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

AstonLotus

I pretty much agree with the Drinker.

CraigMooreOHMSS

bondsum wrote: »

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

slide_99 wrote: »

If the Craig era is supposed to be its own continuity why is he driving Connery's Aston Martin around in Skyfall? That's more than just fan service, since it becomes a major aspect of the plot towards the end. What's the in-movie explanation for why a guy who became a 00 in 2006 has a car laden with 1960s-era gadgets? It's like if Nolan's Batman had been driving Burton's Batmobile around in the TDK movies. Doesn't make sense within the context of a reboot. The producers just wanted to have it both ways, ignoring the previous films while leaning on them for nostalgia.

He won it in a game of poker.

When did Bond win the 1969 Aston Martin DBS from a game of poker in NTTD though?

You have me there! The DB5 has an in-universe explanation, but the DBS is quite random. I wasn't complaining too much though (the film gave me plenty of other things to be critical of) as it's probably my favourite Bond car.

Scaramanga1974

Anyone else think think that somehow(don’t ask me how) Bond 26 will show he survived but was facially scarred so badly he needs plastic surgery and hey presto we will see the new actor ans we will still have continuity? Or is this too far fetched and we will end up with a hard reboot.

Mallory

Scaramanga1974 wrote: »

Anyone else think think that somehow(don’t ask me how) Bond 26 will show he survived but was facially scarred so badly he needs plastic surgery and hey presto we will see the new actor ans we will still have continuity? Or is this too far fetched and we will end up with a hard reboot.

Hard reboot, has to be.

CraigMooreOHMSS

It'll be a hard reboot. They've given Craig the free reign to craft his era, and they'll likely want to do the same with the next guy.

MakeshiftPython

Quite a contrast to the 60s when EON showed no interest in Connery’s request for more creative input and higher salaries.

4EverBonded

.No mention of past history tying to Craig's Bond. It just isn't necessary at all. Fresh start. The series will continue, but we have Craig's era as a separate set of films; which I appreciate.

muzz100

Scaramanga1974 wrote: »

Anyone else think think that somehow(don’t ask me how) Bond 26 will show he survived but was facially scarred so badly he needs plastic surgery and hey presto we will see the new actor ans we will still have continuity? Or is this too far fetched and we will end up with a hard reboot.

Oh, this old thing? ;)

Scaramanga1974

4EverBonded wrote: »

.No mention of past history tying to Craig's Bond. It just isn't necessary at all. Fresh start. The series will continue, but we have Craig's era as a separate set of films; which I appreciate.

Fair point. I was just spitballing ideas to compensate for my current grieving process! Brilliant film but I was secretly hoping Craig’s Bond was going to get the happy ending with new found family he deserved even though he died a hero.

MajorDSmythe

AstonLotus wrote: »

I pretty much agree with the Drinker.

"A confusing stew of a movie...[snip]"

Replace 'confusing' with 'confused', and he'd be more nearer the mark. Otherwise, he pretty much nailed it, coming down on both sides of the divide.


It's been two days, and I still can't decide where exactly I stand regards NTTD.

sworddevil1

Mallory wrote: »

I think as fans we need to be careful about making assumptions as to where the series goes next,

We know:

- Amazon have (or are about to buy) MGM. That will put pressure on EON to produce as they will want to start seeing a return on their purchase.
- The distribution of films into the marketplace is going through a fundamental change.
- Current trends are towards extended or more linked up “universes” with spin offs.

What we dont know:

- Is Michael G Wilson, at 80 now, going to continue or retire? Babs thanking him at the premiere makes me believe the latter.
- If so, will someone like Gregg Wilson take on full producing role, or will BB continue as a sole producer?
- What will the long term reaction to NTTD be?

If NTTD is extremely successful financially (which the opening international figures suggest), that gives EON the argument to continue as is.

If the film craters in the coming weeks, does that put more power in MGM and Amazon’s hands?

All these questions will be answered in time. And the wait will be agonising.

Watch the Rotten Tomatoes audience meter. That’s as good a gauge as any for fan reaction. It was extremely telling with Star Wars 7-9. I believe you are going to see a divisive figure. Guessing: maybe 55 like, 45 % don’t, could be worse. Some say fans left cheering, some (many) say fans left feeling morbid, depressed, and bleak. I watched Star Wars The Last Jedi, and it basically crapped all over the canon of Star Wars and ruined it (just my opinion). It felt so far removed from a SW movie, that I couldn’t interpret it rationally. Doesn’t sound like this is the case with NTTD, but the ending is what will define the film (for better or worse). My uncle is a huge Bond fan. Watched since Connery at the theatre. I said “what if” they killed Bond in a movie. He said, “I’d never give them another cent. They can’t do that.” I saw Casino Royale 10 times at the theatre. Every time the audience applauded and was excited. Every time. That’s what you want. Again, to me, and many others, the ending ruins the movie. It could be a perfect 10/10 until the end, and then it’s destroyed. Not only does it ruin NTTD, but it makes me not want to rewatch the other Craig Bonds. It puts a dark cloud over them, so to speak. Again, just my opinion. Overall, the Critics give it 83% fresh right now, but the top critics say 74%. Both of these will drop when it hits the US. No audience score available as of now.

Roadphill

HalfOfEverything wrote: »

Seen it last night. Thought it was smashing. This is likely going to turn into a bit of a rambling essay as I compile my thoughts as I go along, but here it goes:

Completely understand the disappointment from those who have seen it, who hold in their opinion what they think the ideal formula ought to be. My general and gentle counter argument to that would be that Daniel Craig's era has been inclined about breaking the formula. Be it "Bond begins", Bond bleeds, an attempt to emulate the Bourne style with QoS, killing off M, making Blofeld an adoptive brother, etc, etc. The ending, in my mind, with all things considered about it, fit this particular era, this particular batch of storylines.

Daniel Craig was the soft reset, it wasn't meant to fit in with the (very very very loose) continuity of the other 5. Any references to those films of bygone years were purely for nostalgic nods to the fans, not a sense that this was the "same" James bond. Hell. I've been more disappointed at times in the past when it was meant to be the same and the total tonal shift that created - Diamonds are forever following OHMSS for example: "I'll drown a Blofeld clone in mud for killing my wife on our wedding day (in one of the darkest stories), then next time we meet I'll kill his other clone by kicking his cat, whilst having a perfectly rational conversation with a man so so evil he later dresses in drag and says with all seriousness 'prepare my bathosub'... And oh, he now has a different face... and so do I!!! (in one of the campest stories of the series) "... I mean?!? These were meant to be the exact same people. As was Pierce Brosnan kite surfing a tsunami, Roger Moore floating round in space and Timothy Dalton igniting Sanchez. It was unfeasible when you remove your Bond Head. Casino Royale to NTTD was an attempt to be somewhat feasible, in its own little bubble which, as all bubbles do, had to form and burst.

Because the Daniel Craig era, at least in hindsight (and whilst definitely cobbled together as they went along) at least has its own story and attempt at continuity going with it. The good thing for me about killing him off, is the next bond won't have all this baggage. He can go back to being the blunt instrument without the ghost of Vesper hanging over him. He can go back to being solitary without having to fear for his daughter. We can go back to a time where the worlds greatest super villains arent people who have a jealousy of bond or his love interest . Each film could be standalone. Or alternatively, they could do similar again - but different. Or better. But the key thing is , it will be without all the baggage of this batch of five films where they purposely, it would seem, tried to keep doing something different. And so by default, kept putting a noose around the neck with too much weight to keep carrying over. Now, that weight is gone and it all starts anew. A new actor would merely be emulating Daniel Craig I feel, be bound by all these controversial story beats, had they stepped into his specific continuity line. It would be unavoidable. Unfeasible. In killing him off, they now don't have to worry about that. Everyone now knows that whomever comes in, it'll be another alternate take on the James Bond character

For those who haven't seen it, but have been spoiled, I understand your apprehension. If someone told me up front what was going to happen - as much as I suspected it might (and for me, the title sequence with its fallen symbol of Britain confirmed my suspicions) - it would perhaps have soured my expectation. But I went into the film having recently rewatched the 24 others. And you see the shift between the old and the new. You see how Daniel Craig was intended to be its own batch in the general continuity which, when considered, couldn't be continuity anyways... the series has always subconsciously asked for a suspension of disbelief to believe it was, stretching from 60s to 00s. Now we have a little box set of 5, telling their own story . Starting it. And for once - ending it.

Did they need to kill him off (a question Fleming himself had difficulty over)? Well no. They didn't need to make any of the choices they have over the last 15 years. But the ones they have fit together (sometimes forcibly) and this was the ending these stories, when reviewed outside the bias mind of a die hard bond fan (of which, I am), had to lead to. Whether it's execution throughout was ideal, or not. So I would say, don't let the spoilers turn you away from seeing it. Could it be depressing for you? It could sure, of course it could when the character means so much. But whilst I felt a bit of melancholy - after sleeping on it particular, I see why they done this. I see it makes sense in order to ensure that , with a new face, a new timeline: "James Bond will return".

And if you don't watch it, I feel you're genuinely missing out on some of the best in the series for the sake of Daniel Craig's ending. As much as I've talked about the main controversial plot point I really don't want to go into detail about the film itself as there is so much in there, especially the action scenes, that words alone cannot do credit. You simply have to see it. From the much hyped car chase scenes highlighted in all the trailers, to Cuba, to the very creepy beginning and very controversial ending. There is a lot of enjoyment to have (even if you want to try and come up with a scenario to ignore the finality of it all. Fleming did, after all, when he toyed with the idea of finishing Bond once and for all).

This isn't your father's James Bond no. Just as this won't be the next generations James Bond. Thats kind of how this series has survived. And why Bond himself in this particular film has not. Other interpretations of the character have, and will. And we will all continue to have our varied and strong opinions of each and every actor, each and every movie. Some will passionately defend NTTD as much as some will stare on in disbelief when others say they don't rate FRWL, or think DAD is misunderstood. That's the nature of this series. There's something for everyone, even if every one can't provide the something all are looking for. And now this era is finalised and the series moves on afresh, because it must. And whatever that afresh may be, it will be tremendously exciting to see how it will pan out.

Don't agree with it all, but a terrific post, and argument, old chap.

muzz100

I’m watching them all again now. I’d forgotten how cringe parts of SF are tbh. I think that looking for unity across a number of films that weren’t made with that in mind is natural but impossible. That in itself is a lot of the appeal of Bond. It’s the ultimate pop culture experience. In and of its time and yet not and never can be. You can’t bottle lightning. And imagine being part of this great thing of pop culture and the hopes of people you carry with you. Especially these days. Impossible.

Jeffrey

Aternate ending:

Bond kills Safin without being poisoned.

Wide shot of the island getting blown up.

And then:

bondywondy

Mallory wrote: »

I think as fans we need to be careful about making assumptions as to where the series goes next,

We know:

- Amazon have (or are about to buy) MGM. That will put pressure on EON to produce as they will want to start seeing a return on their purchase.
- The distribution of films into the marketplace is going through a fundamental change.
- Current trends are towards extended or more linked up “universes” with spin offs.

What we dont know:

- Is Michael G Wilson, at 80 now, going to continue or retire? Babs thanking him at the premiere makes me believe the latter.
- If so, will someone like Gregg Wilson take on full producing role, or will BB continue as a sole producer?
- What will the long term reaction to NTTD be?

If NTTD is extremely successful financially (which the opening international figures suggest), that gives EON the argument to continue as is.

If the film craters in the coming weeks, does that put more power in MGM and Amazon’s hands?

All these questions will be answered in time. And the wait will be agonising.

Amazon generates billions in retail sales so I don't see any incentive for Amazon to want Bond 26 and beyond in cinemas. Cinemas get around half the box office gross. I think the percentage is a sliding scale per week of release.

Future Bond films on Amazon Prime Video streaming remove the cinema chains cut of profits. Amazon believes streaming is a viable money maker hence why it's making a 400 million dollar Lord of the Rings tv reboot.

How Amazon Prime Video makes money:

The service shares its revenue numbers with its parent company, Amazon. Another differentiator is the lack of a standard subscription fee. Instead, Amazon Prime Video counts on the massive amount of annual Prime subscribers, who pay $119 a year to enjoy all the benefits Prime has to offer. According to reports at the end of 2019, Amazon Prime Video had 96.5 million viewers and counting.

This means Bond 26 will be funded from Amazon Prime subscription base? I guess so. 119 per year or $12.99 per month.

In theory Bond 26 exclusively on Amazon Prime Video should attract more customers to join the service. The bottom line is Amazon don't need Bond films to be theatrical releases if Amazon can generate enough new subscribers to watch the films on Amazon Prime Video (which also allows extra benefits when buying Amazon products).

I think Amazon will not release Bond 26 in cinemas. Maybe 60:40 probability? Unless coronavirus is completely gone in the next few years and box-office back to pre coronavirus numbers, I can't see them honouring any deal to keep Bond in the cinemas.

Roadphill

Jeffrey wrote: »

Aternate ending:

Bond kills Safin without being poisoned.

Wide shot of the island getting blown up.

And then:

If only..

muzz100

Ah the jet bike. Kids skate down the street on powered scooters these days, no test no nothing. Just saying.

Colonel_Venus

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

The simple question is 'What else could they done?'

I remember reading a rumour somewhere that Danny Boyle wanted to end his film with Bond meeting the Queen and getting a knighthood. That scene, especially with the Queen playing herself like in the Olympics short film would have been an all-time crowd pleaser.

sworddevil1

muzz100 wrote: »

I’m watching them all again now. I’d forgotten how cringe parts of SF are tbh. I think that looking for unity across a number of films that weren’t made with that in mind is natural but impossible. That in itself is a lot of the appeal of Bond. It’s the ultimate pop culture experience. In and of its time and yet not and never can be. You can’t bottle lightning. And imagine being part of this great thing of pop culture and the hopes of people you carry with you. Especially these days. Impossible.

I wasn’t a big fan of the casino fight and Bond’s expressions during that sequence (SF). Really, that’s probably my biggest complaint. Jumping the dragons, etc. Little too campy. In SP, the sound made when the helicopter is in the air, the sound effect: I was like, “my God, why would they do that (cringe)?”

4EverBonded

Future Bond films only on streaming services and not in the cinema? Not in my lifetime, I hope. I am retiring soon, yet I hope to live a good many years still. ;)

muzz100

Also, and someone please tell me where to post this, I’ve worked out what irks me about the climax to SF. Bear with. There’s a suggestion in the books of a Celtic origin of Bond, possibly boarding school, iirc. But the country seat in SF is ludicrously noble. Ok, we suspend disbelief because movies. But how did this get through quality control on creative terms? I can see of course how it works for bangs and blasts. Of course. But DC looks out of place. As would we all, I imagine. I knew it didn’t work. And now I know why. We all like to think we came from that sort of place but the reality is that if we did we’d behave differently.

4EverBonded

There is more than one Skyfall thread your comment would belong in. Go to the left hand list of categories; one is "Skyfall".

sworddevil1

Colonel_Venus wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

The simple question is 'What else could they done?'

I remember reading a rumour somewhere that Danny Boyle wanted to end his film with Bond meeting the Queen and getting a knighthood. That scene, especially with the Queen playing herself like in the Olympics short film would have been an all-time crowd pleaser.

That would have been fantastic! A+

muzz100

4EverBonded wrote: »

There is more than one Skyfall thread your comment would belong in.

Thank you.

matt_u

Colonel_Venus wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

The simple question is 'What else could they done?'

I remember reading a rumour somewhere that Danny Boyle wanted to end his film with Bond meeting the Queen and getting a knighthood. That scene, especially with the Queen playing herself like in the Olympics short film would have been an all-time crowd pleaser.

That would’ve been just silly. Thank God they got rid of Boyle.

muzz100

I can’t ever see how Boyle could have done Bond. He’s no form for anything with gravitas.

Mallory

matt_u wrote: »

Colonel_Venus wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote: »

The simple question is 'What else could they done?'

I remember reading a rumour somewhere that Danny Boyle wanted to end his film with Bond meeting the Queen and getting a knighthood. That scene, especially with the Queen playing herself like in the Olympics short film would have been an all-time crowd pleaser.

That would’ve been just silly. Thank God they got rid of Boyle.

Better than what we got.

At least things wouldve come full circle for Purvis and Wade, as that is how Johnny English ends.

Colonel_Venus

muzz100 wrote: »

I can’t ever see how Boyle could have done Bond. He’s no form for anything with gravitas.

But Bond doesn't need to have gravitas, and I am saying that as someone who liked NTTD. Dr No for example is a great film, but it isn't a film with much gravitas.

muzz100

Too true. Bondspotting?

muzz100

Whose idea was it anyway?