*** JAMES BOND : NO TIME TO DIE ***

170,545 Views | 1426 Replies | Last: 10 mo ago by Definitely Not A Cop
chilidogfood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Guitarsoup said:

veryfuller said:

I saw one recommendation for how to move forward that I found very interesting:

Put Bond back in the middle of the cold war and make the next batch of movies period pieces. They could still be "gritty" or "realistic" or whatever, but also have that fun wink wink with clever jokes that reference present pop-culture or whatever. I think taking him out of todays world and putting him back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s for a while would be good for the character, IMO.


I'm all for this, especially since U.N.C.L.E. sucked and won't get a sequel
Am I the only person that really enjoyed the U.N.C.L.E movie?

I thought it bombed because of lack of advertising. I didnt know anything about that show (or its heritage) before it was out of theaters.
veryfuller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
OK, I finally saw this last night.

I was surprised by how much I liked it. I mean, I was reading everyone saying it was good, but I was still prepared to be disappointed. Specifically because Spectre disappointed me after all the hype of Skyfall (but upon re-watch, I do like that movie more than my first letdown watch).

The bad:
-I don't like that you really have to watch Spectre to enjoy/get this movie. That keeps it from going above Casino Royal and Skyfall in my Craig-Era Bond rankings

-I would love to read an article about how much Christopher Nolan (especially The Dark Knight Trilogy) has influence/impacted Craig's Bond films. This film felt a little TDKR in several parts, which I wasn't expecting, and as much as I love TDK Trilogy, I don't want Bond to follow that roadmap

- Look, I don't think Rami Malek is a good actor. The fact that he won an Oscar for Best Actor over Christian Bale, Viggo Mortensen, William Defoe, AND Bradley Cooper is truly mind boggling and underlines what a farce those awards actually are. ANYWAY, I digress...but he was TERRIBLE (imo). If I remember correctly, someone else was initially cast in this role but had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts because filming dates kept changing, but I can't remember who, but anyone could have been better.

The Good:

Everything else

Seriously -- ***unaga nailed it on direction. That single shot fight scene in the stair well was great. There were great visuals that aided the story and didn't over-power them.

Its a Bond movie, so sure there is a MacGuffin, but at least the writers used it in an interesting way to explore the characters.

Score - perfect

Cinematography - beautiful

Daniel Craig - probably the best Bond, although I wish he was allowed to be funny sometimes and not be so serious

Look, this still ranks #3 for me behind Skyfall and Casino Royal, but mostly because those stand alone much better and have aged well (IMO). This movie does have potential to pass those over time.
veryfuller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
Also a question that I may know the answer to, but want to confirm:

That nanobot vile only targeted Madeline right? Because if it also targeted the daughter, wouldn't that mean that the movie confirmed the daughter wasn't actually Bond's? He would have died from exposure because they share DNA right?
Aggie_Boomin 21
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It was designed to target Madeline's DNA, which means it also would target the daughter's because the daughter shares DNA with Madeline.
Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Claude! said:

TCTTS said:

My guess is this is the road they ultimately take. Basically, instead of the MCU, it's the BCU (Bond Cinematic Universe). The Bond-centric movies will be like the Avengers movies (not in that they feature a ton of characters, but in that they're the pillars/tentpoles of the franchise), and then some of the other agents/characters will get their own spin-offs and introductory movies between Bond movies. And because its Amazon, some of these "in-between" stories would likely be in the form of streaming series as well, a la the Marvel or Star Wars series on Disney+.
I gotta say, I think that sounds awful. The MCU works because the MCU has a ton of viable protagonists. Bond has a single focal point - Bond. Everyone else - M, Moneypenny, Felix, Q, and any other recurring characters - are there to react to and interact with Bond. A Bond cinematic universe sounds like the abortive attempt to broaden the Bourne series beyond Jason Bourne as the protagonist.
I don't think it would be as in depth and connected as MCU, but I do think there is room for stand alone movies like Joker was.

Make Idris Elba the new M and do an origins movie for him on his last mission as a 00 agent and transition/promotion to M. I would watch the **** out of that.

Ana de Armas spy movie set in Cuba? Sign me up.

I'm not really interested in Bond 26 being an Avengers movie, but I would be all about fleshing [ ] out characters in the Bond universe. Bond isn't the only person there that can be interesting.

In a way that's what they did with Moneypenny shooting Craig and having her be a former agent that lost it rather than just being a pretty/flirty secretary.

I think you can easily do it well without it being Bourne Legacy or MCU.
Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chilidogfood said:

Guitarsoup said:

veryfuller said:

I saw one recommendation for how to move forward that I found very interesting:

Put Bond back in the middle of the cold war and make the next batch of movies period pieces. They could still be "gritty" or "realistic" or whatever, but also have that fun wink wink with clever jokes that reference present pop-culture or whatever. I think taking him out of todays world and putting him back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s for a while would be good for the character, IMO.


I'm all for this, especially since U.N.C.L.E. sucked and won't get a sequel
Am I the only person that really enjoyed the U.N.C.L.E movie?

I thought it bombed because of lack of advertising. I didnt know anything about that show (or its heritage) before it was out of theaters.
Yeah, I really enjoyed it, but since they didn't get numbers, they scrapped future ones. I would watch more for sure.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rami Malek is absolutely perfect at playing the characters that only Rami Malek can play.

That said, I don't know if he can play anything other than a high functioning person on the spectrum that makes you feel simultaneously repulsed by and sympathetic towards.
Claude!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guitarsoup said:

Claude! said:

TCTTS said:

My guess is this is the road they ultimately take. Basically, instead of the MCU, it's the BCU (Bond Cinematic Universe). The Bond-centric movies will be like the Avengers movies (not in that they feature a ton of characters, but in that they're the pillars/tentpoles of the franchise), and then some of the other agents/characters will get their own spin-offs and introductory movies between Bond movies. And because its Amazon, some of these "in-between" stories would likely be in the form of streaming series as well, a la the Marvel or Star Wars series on Disney+.
I gotta say, I think that sounds awful. The MCU works because the MCU has a ton of viable protagonists. Bond has a single focal point - Bond. Everyone else - M, Moneypenny, Felix, Q, and any other recurring characters - are there to react to and interact with Bond. A Bond cinematic universe sounds like the abortive attempt to broaden the Bourne series beyond Jason Bourne as the protagonist.
I don't think it would be as in depth and connected as MCU, but I do think there is room for stand alone movies like Joker was.

Make Idris Elba the new M and do an origins movie for him on his last mission as a 00 agent and transition/promotion to M. I would watch the **** out of that.

Ana de Armas spy movie set in Cuba? Sign me up.

I'm not really interested in Bond 26 being an Avengers movie, but I would be all about fleshing [ ] out characters in the Bond universe. Bond isn't the only person there that can be interesting.

In a way that's what they did with Moneypenny shooting Craig and having her be a former agent that lost it rather than just being a pretty/flirty secretary.

I think you can easily do it well without it being Bourne Legacy or MCU.
I get that those could be good movies, but I think the spectre (hah) of Bond would loom over the whole project. And frankly, their attempts to provide compelling backstories for other characters haven't always worked out, c.f. Blofeld.
Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Claude! said:

Guitarsoup said:

Claude! said:

TCTTS said:

My guess is this is the road they ultimately take. Basically, instead of the MCU, it's the BCU (Bond Cinematic Universe). The Bond-centric movies will be like the Avengers movies (not in that they feature a ton of characters, but in that they're the pillars/tentpoles of the franchise), and then some of the other agents/characters will get their own spin-offs and introductory movies between Bond movies. And because its Amazon, some of these "in-between" stories would likely be in the form of streaming series as well, a la the Marvel or Star Wars series on Disney+.
I gotta say, I think that sounds awful. The MCU works because the MCU has a ton of viable protagonists. Bond has a single focal point - Bond. Everyone else - M, Moneypenny, Felix, Q, and any other recurring characters - are there to react to and interact with Bond. A Bond cinematic universe sounds like the abortive attempt to broaden the Bourne series beyond Jason Bourne as the protagonist.
I don't think it would be as in depth and connected as MCU, but I do think there is room for stand alone movies like Joker was.

Make Idris Elba the new M and do an origins movie for him on his last mission as a 00 agent and transition/promotion to M. I would watch the **** out of that.

Ana de Armas spy movie set in Cuba? Sign me up.

I'm not really interested in Bond 26 being an Avengers movie, but I would be all about fleshing [ ] out characters in the Bond universe. Bond isn't the only person there that can be interesting.

In a way that's what they did with Moneypenny shooting Craig and having her be a former agent that lost it rather than just being a pretty/flirty secretary.

I think you can easily do it well without it being Bourne Legacy or MCU.
I get that those could be good movies, but I think the spectre (hah) of Bond would loom over the whole project. And frankly, their attempts to provide compelling backstories for other characters haven't always worked out, c.f. Blofeld.
Totally agree, but at the same time, the Joker is tied directly to Batman as his primary foil and Joker as a film was brilliant. Batman (who wasn't in it) didn't loom over the production. Easily the best DC movie since TDK.

I think you get Idris Elba to sign on for an M backstory and Denis Villeneuve and you strike gold. But as you said, it would be easy to **** up, as they did with Christoph Waltz's story.
RikkiTikkaTagem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

It was designed to target Madeline's DNA, which means it also would target the daughter's because the daughter shares DNA with Madeline.


Fun Fact: All humans share about 99.9% the same DNA
veryfuller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
but do all humans have time to die?
AggieEP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is no one going to comment on the ridiculous fact that we now know Vesper was only 22 or 23 years old in Casino Royale.

The British government trusted a brand new hire with millions of dollars. WTF, literally makes no sense, why not just make her 28..
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wait until you find out how much the equipment the army entrust to a bunch of 18yr olds is worth.
AggieEP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also, objectively this was one of the worst plots in any Bond movie. I'm about as big of a Bond fan as there is and this one stretches the bounds of belief to while new levels.

First of all, we're asked to believe that Blofeld set a trap at Vesper's grave, a person that died 13-15 years ago. So either Blofeld knew Bond was going to her grave on this particular day and planned the booby trap...(how would he know this day would be the day?) Or he laid the trap 15 (or less) years ago, knowing Bond would one day return, and has had that boy on payroll for 15 years waiting to blow Bond up... And also had a hit squad permanently stationed there waiting to finish the job after his puny ass explosives barely stun Bond.

I mean under either scenario, it's ridiculous. But then, later in the movie it gets even worse when Bond speaks to Blofeld and Blofeld states that it was his plan to make Bond suspect Madeline so he would leave her and go live alone. If that's the plan, why almost blow him up and send a hit squad to kill him? The plan was to fake assassinate Bond just to provoke him to break up with his girlfriend as some sort of psychological warfare?

Then there is this whole Madeline secret plot line ... Which we find out, basically isn't a secret at all, it's just that once upon a time a psycho tried to kill her but then didn't. Then when said psycho returns, Madeline decides to not tell her secret agent ex boyfriend about it and the death bots in the perfume bottle for some unknown reason. I kept figuring that the secret would be that she actually was more involved with Spectre than we first thought. (Which also would have been dumb) near the end we find out that her secret is really that she's a huge d-bag, has a kid with Bond, works with MI6 as a psychologist, and doesn't ever reach out to them to find Bond to let him know he's a father. We know MI6 can find him, because the new 007 does it. When Bond does meet his child for the first time, Madeline's reaction is to lie and say it's not his then bang Bond all night. This woman is treacherous.

Then finally we have Malek's awful plan... Well awful because we really don't know what he's doing or why. He's angry, his parents were killed and he has a lot of death micro robots so he's going to randomly kill millions of people. We don't know who he's programmed them to kill or why. The shady scientist guy hints that he can kill all Africans with it, but we just have no idea what the end game is. Bond and Q find that list, but rather than using a line of dialogue to state some random generic target like "oh my goodness he's got DNA for all of the world leaders in the western world" we get nothing.

There are those approaching ships that are presumably buyers but could also just be more henchmen here to pick up the death bots to deliver them to their targets. Bond makes it seem like they need to immediately blow this island up... But why? There is no delivery system on the island. The stuff is contained as far as I could tell. So the only reason I can see for firing the missiles is for the British coverup of developing the weapon in the first place. So Bond dies in vain to coverup for his incompetent government. Worst ending ever.

All that said, I love Bond, enjoyed having him back on screen and enjoyed the movie as an action flick. But it's like the writers didn't even try to craft a logical story. They are trying to write some sort of 4D chess plot when Bond is really better in a 2D world. Some of you guys are lambasting Moonraker, but even in that one it's easy to identify what the bad guy is trying to do and in fact this plot is probably closest to Moonraker in terms of pure genocidal potential
AggieEP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm in the military, that's a totally different animal, Vesper is a government bureaucrat. She should be entry level at 22.
Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieEP said:

I'm in the military, that's a totally different animal, Vesper is a government bureaucrat. She should be entry level at 22.


Some people are very talented and get promoted quickly.
AggieEP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I need to remember to find Eva Green plot holes more often of were going to rule 1 her.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieEP said:

Also, objectively this was one of the worst plots in any Bond movie. I'm about as big of a Bond fan as there is and this one stretches the bounds of belief to while new levels.

First of all, we're asked to believe that Blofeld set a trap at Vesper's grave, a person that died 13 years ago. So either Blofeld knew Bond was going to her grave on this particular day and planned the booby trap...(how would he know this day would be the day?) Or he laid the trap 13 years ago, knowing Bond would one day return, and has had that boy on payroll for 13 years waiting to blow Bond up... And also had a hit squad permanently stationed there waiting to finish the job after his puny ass explosives barely stun Bond.

I mean under either scenario, it's ridiculous. But then, later in the movie it gets even worse when Bond speaks to Blofeld and Blofeld states that it was his plan to make Bond suspect Madeline so he would leave her and go live alone. If that's the plan, why almost blow him up and send a hit squad to kill him?

Then there is this whole Madeline secret plot line ... Which we find out, basically isn't a secret at all, it's just that once upon a time a psycho tried to kill her but then didn't. Then when said psycho returns, Madeline decides to not tell her secret agent ex boyfriend about it and the death bots in the perfume bottle. I kept figuring that the secret would be that she actually was more involved with Spectre than we first thought. (Which also would have been dumb) near the end we find out that her secret is really that she's a huge d-bag, has a kid with Bond, works with MI6 as a psychologist, and doesn't ever reach out to them to find Bond to let him know. We know MI6 can find him, because the new 007 does it.

Then finally we have Malek's awful plan... Well awful because we really don't know what he's doing or why. He's angry, his parents were killed and he has a lot of death micro robots. We don't know who he's programmed them to kill or why. The shady scientist guy hints that he can kill all Africans with it, but we just have no idea what the end game is. There are those approaching ships that are presumably buyers but could also just be more henchmen here to pick up the death bots to deliver them to their targets. Bond makes it seem like they need to immediately blow this island up... But why? There is no delivery system on the island. The stuff is contained as far as I could tell. So the only reason I can see for firing the missiles is for the British coverup of developing the weapon in the first place. So Bond dies in vain to coverup for his incompetent government. Worst t ending ever.

All that said, I love Bond, enjoyed having him back on screen and enjoyed the movie as an action flick. But it's like the writers didn't even try to craft a logical story. Some of you guys are lambasting Moonraker, but even in that one it's easy to identify what the bad guy is trying to do.


- The opening of NTTD takes place in the immediate wake of Spectre (the movie). Spectre (the organization) is still tracking Bond. When Madeleine says something to the effect of, "Stop looking over your shoulder, no one's following you," that's the tell to the audience that he is, in fact, being followed. It's likely that Spectre is even listening to every word in Bond and Madeleine's hotel room. So when Bond heads to Versper's grave it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that Spectre then beat him there, via the kid who was clearly being paid by Spectre. Is it a stretch? Sure. But things like that happen in nearly every Bond movie.

- It wasn't a big explosion. Blofeld knew that Bond would likely realize the trap in time and/or that it probably wouldn't kill him. The entire point was to make Bond SUSPECT Madeleine. In that case... mission accomplished.

- Madeleine is using her "secret" as a means to make her infamously closed off boyfriend fully open up to her. In that moment, her past isn't what's important. It's how and why she's using it. She needs Bond to put his ex-girlfriend 100% in his rearview before she can fully commit to him (and he to her). One way to do that is to make this little deal with him. That, and for all we know, her secret could have been that she's pregnant. We don't even necessarily know whether or not she's referring to her Safin encounter as a child in that moment. Also, I could be wrong, but I don't even think she said "secret" singular. I think she said "secrets" plural. If so, she was simply making a vague reference to her past. Basically, "I'll finally tell you everything you want to know about me. But first, I need to you put Vesper behind you once and for all."

- When Safin reappears in Madeleine's life, she doesn't tell MI6/Bond about him because, deep down, she wants Blofeld dead and gone and Spectre completely out of her life, once and for all. That seemed pretty obvious to me. When push came to shove, however, she couldn't go through with it.

- You don't see why Bond wants to blow up an entire island full of what is basically the deadliest weapon ever created? Seriously? It's so there's zero chance of the nanobots ever being used again, even by the good guys (since Bond was against it from day one, when MI6 was the one developing the tech). Also, if successful, we know Safin will initially infect the DNA targets in the database Bond and co discover. And then yeah, the Russian scientist hints at them being able to wipe out entire races if they want, which is meant to clue us into the fact that Safin likely won't just stop with the initial targets. Either way, the goal is to spread the nanobots across the globe, via human contact, just like a virus. Bond basically says as much. And then Safin will no doubt either wipe out more and more people - or - have the POWER to wipe out more and more people, basically holding the world hostage.
Cowboy Curtis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When M was eulogizing Bond was that from the Bible or a book of some sort?
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Spoiler tags, dude. I'd say for at least another few days.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a quote from American author Jack London.
Cowboy Curtis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I found this: " Interestingly, the passage has previously been used to eulogize James Bond. In Ian Fleming's novel You Only Live Twice, Bond's obituary is published in a newspaper as the spy is believed to be dead. His love interest, Mary Goodnight, adds an addendum: the same Jack London passage read by M. Interestingly, in that same Bond book (very different from the movie of the same name), 007 strangles Blofeld to death."
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's pretty cool.
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I liked it. Typical Bond fare with some new twists and set pieces.

Plot question:

What was Malek's characters motivation for mass producing the nanobots? I saw the simulation with millions dead, but was he about to start a genocidal endgame or was he going to sell the weapon off or what? I get his vendetta against Spectre and Madeline, but what was he trying to accomplish?
AggieEP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's probably my biggest problem with the movie. They just needed to add a couple of lines of dialogue about destroying the western world, revenge against group x, or even just ransom to get super rich.

He's given zero motivation for his genocide plan.
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also what the heck?! Bond films aren't supposed to hit you in the dad feels!!!
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've been avoiding this thread since it came out, but anyone mind giving me an idea of what the general consensus is
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
People are using spoiler tags, so you're good.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good, not great. Middle of the pack in terms of the Craig Bond movies.

(Personally, I liked it better than the overall consensus, for what it's worth.)
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bes - I figured, but wasn't going to risk it


Tctts- thanks. I haven't disliked any Craig movies so glad to hear it isn't a flop, but was definitely hoping it would be next level.

Thanks.
wangus12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did they ever mention why the nanobots were invincible. Because I'd think a simple EMP burst would fry those little suckers and boom problem solved.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good question. Especially since an EMP was literally part of his arsenal, you'd think they would have at least considered that.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My question is how can they reproduce like a virus, if they're mechanical. Granted that is way too scientific a complaint for a Bond movie.
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tiny robot orgy in your bloodstream.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.