› ›

Do you have any concerns or niggles about NTTD ,or are you full of confidence ?

1…2021232526…45

Comments

  • DrinmanDrinman New York
    edited December 2019 Posts: 40
    I think it's pretty simple. Cubby was a showman and a businessman who gave the people what they want. He adapted to the times without sacrificing the character. He gaves us FRWL, LALD, MR, LTK, etc... all very different films that took the formula in different directions.

    Barbara is a product of film school and on some level probably always took the criticism that Bond was too formulaic and predictable and vowed when it was her turn she would turn it into some type of high art.

    Now with that being said, I still believe that CR and SF are two of the best entries in the series but I do yearn for the episodic nature of Bond on a non-personal mission every two years. I also miss how Bond films used to feel unique within the series:

    FRWL was the spy thriller in Istanbul.
    TB was the underwater one.
    YOLT was the japan one
    DAF was the Vegas one
    Moonraker was the space one
    OP was the India one
    etc... etc... etc... you catch my drift whereas now I feel each film doesn't really have it's own identity within the series. I think CR was the closest in a long time with the casino setting. I'm very much looking forward to NTTD but it does seem to continue the random hodgepodge of "this time it's personal" somewhere in Italy, a random snowy location, cookie-cutter exotic beach area, etc...
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Drinman wrote: »
    I think it's pretty simple. Cubby was a showman and a businessman who gave the people what they want. He adapted to the times without sacrificing the character. He gaves us FRWL, LALD, MR, LTK, etc... all very different films that took the formula in different directions.

    Barbara is a product of film school and on some level probably always took the criticism that Bond was too formulaic and predictable and vowed when it was her turn she would turn it into some type of high art.

    Now with that being said, I still believe that CR and SF are two of the best entries in the series but I do yearn for the episodic nature of Bond on a non-personal mission every two years. I also miss how Bond films used to feel unique within the series:

    FRWL was the spy thriller in Istanbul.
    TB was the underwater one.
    YOLT was the japan one
    DAF was the Vegas one
    Moonraker was the space one
    OP was the India one
    etc... etc... etc... you catch my drift whereas now I feel each film doesn't really have it's own identity within the series. I think CR was the closest in a long time with the casino setting. I'm very much looking forward to NTTD but it does seem to continue the random hodgepodge of "this time it's personal" somewhere in Italy, a random snowy location, random beach area, etc...

    I think that's a good point actually. All, or at least most, of Cubby's (and Saltzman's) film have a very strong visual identity. Of course the exoticness of location was more profound in the days that people couldn't necessarily travel to far flung corners of the globe as easily as they do now.

    Your point is a good one, though. YOLT is a fine example. Several beats of the film are completely intertwined with the Japanese setting, it informs the films identity, in a lot of ways.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2019 Posts: 2,541
    Main Locations of Casino Royale was Montenegro in SF it was London, either it's outer or underground London and QOS main setting was in Bolivia. Every bond film has a location where bond spends major part of the film (let's say 1hr out of 2 hr film). SP was the only missed opportunity where bond was moving from one location to another (in SP it should have been morroco imo).
  • DrinmanDrinman New York
    edited December 2019 Posts: 40
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Drinman wrote: »
    FRWL was the spy thriller in Istanbul.
    TB was the underwater one.
    YOLT was the japan one
    DAF was the Vegas one
    Moonraker was the space one
    OP was the India one

    I've brought this up on here several times before. It first bugged me with TSWLM. I loved the film, but I remember thinking, "We already had a ski Bond and an underwater Bond. Why are we doing this again.?" Though inferior, MR did set that right again by being the "space one". Now we just take it for granted that each film is a hodge podge. As for NTTD, I would love for us to just stay in Jamaica for the entire film (with framing sequences in London, ala DN); obviously not going to happen.

    Yep. In total agreement with you here. LALD was the blaxploitation Bond, OHMSS was the Christmas/Snow one, TMWTGG was the Thailand one, etc...

    I think CR could have benefited from maybe the Miami sequence being deleted and spending more time in the Montenegro casino setting/surrounding areas. It's almost like they tried to cram all the unused elements they probably had from a 5th Brosnan film laying around into Craig's first. Probably the only thing keeping it from being a bonafide classic in my eyes (still great movie).



  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2019 Posts: 2,541
    I think Norway seems to be the main location this time in NTTD but there is Russian angle as well.
  • DrinmanDrinman New York
    Posts: 40
    Resurrection wrote: »
    I think Norway seems to be the main location this time in NTTD but there is Russian angle as well.

    Visually the forest setting looks stunning however I believe they are using the location to double for somewhere else (maybe eastern russia, possible Japan) and it'll only feature the last 40 mins or so.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    They’re jumping around again it seems. Matera, Jamaica ,Cuba, London and Norway are a lot of locations
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    All signs point to the events of NTTD honing in on Norway.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    They’re jumping around again it seems. Matera, Jamaica ,Cuba, London and Norway are a lot of locations

    It’s probably going to be rubbish.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    Drinman wrote: »
    I think it's pretty simple. Cubby was a showman and a businessman who gave the people what they want. He adapted to the times without sacrificing the character. He gaves us FRWL, LALD, MR, LTK, etc... all very different films that took the formula in different directions.

    Barbara is a product of film school and on some level probably always took the criticism that Bond was too formulaic and predictable and vowed when it was her turn she would turn it into some type of high art.

    Now with that being said, I still believe that CR and SF are two of the best entries in the series but I do yearn for the episodic nature of Bond on a non-personal mission every two years. I also miss how Bond films used to feel unique within the series:

    FRWL was the spy thriller in Istanbul.
    TB was the underwater one.
    YOLT was the japan one
    DAF was the Vegas one
    Moonraker was the space one
    OP was the India one
    etc... etc... etc... you catch my drift whereas now I feel each film doesn't really have it's own identity within the series. I think CR was the closest in a long time with the casino setting. I'm very much looking forward to NTTD but it does seem to continue the random hodgepodge of "this time it's personal" somewhere in Italy, a random snowy location, cookie-cutter exotic beach area, etc...

    Nice post!

    I have said this numerous times. Since Babs took over, her films are exactly that - a hodgepodge, generic, tick-box, all-blends-into-one, series of films with no individual identity, other than the standout casino scenes in CR, and M's death in SF. The rest is a just a jumble of The World of Tomorrow Never Dies Another Time to Die Another Day.

    This is why I think the series needs a serious executive overhaul after this one. Go back to basics, back to Fleming.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    JanusMatrix wrote: »
    Here is the full article...


    Is Bond still Bond?


    The Daniel Craig era will come to a definitive close next April in No Time to Die (2020), fourteen years since the actors first appearance as the famous secret agent that began with the modern reinterpretation of Casino Royale (2006).

    Martin Campbell’s film rebooted the Ian Fleming secret agent for the new century, during a period when the post 9/11 era still dominated, and new characters emerged to challenge James Bond as the world’s greatest spy series.

    Most significantly Paul Greengrass’ Bourne Identity (2002), injected new life into the genre, making the previous Pierce Brosnan films of the James Bond series feel strangely obsolete, as if relics from another century as the real events of the fin de siècle overtook fiction and reframed the cinematic landscape.

    Fleming traditionalists praised Casino Royale for its back to basics approach with Bond’s first kill occurring through flashback in black and white in gritty realism. The streamlining of the character authentically updated Bond for his role in the new millennium using Ian Fleming’s original source material novel as its backbone.

    As the Daniel Craig films have progressed a certain quarter of fandom have been asking if James Bond is still truly Bond? From 2006-2020 audiences have since become accustomed to seeing Craig in a tuxedo, speeding around in his Aston Martin DB5, enjoying a Martini, gaining gadgets from Q and dispensing with a new selection of villains. A far cry from the outrage over his initial “Bond has gone blonde” casting controversy.

    Fans warmed to Craig quickly after the commercial and critical success of Casino Royale (2006), and it was followed by Quantum of Solace (2008), Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015). The actor has created his own unique mark on the Bond persona, through a catalogue of instalments that have now defined the series as the new century progressed.

    Just as each new Bond actor has created an injection of energy into the franchise, they have also faced the same challenge on how to leave the series. If the “world has moved on” nobody told Daniel Craig, who has now stayed in the role for close to fourteen years, longer than Sir Roger Moore; the previous record holder at twelve. Moore however had a greater output of seven films by the end of his tenure and Sir Sean Connery has six, with one unofficial sequel in Never Say Never Again. (1983)

    Sir Sean Connery’s Diamonds are Forever (1971) felt out of place against his classic five film initial run from 1962-67. Connery was lured back by a then record $1.25 million dollar salary and the failure of the previous film His Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) starring George Lazenby at the behest of the studio United Artists.

    Sir Roger Moore looking slightly aged, in the 1980s silicon-valley flavoured A View to A Kill co-starring Christopher Walken as Max Zoran, the KGB backed technology industrialist, that today might make some silicon-valley technology billionaires double check their family tree.

    Timothy Dalton’s last effort License to Kill was an eventual critical success, going against type. The new direction of his rogue agent was ended after only two films as Dalton brought darker elements of the literary character to the role, moving beyond the comedy that eventually defined the Moore era.

    The financial success, but critical failure of Pierce Brosnan’s ill received Die Another Day, (2002) showed technology jumping the shark with an invisible Aston Martin car, a CGI inspired surfing scene, and assorted science fiction elements. Eventually ending Brosnan’s run before the then rumoured Quentin Tarantino reboot of Casino Royale could come to fruition starring the Irishman, as his intended send off.

    At least Craig has had a choice in the way he departs. With nearly five years break since Spectre (2015), one of the longest of the series due to a lengthy delay in the production, and a switch of directors from Danny Boyle to Cary Jung Fukinja. This was compounded by the uncertainty over whether Craig would agree to return at all after his infamous comments that he would rather “slash his wrists than play Bond again”.

    Mendes’ retro combination of Skyfall and Spectre began a trend to personalise then humanise Bond. Interweaving the plot strands of all four films as intricately as the tentacles of the Spectre octopus itself. It created a micro-universe for Bond to operate within, as the “author of all his pain” eventually led back to Christopher Waltz’s Blofeld in a narrative that retroactively spanned all four films.

    The additions to Bond’s lone agent persona from Naomi Harris’ Moneypenny, Ralph Fiennes M, and Ben Wishaw’s Q, have also not gone unnoticed in fleshing out these characters and giving them greater prominence. It brings forth such unflattering comparisons to the Mission Impossible series starring Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, as the Craig films risk becoming just another ensemble spy franchise, losing his unique solitary identity.

    This creates a Mendes flavoured headache for new director Fukinaja, the first American to ever direct the series. How to continue the narrative saga for Craig’s final mission, while imprinting his own unique identity onto the film and incorporating some more traditional Bond archetypes and elements?

    The Daniel Craig series is considered critically to have two good films in Casino Royale and Skyfall and two that fell below par in the underrated Quantum of Solace and Spectre. No Time to Die therefore will come to define Daniel Craig’s tenure critically, with many hoping it will remedy Spectre’s narrative faults and conclude the extended story with a flourish.

    There will be no stopping the film making money at the box office irrespective of critics. With Skyfall (2012) still holding the record for the highest grossing James Bond film at $1,108,561,008, just ahead of Sir Sean Connery’s Thunderball (1965) at $1,014,941,117. Spectre although disappointing some critically, is still within the top four films of the series, at a healthy $880,669,186

    Traditionalist are hoping that Craig’s departure may open the door for a new dawn of standalone stories, in keeping with Fleming’s literary novels. With a fresh face destined to take on the role and a return to the classic formula of From Russia with Love (1963), Live and Let Die (1973) and Goldeneye (1995). Giving the agent room to breathe away, from a densely plotted universe, that is beginning to resemble a Marvel superhero franchise.

    Narrative interconnectivity would seem to be a natural progression in an era where long form television drama dominates, and universe building has become a staple of the industry to engage viewers. Yet there is something to be said for the pure escapism of individualised Bond story that dispenses with larger convoluted arcs, in favour of a stand-alone story with distinct identifiable elements and a point of closure.

    This appeared to be the direction that the series was heading in at the end of Skyfall in keeping with the format of early cinematic adaptions. Moving back to a point of historical reference with the traditional scene closing the film in M’s office. Bond appeared smart, ruthless with the ability to travel the world again, unattached and ready for his next mission.

    What occurred though in the next film was a humanisation of Bond. His family’s past was portrayed in Skyfall and investigated further with the Blofeld revelation in Spectre. Bond also had to deal with the death of his longstanding superior, played by Judi Dench. These all brought even more connections and entanglements to the agent’s personality, moving the character in a new direction.

    Dr Madeline Swan, Bond’s romantic interest from Spectre, played by Léa Seydoux returns as his personal life is placed under the microscope and is interwoven into the plot. The trailer sets the audience on a rollercoaster ride to find out her secret, that has been hidden from 007 eyes, and her connection to Remi Malek’s villain Safin.

    James Bond is equally defined by the villains he faces, as much as the actor playing 007. With Oscar winner Remi Malek’s Safin’s plot still undisclosed, we only know that it deals with a dangerous new technology. There is a strong possibility that he has connections to a very classic Bond villain, and the hope is the talented actor will memorably define Daniel Craig’s final mission.

    Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace formed an eloquent duet, while Skyfall and Spectre meandered towards personal but low-key finales. Spectre focalised Bond under the prisms of personal relationships and a strangely domestic agenda, with almost covert pre-Brexit inspired overtones. As the Daniel Craig series became a cohesive narrative in of itself, the isolated but carefree adventures of previous Bond films started to feel like a distant memory as the Bond universe began to be formed.

    Bond is now told blatantly to “stay in your lane” by the new 00 agent Nomi played by Lashana Lynch in the trailer. Preparing the audience for the beginning of a new era early. All encased with the cultural politics of the age, under the watchful eye of potential new writer Phoebe Waller Bridge. Whether or not the next Bond ends up as female is irrelevant, if the psychological core at the heart of the character is somehow lost or altered.

    Keeping this identity and traditionalists happy into the next iteration could prove to be Bond’s most dangerous mission yet. The character has successfully navigated the cold war and the fall of communism, through to the war on terror, transcending a variety of different actors that made the role their own while remaining true to the spirt of Fleming’s creation.

    James Bond now may face his greatest challenge in maintaining his literary traditions, while navigating the conflicting culture wars of the 21st century, as new narrative forces may pull him further from Ian Fleming’s original heritage.

    Bravo!! =D>
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,599
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wold love to go back to the days where locations weren't just backdrops; where we get to know the culture and a few locals a little bit (DN, FRWL and OP come to mind).

    I miss those days too. Do Eon really understand Bond?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,126
    Bounine wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wold love to go back to the days where locations weren't just backdrops; where we get to know the culture and a few locals a little bit (DN, FRWL and OP come to mind).

    I miss those days too. Do Eon really understand Bond?

    Same one of the things I like about Bond.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,126
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    JanusMatrix wrote: »
    Here is the full article...


    Is Bond still Bond?


    The Daniel Craig era will come to a definitive close next April in No Time to Die (2020), fourteen years since the actors first appearance as the famous secret agent that began with the modern reinterpretation of Casino Royale (2006).

    Martin Campbell’s film rebooted the Ian Fleming secret agent for the new century, during a period when the post 9/11 era still dominated, and new characters emerged to challenge James Bond as the world’s greatest spy series.

    Most significantly Paul Greengrass’ Bourne Identity (2002), injected new life into the genre, making the previous Pierce Brosnan films of the James Bond series feel strangely obsolete, as if relics from another century as the real events of the fin de siècle overtook fiction and reframed the cinematic landscape.

    Fleming traditionalists praised Casino Royale for its back to basics approach with Bond’s first kill occurring through flashback in black and white in gritty realism. The streamlining of the character authentically updated Bond for his role in the new millennium using Ian Fleming’s original source material novel as its backbone.

    As the Daniel Craig films have progressed a certain quarter of fandom have been asking if James Bond is still truly Bond? From 2006-2020 audiences have since become accustomed to seeing Craig in a tuxedo, speeding around in his Aston Martin DB5, enjoying a Martini, gaining gadgets from Q and dispensing with a new selection of villains. A far cry from the outrage over his initial “Bond has gone blonde” casting controversy.

    Fans warmed to Craig quickly after the commercial and critical success of Casino Royale (2006), and it was followed by Quantum of Solace (2008), Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015). The actor has created his own unique mark on the Bond persona, through a catalogue of instalments that have now defined the series as the new century progressed.

    Just as each new Bond actor has created an injection of energy into the franchise, they have also faced the same challenge on how to leave the series. If the “world has moved on” nobody told Daniel Craig, who has now stayed in the role for close to fourteen years, longer than Sir Roger Moore; the previous record holder at twelve. Moore however had a greater output of seven films by the end of his tenure and Sir Sean Connery has six, with one unofficial sequel in Never Say Never Again. (1983)

    Sir Sean Connery’s Diamonds are Forever (1971) felt out of place against his classic five film initial run from 1962-67. Connery was lured back by a then record $1.25 million dollar salary and the failure of the previous film His Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) starring George Lazenby at the behest of the studio United Artists.

    Sir Roger Moore looking slightly aged, in the 1980s silicon-valley flavoured A View to A Kill co-starring Christopher Walken as Max Zoran, the KGB backed technology industrialist, that today might make some silicon-valley technology billionaires double check their family tree.

    Timothy Dalton’s last effort License to Kill was an eventual critical success, going against type. The new direction of his rogue agent was ended after only two films as Dalton brought darker elements of the literary character to the role, moving beyond the comedy that eventually defined the Moore era.

    The financial success, but critical failure of Pierce Brosnan’s ill received Die Another Day, (2002) showed technology jumping the shark with an invisible Aston Martin car, a CGI inspired surfing scene, and assorted science fiction elements. Eventually ending Brosnan’s run before the then rumoured Quentin Tarantino reboot of Casino Royale could come to fruition starring the Irishman, as his intended send off.

    At least Craig has had a choice in the way he departs. With nearly five years break since Spectre (2015), one of the longest of the series due to a lengthy delay in the production, and a switch of directors from Danny Boyle to Cary Jung Fukinja. This was compounded by the uncertainty over whether Craig would agree to return at all after his infamous comments that he would rather “slash his wrists than play Bond again”.

    Mendes’ retro combination of Skyfall and Spectre began a trend to personalise then humanise Bond. Interweaving the plot strands of all four films as intricately as the tentacles of the Spectre octopus itself. It created a micro-universe for Bond to operate within, as the “author of all his pain” eventually led back to Christopher Waltz’s Blofeld in a narrative that retroactively spanned all four films.

    The additions to Bond’s lone agent persona from Naomi Harris’ Moneypenny, Ralph Fiennes M, and Ben Wishaw’s Q, have also not gone unnoticed in fleshing out these characters and giving them greater prominence. It brings forth such unflattering comparisons to the Mission Impossible series starring Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, as the Craig films risk becoming just another ensemble spy franchise, losing his unique solitary identity.

    This creates a Mendes flavoured headache for new director Fukinaja, the first American to ever direct the series. How to continue the narrative saga for Craig’s final mission, while imprinting his own unique identity onto the film and incorporating some more traditional Bond archetypes and elements?

    The Daniel Craig series is considered critically to have two good films in Casino Royale and Skyfall and two that fell below par in the underrated Quantum of Solace and Spectre. No Time to Die therefore will come to define Daniel Craig’s tenure critically, with many hoping it will remedy Spectre’s narrative faults and conclude the extended story with a flourish.

    There will be no stopping the film making money at the box office irrespective of critics. With Skyfall (2012) still holding the record for the highest grossing James Bond film at $1,108,561,008, just ahead of Sir Sean Connery’s Thunderball (1965) at $1,014,941,117. Spectre although disappointing some critically, is still within the top four films of the series, at a healthy $880,669,186

    Traditionalist are hoping that Craig’s departure may open the door for a new dawn of standalone stories, in keeping with Fleming’s literary novels. With a fresh face destined to take on the role and a return to the classic formula of From Russia with Love (1963), Live and Let Die (1973) and Goldeneye (1995). Giving the agent room to breathe away, from a densely plotted universe, that is beginning to resemble a Marvel superhero franchise.

    Narrative interconnectivity would seem to be a natural progression in an era where long form television drama dominates, and universe building has become a staple of the industry to engage viewers. Yet there is something to be said for the pure escapism of individualised Bond story that dispenses with larger convoluted arcs, in favour of a stand-alone story with distinct identifiable elements and a point of closure.

    This appeared to be the direction that the series was heading in at the end of Skyfall in keeping with the format of early cinematic adaptions. Moving back to a point of historical reference with the traditional scene closing the film in M’s office. Bond appeared smart, ruthless with the ability to travel the world again, unattached and ready for his next mission.

    What occurred though in the next film was a humanisation of Bond. His family’s past was portrayed in Skyfall and investigated further with the Blofeld revelation in Spectre. Bond also had to deal with the death of his longstanding superior, played by Judi Dench. These all brought even more connections and entanglements to the agent’s personality, moving the character in a new direction.

    Dr Madeline Swan, Bond’s romantic interest from Spectre, played by Léa Seydoux returns as his personal life is placed under the microscope and is interwoven into the plot. The trailer sets the audience on a rollercoaster ride to find out her secret, that has been hidden from 007 eyes, and her connection to Remi Malek’s villain Safin.

    James Bond is equally defined by the villains he faces, as much as the actor playing 007. With Oscar winner Remi Malek’s Safin’s plot still undisclosed, we only know that it deals with a dangerous new technology. There is a strong possibility that he has connections to a very classic Bond villain, and the hope is the talented actor will memorably define Daniel Craig’s final mission.

    Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace formed an eloquent duet, while Skyfall and Spectre meandered towards personal but low-key finales. Spectre focalised Bond under the prisms of personal relationships and a strangely domestic agenda, with almost covert pre-Brexit inspired overtones. As the Daniel Craig series became a cohesive narrative in of itself, the isolated but carefree adventures of previous Bond films started to feel like a distant memory as the Bond universe began to be formed.

    Bond is now told blatantly to “stay in your lane” by the new 00 agent Nomi played by Lashana Lynch in the trailer. Preparing the audience for the beginning of a new era early. All encased with the cultural politics of the age, under the watchful eye of potential new writer Phoebe Waller Bridge. Whether or not the next Bond ends up as female is irrelevant, if the psychological core at the heart of the character is somehow lost or altered.

    Keeping this identity and traditionalists happy into the next iteration could prove to be Bond’s most dangerous mission yet. The character has successfully navigated the cold war and the fall of communism, through to the war on terror, transcending a variety of different actors that made the role their own while remaining true to the spirt of Fleming’s creation.

    James Bond now may face his greatest challenge in maintaining his literary traditions, while navigating the conflicting culture wars of the 21st century, as new narrative forces may pull him further from Ian Fleming’s original heritage.

    Bravo!! =D>

    Brilliant where did this come from.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited December 2019 Posts: 12,480
    I like having several locations in a Bond film. How it hinges together, the story, and how it is filmed makes all the difference. I don't want Bond to be in one place.

    Anyway, as per the title of this thread: Yes, I am still 100% confident in this film. I haven't wavered.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,126

    they are tricking the public to get tickets and money for thier wallets.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,228
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    they are tricking the public to get tickets and money for thier wallets.
    Isn’t that what every film on the face of this planet has done?
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    they are tricking the public to get tickets and money for thier wallets.
    Isn’t that what every film on the face of this planet has done?

    Yeah why you watch then.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,228
    Diabolical!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,232
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    they are tricking the public to get tickets and money for thier wallets.
    Isn’t that what every film on the face of this planet has done?

    Yeah why you watch then.

    Why do you?
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Something that I noted in the trailer (and shades of SP) is Bond multi-tasking during a car chase. Basically, he is having a row with his girlfriend in the middle of an action scene. We know from the all time best car chases that you dont need this extra dimension. A well executed car chase shoud be enough. And this becomes representative of a wider issue. That action cant be just action. There has to be an additional layer of emotion. Popeye Doyle or Bullit didn't need it...and neither does Bond.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,226
    patb wrote: »
    Something that I noted in the trailer (and shades of SP) is Bond multi-tasking during a car chase. Basically, he is having a row with his girlfriend in the middle of an action scene. We know from the all time best car chases that you dont need this extra dimension. A well executed car chase shoud be enough. And this becomes representative of a wider issue. That action cant be just action. There has to be an additional layer of emotion. Popeye Doyle or Bullit didn't need it...and neither does Bond.

    The last time he was involved in a car chase he multi-tasked by conversing with Moneypenny. "Of course! Mr White!"

    That's never been my favorite car chase sequence in the series.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,232
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Something that I noted in the trailer (and shades of SP) is Bond multi-tasking during a car chase. Basically, he is having a row with his girlfriend in the middle of an action scene. We know from the all time best car chases that you dont need this extra dimension. A well executed car chase shoud be enough. And this becomes representative of a wider issue. That action cant be just action. There has to be an additional layer of emotion. Popeye Doyle or Bullit didn't need it...and neither does Bond.

    The last time he was involved in a car chase he multi-tasked by conversing with Moneypenny. "Of course! Mr White!"

    That's never been my favorite car chase sequence in the series.

    Crosscutting can kill any energy an action scene may have if it's done poorly, such as it was there.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    they are tricking the public to get tickets and money for thier wallets.
    Isn’t that what every film on the face of this planet has done?

    Yeah why you watch then.

    Why do you?

    @CraigMooreOHMSS I was just having a falling out yesterday ignore that comment.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Something that I noted in the trailer (and shades of SP) is Bond multi-tasking during a car chase. Basically, he is having a row with his girlfriend in the middle of an action scene. We know from the all time best car chases that you dont need this extra dimension. A well executed car chase shoud be enough. And this becomes representative of a wider issue. That action cant be just action. There has to be an additional layer of emotion. Popeye Doyle or Bullit didn't need it...and neither does Bond.

    Seems like nitpicking to me. There are lots of Bond chases in which he’s conversing with a passenger.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Something that I noted in the trailer (and shades of SP) is Bond multi-tasking during a car chase. Basically, he is having a row with his girlfriend in the middle of an action scene. We know from the all time best car chases that you dont need this extra dimension. A well executed car chase shoud be enough. And this becomes representative of a wider issue. That action cant be just action. There has to be an additional layer of emotion. Popeye Doyle or Bullit didn't need it...and neither does Bond.

    Seems like nitpicking to me. There are lots of Bond chases in which he’s conversing with a passenger.

    There are a lots of chases in a lot of action movies where someone is having a conversation during an action scene but folks only like to remind and nitpick on bond films. The last time I saw that was in fallout when Ethan and lane was in car.

    To be honest it completely depends on the execution.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I love a ride in the country.

    Yeah, no worries about Bond being able to drive and talk and perhaps chew gum while driving in a dangerous fast-paced car chase.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    they are tricking the public to get tickets and money for thier wallets.
    I'm sorry, but what on earth are you even talking about?
  • ZekidkZekidk
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,278
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Something that I noted in the trailer (and shades of SP) is Bond multi-tasking during a car chase. Basically, he is having a row with his girlfriend in the middle of an action scene. We know from the all time best car chases that you dont need this extra dimension. A well executed car chase shoud be enough. And this becomes representative of a wider issue. That action cant be just action. There has to be an additional layer of emotion. Popeye Doyle or Bullit didn't need it...and neither does Bond.

    The last time he was involved in a car chase he multi-tasked by conversing with Moneypenny. "Of course! Mr White!"

    That's never been my favorite car chase sequence in the series.

    Crosscutting can kill any energy an action scene may have if it's done poorly, such as it was there.

    Same thing with the snowplane chase in SP. Crosscutting between the chase and Q in the lift. Didn't work for me.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Zekidk wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Something that I noted in the trailer (and shades of SP) is Bond multi-tasking during a car chase. Basically, he is having a row with his girlfriend in the middle of an action scene. We know from the all time best car chases that you dont need this extra dimension. A well executed car chase shoud be enough. And this becomes representative of a wider issue. That action cant be just action. There has to be an additional layer of emotion. Popeye Doyle or Bullit didn't need it...and neither does Bond.

    The last time he was involved in a car chase he multi-tasked by conversing with Moneypenny. "Of course! Mr White!"

    That's never been my favorite car chase sequence in the series.

    Crosscutting can kill any energy an action scene may have if it's done poorly, such as it was there.

    Same thing with the snowplane chase in SP. Crosscutting between the chase and Q in the lift. Didn't work for me.

    Couldn't agree more. This happened a lot in the two Mendes films, and really undercut the momentum of the action scenes. I mean how can you make a car/plane chase, where the planes wings get torn off and it careers down a mountain, pedestrian and boring? Somehow Mendes and his editors managed it.
Sign In or Register to comment.