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

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978594#Comment_117978594

No I get that; it's a good shout as he can be at once charming one moment, cold the next; just mentioning that as actors go, Fassbender seems to have Other Projects that, unfortunately, would potentially complicate his interest.

Declan A Walsh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978675#Comment_117978675

Roger Moore was in fact 45 when Live and Let Die was released in June 1973 - he was born October 1927. He was 57 when his last Bond film was released in May 1985 - A View to a Kill - and had turned 58 when he announced his retirement later that year. You would have had him aged in his sixties! Although, given his age, Roger did last a long time as Bond.

Ideally, I think the new James Bond should be in their late thirties, or, failing that, early forties.

siblers

If they go down the 'classical' route I think James Norton would fit the bill quite well.

Agent Coulson

That was a complete load of bollix.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117980315#Comment_117980315

He did himself no favours in McMafia - he was about as compelling as a plank of wood in that miniseries.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978675#Comment_117978675

Yes, but by the time Moore was making 'For Your Eyes Only' he was already saying, himself, that he was too old for the part. Fassbender in his mid 40's is just beyond the age he needs to be to start into a franchise like Bond and I'd say that he has zero interest in being Bond anyway. Ditto for Tom Hardy who's been touted. Just cannot see that happening.

That being said, Daniel Craig is going to be a really tough act to follow no matter who takes up the mantle. His Bond, for me, is easily the best iteration of the character, even with the variable quality of the movies with 'Spectre' being the only true dud however.

The bigger problem the producers have with Bond, though, is just what to do next storywise.

Declan A Walsh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978675#Comment_117978675

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117980227#Comment_117980227

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117981856#Comment_117981856

Tony EH was quoting santana75's post but did not see my reply.

Long time since I've enjoyed a Bond movie, probably Casino Royale. I think is about as good as its going to get for modern Bond. Some of the recent ones really were garbage, and I had seen better finales in episodes of the A-Team.

Very hard to fault this in my opinion apart from the ungainly 007 who looked about as nimble as a prop forward, a Grace Jones' esque cat like female is what is needed there. But fantastic action, continuity, clever story line, Malik who seems to be getting a lot of stick online delivered his role brilliantly. The DNA's stuff was very clever.

Would love to know how to do spoiler tags, since all the options have disappeared from the interface to do such things, so don't read any further if you have not seen it....

I would have no problem with Bond being done now, they decided when they brought Craig in to do a story arc and have continuity, and with that he has to die at some point so they made their own bed there. Theres not a single character worth hanging onto apart from him in that film, and the little girl. So maybe it is Time to Die for Bond.

But we can be fairly sure since originality in writing is being phased out of popular film whatever they return with will be extremely predictable and formulaic. It will be very hard it to be anything else. A marvelesque origins story is predictable and formulaic before it even begins. I don't have an ounce of hope for the future of Bond. But am very satisfied they concluded this instalment with such class.

MisterAnarchy

Amazon recently spent $8.45 billion buying MGM yet people are saying Bond is done.

James Bond is going nowhere.

pixelburp

Bond as the mega-blockbuster might be done though - speculating on the broader topic of whether the modern blockbuster can exist in the coming cinema landscape.

Meanwhile, the Broccolis might have denied it would ever happen, but I'd not rule out a pivot to TV in some form either.

conorhal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978112#Comment_117978112

The Man from UNCLE was probably the best Bond movie of the last decade IMO, but I'm a sucker for a more period Bond in which nobody is 'hacking to the extreme! and everything revolves around Bourne-esque computer nonsense'. Is there anything less cinematic then a bunch of people standing around computer monitors?

If I had my way Bond movies would return to less dreary, more stand alone affairs, in a period setting and I'd let directors like Tarantino, Nolan (who has long expressed a desire to make a bond Movie) and even Guy Ritchie make one-shots that are intended to be little more then fun crowd pleasers.

Of course the big reason you'll never get a period bond movie is a) period films are expensive and b) offer little opportunity to get money up front from BMW, sony, Samsung and whichever advertisers pay for a good chunk of the explosions budget.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983048#Comment_117983048

I think the JB franchise will lose a lot of loyal fan base, as in the older generation. Once you kill off James Bond it’s essentially ended the current nearly 60 reign of replacement bonds- they can do what they like next time but it doesn’t mean the loyal following will support. They’ve caused a lot of angst and upset ( strong words I know) amongst some fans out there, if you look at some of the JB forums.

for me, the James Bond series of films that I knew and loved had ended- it was probably time to ditch that approach anyway - and that’s fine but I won’t be looking forward to a new JB film like I was in the past- it will just be another blockbuster action film like most others - in some respects they’ve done away with part of what made these series of films special

Sleepy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983114#Comment_117983114

Your last point is, I think, a major problem for the Bond franchise. With a bit of creativity though, surely they could work out product placement deals with many of their existing advertisers? A re-release of a vintage Omega Seamaster, a launch of a tie-in retro Heineken bottle that matched their 50's era branding etc.

The model of Aston Martin being used doesn't hugely matter (as seen in this one, the hero cars were the DB5 and 80's Vantage - we barely saw the DBS Superleggera and similarly with the Land Rovers - it was the vintage ones we actually saw Bond driving). For the purposes of this kind of advertising, it's the association of the brand with James Bond that's far more important than actual product. Few enough movie-goers can afford an Aston Martin but hundreds of thousands of them might buy the associated Lego Model or other Aston Martin merchandise on the basis of that association...

Realistically I think the only advertising tie-ins you'd have trouble with in a period setting would be the mobile phones etc. and I'm sure alternative advertisers could be found to plug that gap (e.g. using vintage Coca Cola or Pepsi signage in background scenery / as a billboard Bond smashes his DB5 through etc.)

No Time To Die needs $900m box office just to break even (reportedly),

due to both big production and marketing costs and taking into account the Box Office split (which some stupid reporters fail to take into account)

No film this year has come close to a figure of $900m

Although probably can count on $100m of product placement (some of which like Nokia phones went out of date with release delays and had to be edited digitally) which is not mentioned here

That would bring it down to $700m or so for break-even

Of course there is longer-term revenue from streaming etc also but that's further down the line

https://movieweb.com/no-time-to-die-most-expensive-james-bond/

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984140#Comment_117984140

Just because a budget is $350m though, does not mean that $350m was spent to make the film.

This is the cost the production would incur if they had to pay for everything. In reality, tax credits and product placements quickly whittle the real number down.

Norway gave tax breaks to shoot in the country and I'm sure there were other similar deals.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984279#Comment_117984279

production budget is normally quoted as net budget (e.g. after tax breaks)

and it's $314 million for NTTD, not $350 million and that figure of $314 million was bloated by interest costs of about $35 million due to the long release date delays

e.g. Spectre cost over $300 million to make but was about $250 million after tax breaks

Spectre broke the bank: it’s rumored to be among the most expensive films in history at a reported $250 million budget “after tax breaks.” (The upside of that stunning Day of the Dead opener is that Mexico reportedly coughed up $20 million in tax breaks to help keep the budget down.) 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/11/james-bond-spectre-box-office

Spectre cost over $300 million to make, according to leaked Sony emails from 2014. That makes it nearly twice as expensive as Skyfall - the previous Bond film in the long-running franchise, which cost between $150 million to $200 million. However, Sony Pictures need not be too worried about Spectre’s budget if the box office revenue is anything like Skyfall’s, which brought in $1.1 billion.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/the-007-effect-james-bond-the-spy-who-loved-brands-1.2407236

Dades

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983750#Comment_117983750

Much as I hate to say it, those of us who love Bond after watching Roger's movies as a kid, are not the target audience. Bond will always be a recognisable brand, but they won't be afraid to go after the cash if it comes from the next-gen bums on seats.

Think of The Force Awakens; basically a $2B grossing reboot for the next generation of Star Wars fans. Rise of Skywalker then shat all over the preceding movies and still made a billion.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983094#Comment_117983094

Jeez Bond to TV? I find that hard to envisage.

I think us 40+'s are going to have to come to terms with the idea that Bond as we know it is gone. Its a bit sad really. I am probably doomed now to bitter nostalgic posts forever more on whatever they do with it. I hope to be surprised but I can't see it.

StevenToast

"Bond as we know it"...what is that?

Have you watched the Roger moore films lately....most of the old bonds are cringe...

one of the best bonds is actually the one with george lazenby..great soundtrack and diana rigg....

Timothy daltons ones are very watchable, brosnan..only goldeneye is worth watching again...

Daniel Craigs ones are all solid entertainment especially Casino Royale...

They should go back and do one off stories with one off Bonds, something like a Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy feel...

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984656#Comment_117984656

The Bond franchise is a very archaic beast in Blockbuster Cinema; if this film "flops", or some set of conditions make the films more hassle than they're worth, then it's not beyond the bounds of possibility Bond could pivot to a medium that has - in the last few years - itself become more accommodating towards adult, high-budget entertainment. Game of Thrones is the obvious comparison here, with its many international shooting locations, FX heavy set-pieces and so on. Bond wouldn't look out of place or incongruous on a big budget station.

What's "Bond as we know it" anyway?. The franchise has been a famously moveable feast. With each actor has come a huge variation in tone and execution. Beyond the lead character, could you really draw a line between something like The Spy Who Loved Me, and Casino Royale? Heck even within a single actor's run - Same question re. Live and Let Die, and Moonraker!

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984656#Comment_117984656

I think every generation of 40+ year olds have had to come to that realization.

I wouldn't mind a 60s set OO series with other OOs. That way it doesn't have to clash with any OO7 movies and can do its own thing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984732#Comment_117984732

Bond in a tv series just will not compute in my brain. Flat out refuses to accept it!

Perhaps Bond as we know it, should have been "Bond as I know it". Its probably a personal thing for everyone because its one of the few mainstays of film, the only one I can think of right now that have kept going from a small kid until now. Bond coincides with many great family memories, and moments in life. All of the different actors and movies had their place at the time. Sure they were different (with a few v dodgy ones scattered here and there), but there was a formula that worked. I feel like it changed with the story arc they input to the Craig era. I had almost given up on it after the last few disappointments, but I feel like they nailed it with NTTD, a modern version of the bond formula that I know and love(d). It brought me back, not for a second watching it during the long run time was I bored, or wishing it was something else. It was as good as James Bond could ever been in 2021. Now they killed him, it does feel like that mainstay has ended, it can't be what it was before whatever they do in the future. I could well be being overly dramatic, but that's my gut feeling. Sure its worth too much money, there have been buyouts, but I just feel what comes next will be something different, and what was special about James Bond will be gone.

The Black Oil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117972820#Comment_117972820

I was thinking back on this because of

Spoiler Warning

The opening sequence.

The harshness of the climate there and Safin's actions were a good watch, I thought. Whilst he's a bit creepy later on e.g. Madeleine's office, we don't get enough of sense of him more so in the meat of the film or towards the end. It's a pity. 

Mad_maxx

No ,he was forty five when live and let die was released

Wedwood

My first trip to the cinema as a kid was The Man with the Golden Gun and since then I’ve seen the various movies and Bond actors go in and out of fashion, so I wouldn’t pay too much heed to the debate either way on the new movie.

Connery was always seen as the best, however Moore got the bragging rights in 1983 when his movie (Octopussy) outperformed Connery’s Never Say Never Again in the year of the battle of the Bonds. Lazenby and OHMSS were originally ridiculed and now lauded as one of the best, including the new movie taking pieces from it. Dalton was shown the door after License to Kill underperformed in 1989, it’s now considered one of the better movies.

Brosnan was considered a return to form at the time and his 4 movies broke previous box office records for Bond movies. His movies are now considered among the worst (apart from Goldeneye).

As for Craig? Time will tell where he eventually ranks among the other actors.

Personally for me, the test of whether a Bond movie stands the test of time is if I want to watch it again over the Christmas holliers. The ones I never tend to select are Diamonds are Forever, Die Another Day and Craig’s movies. While Craig’s movies are decent enough, there’s something about them that deters you from wanting to watch them again, a bit like the MCU movies. Maybe that will change over time, or maybe its an age thing.

There are more cinema goers under 40 than over 40

Future Bond movies will not be seeking to pander too much to aging bond nostalgia nerds

(comment a propos those in general talking about the bond heritage / past bond movies etc and not directed at you specifically at all Wedwood)

FunLover18

Well that was pretty much what I expected. The Craig era completes it's reversion to a more campy type of film with witty one liners and grand villain entrances (seriously the moving chair?) while trying to maintain a gritty serious tone. It just doesn't work for me and I have no problem with those classic Bond tropes in the old movies but with CR Craig's era tried to distance itself from that stuff which I was excited about. I have no intention of watching NTTD again but I would imagine if you watched CR and this back to back it would be very jarring. I don't think this or Spectre did nearly enough to sell the romance between Bond and Madeline either and if you don't buy into that it's not going to work. Finally the movie is just way too long and it doesn't need to be. You could have cut 5 minutes out with the moving chair mentioned above.

Tony EH

The Craig (era) completes it's reversion to a more campy type of film

Ugh...not good.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986436#Comment_117986436

I thought that this movie deliberately abandoned two of the biggest Bond Tropes of all - Bond as the master seducer of all new nubile women on screen and secondly the obligatory casinos, both absent. Film felt more modern as a result.

Having one scene where the villain goes down through the floor does not make a film campy and I wouldn't call it that.

the only really campy scene I would have said was the AdA / Craig bar scene for the shootout in the bar in Cuba and that was certainly intentional

Didn't buy the Lea Seydoux character or the relationship in Spectre at all but really worked for me in NTTD even though I thought in advance that it wouldn't at all - she was very good I thought and particularly in the key early part of the film to establish the credibility of it.

Certainly a success for me overall.

Would agree that the whole appreciation of the movie depends on if you're dismissive of Lea Seydoux's character or not.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117986494#Comment_117986494

I have no problem with Bond not getting it off or not going to a casino but this film makes one major change to the character that the Craig era has been working towards, I can't get into without spoilers but it didn't work for me.

Perhaps "camp" is the wrong word, but Bond makes a couple of one liners, there's a gadget that takes a very familiar form (and leads to one particularly egregious quip), I wasn't referring to the trap door but to one character's prolonged entrance which honestly felt like something out of an Austin Powers movie, we even got a lair with hazmat suits. As I said I don't mind camp but this film tries to cover it up with layers of grit and "darkness" and it's out of sorts with what we got in Craig's first two outings. I tend to be in the minority though when it comes to the Craig films.