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

16768707273298

Comments

  • Posts: 4,611
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    bondsum wrote: »
    And with this we are back to an old question: why a lot of people complain about Bond being not Fleming's Bond while if there is one made like Fleming's is Craig's and the others have significant differences, such as this one?
    I mean, Fleming's Blofeld trilogy was a three stories arc very well connected, while cinematics one isn't.
    So, what you say is true on the cinematic side, not on the original intention of the author
    Sorry @SkyfallCraig. I added a bit extra to my last post which you missed. Yes, you're right about the literary character having a proper book trilogy. As I pointed out in a much earlier post, the proper sequence of OHMSS followed by YOLT was knocked out of chronological order due a lack of heavy snowfall and suitable Piz Gloria location in 1966. It didn't really effect YOLT as they didn't follow the book too closely, but it did effect OHMSS as it was cleary written preceding those events. The fact that a different actor was playing the lead role helped disguise the fact that it could be down to plastic surgery that they don't recognise each other, though it was never filmed, only discussed in the press and by the producers at the time. Not that it really mattered after 1970, as OHMSS was sort of put to one side and mostly forgetten about until the rise of VHS in the 80's. What you also have to remember is the producer's template were the Tarzan movies, not Batman. Cubby even stated that it was Tarzan audiences came to see, not the actor playing him. The Tarzan movies weren't shot in complete order to their literary source material either.

    didn't know the plastic surgery part, thanks for sharing!
    Yes, that almost became the norm for every new Bond actor. They even took the same idea and reused it in DAF with Blofeld.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    I_Spy wrote: »
    I envy those who can shrug it off.

    I just want to point out that a lot of Bond fans inhere loved this particular ending. Perhaps in time you will be able to at least not feel so betrayed.
  • patb wrote: »
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)

    My thoughts exactly, well put, also the V8 was the one driven by Dalton in TLD same reg again.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    patb wrote: »
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)

    What you are asking it's impossible, because it will bring to Bond's end.
    You says "If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)", but this is not coincedence. It's how it works. It's part of the universe.
    It's the same thing that having M; Q; Moneypenny for each Bond. You have M as Bond's boss, and you have DB5 as Bond's car.
    It is part of the Bond "base kit", it doesn't necessarily imply that two Bonds are connected because they have the same car.
    Otherwise M should not be there (or at least not be the same between PB and DC), Omega should not be the watch, MI6 should not be the employer, Bond should not be 007
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    patb wrote: »
    If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    Bond might've gotten that car during some unseen mission that took place between QOS and SF. Apart from that car there isn't any suggestions that Craig's Bond had fought against Auric Goldfinger. And since he obviously was unaware of SPECTRE and Blofeld it is safe to assume that he hadn't encountered them before. So he clearly wasn't the same man who Connery or Lazenby played. Moore's Bond dropped Blofeld, his wife's murderer, into a chimney, so he clearly was the same man.

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    patb wrote: »
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)

    Craig Bond even went as far as to have someone rip the left-hand drive DB5 he won in CR apart and completely re-build it as a right-hand drive car with loads of gadgets in time for Skyfall...

    In a way you could say that reveal in Skyfall is when it all goes off the rails a little bit. I am writing this off the top of my head, but before that the call-backs were mainly of the origin story variety (meaning we are getting explanations for things we already know to be canon, like the car and the Dinner suits and so on) and from then on they are more and more disconnected from the actual reality of the Craig films and become floating meta-connections that don't make a lot of sense, but look cool.
  • Posts: 1,394
    I feel this movie will be The Last Jedi of the Bond series.Well received by the access media ( Those who get paid to watch the film but are obligated to write a good review rather than risk losing exclusive interviews and set visits ) but really divisive amongst the hard core fan base ( The people who actually pay to see the movies multiple times,buy the blu ray,merchandise ).

    I didn’t feel anything when Craig’s Bond died really as he’s my least favourite actor in the role.The whole Cuba sequence was a delight and felt for about 20 minutes that I was watching a real Bond film.I really hope the next actor and era brings back the fun ( and stand-alone films ) to the franchise.
  • patb wrote: »
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)

    Craig Bond even went as far as to have someone rip the left-hand drive DB5 he won in CR apart and completely re-build it as a right-hand drive car with loads of gadgets in time for Skyfall...

    In a way you could say that reveal in Skyfall is when it all goes off the rails a little bit. I am writing this off the top of my head, but before that the call-backs were mainly of the origin story variety (meaning we are getting explanations for things we already know to be canon, like the car and the Dinner suits and so on) and from then on they are more and more disconnected from the actual reality of the Craig films and become floating meta-connections that don't make a lot of sense, but look cool.

    Good points again, but don't you think the car becomes less cool each time it's used.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    patb wrote: »
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)

    Craig Bond even went as far as to have someone rip the left-hand drive DB5 he won in CR apart and completely re-build it as a right-hand drive car with loads of gadgets in time for Skyfall...

    In a way you could say that reveal in Skyfall is when it all goes off the rails a little bit. I am writing this off the top of my head, but before that the call-backs were mainly of the origin story variety (meaning we are getting explanations for things we already know to be canon, like the car and the Dinner suits and so on) and from then on they are more and more disconnected from the actual reality of the Craig films and become floating meta-connections that don't make a lot of sense, but look cool.

    it's not the same db5, clearly
  • Posts: 346
    bondywondy wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    James Bond will return.

    .... which is Eon telling you James Bond is not dead. He's not dead. The text doesn't say

    A rebooted James Bond will return.
    Casino Royale was a reboot, and at the end of Die Another Day, it said James Bond will return.

    Also, Craig's Bond is in no way connected to any other. He's his own universe. It's been pretty clear that's the case since before Casino was even released. And again, even if Craig's Bond didn't die, they'd still reboot it, because to carry on his narrative with a different, younger actor, would make no sense.

    And killing Bond makes sense? Lol

    Tell that to all the fans that feel betrayed by that decision!

    Oh well I tried. I can't convince you lot you are all wrong. Wait and see... in three years time Bondywondy will be proven right and you can say "sorry, Bondywondy, you were right all along."
    😎 😉

    It actually does make sense. You (and others) may not like it, but this separate continuity allows them to kill Bond without and real impact to future films. What wouldn't make sense is to carry on this iteration of Bond who has been aging in-story over the past 3 films.

    I respectfully and profoundly disagree that it makes sense. Not wishing to bore you or others too long but here are reasons why it makes no sense and is therefore wrong.

    1 - 'Morality'
    Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson didn't create James Bond. They were bequeathed the character due to bloodline. Ian Fleming created James Bond and Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman created/developed the cinematic version. From the most basic moral standpoint you can easily argue B and MG have no unilateral moral right to kill off Bond. They inherited the character so it is morally incumbent upon them to preserve Bond, not kill him off to appease an actor in his final film portraying James Bond.

    2 - 'Divisive'
    Killing James Bond creates a huge and potential forever rift in the fanbase. Many fans will never forgive or understand why Eon killed off Bond. I'm not going to guess what percentage of the fanbase hate the death of James Bond but it exists and will continue to exist. This is Eon's fault. There was zero reason to create this division in the fanbase. It serves no purpose at all. It doesn't bring the Bond fans closer together so it was nonsensical of Eon to allow the division to happen.

    3 - 'Disrespectful'
    Killing Bond is completely disrespectful to all the fans that have loyally supported the franchise since 1962. If Eon Productions can't see that or can see that but couldn't care less, that doesn't say much about them, does it? Nope.

    4 - 'Continuity nightmare'
    Killing off Bond destroys any semblance of linear continuity in the franchise. If Bond is dead in NTTD but alive in Bond 26 it's inherently nonsensical. Sure, fans can argue "it's just a reboot, deal with it!" but that doesn't negate nor justify the fact Bond died in Bond 25. You kill off Bond but he's still alive. Nonsensical.

    5 - 'Arrogance'
    It is the height of arrogance for Eon to kill off Bond, expect fans to be emotionally affected by his death, but then expect them to forget his death (or put it to one side) and form a long queue to see Bond 26. It's arrogant presumption to expect fans to accept his death then sheepishly accept he's alive again.

    6 - 'Meaningless death'
    The death of Bond is meaningless because we all know Bond isn't dead. People can argue and say "but Bond is dead, the next Bond isn't Craig's Bond!" but imho that view is nonsensical. The next Bond will be a 00, be referred to as James Bond, get orders from M, go on missions. He's still James Bond in character and job so his death in the previous film is meaningless. Death has meaning because it's loss. The person never comes back but Bond is coming back in Bond 26 so it's a lossless death. Nonsensical.

    All these reasons give me hope Bond isn't dead. The death of James Bond is a deliberate cliffhanger? It's possible. We'll have to wait and see.

    1) they have, since it is widely known It was Fleming intent too. But even if It wasn't, they have the right to do what they want
    2) as a blonde Bond did. See where we are now.
    3) i don't know how to reply. It's a complete nonsense
    4) oh yes, because Lazenby referring to "the other fella" that should be himself, or Craig gaining his double 0 after Brosnan was on the field the movie before makes completely continuity sense. Right
    5)same as 3. I see much more arrogance in believing, Just because you go to the cinema, to be the gate keeper of Bond
    6) Meaningless? All Craig arc Is about death. He Is affected by Vesper death, M death, wants to avenge Felix death.
    He comes to realize that he brings death with him. People around him dies, wheter he Is there or not. Safin killed MR White's wife even if he wasn't there.
    So the only way to keep them safe from all the danger from his past Is to be away from them, to be no longer related, to be dead. And much more than this, he arrived to the conclusion that a life without his loved ones Is not worth living. In YOLT he has One last Mission, to avenge Tracy. Here he has completed his Mission: his family Is safe, he has Avenged all.
    End

    whatever-dude-whatever.jpg
    😉
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 4,611
    How do we know that the RM Blofeld is the same guy as the SC Blofeld? We already have two Blofelds in different universes. Once the precedent is set, (same characters in different universes) why take it for granted that the Blofeld from the RM era is the same as the Blofeld in the SC era. This is how it gets really twisted. You could say that SC and RM had the same boss but, oh, hold on. Fans have made assumptions re the connections/time lines between Bonds (inc myself) but once you have different universes, then everything is "up in the air"
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    patb wrote: »
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)

    Craig Bond even went as far as to have someone rip the left-hand drive DB5 he won in CR apart and completely re-build it as a right-hand drive car with loads of gadgets in time for Skyfall...

    In a way you could say that reveal in Skyfall is when it all goes off the rails a little bit. I am writing this off the top of my head, but before that the call-backs were mainly of the origin story variety (meaning we are getting explanations for things we already know to be canon, like the car and the Dinner suits and so on) and from then on they are more and more disconnected from the actual reality of the Craig films and become floating meta-connections that don't make a lot of sense, but look cool.

    it's not the same db5, clearly

    We discussed this topic dozens of times. Basically that's up to personal interpretations. The SF DB5 could very well be the CR one but modified by Whishaw's Q predecessor as a favor to Bond...
  • Posts: 625
    Mallory wrote: »
    MI6 HQ posted an interesting tweet yesterday: "The headlines surrounding Boyle’s departure are the wrong way around. He didn’t agree to doing something they wanted to do. So they found someone else willing to go along with it." https://twitter.com/jamesbondlive/status/1444728273531850755

    Yep. Rumour at the time was either Boyle wanted to kill Bond, or the producers did, and the other disagreed. Now we know which one it was.

    See:

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/mar/21/danny-boyle-says-script-dispute-made-him-quit-bond-25

    Rumours of contention included a suggestion that Boyle and Hodge wanted to kill off the Daniel Craig 007, and that Boyle wanted the little known Polish actor Tomasz Kot, star of Cold War, to play the villain.

    These were the first rum
    jobo wrote: »
    Really? Review bombing, hateful trolls - that's all spiteful, infantile, and stupid. What a shame the industry and viewers and fans have to plough through muck like that these days. I wish there were an easier way to stop them.

    The internet can be a truly evil environment...

    Yep.
    It's normal, that people who don't like something will write more about it than people who
    patb wrote: »
    How do we know that the RM Blofeld is the same guy as the SC Blofeld? We already have two Blofelds in different universes. Once the precedent is set, (same characters in different universes) why take it for granted that the Blofeld from the RM era is the same as the Blofeld in the SC era. This is how it gets really twisted. You could say that SC and RM had the same boss but, oh, hold on.

    It's the same Blofeld, but in a different envoironmet. And that's true for every character. And first of all for Bond himself.
    But every film builds its own surroundings. So each Film has only to be true to itself, not to the other films that came before or after.

    So Felix can die in NTTD without ever being wounded by a shark before. And he can be wounded by a shark in LTK and not die. It's still te same charakter, portrayed in a different way only with the logic of the one film, that he's in at that moment.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    matt_u wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)

    Craig Bond even went as far as to have someone rip the left-hand drive DB5 he won in CR apart and completely re-build it as a right-hand drive car with loads of gadgets in time for Skyfall...

    In a way you could say that reveal in Skyfall is when it all goes off the rails a little bit. I am writing this off the top of my head, but before that the call-backs were mainly of the origin story variety (meaning we are getting explanations for things we already know to be canon, like the car and the Dinner suits and so on) and from then on they are more and more disconnected from the actual reality of the Craig films and become floating meta-connections that don't make a lot of sense, but look cool.

    it's not the same db5, clearly

    We discussed this topic dozens of times. Basically that's up to personal interpretations. The SF DB5 could very well be the CR one but modified by Whishaw's Q predecessor as a favor to Bond...

    good point.
    but still, it could have been done for a mission we didn't see
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    matt_u wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    It really is very messy and I can see fairpoints on both sides. I get the excellent point re "not being aware" but it can work both ways. If DC is not aware, then it's pure co-indidence that he had a 1964 Silver DB5 with ejector seat and machine guns in storage (same plate!?)? (he was obvioulsy aware of the ejector seat as was his boss.)
    If the producers want a seperate universe, then fine but dont have so many references to the other universe with a Bond oblivious that he seems to be in World full of references to another universe that he played no part in. Surely, there has to be a limit? You reach a point where there are so many references that it becomes untennable for the audience to seperate the universes and DC is wondering around some sort of James Bond tribute universe.

    IMHO if you want the luxury of a self contained universe with the freedom to create a whole arc over 5 films, then that comes with some sort of obligation re originality and not referencing the other universe.

    Ironically, the RM era was far better re originality and lack of call backs even though that was the same universe. We had writers, composers that did not need to whip out the DB5 when it suited or re-hash existing shound tracks.

    PS if DC can have exactly the same car but be a different universe, can RM be in a different universe and still be widowed to someone with the same name? (Names are more common than car regs)

    Craig Bond even went as far as to have someone rip the left-hand drive DB5 he won in CR apart and completely re-build it as a right-hand drive car with loads of gadgets in time for Skyfall...

    In a way you could say that reveal in Skyfall is when it all goes off the rails a little bit. I am writing this off the top of my head, but before that the call-backs were mainly of the origin story variety (meaning we are getting explanations for things we already know to be canon, like the car and the Dinner suits and so on) and from then on they are more and more disconnected from the actual reality of the Craig films and become floating meta-connections that don't make a lot of sense, but look cool.

    it's not the same db5, clearly

    We discussed this topic dozens of times. Basically that's up to personal interpretations. The SF DB5 could very well be the CR one but modified by Whishaw's Q predecessor as a favor to Bond...

    Yes, and sorry I am dragging this old chestnut out again.

    My point is that from then on they more and more did things that don't exactly grow out of the story but instead mean something to the audience or the filmmakers. I mean, in the official podcast, Cary Fukunaga says something along the lines of: I like the V8 Vantage, so I gave him the V8 Vantage. He already had a storage shed with a DB5 in it, he might as well have one with a V8 Vantage as well.
    I am not even saying that is a bad thing. I am just trying to point out how incredibly meta these last three films specifically have become. Honestly, I don't even know, what I want to say or why I am even typing it. Beats working, I guess.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    bondsum wrote: »
    All good points, but you missed the part where I said the different Batman iterations are clearly defined by a change in theme music, Batsuit and Batmobile, not to mention a completely different syle in direction. Bond carries over the same gunbarrel opening, theme music, PTS, main titles, Aston Martin, which makes it feel like it's part of the same universe and timeline.

    This is a good point, but easy enough to get around imo. I don’t remember any audience confusion around CR, because it was so different to DAD.

    They could easily do the same again to make the next guy distinct, and signify that this is a different world. Sure, the gunbarrel and the theme music would be the same. But they could cast different MI6 regulars, they could go with a different car brand, they could go with a more heightened “classic” sort of aesthetic to contrast with the Craig era’s realistic one, etc.

    I get where you’re coming from, I do agree that they’ve muddied the waters a bit by unnecessarily cribbing so much from the 60s. But that can be easily rectified imo. And in this day and age, I think audiences will have no trouble grasping the concept of a reboot.
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I feel this movie will be The Last Jedi of the Bond series.Well received by the access media ( Those who get paid to watch the film but are obligated to write a good review rather than risk losing exclusive interviews and set visits ) but really divisive amongst the hard core fan base ( The people who actually pay to see the movies multiple times,buy the blu ray,merchandise ).

    I didn’t feel anything when Craig’s Bond died really as he’s my least favourite actor in the role.The whole Cuba sequence was a delight and felt for about 20 minutes that I was watching a real Bond film.I really hope the next actor and era brings back the fun ( and stand-alone films ) to the franchise.

    It’s fine not to like it, but it isn’t fair to imply that it’s only gotten good reviews out of a sense of obligation. Plenty of blockbusters get panned nowadays, and Bond is no stranger to poor critic reviews.

    I’m also not sure if the hardcore fanbase is big enough to be noteworthy. I’ve got friends in real life who have the blu ray boxset and used to buy the old video games, and pretty much everyone I know always sees the new Bond film (huge event here in Britain). But I don’t know anyone else who comes on sites like this, which is where most of the debate will be had. Most people will just see the film and then move on.

    I don’t know how the film is being recieved by audiences, but I wouldn’t take this place as being representative of anything other than this place, and our money is a drop in the ocean compared to what the brand rakes in on the whole.
  • Posts: 1,394
    patb wrote: »
    How do we know that the RM Blofeld is the same guy as the SC Blofeld? We already have two Blofelds in different universes. Once the precedent is set, (same characters in different universes) why take it for granted that the Blofeld from the RM era is the same as the Blofeld in the SC era. This is how it gets really twisted. You could say that SC and RM had the same boss but, oh, hold on. Fans have made assumptions re the connections/time lines between Bonds (inc myself) but once you have different universes, then everything is "up in the air"

    It’s never been official ( for legal reasons ) that the bald guy Moore’s Bond despatched at the beginning of FYEO was Blofeld.It was more of an in joke and Cubby Broccoli giving Kevin Mclory the middle finger.

  • Posts: 4,611
    the favour included buying a 1960s number plate that happened to be the same as another Bond universe? and modified in exactly the same way as the other universe. I think that people within the production team have been self indulgent (I have seen a couple of interviews with Mendes about his huge love for the Corgi DB5 when he was a kid) and they have shoved them in and its a quick, easy win within the movie but little thought about the bigger picture.
  • foo_yukfoo_yuk Canada
    Posts: 26
    I don’t know who needs to hear this, but DC is NOT the same Bond as his predecessors for the very simple reason that in CR he becomes a double O in a post 9/11 world (M even references 9/11.) The previous Bonds all the way up through to Goldeneye are inseparable from a Cold War Context. DC could not have been blowing up chemical factories in the Soviet Union, or galavanting with a sexy KGB agent, because he’d have been a child, or not even born yet in the case of From Russia With Love, etc.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I will say this, I hope the producers never make a big deal out the next film definitely being the actors last film. That was a mistake of NTTD
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    The shot of Bond that shoots with the iconic gun barrel pose was extremely cool in that particular moment of the film where Bond was in total berserk mode, basically killing everybody around him while telling M what to do. Amazing stuff. Without mentioning the following crazy immersive staircase long take. Kudos to Fukunaga.
  • foo_yuk wrote: »
    I don’t know who needs to hear this, but DC is NOT the same Bond as his predecessors for the very simple reason that in CR he becomes a double O in a post 9/11 world (M even references 9/11.) The previous Bonds all the way up through to Goldeneye are inseparable from a Cold War Context. DC could not have been blowing up chemical factories in the Soviet Union, or galavanting with a sexy KGB agent, because he’d have been a child, or not even born yet in the case of From Russia With Love, etc.

    YES, Agreed but what people are saying is, how does he have vehicles from the other films? it simply doesn't make sense.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    A couple of pages late but regarding the humor in NTTD. I did not find it all that funny, despite some of the lines clearly having that intention behind them. However, like the majority of the Craig films (as he's a great physical performer) the best bits of humour lie in the moments where his body language does the work.

    The funniest moment of the entire film (and it felt like my audience were on the same page here) was when he knocked Primo's eye out in Matera and looked over the ledge with a bemused, "that's new!" expression on his face and the edit is generous enough that it allows that expression to sink in with the audience as well. That was genuinely very funny, and Craig has always done those moments extremely well. Which is why I have always not really been an advocate for his Bond to be all too "quippy". It simply wasn't where his strength lay, for me.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    foo_yuk wrote: »
    I don’t know who needs to hear this, but DC is NOT the same Bond as his predecessors for the very simple reason that in CR he becomes a double O in a post 9/11 world (M even references 9/11.) The previous Bonds all the way up through to Goldeneye are inseparable from a Cold War Context. DC could not have been blowing up chemical factories in the Soviet Union, or galavanting with a sexy KGB agent, because he’d have been a child, or not even born yet in the case of From Russia With Love, etc.

    YES, Agreed but what people are saying is, how does he have vehicles from the other films? it simply doesn't make sense.

    He just has those vehicles. No need for explanation. He has a V8 in his garage. So what?
  • foo_yuk wrote: »
    I don’t know who needs to hear this, but DC is NOT the same Bond as his predecessors for the very simple reason that in CR he becomes a double O in a post 9/11 world (M even references 9/11.) The previous Bonds all the way up through to Goldeneye are inseparable from a Cold War Context. DC could not have been blowing up chemical factories in the Soviet Union, or galavanting with a sexy KGB agent, because he’d have been a child, or not even born yet in the case of From Russia With Love, etc.

    YES, Agreed but what people are saying is, how does he have vehicles from the other films? it simply doesn't make sense.

    Dalton played a Bond who had a V8 Vantage as his company car. Craig plays a Bond who has a V8 Vantage as one of his personal cars.
  • Posts: 4,611
    CR (winning the DB5) surely is an indication that they were willing to create mini stories that referenced another universe but provided explanations of how the DC Bond moved forward. Winning a silver DB 5? perfectly OK IMHO, gambling is a theme of the movie and it was a desirable classic car at that time and a left hooker with different number plate. And it was a tool for Bond to chat up a new Bond girl :-) A lovely scene, great balance between moving the plot forward and a nod to the past. So it can be done with skill and thought. And then SF - just lazy and it can't be undone. I know this has been discussed before but, now, the whole universe discussion is clearly back on the agenda.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    NTTD has the best transition from the PTS into the credit titles. That was just insane.

    The train starts to move. The Dr. No inspired dots pop up onscreen. As the train speeds up the windows start to look like a negative film rewinding before our eyes. Then No Time to Die pops up onscreen. A beautiful metaphor of 59 years of Bond movies that led to this.

    What a film.
  • @matt_u Yes, I loved that transition too! What a shame that the rest of the main title sequence was soo dull, probably the weakest one by Kleinman so far.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I admittedly sit on the underwhelmed/disappointed side of the fence over NTTD, but credit were it's due @matt_u mate you're pointing out great things about the film that I hadn't taken in
Sign In or Register to comment.