Cyberpunkd
Member
Personally I think after 9/11 you couldn’t continue with Bond like in Die Another Day - the world changed too much. So they had to make a change of tone and that’s what Craig did. He is very much Connery with a modern touch.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
First No Time to Die Reviews
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
ManaByte
Gold Member
He was Connery mixed with a little bit of Brosnan's smoothness. He was a great Bond.
Now give it to Henry Cavill.
GamingKaiju
Member
Am I the only one that thinks Daniel Graig just isn’t a very good Bond? He does alright but I found his Bond movies to be very flat.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
I dont know if you are the only one but hes my favorite bond. But his movies are very different from previous bond films.
Danteyke223
Member
I enjoyed this movie. The run time is long, but holy shit there are a lot of action scenes in this movie. I kinda wonder how Critical Drinker is going to spin this movie being SJW, because it isn't. The new 007 isn't a smarmy asshole and a lot of scenes from the trailer when taken out of context does seems like they are going to treat Bond like a joke. But then in the movie itself the new 007 is barely in the movie itself, and is relagted to mostly off-screen stuff, M literally keeps ordering her to go do shit 90% of the movie which I laughed, cause basically she ended up being a tokenist character. The movie is a pure Bond movie, and not woke at all. Everybody treats Bond with respect, and I think a lot of people just thought Bond would be inept in this movie, and in actual fact is still competent as ever.
This movie made me realize I should stop watching people like Critical Drinker and most of those people as even the slightest thing will set them off and bitch and moan. a Fun movie, my biggest gripe is the romance subplot.
This movie made me realize I should stop watching people like Critical Drinker and most of those people as even the slightest thing will set them off and bitch and moan. a Fun movie, my biggest gripe is the romance subplot.
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion but to say that Craig has been a horrible failure is stretching it, now i know theres probably 5 other people on the entire planet that might agree with you, i think the overwhelming majority would say bes been fucking amazeballs in the roll
GamingKaiju
Member
Yes they are very different movies from the Moore/Connerey/Doultry movies I grew up watching. The tone and grounded nature of the new 007 movies is maybe what I don’t like about them. I’ll watch it when it’s on streaming/sky
QuantumZebra
Member
I'll join you in getting hated on. I honestly didn't like any of the older Bonds. Of course my first one was GoldenEye and that's still my favorite.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
I dont dislike the more playful and secret agent tone/vibe from others but because of that I could never really become engrossed in them. There are some that I really like more than others but before Craig I never had a Bond in my top ten.
Part of it might be I expected nothing from Craig and Bond when they rebooted it but Cainso Royale blew me away and cemented itself in my brain forever.
Tams
Member
Well, some people are pissed off about it:
Charity calls for a new look for James Bond villains - CBBC Newsround
I chose that article because apparently our young people are getting even more woke.
Just come back from a screening. Most people seem to at least think the film was good, I thought it was terrible. Not because it was 'woke', because it wasn't (unless you're really determined to overreact to meaningless, throwaway details), but because everything after Cuba is suffocated in exposition, characters displaying the emotional maturity of teenagers, melodrama instead of character work (nobody has anything approaching a personality and are defined solely by the nonsense which happens to them, rather than who they are as people), and both a villain and scheme which are afterthoughts at best, and largely uninspired action. The first third(ish) of the movie is fantastic: it moves at a nice pace, characters have tangible personalities and friendships and distinct relationships and there appears to be a genuine attempt to tell a story rather than just string action sequences together. Everything after that is just interminable, though.
Bond movies have had exposition scenes before, of course, and scenes where the plot stops for Bond and his leading lady to have a romantic stroll or develop their chemistry, yet none of those latter grace notes are here, it's just ram-packed with explanation and babbling over procedure and minutiae (the London scenes especially are more like a boring TV procedural than a movie) rather than the plot being moved forward by character action and showing-not-telling. It references past movies and some of Fleming's most potent unused ideas without understanding why those things were the way they were, and consequently gets them completely wrong: a bit like when Zack Snyder thought replicating the frames of the Watchmen comic would produce as good a film as the original was in its format. Instead, because he didn't understand why Alan Moore et al. made the choices they did, drew the pictures like they did, or wrote the interactions as they did, everytime Snyder had to fill in the gaps he ended up severing the core mechanics holding the whole thing together. NTTD thinks it is a clever inversion of a previous beloved Bond film, yet doesn't understand why that film was the way it was, and not inverted in the first place. As a movie in its own right, it has about half-an-hour (perhaps three-quarters) of brilliant stuff at the start - Ana de Armas is an absolute joy in her ten minutes - then completely sinks. As a Bond movie... well, frankly, it barely felt like a Bond movie at all, because it has no understanding of who Bond is either as a character or an icon in pop culture. All the twists exist simply for the sake of being twists and the 'revisionism' is, for the most part, similarly misguided: the gunbarrel sequence, for one, is completely messed up (they've put a cut/edit into it!) for no comprehensible justification: even a previous change which went wrong, like Die Another Day's CGI bullet, seemed to have a purpose behind it, mistaken thought it was. Here, it's just changing something beloved for the sake of it, or referencing something beloved to cover up the new material's lack of integrity. Even beyond that, outside that opening act it was just incredibly tedious. I'm seeing it again with a friend tomorrow, so perhaps going in without expectations will help soften my reaction, but as of now it's right at the bottom of the rankings for me, with clear space between it and previous nadir, SPECTRE.
Bond movies have had exposition scenes before, of course, and scenes where the plot stops for Bond and his leading lady to have a romantic stroll or develop their chemistry, yet none of those latter grace notes are here, it's just ram-packed with explanation and babbling over procedure and minutiae (the London scenes especially are more like a boring TV procedural than a movie) rather than the plot being moved forward by character action and showing-not-telling. It references past movies and some of Fleming's most potent unused ideas without understanding why those things were the way they were, and consequently gets them completely wrong: a bit like when Zack Snyder thought replicating the frames of the Watchmen comic would produce as good a film as the original was in its format. Instead, because he didn't understand why Alan Moore et al. made the choices they did, drew the pictures like they did, or wrote the interactions as they did, everytime Snyder had to fill in the gaps he ended up severing the core mechanics holding the whole thing together. NTTD thinks it is a clever inversion of a previous beloved Bond film, yet doesn't understand why that film was the way it was, and not inverted in the first place. As a movie in its own right, it has about half-an-hour (perhaps three-quarters) of brilliant stuff at the start - Ana de Armas is an absolute joy in her ten minutes - then completely sinks. As a Bond movie... well, frankly, it barely felt like a Bond movie at all, because it has no understanding of who Bond is either as a character or an icon in pop culture. All the twists exist simply for the sake of being twists and the 'revisionism' is, for the most part, similarly misguided: the gunbarrel sequence, for one, is completely messed up (they've put a cut/edit into it!) for no comprehensible justification: even a previous change which went wrong, like Die Another Day's CGI bullet, seemed to have a purpose behind it, mistaken thought it was. Here, it's just changing something beloved for the sake of it, or referencing something beloved to cover up the new material's lack of integrity. Even beyond that, outside that opening act it was just incredibly tedious. I'm seeing it again with a friend tomorrow, so perhaps going in without expectations will help soften my reaction, but as of now it's right at the bottom of the rankings for me, with clear space between it and previous nadir, SPECTRE.
Last edited:
But does THE CAR get treated with respect? I want that vintage AM to be used for half the film and not just for one scene then get destroyed as an afterthought. Now that we actually have gadgets that older bond films could only dream of the new Bond movies almost entirely eschew them.
kunonabi
Member
This is pretty much what I've been hearing from outside the "critics"/shill sphere. It still boggles my mind how things could get so completely misguided after Casino Royale.
QuantumZebra
Member
Well, some people are pissed off about it:
Charity calls for a new look for James Bond villains - CBBC Newsround
I chose that article because apparently our young people are getting even more woke.
"Why don't evil supervillains look like normal people???"
>2 years later
"Why are all supervillains non-disabled, & cisgender???"
ManaByte
Gold Member
"The best Bond" is like "The best SNL cast", meaning it's whatever one you grew up with. For most people here it'd be Bronsan, but The World is Not Enough (C'mon Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist?) and Die Another Day are so bad they make Austin Powers look like a serious Bond movie.
If you understand that they basically filmed QoS without a script (due to a writer's strike) and Craig focused on just the stunts and action due to that, it shaves off the awfulness a bit. And Strawberry Fields is one of the best Bond girls in the Craig films.
If you understand that they basically filmed QoS without a script (due to a writer's strike) and Craig focused on just the stunts and action due to that, it shaves off the awfulness a bit. And Strawberry Fields is one of the best Bond girls in the Craig films.
Last edited:
Craig STARTED with a "old man bond" vibe. Damn near every film he has made is "you are a dinosaur and this is your last job". Kinda frustrating actually, he never really got to be "in his prime" bond just doing missions. Casino Royale was clearly meant to have a younger bond IMHO. Doesn't help that Craig just looked old from frame 1, it's just his face.
PrimetimeKnight
Member
Probably my biggest gripe about the Craig Bond movies. Like you said we went from Bond becoming a 00 in the first movie to being old and obsolete the next. We never get regular, top of his game James Bond during Craig's run.
jufonuk
not tag worthy
I would have loved the Craig bond to go full bond with all gadgets, fights, quips ,seduction, cars, exotic Locales. Bad guys just all out balls to the wall. Best of the best 007 bond. Taking people down with just a ppk and his wits and one liners delivered dryer than any martini.
not wrestling with his impending obsolescence and a boss who doesn’t want him there. But later does kind of doesn’t But has the your a relic vibes
ohh maybe a bond year zero (which casino royale was but more of that)
bond should be escapism and just a thrill ride.
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
That's my observation as well.
And what happened to all the people outraged that the black woman (British actress Lashana Lynch) was going to be the new Bond, even though folks like me and
ManaByte
said she wasn't taking over? *Crickets*
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
Well one has been perm'd.
Also it's easy to spot the reviewers who haven't watched previous Bonds. Saying Naomi is the "first female 00" is false. There was one in the Connery movies (the number wasn't revealed) and Bronson (believed to be 004).
Last edited:
PrimetimeKnight
Member
Has anyone here heard possibly where the franchise is heading after Craig's last movie? Will it just continue to be James Bond movies which really aren't interconnected and each one stands alone or another quasi reboot like Craig's films were?
ManaByte
Gold Member
Well, Bond always changed but characters like M and Q would continue even when Bond changes. They just gave him his "family" with Skyfall, so I could see them keeping M, Q, and Moneypenny and just replacing Craig.
PrimetimeKnight
Member
No way does Craig's leaving the series bring about its downfall. There are still plenty of good actors out there that could take up the mantle and be just fine. Ultimately the only thing I think that could sink the franchise is changing the Bond character so drastically that he's unrecognizable and people just get fed up and stop watching. I think that is way more of a realistic scenario but still a long shot since it seems the people in charge seem to have a firm grasp on what makes the character special.
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
Still say Cavill would be perfect. The only problem is the rule that Albert Broccoli established where Bond is your only franchise when you're in the role. Meaning Superman cannot be James Bond.
That comes from the first Brosnan attempt where he was in Remington Steele, it was cancelled, but they cast him as Bond and NBC immediately exercised their option to renew the show. Broccoli said Remingon Steele would not be James Bond, they went to Dalton, and then NBC cancelled the show.
Last edited:
PrimetimeKnight
Member
Would definitely not complain about Cavill being Bond and isn't his role as Superman kind of dead in the water now. I haven't heard anything about him reprising his role as Supes even though I thought he was great and want to see more of him. Or is it one of those things that since he has been Superman he can NEVER be James Bond?
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
I think there's still some wrangling going on in the background. I've heard he's basically relegated to doing cameos or small roles in other movies and maybe doing MoS2 later on. Like being in Black Adam or The Flash or Wonder Woman/Aquaman.
///PATRIOT
Banned
clown world I see...Well, some people are pissed off about it:
Charity calls for a new look for James Bond villains - CBBC Newsround
I chose that article because apparently our young people are getting even more woke.
Well, given that Craig himself has been in several "franchises" that statement no longer applies. Granted, most of Craig's stuff fizzled, but I've no doubt he would have been in more Golden Compass stuff if it had kept on.
Cavill has the Witcher more than supes these days, scheduling those 2 would probably be the main issue, assuming they can get a bond off the ground in less that 5 years these days.
ManaByte
Gold Member
No, it does. Craig hasn't been in anything as big as DC or Marvel. Loki disqualifies Hiddleston, for example.
You have this backwards. Bond MAKES you famous, you don't have to be famous first to be in a bond film.
Imma need a statement by the brocollis on that one, a side character role DQing Huddleston sounds about as reasonable as a Taylor Swift romance making him seem too soft.
ManaByte
Gold Member
The idea is while you're Bond, you're not to be part of another franchise that can be compared in size to Bond. Which is why even though they cast Brosnan as Bond, they basically fired him as soon as NBC renewed Remington Steele. Loki isn't a "side character". He has his own multi-season TV show.
Virt McPolygon
Banned
Bond kills himself in the end, doesn't he?
ManaByte
Gold Member
TaylorSwiftFan
Member
So you’re saying you didn’t take the bait that the studio was dangling?That's my observation as well.
And what happened to all the people outraged that the black woman (British actress Lashana Lynch) was going to be the new Bond, even though folks like me and
ManaByte
Gold Member
The studio wasn't dangling any bait. Outrage YouTubers were speculating because a (GASP) black woman was cast in a Bond movie and then British tabloids ran with that outrage to make $$$$. Culture warriors here then bought into it.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
I saw it yesterday. Overall i enjoyed it, the woke stuff is a bit cringe and the baddie + storyline is a bit weak, but everything is very good.
4/5
4/5
ManaByte
Gold Member
What did you think of the ending? I think it’ll enrage some people here who won’t actually watch the movie but instead rely on out of context YouTube videos to enrage them. But I think it wraps up this Bond well as they were kind of doing a serialized Bond story for the first time and it gives it a definitive ending.
TaylorSwiftFan
Member
Was she cast in a random role? It’s not like the studio said that she was the new 007 or anything like that. No bait, my ass.
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
It wouldn't have made much sense for a existing (aging) Bond after his fourth movie then do a reboot, origin story. Would have been out of place.
Last edited: