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

13940424445288

Comments

  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    TotalBB wrote: »
    If Bond was unceremoniously killed by the villain and failed saving the world, THAT would have been awful. But that’s not the case.

    I'm not even sure he's really dead. It wouldn't surprise me if he somehow survived and underwent plastic surgery to stay off the radar. Which would also be very convenient because of the new actor playing Bond.

    IMHO, based on what was seen on screen: there is no question about it. He’s dead.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 352
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    TotalBB wrote: »
    If Bond was unceremoniously killed by the villain and failed saving the world, THAT would have been awful. But that’s not the case.

    I'm not even sure he's really dead. It wouldn't surprise me if he somehow survived and underwent plastic surgery to stay off the radar. Which would also be very convenient because of the new actor playing Bond.

    IMHO, based on what was seen on screen: there is no question about it. He’s dead.
    He's just pining for the fjords!
  • Posts: 3,316
    TotalBB wrote: »
    If Bond was unceremoniously killed by the villain and failed saving the world, THAT would have been awful. But that’s not the case.

    I'm not even sure he's really dead. It wouldn't surprise me if he somehow survived and underwent plastic surgery to stay off the radar. Which would also be very convenient because of the new actor playing Bond.
    He was totally vaporized. We all saw it. Q even confirmed this when he was monitoring Bond's vitals using his Smart Blood tracking device. Unless Craig's Bond has gained superhuman powers like an MCU character, you have to go with the notion that he's now dead. RIP Craig's Bond, roll on Bond 26.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 68
    I think the bitter feeling over Bonds death could’ve been lesser for everyone had it happened pre pandemic.

    After the last 20 months or so we really needed it to be the Skyfall ending with Bond doing what he does best.

    Hell! Here’s a radical idea. Have this film finished with what would normally be a pre title sequence opening. With Bond out on a new mission. (Could’ve utilised the tunnel gun-barrel idea here) and end the film knowing Bond (even with a family) will endeavour.

    That’s what we needed hope! Unfortunately the film was made before the world went to shit.

    I tend to agree. They could have shown him off on a new mission, family behind, the classic will the hero survive to come home for dinner trope, provided it was handled right. In fact, if you watch the documentary featuring his last scene shot, it’s out of sequence obviously, but it’s him running off down a corridor or alley and disappearing. That would have been perfect. I’m still sad about the ending. It’s the finality, obviously. I don’t want to be reminded of mortality. Not now. We all deserve brighter futures and it’s Bond’s job to promise that. Damn you DC you’ve broken my heart. I’d always thought that was your wife’s job ;)
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    edited October 2021 Posts: 941
    Talk about depressing.

    Now I'm wondering if Mission Impossible will kill Ethan Hunt in their upcoming movie :))
  • baerrttbaerrtt United kingdom
    Posts: 16
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Talk about depressing.

    Now I'm wondering if Mission Impossible will kill Ethan Hunt in their upcoming movie :))

    That wouldn't surprise me honestly.
  • Jeffrey wrote: »
    TotalBB wrote: »
    If Bond was unceremoniously killed by the villain and failed saving the world, THAT would have been awful. But that’s not the case.

    I'm not even sure he's really dead. It wouldn't surprise me if he somehow survived and underwent plastic surgery to stay off the radar. Which would also be very convenient because of the new actor playing Bond.

    IMHO, based on what was seen on screen: there is no question about it. He’s dead.
    He's just pining for the fjords!
    It's not pining it's passed on, it is an ex agent =))
  • PJJPJJ Formby
    Posts: 6
    Killing Bond, Felix and Blofeld in one film was too much. Iconic characters. The deaths of Blofeld and Felix should have had more time to breath. Each could have been an ending to a film in their own right. As I’ve said before on here Bond accidentally kills Blofeld which is ridiculous given the importance of the Blofeld character. He’s supposed to be the mastermind behind the first 4 Craig films.

    It’s partly the problem with the marvel type connected story lines. Clearing up the loose ends means NTTD is too long. They can’t kill Bond while Blofeld is still alive so they have to add Blofeld’s death in. Once I saw that i was expecting the end of the movie given the rumours.

    Connected story lines only work when there is a clear start and end point and you don’t need retcons which have damaged the end of Craig’s tenure.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,264
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family. He would’ve accepted death even without those injuries caused by Safin that shot him in the back. The Jack London quote at the end is just another reminder for that.
  • imranbecks wrote: »
    Talk about depressing.

    Now I'm wondering if Mission Impossible will kill Ethan Hunt in their upcoming movie :))

    The difference if they did is that the IMF are bigger than one agent, the USA searched for years to find a spy franchise to rival Bond, Mission Impossible is it and you can still kill off the main protaganist but carry on with a new team leader.
  • Posts: 3,316
    Not sure I agree with your assessment @matt_u. The point is it was Craig's last Bond outing and the path they agreed upon was to give him a Countess Tracy di Vicenzo ending as a homage to OHMSS. I also don't see what Jack London has got to do with Fleming's Bond. Surely a Raymond Chandler quote would've been more fitting?
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,476
    bondsum wrote: »
    Not sure I agree with your assessment @matt_u. The point is it was Craig's last Bond outing and the path they agreed upon was to give him a Countess Tracy di Vicenzo ending as a homage to OHMSS. I also don't see what Jack London has got to do with Fleming's Bond. Surely a Raymond Chandler quote would've been more fitting?

    It's in the You Only Live Twice novel for Christ's sake.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,316
    bondsum wrote: »
    Not sure I agree with your assessment @matt_u. The point is it was Craig's last Bond outing and the path they agreed upon was to give him a Countess Tracy di Vicenzo ending as a homage to OHMSS. I also don't see what Jack London has got to do with Fleming's Bond. Surely a Raymond Chandler quote would've been more fitting?

    It's in the You Only Live Twice novel for Christ's sake.
    Ah, I forgot that. It's been decades since I last read YOLT.
    Anyway, hard reboot coming. Roll on Bond 26.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,476
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Not sure I agree with your assessment @matt_u. The point is it was Craig's last Bond outing and the path they agreed upon was to give him a Countess Tracy di Vicenzo ending as a homage to OHMSS. I also don't see what Jack London has got to do with Fleming's Bond. Surely a Raymond Chandler quote would've been more fitting?

    It's in the You Only Live Twice novel for Christ's sake.
    Ah, I forgot that. It's been decades since I last read YOLT.
    Anyway, hard reboot coming. Roll on Bond 26.

    Clearly the filmmakers are a lot more engaged with Ian Fleming's Bond! ;)
  • bondsum wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Not sure I agree with your assessment @matt_u. The point is it was Craig's last Bond outing and the path they agreed upon was to give him a Countess Tracy di Vicenzo ending as a homage to OHMSS. I also don't see what Jack London has got to do with Fleming's Bond. Surely a Raymond Chandler quote would've been more fitting?

    It's in the You Only Live Twice novel for Christ's sake.
    Ah, I forgot that. It's been decades since I last read YOLT.
    Anyway, hard reboot coming. Roll on Bond 26.

    Clearly the filmmakers are a lot more engaged with Ian Fleming's Bond! ;)

    They are and they aren't. Baby Bond being a prime example. ;)
  • JohnBarryJohnBarry Dublin
    Posts: 34
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family. He would’ve accepted death even without those injuries caused by Safin that shot him in the back. The Jack London quote at the end is just another reminder for that.

    So he basically commits suicide because he can't be with a women he'd been separated from for five years until two days ago and a daughter he's only known for a day. This is not how I want a Bond film to end.

    I think I'm a fairly open minded Bond fan. Skyfall really shock up the Bond formula and did things I'd never expect to see in a Bond and I love it. But there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and NTTD crosses them.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,107
    I wasn't going to see it again in the cinema, but after sleeping on it, I kind of want to. It was cinema worthy experience.

    Craig era will always live in it's own bubble, even though killing off his Bond will make me look his 4 previous films in a different light.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,476
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Not sure I agree with your assessment @matt_u. The point is it was Craig's last Bond outing and the path they agreed upon was to give him a Countess Tracy di Vicenzo ending as a homage to OHMSS. I also don't see what Jack London has got to do with Fleming's Bond. Surely a Raymond Chandler quote would've been more fitting?

    It's in the You Only Live Twice novel for Christ's sake.
    Ah, I forgot that. It's been decades since I last read YOLT.
    Anyway, hard reboot coming. Roll on Bond 26.

    Clearly the filmmakers are a lot more engaged with Ian Fleming's Bond! ;)

    They are and they aren't. Baby Bond being a prime example. ;)

    Baby Bond?
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 57
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family.

    Pretty sure his plan involved getting off the island. He didn't choose to stay, he was beaten. Once the silo doors started to close, he was never getting away. There was no choice involved, he was bested by a foe, who on the scale of Bond Villainy, was not all that great.

  • Posts: 625
    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?

    No, because in Danny Boyles script Bond would not die. So Craig said yes to Bond 25 without the plan of killing Bond.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,480
    If NTTD is making this many "Bond fans" whine like toddlers, then I know I'm gonna love it. =D>
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,476
    TripAces wrote: »
    If NTTD is making this many "Bond fans" whine like toddlers, then I know I'm gonna love it. =D>

    That's usually a good indicator for me as well!
  • Posts: 3,055
    TripAces wrote: »
    If NTTD is making this many "Bond fans" whine like toddlers, then I know I'm gonna love it. =D>
    I felt nothing because I saw it coming. Maybe if he died in someone's arms in a huge melodramatic moment, but just getting blown up by missiles?
    I was more shaken during the part where Felix dies.
  • The film was written on the hoof and by committee from a basic script that was never properly polished, hence the feeling of fragmentation between scenes and some lack of continuity. This is why some parts work, others don't but on the whole it's messy.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,264
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family. He would’ve accepted death even without those injuries caused by Safin that shot him in the back. The Jack London quote at the end is just another reminder for that.

    So he basically commits suicide because he can't be with a women he'd been separated from for five years until two days ago and a daughter he's only known for a day. This is not how I want a Bond film to end.

    Simon wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family.

    Pretty sure his plan involved getting off the island. He didn't choose to stay, he was beaten. Once the silo doors started to close, he was never getting away. There was no choice involved, he was bested by a foe, who on the scale of Bond Villainy, was not all that great.

    No. Still missing the point. Both of you. I understand that's a lot to take.
    In Jamaica he wasn't living. He was existing. After Safin poisoned him, Bond understands that he's not interested anymore in living a life where everything he touches turns to dust. He already suffered enough because of that in the past and at this point, where his future is jeopardize, dying is the only way to stop his curse. Remember the scene in the cabin where he tells her how much he loves her and that he never stopped loving her. He doesn't want to live a life without the love of his life and their daughter. That is not life. That is just existing. The final quote by M makes it perfectly clear. Bond has no time for that. He's not interested in that. Not anymore.

    Obviously he was badly injured, but if his intentions were to survive, he would've tried. He deliberately chooses to die because his future life would've been just about existing, and not living the time he was still given. That's it.

    N.B. From the end of the YOLT novel where Bond was believed to be dead at MI6:

    Mary Goodnight: I was happy and proud to serve Commander Bond in a close capacity during the past three years at the Ministry of Defence. If indeed our fears for him are justified, may I suggest these simple words for his epitaph? Many of the junior staff here feel they represent his philosophy: “I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.”
  • JohnBarryJohnBarry Dublin
    Posts: 34
    Simon wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family.

    Pretty sure his plan involved getting off the island. He didn't choose to stay, he was beaten. Once the silo doors started to close, he was never getting away. There was no choice involved, he was bested by a foe, who on the scale of Bond Villainy, was not all that great.

    Exactly 100%
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 57
    matt_u wrote: »
    No. Still missing the point. Both of you. I understand that's a lot to take.

    Ha! You remind me of me...

    I'm not missing your point, I'm choosing to have an opinion.

    It can be dressed up in Fleming literary quotes all day long though, but I am not going to be convinced that killing the cinematic Bond is a good idea, or that it was executed in a competent manner in NTTD.

    I'm glad there are those who enjoy it, and my days of arguing until I'm blue on the face on MI6 died a decade ago.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,264
    After he opens the doors for the second time and Q confirms there’s no way to get rid of the nanobots, he deliberately chooses to die on that island and that’s 100% clear. This is what the movie is about. If you don’t like this notion, neglecting it doesn’t make it less real.
  • Posts: 15
    bondsum wrote: »
    TotalBB wrote: »
    If Bond was unceremoniously killed by the villain and failed saving the world, THAT would have been awful. But that’s not the case.

    I'm not even sure he's really dead. It wouldn't surprise me if he somehow survived and underwent plastic surgery to stay off the radar. Which would also be very convenient because of the new actor playing Bond.
    He was totally vaporized. We all saw it. Q even confirmed this when he was monitoring Bond's vitals using his Smart Blood tracking device. Unless Craig's Bond has gained superhuman powers like an MCU character, you have to go with the notion that he's now dead. RIP Craig's Bond, roll on Bond 26.
    I just saw the movie for the second time and you're right: it's impossible that he survived.
  • BCLBCL Norfolk
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3
    I enjoyed the start, before the opening titles, but did anyone else find it all rather laborious and a trudge up and until the final 20 minutes or so? I get they had a lot to cram in, for right or wrong(!), but it wasn’t until the final act that there was any emotional heft, as you’d expect given what panned out. I think some film critics are going a little over board with their reviews and are thinking primarily about the ending and how significant it was. I think some people might be viewing this film in high regard at this moment in time solely due to the ending.

    Don’t get me wrong, as far as it being the only scene in which Bond has died, it was handled well and undeniably powerful. I had some tears! The two follow up scenes weren’t too great in my eyes though, other than the quote M read out, which was fitting.
Sign In or Register to comment.