I don't believe I commented in this thread before as I'm not angry about the immensely disappointing NTTD, I am simply immensely disappointed, but the above posts have made me recognise that I was irked by the music score in general. I've read a few reviews of the score [I don't own it yet] and like the film, they seem to reflect a mixed bag with mixed results creating mixed opinions.
First and foremost, I entered NTTD so isolated from all things NTTD I had not even heard the theme tune. When I did, aided by a quick few second blaze of dots a la Dr No and a baffling title sequence full of statues dripping blood, I sat there thinking: is that it? For one of the most hip, young, inventive musicians the U.S. has produced in twenty years to give us such an insipid unmemorable tune was almost unforgivable. There hasn't been a really decent Bond theme since Chris Cornell pumped out You Know My Name. I am fed up with being told I have to slit my wrists every time I listen to a CraigBond theme. In fairness, QOS only makes me want to slit my wrists to end the suffering. Anyhow, Eilish's song is barely noticeable. I wasn't even certain Hans Zimmer used it in his score.
Which brings me nicely to his score. Where was it? Did I hear it? Was in memorable? Did it draw me into moments of tension, inspire me with romantic motifs, did it have any recognisable hooks? No, no, no.
Which brings me neatly onto the use of cues from OHMSS and of course WHATTITW. Zimmer's score is so poor it is only enlivened by including something from John Barry. The two film's vaguely parallel storylines might make Zimmer [or maybe the writers / producers / director] feel they can include this and it will have an emotional pull over its audience. Whether it does or doesn't - and for me it didn't is hardly relevant - what it actually tells me as a cinema goer and Bond fan is they have no faith either in the overall product or the film score, they are trying to tell me this is a significant moment because they believe it is, rather than showing me because it genuinely is. It's not a good way to make movies.
I know we've always had some repetition of themes, but we've never had the whole song repeated. It's unbelievable that Zimmer [or the writers / director/ producers] also don't seem to understand that the song is a HAPPY SONG about love and life continuing forever where the cares of the world will not find us. When Tracy dies, Barry plays a largo paced mute version of the song which is eminently suited to Bond's broken heart and life. In NTTD we have the cheery, upbeat version played for us in the aftermath of Bond's death as if we're being told it's all okay, Madeleine and Mathilde have all the time in the world and they love it. I don't think anyone in my cinema was thinking this was a happy end. Why do we have a happy tune? Play the final turns of the reel without music at all, perhaps, do something original, but goodness me, borrow a previously iconic love song and tag it on like a funeral march? No, no, no.
I'm rambling here and I think I'm making more than one point, but if you can't hire writers and composers to do a decent job when you're spending $300m making a movie, or if you feel the need to hijack their work to retain a semblance of non-existent continuity with a previous film in a franchise, you really need to think about whether you're bright enough for the job any more.
I liked the Zimmer soundtrack better than you did and better than Newman’s sonic wallpaper in the previous two films — don’t get me started on how much I hate that DUH, DUH-DUH, DUH DUH way he punctuates the Bond theme like he’s writing for a TV commercial designed to jar viewers out of their complacency. But I agree that the Armstrong song was just all wrong for the end. It was lazy shorthanding for emotions unearned dramatically and doesn’t even work ironically because it’s never used elsewhere. The throwaway line at the beginning of the film and the song only work because Bond fans already know the significance, meaning it piggybacks on the emotions of OHMSS rather than create its own,
Exactly. OHMSS struck a balance that no later Bond films have managed to precisely strike. It has a proper ratio of drama and outlandish fun; it retains the 60s swing of the Connery films but has emotional force behind the escapades. It’s long, because it tells two stories that intertwine in the last act, but not bloated. It’s self-conscious about Connery’s absence but nothing else, unlike so many later Bond films. There’s a sense of experimentation and play in OHMSS, without the heaviness and self-seriousness that have defined later "serious" Bonds. It was made in an atmosphere of freedom—Connery was gone, everything was up in the air, and the producers let Hunt and Maibaum do what they wanted. That atmosphere will never return, because there are too many corporate cooks in the kitchen, as the leaked Spectre emails demonstrate.
I notice a few people saying they are so very angry about Bond's death they will never watch a Bond film again, the whole series has been rendered meaningless etc.
I just wish to assure you the previous 24 films in which Bond does not die are still there, and can still be enjoyed disregarding what happens in this one. Just like we could all still enjoy the first 23 movies after learning Bond and Blofeld were long lost brothers (which made me far more angry than seeing the death scene of a mortal man who had to die one day)
But I'm wondering what is the underlying reason for such a strong emotional response to a bit of makebelieve at the cinema? Is it something to do with the COVID? Have the 18 months stress and sense of displacement caused by the quarantine caused people to take a movie plot more personally than reason should dictate? We in particular are Bond fans, and were already annoyed it had taken so long for the originally announced release date March 2020, and since then may have pinned some unusual hope on the film's eventual release as being the return to normal we've all been waiting for. And when it finally comes out, its not precisely the nostalgic replication of safe childhood memories we were all counting on, its yet more viruses and death. We've come out the other end of the pandemic (fingers crossed) but the imaginary hero we'd held onto since our childhoods didn't make it.
Me I was just damn glad to finally be sitting in a theatre watching a Bond film at all. I actually shed a tear when I realised I was indeed doing that, back in My Happy Place. I didn't need it to be the same as all the others, and appreciated a clever variation.
It does seem to have rung a particularly despondent bell in fandom. I've seen folks in an absolute depression in the wake of the film. Not sure if it's Covid, or if it's the fact that this particular franchise has been a source of comfort for so many years for a particular demographic of men who haven't bothered with therapy, but people are a mess over this movie. It has jarred in a way that even the end of Logan hasn't.
For me personally, Bond is the only reason I'll go to the cinema. It's always been a slam dunk of a good time, happy ending, and walking out feeling better than when I walked in. I guess it's where I've been a fan of the films for decades, especially the Craig tenure, that seeing him die felt very personal as compared to a hero dying in a one-off stand-alone film. As pathetic as it sounds, I haven't stopped thinking about that ending. If that's what they intended to do, then well done!
I'll make a comment about this that ties in with the music and the ending.
I'm just not sure it was intended. As someone pointed to a lack of foreshadowing, there is no real sense that this leading to Bond's death and it's almost like it got tagged on - perhaps the reason Danny Boyle chose to walk.
You don't get it in the music, which had the chance to be moving but isn't really here. If you want to do death of Bond, ordinarily that would be the main big deal, it would all lead to that. Here, there's so much to unpack and rejig from the last film that it's hard to fit it all in.
There's the sense actually that they needed the death of Bond to redeem the film. Because without it, with the simple ending where Bond storms the island and so on, without his kid, you just have a very standard movie, nothing spesh. Same in a way with Spectre. I loved Blofeld's eerie introduction in Rome. Loved the movie, the music, look of it and everything. But I'll admit - for another fan, not taken by it the way I was, there's not an awful lot there. If it were not called Spectre, and that was not Blofeld, then it would not be much of a film to shake you up. They needed those elements to make it work, the 'Bloefld is my brother' thing makes it distinctive because like Bond dying on NTTD I'm not sure there's anything much else going on there.
What annoys me about the music - it's not so bad but I agree the song is nothing doing, I still couldn't hum it to you - is there's no sense it's leading up to Bond's death. Very possibly neither Billie nor Hans were informed about the ending in order to keep it under wraps until the last moment, if so it worked but the ending seems tacked on.
I'm not quite sure, but are you referring to the Zimmer score as Bond perishes or the Armstrong song at the end? With regard to Zimmer, he's essentially doing a redux of similar bits he's done before -- in a lot of ways, it tracks with his "Journey to the Line" from The Thin Red Line, which was powerful enough it's been used in many movie trailers.
The problem to me isn't the music itself -- though it's not Zimmer's best work and still miles ahead of Newman's -- but that it's played rather low in the background of the action scenes, at least when I heard it. The orchestrations don't have the power they should in what ideally should be the most powerful moment in Bond's life.
I just meant that the kind of score you'd expect for a big moment where Bond carks it - you'd imagine some great cues, some moving bit of music, not too mawkish but given the history of John Barry. Not sure there were any great lovely bits of orchestral stuff recalling Holst or Sibelius - I'm asking a lot I guess but there wasn't that hint of tragedy in the score at any point which made me feel the ending was tacked on and indeed without it you've just got a fairly hum drum Bond film, arguably. Certainly in terms of plot.
Fascinating. I see it quite the opposite. I felt he truly did 'earn it' in NTTD...and when he does finally tell Madeleine that he loves her, at the very end as his death looms, it carries a 16-ton weight's worth of meaning. Using the musical cue in the PTS, of course, summons a sense of dread because of our memory of OHMSS - and clearly Bond is as happy, in that moment, as we've seen him since just before Vesper absconded with the money. Of course, we're meant to assume that it means curtains for Madeleine at some point...and for me, the misdirection works admirably. I see NTTD as the twin sibling of OHMSS...but then again, Ienjoyed the film, so...
In retrospect, the polarization of fans with NTTD - as with the entire Craig Era, and with the varying interpretations of the role, from different actors - seems inevitable.
Ever since DAF (or, perhaps more precisely, since Bond's lame disguise as a Japanese fisherman in YOLT), a segment of fandom has always been unhappy. 😉
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Ever since DAF (or, perhaps more precisely, since Bond's lame disguise as a Japanese fisherman in YOLT), a segment of fandom has always been unhappy.
even before that, BondFan Ian Fleming was unhappy they left the migrating land crabs and giant squid out of the first film, and the gypsy-girls didn't tear each others clothes off in the second!
Being a diehard Bond fan for decades, I did not want to see this film because of the pre-release hype touting its increasing “wokeness,” especially in making 007 a woman. But, that was handled fairly well, and in actuality, Lashanna Lynch didn’t have much to do with the plot anyway, which turns out to be a shame. And, as I would find out at the very end, that was the least of this film’s problems. I like chases as much as the next diehard Bond fan, but this film just seemed to rely too heavily on them. It was just one after the other, and it’s almost as if they didn’t want to bother creating an intricate, believable storyline when yet slapping together another chase would suffice.
But what is really beyond the pale is that the writers – and, even more shockingly, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, who were entrusted by Cubby Broccoli to care for this franchise – have essentially given all the fans who have supported this franchise for DECADES a giant middle finger by killing off not only one of the mainstay supporting players in Bond’s world (Felix); they actually killed Bond himself (or so we are led to believe).
What has made the Bond films great is that it was almost like an old Saturday morning western… It had a formula that worked, based fairly closely off the many novels Ian Fleming wrote. A grave danger is facing the world, and Bond springs into action. He beds many women, downs many a martini, battles many henchmen, and eventually kills the bad guy, saves the world, and gets the girl. He may have been face to face with death, but Bond ALWAYS came out on top. It’s a formula that has been incredibly successful for almost 60 years.
But… What now? We’re left with some pretty dire – and potentially lousy – scenarios for the next picture (which will see a new Bond)… Will they just ignore what happened in this film and start a new chapter with the new Bond (a la Pam Ewing’s “dream season” from the TV series “Dallas”)? The problem with this is that at least when the others – including Daniel Craig – assumed the role, their Bond was not coming back from the dead. It was as if Bond was young, got older, and then a new, young Bond returned to start the cycle all over again. It stretched credulity, but didn’t break it. Will they go full woke and make Bond a woman? A gay man (which I am one of)? That’s NOT how Ian Fleming created this character. How about creating (as Daniel Craig has eloquently advocated) more ORIGINAL roles for women, gay people, etc.? Why should an existing character based off of several novels be the platform for this? Or, perhaps they will write that Bond somehow found an antidote, overcame his bullet wounds, and was spared from the immense blast in the few seconds between saying goodbye to Madeleine and the island’s destruction? This would turn Bond into either a bad soap opera – or, worse - a Marvel story.
Given that the writers and producers have taken this stupid, drastic, and completely unnecessary action, I have little faith in the future of Bond. Better he truly die now than create any more films that ignore/spit on/rewrite this character’s rich history that should remain based off Ian Fleming's work. We faithful and diehard Bond fans deserve FAR better.
One additional point – while I generally liked Craig’s portrayal of Bond (although he was missing that important slight bit of humor that other Bonds have done far better), apparently, he felt like the Bond character was his to do with whatever he wished, and the producers bought into this. He made it no secret from after Skyfall that he had no use for Bond and acted like he was doing everyone a huge favor by being in Spectre and this film. I sincerely hope that, should they bring a new actor in to play Bond, that person will treat it with the reverence and respect it deserves (not to mention to be consistently grateful for getting the acting role of a lifetime that pretty much guarantees lifetime financial security). The only deliciously ironic thing here is that this film was Craig’s Die Another Day/Moonraker/Diamonds Are Forever, and he’ll now go back to being a supporting/bit player or star in another forgettable endeavor.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig's turn as Benoit Blanc is laughable, but he'll be raking in £100m for his next two outings so I doubt he cares that his career is already descending into parody. Speaking of parody, the public are fully behind hiring robotic eye-candy Rege-Jean Page as the next JB, which would almost guarantee a complete watering-down of the franchise to please the safe-space loving kidults of the next generation.
They've backed themselves into a corner with this ending and the only reliable outcome would be Henry Cavill installed as our titular hero with a return to fast-paced action and romance. He proved in Mission Impossible he can handle being an impact player with ruthlessness and purpose but it won't happen.
I fear this is the end, folks. Another tradition ruined by the twits who oversee our culture.
Yeah, they pretty much did away with that when they got rid of Arnold, who I never thought quite rose to Barry's almost preternatural eloquence in evoking emotions with relatively simple but effective chords and so forth. What's strange to me is Zimmer relies on somewhat similar concepts -- he just realizes them with synthesizers and lots of strings. But part of the problem, too, is that modern filmmakers like to play with sound levels, sometimes making an otherwise wonderful score sound barely there and awful music blast eardrums. Having listened to Zimmer's score separately, I noticed two things:
1) It's not his strongest work, but it's a little better than the middle. The best parts are the Barry iterations. The rest is a lot of redux of his earlier work, such as on The Thin Red line.
2) Emotionally, he seemed to be going for a heroic and elegiac finale for Bond, which I suspect the script was, too. But one of the problems is there's not enough in the rest of the score (or the movie) to properly build to that point. Eilish's theme is itself a kind of chord riff on the Barry OHMSS theme, but it doesn't have the same strength to carry all the way through the movie. There's no strong thematic ties, so the score feels rather too generic in parts.
I still think Zimmer's score was better than either of Newman's, but his work is nowhere near as strong in this was as, say, Batman Begins.
Might we imagine that Zimmer was kept in the dark about the finale of the movie to avoid spoilers? So he didn't get a chance to build up to it and do what he might? I mean, if he did it all himself that might help but if he had an orchestra in a room, and the movie is running alongside it, tell me how you keep that ending secret.
Which, to be fair, the studio managed to do with almost military style precision.
There are some jolly souls among us who make me seem like a ray of sunshine regarding the latest film! It is an unusual position for me to find myself in!
That's entirely possible, but as things would have it, I know someone who worked for Zimmer for a few years.
A few points, based on what he told me -- keep in mind I'm getting this all second hand, but I don't have reason to believe the person is making it up:
1) Zimmer is a workaholic, taking pretty much any major job Hollywood throws his way. I was told he does this because he knows if he turns the studios down, they will simply go to someone much cheaper who has his style.
2) Zimmer doesn't write a lot of scores solo anymore. He often employs a battery of others to create the music, which he then approves, revises, uses as a springboard, etc. If that person's contribution is substantial enough, they get a co-composer credit.
3) Zimmer is phenomenally wealthy, but he purchased a home between Hollywood and his actual home and outfitted it with an advanced studio so he could save travel time to keep working.
If all of this is true -- and, again, I can't confirm it, but I don't have any reason to doubt the person -- then it's entirely possible Zimmer didn't even write much of the music for No Time to Die. I could be wrong. In particular, "The Final Ascent" sounds very much like Zimmer. But other pieces are more generic. Perhaps the soundtrack was assembled from the work of various people, which accounts for its unevenness?
Why couldn't they retire him and he lives happily with his girl and kid? Ridiculous they had to kill him. I was so pissed. That's not how he should of gone out. Fleming never killed him in the book. Also 007 should never be anyone else but him. Not a girl. I think they ruined the franchise for the next generations.
The updated James Bond Archives: No Time To Die edition published by Taschen has an interesting passage which reveals that Craig floated the idea that Bond be killed off at the end of his run during discussions for Casino Royale, so this was germinating for a while. Shame on Broccoli for agreeing to to it. It strikes me as an actor putting his ego and personal interests ahead of the character he is portraying. If you want more info here's an article that touches on it:
As for giving Nomi the 007 moniker, after watching the movie I'm convinced it was little more than a publicity stunt, a sad attempt at garnering attention and manufacturing controversy. If you stop and examine her role in the story, she is utterly superfluous and things would have played out exactly the same way if she wasn't even there. She is little more than a minor distraction to Bond in the Cuba scenes; even though she is assigned to find and kill Ash, Bond gets to him first and kills him; and she does next to nothing on the island other than kill the scientist, who would have died anyway once everything got blown up.
I liked the character in many ways, but it should be clearer that she isn't the the lead of coming James Bond movies. Something as simple as M raising his glass to everyone at the wake, calling them by their titles and calling Nomi by any 00-number than 007 would've helped.
Ha! I do notice that Zimmer's scores in the past 20 years or so vary much more wildly than in the previous decade or so. For instance, his scores for Nolan's Batman films, the Sherlock Holmes films, Man of Steel, Dunkirk, and even Blade Runner 2049 are pretty solid. They're powerful, memorable but then others, like NTTD, with the exception of the iterations of John Barry's work and some at the end, seem a lot more general.
Comments
I don't believe I commented in this thread before as I'm not angry about the immensely disappointing NTTD, I am simply immensely disappointed, but the above posts have made me recognise that I was irked by the music score in general. I've read a few reviews of the score [I don't own it yet] and like the film, they seem to reflect a mixed bag with mixed results creating mixed opinions.
First and foremost, I entered NTTD so isolated from all things NTTD I had not even heard the theme tune. When I did, aided by a quick few second blaze of dots a la Dr No and a baffling title sequence full of statues dripping blood, I sat there thinking: is that it? For one of the most hip, young, inventive musicians the U.S. has produced in twenty years to give us such an insipid unmemorable tune was almost unforgivable. There hasn't been a really decent Bond theme since Chris Cornell pumped out You Know My Name. I am fed up with being told I have to slit my wrists every time I listen to a CraigBond theme. In fairness, QOS only makes me want to slit my wrists to end the suffering. Anyhow, Eilish's song is barely noticeable. I wasn't even certain Hans Zimmer used it in his score.
Which brings me nicely to his score. Where was it? Did I hear it? Was in memorable? Did it draw me into moments of tension, inspire me with romantic motifs, did it have any recognisable hooks? No, no, no.
Which brings me neatly onto the use of cues from OHMSS and of course WHATTITW. Zimmer's score is so poor it is only enlivened by including something from John Barry. The two film's vaguely parallel storylines might make Zimmer [or maybe the writers / producers / director] feel they can include this and it will have an emotional pull over its audience. Whether it does or doesn't - and for me it didn't is hardly relevant - what it actually tells me as a cinema goer and Bond fan is they have no faith either in the overall product or the film score, they are trying to tell me this is a significant moment because they believe it is, rather than showing me because it genuinely is. It's not a good way to make movies.
I know we've always had some repetition of themes, but we've never had the whole song repeated. It's unbelievable that Zimmer [or the writers / director/ producers] also don't seem to understand that the song is a HAPPY SONG about love and life continuing forever where the cares of the world will not find us. When Tracy dies, Barry plays a largo paced mute version of the song which is eminently suited to Bond's broken heart and life. In NTTD we have the cheery, upbeat version played for us in the aftermath of Bond's death as if we're being told it's all okay, Madeleine and Mathilde have all the time in the world and they love it. I don't think anyone in my cinema was thinking this was a happy end. Why do we have a happy tune? Play the final turns of the reel without music at all, perhaps, do something original, but goodness me, borrow a previously iconic love song and tag it on like a funeral march? No, no, no.
I'm rambling here and I think I'm making more than one point, but if you can't hire writers and composers to do a decent job when you're spending $300m making a movie, or if you feel the need to hijack their work to retain a semblance of non-existent continuity with a previous film in a franchise, you really need to think about whether you're bright enough for the job any more.
I liked the Zimmer soundtrack better than you did and better than Newman’s sonic wallpaper in the previous two films — don’t get me started on how much I hate that DUH, DUH-DUH, DUH DUH way he punctuates the Bond theme like he’s writing for a TV commercial designed to jar viewers out of their complacency. But I agree that the Armstrong song was just all wrong for the end. It was lazy shorthanding for emotions unearned dramatically and doesn’t even work ironically because it’s never used elsewhere. The throwaway line at the beginning of the film and the song only work because Bond fans already know the significance, meaning it piggybacks on the emotions of OHMSS rather than create its own,
Exactly. OHMSS struck a balance that no later Bond films have managed to precisely strike. It has a proper ratio of drama and outlandish fun; it retains the 60s swing of the Connery films but has emotional force behind the escapades. It’s long, because it tells two stories that intertwine in the last act, but not bloated. It’s self-conscious about Connery’s absence but nothing else, unlike so many later Bond films. There’s a sense of experimentation and play in OHMSS, without the heaviness and self-seriousness that have defined later "serious" Bonds. It was made in an atmosphere of freedom—Connery was gone, everything was up in the air, and the producers let Hunt and Maibaum do what they wanted. That atmosphere will never return, because there are too many corporate cooks in the kitchen, as the leaked Spectre emails demonstrate.
I notice a few people saying they are so very angry about Bond's death they will never watch a Bond film again, the whole series has been rendered meaningless etc.
I just wish to assure you the previous 24 films in which Bond does not die are still there, and can still be enjoyed disregarding what happens in this one. Just like we could all still enjoy the first 23 movies after learning Bond and Blofeld were long lost brothers (which made me far more angry than seeing the death scene of a mortal man who had to die one day)
But I'm wondering what is the underlying reason for such a strong emotional response to a bit of makebelieve at the cinema? Is it something to do with the COVID? Have the 18 months stress and sense of displacement caused by the quarantine caused people to take a movie plot more personally than reason should dictate? We in particular are Bond fans, and were already annoyed it had taken so long for the originally announced release date March 2020, and since then may have pinned some unusual hope on the film's eventual release as being the return to normal we've all been waiting for. And when it finally comes out, its not precisely the nostalgic replication of safe childhood memories we were all counting on, its yet more viruses and death. We've come out the other end of the pandemic (fingers crossed) but the imaginary hero we'd held onto since our childhoods didn't make it.
Me I was just damn glad to finally be sitting in a theatre watching a Bond film at all. I actually shed a tear when I realised I was indeed doing that, back in My Happy Place. I didn't need it to be the same as all the others, and appreciated a clever variation.
It does seem to have rung a particularly despondent bell in fandom. I've seen folks in an absolute depression in the wake of the film. Not sure if it's Covid, or if it's the fact that this particular franchise has been a source of comfort for so many years for a particular demographic of men who haven't bothered with therapy, but people are a mess over this movie. It has jarred in a way that even the end of Logan hasn't.
For me personally, Bond is the only reason I'll go to the cinema. It's always been a slam dunk of a good time, happy ending, and walking out feeling better than when I walked in. I guess it's where I've been a fan of the films for decades, especially the Craig tenure, that seeing him die felt very personal as compared to a hero dying in a one-off stand-alone film. As pathetic as it sounds, I haven't stopped thinking about that ending. If that's what they intended to do, then well done!
I'll make a comment about this that ties in with the music and the ending.
I'm just not sure it was intended. As someone pointed to a lack of foreshadowing, there is no real sense that this leading to Bond's death and it's almost like it got tagged on - perhaps the reason Danny Boyle chose to walk.
You don't get it in the music, which had the chance to be moving but isn't really here. If you want to do death of Bond, ordinarily that would be the main big deal, it would all lead to that. Here, there's so much to unpack and rejig from the last film that it's hard to fit it all in.
There's the sense actually that they needed the death of Bond to redeem the film. Because without it, with the simple ending where Bond storms the island and so on, without his kid, you just have a very standard movie, nothing spesh. Same in a way with Spectre. I loved Blofeld's eerie introduction in Rome. Loved the movie, the music, look of it and everything. But I'll admit - for another fan, not taken by it the way I was, there's not an awful lot there. If it were not called Spectre, and that was not Blofeld, then it would not be much of a film to shake you up. They needed those elements to make it work, the 'Bloefld is my brother' thing makes it distinctive because like Bond dying on NTTD I'm not sure there's anything much else going on there.
What annoys me about the music - it's not so bad but I agree the song is nothing doing, I still couldn't hum it to you - is there's no sense it's leading up to Bond's death. Very possibly neither Billie nor Hans were informed about the ending in order to keep it under wraps until the last moment, if so it worked but the ending seems tacked on.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm not quite sure, but are you referring to the Zimmer score as Bond perishes or the Armstrong song at the end? With regard to Zimmer, he's essentially doing a redux of similar bits he's done before -- in a lot of ways, it tracks with his "Journey to the Line" from The Thin Red Line, which was powerful enough it's been used in many movie trailers.
The problem to me isn't the music itself -- though it's not Zimmer's best work and still miles ahead of Newman's -- but that it's played rather low in the background of the action scenes, at least when I heard it. The orchestrations don't have the power they should in what ideally should be the most powerful moment in Bond's life.
I just meant that the kind of score you'd expect for a big moment where Bond carks it - you'd imagine some great cues, some moving bit of music, not too mawkish but given the history of John Barry. Not sure there were any great lovely bits of orchestral stuff recalling Holst or Sibelius - I'm asking a lot I guess but there wasn't that hint of tragedy in the score at any point which made me feel the ending was tacked on and indeed without it you've just got a fairly hum drum Bond film, arguably. Certainly in terms of plot.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Okay, I found this one...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
'James! I want you to stop this film! Stop this film - right now!'
#NoTimeToGoldenEye
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Fascinating. I see it quite the opposite. I felt he truly did 'earn it' in NTTD...and when he does finally tell Madeleine that he loves her, at the very end as his death looms, it carries a 16-ton weight's worth of meaning. Using the musical cue in the PTS, of course, summons a sense of dread because of our memory of OHMSS - and clearly Bond is as happy, in that moment, as we've seen him since just before Vesper absconded with the money. Of course, we're meant to assume that it means curtains for Madeleine at some point...and for me, the misdirection works admirably. I see NTTD as the twin sibling of OHMSS...but then again, I enjoyed the film, so...
In retrospect, the polarization of fans with NTTD - as with the entire Craig Era, and with the varying interpretations of the role, from different actors - seems inevitable.
Ever since DAF (or, perhaps more precisely, since Bond's lame disguise as a Japanese fisherman in YOLT), a segment of fandom has always been unhappy. 😉
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Loeffelholz said:
Ever since DAF (or, perhaps more precisely, since Bond's lame disguise as a Japanese fisherman in YOLT), a segment of fandom has always been unhappy.
even before that, BondFan Ian Fleming was unhappy they left the migrating land crabs and giant squid out of the first film, and the gypsy-girls didn't tear each others clothes off in the second!
Being a diehard Bond fan for decades, I did not want to see this film because of the pre-release hype touting its increasing “wokeness,” especially in making 007 a woman. But, that was handled fairly well, and in actuality, Lashanna Lynch didn’t have much to do with the plot anyway, which turns out to be a shame. And, as I would find out at the very end, that was the least of this film’s problems. I like chases as much as the next diehard Bond fan, but this film just seemed to rely too heavily on them. It was just one after the other, and it’s almost as if they didn’t want to bother creating an intricate, believable storyline when yet slapping together another chase would suffice.
But what is really beyond the pale is that the writers – and, even more shockingly, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, who were entrusted by Cubby Broccoli to care for this franchise – have essentially given all the fans who have supported this franchise for DECADES a giant middle finger by killing off not only one of the mainstay supporting players in Bond’s world (Felix); they actually killed Bond himself (or so we are led to believe).
What has made the Bond films great is that it was almost like an old Saturday morning western… It had a formula that worked, based fairly closely off the many novels Ian Fleming wrote. A grave danger is facing the world, and Bond springs into action. He beds many women, downs many a martini, battles many henchmen, and eventually kills the bad guy, saves the world, and gets the girl. He may have been face to face with death, but Bond ALWAYS came out on top. It’s a formula that has been incredibly successful for almost 60 years.
But… What now? We’re left with some pretty dire – and potentially lousy – scenarios for the next picture (which will see a new Bond)… Will they just ignore what happened in this film and start a new chapter with the new Bond (a la Pam Ewing’s “dream season” from the TV series “Dallas”)? The problem with this is that at least when the others – including Daniel Craig – assumed the role, their Bond was not coming back from the dead. It was as if Bond was young, got older, and then a new, young Bond returned to start the cycle all over again. It stretched credulity, but didn’t break it. Will they go full woke and make Bond a woman? A gay man (which I am one of)? That’s NOT how Ian Fleming created this character. How about creating (as Daniel Craig has eloquently advocated) more ORIGINAL roles for women, gay people, etc.? Why should an existing character based off of several novels be the platform for this? Or, perhaps they will write that Bond somehow found an antidote, overcame his bullet wounds, and was spared from the immense blast in the few seconds between saying goodbye to Madeleine and the island’s destruction? This would turn Bond into either a bad soap opera – or, worse - a Marvel story.
Given that the writers and producers have taken this stupid, drastic, and completely unnecessary action, I have little faith in the future of Bond. Better he truly die now than create any more films that ignore/spit on/rewrite this character’s rich history that should remain based off Ian Fleming's work. We faithful and diehard Bond fans deserve FAR better.
One additional point – while I generally liked Craig’s portrayal of Bond (although he was missing that important slight bit of humor that other Bonds have done far better), apparently, he felt like the Bond character was his to do with whatever he wished, and the producers bought into this. He made it no secret from after Skyfall that he had no use for Bond and acted like he was doing everyone a huge favor by being in Spectre and this film. I sincerely hope that, should they bring a new actor in to play Bond, that person will treat it with the reverence and respect it deserves (not to mention to be consistently grateful for getting the acting role of a lifetime that pretty much guarantees lifetime financial security). The only deliciously ironic thing here is that this film was Craig’s Die Another Day/Moonraker/Diamonds Are Forever, and he’ll now go back to being a supporting/bit player or star in another forgettable endeavor.
Excellent point. 🍸️
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig's turn as Benoit Blanc is laughable, but he'll be raking in £100m for his next two outings so I doubt he cares that his career is already descending into parody. Speaking of parody, the public are fully behind hiring robotic eye-candy Rege-Jean Page as the next JB, which would almost guarantee a complete watering-down of the franchise to please the safe-space loving kidults of the next generation.
They've backed themselves into a corner with this ending and the only reliable outcome would be Henry Cavill installed as our titular hero with a return to fast-paced action and romance. He proved in Mission Impossible he can handle being an impact player with ruthlessness and purpose but it won't happen.
I fear this is the end, folks. Another tradition ruined by the twits who oversee our culture.
Ian Fleming's my film-buddy. If he's upset a bit got left out of the adaptation, I am too!
Yeah, they pretty much did away with that when they got rid of Arnold, who I never thought quite rose to Barry's almost preternatural eloquence in evoking emotions with relatively simple but effective chords and so forth. What's strange to me is Zimmer relies on somewhat similar concepts -- he just realizes them with synthesizers and lots of strings. But part of the problem, too, is that modern filmmakers like to play with sound levels, sometimes making an otherwise wonderful score sound barely there and awful music blast eardrums. Having listened to Zimmer's score separately, I noticed two things:
1) It's not his strongest work, but it's a little better than the middle. The best parts are the Barry iterations. The rest is a lot of redux of his earlier work, such as on The Thin Red line.
2) Emotionally, he seemed to be going for a heroic and elegiac finale for Bond, which I suspect the script was, too. But one of the problems is there's not enough in the rest of the score (or the movie) to properly build to that point. Eilish's theme is itself a kind of chord riff on the Barry OHMSS theme, but it doesn't have the same strength to carry all the way through the movie. There's no strong thematic ties, so the score feels rather too generic in parts.
I still think Zimmer's score was better than either of Newman's, but his work is nowhere near as strong in this was as, say, Batman Begins.
Might we imagine that Zimmer was kept in the dark about the finale of the movie to avoid spoilers? So he didn't get a chance to build up to it and do what he might? I mean, if he did it all himself that might help but if he had an orchestra in a room, and the movie is running alongside it, tell me how you keep that ending secret.
Which, to be fair, the studio managed to do with almost military style precision.
There are some jolly souls among us who make me seem like a ray of sunshine regarding the latest film! It is an unusual position for me to find myself in!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That's entirely possible, but as things would have it, I know someone who worked for Zimmer for a few years.
A few points, based on what he told me -- keep in mind I'm getting this all second hand, but I don't have reason to believe the person is making it up:
1) Zimmer is a workaholic, taking pretty much any major job Hollywood throws his way. I was told he does this because he knows if he turns the studios down, they will simply go to someone much cheaper who has his style.
2) Zimmer doesn't write a lot of scores solo anymore. He often employs a battery of others to create the music, which he then approves, revises, uses as a springboard, etc. If that person's contribution is substantial enough, they get a co-composer credit.
3) Zimmer is phenomenally wealthy, but he purchased a home between Hollywood and his actual home and outfitted it with an advanced studio so he could save travel time to keep working.
If all of this is true -- and, again, I can't confirm it, but I don't have any reason to doubt the person -- then it's entirely possible Zimmer didn't even write much of the music for No Time to Die. I could be wrong. In particular, "The Final Ascent" sounds very much like Zimmer. But other pieces are more generic. Perhaps the soundtrack was assembled from the work of various people, which accounts for its unevenness?
That's an excellent and interesting post, @Gassy Man
Gets other people involved? He should have called in Trevor Horn off Buggles.
'MI6 Killed the Double-0 Star...'
We would have gone out with a lively spring in our step.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Why couldn't they retire him and he lives happily with his girl and kid? Ridiculous they had to kill him. I was so pissed. That's not how he should of gone out. Fleming never killed him in the book. Also 007 should never be anyone else but him. Not a girl. I think they ruined the franchise for the next generations.
The updated James Bond Archives: No Time To Die edition published by Taschen has an interesting passage which reveals that Craig floated the idea that Bond be killed off at the end of his run during discussions for Casino Royale, so this was germinating for a while. Shame on Broccoli for agreeing to to it. It strikes me as an actor putting his ego and personal interests ahead of the character he is portraying. If you want more info here's an article that touches on it:
As for giving Nomi the 007 moniker, after watching the movie I'm convinced it was little more than a publicity stunt, a sad attempt at garnering attention and manufacturing controversy. If you stop and examine her role in the story, she is utterly superfluous and things would have played out exactly the same way if she wasn't even there. She is little more than a minor distraction to Bond in the Cuba scenes; even though she is assigned to find and kill Ash, Bond gets to him first and kills him; and she does next to nothing on the island other than kill the scientist, who would have died anyway once everything got blown up.
I liked the character in many ways, but it should be clearer that she isn't the the lead of coming James Bond movies. Something as simple as M raising his glass to everyone at the wake, calling them by their titles and calling Nomi by any 00-number than 007 would've helped.
Ha! I do notice that Zimmer's scores in the past 20 years or so vary much more wildly than in the previous decade or so. For instance, his scores for Nolan's Batman films, the Sherlock Holmes films, Man of Steel, Dunkirk, and even Blade Runner 2049 are pretty solid. They're powerful, memorable but then others, like NTTD, with the exception of the iterations of John Barry's work and some at the end, seem a lot more general.
I agree with you man. And NTTD is my least liked Bond ever.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS