Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

No Time to Die **Spoilers from post #1449 onward**

1252628303149

Comments



  • Spectre really dragged, and this is 20 minutes longer?





  • It's gonna be James Bond:Return of the King isn't it, with an ending that feels like its going on for 3 weeks.





  • Peter Jackson would have split it into 3 movies though!

    But 2 hrs 45 minutes? That is ridiculous.

    It's going to be a struggle to last that long with my Jumbo Coke.





  • I'm going to take a swing that the bloat will be what kills the pacing, and be contrivances to force Bond into another emotional arc. Undoubtedly involving Lea Seydoux. Casino Royale and Skyfall did admirable jobs doing this with some authenticity, but still amounted to the only places you can go with Bond: Fridge the lover; or Mammy Issues. Spectre then shítting the bed trying to make Blofeld a long lost brother 🤦






  • New trailer focusing on new agents.

    I wonder if they might be killing off "James Bond" and moving forward with "007" which would allow them to recast whenever they want to any gender/race they want, expand the whole universe & just retain a core support group such as Q & M.

    This movie could end with Bond being killed & Ralph Fiennes swearing in the new 007 (female probably).


    BTW, did anyone know his full name is Ralph Nathaniel Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes ??



  • Advertisement


  • I speculate it's more an overture for an attempt to tap into that sweet "shared universe" money that's all the rage across Hollywood. The producers have had brief flirtations with spin offs before, never taking off presumably due to the quick realisation there's no market for a Bond movie without Bond. As far back as Halle Berry back during the Brosnan days, or the more recent scuttlebutt this version of Moneypenny was to get her own flick.

    Or it could just be a marketing gimmick to try and distance Bond from its reputation. Look how many girlboss spies we have in our film!





  • 15 years as Bond for Craig that must be the longest run time wise any actor has had the role.





  • This type of trailer really invokes the fear of the woke in people. Wimmin are here for our jobs!

    Bond and 007 are a brand that won't be compromised by the codename being owned by another agent when Bond is "dead".

    No doubt the reboot will put all right with the world.



  • Advertisement


  • Yes - Moore had 12 years from 73 to 85 but managed to squeeze an extra couple of movies in to that timeframe.





  • Ummm… that’s not what I said.


    To be honest, I’d welcome a move like this. Have a core supporting cast and make them about the organisation rather than the one character.





  • Well according to Lashana Lynch the next Bond can be anyone: a man or woman, a young or old person, from any race.

    “We are in a place in time where the industry is not just giving audiences what it thinks the audience wants. They’re actually giving the audience what they want to give the audience.

    “With Bond, it could be a man or woman. They could be white, black, Asian, mixed race. They could be young or old. At the end of the day, even if a two-year-old was playing Bond, everyone would flock to the cinema to see what this two-year-old’s gonna do, no?” the Captain Marvel star said.

    🙄

    James Bond will always be a man luv, for numerous reasons.

    That trailer with the female agents looks very cringeworthy and cheesy.

    You cant go for a serious tone and have fluff like that .

    Looks like Bond is being knocked down a few pegs to make the female agents look good and he will have to rely on their help now as he is an old dinosaur with a bad knee and an unsteady hand.





  • Okay fair enough! I didn't really mean you personally, rather than those who do react adversely.

    Personally I'd hate a departure from a single male Bond focussed series. It's him that differentiates it from [insert generic spy thriller]. He is a continuation of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan et al.

    Of course nothing to say the films can't be stocked with strong supporting roles (as have had many Bond movies already). Though trailers like the one above are almost patronising in their approach to promoting their female roles.





  • Pierce Brosnan pitched that idea when he was looking for one more go at Bond that the Bond name would be a code name like 007 and anyone could play Bond.


    They just spend 4 movies giving Craig's Bond a back story all the way to childhood.

    So now they just turn the Bond name into a codename where anyone can be James Bond seems off





  • There’s no bloody internal consistency whatsoever in this series. I mean, can you imagine Daniel Craig’s Bond surfing a tidal wave or going to the moon?

    They make it up as they go along and change the tone / approach regularly. The idea that there has ever been one canonical, singular ‘James Bond’ seems utterly preposterous to me with no basis in the actual films themselves.





  • The Bond series has always been reactive though, never secure in its own ideas or direction. I'd well believe a sudden course correction cos jts innate to the franchise.

    Let's not forget this is a series so insecure in itself, it released Moonraker as a response to Star Wars. Casino Royale inspired by Bourne; while the original Casino Royale, the comedy, had multiple 007s - it is just a codename after all. really, if the series did decide upon that direction and made Bond a woman it'd kinda be consistent for the production. Reactive.





  • I suppose they could make the next Bond transgender.

    A female agent transitions into a male Bond at the start of the next movie.


    I wonder how that would go down.





  • For sure, 007 could just be a reusable codename. I'm sure there was another 006 after Sean Bean got squished by a crane.

    However given its use of 007 as a brand I can't see them disassociating it with Bond himself for long. After all, "James Bond is 007.... license to kill..." Whatever M or Q we have frequently refer to him as 007. It's one of the recognisable tropes of the franchise. Maybe another agent has the codename at the start of NTTD, but the reboot will surely address this.

    Just look at the amount of official 007 branded stuff on the Bond store!

    https://007store.com/search?type=product&q=007





  • Oh yeah, this is the conundrum of the brand, ultimately, for the executive level. It's an analogue watch in a digital world; one where shared universes and the extendability of an IP is the driver in blockbuster economics. But James Bond has no extended ensemble to play with; no real backstory or ongoing conspiracy to tap into. It just is its own thing, always moulding itself to trends and making bank doing so. The brand now too gargantuan as well, too large to scale back into modest productions & projections.

    Arguably, this is the first time said trends don't have an immediate match with the series. As you say, they could make 007 the brand, but James Bond is too synonymous. Daniel Craig parachutes with The Queen, cos that's where the character exists now.

    Of course, if they do make Lashana Lynch the new lead of a 007 film, and it flops, the reason for this won't be seen as related to the above. Those obsessed with "go woke, go broke" rubbernecking will feel validated, but the reality will speak more to a brand that struggled to mould itself to the latest economic trend. Better to pause for a few years, see where Hollywood goes to next. Or maybe Bond goes into a clone of John Wick - as seen with Casino Royale cribbing from the Bourne films.



  • Advertisement


  • Regarding the “007 Universe”.


    By getting rid of James Bond and doubling down on the 007 brand, they can have different actors of different races and genders take over the role which will make it incredibly dynamic. If someone’s not working out or the public vote with their feet, then they’re killed off screen between missions and the new one takes over.

    It also means there can be a shared universe, where we can have high production values TV shows which concentrate on Q-Branch or on Moneypenny as a single girl living in London and working for the secret service. Think SATC with guns.

    Whomever is playing 007 at that time could have the occasional cameo and situations could be shared across the shows/movies like they do with Marvel

    There’s every reason for them to go in this direction. Particularly now since Amazon are involved with them.





  • I find it hard to imagine the James Bond series could do anything that's as bad as Die Another Day. That utter piece of **** should have been a franchise killer in a just world. Makes even Quantum of Solace and Spectre look good (and those films aren't very good at all).





  • It just goes to show how time away, and a really fresh take can revive anything.

    Regarding the 007 "universe", sure maybe they'll go down the route of telling the story of other double-Os at MI6, but there's plenty numbers other than 7. If Bond is to survive in movie format also, why strip him of his codename and all the history it carries?





  • Yahoo did a poll which actually ranked DAD as only the third worst Bond with both QoS and Spectre ranked below it, which I find crazy. QoS and Spectre are both perfectly watchable which can't be said for DAD.





  • Sounds like a poll with some Recency Bias at play. I'd also say stuff like Man With the Golden Gun were not just worse Bond movies, but worse films as stories go. Die Another Day was awful, but it had a ludicrous excess that made it something to laugh at (though that might be because the last time I saw it, I was half-cut at Xmas). MwtGG was just pointless and boring.





  • Like PB says you can laugh at how ludicrous DAD is. Spectre is an absolute slog with no redeeming qualities. I will defend QoS till my dying day.





  • I like QoS too. The script (a victim of the writer's strike) was undercooked and didn't really stand on its own but it still would have be a great epilogue to Casino Royale if not for the hyperactive editing. Forster should have been removed from the editing room. Instead they decided that the film was too serious and they needed more jokes and winking at the audience.





  • Spectre drags on a bit, but there are plenty of worse Bond movies. DAD has some really good bits in it, but unfortunately also some of the worst scenes in any of the films.





  • Spectre was sh*te :p

    Blofeld being James Bond foster brother. Go way out of that.



  • Advertisement


  • Taken from the "Being James Bond" documentary



Advertisement