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

1176177179181182298

Comments

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    You can still be suave & sophisticated with rugged looks. How is Craig any less suave & sophisticated than Brosnan’s Bond? The man’s style is impeccable.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357
    Minion wrote: »
    @Seve, only you could take a movie in which the love interest dies and the hero ostensibly loses and call it a "happy" ending just because Bond shoots a guy in the leg and stands over him.

    "Positive" was the word I used, not "Happy"
    Minion wrote: »
    A guy who by the way, in case you've forgotten, promptly escapes and nearly allows for Bond and M to be killed at the start of the next movie. =))

    Something we are unaware of as we are watching CR for the first time, and therefore irrelevant to how we would be feeling in that moment
    Minion wrote: »
    Yes, I would argue CR absolutely has a bittersweet ending. You'd have to be blind to think otherwise. But, I guess it's not worth fussing over unless the boys are the ones dying, huh?

    Now you seem to be accusing me of being a misogynist on the basis of ...?

    Rene Mathis dies in QoS, which still has a "positive" ending for me, is that ok with you, or does that make me a Francophobe?

  • Posts: 7,506
    Feyador wrote: »
    Well, Craig-Bond did say something about "resurrection" being his hobby just two films earlier, haha ... and yes, there are many (less clunky) Christ-story elements & parallels running throughout the Craig films.

    I do think Matera has been used as a setting for TV & films set in the ancient period. Wasn't "Passion of the Christ" filmed there?


    What I know for sure is that Pietro Pasolini's "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew" was set in Matera.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357

    On a slightly separate point I have been re watching Silent Witness recently and what strikes me forcibly about the entire Bond thing is it is now operating in the knowledge that their are audiences that have been swept along by iconic characters for years building up investment in much more profound three dimensional way than ever before (24 also springs to mind).

    Yes and no.

    I think there have always been series where characters made a "character development" journey, but the difference is that in the past they did not happen in the particular genre we are discussing here, being more the province of pure "drama" series, rather than in the "action / thriller / suspense" genre.

    Callan might be an exception?

    R.9be463f3ee3a0c247113e73bbc9bd8c5?rik=ApLC350xRZsUEw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fstatic.guim.co.uk%2fsys-images%2fGuardian%2fPix%2fpictures%2f2013%2f9%2f5%2f1378381121470%2fEdward-Woodward-as-Callan-011.jpg&ehk=6yCLJrXqCKXzp%2fwZ1LC12x43wf%2fxSfGcJLkiZfOI7tE%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

    Going back to one of escapades where its all jolly good fun at the end, rinse and repeat would be out of step from what audiences want these days.

    And yet all that "investment" is lost now that Bond has been killed off

    The next Bond will not be informed by those experiences or able to build on them further

    So he will end up having to learn the same life lessons all over again, "rinse and repeat"?
  • mattjoesmattjoes At my most trollish behavior
    edited November 2021 Posts: 6,878
    This might be peak internet-fandom. Well done, everyone.

    Especially @DarthDimi. That last post is a very insightful look into how places like this can function.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    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.

    I think what helps make it all so moving is the knowledge, acceptance & consolation, especially, that if he is not going to survive - it is for the best given the implications of having been poisoned with the nanobots targeted for Madeleine & Mathilde.

    So it's not that he chooses to die, only that he embraces his imminent death in the knowledge of the above.

    Ultimately I think I agree with what you say. Bond didn't choose to stay when he could have escaped, or had a reasonable chance of escaping. He was going to die because his wounds would have slowed down his escape, or would have ended up killing him (as mentioned before, he drops to the floor in agony at one point). And knowing his survival would have endangered his family, he accepted his imminent death without any doubts or regrets, content in having saved them and having served a purpose in life.

    The scene could have played out in a different way: Bond gets poisoned but isn't shot, and then refuses to leave the island. Then, the message would have been absolutely clear: he chose death. Certainly, they didn't go in that direction because audiences wouldn't have liked to see Bond "quitting." It would have left the door open for audiences to question why Bond --despite Q's exposition that nanobots are "forever"-- didn't at least make an effort to carry on living and try to find a solution to his poisoning.

    Alternatively, Bond could have been shot, but not poisoned, and died from his wounds. But perhaps they didn't go with this option, because that would have meant Bond "failed", so to speak. The bad guy finally got him.

    So what does having both the wounds and the poisoning add to the scene? I suppose it's an attempt to give us the best of both worlds. The wounds suggest Bond didn't just give up on life and chose to stay when poisoned; he actually succumbed to them. And the poisoning suggests he didn't "fail" and succumb to those wounds; he actually came to accept he had to die for the sake of his family. And what does all of this mean? That Bond didn't give up, and he didn't fail. It's a middle ground. Does that make sense? I can feel smoke coming out of my brain.

    Of course, all of the above is an attempt to look at the ending from a functional point of view, trying to get into the mindset of the people who put the story together, and understand what they wanted to achieve when they made those choices.

    I still wonder if, in a way, this discussion betrays a lack of narrative clarity from the film, and if that lack of clarity is a negative. Whatever the case, it's clear to me is that the filmmakers must have talked the hell out of this ending.

    Edit: They could have also done this, which I believe was suggested in this thread before. Bond comes to the conclusion that someone needs to stay on the island and do something to hold the doors open for the missiles. So he stays and gets blown up. No wounds, no poisoning. It could have worked: Bond didn't quit, and didn't fail.

    I think you are spot-on there. Discussing this decision in such depth starts to make the seams appear more clearly and the more I think about it, the clearer I can see the writers and producers sitting around a table proposing and dismissing different scenarios.
    "He is shot to death by Safin!" "No, he can't lose to a villain."
    "He is poisoned with the nanobots!" "Same thing."
    "He is poisoned with nanobots targeted at M&M and decides to die!" "That's too defeatist and what if Q found a cure for them?" "We'll have Q say there is no possibility for a cure at all!"
    "So, he is shot and infected and we'll leave it vague which is worse, but how does he die then?"
    "How about a Royal Navy bombardment right on top of his head?" "Why would that happen?"
    "Well he calls it up to destroy the island?" "Why would he do that?"
    "I guess people are coming? I don't know, but this meeting is over now. We have some terrible hoodies to sell."

    This makes it sound pretty bad, but to me it's really well done. While seeing the film, I never felt like it was written by committee or something. It just pulled me along.
    It's interesting to approach a script like this. Reverse engineering it. After all the analysis, I too have to say the ending did work for me on my three viewings. Of course, I look forward to watching it again in the future and seeing how it holds up.

    Feyador wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    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.

    I think what helps make it all so moving is the knowledge, acceptance & consolation, especially, that if he is not going to survive - it is for the best given the implications of having been poisoned with the nanobots targeted for Madeleine & Mathilde.

    So it's not that he chooses to die, only that he embraces his imminent death in the knowledge of the above.

    Ultimately I think I agree with what you say. Bond didn't choose to stay when he could have escaped, or had a reasonable chance of escaping. He was going to die because his wounds would have slowed down his escape, or would have ended up killing him (as mentioned before, he drops to the floor in agony at one point). And knowing his survival would have endangered his family, he accepted his imminent death without any doubts or regrets, content in having saved them and having served a purpose in life.

    The scene could have played out in a different way: Bond gets poisoned but isn't shot, and then refuses to leave the island. Then, the message would have been absolutely clear: he chose death. Certainly, they didn't go in that direction because audiences wouldn't have liked to see Bond "quitting." It would have left the door open for audiences to question why Bond --despite Q's exposition that nanobots are "forever"-- didn't at least make an effort to carry on living and try to find a solution to his poisoning.

    Alternatively, Bond could have been shot, but not poisoned, and died from his wounds. But perhaps they didn't go with this option, because that would have meant Bond "failed", so to speak. The bad guy finally got him.

    So what does having both the wounds and the poisoning add to the scene? I suppose it's an attempt to give us the best of both worlds. The wounds suggest Bond didn't just give up on life and chose to stay when poisoned; he actually succumbed to them. And the poisoning suggests he didn't "fail" and succumb to those wounds; he actually came to accept he had to die for the sake of his family. And what does all of this mean? That Bond didn't give up, and he didn't fail. It's a middle ground. Does that make sense? I can feel smoke coming out of my brain.

    Of course, all of the above is an attempt to look at the ending from a functional point of view, trying to get into the mindset of the people who put the story together, and understand what they wanted to achieve when they made those choices.

    I still wonder if, in a way, this discussion betrays a lack of narrative clarity from the film, and if that lack of clarity is a negative. Whatever the case, it's clear to me is that the filmmakers must have talked the hell out of this ending.

    Edit: They could have also done this, which I believe was suggested in this thread before. Bond comes to the conclusion that someone needs to stay on the island and do something to hold the doors open for the missiles. So he stays and gets blown up. No wounds, no poisoning. It could have worked: Bond didn't quit, and didn't fail.

    I keep hearing people say that Bond "gave up" at the end of NTTD. I heard it again repeated on a dedicated (but largely anti-Craig) James Bond podcast yesterday. But that is so clearly not the case I had to "give up" listening to it. One of the participants even acknowledged that while Bond had been shot "five or six times," in his words, Bond somehow still "gave up." I mean, what!?

    It's not even a question of interpretation because as I've outlined in an earlier post with specific detailed reference to the events & time frame of the conclusion, that's just not what happens. And when people get the chance to look at the last ten minutes of NTTD more closely, I think they will come to see that this supposed "giving up" is just not the case.

    Hmmm, you know ... I think I'm happy with the ending as it exists. And in the unlikely event that they never make another James Bond movie ever again, I would be content with this as closure for the entire series.

    I never fail to be moved by the conclusion of NTTD, especially after several screenings now. It has a lot of feeling and provides plenty to think about. And yet, it hardly matters how he died, why he died, or who he died for--it's enough for me that he died rescuing his family and helping to save the world "one last time." Yes, I know, while Craig-Bond may never have saved the world before, in presenting this particularly characteristic scenario it is connecting him to the earlier Bonds who have done so. And so the conclusion is not strictly about closure for the Craig era, as the film is also in a kind of dialogue throughout with the entire tradition of Bond films, which is why the OHMSS touches work for me.

    What did Moneypenny say once, "Same James, only different"? That's a line, or variation of it, that Madeleine might have used during their reconciliation in Norway.

    But as this is Craig-Bond, with all the relative degrees of "realism" that are present in his films, both psychological and otherwise, it is - I think - fitting that he does not survive his own storyline, which has largely been one of a tragic, deathward trajectory. And yet, I don't find that depressing in the least.

    Why? Because he died heroically ... rescuing his family & helping to "save the world," as it were.

    And Safin is right about one thing, "Life is all about what we leave behind." And so Mathilde functions both as a character in herself but also as the physical embodiment of Bond's legacy - just as our children may do for us.

    And for another, it ends with the Bond character literally passing into myth, like one of the heroes of the ancient world. Heracles, anyone? What does Madeleine say at the end, "I'm going to tell you a story." So in that sense, Bond very much does survive.
    Fine post, and I agree that the OHMSS touches work.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,165
    Which podcast? (so I know not to listen to it)
  • Posts: 526
    Did anyone feel that DC was channeling Pierce Brosnan’s Bond in NTTD? Reminded me of Brosnan through the entire film. In almost every scene.

    I think Craig was achieving in this performance some of what Brosnan wanted to with his films, but couldn't, mostly because of the writing but also partly because Brosnan, while a good actor, is significantly below Craig's calibre. That might be why they feel so similar to you.

    I think you nailed it for me. Yes. Thanks!

  • I think there have always been series where characters made a "character development" journey, but the difference is that in the past they did not happen in the particular genre we are discussing here, being more the province of pure "drama" series, rather than in the "action / thriller / suspense" genre.

    Callan might be an exception.
    The study of inner motivation and change is much more pronounced now what whatever the genre. Take a look at "Morse" and "Endeavour" supposedly the same character but the prequel has far more character exploration, elaboration and arc about it. Indeed in recent series Endeavour looks much more like Craig Bond with one underlying narrative the entire season.

    Trying to suggest 24 was drama not action/thriller/suspense is a bit of a stretch.
    And yet all that "investment" is lost now that Bond has been killed off

    The next Bond will not be informed by those experiences or able to build on them further

    So he will end up having to learn the same life lessons all over again, "rinse and repeat"?
    If you believe that Craig Bond should have lived thats fine but the logic that goes with that is you do not see any difficulty in picking up the thread of his journey and just running with it as the new guy and by extension not recognising that the new guy is faced with an entirely different challenge to Roger/Tim and Pierce. I obviously believe that for the new guy to wake up with a bang on his head and then dismiss 15 years does not work you may think differently.

    If there are more Bond movies there are many ways a new arc can be recalibrated with variety and avoid repetition. In fact Craig Bonds death has punched through a self imposed ceiling.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 49
    mrlynx wrote: »
    I took my wife to see NTTD last night and had an interesting discussion. She is not a Bond fan at all, or even really into blockbuster movies, but she is an art historian who knows the Bible back to front as an historical text.
    She said Bond's fate is all over the place with numerous references to the New Testament. Including:
    -Vesper's Tomb - a clear Lazarus reference. Lazarus came from the tomb shortly before the crucifixion.
    -Madeline/Mathilde's escape: mirrors Mary Magdalene (madeline, get it?) catching Jesus's blood (Mathilde) before he dies
    -Safin and Bond's final fight: fighting in the water, marking bond for death is equivalent to Pontius Pilate washing his hands - even Safin's line "you made me do this."

    there was alot of more, i was floored and love the film more now. Even Matera, she thought, intentionally looked more "biblical" than a traditional european town

    OHMSS mined the notion that Bond could never have a charmed domestic life and it is great drama to glance at Paradise but find death. The world is not enough.

    NTTD mined a much deeper route and introduced the concept of sacrifice for love. He wanted to avoid the technology going to the highest bidder which in a sense is routine Bond, the Bond of Thunderball or OHMSS but he had a very personal additional reason to sacrifice himself to save Madeleine and Mathilde from him; that is christ like. Because whether you believe in the guy its a cracking story, he brought love into the world by sacrificing himself.

    Lyutsifer coveted what James had and in James destroying his world rather than embracing it and seeing they were essentially the same he denied Safin.

    Satan made the offering was spurned and denied Bond and as he says you gave me no option. The fallen one is always essentially the victim in mythology the misunderstood one. But I saved Madeleine I only stole technology your boss initiated!! Echoes of Prometheus.

    What makes NTTD particularly interesting is it was filmed and completed before a Virus struck which only "targeted" the elderly and co morbid and rather than those people offer themselves in sacrifice for humanity's greater good we have sacrificed the well being and cognitive behaviour of millions of young and healthy people and at a technical level done a form of Goldfinger on them leaving a huge financial disconnect.

    Somehow, in the last, possibly twenty years, the idea of noble sacrifice has gone out of the window and people should crawl toward their death on their knees. Craig Bond at an artistic level re established the idea that we can leave our mark and conclude it with the ultimate sacrifice and die standing tall and in our prime and for the best of reasons, our future.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 735
    "Our future."

    Nice (OHMSS) touch there, thoughtfully expressed as always, and which perfectly fits with the ending of NTTD ... whether we see "our future" as a reference to Mathilde or, conversely, as "Your future" - as when Bond, in his farewell to Madeleine, says, "You ... have all the time in the world."

    But while Bond undoubtedly does sacrifice himself, it's as a result of having both rescued Madeleine & Mathilde and done his part in destroying the nanobot farm & factory. I don't think he makes a deliberate choice to sacrifice himself, or only insofar as the acceptance & pursuit of every mission implies a willingness to potentially give up his life in favour of a greater good. Certainly, in my view, the conclusion of the film does not distinctly show him making that choice. But is it indicated indirectly? At best only ambiguously so ... perhaps as he touches the abrasions on his cheek made by the smashed vial and realizes with horror the implications of what Safin has done.

    The conclusion of NTTD shows [not tells] us clearly that Bond, incapacitated by his wounds, has literally run out time to effectuate any kind of escape. Whether he would have done so not having been shot-up by Safin and faced with an oncoming missile strike is a question the film carefully avoids, in essence, removing the decision from Bond himself by presenting him with a countdown clock & debilitating injuries. In my view, all that he can do is take consolation in the survival of his family in the knowledge of his own imminent death.

    If he could have escaped would he have done so knowing that he was infected with nanobots targeted for Madeleine & Mathilde? The conclusion just does not address that matter directly. But of course we know the hypothetical answer in some form: he would not have acted selfishly and put his family at risk in order to protect himself. That's not Craig-Bond. Indeed, that's not any James Bond.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Feyador wrote: »
    But of course we know the hypothetical answer in some form: he would not have acted selfishly and put his family at risk in order to protect himself. That's not Craig-Bond. Indeed, that's not any James Bond.

    Actually, I was thinking about that a couple of days ago: I wholeheartedly believe that any of the six incarnations we've had of Bond would have gotten on that rooftop rather than jeopardize his family. In particular, I think if Brosnan had been offered a final film with an ending like this, he would have leapt at it.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Somehow, in the last, possibly twenty years, the idea of noble sacrifice has gone out of the window and people should crawl toward their death on their knees. Craig Bond at an artistic level re established the idea that we can leave our mark and conclude it with the ultimate sacrifice and die standing tall and in our prime and for the best of reasons, our future.
    I couldn’t have said it better myself.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,566
    A friend of mine and his girlfriend went to see NTTD on Friday, they're both casual viewers, they've seen most of the Craig's.
    I asked them what they thought and she said "NTTD wasn't interesting and wasn't sexy" and he said, the action felt out of place in this long winded rom com 😅

    While I disagree with most of that, I find it interesting that they mention it not being sexy, because I think it missed that and the glamorous lifestyle of Bond. It did feel almost like any playfulness/flirtation was gone.
    It felt like Paloma was added specifically because that component of the film was sorely lacking, without her I think this film would have been even more dour
  • Posts: 1,394
    Proof that the writers of NTTD played a LOT of Bond video games!

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357
    Trying to suggest 24 was drama not action/thriller/suspense is a bit of a stretch.

    Lol, I think we have a generation gap here, I was not suggesting 24 was a drama, as, for me, 24 is part of the modern era to which I thought you you were referring, not part of the past to which I was referring. I would have thought my mention of "Callan" might have been a clue to that?

    And yet all that "investment" is lost now that Bond has been killed off
    The next Bond will not be informed by those experiences or able to build on them further
    So he will end up having to learn the same life lessons all over again, "rinse and repeat"?
    If you believe that Craig Bond should have lived that's fine but the logic that goes with that is you do not see any difficulty in picking up the thread of his journey and just running with it as the new guy and by extension not recognising that the new guy is faced with an entirely different challenge to Roger/Tim and Pierce.

    I obviously believe that for the new guy to wake up with a bang on his head and then dismiss 15 years does not work you may think differently.

    "Could" have lived

    Yes, the logic of the revised "Bond Universe" established with the arrival of Daniel Craig, would be that the new guy would pick up where Craig-Bond left off, including all the emotional baggage. The challenge is essentially no different - can you fill the boots of the man before you?

    However In the current climate of "kill off a supporting character" every movie, that would probably spell doom for Madeleine and Matilde, ala Marie in "The Bourne Supremacy"...

    Yes, even if Craig-Bond had not died in NTTD, personally I would be quite happy for the new guy to just appear on a new mission in the PTS of Bond 26 and not mention anything about what happened in the previous movie, as Rog, Tim and Pierce did. No bang on the head required.

    If there are more Bond movies there are many ways a new arc can be recalibrated with variety and avoid repetition. In fact Craig Bonds death has punched through a self imposed ceiling.

    You think so?
    I've read many secret agent books, the existential questions raised by the profession are relatively limited and have already been covered many times, including by Craig-Bond.

    Try reading some "Matt Helm", there is really nothing Craig-Bond has done that has not been done before elsewhere, just not by James Bond (Which is not intended as a criticism, just a reality check).
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 735
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    A friend of mine and his girlfriend went to see NTTD on Friday, they're both casual viewers, they've seen most of the Craig's.
    I asked them what they thought and she said "NTTD wasn't interesting and wasn't sexy" and he said, the action felt out of place in this long winded rom com 😅

    While I disagree with most of that, I find it interesting that they mention it not being sexy, because I think it missed that and the glamorous lifestyle of Bond. It did feel almost like any playfulness/flirtation was gone.
    It felt like Paloma was added specifically because that component of the film was sorely lacking, without her I think this film would have been even more dour

    I don't want to say that NTTD is an "old man's film" [being close to one myself, lol], but maybe it is. It definitely has an autumnal feel about it, especially in relation to a James Bond who is actually playing his age for the most part [cf. Moore in the '80s].

    But is NTTD "not sexy," however beautifully shot? Yeah, I guess so, as we're a long way from a truly buff Craig here. And of course the only woman he sleeps with in the film is Madeleine and he even seems befuddled at first in his early encounters with Nomi and later Paloma, an episode that feels distinctly added to the film to "sex it up" at bit.

    It's not hard to imagine a largely if not entirely monogamous Bond in his retirement in Jamaica. [Those books on his table are definitely going to require a lot of free time to get through, though he does seem familiar with the club, haha.] Doesn't M later on refer to Bond as "living off the grid," or something like that? And while not having gone to the extremes of Mr. White in SP, he's not a million miles away from it. And it may even be imaginable that Craig-Bond would have gone to such lengths of isolation had he survived Poison Island, necessarily in order to protect Madeleine & Madeleine from himself. I can just about see a scenario where Craig-Bond remains on the island to live as a hermit, much like White in SP.  But then that surely would have been the greater tragedy.

    You know, I wonder if NTTD has greater appeal to older rather than younger Bond fans? I mean, a thematic concern with mortality, lol, is just not "sexy" ...
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    M does mention that Bond was "so far off the grid we had to assume you were dead" or something to that affect.

    I can only imagine the mosquito bit in the Toyota Rav4 or whatever it was was sort of a foreshadowing bit that even if Bond was in total isolation, even a single mosquito coming into contact with Bond would mean the end of Madeleine and Mathilde.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357
    JamesStock wrote: »
    I think one of the biggest issues with the Craig era is the loss of ambiguity. Before the Craig era, things like a timeline or Bond's past were done in a mostly suggestive and implicit manner, allowing the viewer the freedom to interpret the references how they wished. Sequence of events from outside a particular film was not central to the plot.

    Now take the Craig era, where very definitive situations occur in a specific sequence of events across the films that plays into each plot (except SF, to be fair). When I took my parents to NTTD, I had to explain what was going and it really detracted from their experience.

    And then on top of that, they go out of their way to go into territory that I feel otherwise would have been left to the viewer's imagination. Bond's childhood. Bond death. It's all explicit. We are reminded of Bond being an orphan several times and we now cant get away from the fact that Bond is bros with Blofeld. Bond is definitively made dead.

    The one thing thankfully they've mostly managed to keep in the world of ambiguity is politics. Thank God for that.

    I think this is a great post

    This is an interesting phenomenon which often occurs both in books and in movies

    Some stories, apart from also being entertaining, have a "higher" purpose, to communicate an idea or explore a particular concept, and the characters or environments created are only really there to serve the story, and are developed only as far as they need to be in order to achieve that objective.

    But then the readers become attached to the characters or want to know more about that environment, and the author is persuaded to write a sequel which may have no real purpose other than meeting that demand. The point they were trying to make has already been made, and in that way the continuation of the story is redundant.

    This is something I've only noticed as I've become older, when I was younger I used to just enjoy the characters / environments and didn't appreciate when the original reason for their existence was complete and the original "higher" purpose was no-longer present in the subsequent stories.

    Not that I think James Bond novels or films particularly fall into that category, to me Bond is intended purely for entertainment.

    Personally I don't need to know the details of Bond's background in order to enjoy the character, but it's in the nature of many people to want to fill in all the gaps and many people enjoy melodrama.

    To each his/her own
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,972
    Fukunaga said that he made the decision that Bond in Jamaica should be a solitary, isolated figure without any friends. I think that was the right way to go and true to CraigBond. 'I don't have any friends,' as he told Camille.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357
    mrlynx wrote: »
    I took my wife to see NTTD last night and had an interesting discussion. She is not a Bond fan at all, or even really into blockbuster movies, but she is an art historian who knows the Bible back to front as an historical text.
    She said Bond's fate is all over the place with numerous references to the New Testament. Including:
    -Vesper's Tomb - a clear Lazarus reference. Lazarus came from the tomb shortly before the crucifixion.
    -Madeline/Mathilde's escape: mirrors Mary Magdalene (madeline, get it?) catching Jesus's blood (Mathilde) before he dies
    -Safin and Bond's final fight: fighting in the water, marking bond for death is equivalent to Pontius Pilate washing his hands - even Safin's line "you made me do this."

    there was alot of more, i was floored and love the film more now. Even Matera, she thought, intentionally looked more "biblical" than a traditional european town

    Lol, this reminds me of an episode of Cheers I watched the other day, featuring an antique weight and fortune telling machine, where Carla managed to concoct an interpretation of every fortune to fit subsequent events.

    Fair enough, your wife is interpreting the movie through the filter of her own knowledge and experience, however that doesn't mean the makers of the movie made their choices based on the same sources.

    Personally I doubt they could afford to spend the time/money in order to achieve that level of detailed co-ordination between action and symbolism, nor do I believe they have such a deep commitment to religion that they would want to.
    ... What makes NTTD particularly interesting is it was filmed and completed before a Virus struck which only "targeted" the elderly and co morbid...

    ...and rather than those people offer themselves in sacrifice for humanity's greater good...

    ...we have sacrificed the well being and cognitive behaviour of millions of young and healthy people and at a technical level done a form of Goldfinger on them leaving a huge financial disconnect...

    Somehow, in the last, possibly twenty years, the idea of noble sacrifice has gone out of the window and people should crawl toward their death on their knees...

    ... Craig Bond at an artistic level re established the idea that we can leave our mark and conclude it with the ultimate sacrifice and die standing tall and in our prime and for the best of reasons, our future.

    Aye Caramba!

    Now that is brutal...

    4b16ad803c1a79dbdf82b36505770e16--real-hero-the-top.jpg

    So, so you think you can tell
    Heaven from hell?
    Blue skies from pain?
    Can you tell a green field
    From a cold steel rail?
    A smile from a veil?
    Do you think you can tell?

    Did they get you to trade
    Your heroes for ghosts?
    Hot ashes for trees?
    Hot air for a cool breeze?
    Cold comfort for change?
    Did you exchange
    A walk-on part in the war
    For a leading role in a cage?

    How I wish, how I wish you were here
    We're just two lost souls
    Swimming in a fish bowl
    Year after year
    Running over the same old ground
    What have we found?
    The same old fears
    Wish you were here
  • Yes, the logic of the revised "Bond Universe" established with the arrival of Daniel Craig, would be that the new guy would pick up where Craig-Bond left off, including all the emotional baggage. The challenge is essentially no different - can you fill the boots of the man before you?

    However In the current climate of "kill off a supporting character" every movie, that would probably spell doom for Madeleine and Matilde, ala Marie in "The Bourne Supremacy"...

    Yes, even if Craig-Bond had not died in NTTD, personally I would be quite happy for the new guy to just appear on a new mission in the PTS of Bond 26 and not mention anything about what happened in the previous movie, as Rog, Tim and Pierce did. No bang on the head required.

    In order to try and make your point rather than accept the reality of where we are you offer two options one that the story that has been told through CT to NTTD could have simply been foisted on the next actor or just ignored either proposition is ludicrous.
    Try reading some "Matt Helm", there is really nothing Craig-Bond has done that has not been done before elsewhere, just not by James Bond (Which is not intended as a criticism, just a reality check).

    Fair play you straw man your own straw man.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    Has @Seve seen NTTD?
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357
    In order to try and make your point rather than accept the reality of where we are you offer two options one that the story that has been told through CT to NTTD could have simply been foisted on the next actor or just ignored either proposition is ludicrous.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but sweeping statements don't make your argument

    Fair play you straw man your own straw man.

    If you're not familiar with Callan or Book Matt Helm there's no shame in admitting it

  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    My uncle has begged me to watch NTTD with him on Tuesday. I dread it, and I think he is going to have a rough time with the ending. He has NO idea. I want to say Goldfinger was his first Bond film in the theatre. Anyway, he is a huge fan of all things Bond. Maybe a second view will help my perspective. The first time all I could think about was the end. The question is: can I take that brutal ending again? We are also going to watch Spectre again before NTTD.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    My uncle has begged me to watch NTTD with him on Tuesday. I dread it, and I think he is going to have a rough time with the ending. He has NO idea. I want to say Goldfinger was his first Bond film in the theatre. Anyway, he is a huge fan of all things Bond. Maybe a second view will help my perspective. The first time all I could think about was the end. The question is: can I take that brutal ending again? We are also going to watch Spectre again before NTTD.

    Ah, you knew about the ending before seeing it the first time? I did as well, unfortunately, but still enjoyed the film.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    My uncle has begged me to watch NTTD with him on Tuesday. I dread it, and I think he is going to have a rough time with the ending. He has NO idea. I want to say Goldfinger was his first Bond film in the theatre. Anyway, he is a huge fan of all things Bond. Maybe a second view will help my perspective. The first time all I could think about was the end. The question is: can I take that brutal ending again? We are also going to watch Spectre again before NTTD.

    Ah, you knew about the ending before seeing it the first time? I did as well, unfortunately, but still enjoyed the film.

    @NickTwentyTwo Yes, I did. I was wanting to get some general impressions on the film, but that led to the full reveal. Ouch. It was a hard gut-punch. Didn’t blunt the hurt either. But I will give the movie this: I never left a theatre that emotional ...ever. Deaths of Spock and Kirk were close, but that was just so surreal. Even knowing, you think, “he’s gonna pull this out.” Illogical, but human : ) I remember being 7 and mom was telling me that Spock didn’t die, but I wasn’t buying it! Wow, what a rough outing. But that movie is near and dear to my heart. To this day.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    I mean, I’m not going to tell you how to feel emotionally afflicted by things… but it is just a movie. Are people seriously consoling family members traumatized by the experience? I find that awfully hard to believe.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    Just watch the damn film. Whatever you feel is how you feel. If your uncle loves or hates it, let him. Life is short.
  • mattjoesmattjoes At my most trollish behavior
    Posts: 6,878
    My uncle has begged me to watch NTTD with him on Tuesday. I dread it, and I think he is going to have a rough time with the ending. He has NO idea. I want to say Goldfinger was his first Bond film in the theatre. Anyway, he is a huge fan of all things Bond. Maybe a second view will help my perspective. The first time all I could think about was the end. The question is: can I take that brutal ending again? We are also going to watch Spectre again before NTTD.
    Tell us how your uncle liked the film, if you feel like it.
  • Posts: 526
    I definitely will. I’m. Not saying he will be traumatized, but I don’t think he will like it- that Bond dies. You guys have to realize that some people get really emotionally invested in characters and follow them passionately for a long time. They develop a bond with said character- I’m other words, attachment. I have no idea why it is so hard to grasp that.
Sign In or Register to comment.