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

1165166168170171298

Comments

  • edited November 2021 Posts: 1,036
    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.

    . . . and try and forget the whole 'he's dead, but he's coming back' silliness ever happened.
  • Posts: 526
    They should have named Spectre and NTTD differently.
    Spectre - Family Ties
    NTTD- Bond Knows Best (when people saw it, they’d say “oh, that’s a play on Father Knows Best). Brilliant. Simply brilliant! =D>
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    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.

    . . . and try and forget the whole 'he's dead, but he's coming back' silliness ever happened.
    Again, this isn’t Doctor Who.
  • Posts: 1,036
    I know, I'm learning all the time. In Dr Who it's called regeneration, with James Bond it's called a 'character arc'.
    Remember Captain Scarlet? He was indestructible too. You could kill him and he came back. I don't know what special powers he had.
  • Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited November 2021 Posts: 40,677
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    The problem is, and always has been, that the novels had continuity (despite it not really mattering at all except for a couple examples), then the films came and started shuffling the order of the novels. The films clearly attempted their own continuity, but it's been one foot in one foot out the whole time. Any reference at all in any Bond film to a previous film should just be written off as an easter egg for longtime fans, and nothing with any narrative substance at all (Tracy being mentioned in Moore and Dalton films, Brosnan checking out gadgets from FRWL & TB, Lasenby with a bunch of references to Connery's films, the GF DB5 in SF, Connery avenging Tracy in DAF, etc etc etc). The more narrative weight you give these things, the deeper a hole you're digging for yourself.

    Each Bond actor is playing a different interpretation of the same character, there is no continuity (save the Craig era), each is a standalone story.

    I think it would be simpler for some people if they consider the entire Craig era as one "entry", or "film", in the franchise. They told a story, it's done, on to the next one.
  • Posts: 526
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    I don’t think it confuses hardcore fans as much as it does the casual fan. My aunt for example, was confused by it-she thinks he is dead period. Here’s the thing: she didn’t stick around to see James Bond Will Return. I would say a lot of people didn’t as well. So...one can see how that would be a problem. I didn’t wait for it either,but of course I knew. Probably 90% of the people at my showing left and didn’t watch the credits.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 660
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2021 Posts: 8,066
    Michael G Wilson had said in the past that he viewed all the Bonds being in their separate continuity. Any references to past events was just to suggest they have similar/comparable histories rather than actually sharing a singular one. It doesn’t really matter, because they’re mostly stand-alone films so it’s not like in order to enjoy GE depends on knowing what happened in OP.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    It’s only an issue if you make it. Chill out. It’s all make believe.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2021 Posts: 8,066
    *dp*
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,527
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    It seems like you're semi-intentionally making it very problematic for yourself.

    The Bond series *only* worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy? No, there has been no torch-passing.

    It's as if you're creating your own strict rules for the franchise just so the Craig Era and NTTD can break them.

    EDIT: @MakeshiftPython, exactly.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,066
    Now I’m more anxious to just get with BOND 26 so that this whole pointless discussion is done with. I wonder how many sourpusses will keep griping about continuity by the time it comes out.

    Though to be honest, I’ll be kind of annoyed if they carry over any actors from NTTD like Ralph Fiennes. I rather they start off clean. No references to past films. It’s just Bond on a new mission.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    Michael G Wilson had said in the past that he viewed all the Bonds being in their separate continuity. Any references to past events was just to suggest they have similar/comparable histories rather than actually sharing a singular one. It doesn’t really matter, because they’re mostly stand-alone films so it’s not like in order to enjoy GE depends on knowing what happened in OP.

    This one makes the most sense to me and the way I choose to view them because otherwise you'll wreck your head trying to make sense of it when they're all just bloody good fun stories in the end.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    100%. I may be in the minority here, but I do hope they introduce Spectre and Blofeld, but do it well this time. My hope would be that, and the end of the next (completely standalone) Bond film, the main villain (or a lesser villain who happens to survive) has to return to the shadowy organization that employs them and face the wrath of a man in the shadows for the failure of the mission.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    I don’t think it confuses hardcore fans as much as it does the casual fan. My aunt for example, was confused by it-she thinks he is dead period. Here’s the thing: she didn’t stick around to see James Bond Will Return. I would say a lot of people didn’t as well. So...one can see how that would be a problem. I didn’t wait for it either,but of course I knew. Probably 90% of the people at my showing left and didn’t watch the credits.

    I don’t think it’ll really be a problem. We’ve already had one Bond reboot, and people have seen plenty of different takes on superheroes in recent years.

    Even people like your aunt will get it once they cast the next guy, but to be honest my experience has been the exact opposite. The casual fans I’ve spoken to seem to get that they’ll just start again, but then I come on this site and read comment after comment still struggling to grasp it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    The Craig era has always been its own new series. If you don’t like that okay, but I don’t get why NTTD’s ending suddenly makes it an issue for you now (rather than it being an issue when they first rebooted). If anything the ending is narratively liberating. They could go back to a looser continuity next time now, if they wanted to, without it seeming as weird as it would’ve done if we’d jumped into that straight from Craig’s “it’s all connected” mini series.

    And a flimsy ongoing continuity as we had from 1962-2002 is only one way for it to work. Other ways can work too, as we’ve just seen from the Craig era’s success. Different takes on old legends have been happening for as long as storytelling has been a thing too, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as a solely comic book thing.

    We’re also back to schrodinger’s Bond film again here, where “a lot” of people don’t like the ending, but also EON were just doing it to chase comic book trends that are popular enough to be “all the range”. If you’re going to keep making up imaginary motivations for the ending to try and cast it in a worse light (rather than just critiquing the film itself), then you should at least make those motivations consistent with the film’s apparent lack of popularity.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    Problem solved!

    Wes Anderson to direct Bond 26.

    The cast (you can be sure) is already in place:

    Saoirse Ronan as Bond
    Timothée Chalamet as the Bond Girl
    Bill Murray as M
    Frances McDormand as Q
    Jason Schwartzman as Felix Leiter
    Mathieu  Amaric [it doesn't  matter] as Blofeld

    Et al ....
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    We are probably looking at a reboot even more extreme than Casino Royale for Bond 26.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    We are probably looking at a reboot even more extreme than Casino Royale for Bond 26.

    ... but this time it's personal!
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    We are probably looking at a reboot even more extreme than Casino Royale for Bond 26.

    I doubt it, but I suppose that depends on your definition of safe sex a reboot. Maybe I'm conflating reboot with origin story, but IMO Bond 26 will be as far away from any sort of origin story as possible.

    But if an "extreme" reboot just means new cast, new story, then I suppose you're right. I guess CR was "extreme" because it was an origin story and the only holdover was M, and I'd agree that I don't think B26 will have any holdovers at all from the Craig Era.
  • Posts: 372
    LOL I'm gonna laugh hard at all these posts when Bond 26 will continue the NTTD storyline HAHAHAHAAAAA!
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 565
    I hope for the sake of subverting fan expectations, they do carry over some actors from NTTD, namely Fiennes. It's nails on a chalkboard for me every time I read "get over timelines and continuity" comments when the same person then assert that the next film should have a blank slate for recoccuring actors.

    I see no reason this should occur based solely on its own. Like they did with carrying over Dench from Brosnan to Craig, I find carrying at least Fiennes over from Craig to be most appropriate. Carrying over actors in their roles provides a level of stability and viewer expectation for the series, something that I think should carry some weight. For actors like Whishaw, who has expressed he isn't interested in comeing back, fine...or for Harris, who may develop an undesirable age discrepancy with the Bond (depending on how they want that relationship to work), also fine. But dropping Fiennes, just because some fans have this lust for a blank slate is not reasoning worth giving much consideration, IMHO.

    I think the decision not to blank slate the cast up to this point, given its merits, has been very intentional and I don't think that's a barrier worth breaking for the sake of it.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 735
    Stamper wrote: »
    LOL I'm gonna laugh hard at all these posts when Bond 26 will continue the NTTD storyline HAHAHAHAAAAA!

    In heaven ... or in hell?

    Probably purgatory ....
  • One of the things I love about the Bond franchise is that each of us can make our own assumptions about the continuity and when it breaks. We haven't been spoonfed a single truth, and I'm sure even the filmmakers have their own different interpretations, whether it's the code name theory, a constantly moving timeline, a metaverse, or just "whatever goes". It was a bold choice with Casino Royale to break the 20-film mature Bond on single mission routine and give Bond an arch with a beginning and a stunning end (some question marks about what constitutes the middle though)).
  • Posts: 1,314
    They killed him because for the first time in the franchise history they can get away with it. It’s in vogue.

    That’s why I find it cheap.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    I guess that's fair if you're sure in your assumption of why they did it.
  • Posts: 12,311
    Anyone else find it pretty odd / interesting how we have two new gunbarrels technically with the international vs. NA versions? I like the NA one more myself.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited November 2021 Posts: 12,459
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    I don’t think it confuses hardcore fans as much as it does the casual fan. My aunt for example, was confused by it-she thinks he is dead period. Here’s the thing: she didn’t stick around to see James Bond Will Return. I would say a lot of people didn’t as well. So...one can see how that would be a problem. I didn’t wait for it either,but of course I knew. Probably 90% of the people at my showing left and didn’t watch the credits.

    I don’t think it’ll really be a problem. We’ve already had one Bond reboot, and people have seen plenty of different takes on superheroes in recent years.

    Even people like your aunt will get it once they cast the next guy, but to be honest my experience has been the exact opposite. The casual fans I’ve spoken to seem to get that they’ll just start again, but then I come on this site and read comment after comment still struggling to grasp it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    The Craig era has always been its own new series. If you don’t like that okay, but I don’t get why NTTD’s ending suddenly makes it an issue for you now (rather than it being an issue when they first rebooted). If anything the ending is narratively liberating. They could go back to a looser continuity next time now, if they wanted to, without it seeming as weird as it would’ve done if we’d jumped into that straight from Craig’s “it’s all connected” mini series.

    And a flimsy ongoing continuity as we had from 1962-2002 is only one way for it to work. Other ways can work too, as we’ve just seen from the Craig era’s success. Different takes on old legends have been happening for as long as storytelling has been a thing too, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as a solely comic book thing.

    We’re also back to schrodinger’s Bond film again here, where “a lot” of people don’t like the ending, but also EON were just doing it to chase comic book trends that are popular enough to be “all the range”. If you’re going to keep making up imaginary motivations for the ending to try and cast it in a worse light (rather than just critiquing the film itself), then you should at least make those motivations consistent with the film’s apparent lack of popularity.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    I don’t think it confuses hardcore fans as much as it does the casual fan. My aunt for example, was confused by it-she thinks he is dead period. Here’s the thing: she didn’t stick around to see James Bond Will Return. I would say a lot of people didn’t as well. So...one can see how that would be a problem. I didn’t wait for it either,but of course I knew. Probably 90% of the people at my showing left and didn’t watch the credits.

    I don’t think it’ll really be a problem. We’ve already had one Bond reboot, and people have seen plenty of different takes on superheroes in recent years.

    Even people like your aunt will get it once they cast the next guy, but to be honest my experience has been the exact opposite. The casual fans I’ve spoken to seem to get that they’ll just start again, but then I come on this site and read comment after comment still struggling to grasp it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    The Craig era has always been its own new series. If you don’t like that okay, but I don’t get why NTTD’s ending suddenly makes it an issue for you now (rather than it being an issue when they first rebooted). If anything the ending is narratively liberating. They could go back to a looser continuity next time now, if they wanted to, without it seeming as weird as it would’ve done if we’d jumped into that straight from Craig’s “it’s all connected” mini series.

    And a flimsy ongoing continuity as we had from 1962-2002 is only one way for it to work. Other ways can work too, as we’ve just seen from the Craig era’s success. Different takes on old legends have been happening for as long as storytelling has been a thing too, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as a solely comic book thing.

    We’re also back to schrodinger’s Bond film again here, where “a lot” of people don’t like the ending, but also EON were just doing it to chase comic book trends that are popular enough to be “all the range”. If you’re going to keep making up imaginary motivations for the ending to try and cast it in a worse light (rather than just critiquing the film itself), then you should at least make those motivations consistent with the film’s apparent lack of popularity.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    I don’t think it confuses hardcore fans as much as it does the casual fan. My aunt for example, was confused by it-she thinks he is dead period. Here’s the thing: she didn’t stick around to see James Bond Will Return. I would say a lot of people didn’t as well. So...one can see how that would be a problem. I didn’t wait for it either,but of course I knew. Probably 90% of the people at my showing left and didn’t watch the credits.

    I don’t think it’ll really be a problem. We’ve already had one Bond reboot, and people have seen plenty of different takes on superheroes in recent years.

    Even people like your aunt will get it once they cast the next guy, but to be honest my experience has been the exact opposite. The casual fans I’ve spoken to seem to get that they’ll just start again, but then I come on this site and read comment after comment still struggling to grasp it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    The Craig era has always been its own new series. If you don’t like that okay, but I don’t get why NTTD’s ending suddenly makes it an issue for you now (rather than it being an issue when they first rebooted). If anything the ending is narratively liberating. They could go back to a looser continuity next time now, if they wanted to, without it seeming as weird as it would’ve done if we’d jumped into that straight from Craig’s “it’s all connected” mini series.

    And a flimsy ongoing continuity as we had from 1962-2002 is only one way for it to work. Other ways can work too, as we’ve just seen from the Craig era’s success. Different takes on old legends have been happening for as long as storytelling has been a thing too, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as a solely comic book thing.

    We’re also back to schrodinger’s Bond film again here, where “a lot” of people don’t like the ending, but also EON were just doing it to chase comic book trends that are popular enough to be “all the range”. If you’re going to keep making up imaginary motivations for the ending to try and cast it in a worse light (rather than just critiquing the film itself), then you should at least make those motivations consistent with the film’s apparent lack of popularity.

    Yes, I am on board with all your points here, @thelivingroyale . And @Creasy47's.
    It has gotten to the point now where I am not enthused to get into many threads about NTTD because this issue of "confusing" ending and "OMG, how will they ever continue in Bond 26?" is pervasive. And no fun. Some people just cannot see their way past it, and I respect their feelings. But the cycle of going back and forth about this now is more than tiresome.

    I also realized that it would be a divisive ending (love it or hate it) and do NOT expect people to change their feelings much on that; perhaps somewhat. But I also did not foresee the angst and arguing about how "confusing" this movie is and the woe-is-us the franchise is "doomed" type of comments. Just ... nope.

    On I go to other threads. I will peek in here from time to time. After all, I want to hear from our Aussie and Malaysian and other members who will be seeing NTTD for the 1st time in a few weeks. B-)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,527
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    I don’t think it confuses hardcore fans as much as it does the casual fan. My aunt for example, was confused by it-she thinks he is dead period. Here’s the thing: she didn’t stick around to see James Bond Will Return. I would say a lot of people didn’t as well. So...one can see how that would be a problem. I didn’t wait for it either,but of course I knew. Probably 90% of the people at my showing left and didn’t watch the credits.

    I don’t think it’ll really be a problem. We’ve already had one Bond reboot, and people have seen plenty of different takes on superheroes in recent years.

    Even people like your aunt will get it once they cast the next guy, but to be honest my experience has been the exact opposite. The casual fans I’ve spoken to seem to get that they’ll just start again, but then I come on this site and read comment after comment still struggling to grasp it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    The Craig era has always been its own new series. If you don’t like that okay, but I don’t get why NTTD’s ending suddenly makes it an issue for you now (rather than it being an issue when they first rebooted). If anything the ending is narratively liberating. They could go back to a looser continuity next time now, if they wanted to, without it seeming as weird as it would’ve done if we’d jumped into that straight from Craig’s “it’s all connected” mini series.

    And a flimsy ongoing continuity as we had from 1962-2002 is only one way for it to work. Other ways can work too, as we’ve just seen from the Craig era’s success. Different takes on old legends have been happening for as long as storytelling has been a thing too, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as a solely comic book thing.

    We’re also back to schrodinger’s Bond film again here, where “a lot” of people don’t like the ending, but also EON were just doing it to chase comic book trends that are popular enough to be “all the range”. If you’re going to keep making up imaginary motivations for the ending to try and cast it in a worse light (rather than just critiquing the film itself), then you should at least make those motivations consistent with the film’s apparent lack of popularity.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    I don’t think it confuses hardcore fans as much as it does the casual fan. My aunt for example, was confused by it-she thinks he is dead period. Here’s the thing: she didn’t stick around to see James Bond Will Return. I would say a lot of people didn’t as well. So...one can see how that would be a problem. I didn’t wait for it either,but of course I knew. Probably 90% of the people at my showing left and didn’t watch the credits.

    I don’t think it’ll really be a problem. We’ve already had one Bond reboot, and people have seen plenty of different takes on superheroes in recent years.

    Even people like your aunt will get it once they cast the next guy, but to be honest my experience has been the exact opposite. The casual fans I’ve spoken to seem to get that they’ll just start again, but then I come on this site and read comment after comment still struggling to grasp it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    The Craig era has always been its own new series. If you don’t like that okay, but I don’t get why NTTD’s ending suddenly makes it an issue for you now (rather than it being an issue when they first rebooted). If anything the ending is narratively liberating. They could go back to a looser continuity next time now, if they wanted to, without it seeming as weird as it would’ve done if we’d jumped into that straight from Craig’s “it’s all connected” mini series.

    And a flimsy ongoing continuity as we had from 1962-2002 is only one way for it to work. Other ways can work too, as we’ve just seen from the Craig era’s success. Different takes on old legends have been happening for as long as storytelling has been a thing too, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as a solely comic book thing.

    We’re also back to schrodinger’s Bond film again here, where “a lot” of people don’t like the ending, but also EON were just doing it to chase comic book trends that are popular enough to be “all the range”. If you’re going to keep making up imaginary motivations for the ending to try and cast it in a worse light (rather than just critiquing the film itself), then you should at least make those motivations consistent with the film’s apparent lack of popularity.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    I don’t think it confuses hardcore fans as much as it does the casual fan. My aunt for example, was confused by it-she thinks he is dead period. Here’s the thing: she didn’t stick around to see James Bond Will Return. I would say a lot of people didn’t as well. So...one can see how that would be a problem. I didn’t wait for it either,but of course I knew. Probably 90% of the people at my showing left and didn’t watch the credits.

    I don’t think it’ll really be a problem. We’ve already had one Bond reboot, and people have seen plenty of different takes on superheroes in recent years.

    Even people like your aunt will get it once they cast the next guy, but to be honest my experience has been the exact opposite. The casual fans I’ve spoken to seem to get that they’ll just start again, but then I come on this site and read comment after comment still struggling to grasp it.
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    It's because the Bond series had its own loose continuity rules that got ruffled with CR but now have been totally discarded with NTTD. Like I've said before, the Bond series only worked over the course of many decades because the actor playing Bond passed the torch to the next guy. But now with NTTD, Eon has basically said that the Craig era is totally closed off from everything else. So basically we have two Bond series now, the first (DN-DAD) and Craig's.

    The reason why a lot of people don't like this is because Eon traded their traditional continuity rules with comic book "reset" rules that are all the rage nowadays. The question isn't whether Brosnan-Bond is the exact same person as Connery-Bond, as there was only a very loose narrative continuity to begin with. It simply wasn't an issue. Our point is that NTTD has forced this to become an issue because of its shock ending which should never have happened.

    The Craig era has always been its own new series. If you don’t like that okay, but I don’t get why NTTD’s ending suddenly makes it an issue for you now (rather than it being an issue when they first rebooted). If anything the ending is narratively liberating. They could go back to a looser continuity next time now, if they wanted to, without it seeming as weird as it would’ve done if we’d jumped into that straight from Craig’s “it’s all connected” mini series.

    And a flimsy ongoing continuity as we had from 1962-2002 is only one way for it to work. Other ways can work too, as we’ve just seen from the Craig era’s success. Different takes on old legends have been happening for as long as storytelling has been a thing too, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as a solely comic book thing.

    We’re also back to schrodinger’s Bond film again here, where “a lot” of people don’t like the ending, but also EON were just doing it to chase comic book trends that are popular enough to be “all the range”. If you’re going to keep making up imaginary motivations for the ending to try and cast it in a worse light (rather than just critiquing the film itself), then you should at least make those motivations consistent with the film’s apparent lack of popularity.

    Yes, I am on board with all your points here, @thelivingroyale . And @Creasy47's.
    It has gotten to the point now where I am not enthused to get into many threads about NTTD because this issue of "confusing" ending and "OMG, how will they ever continue in Bond 26?" is pervasive. And no fun. Some people just cannot see their way past it, and I respect their feelings. But the cycle of going back and forth about this now is more than tiresome.

    I also realized that it would be a divisive ending (love it or hate it) and do NOT expect people to change their feelings much on that; perhaps somewhat. But I also did not foresee the angst and arguing about how "confusing" this movie is and the woe-is-us the franchise is "doomed" type of comments. Just ... nope.

    On I go to other threads. I will peek in here from time to time. After all, I want to hear from our Aussie and Malaysian and other members who will be seeing NTTD for the 1st time in a few weeks. B-)

    Same here, honestly. I've been enjoying the QoS Fan Club thread, and the Best/Worst Lines thread.

    For better or worse, NTTD was a bit of an explosion for the franchise, and once the dust settles and everyone calms down (for lack of a better expression), there will be a lot of fun discussion to be had surrounding it (and, in fairness, there already has been as well). I do think it will be appreciated along with OHMSS in time by a majority of Bond fans. NTTD doesn't have Rigg, Savalas' Blofeld, or Fleming source material, but it surpasses Lazenby's outing in quite a few other areas I'd say.
Sign In or Register to comment.