Bond 25 - "No Time to Die" (2021) (1 Viewer)

[Tom-G]

Is there any chance, like a legit chance from official material we've seen so far, he won't be he hero in movie #25 who saves the world? I'm not a Bond expert by any stretch-so correct me if I'm wrong-but Skyfall wasn't about saving the world. It was a revenge plot against M, right? If I'm right, by your definition, he isn't the same character in that movie because he didn't save the world.

Okay, let me rephrase this since this is getting so nuanced: I would like Bond to be the hero of the film whether he's saving the world, M, a puppy, kitten, whales, etc. rather than having him take a backseat to another character just to set up a sequel.

 

[Worth]

You want him to be the same since Dr. No? I don't think he's stayed the exact same character from film to film regardless of actor or time period. All characters evolve and change. Actors, writers, directors and producers all contribute to the change. Having a character be the exact same person from film to film is boring...they need to change and grow within the confines of the actual character.

I actually do want him to be pretty much the same character - I don't want him to grow or change. We go to different movies for different reasons, and I don't watch Bond for character development. I watch it for the set-pieces, the spectacle, the design, the music, to be immersed in the world of 007 for a few hours. Bond is a fantasy, and fantasies don't need to change. I'm tired of the movies feeling the need to make everything personal for Bond - can't he just go on a normal mission for a change?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm tired of the movies feeling the need to make everything personal for Bond - can't he just go on a normal mission for a change?

Thats my biggest request for the franchise. Craig hasn’t had a non-personal mission in his entire run. You could argue the same of Brosnan too. It felt like they had earned a trip to that well with Licence To Kill but the trope has been repeated in pretty much every film since. I have a similar issue with the Mission Impossible film franchise - Tom Cruise’s character must go rogue in every single one of them. He never gets to go on a mission because his bosses think he’s a competent agent capable of getting the job done. I don’t remember that being a required plot point in every episode of the show.

 

[Jason_V]

I actually do want him to be pretty much the same character - I don't want him to grow or change. We go to different movies for different reasons, and I don't watch Bond for character development. I watch it for the set-pieces, the spectacle, the design, the music, to be immersed in the world of 007 for a few hours. Bond is a fantasy, and fantasies don't need to change. I'm tired of the movies feeling the need to make everything personal for Bond - can't he just go on a normal mission for a change?

I'd argue the opposite, actually. Every character needs to evolve. If they learn nothing during a story to advance them as a character, then the entire exercise is just spectacle and nothing else. I know that's what some audience members want and I won't begrudge that, but if anything a character learns or experiences (thereby changing the character a slight bit) in one story doesn't impact the next in some way, I don't get the point of it.

Okay, let me rephrase this since this is getting so nuanced: I would like Bond to be the hero of the film whether he's saving the world, M, a puppy, kitten, whales, etc. rather than having him take a backseat to another character just to set up a sequel.

Fair. I just wanted to make sure I understood your position.

 

[Worth]

I'd argue the opposite, actually. Every character needs to evolve. If they learn nothing during a story to advance them as a character, then the entire exercise is just spectacle and nothing else. I know that's what some audience members want and I won't begrudge that, but if anything a character learns or experiences (thereby changing the character a slight bit) in one story doesn't impact the next in some way, I don't get the point of it.

With Bond specifically, I think he's less a character and more of an attitude. Connery and Moore played him with a sort of ironic detachment, which was the right approach, in my opinion. With the exception of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and to a lesser extent Casino Royale, I think any attempts to humanize or add depth to the character have fallen flat.

 

[Cranston37+]

 

[Jake Lipson]

I have every confidence that they are going to send Craig's version of this character out with style and they aren't going to marginalize him in his own movie.

Craig didn't have to come back for this. He could have walked away after Spectre, and appeared to seriously consider doing so. He has also made enough money off of Bond, and his other roles, that he would have been able to continue living comfortably without making it.

That tells me that he signed on because this is something he wanted to make. If he was going to be pushed to the sidelines of his own film, why would he have signed on for that?

 

[Atari]

Any chance this will be offered for $20 rental opening weekend like Bill & Ted was? I'd prefer not to wait for the disc, but probably won't go to a theater this year.

 

[TravisR]

Any chance this will be offered for $20 rental opening weekend like Bill & Ted was? I'd prefer not to wait for the disc, but probably won't go to a theater this year.

I doubt it. The movie needs the theater chains and chains won't play it if it goes PVOD. At most, it may be PVOD a few weeks after it opens in theaters but I don't think they have any leverage to force that kind of deal with theaters.

 

[Tommy R]

If this really is playing in theaters come November I hope that theaters in my area actually end up opening back up so I can have the option. There’s one movie theater open, but so far has only been playing New Mutants and Unhinged. No Tenet, no Bill and Ted. No idea if Bond will play or not, unless there’s some plan for more locations to actually open. I’ll pay for OnDemand at home if not.

 

[Tom-G]

If he was going to be pushed to the sidelines of his own film, why would he have signed on for that?

Because his salary is 25 million dollars.

 

[Jim*Tod]

The new trailer is impressive. But I have to admit it is doubtful I will be comfortable going into any movie theater this year. I would not be surprised if the release date gets moved again.

 

[Worth]

Because his salary is 25 million dollars.

That's less of an incentive when you already have over $100 million.

 

[Wayne_j]

I see they are being somewhat flexible with their opening date, they are fine with this trailer as long as they manage to open sometime in the month of November.

 

[Cranston37+]

I see they are being somewhat flexible with their opening date, they are fine with this trailer as long as they manage to open sometime in the month of November.

The trailer that came out pre-pandemic also just used a generic "April." I think it's because it's opening on such different dates within November, depending on what country you're in. There's a 2 week difference between US and UK, for example.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It’s entirely possible that this film will open internationally in November as planned, while either being delayed domestically or switched to PVOD here. We just have no way of knowing at this point what our situation will look like in two months.

 

[Osato]

Daniel hasn’t been my favorite Bond. And I’m ready for the next actor to play the part. But I will go and see the film as soon as it opens in theaters. Starting with Octopussy in 1983 I’ve only missed one in the theaters a view to a kill.

I thought the new trailer was great. Mission impossible has influenced Bond to raise their game imo. A great thing.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It’s entirely possible that this film will open internationally in November as planned, while either being delayed domestically or switched to PVOD here.

I hate to say this because I really think Daniel Craig's exit from this role deserves to be the kind of massive theatrical event that can't happen until the virus is over. I'd really like this film to be delayed until the end of the pandemic. However, if that option is off the table and they do choose to release it internationally, I hope there's some way for the U.S. to get it in home around the same time.

Unless there is a speedy miracle vaccine faster than is realistically plausible, I'm just not going to feel comfortable returning to theaters this year. However, this is a title where I am very worried about, as you put it, "weaponized spoilers." I am very afraid that if there is a delay where part of the world has the movie, but I am unable to see it, I would probably stumble on a spoiler. I'm not going to drop off the internet for several months -- being able to talk to you all here at HTF has been particularly helpful in keeping me engaged and social during the pandemic -- but I also really don't want to know how this ends before I can safely view it. Craig leaving as Bond will not be as big of a deal to as many people as Endgame was last year, but it does seem like they are building to a definitive ending for his version of the character, and that is a big deal to me. So I would very much like the opportunity to see that both safely and unspoiled.

Therefore, I would probably be willing to pay $30 to see this in-home, as Disney is doing with Mulan, as long as it wasn't a short-term rental fee. If it was the same deal and I could pay $30 to watch it repeatedly, then I would accept that for this film.

I'd still rather it get pushed to next year. But if that is not feasible for the studio and doesn't happen, I don't want to have to get spoiled because I want to protect my health. I have been invested in this version of Bond since the opening weekend of Casino Royale 14 years ago, and it would really bum me out if I got spoiled this close to the end. Of course, my health is more important than going out to avoid a spoiler, but I think it's unfair of the studio to ask fans to make that choice.

 

[Jake Lipson]

That's less of an incentive when you already have over $100 million.

Exactly. He does not need the money and seemed pretty tired after Spectre. Therefore, I'm guessing they had something that was creatively interesting to him in order to get him to say yes.

I know he was signed on for this before Knives Out, and that film happened quickly after Danny Boyle exited the production of this film. But I also hope that doing Knives Out before making this film reenergized him as an actor. He looked like he was having so much fun in that movie, and had such a great dynamic with Ana de Armas. Hopefully all of that carries over into this film as well.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

It’s entirely possible that this film will open internationally in November as planned, while either being delayed domestically or switched to PVOD here. We just have no way of knowing at this point what our situation will look like in two months.

Bond is MGM's cash cow. I don't see any scenario where they're going to want to take a bath by dumping it onto PVOD. I could see a delay happening (although that's looking less and less likely), but I don't see any way that this doesn't open in theaters.

The other thing to think about is that a PVOD release here will seriously hurt international box office. They'll certainly be versions floating around that someone shot on their phone, but those don't hurt affect box office like a rip from PVOD which will be 1080p with 5.1 sound (at the very least).