollywood circles at the moment. All flawed heroes no longer deserve happy endings.

    Here's a radical notion: consider the possibility that those in Hollywood circles aren't trying to upset you; rather, they are trying to create storylines that have some resonance to our times. If all the "flawed heroes" (which is to say, all heroes period) are meeting depressing, gloomy endings, then what does that say about the times we are living in? Sorry if you don't like these gloomy, depressing times -- who does? -- but maybe that's why the creators of fiction are telling these sorts of stories. They're just reflecting the times we live in.

    PS: "Dexter" is a flawed hero? That's strange, I thought he was a serial killer. You have an interesting definition of the term "hero." Or maybe that's just why I don't watch Dexter, I'm not inclined towards sympathy for serial killers.

    Dexter only kills bad people, so in my book that makes him a flawed hero (no different to Bond in many respects). But then again, you haven't watched the series, so you shouldn't really comment on something you haven't watched.

    And nothing `radical' about you said with the Hollywood circles. It is reflecting the times we live in, which is why I think some light hearted relief wouldn't go amiss in these gloomy times we are now in. Isn't that what we go to the cinema for?

    What an American way of thinking: that there are actually 'bad people'.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,962
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2022 Posts: 17,687
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Just watching the concluding episodes of Showtimes Dexter New Blood, and Ray Donovan this week, and BBC's The Tourist, and there is definitely a trend at the moment of killing off the main characters, or giving the series a depressing, gloomy ending.

    I couldn't help but think of NTTD as I watched these episodes unfold. It's a new craze in Hollywood circles at the moment. All flawed heroes no longer deserve happy endings.

    Here's a radical notion: consider the possibility that those in Hollywood circles aren't trying to upset you; rather, they are trying to create storylines that have some resonance to our times. If all the "flawed heroes" (which is to say, all heroes period) are meeting depressing, gloomy endings, then what does that say about the times we are living in? Sorry if you don't like these gloomy, depressing times -- who does? -- but maybe that's why the creators of fiction are telling these sorts of stories. They're just reflecting the times we live in.

    PS: "Dexter" is a flawed hero? That's strange, I thought he was a serial killer. You have an interesting definition of the term "hero." Or maybe that's just why I don't watch Dexter, I'm not inclined towards sympathy for serial killers.

    Dexter only kills bad people, so in my book that makes him a flawed hero (no different to Bond in many respects). But then again, you haven't watched the series, so you shouldn't really comment on something you haven't watched.

    And nothing `radical' about you said with the Hollywood circles. It is reflecting the times we live in, which is why I think some light hearted relief wouldn't go amiss in these gloomy times we are now in. Isn't that what we go to the cinema for?

    What an American way of thinking: that there are actually 'bad people'.

    Well, there ARE. Hitler, for example. ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,962
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    how am I twisting words? The whole idea of Bond is that he only kills on his government's orders. The whole concept of government is to put the monopoly of violence there, in the governing body of all people, supposedly taking away the individual influence and only acting for the good of all whom are part of said society.

    the slight flaw here is obviously that it's people beeing the government, but that can't be helpd as alternatives are far worse.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,962
    chrisisall wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Just watching the concluding episodes of Showtimes Dexter New Blood, and Ray Donovan this week, and BBC's The Tourist, and there is definitely a trend at the moment of killing off the main characters, or giving the series a depressing, gloomy ending.

    I couldn't help but think of NTTD as I watched these episodes unfold. It's a new craze in Hollywood circles at the moment. All flawed heroes no longer deserve happy endings.

    Here's a radical notion: consider the possibility that those in Hollywood circles aren't trying to upset you; rather, they are trying to create storylines that have some resonance to our times. If all the "flawed heroes" (which is to say, all heroes period) are meeting depressing, gloomy endings, then what does that say about the times we are living in? Sorry if you don't like these gloomy, depressing times -- who does? -- but maybe that's why the creators of fiction are telling these sorts of stories. They're just reflecting the times we live in.

    PS: "Dexter" is a flawed hero? That's strange, I thought he was a serial killer. You have an interesting definition of the term "hero." Or maybe that's just why I don't watch Dexter, I'm not inclined towards sympathy for serial killers.

    Dexter only kills bad people, so in my book that makes him a flawed hero (no different to Bond in many respects). But then again, you haven't watched the series, so you shouldn't really comment on something you haven't watched.

    And nothing `radical' about you said with the Hollywood circles. It is reflecting the times we live in, which is why I think some light hearted relief wouldn't go amiss in these gloomy times we are now in. Isn't that what we go to the cinema for?

    What an American way of thinking: that there are actually 'bad people'.

    Well, there ARE. Our last president, for example. ;)

    Even that guy has his good sides. probaly. well tucked away...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    how am I twisting words? The whole idea of Bond is that he only kills on his government's orders. The whole concept of government is to put the monopoly of violence there, in the governing body of all people, supposedly taking away the individual influence and only acting for the good of all whom are part of said society.

    the slight flaw here is obviously that it's people beeing the government, but that can't be helpd as alternatives are far worse.

    You know full well that doesn twork, and has never worked. You twisted my words so that it would appear I condoned murder.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,962
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    how am I twisting words? The whole idea of Bond is that he only kills on his government's orders. The whole concept of government is to put the monopoly of violence there, in the governing body of all people, supposedly taking away the individual influence and only acting for the good of all whom are part of said society.

    the slight flaw here is obviously that it's people beeing the government, but that can't be helpd as alternatives are far worse.

    You know full well that doesn twork, and has never worked. You twisted my words so that it would appear I condoned murder.

    No, I didn't twist your words, I showed you what the result is of your position. The fact that it opens the door for murder doesn't mean you condone murder and I'd never state that (I'll leave that to you if it may be true under whatever circumstances). Fact is that if you let every person be judge and executioner, you're going to end up with a lot of murders as people have different opinions of what justifies killing, and some of those are pretty twisted indeed.
    There are no good or bad people, but there's a lot of bad judgement for sure. The good thing about government's monopoly of violence is that the bad judgement of an execution will first have to go through checks and balances before they are executed.

    I'm not claiming it's a water tight sistem, only that it's the best we've got.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    @CommanderRoss , tell you what, you kill whomever your authorities tell you to kill, and I follow my own conscience.That way, we are both happy.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited January 2022 Posts: 3,564
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?
Sign In or Register to comment.