It's a MyOdeon Saver ticket.
Cinemas are supposed to be loud. I like to feel the bass through my seat.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
No Time to Die, am I missing something
- Thread starter Bungle73
- Start date
- Status
Cinemas are supposed to be loud. I like to feel the bass through my seat.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Butts
Veteran Member
I saw it in Jersey yesterday and was quite perplexed by the ending.
I note the MGM and Universal Logos are displayed at the start - whatever happened to United Artists ?
Annoyingly they did not play the Universal Jingle but just the silent version.
I note the MGM and Universal Logos are displayed at the start - whatever happened to United Artists ?
Annoyingly they did not play the Universal Jingle but just the silent version.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
They merged with MGM.
Butts
Veteran Member
....and how have Universal got in on the Act ?
nlogax
Established Member
Universal won the contract for international distribution of NTTD. United Artists hasn't graced the credits of a Bond movie since the late 90s, though for US domestic audiences they're back as the new name for MGM's domestic distribution partnership with Annapurna.
You should expect the next Bond movie to be prefixed with an Amazon Studios opening credit as only some regulatory stuff stands between them and the approval for their purchase of MGM.
Just got back from watching the movie (plus a visit to an exhibition at the British Museum). Really liked it. I can see where.....
Really, really like the cinema refit. Huge leather seats that electronically recline, and legs rests that you can put up. I put it back as far as possible, and put my feet up. Almost like being at home. And plenty of space between the rows too. Think I'll go there again.
"... the fuss over Bond becoming a woman comes from, with the new female "007". But it makes sense in the context of the Bond universe. There are supposed be 9 00s. So it makes sense that if one retires/is killed their code number is taken by a new agent."
Really, really like the cinema refit. Huge leather seats that electronically recline, and legs rests that you can put up. I put it back as far as possible, and put my feet up. Almost like being at home. And plenty of space between the rows too. Think I'll go there again.
Well, there also that other spoiler thing that happened, which I think could have worked had it been the last ever Bond movie, but it isn't so it doesn't, if that makes sense.
Indeed. Seems an odd choice given Daniel Craig was leaving anyway, and we know someone else is going to take over. Interested to see what the plot of the next movie actually is.
I'd rather they just end the franchise. Money dictates they won't, but all good things should come to an end. Then we can promote new and unique IPs instead.
It's Bond. It's eternal.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Wasn't there a line somewhere in one of the classic Bonds (I think it may have been around the time the Judi Dench became M) that referred to previous 007's, and which seemed to imply that James Bond is a codename and different people take on that role? Or have I mis-remembered?
Agree in general about lack of continuity. I guess one thing here is that the film franchise started in the early 60s, and continuity just wasn't a big thing in those days.
birchesgreen
Established Member
Lazenby said something like "this never happened to the other guy" which has been interpreted in that way. Some think he ad libbed it though.
nlogax
Established Member
Saw on Friday and thoroughly enjoyed it. Will be interesting to see how the franchise deals with the Thing that Happened. Am returning for a second viewing on Saturday to get all the bits I missed first time around.
As an aside the film made for a good demo of D-BOX seats. Was definitely thrown around a bit!
As an aside the film made for a good demo of D-BOX seats. Was definitely thrown around a bit!
I've just seen it and, boy, is it turgid. Made me long for the days of Roger Moore simultaneously raising an eyebrow and dangling a fish between thumb and forefinger whilst emerging from the Med. at the wheel of his Lotus Esprit. Craig played Bond as a thug with issues. Glad he's in the past tense now.
Gave it a second go last night, and my opinion has dropped quite a bit from viewing #1, for three reasons:
All that said, I do really like the Jack London quote near the end 'The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.' Very relevant to the current world, even if accidentally so.
1. I've no idea what the motivation of the villain was - I'd assumed I missed it the first time, but apparently not. I get why he killed off Spectre, but what's he actually up to at the end? Q finds lists of lots of people on a USB and 'needs more time to work out who they are' - but I don't think he ever tells us? Then it appears from the computer readouts he's intending to kill millions (so probably different people from the people on the lists Q finds), but who? And why? 'To make the world a little tidier' doesn't make sense when you have a weapon that is explicitly for targeting at specific people or groups.
2. I *really* don't like James Bond just giving up because he (thinks he) can't ever get together with his girlfriend and their kid again. (Maybe he also thinks he's a goner from his wounds, but I'm not convinced the film shows that). First time around you're a bit too caught up in what's going on to really examine this, but it's really poor on a subsequent viewing.
3. It's another case - far too common in films nowadays - where the situation would probably have turned out better if the 'hero' hadn't got involved at all. Without Bond, 007 would probably have caught defector-guy (either in Santiago, or wherever else he went if that party didn't happen because Bond wasn't going to be there) and hauled him back to London, film over.
2. I *really* don't like James Bond just giving up because he (thinks he) can't ever get together with his girlfriend and their kid again. (Maybe he also thinks he's a goner from his wounds, but I'm not convinced the film shows that). First time around you're a bit too caught up in what's going on to really examine this, but it's really poor on a subsequent viewing.
3. It's another case - far too common in films nowadays - where the situation would probably have turned out better if the 'hero' hadn't got involved at all. Without Bond, 007 would probably have caught defector-guy (either in Santiago, or wherever else he went if that party didn't happen because Bond wasn't going to be there) and hauled him back to London, film over.
All that said, I do really like the Jack London quote near the end 'The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.' Very relevant to the current world, even if accidentally so.
Butts
Veteran Member
Anyone got any suggestions about who should replace Daniel Craig for the next Bond outing ?
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Peregrine 4903
Established Member
I've always wanted to see Tom Hardy as James Bond.
But it will probably be an unknown actor.
Spamcan81
Member
George Lazenby? I thought he was dire.
Geezertronic
Established Member
I saw it yesterday and thought it was alright to be honest. Yes, not a typical Bond film but you cannot have a typical Bond film these days. I would suggest the following:
a) The film shouldn't allow for a move to a female James (Jane) Bond but should allow the move to a new part of the franchise where 007 or A.N.Other numbered 00 is female as Lashana Lynch as Nomi was good in that role IMO
b) Was this the first time James Bond is shown dying on camera?
b) Was this the first time James Bond is shown dying on camera?
nlogax
Established Member
I hope Lashana Lynch and Ana de Armas both return for the next film. They were excellent.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Lashana Lynch was horribly underwritten, given only token parts in basic gunfights, doesn't use any gadgets (she's a 007..??), had no on-screen chemistry...not her fault but if she returns the writers have to give her a proper part.
de Armas was excellent and should have been the Bond girl except we aren't allowed a Bond girl any more. We got Seydoux in her mum jeans stinking up every scene with her total lack of character.
de Armas was excellent and should have been the Bond girl except we aren't allowed a Bond girl any more. We got Seydoux in her mum jeans stinking up every scene with her total lack of character.
nlogax
Established Member
I can somewhat appreciate the 'why' here, ultimately it wasn't her story. She at least got an Aston Martin and a fancy grappling hook but any further backstory would have detracted from Craig bowing out - or at least given the editors even more of a headache than they've already had keeping the thing under three hours.
- Status