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

1242527293032

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    **** that, give me the modern equivalent of a Lewis Gilbert film. GIVE ME MOONRAKER!

    And I’m actually dead serious. I would love to see a bugnuts modern Bond film in that style.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited February 2022 Posts: 16,359
    Adapt Serpent's Tooth EON. Make it happen. ;)
    3O6Yuf0.jpg


  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2022 Posts: 8,215
    I remember someone on the olde KTBEU forums started a thread saying EON needs to make a movie where Bond fights a velociraptor.

    I think he was onto something.

    EON once offered Joe Dante a Bond film (it was TWINE, oddly), maybe they should give him another offer.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    Murdock wrote: »
    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.

    I think the word 'formula' is losing its meaning.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 16,602
    Murdock wrote: »
    Adapt Serpent's Tooth EON. Make it happen. ;)
    3O6Yuf0.jpg


    Is the joke there that larger tree branches are technically referred to as limbs? Oof. You can see why the films have good writers doing this stuff! :D

    I like that Bond has adopted Sterling Archer's Gator look there (with his own addition of fetish club gloves) :)
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    edited February 2022 Posts: 2,582

    Stupid................ :-O
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    You mean the editing by that YouTuber? I agree.
  • Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me.

    I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.

    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    Yes, Craig's era was a different take, originally a fresh take, on Bond. Unfortunately, they took it far too far in an awful direction.

    Here's hoping the next movie is as far removed from NTTD as CR was from DAD.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me.

    I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.

    It’s also because most films were stand-alone stories anyway, so there was no need to address how it’s possible Pierce Brosnan could have fought Doctor No. All that mattered as far as Brosnan’s run was concerned was that he was a veteran of the Cold War.

    But because Craig’s run had an explicit start and emphasized continuity between films and even the fact that his Bond aged, that would have made a transition to a new younger actor be a bit awkward compared to previous transitions. However Craig’s run would end, I think a reboot, soft or not, would have been inevitable.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    I think if you come to a forum where fans of the Bond films talk about Bond films you have to be prepared that Bond film fans will defend the thing they're a fan of.
  • mtm wrote: »
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    I think if you come to a forum where fans of the Bond films talk about Bond films you have to be prepared that Bond film fans will defend the thing they're a fan of.

    Absolutely agree, which is why I don't understand comments earlier in this thread from NTTD lovers complaining that those of us that don't like it, should stop going on about it.

    Some people bought into it, some hated it. The haters of NTTD are just as entitled to vent as the lovers of it.

  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,582

    More cgi nonsense............. :-O :-O
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    I think if you come to a forum where fans of the Bond films talk about Bond films you have to be prepared that Bond film fans will defend the thing they're a fan of.

    Absolutely agree, which is why I don't understand comments earlier in this thread from NTTD lovers complaining that those of us that don't like it, should stop going on about it.

    Some people bought into it, some hated it. The haters of NTTD are just as entitled to vent as the lovers of it.

    I'm not sure that is agreeing with what I said... :)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me. I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.
    Yes, of course I understand it @EDDIEVH. The point I was making was to someone who said that there can't be a Bond 26 because Bond is dead and that can't work in any real fictional way... so I mentioned if that can't work in any real fictional way, despite Bond 26 being an obvious reboot, then neither can the rest of the franchise that came before it.
    More cgi nonsense............. :-O :-O
    More Oscar nominated CGI nonsense I think you'll find ;)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215

    More cgi nonsense............. :-O :-O

    What makes it CGI nonsense?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,157
    You mean they didn't build that, train Lashana to fly it and shoot it in-camera? Cheats.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    So Dr No was more rear-projected nonsense-? ;)
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    slide_99 wrote: »
    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).

    Man. Where do I begin?

    First, do some research on Fleming and his connection to Carl Jung. This was an "untapped" resource for the writers and directors, and it plays an important role in the Craig era. Go back and review DC's five films and look at how mirror images play a HUGE role in them, especially the CR PTS. We see...two Jameses. That, my friend, is the cinematic equivalent of Jung's "duality of man."

    No, Bond is NOT looking for adventure. Now, I have not read all of Fleming's work, but from what I have read, THIS IS A JOB. And there is an existential crisis that Fleming's Bond is continually battling. Dalton was the first actor to tap into this anguish.

    And I'm not sure what things SF has that should not be in a Bond film. I know that SF doesn't have a Tarzan yell, Beach Boys music, slide whistles, invisible cars, double-taking pigeons, space lazers, etc.

    But setting all of that aside, yes: the franchise made a lot of money with DC and the films were critical successes. He's beloved as Bond; he will be missed; and this era will be looked back on with fondness by millions of fans for decades to come.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    TripAces wrote: »
    And I'm not sure what things SF has that should not be in a Bond film.
    Bond directly getting two ladies killed right in front of him through incompetence-? Of maybe the choice of sunglasses....
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    And I'm not sure what things SF has that should not be in a Bond film.
    Bond directly getting two ladies killed right in front of him through incompetence-? Of maybe the choice of sunglasses....
    I understand the criticism of Severine's death, but I wouldn't call it incompetence, wasn't the whole idea to make sure that Silva was unarmed? Considering they both only had one bullet and if Bond had tried anything before Silva's shot, he and Severine would both be dead.

    As for M, Bond didn't know that the weapons at Skyfall were sold and he wasn't with M when she was shot by one of Silva's men.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 3,157
    chrisisall wrote: »
    [maybe the choice of sunglasses....
    And cardigans. I...I...no. I know it was a McQueen homage, but still...no cardigans, thanks.

  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,582

    More cgi nonsense............. :-O :-O

    What makes it CGI nonsense?

    It belongs in a cartoon, not a bond film........... :)>-
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215

    More cgi nonsense............. :-O :-O

    What makes it CGI nonsense?

    It belongs in a cartoon, not a bond film........... :)>-

    You feel that way about every instance of CGI used?
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,714
    I'm either blessed or cursed with eyes that don't tend to be so sensitive to what people call bad CGI. The divey plane thing that goes underwater looked fine to me and I didn't even register it as CGI at all, really.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    It does look like CGI, but it's far from bad CGI. The fact that it's a fictional craft always plays on my mind during these things; of course it has to be computer-generated, the thing isn't real! :P
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    EDDIEVH wrote: »
    Reading back on some of these comments regarding Bond not ageing over 40 yrs surprises me.

    I thought people understood that the reason for this is because it takes years to film a movie, produce it, promote it and release it. The missions Bond goes on from Dr No to DAD are only supposed to be within, I'd say, roughly an 8 to 10 year span. Some artistic licence is used as you couldn't put together 20 movies in 8 yrs. As a result, you change actor and ask the audience to ignore some films are set in the 60s and some in the 90s. It's no more unrealistic than people bursting into song in a musical, it's artistic licence.

    NTTD will forever remain missing from my DVD collection, it doesn't deserve a place. Those that liked this soppy, cliched, mess, don't have to be so offended that others don't like it.

    Yes, Craig's era was a different take, originally a fresh take, on Bond. Unfortunately, they took it far too far in an awful direction.

    Here's hoping the next movie is as far removed from NTTD as CR was from DAD.

    That's the thing, though, @EDDIEVH ... Most ppl who liked the film aren't offended that others didn't like it. I see plenty stressing to a poster who had a negative reaction to the film, that they see their point of view. However;

    I think those who liked NTTD are tired of seeing the same members of this forum-- one who hasn't even seen the film (lol!)-- coming on here and pissing moaning and repeating the same things over and over and over and over as if this film was designed to target and butt-hurt them.

    In the end, the creatives made the film they wanted to make and one they thought most ppl would enjoy. They were correct-- most did enjoy it!

    You and others didn't like it. What can you do about it? It's the film that was released. And we have heard all your protestations: you hate it, it was dumb, the ending was lazy and you're not going to watch the film again, let alone purchase it. We've heard you. We've heard you....

    The good news is, you can watch 20 plus Bond films!

    And in a few short years, that greedy, ego-driven and arrogant buffoon,-- Daniel Craig, of course!--will no longer be in the role!!

    And you may adore this new direction!!!

    Or, because that's the nature of story-telling, you may dislike it even more than this era... And then what?....
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    It does look like CGI, but it's far from bad CGI. The fact that it's a fictional craft always plays on my mind during these things; of course it has to be computer-generated, the thing isn't real! :P

    Something about the way it seamlessly slips under the water seems vaguely impossible to me, but maybe it is possible? I don't know.
    I must admit I do think there is a bit of a lack of spectacle about that bit. It doesn't look real and it doesn't really even do anything so I tend to gloss over at it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    For some truly horrible cgi, check out Shang-Chi.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    And in a few short years, that greedy, ego-driven and arrogant buffoon,-- Daniel Craig, of course!--will no longer be in the role!!

    Yikes. The extent people will go to berate a Bond actor, just because they may not like their particular style.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited February 2022 Posts: 9,511
    @M16_Cart I was being facetious and used adjectives I've read on here describing Craig (p.s. I added "buffoon" to appease my more theatrical side, lol)

    He and Connery are my tops, 👍
Sign In or Register to comment.