NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

16667697172298

Comments

  • SmeetsSmeets London
    Posts: 6
    I don't care how Bond 'feels', I just want to watch a Bond film with gadgets, cars, villains girls etc.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    I hate the death (I know shocker 😅) but one thing I really liked, when watching this time round was the acting from Daniel. I love moment the camera is facing Bond and he's stood there looking up defiantly, I think its right before he says "I know"

    When he's stood there, in that moment he looks brave and badass. Brilliant acting from Daniel and I thought he looked great during the base sequence
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,105
    I am glad they changed things up, to me NTTD felt fresh and now the DC arc is over.

    The DC era is self contained so it has no impact on other Bond films, you can still watch them and enjoy them as its a alternate version of the character.

    Even in the films from DN to DAD, the series has had different types of Bond films, if things were not changed up Bond films would not have lasted this long.

    Is the DC era my favourite NO, but I think there are 3 good movies in it. NTTD made sense for DC's Bond as a finale based on everything that led up to it, the DC era was clearly an experiment which we all knew years ago.

    Those that are concerned about the films moving forward, I expect Bond 26 to be very different to Bond 25.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    bondsum wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Seriously I’m not gonna explain the concept of a reboot again. If you don’t get it, you obviously don’t want to.
    I suppose it all depends on your definition of a reboot. A soft reboot and a hard reboot can be two different things. The Batman movies always go for a hard reboot, changing pretty much everything about them, right down to the theme music, suit, Batmobile, even the way Gotham City looks. Whereas Bond carries over the same iconography, theme music and sometimes even the same car and actors. Some members here even want the same actors (Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw) to reprise their roles in the next reboot, which does bring into question what exactly are they asking for and do they themselves understand a reboot?

    Batman is completely another thing, plus what you says is partially true.
    For exaple right now you have two different batmans at the same time, with Pattinson in one line and Affleck in another (not counting Gotham and others)
    Plus
    in flash you'll have past Batmans as well
    (don't read the spoiler if you don't want to be spoiled on DCEU, even if everyone knows).


    In Bond there always was a sense of continuity, even in hard reboots like Casino Royale.
    To be rebooted is Bond himself, not necessarily the world he is in.
    In casino royale you have new hard rebooted Bond, gaining his 00, but the same M, while different Tanne, Q and M will come.

    In OHMSS you have a rebooted Bond that constantly refers to "the other fella", then the fella comes back, problems with Blofel continuity... a mess.

    So, i don't see problems if the MI6 comes back, Bond continuity has always been "questionable", putting it mildly
  • It seems that this "alternative universe" idea comes from film series based on children's comics that I haven't seen. In other contexts, killing off the main character is the end of the series. There is a reason why Bond didn't die in 24 films in almost 60 years - those responsible knew it would be an irrevocable and fundamental change.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 7,500
    Belinus wrote: »

    Well... you know he is a fictional character...? Right...? [/quote]

    Ok, I’ll ignore the tone and give my reply. Yes, I know it’s a fictional character. I like reading fiction. I like when when it’s a series of books about one main character. In some series of books I’ve read the main character has died at the end. If done in the correct way I’m fine with that. I don’t however, expect said character to then reappear in the author’s next novel as though nothing has happened.

    [/quote]

    Did you feel the same watching Blofeld in SP? They killed him off in FYEO, remember?
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    bondsum wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Seriously I’m not gonna explain the concept of a reboot again. If you don’t get it, you obviously don’t want to.
    I suppose it all depends on your definition of a reboot. A soft reboot and a hard reboot can be two different things. The Batman movies always go for a hard reboot, changing pretty much everything about them, right down to the theme music, suit, Batmobile, even the way Gotham City looks. Whereas Bond carries over the same iconography, theme music and sometimes even the same car and actors. Some members here even want the same actors (Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw) to reprise their roles in the next reboot, which does bring into question what exactly are they asking for and do they themselves understand a reboot?

    Batman is completely another thing, plus what you says is partially true.
    For exaple right now you have two different batmans at the same time, with Pattinson in one line and Affleck in another (not counting Gotham and others)
    Plus
    in flash you'll have past Batmans as well
    (don't read the spoiler if you don't want to be spoiled on DCEU, even if everyone knows).


    In Bond there always was a sense of continuity, even in hard reboots like Casino Royale.
    To be rebooted is Bond himself, not necessarily the world he is in.
    In casino royale you have new hard rebooted Bond, gaining his 00, but the same M, while different Tanne, Q and M will come.

    In OHMSS you have a rebooted Bond that constantly refers to "the other fella", then the fella comes back, problems with Blofel continuity... a mess.

    So, i don't see problems if the MI6 comes back, Bond continuity has always been "questionable", putting it mildly

    That is kind of the ironic part about Craig's era being cut off from the rest of the films: The filmmakers, I think, have now made it abundantly clear that the last 5 films are their own seperate thing. But at the same time, they cover it in bucketloads of iconography and callbacks to the previous eras. I want to say "there is no connection between Craig and the other Bond actors", but there are connections all over the place. That is such a meta way of approaching franchise filmmaking that I don't blame anyone for being confused by it.
    And it works in all directions. The DB5 reveal in Skyfall makes absolutely no sense at all. None. But it is a great moment and I look forward to it everytime. On the other hand you have stuff like the Blofeld reveal in Spectre which is solely there for the audience. The name doesn't mean a single thing to the characters in that scene and in that case it falls totally flat.
    It really isn't all that easy to get your head around.
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    Seve wrote: »
    I haven't seen it yet and, sadly, have no idea when I will be able to, as I am stuck in Covid lockdown level 3 here in NZ (James Bond where are you when I need you?)

    However I just wanted to make a comment to those who want to attribute any lack of chemistry between Craig and Seydoux to the15 year difference in their ages

    I have to ask - what kind of warped PC planet are you living on?

    Hugh Jackman is married to a woman 13 years older than him, are you saying they can't possibly be in love or have any chemistry?

    Jason Momoa and Lisa Bonet are a couple, but he is 11 years younger than her (shock, horror!)

    Michael Caine is 14 years older than his wife (surely there can't be any chemistry there?)

    Elton John is 15 years older than his partner, now husband (OMG, what can they possibly have in common with that age difference?)

    Mary Tyler Moore was 18 years older than her husband for 34 years (incredible!)

    Keith Richards is 13 years older than his wife (what can she possibly see in him?)

    These are celebrities, of course, but in fact there are thousands of ordinary couples around the world sharing an ordinary every day level of sexual chemistry with each other despite an apparently relationship crippling age difference

    (Rant over)

    Yes, agreed. This is ridiculous - my late partner was 25 years older than I am and we got on like a house on fire. The relationship only ended because he died. My current partner is 12 years older. Sometimes it just pans out like that.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Belinus wrote: »
    5) Arrogance - Bond is theirs, their character, their responsibility. I sense a lot of arrogance from some fans, but not from EON.

    I call it fan entitlement.

    I’m maybe missing the point here but why does not agreeing with the film ending make people arrogant or entitled? Surely it’s just the way they feel?

    More directed at bondy really. That nonsense of him writing a letter to EON encouraging them to retcon Bond’s death where he turns out alive decides to not reconnect with his daughter and Madeleine and just return to the service behaving like nothing ever happened.

    To say nothing of how he hasn't even watched the film and his entire history on the site thus far is repeating the same argument ad nauseum.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    Belinus wrote: »
    5) Arrogance - Bond is theirs, their character, their responsibility. I sense a lot of arrogance from some fans, but not from EON.

    I call it fan entitlement.

    I’m maybe missing the point here but why does not agreeing with the film ending make people arrogant or entitled? Surely it’s just the way they feel?

    More directed at bondy really. That nonsense of him writing a letter to EON encouraging them to retcon Bond’s death where he turns out alive decides to not reconnect with his daughter and Madeleine and just return to the service behaving like nothing ever happened.

    To say nothing of how he hasn't even watched the film and his entire history on the site thus far is repeating the same argument ad nauseum.

    Is there a "risible fan fiction" thread? Could help keep this one a bit tidier.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    bondsum wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Seriously I’m not gonna explain the concept of a reboot again. If you don’t get it, you obviously don’t want to.
    I suppose it all depends on your definition of a reboot. A soft reboot and a hard reboot can be two different things. The Batman movies always go for a hard reboot, changing pretty much everything about them, right down to the theme music, suit, Batmobile, even the way Gotham City looks. Whereas Bond carries over the same iconography, theme music and sometimes even the same car and actors. Some members here even want the same actors (Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw) to reprise their roles in the next reboot, which does bring into question what exactly are they asking for and do they themselves understand a reboot?

    Batman is completely another thing, plus what you says is partially true.
    For exaple right now you have two different batmans at the same time, with Pattinson in one line and Affleck in another (not counting Gotham and others)
    Plus
    in flash you'll have past Batmans as well
    (don't read the spoiler if you don't want to be spoiled on DCEU, even if everyone knows).


    In Bond there always was a sense of continuity, even in hard reboots like Casino Royale.
    To be rebooted is Bond himself, not necessarily the world he is in.
    In casino royale you have new hard rebooted Bond, gaining his 00, but the same M, while different Tanne, Q and M will come.

    In OHMSS you have a rebooted Bond that constantly refers to "the other fella", then the fella comes back, problems with Blofel continuity... a mess.

    So, i don't see problems if the MI6 comes back, Bond continuity has always been "questionable", putting it mildly

    That is kind of the ironic part about Craig's era being cut off from the rest of the films: The filmmakers, I think, have now made it abundantly clear that the last 5 films are their own seperate thing. But at the same time, they cover it in bucketloads of iconography and callbacks to the previous eras. I want to say "there is no connection between Craig and the other Bond actors", but there are connections all over the place. That is such a meta way of approaching franchise filmmaking that I don't blame anyone for being confused by it.
    And it works in all directions. The DB5 reveal in Skyfall makes absolutely no sense at all. None. But it is a great moment and I look forward to it everytime. On the other hand you have stuff like the Blofeld reveal in Spectre which is solely there for the audience. The name doesn't mean a single thing to the characters in that scene and in that case it falls totally flat.
    It really isn't all that easy to get your head around.

    It Will Always be like this.
    First Blofeld reveal Will not have any influence on Bond but it Will on audience.
    First DB5 same thing.
    If they decide to bring back Silva It Will not be the same Silva of SkyFall, but a new One in this different arc.
    Every actor Is in different arc from the others, even if there are cross references.
    Those are for fans and generic audience to reconnect with something known in a new and unknown territory
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,483
    A guy in work asked me, are there any good funny lines in NTTD? Honestly I'm struggling to think of any, aside from when Bond killed Primo and Bond's book of Mormon quip

    I thought a lot of the humour in NTTD fell flat, I think the overall tone was all over the place. The only line I remember getting a laugh was M's ffs. Maybe just the audiences I saw it with I guess
  • Posts: 7,500
    bondsum wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Seriously I’m not gonna explain the concept of a reboot again. If you don’t get it, you obviously don’t want to.
    I suppose it all depends on your definition of a reboot. A soft reboot and a hard reboot can be two different things. The Batman movies always go for a hard reboot, changing pretty much everything about them, right down to the theme music, suit, Batmobile, even the way Gotham City looks. Whereas Bond carries over the same iconography, theme music and sometimes even the same car and actors. Some members here even want the same actors (Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw) to reprise their roles in the next reboot, which does bring into question what exactly are they asking for and do they themselves understand a reboot?

    Batman is completely another thing, plus what you says is partially true.
    For exaple right now you have two different batmans at the same time, with Pattinson in one line and Affleck in another (not counting Gotham and others)
    Plus
    in flash you'll have past Batmans as well
    (don't read the spoiler if you don't want to be spoiled on DCEU, even if everyone knows).


    In Bond there always was a sense of continuity, even in hard reboots like Casino Royale.
    To be rebooted is Bond himself, not necessarily the world he is in.
    In casino royale you have new hard rebooted Bond, gaining his 00, but the same M, while different Tanne, Q and M will come.

    In OHMSS you have a rebooted Bond that constantly refers to "the other fella", then the fella comes back, problems with Blofel continuity... a mess.

    So, i don't see problems if the MI6 comes back, Bond continuity has always been "questionable", putting it mildly

    That is kind of the ironic part about Craig's era being cut off from the rest of the films: The filmmakers, I think, have now made it abundantly clear that the last 5 films are their own seperate thing. But at the same time, they cover it in bucketloads of iconography and callbacks to the previous eras. I want to say "there is no connection between Craig and the other Bond actors", but there are connections all over the place. That is such a meta way of approaching franchise filmmaking that I don't blame anyone for being confused by it.
    And it works in all directions. The DB5 reveal in Skyfall makes absolutely no sense at all. None. But it is a great moment and I look forward to it everytime. On the other hand you have stuff like the Blofeld reveal in Spectre which is solely there for the audience. The name doesn't mean a single thing to the characters in that scene and in that case it falls totally flat.
    It really isn't all that easy to get your head around.

    It Will Always be like this.
    First Blofeld reveal Will not have any influence on Bond but it Will on audience.
    First DB5 same thing.
    If they decide to bring back Silva It Will not be the same Silva of SkyFall, but a new One in this different arc.
    Every actor Is in different arc from the others, even if there are cross references.
    Those are for fans and generic audience to reconnect with something known in a new and unknown territory

    Yes. I have no idea why people have such a strong need to overthink this.
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    A guy in worked asked me, are there any good puns or funny lines in NTTD? Honestly I'm struggling to think of any, aside from when Bond killed Primo and Bond's book of Mormon quip

    I thought a lot of the humour in NTTD fell flat, I think the overall tone was all over the place. The only line I remember getting a laugh was M's ffs. Maybe just the audiences I saw it with I guess

    I liked the comment about cats, and the smallpox prank, and 'I can see why you shot him,' and 'Oh shut up, Q' at Q's completely unconvincing attempt to be surprised at Bond's appearance. I was never a fan of the (IMO) rather lame puns in Bonds of yore and there were quite a lot of lines in this which amused me.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Bond’s reply to Nomi before entering M’s office was fun.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    bondywondy wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    James Bond will return.

    .... which is Eon telling you James Bond is not dead. He's not dead. The text doesn't say

    A rebooted James Bond will return.
    Casino Royale was a reboot, and at the end of Die Another Day, it said James Bond will return.

    Also, Craig's Bond is in no way connected to any other. He's his own universe. It's been pretty clear that's the case since before Casino was even released. And again, even if Craig's Bond didn't die, they'd still reboot it, because to carry on his narrative with a different, younger actor, would make no sense.

    And killing Bond makes sense? Lol

    Tell that to all the fans that feel betrayed by that decision!

    Oh well I tried. I can't convince you lot you are all wrong. Wait and see... in three years time Bondywondy will be proven right and you can say "sorry, Bondywondy, you were right all along."
    😎 😉

    It actually does make sense. You (and others) may not like it, but this separate continuity allows them to kill Bond without and real impact to future films. What wouldn't make sense is to carry on this iteration of Bond who has been aging in-story over the past 3 films.

    I respectfully and profoundly disagree that it makes sense. Not wishing to bore you or others too long but here are reasons why it makes no sense and is therefore wrong.

    1 - 'Morality'
    Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson didn't create James Bond. They were bequeathed the character due to bloodline. Ian Fleming created James Bond and Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman created/developed the cinematic version. From the most basic moral standpoint you can easily argue B and MG have no unilateral moral right to kill off Bond. They inherited the character so it is morally incumbent upon them to preserve Bond, not kill him off to appease an actor in his final film portraying James Bond.

    2 - 'Divisive'
    Killing James Bond creates a huge and potential forever rift in the fanbase. Many fans will never forgive or understand why Eon killed off Bond. I'm not going to guess what percentage of the fanbase hate the death of James Bond but it exists and will continue to exist. This is Eon's fault. There was zero reason to create this division in the fanbase. It serves no purpose at all. It doesn't bring the Bond fans closer together so it was nonsensical of Eon to allow the division to happen.

    3 - 'Disrespectful'
    Killing Bond is completely disrespectful to all the fans that have loyally supported the franchise since 1962. If Eon Productions can't see that or can see that but couldn't care less, that doesn't say much about them, does it? Nope.

    4 - 'Continuity nightmare'
    Killing off Bond destroys any semblance of linear continuity in the franchise. If Bond is dead in NTTD but alive in Bond 26 it's inherently nonsensical. Sure, fans can argue "it's just a reboot, deal with it!" but that doesn't negate nor justify the fact Bond died in Bond 25. You kill off Bond but he's still alive. Nonsensical.

    5 - 'Arrogance'
    It is the height of arrogance for Eon to kill off Bond, expect fans to be emotionally affected by his death, but then expect them to forget his death (or put it to one side) and form a long queue to see Bond 26. It's arrogant presumption to expect fans to accept his death then sheepishly accept he's alive again.

    6 - 'Meaningless death'
    The death of Bond is meaningless because we all know Bond isn't dead. People can argue and say "but Bond is dead, the next Bond isn't Craig's Bond!" but imho that view is nonsensical. The next Bond will be a 00, be referred to as James Bond, get orders from M, go on missions. He's still James Bond in character and job so his death in the previous film is meaningless. Death has meaning because it's loss. The person never comes back but Bond is coming back in Bond 26 so it's a lossless death. Nonsensical.

    All these reasons give me hope Bond isn't dead. The death of James Bond is a deliberate cliffhanger? It's possible. We'll have to wait and see.

    1) they have, since it is widely known It was Fleming intent too. But even if It wasn't, they have the right to do what they want
    2) as a blonde Bond did. See where we are now.
    3) i don't know how to reply. It's a complete nonsense
    4) oh yes, because Lazenby referring to "the other fella" that should be himself, or Craig gaining his double 0 after Brosnan was on the field the movie before makes completely continuity sense. Right
    5)same as 3. I see much more arrogance in believing, Just because you go to the cinema, to be the gate keeper of Bond
    6) Meaningless? All Craig arc Is about death. He Is affected by Vesper death, M death, wants to avenge Felix death.
    He comes to realize that he brings death with him. People around him dies, wheter he Is there or not. Safin killed MR White's wife even if he wasn't there.
    So the only way to keep them safe from all the danger from his past Is to be away from them, to be no longer related, to be dead. And much more than this, he arrived to the conclusion that a life without his loved ones Is not worth living. In YOLT he has One last Mission, to avenge Tracy. Here he has completed his Mission: his family Is safe, he has Avenged all.
    End
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    LizW wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    A guy in worked asked me, are there any good puns or funny lines in NTTD? Honestly I'm struggling to think of any, aside from when Bond killed Primo and Bond's book of Mormon quip

    I thought a lot of the humour in NTTD fell flat, I think the overall tone was all over the place. The only line I remember getting a laugh was M's ffs. Maybe just the audiences I saw it with I guess

    I liked the comment about cats, and the smallpox prank, and 'I can see why you shot him,' and 'Oh shut up, Q' at Q's completely unconvincing attempt to be surprised at Bond's appearance. I was never a fan of the (IMO) rather lame puns in Bonds of yore and there were quite a lot of lines in this which amused me.

    Thank you, I'd forgotten a few if I'm honest.
    Also thanks @matt_u I forgot about that one as well, which was probably my favourite
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I did like the small bits of humor in NTTD. I think quite improved over previous ones, actually.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    I did like the small bits of humor in NTTD. I think quite improved over previous ones, actually.

    For sure. "Cuba was a disappointment. But we all cry on our birthdays" was a favorite of mine.
  • Posts: 87
    IMO, the end is unjustified in NTTD knowing that:
    - James Bond will return,
    - Fleming's Bond is not killed,
    - Bond didn't die, played by Connery, ..., Brosnan,
    - this will disunite the fans and many other viewers in the perception of the franchise.

    For me the argument that the end fits Craig's era is shortsighted and egoistic. The death doesn't fit to Bond. Madeleine and Mathilde should be convinced about that only. Their universe should be separate from the Bond universe. But both should go on independently.

    Bond played by Craig does not own Bond played by Connery, ..., Brosnan. It is not a separate universe either as there are references to the previous movies. Audiance should not be forcibly classified into some Bond's universe by real "killing" Bond. I want to be a fan of the entire franchise!

    That's why Bond in NTTD should survive for Queen and Country in Bond26 in a way that we will no longer follow fates of Madeleine and Mathilde, because there is one James Bond.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    bondsum wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Seriously I’m not gonna explain the concept of a reboot again. If you don’t get it, you obviously don’t want to.
    I suppose it all depends on your definition of a reboot. A soft reboot and a hard reboot can be two different things. The Batman movies always go for a hard reboot, changing pretty much everything about them, right down to the theme music, suit, Batmobile, even the way Gotham City looks. Whereas Bond carries over the same iconography, theme music and sometimes even the same car and actors. Some members here even want the same actors (Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw) to reprise their roles in the next reboot, which does bring into question what exactly are they asking for and do they themselves understand a reboot?

    Batman is completely another thing, plus what you says is partially true.
    For exaple right now you have two different batmans at the same time, with Pattinson in one line and Affleck in another (not counting Gotham and others)
    Plus
    in flash you'll have past Batmans as well
    (don't read the spoiler if you don't want to be spoiled on DCEU, even if everyone knows).


    In Bond there always was a sense of continuity, even in hard reboots like Casino Royale.
    To be rebooted is Bond himself, not necessarily the world he is in.
    In casino royale you have new hard rebooted Bond, gaining his 00, but the same M, while different Tanne, Q and M will come.

    In OHMSS you have a rebooted Bond that constantly refers to "the other fella", then the fella comes back, problems with Blofel continuity... a mess.

    So, i don't see problems if the MI6 comes back, Bond continuity has always been "questionable", putting it mildly
    All good points, but you missed the part where I said the different Batman iterations are clearly defined by a change in theme music, Batsuit and Batmobile, not to mention a completely different syle in direction. Bond carries over the same gunbarrel opening, theme music, PTS, main titles, Aston Martin, which makes it feel like it's part of the same universe and timeline. The example you used with "This never happened to the other fella" could easily be applied to the Cinderella folk tale where she loses her glass slipper and Prince Charming finds it. The "other fellow" can be either Prince Charming or Connery, it doesn't matter which. Also, Lazenby only mentioned it the once, not constantly.

    As for the upcoming multiverse Batmans, we don't know how successful they will be, but we do know that Matt Reeves' The Batman will look and feel distinctly different from Snyder's version.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Seriously I’m not gonna explain the concept of a reboot again. If you don’t get it, you obviously don’t want to.
    I suppose it all depends on your definition of a reboot. A soft reboot and a hard reboot can be two different things. The Batman movies always go for a hard reboot, changing pretty much everything about them, right down to the theme music, suit, Batmobile, even the way Gotham City looks. Whereas Bond carries over the same iconography, theme music and sometimes even the same car and actors. Some members here even want the same actors (Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw) to reprise their roles in the next reboot, which does bring into question what exactly are they asking for and do they themselves understand a reboot?

    Batman is completely another thing, plus what you says is partially true.
    For exaple right now you have two different batmans at the same time, with Pattinson in one line and Affleck in another (not counting Gotham and others)
    Plus
    in flash you'll have past Batmans as well
    (don't read the spoiler if you don't want to be spoiled on DCEU, even if everyone knows).


    In Bond there always was a sense of continuity, even in hard reboots like Casino Royale.
    To be rebooted is Bond himself, not necessarily the world he is in.
    In casino royale you have new hard rebooted Bond, gaining his 00, but the same M, while different Tanne, Q and M will come.

    In OHMSS you have a rebooted Bond that constantly refers to "the other fella", then the fella comes back, problems with Blofel continuity... a mess.

    So, i don't see problems if the MI6 comes back, Bond continuity has always been "questionable", putting it mildly
    All good points, but you missed the part where I said the different Batman iterations are clearly defined by a change in theme music, Batsuit and Batmobile, not to mention a completely different syle in direction. Bond carries over the same gunbarrel opening, theme music, PTS, main titles, Aston Martin, which makes it feel like it's part of the same universe and timeline. The example you used with "This never happened to the other fella" could easily be applied to the Cinderella folk tale where she loses her glass slipper and Prince Charming finds it. The "other fellow" can be either Prince Charming or Connery, it doesn't matter which. Also, Lazenby only mentioned it the once, not constantly.

    As for the upcoming multiverse Batmans, we don't know how successful they will be, but we do know that Matt Reeves' The Batman will look and feel distinctly different from Snyder's version.

    That's true in part, and only for the cinematic
    For example in comics you often find all the batmobiles from the film in the batcave.
    Plus also you have different ties between different arcs: the city for one, the villains as for Bond, but there they are Always the same. The same concept of Batmobile stays the same, even if the car itself changes.
    There are much more ties between Batman's arcs than between Bond's, even with different styles.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    I think the fundamental difference between Batman and Bond, @SkyfallCraig, besides Bond not being a comicbook superhero, is that Bond was never really meant to have a movie continuation story arc. They were each made as standalone movies with very thin connective tissue holding them together. This made it possible to give yourself a mental reset when watching another actor play the same role in a different moment in time. Only with Craig's Bond from CR onwards did they try and give each movie a proper continuation story.

    PS. I should add that Martin Campbell stated recently that there were no plans when he made CR that the next movie would be a direct continuation of his movie. For all he knew, they could have made Craig's second Bond a complete standalone.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 630
    Qba007 wrote: »
    IMO, the end is unjustified in NTTD knowing that:
    - James Bond will return,
    - Fleming's Bond is not killed,
    - Bond didn't die, played by Connery, ..., Brosnan,
    - this will disunite the fans and many other viewers in the perception of the franchise.

    For me the argument that the end fits Craig's era is shortsighted and egoistic. The death doesn't fit to Bond. Madeleine and Mathilde should be convinced about that only. Their universe should be separate from the Bond universe. But both should go on independently.

    Bond played by Craig does not own Bond played by Connery, ..., Brosnan. It is not a separate universe either as there are references to the previous movies. Audiance should not be forcibly classified into some Bond's universe by real "killing" Bond. I want to be a fan of the entire franchise!

    That's why Bond in NTTD should survive for Queen and Country in Bond26 in a way that we will no longer follow fates of Madeleine and Mathilde, because there is one James Bond.

    - James Bond will return, yes, and it always be, not depending from what happens on the screen
    -
    - Fleming's Bond is not killed, it's only a coincidence, if Fleming wouldnt have died, he would have been
    -
    - Bond didn't die, played by Connery, ..., Brosnan, and so? he wasn't blonde, he hadn't a child, he didn't swim in a pool in Shangai.. And there are countless things each of the Bonds have said and done and the others don't
    -
    - this will disunite the fans and many other viewers in the perception of the franchise. So it was doing a Blonde Bond. Still, they were right

    Also, there is not a single reference in Craig's movie to the other Bond's movies. Bond is not aware he has had a DB5 in the past when he was played by Connery, you are. Bond is not aware "we have all the time in the world" was said by Lazenby's Bond, you are. Bond is not aware the PPK is used by all the Bonds, you are.

    Don't mix what you see and recognize on the screen with the world the charachters are living in
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think the fundamental difference between Batman and Bond, @SkyfallCraig, besides Bond not being a comicbook superhero, is that Bond was never really meant to have a movie continuation story arc. They were each made as standalone movies with very thin connective tissue holding them together. This made it possible to give yourself a mental reset when watching another actor play the same role in a different moment in time. Only with Craig's Bond from CR onwards did they try and give each movie a proper continuation story.

    And with this we are back to an old question: why a lot of people complain about Bond being not Fleming's Bond while if there is one made like Fleming's is Craig's and the others have significant differences, such as this one?
    I mean, Fleming's Blofeld trilogy was a three stories arc very well connected, while cinematics one isn't.
    So, what you say is true on the cinematic side, not on the original intention of the author
  • BelinusBelinus Scotland
    Posts: 48
    jobo wrote: »
    Belinus wrote: »

    Well... you know he is a fictional character...? Right...?

    Ok, I’ll ignore the tone and give my reply. Yes, I know it’s a fictional character. I like reading fiction. I like when when it’s a series of books about one main character. In some series of books I’ve read the main character has died at the end. If done in the correct way I’m fine with that. I don’t however, expect said character to then reappear in the author’s next novel as though nothing has happened.

    [/quote]

    Did you feel the same watching Blofeld in SP? They killed him off in FYEO, remember? [/quote]

    It’s a fair point and no I didn’t but Blofeld dying and Bond dying will have a different impact on most people.

    There isn’t a right or wrong in any of the points either side makes. Some people are happy / excited about the film and what happened whilst others feel the complete opposite. I can’t see many changing their opinion in this forum.



  • I_SpyI_Spy Scotland
    Posts: 5
    Interesting to read the alternative perspectives on NTTD. In fact, quite therapeutic.

    After three days of trying to process this, still unable to see past the belief that this is an act of wanton vandalism. Bond the indestructible is one of life’s constants. A psychological safety net. You watch Bond movies secure in the knowledge that he will prevail. If you wanted tragedy you got tickets for Macbeth.

    Now what…?

    Whether it is a hard reboot or a soft reboot.
    Whoever they cast
    Whatever the time zone or universe
    Wherever it is filmed
    Whenever you watch the back catalogue

    You will always KNOW…. ‘Yeah, but he dies in the end’. That cannot now be undone. They have killed THE most sacred of cows.

    I sympathise with everyone who feels angry, exploited and betrayed. I envy those who can shrug it off.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    And with this we are back to an old question: why a lot of people complain about Bond being not Fleming's Bond while if there is one made like Fleming's is Craig's and the others have significant differences, such as this one?
    I mean, Fleming's Blofeld trilogy was a three stories arc very well connected, while cinematics one isn't.
    So, what you say is true on the cinematic side, not on the original intention of the author
    Sorry @SkyfallCraig. I added a bit extra to my last post which you missed. Yes, you're right about the literary character having a proper book trilogy. As I pointed out in a much earlier post, the proper sequence of OHMSS followed by YOLT was knocked out of chronological order due a lack of heavy snowfall and suitable Piz Gloria location in 1966. It didn't really effect YOLT as they didn't follow the book too closely, but it did effect OHMSS as it was cleary written preceding those events. The fact that a different actor was playing the lead role helped disguise the fact that it could be down to plastic surgery that they don't recognise each other, though it was never filmed, only discussed in the press and by the producers at the time. Not that it really mattered after 1970, as OHMSS was sort of put to one side and mostly forgetten about until the rise of VHS in the 80's. What you also have to remember is the producer's template were the Tarzan movies, not Batman. Cubby even stated that it was Tarzan audiences came to see, not the actor playing him. The Tarzan movies weren't shot in complete order to their literary source material either.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    bondsum wrote: »
    And with this we are back to an old question: why a lot of people complain about Bond being not Fleming's Bond while if there is one made like Fleming's is Craig's and the others have significant differences, such as this one?
    I mean, Fleming's Blofeld trilogy was a three stories arc very well connected, while cinematics one isn't.
    So, what you say is true on the cinematic side, not on the original intention of the author
    Sorry @SkyfallCraig. I added a bit extra to my last post which you missed. Yes, you're right about the literary character having a proper book trilogy. As I pointed out in a much earlier post, the proper sequence of OHMSS followed by YOLT was knocked out of chronological order due a lack of heavy snowfall and suitable Piz Gloria location in 1966. It didn't really effect YOLT as they didn't follow the book too closely, but it did effect OHMSS as it was cleary written preceding those events. The fact that a different actor was playing the lead role helped disguise the fact that it could be down to plastic surgery that they don't recognise each other, though it was never filmed, only discussed in the press and by the producers at the time. Not that it really mattered after 1970, as OHMSS was sort of put to one side and mostly forgetten about until the rise of VHS in the 80's. What you also have to remember is the producer's template were the Tarzan movies, not Batman. Cubby even stated that it was Tarzan audiences came to see, not the actor playing him. The Tarzan movies weren't shot in complete order to their literary source material either.

    didn't know the plastic surgery part, thanks for sharing!
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 389
    Happy Bond day everone,

    I've been reading the chat this morning & agree that we can't undo what's been done, so move on, everyone here will have an opinion & because we're all ardent fans, as much as we debate it all we're doing is going round in circles.

    I would like to clarify my position, as most are aware I didn't care for NTTD because I believe it's a mistake to kill of your protagonist unless it's the last time we see them in any form, even if you intend to continue with a reboot or whatever.

    "James Bond Wiil Return" What in a match box? :D

    So please EON just get a competent new writer with fresh ideas who can come up with a great original story for whatever happens next & maybe I'll forgive you.
Sign In or Register to comment.