I thought it was quite inconsistent - the main thesis was solid - but dwelled on inconsistencies in the films he didn’t like. It was sooooo nit picky for quantum of solace - while completely ignoring how stupid the 2nd act “let myself get captured” cliche of Skyfall was. Pitch meetings has done it wayyyy better - but seriously Javier Bardem’s plan to get captured, let Q plug his laptop into the mainframe at a convenient time and then wait for a tube train to fall on Bond is THE dumbest villain plot ever. Like how would that work?!!?? But no mention of this bs in 2 hours of video - but 15 minutes more detail on minor plot strangenesses in quantum? Almost like the preferences override the detail?
One note about the NTTD opening. It’s the fact that Madeleine specifically tells Bond to go to Vesper’s grave and then that it exploded that set him off.
Still feels like a lazy move from the writers since considering the events of Spectre that were brought up, there's no way a woman who's tied to a building that'll blow up would be working with a villain. And if she's was, well then what if Bond didn't fall for the trap? Then Blofeld just made one of the dumbest gambles ever.
@@osmanyousif7849 Yeah it's like it feels so over-the-top obvious that if I were Bond I'd be questioning how simple it seemed. Like "if she was really evil, she wouldn't be THAT dumb and lazy about it, right?" But also, when I first watched the movie I was like "Dude, why the hell would you seriously visit her grave?" Like, regardless of whether or not someone TOLD Bond to do that, if I was a villain trying to kill James Bond, and I had no idea where in the world he was hiding, but I DID know that he had an ex-girlfriend whose death he'd been openly sad about for years now, my FIRST instinct would be "Why don't I plant a bomb in her grave and leave a camera watching, just on the off chance he decides to visit someday?" How the hell did he not see that shit coming?
The Blofeld reveal has as much impact as the Khan reveal in Star Trek. If you didn't know who the character was it meant nothing, and if you did know who the character was you'd be like, "Hell no you're not."
Both also signaled the beginning of the end. It took 5 years for them to make a follow up to Spectre. Star Trek Into Darkness is the reason Beyond tanked and brought any future movies in that timeline down with it.
I keep trying to overlook the constant blaming of the writers but, as an independent (i.e. no name) screenwriter myself who has suffered though meetings with producers and directors demanding change after change, I can tell you that the writers are NOT "in charge" of the story and plot. They are simply tasked with the hands-on work. But often the notes they're given even cause THEM to shake their heads and say, "This is awful." Yes, they could quit. So could the cinematographer if he doesn't like the director's taste in framing a shot. But it's your JOB. You do it to the best of your ability. If you DO leave, you get replaced yet often STILL get writer credit. Sometimes you even get SOLE writer credit for a script that is only half yours (if that). If there's a totem pole, imagine the director and producers at the top of it and the writers below them. Dario Argento says everyone on a film, including the writer, should be there to serve the director's vision. Not the other way around. Of course, in a franchise like 007, the producers are the ultimate "show runners." Still, writers do NOT always get their way. So if you hate an idea or whatever, please don't just assume it came from a writer. Thank you. And goodnight.
Good points. The more I learn about how these blockbuster movies are made, the more I realise how little respect there is for writers and their work. It must be infuriating and demoralizing, after years spent honing your craft, and months of hard work to write a decent script, to have it utterly butchered by untalented, uncreative higher ups with no idea what makes a good story. This explains how, while the bar to entry is so high, the end results are often so poor when it comes to screenwriting. A good example of this is the ridiculous 'Brofeld' twist in Spectre. Making Bond and Blofeld stepbrothers was producer Michael G. Wilson's brainwave, not the writers'.
Speaking for myself, when I hear something like "wtf were the writers thinking?" I don't equate "writers" with the folks whose job title is "writer" but rather with the *literal* writers -- whether that "writer" was the director, the producer, or some meddling executive. I don't work in the film industry but in software engineering where things are somewhat similar -- the programmers who write the code often get blamed for bad decisions (like in video games -- "what were the devs thinking?") when in reality majority of those decisions are made by the executives/directors/people who have no idea how to actually write code. Either way -- in both industries you would hope the director, whose job it is to maintain the creative vision, would stick to that job and let the professional writers put his creative vision into actual words, but that is so rarely the case especially when dealing with the kind of egos that exist in those types. So that's where you get directors doing more writing than actual writers because they think it's so easy. Anyway, I sympathize.
These are very good points. I really enjoyed reading this part of the comments. I know it had nothing to do with the video I just really enjoy learning movie making lol 😆
I'm pretty sure the deal with Bond killing himself was that earlier in the movie M explained that project Heracles spreads rapidly from person to person by human - only killing those with the DNA it is programmed to kill. In that way it's the most effective method of assassination for an intelligence agency as one doesn't even have to come within contact with the target, eventually, it'll just make its way around. This is shown earlier in the film when Blofeld dies - it spreads to Bond by simply touching Madeleine but only kills Blofeld. Hence, the argument that Bond could just be in isolation while they research a cure really isn't feasible when you realise he wouldn't be able to touch a single person throughout all that time, for fear of it eventually spreading to Madeleine and Mathilde.
Exactly. I like the Heracles McGuffin, and funnily enough Bond sacrificing himself is almost a cowardly act. I would have ended the film with Bond getting off the island. Time passes and he is in bed with a woman who resembles Vesper. He leaves her early next morning to go and see Madaleine and Mathilde from afar, the little girl sees her father and they both smile at each other. When Mathilde get her mother’s attention and she points to where Bond is, Madaleine doesn’t see anyone. However she knows Bond was there and smiles to herself. Bond drives back to his apartment, as he enters the main entrance that last verse of Eillish’s song is heard and as Bond enters the building the screen fades to black and the song ends.
@@spaceodds1985 post-credits scene: Madeline's doorbell rings and it's the woman Bond was sleeping with who has come to answer a job advert for a nanny. She puts out her hand for Madeline to shake and as Madeline reaches out the screen fades to black for a final time...
For me the meaning of "the writing on the wall" is the looming threat of spectre as the big bad behind all the previous film's bad guys. This however would only work if the previous films had actually set up such a looming threat instead of retroactively shoehorning it into this one
Agreed. I want him to play “The Gentleman” in a Spider-Man movie. I always was interested in the character ever since The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Daniel Craig’s acting is awesome
Not all characters are necessarily made better with character arcs, and the problem with a character like Bond is that while you can explore the character, his charcter arc is not why one generally goes to see a Bond film. I think the Mission Impossible franchise handled and is handling the development of a character over a series of films much better within the same genre. Still when you look back over the entire franchise, one has to wonder if the team at EON actually understand the Bond character at all. In the beginning when they had Flemming's source material, there was some consistency, but without that they seemed to be constantly struggling to find ways to keep Bond relevant, and ended up making the franchise derivative of whatever trends were happening at the time. Last I really appreciate the Days of Our Lives quip, because I'm glad somebody remembers some of the crazy situations that show had back in the day with characters returning from the dead, changing their appearance, and getting possessed by demons, and ALL of that made more sense than Spectre.
Exactly. Bond is a paragon. He's not an everyman character. The story of an everyman is the story about how the events of the story change them. The story of a paragon is how he (or she) changes the world due to the events of the story.
@@Roper122 Exactly, Bond like Sherlock Holmes is a steadfast character. These characters are already fully formed and have already done their "heroes journey".
Amen. He's an action hero. He drinks, drives fast, beds endless women, survives unbelievable danger. He kicks ass. He's not meant to have his kicked emotionally for five damn films. It's too much
Great stuff, Mr Macabre. That ending left me unexpectedly emotional: Craig's Bond was my Bond too. I love what he brought to the character and I still love Casino Royale. It breaks my heart that all that potential was squandered by such a lack of vision and poor quality control from those running the show: so many bad story choices, so many missed opportunities, and so much sloppy and lazy writing. Craig and his wonderfully human Bond deserved better, and reading some of his interviews, I get the impression he had a better understanding of the character and the direction the saga should have taken than the people in charge. Also, I was wondering if you'd consider doing a rewrite for the Craig Bond films in the same style as your GOT videos? I'm attempting something similar myself, but I'd be so fascinated to hear your thoughts on how it could have been improved. Anyway. Top stuff. Time well spent.
Yup. Casino Royale has stuck with me far more than I had expected even though I've only seen it once at release when I was young. Daniel Craig and Eva Green sold that movie so fucking well. It's sad the series suffered from a disjointed vision and fell flat when the prospect of a continuous Bond series with a fantastic opening opened up so many possibilities.
It was Daniel Craig's idea to kill off Bond, so I'm not very kind to Craig at all. I solely put how Craig was great in CR to director Martin Campbell and writer Paul Haggis.
@@EthanKnight97 I was fine with Craig's Bond dying (I always thought this version existed in an alternate universe and has no effect on the earlier Bonds), but I thought it was done poorly due to bad writing, both in NTTD itself and the problems left over from Spectre. This Bond deserved a better ending. Campbell and Haggis totally made Casino great. Apparently Paul Haggis also wrote a script for NTTD but it was rejected. I'd kill to get a copy of it.
@@Thomasmemoryscentral It would be great to read rejected screenplays (both from Bond and various other films). It's aIways interesting to imagine what could have been. I guess it all depends on who owns the rights to the scripts and if they'd be willing to share them. Apparently Haggis's last Bond script had the working title 'Shatterhand', so that might help with searching if it's ever made available online.
You're right. The reveal of his name 'Blofeld' was just like the reveal of the name 'Khan' in Star Trek into Darkness: meaningless to the central characters in both cases, and meaningless to the audience unless they've seen the relevant, classic-era earlier film(s). Either way, completely undeserving of the THIS-IS-SIGNIFICANT emphasis.
Yes it's the writers breaking the fourth wall for a cheap wink to fans. It's kinda like in The Force Awakens when Han Solo and Finn capture Phasma and Solo says something like "is there a trash compactor around here?". To the fans who have seen the original Star Wars in which Solo gets trapped in the trash compactor in the Death Star this is a throwaway gag, but it wouldn't have made any sense to Finn - from his point of view, Han Solo would have seemed like a sadistic psychopath who wanted to kill Phasma in the most gruesome way possible for no particular reason.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "Writing on the Wall" just refers to the name 'James Bond' being written on the memorial wall of the old MI6 HQ...the writers of the song probably just saw that screen shot and went with it...I can't really come up with any other metaphorical meaning atm
He might not have had a lot to work with. Billie Eilish dropped No Time to Die almost two years before the actual film came out, and during that time there were rumors they rewrote most of the plot. Writing on the Wall probably made sense with an earlier version of the script, but they didn't have time to go back and change the song they finished months ago.
@@mariokarter13 nah, it was the opposite. Radiohead was originally commissioned to write the theme, but their song was rejected by the studio (they subsequently released it as a free download). Smith was brought on to write a new theme last minute, which he has subsequently admitted was a rush job (saying it took about 20 minutes to write) and released it only a month before the film came out. The Radiohead version works pretty well with the opening sequence and ulimately I think works better as a theme (especially given they had more time to write it), although it's characteristically Radiohead so recognise not for everyone: ruclips.net/video/COP0XlYHvto/видео.html
Just gotta say preemtively that it's kinda funny that what started as a promisingly fresh and modern take on Bond turned out to be the most consistently underwhelming and mediocre Bond eras to date.
And a waste of award winning actors, playing what could’ve been great villains but turned into just mediocrities (except for Le Chiffe and somewhat Silva).
Jesus... After watching this breakdown, Spectre was even more convoluted tgan i thought! Also, doesnt Bond escape the villains base waaaay to easily? He shoots a pipe and the whole place goes up! Something like that. I swear, the villains base in the first Oncredibles was more interesting. Oh...you covered the base thing. Cool!
What's funny in a battlefield humor sort of way is that from what you've broken down in this series (I never saw Spectre or NTTD and took my exit with Skyfall) is that I can see how this series fits together as a whole in a "post-it notes on a wall" breakdown way. There's a definite arc for Bond's character all based on how he was portrayed in the first Bond book, Casino Royale, and evolving out of that while ignoring most other Bond media (even other Fleming novels). Bond learns to love and loses both it and the ability to trust in film 1. He breaks down into vengeance in film 2 but regains his professionalism by the end if not his ability to trust. In film 3 he loses his final emotional connection to his job when M dies but truly begins to trust in others again. In film 4 he finally starts a relationship that matters and finally quits his deadly job in good conscience. In film 5 he's in retirement but is pulled back into one last job that connects him to everyone he's ever known and learns he has started a family but, because he's found love and has trust in others makes the hard call and sacrifices himself in something like peace. Zoomed out like that, the series has a throughline for sure and I'm guessing that general vision might've been in the background for the producers during the many years these 5 films were made. However, the devil's in the details and in the execution. While Craig definitely consistently did his best with these movies, as did most of the actors I saw, the final shooting scripts were so hit or miss (and only QoS has a halfway decent excuse for this) and they just jammed so much nonsense into it that it all became a mess. Maybe the only silver lining might be that in 20 years after two more Bond actors have retired or maybe after the series lies fallow for a while, some hot director will come along with a smart writer and they'll have the clout to do a project they've dreamt about for years. To remake this series from beginning to end with all the kinks ironed out and the split story beats knitted together, with a vision to make it all work as an actual series. Because with the high notes it already has I'd love to see the vision of the overall picture work out well in a more coherent manner.
I was a kid who grew up on the Moore films on tv and I hated the Dalton films in the theater, so this grounded dramatic bond is the opposite of what I want from them. They feel like knockoff mission impossible films to me. Brosnan is my favorite portrayal now, I feel he melded the best of other versions into a good medium that could be fun but also have drama.
@@fusionspace175 Lol it's everyone's favorite ruclips.net/video/ARPs1KhpMZA/видео.html These Craig kids are missing out by limiting themselves to Craig's brooding emo Bond. The old movies are gems.
If I were making No Time to Die, here's how I would have killed Bond: At the beginning of the movie, Adam Sandler eats a banana and throws the peel out the window. Throughout the movie, we get the occasional random shot of the banana peel on the street, seemingly for no reason. At the end of the movie, Bond isn't infected with nanites and he escapes the island before the missile strike hits. Now, feeling victorious, he gets in his car and drives. While shouting, "James Bond Rules!" his car hits the banana peel and spins out of control, driving over a cliff. THE END
If Andrew Scott had a nickel for every time he’s been in something so bad that the fans have to make an elaborate theory insisting that the events of it was all a dream and the last entry would fix it, he would have 2 nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s strange it’s happened twice.
The same thing happened to BBC Sherlock: the final episode was so bafflingly terrible that many fans believed it was some kind of joke and that the 'real' episode was still coming. It was like some wild cargo cult of tumblr users. Interestingly, Sherlock also pulled the 'surprise supervillain sibling who's been behind everything all along' twist.
Loved both parts of this retrospective. Definitely need to revisit the earlier Craig films as I remembered not liking them when they came out Any chance of doing a similar retrospective for the Dalton films? That was always my favourite James Bond
If Palpatine is that Pixar old man playing chess with himself in the park, Franny is a tinfoil conspiracy theorist's attempt to do the same while high on meth EDIT: It would've been insanely easy to rewrite that scene to make it both a tie-in and still keep the agency of the other villains in the series - just have Franny be the one to provide them information about MI6 Instead we just have Franny going "BUT IT WAS ME, DIO-I mean Franny" and later "BUT IT WAS ME, DIO-I mean Blowfield"
first of all: excellent work! One little notion to the infection of bond (taken fom the bond experience channel): it's not about Bond being never be able to come in contact with his family, it is about not being able to come in contact with anyone, because the nanobots act like a virus infecting anybody he comes in physical contact with and thus eventually reaching his family. That being said, the final installment is a real disappointment given the excellent craftmanship from the technical stuff and the actors, but the writing is... Greetings from Germany and I hope my english makes sense ;)
It's a really good analysis that I would add is probably impacted by two different visions kinda starting the same and differing thought out the years. You get the sense that Craig was more interested in exploring Bond's psyche and treating him like a real human being vs. suburban dad wish fulfillment. Where as the producers were up for cashing in on that Nolan cred at the time (Keeping in mind Craig's casting was a few months after he made Batman popular again), but moved towards the tongue and cheek expanded universe cause of Marvel. So by Spectre, its just these two ideas trying to come together that simply don't fit.
I just think it's obnoxious and unnecessary how every time modern Hollywood decides to reboot a classic bad guy, they're like "THIS time, their motivation is PERSONAL!" Like, Blofeld didn't NEED to be Bond's secret half-brother who was jealous of him. Not everybody has to turn out to be related somehow, this isn't Star Wars (and even Star Wars doesn't NEED to keep doing that). Hollywood seems to think this is a shortcut for making a villain more "interesting", but like, no, not if you don't make us care about the villain in the first place. In the original movies, Blofeld was just the big bad guy behind everything, and that was enough. They establish early on that there's this secret organization that's backing all these villains and their evil plans, and they tease the fact that there's a mastermind in charge of all of it, but repeatedly avoid showing his face, so that when you DO finally see him, it DOES feel like a big deal. And at that point, Blofeld's motivation is already personal enough: Bond has ruined his plans so many times that he's become the main thorn in his side. I don't think their relationship needs to be more complicated than that. The idea that Blofeld would be doing all of this simply out of spite because he hasn't gotten over jealousy from his childhood, honestly just kinda makes him feel like a big ol' petty baby, and not a genuinely scary or intimidating villain. If they wanted to make him a more complex or three-dimensional character, there are better ways they could've gone about that.
I'm unpleasantly surprised how everyone praises Casino Royale failing to realize how that movie has one of the biggest plot holes, if not the biggest, in the Craig series. Why making such a convoluted ploy to capture the terrorist banker LeChiffre in the first place? I mean, both MI6 and CIA know the exact time and the place of his attempt to recover his bankroll, so why not just capture him and torture the ass out of him until he reveals everything he knows? The whole movie basically revolves around this unforgivable oversight.
Bond choosing to die at the end of 'No Time to Die' was believable for me, because if he touches just one other person before going into quarantine, the nanobots could potentially get to Madeleine and Mathilde by just spreading from person to person all around the world eventually. Too much risk unless they could immediately neutralize. However, the obviousness of the bad guys, even in-universe, was a huge problem. I still enjoyed the movie overall, but I cannot stretch my suspension of disbelief enough to think Bond would actually think Madeleine betrayed him based on one goon proudly giving up that one piece of information for no reason and them calling a phone literally just to say she betrayed him. Their ploy wasn't done with any subtlety at all. Why would they do that other than to make him believe she'd betrayed him? If she had betrayed him, there would be no reason for them to tell him so while she's still denying it. The writing for that was just too ridiculous. And why did Leiter and Bond not turn on Ash as soon as he was trying to get the scientist to shut up? They could have tried at least a little bit to make these bad guys seem a little less ham fisted in their 'clever' schemes.
Hmmm...if their theme is subverting old tropes, why not have it so Franz "being behind it all" be a bluff, an elaborate villain tic of wanting to psychologically break someone, and finding an opportunity to do this in Bond relatively recently--then Bond discovers this at the very end scene after letting him live, revealing Bond's gullibility and framing his life as a growing world of fictions? It also makes "Spectre" not only a shadow over global affairs but doubling as a vapor, a meaningless ghost that is more ACTUALLY inside Bond's own head than anything else? It ALSO keeps Quantum intact, for whatever that's worth.
Madeleine is too young for Bond. They have no real chemistry - which is ironic cos I think Craig and Bellucci have uber chemistry (despite the virtual SA). Most of your critiques I agree with. Interesting video.
To be honest, I'd rather watch Spectre than QOS. Despite it's problems, Spectre had funnier lines, better action sequences, more personality, style. I get something with Spectre (even if it doesn't entirely succeed and can fail big time). I get nothing out of QOS and when I do it's just nothing but bored bitterness thinking about it (which makes it the worst Bond flick to me personally).
Question: if the fate of the world was at stake, who only send two 00s? Why not send ALL of them? We learned in Spectre that 009 exists and has an Astin Martin. Where was he in this film? Too BUSY to save the world? Like--were all the other 00s on more important missions? Stupid ending.
Also, the reason Bond stayed and died is because he would affect everyone he touched. If he shook a hand and that hand shook another, and one eventually would kill his family. Also, main villian man's evil plan was to kill millions of people and taking control of the world. By fear. Much like what happening now with COVID.
"Writing on the Wall" IS terrible. When I think back on the earlier theme songs, "Goldfinger," "Thunderball," "Live and Let Die," to name a few, those songs had energy and gusto. "Writing on the Wall" is a wimpy, sappy song sung by someone who can't hit the notes. I have heard the song covered by a female singer, and it wasn't as bad as what's-his-name's rendition.
The thing about Nomi is that there was already a far more likeable character that could have been written into a 00 position far more naturally. Moneypenny already showed some field skills at the start of Skyfall, and she's far more likeable. It would have also added an interesting layer to Moneypenny's and Bond's relationship. Absolutely baffling as to why the writers chose to add a new character in the last film instead of continuing with a well-know, well-established character.
I wish the interconnectivity of this Craig era hadn't been so clunky. Started on a high note, lows by the middle, and slightly meh by the end. Your breakdown of the characterization and villain flaws was perfect. I still cried like a baby when Felix died and later when Bond elected to go out like he did, even while yelling at the screen that he could have just lived like Bubble Boy until the nanobots were neutralized.
love the series you did. I am from Sean Connery generation, but i still think Craig is best in this role, more modern and realistic. Saying that i hate idea of them killing him off, which never happened in previous Bond movies, mainly because killing him destroys idea of concept that 007 can be any agent, and not just a single person
Wasn’t expecting part 2 so quickly. Awesome. I enjoyed No Time to Die a bit more than I expected. Sure, the villain was a total let down (sucks to see Rami underdeveloped/underused) but I quite liked the film. If I had a comment (because it’s not even a complain) it would be that, at that time in the movie, and thinking the ending would be heading in another direction, I thought Naomi giving James the 007 moniker was a bit _rushed_ ) yeah, the movie has shown these two know each other and slowly began to form a companionship and it good but, like, shouldn’t you wait until the end of movie? Once everyone is save and sound give him the title, and then have James reject it and finally, for real, seriously, this time let him finally retired, especially now knowing he has a daughter. Honestly didn’t expect them to kill him, totally got me by surprise. Good movie. If I had to rank them as my favorites, it would be Casino, Skyfall & NTTD. Except… that is not true. I was born in the 90s so I was young enough see and be completely mind blown🤯 by Another Day to Die. Like, invisible cars, Madonna, aggressive fencing 🤺, Fucking Captain Flint!? And flipping a car with the ejector seat to _dodge_ an incoming missile? This is my shit! Hahaha That will always be my favorite.
I think one of the worst parts of Spectre's musical opening, and by extension Writing on the Wall, is that it beat out Radiohead's Man of War for the musical spotlight simply because Man of War wasn't written solely for Bond. While I understand the desire to have an original song made for the film, Man of War perfectly encapsulates the original feelings that Casino Royale set up for Bond to struggle with, and could've been a great introduction to signal that Spectre was going to try and tackle those struggles again. (I mean, movie still probably would've been shit, but at least the song would've been better).
Tiny point at the end, it was stated in the film that the nanobots could spread from person to person until reaching the target. So even if he left the island and avoided hid family completely, if he came into contact with Anyone, the bots would spread, and one day his family would just drop dead and it would be his fault.
The way the news about Lashana Lynch was first presented coupled with the fact that No Time To Die was reshot extensively do suggest that the backlash to the woke outrage marketing had an impact on the final movie. It doesn't make sense to tut-tut people for jumping the gun if their overwhelmingly negative reaction is the reason certain woke elements were cut from the film.
It doesn’t suggest that at all. The scene Lashana mentioned way back was still in the film, just cut differently. There was no one saying she would become the new James Bond since 007 is a code name. It was mostly an overzealous emotional reaction. If assuming certain “woke” aspects were cut from the film due to backlash despite there being absolutely no evidence of this makes it seem like that emotional reaction was justified, I guess you can go with that, but I can only go off of the facts.
@@MacabreStorytelling "Just cut differently" Exactly. "There was no one saying she would become the new James Bond" This is just verbal sleight of hand. 007 and James Bond are synonymous, to the point where characters will switch between the two interchangeably when talking to Bond. You can pedantically argue that the code-name could apply to anyone, but why do you think all the clickbait headlines read "New female black 007?" Do you really think the misunderstanding and subsequent outrage was anything other than intentional? Obviously there won't ever be confirmation of any of this unless somebody releases leaked documents/scripts, but to look at all the circumstantial evidence (IE extensive late stage reshoots) and conclude nothing happened is myopic.
@@AliRadicali This is simply conspiratorial thinking that some use to justify their emotional overreaction and the fact they were proven wrong upon the release of the film.
@@MacabreStorytelling You keep hammering on this point of an "emotional overreaction", as if trolling the fanbase should elicit any other reaction than outrage. They put out a controversial narrative, the public reacted poorly, extensive reshoots followed. What a leap to think a connection exists between the two.
@@AliRadicali because it was. Spectre went through extensive reshoots too. The idea that the film reshot extensive sequences to get rid of “wokeness” is completely unfounded and the overblown concerns of the fan base were proven wrong.
Can't help but agree with your critique on Daniel Craig's era as Bond. While I find it admirable that the character and overarching journey of Bond was revamped for a modern era, it's a shame that the exciting storytelling potential of a serialized James Bond saga couldn't pan out and left the series very muddled. I'm hopful though that for the next James Bond series they learn from the shortcomings of the Craig era and deliver a thrilling series of films. (Fingers crossed they go with someone like Idris Elba).
2:00 - Eeeeeeeeeh, this seems a really nitpicky criticism. Bond is a spy, and eavesdropping on conversations is something of an occupational requirement for him. It doesn't stretch my credulity to believe that he'd want to see what his target was plotting as well as ultimately killing him.
Craig started out so good with casino Royal. Then Wuantum if a solace was a big waste of time and but when Skyfall was so good I just went with it and considered it a hiccup. Boy I was wrong as Spectre was just as bad and the worst Bond relationship ever. Then they bring her back for no time to die which is exactly what time it is. I would give Craig’s time as Bond a C-.
In contrast to your conclusion, I got the impression Daniel Craig didn't like the films with articles stating that he wanted to quit and only stuck around for financial reasons.
Well I think he definitely did feel that way, but regardless, initially he was passionate about the character, but got jaded as time went on and it was clear others weren't as in it as him. The fact he still turned out though every film shows his dedication.
They never intended it to have continuity. QoS was never supposed to be such a direct sequel but ended up so due to writers strike. So it was always a half hearted serialisation attempt. Plus writing always sucked except casino Royale which had the novel to base on.
Re the unnecessary mirror scene: it's definitely unsettling and weird (though that might be a commentary on prior Bond series arcs, for want of a better word.) But I think it's trying to hold to the long-established idea of Bond doing two key women per film (aside from any asides), one good, one bad, the good one surviving and being saved, the bad one not usually so much. Belluci is completely wasted here guest starring as the 'dark' one of the key pair, but does get a variation by surviving (after being used and cast aside.) This by the way is one of the better parts of QoS: it inverts the light/dark typical Bond pair. The light girl shows up around the proper time, but is killed off. The dark girl survives and wins (and barely gets a kiss, nor is much interested in it.) That's kind of genius as a variation! (QoS has its problems, but I like it more than most people do. Your crits were on point, I agree, btw.)
Now i understand why Daniel Craing didnt want to do Last 2 movies. They barely dragged him into No time to die. Didn't see much effort from him since quantum of solace. Quantum of Solcae is the last film i can say Daniel Craig was trying.
Wait wait wait. Are you saying that a series of five films, made within a period of fifteen years, by four different directors, and seven different credited writers, is somehow inconsistent with itself? I mean, is there any series of films that matches or exceeds the criteria above, that is consistent with its themes, characters and stories it tells?
You articulate brilliantly what’s nagged me as these films have progressed. I know they’re not bad films but they’re just not quite right. CR is my favourite of the Craig Bonds and I never got on with the whole giving him a backstory thing in Skyfall and Spectre. My personal view is that James Bond is the name of the position in much the same way as the 007 designation. When the old James Bond retires (or is retired) someone else steps into the role, as in life I suppose. There is no and never was a a boy called James Bond who lived in Scotland. He went by his real name back then. It’s the only way I can look at the succession of different Bonds that makes any sense to me. They’ll be telling us its the Bond multiverse next.
Personally found Nomi quite weak in NTTD. I thought her inclusion was pointless until maybe the climax, like she mostly made the film slightly longer than contributing much that was meaningful to the plot. I think most of her scenes could have been cut until possibly the finale,? Even then, I'm not entirely sure. Though it got some laughs, the rivalry felt bafflingly executed; are we meant to believe someone so childish and petty is Bond's successor? Like, why was she compelled to seek Bond just to emphasise her superiority and snidely tell him not to interfere? Also, revealing crucial info about Heracles? Does that not feel like contrived writing? Bond could have just heard that from Felix or Ash immediately, and not pointlessly turn them down, only to change his mind shortly after. I see need for tension but we have that with Madeline already, so isn't it slightly redundant? The worst character example is when she is so insecure over Bond's return to MI6, fixated on what his number is when they're in the middle of a possible world ending crisis, like act a bit professional. I started liking her more near the end when she warmed up to Bond, which I wish happened earlier as maybe they could have had a more meaningful dynamic, made her more essential to the plot, and allow her to actually be an endearing female icon. Also, I think it might have made her more likable overall, not seem like some needlessly immature, petty antagonist viewers might struggle taking seriously as the new 007.
I remember watching Spectre in theater, absolutely amazed by the audacity of the writers, who made James Bond suffer a lobotomy and having a dream-like over the top fantasy of happy ending like in Terry Gillian's Brazil, for example. I was expecting the moment were they revealed that the obviously stupidly fake shooting at the secret base, the saving of Madeleine in a huge goverment building IN THREE MINUTES and that fact that Bond shots down an helicopter with a 9mm (they could have used an assault rifle for the scene but a 9mm helped making it even more cathartic), that all of that was fake and Bond just died, alone, in a white room. Men, that was a brave way to finish a saga, not really what I wanted, but you have to admire the balls for doing th... oh.
I think Writing On The Wall is about opening yourself up to love after having closed yourself off. Its about taking the risk because its worth it. Also it could be taken as "if Ibstay in this business Ill die alone anyway, so why not take the risk as it could be meaningful. Im probably biased, its my wedding song.
Spectre's opening song was released long before the movie was. Listening to the lyrics really suggested we were in for some chemistry between Bond and "the love interest" that seems to be described in the song. Chemistry so strong as to cause Bond to throw everything away, to jump into the unknown/dangerous. I felt nothing for Lea Seaydoux. I did not feel like they had chemistry at all. I was being TOLD about a relationship that didn't jump out at me on screen. The song, in retrospect, did more to describe this emotional state I was expecting from the movie that what the movie provided. The ending fell completely flat for me. The follow up film fell in the same boat. Lea Seaydoux and Craig have no chemistry. I feel that both of these final movies hinge on the interaction between Lea Seaydoux and Craig and because it falls so flat, the movie flounders. Also, Rami Malek is awful. I find him bad in everything he does. I hate seeming him on screen. No Time to Die was no different.
Thank you for this. I’m so glad I didn’t spend any money on watching No Time To Die. Especially when I heard that they killed Bond. I guess Craig needed to have it done so that they would stop throwing money at hi to keep playing the character.
Loved Craig as Bond, Casino Royal was my fav! Too bad everything went down from there despite his and others’ efforts. And i get how people can overlook the whole ‘go woke, go broke’, but let’s be honest: anytime a writers work is repurposed, changed, or injected with other themes by producers or companies with different incentives, the net result is just bad. Heck, even the writer/s may be culpable if they’re focused on ‘talk down’ narratives and not on substance, character development and plot! At the end of the day, write the way you want to write, just focus on making it a good story.
14:18 Wait, did you say Bautista and not Batista? Wow, like honestly, thank you. I seen way too many people call him by his wrestling name. Other than that, yeah, just finished Part 1 and as much i feel Skyfall is a bit better than CR imo, i feel you did bring valuable points.
Spectre was the first Bond I saw in cinema. Thats the sole reason its special to me. But I hate the movie in every other way possible. And then there's No time to die.....
Don't get me wrong, I really liked NTTD. As a curative for the awful SPECTRE, it did the trick. Sure, this film is flimsy plot-wise but, because it's a Bond film, that's not important. (The Craig Era tried to raise those stakes after the ridiculous Brosnan Era but plot's not why we return to the franchise, film after film.) The most satisfying as aspect of NTTD was the character arc of Bond. He's getting the job done (something he failed to do in the previous two films), learning to trust, making his own decisions, and most importantly finally having fun. I would have been fine if Bond had stayed estranged from Madeleine yet still connected with his daughter. That would have been enough. Yet, by coming to terms with his character (trust, agency, fun) his demise is doubly tragic. Still, this also reverberates with the actor's journey. Craig is able to invest real nuance in his final Bond outing and that's a tremendous gift to the fans. The film is well-paced, well-acted and looks great. Even if it has weird plot holes and doesn't fulfill an unrealistic thematic narrative, it is a very good film.
I feel like dispute Craig having 2 of the best bond films made it fell a little short so to poor planning, writing, and consistency with characters. I personally think Craig is the best bond. However I think it layed the groundwork for a new era to come in a nail everything this era went for but ultimately failed at due to consistency.
![State of Play | September 24, 2024 [ENGLISH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fVs0suPHAX8/mqdefault.jpg)
I was both shaken, and stirred by this brilliant two-part series. Bravo.
MACABRE STORYTELLING WILL RETURN
I see what you did there
I thought it was quite inconsistent - the main thesis was solid - but dwelled on inconsistencies in the films he didn’t like. It was sooooo nit picky for quantum of solace - while completely ignoring how stupid the 2nd act “let myself get captured” cliche of Skyfall was. Pitch meetings has done it wayyyy better - but seriously Javier Bardem’s plan to get captured, let Q plug his laptop into the mainframe at a convenient time and then wait for a tube train to fall on Bond is THE dumbest villain plot ever. Like how would that work?!!?? But no mention of this bs in 2 hours of video - but 15 minutes more detail on minor plot strangenesses in quantum? Almost like the preferences override the detail?
@@henry587 thank you
One note about the NTTD opening. It’s the fact that Madeleine specifically tells Bond to go to Vesper’s grave and then that it exploded that set him off.
Still feels like a lazy move from the writers since considering the events of Spectre that were brought up, there's no way a woman who's tied to a building that'll blow up would be working with a villain. And if she's was, well then what if Bond didn't fall for the trap? Then Blofeld just made one of the dumbest gambles ever.
@@osmanyousif7849 Yeah it's like it feels so over-the-top obvious that if I were Bond I'd be questioning how simple it seemed. Like "if she was really evil, she wouldn't be THAT dumb and lazy about it, right?" But also, when I first watched the movie I was like "Dude, why the hell would you seriously visit her grave?" Like, regardless of whether or not someone TOLD Bond to do that, if I was a villain trying to kill James Bond, and I had no idea where in the world he was hiding, but I DID know that he had an ex-girlfriend whose death he'd been openly sad about for years now, my FIRST instinct would be "Why don't I plant a bomb in her grave and leave a camera watching, just on the off chance he decides to visit someday?" How the hell did he not see that shit coming?
The Blofeld reveal has as much impact as the Khan reveal in Star Trek.
If you didn't know who the character was it meant nothing, and if you did know who the character was you'd be like, "Hell no you're not."
Both also signaled the beginning of the end. It took 5 years for them to make a follow up to Spectre.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the reason Beyond tanked and brought any future movies in that timeline down with it.
I love Macabre calling him "Franny" the whole time. I'm gonna call him that in my head forever from now on. #notMYBlofeld
I keep trying to overlook the constant blaming of the writers but, as an independent (i.e. no name) screenwriter myself who has suffered though meetings with producers and directors demanding change after change, I can tell you that the writers are NOT "in charge" of the story and plot. They are simply tasked with the hands-on work. But often the notes they're given even cause THEM to shake their heads and say, "This is awful." Yes, they could quit. So could the cinematographer if he doesn't like the director's taste in framing a shot. But it's your JOB. You do it to the best of your ability. If you DO leave, you get replaced yet often STILL get writer credit. Sometimes you even get SOLE writer credit for a script that is only half yours (if that).
If there's a totem pole, imagine the director and producers at the top of it and the writers below them. Dario Argento says everyone on a film, including the writer, should be there to serve the director's vision. Not the other way around. Of course, in a franchise like 007, the producers are the ultimate "show runners." Still, writers do NOT always get their way. So if you hate an idea or whatever, please don't just assume it came from a writer.
Thank you. And goodnight.
Good points. The more I learn about how these blockbuster movies are made, the more I realise how little respect there is for writers and their work.
It must be infuriating and demoralizing, after years spent honing your craft, and months of hard work to write a decent script, to have it utterly butchered by untalented, uncreative higher ups with no idea what makes a good story.
This explains how, while the bar to entry is so high, the end results are often so poor when it comes to screenwriting.
A good example of this is the ridiculous 'Brofeld' twist in Spectre. Making Bond and Blofeld stepbrothers was producer Michael G. Wilson's brainwave, not the writers'.
Speaking for myself, when I hear something like "wtf were the writers thinking?" I don't equate "writers" with the folks whose job title is "writer" but rather with the *literal* writers -- whether that "writer" was the director, the producer, or some meddling executive.
I don't work in the film industry but in software engineering where things are somewhat similar -- the programmers who write the code often get blamed for bad decisions (like in video games -- "what were the devs thinking?") when in reality majority of those decisions are made by the executives/directors/people who have no idea how to actually write code.
Either way -- in both industries you would hope the director, whose job it is to maintain the creative vision, would stick to that job and let the professional writers put his creative vision into actual words, but that is so rarely the case especially when dealing with the kind of egos that exist in those types. So that's where you get directors doing more writing than actual writers because they think it's so easy.
Anyway, I sympathize.
These are very good points. I really enjoyed reading this part of the comments. I know it had nothing to do with the video I just really enjoy learning movie making lol 😆
I'm pretty sure the deal with Bond killing himself was that earlier in the movie M explained that project Heracles spreads rapidly from person to person by human - only killing those with the DNA it is programmed to kill. In that way it's the most effective method of assassination for an intelligence agency as one doesn't even have to come within contact with the target, eventually, it'll just make its way around. This is shown earlier in the film when Blofeld dies - it spreads to Bond by simply touching Madeleine but only kills Blofeld. Hence, the argument that Bond could just be in isolation while they research a cure really isn't feasible when you realise he wouldn't be able to touch a single person throughout all that time, for fear of it eventually spreading to Madeleine and Mathilde.
Exactly. I like the Heracles McGuffin, and funnily enough Bond sacrificing himself is almost a cowardly act. I would have ended the film with Bond getting off the island. Time passes and he is in bed with a woman who resembles Vesper. He leaves her early next morning to go and see Madaleine and Mathilde from afar, the little girl sees her father and they both smile at each other. When Mathilde get her mother’s attention and she points to where Bond is, Madaleine doesn’t see anyone. However she knows Bond was there and smiles to herself. Bond drives back to his apartment, as he enters the main entrance that last verse of Eillish’s song is heard and as Bond enters the building the screen fades to black and the song ends.
@@spaceodds1985 post-credits scene: Madeline's doorbell rings and it's the woman Bond was sleeping with who has come to answer a job advert for a nanny. She puts out her hand for Madeline to shake and as Madeline reaches out the screen fades to black for a final time...
@@spaceodds1985 that’s stupid but whatever
If bond doesn't die from the nanobots why would his kid die.
@@orestipavlou9059 Because the Nanobots are programmed to attack Madeline's DNA. Which Bond doesn't have but Madeline and the kid both do.
For me the meaning of "the writing on the wall" is the looming threat of spectre as the big bad behind all the previous film's bad guys. This however would only work if the previous films had actually set up such a looming threat instead of retroactively shoehorning it into this one
I think it can have double meaning. We see a memorial wall in the final scene so that could be a reference.
I’m glad you gave Daniel Craig his due credit, he is a great actor who sold the movies for me.
Agreed. I want him to play “The Gentleman” in a Spider-Man movie. I always was interested in the character ever since The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Daniel Craig’s acting is awesome
Not all characters are necessarily made better with character arcs, and the problem with a character like Bond is that while you can explore the character, his charcter arc is not why one generally goes to see a Bond film. I think the Mission Impossible franchise handled and is handling the development of a character over a series of films much better within the same genre.
Still when you look back over the entire franchise, one has to wonder if the team at EON actually understand the Bond character at all. In the beginning when they had Flemming's source material, there was some consistency, but without that they seemed to be constantly struggling to find ways to keep Bond relevant, and ended up making the franchise derivative of whatever trends were happening at the time.
Last I really appreciate the Days of Our Lives quip, because I'm glad somebody remembers some of the crazy situations that show had back in the day with characters returning from the dead, changing their appearance, and getting possessed by demons, and ALL of that made more sense than Spectre.
Bond shouldn't have an arc like that. He changes the world around him, the world doesn't change him .
Exactly. Bond is a paragon. He's not an everyman character.
The story of an everyman is the story about how the events of the story change them.
The story of a paragon is how he (or she) changes the world due to the events of the story.
@@freman007 Trouble is... Casino Royale was an origin story. So he did change. Unfortunately that's where it should have ended.
@@Roper122 Exactly, Bond like Sherlock Holmes is a steadfast character. These characters are already fully formed and have already done their "heroes journey".
Amen. He's an action hero. He drinks, drives fast, beds endless women, survives unbelievable danger. He kicks ass. He's not meant to have his kicked emotionally for five damn films. It's too much
Great stuff, Mr Macabre. That ending left me unexpectedly emotional: Craig's Bond was my Bond too. I love what he brought to the character and I still love Casino Royale. It breaks my heart that all that potential was squandered by such a lack of vision and poor quality control from those running the show: so many bad story choices, so many missed opportunities, and so much sloppy and lazy writing. Craig and his wonderfully human Bond deserved better, and reading some of his interviews, I get the impression he had a better understanding of the character and the direction the saga should have taken than the people in charge.
Also, I was wondering if you'd consider doing a rewrite for the Craig Bond films in the same style as your GOT videos? I'm attempting something similar myself, but I'd be so fascinated to hear your thoughts on how it could have been improved.
Anyway. Top stuff. Time well spent.
Yup. Casino Royale has stuck with me far more than I had expected even though I've only seen it once at release when I was young. Daniel Craig and Eva Green sold that movie so fucking well.
It's sad the series suffered from a disjointed vision and fell flat when the prospect of a continuous Bond series with a fantastic opening opened up so many possibilities.
It was Daniel Craig's idea to kill off Bond, so I'm not very kind to Craig at all. I solely put how Craig was great in CR to director Martin Campbell and writer Paul Haggis.
@@EthanKnight97 I was fine with Craig's Bond dying (I always thought this version existed in an alternate universe and has no effect on the earlier Bonds), but I thought it was done poorly due to bad writing, both in NTTD itself and the problems left over from Spectre. This Bond deserved a better ending.
Campbell and Haggis totally made Casino great. Apparently Paul Haggis also wrote a script for NTTD but it was rejected. I'd kill to get a copy of it.
@@katemara667 I wonder if that could still be done? Putting up rejected screenplays?
@@Thomasmemoryscentral It would be great to read rejected screenplays (both from Bond and various other films). It's aIways interesting to imagine what could have been. I guess it all depends on who owns the rights to the scripts and if they'd be willing to share them.
Apparently Haggis's last Bond script had the working title 'Shatterhand', so that might help with searching if it's ever made available online.
You're right. The reveal of his name 'Blofeld' was just like the reveal of the name 'Khan' in Star Trek into Darkness: meaningless to the central characters in both cases, and meaningless to the audience unless they've seen the relevant, classic-era earlier film(s).
Either way, completely undeserving of the THIS-IS-SIGNIFICANT emphasis.
Yes it's the writers breaking the fourth wall for a cheap wink to fans. It's kinda like in The Force Awakens when Han Solo and Finn capture Phasma and Solo says something like "is there a trash compactor around here?". To the fans who have seen the original Star Wars in which Solo gets trapped in the trash compactor in the Death Star this is a throwaway gag, but it wouldn't have made any sense to Finn - from his point of view, Han Solo would have seemed like a sadistic psychopath who wanted to kill Phasma in the most gruesome way possible for no particular reason.
Spectre: That time when Mission Impossible did the same movie better in every way in the same year. Insane.
I am LIVING for your absolute evisceration of Spectre! I'll be sipping a vodka martini while I take notes.
No joke, your versatility in content and arguments are top of your game. I wonder why you aren't more known bruv.
My video on Kevin McCallister doing 9/11 they want to keep hidden...
@@MacabreStorytelling goddamn 9/11, the second worst thing that happened that year.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "Writing on the Wall" just refers to the name 'James Bond' being written on the memorial wall of the old MI6 HQ...the writers of the song probably just saw that screen shot and went with it...I can't really come up with any other metaphorical meaning atm
Having Sam Smith sing 'The Paperweight's On The Desk' would be only slightly less thematically coherent.
He might not have had a lot to work with. Billie Eilish dropped No Time to Die almost two years before the actual film came out, and during that time there were rumors they rewrote most of the plot. Writing on the Wall probably made sense with an earlier version of the script, but they didn't have time to go back and change the song they finished months ago.
@@mariokarter13 nah, it was the opposite. Radiohead was originally commissioned to write the theme, but their song was rejected by the studio (they subsequently released it as a free download). Smith was brought on to write a new theme last minute, which he has subsequently admitted was a rush job (saying it took about 20 minutes to write) and released it only a month before the film came out.
The Radiohead version works pretty well with the opening sequence and ulimately I think works better as a theme (especially given they had more time to write it), although it's characteristically Radiohead so recognise not for everyone: ruclips.net/video/COP0XlYHvto/видео.html
Just gotta say preemtively that it's kinda funny that what started as a promisingly fresh and modern take on Bond turned out to be the most consistently underwhelming and mediocre Bond eras to date.
i think thats a little hyperbolus
I think that's a little hyperbola
I think that's a little hyperbonkers
And a waste of award winning actors, playing what could’ve been great villains but turned into just mediocrities (except for Le Chiffe and somewhat Silva).
Not the fault of Mr Craig though.....
Jesus... After watching this breakdown, Spectre was even more convoluted tgan i thought! Also, doesnt Bond escape the villains base waaaay to easily? He shoots a pipe and the whole place goes up! Something like that. I swear, the villains base in the first Oncredibles was more interesting.
Oh...you covered the base thing. Cool!
Spectre is like if someone tried recreating Oldboy but they were absolutely wasted when they saw it.
Hell yeah
So Spike Lee's Oldboy?
What's funny in a battlefield humor sort of way is that from what you've broken down in this series (I never saw Spectre or NTTD and took my exit with Skyfall) is that I can see how this series fits together as a whole in a "post-it notes on a wall" breakdown way. There's a definite arc for Bond's character all based on how he was portrayed in the first Bond book, Casino Royale, and evolving out of that while ignoring most other Bond media (even other Fleming novels).
Bond learns to love and loses both it and the ability to trust in film 1. He breaks down into vengeance in film 2 but regains his professionalism by the end if not his ability to trust. In film 3 he loses his final emotional connection to his job when M dies but truly begins to trust in others again. In film 4 he finally starts a relationship that matters and finally quits his deadly job in good conscience. In film 5 he's in retirement but is pulled back into one last job that connects him to everyone he's ever known and learns he has started a family but, because he's found love and has trust in others makes the hard call and sacrifices himself in something like peace.
Zoomed out like that, the series has a throughline for sure and I'm guessing that general vision might've been in the background for the producers during the many years these 5 films were made. However, the devil's in the details and in the execution.
While Craig definitely consistently did his best with these movies, as did most of the actors I saw, the final shooting scripts were so hit or miss (and only QoS has a halfway decent excuse for this) and they just jammed so much nonsense into it that it all became a mess.
Maybe the only silver lining might be that in 20 years after two more Bond actors have retired or maybe after the series lies fallow for a while, some hot director will come along with a smart writer and they'll have the clout to do a project they've dreamt about for years. To remake this series from beginning to end with all the kinks ironed out and the split story beats knitted together, with a vision to make it all work as an actual series. Because with the high notes it already has I'd love to see the vision of the overall picture work out well in a more coherent manner.
Well said!
I was a kid who grew up on the Moore films on tv and I hated the Dalton films in the theater, so this grounded dramatic bond is the opposite of what I want from them. They feel like knockoff mission impossible films to me. Brosnan is my favorite portrayal now, I feel he melded the best of other versions into a good medium that could be fun but also have drama.
I grew up on Brosnan but there were Moore classics. (also Craig sucks)
@@Nick-ce6lt it's ridiculous, but Moonraker is my favorite of that era. It has such a great opening with jaws and the parachutes
@@fusionspace175 Lol it's everyone's favorite ruclips.net/video/ARPs1KhpMZA/видео.html
These Craig kids are missing out by limiting themselves to Craig's brooding emo Bond. The old movies are gems.
Because god forbid a franchise evolving
Spectre is really one of those movies where it would´ve benefitted from cutting things out.
If I were making No Time to Die, here's how I would have killed Bond:
At the beginning of the movie, Adam Sandler eats a banana and throws the peel out the window.
Throughout the movie, we get the occasional random shot of the banana peel on the street, seemingly for no reason.
At the end of the movie, Bond isn't infected with nanites and he escapes the island before the missile strike hits. Now, feeling victorious, he gets in his car and drives. While shouting, "James Bond Rules!" his car hits the banana peel and spins out of control, driving over a cliff.
THE END
Chekhov's banana.
Barbara broccoli and michael g wilson : "Bond fans, I've got a feeling your whole day's getting ruined, but for now i gotta study."
If Andrew Scott had a nickel for every time he’s been in something so bad that the fans have to make an elaborate theory insisting that the events of it was all a dream and the last entry would fix it, he would have 2 nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s strange it’s happened twice.
If the final act of your film is so bad it leads to fan theories of it not being real, you know you fucked up BAD.
The same thing happened to BBC Sherlock: the final episode was so bafflingly terrible that many fans believed it was some kind of joke and that the 'real' episode was still coming. It was like some wild cargo cult of tumblr users.
Interestingly, Sherlock also pulled the 'surprise supervillain sibling who's been behind everything all along' twist.
Your work on methodologies and practices is good, but I really enjoy your work when you have a specific piece of content in mind 👍
💕
Loved both parts of this retrospective. Definitely need to revisit the earlier Craig films as I remembered not liking them when they came out
Any chance of doing a similar retrospective for the Dalton films? That was always my favourite James Bond
If Palpatine is that Pixar old man playing chess with himself in the park, Franny is a tinfoil conspiracy theorist's attempt to do the same while high on meth
EDIT: It would've been insanely easy to rewrite that scene to make it both a tie-in and still keep the agency of the other villains in the series - just have Franny be the one to provide them information about MI6
Instead we just have Franny going "BUT IT WAS ME, DIO-I mean Franny" and later "BUT IT WAS ME, DIO-I mean Blowfield"
first of all: excellent work! One little notion to the infection of bond (taken fom the bond experience channel): it's not about Bond being never be able to come in contact with his family, it is about not being able to come in contact with anyone, because the nanobots act like a virus infecting anybody he comes in physical contact with and thus eventually reaching his family. That being said, the final installment is a real disappointment given the excellent craftmanship from the technical stuff and the actors, but the writing is... Greetings from Germany and I hope my english makes sense ;)
It's a really good analysis that I would add is probably impacted by two different visions kinda starting the same and differing thought out the years.
You get the sense that Craig was more interested in exploring Bond's psyche and treating him like a real human being vs. suburban dad wish fulfillment.
Where as the producers were up for cashing in on that Nolan cred at the time (Keeping in mind Craig's casting was a few months after he made Batman popular again), but moved towards the tongue and cheek expanded universe cause of Marvel.
So by Spectre, its just these two ideas trying to come together that simply don't fit.
I just think it's obnoxious and unnecessary how every time modern Hollywood decides to reboot a classic bad guy, they're like "THIS time, their motivation is PERSONAL!" Like, Blofeld didn't NEED to be Bond's secret half-brother who was jealous of him. Not everybody has to turn out to be related somehow, this isn't Star Wars (and even Star Wars doesn't NEED to keep doing that). Hollywood seems to think this is a shortcut for making a villain more "interesting", but like, no, not if you don't make us care about the villain in the first place. In the original movies, Blofeld was just the big bad guy behind everything, and that was enough. They establish early on that there's this secret organization that's backing all these villains and their evil plans, and they tease the fact that there's a mastermind in charge of all of it, but repeatedly avoid showing his face, so that when you DO finally see him, it DOES feel like a big deal. And at that point, Blofeld's motivation is already personal enough: Bond has ruined his plans so many times that he's become the main thorn in his side. I don't think their relationship needs to be more complicated than that. The idea that Blofeld would be doing all of this simply out of spite because he hasn't gotten over jealousy from his childhood, honestly just kinda makes him feel like a big ol' petty baby, and not a genuinely scary or intimidating villain. If they wanted to make him a more complex or three-dimensional character, there are better ways they could've gone about that.
Ooooh, can you do a Bond rewrite like you did GoT?
Lessgooo ! Also waiting for the conclusion of the three act structure series
Will be completed by mid February!
I'm unpleasantly surprised how everyone praises Casino Royale failing to realize how that movie has one of the biggest plot holes, if not the biggest, in the Craig series. Why making such a convoluted ploy to capture the terrorist banker LeChiffre in the first place? I mean, both MI6 and CIA know the exact time and the place of his attempt to recover his bankroll, so why not just capture him and torture the ass out of him until he reveals everything he knows? The whole movie basically revolves around this unforgivable oversight.
I really think the book did this way better.
This is what is making me subscribe. Great work!
✊
Bond choosing to die at the end of 'No Time to Die' was believable for me, because if he touches just one other person before going into quarantine, the nanobots could potentially get to Madeleine and Mathilde by just spreading from person to person all around the world eventually. Too much risk unless they could immediately neutralize.
However, the obviousness of the bad guys, even in-universe, was a huge problem. I still enjoyed the movie overall, but I cannot stretch my suspension of disbelief enough to think Bond would actually think Madeleine betrayed him based on one goon proudly giving up that one piece of information for no reason and them calling a phone literally just to say she betrayed him. Their ploy wasn't done with any subtlety at all. Why would they do that other than to make him believe she'd betrayed him? If she had betrayed him, there would be no reason for them to tell him so while she's still denying it. The writing for that was just too ridiculous.
And why did Leiter and Bond not turn on Ash as soon as he was trying to get the scientist to shut up? They could have tried at least a little bit to make these bad guys seem a little less ham fisted in their 'clever' schemes.
Hmmm...if their theme is subverting old tropes, why not have it so Franz "being behind it all" be a bluff, an elaborate villain tic of wanting to psychologically break someone, and finding an opportunity to do this in Bond relatively recently--then Bond discovers this at the very end scene after letting him live, revealing Bond's gullibility and framing his life as a growing world of fictions? It also makes "Spectre" not only a shadow over global affairs but doubling as a vapor, a meaningless ghost that is more ACTUALLY inside Bond's own head than anything else? It ALSO keeps Quantum intact, for whatever that's worth.
Madeleine is too young for Bond. They have no real chemistry - which is ironic cos I think Craig and Bellucci have uber chemistry (despite the virtual SA). Most of your critiques I agree with. Interesting video.
To be honest, I'd rather watch Spectre than QOS. Despite it's problems, Spectre had funnier lines, better action sequences, more personality, style.
I get something with Spectre (even if it doesn't entirely succeed and can fail big time). I get nothing out of QOS and when I do it's just nothing but bored bitterness thinking about it (which makes it the worst Bond flick to me personally).
Amazing. I actually cracked up several times and I rarely laugh at anything.
Question: if the fate of the world was at stake, who only send two 00s? Why not send ALL of them? We learned in Spectre that 009 exists and has an Astin Martin. Where was he in this film? Too BUSY to save the world? Like--were all the other 00s on more important missions? Stupid ending.
Also, the reason Bond stayed and died is because he would affect everyone he touched. If he shook a hand and that hand shook another, and one eventually would kill his family. Also, main villian man's evil plan was to kill millions of people and taking control of the world. By fear. Much like what happening now with COVID.
"Writing on the Wall" IS terrible. When I think back on the earlier theme songs, "Goldfinger," "Thunderball," "Live and Let Die," to name a few, those songs had energy and gusto. "Writing on the Wall" is a wimpy, sappy song sung by someone who can't hit the notes. I have heard the song covered by a female singer, and it wasn't as bad as what's-his-name's rendition.
These videos have given me a lot more respect for Craig as Bond. Previously I couldn't stand him.
My man ✊
The thing about Nomi is that there was already a far more likeable character that could have been written into a 00 position far more naturally.
Moneypenny already showed some field skills at the start of Skyfall, and she's far more likeable. It would have also added an interesting layer to Moneypenny's and Bond's relationship. Absolutely baffling as to why the writers chose to add a new character in the last film instead of continuing with a well-know, well-established character.
Because Skyfall establishes Moneypenny doesn't care to be a field agent. This is explicit in the text.
I hated how Spectre made Silva into just another henchman and not someone with a personal connection to M without anyone helping him.
Mac did you ever hear Radiohead's rejected theme for Spectre? It's really pretty good.
I wish the interconnectivity of this Craig era hadn't been so clunky. Started on a high note, lows by the middle, and slightly meh by the end. Your breakdown of the characterization and villain flaws was perfect. I still cried like a baby when Felix died and later when Bond elected to go out like he did, even while yelling at the screen that he could have just lived like Bubble Boy until the nanobots were neutralized.
love the series you did. I am from Sean Connery generation, but i still think Craig is best in this role, more modern and realistic. Saying that i hate idea of them killing him off, which never happened in previous Bond movies, mainly because killing him destroys idea of concept that 007 can be any agent, and not just a single person
SPECTRE credits in an alternate universe:
with
Ralph Fiennes as M / Gareth Mallory
and
Christoph Waltz als McGuggenheimer Ball-Licker Schmidt
Top notch work dude ty very entertaining more so thn the actual films.
10:33 back in 2016 I was 17 just as him, now I'm 25 but he still remains 17.
✝️Rest In Power, Harambe✝️
Wasn’t expecting part 2 so quickly. Awesome.
I enjoyed No Time to Die a bit more than I expected.
Sure, the villain was a total let down (sucks to see Rami underdeveloped/underused) but I quite liked the film.
If I had a comment (because it’s not even a complain) it would be that, at that time in the movie, and thinking the ending would be heading in another direction, I thought Naomi giving James the 007 moniker was a bit _rushed_ ) yeah, the movie has shown these two know each other and slowly began to form a companionship and it good but, like, shouldn’t you wait until the end of movie? Once everyone is save and sound give him the title, and then have James reject it and finally, for real, seriously, this time let him finally retired, especially now knowing he has a daughter.
Honestly didn’t expect them to kill him, totally got me by surprise.
Good movie.
If I had to rank them as my favorites, it would be Casino, Skyfall & NTTD.
Except… that is not true.
I was born in the 90s so I was young enough see and be completely mind blown🤯 by Another Day to Die.
Like, invisible cars, Madonna, aggressive fencing 🤺, Fucking Captain Flint!? And flipping a car with the ejector seat to _dodge_ an incoming missile? This is my shit! Hahaha
That will always be my favorite.
I call giving a broken man a child and death killing him, doing an Iron Man. Although I don't agree with everything you say, but it's a great video.
Here after seeing Spectre. What a regretful 2 and a half hour it was, and that was after Quantum of Solace
I think one of the worst parts of Spectre's musical opening, and by extension Writing on the Wall, is that it beat out Radiohead's Man of War for the musical spotlight simply because Man of War wasn't written solely for Bond.
While I understand the desire to have an original song made for the film, Man of War perfectly encapsulates the original feelings that Casino Royale set up for Bond to struggle with, and could've been a great introduction to signal that Spectre was going to try and tackle those struggles again. (I mean, movie still probably would've been shit, but at least the song would've been better).
Tiny point at the end, it was stated in the film that the nanobots could spread from person to person until reaching the target. So even if he left the island and avoided hid family completely, if he came into contact with Anyone, the bots would spread, and one day his family would just drop dead and it would be his fault.
LOVE the radiohead alternate song for Spectre, bad movie tho
The way the news about Lashana Lynch was first presented coupled with the fact that No Time To Die was reshot extensively do suggest that the backlash to the woke outrage marketing had an impact on the final movie. It doesn't make sense to tut-tut people for jumping the gun if their overwhelmingly negative reaction is the reason certain woke elements were cut from the film.
It doesn’t suggest that at all. The scene Lashana mentioned way back was still in the film, just cut differently. There was no one saying she would become the new James Bond since 007 is a code name. It was mostly an overzealous emotional reaction. If assuming certain “woke” aspects were cut from the film due to backlash despite there being absolutely no evidence of this makes it seem like that emotional reaction was justified, I guess you can go with that, but I can only go off of the facts.
@@MacabreStorytelling "Just cut differently"
Exactly.
"There was no one saying she would become the new James Bond"
This is just verbal sleight of hand. 007 and James Bond are synonymous, to the point where characters will switch between the two interchangeably when talking to Bond. You can pedantically argue that the code-name could apply to anyone, but why do you think all the clickbait headlines read "New female black 007?" Do you really think the misunderstanding and subsequent outrage was anything other than intentional?
Obviously there won't ever be confirmation of any of this unless somebody releases leaked documents/scripts, but to look at all the circumstantial evidence (IE extensive late stage reshoots) and conclude nothing happened is myopic.
@@AliRadicali This is simply conspiratorial thinking that some use to justify their emotional overreaction and the fact they were proven wrong upon the release of the film.
@@MacabreStorytelling You keep hammering on this point of an "emotional overreaction", as if trolling the fanbase should elicit any other reaction than outrage.
They put out a controversial narrative, the public reacted poorly, extensive reshoots followed. What a leap to think a connection exists between the two.
@@AliRadicali because it was. Spectre went through extensive reshoots too. The idea that the film reshot extensive sequences to get rid of “wokeness” is completely unfounded and the overblown concerns of the fan base were proven wrong.
But "Now we know what C stands for" is brilliant lol.
dude i dont know why you made it to my recommends but god damn you are amazing. thank you algorithm
💓
Can't help but agree with your critique on Daniel Craig's era as Bond. While I find it admirable that the character and overarching journey of Bond was revamped for a modern era, it's a shame that the exciting storytelling potential of a serialized James Bond saga couldn't pan out and left the series very muddled. I'm hopful though that for the next James Bond series they learn from the shortcomings of the Craig era and deliver a thrilling series of films. (Fingers crossed they go with someone like Idris Elba).
2:00 - Eeeeeeeeeh, this seems a really nitpicky criticism. Bond is a spy, and eavesdropping on conversations is something of an occupational requirement for him. It doesn't stretch my credulity to believe that he'd want to see what his target was plotting as well as ultimately killing him.
Craig started out so good with casino Royal. Then Wuantum if a solace was a big waste of time and but when Skyfall was so good I just went with it and considered it a hiccup. Boy I was wrong as Spectre was just as bad and the worst Bond relationship ever. Then they bring her back for no time to die which is exactly what time it is. I would give Craig’s time as Bond a C-.
In contrast to your conclusion, I got the impression Daniel Craig didn't like the films with articles stating that he wanted to quit and only stuck around for financial reasons.
Well I think he definitely did feel that way, but regardless, initially he was passionate about the character, but got jaded as time went on and it was clear others weren't as in it as him. The fact he still turned out though every film shows his dedication.
@@MacabreStorytelling that's honestly sad, kinda dampers the positive note you wanted to leave the video on.
@@ringkunmori Yeah, I wanted to give him a nice sendoff but it breaks my heart that he put so much into the saga and it ended up so dissapointing.
They never intended it to have continuity. QoS was never supposed to be such a direct sequel but ended up so due to writers strike. So it was always a half hearted serialisation attempt. Plus writing always sucked except casino Royale which had the novel to base on.
Never got the hate for Spectre, it was my 3rd fav out of the 5 Craig films.
The single shot fight to the control room in NTTD is...not a single shot.
They got a couple of hidden cuts.
That's how most "single shot" sequences are made.
Re the unnecessary mirror scene: it's definitely unsettling and weird (though that might be a commentary on prior Bond series arcs, for want of a better word.) But I think it's trying to hold to the long-established idea of Bond doing two key women per film (aside from any asides), one good, one bad, the good one surviving and being saved, the bad one not usually so much. Belluci is completely wasted here guest starring as the 'dark' one of the key pair, but does get a variation by surviving (after being used and cast aside.) This by the way is one of the better parts of QoS: it inverts the light/dark typical Bond pair. The light girl shows up around the proper time, but is killed off. The dark girl survives and wins (and barely gets a kiss, nor is much interested in it.) That's kind of genius as a variation! (QoS has its problems, but I like it more than most people do. Your crits were on point, I agree, btw.)
Now i understand why Daniel Craing didnt want to do Last 2 movies. They barely dragged him into No time to die. Didn't see much effort from him since quantum of solace. Quantum of Solcae is the last film i can say Daniel Craig was trying.
Idk if I would say that. He still gave it his all for the films, I just don’t think the material was there.
Wait wait wait. Are you saying that a series of five films, made within a period of fifteen years, by four different directors, and seven different credited writers, is somehow inconsistent with itself?
I mean, is there any series of films that matches or exceeds the criteria above, that is consistent with its themes, characters and stories it tells?
The ring connection to a handshake far out
You articulate brilliantly what’s nagged me as these films have progressed. I know they’re not bad films but they’re just not quite right. CR is my favourite of the Craig Bonds and I never got on with the whole giving him a backstory thing in Skyfall and Spectre. My personal view is that James Bond is the name of the position in much the same way as the 007 designation. When the old James Bond retires (or is retired) someone else steps into the role, as in life I suppose. There is no and never was a a boy called James Bond who lived in Scotland. He went by his real name back then. It’s the only way I can look at the succession of different Bonds that makes any sense to me. They’ll be telling us its the Bond multiverse next.
why half of the scenes in Spectre and NTTD seems a deepfake?
THAT JONES OPENING
Listen...
Finally!! I do look forward for this.
Woke culture isn’t just ruining movies, it’s ruining everything. Or at least it’s trying to.
Personally found Nomi quite weak in NTTD. I thought her inclusion was pointless until maybe the climax, like she mostly made the film slightly longer than contributing much that was meaningful to the plot. I think most of her scenes could have been cut until possibly the finale,? Even then, I'm not entirely sure.
Though it got some laughs, the rivalry felt bafflingly executed; are we meant to believe someone so childish and petty is Bond's successor? Like, why was she compelled to seek Bond just to emphasise her superiority and snidely tell him not to interfere? Also, revealing crucial info about Heracles? Does that not feel like contrived writing? Bond could have just heard that from Felix or Ash immediately, and not pointlessly turn them down, only to change his mind shortly after. I see need for tension but we have that with Madeline already, so isn't it slightly redundant?
The worst character example is when she is so insecure over Bond's return to MI6, fixated on what his number is when they're in the middle of a possible world ending crisis, like act a bit professional. I started liking her more near the end when she warmed up to Bond, which I wish happened earlier as maybe they could have had a more meaningful dynamic, made her more essential to the plot, and allow her to actually be an endearing female icon. Also, I think it might have made her more likable overall, not seem like some needlessly immature, petty antagonist viewers might struggle taking seriously as the new 007.
Eh
@@MacabreStorytelling I see Mac. Anything else?
@@rookie6480 nah
@@MacabreStorytelling Fair enough XD
If you're unfamiliar with Daniel Craig before James Bond, I recommend _Layer Cake_
Definitely recommended
29:44 I mean 006 survived a fall like that so might as well check his pulse you never know 😂
Thank you for the passion you put into this channel, time to binge some vids again hehe
10:50 Cannot believe Heisenberg was in the Craig films
Writing on the wall can also refer to something obvious but still subtle and not overt.
I remember watching Spectre in theater, absolutely amazed by the audacity of the writers, who made James Bond suffer a lobotomy and having a dream-like over the top fantasy of happy ending like in Terry Gillian's Brazil, for example. I was expecting the moment were they revealed that the obviously stupidly fake shooting at the secret base, the saving of Madeleine in a huge goverment building IN THREE MINUTES and that fact that Bond shots down an helicopter with a 9mm (they could have used an assault rifle for the scene but a 9mm helped making it even more cathartic), that all of that was fake and Bond just died, alone, in a white room. Men, that was a brave way to finish a saga, not really what I wanted, but you have to admire the balls for doing th... oh.
Lol
SPECTRE HAS NO REDEEMING QUALITIES
I think Writing On The Wall is about opening yourself up to love after having closed yourself off. Its about taking the risk because its worth it. Also it could be taken as "if Ibstay in this business Ill die alone anyway, so why not take the risk as it could be meaningful. Im probably biased, its my wedding song.
Lol no worries. I think its mostly the title in relation to the film I find off. Congrats!
Spectre's opening song was released long before the movie was. Listening to the lyrics really suggested we were in for some chemistry between Bond and "the love interest" that seems to be described in the song. Chemistry so strong as to cause Bond to throw everything away, to jump into the unknown/dangerous.
I felt nothing for Lea Seaydoux. I did not feel like they had chemistry at all. I was being TOLD about a relationship that didn't jump out at me on screen. The song, in retrospect, did more to describe this emotional state I was expecting from the movie that what the movie provided. The ending fell completely flat for me. The follow up film fell in the same boat. Lea Seaydoux and Craig have no chemistry. I feel that both of these final movies hinge on the interaction between Lea Seaydoux and Craig and because it falls so flat, the movie flounders.
Also, Rami Malek is awful. I find him bad in everything he does. I hate seeming him on screen. No Time to Die was no different.
Rami Malek was good as Freddie Mercury though....
Thank you for this. I’m so glad I didn’t spend any money on watching No Time To Die. Especially when I heard that they killed Bond. I guess Craig needed to have it done so that they would stop throwing money at hi to keep playing the character.
Loved Craig as Bond, Casino Royal was my fav! Too bad everything went down from there despite his and others’ efforts.
And i get how people can overlook the whole ‘go woke, go broke’, but let’s be honest: anytime a writers work is repurposed, changed, or injected with other themes by producers or companies with different incentives, the net result is just bad. Heck, even the writer/s may be culpable if they’re focused on ‘talk down’ narratives and not on substance, character development and plot!
At the end of the day, write the way you want to write, just focus on making it a good story.
14:18 Wait, did you say Bautista and not Batista? Wow, like honestly, thank you. I seen way too many people call him by his wrestling name. Other than that, yeah, just finished Part 1 and as much i feel Skyfall is a bit better than CR imo, i feel you did bring valuable points.
Does bond not get bothered by people trying to kill him while he's on vacation?
And I do hope Eon Productions watches this.
Spectre was the first Bond I saw in cinema. Thats the sole reason its special to me. But I hate the movie in every other way possible. And then there's No time to die.....
James would have killed blofeld. Why would they let maddie talk to blofeld?
Lol your intro is pure gold. It embodies my thoughts to a certain degree on Spectre as well.
Love your closing credits too, fitting for your supporters
"Is there a chance it can be salvaged; can the damage be reversed?"
No. Time to die.
Don't get me wrong, I really liked NTTD. As a curative for the awful SPECTRE, it did the trick. Sure, this film is flimsy plot-wise but, because it's a Bond film, that's not important. (The Craig Era tried to raise those stakes after the ridiculous Brosnan Era but plot's not why we return to the franchise, film after film.) The most satisfying as aspect of NTTD was the character arc of Bond. He's getting the job done (something he failed to do in the previous two films), learning to trust, making his own decisions, and most importantly finally having fun. I would have been fine if Bond had stayed estranged from Madeleine yet still connected with his daughter. That would have been enough. Yet, by coming to terms with his character (trust, agency, fun) his demise is doubly tragic. Still, this also reverberates with the actor's journey. Craig is able to invest real nuance in his final Bond outing and that's a tremendous gift to the fans. The film is well-paced, well-acted and looks great. Even if it has weird plot holes and doesn't fulfill an unrealistic thematic narrative, it is a very good film.
10:34 I died XD
Saffin is a fan of mischief. thats it
I hope you find enough interest in the Mission Impossible franchise to do a similar series on it. I love those movies.
Could the writing on the wall be a 4th wall reference pointing out this film should not have been made
Based
I feel like dispute Craig having 2 of the best bond films made it fell a little short so to poor planning, writing, and consistency with characters. I personally think Craig is the best bond. However I think it layed the groundwork for a new era to come in a nail everything this era went for but ultimately failed at due to consistency.