Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

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



  • I've seen an article that puts the films in a "chronological" order - i.e. the whole series is one guy, just different episodes from his career. So in that universe, Casino Royale and QOS have to be the first 2 as we see Bond's first mission in CR and QOS follows straight on from there; and I guess Spectre and NTTD now have to be the last 2 chronologically.

  • I assume a lot of Malik’s scenes ended up on the cutting room floor due to Covid - notice that anytime someone talks about nanobots their mouth isn’t visible. Looks like they re-recorded a lot of exposition about the virus to make it more fantastical. It would be interesting to see the original pre-Covid version some day.

  • Makes sense to think of them as the same continuity. Set aside the 60 years thing why would Bond be still grieving Vesper in Spectre and NTTD and not Tracy.

  • The only way for Bond to go is back in time imo: set in the 60's as a period piece.

  • Yeah, there are many time periods he could be in. Basically any time before the 90's. Make it an espionage thriller rather than an OTT Bond movie. Working behind The Iron Curtain.

    I suppose the question then is: Is it a Bond movie if he is dealing with USSR as opposed to megalomaniacs in volcanoes. I have not read the books so I don't know.

  • Advertisement

  • A more playful take on Bond is definitely the way to go next - either a proper throwback to the 60s, or at very least channel the more lighthearted side seen in the de Armas scenes here. There's always been a touch of silliness to Bond, and while (I hope) nobody wants to see a return to the preposterous nadirs of Moonraker or Die Another Day, there's absolutely a pleasant middle ground between self-serious, traumatised Bond and moon base invading / invisible car driving Bond.

  • The thing is we already have the period pieces. They are called 'From Russia With Love', 'Thunderball' etc.

    Period pieces are also hugely expensive to make and quite complicated for location shooting (which is why they are largely set-based).

    Like even looking at the last film, lots of the locations used would be questionable in a 60s film. The Norwegian road was opened in the 1990s, and Matera was an abandoned ghost town until the 80s.

  • Very tedious movie, nearly fell asleep at one point...

    Sad to see Craig go though, I enjoyed him in the role.

    Skyfall my clear favorite from his era.

  • They spent a purported $300 million on this film pre-marketing, so they can probably afford some period set dressing 😎

  • I feel like every Bond film for last 30 years with the exception of CR and QoS was an attempt to find a middle ground. The problem is that every director's definition of that middle ground is different, vastly so in some cases. I think I'd rather they decided on a serious or silly tone and stuck with it.

  • Advertisement

  • Going to call it now.

    Ryan Reynolds to be the next bond and play a total slap stick version. Deadpool in a tux basically.

    It would be horrendous.

  • I don't get the calls for a period Bond piece. As stated above, they already exist. And they wouldn't resonate as much with modern audiences as modern-set ones.

    I think Skyfall's success was based on it's "close to home" premise, i.e. the London and Scotland scenes. OK, he was in China and wherever he was at the start, but most of the action was at home. That's what I liked most about it. Every time since when I took the Tube I couldn't help think of the movie (only you can't slide down the escalators - they have barriers) :-)

  • I think the Period spitball is in trying to figure out where the series could go now, as in some ways Bond has backed itself into a corner somewhat with NttD's definitive ending. Nostalgia's very "in" at the moment, classic fashions, aesthetics n all that, so something that just ran headlong into a romantic version of the past might work.

    That was my own theory of where they might go for the longest while; lately though, I've remembered the Bond franchise tends to (shamelessly?) crib whatever's the style at the time, rather than forge its own identity. With that in mind: where do the popular tones sit these days?

    Maybe they'll lean into the big, ludicrous excess seen with Fast & Furious - but we kinda saw that already with the Moore era; perhaps they'll go full Sci-Fi Fantasy ala the MCU? Jason Bourne has been and gone so we're unlikely to get another gruff, brutish version of Bond.

    My own current theory I might put money on would be James Bond: John Wick clone. So they'll keep the relatively low-tech approach of Casino Royale, maybe even the stakes kept street-level, then really lean into the mixture of Secret Societies (MGM got the rights to SPECTRE again, so there's that piece of the puzzle), and elongated takes of deeply visceral, tiring hand-to-hand combat.

  • Nostalgia for the 80s is so hot right now, an era Bond isnt really associated with despite the cult popularity of Dalton's era so maybe they should try cash in on that.

    Being sarcastic btw.

  • set it in the future - MI6 clones Bond from strands of charred hair recovered from the destroyed island, in order to battle against a evil Elon Musk type threatening the Earth from his base on Mars. The clone immediately goes rogue.

  • I have a preference for a period Bond for one very simple reason, Cold War era spy thrillers are full of fun spycraft, honey-traps and a battle of wits between agencies. Modern spy movies are full of people staring at computer screens muttering about retargeting satellites and drones or 'improbably hacking' every non IP security camera in an area to track targets, and very, very dull and charmless.

  • Problem with a period Bond piece is that as time goes by to make the movies the time setting would have to change.

    Take Daniel Craig and his movies. If Casino Royale was set in 1962. No Time to Die would have been set in 1977. Now your past your 60s setting that you started out with.

  • I liken No Time To Die to Stallone’s Rocky Balboa, in that both movies were primarily commissioned to redeem the previous poor finales. (Indiana Jones 5 is another one on the way).

    Spectre was supposed to be the finale for Craig, with Bond walking away from MI6 and getting the girl, only they botched the entire movie. Given they couldn’t have the same ending this time around, we got the one we did. To suggest that was always the plan (as Craig contends) is nonsense.

    Its difficult to see where they go from here with the Bond character that’s original. Connery/Lazenby had the Cold War, Moore/Dalton had Detente, Brosnan was post Cold War and Craig did the reboot/origin story.

  • I think that's a positive more than a negative to be honest, as it adds an extra layer of evolution to the storytelling. You see the character and the agency adapting to real world events at the time.

    I saw some people mentioning that we already have 'period' Bonds in the form of the original Connery and Moore movies - but that's not really true. There's a big difference between a story that was told as a contemporary piece and then simply aged, and a film that is intentionally a period piece. With a period piece you're telling a story with the benefit of hindsight, and you're picking what parts of the politics and culture of the time that you want to explore, particularly in how they resonate today. It's just a different thing entirely.

    With a period version of Bond, the ideal solution would be for them to plan a 4 or 5 movie run from the start, picking the broader subjects they want to cover, so you can touch upon them over the series (could do a big arc again, or could go with standalone movies but with certain themes in mind for the series). Then you dip into that world every 2 years, and see how things have evolved based on real world events over that time period, and the improvements in tech, the changing attitudes etc. Like how Mad Men did it.

  • How cool would that be.

    Late 60s Bond culminating in the 80s. 😎

  • Advertisement

  • Can't really say I liked much about this film.

    The DNA weapon seemed a bit too sci-fi for James Bond. Reminded me of this from Star Trek

    Malek's Safin character was a too wooden and was as bad as my impersonation of a typical bond baddie.

    Way too long (because it wasn't engaging).

    I thought Spectre was better, which I took to the second time I watched it. Was prolly expecting too much the first time after Skyfall.

    So we got our black female 007 at last :)

  • if they do return with a new Bond, they'll have to wipe the slate clean with a new M, Q, Moneypenny etc

    a complete departure from the Daniel Craig era

  • 50s/60s Bond could be fun, and you could actually do something new with the character in there by involving him at the beginning of Cold War espionage.

    For all his films he’s never been a spy really, more an agent specialising in the removal of megalomaniacal supervillains.

    The real trick would be to have the film rooted in espionage but keeping it relatively light hearted.

  • Watched this last night and was unbelievably disappointed. It was like a pre-Craig Bond to me, goofy and cheesy. Too many attempts at humour that were misplaced IMO. I liked the grittier, less cheesy direction it had gone but this was a u-turn.

    I also felt Craig looked old in it, but in a immersion-breaking way. He looked aged, but it also looked like they were trying to hide the fact he had aged and it didn't work for me. Some of the action scenes were appalling, e.g. the fight on the boat I am guessing they shot it in slow motion and then sped it up, but it was completely over-done and stupid looking.

    Remi Malek's character was terrible.

    Post edited by awec on

  • Daniel Craig said recently not to worry James Bond will be back when some criticised that JB died. I think this could mean the next James Bond won't be a reboot, but will be the next 'James Bond' to take over from the agent that died, like James Bond is transferable as 007.

    That way they can keep the other actors, and go in lots of new directions. Would possibly change the other JB iterations as successors rather than reboot. They could even go all DR Who and bring Pierce and Timothy back for Cameos. 😃

  • That had been a thought before alright, until Skyfall firmly cemented that Craig’s character actually was named James Bond, son of Andrew and Monique Bond.

    The character will be back anyway (the credits after NTTD said as much), but I do reckon it can only be with a total reboot in a few years.

  • Maybe they'll call his successor James Bond as an honorific. Daniel Craig's character was the original... would rule out the Dr Who scenario though

  • They could go down the bionic man/ Robocop route "He survived but needs extensive facial plastic surgery". Enter Tom Hardy.

  • New Bond will be a new everything a complete reboot as it should be,

    Really enjoyed Craig as the character, he will be hard to follow

  • Advertisement

  • Art house James Bond. I thought it was going to suck but I really enjoyed it actually, even if the last quarter was a bit too John Wick style shooty shooty for my taste.