No Time to Die (2020)

Way too long, surely. Seems a bit jarring to have 20 minutes of film interrupted by a title sequence. TWINE was already pushing it a little, so to go even longer seems like an odd choice.

I imagine it's all relative, considering its near 3 hour runtime, no?

20 min PTS???!!!???

"That's what I call trouble..."

CJB wrote:

Way too long, surely. Seems a bit jarring to have 20 minutes of film interrupted by a title sequence. TWINE was already pushing it a little, so to go even longer seems like an odd choice.

And with TWINE it wasn't even by design. The PTS for that was supposed to just be the scene at the bank, followed by a brief introduction of Renard being revealed as the sniper, saying something to the effect "everything is going according to plan thanks to Mr. Bond". Then it would be the titles. Everything with MI6 would have happened AFTER the titles finished. That's why the PTS ran as long as it did and why certain parts of it felt very truncated/rushed, because they were really pushing the time limit of the PTS since it wasn't originally planned that way. The boat chase would have been even longer and more elaborate, involving authorities joining in on the chase on Thames river.

With NTTD, it seems the 20 minute PTS is very much planned from the start, and I think I know why. Here's my prediction for how the entire PTS will play out: Remember, you heard it here first.


Opening Logos. NO GUN BARREL.

First 3-5 mins set at the lake house with young Madeleine being chased by a masked man, ends on a cliffhanger with her under ice.

Cut to black.... GUN BARREL BLARES, opening in Matera.

We get five minutes of love montage between Bond and Madeleine. Things seem to be going great for them, until gunmen appear and chase them down. Distrusts builds between Bond and Madeleine.

At some point Bond takes Madeleine to the train station to get her away quickly, they realize this could be the last time they see each other. "This is it" "This is it". She leaves via train, we get her POV shot from the carriage of Craig watching her leave.

Action continues, Bond ends up on the bridge, does that leap with a rope stunt.

MAIN CREDITS.

I don't mind if it's 20 minutes, I doubt anyone will be looking at their watch, especially if it's a good pre-title.

I think it will be.

Makeshift Python wrote:

CJB wrote:

Way too long, surely. Seems a bit jarring to have 20 minutes of film interrupted by a title sequence. TWINE was already pushing it a little, so to go even longer seems like an odd choice.

And with TWINE it wasn't even by design. The PTS for that was supposed to just be the scene at the bank, followed by a brief introduction of Renard being revealed as the sniper, saying something to the effect "everything is going according to plan thanks to Mr. Bond". Then it would be the titles. Everything with MI6 would have happened AFTER the titles finished. That's why the PTS ran as long as it did and why certain parts of it felt very truncated/rushed, because they were really pushing the time limit of the PTS since it wasn't originally planned that way. The boat chase would have been even longer and more elaborate, involving authorities joining in on the chase on Thames river.

With NTTD, it seems the 20 minute PTS is very much planned from the start, and I think I know why. Here's my prediction for how the entire PTS will play out: Remember, you heard it here first.


Opening Logos. NO GUN BARREL.

First 3-5 mins set at the lake house with young Madeleine being chased by a masked man, ends on a cliffhanger with her under ice.

Cut to black.... GUN BARREL BLARES, opening in Matera.

We get five minutes of love montage between Bond and Madeleine. Things seem to be going great for them, until gunmen appear and chase them down. Distrusts builds between Bond and Madeleine.

At some point Bond takes Madeleine to the train station to get her away quickly, they realize this could be the last time they see each other. "This is it" "This is it". She leaves via train, we get her POV shot from the carriage of Craig watching her leave.

Action continues, Bond ends up on the bridge, does that leap with a rope stunt.

MAIN CREDITS.

I highly doubt this will happen, and if it does, that's some shoddy storytelling. Beginning with a flashback is usually trouble. You need to establish the beginning of the current narrative before flashing back, especially if the flashback is for another character other than the protagonist. Traditionally, the flashback will occur once Bond learns of this history/something provokes Madeleine to reflect on it. Maybe we do get the flashback in the PTS, but it won't be the scene to open the film.

The film will most definitely open Bond and Madeleine in Matera before some kind of tip off sends them into action - either Bond gets some kind of message, Madeleine receives that mask in a box, she sees someone she recognises, perhaps an attempt is made on her life and she's forced to admit something to Bond or Bond joins the dots himself. Cue action.

I wouldn't be surprised if Madeleine is mortally wounded by the train (Fleming's notion that trains represent danger/death), only to be some kind of clone (I know. ) and she returns later, beginning with that scene with Oberhauser, as seen in the trailer.

A thought just occurred to me: why does Bond have his gadget-laden DB5 when he's supposed to be on inactive service?

Ana de Armas is no longer listed on the poster. If this is to reflect less screen time than Q and Moneypenny, it's another step in the wrong direction.

The structure I laid it is more or less based on how Bond films have been structured strictly chronologically. Bond films have never done elaborate flashback sequences in the middle of a film, but who knows maybe NTTD will change that. The placement of the gun barrel is not only done as a way of breaking up the large time gap between Norway and Matera but also to signal that Bond is finally coming into the picture, and that the Norway segment is more of a pre-pre-title sequence.

Curiously, GE almost would have had its flashback sequence in the middle of the film with Michael France's first draft, rather than in the beginning like the final version. Dalton would find out that Augustus Trevelyan is alive and then we get the whole sequence with Bond and another 00 agent attempting to bring back Trevelyan from the other side of the iron curtain, only to be betrayed by Trevelyan with the 00 agent dying and Bond hurt that his mentor turned traitor.

I never got any indication that de Armas would be more than a brief supporting role like Manuela in MOONRAKER. The filmmakers have been pretty transparent that her character mainly assists Bond in Cuba. Why would you assume she had a bigger part than Q and Moneypenny?

Makeshift Python wrote:

The structure I laid it is more or less based on how Bond films have been structured strictly chronologically. Bond films have never done elaborate flashback sequences in the middle of a film, but who knows maybe NTTD will change that. The placement of the gun barrel is not only done as a way of breaking up the large time gap between Norway and Matera but also to signal that Bond is finally coming into the picture, and that the Norway segment is more of a pre-pre-title sequence.

Curiously, GE almost would have had its flashback sequence in the middle of the film with Michael France's first draft, rather than in the beginning like the final version. Dalton would find out that Augustus Trevelyan is alive and then we get the whole sequence with Bond and another 00 agent attempting to bring back Trevelyan from the other side of the iron curtain, only to be betrayed by Trevelyan with the 00 agent dying and Bond hurt that his mentor turned traitor.

I never got any indication that de Armas would be more than a brief supporting role like Manuela in MOONRAKER. The filmmakers have been pretty transparent that her character mainly assists Bond in Cuba. Why would you assume she had a bigger part than Q and Moneypenny?

The difference between the GE and NTTD is that the villain's scheme and how it relates to Bond bridges the gap between the Cold War and the new world through the (excellent) titles sequence. So it's not really a flashback, just where Bond's adventure begins. Moreover, without giving the twist away, it could be seen as a standalone mission (a la GF, OP PTS) until we see Ouromov pop up in Severneya. With NTTD, it's more than likely a flashback for a supporting character*, but you can't flashback to something without knowing what's happening in present time.

*I've seen theories that it's not young Madeleine trapped under the ice, but I personally feel it is.

RE: the gun barrel, I don't know... If it plays out as you suggest, maybe, but I just don't think it will. I understand what you're saying... but Bond never needed to be signalled for his entry into his own movie - we just knew when Bond entered the picture, a la DN, TSWLM, TLD, GE, SF, TND...

I's true regarding France's first draft, but it's also a script that needed a lot of work. Also, while France may have envisaged Dalton, it's still Bond at the end of the day. It's just a mental image for the writer and that more rounded persona I think came from later drafts anyway. He just needed to know it was an almost spoofy, lighter version like Moore's. It's a stretch and revisionism to suggest 'Dalton would have done this' based on draft 1 in a process of moviemaking based on a decades long series.

You're right, Paloma was only mentioned as being Bond's Cuban contact. But in a film that nears 3 hours, and how badly they've messed up Q and Moneypenny, particularly how their characters didn't work in SP, and the fact we're watching a Bond film, I'd have liked more Bond girl presence and less of a role for MI6 regulars. It just demonstrates more misplaced focus. Also worth noting that she has been given perhaps the most positive press coverage (or 'trending' on social media) more than any other facet of NTTD.

Between Solange, Fields and Lucia, and possibly now Paloma, the Craig era really hasn't had a handle on how to utilise their secondary Bond girls. Though, the same could be said for his leading women to (save Severine).

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

The structure I laid it is more or less based on how Bond films have been structured strictly chronologically. Bond films have never done elaborate flashback sequences in the middle of a film, but who knows maybe NTTD will change that. The placement of the gun barrel is not only done as a way of breaking up the large time gap between Norway and Matera but also to signal that Bond is finally coming into the picture, and that the Norway segment is more of a pre-pre-title sequence.

Curiously, GE almost would have had its flashback sequence in the middle of the film with Michael France's first draft, rather than in the beginning like the final version. Dalton would find out that Augustus Trevelyan is alive and then we get the whole sequence with Bond and another 00 agent attempting to bring back Trevelyan from the other side of the iron curtain, only to be betrayed by Trevelyan with the 00 agent dying and Bond hurt that his mentor turned traitor.

I never got any indication that de Armas would be more than a brief supporting role like Manuela in MOONRAKER. The filmmakers have been pretty transparent that her character mainly assists Bond in Cuba. Why would you assume she had a bigger part than Q and Moneypenny?

The difference between the GE and NTTD is that the villain's scheme and how it relates to Bond bridges the gap between the Cold War and the new world through the (excellent) titles sequence. So it's not really a flashback, just where Bond's adventure begins. Moreover, without giving the twist away, it could be seen as a standalone mission (a la GF, OP PTS) until we see Ouromov pop up in Severneya. With NTTD, it's more than likely a flashback for a supporting character*, but you can't flashback to something without knowing what's happening in present time.

*I've seen theories that it's not young Madeleine trapped under the ice, but I personally feel it is.


RE: the gun barrel, I don't know... If it plays out as you suggest, maybe, but I just don't think it will. I understand what you're saying... but Bond never needed to be signalled for his entry into his own movie - we just knew when Bond entered the picture, a la DN, TSWLM, TLD, GE, SF, TND...

What I meant by being signaled is that first the pre-pre-title begins with young Madeleine, without involving Bond. Then after that ends we get a gun barrel, and the first prominent character to pop up is of course Bond. But who knows, I read another theory that the Norway sequence transitions from a young Madeleine under ice and then hard cuts to 25 years later with adult Madeleine emerging from the water. Could very much be just that.

Quote :

You're right, Paloma was only mentioned as being Bond's Cuban contact. But in a film that nears 3 hours, and how badly they've messed up Q and Moneypenny, particularly how their characters didn't work in SP, and the fact we're watching a Bond film, I'd have liked more Bond girl presence and less of a role for MI6 regulars. It just demonstrates more misplaced focus. Also worth noting that she has been given perhaps the most positive press coverage (or 'trending' on social media) more than any other facet of NTTD.

Between Solange, Fields and Lucia, and possibly now Paloma, the Craig era really hasn't had a handle on how to utilise their secondary Bond girls. Though, the same could be said for his leading women to (save Severine).

Eh, that's exaggerating. Q and Moneypenny weren't utilized well in SP, but I wouldn't say they're ruined forever. They worked wonderfully in SF, they have a chance to shine in their own way in NTTD.

Also, Severine wasn't even a leading woman. She's secondary like Solange, Fields, and Lucia were. The actual leading woman was Judi Dench M.

I never said they were ruined forever but expanding on their roles to justify the stunt casting isn't my cup of tea. Moneypenny should never have been a field agent, and even if that was the case, why is she armed? She isn't a 00. That aside, her banter with Bond is quite good in SF. Q was excellently used in SF and the beginning of SP (despite joking about his work!) but was reduced to a clumsy teenybopper as the film progressed but then almost all characters were mistreated as that film went on (Hinx excepted). So I wouldn't call my post an exaggeration at all. We are watching a Bond film, intended originally for warm-blooded heterosexuals and women are part of that to satisfy. That's why it's escapist, even if the current regime forbids any sense of joy (alright, I'm exaggerating a little here. But not really.)

And let's not suggest for a second that Harris or Whishaw has as much charm and screen presence as Llewelyn and Maxwell. I'd much rather see those actors in extended roles (especially the latter as the former did occasionally) because they are an absolute joy to see on screen.

As for Severine, I consider her lead Bond girl of the film, though M is the lead female. But it's all semantics and less interested in discussing that.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

I never said they were ruined forever but expanding on their roles to justify the stunt casting isn't my cup of tea. Moneypenny should never have been a field agent, and even if that was the case, why is she armed? She isn't a 00.

You don't have to be a 00 agent to be armed. The distinction of 00 agents is that their primary skill is assassination, and they're usually reserved for the dirtier work while standard MI6 agents get the less dangerous jobs. Moneypenny was probably on assignment given it was a simple retrieval of a hard drive. However, with Patrice entering the picture, the job got more dangerous, hence Bond was brought in. At least that's how I perceived it.

Quote :

That aside, her banter with Bond is quite good in SF. Q was excellently used in SF and the beginning of SP (despite joking about his work!) but was reduced to a clumsy teenybopper as the film progressed but then almost all characters were mistreated as that film went on (Hinx excepted). So I wouldn't call my post an exaggeration at all.

Clumsy teenybopper? Not sure what that means.

Quote :

And let's not suggest for a second that Harris or Whishaw has as much charm and screen presence as Llewelyn and Maxwell. I'd much rather see those actors in extended roles (especially the latter as the former did occasionally) because they are an absolute joy to see on screen.

I do strongly suggest that, and am happy to see them one more time, hopefully better utilized in NTTD.

Quote :

As for Severine, I consider her lead Bond girl of the film, though M is the lead female. But it's all semantics and less interested in discussing that.  

Fair enough.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

I never said they were ruined forever but expanding on their roles to justify the stunt casting isn't my cup of tea. Moneypenny should never have been a field agent, and even if that was the case, why is she armed? She isn't a 00.

You don't have to be a 00 agent to be armed. The distinction of 00 agents is that their primary skill is assassination, and they're usually reserved for the dirtier work while standard MI6 agents get the less dangerous jobs. Moneypenny was probably on assignment given it was a simple retrieval of a hard drive. However, with Patrice entering the picture, the job got more dangerous, hence Bond was brought in. At least that's how I perceived it.

Dunno, 'bout that. You're talking about a country that doesn't even arm most of its cops. The whole distinction of the Double-0 division is meant to be their legal authority to use lethal force.

The Moneypenny origin story was half-baked comic movie stuff mixed in with the usual Bond's Eeekwoll prerequisite.

Intelligence officers exist to collect information. As CJB says, the designation of a 00 number is that one i licensed to kill. So even if Moneypenny was on assignment to retrieve the hard drive as you suggest, it wouldn't be her job to take the shot. If anything, she should be on the train in fisticuffs and Bond would be in her position with a sniper rifle.

Q is reduced to idiocy, flying to Austria to see Bond (wasn't he afraid of flying?), gets himself caught in the action and nearly killed while he types away on his sticker-laden laptop. His computer gets more screen time than he does and he's comparable to Llewelyn? Nah.

I agree, hopefully they are better utilised in NTTD, but I'm not holding my breath. They should have a couple of scenes each, at most.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Intelligence officers exist to collect information. As CJB says, the designation of a 00 number is that one i licensed to kill. So even if Moneypenny was on assignment to retrieve the hard drive as you suggest, it wouldn't be her job to take the shot. If anything, she should be on the train in fisticuffs and Bond would be in her position with a sniper rifle.

This series has shown many different MI6 agents throughout that were armed and not 00s (the most prominent being Charles Robinson), so I never got the sense from these films that only 00s could use lethal force. Other agents can depending on the situation, but what makes 00s stand out is that killing is their specialty, so they'll get assignments where killing is at a high probability and their life expectancy is shorter, as 007 remarked.

Quote :

Q is reduced to idiocy, flying to Austria to see Bond (wasn't he afraid of flying?), gets himself caught in the action and nearly killed while he types away on his sticker-laden laptop. His computer gets more screen time than he does and he's comparable to Llewelyn? Nah.

I figured you'd be this nitpicky over something like a laptop being sticker-laden.

Doesn't Robinson only use a gun in that virtual reality simulation in DAD?

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Intelligence officers exist to collect information. As CJB says, the designation of a 00 number is that one i licensed to kill. So even if Moneypenny was on assignment to retrieve the hard drive as you suggest, it wouldn't be her job to take the shot. If anything, she should be on the train in fisticuffs and Bond would be in her position with a sniper rifle.

This series has shown many different MI6 agents throughout that were armed and not 00s (the most prominent being Charles Robinson), so I never got the sense from these films that only 00s could use lethal force. Other agents can depending on the situation, but what makes 00s stand out is that killing is their specialty, so they'll get assignments where killing is at a high probability and their life expectancy is shorter, as 007 remarked.

Quote :

Q is reduced to idiocy, flying to Austria to see Bond (wasn't he afraid of flying?), gets himself caught in the action and nearly killed while he types away on his sticker-laden laptop. His computer gets more screen time than he does and he's comparable to Llewelyn? Nah.

I figured you'd be this nitpicky over something like a laptop being sticker-laden.

This thread might be of interest. I did forget about Robinson* but I believe CJB is right - he only uses it in the virtual reality and even so, I think he's well within his right on a personal level to want to defend himself from the assailants.

What makes 00s stand out is that they're licensed to kill. That sets them apart from the rest. They get the more dangerous assignments, sure, but they use their highly trained sense of judgement to decide to end a life or not - something other agents don't possess.

*possibly Mitchell too, but not going to use QOS as an indicator of what Bond should be about. Shouldn't use CR either, actually.

Unless there's a line that says non-00 agents are strictly prohibited from using arms, I'm not buying that interpretation. The point of the licence to kill is that they've been granted the right to kill at their own discretion, whereas other agents would likely need approval from the top before they can take any action. That's why 00s are considered something close to prestigious, because they have all the confidence in M to carry out things by any means.

MP wrote:

I'm not buying that interpretation.

Then don't. Lol.

MP wrote:

whereas other agents would likely need approval from the top before they can take any action. That's why 00s are considered something close to prestigious, because they have all the confidence in M to carry out things by any means.

Which contradicts the entire Bond begins trash in CR/QOS since M has very little confidence in her reckless 007.

M being grumpy at Bond for being reckless? It's like a hallmark of all Ms, but in the end they're always confident that Bond can get the job done.

Bond's never been reckless as he has been in the Craig films, and M's never been on his back about it as much as they have been in the current era either (again, probably because his behaviour never warranted it).

We've had already discussions over Bond's recklessness pre-Craig, we don't need to delve into that again.

Spanish Poster for No Time to Die: