No Time To Die: Why It Should Not Have Been Made (spoilers)

chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
This post is kind of on a dare, but let's look at it seriously.
SPECTRE effectively finished Bond's career. He literally drove off into the sunset.
But they wanted Dan for another, and his stipulation was that no matter what story they concocted, his Bond must die in the end.
This was BOUND to be divisive, and it was BOUND to be a money-maker. When they killed M it set records, right?
So, instead of getting a new thing going with a new actor & new stories, they went for the bread. Easy money.
This is why they shouldn't have made this movie. It's wasting time & resources on a cash grab instead of furthering the legend of James Bond. And time is and has been a' wasting.
Thoughts? Daggers? ;)
«13456789

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 412
    On the one hand: :D
    On the other: :-O
    Kudos on the big brass spheroids, chrisisall!
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,083
    Should, shouldn’t, I’m certainly glad they did. This movie did a lot to further the franchise, IMO, if you remember that Bond is a fictional character. ;)
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,099
    It's The Last Jedi of Bond movies. Subversive, melodramatic garbage that went out of it's way to make pretty much all the core characters look bad or just tear them down wholesale. It was also pretty boring after the first hour. It was a bloated mess of a film. Very much style over substance. If I wanted to watch a soap opera I'd tune into it on the tv.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,663
    Murdock wrote: »
    It's The Last Jedi of Bond movies. Subversive, melodramatic garbage that went out of it's way to make pretty much all the core characters look bad or just tear them down wholesale. It was also pretty boring after the first hour. It was a bloated mess of a film. Very much style over substance. If I wanted to watch a soap opera I'd tune into it on the tv.

    Don't mince words, Murdock; tell us how you really feel...
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 412
    Should. It's more CraigBond. Ending? Shouldn't. I've reached an accomodation with it, but...
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,099
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    It's The Last Jedi of Bond movies. Subversive, melodramatic garbage that went out of it's way to make pretty much all the core characters look bad or just tear them down wholesale. It was also pretty boring after the first hour. It was a bloated mess of a film. Very much style over substance. If I wanted to watch a soap opera I'd tune into it on the tv.

    Don't mince words, Murdock; tell us how you really feel...

    nr8osan.png
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,663
    @Murdock thanks man, LOL moment of the day.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,099
    Always happy to provide a laugh @chrisisall. ;)
  • Posts: 10,705
    Was an infinitely more satisfying end for me than SP in just about every way. Craig’s only the second Bond after Lazenby to not have a happy ending. The big mistake of the era to me is the return of SPECTRE in how shoehorned they were.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,827
    I'm still torn on this film, only ever seeing it once.

    What bothers me the most is the uncertainty the franchise faced after Spectre. We waited almost 3 years after Spectre just for Craig to make his decision. Then directors quiting, 18 months of delays due to COVID-19 etc.

    I did enjoy a lot of the film. However it really bothers me that the time wasted due to internal and external factors could have been applied to get a new actor and set the course of the franchise in another direction. I think we got after 6 years was just not worth it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,663
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Was an infinitely more satisfying end for me than SP in just about every way. Craig’s only the second Bond after Lazenby to not have a happy ending.
    Not just not a happy ending- a TOTAL ending. You don't kill the protagonist in a long running series unless you want to potentially kill the series. Now look- they'll wait four years until the general viewing audience has forgotten how they left the theatre disappointed that Bond died... more time wasted.
  • edited November 25 Posts: 10,705
    chrisisall wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Was an infinitely more satisfying end for me than SP in just about every way. Craig’s only the second Bond after Lazenby to not have a happy ending.
    Not just not a happy ending- a TOTAL ending. You don't kill the protagonist in a long running series unless you want to potentially kill the series. Now look- they'll wait four years until the general viewing audience has forgotten how they left the theatre disappointed that Bond died... more time wasted.

    As someone who still isn’t particularly joyful about the decision to kill Bond, I feel like it’s so obvious Craig is a different Bond from the ones that came before and there'll be a new one that isn’t the others the next time. Pop culture icon characters have died and come back plenty of times before - it just is what it is.
  • Posts: 12,855
    Had they not waited for Craig, and just let the show go on we could've had his replacement's first outing in 2017. That would be followed by his second in 2019, and now we'd be currently awaiting and discussing his third Bond epic due in 2022 for the 60th.
    Crap! What time was wasted.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,827
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Had they not waited for Craig, and just let the show go on we could've had his replacement's first outing in 2017. That would be followed by his second in 2019, and now we'd be currently awaiting and discussing his third Bond epic due in 2022 for the 60th.
    Crap! What time was wasted.

    Exactly. But I don't see EON pushing out films every other year. We could have had a new actor for a 2018-19 release with a new film shooting now for the 60th.
  • Posts: 12,855
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Had they not waited for Craig, and just let the show go on we could've had his replacement's first outing in 2017. That would be followed by his second in 2019, and now we'd be currently awaiting and discussing his third Bond epic due in 2022 for the 60th.
    Crap! What time was wasted.

    Exactly. But I don't see EON pushing out films every other year. We could have had a new actor for a 2018-19 release with a new film shooting now for the 60th.

    Precisely. Maybe Craig should have stuck to his guns and let SPECTRE be his finale?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,827
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Had they not waited for Craig, and just let the show go on we could've had his replacement's first outing in 2017. That would be followed by his second in 2019, and now we'd be currently awaiting and discussing his third Bond epic due in 2022 for the 60th.
    Crap! What time was wasted.

    Exactly. But I don't see EON pushing out films every other year. We could have had a new actor for a 2018-19 release with a new film shooting now for the 60th.

    Precisely. Maybe Craig should have stuck to his guns and let SPECTRE be his finale?

    I think that he was determined to not let Spectre be his last. Perhaps he didn't like it and didn't want to go out like that, even with the ending being set up for his exit.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 25 Posts: 16,663
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Had they not waited for Craig, and just let the show go on we could've had his replacement's first outing in 2017. That would be followed by his second in 2019, and now we'd be currently awaiting and discussing his third Bond epic due in 2022 for the 60th.
    Crap! What time was wasted.

    Exactly. But I don't see EON pushing out films every other year. We could have had a new actor for a 2018-19 release with a new film shooting now for the 60th.

    Precisely. Maybe Craig should have stuck to his guns and let SPECTRE be his finale?

    I think that he was determined to not let Spectre be his last. Perhaps he didn't like it and didn't want to go out like that, even with the ending being set up for his exit.
    I think Craig thought of Bond as someone working hard towards his death. I also think Craig didn't care for the character like most of us do. It's not like he grew up wanting to play James Bond... his casual take plus his desire for another payday led to this IMO.

  • Posts: 516
    Great thread @chrisisall. NTTD was unnecessary. It feels about as canon as NSNA. Like a square trying to fit into a circle peg. During Spectre Eon, Dan, BB, etc. decided that we are going make DC’s run a Bond serial show (later resembling a GAme of Thrones style/soap opera theme). Let’s go full subversion. During this time, Marvel also started killing off big name characters like Iron Man: that really opened the flood gates. If a formula is 70 years old, and the character has always been protected, “saves the day,” this is what fans expect. They buy the ticket, popcorn, soda, etc and plop down $30 or whatever to escape the world for a few hours and watch James Bond do his classic formula: be cool, get the girl, kill the bad guys, and save the day. Spectre spared all main characters, but NTTD (what an absurd title considering what happens) sure made up for that. How did NTTD advance the franchise? Did it damage the franchise or help it? It gets critical acclaim (mostly), but the movie still lost $100 mill according to Cinema Score. Will fans forget what happened or go in to Bond movies from here on out thinking: are they going to kill him again? Will the same excitement that we’ve always had be there? For me, it has diminished that feeling of giddy excitement. I will dissect the scenes more later, but this is my general feeling about why it should have not been made. Many fans feel saddened, let down, and their childhood or adulthood hero was vanquished. Why Eon felt this was a good idea, I’ll never understand.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred Not The Other Fella
    Posts: 1,231
    I'm glad it was made. Spectre was a lame send - off for Craig's Bond. He needed an explosive finale. We got that..
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    edited November 25 Posts: 12,090
    This is a valid discussion and a good idea @chrisisall
    Clearly not every fan loves NTTD and it would be silly to think otherwise. I can easily see why it would split the fan base. However, we have to remember that EON and the studios don’t make Bond films for the fans, they make them to entertain an audience, and to make money!
    They do however throw in things, that fans will pretty much always appreciate. It would be impossible to please everyone. Even fan favourite movies like FRWL, GF, OHMSS and CR have their detractors.
    The good news for fans who don’t like NTTD, is that it’s not likely to happen again anytime soon.
  • Posts: 458
    SPECTRE effectively finished Bond's career. He literally drove off into the sunset.

    Bond doesn't officially retire in SPECTRE. It was left ambigious so that the writers could take it in either direction they want.

    Maybe Bond retires, or maybe this is just a typical Bond ending and he's onto the next adventure. And whether to make the 5th Craig film a sequel or a self-contained film was another decision point; either one could've worked with this ending.
    no matter what story they concocted, his Bond must die in the end.

    Is this really the main basis of this thread? It feels like every critical topic of this movie is a thinly veiled way of saying the same thing.

    it was BOUND to be a money-maker.

    This is an oversimplification. A film doesn't make money just because of 1 controversial decision to kill off the character. It's hard to prove that this 1 thing helped the film commercially; what if it hurt it or had no effect?

    There's nothing nefarious about making a film because it sells. Craig is a widely acclaimed Bond. Skyfall sold a billion. There are millions of people that wanted to see him again, so there was every reason to give them a 5th film.
    When they killed M it set records, right?

    I mean.... you could say Skyfall succeeded because of the Dench/Craig/Bardem's acting, the directing, the witty dialogue and the action scenes. But yeah, let's cherrypick M's death as the reason.
    instead of getting a new thing going with a new actor & new stories, they went for the bread.

    This argument could be made against any 5th movie. Moore could've stopped at MR. Connery could've stopped at TB.

    But I feel like this is a disingenuous argument. If you had liked the 5th film, you would've had no problem it. It's only a cash-grab because it's a 5th film you don't like.
  • edited November 25 Posts: 458
    Benny wrote: »
    This is a valid discussion and a good idea

    It's not really the best quality discussion.

    The thesis seems to be "NTTD is bad because Bond dies and EON nefariously did that just because they're greedy". The former, there are many threads about already. And the latter is kind of an ad hominem.

    Being critical of the movie is fine, but it's not just the stance you take, but what arguments you use to justify that stance. This post comes off kind of like venting.
  • M16_Cart wrote: »
    It's not really the best quality discussion.

    The thesis seems to be "NTTD is bad because Bond dies and EON nefariously did that just because they're greedy". The former, there are many threads about already. And the latter is kind of an ad hominem.

    Being critical of the movie is fine, but it's not just the stance you take, but what arguments you use to justify that stance. This post comes off kind of like venting.

    I see it as them having their own little bubble where they can (1) cuss NTTD; (2) cuss Craig; (3) cuss Craig in NTTD, since they feel so victimised bringing it up elsewhere.

    Not that I give two hairs on a rat's arse about piling in, but we can agree to disagree and just leave it at that. I'd rather join in with those who appreciate the film, not scorn it.

  • Posts: 516
    Benny wrote: »
    This is a valid discussion and a good idea @chrisisall
    Clearly not every fan loves NTTD and it would be silly to think otherwise. I can easily see why it would split the fan base. However, we have to remember that EON and the studios don’t make Bond films for the fans, they make them to entertain an audience, and to make money!
    They do however throw in things, that fans will pretty much always appreciate. It would be impossible to please everyone. Even fan favourite movies like FRWL, GF, OHMSS and CR have their detractors.
    The good news for fans who don’t like NTTD, is that it’s not likely to happen again anytime soon.

    Valid points @Benny. I sure hope you’re right about not killing Bond again anytime soon. I don’t think I could handle an encore of that after I’ve invested 15 years in a particular character 😫
  • edited November 25 Posts: 516
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    SPECTRE effectively finished Bond's career. He literally drove off into the sunset.

    Bond doesn't officially retire in SPECTRE. It was left ambigious so that the writers could take it in either direction they want.

    Maybe Bond retires, or maybe this is just a typical Bond ending and he's onto the next adventure. And whether to make the 5th Craig film a sequel or a self-contained film was another decision point; either one could've worked with this ending.
    no matter what story they concocted, his Bond must die in the end.

    Is this really the main basis of this thread? It feels like every critical topic of this movie is a thinly veiled way of saying the same thing.

    it was BOUND to be a money-maker.

    This is an oversimplification. A film doesn't make money just because of 1 controversial decision to kill off the character. It's hard to prove that this 1 thing helped the film commercially; what if it hurt it or had no effect?

    There's nothing nefarious about making a film because it sells. Craig is a widely acclaimed Bond. Skyfall sold a billion. There are millions of people that wanted to see him again, so there was every reason to give them a 5th film.
    When they killed M it set records, right?

    I mean.... you could say Skyfall succeeded because of the Dench/Craig/Bardem's acting, the directing, the witty dialogue and the action scenes. But yeah, let's cherrypick M's death as the reason.
    instead of getting a new thing going with a new actor & new stories, they went for the bread.

    This argument could be made against any 5th movie. Moore could've stopped at MR. Connery could've stopped at TB.

    But I feel like this is a disingenuous argument. If you had liked the 5th film, you would've had no problem it. It's only a cash-grab because it's a 5th film you don't like.

    In all fairness, Craig did say he would only do a fifth film for the money. And Eon knew he would bring in the money. The bottom line: they bet it all on killing Craig’s Bond and won. Shock value decision. I think it was based on large part on Downey Jr.’s death in Endgame (pure conjecture on my part, but let’s face it, Bond films copy Hollywood trends). CR (Bond Begins)-although Casino does it much better, Qos-Bourneesque, Skyfall -Dark Knight, Spectre-Infinity War, NTTD -Endgame.
    Sorry for the double post.
  • Posts: 458
    The bottom line: they bet it all on killing Craig’s Bond and won.

    You're cherrypicking 1 aspect of the film. And did they win? It seems like there are more people critical of it than approving of it.

    But when making the film, there were many things they put effort into: the music, visuals, directing, action, writing, acting, etc. People seem to only fixate on that 1 scene.
  • edited November 25 Posts: 875
    I think the argument that SP should’ve been Craig’s final Bond film is extremely compelling. For all my problems with that film, Craig gave his best performance, and it was a film that relished its Bond identity much more than its predecessors, and it does have a perfect ending...however NTTD actually improved upon several elements of SP. First and foremost being Madeline Swann, who was much more compelling as a character here than she was in SP. Waltz as Blofeld seemed much more cartoonish which I found amusing, and the secondary characters have been the most memorable the Craig era has seen since Casino Royale. And finally the ending...if there was any Bond that I’d be okay with killing off, it was Craig’s. His era allowed for those risky, creative decisions to be made, and despite that resulting in an entire era of Bond that felt more Style over actual Substance, those decisions helped kept these movies going in new directions. The decision to kill off his Bond is very much in keeping with those kinds of creative risk-taking decisions.

    However...it also can’t be understated that perhaps EON would’ve found themselves on more solid footing now had they actually began finding a replacement for Craig after SP. Nothing against Craig, but the fact that they took 3-4 years off just to accommodate for Daniel wanting to come around again just feels like such a waste of time, and on top of that, the numerous preproduction issues, and delays didn’t help things either. I also hate to be one of those people who yells “Cubby would’ve never allowed this to happen”, but this I feel is one of those times where I actually feel that case could be made. Cubby would never had accepted that 3 year wait for his Star to get in the mood to do another film. If Craig was uncertain, Cubby never would’ve halted off all production just to wait for Craig to come around. Yes the standards of filmmaking have changed drastically since Cubby’s time, but this franchise is bigger than the actor who plays Bond, and in doing everything in their power to appease Craig to stick around, perhaps Barbara and Michael lost sight of that fact, and felt as if they needed Craig to continue being that successful, hence a producer credit and creative input on the films. Yes another Craig Bond film would’ve made money, but guess what? So would’ve the debut of another Bond actor.

    So all in all, I’m very mixed on this particular subject, on one hand, I really enjoyed NTTD, but on the other, I really felt as if Craig stuck around for too long, and I for one am anxiously awaiting some new blood to be injected into the series so we can all move on.
  • Posts: 458
    EON just wasn't sure who to replace Craig with. There are several plausible candidates, but none of them are clear standouts. In other eras, there were clear standouts. Like in the mid-80's and 90's, Brosnan was an obvious choice.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,099
    NTTD is bad for many reasons. Bond's death happens to be one of them.

    Most of the characters make pretty poor choices to justify the crappy plot of the movie.

    M is the true villain of this movie and he's a pretty huge hypocrite. After the big stink he made about Nine Eyes, he goes out of his way to outdo Denbigh and commission Heracles. Why the hell is the head of MI6 even allowed to be able to create this? Mallory should be rotting in prison after this movie.

    Bond is pretty stupid for falling for an obvious bait and switch in the beginning. He's seemingly known Madeline for a while now and like nothing thinks she betrayed him over some coincidences. Bond would really be inclined to believe some villain that Madeline is evil because he said so? Bond should be smarter than that.

    Bond and Madeline's chemistry is just as flat and just as non existent as it was in Spectre. I never once bought that these two ever had feelings for one another. Bringing Madeline back was a big mistake given Spectre is now 6 years old.

    Safin was a lame villain. Nothing about him was intimidating or creepy. It takes more than a cottage cheese face and crappy old man voice to be a remotely good villain. Not sure why he even bothered to go on this crusade considering the author of all his pain was dead at this point. I guess he was mad he didn't do in Mr. White himself.

    Mathilde seemed rather pointless. Well that's not true, her involvement artificially raised the stakes rather unconvincingly. The fact Safin just lets her wander off after biting him was random and deflated the tension, not that there was any.

    Felix's death made me mad the most. He gets blown off for two movies then comes back for a glorified cameo only to be killed off. Way to kill off another legacy character.

    Bond's death was pathetic. The missiles that killed him looked more like he was being hit with roman candles. I guess it's fitting he'd go out with a whimper.

    But in the end, I'm glad this miserable era is finally over. Though I don't have any hopes for future Bond films going forward. They will probably be just as bad as this one. The Bond I knew and loved died long ago.

    Go ahead, call me a hater. Call me entitled. I couldn't care less about what anyone thinks of me for daring to be critical about this movie or saying something bad about the great beast can do no wrong Daniel Craig. If you liked this movie, fine. Enjoy it for all eternity. I hated it and I'm going to vent about it for as long as I have the negative feelings for this movie in my system. I know there's the classic Bond films and I don't need to be reminded of them. I know exactly where to find them. But going forward, I don't see the franchise recovering from this in my eyes. It bottomed out hard. The burning fire I once had in me as a Bond fan has been extinguished by this movie.


  • edited November 25 Posts: 516
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    The bottom line: they bet it all on killing Craig’s Bond and won.

    You're cherrypicking 1 aspect of the film. And did they win? It seems like there are more people critical of it than approving of it.

    But when making the film, there were many things they put effort into: the music, visuals, directing, action, writing, acting, etc. People seem to only fixate on that 1 scene.

    For better or worse, that one scene will always define the movie (imo). It’s unprecedented, shocking, and EXTREMELY risky. I would say no other film in modern history, perhaps ever, has taken that big a chance. Keep in mind that many theatre owners, investors, and Hollywood itself was depending on NTTD to save or resurrect the box office after the long Covid ordeal. Was it a good risk/bet to take knowing all this? I don’t see how on earth it was. Seemed like anything but. However, they were sure hell bent on it.
    Is NTTD really a money maker? Please see article below.

    financialhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/no-time-die-movie-box-office-loss-explained/amp/
Sign In or Register to comment.