 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 11, 2022 - 9:09 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Coco314
(Member)
|
Agreed NTTD is a drag, spectacularly non-fun, for something that cost that much
Big budget movies do not need to be "fun". Christopher Nolan movies are big budget, usually quite serious affairs that manage to find an audience. Same thing for "Dune".
I, for one, was glad that they stuck to their guns on the Craig movies (not that I liked all of them, far from it, although I liked NTTD better than "Skyfall" or "Spectre"). I know their seriousness was not everyone's cup of tea, but Bond movies of the past invariably turned into being silly and/or outlandish after a few movies, and I find it courageous that the Craig story arc remained tonally consistent (especially given the ending of NTTD).
And indeed, now, it is the best time for a lighter touch with the next Bond.
As for the score, although I don't think it will be remembered in 10 years as a masterpiece of film music, Bond music or even Hans Zimmer's career, it was a good enough, enjoyable effort from a pro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 11, 2022 - 9:09 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Coco314
(Member)
|
Agreed NTTD is a drag, spectacularly non-fun, for something that cost that much
Big budget movies do not necessarily need to be "fun". Christopher Nolan movies are big budget, usually quite serious affairs that manage to find an audience. Same thing for "Dune".
I, for one, was glad that they stuck to their guns on the Craig movies (not that I liked all of them, far from it, although I liked NTTD better than "Skyfall" or "Spectre"). I know their seriousness was not everyone's cup of tea, but Bond movies of the past invariably turned into being silly and/or outlandish after a few movies, and I find it courageous that the Craig story arc remained tonally consistent (especially given the ending of NTTD).
And indeed, now, it is the best time for a lighter touch with the next Bond.
As for the score, although I don't think it will be remembered in 10 years as a masterpiece of film music, Bond music or even Hans Zimmer's career, it was a good enough, enjoyable effort from a pro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 11, 2022 - 12:01 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Agreed NTTD is a drag, spectacularly non-fun, for something that cost that much
Big budget movies do not necessarily need to be "fun". Christopher Nolan movies are big budget, usually quite serious affairs that manage to find an audience. Same thing for "Dune".
I, for one, was glad that they stuck to their guns on the Craig movies (not that I liked all of them, far from it, although I liked NTTD better than "Skyfall" or "Spectre"). I know their seriousness was not everyone's cup of tea, but Bond movies of the past invariably turned into being silly and/or outlandish after a few movies, and I find it courageous that the Craig story arc remained tonally consistent (especially given the ending of NTTD).
And indeed, now, it is the best time for a lighter touch with the next Bond.
As for the score, although I don't think it will be remembered in 10 years as a masterpiece of film music, Bond music or even Hans Zimmer's career, it was a good enough, enjoyable effort from a pro.
Nolan is a different thing, it is certainly true that most of his pictures barely get to 'fun' or if you watch Tenet, it is something like a root canal, without any drugs. I am not a "Bond" fan, but I saw a lot of the earlier ones, and they were broadly action fun, almost all of them. The Craig era brought this, "Bond films are a serious thing" nonsense, and it does not really work for me. It is not serious, nor is it fun, and this last villain, whispering toxic plants guy, pretty weak stuff. It is just an enormous waste of $250 million, it is not thought provoking, or really entertaining, not an art film, and not fun. It exists, it seems, as Danny Boyle said, as a psychiatric exercise for Craig and his followers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is just an enormous waste of $250 million, it is not thought provoking, or really entertaining, not an art film, and not fun. It exists, it seems, as Danny Boyle said, as a psychiatric exercise for Craig and his followers.
It's the highest grossing film of the pandemic era after Spider-Man.
It's also the third highest-grossing film ever in the UK, after The Force Awakens and Skyfall.
The studio may still lose a bit of money in the short run, simply because the pandemic held down box office among adults quite a bit, but I'm sure they'll milk out the rest from other revenue streams eventually. I don't think anyone at the studio is unhappy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 11, 2022 - 1:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Big budget movies do not need to be "fun".
Nope, they certainly do not. I can find movies rewarding for myriad reasons. I didn't especially enjoy No Time to Die not necessarily because it wasn't fun, but because the translation of the Bond traditions – the island lair, the plans for world domination, the gizmos – fit uncomfortably to me in this more grounded universe. The bionic eye was both silly and gruesome, for instance, and all the rules about the nanobots felt like screenplay contrivances – I couldn't take it seriously, nor was it enjoyable. And honestly, though they tried to give it an emotional ending, I have no emotional connection to this version of Bond, so that just felt long and unrewarding to me.
That said, many people enjoyed the hell out of it. All good. Just my own opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 11, 2022 - 1:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Big budget movies do not need to be "fun".
Nope, they certainly do not. I can find movies rewarding for myriad reasons. I didn't especially enjoy No Time to Die not necessarily because it wasn't fun, but because the translation of the Bond traditions – the island lair, the plans for world domination, the gizmos – fit uncomfortably to me in this more grounded universe. The bionic eye was both silly and gruesome, for instance, and all the rules about the nanobots felt like screenplay contrivances – I couldn't take it seriously, nor was it enjoyable. And honestly, though they tried to give it an emotional ending, I have no emotional connection to this version of Bond, so that just felt long and unrewarding to me.
That said, many people enjoyed the hell out of it. All good. Just my own opinion.
That is a pretty good analysis, the fantasy world elements and gizmos much better and a more rewarding way within the other version of Bond movies, this more 'realistic' version of grim Bond just does not mesh that well with it. There is something rather joyless about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed NTTD is a drag, spectacularly non-fun, for something that cost that much
Big budget movies do not necessarily need to be "fun". Christopher Nolan movies are big budget, usually quite serious affairs that manage to find an audience. Same thing for "Dune".
I, for one, was glad that they stuck to their guns on the Craig movies (not that I liked all of them, far from it, although I liked NTTD better than "Skyfall" or "Spectre"). I know their seriousness was not everyone's cup of tea, but Bond movies of the past invariably turned into being silly and/or outlandish after a few movies, and I find it courageous that the Craig story arc remained tonally consistent (especially given the ending of NTTD).
And indeed, now, it is the best time for a lighter touch with the next Bond.
As for the score, although I don't think it will be remembered in 10 years as a masterpiece of film music, Bond music or even Hans Zimmer's career, it was a good enough, enjoyable effort from a pro.
Nolan is a different thing, it is certainly true that most of his pictures barely get to 'fun' or if you watch Tenet, it is something like a root canal, without any drugs. I am not a "Bond" fan, but I saw a lot of the earlier ones, and they were broadly action fun, almost all of them. The Craig era brought this, "Bond films are a serious thing" nonsense, and it does not really work for me. It is not serious, nor is it fun, and this last villain, whispering toxic plants guy, pretty weak stuff. It is just an enormous waste of $250 million, it is not thought provoking, or really entertaining, not an art film, and not fun. It exists, it seems, as Danny Boyle said, as a psychiatric exercise for Craig and his followers.
Where and when did Boyle say this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 11, 2022 - 2:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MattyT
(Member)
|
I had a chance to rewatch NTTD this past weekend, and again I found it very entertaining but flawed. I liked it when I saw it in the theater, but I wish they would have done more after watching it a second time. "Casino Royale" will forever be the perfect Bond film, IMHO. I wish they would have focused the story more on Bond and Léa Seydoux's character and whether or not she was telling the truth, if she was associated with Spectre and if he could trust her. The first twenty of NTTD was my favorite part. Since Bond already had trust issues because of Vesper, they could have kept that going for the entire movie and kept the audience wondering up until the end, and it still could have had a big finale. Rami Malek's character was uninteresting, with no real motive for committing genocide, and Christoph Waltz was severely underutilized. Waltz could have made the best Bond villain ever if they gave him more to do.
Hans' score is serviceable and surprised me quite a bit in a good way, like a close cousin to a David Arnold score, but I still think it would have been awesome to have Arnold and Martin Campbell back for the final Craig outing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you could read "James Bond will return". Will the next Bond be a "living dead"-Bond, a ghost or will they show his childhood and the time before he died? But then they cannot bring in modern-time developments anymore. Or will they just ignore that Bond died. Or will he have escaped from death by some wonderous actions? All of those possibilities are plain silly.
It's not so hard to suss out. Daniel Craig's Bond was never supposed to be the same person as Pierce Brosnan. Just like "Casino Royale" created this "alternate universe" Bond series that was unconnected to the previous films other than in characters, the next film would just have a new actor stepping in and resetting it all again. Not necessarily starting at the beginning of his career but younger and on missions. The audience is accustomed to new actors taking over and having films unrelated to the previous. Batman, Spider-Man, Tarzan and so on have all had films change direction independently of the earlier movies after a recasting.
"James Bond Will Return" were the four most reassuring words I could have read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Craig's Bond was never supposed to be the same person as Pierce Brosnan. Just like "Casino Royale" created this "alternate universe" Bond series that was unconnected to the previous films other than in characters, the next film would just have a new actor stepping in and resetting it all again.
Is there any other franchise like Bond in this way? The films are connected, but they aren't. Craig's Bond is not the same as (say) Brosnan's Bond, and yet Judi Dench is M to both of them. Blofeld, Leiter, various characters live and die and live again. Where more and more franchises are parts of shared universes where the continuity connects across dozens of films and television shows, Bond almost perversely flouts any such continuity. In some ways, that's refreshing. But I can't think of anything else like it, at least not on this level.
The Simpsons plays fast and loose with its continuity. It gets referenced when it serves the story and ignored when it doesn't.
Unlike the other Bonds, the Craig era was clearly meant to be a hard reboot. Yes, Dench reprised her role as M, but she was a much different M. During the Brosnan years she was new to her role as M, having moved over from another part of the government, and by contrast, Bond was a seasoned agent. Bond had misgivings about M being appointed and M thought of Bond as a dinosaur and "relic of the Cold War". When Craig came on board, it was the opposite. Bond had just become a 00, whereas M had clearly been in her role for a long time. Both versions worked for different reasons, and gave M a bit of a story arc aside from ordering Bond on a mission and occasionally congratulating him for a job well done at the end.
The series has played fast and loose with continuity from pretty early on and even became a punchline when Lazenby said to the camera "this never happened to the other fella".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 11, 2022 - 6:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
JGouse0498
(Member)
|
I would maintain that Craig´s Bond was of course meant to be the same person as Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan. What other reason to call him James Bond? Why would they use the OHMSS main theme from a 1969-film and WHATTITW??? Why use all the pictures from the earlier movies during the title sequence of OHMSS? Why does Moore visit Tracy´s grave in FYEO?
To just introduce a new actor in the role of 007 without any explanation regarding Bond´s death would be a very foul trick.
By that rationale, you would also have to have numerous issues with the entire franchise such as...
1) Why are there multiple Felix Leiters? And how did he change ethnicities??
2) How come Bond keeps getting really old, really young, and everything in between?
3) How come there are multiple Blofelds? (Or M...or Moneypenny...you get the idea)
4) How come Bond had 20+ missions BEFORE becoming a Double-Oh?
5) How come Bond seems to exist in several decades and...
OK, I think that's enough to make this point:
It's called a REBOOT!!
smh...is it really that hard to understand that these movies are meant to be various takes on the same literary character. It's been done for years! Scrooge, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Jack Ryan, etc. etc.
It's simple: Daniel Craig's five-movie run was one particular interpretation of the character. That has ended. Another actor will come along, and audiences are smart enough to say "Oh, ok...we're starting over again. That's just like Batman or Spider-Man or Sherlock etc etc")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not so hard to suss out. Daniel Craig's Bond was never supposed to be the same person as Pierce Brosnan.
I would maintain that Craig´s Bond was of course meant to be the same person as Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan. What other reason to call him James Bond? Why would they use the OHMSS main theme from a 1969-film and WHATTITW??? Why use all the pictures from the earlier movies during the title sequence of OHMSS? Why does Moore visit Tracy´s grave in FYEO?
To just introduce a new actor in the role of 007 without any explanation regarding Bond´s death would be a very foul trick.
Nah, first Bond wasn't earning his 00 status in 2006, he never met or married Tracy diVincenzo, this Blofeld was different, M was different, Moneypenny was a different race and a field agent, Q was younger....It was clearly meant to be a reboot of the franchise without having to deal with decades of continuity baggage. He was never meant to be the Connery, Lazenby. Moore, Dalton or even Brosnan version of the character. Why call him "James Bond"? Because it's another spin on the literary character. The mere passage of time make it impossible for him to be the same man that we saw in Dr. No. The homages were simply that: tributes to a series on an anniversary.
I never said Moore wasn't the same character Connery played, I was speaking of CRAIG. His films were not from the same timeline. That is plain. Moore and Connery were close in age, so it made perfect sense for them to be in the same continuity. Once they recast with Dalton, things got sketchy, but the reboot wasn't made obvious until they went back to Bond's beginnings without going back in time.
To acknowledge his death in the storyline would mean they are saying the next "James Bond" is a different man taking the name or would come up with a way to either backpeadal and say the death was a trick (like an old Flash Gordon serial cliffhanger resolution) or come up with a weirdo science way to restore him life.
That's better than just rebooting? All they gotta put in the press is that this is either a different continuity, like the Nolan Batman films were different from the previous 4 films, or that it's a return to the original continuity. With all of the mainstream coverage the next film will get, everyone going to see it will be more than up to speed without having to write it into the story.
People are overthinking how to make the next film with it's easy as starting again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 11, 2022 - 7:11 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
Nah, first Bond wasn't earning his 00 status in 2006, he never met or married Tracy diVincenzo, this Blofeld was different, M was different, Moneypenny was a different race and a field agent, Q was younger....
Yes, EVERYTHING is different.
Still they are called Bond, M, Moneypenny and Q. Why? They all have nothing to do with Fleming´s Bond anymore. The last "Fleming-Bond" was Casino Royale. The following films (and many of Moore´s films) were created solely by some screenwriters.
So, the Bond of NTTD maybe just was a fake Bond, a dream. The real Bond will return in the new film. I don´t like this "logic" of "reboot". If I want to get some kind of a reboot, I take NSNA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get that you don't like the idea, but it's pretty obvious they did a reset of the series when Craig took over and that none of the adventures we saw prior to them happened to this version of the character.
Yes, I am well aware that changing actors doesn't mean they're not the same characters but it is obvious that the Blofeld in SPECTRE and NTTD isn't even remotely the same character as the version Connery and Lazenby encountered simply because Blofeld in the novels and earlier films wasn't Bond's foster brother.
And, I'll repeat, I didn't say that the Bond from Dr. No through Die Another Day weren't meant to be the same man. I said that the Bond portrayed by Daniel Craig's James Bond did not have THOSE adventures. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Jack Ryan was played by two actors in his first three theatrical films and it was always intended that Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford were playing the same man. But it's less clear if Ben Affleck was and it's abundantly clear that Chris Pine was not.
Johnny Weissmuller and Gordon Scott both played Tarzan in an ongoing series, but it's pretty clear they were not in the same continuity.
Tobey Maguire was replaced by Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man and they restarted the series there was no confusion. Same characters, different actors, different continuity. Long before Marvel started trying it all together, it was just accepted as a different continuity.
The list goes on.
It's not about "who played Felix Leiter." It's about Bond earning his 00 status from an M who was played by the same woman who was replacing the M Bond worked for for decades in earlier films. It's NOT the same M because it's not the same continuity. In the period from when he earned his 00 status until his death he never went through the life experiences we saw. There wasn't time. Not unless he crammed in a short lived and tragic marriage between Vesper and Madeline, which is ridiculous. This ain't rocket science, it's just fiction. A different interpretation of the characters, which happens all over film and television. Why are the Bond Mythos untouchable in that regard?
Again, I get it: you don't like it. Sorry. But that's not gonna change it. Unless they decide to make cheeky references to the end of NTTD, they will just reset and move on. The audience is used to it and it's easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
