No Time to Die **Spoilers from post #1449 onward**

The Late Late Show

FunLover18 wrote: »

Now known as No Time To Die. Fairly meh, feels similar to Die Another Day.

No Time To Die seems to be a cliched title borrowed from Die Another Day. Shatterhand or The Property of a Lady would have been better. But they went with a cliched Bondish title (when you cannot come up with anything else, make sure you have a statement type title with the words live, kill or die in the title. Hell, Live, Kill or Die could be a Bond film title itself! Or failing that, Boris Johnson as Brexit Bond 007 in Do or Die!!).

The Late Late Show

pixelburp wrote: »

The synopsis also confirms that Bond starts the film retired, putting more truth on the rumour that there's another 007 at the start of the film...

The hint in the title is someone close to Bond dies. The new 007? Madeleine? Both. I get the feeling this will be an expanded version of the last few minutes of OHMSS and the pre-title of Diamonds Are Forever! Or a remake of Licence To Kill?

loyatemu

"So we're all agreed on No Time To Die as the title, right?"
"Meh, it'll do. Somebody check to see if Shirley Bassey is still alive..."

The Late Late Show

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Yes ,and Lethal Weapon 2 was also released that summer.
The 3 highest grossing films of the year in the US were Indiana Jones,Batman and Lethal Weapon 2 so it was insanity going for a summer release.

There are going to be an Indiana Jones and a Batman coming out in the next couple of years too. No Time To Die needs to avoid the time these are out but should because these are scheduled until after 2020. That is assuming the delay prone new Bond film does not have further delays!

Dades

It's a fairly cliched title for me. Like they put some words together to form something that sounds Bondy.

Fair enough if they can somehow work it into, not just a one-liner, but the plot of the movie.

At least Taylor Swift will have something to work with for the theme song. :pac:

pixelburp

The Late Late Show wrote: »

The hint in the title is someone close to Bond dies. The new 007? Madeleine? Both. I get the feeling this will be an expanded version of the last few minutes of OHMSS and the pre-title of Diamonds Are Forever! Or a remake of Licence To Kill?

I don't read it as that: more of a link to Bond's starting, retired status. Dragged back into the field 'one last time'; no time to die just yet Bond, your country needs you. As said, presumably the Inciting Incident when Lashana Lynch's 007 agent is killed (no doubt, just as she finishes uploading a SHOCKING piece of intel to the MI5 servers)

JP Liz V1

Dades wrote: »

It's a fairly cliched title for me. Like they put some words together to form something that sounds Bondy.

Fair enough if they can somehow work it into, not just a one-liner, but the plot of the movie.

At least Taylor Swift will have something to work with for the theme song. :pac:

Dua Lipa or Lady Gaga likely

I want to see what Post Malone could do

branie2

I really like the title

The Late Late Show

Dades wrote: »

It's a fairly cliched title for me. Like they put some words together to form something that sounds Bondy.

Fair enough if they can somehow work it into, not just a one-liner, but the plot of the movie.

At least Taylor Swift will have something to work with for the theme song. :pac:

It is a typically 'Bondy' title. A statement with the words live, kill or die in it as I said before is always used as a play it safe title. Plus such a title has not been used since 2002.

This could also mean a move back towards the traditional take down a mega-villain type Bond not seen since 2002 either. Villain planning world destruction to either extort money or set up some twisted 'utopia' and the like.

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't read it as that: more of a link to Bond's starting, retired status. Dragged back into the field 'one last time'; no time to die just yet Bond, your country needs you. As said, presumably the Inciting Incident when Lashana Lynch's 007 agent is killed (no doubt, just as she finishes uploading a SHOCKING piece of intel to the MI5 servers)

That could be it too. You can bet the term 'no time to die' will be used like this. The pre-title could be about the new 007 being chased and killed but able to deliver some document or the like to the right venue like MI6 HQ or an embassy. It would be an update of the East German part of Octopussy after the opening credits. Bond would not appear at all in the pre-title and would be seen after the credits in Jamaica relaxing and then getting a visit to return.

branie2 wrote: »

I really like the title

The title is a typical Bond one. A little cliched yes but it is fine. Let's hope this is a good Bond film though: we have been waiting a long time for it!

paleoperson

I think it's a terrible title. First of all, should it be: "(this is) no time to die" or "(i have) no time to do"? You could use every other Bond title in conversation, it would take some thinking to come up with a situation where you'd say No Time to Die (You Only Live Twice of course being a saying).

Worst Bond title yet.

pixelburp

In a world where Quantum of Solace and Octopussy exists, I'm not sure it quite qualifies as the absolute worst. A bit limp and generic perhaps, but at 25 films in its hard not to come off a little derivative at this stage.

Agent Coulson

He starts this one retired and another 007 takes up the role ok.

He was presumed killed by Moneypenny for months before coming back in Skyfall so where was the replacement 007 in that one?

Dades

Agent Coulson wrote: »

He starts this one retired and another 007 takes up the role ok.

He was presumed killed by Moneypenny for months before coming back in Skyfall so where was the replacement 007 in that one?

People presumed dead get stretched periods of time before people start dishing out their stuff.

If Bond declares himself retired, then his employer gives him his P45 and can reassign his office, callsign etc. at will.


I note too that Pierce has been talking up a female Bond.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pierce-brosnan-endorses-female-bond-get-way-guys-1237752

Still nonsense to me, and not at all empowering in any way to women.

B.A._Baracus

Dades wrote: »

I note too that Pierce has been talking up a female Bond.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pierce-brosnan-endorses-female-bond-get-way-guys-1237752

Still nonsense to me, and not at all empowering in any way to women.

That's just Bronsan generating some PR for himself. Whatever way the wind blows you blow that direction yourself when in the public eye. Seems every male character has talk about becoming a woman. Some work (like Doctor Who) but others nah.

There should never be a Jane Bond. Sure, if people genuinely wanted to see that, well some movie studio should create a new franchise with a woman secret agent. The bond movies don't have a monopoly on the spy movies. Jason Bourne came along. They even tried it years ago with Angelina Jolie and Salt. Cool, fair enough. Keep Bond James Bond is what me thinks.

pixelburp

Brosnan or the Dali Lama - or Cillian Murphy at that, who spoke the other week - can natter about Female Bonds 'til they're blue in the face, as their opinion holds about as much water as ours More fool you for sharing the articles, and giving a celebrity-actor some oxygen and leaning into obvious clickbait.

The Late Late Show

Dades wrote: »

I note too that Pierce has been talking up a female Bond.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pierce-brosnan-endorses-female-bond-get-way-guys-1237752

Still nonsense to me, and not at all empowering in any way to women.

I think this female Bond thing is ridiculous but people have latched onto it in recent times for some reason. Misogyny in Bond films most certainly is there and could be dropped and no one at all would miss it. Bond treating and respecting women better would add to the franchise not take from it.

But turning classic literary characters into the opposite gender is wrong. A female Bond would work as well as a male Offred. Bond and his films are products of their era and the Bond character has been so far updated but kept faithful to his roots too.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

That's just Bronsan generating some PR for himself. Whatever way the wind blows you blow that direction yourself when in the public eye. Seems every male character has talk about becoming a woman. Some work (like Doctor Who) but others nah.

There should never be a Jane Bond. Sure, if people genuinely wanted to see that, well some movie studio should create a new franchise with a woman secret agent. The bond movies don't have a monopoly on the spy movies. Jason Bourne came along. They even tried it years ago with Angelina Jolie and Salt. Cool, fair enough. Keep Bond James Bond is what me thinks.

Doctor Who worked because of the nature of this series. It was not defined strictly what the character was. Jane Bond, The Handman's Tale, etc. no. A female lead spy movie franchise could be done and could even be a spinoff from Bond featuring another 00 agent. Bond could cameo in some of these films and she could cameo in some of the Bond films. Perhaps, the comics were ahead of their times here. DC had both the male Batman and Superman and the female Wonder Woman for instance and these still remain popular to this day.

brevity

Don’t really care if 007 is a woman tbh.

If they got the casting right and with some clever writing and interesting character development then it might be something worth watching.

MisterAnarchy

The Late Late Show wrote: »

I think this female Bond thing is ridiculous but people have latched onto it in recent times for some reason.

What about turning Bond into a dog like they did with the Muskehounds ?
I can definitely see big potential in that .

cdgalwegian

brevity wrote: »

Don’t really care if 007 is a woman tbh.

If they got the casting right and with some clever writing and interesting character development then it might be something worth watching.

I think 'Jett' could pull it off, no probs.

sligeach

Jane Bond?

silverharp

it has to be up there with trying to have a female Sherlock Holmes or Inspector Clueso for that matter , just because you could doesn't mean you should

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

it has to be up there with trying to have a female Sherlock Holmes or Inspector Clueso for that matter , just because you could doesn't mean you should

Why not? They made Watson a woman in Elementary and it turned out perfectly fine - in fact it added an interesting new dynamic (and not a romantic one at that) to an otherwise well-worn IP - despite the wailing and knashing of teeth at the outset. A female Sherlock Holmes would be an equally interesting idea, depending on where they took it.

The character's 132 years old - it's already so far removed from its original setting, it should be well capable of withstanding variations to its format. And going by adaptations like Elementary, works quite brilliantly when subtle changes are made. Took long enough to make Holmes an actual junkie, for one.

As for Clouseau, he's just a vehicle for broad farce-comedy, via a terrible French accent. Nothing about him demands a male actor.

cdgalwegian

Cis-characterisation. Is that a thing yet?

Tony EH

Besides using familiar names as a cheap gimmick, 'Elementary' really nothing to do with 'Sherlock Holmes'. Ditto with the Benylin Cabbagepatch one.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

Besides using familiar names as a cheap gimmick, 'Elementary' really nothing to do with 'Sherlock Holmes'. Ditto with the Benylin Cabbagepatch one.

Don't agree with that: many episodes have riffed on Holmes stories - including the obvious like Hound of the Baskervilles - while Sherlock himself is simply transplanted into a modern setting, where his recreational chemistry presents the obvious story thread to pull, making him a junkie. Equally, putting Watson as a 'sober companion' is a more organic development of the codependence between the two characters than the superficial & archaic "gentleman bachelors" concept that is uniquely Victorian - or the fanboy'ing of Moffat's version.

All the usual figures and totems from the books have turned up, while the introduction of Morland Holmes as the father to Sherlock & Mycroft was a great addition to the 'canon' (not sure if a father was ever mentioned in the books). Being a 22 episode season on US Network TV meant there were a lot of "case of week" stories between the arcs, but that's part & parcel of US TV. Otherwise I honestly think of it as one of the more 'faithful' adaptations of the original material out there, one that expanded on the thin characterisation of the books into something pretty decent.

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

Why not? They made Watson a woman in Elementary and it turned out perfectly fine - in fact it added an interesting new dynamic (and not a romantic one at that) to an otherwise well-worn IP - despite the wailing and knashing of teeth at the outset. A female Sherlock Holmes would be an equally interesting idea, depending on where they took it.

The character's 132 years old - it's already so far removed from its original setting, it should be well capable of withstanding variations to its format. And going by adaptations like Elementary, works quite brilliantly when subtle changes are made. Took long enough to make Holmes an actual junkie, for one.

As for Clouseau, he's just a vehicle for broad farce-comedy, via a terrible French accent. Nothing about him demands a male actor.

there is no need for it, its going to feel forced, and its kind of saying new female characters are less bankable which is a bit patronising too.
Take a “female Sherlock Holmes” it would either fall into the trope of a female overly aping certain male characteristics which “our brains” tend not to buy into or you would just end up with something like a Miss Marple character who wouldn’t click with being the Sherlock character we expect, it would be too far off.
At the end of the day Twitter audiences don’t translate into bums on seats , I tend to wish these kind of movies fail cos they are pretty much guaranteed never to be great and often flops or just unwatchable.

Dades

Sure, a woman couple play Sherlock Homes. The character has already been reimagined (successfully) in recent years on both TV and film. But why?

Like Bond, it would come over awfully forced. There's no reason or advantage to doing it except for the sake of it. And I'd imagine that's the part most people have an issue with. Shouting "Look! A woman can do what men do!" in this fashion does not progress anything.

Bond is a fist-fighting womaniser with a back story that has defined his character. Women can be super-spies in their own story. Just look at Ilsa Faust from Mission Impossible. She's one of the best things about the last two movies.

I've annoyed myself still talking about this!

Dades

Dades wrote: »

Sure, a woman couple play Sherlock Homes. The character has already been reimagined (successfully) in recent years on both TV and film. But why?

Like Bond, it would come over awfully forced. There's no reason or advantage to doing it except for the sake of it. And I'd imagine that's the part most people have an issue with. Shouting "Look! A woman can do what men do!" in this fashion does not progress anything.

Bond is a fist-fighting womaniser with a back story that has defined his character. Women can be super-spies in their own story. Just look at Ilsa Faust from Mission Impossible. She's one of the best things about the last two movies.

I've annoyed myself still talking about this!

That's the key part for me. He has a back story. For example, he went to Eton. They don't allow girls in Eton.

There are plenty of female super spies. Black Widow from the Avengers springs to mind. Angelina Jolie in Salt etc. My favourite modern-ish military movie is G.I. Jane.

The tone of the Bond movies has changed when it comes to women. In Skyfall Moneypenny was a field agent and sniper before becoming a secretary. Bond girls are no longer just bimbos.

Retrofitting James Bond with a uterus is just stupid and as you said does nothing for the cause.

pixelburp

Dades wrote: »

Sure, a woman couple play Sherlock Homes. The character has already been reimagined (successfully) in recent years on both TV and film. But why?

Well, why tell stories at all? If we can't update and tweak 140 year old characters for different perspectives or interpretations, then surely all art & entertainment must be fresh every 5-10 years, no? Or else adaptations must be rigidly contemporaneous to the time of writing - so Elementary becomes utterly void in that case. Yet plenty will tell you there's only so many human stories in the world anyway.

You say "forced", but is that because apparently Sherlock MUST be a man? IMO, he's barely a character in the first place: in fact, go for it. Without naming anything of his appearance (which in of itself is influenced by a TV adaptation, that Basil Rathbone version IIRC), if you tried to give a postage-stamp summary of Holmes, there's nothing particularly unique to his personality that marks his gender. Arrogant savant genius with a recreational drug habit. Consults with Scotland Yard, with his best friend & audience surrogate, Dr. Watson.

James Bond, totally and I get it; he's a male power fantasy of sex and debauchery. Fine. Sherlock? Naw. Smartest Man in the Room, but that's easily flipped.

He's an archetype more than a character - so then, make him a woman and see what happens the story. That's literally half the creative process in my experience. Everything's "forced", it's fiction! Think of a scenario, then throw a grenade into it and see what happens. Writers, at the end of the day, are sadists or else have severe Daddy/Mommy issues Which, as it happens, is ultimately where Elementary went as its seasons ticked on.

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

Well, why tell stories at all? If we can't update and tweak 140 year old characters for different perspectives or interpretations, then surely all art & entertainment must be fresh every 5-10 years, no? Or else adaptations must be rigidly contemporaneous to the time of writing - so Elementary becomes utterly void in that case. Yet plenty will tell you there's only so many human stories in the world anyway.

You say "forced", but is that because apparently Sherlock MUST be a man? IMO, he's barely a character in the first place: in fact, go for it. Without naming anything of his appearance (which in of itself is influenced by a TV adaptation, that Basil Rathbone version IIRC), if you tried to give a postage-stamp summary of Holmes, there's nothing particularly unique to his personality that marks his gender. Arrogant savant genius with a recreational drug habit. Consults with Scotland Yard, with his best friend & audience surrogate, Dr. Watson.

James Bond, totally and I get it; he's a male power fantasy of sex and debauchery. Fine. Sherlock? Naw. Smartest Man in the Room, but that's easily flipped.

He's an archetype more than a character - so then, make him a woman and see what happens the story. That's literally half the creative process in my experience. Everything's "forced", it's fiction! Think of a scenario, then throw a grenade into it and see what happens. Writers, at the end of the day, are sadists or else have severe Daddy/Mommy issues Which, as it happens, is ultimately where Elementary went as its seasons ticked on.

they tend to go down the road of Mary Sue's and incompetent males easily disposed off, means less tension and more cringe.
If someone suggests a female reboot of Heat ...ill form an orderly Q of people saying Fck off!