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
I'm happy with the new title, No Time To Die.
It's Bondian, clear, has a better vibe to it than the others tossed around. I am hugely relieved A Reason To Die was rejected, as it carries the opposite feeling and is just a downer.
I don't care if the title is not "clever", "different" or steeped in Fleming from the novels. I just wanted a solid title that the general public could get on board with and that keeps me satisfied as a longtime Bond fan. I'm not going to pick on it being a well used phrase (in novels and tv, and film, etc.) - that's fine with me. For me, Spectre was the most boring of titles and a slap in our face. So much so that I thought "OK, just get it over with, yeah." Not an ounce of creativity or excitement in it. At least with this one, it carries direct emotion with it, like a statement of intent and determination - and that is Bondian enough for me.
Actually, I find it fits Fleming for me personally. It is direct enough, brings with it a certain ambiance that is suitable to who Bond is and what he does to serve his country.
And I found a link to that film ;)
Could be, I've only carefully looked at the reactions on these boards. Personally I'm not too impressed. I loved Skyfall as a title, as it was intrguing. I agree on SP beeing bland and boring, but NNTD to me smells too much like cheap writing. I'm quite interested in what the other originals and original thinkers think.
Ha, as a war movie I do like the title better. And they already worked with Luciana? Wow!
edit: some very familliar names here: Richard Maibaum, Terence Young, Luciana (very young here!)
LOVE, LIFE & DEATH in the titles of the James Bond Films
Generally, the titles of Bond films follow a template: Some of the most popular titles involve one word, generally the name of the villain, sometimes the codename for the operation. Goldfinger, Thunderball, Moonraker and others follow this lead. Doctor No qualifies in this area to my mind. Occasionally, the titles involve a clever saying: Diamonds Are Forever, For Your Eyes Only, The World is Not Enough, and others follow this format.
And sometimes, the titles involve variations of the themes of Love, Life, and Death.
Going in Chronological Order:
LOVE: From Russia with Love
LIFE: You Only Live Twice.
MULTIPLE REFERENCE: Live and Let Die
LOVE: The Spy Who Loved Me
DEATH: From a View to a Kill
LIFE: The Living Daylights
DEATH: License to Kill
DEATH: Tomorrow Never Dies
DEATH: Die Another Day
DEATH: No Time to Die
(And just as an honorable mention, let us consider the Theme Song to QoS: "Another Way to Die.")
Looked at in order of the films' release, I think it irrefutable to note that these titles have been a bit "Death" heavy over the past few decades. I think it's also worth noting that the Fleming-related titles were more life- and love-oriented than they were prone to dwell on death. Speaking just for myself, I'd like to see the earlier tendencies revived...
I think my own personal choice was End Game. But of course, The Avengers took that earlier. It would have suited. No Time To Die does fit a final Bond arc, which this is for Craig.
Perhaps Bond 26 will have something more directly about life, birth, renewal, etc. in its title.
The font is retro; I like that, too. From The Love Boat tv show to several movies and other tv shows, this font is so blunt and stark. I like it for Bond.
So who else can chime in here? What are your feelings about the title, No Time To Die? My feelings are the same as I first had, instinctively, when I read it. I'd like to hear from other members here, especially Originals (us older fans) but everybody is welcome to chat with us about the title.
Please remember, though, this thread has NO spoilers for the story or cast, or anything else re this upcoming Bond film.
Titles I dislike: Octopussy. And the very simple Spectre. That's about it. Tomorrow Never Lies would have been better, in my opinion, but I don't mind TND. And I suppose Quantum of Solace is just okay, not ever really pleased with it.
No Time To Die is a rather common phrase, for many situations. I don't find it silly for Bond. It fits Bond for me; I like it. Other members don't; you are not alone, Birdleson. I think the general public will like it; certainly more than Quantum and even Skyfall (strictly speaking about the title, not the film).
And of course those two titles are VERY familiar at this point. Best to take the long view with each new reveal and add it all up after a couple viewings of the film once it's in release. Once the film exists.
On the other hand a cold clinical view could put it on the same level as Licence to Kill. Of course there's a huge opportunity to present a great title up front, difficult as it seems. And the remaining Fleming titles are golden to me, they should build future films around them.
I guess it wouldn't have been bad had we not had 3 other Die titles, not to mention a title song called Another Way to Die. These may all blend together for a casual fan of the series, easily confusing which was which. Bring back Beyond the Ice.
So No Time To Die might find some redemption in the film itself, but it doesn't appeal to the imagination at all. If it's a foreboding to any dialogue, I probably won't like the dialogue either as indeed it's more fitting to a nineties action flick.
I wish it were different.
Shatterhand could be a fine title if you ask me, and, whilst reading 'Thrilling cities', I think there's plenty of lines that can be lifted from Fleming's work that would make for intreguing titles. I think it was @ericaAmbler who ones coined the phrase 'benign bizarre'. Bond films should have a little of that and it would be nice if that came back in the title (Live and Let Die beeing a very good example there).
Members here are not really like "the general public". And as a chorus of "Thank God for that!" comes shouted at me; yeah, I hear you. I'm just saying I understand why EON would want the title to appeal to a broader, global audience - and personally, I have no problem with that. The title is about the least important thing to me in a Bond film.
Off the top of my head, my "important" list for Bond films is:
Important Elements in a Bond Film:
Title of almost no importance to me, truly a marketing icing on the cake.
Only a few more details from me:
I want great stunts and action in the story
Adventurous story (at least in part)
Some intrigue (not stupid; "great script" covers a lot of territory)
Love/sexual chemistry interest for Bond
A fairly well wrapped up ending (not too ambiguous)
That's all from me for now. Happy for everybody else to chime in. Make your list short and sweet or as detailed as you'd like.
However, I am off now for a while. I shall return ... just don't know when (probably a couple of weeks). I may peek in, but I need a definite break from the forum and from the internet. I'm okay; just ploughing ahead with work stress takes a toll.
Meanwhile, I'll have one of those Vesper drinks that Bond is having - you can keep the fruit. Cheers! B-)
Thanks!
So does anyone have any additions to my list of required elements? It occurs to me that a first-rate Bond film needs a strong Ally for Bond as well as a great Henchman for the villain. Oddjob, of course, is probably the definitive henchman...while Kerim Bey was certainly one of the great allies. And an entire thread could be dedicated to the various Felix Leiters! What say the rest of you?
As Brosnan was my first cinematic experience, perhaps that's why the actor I think isn't that important. I'll never deny Connery setting the standard, but for me Thunderball and FRWL i.e. are miles ahead of GF, which can be explained by the director and script/plot. For me it's the storytelling that counts. I want to be brought into the film, I want to live it. And whomever plays Bond of course needs a certain standard, but as Young basically made Connery what he became, so a good director can mold most actors into believable characters. Take Lazenby: all the guy hadwas tha cavalier attitude to life Bond has as well, but there's where the similarities end. And without any acting experience or education he's still made into a beleivable Bond.
Fairly scant praise for Brosnan, don't you think? Personally, I rather liked him at that time; now I only wish he'd brought something of his own take to the role.
Maybe now, 50 years after the fact, we can say that. At the time OHMSS was released, there was a strong concern that the franchise's days were numbered, due in no small part to the lack of acceptance the public had for Lazzer's performance as Bond.
I think a villain whose mere name can serve as a film's title has an advantage over other (dare I say lesser?) villains. Dr. No and Goldfinger are indelibly linked in the public mind with James Bond 007. Others, even Blofeld himself, are not similarly well-known to the general public. Even The Man With the Golden Gun has this leg-up on the likes of Drax or Le Chiffre (although the general public might not really be aware that TMWTGG's given name was Francisco Scaramanga.) I think a Bond film named "Shatterhand" stands a good chance of enticing more ticket buyers than a generic title like "Die Another Day" or "No Time to Die." A great villain needs some sort of identifying shtick: Dr. No's metal hands, Goldfinger's gold fetish and Scaramanga's golden gun all come to mind. Why are Stromberg or Drax less memorable than the trio noted earlier? It can't be the imaginative nature of their respective plots! I am particularly fond of Elliot Carver, whose media mogul as Big Bad Villain was very much ahead of its' time--but Carver's stature in the public mind is about equal to that of Franz Sanchez, which is to say, it takes a real Bond fan to remember them at all!
And then we have the importance of the Bond girl. Here we have a bit of a quandary: there is more than one type of Bond Girl! There is the brief dalliance, the sacrificial lamb, and the Main Attraction. Certainly Ursula Andress, with her bikini-clad entrance from the sea, is one of the most memorable Bond girls, and she is clearly the M.A. of the first film -- but Sylvia Trench, the first Bond girl we are shown in DN, is little more than a brief dalliance, and yet she is a memorable presence all these years later. Jill Masterson, the Golden Girl of Goldfinger, is a sacrificial lamb who will live in the public mind forever... and of course Pussy Galore, the M.A. of that same movie, is remembered by the public for her provocative name, as (perhaps to a lesser degree) is Octopussy. Does a first-class Bond film need more than one Girl to meet a standard of some sort? The Living Daylights has only Kara Milovy -- the very next film, License to Kill, has both Pam Bouvier and Lupe Lamorra. Is it automatically a better film because it has double the number of Bond Girls on view?
Please, if you have any opinions on these or similar topics, by all means chime in!