Where does Bond go after Craig?

1536537539541542571

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,355
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The other little moment I sometimes cite with DN’s filmmaking is when Bond goes back to his flat and hears Sylvia in the other room/takes out his gun. It’s completely shot in a wide, like we’re watching a play or something. The music getting louder creates all the tension, but there’s a disconnect between how still and non-dynamic the shot itself is, Connery’s acting, and that music. I can imagine some wouldn’t quite understand what’s happening on first viewing (I don’t just mean they don’t know what’s in the other room, but as in they wouldn’t quite understand what Bond’s doing). I think a director nowadays would instead use a tighter angle on Bond when he hears something, move the camera a bit more, do an alternative shot or two to show the audience what he’s looking towards/give a sense of what he’s thinking to compliment Connery’s performance and create a bit more tension. In fact Young himself did this in the hotel scene in FRWL.

    By the way, this isn’t me saying DN is a bad film at all. If the filmmaking for Bond’s introduction/slowly revealing him hadn’t been perfect then likely Bond wouldn’t have survived as a film series. It’s a just an early movie where EoN were still honing how to make a Bond film.

    I find Dr No kind of fascinating in that it feels like a 50s British movie made in colour, and then suddenly there's this pretty big leap to FRWL in only a few months. They really got where they were going, and Connery's portrayal came on a long way too- he's much more likeable in FRWL.

    Yeah definitely. I know people who have said to me they like DN because it has an old school cinematic quality. Other people I know say it’s dated haha. But yes, I think FRWL feels much more polished and Connery actually feels more human and Bond-like. I think a lot of it comes from Bond being less in control of the situation compared to DN (and it is genuinely odd how much Bond is one step ahead throughout that film until the very end, which is very unlike the literary character) and he’s on the back foot until the very end.

    Yeah it makes him strangely cold and detached from the viewer, as if you're watching him from outside rather than being let in. Which is weird because it's not as if the audience is always privy to exactly what his plan is in subsequent films, but I feel it more in DN. I don't quite know what it is which produces that feeling, maybe it is that he's ahead of everyone else like you say so we're not given a chance to sympathise with him much.
  • Posts: 1,632
    DN was made in 1962 for $1,000,000. Today that would be roughly $10,000,000. NTTD came in around $230,000,000. Despite the obvious gaffs and flaws and ancient technology, I find more enjoyment watching DN than most recent fare. Those early Bond films have a style and feel about them has never been duplicated. I get that things change and today's Bond is so now, and I still enjoy Bond, but not as much as I used to.

    As for the dragon, I believe it was some sort of artillery vehicle painted up. Sure it's cheesy looking, but within the story itself, wasn't it meant to reinforce rumors? No interloper was expected to get close enough to see what it really was.
  • Posts: 3,211
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The other little moment I sometimes cite with DN’s filmmaking is when Bond goes back to his flat and hears Sylvia in the other room/takes out his gun. It’s completely shot in a wide, like we’re watching a play or something. The music getting louder creates all the tension, but there’s a disconnect between how still and non-dynamic the shot itself is, Connery’s acting, and that music. I can imagine some wouldn’t quite understand what’s happening on first viewing (I don’t just mean they don’t know what’s in the other room, but as in they wouldn’t quite understand what Bond’s doing). I think a director nowadays would instead use a tighter angle on Bond when he hears something, move the camera a bit more, do an alternative shot or two to show the audience what he’s looking towards/give a sense of what he’s thinking to compliment Connery’s performance and create a bit more tension. In fact Young himself did this in the hotel scene in FRWL.

    By the way, this isn’t me saying DN is a bad film at all. If the filmmaking for Bond’s introduction/slowly revealing him hadn’t been perfect then likely Bond wouldn’t have survived as a film series. It’s a just an early movie where EoN were still honing how to make a Bond film.

    I find Dr No kind of fascinating in that it feels like a 50s British movie made in colour, and then suddenly there's this pretty big leap to FRWL in only a few months. They really got where they were going, and Connery's portrayal came on a long way too- he's much more likeable in FRWL.

    Yeah definitely. I know people who have said to me they like DN because it has an old school cinematic quality. Other people I know say it’s dated haha. But yes, I think FRWL feels much more polished and Connery actually feels more human and Bond-like. I think a lot of it comes from Bond being less in control of the situation compared to DN (and it is genuinely odd how much Bond is one step ahead throughout that film until the very end, which is very unlike the literary character) and he’s on the back foot until the very end.

    Yeah it makes him strangely cold and detached from the viewer, as if you're watching him from outside rather than being let in. Which is weird because it's not as if the audience is always privy to exactly what his plan is in subsequent films, but I feel it more in DN. I don't quite know what it is which produces that feeling, maybe it is that he's ahead of everyone else like you say so we're not given a chance to sympathise with him much.

    I think it’s exactly that. He’s always one step ahead in a way he isn’t in any other film.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    DN was made in 1962 for $1,000,000. Today that would be roughly $10,000,000. NTTD came in around $230,000,000. Despite the obvious gaffs and flaws and ancient technology, I find more enjoyment watching DN than most recent fare. Those early Bond films have a style and feel about them has never been duplicated. I get that things change and today's Bond is so now, and I still enjoy Bond, but not as much as I used to.

    As for the dragon, I believe it was some sort of artillery vehicle painted up. Sure it's cheesy looking, but within the story itself, wasn't it meant to reinforce rumors? No interloper was expected to get close enough to see what it really was.

    I think it’s the fact that Quarrel seems genuinely afraid of it/believes it could be a dragon even when he sees it himself (incidentally another odd thing about the film is how afraid and superstitious Quarrel is compared to the novel. In the book he gets a dark premonition/quietly takes out life insurance, but it doesn’t seem like he even believes in the dragon from what I remember).

    Again, we all have our favourite Bond films, and each movie can have different approaches to the Bond style (no other Bond film is quite like DN, same to how no other Bond film is fully like OHMSS or DAF etc). I think for a lot of people DN isn’t necessarily the height of Bond, nor what they even associate Bondian escapism with. And that’s fine. It’d be depressing if the series peaked in a particular film and never matched up to that (it would be for me at least).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 17 Posts: 15,355
    Yeah Dr No is right at the bottom of my rankings, which I put together the other day thanks to that other thread here(!) It's not that I don't respect it as starting the whole thing and it's got some good moments, but purely on its own merits I don't enjoy watching it very much and prefer what the series became.
    I find Bond's weird lack of guilt over getting Quarrel killed, and his random pointless murdering of guards to be a bit hard to connect with.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    TB and DN are top five entries for me, with TB ranked second out of all the Bond films. With DN, in every conceivable way I prefer the novel, but then I adore that book all out of proportion. Still love the film very much, though. Many of you would likely call me crazy for ranking them above a lot of really beloved Bond films, but they were instrumental in my introduction to the world of Bond.
  • edited May 17 Posts: 3,211
    Think I put DN just outside my top 10 for the MI6 film rankings thread. First time I think that’s ever happened when I’ve ranked the films incidentally. I just figured if I’m going to watch a Bond film purely for that good old entertainment factor I’d go for TND, OP, TSWLM etc. The ones I find the most engrossing are the likes of FRWL, SF, OHMSS, FRWL, GE etc. DN’s good, like I said I love it, but I just figured there are Bond films I watch more often and get slightly more out of. But again, that’s a good thing I think.
  • edited May 17 Posts: 886
    CrabKey wrote: »
    DN was made in 1962 for $1,000,000. Today that would be roughly $10,000,000. NTTD came in around $230,000,000. Despite the obvious gaffs and flaws and ancient technology, I find more enjoyment watching DN than most recent fare. Those early Bond films have a style and feel about them has never been duplicated. I get that things change and today's Bond is so now, and I still enjoy Bond, but not as much as I used to.

    As for the dragon, I believe it was some sort of artillery vehicle painted up. Sure it's cheesy looking, but within the story itself, wasn't it meant to reinforce rumors? No interloper was expected to get close enough to see what it really was.

    Dr. No is a classic IMO.

    I like Craig's Bond but the last ones are too long. I'd rather watch Dr. No twice.

    I guess YOLT is what modern audiences expect from a Bond movie but it was a pastiche. A greatest hit movie and you need hits to make a compilation album.



  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    echo wrote: »
    She is incredible.

    This may be controversial...but I don't really "get" how reusing actors in different roles is a "tradition." To me it's just Cubby wanting to get actors like Charles Gray or Joe Don Baker "on the cheap." Just ask Connery.

    Dench is of course an exception because she is a treasure and an institution, and Barbara didn't have the heart to tell her she was out. Could anyone? Just try telling Judi Dench not to report to set!

    But that doesn't mean they should re-cast, say, Fiennes.

    Yeah, I saw the repeated use of the same actors as being quick casting at a cheap cost, and not tradition, 😂.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,168
    mtm wrote: »
    It's why I think Thunderball has a bit of a failure of a villain's plan: once they're removed from the Vulcan we don't see the bombs again, and they're offscreen threatening cities we don't see and which Bond himself isn't in. Weirdly it might have actually helped to cut back to M and Moneypenny, because they're actually more under threat in the climax.
    I've seen this comment a few times before, and just to clarify, we do see the bombs again, in the underwater cave when Largo retrieves them. Bond watches them load the bombs while in disguise as a frogman. Bond is then discovered by Largo and a fight breaks out around the bomb sled. It's a tense scene. Bond and co thwart the plan before the bombs get far. From here on, the focal threat is shifted from the bombs to the underwater battle.

    If you want to see a bomb delivered to the target location, and for Bond to be there too, watch the previous film. This is Thunderball, not Goldfinger 2!
  • Posts: 1,632
    TB and DN are top five entries for me, with TB ranked second out of all the Bond films. With DN, in every conceivable way I prefer the novel, but then I adore that book all out of proportion. Still love the film very much, though. Many of you would likely call me crazy for ranking them above a lot of really beloved Bond films, but they were instrumental in my introduction to the world of Bond.

    Crazy? I don't think so. We like what we like. No apology necessary.
  • Posts: 1,632
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah Dr No is right at the bottom of my rankings, which I put together the other day thanks to that other thread here(!) It's not that I don't respect it as starting the whole thing and it's got some good moments, but purely on its own merits I don't enjoy watching it very much and prefer what the series became.
    I find Bond's weird lack of guilt over getting Quarrel killed, and his random pointless murdering of guards to be a bit hard to connect with.


    You probably won't want to watch Kingsman: The Secret Service. Lots of pointless murder in that one.
  • edited May 18 Posts: 1,750
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah Dr No is right at the bottom of my rankings, which I put together the other day thanks to that other thread here(!) It's not that I don't respect it as starting the whole thing and it's got some good moments, but purely on its own merits I don't enjoy watching it very much and prefer what the series became.
    I find Bond's weird lack of guilt over getting Quarrel killed, and his random pointless murdering of guards to be a bit hard to connect with.

    That would mean View To A Kill, DAF and Moonraker ranked better. To each their own.
  • Posts: 1,750
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,355
    QBranch wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's why I think Thunderball has a bit of a failure of a villain's plan: once they're removed from the Vulcan we don't see the bombs again, and they're offscreen threatening cities we don't see and which Bond himself isn't in. Weirdly it might have actually helped to cut back to M and Moneypenny, because they're actually more under threat in the climax.
    I've seen this comment a few times before, and just to clarify, we do see the bombs again, in the underwater cave when Largo retrieves them. Bond watches them load the bombs while in disguise as a frogman. Bond is then discovered by Largo and a fight breaks out around the bomb sled. It's a tense scene. Bond and co thwart the plan before the bombs get far. From here on, the focal threat is shifted from the bombs to the underwater battle.

    If you want to see a bomb delivered to the target location, and for Bond to be there too, watch the previous film. This is Thunderball, not Goldfinger 2!

    It’s a fair point, I did doubt myself about that as soon as I posted it! Regardless I don’t feel much threat from them at that point. And I kind of want GF2! :D
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,168
    mtm wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's why I think Thunderball has a bit of a failure of a villain's plan: once they're removed from the Vulcan we don't see the bombs again, and they're offscreen threatening cities we don't see and which Bond himself isn't in. Weirdly it might have actually helped to cut back to M and Moneypenny, because they're actually more under threat in the climax.
    I've seen this comment a few times before, and just to clarify, we do see the bombs again, in the underwater cave when Largo retrieves them. Bond watches them load the bombs while in disguise as a frogman. Bond is then discovered by Largo and a fight breaks out around the bomb sled. It's a tense scene. Bond and co thwart the plan before the bombs get far. From here on, the focal threat is shifted from the bombs to the underwater battle.

    If you want to see a bomb delivered to the target location, and for Bond to be there too, watch the previous film. This is Thunderball, not Goldfinger 2!

    It’s a fair point, I did doubt myself about that as soon as I posted it! Regardless I don’t feel much threat from them at that point. And I kind of want GF2! :D
    Oh, that would be AVTAK. And Bond is there with the bomb too. All the talk of earthquakes and floods, and Max not factoring in what an expert geologist can predict really helps amplify the threat.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,715
    I rather like that we don't see too much of the bombs again in TB. It gives them an element of menace. We know that Spectre has them but we don't know where they are kept. Not knowing where they are also means that you and I could be sitting on them, so to speak, and not know it. And the clock is ticking. By not being shown the bombs for a long time, we can see them become almost an abstraction of a global threat, a monster that is hidden but could suddenly break out and destroy a major city. With the Cuban missile crisis fresh in people's minds, I'd say this part of TB adds a bit of darkness to an otherwise fairly lighthearted film. Had we been keeping track of the bombs during the film, the threat would have been the same, but I'm not sure it would have felt the same.

    OP does its best to cut back to the circus bomb all the time. I understand why: the countdown provides tension. By the same token, the monster loses its teeth a bit, at least for me, by becoming more and more synonymous with a funny circus tool.

    GE did it very well, IMO. We are shown what the GoldenEye can do, but then we're told there's another one. We won't see that one until the end of the film. So we understand the threat, which is then doubled because we have no idea where the second one is; it might, for all we know, be pointed at us right now.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,355
    QBranch wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's why I think Thunderball has a bit of a failure of a villain's plan: once they're removed from the Vulcan we don't see the bombs again, and they're offscreen threatening cities we don't see and which Bond himself isn't in. Weirdly it might have actually helped to cut back to M and Moneypenny, because they're actually more under threat in the climax.
    I've seen this comment a few times before, and just to clarify, we do see the bombs again, in the underwater cave when Largo retrieves them. Bond watches them load the bombs while in disguise as a frogman. Bond is then discovered by Largo and a fight breaks out around the bomb sled. It's a tense scene. Bond and co thwart the plan before the bombs get far. From here on, the focal threat is shifted from the bombs to the underwater battle.

    If you want to see a bomb delivered to the target location, and for Bond to be there too, watch the previous film. This is Thunderball, not Goldfinger 2!

    It’s a fair point, I did doubt myself about that as soon as I posted it! Regardless I don’t feel much threat from them at that point. And I kind of want GF2! :D
    Oh, that would be AVTAK. And Bond is there with the bomb too. All the talk of earthquakes and floods, and Max not factoring in what an expert geologist can predict really helps amplify the threat.

    It is indeed! I do like a Bond-on-the-bomb climax! :D
    So my memory of the ending of TB is hazy: if the bombs are safely under the sea does that mean Spectre are bluffing? How long is left on the clock at the end of the film?
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited May 18 Posts: 14,168
    Good points, @DarthDimi. Except for that very last point. I didn't like that at all!
    mtm wrote: »
    It is indeed! I do like a Bond-on-the-bomb climax! :D
    So my memory of the ending of TB is hazy: if the bombs are safely under the sea does that mean Spectre are bluffing? How long is left on the clock at the end of the film?
    Apparently one bomb would be transferred to a wreck off 'Fowley Point', which may or may not be the wreck where the end battle is. The countdown is kind of forgotten earlier on. I don't think there's any bluff, just that the whole scheme is foiled earlier than anyone expected, before Largo can get the bombs in position.

    Bond has four days in total to foil the plan. I considered gathering all the dates mentioned in the film to try and gauge how long is left on the clock. As mentioned, the countdown is kind of put aside. I'd say it's mere hours. All I found was that the date on the Derval siblings photo in Bond's dossier is set four months after the date that Blofeld wants his diamond ransom...
  • Posts: 886
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited May 18 Posts: 8,864
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?
  • edited May 18 Posts: 3,211
    I think there’s actually a lot of nostalgia for Brosnan’s Bond, especially for fans born in the 90s/late 80s.

    That said I’ve noticed it’s TND that seems to get a bit more attention nowadays. It may be a recent-ish thing and the whole ‘fake news’ storyline having some relevance in the recent past… that and it’s genuinely an enjoyable film.
  • Posts: 886
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    Maybe because you like Craig.
  • edited May 18 Posts: 3,211
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, five slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    It’s probably more to do with specific fans/our personal preferences and how that’s reflected in our opinions, but the conversation about DN was kinda interesting. I suspect for a lot of Bond fans (probably even regardless of age within a certain number) they grew up with the idea that Connery was the best Bond, and that his early tenure was near perfect, including his debut. If they’re older one of those films may even be the first Bond movie they saw and there’s that nostalgia/connection to it, as well as seemingly that idea that the magic of those films was never matched in later instalments.

    A lot of Bond fans here may have watched one of the Brosnan or Craig films as their first Bond film though. I always say a lot of younger people grew up with Craig as their Bond, and this is the image they have of the character rather than Connery. They may not quite have that same connection to the earlier films, and may gravitate to, say, some of the Moore or perhaps Dalton films over the Connery ones. They may even be more willing to criticise elements of the earlier films other fans might be more defensive about. I suppose it’s a bit tricky to gauge as we don’t know everyone’s age here and it won’t be that straightforward, but I can see there might be an element of that idea here.

    But I still think it’s a good thing there’s a bunch of different opinions out there with Bond. It’d be boring if we all thought DN was a flawless film and no other Bond film matched it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    Maybe because you like Craig.

    In my top ten, fifty percent goes to the films of the 60s.
    Forty percent goes to Craig.
    One to a film from the 80s.

    Try answering that again, Deke. Yes, I like Craig.

    But it's obvious that I admire the films from the 60s, and one from the 80s.

    I was asking if this showed a generational divide, especially considering I was born and grew up in the Moore era.

    Your answer was, as usual, puzzling.
  • Posts: 886
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    Maybe because you like Craig.

    In my top ten, fifty percent goes to the films of the 60s.
    Forty percent goes to Craig.
    One to a film from the 80s.

    Try answering that again, Deke. Yes, I like Craig.

    But it's obvious that I admire the films from the 60s, and one from the 80s.

    I was asking if this showed a generational divide, especially considering I was born and grew up in the Moore era.

    Your answer was, as usual, puzzling.

    Your tastes seem very consistent. Craig=Connery+Dalton+Lazenby.


  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    Maybe because you like Craig.

    In my top ten, fifty percent goes to the films of the 60s.
    Forty percent goes to Craig.
    One to a film from the 80s.

    Try answering that again, Deke. Yes, I like Craig.

    But it's obvious that I admire the films from the 60s, and one from the 80s.

    I was asking if this showed a generational divide, especially considering I was born and grew up in the Moore era.

    Your answer was, as usual, puzzling.

    Your tastes seem very consistent. Craig=Connery+Dalton+Lazenby.


    Thanks, Deke.

    My question is, does this show a generation divide?

    Someone stated that the posts made criticizing Dr No and TB revealed a generational divide. I'm not exactly sure what that means.

    So taking my own top ten, I was asking, as a person who was born and who grew up during the Moore (and Dalton era), does this show a generational divide? And if so, how?
  • Posts: 886
    I'm not that old but I grew up waching Bond movies on TV. I watched all of them before 1995, so the Brosnan era didn't define my tastes.

    This is an example of how it works.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 18 Posts: 15,355
    QBranch wrote: »
    Good points, @DarthDimi. Except for that very last point. I didn't like that at all!
    mtm wrote: »
    It is indeed! I do like a Bond-on-the-bomb climax! :D
    So my memory of the ending of TB is hazy: if the bombs are safely under the sea does that mean Spectre are bluffing? How long is left on the clock at the end of the film?
    Apparently one bomb would be transferred to a wreck off 'Fowley Point', which may or may not be the wreck where the end battle is. The countdown is kind of forgotten earlier on. I don't think there's any bluff, just that the whole scheme is foiled earlier than anyone expected, before Largo can get the bombs in position.

    Bond has four days in total to foil the plan. I considered gathering all the dates mentioned in the film to try and gauge how long is left on the clock. As mentioned, the countdown is kind of put aside. I'd say it's mere hours. All I found was that the date on the Derval siblings photo in Bond's dossier is set four months after the date that Blofeld wants his diamond ransom...

    Ah right, thanks. I must admit I like a bit of a countdown when there's bombs involved, I think you kind of need that. If they're not even in the right place for the climax... I dunno, bit odd. I feel like most writers would look at that and say you're throwing away potential tension.
    007HallY wrote: »
    That said I’ve noticed it’s TND that seems to get a bit more attention nowadays. It may be a recent-ish thing and the whole ‘fake news’ storyline having some relevance in the recent past… that and it’s genuinely an enjoyable film.

    That's good, I've always enjoyed that one. Probably my favourite of his, and I do think the media mogul plot is a genuinely good and original idea.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    I'm not that old but I grew up waching Bond movies on TV. I watched all of them before 1995, so the Brosnan era didn't define my tastes.

    This is an example of how it works.

    Okay... I grew up watching the Connery films on VHS, but my first theatrical films, were Moore's.

    But not one Moore in my top ten.
    Only one Dalton.
    No Brozz.
    And in my middle-age, where you'd think my tastes were long ago established by my "generational influences", I have found a strong liking for the Craig films-- although he is far away from being my first taste of who James Bond is (that would be Connery via VHS, and then Moore via theatrical, and VHS)...

    I think, yes, some people may experience a generational divide, but I don't think all can be simply painted with such a broad brush...(?). Or maybe I'm completely wrong on this.

    I just feel that tastes are fluid and can change over time. Some may be influenced by the era they grew up in, where others aren't so binary and rigid in choices....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,715
    @mtm
    I agree that TB remains a bit vague regarding the urgency of Bond's actions. However, since GF and YOLF both rely on a climactic countdown (and the next couple of films have them too), I welcome a movie that doesn't show us a ticking clock every few seconds.
Sign In or Register to comment.