 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 12, 2022 - 7:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Khan
(Member)
|
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.
Well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 12, 2022 - 8:35 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
I've commented numerous times on what I like/dislike about the JB007 franchise ... and I'm pleased the Daniel Craig era has ended. I applauded his first film, with reservations, and was sorry (dismayed!) to see how the story arc developed (almost as much as how sorry/dismayed I was at how the individual films were presented to us - loyal - fans).
But I will credit the filmmakers with one thing ... and this is something which none of the above contributors has raised (apologies if I overlooked such a comment). Further, it might indicate a way forward for Bond26 which does not involve another re-boot ...
In just about every film the writers, having long run out of original IF stories, have taken elements from the novels/short stories and woven these into the film's storyline. Even the non-Bond film Skyfall - which, for me, did everything it could to trash the aura of JB007 (then 50 years old cinematically) - did include the element that JB had Scottish roots and that he had been orphaned at an early age.
Looking at this current/last film, how many have considered the literary sources in play? The poison garden, set on an island off Japan, is clearly based on IF's novel You Only Live Twice and so it appears obvious - to me - that the filmmakers took this further and based the end of the film on the novel's ending.
It's difficult to be more detailed without spoilers - and, even if I'm correct, will Bond26 open with a re-visit to the end of No Time to Die à la the Saturday morning action-hero serials - but I see the link, tenuous maybe, still there with IF's writings.
And that is one thing which does distinguish the JB007 franchise from other franchises ... the desire to keep the cinematic James Bond based on the literary James Bond.
But this contribution fails to involve the score by Hans Zimmer ... so, what is there to say? It was, for me, an improvement over Thomas Newman's two efforts (though clearly copied his style in some cues) and was serviceable throughout ... best bits being the John Barry quotes ... and the play-out song!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 12, 2022 - 9:17 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
follow me
(Member)
|
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.
OK, but it seems the producers were not so sure about a "reboot" themselves: why did they use the OHMSS-theme for Daniel Craig then and why did they use WHATTITW? Both were clearly connected to an earlier film. And why did the use the James Bond-theme, a theme for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan.
And then we have a James Bond, played by a new actor who isn´t the old Bond anymore, and we have an established actress who has already played M for a long time, who now should be a completely different, new M??? All this is a complete, irritating mishmash. It´s a reboot and not really a reboot all at the same time. It seems all the creative forces of the film weren´t that sure themselves what this (these) film(s) should be.
If this film (or these films) should have been such an idiotic complete reboot, they should have gone the NSNA-way! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 12, 2022 - 11:54 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TheAvenger
(Member)
|
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.
OK, but it seems the producers were not so sure about a "reboot" themselves: why did they use the OHMSS-theme for Daniel Craig then and why did they use WHATTITW? Both were clearly connected to an earlier film. And why did the use the James Bond-theme, a theme for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan.
I think you are possibly over-thinking things. I’m not sure that the music quoted from OHMSS is really supposed to have any significant subtext beyond a nod and a wink to the series’ history. To me - admittedly not the most objective person since I hate the Craig movies - all the music did was remind me how unconvincing the relationship between Bond and Swann was in NTTD, unlike Bond and Tracey in OHMSS which was actually quite well defined (and I say that as someone who considers that, apart from the relationship, OHMSS is the worst Bond movie pre-Craig - I find it horrendously directed and the score massively repetitive even by Barry’s standards).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
OK, but it seems the producers were not so sure about a "reboot" themselves: why did they use the OHMSS-theme for Daniel Craig then and why did they use WHATTITW? Both were clearly connected to an earlier film. And why did the use the James Bond-theme, a theme for Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan.
I think you are possibly over-thinking things. I’m not sure that the music quoted from OHMSS is really supposed to have any significant subtext beyond a nod and a wink to the series’ history. To me - admittedly not the most objective person since I hate the Craig movies - all the music did was remind me how unconvincing the relationship between Bond and Swann was in NTTD, unlike Bond and Tracey in OHMSS which was actually quite well defined (and I say that as someone who considers that, apart from the relationship, OHMSS is the worst Bond movie pre-Craig - I find it horrendously directed and the score massively repetitive even by Barry’s standards).
Sure, someone who is predisposed to hate something will tend to experience everything as arguments to justify their hate.
Someone who looks at a work of art with an open mind will be aware of the many layers the references to previous movies and of course OHMSS offer and how they are woven into the whole fabric of the narrative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 13, 2022 - 12:11 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TheAvenger
(Member)
|
I find it horrendously directed and the score massively repetitive even by Barry’s standards).
Here we agree to disagree. I think it is a fantastic score. Barry´s best 007 score and certainly not repetitive. You have the ingenious main theme, WHATTITW, Try, DYKHCTAG etc - a wonderful score!
To clarify, I do think that the themes themselves are really good, but it is the habitual appearance of the main theme, with little or no variation, that keeps being used in the action scenes. I appreciate that Barry’s approach to Bond scores was to come up with a particular action cue and use that repeatedly, but for some reason, for me, it just looks lazy in OHMSS. To be fair, that might be because there are a lot of action set pieces but either way, by about the 13th time the theme pops up to accompany some under-cranked, choppily-edited, rear-projected stunt scene, I just grow very weary of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still loving this score. I'll Be Right Back is such a powerful action track. Love its sampling from Black Rain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why it is so important for some here to constantly pour their hate on this score or this film.
Voice your opinion once, sure. Debate with sound arguments. Absolutely. Some here do that, and it is wonderful.
But those who again and again heckle with negativity - what is your intent? Will you only be satisfied when everybody in this thread hates the score and the film?
|
|
|
|
|
|
We all like what we like, but this score remains a favorite of mine mostly because it's thematic and energetic. Other than a couple of tracks, it's very un-Zimmer and quite Barry without taking in his repetition. Probably as good a homage to the sound as David Arnold's. It's a lot of fun and never dull for me.
Dune is a slog, I'm not a fan of that style of Zimmer (or whoever is doing the actual work) and I'm disappointed that the Dune score got the recognition. Still, since the most memorable bits werecmoposed by John Barry and Monty Norman, I get it.
I intend to watch the film again soon and I'll see how I feel, if I still love it. To be honest, I never look for deep or even coherent stories in Bond films. They became all about the action and spectacle and this film delivers on that. It also has some very fun sequences and a heartbreaking conclusion.
On the other had, some of it comes off as cheesy. The Cuba assassination scene is at odds with the rest of the film in tone and I would have preferred a less final finale for the character. I don't like it when my heroes die. I didn't see Highlander: Endgame for the same reason.
Are we still doing the spoiler redactions? I think it's getting pretty obvious what we're blocking out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why it is so important for some here to constantly pour their hate on this score or this film.
Voice your opinion once, sure. Debate with sound arguments. Absolutely. Some here do that, and it is wonderful.
But those who again and again heckle with negativity - what is your intent? Will you only be satisfied when everybody in this thread hates the score and the film?
Because Hans Zimmer has become so successful people have started to look at him how they do the New York Yankees, I think.
If this score had been done by somebody else with less success I am willing to bet a share of the haters would be praising it as golden work from an up and comer star who needs more opportunities.
I happen to be a huge Zimmer fan. One of my favorite scores is Black Rain. I'll Be Right Back incorporated Black Rain into a James Bond score. How am I not going to love that track? It was tailor made for a fan of my interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The opening scenes of a James Bond movie followed by the song over the credits were intended to set the audience up for a thrilling 2 hours. In this case it was the complete opposite. The opening scenes were downbeat and then we were presented with a song in which the singer seemed to be urgently in need of pain-killers. Like never before, the song (as performed) killed the film stone dead in its tracks. We're talking James Bond here. It may be a good song in itself but I'll have to hear it performed properly by someone who can actually sing and who knows the importance of clear diction. I find it difficult to believe that the owners of this highly successful franchise went along with this travesty.
After that, most of the the action scenes were well executed, but the rest was meh. Wokery and PC in abundance. Looks like there will be no escape from it in the foreseeable future. Not even close to being a James Bond movie. Instantly forgettable after you've gone home.
Hans Zimmer's score was not anything particularly special but I thought it was excellent as heard within the movie. IMHO, it was closer to John Barry than many before him and that can only be a good thing. I have no problem with a repetitive theme if it's good and it is.
„Wokery“ is enough not to take you seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree with you about the song. I didn't care for it.