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
Agree with you here, but I'll say it again; I loved that transition from the raft to the garage! My fourth viewing was at home (rented from Apple TV+, to hell with Bezos ;) ) and I did feel they could have hung on the black screen a moment longer before opening the garage to hammer home the drama of the transition, but either way, gives me chills.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/music-no-time-to-die-boy-george
I like it, too ... but I prefer the song we got.
He said awhile ago that he interprets Craig’s films as an attack on the first 20. That by simply rebooting he sees the filmmakers saying “this is how it should have always been done” as opposed to just doing something different for the sake of variety. So his views are suspect in my opinion.
Absolute drivel and a complete failure to understand any of my points.
You have no right to dismiss my views as suspect. Again, just more total arrogance and pretentious preening. I'm done
You're dismissing another's views while claiming they have no right to do the same. You very much seem to be saying "Craig fans are just wrong", it's not hard to see in your own very arrogant posts.
I wonder what happened to Q date when he came on and saw Bond was there and had already drunk half his bottle of red wine.
I hope Bond said “get a room!”
Maybe we shold have seen Bond and Q as "odd couple" with either Bond cleaning the flat, do the shopping, feed the cats, cook the mealsetc., or, alternativeley, messing up Q's flat with empty Heineken cans and empty takewaway boxes. But as one user took this suggestion for serious, maybe it's better without this biteen.
Anyone who severely dislikes SP should REALLY dislike NTTD IMHO....
Because nanobots in this Century is way stupider than Blofeld being somehow related to Bond... one is impossible, the other is merely not cool.
;)
This is exactly how I felt about the movie coming out of it, although I was slightly more positive and gave it a 5/10. Since then I felt the movie grow on me and expected to enjoy it more in a second viewing, but reading your review brought back all
the negative thoughts I had the first time. So it could go either way when I revisit it. There’s just so MUCH in the movie, both good and bad. The script issues are really evident because they really didn’t need to shove as many different elements in there as they did. They should have either made Blofeld the primary antagonist again, or only focused on Safin and fleshed him out more; as it stands I think most of the issues stem from trying to do service to both, but it just ends up letting them both down.
I was flicking through and noticed this. All of these on-line discussion groups have several 'elephants in the room' but this is the most simple and obvious one. If they have been making films since 1962 "points of entry" are going to vary enormously and ones reaction is inevitably coloured by that.
As someone who is 66 and came from a working class back ground in the North when they was a woollen industry the Bond legacy has been most important in shaping and formulating my aspirations giving me role models. Honor, Diana etc etc. life experiences and places.
However psychology, the thing that makes unusual people tick is for me the pre dominate fascination now. I also tend to agree with Fleming that if you want those searing moments of romance passion, call it what you will they are fleeting. Most relationships are over time about TCOB.
So as a 66 yearly to see a Bond whose skin we have got underneath try and find the door to that and realise its impossible to do so is actually thematically a very simple proposition. This story is really "The Spy's who loved each other." neither could escape their past and yet for a precious few days they found Paradise. But they loved momentarily and to the full that is operatic in scope. Opera is always a very simple story dressed up, NTTD is the same. The Cuba sequence is a traditional insert which returns to the Grand theme. It is a deliberate placement of Bond Cinema values whereas the MI6 entry is a collision of subversion and real life comment.
However if you are young/middle aged/man/woman who came in on Roger/Tim/Pierce floating continuity and bought that as your first relationship with Bond you may consider all this fiddle faddle... or not.
In many ways our response to this film is more important than the film itself. The film is immovable done .. how do we approach it and why is fascinating because in the end it has done what Bond is about, taking risks, being different.
You know the film’s villain taking control of a DNA-targeting nanobots is a concept first pitched for TWINE by Purvis & Wade. ;)
Well put.
Full circle!
Excellent post. This is why I actually really like the argumentative scene in M's office earlier on in the movie as M bears some culpability for Bond losing his family through Heracles and losing his life. It was really great to watch that scene on a repeat viewing knowing all what happens at the end.
Jumping off what you said though, in a way, NTTD ends the same way SP does. Bond caught in the middle between MI6 and Madeleine. Except this time he can't cross the bridge to the life he wants as his past, his choices, and his curse of death prevents him.
Yes, I agree. And I was just thinking too how I love how Craig kind of "hams" up the lines when he's talking about Spectre & Blofeld, in his delivery. A couple examples, when he says:
"No, he's in London in prison..." "...because I put him there..." to Paloma in Cuba
and
"Yes, he ran a meeting in Cuba from Belmarsh..." to M in London
Etc. For some reason I just love his delivery in those moments. Really the whole meeting between Bond and M is immaculate in this film IMO.
There's also that line from the trailer that was cut, "Our enemies are arming faster than ever." or something to that effect. That stuff was probably in there to explain M's about-face on the matter.
Heracles doesn’t get agents off the field. It just manages to avoid any collateral damage. The spy work on the field is still needed but agents just end up being in far safer position. M working on a weapon that manages to protect the life of his agents makes perfect sense to me.