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

1166167169171172298

Comments

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited November 2021 Posts: 4,343
    I just realized that Blofeld was the head of SPECTRE at ~25 years old, given the fact that he was born in 1964 and Safin’s family assassination must’ve happened in 1989/1990.
    Makes sense since he’s the founder member. A criminal enfant prodige.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2021 Posts: 4,554
    Here's something.

    When NTTD was released, someone posted an "illegal" video of Bond's death, filmed in the theater. I downloaded that but haven't looked at it in weeks.

    I just did. I slowed it way down and froze the image in the last frame in which we see Bond. Holy crap.

    As someone who views DC's Bond as Jungian in nature, as embodying the duality of man, what I saw made the hairs on my neck stand up--for lack of a better cliche.

    His image is split in two. Not his body. We see no blood and gore. What we see are two of him, one magnified and superimposed over the other, just as the screen goes completely white.

    :-O
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 6,844
    I’m going to treat NTTD as non-canon. That’s my solution to the problem known as NTTD (continuity, arc, etc.). Ahhh. I feel much better already. B-)

    According to Fukunaga, there were actual discussions concerning treating the end of Spectre, from Blofeld's head-drilling onward, as but a dream. You could take Fukunaga up on that and treat the end of SP and everything that happens in NTTD as merely a dream. Then Craig's tenure ends with him getting his head drilled.

    You may be speaking facetiously, but this is a solution that could work for everybody. My biggest problem with Spectre -- yes, even bigger than the whole concept of Brofeld -- was the whole "head-drilled Bond shoots his way out of Spectre HQ" bit. If Madeline had done the lioness' share of the shooting in that scene, it probably would have worked better for me, but really, after an ordeal like that Bond would have been hard-pressed to just stumble out of a deserted HQ. Shooting up all the Spectre goons and destroying said HQ just after the head-drilling? No, sorry. That's an invulnerable Bond who probably SHOULD have survived the rain of missiles in the last few minutes of NTTD.

    So, fine. The vast majority of NTTD was a dream, as was the last third or so of SP. Just don't try to take Ana de Armas' brief moment of glory away from us...

    Hey, weird dream-like gun barrel fading to white, scene of Madeleine as a child, Roger Moore-era henchman with robotic eyeball, Vesper's grave blows up (and it was all me, James!), Felix dies, mouthing off to M like crazy with no repercussions, loses 007, suddenly regains 007, all of SPECTRE dies at once in the same room (during Blofeld's birthday party no less), somehow strangles Blofeld to death despite the fact he's in maximum security, cutting apples in the kitchen for long-lost child, driving a Volante now, trying to find daughter's missing stuffed bunny and save the world at the same time, imminent death by hail of missiles, Madeleine says, "Bond...James Bond." Sure sounds like Bond ate a few too many hot wings right before bedtime, doesn't it?
  • Posts: 1,043
    People who don't like the killing off of James Bond aren't 'confused'. We'd just it rather never have happened.
    It surprises me that fans of the cinematic Bond moan about a break in tradition when the gun-barrel isn't right, yet seem to happily accept a break in tradition that is killing off the man himself.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    I’m going to treat NTTD as non-canon. That’s my solution to the problem known as NTTD (continuity, arc, etc.). Ahhh. I feel much better already. B-)

    According to Fukunaga, there were actual discussions concerning treating the end of Spectre, from Blofeld's head-drilling onward, as but a dream. You could take Fukunaga up on that and treat the end of SP and everything that happens in NTTD as merely a dream. Then Craig's tenure ends with him getting his head drilled.

    You may be speaking facetiously, but this is a solution that could work for everybody. My biggest problem with Spectre -- yes, even bigger than the whole concept of Brofeld -- was the whole "head-drilled Bond shoots his way out of Spectre HQ" bit. If Madeline had done the lioness' share of the shooting in that scene, it probably would have worked better for me, but really, after an ordeal like that Bond would have been hard-pressed to just stumble out of a deserted HQ. Shooting up all the Spectre goons and destroying said HQ just after the head-drilling? No, sorry. That's an invulnerable Bond who probably SHOULD have survived the rain of missiles in the last few minutes of NTTD.

    So, fine. The vast majority of NTTD was a dream, as was the last third or so of SP. Just don't try to take Ana de Armas' brief moment of glory away from us...

    Hey, weird dream-like gun barrel fading to white, scene of Madeleine as a child, Roger Moore-era henchman with robotic eyeball, Vesper's grave blows up (and it was all me, James!), Felix dies, mouthing off to M like crazy with no repercussions, loses 007, suddenly regains 007, all of SPECTRE dies at once in the same room (during Blofeld's birthday party no less), somehow strangles Blofeld to death despite the fact he's in maximum security, cutting apples in the kitchen for long-lost child, DB5 is now a Volante, trying to both find daughter's missing stuffed bunny and save the world at the same time, imminent death by hail of missiles, Madeleine says, "Bond...James Bond." Sure sounds like Bond ate a few too many hot wings right before bedtime, doesn't it?

    I feel a similar paragraph could be written for any Bond film, basically. Also, Blofeld wasn't strangled to death.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 6,844
    Also, Blofeld wasn't strangled to death.

    Dream logic.

    Or: "strangles Blofeld to death...then realizes it was actually robots that killed him!"
  • Posts: 1,165
    TripAces wrote: »
    Here's something.

    When NTTD was released, someone posted an "illegal" video of Bond's death, filmed in the theater. I downloaded that but haven't looked at it in weeks.

    I just did. I slowed it way down and froze the image in the last frame in which we see Bond. Holy crap.

    As someone who views DC's Bond as Jungian in nature, as embodying the duality of man, what I saw made the hairs on my neck stand up--for lack of a better cliche.

    His image is split in two. Not his body. We see no blood and gore. What we see are two of him, one magnified and superimposed over the other, just as the screen goes completely white.

    :-O
    That scene cuts way too fast in the cinema. Would you be able to post a screenshot please?
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Most audience members were confused and angry about the ending of NTTD.

    Most statistics are also completely fabricated on the spot to trick people.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 3,015
    Matt007 wrote: »
    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.
    This is the key point for me. The uneasy feeling that they basically killed Bond as a stunt. Craig may well have raised the idea with EON years ago, but would it have been given the green light if not for current Hollywood trends? If not, isn't that more bandwagon than character arc?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,095
    I thought it made sense in the film
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    People who don't like the killing off of James Bond aren't 'confused'. We'd just it rather never have happened.
    It surprises me that fans of the cinematic Bond moan about a break in tradition when the gun-barrel isn't right, yet seem to happily accept a break in tradition that is killing off the man himself.

    For the umpteenth time *sigh*
    You don't have to like it. Nevertheless it happened.

    You'll laugh.
    You'll cry.
    Three bucks.
    Good-bye.
  • Posts: 1,043
    Venutius wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    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.
    This is the key point for me. The uneasy feeling that they basically killed Bond as a stunt. Craig may well have raised the idea with EON years ago, but would it have been given the green light if not for current Hollywood trends? If not, isn't that more bandwagon than character arc?

    I've made the point on here before that it felt like a cheap shot. It was certainly a 'we can do it now' thing. It's gimmicky, and it doesn't even work anyway if they say he'll return in the credits.
    People talking about Hamlet earlier. That's a single story, not a film franchise made by the same company about the same (supposedly) character and his adventures. It's completely different.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,095
    KaKn.gif
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    As Johann-Wolfgang Goethe put it in "Faust - Der Tragödie erster Teil" (somehow the German equivalent to "Hamlet"):
    "Getretener Quark wird breit, nicht stark."
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,110
    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.

    And in Bond 29, this villain introduces Bond to his daughter, and you know...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,095
    I do hope they hold off on Blofeld/SPECTRE for at least an actor or two. Make it long enough a gap for when we would actually like to see that character return. At least they’ll have the rights to that character from the start instead of midway through an actor‘s tenure.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 3,015
    I thought it made sense in the film

    Yes, which's why I've actually been trying to talk myself out of seeing it as EON killing Bond just as a gimmick. I ask myself if NTTD wasn't a Bond film, if it was a standalone, a one-off movie about some other character, would the death of the hero at the end actually work? Would it be plausible, dramatic and pack an emotional punch? And I think it would. So, yes, internally, in that story, the death of the protagonist works. But...but...when the protagonist is Bond? I'm struggling to reach an accomodation with it. Because it's not a one-off movie about a heroic but tragic figure. It IS a Bond film. Fictional character? Sure - but one I'm invested in. Too invested to just shrug at his death and look ahead to Bond 26 as if this is par for the course. I dunno - I suspect I'm always going to be conflicted on this one!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,095
    I think it works for Bond specifically. Because he chose a life of killing, he can never truly find a happy ending for himself. He lost Tracy, he lost Vesper, and now he lost his shot at being a part of a family, and in the end he accepts it because he did everything he could to protect them, which is why the last expression on his face that we see is him looking serene. He knows his legacy will last beyond his death. I think it’s beautiful.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    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.

    Yes, that's where Shakespeare went wrong, killing Hamlet off when he could have built a franchise - King Hamlet, Hamlet & Juliet, Much Ado About Hamlet, he could have made a fortune!

    Of course there is a World of difference between re-watching the same story, where you know the titular character dies at the end, and watching a series of stories, where one has become accustomed to seeing the main character triumph and live, to suddenly seeing that character killed off for shock value.

    With Hamlet there is no "last one" there is only one play featuring Hamlet, so the analogy doesn't hold water

    James-Bond-Travelian-Meme.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=450&h=363&dpr=1.5




  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,015
    I know exactly what you mean and I'd agree totally - if it wasn't Bond! 😉
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    Venutius wrote: »
    I thought it made sense in the film

    Yes, which's why I've actually been trying to talk myself out of seeing it as EON killing Bond just as a gimmick. I ask myself if NTTD wasn't a Bond film, if it was a standalone, a one-off movie about some other character, would the death of the hero at the end actually work? Would it be plausible, dramatic and pack an emotional punch? And I think it would. So, yes, internally, in that story, the death of the protagonist works. But...but...when the protagonist is Bond? I'm struggling to reach an accomodation with it. Because it's not a one-off movie about a heroic but tragic figure. It IS a Bond film. Fictional character? Sure - but one I'm invested in. Too invested to just shrug at his death and look ahead to Bond 26 as if this is par for the course. I dunno - I suspect I'm always going to be conflicted on this one!

    Yes, this gets to the heart of the matter

    James Bond is not Sydney Carton or Danny Archer, he's only been dead a few moments when the audience is informed that "James Bond will return"

    againcolmanendofatotcblog.jpg?w=584


    dPePE819Vgyq1rfiN-quNLR0F5VUk24nvdMIobVZTE3qd5oXtjyXMzEAwUa7xHkgrEFCypMkrIho6lUr6n0yUn7TJGLPCYdRWf4zqED88PO7NY21gVYhSLtz1YCKacb66xXGIlrg8XL2OG__y9F4PcRBsVrxWnptCG7dqyTkOO6rtIYN7dpc3Nkek9O_dCckbQMjl0_2u-zS83s
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,527
    So exhausting. Regardless of who liked it, and who didn't like it, they did it. NTTD ended with the death of James Bond. What are you guys going to do now?

    If anything, to me, that weird animated short film "In Service of Nothing" is a far more offensive end to James Bond; he's old, trying to continue the life he has, hiring prostitutes because he can't find women any other way, it's sad and depressing. Likewise, I have a friend that is a huge Batman fan, and drew a connection that Alfred used to be an army man before he joined the Wayne family, and maybe James Bond would take a similar path, and I told him Bond would eat a gun before he became anyone's butler.

    If Bond has to end, and he does have to end because he's mortal, NTTD was a brilliant way to do it.

    I've always maintained that Bond's true motivation is to feel. He's clearly numb, which is why he pursues only the dangerous missions, the women, drink, and gambling. NTTD finally gave Bond the opportunity to feel and have that feeling returned to him. He stayed behind to make sure the doors stayed open and the villain's plot would be ended. Certainly, there was room in the story for him to jump into the water and barely survive. But he also stayed because he finally found what he'd been looking for his whole life, and to return to life would mean it would be taken away again. To me, there couldn't be a better endgame for James Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,095
    Yup. What’s done is done.

    Live with it.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    I don’t think there’s making peace with it, if you are in the crowd like myself that HATE the ending, and maybe the movie in general. It was unnecessary, meant to sell tickets (like the death of James T. Kirk-which backfired on Paramount), angered a lot of fans/disappointed, and broke a fixed tradition of “you just don’t do that.” Timeline or not, it is ********. Nothing on earth is going to change my opinion regarding NTTD. Never left a theatre more down after a movie. But, it is done, and nothing can change that. The ending did remind me somewhat of The Omega Man (if you’ve seen it). My advice to those who did not enjoy NTTD is to try and stop thinking about it and move on (that’s what I’m trying to do). Don’t watch NTTD again if it makes you miserable. Watch the other 4 Craig Bonds and forget NTTD. Or other Bonds of course. I’m of the mind that if I keep writing about it, that only increases the angst I feel about the movie and specifically the end. In time, there will be a brighter day. If you enjoyed it, then bravo for you.

    P.S. If you are an ultra-avid fan of the Craig Bonds, like me, this film is always going to jar you. The other Bonds (besides Dalton) I’m lukewarm to at best, which is why this is so difficult as a fan.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    So exhausting. Regardless of who liked it, and who didn't like it, they did it. NTTD ended with the death of James Bond. What are you guys going to do now?

    Wait for him to "return" of course

    bobby-ewing-death.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=737&h=522&dpr=1.5

    qu1gtVkFc9FnW-uiL51_xVTy52H0XA_BWdCJY5DA3ZCkDBCWsq-REg7qZkJq9OaefJK_tlhtVcy7d3Rw-2kkUc7rnO-IE0leI7qMhXtq47XyQbTzXASoXQ=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu

    hqdefault.jpg

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    It was unnecessary, meant to sell tickets (like the death of James T. Kirk-which backfired), angered a lot of fans/disappointed, and broke a fixed tradition of “you just don’t do that.” Timeline or not, it is ********.

    This is all junk, but the second half of your post has some great advice in it.

  • Posts: 526
    It was unnecessary, meant to sell tickets (like the death of James T. Kirk-which backfired), angered a lot of fans/disappointed, and broke a fixed tradition of “you just don’t do that.” Timeline or not, it is ********.

    This is all junk, but the second half of your post has some great advice in it.

    Thank you.... I think :))
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,095
    How has it backfired? This film is a much bigger hit than STAR TREK GENERATIONS was even with inflation adjusted. Critics and audience ratings are even higher.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    How has it backfired? This film is a much bigger hit than STAR TREK GENERATIONS was even with inflation adjusted. Critics and audience ratings are even higher.

    I’m saying that it backfired on Paramount for killing Kirk. Film made about 73 $ mill, and was expecting to make $120 ish(domestic) That’s a lot for 1994. Wasn’t referring to NTTD’s box office. Didn’t clarify enough on my part. Paramount and Berman meant to kill Kirk as a shock stunt to make money, and to make sure everyone understood that The Next Generation cast was the flagship Trek vehicle at the time (passing the torch deal).
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357
    Yup. What’s done is done.

    Live with it.

    That's right, James Bond's are like buses - if you don't like one, another will be along in (some period of time).

    skynews-bond25-bath_5519237.jpg?20210921122001

    2645.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=91e71a09c22138a533f9dcc9997014e7



Sign In or Register to comment.