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

15253555758298

Comments

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 303
    patb wrote: »
    The death works for a number of reasons:

    Bond is going to die anyway. He's been shot by Safin (I believe three times, right?). He's loosing too much blood and has to reopen the blast doors. He's simply run out of time. I really doubt he could get off the island with whatever time was available to him.
    If Bond was to leave the island, he would be Patient Zero for a new variant of Heracles. A variant which is particularly deadly to Madeleine and Mathilde. He knew he had to stay on the island to stop the contagion and save their lives.


    Neither of these things had to happen, it was the choice of the script writers.

    Bottom line is, what are the pros and cons of killing off the character ?

    Pros - closes the DC era, hugh emotional impact, huge talking point, fixes debate with universe/time line

    Cons - huge "downer", upsets some fans, reduces rewatch factor, villain wins again, effects future actors exits, erodes Bonds mythical status

    I'm sure there's more on both sides

    I can think of another major con.

    Disrespect/backlash from fans.

    The reasoning: You (the producers) killed off Bond thereby showing you have little or no regard for the intellectual property you claim to respect.

    This type of backlash happened with George Lucas after the Star Wars prequels and he never got enough Star War fans back on his side. He sold up to Disney.

    The producers expect fans to accept this "death" - get all emotional and regard it as a profound send off for Craig's Bond.. and then sheepishly turn up to Bond 26 as if the death meant very little.

    The producers, screenwriters and Craig believe they have the right to kill off James Bond. The history of the franchise, the history of Ian Fleming's work is irrelevant, inconsequential. Who cares about legacies? Just kill Bond because we can.

    All valid reasons not to respect Eon Productions and its screenwriters.
  • Posts: 81
    I’m relatively new on here so excuse the quibble and it’s not personal. How did this series of films come to be called a franchise? A franchise is, for example, McDonalds, where the owners of the IP rights license the right to open branches to third parties under detailed terms about the way in which the products are made and sold. BB and MGW are heirs to the series’ originator(s) and own the whole bang shoot. Sorry if this a forum canard.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    @Shardlake Great spot by your wife, I think that’s definitely intentional. Lots of nice little callbacks to Craig’s other films throughout this one (my favourite was his speech to Saffin about not being given a chance, nice callback to how SF dived into his backstory), that gave it a real sense of everything coming full circle, in a way SP’s contrived “all the villains work for Spectre” plot point failed to do. Looking forward to trying to spot more when I watch it again.
    muzz100 wrote: »
    I’m relatively new on here so excuse the quibble and it’s not personal. How did this series of films come to be called a franchise? A franchise is, for example, McDonalds, where the owners of the IP rights license the right to open branches to third parties under detailed terms about the way in which the products are made and sold. BB and MGW are heirs to the series’ originator(s) and own the whole bang shoot. Sorry if this a forum canard.

    I‘ve always assumed (could be wrong) that a franchise refers to a series so big it goes multi media. So, Bond is a franchise because there’s novels, films, video games, etc.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Seen it last night. Thought it was smashing. This is likely going to turn into a bit of a rambling essay as I compile my thoughts as I go along, but here it goes:

    Completely understand the disappointment from those who have seen it, who hold in their opinion what they think the ideal formula ought to be. My general and gentle counter argument to that would be that Daniel Craig's era has been inclined about breaking the formula. Be it "Bond begins", Bond bleeds, an attempt to emulate the Bourne style with QoS, killing off M, making Blofeld an adoptive brother, etc, etc. The ending, in my mind, with all things considered about it, fit this particular era, this particular batch of storylines.

    Daniel Craig was the soft reset, it wasn't meant to fit in with the (very very very loose) continuity of the other 5. Any references to those films of bygone years were purely for nostalgic nods to the fans, not a sense that this was the "same" James bond. Hell. I've been more disappointed at times in the past when it was meant to be the same and the total tonal shift that created - Diamonds are forever following OHMSS for example: "I'll drown a Blofeld clone in mud for killing my wife on our wedding day (in one of the darkest stories), then next time we meet I'll kill his other clone by kicking his cat, whilst having a perfectly rational conversation with a man so so evil he later dresses in drag and says with all seriousness 'prepare my bathosub'... And oh, he now has a different face... and so do I!!! (in one of the campest stories of the series) "... I mean?!? These were meant to be the exact same people. As was Pierce Brosnan kite surfing a tsunami, Roger Moore floating round in space and Timothy Dalton igniting Sanchez. It was unfeasible when you remove your Bond Head. Casino Royale to NTTD was an attempt to be somewhat feasible, in its own little bubble which, as all bubbles do, had to form and burst.

    Because the Daniel Craig era, at least in hindsight (and whilst definitely cobbled together as they went along) at least has its own story and attempt at continuity going with it. The good thing for me about killing him off, is the next bond won't have all this baggage. He can go back to being the blunt instrument without the ghost of Vesper hanging over him. He can go back to being solitary without having to fear for his daughter. We can go back to a time where the worlds greatest super villains arent people who have a jealousy of bond or his love interest . Each film could be standalone. Or alternatively, they could do similar again - but different. Or better. But the key thing is , it will be without all the baggage of this batch of five films where they purposely, it would seem, tried to keep doing something different. And so by default, kept putting a noose around the neck with too much weight to keep carrying over. Now, that weight is gone and it all starts anew. A new actor would merely be emulating Daniel Craig I feel, be bound by all these controversial story beats, had they stepped into his specific continuity line. It would be unavoidable. Unfeasible. In killing him off, they now don't have to worry about that. Everyone now knows that whomever comes in, it'll be another alternate take on the James Bond character

    For those who haven't seen it, but have been spoiled, I understand your apprehension. If someone told me up front what was going to happen - as much as I suspected it might (and for me, the title sequence with its fallen symbol of Britain confirmed my suspicions) - it would perhaps have soured my expectation. But I went into the film having recently rewatched the 24 others. And you see the shift between the old and the new. You see how Daniel Craig was intended to be its own batch in the general continuity which, when considered, couldn't be continuity anyways... the series has always subconsciously asked for a suspension of disbelief to believe it was, stretching from 60s to 00s. Now we have a little box set of 5, telling their own story . Starting it. And for once - ending it.

    Did they need to kill him off (a question Fleming himself had difficulty over)? Well no. They didn't need to make any of the choices they have over the last 15 years. But the ones they have fit together (sometimes forcibly) and this was the ending these stories, when reviewed outside the bias mind of a die hard bond fan (of which, I am), had to lead to. Whether it's execution throughout was ideal, or not. So I would say, don't let the spoilers turn you away from seeing it. Could it be depressing for you? It could sure, of course it could when the character means so much. But whilst I felt a bit of melancholy - after sleeping on it particular, I see why they done this. I see it makes sense in order to ensure that , with a new face, a new timeline: "James Bond will return".

    And if you don't watch it, I feel you're genuinely missing out on some of the best in the series for the sake of Daniel Craig's ending. As much as I've talked about the main controversial plot point I really don't want to go into detail about the film itself as there is so much in there, especially the action scenes, that words alone cannot do credit. You simply have to see it. From the much hyped car chase scenes highlighted in all the trailers, to Cuba, to the very creepy beginning and very controversial ending. There is a lot of enjoyment to have (even if you want to try and come up with a scenario to ignore the finality of it all. Fleming did, after all, when he toyed with the idea of finishing Bond once and for all).

    This isn't your father's James Bond no. Just as this won't be the next generations James Bond. Thats kind of how this series has survived. And why Bond himself in this particular film has not. Other interpretations of the character have, and will. And we will all continue to have our varied and strong opinions of each and every actor, each and every movie. Some will passionately defend NTTD as much as some will stare on in disbelief when others say they don't rate FRWL, or think DAD is misunderstood. That's the nature of this series. There's something for everyone, even if every one can't provide the something all are looking for. And now this era is finalised and the series moves on afresh, because it must. And whatever that afresh may be, it will be tremendously exciting to see how it will pan out.

    Thanks for all of your thoughts here. I appreciate this film also because I put the Craig films into their own set. Therefore, NTTD is, for me, a very fitting, moving, appropriate finale for this particular Bond. And so beautifully done; a gorgeous film. I think the series is free to go in many directions after this. It will be different, as it should be. The Craig era gives us one completed story of one particular Bond, and I appreciate that.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    There’s so much anger in this thread I’m starting to feel embarrassed.
    “EoN doesn’t have respect for their property. They don’t care about the fans. Killing off Bond is the stupidest thing ever”.
    Gimme a break. And speak for yourself.
    A lot of fans are perfectly fine with the end of NTTD. Why?
    Because it’s the end of a self contained arc, not the end of the franchise.
    Because it’s the most emotionally poignant sequence in 59 years of James Bond.
    Because it’s so well written, shot, acted and scored that stands as one of the most beautiful scenes in a blockbuster, ever.
    Because for Tracy, and their hypothetical family James dreams about in OHMSS, Fleming’s Bond would’ve done the same since this scene sticks with Bond’s idea of what life is about, as Fleming made it clear in the epitaph in YOLT.
    Because it’s the most logical end to Craig’s tenure, where death has always been treated like a curse.

    Everyone has the right to have an opinion, but don’t speak as they’re betraying the fans with this film.
  • Posts: 81
    Can I just say that it pains me how underused Naomie Harris is in this film? Because she’s an absolutely fabulous actor. What she’s done with Moneypenny has been finely judged. Every penny of it ;)
  • Posts: 12,270
    Already made my peace with the ending. It's whatever - just hoping it's well done when I see it Wednesday. So I saw that apparently Bond going into his house with the harpoon gun didn't make it into the final cut? Is the harpoon gun still in the movie at all, because I was looking forward to that TB esque element.
  • Posts: 3,333
    In terms of continuity - there was none. It wasn’t possible. And to be fair, not like the series hasn’t been a bit hit and miss with timelines before - Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS after he invaded his volcano with ninjas in the prior story... If Craig’s universe was canon with the other Bonds that would mean they were “brothers” back then also? And if that’s the case why is Felix not missing a leg ? It’s the same character name, In the same series, but with a different take. Same as the novels are an alternative timeline to the films , to some of the continuity novels, to the video games, etc. They have always played pick and choose. Hell, Daltons Bond could have been its own self contained universe when you think about it. But I do get it, I get the level of upset this has caused amongst the fandom. If nothing else, they’ve ensured we’ll always talk about this one !
    I've noticed that the YOLT/OHMSS Blofeld continuity has been brought up a few times. The only thing I'd say is that both these movies were basically meant to be viewed as standalone movies with a different actor playing their first lead roles, which helps buy into why they didn't fully recognise each other. Talk of Bond's facial surgery to explain the different actors had already been mooted by the producers and discussed widely in the press, so it wasn't such a stretch to believe that this might have occurred sometime off-screen. I suppose if you really chose to be pedantic, FRWL and TB's Blofeld sounds nothing at all like Donald Pleasence's voice either. Not that this should really matter as it used to be a hyperreality world and not meant to be grounded in reality like John le Carré.

    Another thing, most people were willing to forgive the producers due to both movies needing to be shot out of sequence from the books. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was intended to be the next film after Thunderball (1965), but the producers decided to adapt You Only Live Twice instead because OHMSS would require searching for high and snowy locations that just weren't available in 1966 due to the lack of predicted heavy snowfall that year. Also the rise in Bondmania in Japan would've factored in their switch.

    I suppose you could argue that Felix not missing a leg later was due to it being his very last appearance in a Bond film until the total reboot came in 2006. Though these movies did share some of the same actors playing the same roles, each standalone movie before Craig had one thing in common: Bond alive and well, and living for all eternity. In Roger Moore's case, living beyond age 57 in AVTAK unlike Craig.

    The continuation novels don't really concern me as I see them existing outside the James Bond machine, mostly because they've never been adapted for the big screen.

    Like many others, I don't really have a problem with the producers killing off Craig's Bond as it felt inevitable when he signed up for Bond 25. I just have a worry where they're going to take Bond next and how they're going to sell another hard reboot of the character with all the same iconography and traditions as a totally new package. I also wonder how they're going to market their next movie in China, a country that’s unfamiliar with all the different Bonds. Not that I care that much about the Chinese box office receipts.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,057
    @FoxRox Yes, when Bond gets off the boat with his fish.
  • Posts: 81
    I’ve got nothing against your left leg……
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I noticed that Safin is called “doctor” by his men.
  • Posts: 81
    With apologies to those of us who aren’t Pete and Dud fans
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 652
    If the Craig era is supposed to be its own continuity why is he driving Connery's Aston Martin around in Skyfall? That's more than just fan service, since it becomes a major aspect of the plot towards the end. What's the in-movie explanation for why a guy who became a 00 in 2006 has a car laden with 1960s-era gadgets? It's like if Nolan's Batman had been driving Burton's Batmobile around in the TDK movies. Doesn't make sense within the context of a reboot. The producers just wanted to have it both ways, ignoring the previous films while leaning on them for nostalgia.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,169
    cwl007 wrote: »
    something about it felt a bit empty in my opinion, I've figured out what it is. I don't buy Bond and Madeline's love.
    I don't buy Madeline. Period. Everyone has something to do and uses their skills. Bond as an agent, Q as a quatermaster, Waldo as a scientist, Paloma as a kick-ass agent. Even Ash as double-crossing turncoat. But Madeline...she's a psychiatrist, right? I can't remember her using those skills at all for anything in two movies.
  • DB007DB007 Toronto
    Posts: 15
    matt_u wrote: »
    There’s so much anger in this thread I’m starting to feel embarrassed.
    “EoN doesn’t have respect for their property. They don’t care about the fans. Killing off Bond is the stupidest thing ever”.
    Gimme a break. And speak for yourself.
    A lot of fans are perfectly fine with the end of NTTD. Why?
    Because it’s the end of a self contained arc, not the end of the franchise.
    Because it’s the most emotionally poignant sequence in 59 years of James Bond.
    Because it’s so well written, shot, acted and scored that stands as one of the most beautiful scenes in a blockbuster, ever.
    Because for Tracy, and their hypothetical family James dreams about in OHMSS, Fleming’s Bond would’ve done the same since this scene sticks with Bond’s idea of what life is about, as Fleming made it clear in the epitaph in YOLT.
    Because it’s the most logical end to Craig’s tenure, where death has always been treated like a curse.

    Everyone has the right to have an opinion, but don’t speak as they’re betraying the fans with this film.

    Hear, hear!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    slide_99 wrote: »
    If the Craig era is supposed to be its own continuity why is he driving Connery's Aston Martin around in Skyfall? That's more than just fan service, since it becomes a major aspect of the plot towards the end. What's the in-movie explanation for why a guy who became a 00 in 2006 has a car laden with 1960s-era gadgets? It's like if Nolan's Batman had been driving Burton's Batmobile around in the TDK movies. Doesn't make sense within the context of a reboot. The producers just wanted to have it both ways, ignoring the previous films while leaning on them for nostalgia.

    He won it in a game of poker.
  • Posts: 12,270
    Mallory wrote: »
    @FoxRox Yes, when Bond gets off the boat with his fish.

    Thank you - glad to hear it made it in a bit at least.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I really can’t think of a better way to end it than Bond’s death, personally. If he retires and gets a normal life after all, then like @Pierce2Daniel said, we’re essentially just where we were in SP. And there’s the question over whether Bond could really have a normal life anyway. He’d always be looking over his shoulder, he made his bed when he became a 00. He could’ve survived and left Madeline to raise Mathilde, gone back to MI6 and resigned himself to being a man of the shadows, but Craig is pushing 60 and we’ve been doing the whole “Bond is getting on a bit” thing for three films now. Not sure normal service resumed would’ve convinced for me. And I think they were wise to avoid an open ending like that, because I don’t think the next actor should be saddled with all the baggage of the Craig era (the realistic aesthetic, the emotional baggage of Vesper/Madeline, foster brother Blofeld).

    Him dying didn’t feel cheap to me either. I thought it felt entirely natural. A normal life will never be possible for him, but he gets to ensure his child will have one (thus avoiding another Bond/Madeline/Saffin) by sacrificing himself. It’s tragic. He finally finds a life past being a blunt instrument, but he’s ultimately too far gone to ever live that life. But it felt like a very fitting end to this era imo, very in keeping with the tragedy of DC’s take on the character. That was probably the biggest strength of the film for me. That it felt like this is what we’d been building towards, despite the fact that they’d obviously just made it up as they went along. It bought a lot of Craig era themes and motifs together in a satisfying way, like how SP tried (and failed, and I say that as someone who really enjoyed it) to do.

    I don’t think they wrapped the overarching plot up very well (the SPECTRE story), but then to be fair, they were left with a very messy and contrived narrative to work with there, so I can’t blame them for shafting it in favour of a more personal angle. And character wise, I thought NTTD ended things perfectly.

    I'm really with you on this film. And I have no angst or handwringing about the next one. I feel a fresh start is great. With Craig's films I have one particular story, from start to finish, that is very fitting for this Bond. I will revisit his films and enjoy them the rest of my life. I value his take on Bond, all the layers of it. I did not see how they could ever pull this off in a way that would be acceptable to me, but they really did. It is a fine and fitting send-off for a great Bond.

    The overall enjoyment I get from NTTD comes from how stunningly gorgeous this film is; along with outstanding action sequences, brilliant acting, and more ... and with an ending that was appropriate, while being naturally so sad and moving. I appreciate NTTD for many reasons. I'm glad it's on track to do very good box office. I look forward to the next 2 years or so of anticipation, learning who the next Bond will be, who the next director will be; all of that. For now, I have seen NTTD twice in the cinema. I'm so glad I did. Looking forward to the DVD with all the extras, commentary, every bit of that. B-)
  • Posts: 3,333
    slide_99 wrote: »
    If the Craig era is supposed to be its own continuity why is he driving Connery's Aston Martin around in Skyfall? That's more than just fan service, since it becomes a major aspect of the plot towards the end. What's the in-movie explanation for why a guy who became a 00 in 2006 has a car laden with 1960s-era gadgets? It's like if Nolan's Batman had been driving Burton's Batmobile around in the TDK movies. Doesn't make sense within the context of a reboot. The producers just wanted to have it both ways, ignoring the previous films while leaning on them for nostalgia.
    He won it in a game of poker.
    When did Bond win the 1969 Aston Martin DBS from a game of poker in NTTD though?
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,057
    I think as fans we need to be careful about making assumptions as to where the series goes next,

    We know:

    - Amazon have (or are about to buy) MGM. That will put pressure on EON to produce as they will want to start seeing a return on their purchase.
    - The distribution of films into the marketplace is going through a fundamental change.
    - Current trends are towards extended or more linked up “universes” with spin offs.

    What we dont know:

    - Is Michael G Wilson, at 80 now, going to continue or retire? Babs thanking him at the premiere makes me believe the latter.
    - If so, will someone like Gregg Wilson take on full producing role, or will BB continue as a sole producer?
    - What will the long term reaction to NTTD be?

    If NTTD is extremely successful financially (which the opening international figures suggest), that gives EON the argument to continue as is.

    If the film craters in the coming weeks, does that put more power in MGM and Amazon’s hands?

    All these questions will be answered in time. And the wait will be agonising.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,459
    @Shardlake and @thelivingroyale re Felix's death:
    Yes, I feel it was an intentional connection to Vesper's death. Some strong differences, of course; but intentional, yes.
    However, there was a slight moment that helped me. Right as Felix begins to slip into the water, he seemed to me to be already dying in that very moment (judging by his eyes mostly) ... before he was fully submerged and James let him go. This script had some memorable moments and dialog, but this scene is also right at the top for me. What they both said to each other was so moving, memorable. And James was right there, able to hold him, look him in the eyes up close (quite different from Vesper), and that helped me. I felt that both times I saw the film. I have a particular aversion to drowning (always have) so perhaps I read into that scene too much. But I like to think Felix bled out to the point where he was actually dying in that very moment. Jeffrey and Daniel were wonderful together. This Felix will always be my favorite, and he did need to be in this film. I only wish we had longer scenes with them together.
  • BelinusBelinus Scotland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 48

    matt_u wrote: »
    There’s so much anger in this thread I’m starting to feel embarrassed.
    “EoN doesn’t have respect for their property. They don’t care about the fans. Killing off Bond is the stupidest thing ever”.
    Gimme a break. And speak for yourself.
    A lot of fans are perfectly fine with the end of NTTD. Why?
    Because it’s the end of a self contained arc, not the end of the franchise.
    Because it’s the most emotionally poignant sequence in 59 years of James Bond.
    Because it’s so well written, shot, acted and scored that stands as one of the most beautiful scenes in a blockbuster, ever.
    Because for Tracy, and their hypothetical family James dreams about in OHMSS, Fleming’s Bond would’ve done the same since this scene sticks with Bond’s idea of what life is about, as Fleming made it clear in the epitaph in YOLT.
    Because it’s the most logical end to Craig’s tenure, where death has always been treated like a curse.

    Everyone has the right to have an opinion, but don’t speak as they’re betraying the fans with this film.

    I agree that everyone has the right to an opinion. They also have the right to feel disappointed, upset and betrayed by the film. I felt betrayed, I still do. I’m sure that wasn’t the intentions of all those involved in the making of the film but I cannot help feeling that way.

  • Posts: 1,394
    Skyfall: A villain from M’s past comes back and seeks revenge.

    Spectre: A villain from Bonds past comes back and seeks revenge.

    No Time To Die: A villain from Madelines past comes back and seeks revenge.

    I’m expecting the plot of the next reboot to involve a villain from Q’s past coming back and seeking revenge.
  • Posts: 81
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Skyfall: A villain from M’s past comes back and seeks revenge.

    Spectre: A villain from Bonds past comes back and seeks revenge.

    No Time To Die: A villain from Madelines past comes back and seeks revenge.

    I’m expecting the plot of the next reboot to involve a villain from Q’s past coming back and seeking revenge.
    ‘The pasta is never cooked. It’s not even pasta.” With apologies to William Faulkner.

    No Time To Cook - A Quartermasters Kitchen
  • Posts: 2,400
    @Shardlake and @thelivingroyale re Felix's death:
    Yes, I feel it was an intentional connection to Vesper's death. Some strong differences, of course; but intentional, yes.
    However, there was a slight moment that helped me. Right as Felix begins to slip into the water, he seemed to me to be already dying in that very moment (judging by his eyes mostly) ... before he was fully submerged and James let him go. This script had some memorable moments and dialog, but this scene is also right at the top for me. What they both said to each other was so moving, memorable. And James was right there, able to hold him, look him in the eyes up close (quite different from Vesper), and that helped me. I felt that both times I saw the film. I have a particular aversion to drowning (always have) so perhaps I read into that scene too much. But I like to think Felix bled out to the point where he was actually dying in that very moment. Jeffrey and Daniel were wonderful together. This Felix will always be my favorite, and he did need to be in this film. I only wish we had longer scenes with them together.

    My reading of the scene, keeping in mind that I'm in Canada so haven't had any opportunity to rewatch since the premiere (first screening here is on the 6th), was that Felix dies in Bond's arms and so that's why Bond lets him go, not that Felix then goes on to drown. His eyes seem to go very blank in those final moments.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,459
    Thanks, @StirredNotShaken . I was a little worried that I was interpreting it too strongly in a way to comfort myself.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 87
    I don't see any justification for killing Bond because there are inaccuracies in the plotlines of the movies. These are not science films. But there is a lemma: James Bond sometimes loses a skirmish but always wins the battle. This is the DNA of James Bond therefore he lives. The idea of killing Bond is the silliest think in the history of cinema.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,057
    Qba007 wrote: »
    I don't see any justification for killing Bond because there are inaccuracies in the plotlines of the movies. These are not doctoral theses. But there is a lemma: James Bond sometimes loses a skirmish but always wins the battle. This is the DNA of James Bond therefore he lives. The idea of killing Bond is the silliest think in the history of cinema.

    Killing off Bond was probably Craig’s main condition for returning, and Babs and Co indulged him on, because as she said “she cant imagine Bond without him”. Now that might be marketing guff or it may be genuinely true. Killing Bond was the cost of getting Craig back., and the film had to reach that point regardless.

    When interviewed on the premiere red carpet, Craig said he wanted to leave Bond in the best place possible.

    One wonders if this qualifies.
  • Posts: 81
    I don’t blame him, given how much he aged between QoS and SF.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    slide_99 wrote: »
    If the Craig era is supposed to be its own continuity why is he driving Connery's Aston Martin around in Skyfall? That's more than just fan service, since it becomes a major aspect of the plot towards the end. What's the in-movie explanation for why a guy who became a 00 in 2006 has a car laden with 1960s-era gadgets? It's like if Nolan's Batman had been driving Burton's Batmobile around in the TDK movies. Doesn't make sense within the context of a reboot. The producers just wanted to have it both ways, ignoring the previous films while leaning on them for nostalgia.

    There’s nothing confusing about it, you’re just overthinking. Q Branch lended him an old Aston Martin they had in storage. It never belonged to Connery Bond in the 60s, because in Craig’s timeline there never was a Connery Bond. But there has been a 00 section back in those days, and presumably a 00 agent used to drive that vehicle back in the 60s.

    It’s not that complicated. If the conceit of Craig’s run is that it’s self contained, the explanation for things like the DB5 is likely in relation to that conceit.
Sign In or Register to comment.