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

1121122124126127298

Comments

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    Stamper wrote: »
    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.

    Yep they even kept the details of Swann being in her bedroom upstairs playing and the Beretta hidden under the sink.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,665
    Stamper wrote: »
    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.

    It's weird that they got the bleach under the sink detail right but managed to mix up or bungle some other similar, key details (such as Madeleine's occupation changing from SP to NTTD).
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,564
    mepal1 wrote: »
    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? :)

    Ah, so we can have a computer generated, bald, elderly Connery as the Bond in this new/original Bond timeline! Great! ;)
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 791
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    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.

    It's weird that they got the bleach under the sink detail right but managed to mix up or bungle some other similar, key details (such as Madeleine's occupation changing from SP to NTTD).

    I guess NTTD exists in a slightly different timeline to Spectre's. ;))
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 659
    mepal1 wrote: »
    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? :)

    Assuming that the nanobots are metal, you could just use a magnet to draw them out of Bond's body. It's the reason why people with metal fillings can't get MRI's.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,527
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    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.

    It's weird that they got the bleach under the sink detail right but managed to mix up or bungle some other similar, key details (such as Madeleine's occupation changing from SP to NTTD).

    You mean medical doctor to psychiatric doctor? No intention to be a smartass, just honestly asking for clarification; it's possible I'm not 100% what her professions specifically are :))
  • Posts: 1,098
    slide_99 wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    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? :)

    Assuming that the nanobots are metal, you could just use a magnet to draw them out of Bond's body. It's the reason why people with metal fillings can't get MRI's.

    Umm is that true in US?........i still have a few metal fillings, but i seem to remember when i had an MRI scan in the UK, that having metal fillings was the one thing that was allowed, as most people have them.......mind you when they switched the MRI machine on, my head ended up magnetized to the machine.....:)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    mepal1 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    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? :)

    Assuming that the nanobots are metal, you could just use a magnet to draw them out of Bond's body. It's the reason why people with metal fillings can't get MRI's.

    Umm is that true in US?........i still have a few metal fillings, but i seem to remember when i had an MRI scan in the UK, that having metal fillings was the one thing that was allowed, as most people have them.......mind you when they switched the MRI machine on, my head ended up magnetized to the machine.....:)

    As long as you weren't dropped into a shark tank at any point.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    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.

    It's weird that they got the bleach under the sink detail right but managed to mix up or bungle some other similar, key details (such as Madeleine's occupation changing from SP to NTTD).

    As far as I remember she's a psychiatrist in both.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    Benjamin wrote: »
    ....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."

    Interesting that you say that...

    I also noted that there's some other religious allegories going on. E.g. in Skyfall Bond's hobby is resurrection... In NTTD... you could argue that the ending is visually trying to show ascension.

    Not that I know much about the Bible beyond that though.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,696
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    ....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."

    Interesting that you say that...

    I also noted that there's some other religious allegories going on. E.g. in Skyfall Bond's hobby is resurrection... In NTTD... you could argue that the ending is visually trying to show ascension.

    Not that I know much about the Bible beyond that though.

    Well he also defeats Lucifer and gives his life to save the world with a wound in his side...
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 659
    mepal1 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    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? :)

    Assuming that the nanobots are metal, you could just use a magnet to draw them out of Bond's body. It's the reason why people with metal fillings can't get MRI's.

    Umm is that true in US?........i still have a few metal fillings, but i seem to remember when i had an MRI scan in the UK, that having metal fillings was the one thing that was allowed, as most people have them.......mind you when they switched the MRI machine on, my head ended up magnetized to the machine.....:)

    Maybe it was a CT (x-ray) scan you had, which is different. Metal can definitely interfere with MRI scans since they're using magnetic imaging to look into you. My point was just that metal can't be too hard to get out of someone's body, especially in the somewhat-fantastical world of Bond.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 791
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    ....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."

    Interesting that you say that...

    I also noted that there's some other religious allegories going on. E.g. in Skyfall Bond's hobby is resurrection... In NTTD... you could argue that the ending is visually trying to show ascension.

    Not that I know much about the Bible beyond that though.

    Well he also gives his life to save the world with a wound in his side...

    I've always argued that he owes more to Greek mythological heroes than to actual espionage stories. Theseus and the Minotaur, for example, has the basic ingredients for a Bond story: a trained warrior is sent undercover to an enemy power that is extorting payment from his home country, he finds himself in a strange, outlandish location (the Labyrinth), he uses his sex-appeal to get help, and he must face a seemingly indestructible henchman. At the end he runs away with the girl (he kind of ditches her, too, but that something we generally don't see Bond do).

    All that's missing is being given special weapons from the gods, which is the role that Q plays.
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    I've always argued that he owes more to Greek mythological heroes than to actual espionage stories. Theseus and the Minotaur, for example, has the basic ingredients for a Bond story: a trained warrior is sent undercover to an enemy power that is extorting payment from his home country, he finds himself in a strange, outlandish location (the Labyrinth), he uses his sex-appeal to get help, and he must face a seemingly indestructible henchman. At the end he runs away with the girl (he kind of ditches her, too, but that something we generally don't see Bond do).

    All that's missing is being given special weapons from the gods, which is the role that Q plays.

    Interesting. I like it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 15,333
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    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.

    It's weird that they got the bleach under the sink detail right but managed to mix up or bungle some other similar, key details (such as Madeleine's occupation changing from SP to NTTD).

    Did it? I didn't spot that. What, was it something like psychotherapist to psychiatrist or something (although I know one is a sub branch of the other)?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,871
    I don't think her occupation did change. She's always been a psychiatrist.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,665
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't think her occupation did change. She's always been a psychiatrist.

    Someone mentioned it had around the initial release and I thought it was the case but perhaps not. I didn't take notice when I saw it.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    00Heaven wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    I don't think that the plan, when Craig was hired, was to do some self-contained arc. With Casino Royale, they wanted to do some origin story, a reboot that would have brought the new actor close to "classic" film Bond within a couple of adventures, with a few updates that could be worked out in the meantime.

    Then, everybody gradually realized that the new films had actually moved the franchise into uncharted territories, partly because of Craig's take on the character which was quite distinctive, and that a few elements couldn't just be "updated" by this point, they had to be entirely reinvented or they wouldn't work. Too much elements in the eighties and nineties were already exhausted tropes based on choices made in the sixties. The new Moneypenny and Q from Skyfall did work. Blofeld from Spectre didn't (partly because the script was botched, partly because, due to decade of parodies, he may have been beyond redemption as a believable threat).
    And they ultimately decided to give this arc some definite end, rather than milk out the new choices with another actor for another decade, where, at this point, they would have felt stale and overplayed too.

    That said, when people think these five films are some treason to the franchise, I don't think that either Cubby or Harry had any grandiose plans when they started the series beyond a few sequels. Nobody could have predicted that the franchise would turn into such a phenomenon. They also moved along with some kind of behemoth and adjusted to the new situation, just like Barbara and Michael did with the reboot, especially when Skyfall broke records everywhere. And this time they didn't take it as the new statu quo but some invite to take even more risks.
    But, if Fleming had been alive for a few more years, he might also have been appalled with the creative direction the franchise took as soon as the early seventies, and the lack of development for the character he had created. So, if we accept Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker, we have to accept Syfall and No Time to Die.

    Saw a Craig interview recently where he said they discussed doing standalone films but negated the idea as the continuity thread they established was too good and too interesting to leave behind. So probably not planned before CR but not clear as to when they doubled down on the overarching story. I'm thankful for it though. Been quite a ride.

    Yes, was just about to say as I couldn't say it in the minor spoilers thread... But in that podcast he alludes to the arc as being something that was discussed early-ish.

    Yes, I am so glad and appreciate that the Craig era gave us the films it did and broke the mold, gave us a fresh, different take on Bond ... and a completed story arc from rookie 00 agent to the end. This was the fitting, heroic, and noble end for this particular Bond.

    I find NTTD so deeply rewarding, even with the ending being incredibly difficult (especially at first viewing). I have seen it three times now, and each time I find more to appreciate. And I am not worried about future films. Bond never needs to die again in any movie. This one is definitive for that. This time was the right time to do that, and for those of us who appreciate the brutal, realistic, wounded, vulnerable, yet truly heroic Bond that is Daniel Craig's Bond - this ending is appropriate and beautifully done.

    Bond fans will mostly stay divided on this one, but that is okay. It really is. We don't need to try to fully convince others to change their minds. All our feelings are valid. But it is nice to discuss because I find other insights people have that open up even more things for me to enjoy. That is why I am on this forum. Not to try to dissuade people; but to share, yes. As many of you know (but new members may not) I am one of the oldest members here. And I fully embraced Craig's take on Bond, from 1st viewing of Casino Royale through the ending of No Time To Die. I value his work as Bond very much. Daniel Craig really did the role justice.

    I'm thankful (and a bit surprised) the producers had the guts to go all the way with this, and I'm really glad they hired Fukunaga to direct. That turned out to be such a major factor why this film works so well and is such a beautiful, stunning, meaningful, layered Bond film. NTTD is a gem. I set aside Daniel Craig's era with a toast and much respect. Cheers!

    On to the next Bond - which will be different, as it should be. B-)
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    ....I find NTTD so deeply rewarding, even with the ending being incredibly difficult (especially at first viewing). I have seen it three times now, and each time I find more to appreciate. And I am not worried about future films. Bond never needs to die again in any movie. This one is definitive for that. This time was the right time to do that, and for those of us who appreciate the brutal, realistic, wounded, vulnerable, yet truly heroic Bond that is Daniel Craig's Bond - this ending is appropriate and beautifully done.

    Bond fans will mostly stay divided on this one, but that is okay. It really is. We don't need to try to fully convince others to change their minds. All our feelings are valid. But it is nice to discuss because I find other insights people have that open up even more things for me to enjoy. That is why I am on this forum. Not to try to dissuade people; but to share, yes. As many of you know (but new members may not) I am one of the oldest members here. And I fully embraced Craig's take on Bond, from 1st viewing of Casino Royale through the ending of No Time To Die. I value his work as Bond very much. Daniel Craig really did the role justice.

    I'm thankful (and a bit surprised) the producers had the guts to go all the way with this, and I'm really glad they hired Fukunaga to direct. That turned out to be such a major factor why this film works so well and is such a beautiful, stunning, meaningful, layered Bond film. NTTD is a gem. I set aside Daniel Craig's era with a toast and much respect. Cheers!

    On to the next Bond - which will be different, as it should be. B-)

    Well said. I agree.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,459
    I enjoyed your earlier thoughts on NTTD, @Benjamin. I just woke up and am trying to scan the 100+ comments here. ;)
  • Posts: 490
    00Heaven wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    I don't think that the plan, when Craig was hired, was to do some self-contained arc. With Casino Royale, they wanted to do some origin story, a reboot that would have brought the new actor close to "classic" film Bond within a couple of adventures, with a few updates that could be worked out in the meantime.

    Then, everybody gradually realized that the new films had actually moved the franchise into uncharted territories, partly because of Craig's take on the character which was quite distinctive, and that a few elements couldn't just be "updated" by this point, they had to be entirely reinvented or they wouldn't work. Too much elements in the eighties and nineties were already exhausted tropes based on choices made in the sixties. The new Moneypenny and Q from Skyfall did work. Blofeld from Spectre didn't (partly because the script was botched, partly because, due to decade of parodies, he may have been beyond redemption as a believable threat).
    And they ultimately decided to give this arc some definite end, rather than milk out the new choices with another actor for another decade, where, at this point, they would have felt stale and overplayed too.

    That said, when people think these five films are some treason to the franchise, I don't think that either Cubby or Harry had any grandiose plans when they started the series beyond a few sequels. Nobody could have predicted that the franchise would turn into such a phenomenon. They also moved along with some kind of behemoth and adjusted to the new situation, just like Barbara and Michael did with the reboot, especially when Skyfall broke records everywhere. And this time they didn't take it as the new statu quo but some invite to take even more risks.
    But, if Fleming had been alive for a few more years, he might also have been appalled with the creative direction the franchise took as soon as the early seventies, and the lack of development for the character he had created. So, if we accept Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker, we have to accept Syfall and No Time to Die.

    Saw a Craig interview recently where he said they discussed doing standalone films but negated the idea as the continuity thread they established was too good and too interesting to leave behind. So probably not planned before CR but not clear as to when they doubled down on the overarching story. I'm thankful for it though. Been quite a ride.

    Yes, was just about to say as I couldn't say it in the minor spoilers thread... But in that podcast he alludes to the arc as being something that was discussed early-ish.

    Yes, I am so glad and appreciate that the Craig era gave us the films it did and broke the mold, gave us a fresh, different take on Bond ... and a completed story arc from rookie 00 agent to the end. This was the fitting, heroic, and noble end for this particular Bond.

    I find NTTD so deeply rewarding, even with the ending being incredibly difficult (especially at first viewing). I have seen it three times now, and each time I find more to appreciate. And I am not worried about future films. Bond never needs to die again in any movie. This one is definitive for that. This time was the right time to do that, and for those of us who appreciate the brutal, realistic, wounded, vulnerable, yet truly heroic Bond that is Daniel Craig's Bond - this ending is appropriate and beautifully done.

    Bond fans will mostly stay divided on this one, but that is okay. It really is. We don't need to try to fully convince others to change their minds. All our feelings are valid. But it is nice to discuss because I find other insights people have that open up even more things for me to enjoy. That is why I am on this forum. Not to try to dissuade people; but to share, yes. As many of you know (but new members may not) I am one of the oldest members here. And I fully embraced Craig's take on Bond, from 1st viewing of Casino Royale through the ending of No Time To Die. I value his work as Bond very much. Daniel Craig really did the role justice.

    I'm thankful (and a bit surprised) the producers had the guts to go all the way with this, and I'm really glad they hired Fukunaga to direct. That turned out to be such a major factor why this film works so well and is such a beautiful, stunning, meaningful, layered Bond film. NTTD is a gem. I set aside Daniel Craig's era with a toast and much respect. Cheers!

    On to the next Bond - which will be different, as it should be. B-)

    Well said. I am still in awe of this film and the guts it took to push it to this level.
  • 9IW9IW
    edited October 2021 Posts: 59
    Like @ColonelAdamski and others I am a long, long time Bond fan and a new member drawn to the community by my great anticipation for No Time to Die. I have thoroughly enjoyed all of your comments, even as some divisiveness has occurred regarding the ending and its merits relative to the film itself and the franchise's long term loyal fans. I too am a huge fan of the books and Live and Let Die was my first Bond cinema experience.

    I saw the film last Friday, opening night, and had successfully avoided spoilers with the small exception that I saw a credit for Mathilde Swann and deduced a child was part of the story. I have not gone back for a second screening, but will probably do so if I can talk my kids into going. They are in their 20's and show literally no interest. I decided to both let the movie sink in a bit before reviewing and to get a feel for the tenor of the message board before offering any substantial comment. It appears that, with a few exceptions, both the critical comments and the overly effusive comments are equally well received, and I am glad for that. Thank you all.

    No Time to Die is a great action/drama movie with all the parts you would expect in the genre. Very well acted, great locations, some stunning shots and exciting action. Is it a great Bond film? I think the answer lies in the pages above. The beauty of Bond lies in the eyes of the beholder. I have asked myself several times, "what exactly have I beheld?" A very, very good Bond film is my answer.

    For fifteen years we as Bond fans have been asked to examine James Bond's past as Daniel Craig reveals it to us over the course of four and a half films. Circumstances in Bond's life, most particularly his reunion with Madeline Swann and the revelation of the existence of his daughter, force him, and us, to now consider Bond's future. Of course, Bond being Bond, the very small matter of saving the world has to be undertaken before that future can be decided. In keeping with the theme of juxtaposing the past with the future, we find that it is Madeline's past that has triggered the events placing the world population in jeopardy and hers, her daughter's and Bond's along with it. From this, we are not treated to a "classic" Bond film compared against the entire franchise history, but are treated with a compelling story that winds its way to a dramatic finish.

    Daniel Craig delivers a terrific performance in his final turn as Bond. From the incredibly moving "I miss you" spoken to the late Vesper Lynd to the final confrontation with Ernst Blofeld to the assault upon the evil Safin's lair and person to the fateful final decision, Craig delivers. The filmmakers complete the story arc begun in Casino Royale and give Craig an ending to his run in unprecedented fashion. They kill him. Bond...James Bond...dies at the end of this film. Does this film stand or fall on this event that is singular in a twenty-five film run over the course of sixty years? Again, that lies in the eyes of the beholder, whether a lifetime fan of the series or a first-time viewer.

    For me, I can get past the death. I can suspend that fact in some cinematic ether and be ready for the next installment and the next actor to play this iconic role. Rather, the film "fails" for me in a more personal and critical fashion. When I say "fail" I really mean its failure to achieve "great Bond film" status to me for reasons that are primarily personal and do not reflect necessarily upon the greatness of the film in general.

    From a classic Bond fan standpoint, I did not think the action scenes were particularly stunning. Very good and exciting, yes. But they were short and not the spectacular cliff-jumping, boat over the road, roof top running scenes I was hoping for. The all too brief scene in Cuba with Ana de Armas was delightful Bond fun. It did not fit in this film as well as it would have in many others, but it was a visual treat. The villain was a creep and had a diabolical plan, but was otherwise fairly benign and not a Bond-worthy adversary in my opinion. The villain and action were sufficient for a good action film and I won't belabor the point so that I can come to the point.

    No Time to Die hinges upon the love story contained within the last two installments of the films. We meet Madeline Swann through her father's connection to Spectre and reach our climax through her somewhat hazily related connection to Safin and Safin's connection to Spectre. For us to believe in the choice made by Bond in the climax, we have to believe in his love for Madeline. And I do not. For all the great casting, through all the great acting, I did not see a genuine love develop between these two. The onscreen time was too brief and the scenes either unartfully written or insincerely spoken for me to believe that a life or death decision was going to be made upon it. I teared up exactly one time in two hours and forty-three minutes. When Daniel Craig looked upon Vesper's tomb and said softly "I miss you," I believed him. And it hurt. I cannot say the same for any of the scenes between Craig and Seydoux. And that hurts as well. But its the story it hurts, not the viewer. Which brings us to Mathilde. She had to be in the story. Without her, Bond dying to save Madeline would have brought a likely audible "B.S!" from me right in the theater. But I have a daughter and I would have done the same. It almost saves the story for me, but not quite.

    Regarding the death of Bond, I think what many are trying to say is less "they have no right to do that" than that it is a little insulting to the fans who have supported the films for many, many years. Our Bond cheats death to the very brink, but he survives and gets the girl. We recognize that with some exception, particularly the Craig arc, the films are intended stand alone. Continuity lies solely in the importance of the canon, of the backstory, of the adherence to the formula, and of the acknowledgement of Ian Fleming's character. The death of Bond is jarring to the continuity so defined. It just has a small feeling of the long-time fan being taken advantage of. For those with other favorite Bonds, it gives rise to the feeling of "why would you do for Daniel Craig what you did not do for Connery, for Moore, for Brosnan?" They neither demanded nor were offered such an ending. Again, I personally can accept it and move on from it with no hard feeling, but understand that others may choose not to. Or, more likely, to continue on as Bond fans but just be mad about the time they killed our hero.

    If they hire me to write Bond 26, we are just going to move on like nothing happened. I am going to run some dots across your screen and give you a gun barrel and some cool bloodflow. Then we are going be in an incredibly picturesque location and we are going to chase somebody and you're going to see who is being chased because he is going to be constantly looking over his shoulder and into mirrors and reflections. And we are going to use boats and planes and motorcycles and cars and skateboards to chase this guy and he is going to be constantly shouting into his radio "who is this guy?!!?" And then we are going to corner him and he is on his back staring up into a Walther pistol and he is going to ask the camera "who are you?" And finally we are going to see the chaser and he is going to answer "Bond. James Bond." And off we go. As simple as that.

    James Bond did not survive No Time to Die. But James Bond will survive No Time to Die. The more you think about it, there really is no conflict between those two sentences.
  • Posts: 131
    Thank you @LeonardPine! I ended up writing a more rambling and less structured comment than I wanted, but am glad it is not an impenetrable read.

    Out of curiosity, what are the things you liked best about the film? I kind of listed mine at the end, but it is interesting to compare different takes. The great thing I noticed about this forum is people exchanging views without descending into flame wars.

    To be honest @NeverSayNever I'm still trying to digest this strange Bond film. While I enjoyed what I saw, the film is so fast paced its hard to be objective after only one viewing, so I look forward to more viewings when I get the bluray.

    Things I definitely liked:

    The action scenes

    The acting was all very good and the direction excellent.

    The climax was nerve shreddingly good and the makers certainly handled Bond’s death well. I really like the use of a Fleming quote at the end.

    But as I said, it will take more viewings to really get my head around it. I look forward to people's reactions to it further down the line.

    I loved SP when I saw it for the first time. Now I don't love it much at all...

    @LeonardPine sorry for the late reply, I am with you on this one being a strange Bond film and on liking the action scenes (up to the end of the Cuban sequence, in my case). Once it is available outside cinemas, I will certainly rewatch the first hour before Felix's death scene, but am less certain about the rest. Bond's death per se was well staged dramatically, but the second half of the film leading up to it struck me as rather uneven.

    I may not have loved Spectre, but it was entertaining enough when it came out (if for no other reason than to see the footage from the Rome shoot). I must say I quite liked its ending, regardless of the implausibility of the Madeleine romance; it could be said that NTTD had to end the way it did because they had used up the upbeat ending option in SP and did not want to repeat themselves, though my pet theory is that DC insisted on getting killed off a la Harrison Ford in The Force Awakens.

    I am also curious to see where the consensus will settle on this one, but I suspect it may be easier to properly rate it vis-a-vis other Bond films once Bond 26 is out.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,972
    Resurrection, remember? The dead are alive. The white light at the end of NTTD becomes the white light that filled the screen as Bond regains consciousness, strapped into Blofeld's torture chair in SP, just as Fukunaga said before they shot the film. It was all in his head. Or maybe in Pam Ewing's. 'Hello, pussy...'
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    Venutius wrote: »
    Resurrection, remember? The dead are alive. The white light at the end of NTTD becomes the white light that filled the screen as Bond regains consciousness, strapped into Blofeld's torture chair in SP, just as Fukunaga said before they shot the film. It was all in his head. Or maybe in Pam Ewing's. 'Hello, pussy...'

    Hah, this would be wild.
  • Posts: 131
    @9IW what a thoughtful and well-written review!
    9IW wrote: »
    For me, I can get past the death. I can suspend that fact in some cinematic ether and be ready for the next installment and the next actor to play this iconic role. Rather, the film "fails" for me in a more personal and critical fashion.

    [...]

    No Time to Die hinges upon the love story contained within the last two installments of the films. We meet Madeline Swann through her father's connection to Spectre and reach our climax through her somewhat hazily related connection to Safim and Safim's connection to Spectre. For us to believe in the choice made by Bond in the climax, we have to believe in his love for Madeline. And I do not. For all the great casting, through all the great acting, I did not see a genuine love develop between these two. The onscreen time was too brief and the scenes either unartfully written or insincerely spoken for me to believe that a life or death decision was going to be made upon it.

    Could not agree more. The writers decided to make the Madeleine relationship into a pivotal point in Bond's decisions, but did not put in enough effort to make it believable. I may go further criticism-wise in doubting the casting of Lea Seydoux back in Spectre (surely someone could have been found who would have had more chemistry with DC?) and in not liking the introduction of Mathilde (again, it looks as if by bringing her in, the writers picked the most obvious and much-used plot device in motivating the hero), but you put it very well.

    Regarding the death of Bond, I think what many are trying to say is less "they have no right to do that" than that it is a little insulting to the fans who have supported the films for many, many years. Our Bond cheats death to the very brink, but he survives and gets the girl. We recognize that with some exception, particularly the Craig arc, the films are intended stand alone. Continuity lies solely in the importance of the canon, of the backstory, of the adherence to the formula, and of the acknowledgement of Ian Fleming's character. The death of Bond is jarring to the continuity so defined.

    Again, excellently put.

    If they hire me to write Bond 26, we are just going to move on like nothing happened. I am going to run some dots across your screen and give you a gun barrel and some cool bloodflow. Then we are going be in an incredibly picturesque location and we are going to chase somebody and you're going to see who is being chased because he is going to be constantly looking over his shoulder and into mirrors and reflections. And we are going to use boats and planes and motorcycles and cars and skateboards to chase this guy and he is going to be constantly shouting into his radio "who is this guy?!!?" And then we are going to corner him and he is on his back staring up into a Walther pistol and he is going to ask the camera "who are you?" And finally we are going to see the chaser and he is going to answer "Bond. James Bond." And off we go. As simple as that.

    James Bond did not survive No Time to Die. But James Bond will survive No Time to Die. The more you think about it, there really is no conflict between those two sentences.

    hear, hear! I wish I could watch your Bond 26 already :)
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 131
    slide_99 wrote: »

    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras. They can't have it both ways. They can't say that DC's tenure is its own thing while making 50th anniversary movies. Bond isn't 6 different characters, he's one character.

    I see where you are coming from, but I beg to disagree... mostly by considering the counterfactual going forward, what would happen in Bond 26 if Bond #7 were to be the continuation of DC's Bond.

    Even if CR was not meant to start an arc, by setting Bond’s origin story in modern times, the filmmakers automatically put it in a different continuum from the Connery-to-Brosnan films, assuming that Bond!time flows in a linear fashion. Given the loose plot continuity, limited character development and sliding timeline of pre-Craig films, with enough suspension of disbelief, Brosnan’s Bond just might be the guy who had once fought Goldfinger or married Tracy; CR!Bond who had just got his 00 license definitely was not that guy.

    The effort to build on the events of earlier films starting from CR was a realistic approach, sure; but later films became “hostages” of earlier choices that had profound impact on a character tasked with greater emotional depth. This did not fit well into a long-running, potentially open-ended franchise. By the time of NTTD, Craig’s Bond was weighed down by so much dramatic baggage (grieving over Vesper, the Blofeld connection, the Madeleine romance) that seeing how DC was determined to leave, there was no way to pave the road for the next Bond except by wrapping up “his” Bond storyline one way or another (retirement or death) to resolve all these plotlines, especially with the addition of Mathilde in NTTD… unless the new Bond was to be a telenovela. It would be impossible for DC’s successor to shrug off these relationships and go back to business as usual as the same guy, to say nothing of the fact that in this “non-sliding” timeline, Bond is at about retirement age.

    Whether killing Bond was better than retirement is another matter. IMO it fits the tone of the Craig era, where writers have emphasised the inherent drama, and more importantly, they had already used the retirement option at the end of Spectre; but I understand people who are upset by NTTD’s finale after 15 years of emotional investment and are loathe to see a cultural icon killed ostensibly to “freshen up” the franchise, or to pay homage to the star. YMMV, but as someone less invested in Craig’s Bond compared to most of his predecessors, I would be happy to see the return of standalone films. The story involving Madeleine and Mathilde may have worked for DC’s Bond, but I would not want to either see them die or see them as regulars.

  • 9IW9IW
    Posts: 59
    @9IW what a thoughtful and well-written review!
    9IW wrote: »
    For me, I can get past the death. I can suspend that fact in some cinematic ether and be ready for the next installment and the next actor to play this iconic role. Rather, the film "fails" for me in a more personal and critical fashion.

    [...]

    No Time to Die hinges upon the love story contained within the last two installments of the films. We meet Madeline Swann through her father's connection to Spectre and reach our climax through her somewhat hazily related connection to Safim and Safim's connection to Spectre. For us to believe in the choice made by Bond in the climax, we have to believe in his love for Madeline. And I do not. For all the great casting, through all the great acting, I did not see a genuine love develop between these two. The onscreen time was too brief and the scenes either unartfully written or insincerely spoken for me to believe that a life or death decision was going to be made upon it.

    Could not agree more. The writers decided to make the Madeleine relationship into a pivotal point in Bond's decisions, but did not put in enough effort to make it believable. I may go further criticism-wise in doubting the casting of Lea Seydoux back in Spectre (surely someone could have been found who would have had more chemistry with DC?) and in not liking the introduction of Mathilde (again, it looks as if by bringing her in, the writers picked the most obvious and much-used plot device in motivating the hero), but you put it very well.

    Regarding the death of Bond, I think what many are trying to say is less "they have no right to do that" than that it is a little insulting to the fans who have supported the films for many, many years. Our Bond cheats death to the very brink, but he survives and gets the girl. We recognize that with some exception, particularly the Craig arc, the films are intended stand alone. Continuity lies solely in the importance of the canon, of the backstory, of the adherence to the formula, and of the acknowledgement of Ian Fleming's character. The death of Bond is jarring to the continuity so defined.

    Again, excellently put.

    If they hire me to write Bond 26, we are just going to move on like nothing happened. I am going to run some dots across your screen and give you a gun barrel and some cool bloodflow. Then we are going be in an incredibly picturesque location and we are going to chase somebody and you're going to see who is being chased because he is going to be constantly looking over his shoulder and into mirrors and reflections. And we are going to use boats and planes and motorcycles and cars and skateboards to chase this guy and he is going to be constantly shouting into his radio "who is this guy?!!?" And then we are going to corner him and he is on his back staring up into a Walther pistol and he is going to ask the camera "who are you?" And finally we are going to see the chaser and he is going to answer "Bond. James Bond." And off we go. As simple as that.

    James Bond did not survive No Time to Die. But James Bond will survive No Time to Die. The more you think about it, there really is no conflict between those two sentences.

    hear, hear! I wish I could watch your Bond 26 already :)

    Thanks for the kind words. Ha ha, Daniel Craig and I have about the same chance to appear in the credits of Bond 26. But, I have let Barbara know I am available.
  • 9IW9IW
    edited October 2021 Posts: 59
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Wonderful piece @9IW . Welcome to the forums. Out of curiosity, where did you first see LALD in the cinema?
    Thanks! I saw it in San Antonio at a long since closed McCreless Mall theater. I was 8 and really into boats/water skiing at the time so the boat chase was the coolest thing I had ever seen. Where did you see it?
  • 9IW9IW
    Posts: 59
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It was my first one in an actually theatre. Most of the '60s ones, and DAF, my family saw at the drive-in; we were cheap I guess. But my parents were meeting up at my grandparents house in Poughkeepsie, NY to discuss divorce stuff, and they needed to get us kids out of the way, so they dropped my sister and I off at a downtown Saturday Night show. I was 11, she was 8. I loved it. I knew the whole movie going in, because my Aunt had seen at and basically told me the entire thing.
    Strange, LALD was contemporaneous with my parents’ divorce as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.