No Time To Die (2021) - Bond 25...

[Neil]

I fear this may be the beginning of the end of our beloved Bond due to movies heading into ever more woke and PC directions...

IELdm0PmJR8

[EvilNed]

We'll see. If Bond ever goes that way I'm pretty sure they'd loose much of their fanbase.

[JDP]

Bond, Woke Bond...

I stopped watching Bond movies a long time ago. I am a "Bond Puritan", it's Sean Connery and Roger Moore or nothing. But the Timothy Dalton ones were pretty good, I have to admit. After those, the franchise just kept on losing its charm with each new installment and new "Bonds".

[Neil]

Bond, Woke Bond...

I stopped watching Bond movies a long time ago. I am a "Bond Puritan", it's Sean Connery and Roger Moore or nothing. But the Timothy Dalton ones were pretty good, I have to admit. After those, the franchise just kept on losing its charm with each new installment and new "Bonds".

Sort of agree, but Danial Craig's Casino Royale for me was nigh on a perfect Bond film, and felt very Connery'esque!

[bassman]

Sort of agree, but Danial Craig's Casino Royale for me was nigh on a perfect Bond film, and felt very Connery'esque!

Agreed. If anyone is skipping Craig’s films because of what came from the Brosnan era, they’re missing out on the best Bond entries since From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Particularly Casino Royale, Skyfall, and Spectre.

And how is this woke? Because Bond’s 007 designation was given to another agent in his absence, and it happens to be a woman? :rockbrow:

[MinionZombie]

Even if the execution in the film ends up being kind of limited, the talk surrounding the movie is what ends up being deafening when it comes to 'Hollywood wokery', if you will.

I've read numerous things about "Censor" where they made such a stink about #TimesUp relevance, but the movie barely has a snifter of that at all. There's a sleazy movie producer in it who makes horror movies, but beyond that stock character type the rest of the men in the movie are pretty normal, and even the 'intense/arty' director guy wasn't really into that territory either.

Sometimes it's down to certain lines of dialogue (putting down a male character to make a female character look strong has become a worrying trend/cliche in many movies lately - so to be strong you have to be a condescending arsehole???), or a trailer (*cough* Captain Marvel *cough*), but yeah, the clickbait whirlwind of bullshit and culture war inflation just to get rises out of either side (and therefore even more clicks) is just so tiresomely predictable.

There's certainly some great female/'POC' characters out there (e.g. the lead in Blood Red Sky was awesome quite recently), but there's just as many who are underserved by piss poor material where 'themes' over-ride storytelling quality, where 'stop the show to score points' moments clang like a bowling ball rolling down a marble staircase (*cough* Avengers Endgame *cough*), where the whiff of cynical box ticking oozes about ... it's all about as honest as a corporation waving a rainbow flag (they just want your money and a certificate of progressiveness to entice wider investment opportunities), a paper thin veneer to appease Twitter.

Saying you're progressive and being progressive are two quite different things. The majority of people out there are decent and accepting of each other in reality. They're less keen on being brow-beaten by messages or having fingers wagged in their faces, especially for transgressions they don't take part in.

Back to Bond...

I've been a big fan of Craig's time as Bond - Casino Royale and Skyfall are two of the all-time very best Bonds, and Quantum of Solace and Spectre are both thoroughly enjoyable (latter probably better than former). Looking forward to seeing this new one, so fingers crossed it's good.

[EvilNed]

Agreed. If anyone is skipping Craig’s films because of what came from the Brosnan era, they’re missing out on the best Bond entries since From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Particularly Casino Royale, Skyfall, and Spectre.


Skyfall, yes, but Spectre is terrible. It's Austin Powers-levels of ridiculous at times.
The opening sequence is great but it relies on far too many tropes that have been lampooned in countless Spy-parodies since all the way back to the first Casino Royale.
And the whole "It was all me, Bond" twist didn't make sense at all. Felt like they wanted for the audience to feel fooled, but instead it just felt shoehorned in and ludicrous.

I could go on about smaller details in that film as well, but in the end - it's just not a good script. In fact.. Quantom of Solance makes more sense than that one.

[Neil]

Agreed. If anyone is skipping Craig’s films because of what came from the Brosnan era, they’re missing out on the best Bond entries since From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Particularly Casino Royale, Skyfall, and Spectre.

And how is this woke? Because Bond’s 007 designation was given to another agent in his absence, and it happens to be a woman? :rockbrow:

I didn't say it was woke... My fear is it will go woke... ;)

And let's just remember, his designation didn't just go to a woman, but a POC woman... Which risks of course these days risks being due to [Tick] [Tick]. But let's see what the future films bring.

[EvilNed]

I fear this may be the beginning of the end of our beloved Bond due to movies heading into ever more woke and PC directions...

IELdm0PmJR8

Honestly, this could have been the trailer to any of the Craig-Bonds.

[bassman]

Skyfall, yes, but Spectre is terrible. It's Austin Powers-levels of ridiculous at times.
The opening sequence is great but it relies on far too many tropes that have been lampooned in countless Spy-parodies since all the way back to the first Casino Royale.
And the whole "It was all me, Bond" twist didn't make sense at all. Felt like they wanted for the audience to feel fooled, but instead it just felt shoehorned in and ludicrous.

I could go on about smaller details in that film as well, but in the end - it's just not a good script. In fact.. Quantom of Solance makes more sense than that one.

I agree, Spectre definitely has it’s issues. I suppose I included it because it feels more tied to the overall Craig/Bond arc than Quantum. Spectre has some great scenes sprinkled throughout, but it certainly wasn’t on the same level as Casino or Skyfall.

I understand what you guys are saying about the “woke 007”. I suppose I never saw it that way because Moneypenny was a field agent several films ago and nobody cared. Before the world went crazy about that kind of stuff.

[MinionZombie]

I understand what you guys are saying about the “woke 007”. I suppose I never saw it that way because Moneypenny was a field agent several films ago and nobody cared. Before the world went crazy about that kind of stuff.

Partly it's down to execution - it worked really well with Moneypenny as she was being introduced to the Craig era, and they kept a little bit of the sexual tension, but they also wrote in a good way that she comes to realise on her own that field work isn't what she wants.

Part it's also down to all the swirling PR stuff surrounding a movie, and that's often what makes the biggest stink and turns the most people off - the sheer volume of the self-aggrandising back slapping. It's all pretty crass and reduces individuals down to categories to be exploited - either framed as a hero or a villain on the basis of sex or race (neither of which anyone actually chooses at birth) or whatever else. Ironically, it creates segregation. Rather than just being a well written character with a good story who the audience can get on board with, you too often get a selection of ticked boxes in a cynical show of performative progressiveness. The mass media feeds like a glutton on division and actively encourages it, and movie studios have been getting on board with it too, especially through advertising and trailers (e.g. the sheer amount of stink surrounding Captain Marvel, a thoroughly mediocre movie with countless story problems that only had 90s nostalgia going for it - and even that was doled out with a thunderous lack of subtlety).

By way of example - Gillette. Remember that idiotic advert they did that was basically all about slagging off men - you know, the consumer base for their products! - and harping on about "toxic masculinity" etc? Yeah, a beyond moronic approach. Anyone who needed to hear what they were preaching were never going to listen anyway, and anyone who would hear it already are decent blokes who are then angry that they're still being slagged off and don't take kindly to it. Now - compare that with a recent one they're showing here in the UK. It's a simple enough advert, a man - who happens to be black - shaving, and then his son comes in and they hug or whatever (my memory's a bit fuzzy, I usually fast forward through all these bloody advert breaks) - they don't make a "thing" about him being black, because that's not the issue. They don't harp on about "toxic masculinity" because again, that's not the issue. It's about shaving, and you get a positive father role model. Simple as and nobody's kicking up a fuss, because there is no fuss. Just a man and his boy, and a shaving advert about shaving.

[Neil]

More fear of Bond being bashed with a woke stick... I'll wait for a couple of reviews before seeing it, but hopefully the concerns are not grounded.

And given how poor the attendance at cinemas is at the moment, it'll surely struggle to earn the 1b$ is needs?

oRyMYmdT7xg

[MinionZombie]

It must be a proper pain in the arse to dust all that crap he's got lined up in his background. :D

Marketing certainly is an issue these days. "Censor" had a load of 'woke talk' attached to it (e.g. Total Film ramping up the MeToo relevance of it), but the actual film barely has a shred of it beyond a typically sleazy producer of sleazy horror videos. There was no constant undercurrent of TimesUp chatter, it stuck to its story well and I was at a loss for finding anything really that linked to what was being harped on about in reviews and articles. It's almost as if one person sets the template and then other reviewers just copy/paste.

The trailer for Captain Marvel was an example - that cringe worthy moment where they highlighted "HER" from "HERO" ... ... why? It's naked pandering and treats people like idiots.

There's being a lot made about PWB (I take it that she was just hired to tweak the female characters and that's about it, everything else was written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (with Fukunaga sticking his oar in as well once he came on board). The way some articles were talking about it a while back was as if PWB had written the whole film. She actually had to come out and correct them. Indeed, you wouldn't be fourth listed out of four writers if you had done the whole thing. Rewrites and polishes and tweaks are common on big franchise films like these, with someone else with fresh eyes making changes. That's what's happened here. Nothing special or out of the ordinary.

Of course, you have the 'woke marketing' side but then you've also got the other side of the equation - videos like this guy with the undustable nerd room. Where is the line in the sand from appropriate commentary to adding fuel to the fire?

I have been gaining a disdain for the growing trend of 'female character says something mean spirited to a male character to make themselves look strong'. Now, I enjoy snarky banter with a playful mood and good sense of humour behind it (I often write that way myself), but the difference is that it's coming from an affectionate place. The clips we've seen repeatedly of Nomi have leaned heavily into the first example above, and that's concerning ... ... funny, too, that she has the same name as the explosively petulant exotic dancer from Showgirls. :lol:

It's also curious how the likes of Fukunaga think that calling Bond a rapist is going to do anything to sell the movie to your audience. I mean, what? It's like 'negging' but for movie advertising. And Bond doesn't need to expand it's global marketing reach via Twitter trend thinking - it's already one of the longest running and most highly recognised franchises on the planet!

I do hope that it's just a lot of silly bullshit getting whipped up under this false notion that it creates box office dollars, because I've really enjoyed the Daniel Craig era, and it's not as if they haven't had strong women in the franchise before either. Just in the Craig years alone we've had Vesper and M and Moneypenny bringing superbly crafted women to the 007 screen. The ending of Skyfall is an absolute heartbreaker for all the right reasons. Those films didn't require this sort of marketing approach, and approach that doesn't really work and serves to turn people off. You get enough of it in real life, so why would you want to get it from escapist cinema as well?

Also, there's no way in hell they're gonna make back the money in the cinema while Covid is still farting around buggering things up. No way. Sadly, regardless of quality, regardless of the 25th film milestone, I can't see this movie making anywhere near that amount. It's a real shame, but there's so many good films out there that have been fucked over by Covid, it's just terrible timing. I bet they wish they'd managed to get it out in November 2019 now! :stunned:

[Neil]

WOW! 2hr43m!

[EvilNed]

If MGM is trying to "woke-ize" Bond then they've seriously misunderstood who the target audience is.

I'm sure the next Bond will correct that.

[shootemindehead]

What was "woke" about 'Censor'?

[MinionZombie]

What was "woke" about 'Censor'?

Exactly.

That was what I was saying. I was reading reviews about the film, and in particular Total Film made a little fuss about there being 'MeToo relevance' in it - as if it was a major plot point - in their main article about it, but when I actually watched the movie there was actually very little of that in there. Coining as many Twitter trendy buzzwords as possible seems to be an actual marketing technique now and it's asinine.

Indeed, beyond the typically sleazy producer guy (played by Michael Smiley) - who wasn't even anywhere near Weinstein in terms of sleaziness, and was a mere subplot side character in the film - there wasn't anything that I would describe as falling into "woke" pandering and the sort of stuff that staff writers at publications like Total Film fall all over themselves to reference at any given opportunity (seriously, every single issue since the Weinstein scandal broke has included at least one reference to MeToo or TimesUp - it's like a 'spot the cliche' now, and it's more often than not a male writer jackhammering it in there).

I was trying to read an article about Marvel's Eternals earlier but packed it in for two reasons: 1) I realised I have fuck all interest in the movie and very little interest in Phase 4 in general, and 2) the eye rolling amount of times "diversity" was coined by the journo and the interviewees ... like chill the fudge out, yeah?

...

Anyway - it's a more and more common thread that I'm noticing in movie advertising now. They're under this illusion that this stuff sells tickets - when it doesn't. It might make you 'trend well' on Twitter, but Twitter has never been an accurate depiction of society at large. The majority don't spout off on Twitter. The majority are bumbling about in the political middle ground somewhere, chunks leaning one way or another but still within middle ground reach. This sort of pandering identity politics stuff just makes the middle ground roll their eyes as they can see through the cynical marketing illusion. It's like major corporations hopping on social justice bandwagons: they're only doing it to appear nice and make more money and get a better rating from some made up 'woke ratings' company in order to get better access to more investor pools in order to make more money and boost share prices. It's a totally cynical ploy.

In the end all that's important is simple (as a concept): make a good movie. Too many 'woke approved' movies fail at basic storytelling and feature bland characters who pull others down to pick themselves up. The majority don't want that shit, but the minority of Twitter twirps shout and scream the loudest and make it seem as if that's what people want. However, any sensible industry outsider could tell you the real deal pronto. Well written story, complex characters, no pandering (either in the flick or in the advertising) - just make a good thing.

"Wonder Woman 1984"? Absolute fuck up riddled with terrible writing and eye roll inducing pandering (e.g. that dreadfully pointless opening sequence that they almost cut out of the actual movie!).
"Kate"? Fucking awesome action revenge flick that just so happens to feature a female lead who you actually buy in the role and truly invest in.

I know which one I prefer. I was speaking to a fellow filmmaking friend and colleague a little bit ago and she had the same reaction: WW84 shite, Kate great.

[Neil]

If MGM is trying to "woke-ize" Bond then they've seriously misunderstood who the target audience is.

I'm sure the next Bond will correct that.

Hopefully she will :)

[MinionZombie]

Hopefully she will :)

Fortunately Broccoli has stated that James Bond is indeed a male character (amazing that this is the world we're now living in, isn't it?)

I'd imagine with the future looking like the 007 franchise will be teaming up with Amazon (a 50/50 share, with Bond movies continuing to be theatrical) we'll see spin-offs - so in the 007 world but with another character either new or established.

I mean, yeah, fine, but don't be surprised if the core (and quite broad) audience for James Bond doesn't really like it and just wants to have a normal Bond movie every few years, you know? Does everything need a 'universe' now? Who knows, whatever they do might turn out cool, but it could just as easily be kinda pointless.

...

As an aside, I see the reviews are quite polarising. Headlines are saying it's either boring shite or a superb send-off for Craig. I mean, totally diametrically opposed headline reviews.

I'm just generally avoiding as much chit-chat online about it (aside from here, natch) so I can go into it as fresh as possible on Blu-Ray. I didn't even watch the most recent trailer as they so often give away too many highlights (*cough* the Halloween Kills trailer *cough*)...

[Neil]

Reviews I've seen thusfar seem to vary from positive to glowing... Unless I hear significant to the contrary I'll go along and see it now ;)

[JDP]

Next Bond film: Woketopussy

[MinionZombie]

Reviews I've seen thusfar seem to vary from positive to glowing... Unless I hear significant to the contrary I'll go along and see it now ;)

If you do, please let us know what you think (in a spoiler free way, of course). :)

- - - Updated - - -


Next Bond film: Woketopussy

Dr No Means No

From Russia With Consent

Ethically-sourced Goldfinger

The Spy Who Acted Inappropriately

The Person With The Golden Placard

:D

[Neil]

Dr No Means No
Lol!!

[Neil]

I skimmed through the Mark Kermode review as I didn't want any spoilers at all. I generally like his reviews and he seemed to like this bond film ;)

X_H3mRz3SZI

[EvilNed]

I wanna go see this but I know I won't have time until next weekend And only then I'll have to catch a midday showing.

[MinionZombie]

Neil - the Kermode review is totally spoiler free. I watched the whole thing a few days ago and he specifically avoided digging into any real plot details or suchlike, but yeah, he seemed to be quite taken with it.

I'm trying to avoid reading/hearing too much about it. I want to get to the Blu-Ray release and be able to see it without having it spoiled hopefully.

[shootemindehead]

Neil - the Kermode review is totally spoiler free. I watched the whole thing a few days ago and he specifically avoided digging into any real plot details or suchlike, but yeah, he seemed to be quite taken with it.

I'm trying to avoid reading/hearing too much about it. I want to get to the Blu-Ray release and be able to see it without having it spoiled hopefully.

Kermode was also taken with 'Spectre', which was pants. So I would take what he says about a Bond movie with a vodka Martini, shaken not stirred.

[Neil]

Critical Drinker has good and bad things to say - Minor spoilers...

3eBU98w7PGI

[MinionZombie]

Kermode was also taken with 'Spectre', which was pants. So I would take what he says about a Bond movie with a vodka Martini, shaken not stirred.

While Spectre wasn't up to the standards of Casino Royale or Skyfall (how could they ever live up to that?), and while it did have some flaws, I still really enjoyed it.

[paranoid101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu__t5U4EyM&ab_channel=kermodeandmayo

Another video from Mark Kermode, really good replies to some of the criticisms of the film.

[EvilNed]

Caught it tonight.

It's a decent Bond-film, but let's not kid ourselves. At its core it's only a slightly better sequel to Spectre.
There's very little revolutionary here. It does bring the Craig-era films to a satisfying close and I feel like they really do tie them all together in a nice way. But as a spectacle? Nothing much here. It's mostly just car chases in places we've already seen before. As a comparions; This film starts off with a car chase in an Italian mountain village. I've seen that dozens of times before. Compare that to Spectre's opening act; The helicopter fight during the dia de los muertos-parade!

[Neil]

It's a fairly good bond... BUT...

THE SHEER FUCKING LAZY ARROGANT WRITING OF THE END? WOW!

Twenty four times the writers have passed the Bond canon on. But this time, THESE writers decided THEY have the right to kill off Bond? That they of all writers have the right to dictate and set the canon going forwards in stone and dictate how Bond dies? Sheer fucking hubris!

Seriously I'm utterly pissed off with the way modern writers use these lazy antics and believe they have the right to piss away decades of canon on their own egos. And the same happened with Dr Who recently of course!




On a minor note, I was also disappointed there wasn't at least a minute or two of total choreographed bad assery! There were TWO 007s attacking that base. TWO! Surely we should have had an almost a John Wick 3 moment with a wall of devastation ploughing through that base with TWO 007s in full on action! Missed opportunity!


ps: Sheer appalling lazy arrogant fucking hubris!

[EvilNed]

It's a fairly good bond... BUT...

THE SHEER FUCKING LAZY ARROGANT WRITING OF THE END? WOW!

Twenty four times the writers have passed the Bond canon on. But this time, THESE writers decided THEY have the right to kill off Bond? That they of all writers have the right to dictate and set the canon going forwards in stone and dictate how Bond dies? Sheer fucking hubris!

Seriously I'm utterly pissed off with the way modern writers use these lazy antics and believe they have the right to piss away decades of canon on their own egos. And the same happened with Dr Who recently of course!




On a minor note, I was also disappointed there wasn't at least a minute or two of total choreographed bad assery! There were TWO 007s attacking that base. TWO! Surely we should have had an almost a John Wick 3 moment with a wall of devastation ploughing through that base with TWO 007s in full on action! Missed opportunity!


ps: Sheer appalling lazy arrogant fucking hubris!

The writers are more or less the same as going back all the way to the World is Not Enough and these kind of major decisions are not decided by the writers, or even directors - but the Producers. And the Producer's are the Broccoli's, the Daughter and son-in-law of the original Producer Hubby.

Barbara Broccoli has been a producer for these things going all the way back to The Living Daylights

[Neil]

Don't care...

After 60yrs and 24 films they decide now is the right time to have this masculine fantasy hero killed off?

Imagine if "A View To A Kill" had played this cheap trick and showed Bond being killed? How would that have gone down?

There was no need to kill off Bond. There was a far more intelligent and engaging (uplifting) ending to be had there with him as usual surviving (somehow)!

But this was a one off lazy and cheap 'grab', and in truth a spit in the face of the canon/legacy that generations have loved... I find it no suprise this has happened at this period of time. ie: It would not have been done ten+ years ago.

RIP Bond! 1962-2021

ps: Rami Malek's character and purpose was all rather vapid/empty? And there was plenty of examples of loads of badies turning up out of no where, in the middle of no where, somehow at the right moment, somehow :)

[EvilNed]

Don't care...

After 60yrs and 24 films they decide now is the right time to have this masculine fantasy hero killed off?

Imagine if "A View To A Kill" had played this cheap trick and showed Bond being killed? How would that have gone down?

There was no need to kill off Bond. There was a far more intelligent and engaging (uplifting) ending to be had there with him as usual surviving (somehow)!

But this was a one off lazy and cheap 'grab', and in truth a spit in the face of the canon/legacy that generations have loved... I find it no suprise this has happened at this period of time. ie: It would not have been done ten+ years ago.

RIP Bond! 1962-2021

ps: Rami Malek's character and purpose was all rather vapid/empty? And there was plenty of examples of loads of badies turning up out of no where, in the middle of no where, somehow at the right moment, somehow :)

I'm not reading that much into it, really. Also, the end credits clearly state: "James Bond will return". You'll get your macho hero back, but it'll be a reboot.
Looking back at the Craig-arc, it's pretty clear that it stands apart in it's own continuity from the others. Apart from M in the first three films, we get to meet Blofeld for the first time and then he's killed off. That doesn't jive with the canon either.
Likewise with Spectre. It won't affect any future films.

As for Rami, yes. His motives are never really explained and honestly felt like a little bit of a placeholder Villain.

[Neil]

I'm not reading that much into it, really. Also, the end credits clearly state: "James Bond will return". You'll get your macho hero back, but it'll be a reboot.
Looking back at the Craig-arc, it's pretty clear that it stands apart in it's own continuity from the others. Apart from M in the first three films, we get to meet Blofeld for the first time and then he's killed off. That doesn't jive with the canon either.
Likewise with Spectre. It won't affect any future films.

^ I can understand that view. It just doesn't sit well with me... Again feels like a lazy me me me me cheap move by the writers etc.


As for Rami, yes. His motives are never really explained and honestly felt like a little bit of a placeholder Villain.Yes, a very limp character.

[Neil]

Well, rumours are the next Bond film is already being 'designed'. The next one, to silence the woke brigade sees Bond start off as a male, but to fulfil his mission transgenders to a female.

The title of Bond 26 is going to be Cocktopussy.

[JDP]

Well, rumours are the next Bond film is already being 'designed'. The next one, to silence the woke brigade sees Bond start off as a male, but to fulfil his mission transgenders to a female.

The title of Bond 26 is going to be Cocktopussy.

The producers want you to woke up.

[Neil]

The producers want you to woke up.


The producers wish you to awoken.


I'm detecting a pattern :)

[MinionZombie]

Well, rumours are the next Bond film is already being 'designed'. The next one, to silence the woke brigade sees Bond start off as a male, but to fulfil his mission transgenders to a female.

The title of Bond 26 is going to be Cocktopussy.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/020/549/1081.gif

JAMES BOND WILL RETURN

Not "Jane" Bond or whatever the fuck, JAMES Bond. Chill the fuck out. Seriously, Neil, you sometimes act like the whiny snowflakes you bemoan all the time - I'm no fan of such cringe-inducing wankers either, but you're making yourself look foolish.

Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson aren't stupid enough to disregard swathes of paying customers to appease a handful of non-paying loudmouths on Twitter.

Clearly this is a strong way to finish the Craig era. We see his entire 007 career from start to conclusion. Every time a new actor comes in it's a series reboot, be it soft or hard. Back in the day there was no real concept of what they should logically mean, so that's why we saw M and Moneypenny - and Q most of all - continuing across multiple Bonds.

What they should do with Bond 26 is recast everybody, because it wouldn't make sense as these characters all toasted farewell to Bond.

Craig's era saw a different Felix, for example, and saw the reboot/return of Spectre with Blofeld done all over again. The likes of Casino Royale and Skyfall dug deep into Bond's psyche, and No Time To Die feels like a fitting conclusion. Did I want him to go off into the sunset with Madeline and the child he only just got to meet? Of course, but instead we got perhaps one of the most respectable and dare I say it - manly - endings for Bond, a male character: to protect the ones he loves no matter the cost to himself. Males grow up hearing the story of Titanic and "women and children first" in a different way to females. You grow up with this thing in the back of your mind that, maybe, one day, you might have to lay down your life to save someone else - as if baked into male DNA (no, I'm not saying that women can't do the same, duh) but, yes, it's a different context. Sure, they actually bother to put enough lifeboats on ships now, but nevertheless, way down there amongst the hunter/gatherer DNA, the protection of the familial unit is right there as a foundational pillar - and that's exactly what Bond did at the end of the movie. The twist of fate was cruel, but he went out with nobility, not just protecting those closest to him, but the entire global population.

Even people who got pissed off about "a black woman being 007" can fuck off, because the number is a designation and it made total sense in the movie. They even had a good 1-1 bit of banter between JB and Nomi, giving each other as good as they get. Sure, Nomi is a bit too cocky maybe, the tone not quite nailed down, but Bond isn't exactly a shrinking violet riddled with modesty, is he? AND ALSO - Nomi gives the number back to Bond anyway! He actually goes out as 007.

James Bond isn't Doctor Who. It's quite simple - it's different eras of Bond - the actors change, the franchise continues, but the story reboots. It might not really be that cleancut over the Connery//Lazenby/Moore years, but they weren't really thinking about that intentionally. Dalton was a clear reboot entirely. One could argue that Brosnan kind of continued things, but even there it's like a soft reboot. And it was definitely a complete reboot with Craig. It's a simple concept to grasp. Just think of the Batman movies.

Bond 26 will be a reset to start over again. Mind you, they should take their time with it and really figure out how best to do that in terms of story, villain, tone etc. The audience needs time, as much as the franchise does, before JAMES BOND returns.


I'd agree on Safin. I didn't really understand why he was coming back for revenge on Madeline, when he'd already got his revenge anyway. That was never really clear. Didn't quite understand how Madeline/Bond tied into his "usual" plans for world domination. I liked Rami's portrayal, but the character felt underdeveloped.

Mind you, he was more just filling in a role that needs to be there. The movie was all about Bond from start to finish, ultimately. The entire focus, pretty much, was on concluding Craig's era.

The first third had a few iffy 'funny/quirky' lines that didn't really work (e.g. the viroligist guy), and it may not have the same scale spectacle as some previous Bonds (e.g. Casino Royale's house-sinking in Venice, or Skyfall's epic finale), but I never felt myself feeling wanting for action. It is a bit overlong, sure, but I'm glad they didn't just rush through anything. Generally I really liked how most of the big scenes played out, and criticisms of 'baddies appearing from nowhere' or 'doing what they've done before' as beyond silly in the context of a 25-movie franchise that prides itself on its history and iconic moments.

[Neil]

^ Oh come on! that was a good joke :) CockToPussy :elol:

[bassman]

The woke whining really does seem to be over the top these days….

I have to give NTTD another viewing, but I was underwhelmed with the first spin. It wasn’t bad, I enjoyed it, just felt a bit flat compared to Casino Royale and Skyfall. Craig definitely had a good run with the character, though!

[MinionZombie]

The woke whining really does seem to be over the top these days….

I have to give NTTD another viewing, but I was underwhelmed with the first spin. It wasn’t bad, I enjoyed it, just felt a bit flat compared to Casino Royale and Skyfall. Craig definitely had a good run with the character, though!

While it can't match Casino Royale or Skyfall (both Bond perfection IMO), it's a stronger outing than QoS and Spectre. Now, QoS had the writer's strike to contend with (i.e. an unfinished script), but it's actually a pretty solid Bond flick regardless when viewed in the entire 25 film context. Spectre has a better villain than No Time To Die, though, no doubt about that. I liked Rami's performance, but I was never entirely sure about Safin's motivations ... that character was underwritten, but served a purpose. NTTD was really all about Bond in numerous ways, it was really just about Bond essentially. In that regard it did an excellent job.

In terms of a lot of the "woke" talk around the movie, much of that has come from clickbait bullshitters looking for clicks (the constant speculation about who the next Bond will be is dizzyingly irritating when Broccoli & Wilson have quite possibly put not that much thought into just yet, and certainly not enough to even hint at anything publicly ... which they wouldn't anyway, because the announcement is of course going to be kept a surprise) ... or it's come from non-Bond fans shitposting about wanting a 'woke Bond' to stir, well, shit ... or just general bullshit to do with advertising or film reviews etc etc, which tend to ramp up and echo any such talk surrounding a movie.

For example, there was so much talk of PWB writing the script - when she never did such a thing, she's a writer on the script, the 4th of four credited writers, hired in to do a polish. She had to reinforce that fact in an interview, but the clickbait world went nuts for it, and that then leads to speculation by reactionary YouTubers who are reacted to by other reactionary YouTubers on the other side of the political divide and it all goes round in an annoying swirl far beyond anything the movie actually does or says.