Perhaps Marvel has lowered the standards of cinema?
Film James Bond: No Time to Die
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Well I am a huge James Bond fan and I was so upset/disappointed and annoyed by this most recent film.
Partly it is to do with the whole culture wars we are going through, I don't really want to get into that today, but one review on YouTube basically said it could be called 'No Time To F**k' because in these #MeToo days, he daren't. Also lots of people have complained that the main villain is too bland, but as other articles have said, it has to be that way: can't have a Dr No, can't have a Kananga etc. etc. and even Lucifaa (or whatever his name was) pissed off the organisation that supports people with facial disfigurement. Its a fantasy/fiction film... people are just too ready to be offended and some are looking to be offended all the time, these days.
At the end of the day I hated it, my teenage sons enjoyed it and that says it all really. It would not surprise me if that is basically the view in general, older people won't like this fantasy world to be torn down, whilst younger people (Iron Man fans etc.) will be more accepting.
But the main reason I have come on here today is this: when I saw the film I was shocked at the end, but then I remembered something from 2018/2019 (as I said I'm a big Bond fan so read all the web sites & news items about these books and films) and Danny Boyle of Trainspotting was initially the director of this film. However, he left due to 'creative differences'. I'd love to know what they were exactly: some say he didn't want to be the Director of the film that killed off James Bond, whilst I have also read the opposite - that him and his script-writer came up with that storyline, but it was not appreciated by the Broccoli clan. Does anyone know which is true? If he did indeed want Bond to die at the end, but then fell out with the producers who then used that idea in the finished movie, I'd be intrigued as to what he thinks now!
Finally, in films it is not uncommon for a couple of different endings to be shot, test audiences view each and a decision is made as to which works the best (the most famous example probably being Fatal Attraction). I assume this didn't happen (the test audience thing) with 'No Time To Die' or it may have leaked - but I do wonder: did they film another non-fatal ending, and then make a decision in post-production as to which to put out? Again, if anyone knows, please enlighten me.
P.S. Mock the Week was funny on Thursday though - they spent much of the show taking the piss out of Hugh Denis who was amusing when he said: bit annoying to be in a blockbuster film called 'No Time To Die' & then dying!
Partly it is to do with the whole culture wars we are going through, I don't really want to get into that today, but one review on YouTube basically said it could be called 'No Time To F**k' because in these #MeToo days, he daren't. Also lots of people have complained that the main villain is too bland, but as other articles have said, it has to be that way: can't have a Dr No, can't have a Kananga etc. etc. and even Lucifaa (or whatever his name was) pissed off the organisation that supports people with facial disfigurement. Its a fantasy/fiction film... people are just too ready to be offended and some are looking to be offended all the time, these days.
At the end of the day I hated it, my teenage sons enjoyed it and that says it all really. It would not surprise me if that is basically the view in general, older people won't like this fantasy world to be torn down, whilst younger people (Iron Man fans etc.) will be more accepting.
But the main reason I have come on here today is this: when I saw the film I was shocked at the end, but then I remembered something from 2018/2019 (as I said I'm a big Bond fan so read all the web sites & news items about these books and films) and Danny Boyle of Trainspotting was initially the director of this film. However, he left due to 'creative differences'. I'd love to know what they were exactly: some say he didn't want to be the Director of the film that killed off James Bond, whilst I have also read the opposite - that him and his script-writer came up with that storyline, but it was not appreciated by the Broccoli clan. Does anyone know which is true? If he did indeed want Bond to die at the end, but then fell out with the producers who then used that idea in the finished movie, I'd be intrigued as to what he thinks now!
Finally, in films it is not uncommon for a couple of different endings to be shot, test audiences view each and a decision is made as to which works the best (the most famous example probably being Fatal Attraction). I assume this didn't happen (the test audience thing) with 'No Time To Die' or it may have leaked - but I do wonder: did they film another non-fatal ending, and then make a decision in post-production as to which to put out? Again, if anyone knows, please enlighten me.
P.S. Mock the Week was funny on Thursday though - they spent much of the show taking the piss out of Hugh Denis who was amusing when he said: bit annoying to be in a blockbuster film called 'No Time To Die' & then dying!
Last edited:
This
I’m a huge fan of Craig‘s Bond and I really enjoyed this movie. Watched it twice already!
Malek was incredibly hammy, trying to bulge his eyes, keep his head from moving, and refraining from blinking... because, see, he's like a reptile! He was one tiny degree away from being a total parody of a Bond villain.
People who are tired of the franchise idea should not work on it. It's that simple. We've seen this before with killing off Superman, killing off Batman, killing off whoever.
Bond exists in a parallel timeline, where he can be played by Connery, Lazenby, all those other dudes across decades, and still be a Bond for today. There was absolutely no reason to kill him. One of the great joys of Bond is that he can't be killed. He always escapes. He always ends up winning. He always does it looking cool, too. That is Bond.
This was something else. "Let's take Bond, denature him, take away his invulnerability, get rid of the fantasy elements of being the world's greatest secret agent (or was that Danger Mouse?), create a new 007 who has zero charisma and zero screen presence, and then come up with some cockamamie plot line that Bond (or his associates at MI6) would never have been able to check in on his very-public ex-girlfriend and tell him the news. The new agent with the 007 designation is the anti-Bond: female and black. The filmmakers here were trying to make an anti-Bond film, but the question is why?
In "Goldeneye" we meet Alex Trevelyan (Sean Bean), who is 006. There is simply no reason to reinvent Bond the way they did it. Leave Bond as Bond, and they should have introduced the new 007 as being the new 008 (or any of the double 0 agents). The Broccoli family really wants to open up the "Bond universe" and has hired someone to write a bunch of new stories in the Bond universe but not featuring Bond. I'm actually surprised they have never exploited the other 00 agents' stories. Idris Elba was mooted at one point as a Bond actor, why not make him a 00 agent and give him his own story and mannerisms? There were myriad ways to freshen up Bond without cutting his balls off, putting a leash on him, and finally killing him.
Sometimes franchises need new life breathed into them, and Bond was no exception. After the silliness of the later Moore films, and the gadget tomfoolery of the Brosnan films, they brought the story back to earth with Casino Royale. Bond was a brute, a trained killer, but charming as feck. It's okay to reinterpret part of who Bond is, like, I could never picture Roger Moore winning a fist fight, or doing parkour, or any one of a million things that Craig did better. The Bond franchise itself had become dusty and smelled of mothballs. They tried addressing this with Judi Dench calling Bond a dinosaur (or even casting Judi Dench in the first place), because the makers were uncomfortable with the Frankenstein's monster they had made: Bond is a killer, Bond shags lots of women, Bond is the ID writ large.
Now Bond is supposed to be a sensitive daddy something something.
I was very disappointed with Fukunaga's directing, and/or PWB's writing. This script was charmless. The dialogue was flat. The sci-fi nanobots thing was stupid. Why ground all of this in a reality similar to our own and then do this? It's about on par with Pierce Brosnan's invisible sports car. Just stupid.
Killing Bond at the end was a bad decision. He was already retired and out of the game when the film started. That plus the specific nanobot curse where he can't touch anyone related to him just smacks of someone having an agenda against Bond in the first place.
I personally don't like superhero movies. If I made one, I would probably try to kill the superhero, take away all of his/her magical powers, and create a secret movie within the superhero movie that would appeal to me. I feel this is what happened here. If you don't love Bond, don't make a Bond film.
Bond exists in a parallel timeline, where he can be played by Connery, Lazenby, all those other dudes across decades, and still be a Bond for today. There was absolutely no reason to kill him. One of the great joys of Bond is that he can't be killed. He always escapes. He always ends up winning. He always does it looking cool, too. That is Bond.
This was something else. "Let's take Bond, denature him, take away his invulnerability, get rid of the fantasy elements of being the world's greatest secret agent (or was that Danger Mouse?), create a new 007 who has zero charisma and zero screen presence, and then come up with some cockamamie plot line that Bond (or his associates at MI6) would never have been able to check in on his very-public ex-girlfriend and tell him the news. The new agent with the 007 designation is the anti-Bond: female and black. The filmmakers here were trying to make an anti-Bond film, but the question is why?
In "Goldeneye" we meet Alex Trevelyan (Sean Bean), who is 006. There is simply no reason to reinvent Bond the way they did it. Leave Bond as Bond, and they should have introduced the new 007 as being the new 008 (or any of the double 0 agents). The Broccoli family really wants to open up the "Bond universe" and has hired someone to write a bunch of new stories in the Bond universe but not featuring Bond. I'm actually surprised they have never exploited the other 00 agents' stories. Idris Elba was mooted at one point as a Bond actor, why not make him a 00 agent and give him his own story and mannerisms? There were myriad ways to freshen up Bond without cutting his balls off, putting a leash on him, and finally killing him.
Sometimes franchises need new life breathed into them, and Bond was no exception. After the silliness of the later Moore films, and the gadget tomfoolery of the Brosnan films, they brought the story back to earth with Casino Royale. Bond was a brute, a trained killer, but charming as feck. It's okay to reinterpret part of who Bond is, like, I could never picture Roger Moore winning a fist fight, or doing parkour, or any one of a million things that Craig did better. The Bond franchise itself had become dusty and smelled of mothballs. They tried addressing this with Judi Dench calling Bond a dinosaur (or even casting Judi Dench in the first place), because the makers were uncomfortable with the Frankenstein's monster they had made: Bond is a killer, Bond shags lots of women, Bond is the ID writ large.
Now Bond is supposed to be a sensitive daddy something something.
I was very disappointed with Fukunaga's directing, and/or PWB's writing. This script was charmless. The dialogue was flat. The sci-fi nanobots thing was stupid. Why ground all of this in a reality similar to our own and then do this? It's about on par with Pierce Brosnan's invisible sports car. Just stupid.
Killing Bond at the end was a bad decision. He was already retired and out of the game when the film started. That plus the specific nanobot curse where he can't touch anyone related to him just smacks of someone having an agenda against Bond in the first place.
I personally don't like superhero movies. If I made one, I would probably try to kill the superhero, take away all of his/her magical powers, and create a secret movie within the superhero movie that would appeal to me. I feel this is what happened here. If you don't love Bond, don't make a Bond film.
Last edited:
Wow, what a brilliant piece of writing - to call it a 'post' would be an injustice.
I'm going to print it off and give it to my (teenage sons) to read, they enjoyed 'No Time to Die' and just don't get why I'm so annoyed about it.
I'm guessing you are a bit of a superfan? Because there is a trilogy of books in the pipeline - set in the 00x universe - it is already on Amazon for a Sept 2022 release see: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Double-Boo...ds=Kim+Sherwood&qid=1636403435&s=books&sr=1-1
Screenrant calls it: "... a new trilogy of James Bond novels that will expand the 007 universe with a "feminist perspective."
I can't wait for that!
I don't get the "there was no reason to kill Bond" argument. There was as much reason to kill him as there is to kill any character at the end of that sort of story arc. It's a pretty straightforward and natural conclusion. In fact if there's any criticism to be levelled at it it's that it's not a particularly novel or shocking twist, so it says a lot that it's the most innovative thing this franchise has done in decades.
And the notion that it swayed under some sort of culture war is absolute horseshit too. People were primed to think that way because of the "female 007" stories and PWB involvement in advance but there was nothing particularly "woke" about it, unless you just generally count being a film from the 2020s and not the 1960s as being woke. In which case the rest of the world around you must be a fright. It's already over a quarter of a century since Bond was being openly described as a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur" on-screen, there's nothing particularly wild here.
In fact the most relevant point to any culture war arguments is the lazy assumption by some that PWB must have been brought in to deal with the female characters or do vaguely feminist things with the script, as if that's the only quality a woman who created an acclaimed spy thriller series and acclaimed comedy series might have in a spy thriller with comedic elements. Which actually is sexist.
The actual problems with the film are ones that have popped up in a lot of previous Bond installments: weak premise, weak plot and weak villain.
And the notion that it swayed under some sort of culture war is absolute horseshit too. People were primed to think that way because of the "female 007" stories and PWB involvement in advance but there was nothing particularly "woke" about it, unless you just generally count being a film from the 2020s and not the 1960s as being woke. In which case the rest of the world around you must be a fright. It's already over a quarter of a century since Bond was being openly described as a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur" on-screen, there's nothing particularly wild here.
In fact the most relevant point to any culture war arguments is the lazy assumption by some that PWB must have been brought in to deal with the female characters or do vaguely feminist things with the script, as if that's the only quality a woman who created an acclaimed spy thriller series and acclaimed comedy series might have in a spy thriller with comedic elements. Which actually is sexist.
The actual problems with the film are ones that have popped up in a lot of previous Bond installments: weak premise, weak plot and weak villain.
Last edited:
Well I believe the 'weak villain' of which you speak is a 'woke' issue - very bland and designed to not offend any particular race or culture - although there was an issue with an organisation who support people with facial disfigurement & I can understand that - but its like you can't offend anybody these days, even in a fictional/fantasy film.
Furthermore, some aspects of his non-Bondian behaviour in the film can be put down to the 'woke' times we are in. Now I'm not saying the stuff we see in the early Bond films is great e.g. early in Goldfinger - often named as the one where it all really came together - Bond introduces his 'friend' Dink to Felix then immediately dismisses her with a slap on the arse and the comment 'Man Talk' - that is archaic. However, in Skyfall 2012, Daniel Craig's Bond sneaks into Severine's shower.... is that Ok? or not OK? Well she didn't seem to mind. These are fantasy films - right back at the start it was said Bond is who men want to be and who women want between the sheets... but in 2020/2021?? well in NTTD Bond is practically neutered.
Is this as a result of the #Metoo movement? the involvement of PWB brought in to 'sharpen-up' the script? (at Craig's suggestion I believe) well I don't know, but I think it spoilt it for me and I'm not the only one. I've heard takings in the USA have been disappointing and its on VOD over there already. It was a decent movie in many ways, but just not really a Bond movie - especially because Bond shouldn't die!
What I find most odd of course is this: back in the 1970s (when I was a teenager) we were lucky if we found a copy of Mayfair or Razzle in the bushes (dare not try to buy a copy in the Newsagents!) softcore porn magazines for those younger redcafe members. But Bond would usually shag at least 3 women each movie and also slap one around a bit if he needed information - see 'The Man with the Golden Gun' for example. Nowadays teenagers have easy access to hardcore and often violent porn, whilst Bond dare not even look at the women in the 'wrong way'.... its all very odd! I'm not saying the 60s & 70s were better, by the way, I'm just pointing out the 'weirdness' of things and the times we are living through. Its often said that the 007 movies reflect the political and cultural times in which they were/are made & I would be interested in people's views on this.
Finally, I actually came on to add some more information to my post of a few days ago. I was listening to a podcast at the weekend on the MI6-HQ website and it seemed to say that to get the deal done - to get Daniel Craig back for one more movie - was his insistence that Bond dies! So does this indicate he was the driving force behind the decision? I would still like to know why Danny Boyle left the production, some say he didn't want to be the Director on the film where 007 pops his clogs, others say him and his longtime collaborator/scriptwriter actually suggested it... or was it actually Craig's idea all along?
Furthermore, some aspects of his non-Bondian behaviour in the film can be put down to the 'woke' times we are in. Now I'm not saying the stuff we see in the early Bond films is great e.g. early in Goldfinger - often named as the one where it all really came together - Bond introduces his 'friend' Dink to Felix then immediately dismisses her with a slap on the arse and the comment 'Man Talk' - that is archaic. However, in Skyfall 2012, Daniel Craig's Bond sneaks into Severine's shower.... is that Ok? or not OK? Well she didn't seem to mind. These are fantasy films - right back at the start it was said Bond is who men want to be and who women want between the sheets... but in 2020/2021?? well in NTTD Bond is practically neutered.
Is this as a result of the #Metoo movement? the involvement of PWB brought in to 'sharpen-up' the script? (at Craig's suggestion I believe) well I don't know, but I think it spoilt it for me and I'm not the only one. I've heard takings in the USA have been disappointing and its on VOD over there already. It was a decent movie in many ways, but just not really a Bond movie - especially because Bond shouldn't die!
What I find most odd of course is this: back in the 1970s (when I was a teenager) we were lucky if we found a copy of Mayfair or Razzle in the bushes (dare not try to buy a copy in the Newsagents!) softcore porn magazines for those younger redcafe members. But Bond would usually shag at least 3 women each movie and also slap one around a bit if he needed information - see 'The Man with the Golden Gun' for example. Nowadays teenagers have easy access to hardcore and often violent porn, whilst Bond dare not even look at the women in the 'wrong way'.... its all very odd! I'm not saying the 60s & 70s were better, by the way, I'm just pointing out the 'weirdness' of things and the times we are living through. Its often said that the 007 movies reflect the political and cultural times in which they were/are made & I would be interested in people's views on this.
Finally, I actually came on to add some more information to my post of a few days ago. I was listening to a podcast at the weekend on the MI6-HQ website and it seemed to say that to get the deal done - to get Daniel Craig back for one more movie - was his insistence that Bond dies! So does this indicate he was the driving force behind the decision? I would still like to know why Danny Boyle left the production, some say he didn't want to be the Director on the film where 007 pops his clogs, others say him and his longtime collaborator/scriptwriter actually suggested it... or was it actually Craig's idea all along?
Last edited:
Agree with pretty much every word.
Pretty shit.
A discussion on the books, and the other Bonds' longevity.
The Bond films are one of the few things people in my family can agree on. The bad guys are clearly bad guys, the hero is clearly an avatar of unrestrained teen boy fantasies, the woman are always stunning, the wealth porn is always ostentatious. After Craig's "Casino Royale" I went and bought the first four novels. They are not great. However, they really captured the tone of the first novel with the movie version of "Casino Royale". Bond wasn't a louche globetrotting pussyhound. Things got progressively weirder or looser with each novel, but again, they are not well-written books. As to the new novels being written, I don't really care about anything written from "a feminist perspective"; I only care if they are interesting to read. The originals are marginally readable so the new ones can't be too much worse.
The argument against killing Bond is, if it's okay to kill Bond after the 5th film (in the Craig timeline), then we should have seen Sean Connery's Bond killed after "Diamonds Are Forever". We should have seen Lazenby get it in the neck in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". Then we should have seen Roger Moore get killed in "A View To A Kill" (which would have been a mercy killing). Timothy Dalton, likewise, should get killed in "License To Kill", and Pierce Brosnan should get killed in "Die Another Day".
If someone thinks all of those deaths would make sense to the franchise, story, history of Bond, then their belief that Craig's Bond should also be killed makes sense. If someone does not think the other Bonds should be killed, then there is no reason for Craig's Bond to die.
It's just like in the Superman or Batman universe. Michael Keaton, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Christian Bale, Robert Pattinson are all playing a character reinvented (mostly) each time for a new audience. That's progress/evolution. An actor taking the role, such as Bale, and then insisting that the character get killed off has nothing to do with Batman and everything to do with the actor's relationship to the material.
The easiest example of this is Harrison Ford's relationship to Han Solo. Famously he didn't want to return after "Empire" and insisted his character get killed then so he wouldn't have to play it anymore, and the compromise was putting him in a Carbonite Skinner Box. To get Ford to come back after the initial trilogy, guess what his demand was? Yes, that Solo gets killed for real this time. It has nothing to do with fans' love of the character or franchise or even logic; it is only because the actor is tired of the role.
As to Phoebe Waller-Bridge coming in at Craig's insistence to do something to the script: I don't think it worked. My understanding is that she was brought in to punch up the female characters. I don't know if it helped Seydoux (who was as appealing as soggy bread), or if it was mainly for Lashana Lynch's character, or what, but the dialogue had no flavor. If Nomi's only real role in the film was to give audiences a preview that the next 007 might be a black female, as sort of a virtue signaling / panic inducing shot across the bow, then good for them. What I think would be interesting is to have a female 007 who is let off the chain like Connery's Bond was. I'd love to see a fantasy version of the female ID. I'd love to see a female 007 shoot people's dicks off and feck anything that moved, if they wanted to. It would be awesome. Part of the trick here is to leverage the traditional British mannerisms of politeness and coldness and remaining emotionally uninvolved with the hotblooded spectacle of murder and sex and violence and exotic locales and wealth porn toys. Bond works because he plays against the British archetype.
As has been mentioned, Bond in the past was a chauvinistic, womanizing, asshole. One film, "Thunderball", he even can be adjudged to have raped someone: he forces himself on her after she says "no", and then forces her to have sex with him in order to maintain a secret. Plus there's the whole "killing people" thing which people don't seem to have a problem with. There is a lot of material that could be examined and held up to today's zeitgeist: we could have seen arguments relating to Brexit and Britain's role in world affairs, we could have seen arguments about the morality of giving anyone a license to kill, we could have seen Bond's chauvinism played out against the new 007's competence. The point is, there was a lot of room to have Bond still be Bond, and to exist in 2021 with whatever agenda anyone has/had.
When we get away from the core of who and what Bond is, then we might as well go watch Tom Cruise as a version of Bond in the "Mission: Impossible" films, or if we want it grittier, go watch Matt Damon in the "Bourne" films. If you want it sillier, go watch the "Kingsmen" films. If you want Bond to be a proper English gentleman of fine breeding and only the best schools and all that class system horseshit, go watch John Steed in "The Avengers," he's even got the bowler hat and umbrella. There is a reason Bond has endured for 60 years. Maybe people just like spies. Maybe people just like each actor that gets to play Bond and it has nothing to do with what Bond is. Ultimately it is a consumer product and consumers can choose to see these films or not.
For my money, Bond isn't as interesting as it used to be because it's not fun anymore. "Casino Royale" was grim, but it's probably my favorite Bond film. 2nd would be "Live And Let Die". They are two very, very different interpretations of Bond. I'd say they should be bracketing the possibilities for Bond. I don't want it any grittier than Bond getting his balls smashed with a monkey fist, and I don't want it any sillier than Bond shagging every female in the movie while the villain has to be killed 3 times. There's also the scene where Moore runs across the snouts of alligators to escape a predicament, which is Bond resourcefulness and silliness at its finest.
Bond is fantasy. Bond is also a product of and for its time. Again, the people who made this Bond film did not love Bond and they obviously did not want the Bond idea/franchise to continue because they killed him off. There is no reason to have done this because there are new novels being written in the Bond universe with new characters that can be as woke as anyone could possibly hope for. These new novels were no threat to Bond being Bond. 007 can continue but Bond is dead for no reason.
The argument against killing Bond is, if it's okay to kill Bond after the 5th film (in the Craig timeline), then we should have seen Sean Connery's Bond killed after "Diamonds Are Forever". We should have seen Lazenby get it in the neck in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". Then we should have seen Roger Moore get killed in "A View To A Kill" (which would have been a mercy killing). Timothy Dalton, likewise, should get killed in "License To Kill", and Pierce Brosnan should get killed in "Die Another Day".
If someone thinks all of those deaths would make sense to the franchise, story, history of Bond, then their belief that Craig's Bond should also be killed makes sense. If someone does not think the other Bonds should be killed, then there is no reason for Craig's Bond to die.
It's just like in the Superman or Batman universe. Michael Keaton, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Christian Bale, Robert Pattinson are all playing a character reinvented (mostly) each time for a new audience. That's progress/evolution. An actor taking the role, such as Bale, and then insisting that the character get killed off has nothing to do with Batman and everything to do with the actor's relationship to the material.
The easiest example of this is Harrison Ford's relationship to Han Solo. Famously he didn't want to return after "Empire" and insisted his character get killed then so he wouldn't have to play it anymore, and the compromise was putting him in a Carbonite Skinner Box. To get Ford to come back after the initial trilogy, guess what his demand was? Yes, that Solo gets killed for real this time. It has nothing to do with fans' love of the character or franchise or even logic; it is only because the actor is tired of the role.
As to Phoebe Waller-Bridge coming in at Craig's insistence to do something to the script: I don't think it worked. My understanding is that she was brought in to punch up the female characters. I don't know if it helped Seydoux (who was as appealing as soggy bread), or if it was mainly for Lashana Lynch's character, or what, but the dialogue had no flavor. If Nomi's only real role in the film was to give audiences a preview that the next 007 might be a black female, as sort of a virtue signaling / panic inducing shot across the bow, then good for them. What I think would be interesting is to have a female 007 who is let off the chain like Connery's Bond was. I'd love to see a fantasy version of the female ID. I'd love to see a female 007 shoot people's dicks off and feck anything that moved, if they wanted to. It would be awesome. Part of the trick here is to leverage the traditional British mannerisms of politeness and coldness and remaining emotionally uninvolved with the hotblooded spectacle of murder and sex and violence and exotic locales and wealth porn toys. Bond works because he plays against the British archetype.
As has been mentioned, Bond in the past was a chauvinistic, womanizing, asshole. One film, "Thunderball", he even can be adjudged to have raped someone: he forces himself on her after she says "no", and then forces her to have sex with him in order to maintain a secret. Plus there's the whole "killing people" thing which people don't seem to have a problem with. There is a lot of material that could be examined and held up to today's zeitgeist: we could have seen arguments relating to Brexit and Britain's role in world affairs, we could have seen arguments about the morality of giving anyone a license to kill, we could have seen Bond's chauvinism played out against the new 007's competence. The point is, there was a lot of room to have Bond still be Bond, and to exist in 2021 with whatever agenda anyone has/had.
When we get away from the core of who and what Bond is, then we might as well go watch Tom Cruise as a version of Bond in the "Mission: Impossible" films, or if we want it grittier, go watch Matt Damon in the "Bourne" films. If you want it sillier, go watch the "Kingsmen" films. If you want Bond to be a proper English gentleman of fine breeding and only the best schools and all that class system horseshit, go watch John Steed in "The Avengers," he's even got the bowler hat and umbrella. There is a reason Bond has endured for 60 years. Maybe people just like spies. Maybe people just like each actor that gets to play Bond and it has nothing to do with what Bond is. Ultimately it is a consumer product and consumers can choose to see these films or not.
For my money, Bond isn't as interesting as it used to be because it's not fun anymore. "Casino Royale" was grim, but it's probably my favorite Bond film. 2nd would be "Live And Let Die". They are two very, very different interpretations of Bond. I'd say they should be bracketing the possibilities for Bond. I don't want it any grittier than Bond getting his balls smashed with a monkey fist, and I don't want it any sillier than Bond shagging every female in the movie while the villain has to be killed 3 times. There's also the scene where Moore runs across the snouts of alligators to escape a predicament, which is Bond resourcefulness and silliness at its finest.
Bond is fantasy. Bond is also a product of and for its time. Again, the people who made this Bond film did not love Bond and they obviously did not want the Bond idea/franchise to continue because they killed him off. There is no reason to have done this because there are new novels being written in the Bond universe with new characters that can be as woke as anyone could possibly hope for. These new novels were no threat to Bond being Bond. 007 can continue but Bond is dead for no reason.
Last edited:
Thank you again for your contribution, another interesting read. I only strongly disagreed with one thing and that is your opinion of 'Live and let Die' one of my least favourites of them all!
Its funny, there was one of those ranking things of all the films done recently (Radio Times I think) and quite strangely each actor (who had done several) had some at the top and some at the bottom. For example Sean Connery: 'Goldfinger' was 2nd or 3rd (I'm struggling to recall exactly) whilst 'Diamonds are Forever' was really low down. With Moore - 'The Spy Who Loved Me' was high up, whilst 'View to a Kill' was right far down (correctly so in my opinion - he really should have stopped after 'For Your Eyes Only'). With Daniel Craig, 'Casino Royale' was number 1 I think, whilst again 'Quantum of Solace' was near the bottom. Pierce Brosnan - 'Goldeneye' was right up there, but 'Die Another Day' in one of the bottom slots.
It goes to show, its not just the actor in the role that matters, there are other factors at play.
For what its worth I put 'No Time to Die' in last place, even behind 'Never Say Never Again' (which I actually prefer to Thunderball). Because as I keep trying to tell my children, its isn't really a Bond film at all.
Its funny, there was one of those ranking things of all the films done recently (Radio Times I think) and quite strangely each actor (who had done several) had some at the top and some at the bottom. For example Sean Connery: 'Goldfinger' was 2nd or 3rd (I'm struggling to recall exactly) whilst 'Diamonds are Forever' was really low down. With Moore - 'The Spy Who Loved Me' was high up, whilst 'View to a Kill' was right far down (correctly so in my opinion - he really should have stopped after 'For Your Eyes Only'). With Daniel Craig, 'Casino Royale' was number 1 I think, whilst again 'Quantum of Solace' was near the bottom. Pierce Brosnan - 'Goldeneye' was right up there, but 'Die Another Day' in one of the bottom slots.
It goes to show, its not just the actor in the role that matters, there are other factors at play.
For what its worth I put 'No Time to Die' in last place, even behind 'Never Say Never Again' (which I actually prefer to Thunderball). Because as I keep trying to tell my children, its isn't really a Bond film at all.
"Moonraker" gets last place for me. I also didn't like "The World Is Not Enough". I'm an apostate because while I like Connery I think most of his Bonds just don't hold up.
Top 5 Bond films: Casino Royale, Live And Let Die, GoldenEye, License To Kill, Diamonds Are Forever. This list could change if I go back and watch any of them, though!
Incredibly bland and PC orientated movie. Bond being soft didn't bother me one bit but this ending just sucks.
Villain terribly weak and uninteresting. Far too long for what it is. If they want to write into the 007 verse that shouldn't be a problem but just leave Bond alone.
What was their motive for killing Bond? Showing him saving his love and child was a bit Titanic for me.. Tell her about me shit.
I’m a huge James Bond fan. I had the ending to this one spoiled and I now have zero interest in watching it!
When I first read this I thought I would write to you and apologise and say that I hope its nothing that I have put onto the thread that caused this, because I have always been careful to use the 'spoiler' buttons.
However, then I thought for a moment.... you say you are a 'huge James Bond fan' yet the film came out on 30th September. Here we are 6 weeks later and you haven't seen it.... something doesn't add up.
I'm a huge James Bond fan & I saw it on 30/9/21, partly because I didn't want to have a plot twist or storyline spoilt and mainly because it had been 6 years since Spectre.
If you had written your thing say two or three days after the film came out, I'd understand, but 6 weeks.... are you sure you are a 'huge James Bond fan'?
Oh it was nothing to do with your post mate.
Easy there. I’m not claiming to be a bigger fan than you
I had the ending spoilt on a FB group that I’m a member of two days before the film was being released in the UK.
Zero chance I was going to waste money going to see it after that. I’ll wait for the blu ray release and I won’t be in a hurry to watch it
Oh I'm sorry to read that* and apologies for being a bit brusk with you before. I'm still very vexxed about this whole thing to be honest, not sure why! I think its partly because James Bond - the films especially - have been an important part of my life: the late 1970s ones I saw with me Dad - the Dalton ones with me mates, the Brosnan ones with girlfriends !!!Oh it was nothing to do with your post mate.
Easy there. I’m not claiming to be a bigger fan than you
I had the ending spoilt on a FB group that I’m a member of two days before the film was being released in the UK.
Zero chance I was going to waste money going to see it after that. I’ll wait for the blu ray release and I won’t be in a hurry to watch it
They are sort of milestones in my life. Also they are reminders of past Christmases when ITV always used to put one on, on Christmas day afternoon!
I remember I must have been about 11 or 12 (so 1980ish or so) and the guy over the road had bought a Video-recorder.... woo-hoo. He was going away at Xmas so lent it to me to record a list of things for him, but he said at other times I could use it myself. I recorded 'Man with the Golden Gun' on Xmas day, it sounds daft now, I used to record the top 40 off the radio into a cassette recorder, but to actually record TV and especially a bond film and then be able watch it again and again and again, was magical!
The first Daniel Craig one I had to wait for the DVD because I'd had a baby in 2005 (well my ex-wife dide!). And Spectre me and that baby - and his brother - we went to see it at the iMax in the Trafford Centre - what a mistake that was: £47 quid - and we were sat at the back so it didn't seem any bigger than a normal cinema plus it was too loud and the film was shit!
Then a six year wait and then 'No Bloody Time To Die' I curse you James Bond and I hope Jason Bourne meets you in a dark alley sometime soon and gives you a good kicking..... I'm pissed off!
*I wonder how the FB group knew the ending or were they just guessing, do you think?
I can 100% relate to everything you have said in your post. Growing up in the 80’s and 90’s James Bond was very important to me too. Christmas time, Easter and even bank holiday Monday‘s always meant that a James Bond film would be on the tele.
They weren’t readily available on video so the few and far between showings made it into a real event when they were on ITV.
I’ve not been a huge fan of the Daniel Craig movies. I thought Casino Royale and Skyfall were great but for me JB is like a super hero that is undefeatable regardless of the situation. I don’t want to see him put into hyper realistic situations where he fails or comes across as old and past it. Hopefully they get back to a more traditional Bond for the next movie.
I’ve seen rumours about the next one possibly being set in the 60’s which I wouldn’t be against if I’m honest.
Who would you like to see play Bond next?
The guy in the facebook group is a movie reviewer for a paper and he’d seen it a couple of weeks before release.
Well I totally get that! I actually was born in the same year as Daniel Craig - only a few weeks apart actually - he is from Chester and I'm from Manchester (sadly that is pretty much all we have in common) and I enjoyed Casino Royale as he was the new, energetic James Bond (aged 37 at the time). But by Skyfall 2012, he was fecked up - couldn't shoot straight, couldn't pass the medical and that one is nearly ten years ago now!!!! Everyone raves about it and I enjoyed it, but really the end is just Home Alone! It also has thrown a spanner into the works for those people who say Daniel Craig's Bond films stand-alone and therefore they could do what they did. Not true cos in Skyfall he visits the grave, the house & he drives the Aston Martin too, the one with the gadgets not just some old DB5 he had stashed in a lock-up, in London!
I had heard that idea: about a possible 1960s set next movie, but as I have said I doubt it will happen - think about all the $$$s they get for product placement, how would that work in a 1960s period piece? Something like this perhaps - (Q to Bond) "here is a little something we are calling a 'mobile phone' it does this and this and this, please bring it back intact, when you return from the field....".... but it says "No Signal" (oops).
I believe the latest 'front-runner' is a guy called Tom Hopper - I don't know his work as I haven't seen 'Game of Thrones'.
My son thought it was the guy who presented X-Factor when I sent him this pic!
The problem is of course, everytime ITV or BBC (or Netflix or Sky) release a TV show that's a hit with some handsome 30-something bloke in it, the rumours start all over again. The Night Manager, (Tom Hiddleston), Outlander (Sam Heughan), The Bodyguard (Richard Madden), Bridgerton (Rege-Jean Page). I'm surprised the lead in Squid Game hasn't had a mention!
I will say this much, it can't be anyone > 40, so Tom Hardy has missed out & Idris Elba too which brings me to a final point: whatever they do, I hope they speed things up a bit. Connery made five films in 6 years - its taken Daniel Craig 15 yrs to do the same number. I know the pandemic was an issue and I guess the modern special effects take time to add in these days, but they really need to crack on, perhaps one every three years at least. I think that sometimes if they made the films quicker, they might actually be better and if they are not, at least we don't have to wait 5 years for them to try again!
Last edited:
Just watched it. Thought it was good!
I didn’t really get Remi Malek’s character much though. Unsure as to how he managed to own an entire island and have so many people working for him to do some plan where the motive was flimsy at best. Interesting move to kill Bond off though. Am I right in thinking it’s never happened before?
I enjoyed it for the most part but I was a bit deflated at the end - I’ve been watching Bond for 30+ years and have seem every one at the cinema since the Dalton era…I just think its run its course and it’s a franchise that’s out of time.
I thought it was decent. You know what you're going to get with Bond.
Tom Hopper is also famous for playing Luther in The Umbrella Academy. Big bugger.Well I totally get that! I actually was born in the same year as Daniel Craig - only a few weeks apart actually - he is from Chester and I'm from Manchester (sadly that is pretty much all we have in common) and I enjoyed Casino Royale as he was the new, energetic James Bond (aged 37 at the time). But by Skyfall 2012, he was fecked up - couldn't shoot straight, couldn't pass the medical and that one is nearly ten years ago now!!!! Everyone raves about it and I enjoyed it, but really the end is just Home Alone! It also has thrown a spanner into the works for those people who say Daniel Craig's Bond films stand-alone and therefore they could do what they did. Not true cos in Skyfall he visits the grave, the house & he drives the Aston Martin too, the one with the gadgets not just some old DB5 he had stashed in a lock-up, in London!
I had heard that idea: about a possible 1960s set next movie, but as I have said I doubt it will happen - think about all the $$$s they get for product placement, how would that work in a 1960s period piece? Something like this perhaps - (Q to Bond) "here is a little something we are calling a 'mobile phone' it does this and this and this, please bring it back intact, when you return from the field....".... but it says "No Signal" (oops).
I believe the latest 'front-runner' is a guy called Tom Hopper - I don't know his work as I haven't seen 'Game of Thrones'.
My son thought it was the guy who presented X-Factor when I sent him this pic!
The problem is of course, everytime ITV or BBC (or Netflix or Sky) release a TV show that's a hit with some handsome 30-something bloke in it, the rumours start all over again. The Night Manager, (Tom Hiddleston), Outlander (Sam Heughan), The Bodyguard (Richard Madden), Bridgerton (Rege-Jean Page). I'm surprised the lead in Squid Game hasn't had a mention!
I will say this much, it can't be anyone > 40, so Tom Hardy has missed out & Idris Elba too which brings me to a final point: whatever they do, I hope they speed things up a bit. Connery made five films in 6 years - its taken Daniel Craig 15 yrs to do the same number. I know the pandemic was an issue and I guess the modern special effects take time to add in these days, but they really need to crack on, perhaps one every three years at least. I think that sometimes if they made the films quicker, they might actually be better and if they are not, at least we don't have to wait 5 years for them to try again!
He was decent in Black Sails too
When did Bond drink that much?! Thought that was over the top.
As I grow older watching bond is a chore, the suspension of disbelief seeing a 50 years old? Craig old, beaten, and tired goes through wades and wades of bad guys, i feel like I kinda pity him and wish he'd just retire after the 4th.
And go make another bond to last the next 5 movies. It is after all popcorn movies, might as well.
And go make another bond to last the next 5 movies. It is after all popcorn movies, might as well.
Talking about spoilers…
Our (Slovenian) president posted on instagram on the day of the premiere revealing the ending and spoiling the movie for the entire country. What a fecking dickhead
? Bond's always been a pisshead.
Films in the old days were different.Well I totally get that! I actually was born in the same year as Daniel Craig - only a few weeks apart actually - he is from Chester and I'm from Manchester (sadly that is pretty much all we have in common) and I enjoyed Casino Royale as he was the new, energetic James Bond (aged 37 at the time). But by Skyfall 2012, he was fecked up - couldn't shoot straight, couldn't pass the medical and that one is nearly ten years ago now!!!! Everyone raves about it and I enjoyed it, but really the end is just Home Alone! It also has thrown a spanner into the works for those people who say Daniel Craig's Bond films stand-alone and therefore they could do what they did. Not true cos in Skyfall he visits the grave, the house & he drives the Aston Martin too, the one with the gadgets not just some old DB5 he had stashed in a lock-up, in London!
I had heard that idea: about a possible 1960s set next movie, but as I have said I doubt it will happen - think about all the $$$s they get for product placement, how would that work in a 1960s period piece? Something like this perhaps - (Q to Bond) "here is a little something we are calling a 'mobile phone' it does this and this and this, please bring it back intact, when you return from the field....".... but it says "No Signal" (oops).
I believe the latest 'front-runner' is a guy called Tom Hopper - I don't know his work as I haven't seen 'Game of Thrones'.
My son thought it was the guy who presented X-Factor when I sent him this pic!
The problem is of course, everytime ITV or BBC (or Netflix or Sky) release a TV show that's a hit with some handsome 30-something bloke in it, the rumours start all over again. The Night Manager, (Tom Hiddleston), Outlander (Sam Heughan), The Bodyguard (Richard Madden), Bridgerton (Rege-Jean Page). I'm surprised the lead in Squid Game hasn't had a mention!
I will say this much, it can't be anyone > 40, so Tom Hardy has missed out & Idris Elba too which brings me to a final point: whatever they do, I hope they speed things up a bit. Connery made five films in 6 years - its taken Daniel Craig 15 yrs to do the same number. I know the pandemic was an issue and I guess the modern special effects take time to add in these days, but they really need to crack on, perhaps one every three years at least. I think that sometimes if they made the films quicker, they might actually be better and if they are not, at least we don't have to wait 5 years for them to try again!
In the golden days of Hollywood you would sign a contract with a Studio and work solely for them.
Connery signed with Eon and made the Bond films.
Now days, these exclusive contracts no longer exist.
So an actor can work with anyone and that's why films take longer to make sequels etc
Good points.
I was chatting to my son this weekend about this (the time issue) he enjoys video games, so do I actually - but him more so. He told me they have like three teams working on Call of Duty, one finishing a game for this Christmas, one half way through one for Xmas 2022 and another just in the early stages of the Xmas 2023 release (I’m guessing here, but you get the idea). Perhaps Bond films could try that, sign an actor to just do the acting, but have other teams in pre-production, music, special effects, editing etc. So we could then at least get one every couple of years, or so, not like it is now.
He was drinking shots with Felix at start in that club, and pouring wine at every moment while he was at Q's house, and then later stopped the fight scene to fix himself a drink, thought it was too much. He was always a one drink guy from what I can remember.
I hope they make Dev Patel the next Bond just to see everyone losing their shit.
Craig’s Bond drinks more than the others, but he is true to Fleming’s books in that respect.
So finally watched it and was a bit meh.
really didn't like Craig in this. Didn't look, dress or act like bond. Thought the new 007 was rubbish. She would have been a better Moneypenny and vice versa. Disappointed
The production costs would be huge.
I used to be on set off a few films when filmed in London Inc 2 Bonds.
They literally spend a whole day setting up 1 shot they film 3 different angles and then in the film they use around 7 seconds.
Only 2 sets I've been on where they setup and filmed over 2 days and one while night where they had main scenes used were FF6 and Mary Poppins 2, although on the latter one, another set, They setup and shot another scene for around 8 hours and used about 20 to 30 seconds only.
The amount of work and people involved for just one scene is huge nowadays and I think impossible to stretch two films of the magnitude of Bond cross filming due to how epic it is.
Films are made on money earned from previous films, so if Bond A bombed then Bond B (underway) would run out of money and wouldn't be able to continue.
Computer games are a different thing altogether in that Rockstar can work on say GTVa, GTA Online, ROD2, ROD2 Online, Next GTA, Old GTA updates
Those all have specific individual or shared departments.
Staff levels are contained and most of the work is in Development and they are all office based for most part.
so it's easier to manage.
Cod quickly turned into a rubbish franchise with no quality in their final products partly as a result of this.
Just watched it- was excessively long and utterly boring. Sadly, no other movie came close to Casino Royale.
Last edited:
Bond writers really do struggle to come up with proper villains. This was yet another example of a very good cast wasted by poor writing. The main drive of the entire film was poorly explained and at times made very little all sense. I actually thought the relationship between Bond and Madeleine worked well, as did the later reveal. Unfortunately it couldn't carry what was a fairly empty film, with characters that gave ultimately nothing to the story. It felt like they rushed through tying off as many strings as they could which wasn't ultimately required and perhaps should have been done in the previous film or left altogether. Spectre as an organisation should carry significant threat throughout the arc and yet I felt the only time Bond had a true adversary was back in Skyfall with Raoul Silva (had to google his name). That was a villain that carried a significant threat throughout, Spectre just seemed like a complete bunch of amateurs.
It was an enjoyable watch for the most part, carried as best he could by Craig. There was a cracking film in there, but not with that edit.
It was an enjoyable watch for the most part, carried as best he could by Craig. There was a cracking film in there, but not with that edit.
There's a lot of guff being written that this film is bad because of some "woke" choices and trying to modernise Bond. Absolute claptrap. It's quite possible to rehabilitate a character and update their views without ruining a film.
The reason this film is an abject failure from about 40 minutes onwards is just down to abysmal writing and poor plot you could drive a truck through.
We have a great opening sequence and a surprising development and great stunts. An interesting villain is revealed and some back story given and then....
It's overlong, frustratingly badly plotted and seems like it was edited by several different people. the film had troubles at every stage and boy does it look it. It's not bad because it's trying to be woke. It's bad because it's a terrible plot delivered poorly and comes uncomfortably close to it's parodies on far too many occasions.
The reason this film is an abject failure from about 40 minutes onwards is just down to abysmal writing and poor plot you could drive a truck through.
We have a great opening sequence and a surprising development and great stunts. An interesting villain is revealed and some back story given and then....
We descend into some sort of terrible spy parody movie where we have a gathering of supervillains attending a birthday party who all then die like something out of a "Despicable Me" or "Austin Powers" film - I actually was looking to see if one guy was wearing blue dungarees and a yellow polo neck in that scene.
The old villain appears trapped in some sort of slide-out glass wardrobe that is supposed to echo Hannibal Lecter but it just looks like Christophe Waltz has been greedy and got himself stuck in a glass popcorn cabinet.
The new villain does all the usual monologue-ing, and has a tremendous bargaining chip in having control over Bond's potential kid but just lets the kid go wandering around his submarine pen on it's own?????
The villain then decides to just wander off for about 30 minutes and what....go have have a starbucks? it actually felt like he had abandoned his own plan at that point!
Oh the nano-bots....Q can we do anything about those?.....
Q doesn't even google it or check Github.....nah mate - they're just eternal and nothing can be done about that!
Laws of thermal dynamics and entropy? EMP pulse? Blood transfusion? Ecmo device?
Nah - no point considering getting you off the island in one of the many vessels to hand and quarantining you while we investigate these potential solutions. your best bet mate is just to look moody and glass-eyed towards the sunset while the missiles go off close to your location!
I don't have a problem with the idea of "killing off" the Bond character in the film, but it just feels like they run roughshod over massive plot holes to get to that point. It could have been a moment of self sacrifice - with Bond infected with a new virulent super-pathogen that could wipe out the entire world....that would make more sense and would make such a snap decision to effectively let him die understandable.
The old villain appears trapped in some sort of slide-out glass wardrobe that is supposed to echo Hannibal Lecter but it just looks like Christophe Waltz has been greedy and got himself stuck in a glass popcorn cabinet.
The new villain does all the usual monologue-ing, and has a tremendous bargaining chip in having control over Bond's potential kid but just lets the kid go wandering around his submarine pen on it's own?????
The villain then decides to just wander off for about 30 minutes and what....go have have a starbucks? it actually felt like he had abandoned his own plan at that point!
Oh the nano-bots....Q can we do anything about those?.....
Q doesn't even google it or check Github.....nah mate - they're just eternal and nothing can be done about that!
Laws of thermal dynamics and entropy? EMP pulse? Blood transfusion? Ecmo device?
Nah - no point considering getting you off the island in one of the many vessels to hand and quarantining you while we investigate these potential solutions. your best bet mate is just to look moody and glass-eyed towards the sunset while the missiles go off close to your location!
I don't have a problem with the idea of "killing off" the Bond character in the film, but it just feels like they run roughshod over massive plot holes to get to that point. It could have been a moment of self sacrifice - with Bond infected with a new virulent super-pathogen that could wipe out the entire world....that would make more sense and would make such a snap decision to effectively let him die understandable.
It's overlong, frustratingly badly plotted and seems like it was edited by several different people. the film had troubles at every stage and boy does it look it. It's not bad because it's trying to be woke. It's bad because it's a terrible plot delivered poorly and comes uncomfortably close to it's parodies on far too many occasions.