› ›

NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions NO SPOILERS please

1…1415161820

Comments

  • bondsumbondsum
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    You're most welcome @jetsetwilly. We both share a similar passion for Bond reaching back many decades, but that doesn't prevent either of us from our own scathing denunciations when it comes to a new release, especially if we see something we thoroughly dislike about it. I do see a repeat pattern of some members here taking it personally if they love a movie and want to defend it, and those who feel ambivalent or have a marked antipathy towards it. No one is 100% right, it's just a personal opinion and one some of us feel we need to share with other Bond fans that feel the same way. We're not trying to dissuade you if you happen to love it, just give an alternative point of view.

    My own bugbear happens to be with Bond going forwards and I've yet to be convinced by any shouts of "reboot" to lessen my worries. Until I see where we're actually going with Bond 26, I'll remain ambivalent towards the final act of NTTD and whether the movie works as a whole. I realise this is a "no spoiler" thread so we can't have a detailed discussion about it here, which concludes anything more I've got to say on the matter.
  • ringfire211ringfire211
    Posts: 654
    My personal pet peeve is when so-called “fans” refuse to criticize things in the Craig films because somehow his films are supposed to be above criticism. Like they’re the Holy Grail of the Bond series. Which to me is absolutely hogwash!!! Nobody gets offended when the Brosnan series gets criticized (or even Connery, Moore, Dalton films) but all of a sudden people get all defensive about the Craig series. Because, you know, with Craig they finally got things right. Yeah okay. Whatever.

    I feel that many are refusing to accept reality that CR happened 15 years ago. That time has long passed and the series has been wildly erratic since then. It’s like they want to believe that every new film is another CR. Except it’s not.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    My personal pet peeve is when so-called “fans” refuse to criticize things in the Craig films because somehow his films are supposed to be above criticism. Like they’re the Holy Grail of the Bond series. Which to me is absolutely hogwash!!! Nobody gets offended when the Brosnan series gets criticized (or even Connery, Moore, Dalton films) but all of a sudden people get all defensive about the Craig series. Because, you know, with Craig they finally got things right. Yeah okay. Whatever.

    I feel that many are refusing to accept reality that CR happened 15 years ago. That time has long passed and the series has been wildly erratic since then. It’s like they want to believe that every new film is another CR. Except it’s not.

    How dare you.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I don't have that impression, @ringfire211. I don't see fans of Craig's Bond unable to criticize his films. Unless that has changed since 2015. I have been absent for months at a time since then.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    I don't have that impression, @ringfire211. I don't see fans of Craig's Bond unable to criticize his films. Unless that has changed since 2015. I have been absent for months at a time since then.

    Obviously, Craig's Bonds aren't above criticism. His most loyal fans can still point out flaws where they see them. It's regrettable that statements like @ringfire211's get thrown around without a decent fact-check.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    What Craig fans react to is rhetoric like this:

    1. - "People who like his later films can not be real fans".
    2. Bombastic statements that claim the series is now "ruined" with the assumption that this is a widely held opinion.
    3. Unfounded claims that these films are woke, feminist or PC.
    4. The claim that his films are breaking sacred "rules" based on basically nothing.
    5. Endless and repetative bickering.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    jobo wrote: »
    What Craig fans react to is rhetoric like this:

    1. - "People who like his later films can not be real fans".
    2. Bombastic statements that claim the series is now "ruined" with the assumption that this is a widely held opinion.
    3. Unfounded claims that these films are woke, feminist or PC.
    4. The claim that his films are breaking sacred "rules" based on basically nothing.
    5. Endless and repetative bickering.

    Don't forget foolish sentiments about Barbara Broccoli not knowing how to make a Bond film (but a nagging entitled fan does.)
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    What Craig fans react to is rhetoric like this:

    1. - "People who like his later films can not be real fans".
    2. Bombastic statements that claim the series is now "ruined" with the assumption that this is a widely held opinion.
    3. Unfounded claims that these films are woke, feminist or PC.
    4. The claim that his films are breaking sacred "rules" based on basically nothing.
    5. Endless and repetative bickering.

    Don't forget foolish sentiments about Barbara Broccoli not knowing how to make a Bond film (but a nagging entitled fan does.)

    True. The list could be five times as long. Just tried to cover the basics.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    My personal pet peeve is when so-called “fans” refuse to criticize things in the Craig films because somehow his films are supposed to be above criticism. Like they’re the Holy Grail of the Bond series. Which to me is absolutely hogwash!!! Nobody gets offended when the Brosnan series gets criticized (or even Connery, Moore, Dalton films) but all of a sudden people get all defensive about the Craig series. Because, you know, with Craig they finally got things right. Yeah okay. Whatever.

    I feel that many are refusing to accept reality that CR happened 15 years ago. That time has long passed and the series has been wildly erratic since then. It’s like they want to believe that every new film is another CR. Except it’s not.

    Funny, I remember you used to trash CR back in the day, calling it a betrayal of the franchise on the IMDb message boards.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 422
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    StirredNotShaken wrote: »
    I'm surprised to see some of the "I don't know if I'll be returning to this often" reactions from people who enjoyed or even loved the film. I think NTTD is going to become the Bond film I revisit the most. ...

    I really don't think I can watch this one again. The only other Bond film I felt that way about was DAD. I have erased that one from my memory, and never thought I would have to again until this steaming turd came along.

    Oh you do surprise me, if only you'd been going on about your disapproval of the film and it's conclusion and going into all threads on the forum about NTTD and pouring your misery out.

    Also tagging anyone that was in the same ball park as your opinion and going on about how so right they were.

    If only that had happened we might not have been so surprised by your remark above, please do next time Willy give us more clues before you state such an opinion, you really caught us all of guard with this.

    +1. Of course there is room for all opinions here (hopefully), but there's nothing constructive to add (and add, and add...) if you've open and shut the case for yourself, and are only interested in creating a little echo chamber of the exact same opinion for yourself (in tagging and engaging only those that agree).

    -1 There's nothing constructive to add either when members here say `I've seen it again for the 29th time, and I love it even more this time round,' creating another echo chamber.

    Works both ways pal.... ;)

    While the movie is fresh in peoples minds expect that they will continue be emotional about it one way or the other, either excited or angry, and want to express those feelings with others, over and over, until those feelings run their course and dissipate.

    We take a "Quantum of Solace" from those who agree with our opinions and want reach out and connect with them, by indication our agreement. Or release our frustrations by debating with those who disagree with us.

    For hard core Bond fans it's like that with any Bond movie, let alone one as controversial as this NTTD

    It's not some form of "Deep State Conspiracy" or sabotage

    It's just what human beings do

    A safety valve

    Therapy

    Now Relax...

    "

    beth.jpg

    1998-voom-beth.jpg?resize=500%2C366


  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,398
    Once you're on the internet, you're on there forever.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    Well, burn, the internet never forgets lol.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    My personal pet peeve is when so-called “fans” refuse to criticize things in the Craig films because somehow his films are supposed to be above criticism. Like they’re the Holy Grail of the Bond series. Which to me is absolutely hogwash!!! Nobody gets offended when the Brosnan series gets criticized (or even Connery, Moore, Dalton films) but all of a sudden people get all defensive about the Craig series. Because, you know, with Craig they finally got things right. Yeah okay. Whatever.

    I feel that many are refusing to accept reality that CR happened 15 years ago. That time has long passed and the series has been wildly erratic since then. It’s like they want to believe that every new film is another CR. Except it’s not.

    Funny, I remember you used to trash CR back in the day, calling it a betrayal of the franchise on the IMDb message boards.

    Thanks @MakeshiftPython … everything that @ringfire211 has ever written on these pages re: the Craig films suddenly makes absolute sense!
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Makes sense in a general manner.

    I've been here long enough to see that MANY members here changed their views on Bond films over the years. OHMSS. LTK. QOS. SP. More.

    But I'm used to @ringfire211's passionate expression.

  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 532
    One of the pleasures of the Bond series is reevaluation. I long to be wrong about the films I’m not as fond of.
  • ringfire211ringfire211
    Posts: 654
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    My personal pet peeve is when so-called “fans” refuse to criticize things in the Craig films because somehow his films are supposed to be above criticism. Like they’re the Holy Grail of the Bond series. Which to me is absolutely hogwash!!! Nobody gets offended when the Brosnan series gets criticized (or even Connery, Moore, Dalton films) but all of a sudden people get all defensive about the Craig series. Because, you know, with Craig they finally got things right. Yeah okay. Whatever.

    I feel that many are refusing to accept reality that CR happened 15 years ago. That time has long passed and the series has been wildly erratic since then. It’s like they want to believe that every new film is another CR. Except it’s not.

    Funny, I remember you used to trash CR back in the day, calling it a betrayal of the franchise on the IMDb message boards.
    Right, it was a huge departure from the series. There are still things about the film that bother me. Probably why it’s around #16 or #17 in my rankings. For the record SF is my favorite Craig Bond, and even that one isn’t in my top 10.

    But hey I’m not here defending or praising CR. I’m pointing out those who treated CR as if it was the second coming are still deluding themselves thinking that every new Craig film is another CR masterpiece. Refusing to accept that Craig’s run has been widely erratic. With his worst films being even worse than pretty much any other in the entire series. That’s not a good run. Yeah compared to those CR is looking mighty good.

    Oh and I finally saw NTTD and... oh boy... where do I start? More on that later. I guess I’ll post that in the spoiler thread.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    ringfire211 wrote: »
    My personal pet peeve is when so-called “fans” refuse to criticize things in the Craig films because somehow his films are supposed to be above criticism. Like they’re the Holy Grail of the Bond series. Which to me is absolutely hogwash!!! Nobody gets offended when the Brosnan series gets criticized (or even Connery, Moore, Dalton films) but all of a sudden people get all defensive about the Craig series. Because, you know, with Craig they finally got things right. Yeah okay. Whatever.

    I feel that many are refusing to accept reality that CR happened 15 years ago. That time has long passed and the series has been wildly erratic since then. It’s like they want to believe that every new film is another CR. Except it’s not.

    Funny, I remember you used to trash CR back in the day, calling it a betrayal of the franchise on the IMDb message boards.

    But hey I’m not here defending or praising CR. I’m pointing out those who treated CR as if it was the second coming are still deluding themselves thinking that every new Craig film is another CR masterpiece. Refusing to accept that Craig’s run has been widely erratic. With his worst films being even worse than pretty much any other in the entire series. That’s not a good run. Yeah compared to those CR is looking mighty good.

    It’s funny to see deluded fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help mitigate their deep frustrations towards the Craig era. How sad. That must’ve been a difficult decade….

    Let’s keep it to personal points of view. Let’s not pretend to know things about how or why someone else likes something or not.
  • NeverSayNeverNeverSayNever Rome
    Posts: 131
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s funny to see deluded fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help mitigate their deep frustrations towards the Craig era. How sad. That must’ve been a difficult decade….

    Let’s keep it to personal points of view. Let’s not pretend to know things about how or why someone else likes something or not.

    It is just as funny, to use your expression, to see fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help uphold their unmitigated worship of the Craig era.

    What I have seen in recent NTTD-related comments is that the critical reviewers, with some exceptions, talk about their issues with the film, while the positive reviewers, with some exceptions, jump on the detractors personally and beat them over the head enforcing the "NTTD is great, and if you do not get it then something is wrong with you" view. Positive and negative opinions are equally valid, and being in the majority in liking NTTD is not sufficient grounds to gang up on the minority view.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    NeverSayNever wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s funny to see deluded fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help mitigate their deep frustrations towards the Craig era. How sad. That must’ve been a difficult decade….

    Let’s keep it to personal points of view. Let’s not pretend to know things about how or why someone else likes something or not.

    It is just as funny, to use your expression, to see fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help uphold their unmitigated worship of the Craig era.

    What I have seen in recent NTTD-related comments is that the critical reviewers, with some exceptions, talk about their issues with the film, while the positive reviewers, with some exceptions, jump on the detractors personally and beat them over the head enforcing the "NTTD is great, and if you do not get it then something is wrong with you" view. Positive and negative opinions are equally valid, and being in the majority in liking NTTD is not sufficient grounds to gang up on the minority view.

    It's obviously fair to say: "The Craig era is erratic".

    It's not fair tho to state: "People who don't find it erratic are just pretending it is not".
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    NeverSayNever wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s funny to see deluded fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help mitigate their deep frustrations towards the Craig era. How sad. That must’ve been a difficult decade….

    Let’s keep it to personal points of view. Let’s not pretend to know things about how or why someone else likes something or not.

    It is just as funny, to use your expression, to see fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help uphold their unmitigated worship of the Craig era.

    What I have seen in recent NTTD-related comments is that the critical reviewers, with some exceptions, talk about their issues with the film, while the positive reviewers, with some exceptions, jump on the detractors personally and beat them over the head enforcing the "NTTD is great, and if you do not get it then something is wrong with you" view. Positive and negative opinions are equally valid, and being in the majority in liking NTTD is not sufficient grounds to gang up on the minority view.

    When critical comments consist of such intelligent critique as 'what, a black female in that part, woke has ruined everything!' then you can expect them to be jumped on to be honest.

    I haven't actually seen a critical comment that address the story, script, music, cinematography, acting or anything that actually, you know, makes a film. They are all about the end, or not being happy about the identify of certain characters because apparently, MI6 which needs to be able to run operations anywhere in the world, would only have white male agents in real life. OK. If anyone can correct that please do and inject some sanity to the debate
  • NeverSayNeverNeverSayNever Rome
    Posts: 131
    notimetocry wrote: »
    I haven't actually seen a critical comment that address the story, script, music, cinematography, acting or anything that actually, you know, makes a film. They are all about the end, or not being happy about the identify of certain characters because apparently, MI6 which needs to be able to run operations anywhere in the world, would only have white male agents in real life. OK. If anyone can correct that please do and inject some sanity to the debate

    I take it the "sanity" remark was strictly necessary?

    Most detailed critical comments are not in this thread, for obvious reasons. The one quoted below is one of the most detailed, but not the only one of this kind, by far. Admittedly, specific points are a matter of opinion (I agree with all of them; many others will not). I have no desire to argue with NTTD fans trying to dissuade them from loving it, and I disagree with the implication that anyone who did not love it, no matter how good its cinematography may be, needs to be either persuaded of its merits or dismissed and disparaged.
    Univex wrote: »
    Not a review, per se. But here it goes:

    SPOILERS AHEAD! ALL OF THEM!
    I've come to the conclusion that my major gripes with the film have nothing to do with him dying. In fact, these are my main issues with it, and only post Cuba:

    1) Bond's dialogue and relationship with M: the mutual respect is gone, when M scolds Bond for speaking to him like that, I wanted to sold Bond. "My god you're thirsty", and the desk size joke... James Bond does not speak like that to M, that's not the nature of their relationship, and Mallory was not on par with the character they've presented in SF;

    2) Bond's dialogue and mannerisms with Blofeld: You call that good acting? If Daniel Craig's acting is almost flawless in the film, in this scene its pathetical, the way he talks and moves, the way he makes a tantrum with Tanner, with whom btw he has definitely lost the dynamic he had in SF and SP;

    3) Bond's dialogue and banter with Q: I found it jarring, to say the least, because of the lack of intelligent humour. I mean, "fairly strong? what does that mean", means what, exactly? No double entendre there, not there, not anywhere. And the way Craig delivers that line. You really call that good acting?;

    4) Bond and Madeline's relationship. Not buying it, again. Bond and Vesper had it, through a montage, like they did for Bond and Tracy. And they had their own, beautiful music theme, composed by Arnold. Bond and Maddie just piggyback a 1969 film to compensate for lack of own development. In my book, that's just poor;

    5) Most of the sartorial elements and fashion choices of this film were appalling. From corduroy suits with button up shirts, to tie pins on tab collared shirts, to the faux patine Omega (which doesn't hold a candle to the PO and the 300 from SP on the nato strap), to the Henley with raincoat ensemble, ... I could go on, but bare in mind this is all IMHO;

    6) Bond being a dad. Was it really necessary to confer weight to it all by the way of this? I mean, storming the villain's lair and confronting him whilst his daughter is beside the villain, who btw, has to be made dangerous (because he surely doesn't look like it) by strolling around with the child through his garden of death...I mean poisonous garden;

    7) They had to go with nanobots and then make it confusing by calling it poison and mixing it up with a family of Spectre's chemical poisoners. Despite the logic you might find in that factory/laboratory, that's damn right ill writing and confusing. I rather have SF's plot holes than this sort of shenanigan;

    8) The pacing is good. Sure. But I'd rather they'd spent more time in Jamaica, which was underused. I mean, once we were able to spend awhile with Bond inspecting a room for bugs, and ordering figs and black coffee for breakfast, but now it's all just: show them where he's at, show him who's he with, and let's go, snippity snap;

    9) Forceful unexplained stuff like the V8. Totally unnecessary. Throwing the kitchen sink. Hey, the last time I've heard MGW use that phrase was for DAD. Now I know better;

    10) The easy dispatch of the entirety of SP and Blofeld. Now, SP is even more flawed because I'll never rewatch it and feel like that organization was indeed a true threat, nor was that ridiculous man, Blofeld. The treatment they gave this material was, frankly, appalling, in both films;

    11) The villain, again, was as weak as they come. I've now totally cemented my opinion that Rami Males works because of its overall look, and not because he's a very talented thespian. The guy has a unique look and demeanour and that works for him. Many actors are like that. Many celebrated actors are like that. He just lacks the gravitas many of the others have. And I was a big supporter of him for the role;

    12) The soundtrack is a big paint by numbers thingamajig with old themes from old Bonds glued together with some, granted, spectacular orchestrations which I did like. The thing is, I now see that some themes belong to some eras and actors. And that the best thing is to get creatives to conjure beautiful new themes, like Vesper's theme, for newer entries.

    13) The song. Don't get me wrong. It's miles away, and better than TWOTW, but it's still a big depressive melody that fits the film's sadness instead of the film's epicness. But then again, the only songs I truly like from the Craig era are YKMN and SF, and I'm thinking the same for the films, which brings me to this:

    14) I like CR and SF; the others may have good scenes, brilliant scenes even, like the first hour of NTTD, or the balcony hotel scenes in QOS, or the meeting with Mathis on his vila, or some others, but the ones who truly work for me as films were CR and SF. Why? Because they had careful planned and executed productions, with enthusiastic filmmakers from the beginning to the end;

    15) Also, Fukunaga's direction is very cool, and so is Sandgren's cinematography, but it sometimes looked to plastic and sunset scrambled, if you catch my drift, and that took me off the film often. I'm sorry, but the king here is still Deakins, IMO. Although, I'd love to see another Fukunaga directed film, but not written by him. No children drama, please. This is not a Spielberg production, even if it seemed like it in NTTD sometimes.

    16) And I have to say this, despite not being my major gripe with the film. Mythology matters. Bond never dying is part of the mythos. People praise the cinema Bond and scold purists who love the novels more, like myself. So why don't the same people understand that the cinema mythology, not the novel's, was built around the perception that Bond is immortal, the mythic cinematic character I mean, from film to film. But hey, I don't care much, because "James Bond will return". So, as I said, this is not a major issue for me. Bigger than this was simply the fact that I left the cinema deflated from the sense of fun I was granted by the first hour of the film. Why build the fun like that, to destroy it all with the rest? A bit sadist, IMO. But then again, the latest tendency in series and films is to be sadist and kill the main hero and make the audience want to be voyeurs of said death. It's the historical equivalent of people cheering to watch a public hanging, or going to the roman circus: panne et vino, bred and wine. Functional sadism. And I, frankly don't like that because:

    17) James Bond was created by a man who had to make terms with his own recent marriage. And had to have escapism and fun. It was also created after the war, and a sense of fun was deeply needed. It evolved through the 60s cinematic medium, because the 60's were also an after war decade, a decade of liberation and sexual revolution.
    James Bond is a son of that, an old school imperialistic government tool that is also a bon vivant and a connoisseur of the best things life has to offer. He's physically able, but mostly very intelligent and resourceful, and his cinematic version often does things with style and panache. I'm sorry, but the Craig era had little of that. Granted, some of my favourite scenes have to do with exactly that: The Rolls Royce scene from SP, the caviar scene from CR, the Lucia scene from SP, ...

    18) Bigger point being, a Bond film is supposed to make me happy, thrilled, it's supposed to make me get out of the cinema and want to rewatch it to feel those same emotions. It's supposed to make me face life with a growing sense of strength and resilience. It's not supposed to be depressive and gloom and make me feel like, not only did so many of the people I know have suffered and died in the last couple of years, but so did James Bond, my hero, and not because of his literal death in the film, but because the killed what's best in him, slowly, by perversely wanting to subvert a formula, a character, and use the source material for easter eggs which they imagine will please the fans.

    19) They are now alienated in this state of business/mind, and will not change it. DAD was profoundly criticised for what it was, and it felt tired. I'm afraid only a fraction of fans will be truly critical of NTTD, the world and general audiences will embrace it for the good film it is. And Barbara will rejoice with her take on things and reinforce the need to make it a novela, a soap opera, a drama. Even when the novels were a drama, that was aptly deconstructed by the author to make the character win, surpass the tragedy that begun it, so they would give us a sense of victory. In the most extreme cases, FRWL comes to mind, he left it open, not only for himself, but for the readers, who would rush to buy the next book to see how Bond had survived. It was always a cliffhanger.

    20) And this is what I have to say about a film that cemented my views on the Craig tenure, which I liked, and corresponded to the best years of my life, but that, in the end, was not for me. Not as much as the first 4 Connery films were, or OHMSS, or TLD, or GE and TND. I take from it brilliant scenes which were a true callback and return to form, eventually ruined by the sadistic wish to subvert the inheritance. IMO, they've only nailed that dynamic with CR and SF, both of which I mostly like, a lot.

    21) Daniel Craig brought talent and quality to these productions. I'll always thank him for that. He brought acclaim and saved the series. I like him. That will never change, but:

    22) I have no faith on the future of the series being truly good. And that's not due to EON in particular. It's due to this grim new world, puritanical, sadistic, filled with angry little men (good quote, actually), and ashamed of its past, not cirurgically as it should be, but as a whole.

    23) Finally, how I think the series should continue, and how I believe they won't:

    23.1) Hire new writers from the get go. Good ones. Someone who can write a novel and a script and can understand the organics of it;
    23.2) Go back to a more familiar depiction of Bond. Find a good thespian that also has the look. How hard can that be? They make it sound as if it's truly impossible;
    23.3) Clean slate with it all. Get rid of Kleinman, of P&W, after all, if they got rid of production designers and costume designers and composers that they once called family, why not these?
    23.4) Stop with the melodrama. Consider a bombastic theme tune, stylish and clever writing, and please do keep some of the more exotic elements you brought back to this tenure. Yes, komodo dragons and all. I loved those.
    23.4) And please, please don't subvert the original material even more. Don't change the character to please agendas. James Bond is a caucasian male. There are plenty of other original characters waiting to be thought up.


    Anyway, my two cents on it all. No need to get upset if you find yourself on the other end of the circle, diametrically opposed to all of this. It's fair game. We're all fans in a different way.

    The truth is, all of Craig's tenure had quality in spades. More so that almost anything in, say, DAD. So we were blessed, even if they disappointed us with some big bold, sometimes cringeworthy choices.

    I'm not mad. I'm just ready to move on. Like Craig said in the documentary: It's ok.

    It's ok. Let's move on.

    Univex out
  • ringfire211ringfire211
    Posts: 654
    I like listening to the Bond reviews of Calvin Dyson on YouTube or Joe Darlington from Being James Bond. Calvin was being a bit more honest with his mixed feelings on NTTD but then Joe in his review begins with what a spectacular experience the movie was and what a great sendoff for Craig but then proceeds to mostly talk about the things in the film that bothered him, of which there were many. And I’m thinking “who are you kidding?” or “who are you trying to convince?” You can’t have all these issues with the film and then tell me it’s a fantastic film. I’m sorry but that makes no sense. Some of these people who run their Bond channels it almost feels like they feel obligated to praise every new Bond film. Which to me makes no sense. Are they getting paid to praise it? If not then why not just be honest about it? I know you waited really long for it and the trailers had you ecstatic. But if the final product left you less than what you expected then why not say that? For example, Darlington’s favorite Bond film is CR. He literally can find no fault in it. For him it’s a flawless film. Fair enough. So on those merits I can understand why he loves it so much and calls it spectacular. But then to call NTTD also spectacular when he finds so many faults with it feels dishonest.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,327
    notimetocry wrote: »
    NeverSayNever wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s funny to see deluded fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help mitigate their deep frustrations towards the Craig era. How sad. That must’ve been a difficult decade….

    Let’s keep it to personal points of view. Let’s not pretend to know things about how or why someone else likes something or not.

    It is just as funny, to use your expression, to see fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help uphold their unmitigated worship of the Craig era.

    What I have seen in recent NTTD-related comments is that the critical reviewers, with some exceptions, talk about their issues with the film, while the positive reviewers, with some exceptions, jump on the detractors personally and beat them over the head enforcing the "NTTD is great, and if you do not get it then something is wrong with you" view. Positive and negative opinions are equally valid, and being in the majority in liking NTTD is not sufficient grounds to gang up on the minority view.

    When critical comments consist of such intelligent critique as 'what, a black female in that part, woke has ruined everything!' then you can expect them to be jumped on to be honest.

    I haven't actually seen a critical comment that address the story, script, music, cinematography, acting or anything that actually, you know, makes a film. They are all about the end, or not being happy about the identify of certain characters because apparently, MI6 which needs to be able to run operations anywhere in the world, would only have white male agents in real life. OK. If anyone can correct that please do and inject some sanity to the debate

    My criticism of the film is nothing to do with any woke agenda that you keep banging on about. It's that they didn't use the end of the Fleming novel YOLT. They were halfway there, teasing us with it too with the Japanese island and the garden of death.
    Having Bond kill Blofeld instead of Safin would have been a much bigger payoff, and having Bond lose his mind, not know who he is before setting off sail to Russia would have been just as tragic and sad ending, without pissing off and dividing the fanbase by outright killing Bond off.

    I want to come out of a Bond film lifted, on a high, not downbeat, depressed and feeling sorry for the character. Its the first time this has ever happened.

  • BounineBounine
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,599
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    notimetocry wrote: »
    NeverSayNever wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s funny to see deluded fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help mitigate their deep frustrations towards the Craig era. How sad. That must’ve been a difficult decade….

    Let’s keep it to personal points of view. Let’s not pretend to know things about how or why someone else likes something or not.

    It is just as funny, to use your expression, to see fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help uphold their unmitigated worship of the Craig era.

    What I have seen in recent NTTD-related comments is that the critical reviewers, with some exceptions, talk about their issues with the film, while the positive reviewers, with some exceptions, jump on the detractors personally and beat them over the head enforcing the "NTTD is great, and if you do not get it then something is wrong with you" view. Positive and negative opinions are equally valid, and being in the majority in liking NTTD is not sufficient grounds to gang up on the minority view.

    When critical comments consist of such intelligent critique as 'what, a black female in that part, woke has ruined everything!' then you can expect them to be jumped on to be honest.

    I haven't actually seen a critical comment that address the story, script, music, cinematography, acting or anything that actually, you know, makes a film. They are all about the end, or not being happy about the identify of certain characters because apparently, MI6 which needs to be able to run operations anywhere in the world, would only have white male agents in real life. OK. If anyone can correct that please do and inject some sanity to the debate

    My criticism of the film is nothing to do with any woke agenda that you keep banging on about. It's that they didn't use the end of the Fleming novel YOLT. They were halfway there, teasing us with it too with the Japanese island and the garden of death.

    Having Bond kill Blofeld instead of Safin would have been a much bigger payoff, and having Bond lose his mind, not know who he is before setting off sail to Russia would have been just as tragic and sad ending, without pissing off and dividing the fanbase by outright killing Bond off.

    I want to come out of a Bond film lifted, on a high, not downbeat, depressed and feeling sorry for the character. Its the first time this has ever happened.

    Now I definitely know what happens. So much for non spoiler threads. In this case however, I think it’s better that I know.

    I completely agree with you though. They should have had the YOLT ending. Killing off Bond is taking it too far. Having the YOLT ending where Bond is sent off somewhere would have been fantastic and similar to the ending of 24 where Jack Bauer is sent off to the Russians. If I remember correctly, they were Russians. I don’t mind feeling sorry for the character but killing him is too much. They did Moonraker because of Star Wars and they killed Bond because of Tony Stark. Anyway, at least now I can go into the film without getting my hopes up too much. Hate disappointment. It does sound like I’ll enjoy certain things but the ending might very well taint everything else that happens in the film for me.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    NTTD makes James Bond the ultimate hero. The whole movie points to that. It's not a random shock. It matters and it's poetic.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,599
    matt_u wrote: »
    NTTD makes James Bond the ultimate hero. The whole movie points to that. It's not a random shock. It matters and it's poetic.

    That’s good to hear.

    I just hope that they don’t kill off Bond in the books. It’s the literature that I really care about.

  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,327
    Bounine wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    notimetocry wrote: »
    NeverSayNever wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s funny to see deluded fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help mitigate their deep frustrations towards the Craig era. How sad. That must’ve been a difficult decade….

    Let’s keep it to personal points of view. Let’s not pretend to know things about how or why someone else likes something or not.

    It is just as funny, to use your expression, to see fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help uphold their unmitigated worship of the Craig era.

    What I have seen in recent NTTD-related comments is that the critical reviewers, with some exceptions, talk about their issues with the film, while the positive reviewers, with some exceptions, jump on the detractors personally and beat them over the head enforcing the "NTTD is great, and if you do not get it then something is wrong with you" view. Positive and negative opinions are equally valid, and being in the majority in liking NTTD is not sufficient grounds to gang up on the minority view.

    When critical comments consist of such intelligent critique as 'what, a black female in that part, woke has ruined everything!' then you can expect them to be jumped on to be honest.

    I haven't actually seen a critical comment that address the story, script, music, cinematography, acting or anything that actually, you know, makes a film. They are all about the end, or not being happy about the identify of certain characters because apparently, MI6 which needs to be able to run operations anywhere in the world, would only have white male agents in real life. OK. If anyone can correct that please do and inject some sanity to the debate

    My criticism of the film is nothing to do with any woke agenda that you keep banging on about. It's that they didn't use the end of the Fleming novel YOLT. They were halfway there, teasing us with it too with the Japanese island and the garden of death.

    Having Bond kill Blofeld instead of Safin would have been a much bigger payoff, and having Bond lose his mind, not know who he is before setting off sail to Russia would have been just as tragic and sad ending, without pissing off and dividing the fanbase by outright killing Bond off.

    I want to come out of a Bond film lifted, on a high, not downbeat, depressed and feeling sorry for the character. Its the first time this has ever happened.

    Now I definitely know what happens. So much for non spoiler threads. In this case however, I think it’s better that I know.

    Sorry mate, I forgot what thread I was in. I'm amazed there is still anyone on here that didn't know the ending by now, well done for getting this far!

    I've edited my post to hide the spoiler. I suggest you do the same and edit your response to me in case anyone new comes into this thread that hasn't seen it yet and doesn't know what happens.

    Apologies. ^:)^
  • BounineBounine
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,599
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    notimetocry wrote: »
    NeverSayNever wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s funny to see deluded fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help mitigate their deep frustrations towards the Craig era. How sad. That must’ve been a difficult decade….

    Let’s keep it to personal points of view. Let’s not pretend to know things about how or why someone else likes something or not.

    It is just as funny, to use your expression, to see fans judging other people’s points of view - pretending they’re not really genuine only because they differ from theirs - only because that would help uphold their unmitigated worship of the Craig era.

    What I have seen in recent NTTD-related comments is that the critical reviewers, with some exceptions, talk about their issues with the film, while the positive reviewers, with some exceptions, jump on the detractors personally and beat them over the head enforcing the "NTTD is great, and if you do not get it then something is wrong with you" view. Positive and negative opinions are equally valid, and being in the majority in liking NTTD is not sufficient grounds to gang up on the minority view.

    When critical comments consist of such intelligent critique as 'what, a black female in that part, woke has ruined everything!' then you can expect them to be jumped on to be honest.

    I haven't actually seen a critical comment that address the story, script, music, cinematography, acting or anything that actually, you know, makes a film. They are all about the end, or not being happy about the identify of certain characters because apparently, MI6 which needs to be able to run operations anywhere in the world, would only have white male agents in real life. OK. If anyone can correct that please do and inject some sanity to the debate

    My criticism of the film is nothing to do with any woke agenda that you keep banging on about. It's that they didn't use the end of the Fleming novel YOLT. They were halfway there, teasing us with it too with the Japanese island and the garden of death.

    Having Bond kill Blofeld instead of Safin would have been a much bigger payoff, and having Bond lose his mind, not know who he is before setting off sail to Russia would have been just as tragic and sad ending, without pissing off and dividing the fanbase by outright killing Bond off.

    I want to come out of a Bond film lifted, on a high, not downbeat, depressed and feeling sorry for the character. Its the first time this has ever happened.

    Now I definitely know what happens. So much for non spoiler threads. In this case however, I think it’s better that I know.

    Sorry mate, I forgot what thread I was in. I'm amazed there is still anyone on here that didn't know the ending by now, well done for getting this far!

    I've edited my post to hide the spoiler. I suggest you do the same and edit your response to me in case anyone new comes into this thread that hasn't seen it yet and doesn't know what happens.

    Apologies. ^:)^

    No problem.

    How do you put text in spoilers again?
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,220
    I think a big factor in whether you buy into the ending is some of the subtext around it. In fact,
    I didn’t really find it all that sad. By the end of the film I (and seemingly Bond himself) came to understand that it just won’t be possible for him to have the peace and love he longed for ever since he fell in love with Vesper. Be it his inability to let go and trust wholeheartedly or the constant death and danger that surrounds he and the people close to him (which were quite poetically represented in literal terms by the nanobots for Madeleine and Mathilde), it was just never going to work. He understands that in order for him and the ones he loves to truly be at peace, he had to give up his life. He left this world happy and content because he knew he loved, was loved, and his family would live on without the spectre of death that hangs over him, because he was willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for them. I don’t think he’d want to go on living the empty life of being an assassin or wasting away in Jamaica knowing what he had (and couldn’t have) in Madeleine or Mathilde. The tragedy of Craig’s Bond isn’t his death, it’s the perpetuating cycle of self sabotage and unhappiness that he doesn’t really become aware of until it’s too late. Bond and Madeleine had all the time in the world and he wasted so much of it because he couldn’t let the past go.

    I believe it was one of Purvis & Wade or Michael G. Wilson who said that when we meet Bond in CR, he’s a guy who doesn’t really understand life. In No Time to Die, he finally “gets it” and pays the ultimate sacrifice to preserve his what really matters and his legacy, Madeleine and Mathilde. I can appreciate that’s not what everyone wants from a Bond film, and I don’t hold anything against those who don’t care for it. That being said, I think it makes a lot of sense with regards to the hero’s journey Craig’s Bond experiences and I think those who haven’t seen the film yet should go in with an open mind.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 14,584
    edit: (reposted elsewhere)
Sign In or Register to comment.