Where does Bond go after Craig?

1666667669671672686

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 24 Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe apart from me having difficulty deciphering most of what you've written, I just have to really point out that Leiter's death isn't big enough to be a PLOT POINT II/end of ACT II twist.

    Not even remotely.


    It's not big enough. Not for Bond, and not for the audience.

    What his death is, is a perfectly executed MID POINT TWIST. It flips Bond in a new direction.

    Right up until, Felix's death, Bond had absolutely no intention of returning to M, nor the service. But with the information he found, combined with Leiter's death (obviously meaning that Leiter could no longer help on the quest), Bond is forced to return to the bosom of MI6 to continue his journey.

    The end of ACT II should see our protagonist at his lowest, when it appears as if everything has been taken away from him-- in this case it's when his lover and his child have been kidnapped by the Big Bad Wolf. That leads us to ACT III and a proper climax.

    You may hate the film, but the writers, and I'd emphasize Fukunaga, in particular, knows the anatomy of a screenplay, and hit his marks with smoothness and aplomb...

    That's interesting considering the death of felixs wife was considered big enough to be the motivation for an entire film earlier in this series, but I'll bear that in mind. ;)

    Oh, @Mendes4Lyfe , the death of Felix's wife is called, THE INCITING INCIDENT.

    It's the event that kick-starts the hero's journey.

    So, yes, please do keep this all in mind, 😂 😂 😂...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,472
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ha! Yes indeed, it's blinking really.

    Don't forget the hand to the mouth. That's how you know he's sad.

    Heh! True, although that’s often just ‘contemplative’ in the Brosnan physical vocabulary: that’s him pondering something, could be emotional as here, or just considering his next move (see also looking for Gupta’s safe in TND or after offering the banker the deal in TWINE).
  • edited October 24 Posts: 4,207
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense. I can at least see how it came about.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ha! Yes indeed, it's blinking really.

    Don't forget the hand to the mouth. That's how you know he's sad.

    Heh! True, although that’s often just ‘contemplative’ in the Brosnan physical vocabulary: that’s him pondering something, could be emotional as here, or just considering his next move (see also looking for Gupta’s safe in TND or after offering the banker the deal in TWINE).

    The Brosnan acting vocabulary is surprisingly complex. Some say there are 100 variations of the pain face alone (much like the 1,000 variations of the legendary Roger Moore 'oofs', although some speculate there is only one...). It is not for us mere mortals to understand.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,411
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.
  • edited October 24 Posts: 4,207
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot. As was said it's not really the pattern as SP doesn't really involve that. You're talking about very broad character conflicts/resolutions in the case of QOS and SF, all of which are motivated by what we see onscreen (and I know that's something you've said you prioritise when it comes to any sort of conflict to do with Bond's character).

    Have you heard the phrase 'rise like a phoenix' recently and decided to use it here? Genuinely asking mate. I get random ideas stuck in my head too and post them on here (as I suspect you do too) and you've used it twice.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    What are you talking about @Mendes4Lyfe ?

    You are moving goal lines again.

    You claimed that Felix’s death should have been at the end of Act II.

    I stupidly chimed in to say it’s not big enough to be PLOT POINT II/end of ACT II twist. Felix’s death is the perfectly placed mid-point twist.

    Whether you think the following scenes afterwards are artificial, are moot. Bond finds out more about Heracles. He wants in to see Blofeld. His story/investigation moves forward with Moneypenny, then Q where they discover that Heracles is no longer just targeting Spectre agents, but the Bad Wolf has opened up its potential to be used against anyone…

    You don’t always have to be “right” Mendes. Most of the time you’re on another planet when it comes to filmmaking and writing. Other things, like whether you like a film or not, is just your opinion, but you seem to need validation of your opinions.

    Why can’t you just be content with what you like, and what you don’t like? There’s no right or wrong there. But when you start bringing up screenplay structure/anatomy, unfortunately there are objective rules, and most people, not named QT, follow the anatomy as close as they can when they write scripts. That’s what makes this type of storytelling so tough in some ways, and unique when compared to plays, novels, novellas or short stories.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ha! Yes indeed, it's blinking really.

    Don't forget the hand to the mouth. That's how you know he's sad.
    I don’t find Craig’s Bond to be overly depressed in SP, not in the way he could be described as such in both QOS and SF. Perhaps there are some moments of introspection, but it’s not as if the Bond series hadn’t had those before. I always think back to the scene in Dr. No where Bond arrives into his hotel late at night, checks those “traps” he laid out to see if his room has been tampered with before grabbing a spare bottle of Vodka and drinking quietly. TND has a similar scene of Bond awaiting in the hotel room after the Carver Press conference.

    Buuuuut, to play devils advocate; my personal problem with Craig in SP is that I personally don’t find him to be as engaging as he was in his first 3 films (and NTTD as well.) I find that the vigorous energy behind his first 3 performances as Bond is somewhat lost here in SP, and while I don’t think he was phoning in his performance in the way that another Bond did when he was bored; I still come away feeling something was lacking. Perhaps that could be due to SP not really being as “deep” or “thought provoking” as Craig’s other Bond films. Maybe it was because of fatigue? I don’t know but those are just my thoughts; I do like the scene where he’s drunk and pointing a gun at a rat that leads him to the evidence he needed.

    Even SF and QOS have limits to Bond's depressive state I'd say (and I definitely think 'depressive state' is a bit of a wide term in these contexts, and perhaps even a bit simplified). He's obviously going through it in both, but his mask is very much up. He still goes around seducing women to get the job done, cracks jokes etc. It's still dramatically interesting, but I don't think you can have Bond moping around for half a film. He's not a character who wears his heart on his sleeve, and as you said his issues in the context of a film will be more introspection.

    I kinda get what you mean about Craig in SP. I do like his more relaxed performance though, and it's actually quite refreshing seeing his Bond that at ease.

    I agree, the mouse scene is cool! It's not exactly Bond putting down his armour but it's a humorous moment which plays around with the idea of how dangerous his profession can be (obviously he's staying up for people who could potentially kill him and all that) and Bond's wry attitude towards it. It's interesting seeing Bond drinking heavily and getting a bit intoxicated (similar to the TND hotel scene which is another of my favourites), and again puts a nice emphasis on how the character's alcohol consumption/habit intersects with his job. If they can come up with another semi humorous but dramatically interesting moment like that in the new era I'd be up for it. Or even just another scene of Bond staying up with a gun and a bottle of vodka, plotting for waiting for someone. They're the sort of nice, texture filled, and Fleming-esque moments that are really interesting in the modern Bond films.

    Yeah I agree that there are limits to how “depressed” Bond is in both QOS and SF; I wouldn’t want a Bond film where he’s bummed out for a majority of the film and at least both movies avoid that. I’d still say that out all the Bonds, Craig’s version is still perhaps the most “melancholic” purely because of what fate has dealt him. It felt somewhat relieving watching his death scene because he finally found inner peace after all the turmoil of those five films, and he goes out on his own terms. I can understand why some may not like this direction (especially if they prefer a more lighthearted affair) but I don’t find it any less valid than any of the other Bonds.

    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,411
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 24 Posts: 16,472
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Like the early conflict between Bond and M in GF, OHMSS, TMWTGG, even MR at one point, and countless other Bond movies too. But as we hear so often on here, because it’s in some Craig films it’s somehow worse.
    Maybe the discourse shouldn’t be steered by one person so much.

    They actually, in my opinion, rather throw away the conflict between Bond and M in LTK, where something could really have been made of it. In retrospect I think that film misses quite a few opportunities.
  • edited October 24 Posts: 2,275
    peter wrote: »
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.

    They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷‍♂️.

    My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Like the early conflict between Bond and M in GF, OHMSS, TMWTGG, even MR at one point, and countless other Bond movies too. But as we hear so often on here, because it’s in some Craig films it’s somehow worse.
    Maybe the discourse shouldn’t be steered by one person so much.

    You forgot the small backhanded remarks between Bond and M in GE. That time M told Bond she’d left him in North Korea if she had her way in DAD. Oh and that one time M revoked Bond’s licence to kill to prevent him from disobeying orders.
  • edited October 24 Posts: 4,207
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.
    peter wrote: »
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.

    They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷‍♂️.

    My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)

    I'd love to see a film with a story/villain's scheme like TSWLM using some of the grittiness of action from CR-SF, and perhaps some of the fatalism of NTTD. TSWLM is already a great film for me with plenty of character stakes, but I'd be so interested in seeing how that mixture of fantasy and darkness in a new Bond movie. Plus, you can't go wrong with Bond trying to thwart a villain taking over the world.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,472
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    Yeah I have some reservations when it comes to NTTD, but every time I see someone say this or that shouldn’t have happened, it shows how interlinked the story is, how everything has a cause and effect and how well it works. The only really redundant element I’d say is Nomi, and even then the film loses something if you remove her.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    M helped create a weapon of mass destruction!!

    Methinks that @Mendes4Lyfe may actually have not understood the story in NTTD. I’m not being facetious, but with this last response, it’s clear to me, that perhaps Mendes just missed a lot of the plot.

    I mean, Bond’s discovered that M’s behind Heracles, and it was Heracles that was supposed to be used to kill Bond at the Spectre party. He HAS TO go back to Mi6!!. He has to confront M. And, this propels his journey forward…

    It’s not too complex a plot point at all, but seems to have been lost.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 24 Posts: 16,472
    Also don’t forget that Bond wasn’t interested in Felix’s request until M and Nomi warned him off, way too aggressively. That puts his back up and actually provokes him into action. So he’s irritated with M to start with. And then once his friend Felix is killed and his arch enemy Blofeld revealed to be involved, and then finds out M is involved with a deadly poison, what else would he do?
    There’s nothing at all wrong with this storyline.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 24 Posts: 8,411
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    What I'm saying is if your justification for Felix dying in the middle of the story is that it gives a reason for Bond to return to MI6, then Bond wouldn't need a reason to return back if he wasn't artificially beefing with M to begin with. He's a spy, taking orders from M is his job. He could just hand a dossier to Bond and say "retrieve this, 007".
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.
    peter wrote: »
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.

    They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷‍♂️.

    My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)

    I'd love to see a film with a story/villain's scheme like TSWLM using some of the grittiness of action from CR-SF, and perhaps some of the fatalism of NTTD. TSWLM is already a great film for me with plenty of character stakes, but I'd be so interested in seeing how that mixture of fantasy and darkness in a new Bond movie. Plus, you can't go wrong with Bond trying to thwart a villain taking over the world.

    That kind of describes Goldeneye in some ways (or at least how I view Goldeneye); it’s a dark movie in terms of it’s atmosphere and the grittier elements of the Dalton years bleed into it. It doesn’t quite have the fatalism of NTTD but its themes about the past, the themes of betrayal and the uncertainty of what lies ahead in a post Cold War world (from the perspective of Bond/MI6) add a similar depth imo.

    But yeah, anything like what you’ve described would be perfect. I think everyone tends to overthink these things because we’re all fans who obsess over this character we know/love. EON has yet to deliver a disaster on the levels of “Joker 2” and that puts a lot into perspective. Forgive my French, but there are a lot of Film Studios that, for lack of a better word, fuck up. Thankfully EON has enough power/weight behind their company to have a final say in their product. That’s the reason this series has lasted over 60 years.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 24 Posts: 16,472
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    What I'm saying is if you're justification for Felix dying in the middle of the story is that it gives bond a reason for Bond to return to MI6, then Bond wouldn't need a reason to return back if he wasn't artificially beefing with M to begin with. He's a spy, taking orders from M is his job. He could just hand a dossier to Bond and say "retrieve this, 007".

    I’m a little tired of your misunderstanding of the storyline to be leading so much of this conversation so I’m wary to engage, but what do you mean ‘artificially’? There’s so much reason given for the conflict between the characters in this film.
    If you look at the argument between Bond and M in Goldfinger, that seems way more artificial for me. Bond is supposedly taking Jill’s death too personally, but it’s all forgotten in a matter of moments, it’s not really convincing at all. Just thrown in to make the scene a bit more spicy, but it’s not a story.

    And no, he’s not a spy taking orders from M in NTTD. Have you actually seen it?!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    And no, he’s not a spy taking orders from M in NTTD. Have you actually seen it?!
    I wondered the same. Either Mendes saw the film and didn’t understand the simple beats, or he hasn’t seen it at all.
  • edited October 24 Posts: 4,207
    mtm wrote: »
    Also don’t forget that Bond wasn’t interested in Felix’s request until M and Nomi warned him off, way too aggressively. That puts his back up and actually provokes him into action. So he’s irritated with M to start with. And then once his friend Felix is killed and his arch enemy Blofeld revealed to be involved, and then finds out M is involved with a deadly poison, what else would he do?
    There’s nothing at all wrong with this storyline.

    True, hadn't thought of that. But yes, it's all there.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    What I'm saying is if your justification for Felix dying in the middle of the story is that it gives a reason for Bond to return to MI6, then Bond wouldn't need a reason to return back if he wasn't artificially beefing with M to begin with. He's a spy, taking orders from M is his job. He could just hand a dossier to Bond and say "retrieve this, 007".

    So essentially you don't like the concepts of this film, and by extension the last few Craig Bond films? It's personal preference and even if it's thought out it's just not your thing even if it a Bond movie? Hence why you see it as artificial?

    Either that or you've not understood or seen the film. I think it's just a case of a badly written post though, but it's a bit hard understanding what you mean. My interpretation was it's just not a film you see as being 'Bond' as it deviates ever so slightly from those tropes.

    Fair enough! If it's not to your preference that's fine, but I'm not seeing any tangible reason for these films being awful on a basic story/plot level beyond personal opinion (including mind incidentally, even if I don't see NTTD as awful and as much as I have issues with that film).
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.
    peter wrote: »
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.

    They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷‍♂️.

    My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)

    I'd love to see a film with a story/villain's scheme like TSWLM using some of the grittiness of action from CR-SF, and perhaps some of the fatalism of NTTD. TSWLM is already a great film for me with plenty of character stakes, but I'd be so interested in seeing how that mixture of fantasy and darkness in a new Bond movie. Plus, you can't go wrong with Bond trying to thwart a villain taking over the world.

    That kind of describes Goldeneye in some ways (or at least how I view Goldeneye); it’s a dark movie in terms of it’s atmosphere and the grittier elements of the Dalton years bleed into it. It doesn’t quite have the fatalism of NTTD but its themes about the past, the themes of betrayal and the uncertainty of what lies ahead in a post Cold War world (from the perspective of Bond/MI6) add a similar depth imo.

    But yeah, anything like what you’ve described would be perfect. I think everyone tends to overthink these things because we’re all fans who obsess over this character we know/love. EON has yet to deliver a disaster on the levels of “Joker 2” and that puts a lot into perspective. Forgive my French, but there are a lot of Film Studios that, for lack of a better word, fuck up. Thankfully EON has enough power/weight behind their company to have a final say in their product. That’s the reason this series has lasted over 60 years.

    Yeah, they make mistakes but at least have some sense of what they're doing and try to be true to the character/franchise. It says a lot.

    And yes, it's not unlike GE which is a film I really like and rate highly. Not to say we'll get another GE (every Bond film is unique) but I'd love if they went into it with a similar thought process.
  • Maybe the next 007 adventure should have Craig’s Bond in the afterlife having to answer for all the killing that he’s done. It could be done in the style of a jukebox musical with poorly done renditions of previous Bond songs; we can end it with Bond being sent back down to earth somehow singing either Die Another Day or You Only Live Twice before arriving back at MI6, only to be shanked by an Aaron Taylor Johnson look-alike who turns out to be the REAL 007 after all, as he straightens his cuffs while laughing manically at his own awful puns. Surely that HAS to be up everyone’s alley right?
  • edited October 24 Posts: 4,207
    Maybe the next 007 adventure should have Craig’s Bond in the afterlife having to answer for all the killing that he’s done. It could be done in the style of a jukebox musical with poorly done renditions of previous Bond songs; we can end it with Bond being sent back down to earth somehow singing either Die Another Day or You Only Live Twice before arriving back at MI6, only to be shanked by an Aaron Taylor Johnson look-alike who turns out to be the REAL 007 after all, as he straightens his cuffs while laughing manically at his own awful puns. Surely that HAS to be up everyone’s alley right?

    It's the continuation of NTTD that Bond fans (no, not regular viewers) need. No, not want, or come to love based on their individual enjoyment and a commitment to true and good storytelling on the part of those making it, but what they need.

    Nothing could go wrong.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe the next 007 adventure should have Craig’s Bond in the afterlife having to answer for all the killing that he’s done. It could be done in the style of a jukebox musical with poorly done renditions of previous Bond songs; we can end it with Bond being sent back down to earth somehow singing either Die Another Day or You Only Live Twice before arriving back at MI6, only to be shanked by an Aaron Taylor Johnson look-alike who turns out to be the REAL 007 after all, as he straightens his cuffs while laughing manically at his own awful puns. Surely that HAS to be up everyone’s alley right?

    It's the continuation of NTTD that Bond fans (no, not regular viewers) need. No, not want, or come to love based on their individual enjoyment and a commitment to true and good storytelling on the part of those making it, but what they need.

    Nothing could go wrong.

    Maybe we can have Lady Gaga in it for the purpose of having a promotional tie-in album. Nothing could go wrong at all; it certainly won’t push Amazon even further towards bankruptcy!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,327
    007HallY wrote: »
    If we’re going from recent cinema trends (which isn’t always useful when predicting Bond, or at least can get us to some odd conclusions) it’s not so much a case of anything gritty and dark being ‘out’ and lighthearted bubblegummy fare ‘in’. If that were true Oppenheimer wouldn’t be one of the highest earning movies of 2023. Nor would the R rated and rather violent Deadpool and Wolverine be one of the highest of this year.

    Probably the best indication of what Bond 26 could look like in many ways is NTTD. Not to say they’ll be similar films story-wise, but visually and in terms of tone we could potentially get something like that film’s impressionistic visuals/locations, and perhaps the jumps from dark, horrifying moments to much more outlandish ones. Even that’s very broad however.

    Personally, I wouldn’t want them to fully turn their backs on some of the stuff that really defined the early Craig films. Stuff we’d refer to as ‘gritty’. I remember people talking about CR in the years after it came out. For a lot of viewers (me certainly) it was quite impactful actually seeing cinematic Bond get injured, doing stuff like patching up his wounds after a fight or chugging whiskey to calm himself. Or indeed seeing him end up in hospital having to recover after torture. I’m sure us Bond aficionados will point out minor instances where it’d been done before, but for most viewers the films really hadn’t leaned into that stuff to quite that extent. It felt real and Bond felt more human. Fight scenes like the one on the staircase actually felt dangerous and events that could lead to Bond’s death. For me that’s something missing from SP and NTTD’s action sequences. I hope in the next era we get back some of that sense of danger and grittiness without necessarily having ‘grounded’ stories (if Bond can ever be).

    Well said.

    Tonally I thought NTTD was pretty amazing. Are there things I would change? Yes, I wish they'd spent more time explaining the dice game. Yes, I'd take some of the camp out like the Spectre symbol on the ceiling of the dance floor.

    But it was always unexpected, how they swung from horror to romance to intrigue to joy, and back again. There is a style to the directing that I enjoy.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,411
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Also don’t forget that Bond wasn’t interested in Felix’s request until M and Nomi warned him off, way too aggressively. That puts his back up and actually provokes him into action. So he’s irritated with M to start with. And then once his friend Felix is killed and his arch enemy Blofeld revealed to be involved, and then finds out M is involved with a deadly poison, what else would he do?
    There’s nothing at all wrong with this storyline.

    True, hadn't thought of that. But yes, it's all there.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    What I'm saying is if your justification for Felix dying in the middle of the story is that it gives a reason for Bond to return to MI6, then Bond wouldn't need a reason to return back if he wasn't artificially beefing with M to begin with. He's a spy, taking orders from M is his job. He could just hand a dossier to Bond and say "retrieve this, 007".

    So essentially you don't like the concepts of this film, and by extension the last few Craig Bond films? It's personal preference and even if it's thought out it's just not your thing even if it a Bond movie? Hence why you see it as artificial?

    Either that or you've not understood or seen the film. I think it's just a case of a badly written post though, but it's a bit hard understanding what you mean. My interpretation was it's just not a film you see as being 'Bond' as it deviates ever so slightly from those tropes.

    Fair enough! If it's not to your preference that's fine, but I'm not seeing any tangible reason for these films being awful on a basic story/plot level beyond personal opinion (including mind incidentally, even if I don't see NTTD as awful and as much as I have issues with that film).
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.
    peter wrote: »
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.

    They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷‍♂️.

    My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)

    I'd love to see a film with a story/villain's scheme like TSWLM using some of the grittiness of action from CR-SF, and perhaps some of the fatalism of NTTD. TSWLM is already a great film for me with plenty of character stakes, but I'd be so interested in seeing how that mixture of fantasy and darkness in a new Bond movie. Plus, you can't go wrong with Bond trying to thwart a villain taking over the world.

    That kind of describes Goldeneye in some ways (or at least how I view Goldeneye); it’s a dark movie in terms of it’s atmosphere and the grittier elements of the Dalton years bleed into it. It doesn’t quite have the fatalism of NTTD but its themes about the past, the themes of betrayal and the uncertainty of what lies ahead in a post Cold War world (from the perspective of Bond/MI6) add a similar depth imo.

    But yeah, anything like what you’ve described would be perfect. I think everyone tends to overthink these things because we’re all fans who obsess over this character we know/love. EON has yet to deliver a disaster on the levels of “Joker 2” and that puts a lot into perspective. Forgive my French, but there are a lot of Film Studios that, for lack of a better word, fuck up. Thankfully EON has enough power/weight behind their company to have a final say in their product. That’s the reason this series has lasted over 60 years.

    Yeah, they make mistakes but at least have some sense of what they're doing and try to be true to the character/franchise. It says a lot.

    And yes, it's not unlike GE which is a film I really like and rate highly. Not to say we'll get another GE (every Bond film is unique) but I'd love if they went into it with a similar thought process.

    What does "even if it a Bond movie" mean?

    It's artificial because it's finding a solution to a problem that Bond films don't have to begin with. M is Bond's boss, he gives him orders, there doesn't need to be another justification or reason getting him there. If your defense is "well, you just don't like the concepts of this film, its personal preference" fine, but you can say the same about any Bond film, or any film in general, so I'm not sure what point your proving with that.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    But it was always unexpected, how they swung from horror to romance to intrigue to joy, and back again. There is a style to the directing that I enjoy.

    Well said, and why I love the film. Fukunaga’s a very talented storyteller, both as a writer and a director.
  • The issues with NTTD have nothing really to do with the Bond-M relationship or the writing or whatever. Excluding the execution of the ending, my main problem is that it's a like Die Another Day inside Skyfall. While that's obviously a dramatisation, No Time to Die invites us to take the story seriously, with serious character beats and changes. But I always find there's a bit of ridiculousness that's hard to suspend.

    NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    I think for the next era there should the sort of real-world nature that surrounds the character. Smaller and more realistic stakes. The espionage game, sabotage, terrorism, something like that.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Also don’t forget that Bond wasn’t interested in Felix’s request until M and Nomi warned him off, way too aggressively. That puts his back up and actually provokes him into action. So he’s irritated with M to start with. And then once his friend Felix is killed and his arch enemy Blofeld revealed to be involved, and then finds out M is involved with a deadly poison, what else would he do?
    There’s nothing at all wrong with this storyline.

    True, hadn't thought of that. But yes, it's all there.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    What I'm saying is if your justification for Felix dying in the middle of the story is that it gives a reason for Bond to return to MI6, then Bond wouldn't need a reason to return back if he wasn't artificially beefing with M to begin with. He's a spy, taking orders from M is his job. He could just hand a dossier to Bond and say "retrieve this, 007".

    So essentially you don't like the concepts of this film, and by extension the last few Craig Bond films? It's personal preference and even if it's thought out it's just not your thing even if it a Bond movie? Hence why you see it as artificial?

    Either that or you've not understood or seen the film. I think it's just a case of a badly written post though, but it's a bit hard understanding what you mean. My interpretation was it's just not a film you see as being 'Bond' as it deviates ever so slightly from those tropes.

    Fair enough! If it's not to your preference that's fine, but I'm not seeing any tangible reason for these films being awful on a basic story/plot level beyond personal opinion (including mind incidentally, even if I don't see NTTD as awful and as much as I have issues with that film).
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.
    peter wrote: »
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.

    They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷‍♂️.

    My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)

    I'd love to see a film with a story/villain's scheme like TSWLM using some of the grittiness of action from CR-SF, and perhaps some of the fatalism of NTTD. TSWLM is already a great film for me with plenty of character stakes, but I'd be so interested in seeing how that mixture of fantasy and darkness in a new Bond movie. Plus, you can't go wrong with Bond trying to thwart a villain taking over the world.

    That kind of describes Goldeneye in some ways (or at least how I view Goldeneye); it’s a dark movie in terms of it’s atmosphere and the grittier elements of the Dalton years bleed into it. It doesn’t quite have the fatalism of NTTD but its themes about the past, the themes of betrayal and the uncertainty of what lies ahead in a post Cold War world (from the perspective of Bond/MI6) add a similar depth imo.

    But yeah, anything like what you’ve described would be perfect. I think everyone tends to overthink these things because we’re all fans who obsess over this character we know/love. EON has yet to deliver a disaster on the levels of “Joker 2” and that puts a lot into perspective. Forgive my French, but there are a lot of Film Studios that, for lack of a better word, fuck up. Thankfully EON has enough power/weight behind their company to have a final say in their product. That’s the reason this series has lasted over 60 years.

    Yeah, they make mistakes but at least have some sense of what they're doing and try to be true to the character/franchise. It says a lot.

    And yes, it's not unlike GE which is a film I really like and rate highly. Not to say we'll get another GE (every Bond film is unique) but I'd love if they went into it with a similar thought process.

    What does "even if it a Bond movie" mean?

    It's artificial because it's finding a solution to a problem that Bond films don't have to begin with. M is Bond's boss, he gives him orders, there doesn't need to be another justification or reason getting him there. If your defense is "well, you just don't like the concepts of this film, its personal preference" fine, but you can say the same about any Bond film, or any film in general, so I'm not sure what point your proving with that.

    @Mendes4Lyfe , it’s been explained to you: M isn’t his boss in NTTD!

    It’s clear you missed the simplest of plot beats, or, you didn’t see the film. It’s obvious your problems with the film stem from one, or the other.

    Perhaps you should actually watch the film you so hate, before hating on it?

    Or if you have seen it, it’s clear from today, you missed just about every beat to the plot there is!!

  • NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    To be fair there are a lot of Bond films that feel surreal, almost “dream like.” I think YOLT and Moonraker are definitely such films, and despite the grounded storytelling, I don’t think NTTD is that far off from those films in terms of tone/style.
  • edited October 24 Posts: 4,207
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Also don’t forget that Bond wasn’t interested in Felix’s request until M and Nomi warned him off, way too aggressively. That puts his back up and actually provokes him into action. So he’s irritated with M to start with. And then once his friend Felix is killed and his arch enemy Blofeld revealed to be involved, and then finds out M is involved with a deadly poison, what else would he do?
    There’s nothing at all wrong with this storyline.

    True, hadn't thought of that. But yes, it's all there.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    What I'm saying is if your justification for Felix dying in the middle of the story is that it gives a reason for Bond to return to MI6, then Bond wouldn't need a reason to return back if he wasn't artificially beefing with M to begin with. He's a spy, taking orders from M is his job. He could just hand a dossier to Bond and say "retrieve this, 007".

    So essentially you don't like the concepts of this film, and by extension the last few Craig Bond films? It's personal preference and even if it's thought out it's just not your thing even if it a Bond movie? Hence why you see it as artificial?

    Either that or you've not understood or seen the film. I think it's just a case of a badly written post though, but it's a bit hard understanding what you mean. My interpretation was it's just not a film you see as being 'Bond' as it deviates ever so slightly from those tropes.

    Fair enough! If it's not to your preference that's fine, but I'm not seeing any tangible reason for these films being awful on a basic story/plot level beyond personal opinion (including mind incidentally, even if I don't see NTTD as awful and as much as I have issues with that film).
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.
    peter wrote: »
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.

    They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷‍♂️.

    My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)

    I'd love to see a film with a story/villain's scheme like TSWLM using some of the grittiness of action from CR-SF, and perhaps some of the fatalism of NTTD. TSWLM is already a great film for me with plenty of character stakes, but I'd be so interested in seeing how that mixture of fantasy and darkness in a new Bond movie. Plus, you can't go wrong with Bond trying to thwart a villain taking over the world.

    That kind of describes Goldeneye in some ways (or at least how I view Goldeneye); it’s a dark movie in terms of it’s atmosphere and the grittier elements of the Dalton years bleed into it. It doesn’t quite have the fatalism of NTTD but its themes about the past, the themes of betrayal and the uncertainty of what lies ahead in a post Cold War world (from the perspective of Bond/MI6) add a similar depth imo.

    But yeah, anything like what you’ve described would be perfect. I think everyone tends to overthink these things because we’re all fans who obsess over this character we know/love. EON has yet to deliver a disaster on the levels of “Joker 2” and that puts a lot into perspective. Forgive my French, but there are a lot of Film Studios that, for lack of a better word, fuck up. Thankfully EON has enough power/weight behind their company to have a final say in their product. That’s the reason this series has lasted over 60 years.

    Yeah, they make mistakes but at least have some sense of what they're doing and try to be true to the character/franchise. It says a lot.

    And yes, it's not unlike GE which is a film I really like and rate highly. Not to say we'll get another GE (every Bond film is unique) but I'd love if they went into it with a similar thought process.

    What does "even if it a Bond movie" mean?

    It's artificial because it's finding a solution to a problem that Bond films don't have to begin with. M is Bond's boss, he gives him orders, there doesn't need to be another justification or reason getting him there. If your defense is "well, you just don't like the concepts of this film, its personal preference" fine, but you can say the same about any Bond film, or any film in general, so I'm not sure what point your proving with that.

    Well, it’s simply that I get the sense you don’t like the way they told this particular Bond film/adventure. It’s not a failing of the script or even story itself.

    Why does Bond have to disobey his order to shoot Kara in TLD? It’s an artificial solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in other Bond films as he usually just gets given his job by M and does it. In this one his decision impacts the plot/leads to him being able to disobey M and continue his mission effectively alone. Why does Bond have to be the best man at Leiter’s wedding in LTK? It’s an artificial solution to a problem that doesn’t usually exist in Bond films and leads more directly into Bond helping apprehend Sanchez, discovering Leiter’s mauled body and committing to revenge. Why does Travelyan have to assist Bond during the PTS of GE? It’s an artificial solution to a problem etc etc etc.

    Can you at least sort of see what I’m getting at here?
Sign In or Register to comment.