I find a little bit disturbing the fact the PTS is supposed to be a flashback of Madeleine's past. The opening sequence usually is linked to the rest of the plot, but a flashback looks weird. It reminds me Batman Begins...
Many elements of the Craig era seem to be based upon the Dark Knight trilogy...
Much of the PTS in Casino Royale is a flashback.
But there have been very few flashbacks in Bond films.
I find a little bit disturbing the fact the PTS is supposed to be a flashback of Madeleine's past. The opening sequence usually is linked to the rest of the plot, but a flashback looks weird. It reminds me Batman Begins...
Many elements of the Craig era seem to be based upon the Dark Knight trilogy...
Well it isn’t a totally new concept to the series—Goldeneye started with a flashback. While it was only nine years and not decades as a young Madeline scene would be, it still counts.
Also, there were some tiny flashbacks in the CR PTS...that technically counts as well. Has there been any others, I can’t remember?
Strictly speaking, the PTS in GE was more of a prologue than a flashback.
Apparently, Craig has been in favor of his Bond dying for a while. It would complete the character arc of the "suffering Bond."
Given he recently declared his real wish was becoming Superman, I'm not surprised.
I repeat what I already said several weeks ago: I'm just fed up with the Craig era ! The guy should have left the role after Sp. Unless NTTD is a masterpiece (I mean some kind of unforgettable movie like CR with Bond at his best from the beginning to the end), I see nothing to be optimistic about. The film looks visually amazing but the plot looks poor. The trailer didn't really give me goose bumps...
This movie may become the swan song of the genuine fandom, and the thing which worries me the most is the fact EON don't really seem to care about that ! I'm ready to wait until its final release to judge it, but I can see I'm not the only one to be concerned here and some people appear very sceptical !
So, despite the high clapperboard numbers for a PTS, it seems the DB5 chase is part of it. So, as Michael Wilson said, the longest PTS ever, does include the foot, motorbike and car chase ending at the train station, and not the Scandinavian villa and something else; maybe them getting married.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
Nothing would really surprise me anymore. Perhaps visiting M to award a posthumous knighthood to Commander James Bond. 8-)
Making then the nightmare I was talking about here last week come true ? Bond must survive for God's sake ! Killing Bond off would be the biggest betrayal to the spirit of the franchise.
We never asked ourselves that question for any of the 24 previous movies, I don't understand why this rumor has been so persistant for this one...
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the whole marketing campaign behind You Only Live Twice was that James Bond will Die. I guess if you want to get technical, Bond "dies" in YOLT, DAD & CR. Does Bond "die" in any other movies? Every Bond movie I see, I watch as theres a chance Bond might die. Maybe the villain will prevail this time? That's why we go see the movie. We know Bond will win, but theres always a chance he doesn't. Since this is Craigs last movie, most people probably figure the series will wrap up and we'll get anther re-boot. One last thought, was the line James Bond will Return in the credits of DAD? If so, where's that movie? Psssst, CR doesn't count.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Regarding the possible cameo Prince Charles will have in NTTD: I think, first of all – and I’ve already speculated in my plot proposition – Bond won’t die at the end. Probably, and almost certainly, his death will be let ambiguous (Cary said at the end there will be the panel James Bond will return).
Fukunaga also said in an interview that he inspired himself to YOLT, AVTAK and GE. AVTK is not my favourite Bond movie but I saw it recently and noticed that at the end General Gogol goes to M to appoint Bond for the Order of Lenin but M says: “Sadly he’s missing. We are continuing our search but must presume the worse.” (Moneypenny cries outside the office)
For me there could be a similar moment in NTTD. Prince Charles goes to M to offer Bond the knighthood or the VC (awarded ‘for valour “in presence of the enemy” to members of the British Armed Forces’ Wikipedia says and Bond is Commander of the RN), but M tells him more or less the same thing his predecessor did.
Then the scene rolls out to Matera where the whole thing should end.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the whole marketing campaign behind You Only Live Twice was that James Bond will Die. I guess if you want to get technical, Bond "dies" in YOLT, DAD & CR. Does Bond "die" in any other movies? Every Bond movie I see, I watch as theres a chance Bond might die. Maybe the villain will prevail this time? That's why we go see the movie. We know Bond will win, but theres always a chance he doesn't. Since this is Craigs last movie, most people probably figure the series will wrap up and we'll get anther re-boot. One last thought, was the line James Bond will Return in the credits of DAD? If so, where's that movie? Psssst, CR doesn't count.
Well if you consider James Bond possibly dying for the first time ever in the whole series is one of the reasons people go to see the movie, it's ok...
As a Bond fan I prefer no movie at all than this one if it ends that way. Being frustrated is not a sensation I'm looking for when I watch a Bond film. I just want to be entertained.
Bond killing the villain, escaping from the lair and banging the girl is a tradition I expect every Bond film to be faithful to. That's why I'm not a big fan of the Craig era...I know there are exceptions like OHMSS and CR but Bond doesn't die, which is the main point.
Think all the people saying it can’t happen, it would never happen are missing the point somewhat.
Why can’t they? The franchise is 58 years old - they are bound to want to mine new creative territory. And they were in the unique position of going into the film knowing it would be Daniel Craig’s final film. For the first time, they went in knowing they had the chance to give his iteration of James Bond an ending. The tangled, inter-universe nature of all his films has always meant that whoever followed him was always more likely to be part of a reboot, or reimagining, rather than a continuation. So knowing the character will be back, why not kill him off? What would it mean for everyone he leaves behind? What would it mean for his enemies, or for those closest to him?
I’m not saying I definitely think it will happen. It might, but it might not. But the argument for why it shouldn’t isn’t strong enough in my opinion.
Think all the people saying it can’t happen, it would never happen are missing the point somewhat.
Why can’t they? The franchise is 58 years old - they are bound to want to mine new creative territory. And they were in the unique position of going into the film knowing it would be Daniel Craig’s final film. For the first time, they went in knowing they had the chance to give his iteration of James Bond an ending. The tangled, inter-universe nature of all his films has always meant that whoever followed him was always more likely to be part of a reboot, or reimagining, rather than a continuation. So knowing the character will be back, why not kill him off? What would it mean for everyone he leaves behind? What would it mean for his enemies, or for those closest to him?
I’m not saying I definitely think it will happen. It might, but it might not. But the argument for why it shouldn’t isn’t strong enough in my opinion.
As well as the argument « the franchise is 58 years old » is not stronger...
It is precisely because there are traditions to be faithful to that the franchise is so special. The success of the series over the decades is mainly due to its typical print. Bond surviving at the end is part of the spirit. If you kill him off, all the charm is lost and you join the Marvel/Disney team of artistic disaster...
It is not because you decide to change a recipe the result will be better. If you put garlic in a chocolate milkshake, I’m not sure it will taste very good...despite the originality.
Think all the people saying it can’t happen, it would never happen are missing the point somewhat.
Why can’t they? The franchise is 58 years old - they are bound to want to mine new creative territory. And they were in the unique position of going into the film knowing it would be Daniel Craig’s final film. For the first time, they went in knowing they had the chance to give his iteration of James Bond an ending. The tangled, inter-universe nature of all his films has always meant that whoever followed him was always more likely to be part of a reboot, or reimagining, rather than a continuation. So knowing the character will be back, why not kill him off? What would it mean for everyone he leaves behind? What would it mean for his enemies, or for those closest to him?
I’m not saying I definitely think it will happen. It might, but it might not. But the argument for why it shouldn’t isn’t strong enough in my opinion.
As well as the argument « the franchise is 58 years old » is not stronger...
It is precisely because there are traditions to be faithful to that the franchise is so special. The success of the series over the decades is mainly due to its typical print. Bond surviving at the end is part of the spirit. If you kill him off, all the charm is lost and you join the Marvel/Disney team of artistic disaster...
It is not because you decide to change a recipe the result will be better. If you put garlic in a chocolate milkshake, I’m not sure it will taste very good...despite the originality.
I don’t necessarily agree. Some of the best movies and moments in the series have been precisely those occasions where the franchise tried to do something new, and took on a new direction. It’s subjective of course, but take Casino Royale. Bond as a rookie. Take OHMSS. Bond gets married. Licence to Kill. Bond’s best mate gets maimed so he goes on a revenge mission. Skyfall. M got murdered. None of those were traditional in any way, shape or form but made for some of the most compelling moments and films in the series’ history, IMHO.
The franchise’s longevity isn’t down to the fact it keeps spitting the same thing out every time, but because it’s not afraid of making bold decisions and trying new things, whilst staying respectful of course to the character and those traditions, which certainly does not exclude subverting them precisely as I’m suggesting they might try and do here.
Bond killing the villain, escaping from the lair and banging the girl is a tradition I expect every Bond film to be faithful to. That's why I'm not a big fan of the Craig era...I know there are exceptions like OHMSS and CR but Bond doesn't die, which is the main point.
) {[]
Although, I do like the DC films, his suffering is becoming very tiresome..
Think all the people saying it can’t happen, it would never happen are missing the point somewhat.
Why can’t they? The franchise is 58 years old - they are bound to want to mine new creative territory. And they were in the unique position of going into the film knowing it would be Daniel Craig’s final film. For the first time, they went in knowing they had the chance to give his iteration of James Bond an ending. The tangled, inter-universe nature of all his films has always meant that whoever followed him was always more likely to be part of a reboot, or reimagining, rather than a continuation. So knowing the character will be back, why not kill him off? What would it mean for everyone he leaves behind? What would it mean for his enemies, or for those closest to him?
I’m not saying I definitely think it will happen. It might, but it might not. But the argument for why it shouldn’t isn’t strong enough in my opinion.
As well as the argument « the franchise is 58 years old » is not stronger...
It is precisely because there are traditions to be faithful to that the franchise is so special. The success of the series over the decades is mainly due to its typical print. Bond surviving at the end is part of the spirit. If you kill him off, all the charm is lost and you join the Marvel/Disney team of artistic disaster...
It is not because you decide to change a recipe the result will be better. If you put garlic in a chocolate milkshake, I’m not sure it will taste very good...despite the originality.
I don’t necessarily agree. Some of the best movies and moments in the series have been precisely those occasions where the franchise tried to do something new, and took on a new direction. It’s subjective of course, but take Casino Royale. Bond as a rookie. Take OHMSS. Bond gets married. Licence to Kill. Bond’s best mate gets maimed so he goes on a revenge mission. Skyfall. M got murdered. None of those were traditional in any way, shape or form but made for some of the most compelling moments and films in the series’ history, IMHO.
The franchise’s longevity isn’t down to the fact it keeps spitting the same thing out every time, but because it’s not afraid of making bold decisions and trying new things, whilst staying respectful of course to the character and those traditions, which certainly does not exclude subverting them precisely as I’m suggesting they might try and do here.
But the instances referred to in OHMSS, LTK (LALD) and FRWL and YOLT are all direct from Fleming, which rightly, the fans can accept. I can accept on screen whatever Fleming wrote, Bond believed to be dead or almost dead as per FRWL and YOLT, fine (although I'd rather a happier more traditional ending). What I cannot accept is EON/DC/CF choosing to properly kill him off. Reboot later or not.
As well as the argument « the franchise is 58 years old » is not stronger...
It is precisely because there are traditions to be faithful to that the franchise is so special. The success of the series over the decades is mainly due to its typical print. Bond surviving at the end is part of the spirit. If you kill him off, all the charm is lost and you join the Marvel/Disney team of artistic disaster...
It is not because you decide to change a recipe the result will be better. If you put garlic in a chocolate milkshake, I’m not sure it will taste very good...despite the originality.
I don’t necessarily agree. Some of the best movies and moments in the series have been precisely those occasions where the franchise tried to do something new, and took on a new direction. It’s subjective of course, but take Casino Royale. Bond as a rookie. Take OHMSS. Bond gets married. Licence to Kill. Bond’s best mate gets maimed so he goes on a revenge mission. Skyfall. M got murdered. None of those were traditional in any way, shape or form but made for some of the most compelling moments and films in the series’ history, IMHO.
The franchise’s longevity isn’t down to the fact it keeps spitting the same thing out every time, but because it’s not afraid of making bold decisions and trying new things, whilst staying respectful of course to the character and those traditions, which certainly does not exclude subverting them precisely as I’m suggesting they might try and do here.
But the instances referred to in OHMSS, LTK (LALD) and FRWL and YOLT are all direct from Fleming, which rightly, the fans can accept. I can accept on screen whatever Fleming wrote, Bond believed to be dead or almost dead as per FRWL and YOLT, fine (although I'd rather a happier more traditional ending). What I cannot accept is EON/DC/CF choosing to properly kill him off. Reboot later or not.
Exactly. And I will add something that cannot be denied about Bond’s hypothetical death: if they dare such a thing, it will be nonsense to make the mention « James Bond will return » appear as usual before the credits (Fukunaga said it would appear for sure).
If the film is supposed to end sadly, those four words would be irrelevant (unless we consider the code name theory is true but everyone here knows it is complete bullshit, no need to repeat why).
Can anyone seriously imagine the scene ? Bond is dead and there is no doubt about that. Madeleine, her daughter and the MI6 little team go to Matera or wherever (Skyfall perhaps?) to give him the last tribute he deserves after his funeral and the screen suddenly becomes dark with the « James Bond will return » label appearing. Add the Bond theme during the credits and you get the most ridiculous scene ever, reboot or not reboot.
How can you tease the next adventures of a character you just killed off ? As a fan, I identify with Bond precisely because HE SURVIVES at the end ! Everyone is not supposed to agree with me but at least, I hope some people here can understand my point of view.
I've seen mentioned a few times that Q is seen on the plane, in flight gear, but haven't managed to see it myself. Would anyone happen to have a screenshot of that or be able to tell me where/when that appears? Thanks!
I've seen mentioned a few times that Q is seen on the plane, in flight gear, but haven't managed to see it myself. Would anyone happen to have a screenshot of that or be able to tell me where/when that appears? Thanks!
You can just make out the glasses and the blue shirt with tie. There is also a considerable computer terminal sitting behind him.
It's from the second trailer featuring Nomi and the Q plane. (Fun fact: her 'nope' line about knowing how to fly this thing is exactly like the line from Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry https://youtu.be/LzbCBfi5-Bw?t=178)
It seems behind Safin there's something resembling the Garden of Death described in YOLT. Probably the exterior of the bunker during the final confrontation.
I've seen mentioned a few times that Q is seen on the plane, in flight gear, but haven't managed to see it myself. Would anyone happen to have a screenshot of that or be able to tell me where/when that appears? Thanks!
You can just make out the glasses and the blue shirt with tie. There is also a considerable computer terminal sitting behind him.
It's from the second trailer featuring Nomi and the Q plane. (Fun fact: her 'nope' line about knowing how to fly this thing is exactly like the line from Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry https://youtu.be/LzbCBfi5-Bw?t=178)
Thanks so much for the screenshot and detailed response!
Bond killing the villain, escaping from the lair and banging the girl is a tradition I expect every Bond film to be faithful to. That's why I'm not a big fan of the Craig era...I know there are exceptions like OHMSS and CR but Bond doesn't die, which is the main point.
) {[]
Although, I do like the DC films, his suffering is becoming very tiresome..
I would like just one instance of a sense of him enjoying himself or any element of his 'tough life'
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
a 2021 Calendar (hopefully not a hint) with a very cool "new" picture of Bond, its like he quotes himself when he corrects his cuff after changing carriages in Skyfall, very iconic move
Comments
Much of the PTS in Casino Royale is a flashback.
But there have been very few flashbacks in Bond films.
Strictly speaking, the PTS in GE was more of a prologue than a flashback.
Given he recently declared his real wish was becoming Superman, I'm not surprised.
I repeat what I already said several weeks ago: I'm just fed up with the Craig era ! The guy should have left the role after Sp. Unless NTTD is a masterpiece (I mean some kind of unforgettable movie like CR with Bond at his best from the beginning to the end), I see nothing to be optimistic about. The film looks visually amazing but the plot looks poor. The trailer didn't really give me goose bumps...
This movie may become the swan song of the genuine fandom, and the thing which worries me the most is the fact EON don't really seem to care about that ! I'm ready to wait until its final release to judge it, but I can see I'm not the only one to be concerned here and some people appear very sceptical !
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/no-time-to-die-james-bond-aston-martin-db5-094455195.html
So, despite the high clapperboard numbers for a PTS, it seems the DB5 chase is part of it. So, as Michael Wilson said, the longest PTS ever, does include the foot, motorbike and car chase ending at the train station, and not the Scandinavian villa and something else; maybe them getting married.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the whole marketing campaign behind You Only Live Twice was that James Bond will Die. I guess if you want to get technical, Bond "dies" in YOLT, DAD & CR. Does Bond "die" in any other movies? Every Bond movie I see, I watch as theres a chance Bond might die. Maybe the villain will prevail this time? That's why we go see the movie. We know Bond will win, but theres always a chance he doesn't. Since this is Craigs last movie, most people probably figure the series will wrap up and we'll get anther re-boot. One last thought, was the line James Bond will Return in the credits of DAD? If so, where's that movie? Psssst, CR doesn't count.
Fukunaga also said in an interview that he inspired himself to YOLT, AVTAK and GE. AVTK is not my favourite Bond movie but I saw it recently and noticed that at the end General Gogol goes to M to appoint Bond for the Order of Lenin but M says: “Sadly he’s missing. We are continuing our search but must presume the worse.” (Moneypenny cries outside the office)
For me there could be a similar moment in NTTD. Prince Charles goes to M to offer Bond the knighthood or the VC (awarded ‘for valour “in presence of the enemy” to members of the British Armed Forces’ Wikipedia says and Bond is Commander of the RN), but M tells him more or less the same thing his predecessor did.
Then the scene rolls out to Matera where the whole thing should end.
Well if you consider James Bond possibly dying for the first time ever in the whole series is one of the reasons people go to see the movie, it's ok...
As a Bond fan I prefer no movie at all than this one if it ends that way. Being frustrated is not a sensation I'm looking for when I watch a Bond film. I just want to be entertained.
Bond killing the villain, escaping from the lair and banging the girl is a tradition I expect every Bond film to be faithful to. That's why I'm not a big fan of the Craig era...I know there are exceptions like OHMSS and CR but Bond doesn't die, which is the main point.
Why can’t they? The franchise is 58 years old - they are bound to want to mine new creative territory. And they were in the unique position of going into the film knowing it would be Daniel Craig’s final film. For the first time, they went in knowing they had the chance to give his iteration of James Bond an ending. The tangled, inter-universe nature of all his films has always meant that whoever followed him was always more likely to be part of a reboot, or reimagining, rather than a continuation. So knowing the character will be back, why not kill him off? What would it mean for everyone he leaves behind? What would it mean for his enemies, or for those closest to him?
I’m not saying I definitely think it will happen. It might, but it might not. But the argument for why it shouldn’t isn’t strong enough in my opinion.
As well as the argument « the franchise is 58 years old » is not stronger...
It is precisely because there are traditions to be faithful to that the franchise is so special. The success of the series over the decades is mainly due to its typical print. Bond surviving at the end is part of the spirit. If you kill him off, all the charm is lost and you join the Marvel/Disney team of artistic disaster...
It is not because you decide to change a recipe the result will be better. If you put garlic in a chocolate milkshake, I’m not sure it will taste very good...despite the originality.
I don’t necessarily agree. Some of the best movies and moments in the series have been precisely those occasions where the franchise tried to do something new, and took on a new direction. It’s subjective of course, but take Casino Royale. Bond as a rookie. Take OHMSS. Bond gets married. Licence to Kill. Bond’s best mate gets maimed so he goes on a revenge mission. Skyfall. M got murdered. None of those were traditional in any way, shape or form but made for some of the most compelling moments and films in the series’ history, IMHO.
The franchise’s longevity isn’t down to the fact it keeps spitting the same thing out every time, but because it’s not afraid of making bold decisions and trying new things, whilst staying respectful of course to the character and those traditions, which certainly does not exclude subverting them precisely as I’m suggesting they might try and do here.
Although, I do like the DC films, his suffering is becoming very tiresome..
But the instances referred to in OHMSS, LTK (LALD) and FRWL and YOLT are all direct from Fleming, which rightly, the fans can accept. I can accept on screen whatever Fleming wrote, Bond believed to be dead or almost dead as per FRWL and YOLT, fine (although I'd rather a happier more traditional ending). What I cannot accept is EON/DC/CF choosing to properly kill him off. Reboot later or not.
Exactly. And I will add something that cannot be denied about Bond’s hypothetical death: if they dare such a thing, it will be nonsense to make the mention « James Bond will return » appear as usual before the credits (Fukunaga said it would appear for sure).
If the film is supposed to end sadly, those four words would be irrelevant (unless we consider the code name theory is true but everyone here knows it is complete bullshit, no need to repeat why).
Can anyone seriously imagine the scene ? Bond is dead and there is no doubt about that. Madeleine, her daughter and the MI6 little team go to Matera or wherever (Skyfall perhaps?) to give him the last tribute he deserves after his funeral and the screen suddenly becomes dark with the « James Bond will return » label appearing. Add the Bond theme during the credits and you get the most ridiculous scene ever, reboot or not reboot.
How can you tease the next adventures of a character you just killed off ? As a fan, I identify with Bond precisely because HE SURVIVES at the end ! Everyone is not supposed to agree with me but at least, I hope some people here can understand my point of view.
Looks like Safin doesn't have metal hands.
You can just make out the glasses and the blue shirt with tie. There is also a considerable computer terminal sitting behind him.
It's from the second trailer featuring Nomi and the Q plane. (Fun fact: her 'nope' line about knowing how to fly this thing is exactly like the line from Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry https://youtu.be/LzbCBfi5-Bw?t=178)
Thanks so much for the screenshot and detailed response!
I think shes going to put ' A bullet in his knee" (the one that works!!!)
(no money left now...send food parcels)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CC80Wt-oX82/?utm_source=ig_embed
I would like just one instance of a sense of him enjoying himself or any element of his 'tough life'
He (or she) singlehandedly kept this thread going for years.