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

1149150152154155298

Comments

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Stamper wrote: »
    In what story Bond discovers he has a child? Also on note, they wanted to this for QOS already, as Haggis original script had a kid in.

    I don't see why every woman he bed should find Bond attractive. The point of every film is conflict, that's how a story evolves, if everyone agree on everything, you have no film, just something boring. So Bond encountering women who despise him on first sight, thumb their nose to him, then "forcing" himself on them (thru co-working, collaboration to bring down a vilain, etc.), having his dance around them until they crack, is conflict --> resolution.

    There's nothing rapey about it. It was exactly the relationship of Bond and Pussy in Goldfinger. Yes 007 was a bit brutal in the barn, but remember, they have a fight first, people forget that. The woman is strong and loves a challenge. She put 007 to the test. If Bond had given up and gone out, she would have qualified him as subhuman, a submissive woman. Different women in Bond films have different psychology. Nothing is dated about it.

    In fact it's demeaning to Pussy Galore to qualify the scene as rape. She gets what she wants, the way she wants it. She's a special case, Bond doesn't force himself on Dink, for example, or Jill. They have different psychology and personality than Pussy who is a nutcase. But don't we love nutcases? And Pussy.

    I think the bolded part is spot on, but i don’t think the way Bond forces himself on Pussy is at all what you’re describing in the next paragraph. He quite literally physically forced himself on her, resulting in the tussle you mentioned, but the collaboration and co-working comes after that. This scene, IMO is INCREDIBLY dated because that scene does not ring true to life at all. There no way in hell that scene would fly today and the tonal playfulness is the only thing that keeps it from being completely egregious. There’s ways that you can depict a strong woman “putting up a challenge” and getting what she wants in 2021 but the barn scene in Goldfinger is certainly not that.

    Well, Pussy Galore is lesbian. At least that is, what the film insinuates on. So Bond does not only take her by (slight) force (and it is rapey), so it's suggested, that Bond "cures" Pussy from her homosexuality and turning her heterosexual. Homosexuality was officially illegal these days, and there were ideas, how one could be convinced, that homosexuality is wrong. Today Fleming would get a shitstorm of epic dimensions. And in TB, he forces Nurse Pat to have sex, kind of blackmailing her he would report the incident on the stretcher. Yes, it was the 1960's, and probably at least the male majority would not see anything wrong in this. But that doesn't mean, it was and still is alright, which it isn't. When Moore took over, Bond would not force himself on them. Whether it is realistic, that women would be all ready, to have sex with Bond.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 372
    I think that was more offensive and sexist in the Moore era LOL. Complete fantasy. Yep, Bond in the Sean days acted like a man, he took what he wanted, when he wanted. Believe it or not, it was what defined masculinity in those days!
    I think there are still shades of this in Craig films, I love the way he behave with the women in both the home in Jamaica, and in Cuba.
    As for strong females, there are in the series from the get go, remember, Bond steal is famous line from Trench, Sylvia Trench. Let's not even go into Fiona Volpe, fantastic and more than made up for his boyish behavior.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 652

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular,

    NOT to be popular, but to be subversive. I've said this plainly many times: Hollywood is obsessed with destroying popular male action heroes and NTTD clearly and obviously followed this trend, based on quotes from the filmmakers themselves. I don't see how anyone can deny that.
    at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    I didn't say nobody likes it. It currently has a 6.5 average user score on Metacritic, which is definitely mixed. As for EON, there's no way they didn't know that the ending would piss people off.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Was talking to someone at work yesterday who is a casual fan of the series who said to me “ I guess that means no more James Bond movies then “.

    I tried explaining that there will be more Bond to come but will be played by a different actor.She said “ But Bond is dead now “.

    "James Bond will return"

    I think it's been a tradition since '62, right? Certainly since FRWL, as I recall.

    But EON must have been in a bit of a quandary here. (1) Put it in and confuse some casuals or naive viewers or (2) leave it out and signal to some diehards & others that maybe the character really is not returning.

    It's a no-win situation for what was, in my view, the right dramatic move (his death) in the context of the entire movie. But given the iconoclastic nature of the Craig years I'm kind of surprised that they didn't opt to leave it out ....
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,928
    RC7 wrote: »
    ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.
    Yes, but that's because you'd be seeing it in 2021, in a completely different cultural context - one in which we've been socialised and conditioned to believe that that's wrong. I'd think the same as you. But had we grown up in the post-war period and seen someone do that in 1964, chances are we'd've been socialised and conditioned to think nothing of it and would probably have been mildly amused, like many viewers of GF probably were at the time. These values aren't absolutes - they're culturally-determined and they change over time. People who acted according to the cultural norms of their own day can't be held to modern standards.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Venutius wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.
    Yes, but that's because you'd be seeing it in 2021, in a completely different cultural context - one in which we've been socialised and conditioned to believe that that's wrong. I'd think the same as you. But had we grown up in the post-war period and seen someone do that in 1964, chances are we'd've been socialised and conditioned to think nothing of it and would probably have been mildly amused, like many viewers of GF probably were at the time. These values aren't absolutes - they're culturally-determined and they change over time. People who acted according to the cultural norms of their own day can't be held to modern standards.

    I agree with this but I think we can assume bond no longer blackmailing a woman into forcibly having sex with him is more than just societal conditioning, and in actuality is progress.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,928
    Yes, indeed. Wasn't the suggestion at the time that Patricia Fearing actually wanted to sleep with Bond, but they both knew that the social norms of the day wouldn't allow her to just go ahead with it - so he gave her an unspoken excuse for giving in to her own desires: it wasn't my fault, he made me do it? They both got what they wanted, while Nurse Pat preserved her self-image - the proof being that she happily continued to sleep with Bond while he was at Shrublands, etc. I sort of see the argument for that, but...bit too much of a stretch on the traction table, I reckon!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Venutius wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.
    Yes, but that's because you'd be seeing it in 2021, in a completely different cultural context - one in which we've been socialised and conditioned to believe that that's wrong. I'd think the same as you. But had we grown up in the post-war period and seen someone do that in 1964, chances are we'd've been socialised and conditioned to think nothing of it and would probably have been mildly amused, like many viewers of GF probably were at the time. These values aren't absolutes - they're culturally-determined and they change over time. People who acted according to the cultural norms of their own day can't be held to modern standards.

    Naturally. I’m not holding anyone to modern standards. I thought that much would be obvious.
  • The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    Horses for courses.
  • Posts: 3,279
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.

    Haha. I’m all for masculine Bond - but ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.

    You can NEVER think that about Connery (even though he was wearing a terry towelling onesie at the time!) <:-P
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.

    Haha. I’m all for masculine Bond - but ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.

    You can NEVER think that about Connery (even though he was wearing a terry towelling onesie at the time!) <:-P

    Onesies is apparently a very British thing. Many have them there.
  • Posts: 3,279
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.

    Haha. I’m all for masculine Bond - but ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.

    You can NEVER think that about Connery (even though he was wearing a terry towelling onesie at the time!) <:-P

    Onesies is apparently a very British thing. Many have them there.

    Even me, purchased from Orlebar Brown..... *runs and hides*
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.

    Haha. I’m all for masculine Bond - but ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.

    You can NEVER think that about Connery (even though he was wearing a terry towelling onesie at the time!) <:-P

    Onesies is apparently a very British thing. Many have them there.

    Even me, purchased from Orlebar Brown..... *runs and hides*

    Well, there you go.
  • Posts: 3,279
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.

    Haha. I’m all for masculine Bond - but ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.

    You can NEVER think that about Connery (even though he was wearing a terry towelling onesie at the time!) <:-P

    Onesies is apparently a very British thing. Many have them there.

    Even me, purchased from Orlebar Brown..... *runs and hides*

    Well, there you go.

    But I've yet to wear it and say `man talk' while slapping a backside. Doing that to my wife, I'd get a slap right back.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.

    Haha. I’m all for masculine Bond - but ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.

    You can NEVER think that about Connery (even though he was wearing a terry towelling onesie at the time!) <:-P

    Onesies is apparently a very British thing. Many have them there.

    Even me, purchased from Orlebar Brown..... *runs and hides*

    Well, there you go.

    But I've yet to wear it and say `man talk' while slapping a backside. Doing that to my wife, I'd get a slap right back.

    I did that once at work. Not wearing a one-piece, mind you. It went all right.
  • Posts: 3,279
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.

    Haha. I’m all for masculine Bond - but ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.

    You can NEVER think that about Connery (even though he was wearing a terry towelling onesie at the time!) <:-P

    Onesies is apparently a very British thing. Many have them there.

    Even me, purchased from Orlebar Brown..... *runs and hides*

    Well, there you go.

    But I've yet to wear it and say `man talk' while slapping a backside. Doing that to my wife, I'd get a slap right back.

    I did that once at work. Not wearing a one-piece, mind you. It went all right.

    :))
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,928
    Must be the onesie that makes all the difference. Pale blue terry-towelling? How could it be bad...?!
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 652
    What's the deal with Bond's "forgive me" note at the start? Why is he asking for Vesper's forgiveness? Is this ever explained?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    slide_99 wrote: »
    What's the deal with Bond's "forgive me" note at the start? Why is he asking for Vesper's forgiveness? Is this ever explained?

    He did go after her in a rage, not knowing her motivations. It must have been on his conscience. His involvement also indirectly lead to her death.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,314
    .
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 652
    slide_99 wrote: »
    What's the deal with Bond's "forgive me" note at the start? Why is he asking for Vesper's forgiveness? Is this ever explained?

    He did go after her in a rage, not knowing her motivations. It must have been on his conscience. His involvement also indirectly lead to her death.

    M said that Vesper knew she was going to her death. So, Mr. White's guys were going to be killing her anyway, regardless if Bond intervened. Bond killed them before they could kill her, so she killed herself, and he nearly drowned trying to save her. There's no reason for him to hate himself for that.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    slide_99 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    What's the deal with Bond's "forgive me" note at the start? Why is he asking for Vesper's forgiveness? Is this ever explained?

    He did go after her in a rage, not knowing her motivations. It must have been on his conscience. His involvement also indirectly lead to her death.

    M said that Vesper knew she was going to her death. So, Mr. White's guys were going to be killing her anyway, regardless if Bond intervened. Bond killed them before they could kill her, so she killed herself, and he nearly drowned trying to save her. There's no reason for him to hate himself for that.

    You know how the human heart is. We tend to think about what we could have done differently.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,928
    I thought he was asking Vesper to forgive him for loving someone else and for moving on with Madeleine.

    https://bestselfmedia.com/burning-letters-letting-go/
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,548
    The attack on the family and masculinity has been in full force in recent years. Traditionally the man went to work and the woman stayed home to raise the kids. All of a sudden this is not cool anymore. No, let the woman go to work and build a career for herself. So who raises the kids? Strangers do. That’s who. Both parents at work and kids get raised by who knows who and get instilled who knows what values. And then the parents wonder “gee, what happened to my child?”

    My wife and I have a young son. We love him very much. My wife says she will not work for as long as possible while raising our son. Actually I’m working from home indefinitely so we’re both at home raising our son. So we have no worries about who has access to our child and instilling who knows what crazy progressive values in him.

    Our son is a beautiful boy and he will not be told that he is one of 60 other genders out there. There are only 2 genders - male and female. Always has been, always will be. Despite what the woke media and professors try to convince us. If someone wants to be something other than male or female I suggest seeking psychiatric help.

    I love my wife and respect her very much and she likes it when I take charge and make the important decisions in our family. She says that’s how it should be. A man should be a man. I know this might ruffle some feathers but there you go - a woman’s perspective on these things. Granted she’s not a woke woman which is a blessing of course !

    First, the relevance of this post in respect of NTTD eludes me completely.

    Second, the binary-gender-debate can be controversial; I see no reason why we should have it here.

    Third, I am glad my wife and I talk about things and make decisions together. But maybe I respect her too much... ? Or maybe I am just being crazy progressive.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Venutius wrote: »
    I thought he was asking Vesper to forgive him for loving someone else and for moving on with Madeleine.

    https://bestselfmedia.com/burning-letters-letting-go/

    That, too.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,691
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, indeed. Wasn't the suggestion at the time that Patricia Fearing actually wanted to sleep with Bond, but they both knew that the social norms of the day wouldn't allow her to just go ahead with it - so he gave her an unspoken excuse for giving in to her own desires: it wasn't my fault, he made me do it? They both got what they wanted, while Nurse Pat preserved her self-image - the proof being that she happily continued to sleep with Bond while he was at Shrublands, etc. I sort of see the argument for that, but...bit too much of a stretch on the traction table, I reckon!

    I do kinda think they both want to do it but it's not a great scene to have written and it wasn't performed brilliantly. I don't see it as being as awful as people think.

    And that's not me defending Bond no matter what or thinking what people accuse the scene of being would be okay. I find the forced kiss earlier appalling, and clearly sexual assault.
  • Posts: 526
    The end should read:
    Daniel Craig as James Bond is dead. Sorry! Not all the James Bond, or the “character” James Bond. We still need your money!
    James Bond Will Return
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 565
    Re: The decision making behind Bond's death

    While I still don't like the decision today, I do think this decision was thought long and hard over and was not rash, unlike what some commentary on here has implied. Was it done for easy shock value? I don't think so, or at least not entirely. I feel they thought it to be the tool which allowed them to explore other ideas, such as Bond having a daughter, falling in love again/moving on from his past, and interacting with his successor. Bond dying provides a convenient method to put a resolution to these concepts and allows them to start fresh with Bond #7. Plus they started by rebooting the series, so why not end with it?

    That said, I would've much more preferred an ending which was either a 'happy ever after' ending or left his death implied and not made so definite. They could have very easily gone this route, but then it wouldn't have had the same impact, would it?

    Ultimately, I think they felt like if they were to ever explore a Bond death, this was the time to do so. So they went with it and tried to make the most of it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,548
    The end should read:
    Daniel Craig as James Bond is dead. Sorry! Not all the James Bond, or the “character” James Bond. We still need your money!
    James Bond Will Return

    Wow, some of you are angry beyond all reason. A stress pill might work. This thread is beginning to look more like group therapy for first-wolders who cannot cope with the death of a fictional character, rather than a forum where fans discuss Bond in a mature way.
Sign In or Register to comment.