NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions

11415171920263

Comments

  • Posts: 813
    Stark wrote: »
    Is it true that safin's motivations are never explained ? Weird

    It's what I had asked earlier, I didn't understood the second motivation he have...
  • Stark wrote: »
    Is it true that safin's motivations are never explained ? Weird
    Stark wrote: »
    Is it true that safin's motivations are never explained ? Weird

    It's what I had asked earlier, I didn't understood the second motivation he have...

    He's a really uninteresting, generic Bond villain using the lazy lazy trope of a scarred face/deformity to signify his villainy with no real motive for his main aim. Poor.
  • Stark wrote: »
    Is it true that safin's motivations are never explained ? Weird
    Stark wrote: »
    Is it true that safin's motivations are never explained ? Weird

    It's what I had asked earlier, I didn't understood the second motivation he have...

    He's a really uninteresting, generic Bond villain using the lazy lazy trope of a scarred face/deformity to signify his villainy with no real motive for his main aim. Poor.
    It seems that’s what a lot of fans are saying. I was honestly expecting more with how much they seemed to market him.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 813
    Never explained how/why his face is scarred too... Neither why he wear a mask in the beginning. Or what his men doing in the room with "water" and stick-light...
  • Posts: 250
    I think, and it does get lost in the shuffle his motivation is to paradoxically prevent the horror visited upon him by Mr. White as a child by eliminating through the DNA targeting all assassins and murderers and what have you and their kin - there is also via Dencik's character the allusion that this includes some eugenics too. A sort of universal and total revenge.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 925
    Just came back from watching the movie at IMAX. Wow. What a movie. A very ambitious Bond movie that's for sure. Worth the wait? Yes it was!

    I stayed till the end credits, still said "James Bond will return" so there's that.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 813
    But be and assassins/murderers is not determined by DNA, it's not something that is in the genetic code of anyone... :-? You can't ask a DNA-targeting weapon to target all assassins/murderers of the world, it's a no-sens
  • Posts: 295
    bondsum wrote: »
    Sorry, but I disagree @Burgess. Citing comic book characters doesn't immediately translate to James Bond. Besides, I'm not aware of the MCU killing off a superhero to then suddenly bring them back in the next movie played by a different actor. Note the use of "superhero" which James Bond is not. Someone cited Spiderman a few pages back, (I forget who) but the filmmakers didn't kill off Peter Parker at the end of their respective movies.

    Using the adage that "audiences are much more sophisticated about this type of stuff then they were 10 or 15 years ago" is rather lame, especially when there's no proof to back this up. Are you saying that the same audiences that accepted 6 different actors playing James Bond in the past are less sophisticated than those today? Or that audiences 15 years ago didn't accept a different actor playing Obi-Wan Kenobi, or a different actor playing Batman? Is this the same sophisticated audience that still prefers their foreign movies dubbed rather than subtitled, hence why Netflix has to release 2 seperate versions on their platform to attract viewers?

    For me, there's nothing remotely wrong in asking the question how are the producers going to approach the next series of Bond movies after killing their protagonist, and where they intend on taking him now that his destinty seems already preset. But maybe I'm less sophisticated than your current moviegoer?

    It seems you've taken my comments personally. It was not my intention to offend anyone. I'm a lifelong Bond fan. We all have that in common. What I mean by pointing out that audiences are more sophisticated now is that the content and nature of modern entertainment is multifaceted and complex.

    Marvel has already introduced the idea of multi-verses. The next Spider-Man movie is believed to include both previous cinematic incarnations of the character. We've already seen Doc Ock from Spider-Man 2 in the No Way Home trailer. DC has brought back Michael Keaton as Batman.

    James Bond is not a comic book superhero, of course, but there are some tangential similarities. Like you pointed out, audiences have already been through six James Bond actors over the last 60 years. The proof in audience sophistication is in the success of these properties. In 2000, the makers of X-MEN didn't believe that audiences would go for blue and yellow spandex. X-MEN was played as straight and realistic as possible because audiences were not used to that kind of world building. Twenty-one years later, audiences are following movie continuity between multiple characters across all forms of entertainment.

    To your point about Netflix, even with dubs, it was unheard of for American audiences to watch anything that wasn't made in America or, maybe, the UK. Today, shows from Korea, France, Japan, the Netherlands and Russia are among the most watched TV shows on Netflix. Audiences are more sophisticated in the language of entertainment and their tastes are more cosmopolitan.

    It's one thing to wonder about Bond's future. That's what we as fans are supposed to do. But some on this board are making inappropriate (given the subject) or specious moral arguments about NTTD. This isn't the most difficult logistical knot to untangle. We analyze, we love, we hate, we appreciate. That's what we do as Bond fans. That's not wrong to do. But perspective is needed. Using other modern examples, like superhero movies, gives us that perspective--however imperfect the analogy.
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    edited September 2021 Posts: 372
    Hey everyone, long time no see. Well, I saw this earlier today. This had everything I ever wanted in a Bond movie. I'm fond of the ones where the mission is personal to Bond and this film was built around that. I found it extremely absorbing and I can't say I really noticed the long running time.
    And that ending left me stunned. Absolutely stunned.
  • Posts: 11,084
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2021/sep/30/never-mind-the-explosions-how-sexist-is-no-time-to-die#vch=ewTdYp96hJw
    Definitely sounds to me like they’re trying to move away from Bond’s womanizing, which is a crucial part of his character historically. Between this and killing him off, I bet a certain side is ecstatic. I’ve made my peace with the big ending anyway - it is what it is. Hopefully this will look better in the movie then how it sounds on paper.
  • Posts: 295
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Bond fans will have to wrap their heads around the fact that Bond will reboot. I've cited comic book characters in a previous post. Audiences are much more sophisticated about this type of stuff then they were 10 or 15 years ago. That's why we can have three or four Batmen across video games, TV, movies and animation.

    This is not a complicated issue. Hell, Judi Dench was carry over casting from Brosnan's era. But we accepted that she was a "new" M for a new Bond. Roll with the punches sometimes. I'm not saying we should have 3 or 4 different Bond iterations but we kinda do right now: Comics, novels and movies. Soon we'll have a different Bond for video games.

    Craig's era was it's own self contained story. That's it. That's as complicated as it needs to be. He was Bond. Not part of the same "continuity" as his predecessors but still Bond. I mean, it's kind of absurd to think Timothy Dalton's Bond is the same exact one as Sir Roger Moore. They're the same character. There's only one 007. But (here's that "but" again) they're all really different interpretations of the same character.

    Bond's death may actually raise the stakes in future films. Now, audiences don't know that Bond will always make it through. Or maybe he always will. All I know is that Bond's death in the Craig era fit a classic story cycle of "birth" and "death." It fit this Bond's journey.

    You make valid points, however, this is a historic moment in the franchise - killing off the main character. Aside from future Bond film continuity issues (!) there is a moral dimension to this decision. Was it morally right to kill James Bond? Has Barbara Broccoli respected her father's legacy or dismissed it? Has she respected Ian Fleming's creation or disregarded it?

    Is dismantling all that came before respectful or disrespectful?

    Maybe in a few months time these questions should be addressed. Let people see and enjoy (or not enjoy) the film right now, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't think fans should automatically give Eon a free pass on this decision. Nearly all the paid pro film critics and fan YouTube reviewers praising NTTD are ignoring the fact the boss of the franchise killed off the most enduring pop culture hero of the 20th century. And yes, she has the 'get out of jail' card of "James Bond will return..." but she still did the unthinkable... killed off James Bond 007. The franchise can never be the same again and maybe that is a small tragedy.

    I think asking those types of questions are beyond what's in the text of the actual film. I'm sure Cubby made creative decisions that Ian would have hated. For sure, Barbara and Michael made decisions that Cubby probably wouldn't have made. But so what? Respecting Bond as a character isn't limited to one type of interpretation. There is an animating spirit to all of this. As long as that spirit is loved and respected and understood then I'm alright with creative experimentation.
  • Posts: 98
    Bit of geeky trivia...

    No Time To Die is the first film ever made in which the hero is killed but the closing of the film states the hero will return.

    I'm gonna take a guess that's never happened before.
  • DrinmanDrinman New York
    Posts: 40
    The Passion Of The Bond lol
  • Posts: 250
    But be and assassins/murderers is not determined by DNA, it's not something that is in the genetic code of anyone... :-? You can't ask a DNA-targeting weapon to target all assassins/murderers of the world, it's a no-sens

    Well I mean it's more that he's taken the Spectre people and then extrapolated from there including MI6 agents and what have you - so all known assassins

    I'm not saying it's not incredibly muddy and flimsy.
  • Posts: 11,084
    Really disappointed to see even Safin didn’t do better. I really thought he’d be a big highlight for many, but his motivation sounds too unexplained. More surprising to me than anything else about him is how he was never any part of SPECTRE ever, which most of us had guessed he was. At least we got one main villain that wasn’t in Craig’s era for those who wanted that.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 36,603
    Yes, it's a shame seeing him as the most consistent criticism fans have. I'm still really looking forward to his performance, was quite cold and larger than life in those clips and trailers.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,316
    I actually think he achieves being quite chilling but yes like others have said, his motivations could maybe be questioned. I haven't seen many have mentioned the brief fight scene between him and Bond- quite brutal in that we actually see Bond snap his arm! And ofc the realisation that bond is poisoned. Thought that was very powerful to watch.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 507
    OK. Home, James ;). So now I'm at my PC I'm going to type up some more specific thoughts under a spoiler banner. This will be long and contain heavy spoilers for the entire movie, I know it's a spoiler thread but I just want to make sure. Click at your own peril! You’ve been warned!
    OK Wow. So much to unpack.

    There's a lot of themes of loss in this era. This whole era, Bond has been a complete tragic hero. When I heard the main spoiler, that Bond dies, I honestly thought that it would ruin CR et al upon watching. I don't feel that way after seeing it. It's done in a pretty good way. I know people will keep asking... Yes, I would say it's completely set in stone he's dead though I appreciate the wishful thinking that he some how got flung into water and castaway haha. It would have been kind of cool if it was YOLT like but you literally see the roof he's standing on get hit by a missile and the screen go white. There's no body because there's nothing left of him. Even if he did somehow miraculously survive, he was riddled with bullets and most likely bleeding out.

    The thing about his death too... If you watch the PTS with Matera... This is a man in this era who constantly loses everything and now it's like he's losing everything again. The sad thing is, he loses everything at the end too with FOXDIE (I'm just going to call it that haha) because it'll kill his daughter and Madeleine. Craig's Bond is a complete tragic hero.

    I didn't stay beyond the credits so I don't know if there's any other footage although I know it ends with "James Bond will return". Is it literally just that on a black screen or is there anything else?

    I was with my Dad... And I walked out thinking this really was (in a strange way!) a Dad and daughter film... this film really, really hurt and hit me in a weird way. It's not to say that Bond's relationship with his daughter is sappy and melodramatic, because it's not. He's quite awkward about it all and it felt right. I can't really emphasise that enough. Within the confines of what literature and canon we have... It didn't feel wrong at all even if they went there and tread that ground. It was still respectful to Bond IMHO.

    For context, my Dad is not a Bond fan. He fell asleep at Dr No all those years ago at a midnight showing with his friends and has hated it up until the Craig era which he’s really enjoyed (he says it’s because you see him get hurt and get bloody and stuff). My Dad thoroughly enjoyed every minute of the movie and thought it flew by.

    Craig - This is his most 'dynamic' performance. The shackles are let off here and he shows a range of emotions beyond being just a stoic weapon. I read that some people disliked the humour... I think he played it off quite well, much better than Spectre. I liked his performance in this actually probably the most of his run! There’s a sense of irony that his Bond is a weapon metaphorically and yet literally becomes a weapon too.

    The run time - yes, it's long, but it's a rollercoaster... It's packed with a lot of fanservice which may make up for the ending. The ending is what's going to get spoke about a lot, of course, and divide people. For me it didn’t particularly let up but your mileage will vary.

    I don't like the ending. I think they could have ended Craig's era without such a definitive end for Bond. The big problem I have is somehow a few of my friends who are complete casuals have seen it before me at midnight showings. They're deeply confused at how it'll carry on. I also think that I shouldn't have walked out of a Bond movie crying. I think this was one little push and subversion too far.

    On that note, did they film alternate endings? Any chance of 'fanservice' on the bluray? I doubt they did given how kind of... 'drawn out' and definitive it is. Oh well.

    Oh God, what else, this is a bit of a jumble isn't it?! I'm trying to get it all down while it's fresh.

    Nomi - I know she had a lot of detractors but I think the trailers did her dirty. It's nowhere near as bad as some people thought though I can wholly understand why they did jump to those conclusions given what we were shown. Bond clearly gets the better of her in quite a few scenes (for those who were worried about wokeness or whatever it was). There’s some good interaction there… But she is pretty much ‘useless’ in a sense.. Not in a bad way but they didn't really utilise her a lot I felt.

    Paloma - Her bit ends too soon! I really enjoyed her interactions with James. She was awkward, funny and, yeah...

    Blofeld - There's some YOLT fanservice with the interaction that I appreciated but I wasn't fond at the way Bond just says "DIE." Which, OK, it's in YOLT but in the context of where and how it happens... That was a little weird as it jumped to it very quickly. But I enjoy seeing people get under Bond's skin... The weird thing for me is this would have made more sense if he was the big bad rather than Safin. I think I know what they were going for here because of the way Blofeld played him over Madeleine but it just didn’t hit the mark.

    Safin - Garbage villain. The weak point of the movie. I don't get what the hell he's doing. It makes no sense. Oh, and TBH it freaked me out that he's obsessed with Madeleine in such a way after meeting her as a child. He’s basically there to make sure it’s a Bond movie. At least get the villain right though… And I think that’s the thing with the runtime and everything they crammed into it, he’s there just so they can call it a Bond movie. Sadly for the real hardcore fans of the non-personal stuff, you should maybe sit this out as you’ll be disappointed as he’s in it probably for all of quarter of an hour, maybe twenty minutes if you take into account the PTS.

    Scooby gang – It’s still there. I’ve never had a massive problem with it. It’s just there. Nothing special. Nothing to report.

    Bond’s relationship with M – I always thought it was particularly testy with Fiennes’ M and boy is it really testy here. “Has this desk gotten bigger or have you gotten smaller?” MEOW, Mr Bond! Then just before he leaves. “No. I was wrong. The desk is the same size.”

    Bond as a freelancer – Hell yeah! Come join the darkside. Us self employed lot are great! All joking aside… I liked seeing this side of him in retirement… And the bit where he tells Nomi if the CIA and MI6 aren’t cooperating… That’s not good. Bond knows the game. Plays it.

    Felix – I’ll admit it. I cried here too when Felix died. Felix means a lot to Bond and seeing the anguish really punched me in the gut. Other than that, it’s Felix, and you get to see Bond live it up with him a bit which I enjoyed!

    That big long one take near the end – Total fanservice considering what happens after it. It’s bloody brilliant and BADASS!!! I have to say I love the choice to immerse us with Bond’s deafness every time an explosion goes off.

    Cinematography – Gorgeous film. Chances of an Oscar nomination perhaps?

    There’s still a ton to say. I think this is the most I’ve heard Bond say he loves someone?!? This film is a love story through and through and a lot will not like it.

    Did anyone notice the end shot with the Aston looked a bit gunbarrel’y with the light at the end of the tunnel? That was a nice touch. Even if I was a blubbering mess!

    So how does this rank with the other Craig movies? Skyfall, Casino Royale, No Time to Die, Quantum of Solace, Spectre. That’s my order. I have a real soft spot for Skyfall for some reason.

    Given the touchy situation in the world, it was good sense to delay this. It was maybe too soon to release with the pandemic but now is the right time. It just could have done with a bit of hope and Bond living at the end of it, oh well!

    I’m sure there’s more. I’ll probably write some more when it enters into my head
    So uh, yeah, does anyone have any questions or concerns after that rant and a half?!
  • Tokoloshe2Tokoloshe2 Northern Ireland
    Posts: 1,133
    Safin's death is cleverly handled in that shooting him is almost an irrelevant action as Bond realises what has just happened to him.

    No dramatic demise, just two bullets and barely a close-up... there's a much bigger picture developing at the same time.

    I'm home from the cinema one hour and still trying to get my head around it all. Overall I think it's very good and I'm satisfied with the shock ending; somehow it works, when it really sounds like it shouldn't. At the very least it's going to give Bond fans something to debate for years to come!
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 372
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Bond fans will have to wrap their heads around the fact that Bond will reboot. I've cited comic book characters in a previous post. Audiences are much more sophisticated about this type of stuff then they were 10 or 15 years ago. That's why we can have three or four Batmen across video games, TV, movies and animation.

    This is not a complicated issue. Hell, Judi Dench was carry over casting from Brosnan's era. But we accepted that she was a "new" M for a new Bond. Roll with the punches sometimes. I'm not saying we should have 3 or 4 different Bond iterations but we kinda do right now: Comics, novels and movies. Soon we'll have a different Bond for video games.

    Craig's era was it's own self contained story. That's it. That's as complicated as it needs to be. He was Bond. Not part of the same "continuity" as his predecessors but still Bond. I mean, it's kind of absurd to think Timothy Dalton's Bond is the same exact one as Sir Roger Moore. They're the same character. There's only one 007. But (here's that "but" again) they're all really different interpretations of the same character.

    Bond's death may actually raise the stakes in future films. Now, audiences don't know that Bond will always make it through. Or maybe he always will. All I know is that Bond's death in the Craig era fit a classic story cycle of "birth" and "death." It fit this Bond's journey.

    You make valid points, however, this is a historic moment in the franchise - killing off the main character. Aside from future Bond film continuity issues (!) there is a moral dimension to this decision. Was it morally right to kill James Bond? Has Barbara Broccoli respected her father's legacy or dismissed it? Has she respected Ian Fleming's creation or disregarded it?

    Is dismantling all that came before respectful or disrespectful?

    Maybe in a few months time these questions should be addressed. Let people see and enjoy (or not enjoy) the film right now, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't think fans should automatically give Eon a free pass on this decision. Nearly all the paid pro film critics and fan YouTube reviewers praising NTTD are ignoring the fact the boss of the franchise killed off the most enduring pop culture hero of the 20th century. And yes, she has the 'get out of jail' card of "James Bond will return..." but she still did the unthinkable... killed off James Bond 007. The franchise can never be the same again and maybe that is a small tragedy.

    I personally had no problem with anything that happened in the film. I support your statement about Craig's tenure being his own contained story. Bond will need to reboot again obviously but I don't think this is too much of a problem.

    It won't be a reboot similar to the Craig era. That's very much its own thing and it told the story it needed to tell. With the cap that NTTD has put on everything, I consider the Craig films to be somewhat akin to The Dark Knight Trilogy. Just telling its own little story.

    Question is, what of the future?

    I'm thinking they will seriously have to go a lot younger with Bond and perhaps begin with his days as a Naval Officer, showing his rise through the ranks to Commander and eventually to a 00 agent, but I'm guessing they'll tell THAT story over the course of a few movies.

    OR, they could go the Ghostbusters Afterlife route. Sidestep the reboot and go back to the original continuity with the film taking place after Die Another Day.

    Either way is going to have its controversies - so I think the filmmakers have left themselves in a bit of a pickle.

    What they WILL do? I couldn't tell you. That one is above my pay grade.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 813
    Well, at least we know Craig's Bond would not had stand lockdown. Wonder if the film end would have been like this if it was a post-COVID shooted movie (Bond could have been in "lockdown" time to find a sort of cure, now the world had know lockdown with the wait & arrival of vaccines).
  • Posts: 11,084
    For those who’ve seen the Blofeld scene - just how YOLT-esque is it? I’ve been hoping for a long time for the classic, dramatic strangulation to be adapted on screen.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 507
    FoxRox wrote: »
    For those who’ve seen the Blofeld scene - just how YOLT-esque is it? I’ve been hoping for a long time for the classic, dramatic strangulation to be adapted on screen.
    It's there. It's a little weird how they get to it. But there's a real dark venom and anger in Bond's face.
  • Posts: 11,084
    00Heaven wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    For those who’ve seen the Blofeld scene - just how YOLT-esque is it? I’ve been hoping for a long time for the classic, dramatic strangulation to be adapted on screen.
    It's there. It's a little weird how they get to it. But there's a real dark venom and anger in Bond's face.

    Probably what I’m most looking forward to then at this point.
  • I'm really surprised by the folks who loved NTTD but trashed QOS and SP. At least QOS had a propulsive energy that carried it, while SP was atmospheric and had a great fight scene on a train. There's nothing eye-catching about NTTD and no novel ideas, and it just limps to its conclusion.
  • Posts: 250
    FoxRox wrote: »
    For those who’ve seen the Blofeld scene - just how YOLT-esque is it? I’ve been hoping for a long time for the classic, dramatic strangulation to be adapted on screen.
    To be honest as a fan of the film overall this was a bit of a monkey's paw wish fulfilment - it took me totally by surprise and the question is is it genuine or is it Bond playing mind games with Blofeld? Which for me is kind of a betrayal as the Fleming moment is so raw and monstrous and animalistic so... yeah I would say as someone who holds the YOLT novel as the pinnacle of any James Bond media, that bit sorta doesn't... work sadly.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 3,316
    Burgess wrote: »
    It seems you've taken my comments personally. It was not my intention to offend anyone. I'm a lifelong Bond fan. We all have that in common. What I mean by pointing out that audiences are more sophisticated now is that the content and nature of modern entertainment is multifaceted and complex.
    Sorry, my fellow Bond fan. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was slighted by your remarks. Sometimes a hurried typed response can come over as a tad brash. I apologize if I came across as that.

    I’m just getting the distinct impression that trying to discuss the next James Bond has already become verboten. Yes, I get that there’s going to be another actor after Daniel Craig playing James Bond. All I’m asking on this forum is whether you’d be happy seeing the next actor get blown to smithereens when he decides to call it a day, or would you rather they simply ignore this type of grand finale going forwards? What happens if their next choice of 007 only agrees to sign on the dotted line if he’s given the same dramatic finale as Craig when he passes on the baton? If they’re a relatively big name, such as Tom Hardy, it might be a major dealbreaker going into negotiations. Put it this way, if you’re an already established name, would you be willing to stick your neck out without being given same dramatic beats Craig was afforded? I don’t think you would. Which could mean that their next choice is going to be another up-and-comer rather than a familiar name. All I know is that Bond 26 is going to have to hit the ground running and outshine NTTD in every category. Going forwards, I just want Bond 26 to be bigger and better than Craig's Bond and hope they can deliver on it.
  • Posts: 11,084
    FourDot wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    For those who’ve seen the Blofeld scene - just how YOLT-esque is it? I’ve been hoping for a long time for the classic, dramatic strangulation to be adapted on screen.
    To be honest as a fan of the film overall this was a bit of a monkey's paw wish fulfilment - it took me totally by surprise and the question is is it genuine or is it Bond playing mind games with Blofeld? Which for me is kind of a betrayal as the Fleming moment is so raw and monstrous and animalistic so... yeah I would say as someone who holds the YOLT novel as the pinnacle of any James Bond media, that bit sorta doesn't... work sadly.
    Geez. I hope I can glean *some* enjoyment out of this movie.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    Burgess wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    Bond fans will have to wrap their heads around the fact that Bond will reboot. I've cited comic book characters in a previous post. Audiences are much more sophisticated about this type of stuff then they were 10 or 15 years ago. That's why we can have three or four Batmen across video games, TV, movies and animation.

    This is not a complicated issue. Hell, Judi Dench was carry over casting from Brosnan's era. But we accepted that she was a "new" M for a new Bond. Roll with the punches sometimes. I'm not saying we should have 3 or 4 different Bond iterations but we kinda do right now: Comics, novels and movies. Soon we'll have a different Bond for video games.

    Craig's era was it's own self contained story. That's it. That's as complicated as it needs to be. He was Bond. Not part of the same "continuity" as his predecessors but still Bond. I mean, it's kind of absurd to think Timothy Dalton's Bond is the same exact one as Sir Roger Moore. They're the same character. There's only one 007. But (here's that "but" again) they're all really different interpretations of the same character.

    Bond's death may actually raise the stakes in future films. Now, audiences don't know that Bond will always make it through. Or maybe he always will. All I know is that Bond's death in the Craig era fit a classic story cycle of "birth" and "death." It fit this Bond's journey.

    You make valid points, however, this is a historic moment in the franchise - killing off the main character. Aside from future Bond film continuity issues (!) there is a moral dimension to this decision. Was it morally right to kill James Bond? Has Barbara Broccoli respected her father's legacy or dismissed it? Has she respected Ian Fleming's creation or disregarded it?

    Is dismantling all that came before respectful or disrespectful?

    Maybe in a few months time these questions should be addressed. Let people see and enjoy (or not enjoy) the film right now, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't think fans should automatically give Eon a free pass on this decision. Nearly all the paid pro film critics and fan YouTube reviewers praising NTTD are ignoring the fact the boss of the franchise killed off the most enduring pop culture hero of the 20th century. And yes, she has the 'get out of jail' card of "James Bond will return..." but she still did the unthinkable... killed off James Bond 007. The franchise can never be the same again and maybe that is a small tragedy.

    I think asking those types of questions are beyond what's in the text of the actual film. I'm sure Cubby made creative decisions that Ian would have hated. For sure, Barbara and Michael made decisions that Cubby probably wouldn't have made. But so what? Respecting Bond as a character isn't limited to one type of interpretation. There is an animating spirit to all of this. As long as that spirit is loved and respected and understood then I'm alright with creative experimentation.

    The greatest death to art is when you ask yourself “would that person have approved this creative choice?”

    We already know Barbara and Michael made choices that Cubby would have never considered, and even Cubby respected that before his death, encouraging them to do what they think is right for the franchise.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 4,517
    Just got back. Lot's of discussion outside of the cinema about the ending but...inside the cinema, I cried like a baby so, clearly, on an emotional level, it worked (for me anyway) Overall, it is a strange film with tonal shifts all over the place. So nearly a classic. Close but no cigar IMHO
Sign In or Register to comment.