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

12627293132

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,316
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I wouldn't describe Craig's Bond as relatable or feel good. Cold and distant unlikable fellow who makes bad choices?
    A third or our world?

    Hard to say, I don't know anyone who acts like him in my social circle.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,655
    Murdock wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I wouldn't describe Craig's Bond as relatable or feel good. Cold and distant unlikable fellow who makes bad choices?
    A third or our world?

    Hard to say, I don't know anyone who acts like him in my social circle.

    That's a GOOD thing...
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,547
    MOONRAKER is the perfect British pantomime. It’s such an enjoyable farcical cartoon in its own right. I can never hate it.

    I feel similarly about DAF and a to a lesser degree, TMWTGG.

    For some reason, I could never quite embrace MR the way other fans have. I'm not sure why, though I think it's because there are some places in that film that are cinematic brilliance: Corinne's death and Jaws' creepy turn in costume during Carnival, are two examples. As a result, I see too much potential in MR as a serious film. DAF has no such moments: it's bad from start to finish. LOL
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    I don’t find any Bond “relatable”. That’s not why I go to Bond films.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    echo wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me.

    I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.

    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    Yes, Craig's era was a different take, originally a fresh take, on Bond. Unfortunately, they took it far too far in an awful direction.

    Here's hoping the next movie is as far removed from NTTD as CR was from DAD.

    If you understand this, then why not the idea that there's no reboot? That cr is his first mission and all stories, also the ones to come, fall in between cr and nttd. Then his death just works in the film.
    Because that's impossible? Bond would have to forget that Blofeld was his adopted brother and about SPECTRE completely? He would also have to forget who Felix is? Also, if you're saying the films come after Spectre, that would mean Bond retires and then returns in Dr. No to investigate Strangways disappearance for no apparent reason? Only for him to be suddenly retired with Madeleine after Die Another Day for him to then have his daughter and then die.

    That's specifically putting all the films in one place. And of course there are a few mismatches. Those are part of the artistic license and there are already plenty of those around. He doesn't need to retire after dad, we can have plenty of films before his retirement. Or in between skyfall and sp. Or between qos and sf. They're all sagas, not exact tellings.


    SP is the problem. SP is always the problem.

    Why SP Should Not Have Been Made. At all.

    (You can now look forward to a minimum of 3 posts per day from BSE on this topic, repeating myself over & over & over again...)

    It is probably true. The question is whether a sequel to a bad film can actually be a good film. What didn't work in Spectre, does not really work in NTTD. When two main characters have little to no chemistry, it won't change in the next film. NTTD suffers from having to solve the problems Spectre created. The writers / producers decided to do it in a very rushed way by just killing all Spectre agents and Blofeld more or less on the fly. Had Safin been a better villain it could have worked but unfortunately he is as underused as Blofeld was in Spectre.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 3,564
    chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me.

    I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.

    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    Yes, Craig's era was a different take, originally a fresh take, on Bond. Unfortunately, they took it far too far in an awful direction.

    Here's hoping the next movie is as far removed from NTTD as CR was from DAD.

    If you understand this, then why not the idea that there's no reboot? That cr is his first mission and all stories, also the ones to come, fall in between cr and nttd. Then his death just works in the film.
    Because that's impossible? Bond would have to forget that Blofeld was his adopted brother and about SPECTRE completely? He would also have to forget who Felix is? Also, if you're saying the films come after Spectre, that would mean Bond retires and then returns in Dr. No to investigate Strangways disappearance for no apparent reason? Only for him to be suddenly retired with Madeleine after Die Another Day for him to then have his daughter and then die.

    That's specifically putting all the films in one place. And of course there are a few mismatches. Those are part of the artistic license and there are already plenty of those around. He doesn't need to retire after dad, we can have plenty of films before his retirement. Or in between skyfall and sp. Or between qos and sf. They're all sagas, not exact tellings.


    SP is the problem. SP is always the problem.

    Why SP Should Not Have Been Made. At all.

    (You can now look forward to a minimum of 3 posts per day from BSE on this topic, repeating myself over & over & over again...)

    I'm thinking now that SP really isn't as good as I used to think... I still like it, but it's sinking in my ranking. It was just that I walked into the theatre reluctantly... I was anticipating another time-waster like SF. My expectations were exceedingly low.

    I once had a very, very low opinion of Moonraker. Nowadays I think it's an amusing little piece of fluff. It's nowhere near one of my favorites...but at least I don't see it as a personal affront to the very idea of James Bond 007. I hope you can someday accept SF and NTTD in a similar fashion.

    Two of the crappiest big-budget movies I've ever seen? Not just Bond? Sorry, no. Too many GOOD movies out there to waste time trying to find a quantum of solace in the bottom of a gold-pressed latinum garbage can. ;)

    Never say never, chrisisall. Sir Sean taught us that. And no, THAT movie wasn't very good either...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me.

    I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.

    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    Yes, Craig's era was a different take, originally a fresh take, on Bond. Unfortunately, they took it far too far in an awful direction.

    Here's hoping the next movie is as far removed from NTTD as CR was from DAD.

    If you understand this, then why not the idea that there's no reboot? That cr is his first mission and all stories, also the ones to come, fall in between cr and nttd. Then his death just works in the film.
    Because that's impossible? Bond would have to forget that Blofeld was his adopted brother and about SPECTRE completely? He would also have to forget who Felix is? Also, if you're saying the films come after Spectre, that would mean Bond retires and then returns in Dr. No to investigate Strangways disappearance for no apparent reason? Only for him to be suddenly retired with Madeleine after Die Another Day for him to then have his daughter and then die.

    That's specifically putting all the films in one place. And of course there are a few mismatches. Those are part of the artistic license and there are already plenty of those around. He doesn't need to retire after dad, we can have plenty of films before his retirement. Or in between skyfall and sp. Or between qos and sf. They're all sagas, not exact tellings.


    SP is the problem. SP is always the problem.

    Why SP Should Not Have Been Made. At all.

    (You can now look forward to a minimum of 3 posts per day from BSE on this topic, repeating myself over & over & over again...)

    I'm thinking now that SP really isn't as good as I used to think... I still like it, but it's sinking in my ranking. It was just that I walked into the theatre reluctantly... I was anticipating another time-waster like SF. My expectations were exceedingly low.

    I once had a very, very low opinion of Moonraker. Nowadays I think it's an amusing little piece of fluff. It's nowhere near one of my favorites...but at least I don't see it as a personal affront to the very idea of James Bond 007. I hope you can someday accept SF and NTTD in a similar fashion.

    Two of the crappiest big-budget movies I've ever seen? Not just Bond? Sorry, no. Too many GOOD movies out there to waste time trying to find a quantum of solace in the bottom of a gold-pressed latinum garbage can. ;)

    #22: A wise man can hear profit in the wind.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,181
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,686
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?
    I don't think so.

    Thing is I don't really hate any Bond films. There is definitely one that will probably never rise from it's bottom position, I'm looking at you Diamonds Are Forever, but I still get some enjoyment out of watching it. I can certainly say I've come to appreciate Quantum of Solace a lot more though, and Spectre, well I at least enjoy what it was trying to do rather than what it ended up doing, but probably another one that won't make it far up the list even after more time.

    I have a complicated relationship with A View To A Kill, where I dislike it tonally and in terms of its identity as a Bond film, but I also can't help but stick it on when I'm bored on a Sunday afternoon.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,181
    I think the only one I genuinely, wholeheartedly hate is SP. It has almost nothing on offer for me and only avoids a half star rating simply because it's still a Bond film at the end of the day. I really don't care for SF but at least it's so well made and acted that there are still several elements I can objectively enjoy whenever I do watch it, as rare as that occurs.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?

    Yep, DAD.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,686
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?

    Yep, DAD.
    I'm conflicted on DAD because I loved it so much as a kid. I find it extremely hard to watch and flawed now, but my prior enjoyment of it keeps it from the bottom.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 2,857
    I didn't re-watch DAD for literally years, but I faced the fear when it was on tv last year - and found that I didn't actually start squirming and biting my fist until it got to the ice hotel. That's some progress, I guess...!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    I hated FARGO on first watch. Now I love it.
  • Posts: 6,621
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?

    Yep, DAD.

    Ditto! Pretty much impossible to watch!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,639
    I tend not to hate, period. DAD came closest to being the only Bond movie I hated (even more than the dismal TWINE), but it was - and still is - rather a profound disliking. MR was a case of my refusing to see it when it came out in the 80s because I found the idea of Bond going into space ludicrous and only caused by the producers trying to cash in on the Star Wars craze. I still think that assessment was correct, but I nevertheless have learned to like MR since, and to an extent that puts it at the top half of my Moore preferences, well above all the others except maybe LALD.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,655
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?

    Well, I didn't hate QOS upon first viewing, but I certainly disliked it quite a bit. But on 2nd & third viewing I liked it a lot better. Now it's my favourite Craig film.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,926
    GBF wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me.

    I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.

    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    Yes, Craig's era was a different take, originally a fresh take, on Bond. Unfortunately, they took it far too far in an awful direction.

    Here's hoping the next movie is as far removed from NTTD as CR was from DAD.

    If you understand this, then why not the idea that there's no reboot? That cr is his first mission and all stories, also the ones to come, fall in between cr and nttd. Then his death just works in the film.
    Because that's impossible? Bond would have to forget that Blofeld was his adopted brother and about SPECTRE completely? He would also have to forget who Felix is? Also, if you're saying the films come after Spectre, that would mean Bond retires and then returns in Dr. No to investigate Strangways disappearance for no apparent reason? Only for him to be suddenly retired with Madeleine after Die Another Day for him to then have his daughter and then die.

    That's specifically putting all the films in one place. And of course there are a few mismatches. Those are part of the artistic license and there are already plenty of those around. He doesn't need to retire after dad, we can have plenty of films before his retirement. Or in between skyfall and sp. Or between qos and sf. They're all sagas, not exact tellings.


    SP is the problem. SP is always the problem.

    Why SP Should Not Have Been Made. At all.

    (You can now look forward to a minimum of 3 posts per day from BSE on this topic, repeating myself over & over & over again...)

    It is probably true. The question is whether a sequel to a bad film can actually be a good film. What didn't work in Spectre, does not really work in NTTD. When two main characters have little to no chemistry, it won't change in the next film. NTTD suffers from having to solve the problems Spectre created. The writers / producers decided to do it in a very rushed way by just killing all Spectre agents and Blofeld more or less on the fly. Had Safin been a better villain it could have worked but unfortunately he is as underused as Blofeld was in Spectre.

    How odd, I see it completely differently. What didn't work in SP for me (their relationship) worked perfectly in NTTD (again, for me). It surprised me in the cinema. I was engaged from the start. And yes, they had to sweep up the shambles that had been created and did so brilliantly. I also disagree on Safin. I like him a lot as villain. The morbid background, then still beeing , i can't think of a good word but call it 'touched'by young Madeleine's eyes so he saves her, but keeps his murdurous plans for himself. It's all fascinating stuff and far more interesting than, say, Carver.

  • Posts: 1,394
    GBF wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me.

    I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.

    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    Yes, Craig's era was a different take, originally a fresh take, on Bond. Unfortunately, they took it far too far in an awful direction.

    Here's hoping the next movie is as far removed from NTTD as CR was from DAD.

    If you understand this, then why not the idea that there's no reboot? That cr is his first mission and all stories, also the ones to come, fall in between cr and nttd. Then his death just works in the film.
    Because that's impossible? Bond would have to forget that Blofeld was his adopted brother and about SPECTRE completely? He would also have to forget who Felix is? Also, if you're saying the films come after Spectre, that would mean Bond retires and then returns in Dr. No to investigate Strangways disappearance for no apparent reason? Only for him to be suddenly retired with Madeleine after Die Another Day for him to then have his daughter and then die.

    That's specifically putting all the films in one place. And of course there are a few mismatches. Those are part of the artistic license and there are already plenty of those around. He doesn't need to retire after dad, we can have plenty of films before his retirement. Or in between skyfall and sp. Or between qos and sf. They're all sagas, not exact tellings.


    SP is the problem. SP is always the problem.

    Why SP Should Not Have Been Made. At all.

    (You can now look forward to a minimum of 3 posts per day from BSE on this topic, repeating myself over & over & over again...)

    It is probably true. The question is whether a sequel to a bad film can actually be a good film. What didn't work in Spectre, does not really work in NTTD. When two main characters have little to no chemistry, it won't change in the next film. NTTD suffers from having to solve the problems Spectre created. The writers / producers decided to do it in a very rushed way by just killing all Spectre agents and Blofeld more or less on the fly. Had Safin been a better villain it could have worked but unfortunately he is as underused as Blofeld was in Spectre.

    How odd, I see it completely differently. What didn't work in SP for me (their relationship) worked perfectly in NTTD (again, for me). It surprised me in the cinema. I was engaged from the start. And yes, they had to sweep up the shambles that had been created and did so brilliantly. I also disagree on Safin. I like him a lot as villain. The morbid background, then still beeing , i can't think of a good word but call it 'touched'by young Madeleine's eyes so he saves her, but keeps his murdurous plans for himself. It's all fascinating stuff and far more interesting than, say, Carver.

    The difference between Carver and Safin is that Carver is entertaining to watch whereas Safin is just weird and boring.

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,639
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The difference between Carver and Safin is that Carver is entertaining to watch whereas Safin is just weird and boring.
    Perhaps being weird and "boring" is what makes a good Bond villain, instead of being flashy...and somewhat idiotic? I also think that Dominic Greene is quite a good villain in an otherwise mediocre movie, simply *because* he is so subdued and soft-spoken.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,181
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?

    Well, I didn't hate QOS upon first viewing, but I certainly disliked it quite a bit. But on 2nd & third viewing I liked it a lot better. Now it's my favourite Craig film.

    That's the spirit and exactly what I love to hear.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 14,792
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The difference between Carver and Safin is that Carver is entertaining to watch whereas Safin is just weird and boring.
    Perhaps being weird and "boring" is what makes a good Bond villain, instead of being flashy...and somewhat idiotic? I also think that Dominic Greene is quite a good villain in an otherwise mediocre movie, simply *because* he is so subdued and soft-spoken.

    I like Greene, I think he's nicely weird. Mathieu Amalric could easily have been chosen a film earlier and played Le Chiffre (and y'know: he's actually French so it would have make more sense!) and he'd have gone down as one of the best Bond villains.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,953
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The difference between Carver and Safin is that Carver is entertaining to watch whereas Safin is just weird and boring.
    Perhaps being weird and "boring" is what makes a good Bond villain, instead of being flashy...and somewhat idiotic? I also think that Dominic Greene is quite a good villain in an otherwise mediocre movie, simply *because* he is so subdued and soft-spoken.

    Jonathan Pryce is an incredible actor and back in the day I was excited to see him in a Bond film. Unfortunately, I hated his performance in TND and I still do. He’s a Saturday morning cartoon and posed no threat whatsoever (I enjoyed his lust for controlling media, but that was more to do with the story in the script).

    Ironically this was my favourite Brosnan film. I thought the first half was fantastic and Brosnan made it look effortless.
    It was the back half that turned me off (not Brozz’s fault; the script and direction went to the path of least resistance leading to a climax that had bullets flying in every direction, Bond two handing machine guns and then forcing the two leads as sudden love interests (when they had zero chemistry as lovers)).

    I loved Safin and feel the guy was a sick twisted little incel.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,857
    I thought Greene was a great villain and Amalric played him exactly as the oily little rat should've been played. The self-serving, backstabbing, unstable squashed child monstrosity just oozed out of him.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,655
    Venutius wrote: »
    I thought Greene was a great villain and Amalric played him exactly as the oily little rat should've been played. The self-serving, backstabbing, unstable squashed child monstrosity just oozed out of him.

    Yes, he was great at what he did!
  • I think the reason Bond died in the film is that Craig doesn't want to return as Bond. Craig seems like he hates James Bond too much I am glad that his Bond is gone for good.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,686
    Craig seems like he hates James Bond too much
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,324
    I few breezily made comments by comments continue to fuel suspicions about how much he supposedly hated playing Bond. If that were the case, I'm sure they wouldn't have gotten him back for yet another exhausting production.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 1,394
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Craig seems like he hates James Bond too much

    Well,he IS an actor.Remember this is the same guy who said he’d rather slash his wrists than do a fifth film.But i guess money talks.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 2,857
    Well, that's what he was reported as saying after the media edited out the beginning of his comment.
    He actually said 'Now? I'd rather break this glass and slash my wrist.'
    Key word: 'now'. He'd not long finished a pretty gruelling, months-long, injury laden shoot and was asked if he'd make another. That word 'now' makes it clear he was joking. Not that he'd rather slit his wrists than ever make another Bond film, but 'What, right now?!' It was a gag and the media knew exactly how they were twisting it by editing out the beginning of the sentence.
Sign In or Register to comment.