[ SECRET POST #5681 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5681 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 20 secrets from Secret Submission Post #813.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree (and I'll try not to repeat myself too much because I think we've already talked about this some).

For one thing, I think tons of the Craig era is still really quite good. Casino Royale was mostly good, Skyfall was good, the first half of No Time To Die was really good. That's a better ratio of hits to misses than Brosnan or Moore had. It's kinda hard to insist on really high quality standards for the Bond franchise given that the majority of Bond movies are very bad.

In regard to the fan theory stuff - I didn't like the choices they made in regard to giving Bond lore throughout the Craig movies and I didn't like the ending of NTTD. But I don't really think the fan theory had anything to do with it. Legitimizing the fan theory is not the reason that they did what they did in No Time To Die; I can't believe for a second that they care about fan theories. It was thematically in keeping with the whole thrust of the Craig era and the modern era of blockbusters, and I think that's why they did it.

I also don't think that the decision they made does legitimize the fan theory, because the Bond franchise already lacks internal consistency. It's not that different from "this never happened to the other guy", or the basic fact of how the setting of the series has changed over the course of years. And I don't think it crashes the franchise into a brick wall - they can easily just ignore the decision made and move on and it would be no problem. Like, they can just make a Bond movie with no explanations or lore and it'll be fine. No one will care.

[(Anonymous)]

The only Brosnan miss was that scene with the CGI tsunami, otherwise every scene of every Brosnan Bond rocked. It was exactly the sort of OTT stuff movie-Bond ought to be.

[(Anonymous)]

OTT is fine but the Brosnan movies were bad

Die Another Day is legitimately terrible, TWINE had some good ideas but the execution was bad and the plot was massively confused and dragged on and on (admittedly a fault it shares with some of the Craig movies, but the Craig movies have more style), and Tomorrow Never Dies is incredibly unoriginal and boring and not even really OTT

[(Anonymous)]

You are so wrong that I don't even know where to start with this, I think I'll just leave you being wrong. You are wrong, just so you know.

[(Anonymous)]

i don't think they literally set out to legitimise the fan theory... but that's kinda what they've ended up doing

the reason they did what they did in nttd is because craig wanted to get out and stay out

"thematically in keeping with the whole thrust of the Craig era and the modern era of blockbusters" is a perfect description of why the movies sucked ass; of course heroism (especially vaguely anti-heroic heroism) has to end in the way it did in nttd, because that's what movies do now - especially the movies the craig era chased after (i.e. nolan's batmans and the mcu)

[(Anonymous)]

IMO The influence of the modern era of blockbusters is why the movies have so much lore and continuity. All blockbusters nowadays have tons of lore and continuity, therefore, so do the Craig Bonds. I don't like this personally, it's kind of dumb, but the Bond movies always move with the times somewhat. Lore and continuity just comes with the territory.

The reason that NTTD is so melancholy and heavy and tragic is because the whole Craig series is trying to be realistic and down-to-earth and take Bond seriously as a real person. If you take Bond seriously, he's going to be tragic. It goes too far at the end of NTTD. But trying to be more realistic and down-to-earth isn't some new idea that they got from superhero movies, that's always been a part of the series, look at From Russia With Love and the Dalton movies.

[(Anonymous)]

i've been trying to avoid mentioning it in detail for the sake of spoilers, but the specific idea i'm accusing nttd of stealing from endgame and dark knight rises is the oh-so-tragic heroic sacrifice, not the general tone of realism (not that superhero movies are generally particularly realistic anyway) or the fact that spectre is "captain america 2 but with james bond"

james bond's most famous movie features a guy who wants to set off a nuclear bomb inside fort knox so as to increase the value of his own gold. one of his most critically successful features a boat that catches submarines. one of his shittiest involves a giant space laser. if you take james bond seriously, you're making the wrong movie

i've said it before - every bond movie effectively functions as a soft reboot; his deeds, his kills and his girl forgotten about by the next opening gunbarrel. origin story - three movies of lore and continuity - heroic sacrifice is how modern blockbusters kickstart and maintain franchises for decades. but bond simply doesn't need any of that - it's already a multimillion dollar property, it doesn't need careful "franchise management" or seeding for a parade of spinoffs (die another day tried that and... turned out to be die another day; all that said if anybody from nttd deserves their own movie it's paloma)

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think the heroic sacrifice was copying Avengers or Dark Knight. for one thing, heroic sacrifices predate those franchises (and also, calling anything a ripoff of The Winter Soldier doesn't work for me, bc that whole movie is just riffing on a bunch of pre-existing genre stuff).

for another thing, the heroic sacrifice is right in line with the thrust of the movies as a whole. the Craig movies kept going back to the question of: how can Bond live with his job? how can Bond leave his job? who is Bond without his job? and in that context, a heroic sacrifice is a pretty natural culmination of the storyline - Bond can't actually leave his job because it's a part of who he is, so instead it ends with a sacrifice. I don't like the choice, particularly, but it's a logical culmination of the emotional throughline of the movies.

james bond's most famous movie features a guy who wants to set off a nuclear bomb inside fort knox so as to increase the value of his own gold. one of his most critically successful features a boat that catches submarines. one of his shittiest involves a giant space laser. if you take james bond seriously, you're making the wrong movie

From Russia With Love takes Bond seriously! and it rules! this has always been an element within the Bond franchise going back to the earliest days. it hasn't usually been the most prominent element of the franchise. Goldfinger was the big hit that cemented the character in the popular consciousness, Roger Moore made a million movies over a 15-year period that leaned all the way into high camp, etc, etc. but it's absolutely been there as one of the things you can do with the franchise.

again, I think they took it too far with the ending of NTTD but the basic idea of a more emotionally grounded version of the character is totally fine.

[(Anonymous)]

^ All of this.