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

1162163165167168298

Comments

  • Posts: 7,506
    talos7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m in Edinburgh Scotland to attend the Ray Harryhausen: Titan of Cinema exhibition. Last night I went to my 3rd viewing and enjoyed it very much.

    It will never unseat CR as my favorite of the Craig era, in fact, my overall top Bond; and is behind SF , which sits at # 2 . Eventually it will battle QOS for #3 . While I am aware of it’s flaws, I’ve come to really like Quantum’s rawness . SPECTRE will forever sit at the very bottom.

    I’ve heard that NTTD “improves” SP; possibly somewhat, but on the other hand, NTTD is pulled down by being so tied to SP. For example, I never for a minute do I buy that Bond loves Swann. And don’t get me started on the Blofeld scene; I hate it more and more with each viewing.


    Please start. Because I really don't get what's wrong with the Blofeld scene...?

    “ Die Blofeld!” Cringe worthy.


    Why?
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    Maybe that scene is the actual divisive scene of the movie because I quite liked it!

    Right. Off to see it a fourth time anyway :). Enjoy your weekend folks!
  • Posts: 372
    "Die Blofeld Die!" is right out of Fleming YOLT.

    And so Bond is dead and his past thrashed? Me that thought that You Only Live Twice.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Perhaps some people here are tired of the over the top reaction that the ending has garnered either positively or negatively and they're tired of having to respond or talk about it or to defend how they felt about it? This is a reaction thread to NTTD and my reaction was negative enough that I felt it sunk the rest of what was a top ten entry. They fumbled the ball in the home stretch when they really didn't need to. It was forced and just not even well done. The forced countdown of having buyers approaching the island: how easy would it have been for the Navy to blow up those ships either before or after they landed on the island? They wrote the ending so that it prioritized getting Bond in a position where he could die, no matter any logical inconsistencies.

    Honestly killing Bond for me has shattered an invisible wall of illusion in a way, very much like breaking the fourth wall in OHMSS. I never thought of Bond growing old, dying of old age, thought about what would happen if he were to die, etc. He's ageless. He doesn't have a life outside the screen because he's fictional character. In the wonky timeline the series has created nothing really follows or connects (not even the Craig movies) so why try to inject real life into something that has been fantastical from the start? I'm saying this as a big fan of Craig's entire run.

    As for resurrecting Batman and Superman, those are comic book characters. It's expected that they die and come back and stuff is retconned, etc. James Bond has never been about that and now they went and killed James Bond and so logically, James Bond is dead, over, finished. This isn't a comic book; Le Chiffre is dead, Silva is dead, Bond is dead and in the Bond universe you don't come back from being dead. I understand people appreciate this ending but can those people have sympathy with those of us who find it hard to wrap our minds around killing Bond in order to make a statement or cap off an era only to bring him back in the next film? I'm not being hysterical or dramatic and this franchise clearly means a lot to many people. I'm passionate about the series and I think that this is the single worst creative decision they've ever made.

    Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.

    For the sake of clarity I have no idea who Tony Stark is I have never watched a Marvel Movie. I was riveted recently by Ralph Fiennes performance of "The Four Quartets."

    I argued in spring of 2019 on this site that Craig Bonds death was a thematically logical way to complete the cycle.

    I also would ask as I have twice but directly of you if Craig Bond had survived with his family how would Bond 26 work ? My question is a serious one I have no interest in persuading anyone of a different view point but I am fascinated to see those whom say Craig Bond should have survived how they would then pursue Bond 26 with a middle aged Bond alive with his family.

    I do completely disagree with you about the five movie cycle. It is a symphony in five movements where investment is built up with each movie. Skyfall arguably occurred after several routine missions after QOS but that is not discontinuity merely an interregnum.


    Quite so, Michelle.
    Whether or not NTTD provided the conclusion to DC’s 007 arc that any of us WANTED is up for debate.
    But is was always going to be the conclusion that this 15yr incarnation of James Bond needed…

    And not agreeing with how the producers have handled the creative decisions over the Craig tenure (or even before) and wishing to see a change of creative direction with more focus & better writing does not make any fan ‘entitled’, ill-informed or anything of the sort.

    And wasn’t Tony Stark one of the original Beatles…?
    :>
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    Assuming NTTD is the finale to the rebooted timeline that started with CR, I don’t see the problem. For Bond 26 and onward, they’ll just either revert to the original timeline, DN - DAD or they’ll start anew again (the former is vastly preferable). That way Bond is alive and well and probably younger. This could also mean a new M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner, but maybe not as they had Dame Judi go from one timeline to another as the same character. I don’t know. All I know is Bond 26 and onward don’t have to explain and resolve what happened in NTTD. Let’s just move on and get back to business.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,079
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m in Edinburgh Scotland to attend the Ray Harryhausen: Titan of Cinema exhibition. Last night I went to my 3rd viewing and enjoyed it very much.

    It will never unseat CR as my favorite of the Craig era, in fact, my overall top Bond; and is behind SF , which sits at # 2 . Eventually it will battle QOS for #3 . While I am aware of it’s flaws, I’ve come to really like Quantum’s rawness . SPECTRE will forever sit at the very bottom.

    I’ve heard that NTTD “improves” SP; possibly somewhat, but on the other hand, NTTD is pulled down by being so tied to SP. For example, I never for a minute do I buy that Bond loves Swann. And don’t get me started on the Blofeld scene; I hate it more and more with each viewing.


    Please start. Because I really don't get what's wrong with the Blofeld scene...?

    “ Die Blofeld!” Cringe worthy.


    Why?

    It’s overly melodramatic and clumsy. I would have found it more satisfying had Blofeld coyly taunted Bond, never giving him the name. Bond becomes increasingly frustrating and demands the name. Blofeld looks up and after a pregnant pause says …….
    Cuckoo. Bond snaps and without say a word , with a single hand, grabs Blofelds throat . Over the intercom Tanner screams James! James! It has no effect. Then Noimi says , Commander Bond. Bond snaps out of his rage and release his grip.


  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,080
    Stamper wrote: »
    "Die Blofeld Die!" is right out of Fleming YOLT.

    And so Bond is dead and his past thrashed? Me that thought that You Only Live Twice.

    Yes, it's Fleming. I've seen the film twice and I don't know that I quite bought Bond in that moment. I get that Blofeld is taunting him and bragging that, once again, he has been the author of all of Bond's pain, having destroyed his relationship with Madeleine.

    But I'm just not sure I see Craig's acting transition in that scene from "cool" Bond to "die Blofeld die" Bond.

    I think Madeleine maybe needed to linger in that room with Blofeld a little longer, for dramatic purposes.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,092
    talos7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m in Edinburgh Scotland to attend the Ray Harryhausen: Titan of Cinema exhibition. Last night I went to my 3rd viewing and enjoyed it very much.

    It will never unseat CR as my favorite of the Craig era, in fact, my overall top Bond; and is behind SF , which sits at # 2 . Eventually it will battle QOS for #3 . While I am aware of it’s flaws, I’ve come to really like Quantum’s rawness . SPECTRE will forever sit at the very bottom.

    I’ve heard that NTTD “improves” SP; possibly somewhat, but on the other hand, NTTD is pulled down by being so tied to SP. For example, I never for a minute do I buy that Bond loves Swann. And don’t get me started on the Blofeld scene; I hate it more and more with each viewing.


    Please start. Because I really don't get what's wrong with the Blofeld scene...?

    “ Die Blofeld!” Cringe worthy.


    Why?

    It’s overly melodramatic and clumsy. I would have found it more satisfying had Blofeld coyly taunted Bond, never giving him the name. Bond becomes increasingly frustrating and demands the name. Blofeld looks up and after a pregnant pause says …….
    Cuckoo. Bond snaps and without say a word , with a single hand, grabs Blofelds throat . Over the intercom Tanner screams James! James! It has no effect. Then Noimi says , Commander Bond. Bond snaps out of his rage and release his grip.


    Yeah, I actually found Craig's performance in that scene to be quite odd (not poor, just out of step with the rest of his performance) and his delivery of that line felt somehow out of his comfort zone - which was not something I ever thought I'd say considering the kind of Bond he has been and the type of scene that it is. Something felt off throughout. I think maybe there was too much casual dialogue.
  • Posts: 526
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    Exactly. Well said.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,080
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.
    Exactly. Well said.

    It makes Bond look stupid if the audience is sitting out there watching future movies thinking, "Um, Bond, you don't know it but you have a secret soulmate and child out there." The sword of Mathilde, if you will.

    I know Fleming did exactly that with the child, but for only one book, and it was a different social era, when men took pride in their virility that they could have secret children somewhere.

    But now we're in a world of DNA knowledge and databases.
  • echo wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    "Die Blofeld Die!" is right out of Fleming YOLT.

    And so Bond is dead and his past thrashed? Me that thought that You Only Live Twice.

    Yes, it's Fleming. I've seen the film twice and I don't know that I quite bought Bond in that moment. I get that Blofeld is taunting him and bragging that, once again, he has been the author of all of Bond's pain, having destroyed his relationship with Madeleine.

    But I'm just not sure I see Craig's acting transition in that scene from "cool" Bond to "die Blofeld die" Bond.

    I think Madeleine maybe needed to linger in that room with Blofeld a little longer, for dramatic purposes.




    While I like the scene, I do agree with you in part. I get that they were trying to keep Bond’s verbal reaction minimal to save it for the explosive “die” part, but something feels missing. It might just be due to the acting transition you mentioned. I noticed on a repeat viewing that his expression really starts to crumble when Blofeld mentions that all of Madeleine’s secrets are ones that Bond needs which links back to the “we all have our secrets” bit and that Bond had to painfully learn the lesson that secrets don’t always mean betrayal.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,080
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    "Die Blofeld Die!" is right out of Fleming YOLT.

    And so Bond is dead and his past thrashed? Me that thought that You Only Live Twice.

    Yes, it's Fleming. I've seen the film twice and I don't know that I quite bought Bond in that moment. I get that Blofeld is taunting him and bragging that, once again, he has been the author of all of Bond's pain, having destroyed his relationship with Madeleine.

    But I'm just not sure I see Craig's acting transition in that scene from "cool" Bond to "die Blofeld die" Bond.

    I think Madeleine maybe needed to linger in that room with Blofeld a little longer, for dramatic purposes.




    While I like the scene, I do agree with you in part. I get that they were trying to keep Bond’s verbal reaction minimal to save it for the explosive “die” part, but something feels missing. It might just be due to the acting transition you mentioned. I noticed on a repeat viewing that his expression really starts to crumble when Blofeld mentions that all of Madeleine’s secrets are ones that Bond needs which links back to the “we all have our secrets” bit and that Bond had to painfully learn the lesson that secrets don’t always mean betrayal.

    In a way, I think Bond's reaction to Blofeld trying to show Madeleine her father's death video in SP is much more believable...that seems very Fleming, protecting the damaged love interest.

    I get what they were going for in NTTD, and I generally loved the film, but this is the one scene where I think the acting/writing *may* have missed the mark.

    On an unrelated (ha) note, after Blofeld's death, I loved, loved, loved Q's quip about "Good thing he's not really your brother." Funny and a trenchant commentary on SP and "Brofeld."
  • Posts: 372
    Oh yes I chuckled at that. It’s really a dig to Spectre.
  • echo wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    "Die Blofeld Die!" is right out of Fleming YOLT.

    And so Bond is dead and his past thrashed? Me that thought that You Only Live Twice.

    Yes, it's Fleming. I've seen the film twice and I don't know that I quite bought Bond in that moment. I get that Blofeld is taunting him and bragging that, once again, he has been the author of all of Bond's pain, having destroyed his relationship with Madeleine.

    But I'm just not sure I see Craig's acting transition in that scene from "cool" Bond to "die Blofeld die" Bond.

    I think Madeleine maybe needed to linger in that room with Blofeld a little longer, for dramatic purposes.




    While I like the scene, I do agree with you in part. I get that they were trying to keep Bond’s verbal reaction minimal to save it for the explosive “die” part, but something feels missing. It might just be due to the acting transition you mentioned. I noticed on a repeat viewing that his expression really starts to crumble when Blofeld mentions that all of Madeleine’s secrets are ones that Bond needs which links back to the “we all have our secrets” bit and that Bond had to painfully learn the lesson that secrets don’t always mean betrayal.

    In a way, I think Bond's reaction to Blofeld trying to show Madeleine her father's death video in SP is much more believable...that seems very Fleming, protecting the damaged love interest.

    I get what they were going for in NTTD, and I generally loved the film, but this is the one scene where I think the acting/writing *may* have missed the mark.

    On an unrelated (ha) note, after Blofeld's death, I loved, loved, loved Q's quip about "Good thing he's not really your brother." Funny and a trenchant commentary on SP and "Brofeld."


    Yes, the scene seems written for the build-up to the Fleming quote as opposed to a cathartic moment of realization for Bond. I think it's fine but lacking a bit. Just missing something right before he snaps.

    Loved the Q quip as well.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    talos7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m in Edinburgh Scotland to attend the Ray Harryhausen: Titan of Cinema exhibition. Last night I went to my 3rd viewing and enjoyed it very much.

    It will never unseat CR as my favorite of the Craig era, in fact, my overall top Bond; and is behind SF , which sits at # 2 . Eventually it will battle QOS for #3 . While I am aware of it’s flaws, I’ve come to really like Quantum’s rawness . SPECTRE will forever sit at the very bottom.

    I’ve heard that NTTD “improves” SP; possibly somewhat, but on the other hand, NTTD is pulled down by being so tied to SP. For example, I never for a minute do I buy that Bond loves Swann. And don’t get me started on the Blofeld scene; I hate it more and more with each viewing.


    Please start. Because I really don't get what's wrong with the Blofeld scene...?

    “ Die Blofeld!” Cringe worthy.


    Why?

    It’s overly melodramatic and clumsy. I would have found it more satisfying had Blofeld coyly taunted Bond, never giving him the name. Bond becomes increasingly frustrating and demands the name. Blofeld looks up and after a pregnant pause says …….
    Cuckoo. Bond snaps and without say a word , with a single hand, grabs Blofelds throat . Over the intercom Tanner screams James! James! It has no effect. Then Noimi says , Commander Bond. Bond snaps out of his rage and release his grip.


    Isn't Nomi already gone off chasing Ash by that point? I think it's just Tanner at that point. Not that that changes your point overall, but just to clarify.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,677
    RC7 wrote: »
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?

    It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.
  • Posts: 625
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?

    It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.

    I don't get it, too.
    The only thing, that matters, is, what happens in the movie I watch.
    When I watch "GoldenEye" I don't think about Felix Leiter surviving a shark attack or Tracy dying.
    Actually it's not important, if what happened in other movies, might have happened to Bond in the specific film I watch. I don't think to myself "Bond already was in space", when I see "GoldenEye". It doesn't matter. And it doesen't matter how Bond might die some day, when watching "GoldenEye".
    And when I watch "Tomorrow Never Dies", it's not important what has happened in "GoldenEye".

    A nod to another film is only relevant, when the movie makes that not by itself.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 650
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Maybe that scene is the actual divisive scene of the movie because I quite liked it!

    Right. Off to see it a fourth time anyway :). Enjoy your weekend folks!
    And I’m off to watch another episode of the classic Hawaii Five-O (1968-1980), a much more enjoyable affair. And it’s free!

    With NTTD once was more than enough.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    It’s called rebooting. It’s not rocket science

    We understand the idea of a 'reboot'. The problem is - it's a daft idea.

    In a series where that’s already more or less been happening routinely every 8-12 years? I don’t see your point, sir.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 662
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?

    It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.

    Because it's about the character, not the particular timeline he appears in.
  • Posts: 7,506
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?

    It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.

    Because it's about the character, not the particular timeline he appears in.


    But how exactly is the character now ruined? And how is Connery in Goldfinger or Moore in Live And Let Die now trashed?
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    jobo wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?

    It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.

    Because it's about the character, not the particular timeline he appears in.


    But how exactly is the character now ruined? And how is Connery in Goldfinger or Moore in Live And Let Die now trashed?
    Because!

    Because, because, because!
  • Posts: 372
    Because from Connery to Brosnan, Bond was never a reboot. It's just that the actor changed every ten years or so. No mention was ever made of it the story just carried on as normal.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Things change.
  • Posts: 372
    Not for the better
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    There have been a multude of Bond stories on film and in books and comics. And no one, as far as I'm aware, has ever raised seriously any "continuity" concerns prior to Craig. Not even after the movies YOLT & OHMSS. We didn't care because they were obviously different Bond stories only tangentially related if at all.

    Going forward we'll likely think of the five Craig films as a single entity ... as one particular Bond story, perhaps informed by, but not directly related narratively to all the others that went before it.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 662
    jobo wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?

    It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.

    Because it's about the character, not the particular timeline he appears in.


    But how exactly is the character now ruined? And how is Connery in Goldfinger or Moore in Live And Let Die now trashed?

    I wouldn't say the character is ruined. I would say that killing off a previously-unkillable hero, regardless of "timeline" shenanigans, is fundamentally an act of subversion on the part of the filmmakers. And unlike, say, Bond not caring about whether his martini is shaken or stirred in CR, or the CIA being villains in QOS when previously they were always allies, this act of subversion is too extreme, has no narrative justification whatsoever, and was done simply because it guarantees a shock and emotional gut-punch for the audience. That's what I've been saying all along.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,080
    I liked the film much more on a second viewing, when I was less anxious about figuring out the story. It is marvelously paced and directed. In addition to finding a meaningful story for Bond and Madeleine that avoided the usual action film tropes (e.g. Madeleine dies and propels Bond into action), Fukunaga really took the time to develop the secondary and even tertiary characters (something CR and QoS notably did not).

    For decades, I have held up OHMSS as the gold standard of Bond films, particularly with the poignant ending. And CR is the only film that has come close to rivaling it, again because of the tragedy.

    But NTTD has made me rethink my gender expectations. Why is the appropriate end to any meaningful romance in a Bond film that the woman has to die? Seems a bit sexist. Why can't Bond die for once?

    Certainly with the deaths of Leiter, Blofeld, and then Bond, NTTD has perhaps the highest stakes of any Bond film. Why can't any of these people die? Otherwise, there's just no danger. For that, NTTD should be commended.

    James Bond will return. He will just be different than this now-concluded era.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,165
    echo wrote: »
    I liked the film much more on a second viewing, when I was less anxious about figuring out the story. It is marvelously paced and directed. In addition to finding a meaningful story for Bond and Madeleine that avoided the usual action film tropes (e.g. Madeleine dies and propels Bond into action), Fukunaga really took the time to develop the secondary and even tertiary characters (something CR and QoS notably did not).

    For decades, I have held up OHMSS as the gold standard of Bond films, particularly with the poignant ending. And CR is the only film that has come close to rivaling it, again because of the tragedy.

    But NTTD has made me rethink my gender expectations. Why is the appropriate end to any meaningful romance in a Bond film that the woman has to die? Seems a bit sexist. Why can't Bond die for once?

    Certainly with the deaths of Leiter, Blofeld, and then Bond, NTTD has perhaps the highest stakes of any Bond film. Why can't any of these people die? Otherwise, there's just no danger. For that, NTTD should be commended.

    James Bond will return. He will just be different than this now-concluded era.

    Excellently stated, @echo! You’ve put into words what many of us felt. The invincible Bond of the past is dead. Ironically, it’s the dead one who killed him.
Sign In or Register to comment.