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

1282283285287288298

Comments

  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think at the end of the day, the director is to blame. Because the execution of any screenplay matters. For example, Inception was directed properly by Nolan, that's why people were able to accept its somewhat impossible plot. I don't like the fact that Bond and Blofeld were brothers in Craig's era, but with proper direction, we would have accepted it. I think if someone like Campbell directed NTTD with the exact screenplay that Cary used, he would have done way better. One reason is, he too had a goofy character in Boris, both he used him properly.

    I agree. A good director can make sense out of nonsense and turn the implausible into something we're all willing to believe. I don't think Mendes and Fukunaga did a poor job, but some heavy narrative lifting had to be done to really nail the Brother Blofeld twist, and despite being a SP fan, I think they screwed the pooch. Personally, I could have done without the brother part of it, though it doesn't aggravate me as much as others.

    Absolutely. Not that directing is easy though, but it's magical when it comes out right.

    I think Gilbert did it best. Working from three totally nonsensical scripts, he managed to deliver solid, ambitious, entertaining, grandiose Bond films that, while crossing many lines, nevertheless still feel like pure Bond to me.

    Ah! Yes! Gilbert! He sure knew how to create Bond magic on screen with shallow scripts. I'm guessing he knew the scripts weren't that good, so he knew he had to exhibit style and make it all look grand on screen and it worked.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 3,275
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think at the end of the day, the director is to blame. Because the execution of any screenplay matters. For example, Inception was directed properly by Nolan, that's why people were able to accept its somewhat impossible plot. I don't like the fact that Bond and Blofeld were brothers in Craig's era, but with proper direction, we would have accepted it. I think if someone like Campbell directed NTTD with the exact screenplay that Cary used, he would have done way better. One reason is, he too had a goofy character in Boris, both he used him properly.

    I agree. A good director can make sense out of nonsense and turn the implausible into something we're all willing to believe. I don't think Mendes and Fukunaga did a poor job, but some heavy narrative lifting had to be done to really nail the Brother Blofeld twist, and despite being a SP fan, I think they screwed the pooch. Personally, I could have done without the brother part of it, though it doesn't aggravate me as much as others.

    Absolutely. Not that directing is easy though, but it's magical when it comes out right.

    I think Gilbert did it best. Working from three totally nonsensical scripts, he managed to deliver solid, ambitious, entertaining, grandiose Bond films that, while crossing many lines, nevertheless still feel like pure Bond to me.

    Ah! Yes! Gilbert! He sure knew how to create Bond magic on screen with shallow scripts. I'm guessing he knew the scripts weren't that good, so he knew he had to exhibit style and make it all look grand on screen and it worked.

    I would say Hamilton deserves that credit too. GF is an all-time classic, and I know DAF is considered one of the weaker entries, but LALD and TMWTGG are my 2 favourite Moore films. His performances in both these films is fairly hard and badass, almost like the Fleming Bond, and he would never be this tough again.

    I liked how Hamilton incorporated hotel room scenes in all his 4 movies, which felt very Fleming to me, and is always a great nostalgic flashback trip into the 60's and 70's lifestyle when these scenes are on.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited August 2022 Posts: 4,247
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think at the end of the day, the director is to blame. Because the execution of any screenplay matters. For example, Inception was directed properly by Nolan, that's why people were able to accept its somewhat impossible plot. I don't like the fact that Bond and Blofeld were brothers in Craig's era, but with proper direction, we would have accepted it. I think if someone like Campbell directed NTTD with the exact screenplay that Cary used, he would have done way better. One reason is, he too had a goofy character in Boris, both he used him properly.

    I agree. A good director can make sense out of nonsense and turn the implausible into something we're all willing to believe. I don't think Mendes and Fukunaga did a poor job, but some heavy narrative lifting had to be done to really nail the Brother Blofeld twist, and despite being a SP fan, I think they screwed the pooch. Personally, I could have done without the brother part of it, though it doesn't aggravate me as much as others.

    Absolutely. Not that directing is easy though, but it's magical when it comes out right.

    I think Gilbert did it best. Working from three totally nonsensical scripts, he managed to deliver solid, ambitious, entertaining, grandiose Bond films that, while crossing many lines, nevertheless still feel like pure Bond to me.

    Ah! Yes! Gilbert! He sure knew how to create Bond magic on screen with shallow scripts. I'm guessing he knew the scripts weren't that good, so he knew he had to exhibit style and make it all look grand on screen and it worked.

    I would say Hamilton deserves that credit too. GF is an all-time classic, and I know DAF is considered one of the weaker entries, but LALD and TMWTGG are my 2 favourite Moore films. His performances in both these films is fairly hard and badass, almost like the Fleming Bond, and he would never be this tough again.

    I liked how Hamilton incorporated hotel room scenes in all his 4 movies, which felt very Fleming to me, and is always a great nostalgic flashback trip into the 60's and 70's lifestyle when these scenes are on.


    Yes, I agree. Hamilton was also great. And true about his hotel room scenes that feels like the books. My guess is, if Hamilton directed SP, he would have brought that zany-quirky style of his to Bond and his step-brother thing. I really enjoyed what he did with the two Blofelds trying to confuse Bond in DAF.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,265
    stag wrote: »
    I'm pleasantly surprised by the reaction, as I thought that people would - for whatever reason - view the film in negative terms. For me CR and NTTD were the best of the Craig films and serve as the perfect 'bookends' for his tenure.

    @stag ... I'm with you on this!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Pretty well written bit about Bond’s death by former Keeping the British End Up member @harmsway.

    https://thecavesofaltamira.com/2022/08/05/on-the-death-of-james-bond/
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    Pretty well written bit about Bond’s death by former Keeping the British End Up member @harmsway.

    https://thecavesofaltamira.com/2022/08/05/on-the-death-of-james-bond/
    Good take.

    For all my personal hangups on the issue, I respect the thematics behind the move.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Right. Say what you will of the decision to kill Bond, but with the Craig era it’s not like the rug was pulled under us. If this happened in a Moore film that would have been completely out of the left field.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited August 2022 Posts: 4,247
    I think the main issue here for me, as it as always been is, Bond's death in NTTD feels flat, because of the film's tonal issues. If Craig's Bond had died in a film like SF, it would have been gone well with that film's tone. Just imagine Dench's M dying in NTTD, with all the comedy in it, I don't think we would have felt her death. Sometimes, I even forget a Bond character as huge as Leiter died in NTTD, because of the film's tonal issues.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    Right. Say what you will of the decision to kill Bond, but with the Craig era it’s not like the rug was pulled under us. If this happened in a Moore film that would have been completely out of the left field.

    The producers have to ignore what happened in NTTD if they want the character to carry on? Otherwise we'd be watching the adventures of another agent who has been assigned the 007 number and not a James Bond film?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    stag wrote: »
    Right. Say what you will of the decision to kill Bond, but with the Craig era it’s not like the rug was pulled under us. If this happened in a Moore film that would have been completely out of the left field.

    The producers have to ignore what happened in NTTD if they want the character to carry on? Otherwise we'd be watching the adventures of another agent who has been assigned the 007 number and not a James Bond film?

    Are these genuine questions or are they rhetorical?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited August 2022 Posts: 7,518
    stag wrote: »
    Right. Say what you will of the decision to kill Bond, but with the Craig era it’s not like the rug was pulled under us. If this happened in a Moore film that would have been completely out of the left field.

    The producers have to ignore what happened in NTTD if they want the character to carry on? Otherwise we'd be watching the adventures of another agent who has been assigned the 007 number and not a James Bond film?

    I feel like this franchise regularly ignores what came in films before.
    Granted, nothing quite so dramatic has happened in films before; basically, this answer to your first question is “yes”, and the second is “N/A”.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,382
    Given the Craig Bond's full shown story arc, from him being a beginner, earning a 00 status.
    In that five year arc, I don't see any traces of him being in the Royal Navy, it's only in NTTD which they've made a reference on it.

    And for me, it just don't make sense, to somehow call him Commander, I mean yes, he's James Bond, but we're not shown to this iteration of Bond being in the Navy, given he had the beginning and it's a reboot a self contained timeline from the other Bonds, his five film arc just all about him going rogue and being on his missions as a 00.

    It worked for the classic Bonds, because:

    1. You know they're the same person in one floating timeline.
    2. Their backgrounds wasn't shown, they're hinted at some scenes but the background of the classic Bond was vague, so him serving in the military was quite a possibility, given it's not shown.
    3. You really see that they're working on some mission with relation to the Royal Navy (TSWLM, TND) for example.

    But in the Craig Era, it's hard to buy it because we're shown to his background in Casino Royale as him still young and gaining his 00 status, an origin story, and we're shown to his development in five films, yet there are no indication of him serving in the Royal Navy, it didn't helped that some of his missions were not connected to the Navy (The Quantum Organization, battling a rogue agent like Silva, fixing his personal issues with SPECTRE and Brofeld, and again another personal with Safin and Madeleine). There's no hint of him being a Commander.

    That's the hardest thing when you're going to do an origin story, make sure that all of the characteristics that the character have should remain intact.

    His Commander status was somewhat missed in these films.

    With Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, you would believe it's true, because their backgrounds remained vague, but with Craig given his full detailed history, there's no implications of this.

    And him suddenly calling himself a Commander, his connection to the Navy (in NTTD), like I suddenly asked myself "where these things came from", it's only shown in NTTD, and no history given to it and that it's very hard to believe.

    I wished we've shown to Craig's Bond being in the Military at some point, given that he's going to have an origin story and it's a reboot, an isolate timeline from the other Bonds.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited August 2022 Posts: 2,161
    Not that it challenges your point in any real way, but I do want to note that Craig's Bond had been referred to as Commander previously in his tenure. Probably more than once. He is referred to as Commander in his written obituary in SF and I feel sure that it was also stated verbally at least once, but I can't seem to summon it up right now. Was I imagining that? Anyone?
  • Posts: 12,243
    Speaking on the topic of Bond’s death, it’s something I never would have tried or advocated for myself, but I made my peace with it pretty quickly. Clearly it was the end goal the filmmakers built the whole film around, and while I’ll never say I “liked” the decision, it does feel like a kind of situation where, “if Bond is ever going to die in one of these films, it’s kind of now or never.” Craig’s guaranteed last one, a more continuous + emotional driven saga, a clear “beginning” with CR. Again, not saying it’s the direction I would have gone in, but it made more sense now than any other time at least. I don’t let it stop me from enjoying the movie which I think is very good and I have few real qualms with it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,898
    I've not re-read it for a long time, but wasn't CraigBond's naval career dealt with at some length in the online biography that EON put out for CR?
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 988
    Feeling sorry and pity for Bond before his final death scene, as he says his goodbyes to the mother of his daughter is not something I would ever be seeking in a Bond movie, and I doubt many other fans would be either - yet this is what the brains behind this operation thought we all wanted to see.

    And that's why No Time to Die is the only Bond film I actually don't like. I have a fondness for all the rest, but killing him off like that was the single most stupid, redundant, ridiculous creative decision the franchise has ever made. I'd rather have a hundred Tarzan yells or a thousand JW Peppers, than see the killing off of one of the greatest movie heroes just for 'dramatic' effect.. . which was instantly negated when we were told over the credits that he's not dead after all.
    What a load of ridiculous twaddle.

  • I’m not a fan of them killing Bond off either, but not because of the “Bond will return” thing…like it’s obvious that Craig’s Bond died — the death feels plenty final to me and the next Bond won’t have anything to do with it. I even agree that if they were going to kill Bond this was certainly the one to do it in, and I respect their creative choice to swing for it. I just think providing finality for pulp heroes is always a mistake — I have just as little interest in seeing Indiana Jones or Batman retire or die as I do Bond, it just goes against a core appeal of the whole premise in my eyes. And, on top of that, I don’t think Bond’s death was particularly affecting given how overwrought and over-plotted the whole thing is. But I’m not seething at the producers for choosing to do it, and I’ve accepted that this is “the Bond film where Bond dies” rather than a total aberration; it simply wasn’t to my taste and I’m sure we’ll get something different with the next one.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,374
    I do feel all the major deaths in NTTD sort of lose a bit of their weight when so many are crammed into one installment: Blofeld, Felix and then Bond, all in one movie?

    I would've liked it way more had Bond survived and escaped in the final moments and we get to see him enjoy Felix's cigar as he makes his way back to his family and the island is destroyed in the distance.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,455
    I’m not a fan of them killing Bond off either, but not because of the “Bond will return” thing…like it’s obvious that Craig’s Bond died — the death feels plenty final to me and the next Bond won’t have anything to do with it. I even agree that if they were going to kill Bond this was certainly the one to do it in, and I respect their creative choice to swing for it. I just think providing finality for pulp heroes is always a mistake — I have just as little interest in seeing Indiana Jones or Batman retire or die as I do Bond, it just goes against a core appeal of the whole premise in my eyes. And, on top of that, I don’t think Bond’s death was particularly affecting given how overwrought and over-plotted the whole thing is. But I’m not seething at the producers for choosing to do it, and I’ve accepted that this is “the Bond film where Bond dies” rather than a total aberration; it simply wasn’t to my taste and I’m sure we’ll get something different with the next one.

    That's how I feel about it. Nicely put, @SomethingThatAteHim. I didn't want Bond dead, far from it, but it doesn't send me into a frenzy either. The "Bond is back" line is also a sort of comforting message, at least for me. It tells me that while this Bond has died, James Bond the character will return. And if they kill him only once, then NTTD will also be "the one in which Bond dies" for me, just like DAD is "the one in which Bond surfs on Playstation water". ;-) It'll also silence the anti-Bond people (they exist!) who have spent the last six decades complaining that James Bond is indestructible.

    But yeah, I can understand that it is a big step, too big for some fans, acceptable for others (like me), and even long overdue for some.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,382
    If that death scene had been handled very well and the plot, the scenes that came before it were good, I would have accept it, it would have been great, but no, it's contrived and poorly handled.

    There's so many scenes in the past where Bond could have died and it's more believable and natural, here it's contrived and not organic, and I don't buy it.

    And I don't think this film deserved it, I'm not even that sold on his relationship with Madeleine, and him dying for that was something I'm not buying into.

    It's a missed opportunity, they've dropped the ball in this one.
  • Posts: 988
    I'd have thought NTTD certainly proved he's indestructible. He's like Captain Scarlet now, you can kill him, but he'll return.
    Yes, I know. Craig's Bond was a different Bond. He was a special case.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,455
    Craig's Bond was a different Bond. He was a special case.

    Exactly. This Bond will not mysteriously wake up from the dead. James Bond is an abstraction of a successful spy film formula. We've had various iterations, and now also a minor few incarnations. With 60 years and 25 (27?) films under his belt, I think it's fine that "this" Bond and "that" Bond are not the same guy.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited August 2022 Posts: 4,247
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I do feel all the major deaths in NTTD sort of lose a bit of their weight when so many are crammed into one installment: Blofeld, Felix and then Bond, all in one movie?

    I would've liked it way more had Bond survived and escaped in the final moments and we get to see him enjoy Felix's cigar as he makes his way back to his family and the island is destroyed in the distance.

    Yes. The deaths lost their weight, because Cary didn't direct it well, like the tragedy they wanted it to be. It's funny that immediately after Eilish's dirge-like song, David Dencik shows up with the jokes, making the lab attack lose weight too. At the moment, I really struggle to watch that scene.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,898
    Yeh, I skip the lab attack completely. It's just...nah.
  • In isolation I like the lab attack pretty well, it’s very GoldenEye and seeing a SPECTRE swat team complete with their own gadgets is very cool, it’s just that, like a lot of NTTD, it doesn’t gel with many of the other sequences in the movie. I know tonal inconsistency is no stranger to the Bond series, but this is certainly one of the more Frankensteined films in the franchise given the emotional extremes it goes to. The sheer intensity and drama of the PTS compared to the weightless action and jokey over-the-topness of Cuba feel like two entirely different movies.
  • Posts: 12,243
    I love the lab scene!
  • Hard to believe we are coming up on the 1 year anniversary of No Time To Die’s UK premiere ! It sure was an exciting time in the weeks following and the worldwide premiere . Might be soon time to revisit this one.
  • Posts: 6,682
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I love the lab scene!

    So do I.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    I enjoy it as well.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I didn’t think there was an imbalance in tone unlike, for example, TWINE.
Sign In or Register to comment.