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

12627283032

Comments

  • Posts: 6,839
    Venutius wrote: »
    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.

    Correct! Annoying that some keep using that as an excuse to bash Craig.
  • Posts: 15,842
    It was a jokingly sarcastic analogy considering he had just finished a long shoot and was tired. I thought it was funny, myself.
    However, quite annoying Craig isn't allowed some elbow room here. Actors have been giving sarcastic answers to interview questions for generations. Sir Roger always joked in his interviews. Robert Mitchum was notorious for screwing with interviewers as well. Let's cut Craig some slack.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,578
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    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.

    Correct! Annoying that some keep using that as an excuse to bash Craig.

    Taking things out of context, selecting the few words that confirm one's bias, and all of that on the Internet!? What's the world come to?

    ;-)
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I understand that it was a grueling shoot, and he probably wasn't in any mood to think about the next film. However, it was still a poor choice of words. I would have thought either common sense, or tutoring from EON, would have avoided such a gaffe. But as Trevelyan said, "It's in the past." He's gone, and we have a new era to look forward to.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,991
    I think Craig should be cut some slack for his comments. It was a grueling shoot, the script was a disaster and had been hacked, Mendes had stopped promoting the film, he was promoting a film in which he maybe didn't have the highest degree of confidence, he is not a natural salesman, and he had been injured pretty seriously on top of all that.

    The man deserved a break.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
    The funny thing about it is that none of it matters now. Did he do another and finish his era despite jokingly saying he’d rather “slash his wrists”? Yes. So does that mean that the quote literally means nothing anymore?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?

    YES. TWINE. It is now my favorite of PB's.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    TripAces wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of "acceptance," has anyone here ever hated an installment outright but ended up loving it eventually?

    YES. TWINE. It is now my favorite of PB's.

    Actually, I didn't love TWINE either at first viewing. My Son was just born & I couldn't see it in the theatre so I bought the (expensive) VHS as soon as it came out. But after a year of so I finally warmed to it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,578
    Strange that Craig takes a lot of heat for his words, while Connery gets away with stabbing Cubby in the back.
  • Posts: 6,754
    I knew that Connery had problems with Cubby, but I didn't think he would resort to murder.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    Strange that Craig takes a lot of heat for his words, while Connery gets away with stabbing Cubby in the back.

    To be fair, Connery was getting screwed over by both Broccoli and Saltzmen, who renegotiated their own contracts with UA several times while doing nothing of the sort with Connery’s. Doesn’t excuse Connery going behind their back like that, but the two situations are entirely different. Craig on the other hand has worked his way up to an executive producer credit for NTTD, plus he’s had creative input in nearly every Bond film he’s been apart of, something that none of the other actors really had tbh. EON has done a lot to please Craig, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but when you take that into account, the “slitting wrists” comments come across in poor taste, no matter what context it’s put in.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,936
    You know what Connery said when he was told that Harry Saltzman had a stroke and was paralysed down one side, though, right?
  • Venutius wrote: »
    You know what Connery said when he was told that Harry Saltzman had a stroke and was paralysed down one side, though, right?

    “I hope it happens to the other half of his face”

    Yeah that was extremely petty of Connery.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 2,936
    Yeah: 'Good, I hope he has another one tomorrow and he's paralysed down the other side too.' When he was later asked if it was true that he'd said it, Connery simply said 'Yes.' No regret, no remorse. Imagine that in the age of social media...!
  • Posts: 1,884
    peter wrote: »
    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.

    One of the things I've noticed from some who dislike Craig and his era is his not getting more girls or romantic relationships with them and Wai Lin is a perfect example of why some of those felt forced and why I didn't mind films like QoS or SF where there wasn't a forced love interest for Bond to be paired with the whole film. How refreshing for Bond and Camille to part sort of like in the MR novel than to have a romantic clinch and one-liner to end the film.

    Something those who don't like Saffin also need to consider: He's the only villain in the series to actually have Bond killed.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 2,086
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yeah: 'Good, I hope he has another one tomorrow and he's paralysed down the other side too.' When he was later asked if it was true that he'd said it, Connery simply said 'Yes.' No regret, no remorse. Imagine that in the age of social media...!

    That’s the issue. Craig’s comments came during the age of Social Media. I’ll admit that I’m one of the people who finds what he said to be in poor taste, but that doesn’t mean I hold anything against him. This tiny discussion about those comments is speaking to a larger issue at play when it comes to the franchise nowadays, and that is people are split on the Daniel Craig era overall. It’s been extremely polarizing to the overall community, and I’m not simply referring to this website, but Social Media in general. I’m seeing people come out of the woodwork to attack Craig’s Bond in to prop up some of the other Bonds. At the same time, more and more people are adamantly defending Craig’s Bond whilst putting down some of the others. It’s become quite annoying and boring to witness.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,936
    BT3366 wrote: »
    How refreshing for Bond and Camille to part sort of like in the MR novel than to have a romantic clinch and one-liner to end the film.

    Exactly. People complained that it was 'unBondlike' for Bond and Camille not to become lovers at the end of QOS, as if the obvious references to Moonraker and Gala Brand had just passed them by. I dunno, maybe they had.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yeah: 'Good, I hope he has another one tomorrow and he's paralysed down the other side too.' When he was later asked if it was true that he'd said it, Connery simply said 'Yes.' No regret, no remorse. Imagine that in the age of social media...!

    That’s the issue. Craig’s comments came during the age of Social Media. I’ll admit that I’m one of the people who finds what he said to be in poor taste, but that doesn’t mean I hold anything against him. This tiny discussion about those comments is speaking to a larger issue at play when it comes to the franchise nowadays, and that is people are split on the Daniel Craig era overall. It’s been extremely polarizing to the overall community, and I’m not simply referring to this website, but Social Media in general. I’m seeing people come out of the woodwork to attack Craig’s Bond in to prop up some of the other Bonds. At the same time, more and more people are adamantly defending Craig’s Bond whilst putting down some of the others. It’s become quite annoying and boring to witness.

    I also don't mind the quote by Craig. I thought it was pretty funny. Had Roger Moore said something like that people would have loved his kind of irony. The thing about Craig is that he even though he benefited immensely from the role often seemed to lack a certain degree of self awareness regarding his success as James Bond. Or as my grandmother once said: "People who earn several million dollar a year shouldn't be complaining to much about their Job."
  • Posts: 1,884
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yeah: 'Good, I hope he has another one tomorrow and he's paralysed down the other side too.' When he was later asked if it was true that he'd said it, Connery simply said 'Yes.' No regret, no remorse. Imagine that in the age of social media...!

    That’s the issue. Craig’s comments came during the age of Social Media. I’ll admit that I’m one of the people who finds what he said to be in poor taste, but that doesn’t mean I hold anything against him. This tiny discussion about those comments is speaking to a larger issue at play when it comes to the franchise nowadays, and that is people are split on the Daniel Craig era overall. It’s been extremely polarizing to the overall community, and I’m not simply referring to this website, but Social Media in general. I’m seeing people come out of the woodwork to attack Craig’s Bond in to prop up some of the other Bonds. At the same time, more and more people are adamantly defending Craig’s Bond whilst putting down some of the others. It’s become quite annoying and boring to witness.

    Yes, it is. I see it all the time on other sites. But it's not really new, just came in different forms at a given time. People pined for the Connery and the Connery-style during the Moore era and beyond and some even welcome the return to the Brosnan era formula on social media. Comments like "these are the ones I grew up with." Or they worry that the new Bond will be a woman and all that. I guess a key phrase is growing up because what once worked doesn't always translate into the modern day. There have to be tweaks and modifications.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 2,086
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yeah: 'Good, I hope he has another one tomorrow and he's paralysed down the other side too.' When he was later asked if it was true that he'd said it, Connery simply said 'Yes.' No regret, no remorse. Imagine that in the age of social media...!

    That’s the issue. Craig’s comments came during the age of Social Media. I’ll admit that I’m one of the people who finds what he said to be in poor taste, but that doesn’t mean I hold anything against him. This tiny discussion about those comments is speaking to a larger issue at play when it comes to the franchise nowadays, and that is people are split on the Daniel Craig era overall. It’s been extremely polarizing to the overall community, and I’m not simply referring to this website, but Social Media in general. I’m seeing people come out of the woodwork to attack Craig’s Bond in to prop up some of the other Bonds. At the same time, more and more people are adamantly defending Craig’s Bond whilst putting down some of the others. It’s become quite annoying and boring to witness.

    Yes, it is. I see it all the time on other sites. But it's not really new, just came in different forms at a given time. People pined for the Connery and the Connery-style during the Moore era and beyond and some even welcome the return to the Brosnan era formula on social media. Comments like "these are the ones I grew up with." Or they worry that the new Bond will be a woman and all that. I guess a key phrase is growing up because what once worked doesn't always translate into the modern day. There have to be tweaks and modifications.

    Yeah this has always been an issue with Fandom in general, but something about nowadays seems a lot mean spirited. I’ve seen people refer to Craig as “Mr. F__king Personality” as if they’re trying to paint him as some ass who gave little to no damn about playing Bond than to feed his ego. Even though that kind of falls apart as an argument when you see the speech he gave on his final day of filming NTTD.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 1,007
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Correct! Annoying that some keep using that as an excuse to bash Craig.

    I agree.
    But while we're talking about the Craig run, I'll add that there's one thing I can't get my head round with DC - him wanting to kill Bond off. You can't say he wanted it because he knew it would help the dramatic weight of a particular movie, because by all accounts, there wasn't a script on the table when he expressed his desire for 'his' Bond to croak. He just wanted to kill him off, it was a singular idea not intended to forward the plot of a specific movie, and it was an idea that was discussed several times during his run.
    I couldn't care less about the 'wrist-slashing' comment, even a fool can see that was just usual tabloid bollocks. But I really can't see why an actor that's just had a great success with a movie in a long franchise, would want to specifically kill off a character that's never been killed off before, even after being portrayed by some well respected actors.
    And before anyone says "you just don't like the idea of Bond dying. . . " YES! You're bloody right I don't, I wish they'd never gone there.
    I do recognise that DC put a lot of effort into the films, and undeniably he's a great actor who's been extremely popular in the role. Which is why I can't understand why he specifically wanted the death. Especially as it was the death for the sake of 'the death', and not to deepen any meaning of a particular plot or screenplay.
    I wonder if the other actors who portrayed Bond, though of the role as 'their Bond', rather than them simply playing Bond? Perhaps because Craig had an origin story, that meant he felt he could have a very specific end story. Which he certainly did, didn't he?
    I do think, if I ever played James Bond, (and it may happen, I'm extremely handsome and talented*), I'd be a little disappointed if 'my Bond' was the only one to die.


    *PM me EON, I'm waiting!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,042
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yeah: 'Good, I hope he has another one tomorrow and he's paralysed down the other side too.' When he was later asked if it was true that he'd said it, Connery simply said 'Yes.' No regret, no remorse. Imagine that in the age of social media...!

    That’s the issue. Craig’s comments came during the age of Social Media. I’ll admit that I’m one of the people who finds what he said to be in poor taste, but that doesn’t mean I hold anything against him. This tiny discussion about those comments is speaking to a larger issue at play when it comes to the franchise nowadays, and that is people are split on the Daniel Craig era overall. It’s been extremely polarizing to the overall community, and I’m not simply referring to this website, but Social Media in general. I’m seeing people come out of the woodwork to attack Craig’s Bond in to prop up some of the other Bonds. At the same time, more and more people are adamantly defending Craig’s Bond whilst putting down some of the others. It’s become quite annoying and boring to witness.

    Yes, it is. I see it all the time on other sites. But it's not really new, just came in different forms at a given time. People pined for the Connery and the Connery-style during the Moore era and beyond and some even welcome the return to the Brosnan era formula on social media. Comments like "these are the ones I grew up with." Or they worry that the new Bond will be a woman and all that. I guess a key phrase is growing up because what once worked doesn't always translate into the modern day. There have to be tweaks and modifications.

    Even though that kind of falls apart as an argument when you see the speech he gave on his final day of filming NTTD.

    Some here would lead you to believe that the speech was a performance piece. ;)

  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited February 2022 Posts: 652
    Craig used his role as Bond to turn himself into an A-list megastar. He knew he could leverage his popularity to demand a heap of money for continually coming back to the role, and he did just that. I don't blame him, he's clearly a good businessman, but he comes off as someone who used the franchise for his own benefit as opposed to someone who played the role because he genuinely enjoyed it, as with Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2022 Posts: 8,026
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Correct! Annoying that some keep using that as an excuse to bash Craig.

    But while we're talking about the Craig run, I'll add that there's one thing I can't get my head round with DC - him wanting to kill Bond off. You can't say he wanted it because he knew it would help the dramatic weight of a particular movie, because by all accounts, there wasn't a script on the table when he expressed his desire for 'his' Bond to croak. He just wanted to kill him off, it was a singular idea not intended to forward the plot of a specific movie, and it was an idea that was discussed several times during his run.

    Death scenes with movie stars are typically dramatic, that’s why he was asking for it to be included. Actors LOVE to play death scenes. That’s the simple justification. And so writers were hired to give Bond a death scene that was moving. I think it works for the story.

    One of my friends isn’t even a fan of Craig’s Bond, but she gave NTTD a watch and cried at the end because she thought it was that good. THAT is exactly the reaction what filmmakers hope for. They want to move audiences as much as exited them with thrills.

    It didn’t work for you. Life goes on.
  • Posts: 1,007
    Death scenes with movie stars are typically dramatic, that’s why he was asking for it to be included. Actors LOVE to play death scenes. That’s the simple justification. And so writers were hired to give Bond a death scene that was moving. I think it works for the story.

    Hmm. If it's the case that he just wanted to act in Bond's death scene to satisfy his 'artistic muse', I can see why some people think it was somehow conceited and/or immodest of him to want to kill off a beloved screen character with 60 years of cinema history behind him.
    I can see the argument for that.
    It's not like he thought it would be a great idea to have Bond doing a specific stunt, or be seen in a specific location. No, he wanted him to die. I can't help but think there's something ungracious about that.
  • Posts: 1,007
    'It's just a story, get over it and shut up'.

    Just thought I'd get it in first.

  • 'It's just a story, get over it and shut up'.

    Just thought I'd get it in first.

    Put your keyboard where your snark is.

    Seriously, folks: Craig's tenure as Bond has been largely ruled by a philosophy of "We've never tried that before, let's do it NOW." And that's a valid path to take. Never gave Bond an origin story? Okay, now he's got one. Never hardly ever ended a Bond film without the obligatory romantic clinch? Okay, now we have. Several times. Never had Bond die at the end of the film? Heh. Never say "never"...
  • Posts: 1,007
    Seriously, folks: Craig's tenure as Bond has been largely ruled by a philosophy of "We've never tried that before, let's do it NOW." And that's a valid path to take.

    If anything that's new is valid, they might as well have him sprout wings, turn green and sing Venus in Furs whilst flying over the Moon.

    Not that I wouldn't put it past them these days.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,026
    'It's just a story, get over it and shut up'.

    Just thought I'd get it in first.

    To be fair, it IS just a story. It’s not like Craig went to your house and killed your dog.
  • Posts: 1,007
    No, that was Lazenby. The bastard.
Sign In or Register to comment.