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

13738404243294

Comments

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 131
    So I just got back from seeing NTTD. I’m going to try and cover the main points and these are ultimately my opinions. The film is beautiful and I personally didn’t feel at any point that the film sagged during its runtime - I’m looking at you Spectre. As others have said Daniel Craig is having a great time and it really shows, I cannot remember a previous script where he actually says so much which for me was a high point. I thought Waldo was great, and I felt like he wandered off the set of a Roger Moore film. What I’ll admit to not liking is how M is essentially shown to be in such serious conflict against Bond, albeit initially. When Matilda showed up I could feel it in my waters where the story was going but there’s a number of tender of moments between her and Bond - I totally bought it. As for the conclusion, as a father, it felt particularly poignant- that we do anything to protect our children and those we hold dear. However I’ll fully admit that I was hoping for a post credit scene showing the blue trident pop back up on the map display if only for a second. I think the final scene where he’s standing injured looking out over the island, did give me a frog in my throat. But, he went out on his own terms and I feel like there’s a quintessentially British stoicism to that - even if he was cheated of the life he’d always dreamed of.
  • Posts: 32
    Just came back from seeing the film a second time and my original impressions haven't changed: everything up until the end of the Cuba scene is fantastic and Ana de Armas steals the movie (peppy Cuban agent spinoff, please, Amazon!). Everything after that is interminably dull, the soap opera drama insufferable, Bond acts like an angsty and self-indulgent teenager, the villain and his scheme barebones at best, and the constant references to better films and material only further highlight NTTD's own shortcomings and how little it understands what it is referencing. A lot of Bond films, some of my favourites in fact, have big shortcomings in plot and whatnot, but are always carried by pacy storytelling, personality and strong action. Post-Cuba, NTTD has none of those and it collapses in on itself remarkably quickly. While I disagree with the ending (and the same decision to kill off Felix and Blofeld for no real reason), I could have lived with it had the film been exciting and engaging enough to keep me distracted. Instead, it commits the one unsalvageable crime no Bond film has committed before: it's tedious, and I have no desire to watch it again. Bottom of the barrel for me, sadly, as I was hoping Craig would get a good sendoff and prove the successes of CR and Skyfall as the rule rather than the exception.

    (The friend I went with was a fellow Bond nerd who, unprompted, had a similar view of the film to me, although he was much more infuriated by the killing of Bond at the end. Has to be said that just like at my first screening, a lot of people seemed to enjoy it, so horses for courses and so on.)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,446
    You mods do a job many of us could not. I salute you! @Birdleson and ALL mods.
    I feel like I am in a helicopter hovering, looking down on a messy war building up.

    But I think, as always, this forum will even out over the days ahead and be an ongoing enjoyable place to discuss anything and everything James Bond. And that is thanks ONLY to the mods and to those of us who don't mind other people having totally different takes on Bond films than we ourselves have. It's art. It's subjective, personal; perceived individually. Courtesy matters. Otherwise there would be no forum - it would go up in smoke faster than one of Felix's cigars. ;)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,446
    So I just got back from seeing NTTD. I’m going to try and cover the main points and these are ultimately my opinions. The film is beautiful and I personally didn’t feel at any point that the film sagged during its runtime - I’m looking at you Spectre. As others have said Daniel Craig is having a great time and it really shows, I cannot remember a previous script where he actually says so much which for me was a high point. I thought Waldo was great, and I felt like he wandered off the set of a Roger Moore film. What I’ll admit to not liking is how M is essentially shown to be in such serious conflict against Bond, albeit initially. When Matilda showed up I could feel it in my waters where the story was going but there’s a number of tender of moments between her and Bond - I totally bought it. As for the conclusion, as a father, it felt particularly poignant- that we do anything to protect our children and those we hold dear. However I’ll fully admit that I was hoping for a post credit scene showing the blue trident pop back up on the map display if only for a second. I think the final scene where he’s standing injured looking out over the island, did give me a frog in my throat. But, he went out on his own terms and I feel like there’s a quintessentially British stoicism to that - even if he was cheated of the live he’d always dreamed of.

    Thanks for this. And I agree Daniel has a lot to say in this one. I am really pleased he does. The whole film is so well acted.
  • Posts: 32
    suavejmf wrote: »
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    Did anyone else find the moment where Bond says 'Die Blofeld Die' really odd. I know they needed Bond to touch Blofeld in order to infect him, but it seemed very very forced and undid a lot of the great tension leading up to that moment.

    It’s straight from the YOLT novel! I liked that bit.

    Except in the novel, the line represents a cathartic release of Bond's pain and anger at Blofeld having had Tracy killed. In NTTD, It's the result of Blofeld needling Bond over having split him and Madeleine up. In the novel, it's a big reaction and resolution to the biggest trauma in Bond's life. In NTTD, it's a ludicrous overreaction to him having been conned into splitting up with his girlfriend. Context is key, and what NTTD gets wrong in almost all its references.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,446
    Context is key, but the history this Bond has with Blofeld gives him the impetus to say "Die, Blofeld, die" a lot more than just his relationship with Madeleine (I never know how to spell her name).
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    edited October 2021 Posts: 57
    The TL;DR from me is this: its a good film, but it is not a Bond experience.


    Normally when walking out of a cinema, bad films leaves me disappointed, good films leave me happy. I walked out of NTTD where a good film has left me disappointed.

    Plenty of people here will no doubt read on the full reviews of what others liked, and what they didn’t, what was done well and what wasn't, so instead let me just break down why I, as a lifelong and at times quite emphatic Bond fan, feel this this was not a good Bond Experience.

    First off, I still think it easily plausible that if the character names were changed that people would not watch this and say “that's just like a Bond film” – its lacking some of the Bond aura. Yes it has a car with gadgets and some one-liners and quips that are definite winners (Bond calling M ‘Darling’ instantly comes to mind). However, in a post-Iron Man world, this is no longer the domain of Bond and isn't something that sets these films apart any more. I’m all for evolution of the series, but when you walk into a Bond film, there is a certain level of expectation of what you are paying to see, and I didn’t really see it here. It almost feels like an excellent emotional action film was written, picked up by EON, and then given to some writers so sprinkle with some Bond-ness and jokes just to show up in the right places.

    I also have a confused take on the films attitude to the legacy that precedes it; Bond getting blown to a million pieces? No, not my favourite thing, but confirming the ‘James Bond is a code name’ thing is not the worst thing in the world – I’d take that over DAD’s daftness overload any day, and I have come to terms with that films numerous shortcomings.

    However, having Bond, Blofeld and Leiter getting bumped off in one film seemed a bizarre route to take, even more so when you consider the execution. Bond dies because he has no choice. There was no sacrifice made on his part, he simply could not get away. The actions that lead to his death did seem somewhat unnecessary to the films plot at the time – yes, some boats are coming to Bad Guy Island, but we already know there is a Navy warship in the area, so use it on those boats and send a team into the island to destroy it and get Bond out later, poisoned or otherwise. Or just, ya’know, do what they did in the film and blitz the island and create an international incident with the Japanese, Russia and USA. Leiter’s death felt very lightweight, and the embrace-and-float-away at the end of it did not seem a fitting way to leave a character that has spanned just as many years as 007 himself – more Jack/Rose in Titanic than two friends, bound by the same stress and experiences, parting after a relationship formed over years of working together. And Blofeld – this seemed very weak. Blofeld is a name that has spanned the decades, the actors, and been just about the only man who Bond could defeat, but never quite ‘Win’ against. Yet here we are with a film that sees Bond accidentally poison a man whilst shouting “Die Blofeld Die”. Book accurate or not, it did not work on screen. Even the death itself happens off camera. I don’t know if Harry and Cubby ever envisioned an ending for Blofeld, but I would say the circumstances in which it happens here would be pretty much at the bottom of that list. And there in lies maybe my biggest confusion with how NTTD treats the prior films; all traces of Cubby’s Bond seems to be missing. Not evolved, not cleverly reimagined, as per Casino Royale, just gone. Yes, the old films were sexist, sometimes poorly made, and often daft but, ironically considering NTTD’s plot, the DNA has been forgotten completely. A DB5 and a gadget man called Q does not a Bond film make.

    One of the other marks on the James Bond Film tick-list is also surely the plan of the villain – be it someone with megalomaniacal tendencies or just financial profit, the plan should still impose a knowing threat that the audience can relate to in order to understand the magnitude. I’m not saying it needs to be realistic (nanobot based, irremovable, DNA sniping, poison is an easy leap of faith for a Bond film) as lets face it, we can all understand why the Death Star was bad. But I just didn’t get Lucifer Satan’s end game. Fine; millions will die. But who? I’ve seen the film just once so maybe I missed something important, but who was the target? Thousands of names were on the files, and the projections were for millions, but was it based on ethnicity; was it a carefully curated list of people with certain political backgrounds? Damned if I know. And with that the menace of the film died a little bit. In fact, it died almost as quickly as ALL OF SPECTRE did, at one party. For an organisation that in Spectre was billed as everywhere, all the time, there really wasn't many of them about.

    For a film that was on the whole well acted, lit, scored, shot and (Bond-ness aside) written, it is a bizarre feeling to feel so disappointed with it. One thing it has confirmed is that I long for the days where each film was a self contained microcosm of Bond. Going to Vesper’s grave, the OHMSS theme and pictures of Judi Dench all just seemed pasted in because a cinematic universe is what people do these days. Just… no. Not only because it feels like forced CU’s have already peaked with Endgame, but it just doesn’t fit the genre for Bond. And it wasn't even that well integrated. The Bond from Casino Royale or Quantum just doesn't show up here, and nor does it feel like an evolved version of him. Madeline carrying over for one film? Fine, but I cant say Spectre ingrained a huge amount of emotional attachment to the character for me as a viewer – prior to NTTD, Bond had barely known her a few days.

    I have other mixed ramblings as well, but I feel I do need a second viewing to do the film full credit. So instead of fleshing it out, have a list:

    The ‘new’ 007 was okay. Not really required for the film, but not a waste of time either.

    Bond having a daughter. Meh, he probably has 100’s of kids around the globe. Seemed a cheap way to up the emotional stakes, despite a very long film taking a very long time to tell you how much Bond/Swan actually do love each other, so wasn't really needed.

    Rami Malek. The most anonymous performance of all the Bond film baddies. Not all action, equal skill-set threat to Bond like, say, Alec Trevelyan, and not the mastermind, unnerving threat of Spectre’s Blofeld. Just an odd guy, blessed with Plot Convenience.

    Theme song/credits. I’d managed to avoid the song until my bum was on my cinema seat. It’s an awful durge of a song, with generic, but pretty, visuals for the credits to roll over. Nothing more.

    Opening flashback. Because this film needed extra padding, and more plot convenience for our Bad Guy.

    The Russian scientist. Lazy stereotypes should be fair game for Bond, but this was too lazy, and a serious weak point all-in.

    Final scores. As a generic film, 3.5 out of 5 – a good film, but not mind blowing. As a Bond film? Its in the pit with Die Another Day for me

    Just think I needed to vent to people who might actually understand (if not agree) with what I am saying!




  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 565
    I'm glad some people are starting to see between just what happens and heap praise on Craig's performance. Regardless of whether you believe the ending is right or wrong I believed he was magnificent and the best he's been throughout.

    As it's divisive film then most will disagree... But for me he made me feel every single emotion... And then some. That takes something special and no doubt he was helped by great direction. He is by far his most dynamic in NTTD and dare I say it... Comfortable.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,586
    Great post, @Simon. I find the comments about this being a "traditional" Bond film more than a tad baffling. Mind you, I felt the same when similar statements were made about SP. There's very little of anything in the way of tradition in either film (not that tradition is the be all and end all. Look at CR for a prime example of non-traditional approach that stands well on its own feet).
  • Posts: 2,107
    It was fine, I guess. I saw Bond's death coming maybe around the time Felix died and without spoiling myself, I heard some early reviews mention about ending that will raise discussion. They killed Mathis, M and Leiter, so killing Bond in Craig's last movie wouldn't be out of the question I thought.

    Overall, I find the movie hard to digest. I kept thinking that the next movie should go back to something lighter, formulaic if you will. No more over arching multi movie plots. I could even take movie taking place in the 60's. Modern world is killing Bond (no pun intented) for me.

    At least the current world shown in couple of the last films. Too many tech rooms, nano blood, nine eyes and what have you
  • Posts: 526
    Simon wrote: »
    The TL;DR from me is this: its a good film, but it is not a Bond experience.


    Normally when walking out of a cinema, bad films leaves me disappointed, good films leave me happy. I walked out of NTTD where a good film has left me disappointed.

    Plenty of people here will no doubt read on the full reviews of what others liked, and what they didn’t, what was done well and what wasn't, so instead let me just break down why I, as a lifelong and at times quite emphatic Bond fan, feel this this was not a good Bond Experience.

    First off, I still think it easily plausible that if the character names were changed that people would not watch this and say “that's just like a Bond film” – its lacking some of the Bond aura. Yes it has a car with gadgets and some one-liners and quips that are definite winners (Bond calling M ‘Darling’ instantly comes to mind). However, in a post-Iron Man world, this is no longer the domain of Bond and isn't something that sets these films apart any more. I’m all for evolution of the series, but when you walk into a Bond film, there is a certain level of expectation of what you are paying to see, and I didn’t really see it here. It almost feels like an excellent emotional action film was written, picked up by EON, and then given to some writers so sprinkle with some Bond-ness and jokes just to show up in the right places.

    I also have a confused take on the films attitude to the legacy that precedes it; Bond getting blown to a million pieces? No, not my favourite thing, but confirming the ‘James Bond is a code name’ thing is not the worst thing in the world – I’d take that over DAD’s daftness overload any day, and I have come to terms with that films numerous shortcomings.

    However, having Bond, Blofeld and Leiter getting bumped off in one film seemed a bizarre route to take, even more so when you consider the execution. Bond dies because he has no choice. There was no sacrifice made on his part, he simply could not get away. The actions that lead to his death did seem somewhat unnecessary to the films plot at the time – yes, some boats are coming to Bad Guy Island, but we already know there is a Navy warship in the area, so use it on those boats and send a team into the island to destroy it and get Bond out later, poisoned or otherwise. Or just, ya’know, do what they did in the film and blitz the island and create an international incident with the Japanese, Russia and USA. Leiter’s death felt very lightweight, and the embrace-and-float-away at the end of it did not seem a fitting way to leave a character that has spanned just as many years as 007 himself – more Jack/Rose in Titanic than two friends, bound by the same stress and experiences, parting after a relationship formed over years of working together. And Blofeld – this seemed very weak. Blofeld is a name that has spanned the decades, the actors, and been just about the only man who Bond could defeat, but never quite ‘Win’ against. Yet here we are with a film that sees Bond accidentally poison a man whilst shouting “Die Blofeld Die”. Book accurate or not, it did not work on screen. Even the death itself happens off camera. I don’t know if Harry and Cubby ever envisioned an ending for Blofeld, but I would say the circumstances in which it happens here would be pretty much at the bottom of that list. And there in lies maybe my biggest confusion with how NTTD treats the prior films; all traces of Cubby’s Bond seems to be missing. Not evolved, not cleverly reimagined, as per Casino Royale, just gone. Yes, the old films were sexist, sometimes poorly made, and often daft but, ironically considering NTTD’s plot, the DNA has been forgotten completely. A DB5 and a gadget man called Q does not a Bond film make.

    One of the other marks on the James Bond Film tick-list is also surely the plan of the villain – be it someone with megalomaniacal tendencies or just financial profit, the plan should still impose a knowing threat that the audience can relate to in order to understand the magnitude. I’m not saying it needs to be realistic (nanobot based, irremovable, DNA sniping, poison is an easy leap of faith for a Bond film) as lets face it, we can all understand why the Death Star was bad. But I just didn’t get Lucifer Satan’s end game. Fine; millions will die. But who? I’ve seen the film just once so maybe I missed something important, but who was the target? Thousands of names were on the files, and the projections were for millions, but was it based on ethnicity; was it a carefully curated list of people with certain political backgrounds? Damned if I know. And with that the menace of the film died a little bit. In fact, it died almost as quickly as ALL OF SPECTRE did, at one party. For an organisation that in Spectre was billed as everywhere, all the time, there really wasn't many of them about.

    For a film that was on the whole well acted, lit, scored, shot and (Bond-ness aside) written, it is a bizarre feeling to feel so disappointed with it. One thing it has confirmed is that I long for the days where each film was a self contained microcosm of Bond. Going to Vesper’s grave, the OHMSS theme and pictures of Judi Dench all just seemed pasted in because a cinematic universe is what people do these days. Just… no. Not only because it feels like forced CU’s have already peaked with Endgame, but it just doesn’t fit the genre for Bond. And it wasn't even that well integrated. The Bond from Casino Royale or Quantum just doesn't show up here, and nor does it feel like an evolved version of him. Madeline carrying over for one film? Fine, but I cant say Spectre ingrained a huge amount of emotional attachment to the character for me as a viewer – prior to NTTD, Bond had barely known her a few days.

    I have other mixed ramblings as well, but I feel I do need a second viewing to do the film full credit. So instead of fleshing it out, have a list:

    The ‘new’ 007 was okay. Not really required for the film, but not a waste of time either.

    Bond having a daughter. Meh, he probably has 100’s of kids around the globe. Seemed a cheap way to up the emotional stakes, despite a very long film taking a very long time to tell you how much Bond/Swan actually do love each other, so wasn't really needed.

    Rami Malek. The most anonymous performance of all the Bond film baddies. Not all action, equal skill-set threat to Bond like, say, Alec Trevelyan, and not the mastermind, unnerving threat of Spectre’s Blofeld. Just an odd guy, blessed with Plot Convenience.

    Theme song/credits. I’d managed to avoid the song until my bum was on my cinema seat. It’s an awful durge of a song, with generic, but pretty, visuals for the credits to roll over. Nothing more.

    Opening flashback. Because this film needed extra padding, and more plot convenience for our Bad Guy.

    The Russian scientist. Lazy stereotypes should be fair game for Bond, but this was too lazy, and a serious weak point all-in.

    Final scores. As a generic film, 3.5 out of 5 – a good film, but not mind blowing. As a Bond film? Its in the pit with Die Another Day for me

    And with that, I’ll now resume my posting silence. Just think I needed to vent to people who might actually understand (if not agree) with what I am saying!




    The more I read, the more In sure I will never watch this movie. For a plethora of reasons. The obvious one being .... you know. If it was an ultra high quality movie, maybe...just maybe I might go. But after reading all the divisiveness about it (reminds me of QOS), I am going to sit this one out.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,446
    I just want to say please see the movie and make up your own mind, of course. We do vary, sometimes a lot, with what we like or don't like. Don't write off the movie due to negative reviews here. There are plenty of people enjoying the film and positive reviews, all around the world. Please see it at least once.

    Try to go into it with open heart and open (enough) mind, to block out your own misgivings (which have mounted over this delayed time steadily as well as many negative feelings and thoughts on this forum). You may like it or not like it - but let it hit you as you honestly perceive it to be when you are right there in your seat, seeing it fresh for the first time. Just my two cents on that. Some of us like it a whole lot. I don't want people put off seeing it. At least give yourself a chance with it.
  • Posts: 526
    I just want to say please see the movie and make up your own mind, of course. We do vary, sometimes a lot, with what we like or don't like. Don't write off the movie due to negative reviews here. There are plenty of people enjoying the film and positive reviews, all around the world. Please see it at least once.

    Try to go into it with open heart and open (enough) mind, to block out your own misgivings (which have mounted over this delayed time steadily as well as many negative feelings and thoughts on this forum). You may like it or not like it - but let it hit you as you honestly perceive it to be when you are right there in your seat, seeing it fresh for the first time. Just my two cents on that. Some of us like it a whole lot. I don't want people put off seeing it. At least give yourself a chance with it.

    Hi 4everbonded. Honestly, my biggest concern is dealing with the big spoiler emotionally. I love DC as Bond. CR took me to a different level as a Bond fan way back in 2006. So much emotional investment in his Bond, more than any other fictional character I’ve ever seen-and that’s saying a lot. In the states, I believe I can watch it Thursday, Friday for sure. I did not like TDKR, as I’ve seen many compare NTTD (the title tells you all you need to know, if you take it literally). I’ve gotten emotional at two movies in my life: Star Trek 2: TWOK, and ST: Generations. I’ve just come off of a tough year, and I was looking forward to this as a kick butt, no holds barred, CR version of Bond again. We all have a preconception of what a movie will be like, right? This movie breaks the formula so violently, it’s hard to conceive. I just think to myself, I can leave this at Spectre, and that’s the end for me. All is well. Or, I can go see a Game of Thrones toned DC Bond finale. Sorry for the blog lol. Thoughts?
  • Context is key, but the history this Bond has with Blofeld gives him the impetus to say "Die, Blofeld, die" a lot more than just his relationship with Madeleine (I never know how to spell her name).

    I get what you're saying but at the same time I feel it's forced because in such a situation, would Bond, seemingly wanting to kill him actually call him Blofeld? A name Franz coined for himself. This is a man Bond knew well as a child and only up until 5 years prior "reconnected" with him and was given some lame, pompous reveal that he'd changed his name to divert attention away from the fact he's a murderous , little shyte. In such a fit of rage I find it odd Bond would refer to Blofeld as Blofeld and not as Franz. We're meant to believe this is a pivotal and personal moment for Bond who has a long history with this "cyclops" and calling Blofeld by his nom de guerre unintentionally asserts a mark of respect afforded to Blofeld. The whole confrontation seems off and disingenuous in its execution because of it and feels like a cheap way to cite the YOLT novel.
  • Posts: 526
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Context is key, but the history this Bond has with Blofeld gives him the impetus to say "Die, Blofeld, die" a lot more than just his relationship with Madeleine (I never know how to spell her name).

    I get what you're saying but at the same time I feel it's forced because in such a situation, would Bond, seemingly wanting to kill him actually call him Blofeld? A name Franz coined for himself. This is a man Bond knew well as a child and only up until 5 years prior "reconnected" with him and was given some lame, pompous reveal that he'd changed his name to divert attention away from the fact he's a murderous , little shyte. In such a fit of rage I find it odd Bond would refer to Blofeld as Blofeld and not as Franz. We're meant to believe this is a pivotal and personal moment for Bond who has a long history with this "cyclops" and calling Blofeld by his nom de guerre unintentionally asserts a mark of respect afforded to Blofeld. The whole confrontation seems off and disingenuous in its execution because of it and feels like a cheap way to cite the YOLT novel.
    You would think, that with all the people involved in the creative process, and DC included, that this part would seem forced, out of place, cringeworthy. I haven’t seen it, but I don’t need to. I guess the blame ultimately beings to Fukunga. Question: would this movie have been better if the great Martin Campbell has directed it?
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 960
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Context is key, but the history this Bond has with Blofeld gives him the impetus to say "Die, Blofeld, die" a lot more than just his relationship with Madeleine (I never know how to spell her name).

    I get what you're saying but at the same time I feel it's forced because in such a situation, would Bond, seemingly wanting to kill him actually call him Blofeld? A name Franz coined for himself. This is a man Bond knew well as a child and only up until 5 years prior "reconnected" with him and was given some lame, pompous reveal that he'd changed his name to divert attention away from the fact he's a murderous , little shyte. In such a fit of rage I find it odd Bond would refer to Blofeld as Blofeld and not as Franz. We're meant to believe this is a pivotal and personal moment for Bond who has a long history with this "cyclops" and calling Blofeld by his nom de guerre unintentionally asserts a mark of respect afforded to Blofeld. The whole confrontation seems off and disingenuous in its execution because of it and feels like a cheap way to cite the YOLT novel.
    You would think, that with all the people involved in the creative process, and DC included, that this part would seem forced, out of place, cringeworthy. I haven’t seen it, but I don’t need to. I guess the blame ultimately beings to Fukunga. Question: would this movie have been better if the great Martin Campbell has directed it?

    Forget about Campbell, it's no wonder Danny Boyle left as director. Because they told him they were gonna kill off Bond, naturally he left. I would've done the same thing if I was him. Don't care what anyone else thinks, I hated the ending with them killing Bond off. A great movie, let down by that ending.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 267
    When Craig burst onto the scene in CR, he helped breathe new life into the series. It was a reimagining of Bond in a sense, but at the same time - it still felt like a Bond movie. But it was a gritty, more realistic take.

    QOS doubled down on that - and then some. It had its issues with the writers strike and script, but it still functioned as a movie that moved Craig’s Bond’s story along. It was billed as the first 007 direct sequel, but in reality, I don’t feel like that was ever that big of a deal. Other than Bond, M, Mr White and Mathis - there was no carryover.

    SF is admittedly a good film. But it’s where the Craig era went off the rails IMO. Him being old and over the hill after 2 movies of him “becoming Bond” felt so odd and misguided. But it ended with him back in M’s office and in his role as 007.

    Then came SP. EON getting the rights back to Blofeld and SPECTRE prior to this film was the worst thing to ever happen to this film franchise. I was initially hugely excited to see Mr White back, see the continued Quantum storyline, and how it all fit together. But instead it felt like awful fan fiction. They retconned the 3 previous films into a single storyline, gave Blofeld and SPECTRE nothing interesting to do, and then ended with Bond retiring with Madeline (in a relationship that made next to no sense to me).

    In the time before Craig announced his return, I hoped like hell he would move on. Not because I didn’t enjoy him in the role, but because I did not want to see Bond 25 have to continue on with the plot threads left over from SP. Move on, new actor, clean slate.

    To me, NTTD confirmed all of my fears about where Bond 25 would go after SP. They (again) gave Blofeld and SPECTRE nothing interesting to do, continued to force the Bond & Madeline relationship down the audience’s collective throats, and they yet again could not figure out the tone they wanted to strike with Craig’s films.

    CR and QOS are identical in terms of tone. SF is similar. But with SP, it’s like they couldn’t figure out if they wanted to make a Craig Bond film, or a Bond film of old. NTTD has the same issue, which is only further compounded by the needless emotional arcs - not to mention a sci fi plot straight out of a video game.

    I didn’t love seeing Felix or Blofeld brought back only to be killed off. Same as I didn’t like seeing Mathis killed off. But killing off Bond is a whole other thing entirely. I understand that killed off or not - Bond 26 is going to feature a new Bond, new tone, new MI6 crew, etc. But Ian Fleming himself never penned a true death scene for Bond. The crew that ultimately penned this film shouldn’t have been afforded that chance.

    It’s been said in years past that Barbara Broccoli didn’t like that in GE 007 64, you saw Bond die in a 3rd person cam in the game. It was also said that Boyle departed Bond 25 because he wanted to kill Bond. Were either of those two things true?

    I also don’t understand the story where Craig says he thought his Bond’s story was done at the end of SP, but Barbara convinced him that there was more story to tell. Did she promise to kill off Bond if he agreed to come back? And what of the Boyle script? What was the idea behind that script snd did it have the same ending?

    It just feels like after CR, they had no idea where to go with these films and they stumbled their way in the dark for 15 years and ended up with this mess. Craig’s era has no collective feel, is all over the place narratively, and with SP - and now NTTD - has negatively impacted the films that came before it during his run.
  • Posts: 526
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Context is key, but the history this Bond has with Blofeld gives him the impetus to say "Die, Blofeld, die" a lot more than just his relationship with Madeleine (I never know how to spell her name).

    I get what you're saying but at the same time I feel it's forced because in such a situation, would Bond, seemingly wanting to kill him actually call him Blofeld? A name Franz coined for himself. This is a man Bond knew well as a child and only up until 5 years prior "reconnected" with him and was given some lame, pompous reveal that he'd changed his name to divert attention away from the fact he's a murderous , little shyte. In such a fit of rage I find it odd Bond would refer to Blofeld as Blofeld and not as Franz. We're meant to believe this is a pivotal and personal moment for Bond who has a long history with this "cyclops" and calling Blofeld by his nom de guerre unintentionally asserts a mark of respect afforded to Blofeld. The whole confrontation seems off and disingenuous in its execution because of it and feels like a cheap way to cite the YOLT novel.
    You would think, that with all the people involved in the creative process, and DC included, that this part would seem forced, out of place, cringeworthy. I haven’t seen it, but I don’t need to. I guess the blame ultimately beings to Fukunga. Question: would this movie have been better if the great Martin Campbell has directed it?

    Forget about Campbell, it's no wonder Danny Boyle left as director. Because they told him they were gonna kill off Bond, naturally he left. I would've done the same thing if I was him. Don't care what anyone else thinks, I hated the ending with them killing Bond off. A great movie, let down by that ending.

    Agreed. Danny Boyle is a hero. Would love to hear an interview with him about what all went down over killing Bond/leaving.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 207
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Context is key, but the history this Bond has with Blofeld gives him the impetus to say "Die, Blofeld, die" a lot more than just his relationship with Madeleine (I never know how to spell her name).

    I get what you're saying but at the same time I feel it's forced because in such a situation, would Bond, seemingly wanting to kill him actually call him Blofeld? A name Franz coined for himself. This is a man Bond knew well as a child and only up until 5 years prior "reconnected" with him and was given some lame, pompous reveal that he'd changed his name to divert attention away from the fact he's a murderous , little shyte. In such a fit of rage I find it odd Bond would refer to Blofeld as Blofeld and not as Franz. We're meant to believe this is a pivotal and personal moment for Bond who has a long history with this "cyclops" and calling Blofeld by his nom de guerre unintentionally asserts a mark of respect afforded to Blofeld. The whole confrontation seems off and disingenuous in its execution because of it and feels like a cheap way to cite the YOLT novel.
    You would think, that with all the people involved in the creative process, and DC included, that this part would seem forced, out of place, cringeworthy. I haven’t seen it, but I don’t need to. I guess the blame ultimately beings to Fukunga. Question: would this movie have been better if the great Martin Campbell has directed it?

    Forget about Campbell, it's no wonder Danny Boyle left as director. Because they told him they were gonna kill off Bond, naturally he left. I would've done the same thing if I was him. Don't care what anyone else thinks, I hated the ending with them killing Bond off. A great movie, let down by that ending.

    I agree. There have been a few films over the years that I’ve loved until something happens at the end and it just destroys it in my eyes. That’s where NTTD is at the moment for me. I’m going to need more viewings, but I don’t know if that gut punch will ever change.

    And I doubt the choice was ever in the cards for the writers, but I loved the suggestion made by @DCisared. If they had Craig appear and say the Bond, James Bond line instead of Madeleine at the very end I would shoot out of my seat like a rocket with applause for five minutes straight. Would it have been cheesy? Perhaps, but it would have been a perfect send off considering how he gets to say it at the end of CR. Obviously it never could have happened though with how they wrote the story and Bond being unable to touch them.

    I’m glad that many in this thread enjoy the film and don’t have an issue with the ending. But surely you can see the perspective of others and myself how this one decision can hurt the film so much for us.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 960
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    I didn’t love seeing Felix or Blofeld brought back only to be killed off. Same as I didn’t like seeing Mathis killed off. But killing off Bond is a whole other thing entirely. I understand that killed off or not - Bond 26 is going to feature a new Bond, new tone, new MI6 crew, etc. But Ian Fleming himself never penned a true death scene for Bond. The crew that ultimately penned this film shouldn’t have been afforded that chance.
    This. I couldn't have said it better myself.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,960
    Any First Reactions to the 007 gourmet popcorn ? 👍👍👍😉
    s-l1600.jpg
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,446
    The scenes did not feel forced to me, not even with Bond strangling Blofeld.

    Also, as I have said elsewhere, I like Danny Boyle but I am very glad he was not involved with this Bond film. I think Cary did a superb job as director and it has the right tone for this story, this particular film. Others are saying they hope EON asks Cary to direct the next one, and I would not mind that at all. I think he is a strong director, who is flexible enough to give us a very different take (which will be needed) on the next one. However, he likes to move on and I don't know if he would want to do that.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    Birdleson wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    But Ian Fleming himself never penned a true death scene for Bond. The crew that ultimately penned this film shouldn’t have been afforded that chance.

    It is that audacity that riles me as well.

    Agreed. 68 years of tradition, and an inviolable rule breached. Who ultimately gets the blame for it? Is this the carrot that brought Craig back? From what I understand, he had quit. If Craig had said, “Ill come back, but you can’t off Bond,”...one has to believe that it would not have happened. He has too much stroke.
  • Posts: 526
    Any First Reactions to the 007 gourmet popcorn ? 👍👍👍😉
    s-l1600.jpg

    Is it good?
  • Posts: 485
    In fairness to EON, Fleming sadly died at a comparatively young age and his literary Bond only lasted 11 years compared to the output of someone like Agatha Christie.

    I personally prefer the Fleming orientated Bond films to the cinematic incarnation (can't see anything budging OHMSS away as my favourite) but after 60 years can we really expect EON to remain so constrained? If the films can't fully adhere to Fleming then they should at least take risks rather than the umpteenth riff on YOLT.

    I've seen some wishing for a return to a TND style film. Which was fine in 1997 as we hadn't had the YOLT\TSWLM\MR style film for a long while and would be fine for Bond 26 but an endless variety of TND forever more would soon having the critics accusing the franchise of being a spent force.

    A lot of the US criticism of SP seemed to be more about the staleness of the franchise rather than the film itself and we're starting to see the same said of NTTD despite it taking a different direction which offends some traditionalists.

    There will be a lot of high expectations for Bond 26 if it's to please the literary fans, the fans of the cinematic version, the critics, the general audience and the spy action thriller fans currently much preferring the MI franchise. Additionally unless a young unknown is cast as Bond and just happy to get the gig we also may have a lead actor who'll expect or demand a meatier soul searching version of the role as with Craig.

    I don't envy EON as it's a tough call to please everyone. Not that I'm excusing EON either but I tend to be more critical of them when they rest on their laurels rather than take risks.

    I'm with Babs on not wanting spin offs as such but the best of both worlds going forward might be agreeing to fully faithful period set Fleming adaptations for Amazon Prime in proper chronological order whilst the film series continues to do its own thing.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 960
    60th anniversary of Bond coming up next year... Well Bond is dead so :|
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    imranbecks wrote: »
    60th anniversary of Bond coming up next year... Well Bond is dead so :|

    You make it sound like it’s permanent.

    What if they announce a new actor for the part on October 5 2022?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,446
    haha! ;) Yes, so 60 years of celebration must be put on hold now ... but maybe some fans could hold a wake for the demise of the entire series if they feel that way.

    I do wonder about the next film, and I just hope it will be within 3 years. Different direction. Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy NTTD and definitely celebrate all the history of Bond films next year. There should be more than one special series or documentary made about that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    Life’s too short to be bummed out over the demise of an iteration of a fictional character.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 960
    imranbecks wrote: »
    60th anniversary of Bond coming up next year... Well Bond is dead so :|

    You make it sound like it’s permanent.

    What if they announce a new actor for the part on October 5 2022?

    Announcing a new actor to play Bond for the future on the 60th anniversary would indeed be interesting though..
Sign In or Register to comment.