NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions

15681011263

Comments

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,219
    bondsum wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Yeah sure. They will kill off every other future Bond on their last picture. Come on.
    You're only on moderately safe ground as we're not in the future yet, so you can't disprove my hypothesis unless you happen to have a crystal ball or your name is Nostradamus. But as the death of M and now Bond has already proven, nothing can be ruled out going forwards. Come back to me when Ralph Fiennes decides to leave his role. Until then, sayōnara.

    I’ll come back only if EoN will kill off another Bond in the future.
  • Posts: 5,735
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Title looks absolutely stupid now.
    Always has, IMO.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited September 2021 Posts: 4,219
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Title looks absolutely stupid now.

    Sounds like EoN is trolling. But hey, now it makes sense that A Reason to Die has been considered as a title.
  • Posts: 11,084
    More so now obviously. Just burns for so many of us that traditional Bond is dead now and might not ever come back with how things are now. A wait this long that will only satisfy half or so of the audience is beyond disappointing in itself.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 3,316
    matt_u wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Yeah sure. They will kill off every other future Bond on their last picture. Come on.
    You're only on moderately safe ground as we're not in the future yet, so you can't disprove my hypothesis unless you happen to have a crystal ball or your name is Nostradamus. But as the death of M and now Bond has already proven, nothing can be ruled out going forwards. Come back to me when Ralph Fiennes decides to leave his role. Until then, sayōnara.

    I’ll come back only if EoN will kill off another Bond in the future.
    No, come back to me when they kill off an A-list actor who plays a regular side character who has publicly stated that it's his (or her) last Bond picture, which was what I originally stated. It's you that decided I was talking specifically about the James Bond role.
  • Looks like Goldfinger's expectations have finally been met.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 98
    Hi. New member. Had to join as this decision to do 'you know what' is the most significant moment in the character's six decade long cinematic history.

    To be as fair as possible I'll split my comments into parts. Part one is assuming Bond is genuinely dead at the end of NTTD. Part 2 will offer an alternative scenario.

    Part 1

    If Bond is dead you can argue it cheapens the franchise, is a "screw you" from the producers to all the loyal fans that have supported the film version of James Bond since 1962, and it destroys the continuity of the franchise.

    My guess is Craig only returned on the condition his Bond was killed. This makes reasonable sense given his reluctance to return after SPECTRE. It also makes sense given his recent BAFTA interview when he said he took the role to subvert the character. When Bond dismissed a vodka martini in Casino Royale it laid out Craig's desire (along with Barbara Broccoli) to subvert the character. Break with tradition. Bond has still been Bond in Craig's films so it's a superficial subversion, not that profound, but it's allowed Craig and Broccoli the excuse to kill off Bond.

    Killing off Bond is disrespectful to loyal fans. Don't wish to labour the point but the easiest way to dismiss the loyal hardcore fanbase is to kill the main hero. This is why so many Star Wars fans hated Luke Skywalker's death in the Disney sequels.

    Killing off Bond renders the Craig era pointless? From now on if you watch his five films you'll always know Bond dies. No happy ending. Craig's iteration of James Bond is a loser. He didn't have the skill to escape death. He'll forever be the one that didn't have the capacity to survive. Is that a good way to remember the Craig era? Probably not.

    Ruins Bond continuity/timeline. If Bond is dead in NTTD that means Bond actor #7 is not the original James Bond. He's 'alternative reality' James Bond. Mark 2. The past is irrelevant. The previous twenty five Bond films are unimportant to the next Bond. Never happened.

    You could argue this decision to kill off Bond cheapens/dismisses the original Cubby Broccoli Bond (1962 to 1989). Not to mention it's the height of bad taste for the daughter to inherit her father's franchise and then kill off the character. Is that respectful? Does that honour his legacy? I would argue no.

    The title makes no sense. If Bond is dead then he did have time to die. The title is meaningless or ironic or a piss take. Make up your own mind!

    Divides the fanbase. Long term loyal fans may or will hate this decision to kill off Bond but casual fans won't care. This is why there are YouTube reviews online and casual fans are giving it good reviews. Casual fans - fans that probably haven't seen many Bond films prior to Casino Royale - couldn't care less if Bond is dead. They have no emotional connection to the character. He's just another action hero. In a few weeks time they'll find another action hero to get excited about like Venom. If you don't care if Bond is dead… you don't have much of an emotional connection to the character. Just saying "this film is great" doesn't mean you care about the franchise and the fate of Bond.

    Part 2
    I haven't see NTTD so I don't know if Bond has been nuked to atoms (!) but if there is no evidence he is dead he can return in Bond 26. Bond found a secret bunker underneath Safin's base and survived the blast. His face is damaged. He has restorative surgery. I accept this is a bit cheesy but it's a Bond film so anything is possible!

    My gut feeling is Eon will pay heed to the inevitable backlash and bring Bond back via plastic surgery. The precredits of Bond 26 could be Bond as a freelance assassin, disfigured. The plot is about finding Bond. It could be a two film storyline. In Bond 26 Bond is a freelance assassin working for a new organisation or maybe a freelancer playing both sides - the good and bad guys. At the end of the film Bond is captured by the 00s. Bond 27 is Bond back in action as 007. 😉 This has considerable potential.

    My guess is that is what they'll do because they can recast the role and pay homage to Craig's era. Bond 26 is the sequel to No Time To Die.

    Speaking as a long term Bond fan, if Craig's Bond is dead I feel it's a big mistake and one that can never be rectified. It feels like Barbara Broccoli is ignoring the loyal fans and not caring what they think. If Bond is dead then an interviewer should ask Barbara..

    "Do you think your father would have approved of this decision to kill off James Bond?"

    My guess is she would prevaricate, not give a clear answer and say "I can't speak for my father. You'll have to make up your own mind what he would have thought."

    My guess is Cubby would have disapproved.






  • Title does make sense, you just need to think of different ways of reading it.
    Basically it's really "no time" to die right now since there's so much more to do with life, along those kind of lines if you ask me.
  • Posts: 11,084
    Definitely reeks of disrespect and a middle finger to many loyal fans. Reading about cringey woke dialogue in another thread doesn't help either on top of all the other concerns.
  • Posts: 5,735
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Just burns for so many of us that traditional Bond is dead now and might not ever come back with how things are now.

    This! This is what I'm truly afraid of. Right now, I believe I won't be seeing another traditional Bond film in my lifetime. And that saddens me profoundly.

    Ok, so there will be elements of it in the films. Screw elements. I want the whole shebang.

    But who knows? Let's hold a candle for the next iteration, whenever that'll be, given that Babs has her mourning to do. I just hope they don't try and redo all of this with another - even farther from the original material - actor.

    I loved Daniel Craig. But it's time to move on. And the direction is:

    1) Bring good writers to conjure up a regular high stakes mission with no personal angle or rogue agent agenda;
    2) Continue with the Fleming touches. Done marvellously throughout this tenure, I must say;
    3) Bring back the formula! Yes, you've heard me. THE FORMULA. The organics of the other films.

    This being said. I'm sure I'll still enjoy NTTD immensely.

    BTW, did Craig got what Harrison Ford never got when he was younger? (talking about Solo, of course. And maybe Indy, who knows?). And on another note, didn't Connery said he would love to kill Bond at some point? (but I think he meant in real life, lol).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    I think I get it.

    Those who grew up with the Cubby era were comforted by no major shake ups, unless decreed by Fleming. Just pure formula where you can always depend on the franchise. That’s why LTK for its time was such a polarizing film for it’s time because it threw everyone out of the loop. And now that they’re ending Craig’s era the way they do signals NOTHING is sacred or safe. The formula is gone, and so is some folks’ fan cards.
  • Posts: 5,735
    Yes, that's it, @MakeshiftPython.

    But I still want the formula back :D

    But I guess these are observations best left to another threads.
  • Posts: 3,316
    Your views are most welcome @bondywondy. I found myself nodding in agreement with the majority of what you wrote.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    Univex wrote: »
    Yes, that's it, @MakeshiftPython.

    But I still want the formula back :D

    But I guess these are observations best left to another threads.

    Honestly, just give me a good time at the movies. Whether it adheres to the formula of 1962-1985 or takes chances like Craig’s run. I’m not gonna fold my arms up and quit this franchise on a whim.
  • Posts: 98
    Penpen wrote: »
    Title does make sense, you just need to think of different ways of reading it.
    Basically it's really "no time" to die right now since there's so much more to do with life, along those kind of lines if you ask me.

    Probably an ironic title.

    I don't think Barbara Broccoli would ever kill off Bond.

    Is Bond dead?.... is a great marketing tagine leading up to Bond 26. Great way for Amazon to hype the film. My gut feeling is Bond is not dead. He's missing in action presumed dead?

    I would happily contact Eon Productions if it wasn't a waste of time (lol) - they'd throw away my letter unread! - and urge them to go the 'Bond is disfigured or a freelancer, alive and well' idea in Bond 26. My guess is Eon Productions probably have a cursory look on this forum just to gauge opinion.

    Please do not kill off Craig's Bond. Let him continue in Bond 26 albeit with a new face. I think most fans will get behind that. We know Bond will return in Bond 26 but it's gonna be too weird if Bond is both dead and reborn. How does that work? 😄🤪


  • edited September 2021 Posts: 523
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Some of you are so fickle. I have not read the ending spoiler but how about instead of being mad that this ending you watch the entire movie and then maybe this ending will actually make sense. See the story play out and see how they tell the story to get to that ending.

    Who likes to see their hero die? Some people have watched James Bond for 60 years, and developed a ridiculous amount of emotional equity into that charter-he’s part of their lives. Some even doing the books before that. So it becomes like you know the person. Then all of a sudden, a fictional hero (and it is James Bond)-one that has always beaten the odds, saved the day, let you live vicariously through him is DEAD. For some people, that is ultra distressing. People go to see Bond kick ass, save the day, and escape the rough old world we live in. It uplifts people. We watch and rewatch, plus we want to see him do it again. Now all of a sudden that part of your life is DEAD. And it is hard to rewatch him in other movies because you know the character is gone. Wonder who came up with this stupid idea? Movie will not make as much $ as I would have. Mark it down. It may even flop. I hope it does.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Well, I haven’t seen anyone, even those who liked the film, say that they’re glad he dies.

    I think this is a really cheap and borderline nonsensical argument to make. I wasn't "glad" to see Spock or Tony Stark die either, quite the opposite, but I think those respective films are better for committing to it.

    When fans claim they want something new, I don’t think some of them actually mean it.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 5,735
    Univex wrote: »
    Yes, that's it, @MakeshiftPython.

    But I still want the formula back :D

    But I guess these are observations best left to another threads.

    Honestly, just give me a good time at the movies. Whether it adheres to the formula of 1962-1985 or takes chances like Craig’s run. I’m not gonna fold my arms up and quit this franchise on a whim.

    I actually feel the same, @MakeshiftPython.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Some of you are so fickle. I have not read the ending spoiler but how about instead of being mad that this ending you watch the entire movie and then maybe this ending will actually make sense. See the story play out and see how they tell the story to get to that ending.

    Who likes to see their hero die? Some people have watched James Bond for 60 years, and developed a ridiculous amount of emotional equity into that charter-he’s part of their lives. Some even doing the books before that. So it becomes like you know the person. Then all of a sudden, a fictional hero (and it is James Bond)-one that has always beaten the odds, saved the day, let you live vicariously through him is DEAD. For some people, that is ultra distressing. People go to see Bond kick ass, save the day, and escape the rough old world we live in. It uplifts people. We watch and rewatch, plus we want to see him do it again. Now all of a sudden that part of your life is DEAD. And it is hard to rewatch him in other movies because you know the character is gone. Wonder who came up with this stupid idea? Movie will not make as much $ as I would have. Mark it down. It may even flop. I hope it does.

    You do realize a new iteration of Bond will happen and that the character isn’t dead forever right?
  • Posts: 250
    I think I get it.

    Those who grew up with the Cubby era were comforted by no major shake ups, unless decreed by Fleming. Just pure formula where you can always depend on the franchise. That’s why LTK for its time was such a polarizing film for it’s time because it threw everyone out of the loop. And now that they’re ending Craig’s era the way they do signals NOTHING is sacred or safe. The formula is gone, and so is some folks’ fan cards.

    I think there is this sort of fantasy expectation that the sausage factory Cubby turned EON into (the series is significantly less adventurous following Saltzman's departure, and Cubby vetoed any artistic licence anyone wanted to introduce during the 80s) would be able to persist in a blockbuster market that has exploded since then.

    Fleming himself was iconoclastic with his own creation on a frequent basis - im not sure why Barbara Broccoli isn't allowed to be as well. After all, there is a mammoth collection of traditional entries in existence - we are spoiled both in having that catalogue and having a franchise that exists to this day, neither of which were or are fait accomplis.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    Well said @FourDot

    As Bond fans, we are far FAR more spoiled today than in 1965.
  • Posts: 98
    Thanks for the welcome. 😉

    Unless Bond 26's first trailer is..
    "Legends never die... they are reborn..."
    ..and we're told it's a full reboot, I think it's best to watch NTTD assuming Bond is not dead. Just missing in action. They could be cheeky and hire Craig to a flashback scene showing how he survived. 😊

    This is not the final James Bond film (subject to good box office!) so he's not dead. Eon will contrive a way to bring 007 back from the dead. We're looking at it from a glass half empty perspective. Amazon want Bond alive, not dead so realistically speaking... there's still life in our favourite cold war spy. 😉
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    I now fully expect a brand new Bond with a brand new MI6 cast and such. No more Ralph Fiennes, Whishaw, Harris, etc.

    And I look forward to this bold new future for Bond.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,219
    Bond 26 is gonna be a total reboot so it doesn't really matter if Craig's Bond is dead. That's not even a point. This is not Marvel.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 523
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Some of you are so fickle. I have not read the ending spoiler but how about instead of being mad that this ending you watch the entire movie and then maybe this ending will actually make sense. See the story play out and see how they tell the story to get to that ending.

    Who likes to see their hero die? Some people have watched James Bond for 60 years, and developed a ridiculous amount of emotional equity into that charter-he’s part of their lives. Some even doing the books before that. So it becomes like you know the person. Then all of a sudden, a fictional hero (and it is James Bond)-one that has always beaten the odds, saved the day, let you live vicariously through him is DEAD. For some people, that is ultra distressing. People go to see Bond kick ass, save the day, and escape the rough old world we live in. It uplifts people. We watch and rewatch, plus we want to see him do it again. Now all of a sudden that part of your life is DEAD. And it is hard to rewatch him in other movies because you know the character is gone. Wonder who came up with this stupid idea? Movie will not make as much $ as I would have. Mark it down. It may even flop. I hope it does.

    You do realize a new iteration of Bond will happen and that the character isn’t dead forever right?

    Yeah. But, Bond is Bond, no matter who plays it, and it also makes Craig’s Bond lesser (none of the other’s died). When you watch a Craig Bond now, the cloud of he died is going to permeate the movies. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Do you agree?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Some of you are so fickle. I have not read the ending spoiler but how about instead of being mad that this ending you watch the entire movie and then maybe this ending will actually make sense. See the story play out and see how they tell the story to get to that ending.

    Who likes to see their hero die? Some people have watched James Bond for 60 years, and developed a ridiculous amount of emotional equity into that charter-he’s part of their lives. Some even doing the books before that. So it becomes like you know the person. Then all of a sudden, a fictional hero (and it is James Bond)-one that has always beaten the odds, saved the day, let you live vicariously through him is DEAD. For some people, that is ultra distressing. People go to see Bond kick ass, save the day, and escape the rough old world we live in. It uplifts people. We watch and rewatch, plus we want to see him do it again. Now all of a sudden that part of your life is DEAD. And it is hard to rewatch him in other movies because you know the character is gone. Wonder who came up with this stupid idea? Movie will not make as much $ as I would have. Mark it down. It may even flop. I hope it does.

    You do realize a new iteration of Bond will happen and that the character isn’t dead forever right?

    Yeah. But, Bond is Bond, no matter who plays it, and it also makes Craig’s Bond lesser (none of the other’s died). When you watch a Craig Bond now, the cloud of he died is going to permeate the movies. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Do you agree?

    So what? The other Bonds are immortal or something?
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 295
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Some of you are so fickle. I have not read the ending spoiler but how about instead of being mad that this ending you watch the entire movie and then maybe this ending will actually make sense. See the story play out and see how they tell the story to get to that ending.

    Who likes to see their hero die? Some people have watched James Bond for 60 years, and developed a ridiculous amount of emotional equity into that charter-he’s part of their lives. Some even doing the books before that. So it becomes like you know the person. Then all of a sudden, a fictional hero (and it is James Bond)-one that has always beaten the odds, saved the day, let you live vicariously through him is DEAD. For some people, that is ultra distressing. People go to see Bond kick ass, save the day, and escape the rough old world we live in. It uplifts people. We watch and rewatch, plus we want to see him do it again. Now all of a sudden that part of your life is DEAD. And it is hard to rewatch him in other movies because you know the character is gone. Wonder who came up with this stupid idea? Movie will not make as much $ as I would have. Mark it down. It may even flop. I hope it does.

    You do realize a new iteration of Bond will happen and that the character isn’t dead forever right?

    Yeah. But, Bond is Bond, no matter who plays it, and it also makes Craig’s Bond lesser (none of the other’s died). When you watch a Craig Bond now, the cloud of he died is going to permeate the movies. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Do you agree?

    The bad taste depends on whether you view Bond's death as being, well, bad. None of us want Bond to go away as a character. He won't. There will be a new Bond. But Craig's tenure has been an amazing encapsulated era of experimentation and subversion. Craig has both embraced the legacy and moved it forward. Craig finally did was what only hinted at by Lazenby and Dalton: he played Fleming's Bond. Craig gave general audiences what fans already knew Bond possessed: a soul.

    For that, we should be thankful--critical when needed--but thankful. Craig has overseen the most successful and critically acclaimed era since 1967. There are some major shout outs in between but there is no doubt that Craig made it possible for Bond to go on for another several decades.

    So, Craig's Bond dies. Whether that's a fitting end depends on the material. Batman has died. Spider-Man has died. Captain Kirk has died. Superman has died. But they keep coming back. Like those characters, Bond is modern myth. Myths never truly die. They come back in new iterations.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 5,735
    matt_u wrote: »
    Bond 26 is gonna be a total reboot so it doesn't really matter if Craig's Bond is dead. That's not even a point. This is not Marvel.

    Yes, it is Marvel :D NTTD is just another alternate reality in the multiverse ;) It's the What if, in the Bond cannon.
    Burgess wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Some of you are so fickle. I have not read the ending spoiler but how about instead of being mad that this ending you watch the entire movie and then maybe this ending will actually make sense. See the story play out and see how they tell the story to get to that ending.

    Who likes to see their hero die? Some people have watched James Bond for 60 years, and developed a ridiculous amount of emotional equity into that charter-he’s part of their lives. Some even doing the books before that. So it becomes like you know the person. Then all of a sudden, a fictional hero (and it is James Bond)-one that has always beaten the odds, saved the day, let you live vicariously through him is DEAD. For some people, that is ultra distressing. People go to see Bond kick ass, save the day, and escape the rough old world we live in. It uplifts people. We watch and rewatch, plus we want to see him do it again. Now all of a sudden that part of your life is DEAD. And it is hard to rewatch him in other movies because you know the character is gone. Wonder who came up with this stupid idea? Movie will not make as much $ as I would have. Mark it down. It may even flop. I hope it does.

    You do realize a new iteration of Bond will happen and that the character isn’t dead forever right?

    Yeah. But, Bond is Bond, no matter who plays it, and it also makes Craig’s Bond lesser (none of the other’s died). When you watch a Craig Bond now, the cloud of he died is going to permeate the movies. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Do you agree?

    The bad taste depends on whether you view Bond's death as being, well, bad. None of us want Bond to go away as a character. He won't. There will be a new Bond. But Craig's tenure has been an amazing encapsulated error of experimentation and subversion. Craig has both embraced the legacy and moved it forward. Craig finally did was only hinted at by Lazenby and Dalton: he played Fleming's Bond. Craig gave general audiences what fans already knew Bond possessed: a soul.

    For that, we should be thankful--critical when needed--but thankful. Craig has overseen the most successful and critically acclaimed era since 1967. There are some major shout outs in between but there is no doubt that Craig made it possible for Bond to go on for another several decades.

    So, Craig's Bond dies. Whether that's a fitting end depends on the material. Batman has died. Spider-Man has died. Captain Kirk has died. Superman has died. But they keep coming back. Like those characters, Bond is modern myth. Myths never truly die. They come back in new iterations.

    What a wonderful post, @Burgess.
  • DrinmanDrinman New York
    edited September 2021 Posts: 40
    I actually disagree that Craig played Fleming’s Bond. Somewhere along the way we conflated emotional with Fleming and I’m not sure where that came from. Fleming’s Bond was emotional for sure but he was also many other things which the modern film Bond is not. I feel like Barbara has wanted to fundamentally change the character from day one and whenever she is pressed for an explanation the easy thing to say is “Oh well we are just doing what Ian Fleming did” and I believe it’s a cop out.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 3,316
    You do realize a new iteration of Bond will happen and that the character isn’t dead forever right?
    Yes, but it does make the Craig era seem rather redundant and something of an anomaly. It'll be interesting to see how they market the next James Bond actor and his first movie. Will it be a case of asking you to forget Craig's entire tenure and demise and go with a new iteration that resembles the classic Fleming character, or will they still acknowledge everything that took place in Craig's universe, with his Bond somehow miraculously surviving to come back with a new face—something that was first mooted for Lazenby's Bond, but ultimately dropped by the producers?

    Personally I think they'll go for a hard reboot, resetting the dials to zero. In all likelihood, they'll probably allow Ralph Fiennes to reprise his role again as M, the same way they allowed Judi Dench to crossover into CR, but that will most likely be it.
Sign In or Register to comment.