It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
So, if there are any Germans here: Avoid Die Zeit for now.
I saw a little bit of Moore with the references to LALD, but what I really got out of it was that it’s an amalgamation of 60s films, particularly concerning SPECTRE. The crater base feels very DN with the chauffeur and hospitality at the crater base, then we have a train fight like in FRWL, Bond sporting a white tuxedo much like Connery’s in GF, a board room meeting that includes an execution of a member like in TB, Blofeld’s scarring like in YOLT, finally Blofeld being essentially crippled like in OHMSS. All deliberate attempts at doing an all in one.
I don't know about that. When the producers had to slim budgets -- no choice about it -- in LALD and especially in TMWTGG, it showed. When they turned it on again in TSWLM, it showed, in a positive way, and the audiences came back. If the Bond producers "went lean and mean" there'd be many disappointed fans -- this is not a LeCarre story, with any Bond, after all. If they try to put a big story up on the big screen, and don't produce something Bond-ian, they'll suffer comparisons with the M:I films and others. You need not spend more each time than before, you can plan and keep things under control, but the Bond folks better put something BIG up on the screen ! What they need are great action set-pieces which are extended, tense, spectacular, dangerous -- as you may have noticed, the M:I films don't have the trickiest plots since the first one, but starting with the third one (first one great, second a let-down, from third on better and better) they've used this technique to great effect. Their action set-pieces are memorable, and that boosts the film itself, and the audience enjoyment, etc. What I am saying is that a Bond film should be big, but need not spend more and more and more. But some tight, tense, personal spy drama ? Nope. Not sure that's what you were suggesting, though...
I certainly wouldn't mind something that's akin to DN - stripped back, tight, focused heavily on one locale, more spy elements, but yes, that wasn't what I was suggesting either. I think you can go big and bombastic without needing to spend more and more, certainly without having to go into the $300 million + range. SP cost that much and I rarely felt like I saw the money on screen. I do think the budget needs to be bigger than your average, everyday film, but I want it to be used more wisely.
You can have a bigger budget and still make a tight film. I think the issue I have with some of the newer Bond films is simply that I don't see the budget up there on screen. The excesses are a waste of time and money.
Did SP need to be 250 million? How much did they spend on that one explosion? It was an an explosion that added little to the film. Whereas the train fight was amazing, one of the best fisticuffs in the franchise, and probably did not cost much overall.
That's what I'm saying (and I believe SP even stretched closer to $300-330, at least from all the estimates I've seen since 2015). Hey, I won't complain if I can see $300 million unfolding on screen but I absolutely didn't. That explosion seemed nothing more than a back-patting session, it's almost cringe watching everyone jump up and down in excitement after filming it. Completely useless money waster there.
Some of the reviews deemed "fresh" are more negative than some of the reviews deeming it "rotten." Like this for example:
https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/no-time-to-die-review/
Metacritic is probably more accurate in that regard. They further categorize reviews at mixed. NTTD is 73 there currently based on like 28 reviews.
Then you'll get the ones deemed positive and it's categorized at negative. Like they'll take a 3 of 5 star review as negative. The threshold should be 3 out of 5 and 2.5 out of 4 or higher as positive and anything lower as negative.
I pay no mind to RT for many reasons, that one in particular.
No, because "fresh" doesn't mean anything above absolutely average.
Oh I could deal with that! :)
I'm assuming you live in Germany too.... This sounds absolutely normal to me! I avoid German media specifically, all of it, when there's a big new film coming. In the run up to The Dark Knight Rises I even stopped following German acquaintances on Facebook.
No Time To Die Zeit
Yeah I keep saying it but the Mission Impossible films have had much lower budgets, and although they haven't made quite as much cash I'd say that they've been possibly even slightly more spectacular than the recent Bonds- it doesn't seem, erm, impossible ;)
But then I guess we've got Amazon involved now so spending less cash seems unlikely!
Absolutely. I mean, if you were lucky enough to get an invite, would you trash the film
I gotta say I was actually salty as a Bond fan when I enjoyed MI Fallout as much as I did. The generous use of the iconic theme in the score, the “WOW” moments were so plentiful that you forgave the silly plot, even enjoyed it… Coming off the heals of Spectre, I definitely tipped my cap to that movie.
It's down to 86% after 74 reviews on RT. Will probably settle somewhere in the mid to low 80s after most of the reviews come in.
Spectre was up against MI:5 Rogue Nation.
Same result though! :)
https://variety.com/2021/film/global/james-bond-zurich-film-festival-daniel-craig-1235076781/