No Time To Die: Why It Should Not Have Been Made (The Way It Was)

1232426282932

Comments

  • peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan ...such a reasonable way of considering this era. There were things you didn't quite enjoy, or even like.

    However you realize what this era was about, where they were successful, but you articulate that you're ready for a return to tradition.

    I have no idea where they go next, but if they continued from the template that they largely used from '62- '02, I can see a world where Bond was put on ice . The formula was proving creaky.

    Now that they have had this run, and it was quite successful with the general audience, they're free to do what they want with a clean slate.

    Perhaps returning to tradition will seem new again (since it hasn't really been a staple in the past 16 years)?; Or maybe it's a mix of the tradition and the elements that worked in the Craig era.

    As you say, it's EoN's choice.

    And they will move in a direction that will put bums in seats AND (hopefully) generally appease the Bond fans (which really is impossible, 😉)

    Thank you @peter, I greatly appreciate that. I try to be a bit level headed and take everyone’s views and opinions into consideration when it comes to these types of discussions, because the great thing about Bond is that what doesn’t work for one person works incredibly well for another. One version doesn’t invalidate the other. Craig doesn’t invalidate Connery, Moore, or the others for me, because (I say this a lot) I love each actor and what they each brought to Bond.

    I love watching Pierce Brosnan mow his way through faceless guards with a machine gun. Is it over the top? Absolutely. Is it realistic? Not in the slightest. Does it scream Fleming? Absolutely Not, but it’s still James Bond to me. I loved watching all the intimate moments Craig had throughout his tenure, especially the scenes with his daughter in NTTD, it’s a new step for the character, but it’s still James Bond to me. Watching Craig’s Bond die at the end of NTTD is not enough to derail my love for the series and the character, a love that goes back to 2004 when I was just 7.

    After Die Another Day, the formula had to be put away for quite some time, because you’re 100% correct, Bond would’ve died if things kept going like that. But as you said, I think enough water has passed under the bridge to bring the formula back. Not that I’m opposed to another connective story arc, because if they do decide to go for that, I hope they plan things out from the start and have a clear direction of where to go from there, but I also miss the episodic feel of the first 20 films.

    For now however, I’m optimistic for the future of Bond. It’s been 60 years since Dr. No, we as fans are getting so many announcements and goodies to hold us over until the next actor comes in, and we can all finally book mark and celebrate the end of an era that has redefined Bond for modern audiences. Bond Fans are truly eating good.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Craig’s films were never meant to be interpreted as being the same exact guy as the previous versions.
    Then why the same actress playing 'M'?
    Because they do this on the fly.
    It worked for me in the first two (very well, actually), but then the script-by-committee/we're so clever(not) s**t crept in.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Craig’s films were never meant to be interpreted as being the same exact guy as the previous versions.
    Then why the same actress playing 'M'?
    Because they do this on the fly.
    It worked for me in the first two (very well, actually), but then the script-by-committee/we're so clever(not) s**t crept in.
    Because it's Judi Dench, and it's quite obvious its not meant to be the same one.

    I'll be honest I don't really understand your last comment, but all I'll say is that Skyfall, Spectre, and No Time To Die are the films that fully cement the reboot. The theory that Casino and Quantum could've been prequels to the franchise were thwarted as soon as Skyfall was released.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2022 Posts: 17,835
    Denbigh wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Craig’s films were never meant to be interpreted as being the same exact guy as the previous versions.
    Then why the same actress playing 'M'?
    Because they do this on the fly.
    It worked for me in the first two (very well, actually), but then the script-by-committee/we're so clever(not) s**t crept in.
    Because it's Judi Dench, and it's quite obvious its not meant to be the same one.

    I'll be honest I don't really understand your last comment, but all I'll say is that Skyfall, Spectre, and No Time To Die are the films that fully cement the reboot. The theory that Casino and Quantum could've been prequels to the franchise were thwarted as soon as Skyfall was released.

    Sorry,
    Skyfall sucked. Kill a character save a franchise.
    SPECTRE was fun, but it sucked. Twist a past, rejuvenate a threat.
    NTTD sucked. Kill the protagonist, rake in the bucks.

    The next movie will make boatloads of dough because of curiosity. All according to plan.
    They used to be interested in entertaining folks too. Now it's more of a business than ever.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Craig’s films were never meant to be interpreted as being the same exact guy as the previous versions.
    Then why the same actress playing 'M'?
    Because they do this on the fly.
    It worked for me in the first two (very well, actually), but then the script-by-committee/we're so clever(not) s**t crept in.
    Because it's Judi Dench, and it's quite obvious its not meant to be the same one.

    I'll be honest I don't really understand your last comment, but all I'll say is that Skyfall, Spectre, and No Time To Die are the films that fully cement the reboot. The theory that Casino and Quantum could've been prequels to the franchise were thwarted as soon as Skyfall was released.
    Skyfall sucked. Kill a character save a franchise.
    SPECTRE was fun, but it sucked. Twist a past, rejuvenate a threat.
    NTTD sucked. Kill the protagonist, rake in the bucks.
    And I respect your opinion, even I completely disagree, but those films still cemented the reboot.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Craig’s films were never meant to be interpreted as being the same exact guy as the previous versions.
    Then why the same actress playing 'M'?
    Because they do this on the fly.
    It worked for me in the first two (very well, actually), but then the script-by-committee/we're so clever(not) s**t crept in.
    Because it's Judi Dench, and it's quite obvious its not meant to be the same one.

    I'll be honest I don't really understand your last comment, but all I'll say is that Skyfall, Spectre, and No Time To Die are the films that fully cement the reboot. The theory that Casino and Quantum could've been prequels to the franchise were thwarted as soon as Skyfall was released.

    Sorry,
    Skyfall sucked. Kill a character save a franchise.
    SPECTRE was fun, but it sucked. Twist a past, rejuvenate a threat.
    NTTD sucked. Kill the protagonist, rake in the bucks.

    The next movie will make boatloads of dough because of curiosity. All according to plan.
    They used to be interested in entertaining folks too. Now it more of a business than ever.

    As a whole, the Craig era was a critical and financial smash. It couldn't do both if it wasn't entertaining. To me, what the era also brought to the table was a level of depth, of character and of filmmaking. These were four filmmakers at the top of their game, even if the scripts (at times) left a lot to be desired. It was a terrific ride.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Denbigh wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Craig’s films were never meant to be interpreted as being the same exact guy as the previous versions.
    Then why the same actress playing 'M'?
    Because they do this on the fly.
    It worked for me in the first two (very well, actually), but then the script-by-committee/we're so clever(not) s**t crept in.
    Because it's Judi Dench, and it's quite obvious its not meant to be the same one.

    I'll be honest I don't really understand your last comment, but all I'll say is that Skyfall, Spectre, and No Time To Die are the films that fully cement the reboot. The theory that Casino and Quantum could've been prequels to the franchise were thwarted as soon as Skyfall was released.
    Skyfall sucked. Kill a character save a franchise.
    SPECTRE was fun, but it sucked. Twist a past, rejuvenate a threat.
    NTTD sucked. Kill the protagonist, rake in the bucks.
    And I respect your opinion, even I completely disagree, but those films still cemented the reboot.

    I must respect your opinion as well. As I have stated many times I enjoy Batman & Robin immensely even though the conventional wisdom is that it sucked. Never take anything I angrily rant about all that seriously. Even if I'm serious. This is the internet. ;)
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 699
    I disagree with the idea that Craig era was successful. At making money, yes, definitely, and maybe that matters the most in the short term, but the legacy of the Craig era is just death of nearly every major character. Ever since SF these movies have been so obsessed with death that it became stifling, and it made the movies extremely moribund. Death has always been a theme in the books and movies but it was always offset by cleverness, humor, romance, and a sense of adventure, none of which any of Craig's post-CR movies have (QOS had some).

    SF and SP don't really have plots in the traditional sense, there's a sense of randomness in these movies, and Mendes seems like he tries to cover up the lack of narrative with tryhard iconic images and lots of long shots of Bond looking moody and walking through empty locations. IMO these movies are lifeless, joyless slogs and there isn't any real depth to them, either. Madeline babbling about "two Jameses" gives the appearance of depth but has no relevance to the actual story. And making MI6 Bond's adoptive family in SF was just weird. Bond isn't looking for family at MI6, he's looking for adventure. Fleming's character has no interest in staying home. MI6 as his family is the last thing he wants. I'm not against the Bond series doing new things but Skyfall did things that don't belong in Bond movies.

    As for NTTD, well I see it as basically Bond succumbing to modern filmmaking trends, and it's clear that it was constructed to see Craig's death wish through. I'd like to ask him why he wanted to kill his character to begin with, and why BB and MGW went with it. All this strikes me as a series that doesn't have any story left to tell and nothing more for its protagonist to do but be perpetually at war with himself. I expect this trend to continue with the next reboot (ugh).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2022 Posts: 17,835
    slide_99 wrote: »

    SF and SP don't really have plots in the traditional sense, there's a sense of randomness in these movies
    THANK YOU.
    Give ME 100 million dollars & let ME make it up as I go, and I guarantee you a better product.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    I personally find Skyfall to be the perfect blend of traditional and modern. It gives us the traditional globe trotting adventure alongside a modern political thriller, and is one of the tightest scripts in the entire franchise, with some of the most original Fleming-like creations (Severine and Raoul Silva) in a modern Bond film.

    To hell the whole film is footed in Fleming.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I personally find Skyfall to be the perfect blend of traditional and modern. It gives us the traditional globe trotting adventure alongside a modern political thriller, and is one of the tightest scripts in the entire franchise, with some of the most original Fleming-like creations (Severine and Raoul Silva) in a modern Bond film.

    To hell the whole film is footed in Fleming.

    Kill Severine, kill M. Two birds with one sexist mentality stone.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I personally find Skyfall to be the perfect blend of traditional and modern. It gives us the traditional globe trotting adventure alongside a modern political thriller, and is one of the tightest scripts in the entire franchise, with some of the most original Fleming-like creations (Severine and Raoul Silva) in a modern Bond film.

    To hell the whole film is footed in Fleming.
    Two birds with one sexist mentality stone.
    31 women have died in this franchise... what's different about Skyfall?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Denbigh wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I personally find Skyfall to be the perfect blend of traditional and modern. It gives us the traditional globe trotting adventure alongside a modern political thriller, and is one of the tightest scripts in the entire franchise, with some of the most original Fleming-like creations (Severine and Raoul Silva) in a modern Bond film.

    To hell the whole film is footed in Fleming.
    Two birds with one sexist mentality stone.
    31 women have died in this franchise... what's different about Skyfall?

    That he could have saved them both if not for his self-indulgent wahh wahh.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    @slide_99 did you finally watch NTTD?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    @slide_99 did you finally watch NTTD?

    Seriously, very seriously here, why do you need him to watch a film he knows he's gonna hate? I watched it out of curiosity knowing where it was going. And I hated it. And paid to hate it. Why ask him to waste $20 like I did?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    chrisisall wrote: »
    @slide_99 did you finally watch NTTD?

    Seriously, very seriously here, why do you need him to watch a film he knows he's gonna hate? I watched it out of curiosity knowing where it was going. And I hated it. And paid to hate it. Why ask him to waste $20 like I did?

    If he hasn’t, then I can’t take him seriously regarding NTTD discussions. Also, I wasn’t asking him to watch the film, I’m simply asking if he finally has.

    And SKYFALL is great. ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2022 Posts: 17,835
    And SKYFALL is great. ;)
    Whatever you need to tell yourself. In other Bonds a sacrificial lamb was out of his ability to protect. This was two lambs effed up by him directly being an ass.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    It didn’t bother me in other films like GOLDFINGER, why should it bother me with SKYFALL?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan ...such a reasonable way of considering this era. There were things you didn't quite enjoy, or even like.

    However you realize what this era was about, where they were successful, but you articulate that you're ready for a return to tradition.

    I have no idea where they go next, but if they continued from the template that they largely used from '62- '02, I can see a world where Bond was put on ice . The formula was proving creaky.

    Now that they have had this run, and it was quite successful with the general audience, they're free to do what they want with a clean slate.

    Perhaps returning to tradition will seem new again (since it hasn't really been a staple in the past 16 years)?; Or maybe it's a mix of the tradition and the elements that worked in the Craig era.

    As you say, it's EoN's choice.

    And they will move in a direction that will put bums in seats AND (hopefully) generally appease the Bond fans (which really is impossible, 😉)

    The formula *was* growing creaky. 1997-2002 prove this. They had nowhere else to go but to reboot.
  • Posts: 1,927
    peter wrote: »
    I was moved by the emotional weight of the film from the very first scene; it all accumulated to its beautiful, and rightful, conclusion.

    Some people love it.

    Some liked it.

    But the haters seem obsessed. The same things are repeated over and over as if this film was produced solely to personally hurt you.

    FFS , it's a film. You hated it. You won't purchase it. You won't watch it again. And that's fine. But repeating the same posts over and over won't change the fact that this is the film we got. Who cares at this point? A new James Bond adventure will soon be on its way.

    Peter, you've hit on exactly what I just don't get about those who have this venomous, you ruined my life take on NTTD and I can't watch another film and how do you bring him back and all that.

    By all means, discuss the film, but stop repeating the same whining points over and over and over again. I learned this the hard way by joining a Bond Facebook group and makes me wonder what some of these people do with the rest of their lives when they're not moaning about this film because it's all they seem to do. Put more energy into celebrating the Bond legacy and not just your perceived problems with one film.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    It didn’t bother me in other films like GOLDFINGER, why should it bother me with SKYFALL?
    Because in SF he could have saved both Severine & M if not for his badly written character.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    chrisisall wrote: »
    It didn’t bother me in other films like GOLDFINGER, why should it bother me with SKYFALL?
    Because in SF he could have saved both Severine & M if not for his badly written character.

    Now pay attention, 007. We're issuing this device to all 00 personnel assigned to missions written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. It will save you in situations of bad writing. We call it "The Maibaum Device."
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    mattjoes wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    It didn’t bother me in other films like GOLDFINGER, why should it bother me with SKYFALL?
    Because in SF he could have saved both Severine & M if not for his badly written character.

    Now pay attention, 007. We're issuing this device to all 00 personnel assigned to missions written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. It will save you in situations of bad writing. We call it "The Maibaum Device."

    LOL!!! So funny....
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2022 Posts: 8,233
    chrisisall wrote: »
    It didn’t bother me in other films like GOLDFINGER, why should it bother me with SKYFALL?
    Because in SF he could have saved both Severine & M if not for his badly written character.

    That’s where you and I differ. I don’t mind seeing Bond fail. I don’t mind seeing Bond make mistakes that result in the death of others. Bond isn’t a superhero, or at least he shouldn’t be. For all his insane feats like surviving a bridge fall, he still fails to keep M alive.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    chrisisall wrote: »
    It didn’t bother me in other films like GOLDFINGER, why should it bother me with SKYFALL?
    Because in SF he could have saved both Severine & M if not for his badly written character.

    That’s where you and I differ. I don’t mind seeing Bond fail. I don’t mind seeing Bond make mistakes that result in the death of others. Bond isn’t a superhero, or at least he shouldn’t be. For all his insane feats like surviving a bridge fall, he still fails to keep M alive.

    If they were hellbent on not letting him STOP it, he should have been in emotional agony after Severine's death. No, scratch that- he should have gone berserk.
    Oh, but she's a throwaway character so who cares.
    Not US, I guess.
    It was sheer crap, and everyone ate it up.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2022 Posts: 8,233
    Bond wasn’t going to give Silva the satisfaction of showing an emotional reaction to Severine’s death, except by swiftly killing every one of his goons before capturing him and gloating about it.

    And of course everyone ate it up, it wasn’t a piece of crap like QOS after all. ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Bond wasn’t going to give Silva the satisfaction of showing an emotional reaction to Severine’s death, except by swiftly killing every one of his goons before capturing him and gloating about it.

    And of course everyone ate it up, it wasn’t a piece of crap like QOS after all. ;)

    It was the tone, the timing & killing of a sex slave Bond just slept with hours before. F**K Me Too, eh?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    You can’t win them all.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    echo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan ...such a reasonable way of considering this era. There were things you didn't quite enjoy, or even like.

    However you realize what this era was about, where they were successful, but you articulate that you're ready for a return to tradition.

    I have no idea where they go next, but if they continued from the template that they largely used from '62- '02, I can see a world where Bond was put on ice . The formula was proving creaky.

    Now that they have had this run, and it was quite successful with the general audience, they're free to do what they want with a clean slate.

    Perhaps returning to tradition will seem new again (since it hasn't really been a staple in the past 16 years)?; Or maybe it's a mix of the tradition and the elements that worked in the Craig era.

    As you say, it's EoN's choice.

    And they will move in a direction that will put bums in seats AND (hopefully) generally appease the Bond fans (which really is impossible, 😉)

    The formula *was* growing creaky. 1997-2002 prove this. They had nowhere else to go but to reboot.

    Yes the idea of them making more Brosnan-style films makes me shiver. It seems odd to me that fans of a series would actually want it to become formulaic again. That’s usually a word used very much as a pejorative.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    Well since the last 15 years have been nothing but this creaky, stale and over dramatic Craig formula, a return to a more fun formula seems like a refreshing change from the new norm.
Sign In or Register to comment.