James Bond

I'm guessing Blofeld will be released by Safin and then immediately killed.

I don't think they're going to kill Blofeld off so quickly after getting him back.

I guess they're going for an MI Fallout feel, with Blofeld being like Solomon Lane and all that jazz.

The only acceptable way for Blofeld to get hit with Sudden Sequel Death Syndrome is by dropping him down a smokestack while he whines.

Anyways, I know I keep bringing up MI Fallout, but on further thought, it looks as though No Time To Die seems to be taking several cues from it, at least if that trailer is any indication. You think EON has been taking notes from the recent MI films?

It wouldn't surprise me, given that they are probably frustrated that Bond has been completely routed by Ethan Hunt in recent years.

There's definitely an element of Follow the Leader given that by trying to keep Bond relevant the studio does seem to take inspiration from other, popular movies of the time. When Casino Royale came out the action was widely compared to the Bourne series for example.

The best of the Craig films (for me) was Skyfall which was explicitly about whether Bond even IS relevant any more, which got pretty meta.

What elements of MI Fallout are featured here?

Here is a preview of No Time To Die.

Headlight guns are one of those Cool, but Impractical things. You can try it out in GTA V Online now, with a few new cars having this sort of guns in the headlights. It's great... when you manage to get a steady aim, which is quite a feat in a chase, especially with an uneven road. It also has the same issue as the gattling guns on helicopters, namely that you basically have to drive straight at something you want to shoot, which does not help steering in a chase.

Edited by Redmess on Dec 8th 2019 at 11:12:09 AM

It seems like it's been repeated in every film. M gives Bond flak for acting like a cowboy in Casino Royale. Skyfall has Mallory (and maybe M?) asking why Bond came back when he could have retired. Spectre had the whole 00 program being taken to task by a villain who wanted to replace it with a global surveillance system.

I'm kind of sick of the whole "nobody trusts Bond" storyline that gets repeated in one form or another in these films... and don't get me started on this continuity's treatment of female characters.

So far, I'm not impressed. Already burned money on Spectre, and I knew of the story leaks beforehand.

Edited by crazyrabbits on Dec 11th 2019 at 5:50:17 AM

Yep, and it looks like this movie will go the "nobody trusts Bond because he is a man" route.

To be fair, Bond does seem to have a habit of going rogue (ish) on a fairly regular basis. Yes he does eventually come through but he's a bit of a wild card.

Yeah, that would probably be a career killer in real life, even if he did succeed.

He also tends to go from "kind of incompetent" to "only man who can save us" and back throughout the series.

I don't know if it's competence as much as effectiveness. Often the situation could be well handled by a bland-looking, competent undercover agent with minimum fuss and minimal fall out. What we get is dramatic shoot outs, high speed car chases and presumably a ton of paternity suits because, well, its a Bond movie. If a real life "secret agent" caused a fraction of the collateral damage and publicity Bond does they'd swiftly be retired or even... "retired."

Sometimes it is flat out incompetence. Goldfinger comes to mind, where Bond just bumbles his way through the movie, and even flubs the bomb defusion, which was laughably easy when you think about it.

After seeing Bond's gatling gun-equipped car I want to see him face the crew from Fast and the Furious.

Random thought of the day.

Wouldn't be the craziest thing they've done.

I feel sorry for the poor city who has to endure that.

Yeah, talk about collateral damage... We joke about Bond being irresponsible, but really, it's the entire attitude of the secret service in these movies, when you think about it.

Though at least classic Bond had the excuse that he was preventing large scale disasters (up to and including the complete destruction of human civilization), which makes almost any level of collateral damage an acceptable loss.

I could swear I read a statement from Barbara Broccoli or somebody that said the reason Bond doesn't do super-grandiose country/world-scale stories anymore is because, well, a certain thing that happened in 2001 made that sort of gigantic evil plan a little too real.

Really? I know 9/11 was shocking, but it was hardly a world spanning plot, let alone world ending.

As M said all the way back in Casino Royale, "they don't care what we do, they care what we're photographed doing".

It needs to be said that 9/11 was more than 18 years ago. We can recognize and respect the tragedy without obsessing over it and infusing it continually into our entertainment and cultural discourse. The series hampers itself by continually trying to capture the essence of a War on Terror-era action movie even while the genre's losing steam and the kind of ridiculous spy movie Bond used to be known for is back in style.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Dec 12th 2019 at 11:02:19 AM

I agree, not every action movie needs to be a terrorist movie. I'd like to see a return to more imaginative villains with plots that are less topical than terrorism.