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

1217218220222223298

Comments

  • Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited December 2021 Posts: 682
    Bond kills Blofeld, escapes injured, loses his memory and spends the last part of the film tragically with amnesia, living as a Japanese fisherman and hooks up with some female. Then one day he sets sail off to Russia, as he believes he has connections there.

    Bond losing his memory would result in people accusing the producers of copying Bourne again, even though YOLT was written well before the first Bourne book. I think Bond faking his death and choosing to spend the rest of his days living as an anonymous fisherman on a remote island somewhere would have been a great ending for Craig. It would basically be a follow-through on his aborted retirement in Skyfall, where he gets to "stay dead" and make a clean exit from the 00 life.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Jesus I just hope you don’t write movies for a living. I’m joking, you don’t even watch movies.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,536
    Also, as Heracles is presented in the film, even if Bond did make the choice as outlined by @slide_99, it would still pass from person to person (or through other means like our friend the mosquito), to eventually find and kill Madeleine and Mathilde.
  • Posts: 555
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I wonder if people would be more accepting of the Craig continuity and the ultimate ending, if it had been over 10-12 years instead of 15 years.

    My own personal frustration with NTTD was it took 6 years to carry on a frustrating story with underwhelming characters and arcs. I really wanted to leave the era feeling elated like Casino or Skyfall. Maybe others felt the same?

    For me, the film I was looking for was a tight book adaptation of YOLT. Blofeld escapes, and camps out on his Japanese island, surrounded by his garden of death. Bond and Madeline are no longer an item, so no personal baggage, and no child in tow. Bond is on a mission to find and kill Blofeld, and is sent in to the castle of death ALONE (with no female 007 tag team).

    Bond kills Blofeld, escapes injured, loses his memory and spends the last part of the film tragically with amnesia, living as a Japanese fisherman and hooks up with some female. Then one day he sets sail off to Russia, as he believes he has connections there.

    This would have ended the Craig era perfectly - Fleming adapted birth of the character in CR, and a Fleming adapted ending with YOLT. Tragic, downbeat ending, but Bond is still alive, and a perfect way to kick-start the next actor at the beginning of TMWTGG.

    This would have been far more satisfying to most audiences, It would still provide the shock elements, the soap opera drama, a different angle and new take on the character, the tragic ending, but would also satisfy the Fleming purists too, and there would be far less questions asked of the franchise and where it goes next, instead of the confused muddle and pissed off fanbase that we got instead, particularly with the mocking `James Bond will return' straight after seeing him stupidly killed off.

    Time for me has not healed. If anything I'm more pissed off now about NTTD, and the poor choices the production team made instead of adapting far superior material from Fleming.

    It's actually pretty much unforgivable what they have done, and almost on a parallel to the shitshow that was DAD, but in a different way.

    > This would have been far more satisfying to most audiences

    Based on audience scores, box office returns, and critic reviews — I think people were fairly satisfied with the ending!

    This is an anecdote but several of my friends who I convinced to see the movie (who don't like Bond) absolutely loved this one. That's a good thing!
  • Posts: 12,439
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 682
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.
  • Posts: 555
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,536
    Not everyone is a fan of Christopher Nolan, I understand, but he's always said he knows exactly how all his films will end; it's the first thing he comes up with.

    I think there are some writers who take a more organic approach to their endings; maybe they're more focused on characters, and like to see where the story goes naturally.

    There are a few ways I suppose, but writing the movie to come to a specific conclusion is not a bad thing.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,156
    Controversial opinion: Just because something is from Fleming doesn’t make it automatically great.

    The idea of having an adaptation of YOLT sounds like a piss poor idea for someone’s last film. As a penultimate film I think it might have worked, but NOT as the final film. Watching Craig as an amnesiac Japanese fisherman might have pleased some Fleming purists but would have absolutely perplexed audiences on why the hell filmmakers would even end Craig’s run that way.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited December 2021 Posts: 682
    BMB007 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

    "I'll take alternate endings to famous books and movies for 400, Alex."
    https://www.goodreads.com/blog/show/941-6-famous-books-that-almost-ended-very-differently
    And that's not including book-to-movie adaptations or movies that have alternate endings. Ever see the original ending of Layer Cake?
    But all that's beside the point, anyway, as everyone went into NTTD giving it the ending it has and Craig was apparently adamant that it absolutely not end any other way.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,536
    I'd love a source regarding that claim about Craig and his demands for the ending.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,156
    I'd love a source regarding that claim about Craig and his demands for the ending.

    @matt_u posted excerpts from the making of NTTD book. Craig had already came up with the idea of his Bond dying at the end of his run way back in 2005 when he was cast. It was considered for SP at a very early stage but they decided not to.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,536
    Fair enough, thanks @MakeshiftPython. Personally I'd say "came up with the idea of his Bond dying" is a lot different than "was adamant that it absolutely not end any other way". @slide_99, still, any evidence of this would be great.
  • Posts: 555
    I'd love a source regarding that claim about Craig and his demands for the ending.

    @matt_u posted excerpts from the making of NTTD book. Craig had already came up with the idea of his Bond dying at the end of his run way back in 2005 when he was cast. It was considered for SP at a very early stage but they decided not to.

    Which makes sense — the CraigBond films have framed him as a mythic figure/world redeemer, so they have to give him the mythological ending: death that transforms the world ("Everything's good now. There's no one left to hurt us.") with a transcendent rebirth out of the cycle (the stuff with Mathilde's eyes, eyes=soul, the ending shot of three light going through the tunnel into Matera/heaven).

    I didn't think they'd go so hard into the mythological stuff, but they did it even bigger than "Spectre"! Impressive.

  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 94
    BMB007 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

    Stephen King does the exact opposite, the ending is the last thing he writes (he said that in his On Writing book). And, in my opinion, he's a much better writer than Christopher Nolan.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 555
    BMB007 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

    Stephen King does the exact opposite, the ending is the last thing he writes (he said that in his On Writing book). And, in my opinion, he's a much better writer than Christopher Nolan.

    I never said "you write the ending first" — I said you write to the ending. Definitionally that's how writing anything works. You resolve it based on what has come before. The original poster alluded to a fault of NTTD being that the movie was "molded...to come to the specific conclusion they wanted."

    Of course it did!

    Think about how music flows — the ending bit comes from what came before. You don't introduce something new right in the last beats, that's jarring! Or, if you do, that contrast is in itself a statement — which can only come about threw the different beginning, or molded by what came before. Because stories function as a circle. Most of the time, it rounds back to the start. And if it doesn't — if the circle is broken — that act only works because of it being molded to that point.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,575
    BMB007 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

    Stephen King does the exact opposite, the ending is the last thing he writes (he said that in his On Writing book). And, in my opinion, he's a much better writer than Christopher Nolan.

    Completely different mediums.

    In screenwriting, the ending is very much ironed out early on, because the writers usually work in a three-act structure. If writers don't know the third act and the ending, then the script is in trouble. SP is a perfect example.
  • TripAces wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

    Stephen King does the exact opposite, the ending is the last thing he writes (he said that in his On Writing book). And, in my opinion, he's a much better writer than Christopher Nolan.

    Completely different mediums.

    In screenwriting, the ending is very much ironed out early on, because the writers usually work in a three-act structure. If writers don't know the third act and the ending, then the script is in trouble. SP is a perfect example.

    They may not have known anything else, but they knew it had to end on Westminster Bridge. ;)
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 3,327
    BMB007 wrote: »

    Based on audience scores, box office returns, and critic reviews — I think people were fairly satisfied with the ending!

    This is an anecdote but several of my friends who I convinced to see the movie (who don't like Bond) absolutely loved this one. That's a good thing!

    I keep hearing this same comment over and over again, yet this bears no reality to my circle of friends. No one I know really loves this movie. The most positive comment from one of my friends (who is a big fan) is that he thought it was ok, but didn't like the ending. I don't know anyone who loves the ending, or even likes the ending.

    Start checking out the dedicated established Bond fans on YouTube (Calvin, Zaritsky, etc.) and its the same pattern there too.

    Maybe there are people out there who are not Bond fans that love this film. I know there are many on here that love the film, but usually by now with my circle I would have started to get a feel for what audiences think about a film. CR and SF was generally well praised in my circle - QoS and SP not so much.

    With NTTD, this is faring far worse. I'm putting the overwhelming praise on here down to it being a new film. I've seen this happen with every Bond film on this forum, and eventually the opinions can change over time, once the dust has settled. I'm hazarding a guess this will start to happen with NTTD too.

    The critics - well I don't listen to them anymore, after The Last Jedi. That was the first time I saw overwhelming praise for a film that bears no reality to the film itself, and I'm afraid NTTD is falling into the same camp.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?
  • Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T.
    Posts: 7,016
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))
  • mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    Precisely! :D
  • Posts: 3,327
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    Precisely! :D

    I'm lost. You mean I've got the wrong person?
  • Posts: 207
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    I always get these two confused unless I look hard at the name :))
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 12,837
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    The Bond movies have never been about James Bond's emotions. The tone of the series has changed. Which works for some, but not all.

    This is a very general statement that is categorically untrue of either the films nor the novels.

    I was only talking about the films.

    I didn't say Bond's emotions weren't included in the movies, obviously they were. But they never drove the plot in the way they have in the Craig era. You could almost call NTTD an 'action romance'.
    That's what I meant when I said the movies were never about James Bond's emotions.

    OHMSS, LTK are entirely driven by Bond's feelings. GE, TND, TWINE, DAD all do it. Hell, TLD too. Like, regardless of opinions on whether this is good or not — it's an actual lie to say the films were "never about James Bond's emotions" before the Craig films.

    Bond doesn’t retire in GE,TND,TWINE,DAD,or TLD.There’s nothing wrong with Bond having feelings cos he’s not a robot.Craig’s Bond was nearly always giving up,and got didn’t learn from the hard lesson he got at the climax of CR - that a person like him could never have a normal life and settle down.

    The Bonds of previous eras do get affected by their emotions ( Connerys over the death of Jill Masterson,Dalton over the attack on Felix ) but they don’t pack it in and the movies never lost sight of the mission at hand.The Craig era was all melodrama.

    Bond gets revenge on Blofeld at the start of DAF ( or so he thinks) and then it’s back to work.

    DAF is widely regarded as one of the great missed opportunities of the series for that reason though. And while Bond not being able to have a normal life is a running theme of the Craig era, I don’t see how was he supposed to take that away from the end of CR? Vesper betrayed him. For all he knows, they could’ve lived happily ever after if it wasn’t for that.

    Personally, I don’t think that theme would’ve resonated at all if they hadn’t actually explored it, and I don’t think it’s fair to describe that character development as “he keeps giving up”. He plans to get out while he still has a soul, but Vesper betrays him. M ordering Moneypenny to take the shot highlights to him how disposable he really is, and that sends him into a crisis, but his sense of duty won’t let him stay dead, and M helps him to see the big picture with her sacrifice. So, he’s back, and he doesn’t want a desk job. He knows this is it for him, and that he’ll die doing this, but then he’s reminded of Vesper. Of the man he used to be. And he meets Madeline, a woman just as damaged as he is. Someone who understands. Someone who can help him escape without that being unfair, because she’s got her own baggage. But then she betrays him, or so he thinks. Just as Vesper did. So, this breaks him, and he resigns himself to an utterly empty existence, until he sees the opportunity to get out of it when Felix comes along. He’s got his reason to live/die (his duty) back, but then this is all thrown up in the air when he reunites with Madeline, and finds out about Mathilde. Something else to live for, finally? But instead he realises he’s too far gone when he’s poisoned, and sacrifices himself to give his daughter the chance he never had.

    All those instances of him quitting were very different to each other (with the exception of the intentional parallels between Vesper/Madeline), and I thought all that built perfectly to him learning that lesson in a very natural and fittingly tragic way. And with that in mind, I don’t think it’s fair to say Craig’s Bond was a man who kept giving up. Because even if we do look at it in that quite reductive way (quitting is just giving up, what a coward) he could never actually do it. If anything, he was a man who kept trying to “give up” (aka save himself from a short life of remorseless killing, keep a shred of humanity and get out alive) but his sense of duty just wouldn’t let him. Surely seeing Bond sacrifice so many chances to get out, eventually leading up to a death he knew was inevitable, just reaffirms his sense of duty, and shows how loyal and devoted to keeping the peace he really was?

    I also don’t really understand the Bond fan definition of melodrama. I associate that word with Eastenders style hysterics, but apparently it means any kind of plot or character development that stops Bond from shooting and punching things, no matter how temporarily that is.

    @thelivingroyale, I tend to agree with you more often than not, but this is something I think you have nailed 100%. For me, your description of Craig's Bond, his personal journey and the emotions and reasons behind it, are exactly what I have felt but not articulated so clearly. Thank you for this. Including the questioning of "melodrama" usage, which to me is used too quickly and flippantly on this forum (not just for Craig's movies). It seems to be applied for any more serious scene that has personal emotions from Bond.

    I think there is a portion of Bond fans who simply who do not really want the older formula for Bond movies to change much; at all. Harkening back to Moore's era. Even among those who liked Casino Royale, I feel sure that a certain percentage truly wanted only single missions after that one, with extravagant villains and more humor.

    I have always wanted the series to grow, change with the times, yet remain very Bondian. We just have our own opinion, of course - based on our own memories, favorite films, what we individually get out of Bond movies.

    So yes, I enjoyed Craig's era being different, and I look forward to the next set of Bond movies. I never wanted things to stay the same all the time. I nearly gave up, felt the series may have nowhere to go, after TMWTGG; one of my least enjoyed films then as I left the cinema muttering, and one I still do not enjoy much at all. (I know plenty of folks here really like the movie.) I respect that it is a different journey of enjoyment for each Bond fan. But I'm quite happy. With Sean setting the template (and how I love FRWL), Moore (who saved the series by being mostly himself and not trying to imitate Sean; refreshing); and Dalton through Craig, with only two of Brosnan's being really disappointing for me. Each Bond fan has their own gut feeling of what is "Bondian" or not, and we simply don't all think or feel alike; I personally don't mind that. I chime in with my opinion at times, sure, but never think spending time trying to convince others to change their mind is a good use of time.

    Likewise Jackie, and I think you’re right, our mileage varies on what we see as Bond or not. I came out of QoS feeling much like you did after TMWTGG, and if they’d carried on in that direction, then I wouldn’t have enjoyed it very much. But that’s since become a really popular film on this forum, I know a lot of members think it’s very underrated. So, I’ve got more and more relaxed about deviations from the formula as I’ve gotten older. Sometimes it works for me, sometimes it doesn’t, but not every Bond film has to work for everyone. Variety is what’s kept the series going.
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    The Bond movies have never been about James Bond's emotions. The tone of the series has changed. Which works for some, but not all.

    This is a very general statement that is categorically untrue of either the films nor the novels.

    I was only talking about the films.

    I didn't say Bond's emotions weren't included in the movies, obviously they were. But they never drove the plot in the way they have in the Craig era. You could almost call NTTD an 'action romance'.
    That's what I meant when I said the movies were never about James Bond's emotions.

    OHMSS, LTK are entirely driven by Bond's feelings. GE, TND, TWINE, DAD all do it. Hell, TLD too. Like, regardless of opinions on whether this is good or not — it's an actual lie to say the films were "never about James Bond's emotions" before the Craig films.

    Bond doesn’t retire in GE,TND,TWINE,DAD,or TLD.There’s nothing wrong with Bond having feelings cos he’s not a robot.Craig’s Bond was nearly always giving up,and got didn’t learn from the hard lesson he got at the climax of CR - that a person like him could never have a normal life and settle down.

    The Bonds of previous eras do get affected by their emotions ( Connerys over the death of Jill Masterson,Dalton over the attack on Felix ) but they don’t pack it in and the movies never lost sight of the mission at hand.The Craig era was all melodrama.

    Bond gets revenge on Blofeld at the start of DAF ( or so he thinks) and then it’s back to work.

    DAF is widely regarded as one of the great missed opportunities of the series for that reason though. And while Bond not being able to have a normal life is a running theme of the Craig era, I don’t see how was he supposed to take that away from the end of CR? Vesper betrayed him. For all he knows, they could’ve lived happily ever after if it wasn’t for that.

    Personally, I don’t think that theme would’ve resonated at all if they hadn’t actually explored it, and I don’t think it’s fair to describe that character development as “he keeps giving up”. He plans to get out while he still has a soul, but Vesper betrays him. M ordering Moneypenny to take the shot highlights to him how disposable he really is, and that sends him into a crisis, but his sense of duty won’t let him stay dead, and M helps him to see the big picture with her sacrifice. So, he’s back, and he doesn’t want a desk job. He knows this is it for him, and that he’ll die doing this, but then he’s reminded of Vesper. Of the man he used to be. And he meets Madeline, a woman just as damaged as he is. Someone who understands. Someone who can help him escape without that being unfair, because she’s got her own baggage. But then she betrays him, or so he thinks. Just as Vesper did. So, this breaks him, and he resigns himself to an utterly empty existence, until he sees the opportunity to get out of it when Felix comes along. He’s got his reason to live/die (his duty) back, but then this is all thrown up in the air when he reunites with Madeline, and finds out about Mathilde. Something else to live for, finally? But instead he realises he’s too far gone when he’s poisoned, and sacrifices himself to give his daughter the chance he never had.

    All those instances of him quitting were very different to eachother (with the exception of the intentional parallels between Vesper/Madeline), and I thought all that built perfectly to him learning that lesson in a very natural and fittingly tragic way. And with that in mind, I don’t think it’s fair to say Craig’s Bond was a man who kept giving up. Because even if we do look at it in that quite reductive way (quitting is just giving up, what a coward) he could never actually do it. If anything, he was a man who kept trying to “give up” (aka save himself from a short life of remorseless killing, keep a shred of humanity and get out alive) but his sense of duty just wouldn’t let him. Surely seeing Bond sacrifice so many chances to get out, eventually leading up to a death he knew was inevitable, just reaffirms his sense of duty, and shows how loyal and devoted to keeping the peace he really was?

    I also don’t really understand the Bond fan definition of melodrama. I associate that word with Eastenders style hysterics, but apparently it means any kind of plot or character development that stops Bond from shooting and punching things, no matter how temporarily that is.

    Wonderful, couldn’t have said it better myself.

    +100. I'll add that this, quoted from @thelivingroyale:

    ...Something else to live for, finally? But instead he realises he’s too far gone when he’s poisoned, and sacrifices himself...

    Is all the more poignant when you realise that Heracles and the missiles were created by and fired by, respectively, Britain. Very symbolic when you take into account everything else in @thelivingroyale's great post.

    Very good catch, I hadn’t thought of that. I think the missile coming from a Royal Navy warship makes it especially poingant too, Bond arguably set himself on that path the moment he enlisted.
    Controversial opinion: Just because something is from Fleming doesn’t make it automatically great.

    The idea of having an adaptation of YOLT sounds like a piss poor idea for someone’s last film. As a penultimate film I think it might have worked, but NOT as the final film. Watching Craig as an amnesiac Japanese fisherman might have pleased some Fleming purists but would have absolutely perplexed audiences on why the hell filmmakers would even end Craig’s run that way.

    I think YOLT could work as a final film, but I’m not sure if it would’ve worked as a final Craig film, because of the Russians. Even if we ignore how unlikely it is that they’ll ever use another country as outright villains again, would it have held the same
    weight as it does in the book? I think Bond obliviously heading to Vladivostok at the end of YOLT would’ve worked as an ambiguous and tragic end to the series, because SMERSH were his oldest enemies. But it wouldn’t have held the same significance for Craig. He was the gritty post 9/11 Bond. Terrorism and the surveillance state lurked in the background of his films, in the same way the Russians did in the early films.

    I dunno. Maybe it could’ve worked, if they’d worked the FSB into the plot somehow, but I’m glad it didn’t happen anyway. I’m not sure I’d have enjoyed waiting six years to see Madeline get killed in an OHMSS retread followed by a round two with Blofeld. I’m glad they did something different.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 1,068
    The YOLT novel ending works because of the set-up from OHMSS. When Bond realises Shatterhand is Blofeld, it becomes personal. I don't think the ending would have had the same weight done with Craig. Certainly not the killing of Blofeld.
    A straight remake would have worked in 1971 with Lazenby.

    Someone said on here that one of the biggest miss-steps in the movie series was making YOLT before OHMSS. And it's right if you think about it.

  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 94
    BMB007 wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

    Stephen King does the exact opposite, the ending is the last thing he writes (he said that in his On Writing book). And, in my opinion, he's a much better writer than Christopher Nolan.

    I never said "you write the ending first" — I said you write to the ending. Definitionally that's how writing anything works. You resolve it based on what has come before. The original poster alluded to a fault of NTTD being that the movie was "molded...to come to the specific conclusion they wanted."

    You're arguing about semantics, but the point still stands. King doesn't decide the ending either. He doesn't know how the story will end until he actually gets there. That's what he means.

    As @TripAces said they're different mediums and I'll concede that he has a good point, though I still disagree with Nolan's approach and I prefer King's, whether it's a book or a movie script.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited December 2021 Posts: 9,406
    @NoTimeToLive ... In screenwriting most professionals will tell you: once you have a concept/idea, figure out your ending before setting pen to paper, or fingers to keypad... This way, once you start writing, no matter how far off the path you go, you can always get back ontrack since you know where you will have to end up.
Sign In or Register to comment.