|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I'll admit, I was confused when the fearsome speedboats never showed up and Safin just... Stayed on the island. Same. I guess they were there to add a ticking clock but it still felt like a thread that needed closing. Safin is going to meet them while surrounded by guards, but then goes to close the blast doors by himself? Even the "Disputed Island International Incident" plot doesn't really go anywhere.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
The only ticking clock in the finale is the UK doesn't want the other nations to find out that they built a nanobot superweapon, both a) because it's difficult to explain and b) because knowing it can be done means everyone will make one. Things are only happening the way they are happening because the UK needs to cover its tracks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I'll admit, I was confused when the fearsome speedboats never showed up and Safin just... Stayed on the island. To be fair, if I were piloting those boats and a shitload of Chinese, Russian, and Japanese fighters started measuring dicks overhead, I'd fuckin' peace out, too. Alchenar posted:The only ticking clock in the finale is the UK doesn't want the other nations to find out that they built a nanobot superweapon, both a) because it's difficult to explain and b) because knowing it can be done means everyone will make one. Things are only happening the way they are happening because the UK needs to cover its tracks. But the hosed up thing is that it'll ~eventually~ get out. Genetic markers are weird. A few dozen people who are unlucky to share similar-enough genes with the targets will just die horrifically and publicly every so often and ~eventually~ someone will detect the nanovirus since even with all the other omissions, they took the time to *specifically mention* that it stayed active even in the CORPSES of those it killed. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Oct 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Right. The whole issue is the UK making secret weapons and them not wanting others to know about it. If this was just a normal terrorist with a nuke or something, they could just shoot those speed boats and get help from the other countries. And you wouldn't have to worry about the blast doors, just keep shooting missiles. Oh and you can send in more than 2 people. But the whole aspect of secrets has made everything needlessly complex: the same as Bond and his relationships. In reality of course, it does get out and then they just blame it on US frozen foods or something. Or just more CIA experiments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
It's honestly a disgrace that the movie didn't end with in order to prevent an international incident/WW3, M has to take all the blame. Whoops I ordered an erroneous missile strike, my bad. Has to resign in dishonor. That would have fully satisfied me. I was fine with Bond's story, but that was a lovely way to keep up the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Simply Simon posted:It's honestly a disgrace that the movie didn't end with in order to prevent an international incident/WW3, M has to take all the blame. Whoops I ordered an erroneous missile strike, my bad. Has to resign in dishonor. That would have fully satisfied me. I was fine with Bond's story, but that was a lovely way to keep up the status quo. Yeah it's one of the few times that the series has acknowledged what the UK's ruling class is actually about and just does nothing with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Simply Simon posted:It's honestly a disgrace that the movie didn't end with in order to prevent an international incident/WW3, M has to take all the blame. Whoops I ordered an erroneous missile strike, my bad. Has to resign in dishonor. That would have fully satisfied me. I was fine with Bond's story, but that was a lovely way to keep up the status quo. They could've easily done that too since they'll likely have to reset all the support cast for the next Bond, so they could do that to M and still keep the status quo. I guess it'd be a hollow sacrifice then, though. And maybe they wanted the ending to focus more on James.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
All they had to say was that there was terrorist on the island. I guess they could have added some lines about the diplomatic problem at end, but it was all about Bond at that point. Like would you really want to see M sacrifice after a Bond sacrifice? No one cares about M. No one is watching this for M. This was Bond's moment, no reason to talk about M after that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
checkplease posted:All they had to say was that there was terrorist on the island. No no, it’s a gas leak
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
I finally saw the movie, in a theater, no less (which incidentally reminds me of all the annoyances involved with that). A couple of random observations/takes: 1. I never got a real sense of the villain, despite all of the "My entire family was killed" plot device. What did he want? What was his plan? Selling weapons to the highest terrorist bidder seems to make sense, but that's suicidal because you still have murderous nanobots out there, who could kill anyone at any time. 2. I really liked M having to deal with choices he's made in the past. I read the movie as a criticism of national secrets - how governments are in a constant cold war to obtain information before the other "team" (e.g: Bond disgusting M because he "worked with the CIA"), and how this arms race can quickly and easily get out of control. I'm sure someone else far smarter than me has pointed this out already: it felt like a meta-commentary on the Bond franchise itself, and intelligence/state secrets in general. 3. The use of We Have All The Time in the World was very effective. The movie did a great job of contrasting the car ride at the end of OHMSS with the car ride at the end of this one. 4. As soon as the Black and female 007 came on screen, I knew chuds were going to have a shitfit over it. Good. It'd be interesting to see if she becomes the "new Bond" in future movies. I hope MAGA world loses what passes for its mind if they do. Maybe I'm talking out of my rear end, as usual. I liked the movie, but Casino Royale is probably better overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
I really liked this movie. It had an excellent theme of "the old dinosaurs need to gracefully leave the scene and let the younger (and more diverse) generation take over," which was generally well reinforced by the characters, especially the new 007 and the Cuban girl who looks incredibly young and under-qualified but turned out to be super-competent. Obviously Bond's death after literally creating another generation of Bond works too. Though I thought the movie could have used more of an epilogue - since the Craig era has been an explicit continuity this is also presumably goodbye to these iterations of the side characters, and it would have been nice to give them a proper send-off. Also, as some have suggested they could have had M step down (since everything was his fault, he caused and international incident and thematically he is a "dinosaur") and maybe Moneypenny gets the job, which would have reinforced the theme better. The villain was underwhelming, but I got the feeling that they simply didn't have space for him within the rest of the characterisation and at any rate, who really needs a megalomaniacal Bond villain explained any more? Also, did anyone notice just how much Bond was hit point-blank with explosions and survived without a single injury except being a bit stunned? It happened so many times that I began to suspect that it was some kind of subtle theme on the fact, considering that Bond actually dies in an explosion in the end, this was alluding to the fact that actually due to capitalism James Bond can never truly be allowed to die, and will even survive his unambiguous death. That's almost certainly some galaxy brain bullshit though!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 14:39
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Also, did anyone notice just how much Bond was hit point-blank with explosions and survived without a single injury except being a bit stunned? It happened so many times that I began to suspect that it was some kind of subtle theme on the fact, considering that Bond actually dies in an explosion in the end, this was alluding to the fact that actually due to capitalism James Bond can never truly be allowed to die, and will even survive his unambiguous death. That's almost certainly some galaxy brain bullshit though! Yes I did. When he was hit with one of the grenades in the missile silo I almost thought for a second that it contained one of the botanicals that the villain had been hyping up earlier - the plant that "makes you do as you're told", etc. But then he just shook it off. I thought the "poison garden" thing, which was pretty cool, sort of went nowhere, similar to the moment in Spectre when Bond was supposed to have forgotten everyone he ever knew. Same with Safin capturing Mathilde (Madeleine's daughter); I thought the movie was going in a direction where she would be infected with Heracles or something like that, but she was just able to run away. Safin might have been using her to bait the trap for Bond, though. F_Shit_Fitzgerald fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
I feel like the movie kind of knowingly handwaves away Safin’s ultimate motives in that scene with Bond and M where they’re like “What is he after?” and they just list off a few super bad guy traits and leave it at that. Like he achieved his initial goal, and now he just wants to do bad things because…why? I dunno, he’s just a bad dude, could be money or power. Who cares anymore. Not saying that makes the ambiguity of his ultimate goal more palatable, but there’s definitely self awareness from the movie that he’s now just there in service of furthering the other character’s arcs along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Also I picked up on a little detail that’s probably another nod to Dr No. In the intro, when Safin gets shot up by Madeleine, and then springs back to life a bit later, one of the bullet holes is shown to be right where his heart is. The kicker is that in the book, Dr No is explained as having his heart on the opposite side of his body. Could be a little wink and a nod at people familiar with the character without making it explicit. Combine that with the literal Noh mask and the Asian decor elements on his island and, yeah. I think they were basically going for a “take” on that character without explicitly being like “Hey look, we’re doing Dr No!” Like more of an homage than anything. Edit: thinking back, doesn’t someone towards the end refer to him as “Doctor” while they’re on his island? I swear I heard that happen at one point not to mention the title sequence opens with the colorful dots across the screen from the original Dr No movie. Anyway that’s my Bond lore nerd thesis thanks for reading man nurse fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
man nurse posted:Also I picked up on a little detail that’s probably another nod to Dr No. In the intro, when Safin gets shot up by Madeleine, and then springs back to life a bit later, one of the bullet holes is shown to be right where his heart is. The kicker is that in the book, Dr No is explained as having his heart on the opposite side of his body. Could be a little wink and a nod at people familiar with the character without making it explicit. Combine that with the literal Noh mask and the Asian decor elements on his island and, yeah. I think they were basically going for a “take” on that character without explicitly being like “Hey look, we’re doing Dr No!” Like more of an homage than anything. Speaking of that scene, it's weird that they ended up doing nothing with that mask. The intro made it seem like it was going to be more of a thing - like other members of Safin's organisation would wear them too and it'd be their symbol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
stev posted:Speaking of that scene, it's weird that they ended up doing nothing with that mask. The intro made it seem like it was going to be more of a thing - like other members of Safin's organisation would wear them too and it'd be their symbol. There's a lot about Safin that's 'we do this for one scene because it looks cool and then it doesn't really tie into anything else in the film'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
That's good tho. Only babybrains need poo poo explained to them, or indeed even for movies to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Honesty Trailers is hit or miss but I enjoyed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyrp3aR-ytE
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Late on the discussion here, but I thought NTTD was pretty decidedly medium. Some good parts, some bad parts, right in-between the two good and two bad Craig films. I have a lot of the same complaints as others but some I haven't seen mentioned yet are, in no particular order: Leiter's death seems to have certain visual allusions to Vesper's death but that doesn't seem to affect anything or get referenced later unless I missed it. Maybe it got cut, but dear lord, this felt like an Extended Cut with all the extraneous (but cool) crap they could have cut. I felt Malek's makeup really should have been more visually distinctive. In some scenes in low lighting, it sort of just faded into his skin color. Or my local projection was just dim. The graphic pustle-busting deaths seemed real out of place in a bond film, especially in the first 40 minutes of this 566 minute film. Sure, the villians have to die in interesting and horrible ways even in the Craig era, but normally its after 1: They do something bad and 2: you know who they are. These people were nobody. What the gently caress was with that Butcher Bay baby bouncer they put Waltz into? It looks like something you'd use to hold Magneto. There's a lot to dislike in that scene, but I can probably find a way to forgive the bionic eye, the fact that it's Swann who is the therapist even though she's clearly got some Spectre association. But that personal rapid transit is so loving stupid. Worst of all, it looks cheap. I saw the state department guy and said "Hey, I know that guy but where from?" That's because he was one of the douchey mortgage brokers in The Big Short. Good on him for getting this role, I just wish your death was not so bleeeeeh. Like, I don't want to get squashed by a car's roof but the existence of the windows and pillars just makes it feel visually less threatening. It's not helped by the fact that this two ton truck is being suspended by this splintery log. Considering the first scene where they fight, it could have been way better. Can an opening credits sequence spoil a movie? Once the allusions to genetics started coming in, I was immediately like. "Wait, what does this have to have with genetics?" Like, they often contain clear alluisions (water, gold, parasols and volcanos, the end of the cold war, technology, oil, casino cards) but only in ways that are not part of twists. When they are eulogizing bond, why does no one mention the fact that they've done this before? Twice? Once during Skyfall, once between Spectre and this movie. That is the type of poo poo you need to have on point if you want to have your connected universe bullshit, but maybe the response to Spectre alleviated the producers of those silly notions. I hope the next bond takes place in the modern day and opens with the same scene as For Your Eyes Only where he's putting flowers on the grave of Tracey Bond just to gently caress with people's heads. I don't think that having Fiennes M be involved in the super weapon works very well. It's a sort of negative character enconomy. For a different example, when Dench M gave up Silva during the Hong Kong handover, we have no counterevidence that she was not currently M. Even Brown M was brought in at an indeterminate previous time, bur Fiennes M was put in at a canonical time. So did he start it during that tenure? Was it from his previous position? Why does Bond know about it if it's so off-book, especially since it's presumably need-to-know and Bond was so disapproving of it even though he's been out of the loop for five years? The movie uses this to try and demonstrate that this is a government acting badly, and that's a fine theme... but the way it fits in stretched credulity and raised so many questions. Perhaps it would be better served by making it either not from MI6 (remember when bad guys could just do things?) or by having MI6 stick to its guns and say "We love nanoweapons and we're gonna kill James Bond if he tries to stop us." to lean into the govt out of control angle. loving product placement wind tunnels lol eat my rear end this isn't Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer here you cheap motherfuckers Still a huge, huge improvement from Spectre. Which, as has been said before, is a low bar. Thinking on these issues make me wonder if it's closer to Quantum than I thought, but I haven't seen that one in a while because is suuuuucks. Just not as hard as Spectre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
Well i just watched it,not only did i get a very good James bond movie i also got Metal gear solid with the numbers filed off. (And even a bit of Jurassic park with the forest)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Also hugh dennis! Oh dear hugh dennis 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Things that stood out in no particular order: Bond throwing the henchman down the concrete stairs and landing on top of him,ow. The bridge bit at the beginning was great,especially diving into the nook and the car going over. What the gently caress was wrong with that one extras face before the spectre poisoning? He looked like mick hucknell wearing a michael myers mask? The bond girl in the dress was far better than the 00 lady. The american was fantastic,his survivability wasn’t too unbelievable either. Lol the movie is now jurassic park. Ahh a magnetic watch,that’s clearly going to be used with the magnetic bomb from earlier right? (Lol no) The arm break. The Mgs-ness if it all. Q acting surprised was hilarious. That kid would be annoying if she wasn’t so goddamn cute,give her an oscar. What was the bad guys plan again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
My main takeaway from this a week later is that I would totally watch a movie of Ana de Armas doing spy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Yep, she was great. Despite all the predictable manbaby whining about """"""""woke"""""""", I appreciated the fact that this film highlighted women agents who were as good or even better than Bond. It's not the frist time this has been done (agent Triple X, the Russian ballet dancer from View To A Kill) but this is one of the first times it was prominent in the story line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Yep, she was great. Despite all the predictable manbaby whining about """"""""woke"""""""", I appreciated the fact that this film highlighted women agents who were as good or even better than Bond. It's not the frist time this has been done (agent Triple X, the Russian ballet dancer from View To A Kill) but this is one of the first times it was prominent in the story line. Tomorrow Never Dies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
Darko posted:Tomorrow Never Dies. Hell, even Jinx in Die Another Day. They so wanted her to be a thing, but it didn't work out. I hope they have more success with the characters coming out of this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2021 08:04
|
|
|
I’m very glad that the only thing everyone agrees on is that they want more Ana de Armas in everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:They could've easily done that too since they'll likely have to reset all the support cast for the next Bond, so they could do that to M and still keep the status quo. Why? Judi Dench's M stayed from Bronson to Craig. Fiennes is a top actor, can see why they'd want to keep him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
Brazilianpeanutwar posted:Things that stood out in no particular order: This culminated in a shootout towards the end where he runs out of ammo, looks up at the literal shooting gallery of dudes trying to ice him, goes like "ah they're stopped shooting for no reason", calmly gets a new magazine, reloads out in the open, and only then dives behind a pillar as they start shooting again. THEN he kills them all with the charges he and 007 planted earlier. There were action scenes with legitimate tension, where I felt like he was in danger because he acted like it, but often that was not the case and it was just very weird. Compare for example in GoldenEye where it's kind of ridiculous that 20 dudes shooting up through the grating never hit Bond or Natalya, but Brosnan books it and Natalya is terrified, which sells the danger much better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 11:42
|
|
|
To be fair the first time it happens he was deaf from being blown up,the second time in the woods he was luring the enemy(plus it was very foggy)he probably figured they had no chance of hitting him. I found it more annoying when the 00 lady shot the guy,he fell ]nto the acid trench and everyone just looks at her like whaaa? Also when the enemy busts into the control room and she just kind of….walks out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 12:33
|
|
|
oxford_town posted:Why? Judi Dench's M stayed from Bronson to Craig. Fiennes is a top actor, can see why they'd want to keep him. Their fates are all tied to Craig's Bond in a way Dench's M wasn't with Brosnan. Q's first MI6 mission was with Craig, Moneypenny is behind a desk after shooting Craig, Mallory is M because Dench died at Craig's family home. It'd be weird to see them mourn such a central figure to their lives and then interact with a new actor later who's supposed to be the same guy. They could keep the actors if they wanted but they'd have to jettison their character development.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:
Does character development matter for characters that are essentially Basil Exposition? M and Moneypenny's characters don't change tons over time except when they get recast (Lois Maxwell is not Samantha Bond) or replaced (Lee's M retiring/dying being seemingly replaced in-universe by Brown, etc). Frankly, does it matter to Bond? Even when something can effect Bond like a personal tragedy such as Tracey's murder, he continues to be mostly the same emotionally repressed alcoholic sociopath. I think we could properly call these characters mostly static. Casino Royale and Vesper being something of an exception to this, as that change is mostly necessitated by it being an origin story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
Honestly I'd be fine with the next movie starting with some new agent joining MI5 and earning the James Bond codename. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
It's not per se character development, it's development of character interactions, and you can just have that again. Old M and new Bond has a lot of potential, like - you know - Dench M and Craig Bond had.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Does character development matter for characters that are essentially Basil Exposition? M and Moneypenny's characters don't change tons over time except when they get recast (Lois Maxwell is not Samantha Bond) or replaced (Lee's M retiring/dying being seemingly replaced in-universe by Brown, etc). Frankly, does it matter to Bond? Even when something can effect Bond like a personal tragedy such as Tracey's murder, he continues to be mostly the same emotionally repressed alcoholic sociopath. I think we could properly call these characters mostly static. Casino Royale and Vesper being something of an exception to this, as that change is mostly necessitated by it being an origin story. I don't think it matters to the overall Bond character but it'll still be a step for the audience to have to realize that these are the same actors playing the same characters but not the same characters, if that makes sense. None of what we saw them do the last few films ever happened because the guy they did it with died, and yet here he is talking to them anyway. I know Bond continuity is very "don't think about it" but it still felt like the Craig films had their own complete arc that won't be as easily reset as previous Bonds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Yeah,new actors,new world,new James.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Brazilianpeanutwar posted:Yeah,new actors,new world,new James. I'm in favour of jettisoning England from the series. Set it in New Zealand, they deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
They already stole from Austin Powers, I say the next iteration should borrow heavily from Archer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Brazilianpeanutwar posted:Yeah,new actors,new world,new James. With new enemies And new threats. But you can still depend On one man One of the best teaser trailers ever, and way better than the 'let's spoil the big twist' full one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
I just want a nice boring story with no world ending poo poo,just some good low level bad guys (that aren’t island owning fajillionaires with 500 armed guards)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2021 00:52
|
|