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

1129130132134135298

Comments

  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited October 2021 Posts: 574
    I don't know. Some people seem to actually want him back in the next one, or one after. I feel like it was wrapped up very fittingly and he should definitely not be back. Clean slate, I hope.

    I don't get why people would want this but OK. Let's say even the craziest 'hypothetical' that people are debating actually does come to pass... Pie in the sky thinking and all that. Just the logistics of it would be a little odd Craig would be like, what, pushing 60? So we go from retired Bond to zimmerframe Bond. Now do they really want that in the next Bond film? I don't. The ending was fine and it capped the era off poetically.

    But anyway just picture me forever amused at this thread in general and you get a fair idea of where I am with it while I'm reading all this right now.
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love the fact Bond took a hailstorm of missiles to the face, yet there are still fans suggesting he’s alive. I would say I’m surprised but it seems symptomatic of today’s society where a fair portion seem incapable of accepting reality.

    One word: Moonraker. That gritty post-modern analysis of sociological hierarchies. Oh wait.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love the fact Bond took a hailstorm of missiles to the face, yet there are still fans suggesting he’s alive. I would say I’m surprised but it seems symptomatic of today’s society where a fair portion seem incapable of accepting reality.

    Yeah. Its pretty clear he just stood there and didn't move as it rained missiles. I guess some fans can't accept it. As much as I hate that ending, I have to accept Craig's Bond is dead because its so obvious. To quote from the movie, "Letting go is hard."
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,677
    peter wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Here's one interpretation

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-inner-life-of-james-bond/309457/

    "Was James Bond—neck-snapper, escape artist, serial shagger—the last repudiation of his creator’s cultural pedigree? Take that, fancy books; take that, whiskered shrinks. I, Ian Fleming, give you a hero almost without psychology: a bleak circuit of appetites, sensations, and prejudices, driven by a mechanical imperative called “duty.” In Jungian-alchemical terms, 007 is like lead, the metal associated with the dark god Saturn, lying coldly at the bottom of the crucible and refusing transformation. Boil him, slash him, poison him, flog him with a carpet beater and shoot his woman—Bond will not be altered."

    "Fleming’s novels, too, skirt the droning vacuum of Bond’s inner life. Is he human at all? From time to time he slumps, depressively—as, for example, in the opening pages of Thunderball: “Again Bond dabbed with the bloodstained styptic pencil at the cut on his chin and despised the face that stared sullenly back at him from the mirror above the washbasin. Stupid, ignorant bastard!” But this discontent is due to the fact that he has a hangover, he is between missions (traditionally a dangerous moment for Bond), and he has cut himself shaving. An immediate and physical ennui, in other words. He’ll be all right in a minute."

    original.jpg


    This may’ve be an intent that Bond never changes @Seve, but that’s wholly impossible, isn’t it? Because he was written by a flesh and blood human who, like all of us, grows with each victory or disappointment; changes with a death or new
    Love, or overcoming insurmountable odds.

    He, James Bond, did change in the books and the author made very conscious decisions (like his heritage and parental upbringing, or lack thereof), and unconsciously (the James Bond of Casino Royale is much more remarkably filled out with each subsequent novel, so that by the end he is very much a flesh and blood human with plenty of characteristics.

    James Bond is not a blank slate, in my opinion.

    Bond was never a blank slate. It was basically the inner thoughts of Fleming at the time he wrote the books, and this is reflected throughout, including the slow deterioration of his health. It's Fleming's fantasy lived out through the pages, nothing more and nothing less.

    This is very well said, @jetsetwilly. And people who go around saying it's just another literary character, and that we can today change its race, its gender, its depiction, ..., simply don't understand the aetiology of it, and don't respect the author and creator of this fandom. It's not a question of being a true fan or less of a fan, no, it's a question of being informed and able to respect intelectual property.
  • Posts: 7,500
    Univex wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Here's one interpretation

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-inner-life-of-james-bond/309457/

    "Was James Bond—neck-snapper, escape artist, serial shagger—the last repudiation of his creator’s cultural pedigree? Take that, fancy books; take that, whiskered shrinks. I, Ian Fleming, give you a hero almost without psychology: a bleak circuit of appetites, sensations, and prejudices, driven by a mechanical imperative called “duty.” In Jungian-alchemical terms, 007 is like lead, the metal associated with the dark god Saturn, lying coldly at the bottom of the crucible and refusing transformation. Boil him, slash him, poison him, flog him with a carpet beater and shoot his woman—Bond will not be altered."

    "Fleming’s novels, too, skirt the droning vacuum of Bond’s inner life. Is he human at all? From time to time he slumps, depressively—as, for example, in the opening pages of Thunderball: “Again Bond dabbed with the bloodstained styptic pencil at the cut on his chin and despised the face that stared sullenly back at him from the mirror above the washbasin. Stupid, ignorant bastard!” But this discontent is due to the fact that he has a hangover, he is between missions (traditionally a dangerous moment for Bond), and he has cut himself shaving. An immediate and physical ennui, in other words. He’ll be all right in a minute."

    original.jpg


    This may’ve be an intent that Bond never changes @Seve, but that’s wholly impossible, isn’t it? Because he was written by a flesh and blood human who, like all of us, grows with each victory or disappointment; changes with a death or new
    Love, or overcoming insurmountable odds.

    He, James Bond, did change in the books and the author made very conscious decisions (like his heritage and parental upbringing, or lack thereof), and unconsciously (the James Bond of Casino Royale is much more remarkably filled out with each subsequent novel, so that by the end he is very much a flesh and blood human with plenty of characteristics.

    James Bond is not a blank slate, in my opinion.

    Bond was never a blank slate. It was basically the inner thoughts of Fleming at the time he wrote the books, and this is reflected throughout, including the slow deterioration of his health. It's Fleming's fantasy lived out through the pages, nothing more and nothing less.

    This is very well said, @jetsetwilly. And people who go around saying it's just another literary character, and that we can today change its race, its gender, its depiction, ..., simply don't understand the aetiology of it, and don't respect the author and creator of this fandom. It's not a question of being a true fan or less of a fan, no, it's a question of being informed and able to respect intelectual property.


    But Fleming did marry and have kids, and he did die, didn't he? I really don't see the problem...
  • Posts: 6,677
    jobo wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Here's one interpretation

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-inner-life-of-james-bond/309457/

    "Was James Bond—neck-snapper, escape artist, serial shagger—the last repudiation of his creator’s cultural pedigree? Take that, fancy books; take that, whiskered shrinks. I, Ian Fleming, give you a hero almost without psychology: a bleak circuit of appetites, sensations, and prejudices, driven by a mechanical imperative called “duty.” In Jungian-alchemical terms, 007 is like lead, the metal associated with the dark god Saturn, lying coldly at the bottom of the crucible and refusing transformation. Boil him, slash him, poison him, flog him with a carpet beater and shoot his woman—Bond will not be altered."

    "Fleming’s novels, too, skirt the droning vacuum of Bond’s inner life. Is he human at all? From time to time he slumps, depressively—as, for example, in the opening pages of Thunderball: “Again Bond dabbed with the bloodstained styptic pencil at the cut on his chin and despised the face that stared sullenly back at him from the mirror above the washbasin. Stupid, ignorant bastard!” But this discontent is due to the fact that he has a hangover, he is between missions (traditionally a dangerous moment for Bond), and he has cut himself shaving. An immediate and physical ennui, in other words. He’ll be all right in a minute."

    original.jpg


    This may’ve be an intent that Bond never changes @Seve, but that’s wholly impossible, isn’t it? Because he was written by a flesh and blood human who, like all of us, grows with each victory or disappointment; changes with a death or new
    Love, or overcoming insurmountable odds.

    He, James Bond, did change in the books and the author made very conscious decisions (like his heritage and parental upbringing, or lack thereof), and unconsciously (the James Bond of Casino Royale is much more remarkably filled out with each subsequent novel, so that by the end he is very much a flesh and blood human with plenty of characteristics.

    James Bond is not a blank slate, in my opinion.

    Bond was never a blank slate. It was basically the inner thoughts of Fleming at the time he wrote the books, and this is reflected throughout, including the slow deterioration of his health. It's Fleming's fantasy lived out through the pages, nothing more and nothing less.

    This is very well said, @jetsetwilly. And people who go around saying it's just another literary character, and that we can today change its race, its gender, its depiction, ..., simply don't understand the aetiology of it, and don't respect the author and creator of this fandom. It's not a question of being a true fan or less of a fan, no, it's a question of being informed and able to respect intelectual property.


    But Fleming did marry and have kids, and he did die, didn't he? I really don't see the problem...

    Because his fantasy was created to escape from it all. Simple as that.

    And it serves as escapism to all of us too.

    Like I said, simple as that.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    I think the pregnancy at the end of YOLT is a bit of an outdated male fantasy as well..."Am I so virile that I've fathered a child without my knowledge?"

    Harder to imagine that in a day of DNA databases.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    TripAces wrote: »
    This duality within Bond is also illustrated when Madeleine is drunk in the hotel room in Tangier in SP. She looks at him and says, "There are two of you. Two Jameses." Right? Indeed.

    NTTD works for me because in death, Bond achieves what he likely could not in life. His split selves will go their separate ways. The assassin has died; but the myth lives on in the stories that Madeleine will tell Mathilde.

    There is more, but I'll leave it at that, for now.

    SP is by far the most psychoanalytic film of the bunch. It’s filled with so much symbolisms dealing with both Jung, Proust and Freud as well. Coincidentally, Bond falls in love with a psychiatrist and suffers brain surgery. This may be my favorite "symbolic shot" and it screams Carl Jung's “Shadow,” the archetype that represents the hidden side of every human psyche.

    1847069.jpg

  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,547
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Browse the categories for SPECTRE. You'll find several threads essentially discussing the same things. Some of us defend SP, some call it the worst film ever made (worse even than any output by Ed Wood, Al Adamson, ... go figure.) Anyway, there you will find what you seek.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    The passionate hatred for SP has always been baffling for me. It’s always been a middle of the road Bond film for me.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    I think the most common criticisms are the foster brother angle, the pacing, and the action.

    The "Brofeld" thing in particular doesn't seem to sit well with most fans. The most nefarious Bond villain of all is the way he is because he was jealous of Bond's relationship with his father. Speaking of relationships, I know a lot of fans feel that Bond and Madeleine's relationship is underdeveloped. Fortunately this is rectified greatly in NTTD.

    Regarding pacing, the constant cutting back to the M/C plot seems to slow things down. There really is no big finale. Just Blofeld hanging up some pictures he printed off at Walmart's photo desk to mess with Bond's head while Q and M deal with taking the Nine Eyes program offline.

    The action set pieces themselves never really build the momentum needed either, but that much is subjective. I like Spectre myself, but I completely understand why it's not a favourite. Coming off of Skyfall was never going to be an easy feat.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 652
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Blofeld's grand scheme was to found a secret terrorist organization, somehow bring about the events of CR-SF (still don't buy it) to eventually lure Bond to his crater base so he can drill holes into his head, all to get back at Bond because daddy didn't love him enough. That's literally more retarded than the plot to Die Another Day.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,279
    The passionate hatred for SP has always been baffling for me. It’s always been a middle of the road Bond film for me.

    Me too. I'm finding it difficult to compare with NTTD at the moment though. NTTD is clearly a better film in just about every department, except the ending, so I'm not sure which I would place higher.

    Stick the happy end of SP onto the end of NTTD and I would have a completely different view of NTTD. It would shoot up drastically in my rankings.

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    Minion wrote: »
    I guess those of us who appreciate NTTD are the forward-thinkers in this scenario. Glad in the 50-years between movies we seem to have eclipsed the cranky cantankerous lot and become the audience majority. :D

    If you want to be rude, I can be rude too

    But instead I'll take the high road

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love the fact Bond took a hailstorm of missiles to the face, yet there are still fans suggesting he’s alive. I would say I’m surprised but it seems symptomatic of today’s society where a fair portion seem incapable of accepting reality.

    Lol, since when was James Bond "reality"?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2021 Posts: 23,547
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Blofeld's grand scheme was to found a secret terrorist organization, somehow bring about the events of CR-SF (still don't buy it) to eventually lure Bond to his crater base so he can drill holes into his head, all to get back at Bond because daddy didn't love him enough. That's literally more retarded than the plot to Die Another Day.

    Because "more retarded" isn't strong enough, it's now "literally more retarded". I get it.

    Except that nothing here is "retarded". But maybe I just prefer a classier vocabulary when discussing films as grown-ups. I try not to be... too retarded about things. @Ryan agrees with me, I'm sure. ;-)
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 616
    matt_u wrote: »
    SP is by far the most psychoanalytic film of the bunch. It’s filled with so much symbolisms dealing with both Jung, Proust and Freud as well. Coincidentally, Bond falls in love with a psychiatrist and suffers brain surgery. This may be my favorite "symbolic shot" and it screams Carl Jung's “Shadow,” the archetype that represents the hidden side of every human psyche.

    1847069.jpg

    Thank you, sir.

    I've always liked SPECTRE and thought that, although it doesn't completely succeed as entertainment, there's a lot going on thematically and symbolically. In fact, I've argued on these forums that the story as presented is basically a nightmare, and Blofeld's character represents a part of Bond's psyche and is not meant to be taken literally.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Blofeld's grand scheme was to found a secret terrorist organization, somehow bring about the events of CR-SF (still don't buy it) to eventually lure Bond to his crater base so he can drill holes into his head, all to get back at Bond because daddy didn't love him enough. That's literally more retarded than the plot to Die Another Day.

    Because "more retarded" isn't strong enough, it's now "literally more retarded". I get it.

    Except that nothing here is "retarded". But maybe I just prefer a classier vocabulary when discussing films as grown-ups. I try not to be... too retarded about things. @Ryan agrees with me, I'm sure. ;-)

    You and me both. ;)
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,690
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Blofeld's grand scheme was to found a secret terrorist organization, somehow bring about the events of CR-SF (still don't buy it) to eventually lure Bond to his crater base so he can drill holes into his head, all to get back at Bond because daddy didn't love him enough. That's literally more retarded than the plot to Die Another Day.

    As you can see, some people don't like it because they think this is the plot of the film.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    He's calling a film plot "retarded", why even engage at this point?
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,690
    He's calling a film plot "retarded", why even engage at this point?

    I only quoted him to show how some people don't understand the movie, and don't like it because of their misunderstanding!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    @ProfJoeButcher gets it
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,526
    He's calling a film plot "retarded", why even engage at this point?

    I only quoted him to show how some people don't understand the movie, and don't like it because of their misunderstanding!

    100% agree with you, sorry, I just get tired of seeing that sort of thing in the community; I'd love for us to be better than that.

    @MakeshiftPython @jetsetwilly love that we agree on Spectre! Although I imagine I'd put it a touch higher on my ranking than yours. I also agree with you @jetsetwilly that NTTD is probably objectively better film than SP in nearly every regard, but SP still holds a special place in my heart for some reason.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Seve wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love the fact Bond took a hailstorm of missiles to the face, yet there are still fans suggesting he’s alive. I would say I’m surprised but it seems symptomatic of today’s society where a fair portion seem incapable of accepting reality.

    Lol, since when was James Bond "reality"?

    The reality of the plot. Bond died.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    RC7 wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love the fact Bond took a hailstorm of missiles to the face, yet there are still fans suggesting he’s alive. I would say I’m surprised but it seems symptomatic of today’s society where a fair portion seem incapable of accepting reality.

    Lol, since when was James Bond "reality"?

    The reality of the plot. Bond died.

    Yes. It was confirmed in the film, and confirmed several times after the fact by those creatively in charge of the film.
  • Posts: 7,500
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Blofeld's grand scheme was to found a secret terrorist organization, somehow bring about the events of CR-SF (still don't buy it) to eventually lure Bond to his crater base so he can drill holes into his head, all to get back at Bond because daddy didn't love him enough. That's literally more retarded than the plot to Die Another Day.


    That is a common misinterpretation. The film never implies that the purpose of all Blofeld's crimes is centered around getting back at Bond.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    jobo wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Blofeld's grand scheme was to found a secret terrorist organization, somehow bring about the events of CR-SF (still don't buy it) to eventually lure Bond to his crater base so he can drill holes into his head, all to get back at Bond because daddy didn't love him enough. That's literally more retarded than the plot to Die Another Day.


    That is a common misinterpretation. The film never implies that the purpose of all Blofeld's crimes is centered around getting back at Bond.

    Despite the fact that he mentions he's behind the deaths of Vesper and M?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 7,500
    jobo wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Blofeld's grand scheme was to found a secret terrorist organization, somehow bring about the events of CR-SF (still don't buy it) to eventually lure Bond to his crater base so he can drill holes into his head, all to get back at Bond because daddy didn't love him enough. That's literally more retarded than the plot to Die Another Day.


    That is a common misinterpretation. The film never implies that the purpose of all Blofeld's crimes is centered around getting back at Bond.

    Despite the fact that he mentions he's behind the deaths of Vesper and M?

    Yes, he is. But that's not what we are discussing. The theory is that every single scheme Blofeld and Spectre is behind is designed to ruin Bond's life. Not true. The Nine Eyes scheme for example would have gone through anyway. It's only coincidence that Bond is involved in it.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    jobo wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Benjamin wrote: »
    I've only seen Spectre once, but I really liked it.

    I'm really puzzled why so many Bond fans rate this one so poorly. By any chance would anyone be willing to offer a brief explanation for the dislike directed toward Spectre? Is it the length? The Blofeld plot? Something else?

    Blofeld's grand scheme was to found a secret terrorist organization, somehow bring about the events of CR-SF (still don't buy it) to eventually lure Bond to his crater base so he can drill holes into his head, all to get back at Bond because daddy didn't love him enough. That's literally more retarded than the plot to Die Another Day.


    That is a common misinterpretation. The film never implies that the purpose of all Blofeld's crimes is centered around getting back at Bond.

    Despite the fact that he mentions he's behind the deaths of Vesper and M?

    He’s right. They literally say that Blofeld messing with Bond’s life was just a direct consequence of Bond messing with Blofeld’s business. That was Blofeld’s answer to Bond interfering with his dirty schemes. Blofeld never thought about Bond before he started jeopardizing SPECTRE stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.