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

1120121123125126298

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,102
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Craig era was supposed to be a reconstruction of James Bond but all it did was end up deconstructing him to the point where this whole era comes off as some botched experiment, and now they have to do yet another reboot to set things right. Almost makes me feel like DAD (which I dislike) was the "real" Bond movie and the Craig ones are just some kind of "what if?"

    I remember thinking that the end of Skyfall was the great 'reset'. It was like, yea, now we have M, M's office, Moneypenny, Q, Bond wanting to get back to work.
    That was the time when we could have had any adventure with any actor going forward. This 'rebbot' thing had done it's job, and we were okay.
    I honestly thought we'd be back to the original vision of the films post Skyfall, (and the novels to a lesser extent).
    But no, they've killed Felix, killed Bond, but it's all okay, really, because they'll all be back in another reboot.
    Riiiight...

    This is the problem trying to apply old school thinking of Bond with modern Bond. The pointless hope that things would magically revert to the old Cubby formula like from one’s childhood. This was never going to happen with Craig.

    They likely didn’t have a plan for a self contained arc, but I guarantee they NEVER had plans to give Craig an old Cubby standard Bond adventure.
  • Muddyw wrote: »
    Anyone else noticed the sound of the intercom in Safin's lair, when Safin talks through it sound as creepy as in Dr. No? Love it!

    I noticed that too, going to see it for the 4th time tonight. I love the film.
  • Posts: 1,048
    You're completely right, Mr Python. And the box office proves they (eon) have done the right thing as far as the majority of movie-goers are concerned. People like me, moaning about killing off James Bond, are in the minority.
    We are like kites, flapping in the rain.

    I might need to work on that last sentence.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    You're completely right, Mr Python. And the box office proves they (eon) have done the right thing as far as the majority of movie-goers are concerned. People like me, moaning about killing off James Bond, are in the minority.
    We are like kites, flapping in the rain.

    I might need to work on that last sentence.

    Quite right.

    In 1965 you could buy a kid a James Bond toy, today not so much. Does Craig Bond have a racer set? Even in the 90s the closest thing there was to a James Bond toy was the video games, but they had broader appeal of course.
  • Posts: 3,333
    There is a Micro Scalextric James Bond Set for No Time To Die if you want to buy one. It's roughly £60.

    g1161_micro-scalextric-nttd-james-bond_product_1_hero.jpg%3Ffit%3D1
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Bloody hell!
  • Posts: 1,048
    I'm in!

    Is there a Corgi DB5 too?
  • Okay, I've had enough of the discussion here. Bowing out, thanks very much. I'll be elsewhere in the forum if you're at all interested in more wisdom & wisecracking, BSE-style. @ColonelAdamski, @NoWiseman, @Benjamin, and any other newcomers here -- I hope you enjoy the forum. I came on for the discussions of Skyfall back when it was the new, controversial addition to the Bond canon -- so as far as I'm concerned, you're proof that NTTD has been successful in stimulating public interest in James Bond 007. I don't remember very many newbies having been attracted by Spectre.

    The important question here is, was NTTD a successful Bond film? Most of us seem to be in agreement that -- the ending aside -- this was an exciting, well made movie. Some of us are unhappy with the fact that Bond "died" at the end of this film. Others see it as the logical finale to the Craig arc in the Bond storyline. I count myself among the latter; if you're among the former, well, that's okay. James Bond will return, as will most of the rest of us. Maybe the next few films will be more to your liking.

    The one point I'd like to make in parting has to do with the notion that Craig, Barbara B and Michael G don't have the "right" to "kill" Bond. Sorry, but the laws of intellectual property rights state that you're wrong. Eon Productions are the only folks with the right to make films regarding James Bond 007. Their lawyers have spent a lot of time and money ensuring that this is so. Eon splits those rights 50/50 with MGM Studios, and now that Amazon has bought MGM, it looks like Jeff Bezos is the only other fellow on the planet that BB and MGW have to answer to. Do you think Jeff would have spent all that money to buy an asset that was about to become worthless? I suspect not. I'm very interested to see where the franchise goes next...far more so than if Craig/Bond had just chosen to spend the remainder of his days fishing in the waters off Jamaica. As I've stated previously, all the best hero tales have a definitive ending -- and the fact that we know the endings to the stories of Robin Hood, King Arthur, Gilgamesh and Heracles doesn't mean that people have stopped telling stories about them. Now, James Bond has joined the immortals, but we need not fret. After all, "this sort of thing never happened to the other fellow..."

    Carry on, all...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    I always did want this set. But at $150, I’m like “nope”.

    81fdkBKAx0L._AC_SL1500_.jpg
  • Posts: 3,333
    I'm in!

    Is there a Corgi DB5 too?
    Yes, retails at £32.99 and features a brand-new Italian registration plate and a pair of miniguns behind the front headlights.
    CC04314_1_James-Bond-Aston-Martin-DB5-No-Time-To-Die_Hero.jpg%3Ffit%3D1
  • Posts: 1,048
    There 'ya go. Just the thing to display with your Bond self-sacrifice atomized action man.

    I know, I know.
  • Posts: 3,333
    There 'ya go. Just the thing to display with your Bond self-sacrifice atomized action man.

    I know, I know.
    Lol... I was thinking the same thing. Comes in an empty box.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    So in the end they updated the phones via CGI? Copies in Italy are not updated, we still got the 2020 lion as well.
  • Posts: 1,314
    00Heaven wrote: »
    That's a very level-headed approach 00heaven. I like your style, and will endeavor to proceed in the manner to which you suggest.

    One question I'd ask people that are on board with the movie; do you think the death of James Bond improved your overall experience of seeing the movie, or detracted from it.
    I can't imagine there were many fans of this movie series who were pleased that he died on-screen.

    Thank you. I think as well there's a subsection of fans that are also a little wary of the unknown as this is the unknown waters that we're charting right now. I've suggested it before but once B26, B27 and B28 come out (as have others) maybe NTTD will be viewed in a different light and change the minds of those who are concerned right now. That doesn't account for all and that's fine too :).

    To answer your question, it's a tough one. My overall reaction to the movie is positive. The ending is a tough pill to swallow, it's meant to be, but I see why they did it (from both the Bond/movie/thematic side of things and the Daniel/EON/logistics side of things) and I don't think it makes the overall movie any better or worse for it. The movie was well crafted and clearly a lot of thought/love went into it... If they did a bad job around that part then we'd have heard more dissenters and I think at that point rightfully so.

    I’m inclined to agree. I think this feels raw for many, but in three films and 10 years time it’ll just be the one where Daniels bond dies.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 320

    Hi everyone. Long-time browser, first time poster here. I'm afraid I'm another Bond fan that feels let down by the ending, and I think perhaps it's a generational thing. My first Bond movie experience was as a seven year old watching Live and Let Die, and I've always enjoyed my visits to the cinema to see the latest Bond flick. This has changed with the recent movie though, I'm sad to say.
    The idea of killing off James Bond is ludicrous to me, and even a few weeks in I'm still surprised they actually went there. I've been reading this thread and many people seem okay with it, which is a good thing, and means they can enjoy the movie much more than me. I don't really understand the idea of a 'reboot', and if I'm honest, I wish I'd never heard the word. As far as I can tell, it's something that usually happens in superhero movies and sci-fi. I always approached the James Bond movies as drama, based on a literary character. So I don't see the 'it's good for Batman, so it's good for Bond' argument standing up.
    I just can't get my head around seeing a screen character killed off, only to be told, "don't worry, he'll be back" in the credits. Is he dead or not?
    I can't see how it works. Do we now have to think that the next Bond is in an 'alternate universe' like in sci-fi movies? And now he's been killed off once, he can be killed off as many times as they want, because he'll return anyway in the form of a 'reboot'.
    I can't be alone in thinking the series has lost a great deal of its narrative credibility. How are we supposed to care that he died, when he's not really dead, (which he can't be if he's going to return, right?).
    And I know people will be reading this screaming inwardly don't you get it? it just means he's dead in Craig's timeline!!!. Okay, well does that mean he can die and come back as many times as he wants, and the reason he can do that is because 'it's a timeline'.
    Oh, right. A timeline. Silly me, I didn't know it was a timeline. Whatever that is.
    Sorry to start off my first post with a moan. I'll enjoy contributing here, (particularly in the literary section, I'm a big Fleming fan), but after reading all these reactions I felt the need to put my two-penneth in!

    The only way forward is Bond not dead. Just bring him back in Bond 26. Problem solved. Sure, it may be a bit silly but you avoid a schism in continuity. Bond dead then alive is too problematic and weird.

    It's a no brainer to have Bond survive the nanobots infection and the missile strike. If you do the survival scene in a dramatic way, most people will accept it. The Bond films are not meant to be that realistic so Eon can get away with a very improbable escape from death scene.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Hi everyone. Long-time browser, first time poster here. I'm afraid I'm another Bond fan that feels let down by the ending, and I think perhaps it's a generational thing. My first Bond movie experience was as a seven year old watching Live and Let Die, and I've always enjoyed my visits to the cinema to see the latest Bond flick. This has changed with the recent movie though, I'm sad to say.
    The idea of killing off James Bond is ludicrous to me, and even a few weeks in I'm still surprised they actually went there. I've been reading this thread and many people seem okay with it, which is a good thing, and means they can enjoy the movie much more than me. I don't really understand the idea of a 'reboot', and if I'm honest, I wish I'd never heard the word. As far as I can tell, it's something that usually happens in superhero movies and sci-fi. I always approached the James Bond movies as drama, based on a literary character. So I don't see the 'it's good for Batman, so it's good for Bond' argument standing up.
    I just can't get my head around seeing a screen character killed off, only to be told, "don't worry, he'll be back" in the credits. Is he dead or not?
    I can't see how it works. Do we now have to think that the next Bond is in an 'alternate universe' like in sci-fi movies? And now he's been killed off once, he can be killed off as many times as they want, because he'll return anyway in the form of a 'reboot'.
    I can't be alone in thinking the series has lost a great deal of its narrative credibility. How are we supposed to care that he died, when he's not really dead, (which he can't be if he's going to return, right?).
    And I know people will be reading this screaming inwardly don't you get it? it just means he's dead in Craig's timeline!!!. Okay, well does that mean he can die and come back as many times as he wants, and the reason he can do that is because 'it's a timeline'.
    Oh, right. A timeline. Silly me, I didn't know it was a timeline. Whatever that is.
    Sorry to start off my first post with a moan. I'll enjoy contributing here, (particularly in the literary section, I'm a big Fleming fan), but after reading all these reactions I felt the need to put my two-penneth in!

    The only way forward is Bond not dead. Just bring him back in Bond 26. Problem solved. Sure, it may be a bit silly but you avoid a schism in continuity. Bond dead then alive is too problematic and weird.

    It's a no brainer to have Bond survive the nanobots infection and the missile strike. If you do the survival scene in a dramatic way, most people will accept it. The Bond films are not meant to be that realistic so Eon can get away with a very improbable escape from death scene.

    Have you even bothered watching the film?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,314
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Hi everyone. Long-time browser, first time poster here. I'm afraid I'm another Bond fan that feels let down by the ending, and I think perhaps it's a generational thing. My first Bond movie experience was as a seven year old watching Live and Let Die, and I've always enjoyed my visits to the cinema to see the latest Bond flick. This has changed with the recent movie though, I'm sad to say.
    The idea of killing off James Bond is ludicrous to me, and even a few weeks in I'm still surprised they actually went there. I've been reading this thread and many people seem okay with it, which is a good thing, and means they can enjoy the movie much more than me. I don't really understand the idea of a 'reboot', and if I'm honest, I wish I'd never heard the word. As far as I can tell, it's something that usually happens in superhero movies and sci-fi. I always approached the James Bond movies as drama, based on a literary character. So I don't see the 'it's good for Batman, so it's good for Bond' argument standing up.
    I just can't get my head around seeing a screen character killed off, only to be told, "don't worry, he'll be back" in the credits. Is he dead or not?
    I can't see how it works. Do we now have to think that the next Bond is in an 'alternate universe' like in sci-fi movies? And now he's been killed off once, he can be killed off as many times as they want, because he'll return anyway in the form of a 'reboot'.
    I can't be alone in thinking the series has lost a great deal of its narrative credibility. How are we supposed to care that he died, when he's not really dead, (which he can't be if he's going to return, right?).
    And I know people will be reading this screaming inwardly don't you get it? it just means he's dead in Craig's timeline!!!. Okay, well does that mean he can die and come back as many times as he wants, and the reason he can do that is because 'it's a timeline'.
    Oh, right. A timeline. Silly me, I didn't know it was a timeline. Whatever that is.
    Sorry to start off my first post with a moan. I'll enjoy contributing here, (particularly in the literary section, I'm a big Fleming fan), but after reading all these reactions I felt the need to put my two-penneth in!

    The only way forward is Bond not dead. Just bring him back in Bond 26. Problem solved. Sure, it may be a bit silly but you avoid a schism in continuity. Bond dead then alive is too problematic and weird.

    It's a no brainer to have Bond survive the nanobots infection and the missile strike. If you do the survival scene in a dramatic way, most people will accept it. The Bond films are not meant to be that realistic so Eon can get away with a very improbable escape from death scene.

    Wow you should have mentioned this before. 😉
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,853
    "a schism in continuity"

    What continuity, prey tell? Have we ever had anything even remotely like continuity before Craig?
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    ....I'm very interested to see where the franchise goes next...far more so than if Craig/Bond had just chosen to spend the remainder of his days fishing in the waters off Jamaica. As I've stated previously, all the best hero tales have a definitive ending -- and the fact that we know the endings to the stories of Robin Hood, King Arthur, Gilgamesh and Heracles doesn't mean that people have stopped telling stories about them. Now, James Bond has joined the immortals, but we need not fret. After all, "this sort of thing never happened to the other fellow..."

    Carry on, all...

    Well said. Thanks.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/no-time-to-die-all-your-burning-bond-questions-answered-major-spoilers/

    "What is Heracles?
    Heracles was the Greek name for the hero of antiquity called Hercules by the Romans. Persecuted by the goddess Hera, Heracles infamously killed his own children and was forced to perform 12 labors as a penance. The legend chimes with the ending of the film. A villainous centaur tricked Heracles' wife into giving the hero a poisoned shirt that burned his skin, similar to how the bioweapon kills a person it touches. Once poisoned, Heracles built his own funeral pyre and was incinerated, just as a poisoned Bond chose to be blown up. The similarity doesn't end there: Heracles' human body burned, but his godlike self rose to Olympus to live on. And while Daniel Craig's version of the character may die, the character of James Bond is eternal."
  • Posts: 1,048
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The only way forward is Bond not dead. Just bring him back in Bond 26. Problem solved. Sure, it may be a bit silly but you avoid a schism in continuity. Bond dead then alive is too problematic and weird.

    Have you seen the film? He's dead as a dodo. To have him somehow escape the vaporization would be even more daft than having him come back without explanation after killing him off.
    They've painted themselves into a corner, obviously. But they can't renege on what they've done. I know you don't like what they've done, but face it. He's brown bread.
  • Posts: 1,098
    The thing is yes Bond is dead (well for this Craig era of films).........one does not survive a salvo of missiles from HMS Dragon. Ironic that through all his missions that Bond fights the enemies of the UK & World, that its the Royal Navy that kills him off!
  • Posts: 1,048
    Someone wrote on here how "Goldfinger's expectations have finally come true" (or words to that effect). That made me so sad to read that.
    But of course, I was silly to be sad, because that was from a different character arc, as I've since learnt.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Someone wrote on here how "Goldfinger's expectations have finally come true" (or words to that effect). That made me so sad to read that.
    But of course, I was silly to be sad, because that was from a different character arc, as I've since learnt.

    To be fair Goldfinger was always right. Whether it was Bond hit by missiles or expelling his last breath at a retirement home, he was always going to die.
  • Posts: 2,400
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Hi everyone. Long-time browser, first time poster here. I'm afraid I'm another Bond fan that feels let down by the ending, and I think perhaps it's a generational thing. My first Bond movie experience was as a seven year old watching Live and Let Die, and I've always enjoyed my visits to the cinema to see the latest Bond flick. This has changed with the recent movie though, I'm sad to say.
    The idea of killing off James Bond is ludicrous to me, and even a few weeks in I'm still surprised they actually went there. I've been reading this thread and many people seem okay with it, which is a good thing, and means they can enjoy the movie much more than me. I don't really understand the idea of a 'reboot', and if I'm honest, I wish I'd never heard the word. As far as I can tell, it's something that usually happens in superhero movies and sci-fi. I always approached the James Bond movies as drama, based on a literary character. So I don't see the 'it's good for Batman, so it's good for Bond' argument standing up.
    I just can't get my head around seeing a screen character killed off, only to be told, "don't worry, he'll be back" in the credits. Is he dead or not?
    I can't see how it works. Do we now have to think that the next Bond is in an 'alternate universe' like in sci-fi movies? And now he's been killed off once, he can be killed off as many times as they want, because he'll return anyway in the form of a 'reboot'.
    I can't be alone in thinking the series has lost a great deal of its narrative credibility. How are we supposed to care that he died, when he's not really dead, (which he can't be if he's going to return, right?).
    And I know people will be reading this screaming inwardly don't you get it? it just means he's dead in Craig's timeline!!!. Okay, well does that mean he can die and come back as many times as he wants, and the reason he can do that is because 'it's a timeline'.
    Oh, right. A timeline. Silly me, I didn't know it was a timeline. Whatever that is.
    Sorry to start off my first post with a moan. I'll enjoy contributing here, (particularly in the literary section, I'm a big Fleming fan), but after reading all these reactions I felt the need to put my two-penneth in!

    The only way forward is Bond not dead. Just bring him back in Bond 26. Problem solved. Sure, it may be a bit silly but you avoid a schism in continuity. Bond dead then alive is too problematic and weird.

    It's a no brainer to have Bond survive the nanobots infection and the missile strike. If you do the survival scene in a dramatic way, most people will accept it. The Bond films are not meant to be that realistic so Eon can get away with a very improbable escape from death scene.

    Have you even bothered watching the film?

    No, he hasn't. I stopped giving him oxygen about 45 pages ago.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    It's a wondy why bondy even bothers posting here. Oh, right. The attention.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,048
    Does everyone die? Shit, that's a bummer. I suppose it's the fate of glass, to crack.

    No, I still need to work on that last bit.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 15,954
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Hi everyone. Long-time browser, first time poster here. I'm afraid I'm another Bond fan that feels let down by the ending, and I think perhaps it's a generational thing. My first Bond movie experience was as a seven year old watching Live and Let Die, and I've always enjoyed my visits to the cinema to see the latest Bond flick. This has changed with the recent movie though, I'm sad to say.
    The idea of killing off James Bond is ludicrous to me, and even a few weeks in I'm still surprised they actually went there. I've been reading this thread and many people seem okay with it, which is a good thing, and means they can enjoy the movie much more than me. I don't really understand the idea of a 'reboot', and if I'm honest, I wish I'd never heard the word. As far as I can tell, it's something that usually happens in superhero movies and sci-fi. I always approached the James Bond movies as drama, based on a literary character. So I don't see the 'it's good for Batman, so it's good for Bond' argument standing up.
    I just can't get my head around seeing a screen character killed off, only to be told, "don't worry, he'll be back" in the credits. Is he dead or not?
    I can't see how it works. Do we now have to think that the next Bond is in an 'alternate universe' like in sci-fi movies? And now he's been killed off once, he can be killed off as many times as they want, because he'll return anyway in the form of a 'reboot'.
    I can't be alone in thinking the series has lost a great deal of its narrative credibility. How are we supposed to care that he died, when he's not really dead, (which he can't be if he's going to return, right?).
    And I know people will be reading this screaming inwardly don't you get it? it just means he's dead in Craig's timeline!!!. Okay, well does that mean he can die and come back as many times as he wants, and the reason he can do that is because 'it's a timeline'.
    Oh, right. A timeline. Silly me, I didn't know it was a timeline. Whatever that is.
    Sorry to start off my first post with a moan. I'll enjoy contributing here, (particularly in the literary section, I'm a big Fleming fan), but after reading all these reactions I felt the need to put my two-penneth in!

    The only way forward is Bond not dead. Just bring him back in Bond 26. Problem solved. Sure, it may be a bit silly but you avoid a schism in continuity. Bond dead then alive is too problematic and weird.

    It's a no brainer to have Bond survive the nanobots infection and the missile strike. If you do the survival scene in a dramatic way, most people will accept it. The Bond films are not meant to be that realistic so Eon can get away with a very improbable escape from death scene.

    Well, he survived that 322 foot drop into the river in SKYFALL. How about this...........
    Bond is blown into the water and miraculously survives. He swims to the nearest island, which just so happens to be populated exclusively by women. While staying there to heal, he discovers he prefers a more promiscuous lifestyle, lets Madeleine and his daughter go about their lives and reports to duty the Connery/Moore Bond we know and love. As far as the poison goes, well Q will figure that out.
  • Posts: 372
    Anyone else noticed? The first scene of NTTD where Saffin come to kill her father while she is a child is told in exact details by Madeleine Swann at about 1h29mn in SPECTRE.
    Sorry if this been posted before.
  • Posts: 1,048
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As far as the poison goes, well Q will figure that out.

    He always does.

  • Posts: 1,098
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As far as the poison goes, well Q will figure that out.

    He always does.

    Would a radiation dose kill the nanobot virus?......mind you Bond could end up bald? :)
Sign In or Register to comment.