I found this was a common problem with 4K material and set my OLED to a "AI brightness" setting that is clearly not AI but solves the darkness issue, particularly with Dolby Vision and HDR.
I think something like this too, they won't even refer to NTtD at all. If it was up to me, start with the gun barrel opening and then a pre-title sequence that establishes the 'new' Bond, clearly showing this is a Bond who is a 00 agent and already experienced. When Brosnan took over from Moore there was nothing to indicate this was a different Bond or a Bond at the start of his career, they just got on with it. As an aside whilst I can understand the approach they had for Craig's debut with Casino Royale and having the gun barrel sequence as part of the opening they should have then gone back to the standard opening for QoS and Skyfall. I always think the gun barrel sequence puts you into the world of Bond and sets everything up for what is essentially going to be some very entertaining and exhilarating entertainment which is though really a load of nonsense if applied to the real world. Anyway back to the main point, have a really great song for the credits which harks back to the more traditional Bond sound (like Skyfall did) and by the time we see Bond going into to have a quick chat with Moneypenny and then onto see M through the padded door for his latest mission everyone will have forgotten about the end of NTtD. Stop with all the Bond is going rogue crap and just let him be a secret agent with a license to kill again doing the dirty stuff on OHMSS. Get all of that right and they will be fine, blow it and then some of the audience will be sat there thinking this isn't as good as the last fella... as was ever thus. For the record I thought Craig was a very good Bond and the story arc was fine but it's been done now and time for a reset and back to basics.
Yes, please. No more "You're a relic"-type stuff. We all know the idea of Bond is outdated but clearly people still enjoy the fantasy. Let us have it.
Exactly. Kid or no kid, I didn't't pay money to see Bond get blown up and die. I paid money to see him get blown up, make a miraculous escape and end up marooned in some watercraft with the Bond girl while he waits for MI5 to pick him up.
Yes, that was so labored starting with Skyfall. Bond was over the hill and there was no place for him. And by extension the entire double-0 program was antiquated and of no use. It was a really obnoxious theme that made Skyfall my least favorite of the Craig films. They made the theme a touch more relevant in Spectre because of M's superior. But to really avoid the whole issue I agree with the above posts to get back to basics. The best way to do that is a period piece set in the cold war. I would love a maticulously recreated 1960s world with everyone having a smoke and sets evoking the golden age of Hollywood, but with a more modern approach to action sequences. Now that's the type of Bond setting everyone could appreciate.
Having enjoyed the movie of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy I could see a period Bond with real attention to detail working really well. I haven't seen anything of the new TV mini series The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, but if that was successful, then a period Bond could have legs.
I would love it, too. But, good luck avoiding the continuous PC stuff they have to shove down our throats . I'm afraid the only things they would get right if they made a period piece would be the cars, the dresses and the buildings. The rest would just be a mirror of these sad times. Heck, on some boards there were people bashing Ridley Scott's "The last duel" because it wasn't inclusive enough. FFS, I wonder what somebody was expecting from a movie taking place in 14th century in France.
I don't think the producers will take the risk of a period Bond film - remember that "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." film lost a fortune and that had modern action in a 60s setting a few years back. My suspicion is some sort of semi-reboot. I still do think we might just see Rami Malek back with a completely new Bond and MI6 - badly needed in both cases: Craid really is too old and his MI6 is so boring - Ralph Fiennes as posh, grumpy boring boss man; Rory Kinnear as almost as posh, slightly flustered and even more boring assistant to boss man; Naomi Harries wasted as Moneypenny with essentially nothing to do; and Ben Whishaw ok as Q. Brosnan's films had a wonderful MI6: Judi Dench, Samantha Bond, Desmond Llewellyn, Michael Kicthen and Colin Salmon were all great in their parts.
I don't know if this has been said in the last 60 pages, but to me it was made pretty clear in the final scene how the franchise is going to move forward. Every film from here on out is going to be a visualization of Madeleine Swann telling her daughter about James Bond. I don't know if that will be made explicict at the start of the next movie (probably not), but I thought it was pretty clearly implied. James Bond is dead, but she'll be telling her daughter lots of stories about things he did, which we, the audience, will get to watch. Everything he does from here on out will have occured in the past. I agree with others that I really just want to see Bond go on a mission. I really liked Daniel Craig, but am disappointed that we never got a "normal" Bond movie from him in which Bond simply went on an assignment. Somehow he became the greatest 00 agent, but we never got to see how. All we got was him continually going rogue, at the start of his career, and then suddenly being washed up and trying to leave the service.
A great point that was said by others earlier in more forceful ways...but the real story is that the world (and political correctness) have changed so much that there's no way Craig could be the real 007, in the Ian Fleming sense. So while it would have been great to see real missions, there would be no real bad guy or real smoking, drinking and kicking butt. It was all just a product of our times. That's also why a real period piece would never work. I don't think even Mad Men could be made in 2021.
And here's a link to an interview with Barbara Broccoli about what they're doing with the Bond franchise in the future (without a lot of specifics)... Why ‘Bond’ Mogul Barbara Broccoli Has Earned a License to Chill – The Hollywood Reporter
Interesting thought but I see it as being another reboot somehow. You do make good points how he never simply went on assignment . Guess they just wanted a total departure from the same old.
I kind of guessed that they felt like simply being another Bond movie would be too passe and boring at this point, and that they had to jazz it up to make it more appealing to modern audiences by always including some other dramatic element involving him getting suspended, or quitting MI6, or kidnapping M to protect her, etc. Not saying I agree at all, but I assumed they thought it would be too boring without some added component.
Yes and they felt they were competing at the start of the Craig series with the Bourne movies. I think Daniel Craig and the caliber of actor he is had something to do with the kind of stories you saw. He probably had a good deal of input to make the character more fleshed out as a person and give him something more to work with as an actor. Some of the stories really worked Casino Royale, an excellent movie even if not a Bond, Skyfall and think the last one was very good.
I just watched No Time to Die a second time. It can be purchased now on iTunes for a reasonable price. The second time through you pick up on all the things that went by too quickly the first time. And you notice all of the foreshadowing. I pretty much enjoyed it more on my TV than in the theater. I loved it in the theater and I'm glad I saw it that way. I just really hate going to a movie these days. Doesn't matter, I don't want to see most of them anyway. I really can't imagine that there's much they can do now to surpass or better the Daniel Craig films. But if they make another one I'm sure I'll want to see it. Probably not in a theater though.
I love Craig as Bond and the Madeleine and Paloma characters were great Bond girls, but this movie had so many plot and logic holes that it kept me from liking it. Thumbs down from me. The stunt work was mostly fine, except for the gun play at the end where the bad guys could not hit anyone and the good guys never missed. That became repetitive and boring. Question: Did the Madeleine character come from a previous movie? I don't remember. Are we supposed to know who she is at the beginning?
She was introduced in the previous movie, "Spectre." I did think it seemed a little forced that she became the love of Bond's life in this movie; their relationship in Spectre didn't seem especially more significant than the typical Bond girl fling. Vesper Lynd will always be the one that Craig's Bond seemed to have a legit bond (so to speak) with. I saw "No Time To Die" for the second time last week, and concluded that it's just okay. I probably liked it slightly less on the second viewing. It's fine, but nothing about it really stands out as particularly special to me. It'll likely be the first Craig Bond movie that I don't buy on DVD. I still watch "Casino Royale" occasionally; it's just a fun movie to watch. Nothing about "No Time" really gives me the desire to want to watch it again (other than Ana de Armas!). I put it in the same category as "Spectre" in that regard.
