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

1172173175177178298

Comments

  • Jordo007 wrote: »
    I think it's a shame the ending naturally consumes everyone's opinions of NTTD, because there's a lot to love and equally dislike about it, that's barely been spoke about.

    I agree. I suppose they had to find a different ending to the 'happy ever after' ending of SP. It's a shame that by choosing to bump off daddy Bond they've created a story ending that overshadows the actual film for some.
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s not about being acceptable. It’s about facing the fact that every new actor brought a different take to the character and that all the different eras have never been connected.

    You see each change of actor as portraying a different screen character? I'd say that's quite an unusual way of viewing the franchise, but if it works for you, go for it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    You made it!

    Tried to make this point a while back. It’s potentially the most badass thing he could do.
  • mattjoesmattjoes This is the boodanaychur.
    Posts: 6,648
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall in the script meetings when this ending was being discussed. I'm sure they gave a great deal of thought to the 'what' and the 'how'.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I think it's a shame the ending naturally consumes everyone's opinions of NTTD, because there's a lot to love and equally dislike about it, that's barely been spoke about.

    How great were the hand to hand fights in this film? The fight's with Logan Ash and Primo actually felt life or death. I was on the edge of my seat at every viewing

    Good point. Overall CJF handles a Bondfilm better than Mendes, especially where action and staging of combat is concerned.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited November 2021 Posts: 4,343
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I think it's a shame the ending naturally consumes everyone's opinions of NTTD, because there's a lot to love and equally dislike about it, that's barely been spoke about.
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s not about being acceptable. It’s about facing the fact that every new actor brought a different take to the character and that all the different eras have never been connected.

    You see each change of actor as portraying a different screen character? I'd say that's quite an unusual way of viewing the franchise, but if it works for you, go for it.

    Not a different screen character. A different (sometimes a radically different) incarnation of the same character. It’s not unusual. We were never supposed to see all the different eras like a connected storyline set within the very same “universe”, even before Craig. Every era has always been its own thing.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,350
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall in the script meetings when this ending was being discussed. I'm sure they gave a great deal of thought to the 'what' and the 'how'.

    Absolutely.
    It's also one of those things where people's perceptions of the same things differ wildly.

    Critics of the ending are absolutely correct that it is constructed. It is very much constructed. I'll have to watch the film a couple more times and think about it some more to really pull everything together, but the major story beats are very much there to put Bond in that situation at the very end. The most obvious is when Bond basically asks Q the question every audience member has to have: How do you get rid of it? And Q says, you can't. They're eternal. And you can think that as well done or think it's cheap, but they really have put a lot of thought into how you could possibly put Bond in a position like that.
  • Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 660
    The Bond character is always informed by the tradition established by previous iterations in the lead playing him. Not narratively, of course, though each film is free to call upon the tradition in so far as it provides some depth of character & feeling - as has happened with NTTD in relation to OHMSS.

    But the Craig era will, no doubt, hang heavily over whatever comes next, much as Connery's did for about ten years after his tenure.
  • Posts: 625
    There are a lot of things in fiction that don't make sense, and there's a symbiotic relationship between reader and author when it comes to narrative cohesiveness. Yes, it's impossible that Brozza sung Underneath The Mango Tree in '62, but it's acceptable in terms of the fictional narrative.
    Blowing the main character up and claiming he's dead, and then saying he'll be back, isn't acceptable.
    If it's acceptable to you - bully for you. You're the one having more fun!

    With Bond only the universe of the one movie you watch at the moment counts.
    So if Bond is well and alive in Bond 26, then he never died in that universe.
    There is no need to try and put Bond 26 in connection with other Bond films.
    And even when Bond in DAD has a connection to Rosa Klebb's shoe, it doesn't mean, that he was also married to Tracy. It just means, that he might have had an encounter with a Klebb-like character in his DAD-universe.
    The only connection a movie has to another Bond film is the one they show you on screen.
    So there don't has to be any connection to any other Bond film with Bond 26.
    It simply doesn't matter, that he died in Bond 25, because that's not part of the Bond 26 timeline/universe.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 660
    What actually happens during the ending of NTTD will really have to be explored more. Does Bond willingly give up his life for his family? Or is he so critically wounded that there is no possibility of reaching safety before the impact of the oncoming missiles? Many viewers assume it is the former, whereas the bulk of evidence, for me at least, rests with the latter ....
  • mattjoesmattjoes This is the boodanaychur.
    edited November 2021 Posts: 6,648
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!
    I must admit I had not thought of the ending in the exact way you describe it. I appreciated the fact Bond had reconnected with his family and saved their lives, and in the process had gone back to "living" rather than merely "exist", but I took his death as a somewhat passive event, a fate that he accepted in peace because he always knew it could happen, because his family was safe, and because he was leaving a legacy behind (unlike what Safin told him). It doesn't sound so passive if you think he made a choice to stay, instead of trying to escape the island to live an impossible life in which he would endanger his family. But I don't know, there's a nuance there I have to think some more about.

    Feyador wrote: »
    What actually happens during the ending of NTTD will really have to be explored more. Does Bond willingly give up his life for his family? Or is he so critically wounded that there is no possibility of reaching safety before the impact of the oncoming missiles? Many viewers assume it is the former, whereas the bulk of evidence, for me at least, rests with the latter ....
    Furthermore, does this ambiguity, to whatever extent it's there, improve or worsen the ending?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,860
    I hadn't thought of it like that either til today - all credit to ImpertinentGoon, who pointed out that Safin didn't kill Bond or infect him with a virus that would someday kill him. As IG said, Bond could've lived if he'd accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde would die as a result. He refused and purposely chose death so that they could live. It is nuanced, but it's all there on screen - and in the original title, A Reason To Die. That title emphasises Bond's choice and why he made it. Guess I just needed the fallout to settle and IG to hone in on the fundamental point! It's Bond, so I still wish it hadn't happened - but I like this new perspective on it.
  • DavidWebbDavidWebb Somewhere
    Posts: 20
    Feyador wrote: »
    What actually happens during the ending of NTTD will really have to be explored more. Does Bond willingly give up his life for his family? Or is he so critically wounded that there is no possibility of reaching safety before the impact of the oncoming missiles? Many viewers assume it is the former, whereas the bulk of evidence, for me at least, rests with the latter ....

    The latter is in all cases the true reason for him not getting off that island in time, but in spirit I'd like to think that Bond would do such a thing as the former for family. I think the way it was supposed to be viewed is in fact that emotional-type ending, where Bond gives up his life for his family's. But yes, I think it really came down to his injuries.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,860
    Dude, even at 53, CraigBond's t-levels would not only cushion the impact of the bullets, they'd eject the lead and kickstart the healing process. Mere flesh wounds! ;)
  • DavidWebbDavidWebb Somewhere
    Posts: 20
    Venutius wrote: »
    Dude, even at 53, CraigBond's t-levels would not only cushion the impact of the bullets, they'd eject the lead and kickstart the healing process. Mere flesh wounds! ;)

    Haha -- Indeed, there is definitely some truth to that.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 642
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.

    I don't see how it adds richness to anything. Felix dies. Blofeld dies. Craig-Bond dies. Was there no other way for the filmmakers to give exits to these characters? And that's not even including Mathis and Dench-M. Reading the plot rundown on wikipedia, this movie comes off as a controlled demolition to me, just burning everything down so they can start fresh or whatever for the next "reboot" (ugh).

    What was the point of Craig's tenure as Bond? What was his story? He becomes Bond briefly, then quits, becomes Bond again, quits again, comes back again, and dies? Casino Royale's ending sets up a line of films that we never got: a young, badass Bond tearing sh*t up. Instead we got 4 movies of a broken, miserable man, 3 of them suddenly involving an "old" and out-of-date James Bond who ultimately ends up getting blown up by his own Navy.

    Craig was finished in 2015. Why on earth did they wait 5 years (not including the one-year delay) to bring him back for this? To give him a big sendoff? Why? Why does he need a sendoff? He's not the first actor to play Bond, he's the sixth, and while he may have revitalized the role in 2006 he certainly didn't define it any more than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan did. It feels like they broke Cubby's rule of the actor becoming bigger than the character.
  • Posts: 2,400
    slide_99 wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.

    I don't see how it adds richness to anything. Felix dies. Blofeld dies. Craig-Bond dies. Was there no other way for the filmmakers to give exits to these characters? And that's not even including Mathis and Dench-M. Reading the plot rundown on wikipedia, this movie comes off as a controlled demolition to me, just burning everything down so they can start fresh or whatever for the next "reboot" (ugh).

    Hold on, are you telling me you've been blowing up the forums about this and still haven't even watched the bloody film?
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 66
    Venutius wrote: »
    I hadn't thought of it like that either til today - all credit to ImpertinentGoon, who pointed out that Safin didn't kill Bond or infect him with a virus that would someday kill him. As IG said, Bond could've lived if he'd accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde would die as a result. He refused and purposely chose death so that they could live. It is nuanced, but it's all there on screen - guess I just needed the fallout to settle and IG to hone in on the fundamental point! It's Bond, so I still wish it hadn't happened - but I like this new perspective on it.
    I do think it's interesting that the ending managed to give us everything we've seen this Bond survive before. We've seen him poisoned in CR, critically shot "to death" in SF, and given 3 minutes to escape an exploding building in SP. And of course, he survives and even implausibly finds Madeleine and escapes in SP with seconds to spare. So in a way, there is a layer of "you've seen this all before but this time it's different."

    I think the answer is in Bond's last moments. He doesn't tell Madeleine that he's shot or doesn't have enough time to make it out. She didn't even know the missiles were on the way yet. She accurately assumes the only possible reason he had for not attempting to leave was that he was poisoned with her nanobots which he confirms. The script even has her desperately pleading that there must be a way to stop the poison. Because in that moment, that's what mattered. Bond also doesn't even tell Q he's shot or respond to Q's repeated concern over his lack of time. And it might be a stretch, but he doesn't even ask Q about a possible place to survive the blast when Q has been mapping out the base with Qdar the entire time. He only asks about the nanobots looking for a semblance of hope. When Q says the nanobots are harmless as long as he’s not near to the target, Bond says “that’s not going to work,” not “it’s fine, I’m dying anyway.” Whether he could have made it out in time or survived his wounds is a realistic consideration for us outside of the film, but in my opinion from what is presented onscreen, it's not relevant to Bond's decision to stay.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 660
    DavidWebb wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    What actually happens during the ending of NTTD will really have to be explored more. Does Bond willingly give up his life for his family? Or is he so critically wounded that there is no possibility of reaching safety before the impact of the oncoming missiles? Many viewers assume it is the former, whereas the bulk of evidence, for me at least, rests with the latter ....

    The latter is in all cases the true reason for him not getting off that island in time, but in spirit I'd like to think that Bond would do such a thing as the former for family. I think the way it was supposed to be viewed is in fact that emotional-type ending, where Bond gives up his life for his family's. But yes, I think it really came down to his injuries.

    Yes, I think any iteration of Bond would have sacrificed himself for his family (had each one had a family, of course), just as every Bond mission has implied the willingness to sacrifice himself for the greater good. And both of those things have happened with the conclusion of NTTD.

    That willingness to sacrifice himself has always separated him, both morally & ethically, from criminals like Dr. No ("I thought there may even be a place for you in SPECTRE") and Scaramanga ("Come, come Mr. Bond ...").

    And for 24/25 films he has accomplished what needed to be done without requirement of it ... which is a pretty good run, really.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2021 Posts: 23,333
    @slide_99
    Who claimed that Craig defined the character "more" than the others? How do you even do such a thing? Craig re-defined the character, but only in the smallest of ways because the "definition" of Bond is pretty thin anyway. Every actor re-defined Bond to some extent. But to define Bond "more" than others? I guess when you get to do more films (e.g. Craig vs. Lazenby) and slightly more personal stories (e.g. Lazenby vs. Moore) you end up crawling under Bond's skin a bit more than the other guy. But "define more"? I can't tell you that much more about Craig's Bond than about Connery's, except for circumstantial details, i.e. things that have happened to him.

    What was the point of Craig's tenure? I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Since when is there a "point" to an actor's tenure? What was the point of Moore's? Of Brosnan's? What does that mean? They went from adventure to adventure, and we love them. Craig's Bond simply faced more bumps in the road by design. But let's be fair. If Dalton's films had been better received, they might have gone there too. He went from "M can fire me!" to "piss off, I'm just doing what I want!". Brosnan wishes (and so do I) that his stories could have been a little edgier too. (The "rogue" portion of DAD feels like a compromise.) Craig is the first Bond whose uneven loyalty to the system was embraced by audiences, enough to make it a staple of his films.

    That is part of the zeitgeist, by the way. The heroes of now operate for us, not for their masters (I have to kill a bombmaker and beat LeChiffre because I am convinced it's the right thing to do); they follow their orders but not unconditionally (we are a part of the State but the State doesn't own us). It's the culmination of fifty years of neo-liberalism; in the end, the individual will fight for itself rather than for the "status quo". Craig's Bond doesn't fit the ultra-loyal, no-questions-asked "Golden Generation mentality" because modern audiences wouldn't find that appealing. Craig's Bond is obedient but only on his own terms, the paradoxical way of thinking that many of us carry over to our job, community and other institutions every day in this day and age (there really is an "I" in the team of 2021). It's no wonder then that the "here's your assignment Bond, now go and do your job" formula doesn't work anymore. For England, James? No, for me.
    Craig was finished in 2015. Why on earth did they wait 5 years (not including the one-year delay) to bring him back for this? To give him a big sendoff? Why? Why does he need a sendoff? He's not the first actor to play Bond, he's the sixth, and while he may have revitalized the role in 2006 he certainly didn't define it any more than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan did. It feels like they broke Cubby's rule of the actor becoming bigger than the character.

    They waited five years because that's how long it took to get this film made. Why is James Cameron taking 14 (!) years to give us another Avatar? Because that's how long it's taking him. Don't overthink this. We have followed the various stages of the film's development. No one decided to wait 5 years. That's what happened. There were setbacks they had to face: the suits were quarrelling, COVID happened, it didn't work out with Boyle, ... None of this was desirable, but it happened. There's no plan behind the five-year gap, only a linear sequence of events that led to this point.

    Why he needs a sendoff? He doesn't. They chose to give it to him. Craig is a popular Bond. And some folks felt that he definitely had one more Bond in him. If the rights to CR hadn't landed in EON's lap, Brosnan would most likely have gotten a 5th film. Could have been a symbolic sendoff to, in some shape or form. We don't know. Doesn't matter. Why did they keep Moore on, when some--not me!--were screaming he was getting a bit long in the tooth? Same thing. He was popular, he was reliable. Don't overthink it.

    It's all a culmination of events, my friend. Frankly, I think it's a victory they got this film made and released. It's cost them though, costs that will require years to recuperate. NTTD was birthed in a very difficult climate, arguably the most difficult of any of the Bonds so far. I applaud the fact that they finally got here. I'm confident that if they had known this is what was coming to them, NTTD wouldn't have happened. But all the struggles will lend the film some sympathy too. It will always be remembered, I'm sure, as the Bond film that had to fight for its life and barely made its money back, if at all, mostly because of a global pandemic that neither allowed the film to be shelved indefinitely, nor to be released with guaranteed financial success.
  • Posts: 7,493
    slide_99 wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.

    I don't see how it adds richness to anything. Felix dies. Blofeld dies. Craig-Bond dies. Was there no other way for the filmmakers to give exits to these characters? And that's not even including Mathis and Dench-M. Reading the plot rundown on wikipedia, this movie comes off as a controlled demolition to me, just burning everything down so they can start fresh or whatever for the next "reboot" (ugh).

    Hold on, are you telling me you've been blowing up the forums about this and still haven't even watched the bloody film?


    Yes, he hasn't seen it. It's quite incredible... ;))
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,256
    Coming to think about it, Bond should have survived and Craig should not have retired. And we should forget about Bond #7, but stick with Craig for the next movies. He and Madeleine should have married and have more children. Ad we see him changing diapers, feed the children, walk them around in a pram, and chatting with mothers with their kids in the park. I really would love to see that.

    And hopefully we wilkl get bonus tracks on the upcoming Bluray about Bond staying with Q (what he does, but we didn't see. Two options:
    1. Bond cleaning Q's flat, do all the shopping, feed his cats, and cook the meals.
    Or - more interesting IMO:
    2. Q getting mad at Bond for messing up his flat with dozens of empty Heineken cans, and empty take-away boxes.

    That would be a Bond film, I'd love to see.

    *travels according to dictation*

    This is such a ridiculous argument that it barely makes any sense. Strawman argument doesn't even begin to describe this clumsy post. Of course no one wants to see Bond married with children. Of course Craig was dead set on retiring and everyone knew it was his time to move on. But that doesn't mean we have to kill him in order to resolve the child plot and give the era a "conclusion". If a reboot is assumed whenever a new actor takes on the helm anyway, they could have left Bond alive with amnesia at the end of the movie or drifting off at sea or whatever and started the next movie with a new Bond in a new story and new direction with no references to Craig. Are you saying you can get over the idea of a dead character coming back to life in the next entry but can't get over the thought that "another version" of the character has a kid with a girl in the previous film?

    I think he was just kidding.

    Alright, I should've marked it as ironic or funny or not to be taken seriously. I thought this to be obvious, but apparently some people did not realize this. Mea culpa. ^:)^ ^:)^
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    jobo wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!

    Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.

    I don't see how it adds richness to anything. Felix dies. Blofeld dies. Craig-Bond dies. Was there no other way for the filmmakers to give exits to these characters? And that's not even including Mathis and Dench-M. Reading the plot rundown on wikipedia, this movie comes off as a controlled demolition to me, just burning everything down so they can start fresh or whatever for the next "reboot" (ugh).

    Hold on, are you telling me you've been blowing up the forums about this and still haven't even watched the bloody film?


    Yes, he hasn't seen it. It's quite incredible... ;))

    Absolute insanity.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 660
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!
    I must admit I had not thought of the ending in the exact way you describe it. I appreciated the fact Bond had reconnected with his family and saved their lives, and in the process had gone back to "living" rather than merely "exist", but I took his death as a somewhat passive event, a fate that he accepted in peace because he always knew it could happen, because his family was safe, and because he was leaving a legacy behind (unlike what Safin told him). It doesn't sound so passive if you think he made a choice to stay, instead of trying to escape the island to live an impossible life in which he would endanger his family. But I don't know, there's a nuance there I have to think some more about.

    Feyador wrote: »
    What actually happens during the ending of NTTD will really have to be explored more. Does Bond willingly give up his life for his family? Or is he so critically wounded that there is no possibility of reaching safety before the impact of the oncoming missiles? Many viewers assume it is the former, whereas the bulk of evidence, for me at least, rests with the latter ....
    Furthermore, does this ambiguity, to whatever extent it's there, improve or worsen the ending?

    There is ambiguity, but I'm not sure it's in the narrative events of the conclusion. I think the film shows us that there is little possibility of Bond getting to safety.

    What may be confusing (but certainly effective emotionally for us as viewers), is that as the ending plays out, Bond is in dialogue with both Q & Madeleine, neither of whom are aware that Bond has been gravely wounded. All they come to know is that he has been poisoned with the nanobots targeted for Madeleine & Mathilde and assume it to be the reason for him not getting to safety. And as audience members, we may take our cue from them - and that is certainly how I viewed it the first time I saw the film.

    Where there is ambiguity is the question of what is going on in Bond's mind in those last few minutes before his death:

    At what point does he decide he is "not going to make it"?

    Or is it, rather, an awareness & acceptance that he is "not going to make it"?


    I lean toward the latter interpretation, whereas many or most favour the former it seems ...

    But whatever the case it all makes for a rich and devastatingly emotional conclusion to the film.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,256
    Feyador wrote: »
    What actually happens during the ending of NTTD will really have to be explored more. Does Bond willingly give up his life for his family? Or is he so critically wounded that there is no possibility of reaching safety before the impact of the oncoming missiles? Many viewers assume it is the former, whereas the bulk of evidence, for me at least, rests with the latter ....

    That's quite a good point. Bond sends Madeleine, Mathilde and Nomi to safety with the boat. He then opens the blast doors and gives M the "go" to launch the missiles, and he wuill have a little over 9 minutes to get off the island. At that point he might have had a chance to get off, but then, how should he do it? The boat is gone, with Madeline, Mathilde and Nomi. To jump into the sea and swim to the next island? But then Safin closes the blast doors, and Bond rushes to re-open them. He is the attacked and shot by Safin, before Safin "poisons" him with the nanobots. And we see, he is severly wounded, with blood dripping with every "step" he makes to the controle room. So, being injured hampers him strongly, and the nanobot poison just "tops" all of this. Q and Madeleine don't know about his injury. So, I think, we can assume, he would not have made it, as the missiles approach the island very fast, he is bleeding out (his shirt gets blood-soaked,m we can see that, when he stand atop the bunker), and due to the nanobots he would never be able to come near Madeleine and Mathilde without killing them. So, this seems to add up, and I assume, he might not have made it anyway, as he has nothing, that could help him to leave the island.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I'd say it's a combination of both. He had just barely enough time to escape before being shot and before needing to re-open the blast doors, but once he was injured and poisoned, he clearly knew there the chances were none.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Feyador wrote: »
    What actually happens during the ending of NTTD will really have to be explored more. Does Bond willingly give up his life for his family? Or is he so critically wounded that there is no possibility of reaching safety before the impact of the oncoming missiles? Many viewers assume it is the former, whereas the bulk of evidence, for me at least, rests with the latter ....

    That's quite a good point. Bond sends Madeleine, Mathilde and Nomi to safety with the boat. He then opens the blast doors and gives M the "go" to launch the missiles, and he wuill have a little over 9 minutes to get off the island. At that point he might have had a chance to get off, but then, how should he do it? The boat is gone, with Madeline, Mathilde and Nomi. To jump into the sea and swim to the next island? But then Safin closes the blast doors, and Bond rushes to re-open them. He is the attacked and shot by Safin, before Safin "poisons" him with the nanobots. And we see, he is severly wounded, with blood dripping with every "step" he makes to the controle room. So, being injured hampers him strongly, and the nanobot poison just "tops" all of this. Q and Madeleine don't know about his injury. So, I think, we can assume, he would not have made it, as the missiles approach the island very fast, he is bleeding out (his shirt gets blood-soaked,m we can see that, when he stand atop the bunker), and due to the nanobots he would never be able to come near Madeleine and Mathilde without killing them. So, this seems to add up, and I assume, he might not have made it anyway, as he has nothing, that could help him to leave the island.

    The "stealthy bird" is still there. He can't achieve flight with it from the sea, but it can be used as a submersible/boat. I assume that was his plan.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,256
    The "stealthy bird" is still there. He can't achieve flight with it from the sea, but it can be used as a submersible/boat. I assume that was his plan.

    Probably. But the heavy injuries and the poisoning made this impossible. If Safin had not re-closed the blast doors, plus the injury made this obsolete, as time was running out with the missiles approaching the island very fast.
  • Draco20Draco20 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 18
    @NickTwentyTwo

    I agree with you bro. After the shock of the ending passes, some of the haters will appreciate this film. Just like OHMSS was not well received in 1969 but by the Nineties hard core fans came to appreciate it. In the Mi6 survey of ranking the films for the 50th anniversary in 2012 prior to SF release, OHMSS came in a strong Fourth.

    And I have to say that Craig went out with a bang (no pun) in his final outting. Most Bond Actors final films (save for LTK) stunk.

    I loved Swan since seeing her in that green dress in SPECTRE and she just looks so good in her clothes in both of her Bond films. Malik is a good villain, good to see Q, Moneypenny, and Fiennes as M as well as the final turn for Jeffrey Wright's Leiter. I give the film two thumbs up and eventually the haters will come around.




  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 660
    The "stealthy bird" is still there. He can't achieve flight with it from the sea, but it can be used as a submersible/boat. I assume that was his plan.

    Probably. But the heavy injuries and the poisoning made this impossible. If Safin had not re-closed the blast doors, plus the injury made this obsolete, as time was running out with the missiles approaching the island very fast.

    Yes, there are less than five minutes before impact when Q resumes contact with Bond, after Bond has killed Safin and proceeds literally to hobble back to the control room to reopen the blast doors, bleeding all the way. (Actually, 4:44, we can see it clearly indicated on Q's monitor when the camera cuts back to him.)

    As Bond converses with Q and then Madeleine, the camera continues to chart the progressive breakdown of Bond's body, as he next barely manages (whether through resignation, physical incapacity, or likely some combination of the two) to climb the ladder leading to the roof of the control room. Once he reaches the roof, he pauses again to speak to Madeleine, and then badly falls to his hands and knees as he tries to stand up, with absolute agony registered on his face.

    With about 90 seconds left before impact (by my rough estimate) there is a reverse shot from behind Bond in which we can clearly see, from his perspective, just how far away the water is - and it's far. In the same shot we can also see at least one of the two gunshot wounds to his back.

    Even with all the will in the world, he's not getting off that island ....
Sign In or Register to comment.