Everyone is overreacting too much about the films production - No Time to Die (2021) Discussion

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

You're wrong and misinformed about so many things here that I'm going to bother addressing every point. If you have actually been paying attention for the last FIVE YEARS then you will know how disastrous this production has been. The only other time it has taken this long to release a new James Bond film (the biggest film series in history by the way, so not exactly a hard sell with movie audiences) is when the franchise nearly died completely because of legal issues in the early 90's. Six years passed between the releases of LTK and GE when this was happening. Outside of those extraordinary, death-of-franchise circumstances, it should never take this many years to release a new film that should be a guaranteed money maker for all involved. It is pure incompetence on the part of everyone involved, and in the case of cuckboy Daniel Craig, a bit of laziness thrown in the mix.

reply

[–] SpikeMike (470) 5 years ago

Spectre was a disappointment and the producers wanted to bring in a big name to ensure a more successful film. Danny Boyle was their choice, and they waited until he and Craig were available. Of course, they ended up disagreeing with Boyle which pushed things back as they basically had to restart from scratch with a new team.

As Le Chiffre said, "Nothing sinister."

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

That's what they want you to believe because it suits their agenda. Do you also believe that this entire Craig story-line was planned out from the beginning and not just arbitrarily made up on the fly? That's another fake news/talking point that I've seen pushed by Eon recently.

Craig is getting paid royally to do this job, and he is the only actor to play Bond who also gets to have near-full creative control as a credited producer. Why is he "not available?" That is such a crappy excuse. He's either lazy, or the producers are lying. Pick one.

And by the way, the switch from Boyle to Fukunaga did not delay the release date (November 2019) at the time. There was still plenty of time to have the film finished by then. That's more fake news from Eon HQ. Even in that 'best case' scenario, four years would have already passed since Spectre which is just ridiculous.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You are right that the whole Spectre storyline wasn't planned all this time. When Spectre was in production, the producers probably improvised and tried to make the whole Spectre story to have an impact on the events of the previous films and that the Spectre organization itself was behind everything but that has nothing to do with the so called faulty production behind NTTD even if they are still going to continue the story involving Spectre. I'm not sure if Eon said anything recently about the whole Spectre story being planned all along, if they did, then yeah I can see it being a lie but that shouldn't be a big deal because the whole tie in to previous films that Spectre managed to do didn't feel like it was forced and even if Spectre wasn't that great, the whole tie in did made sense in the movie and that it didn't effect the previous films negatively. You are also wrong about the films postponement. First of all in case you didn't know, the producers didn't hire CF right after they fired Danny Boyle. It took them like a little over a month to confirm that he was the new director and once he was confirmed, they announced that the release was moved from November 2019 to February 2020 which ofc got changed to April a few months later.

Also do you not know how long a film takes to get made. The film had no chance of being released in November 2019 when it was announced that CF was the director in September 2018 and in case you didn’t know, they obviously didn’t start shooting as soon as CF was hired. Shooting didn’t start until April 2019 and didn’t finish until September 2019. So do you clearly think that the film would’ve been finished by November 2019?? If they actually started shooting in September 2018 then yeah, the November 2019 release would’ve been possible. They obviously had to work on a script first when CF was hired. This clearly indicates like I said before that you have no knowledge in the film industry and how it take to make a movie.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

It takes less than a year to make a film. Stop making lame excuses for incompetent filmmakers. You don't seem to have noticed that Bond films come out every two years on average. That's what the release schedule should be, and I've said before that pre-production should already be underway for a new Bond actor's 3rd Bond film. The other two would have been released sometime between 2017/2018 and the present day.

reply

[–] SpikeMike (470) 5 years ago

Why does there need to be a new film every 2 years? We've seen when the producers rush to hot a deadline we get crap like Quantum of Solace, Tomorrow Never Dies, etc. As a fan, I'd much rather the time was taken to make quality films rather than just churning them out every couple of years just "because."

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

When has a lengthy delay ever resulted in a better Bond film? The best ones are from the era when they came out about every two years. There's no correlation between production delays and better films. All six films from the 60's are pretty good. That's six films in fewer than eight years which is even faster than one every two which I said should be the typical release schedule. There's absolutely no excuse for this delay, so it's really not helpful when 'fans' are shilling for the people responsible for these delays because that just means more and more delays in the future since they know they can get away with it so easily.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) 5 years ago

"When has a lengthy delay ever resulted in a better Bond film?"

Almost every time:

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) -> The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
Licence to Kill (1989) -> Goldeneye (1995)
Die Another Day (2002) -> Casino Royale (2006)

Of course its all very subjective.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Those are some poor examples. Three years isn't very long, the LTK to GE delay was because of legal issues rather than production issues (and GE sucks anyways), and CR is okay but I don't see how the delay has anything to do with that.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) 5 years ago

Well there aren't too many examples left to make conclusions either way if those don't please you.

I prefer Quantum of solace over Skyfall, so I didn't list them, but I admit I'm in minority and can see why people may dislike QoS. Spectre was definately worse than Skyfall, I'll give you that.

reply

[–] Scape (526) 5 years ago

Right on! Never been a fan of film sequels being released every 2 years... Other than the Studio bigwigs collecting profits, who is?

Of course like everything there’s some exceptions. If it’s the same Director/Crew & they already planned for the sequel. Like the Connery era Bond films were released quickly, but films were made differently then. Studios for most part hired the same crew to work on each sequel. They somewhat planned ahead because off the novels etc.

But for the most part I’d think most of us “fans” & the filmmakers themselves prefer having a longer production period that hopefully results in a better film.

Perfect example of a 2 year release gone wrong would be the new Star Wars sequel trilogy. They rushed the shit out of those movies. Had hardly any prior planning & each film having a new Director/Writer etc...just an absolute awful call. And it shows.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It takes a little more than a year to make a film like this. Just because a film is released only a year or 2 after the previous installment in a big franchise doesnt mean that the next installment starts production/development right after the previous installment. If 2 films are released 2 years apart from each other, then the next film coming out 2 years later was already in development a little before the release of the previous film. For example, if you look at the 2 year gap between films like Captain America:Civil War and Avengers:Infinity war, Infinity war was already in development way before CW came out and the film was already in the process of writing its script once civil war was released, then it started filming in January 2017, and after they started working on the editing process. Therefore, it clearly takes more than year to work on a film.

The reason why the older Bond films used to take only 2 years to produce is because the next films were already in development before the release of the previous installment. It's a different scenario when it comes between Spectre and NTTD. NTTD was not in development when Spectre was about to be released. They didnt had it planned at the time. Development started in late 2017, then official production began in late 2018 when CF was hired as new director which lead to the delay of course. Not every film in the franchise has to come out every two years. Look at what happend between QoS and Skyfall. SF came out 4 years after Quantum because SF wasn't in development in late 2008 when QOS was being released and now look how great Skyfall turned out to be.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Lol at "look how great Skyfall turned out to be." You say that as if it's just an indisputable fact. Skyfall and Spectre are the two worst Bond films (if they can even be called Bond films) ever made. You will find that you are actually in the minority here in thinking that Skyfall is good. This is not reddit/jamesbond or mi6.com or whatever. Skyfall is reprehensible garbage. I have no idea what you're trying to prove by referencing it.

"Quantum bad, Skyfall good" is the level of intelligence I would expect from a zoo animal. That's just an internet meme copypasta which has no original thought put into it. Besides, the delay between those two films was because of changes in distribution rights, not because they "took their time to make a good film" or whatever you're trying to prove.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Well thats your personal opinion. Films are subjective. Im trying to base my argument on how these films are received overall and Skyfall is amongst one of the best Bond films ever made according to critics and general audiences. Look at how well it has been received. It became the first Bond film to gross over a billion worldwide, it received like a 93% RT score and an 81 metacritic score which is considered to be a universal acclaim. Thats the point I'm trying to prove by referencing it. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters. It's the overall consensus that determines the overall success of any film. The overall consensus for Skyfall is the reason why it grossed so much money and that it has these high ratings. There are many films that are critically accliamed like Skyfall, that can still be hated by a few people like you and have different opinions on it and there are films that do not have an overall positive consensus that some people might still like. Skyfall is a brilliantly made film and its considered to be one of the best Bond films. Your pretty much basing this argument on how you perceive these films and not on the overall consensus. Basically the overall consensus for Skyfall is highly positive but in your mind the movie is not that great. Also, I am not saying they took their time into making No Time to Die. I'm trying to say that the amount of time they used to make that film is reasonable and necessary.

Another thing if you thought Skyfall was so bad. I would love to hear what you thought that was so negative about the film considering the fact it is beloved by many including myself and that you decided to describe me of having the mindset of a "zoo animal" for thinking Skyfall is great which is considered to be overall one of the best Bonds ever made, and has received acclaim from critics

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You clearly don’t know anything about the film industry. The number of years it takes to release a new film doesn’t determine the quality of the movie. It’s not like they started production for NTTD five years ago. Right after Spectre, originally Daniel Craig didn’t want to do another Bond film but in 2017 he was convinced to do one more because he wanted to go out on a high note. It’s not like right after Spectre, this movie was planned all along. It wasn’t confirmed until mid 2017. Therefore you are absolutely wrong about the production being disastrous for “5 years” because it didn’t really start till 2017 and it absolutely makes no sense if you actually really think that a films success is determined by how long it takes to release right after the previous film in its franchise. The film could be great or terrible.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's not like they announced the production of NTTD 5 years ago*

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

You sound like a shilling PR intern from Eon Productions if such a thing exists. Everything you're saying paints the most sympathetic picture for Eon and Craig. This is exactly what they want you to believe. They have been working on this film in some form for the last five years, long before it was officially confirmed. Even if it started in 2017 (what were they doing for two years?), three years or longer between starting production and releasing the film is a sign of pure incompetence. In this time, Purvis/Wade wrote a script, were fired, were re-hired, and wrote a new script, not to mention the other shenanigans with switching directors and adding a clown car's worth of extra unnecessary writers. You still can't explain or justify what the delay has been. It's inexcusable for it take this long to make a new film when they should be coming out every two years on average.

reply

[–] SpikeMike (470) 5 years ago

It's not like the old days when they were just adapting novels and had a film starting point. Now they develop them from scratch and that takes time. Do you want good movies, or just any crap they can come up with?

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

They've never adapted novels. They've only taken Fleming's titles and borrowed some basic plot points here and there. At least pretend to know what you're talking about. Using that logic, how did they manage to release four films in fewer than eight years with Brosnan if they had no novels to adapt?

I want good movies. We haven't gotten any of those recently with Craig. There are plenty of good Bond films from the era when they managed to release a new one at least every two years. Stop shilling for incompetent studio executives and actors like Craig who suck at their jobs.

reply

[–] SpikeMike (470) 5 years ago

Ok, you're just a moron then if you don't think the books were adapted in the 60s. And using the Brosnan films, where the only good one is the one they had time to develop, doesn't help your argument.

And if you don't think the Craig era has produced two very good films, regardless of being Bond films or not, than you have a terrible opinion of movies. You may not like Casino Royale or Skyfall, but they are genuinely great films.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Thank you. He clearly just wants to hate on this film and is providing no valid reasoning on how NTTD being released 5 yrs after Spectre is a negative thing.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

There was actually a brief period of time where I was very optimistic about this film because it seemed like they might make a standalone Bond film that didn't have much or anything to do with the last two blunders. Once Lea Seydoux was revealed to be part of the cast, it became clear that they are once again making the terrible decision to continue with this "Bond Cinematic Universe TM" which no fans actually enjoy. Since then I have been stating the obvious, and it's not exactly a conspiracy theory that this production has been an unmitigated disaster. That's out in the open.

About the five year delay; it's simply too long. I don't know what you don't seem to understand about that. It's an unprecedented delay in the franchise's history outside of the extraordinary legal issues of the early 90's. I will continue to point out the truth that Craig is the worst Bond ever (and he has done poorly as a producer) and that the current production team running the operation at Eon is completely incompetent and needs to be replaced with people who know what they're doing and who actually respect and revere the film series.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Ok. The film was not delayed for 5 years because the film WAS NOT SET TO BE RELEASED 5 YEARS AGO. In case you didn't know, the word "delay" applies to something that was supposed to be scheduled on a certain day which unfortunately had to be postponed to a later day or time period due to a certain cause. What you just said just now implies that you were saying that NTTD was supposed to be released 5 years ago, the same time Spectre was released. Tell me, does that make any sense??

The films original and intended release date was supposed to be on November 2019. It got delayed to April 2020. That's 5 months in case you didn't know, and then it got delayed to November 2020 due to the COVID outbreak. Therefore NTTD has been delayed a year from its original release date, NOT 5 YEARS!!!

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You probably meant that the film being released 5 years after Spectre is too long. Again, a big release gap doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the film. Here's another example. Look at Terminator and Terminator 2. Both excellent films. T2 came out SEVEN YEARS after the first Terminator and now T2 is an all time classic and considered to be one of the best movies ever made. James Cameron had plans for Terminator 2 once the first one was released. If you think EON is supposedly lying and that "they have been working on this film in some form for the last five years, long before it was officially confirmed" and secretly had plans to do another film with Daniel Craig right after the release of Spectre, which I am sure is not true, and that you think NTTD being released 5 years after Spectre is too long, take Terminator 1 and 2 into consideration.

What are you gonna tell me now, you don't like Terminator 2 neither?

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

None of the Brosnan films are particularly good. Oh let me guess, you're implying that GoldenEye is good because you want to be a basic bitch who fits in on the internet. Well in that case, I don't know what you're trying to prove because production on that film would have only started after the legal issues were resolved, so I'd be willing to bet that GE didn't have any longer of a production than any other Brosnan Bond film. It isn't "the only one they had time to develop." That is absolutely absurd. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know anything more than just casual knowledge that any average person has of Bond.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4493) 5 years ago

Individuals on the internet (specifically these boards) overreacting over a big franchise movie? No. Freaking. Way.

But some individuals are especially freaking out over this film not because of any production-related issues, but because this film is part of a franchise which the aforementioned individuals feel belongs to them and it hurts their feewings that No Time to Die, like the last few movies, is supposedly going to be too un-regressive for their old-fashioned selves? (I mean, reputedly this last one with Craig is really gonna go the extra mile and not give a single F about regressives’ feewings, haha. Fabulous.) Hard to believe! XD

Now sure, there are those who may have legit reasons to express concern over this film (I don’t think there’s really any big reasons to worry myself, but we’ll see). But these vocal online agenda-driven detractors... they’re all over here whoa... that will (are) endlessly complain about this film no matter what? Yawn, broken records gonna brake.

All I care about, is being there on opening night! The film looks epic ;~}

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Same here. All I just wanted to do is just to provide a topic on why some people are overreacting about the production and how it wasn’t as bad as people are making it out to be.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

And you've completely failed in your mission. Congratulations.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

If I so called "failed" my "mission" then why am I providing logic example's and facts about the production behind this film and how the 5 year gap between Spectre and NTTD shouldn't be a problem towards the film and that you haven't even backed up the rest of your arguments that I responded to regarding the whole Skyfall comparision.

- You are clearly basing this whole argument off of your own opinions on theses films rather than the overall consensus which makes no sense because filmmakers goals are to make successful films thats determined by a overall consensus, not just one person like you. So do you think that the people at EON if they knew who you were, would only make a film that satisfies you alone or a film that would satisfy a large portion of audience members that would determine the overall positive consensus of the film and lead to high ratings.

-You still haven't provided an argument to my statement about the Civil War/Infinity war analogy. Instead you ignored it because you have nothing to back up your false statement that a film takes less than a year to complete and that you just straight up gave your negative opinion on Skyfall indicating that you don't have enough reasoning to argue against my example of the 4 year gap between Qos and Skyfall that supports the 5 year gap between Spectre and NTTD because of how much of a success Skyfall turned out to be. You just gave your negative opinion on Skyfall just so you can find something to argue against at me when my reasoning makes sense that Skyfall turned out to be an overall success when it came out 4 years after QoS and that it may apply or be the same case for NTTD as well.

- You didn't have anything to back up my Terminator 2 example neither.

- Basically you just think that if a new film comes out too long after its predecessor will end up being a failure when we have the examples of T2 and Skyfall which are films that were positively received overall by many that lead to high ratings.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

I didn't respond to those examples because they either don't make any sense and can't be compared to Bond, or in the case of the Marvel diarrhea I'm just not interested in talking about it. I don't respect people who like Marvel. I will not lower myself to discussing that.

Yes, Eon should make films that people like me enjoy because I have been a fan of the series for virtually my whole life and I actually buy the films I enjoy on home video and re-watch them. Some 12-year-old who likes crappy Marvel movies who saw Skyfall and thought it was the best thing ever is not a fan of Bond and will not be supporting the franchise in the long-term like I will. I support the traditional Bond formula as they have mostly always used as a template for making new films. You're the weird one in the fringe minority who wants to deviate from the formula. I just want a normal Bond film. Craig et al. have failed to provide even just one normal Bond film in almost two decades in this job.

reply

[–] SpikeMike (470) 5 years ago

Gatekeeping at its finest.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Me and untold millions of others who enjoy the classics of this series. Yeah, we're all gatekeepers.

The only gatekeeps I ever see are the Craig fanboys who dominate every internet forum and refuse to accept that the vast majority of Bond fans hate the Craig era and have legitimate reasons to be pessimistic about this film due to real, documented production issues and not some conspiracy theory. You are a useless gatekeeper who takes pleasure in the fact that you've destroyed something great and then want to force real fans to believe that the destruction is somehow a great thing that we must all bow down to.

reply

[–] SpikeMike (470) 5 years ago

You yourself said that the Brosnan films weren't good, and those followed the Bond formula to a tee. With Casino Royale, the producers realized that the formula had become stale and realized that just remaking the same film over and over again isn't what people want. The fact that box office and acclaim has gone up shows that they made the right decision.

There were some great Bond films under the old formula, but there were far more turkeys and useless remakes of earlier, better films. The fact that you want a return to that era is just counter to good filming, and proves that you are much like the Bond of old: a relic of the past that time has passed by long ago.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

There you go again. You're just making yourself look like a fool because you can't even provide any acknowledgement to my example of Civil War/Infinity War whether you disagree or agree because you know I made a valid statement about how long it took to make Infinity War. You just didn't want to acknowledge my factual statement that Infinity War took over a year to complete which was scheduled to release 2 years after Civil War because it proved your statement wrong about how a big film like NTTD should take less than a year to complete. Sure, maybe comparing a Marvel movie to Bond is a little unfair so lets use another example. Look at The Dark Knight Rises, it took Nolan over a year to complete the film right after he worked on Inception that was released 2 years before. He already had TDKR in development before the release of Inception in 2010. Then writing didn't begin until early 2011, filming didn't start until May 2011 and ended on November 2011. Then post-production lasted for a few months leading into 2012, then we had the scheduled release for July 2012. Now don't tell me that's not a fair comparison because both films had the same budget of 250 mil.
If you don't respect people who like Marvel, then fine, again its your opinion and it shows how your not mature enough to handle other peoples perspectives on movies. Also does it makes sense to say that by thinking Skyfall is a great film should not be considered a fan of Bond when its one of the Bond movies to be overall highly positively received by critics and fans. Take a look at the RT score and metacritic score. Also take a look at IMDB. Skyfall is the second highest rated Bond film on their site recieving a 7.7/10 tied with Goldfinger and right behind Casino Royale which recieved the highest grade, 8/10. So tell me, how should that consider myself to not be a fan of Bond? FYI, I am a 20 year old guy that is actually studying film and is open to many other films, not just Bond or Marvel.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Funny to see a Craig fanboy complaining about others expressing their view when you dominate and ruin every other internet forum about Bond. You seem to be the one with a (political) agenda judging by your comments actually, not the 'regressive' detractors. That's so lazy and convenient for you to take that position. You'll never have to justify why any of these Craig films are good because people who don't like them are just 'regressives' who can't possibly have a valid opinion.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I’m only complaining about you not being smart enough to see the fact that the overall consensus for the films in the Craig era like CR and Skyfall were good, which is why EON is still going to take that route for future films. Again you just keep basing this off of your opinion. If you didn’t like Skyfall, then that’s ok. It’s your opinion. I’m just saying the overall consensus towards that film and CR is positive if you take a look at the reviews from critics, therefore EON would still want to continue with that route. Top critics from prestigious sites like Total Film, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Entertainment Weekly all gave skyfall a perfect score.

I don’t know what’s so difficult for you to understand that the vast majority of viewers love that film and why it got such high ratings and why I’m using CR and Skyfall as an example to “justify” the Craig era. How exactly is that "lazy" of me to try to provide facts of how CR and Skyfall were an overall success by looking at the overall consensus towards those films and the ratings. If I didn’t like Skyfall then I will be honest and say I didn’t like that film but I will be understanding and realize why EON would still continue to go that route because of how much of an overall success it has become, unlike you who is unreasonable just because you happen to not like a film that a vast majority love and that you would want EON to go back to their older routes and not continue the newer route to their films like CR and Skyfall which lead to highly positive reviews and big box office revenue. Now all of a sudden you feel like you should just start hating on NTTD because it took 5 years to be released and that it was like a similar scenario to Skyfall, in which Skyfall received overall highly positive reviews but you happen to hate it.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) 5 years ago

"the overall consensus for the films in the Craig era like CR and Skyfall were good, which is why EON is still going to take that route for future films."

Actually I don't think there's a single route bond movies have taken during Craig era. The way I see it, there's Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2008) and then there's what became after them under the direction of Sam Mendes. EON had a good thing going on in 2006-2008, altough QoS wasn't well received among fans and critics. Maybe they got scared and forgot whole Quantum criminal organization. Skyfall was a decent stand alone movie (like Goldfinger between From Russia with Love and Thunderball when Bond used to fight against Spectre), but then came Spectre and they screwed up everything. Its my understanding that EON got rights back for Spectre and Blofeld, which made it possible for them to use them again in their movies. That was very unfortunate. I think Quantum was a good criminal organization and they should have continued with it in style of Casion Royale and Quantum of Solace. Now, what comes to No Time to Die, I'm not very enthusiastic about it, because it seems to continue Spectre storyline. I've seen every Bond movie in theater since Moonraker (1979), but its likely that I won't be seeing this one, which would break a long tradition for me. Most likely I'll catch this one on blu-ray... Its a shame, because I like very much Daniel Craig's Bond (in CR and QoS) and I think he deserves better.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Makes sense and fair enough. I'm just saying that the overall route that the producers took with the Craig series is that they are more grounded and realistic than the previous films and they are still continuing that aspect while still including some traditional aspects from the original films such as the use of some of the gadgets and a bit more nods thats featured in Skyfall and Spectre and supposedly doing the same with NTTD. Yes, once Sam Mendes came in, he started the whole Spectre storyline which is supposedly being continued in NTTD and I can see why people are not thrilled about that. Even though I wasn't too thrilled about Spectre neither, personally the whole continuity of that film thats being addresses in NTTD doesn't seem to bother me.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

I seriously hope you're joking about Craig's films being more grounded a realistic.

How about this? I'm going to push a button on my keyboard and a train is going to magically fall on top of you even though I have no idea where you are right now. Very realistic, right?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

- Casino Royale/QoS did not involve any gadgets unlike the previous films.
- Skyfall/Spectre however did include gadgets but they werent used as frequently as the previous films. The only gadgets used in Skyfall were the palm print pistol and the machine guns attched to the DB5 which was only used in the film for just a couple of seconds. The only gadgets featured in Spectre were the backfire elements and ejection seat incorpated in the DB10 during the rome car chase and then later the grenade watch featured in one scene, thats it.
- All four of these films plots are centered around the characters themselves and feature character driven themes. Casino Royale offered a theme about Bond becoming a double 0 agent and how other people view him as this cold hearted agent, then we have his relationship with Vesper and how actually feel in love with her and that she wasn't just there to please Bond's sexuality. Her character offered way more charisma compared to the previous Bond girls. Qos, even though that film wasn't really great, dealt with Bond dealing with the death of her and her betrayal towards him. The film offered a theme about how one could deal with loss of a loved one. The film itself just didn't manage to execute that aspect better. Skyfall was a personal story about Bonds relationship with M and how M's past comes into play with the main antagonist of the film whom wants to get revenge on her. Spectre, again dealt with Bonds past and how his past played a significant part in the motivation behind Blofeld and why he turned out to be who he is, although it could've been done much better.
-

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'll give you that about your Skyfall example. Yes it doesn't make sense how Silva can perfectly time Bond arriving in the tunnel as soon as the train arrived around that spot the same time. It is possible to plant some sort of explosive by the train tracks but it doesnt make sense on how he would manage to take the time and plant that explosive by the tracks while he was escaping, so ill give you that but that doesnt have anything to do with being grounded or realistic, it is just a plot hole and yes that can be a form of unrealism, but that sequence was probably just to make the film have one of those bigger moments. The context behind it doesnt make sense but it can still be managed to be overlooked considering that Skyfall had many other great aspects about the movie itself and its not like there was constant moments like the train one that didnt have much context behind it throughout a majority of the film. That scene specificaly was just to give the film a little more levity to it by making the film feel a little bigger in scope.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Bond films used to have those kinds of great "bigger moments" without being too absurd. Or even if a stunt was a little bit unrealistic, at least it made sense in the context of the story.

Take Bond and Necros hanging out the back of a cargo plane for example. That was an amazing stunt that was filmed for real. The stuntmen are actually hanging off the back of the plane holding onto the netting with parachutes hidden under their clothes. Simple, yet amazing, and there is a clear plot-based reason for why the characters end up in that dangerous situation.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yes, you are right. The context behind that stunt makes sense, more so than the tunnel explosion in Skyfall. I'm just saying that the lack of context behind the train thing in Skyfall can be easily overlooked considering that it's just a quick minor part in the film and that the entire film itself doesn't feature other stunts or moments that are filled with plot holes. If that was the case then yeah, Skyfall would be a film filled with dumb ridiculous moments with no context behind it which would've effected the film but look, that turned out to not be the case, at least in my opinion and the overall critical consensus. Not every film is perfect.

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

He probably believes the revisionist history from Eon which states that this whole Craig saga was planned out from the very beginning. The truth, as you correctly pointed out, is that they made it all up on the fly and then made a sudden decision to abandon the Quantum storyline and go all-in on the new Spectre retcon.

One thing I will challenge you on though is the notion that Craig deserves better. I used to hold this view as well, but you have to remember that Craig is also a credited producer of the series. He's the only actor portraying Bond to ever have that privilege. Connery only ever had that level of influence in making NSNA, so Craig's role as a producer is unprecedented in the series' history and he has to take an appropriate amount of blame for the creative decisions that have been made over his tenure. Sam Mendes certainly deserves more blame, and I think he is the worst person to ever work on a Bond film in any capacity, and his two films rank and the worst and second-worst of all time for me. Fukunaga is a much better director than Mendes, but he has very limited creative control since he was a last-resort hire and his hands are tied due to the crappy creative direction set forth in the Mendes films. That's why I was optimistic about this film for a very short period of time. It seemed like they might make a standalone Bond film that didn't follow up from Spectre in any meaningful way, but unfortunately the producers (including Craig) have doubled down on it, and it's going to be virtually impossible to salvage this film because of that. Even in a best case scenario where Fukunaga does a great job directing it, the cast all give great performances, and the story is good, it is still guaranteed to suck because it is a direct sequel to Spectre. Nothing can change that fact.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I never said that the whole Craig story arch was planned out from the beginning. I knew that once Sam Mendes developed the whole Spectre storyline is when Eon decided to tie it in with the previous Daniel Craig films as an act of improvisation and make it seem like it was planned out from the start. I'm already aware that this whole Spectre tie in wasn't planned out from the beginning of the Craig series. They also didn't technically abandon the Quantum storyline, yes it was completely ignored in Skyfall but we found out in Spectre that Quantum was basically a subsidiary of Spectre so therefore, every act that was done by Quantum was indeed technically Spectre, which of course was tact on by the producers.

As with the whole Craig as a credited producer thing, he was only a credited producer for Spectre and now No Time to Die. I don't necessarily know how much or what creative control he had over Spectre but given the fact on how Spectre was so ill-received and Craig being a co-producer makes sense why one would be skeptical about NTTD since he is a co-producer on that film as well. As for NTTD, the only creative control I know that Craig had that might've given him the producer credit was getting Eon to cast Ana de Armas and hiring Phoebe Waller Bridge. There might've been more that he's done that gave him the producer credit but as of right now, I don't really know.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Another thing. Yes, you do make a good point on how CF might not have that much creative control and that it could have a major effect on the film itself. Thats definitely one of my main concerns for this film but it doesn't make sense that you believe the film will turn into a failure just because it ties into Spectre but happens to get major aspects right like the direction/story. The whole Spectre tie in is part of the story, so if the story works then the whole Spectre tie-in works with the film. If it doesn't work, the overall story doesn’t work and just cause its a direct sequel to a film that’s not very good doesn’t automatically mean it will be a failure. The story of a film is what determines the quality of the film. It’s possible for filmmakers to take or continue story elements from a film thats not so good and make it work in its sequel. I see where you're coming from but just considering the fact that Spectre is going to tie-in to NTTD doesn’t automatically make NTTD a bad film. We will just have to wait and see if CF and the producers are able to make success out of it

reply

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

Here's a big point you're missing in all this though. These last two Bond films have been made for casual audiences of people who don't actually like Bond films, at best have a very casual and basic idea of what these films are about (tuxedos, martinis, girls, cars), and possibly actively dislike Bond films in some cases. These are Bond films for people who don't even like or care about Bond films. After five years, how many of these casuals or non-fans are going to remember what happened in Spectre? How many of them are going to recognize Madeline Swann and not be confused about why Bond already has established relationships with some of these characters? How many will remember that Blofeld is Bond's brother? They will go and see this film, be confused about what is going on, not pick up on the fact that it is a sequel and that they had to watch the previous ones, and end up hating it even though the filmmakers are bending over backwards to cater to these types of audiences. Meanwhile people like me who grew up watching these films, enjoy re-watching my favourites on a regular basis, buy the films on home video, and typically go to see the films in the cinema are completely cast aside. I don't know a single Bond fan who actually likes this Craig soap opera. So who are these films even supposed to be for?

Also consider that tastes change over time. In 2006 I would have given Casino Royale 5/5 stars, but now I would probably give it 2/5 because I've grown up and I've realized that that film did not have enduring value in the long term. If all those people who loved Skyfall in 2012 voted again, I'm not sure that it would be so revered. The classics, however, continue to remain popular and even get better with time in some cases.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

True. People who didn't like Spectre that still intend to see NTTD may not be too thrilled about the tie-in to Spectre because viewers might be obligated to re-watch Spectre in order to understand NTTD since like you said, they might not remember much about the film assuming these people might've only watched it once and never intended on watching it again because of the hate it got, I get that. I personally believe that most people will remember about the whole relationship with Madeline mainly because Madelines character had a fairly big role in Spectre and that it ended with it being implied that her and Bond will end up having a relationship. As for the Blofeld scenario, I don't see how people will forget that he's Bonds brother since it was revealed quite late towards the third act of the film and that the rest of the film continuing from there was focused on Blofeld, and Bond trying to take him down. Let's say if people do forget and they go see NTTD without rewatching Spectre, once they see these characters return in the film, it will probably be one of those moments where the audience doesn't remember much about the returning characters but once they appear on screen, it will remind viewers about the basic story behind these characters from Spectre and it will make sense to them why they are there. The presence of the returning characters will basically bring back audiences memories of Spectre. It may or may not be the case but who knows.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

As for peoples opinions changing over time, yes there are many people who might have a different opinion on CR and Skyfall now then they did before when they were first released. The reason why both films or many films that received such high ratings is that people determine how they feel about a film as soon as they see it and go post a review and give it a high rating without giving themselves time to process or re-watch it. For example, lets say if big film rating sites like metacritc or rotten tomatoes ended up being glitched out or compromised and critics felt obligated to re-review films like CR or Skyfall or any other film and give their thoughts about the film now, then those ratings might end up either staying the same, go up up or go down because they didn’t love the film as much as the first saw it. They might still love the film and think its still great but realize it has some issues and might give it a little bit more of a lower score than they did at the time. If someone saw Skyfall as soon as it was released in theaters and gave it a full 10/10, now they still might love the film but realise it is not perfect and might lower it to a 9/10. Because films like CR and Skyfall received such high ratings at the time of release and if people were to give their updated opinions on them now, it would probably be a bit lower but still be considered to be great because both films are still great films in their own right. The ratings could also be higher because you never know, others might like the films a little more than they originally did at the time of its release
, but their opinion or rating wouldn’t change drastically.

reply

[–] PetyrBaelish (124) 5 years ago

There is a lot to digest in this thread, but I'll try to cover all the points I want to make.

Five years between Bond films is ridiculous. As stated already, this is the second longest gap between movies, only the six year hiatus was longer because United Artists/ MGM had money problems and many thought the franchise was dead at that point post Cold War. Production has been a catastrophe for No Time to Die - waiting around for Daniel Craig, changing directors, injuries, explosions, script re-writes, the list goes on and on.

Audience feedback will dictate where Bond goes post Daniel Craig. The reason why we got a hard edge reboot was because things went off the rails with insanity in Die Another Die (invisible cars, CGI wind surfing, gene changing technology etc.) If NTTD doesn't do well, like many of us think - especially after the crap fest that was Spectre, I hope EON goes back to the traditional Bond formula of standalone movies.

Tying these movies together as a Craig saga is for casual movie fans, not Bond fans. EON has gone all in on obsessing with Bond's background, feelings, family, etc., which no one wants to see. Blofeld being Bond's step brother was an all time low for the franchise. Barbara Broccoli is obessed with Daniel Craig and I bet she will delay Bond 26 for as long as possible so she can offer up another contact that Craig can't refuse.

Michael Wilson wanted to do a Bond background story detailing how Bond gets his 00 status as far back as when Dalton took over in the Living Daylights in 1987, but Cubby shot that idea down. I still like the idea of exploring Bond's rise to 00 status and how he turns into James Bond, which is while even though I dislike the rest of Craig's movies, I still love Casino Royale.

Martin Campbell did a great job directing his two Bond movies and CR is an enjoyable movie. I'm not going to like CR less because of how the series deteriorated as it went on with Craig.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Also sure, fair enough to consider me as a Craig Fanboy and yeah I am a huge a fan of the Craig series. Just so you know, I am not one of those Fanboys who would just love anything I'm anticipating that's coming out. Me being personally excited for NTTD and having high hopes for it doesn't just mean I will automatically love the film as soon as it comes out just because of Daniel Craig. If I saw the film and if I knew deep down that it wasn't good then I will be honest and say I didn't like it. I'm not one of those idiotic fans who would be like just cause it's another Daniel Craig bond film, it's automatically gonna be great. I will want to wait and see and just because my expectations for NTTD are highly positive doesn't mean that if the film turns out to be bad and if I know deep down its not good, I will still not have a soft spot and just say the film exceeded my expectations, no I will be honest and actually admit I didn't like the film if it didn't live up.

Another thing, the only films in the Craig Era that I love are CR and Skyfall. Qos I didn't like and Spectre was just ok and I thought it was a disappointment and my expectations for Spectre were very high at the time.

reply

[–] janelsenor (2044) 5 years ago

People love being outraged every second of their lives. It makes them feel like crusaders.