No Time To Die: Why It Should Not Have Been Made (The Way It Was)

1568101132

Comments

  • edited December 2021 Posts: 624
    I'm not bothered by the ending of NTTD. It worked for DC's Bond and it was very heavily influenced by Ian Fleming's YOLT. I'm also pretty sure they won't kill Bond again.

    Besides, if they didn't kill him we'd probably have a 10 year gap until the next Bond film, starring, you guessed it! a 63-year old Daniel Craig. He finally took Barbara Broccoli's offer of $69 trillion dollars and it only took 10 years of begging.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    jobo wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    "NTTD should not have been made." Why? "Because I just don't like the film." That's it.
    Nooooo..... because we could have had a new film sooner with a new star without the divisive 'kill Bond' imperative. He drove off into the sunset in SP. That could have been the end of it. But I do, however, recognize that to some of you younger folk killing off main characters in long running series is the proper 21st Century way to go out on a 'deep' note. *
    ;)

    * I was going for smug, superiour & condescending- did I succeed?


    Seems like you have a natural talent for it... *

    *Going for young, brash, overconfident and provocative. Did I succeed?

    That was great, LOL.
  • Posts: 1,001
    I'm not bothered by the ending of NTTD. It worked for DC's Bond . . .

    See, this is what a lot of us don't like about the ending of NTTD, and the whole idea that an actor has their own Bond. It used to be that James Bond was the main thing, and no actor was bigger than Bond. Now we seem to have this situation where each actor will have their own different 'Bond universe', exclusive to them. The cinematic James Bond has become actor-based, and not not character based. They'll all end up with their own death scene from now on.
    "Hey, Craig had one, why can't I" they'll be saying.


  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,523

    I'm not bothered by the ending of NTTD. It worked for DC's Bond . . .

    See, this is what a lot of us don't like about the ending of NTTD, and the whole idea that an actor has their own Bond. It used to be that James Bond was the main thing, and no actor was bigger than Bond. Now we seem to have this situation where each actor will have their own different 'Bond universe', exclusive to them. The cinematic James Bond has become actor-based, and not not character based. They'll all end up with their own death scene from now on.
    "Hey, Craig had one, why can't I" they'll be saying.

    I find it odd that people look at this one era and decide this is how it will be from now on. For sure. Guaranteed. Because one case displays a clear pattern of something, apparently. Something like that?

    I recall sentiments along the line of "so is every Bond going to drive invisible cars from now?" The answer is no.
  • Posts: 1,001
    By killing Bond off, they've officially, and very loudly and obviously, broken the illusion that we were all seeing the same fictional character when we went to see a Bond movie.
    Now there are more than one 'James Bonds'. And each one could die, or be a woman, be an alien, or whatever.
    We're in sci-fi land now. Good luck with that.
  • Posts: 7,500
    By killing Bond off, they've officially, and very loudly and obviously, broken the illusion that we were all seeing the same fictional character when we went to see a Bond movie.
    Now there are more than one 'James Bonds'. And each one could die, or be a woman, be an alien, or whatever.
    We're in sci-fi land now. Good luck with that.


    We've been through this particular narrative in discussion so many times on this forum already, that I don't feel like going into detail yet again regarding how I feel about it. But put short, I am yet again surprised to see how so many people feel the need to overdramatize and overanalyze something that I my view shouldn't be very complicated at all. We have 25 Bond films. In 24 of them Bond survives, in one of them he dies. The saga moves on. Call me crazy, but there really isn't more to it than that for me...
  • If I could perhaps put something forward...I do wonder why so many people seem to be against Bond’s death in NTTD, especially since we’ve already established that this era of Bond was going to be unlike anything that came before. I 100% completely, and totally understand that Bond dying in this film does not mean the death of a franchise, and I even waited for the “James Bond will Return” message at the end of NTTD. So I guess my question would be this; why do so many people seem opposed to Craig’s Bond dying? I’d never want to see any of the Bond’s die in their films, but I think it’s 100% perfectly adequate for Craig. I understand that perhaps SP may have been a better ending for some (myself included), and I also understand the wish to already be in another era of Bond, trust me I’m looking forward to the next era, and that’s not a knock against Craig, but I am curious as to why so many people don’t like Craig’s Bond being killed.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 624
    jobo wrote: »
    By killing Bond off, they've officially, and very loudly and obviously, broken the illusion that we were all seeing the same fictional character when we went to see a Bond movie.
    Now there are more than one 'James Bonds'. And each one could die, or be a woman, be an alien, or whatever.
    We're in sci-fi land now. Good luck with that.


    We've been through this particular narrative in discussion so many times on this forum already, that I don't feel like going into detail yet again regarding how I feel about it. But put short, I am yet again surprised to see how so many people feel the need to overdramatize and overanalyze something that I my view shouldn't be very complicated at all. We have 25 Bond films. In 24 of them Bond survives, in one of them he dies. The saga moves on. Call me crazy, but there really isn't more to it than that for me...

    Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

    Wait til people find out Bond got married in one of them. ;)
  • Posts: 511
    By killing Bond off, they've officially, and very loudly and obviously, broken the illusion that we were all seeing the same fictional character when we went to see a Bond movie.
    Now there are more than one 'James Bonds'. And each one could die, or be a woman, be an alien, or whatever.
    We're in sci-fi land now. Good luck with that.

    That's been obvious since Casino Royale, which rewrote aspects of the character.

    Anyhow — it's all make believe, it's all fiction. It's like different productions of a play or new adaptations of a book a la Dracula.
  • BMB007 wrote: »
    By killing Bond off, they've officially, and very loudly and obviously, broken the illusion that we were all seeing the same fictional character when we went to see a Bond movie.
    Now there are more than one 'James Bonds'. And each one could die, or be a woman, be an alien, or whatever.
    We're in sci-fi land now. Good luck with that.

    That's been obvious since Casino Royale, which rewrote aspects of the character.

    Anyhow — it's all make believe, it's all fiction. It's like different productions of a play or new adaptations of a book a la Dracula.

    What, you mean Christopher Lee's Dracula isn't the same character as Bela Lugosi's Dracula??? ;)
  • By killing Bond off, they've officially, and very loudly and obviously, broken the illusion that we were all seeing the same fictional character when we went to see a Bond movie.
    Now there are more than one 'James Bonds'. And each one could die, or be a woman, be an alien, or whatever.
    We're in sci-fi land now. Good luck with that.

    And that illusion was perfectly fine with Donald Pleasance's Blofeld not being Bond's step-brother while Christoph Waltz's Blofeld was? I'm sorry, but Spectre established for anybody that was paying attention, that this was a different Bond/Blofeld relationship, clearly not aligned with that experienced by Connery et al.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 1,001
    Enjoy your different James Bonds, guys. Who knows what you'll get served up with the next timeline/actor arc/alternate universe.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited December 2021 Posts: 4,554
    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.

    ...and get praised by over 80% of film critics and become the biggest moneymaker in 2021 to date. So...
    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/

    That Variety article has been greatly disputed.
    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.

    I actually think the delays helped the film resonate more. Had it come out, on schedule, in 2020, I doubt it would have made the impact it did--it would have been gobbled up in the news of COVID and a U.S. presidential election like no other. Financially, it might have been fine, but the film's cultural impact (and Bond's death) would not have been the same. Ultimately, this film needed to be released within the circumstances of the Fall of 2021. This was fate. It was perfect timing.
  • Posts: 6,707
    By killing Bond off, they've officially, and very loudly and obviously, broken the illusion that we were all seeing the same fictional character when we went to see a Bond movie.
    Now there are more than one 'James Bonds'. And each one could die, or be a woman, be an alien, or whatever.
    We're in sci-fi land now. Good luck with that.

    And that illusion was perfectly fine with Donald Pleasance's Blofeld not being Bond's step-brother while Christoph Waltz's Blofeld was? I'm sorry, but Spectre established for anybody that was paying attention, that this was a different Bond/Blofeld relationship, clearly not aligned with that experienced by Connery et al.

    This is true. By the time of Spectre, a different "timeline" had already become apparent. NTTD is just continuing from that film.
  • Posts: 511
    TripAces 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.

    ...and get praised by over 80% of film critics and become the biggest moneymaker in 2021 to date. So...
    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/

    That Variety article has been greatly disputed.
    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.

    I actually think the delays helped the film resonate more. Had it come out, on schedule, in 2020, I doubt it would have made the impact it did--it would have been gobbled up in the news of COVID and a U.S. presidential election like no other. Financially, it might have been fine, but the film's cultural impact (and Bond's death) would not have been the same. Ultimately, this film needed to be released within the circumstances of the Fall of 2021. This was fate. It was perfect timing.

    Noticing a lot of overlap in the animus directed towards "No Time to Die" and "The Last Jedi" — which is kinda cool to see as someone who loves both films and predicted this very thing lol.

    And (as you say) much like TLJ, NTTD has wide critical and commercial acclaim. Both films resonated with wide audiences — because they are both human stories about the human experience, and not vapid nostalgic spectacle.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2021 Posts: 17,687
    Tonight my Son gave me this phrase: soul-less garbage.
    He used it to identify bad sequels (recent Star Wars trilogy), and live action re-makes of anime by Hollywood (Ghost In The Shell, Cowboy Beebop) or Japan (Yamato 2199) that are made by committee & miss the creative mark almost completely, seeming like bad cosplay fan films.
    To ME, this describes the last three Bond movies.
    (Aside: the love for Skyfall continues to blow my mind as it's really just as bad as SPECTRE)
    But soul-less garbage isn't always bad... SPECTRE was basically junk food that I could enjoy.
    So the idea is, know thy entertainment.
    Is what you're watching actually good? Or is there something in it that YOU enjoy?
    SPECTRE was not a very good movie, yet I enjoyed it.
    NO TIME TO DIE is not a very good movie, and I hated it.
    For perspective:
    Moonraker is a good-ish film, and I dislike it.
    Die Another Day is a bad-ish film, and I like it a lot.
    A View To A Kill is like SPECTRE- I can enjoy it.

    [The views presented in this post are Chrisisall's and he is solely responsible for its content. He is also a nut who likes Batman & Robin, so take anything he says with a big chunk of salt.]





  • Posts: 1,001
    And that illusion was perfectly fine with Donald Pleasance's Blofeld not being Bond's step-brother while Christoph Waltz's Blofeld was? I'm sorry, but Spectre established for anybody that was paying attention, that this was a different Bond/Blofeld relationship, clearly not aligned with that experienced by Connery et al.

    There's always going to be a suspension of disbelief involved, sure. The big 'holes' started in 1969 with Blofeld not recognising Bond from the previous film. As I keep saying, we rolled with all that and went along with it.
    Where my suspension of disbelief has reached its breaking point, is when they blew up the lead character and said he'll be back in the credits. That's too ridiculous for even a Moore-era guy like me. It took me completely out the movie, and I was like "aww no, don't be so f*cking daft!!!"
    I went along with Tarzan Bond, spaceman Bond and CGI surfer Bond, but zombie Bond is too much.
    Hey, if I can't say it on this thread I can't say it anywhere.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 1,001
    . . . . oh, and I'll save everyone the trouble of responding to my obvious stupidity by saying it myself.

    Are you thick ColonelAdamski? It's not the same James Bond as before. The Craig Bond is a different James Bond. It's the same character, but in a different timeline. The next time he comes back it'll be a different James Bond, which will be the third one. Or it might be a continuation of the first one, we don't know yet. But it'll be a different character, so they don't need to explain how he's come back to life. And they won't kill him again, probably. But they might. I mean, they could, if they re-boot him again. We can have as many James Bonds as we like actually, and it'll all be a different James Bond. But it's the same character.
    Except it's not.
    But it is.


  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,860
    @ColonelAdamski so you believe that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan Bond are all the same man?
    So is Vavra, General Gogol?
    Is Henderson, Blofeld?
    Is Andrea Anders, Octopussy?
    Is Brad Whittaker, Jack Wade?

    The continuity in the Bond films, especially through the 60's till the 80's was hit and miss at best. Sure we get the line in TSWLM about Tracy, and then in FYEO, Moore's Bond visits Tracy's grave. But these were small winks to keep the Bond fans happy. If you can keep the suspension of disbelief that for forty years Bond didn't age. It's only logical that a Bond actor, who from the beginning we understand is playing a rookie Bond in CR, then we have the first direct sequel with QOS (Even though there are many plot holes as to why it's not really), followed by SF, SP and now NTTD.
    All five films utilizing the same actors in their roles throughout the five film era. A first for the series. Yet, having Bond die at the end is too confusing...too hard to accept. I find that harder to fathom than James Bond going into space to do battle with lasers on a space station that was built in secret, whilst driving my invisible car to work in the morning.
    See for me, this is why I love Bond. We all get our jollies from it one way or another. I rank OP in my top five Bond films. Yet there are members and friends that think I'm mad.
    But that's ok. I'm fine with that. We're all different in our tastes and what appeals to us as to the world of OO7.
    I can understand and appreciate why fans don't like Bond dying.
    What I don't get is why some fans seem almost set on giving up on the character, or finding it hard when Bond #7 walks onto the screen for the gun barrel of Bond 26.
  • Benny wrote: »
    @ColonelAdamski so you believe that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan Bond are all the same man?
    So is Vavra, General Gogol?
    Is Henderson, Blofeld?
    Is Andrea Anders, Octopussy?
    Is Brad Whittaker, Jack Wade?

    The continuity in the Bond films, especially through the 60's till the 80's was hit and miss at best. Sure we get the line in TSWLM about Tracy, and then in FYEO, Moore's Bond visits Tracy's grave. But these were small winks to keep the Bond fans happy. If you can keep the suspension of disbelief that for forty years Bond didn't age. It's only logical that a Bond actor, who from the beginning we understand is playing a rookie Bond in CR, then we have the first direct sequel with QOS (Even though there are many plot holes as to why it's not really), followed by SF, SP and now NTTD.
    All five films utilizing the same actors in their roles throughout the five film era. A first for the series. Yet, having Bond die at the end is too confusing...too hard to accept. I find that harder to fathom than James Bond going into space to do battle with lasers on a space station that was built in secret, whilst driving my invisible car to work in the morning.
    See for me, this is why I love Bond. We all get our jollies from it one way or another. I rank OP in my top five Bond films. Yet there are members and friends that think I'm mad.
    But that's ok. I'm fine with that. We're all different in our tastes and what appeals to us as to the world of OO7.
    I can understand and appreciate why fans don't like Bond dying.
    What I don't get is why some fans seem almost set on giving up on the character, or finding it hard when Bond #7 walks onto the screen for the gun barrel of Bond 26.

    Good post. It sometimes is hard keeping the suspension of disbelief for Connery-Brosnan, though I try haha.

    I’ve always considered Craig’s Bond completely different than the others and I think CR-NTTD is it’s own thing. I do see the opposite point of view though and understand why fans don’t like that route.
  • Posts: 1,001
    Changing actors to play the same role is completely allowed. Killing off the main character then saying he'll return without explanation in a real world (ie not sci-fi) drama isn't allowed.
    It's narratively dishonest. And worst, it's just plain daft.

  • Posts: 1,001
    . . . and I can hear people screaming at the screen "BUT IT's A TIMELINE!!"

    Timeline, my arse. That's what I say. Leave all that bobbins to Batman.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,860
    Changing actors to play the same role is completely allowed. Killing off the main character then saying he'll return without explanation in a real world (ie not sci-fi) drama isn't allowed.
    It's narratively dishonest. And worst, it's just plain daft.

    That doesn’t answer the multiple actors I mentioned who appeared as different characters in different Bond films though.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2021 Posts: 23,523
    @ColonelAdamski
    Please avoid double posting. Use the edit button instead. Thank you.


    ____________________
    Changing actors to play the same role is completely allowed. Killing off the main character then saying he'll return without explanation in a real world (ie not sci-fi) drama isn't allowed.
    It's narratively dishonest. And worst, it's just plain daft.

    Not allowed? It's the movies, everything is allowed! What are you talking about? There are no rules in film: nothing is not allowed.

    Narratively dishonest? Was it narratively honest to kill off Tracy at the end of OHMSS and then not refer to that in DAF but rather crack stupid jokes instead? Was it narratively honest to have Bond kill dozens of people with a smile, ask Tiffany Case to maw down Spectre personnel but lecture Melina on the ethics of taking revenge? Was it narratively honest to pretend that Blofeld didn't recognise Bond after a mere two years since their previous meeting? Who is to even judge what is narratively honest?

    Plain daft? Well, that's just a matter of taste then. And many people seem to disagree with that.
  • Posts: 1,001
    Yes, it seems most people disagree with me.

    When I say 'not allowed' I obviously mean I don't like it. Okay?

    And yes, different actors playing different parts is allowed. Sorry, I mean it's acceptable to me.

  • edited December 2021 Posts: 624
    I'm not bothered by the ending of NTTD. It worked for DC's Bond . . .

    See, this is what a lot of us don't like about the ending of NTTD, and the whole idea that an actor has their own Bond. It used to be that James Bond was the main thing, and no actor was bigger than Bond. Now we seem to have this situation where each actor will have their own different 'Bond universe', exclusive to them. The cinematic James Bond has become actor-based, and not not character based. They'll all end up with their own death scene from now on.
    "Hey, Craig had one, why can't I" they'll be saying.

    @ColonelAdamski I totally see where you are coming from. I even agree with you. We will be indeed potentially getting "a third Bond" soon. I just don't think it's worth getting worked up over. I can't blame them for refreshing a character in 2006 after 44 years.

    I don't think at this point we can tell for sure if we will get a continuation of "the first Bond" or if we will get a third Bond and I think it's too soon to jump to the conclusion that each new actor will be their own Bond.

    Personally I wouldn't mind jumping back to the original timeline. That's my preference, actually. Bond would hardly be the first series to do so. Halloween and Terminator are the two examples that come to mind.
    Benny wrote: »
    @ColonelAdamski so you believe that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan Bond are all the same man?
    So is Vavra, General Gogol?
    Is Henderson, Blofeld?
    Is Andrea Anders, Octopussy?
    Is Brad Whittaker, Jack Wade?

    Is it a popular opinion on the forums that they aren't the same man? I thought it was "canon" that they're all the same character on a floating timeline that keeps Bond the same age (roughly).



  • Posts: 1,001
    Personally I wouldn't mind jumping back to the original timeline. I think that's my preference, actually. Bond would hardly be the first series to do so. Halloween and Terminator are the two examples that come to mind.

    Are the Halloween movies based in the real world? (ie not sci-fi). I haven't seen them.

    I ask this because I've wondered if there are any other movie series set in the real world (where the laws of known science apply), in which the main character has been properly killed off, and bought back in the next movie.
    I asked this here and no-one had an answer. I see lots of references to superheroes and sci-fi, but no comparisons to movies set in the real world.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,860
    All six actors are the same character…James Bond.
    Whether the first five actors are ‘canon’ is debatable. I think it’s up to each individual.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 624
    Personally I wouldn't mind jumping back to the original timeline. I think that's my preference, actually. Bond would hardly be the first series to do so. Halloween and Terminator are the two examples that come to mind.

    Are the Halloween movies based in the real world? (ie not sci-fi). I haven't seen them.

    I ask this because I've wondered if there are any other movie series set in the real world (where the laws of known science apply), in which the main character has been properly killed off, and bought back in the next movie.
    I asked this here and no-one had an answer. I see lots of references to superheroes and sci-fi, but no comparisons to movies set in the real world.

    Halloween is sci-fi, yes. But James Bond is far from being grounded in reality. The man was infected with nanobots, ffs. He went to space. He used VR reality goggles to play an insanely realistic simulation in which MI6 is taken over by terrorists.

    To answer your question, Fast and Furious killed off a few characters and ended up bringing them back in the next movie.

    I think your issue is you don't like reboots, which in some form, we will get for B26. For that I highly recommend the Ian Fleming novels if you want UNQUESTIONABLY one man, one Bond, from beginning to end of his life as an agent. He even dies TWICE and is brought back in the very next book.
    Benny wrote: »
    All six actors are the same character…James Bond.
    Whether the first five actors are ‘canon’ is debatable. I think it’s up to each individual.

    For me, the winks and nods to Tracy and Blofeld are enough evidence for me to confirm they're all the same man. Only thing that changes between them is the actor and a few stylistic changes they bring to the character.
  • Posts: 14,816
    jobo wrote: »
    By killing Bond off, they've officially, and very loudly and obviously, broken the illusion that we were all seeing the same fictional character when we went to see a Bond movie.
    Now there are more than one 'James Bonds'. And each one could die, or be a woman, be an alien, or whatever.
    We're in sci-fi land now. Good luck with that.


    We've been through this particular narrative in discussion so many times on this forum already, that I don't feel like going into detail yet again regarding how I feel about it. But put short, I am yet again surprised to see how so many people feel the need to overdramatize and overanalyze something that I my view shouldn't be very complicated at all. We have 25 Bond films. In 24 of them Bond survives, in one of them he dies. The saga moves on. Call me crazy, but there really isn't more to it than that for me...

    Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

    Wait til people find out Bond got married in one of them. ;)
    For many casual viewers, and maybe some fans, there's a lot of misconceptions about Bond: he can't fall in love (the reason why one of my friends never liked CR much), he can't get married and now he cannot die. Yet all these elements were present in the source material (albeit the latter one only teased at). If we follow strictly these dos and don'ts (spelling?), the character and his universe become empty, static, by-the-number, complacent. No more personal baggage? Fine, but find another way for the viewers to get emotionally involved. Standalone missions? Fine, but then find another way to show the badguy is a genuine threat and not merely the villain of the week. Bond cannot die? Fine, but find a way, after 25 movies, to give a sense of danger. I know for now on I will be a little bit more worried about what might happen to him.
Sign In or Register to comment.