Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…1213151718…52

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Goodshape
    Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    Is there any real point in Malek being Dr. No?

    Like will that even be a big reveal which Bond fans, or anybody, will care about?

    "Oh, wow... he's... the same name as that other guy from some other Bond film 50-odd years ago. :shrug:"


    Blofeld at least was a recurring villain and often referenced. Dr. No was no more important in the scheme of things than any other bad guy. Or correct me if I'm wrong?


  • Options
    #423
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Goodshape wrote: »
    Is there any real point in Malek being Dr. No?

    Like will that even be a big reveal which Bond fans, or anybody, will care about?

    "Oh, wow... he's... the same name as that other guy from some other Bond film 50-odd years ago. :shrug:"

    Blofeld at least was a recurring villain and often referenced. Dr. No was no more important in the scheme of things than any other bad guy. Or correct me if I'm wrong?

    If they try to hide his name again like they did with Blofeld then they've learnt nothing. They played the Blofeld reveal like it was really significant when it was only significant to the audience, the name meant nothing to anyone in the film because it hadn't been mentioned before.


  • Options
    #424
    Goodshape
    Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    If they try to hide his name again like they did with Blofeld then they've learnt nothing. They played the Blofeld reveal like it was really significant when it was only significant to the audience, the name meant nothing to anyone in the film because it hadn't been mentioned before.

    Yeah, that was bad. Similar to Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness.

    "My Name..."

    *dramatic pause*

    "...is KHAN"

    Kirk, Spock, et. al.: "who?"


    But, my question being, is Dr. No even important for the audience? I know I couldn't pick him out of a lineup of Bond villains.


  • Options
    #425
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    MisterAnarchy wrote: »
    I much prefer Daltons portrayal of Bond,he could combine the hardness and the softness .
    He was very charming when he needed to be unlike Craig.
    What a great compilation. Such a shame TD never got a good run at the series. He absolutely nailed it.


    The Dr No thing - if it were the case - could just be a nod to old Bond for the veterans in the audience.

    Anything more could indeed fall flat like the aforementioned Blofeld and Khan "reveals".


  • Options
    #426
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Goodshape wrote: »
    But, my question being, is Dr. No even important for the audience? I know I couldn't pick him out of a lineup of Bond villains.

    It's the 25th film and Dr No was the villain in the first film. That's the only significance AFAIK.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Goodshape wrote: »
    Is there any real point in Malek being Dr. No?

    No. It's stupid.


  • Options
    #428
    ricero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭ricero


    Anyone rumoured to be doing the theme tune ?


  • Options
    #429
    Minime2.5
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Minime2.5


    Id love to see Michael Fassbender be the next Bond


  • Options
    #430
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Goodshape wrote: »
    Is there any real point in Malek being Dr. No?

    That was doing my head in, i was wondering who he was playing. Makes so much sense now, thanks


  • Options
    #431
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Calhoun wrote: »
    That was doing my head in, i was wondering who he was playing. Makes so much sense now, thanks

    Does it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    Does it?

    Makes sense who it was and why the face was so scared. In the wider sense of what the plot is then no.


  • Options
    #433
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Makes sense who it was and why the face was so scared. In the wider sense of what the plot is then no.

    Is he scarred in the books? I haven't got to Dr No yet.


  • Options
    #434
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Goodshape wrote: »
    Yeah, that was bad. Similar to Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness.

    "My Name..."

    *dramatic pause*

    "...is KHAN"

    Kirk, Spock, et. al.: "who?"

    In fairness thats a bit different. The audience already knows these characters and the filmmakers play with the knowledge on purpose. Him announcing himself as Khan is for the audience. People know the special place in trek history and what he did and how dangerous he is.

    I know online trek fans balk at the whole Khan thing and how it was hidden but if you step outside the nerd kingdom to the average joe, most people appreciated the reveal for what it was.

    I know my own father wouldn't be reading blogs with spoilers or watching trailers for films but he DID watch the Star trek TOS back in the day so he had a great reaction when he watched into darkness and saw Cumberbatch reveal himself. I think his reaction was something along the lines of "Oh they are royally f*cked now!" and it made him sit up in his seat. And I think that was the point of hiding it and while it may have upset some hardcore fans, most people enjoyed it. And in fairness, the superfans get upset at everything so what are you doing to do.

    Dr. No has no such resonance with the audience, even Bond fans and it would be a mistake to try the same thing.


  • Options
    #435
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I just had a further, awful thought. The script tries to be clever and have it both ways; Malik's character talked big in the trailer about his mind living on, so maybe he feels like he knows a lot. Knows. Like, he'll be referred to in the film as Dr Know It All. Then shortened to ... Well, you get the idea

    I'll get my coat :D


  • Options
    #436
    MillField
    Registered Users Posts: 635 ✭✭✭MillField


    MisterAnarchy wrote: »
    Craig tries too hard to look tough as Bond.
    Constantly poefaced and rarely smiles ,its not very convincing.

    I much prefer Daltons portrayal of Bond,he could combine the hardness and the softness .
    He was very charming when he needed to be unlike Craig.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5WG-D4R3VY


    The best part of this video is when Kara returns to the car with the cello she accidentally thumps Dalton on the head with the case :D:pac:


  • Options
    #437
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,180 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    MillField wrote: »
    The best part of this video is when Kara returns to the car with the cello she accidentally thumps Dalton on the head with the case :D:pac:

    Great reaction from Dalton with his eyes.


  • Options
    #438
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Dalton was a very underrated Bond, and not sure why his portrayal didn't take; perhaps coming after Roger Moore, the change from cheeseball goofing to Dalton's hardened approach was too difficult a gear change. Certainly "License To Kill" was probably Bond at its most cynical, violent and depressingly real (being as it was about a drug baron, again something else that has come back into fictional fashion, alongside a tougher James Bond).

    I could still buy Dalton as the gentleman spy, who could be both charming and cold in the same breath (and probably why he has always tended to play upper crust types), Craig instead always coming off like a boxer & thug in a suit.


  • Options
    #439
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,180 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    Absolutely pixel.
    Dalton said himself in the James Bond documentary that his bond's (and his take of bond at the same time) were ahead of its time. He is right.


  • Options
    #440
    branie2
    Registered Users Posts: 10,298 ✭✭✭✭branie2


    His performance as Bond was inspired by the original Fleming novels.


  • Options
    #441
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Dalton was a very underrated Bond, and not sure why his portrayal didn't take; perhaps coming after Roger Moore, the change from cheeseball goofing to Dalton's hardened approach was too difficult a gear change.

    The problem with the Dalton Bond films is that they were kinda boring and forgettable. Dalton himself was fine, I thought, and I liked the more serious Bond (while never ever really being a Bond fan), especially after the series descended into laughable parody with Moore.
    pixelburp wrote: »
    I could still buy Dalton as the gentleman spy, who could be both charming and cold in the same breath (and probably why he has always tended to play upper crust types), Craig instead always coming off like a boxer & thug in a suit.

    Strangely enough, that's what I really like about Craig in the role. He feels like the most realistic embodiment of an MI6 field agent and the film's he's been in have been superior movies for me, apart from 'Spectre', which was a bit of a misfire on a number of counts.

    I can't say that I hold much faith in 'No Time to Die' being much better though, and there was nothing in the trailer that made me think otherwise.

    I fear that once Craig bows out, 'Casino Royale' will remain his best effort.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    fluke
    Registered Users Posts: 1,679 ✭✭✭fluke


    Tony EH wrote: »
    The problem with the Dalton Bond films is that they were kinda boring and forgettable. Dalton himself was fine, I thought, and I liked the more serious Bond (while never ever really being a Bond fan), especially after the series descended into laughable parody with Moore.

    I need to actually watch The Living Daylights in full, as I loved Licence to Kill.


  • Options
    #443
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,180 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    I would say that License to Kill has the best used Bond song ever.
    Like we could all argue what's the best song but Gladys Knight really created an epic song. So when Bond catches Sanchez at the start and it just kicks in ... it really is amazing. It just suits the opening bond credits so much.

    GoldenEye would be second.


  • Options
    #444
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    fluke wrote: »
    I need to actually watch The Living Daylights in full, as I loved Licence to Kill.

    I think they are still good movies and I watched them a few months ago and found Daltons Bond far more cold then I remembered. I actually wasnt mad about him when I was younger but really enjoy his portrayel the more I age . .


  • Options
    #445
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Tony EH wrote: »
    The problem with the Dalton Bond films is that they were kinda boring and forgettable.
    Couldn't disagree more. Living Daylights was a fun movie with a great Bond. And Licence to Kill is much loved by many (myself included).

    This is great article summing up why Licence was a victim of its time, but paved the way for modern Bond.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/how-licence-kill-almost-killed-james-bond-franchise-1224180


  • Options
    #446
    MillField
    Registered Users Posts: 635 ✭✭✭MillField


    fluke wrote: »
    I need to actually watch The Living Daylights in full, as I loved Licence to Kill.


    Daylights is a great film, I prefer it to Licence actually. Both are very solid films.


  • Options
    #447
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,808 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    saw License to Kill a couple of months ago on TV and it was as dull as I'd remembered it from when I saw it in the cinema. Apart from a few fun scenes with Q, it seemed like a generic 80s actioner. Like a Lethal Weapon movie without the laughs.


  • Options
    #448
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    Drumpot wrote: »
    And teaches a great survival tip, if you are ever in a car under water and can’t get to the surface, use the car wheels for air.....

    They would have shot young Roge if he had surfaced for air.

    A great move by Sir James ....


  • Options
    #449
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Have to agree that I really don't like Dalton's film even though I enjoy his portrayal. They're just very meh for me and the tone is inconsistent with traces of Moore's era still hanging around in far more serious leaning films.


  • Options
    #450
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    B.A._Baracus wrote: »
    I would say that License to Kill has the best used Bond song ever.
    Like we could all argue what's the best song but Gladys Knight really created an epic song. So when Bond catches Sanchez at the start and it just kicks in ... it really is amazing. It just suits the opening bond credits so much.

    GoldenEye would be second.

    Licence to Kill is for sure the most violent Bond, jaysus I remember seeing it as a kid and that pressure chamber scene disturbed my young mind!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    On her Majestys secret service as a Bond film is a fantastic film - it's a pity Lazenby is a terrible Bond, they should remake it with Sean Connerys face CGI'd in ... ;)


Advertisement