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

15152545657298

Comments

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Qba007 wrote: »
    Craig's Bond died that way and the new actor's Bond will die in a different way.

    Nope.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    I find it so strange that people don't feel the chemistry between Dan and Lea on-screen :)) .
  • Posts: 4,617
    I really do get the concept of a self contained universe. I get it 100% BUT if it's self contained, why are there so many references to another Bond time line (another universe) that is not witin that universe. I know people have , very fairly, made reference to Spider Man as a good example but (no expert on this) do the different Spiderman universes made reference to each other? (or are there other examples ?) Self contained, is after all, self contained. Thats one of the things I'm struggling with
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 87
    matt_u wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    Craig's Bond died that way and the new actor's Bond will die in a different way.

    Nope.

    So?

    The only logical explanation for the ending would be to say in Bond26 that Bond accomplished this mission and returned (played by a new actor).
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    patb wrote: »
    I really do get the concept of a self contained universe. I get it 100% BUT if it's self contained, why are there so many references to another Bond time line (another universe) that is not witin that universe.

    I think those are just fun nods for the fans (wish they’d do less of that though to be honest) rather than signs that the old films still count as part of this timeline.

    The Craig era has always been its own thing, which is one of the reasons I liked the ending. As well as feeling fitting for this version of the character, it also seals off all the emotional baggage this run has and some of the missteps they made (Brofeld), which imo was a smart call. Craig’s been Bond for so long that someone else stepping into his shoes would feel weird, and I think the series will need a big change in direction to escape his shadow, that isn’t hampered by having to stick to the same world CR introduced. I think that’s already been sort of an issue with SP and NTTD. They seem to want to go a bit more “classic” and fun, but they’re limited by the fact that we’re still in gritty reboot land. So, the secret base can only be so extravagant, the henchmen still have to wear boring black gear, the gadgets can’t be too OTT, etc.

    Things have changed a lot since 2006. The Craig era has done a good job of moving with the times and following trends, but I’m ready for a whole new take on it. I want to see Bond reimagined and bought bang up to date again, like GE and CR did. Just reboot (not necessarily an origin story) and cast new MI6 regulars to signal that it’s a fresh start. Problem solved. Keep Wishaw though please. If Dench got to stay across reboots then I think he should.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    Posts: 73
    I think Bond #7 will hit the ground running, so to speak, with Bond already being a seasoned 00-veteran and Scooby Doo gang already being in place. I suppose SPECTRE will also return, in some point, with another take on Blofeld. Like I said in another thread a Thunberball-style adventure would be a good way to go.
  • gdc9521gdc9521 Bury, Greater Manchester
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1
    I went into the cinema yesterday so excited like many of us to be finally seeing a film on the big screen, let alone a Bond film. It's been just over 24 hours and I am still processing it all but the feeling at the moment is one of sadness, disappointment and intrigue. Sadness that Bond is dead, disappointment that the film was overlong, a bit convoluted and had a fairly weak villain in my opinion, and intrigue relating to what comes next, if anything. Maybe as time goes on I will look at this film on its own merits and enjoy it more, but they sure got me on the emotional side!
  • Posts: 4,617
    But if you are allowed "fun nods" to other universes, where do you draw the line? I would like someone to draw up a list of all of the "fun nods" across the whole of the DC arc. Lets face it, when it suits them, they are happy to delve into "lucky dip" and use anything they like.
  • Posts: 3,333
    bondsum wrote: »
    Well, it would be fruitless to point it out you haven't noticed anything else. But only a couple pages ago someone complained about the Jack London quote that was used in the film and in Ian Fleming's You Only Live Twice, because they felt they had a better idea that would be more in line with Ian Fleming's Bond, because they didn't know very much about Ian Fleming or his work.
    There's no need to be a jerk @ProfJoeButcher. You're hardly endearing yourself to the community. I told you I'd read YOLT a long time ago, probably before you were even born. It's easy to forget a Jack London reference.

    Sorry to have sounded salty. But I mean, imagine you're writing these movies, the fans want Fleming, you put in Fleming, the fans don't recognize it and suggest you should have put some Fleming in instead. You'd start banging your head against the wall. It was just about fan demands and whether they know what they want.
    Okay. Thanks for the apology @ProfJoeButcher. I appreciate it.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 49
    This will be the first Bond movie I won't watch in the cinema since Licence To Kill (I was too young then). Not because they have killed 007 (I am glad they killed Craig-Bond, who was never James Bond to me), but because I will have to watch Craig for almost three hours first. Not worth the money.

    They've had ample time to start production on the next Bond, but as always, EON is just lazy, not starting the process until 2022...

    Hopefully we can now go back to a 007 with a sense of humor, charisma, crazy stunts, silly plotlines and the audience feeling excited after leaving the cinema, instead of depressed.

    Here's to hoping!
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 53
    patb wrote: »
    I really do get the concept of a self contained universe. I get it 100% BUT if it's self contained, why are there so many references to another Bond time line (another universe) that is not witin that universe.

    I think those are just fun nods for the fans (wish they’d do less of that though to be honest) rather than signs that the old films still count as part of this timeline.

    The Craig era has always been its own thing, which is one of the reasons I liked the ending. As well as feeling fitting for this version of the character, it also seals off all the emotional baggage this run has and some of the missteps they made (Brofeld), which imo was a smart call. Craig’s been Bond for so long that someone else stepping into his shoes would feel weird, and I think the series will need a big change in direction to escape his shadow, that isn’t hampered by having to stick to the same world CR introduced. I think that’s already been sort of an issue with SP and NTTD. They seem to want to go a bit more “classic” and fun, but they’re limited by the fact that we’re still in gritty reboot land. So, the secret base can only be so extravagant, the henchmen still have to wear boring black gear, the gadgets can’t be too OTT, etc.

    Things have changed a lot since 2006. The Craig era has done a good job of moving with the times and following trends, but I’m ready for a whole new take on it. I want to see Bond reimagined and bought bang up to date again, like GE and CR did. Just reboot (not necessarily an origin story) and cast new MI6 regulars to signal that it’s a fresh start. Problem solved. Keep Wishaw though please. If Dench got to stay across reboots then I think he should.

    This +1

    The nods to the past I feel were a way of catering to the die hards. (The casual fan after all, would have thought nothing of poison gardens or portraits of Robert Brown for example).

    My opinion has, since the start, been that the Craig era was always intended to be self contained - an alternate timeline so to speak? Nothing demonstrates that more than the rollover of Judi Dench. In terms of continuity - there was none. It wasn’t possible. And to be fair, not like the series hasn’t been a bit hit and miss with timelines before - Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS after he invaded his volcano with ninjas in the prior story... If Craig’s universe was canon with the other Bonds that would mean they were “brothers” back then also? And if that’s the case why is Felix not missing a leg ? It’s the same character name, In the same series, but with a different take. Same as the novels are an alternative timeline to the films , to some of the continuity novels, to the video games, etc. They have always played pick and choose. Hell, Daltons Bond could have been its own self contained universe when you think about it. But I do get it, I get the level of upset this has caused amongst the fandom. If nothing else, they’ve ensured we’ll always talk about this one !

    Ultimately though, Whomever Bond 7 is will have a free go at it without the emotional weight and story beats of the Craig era. For me, this was about ending Craig’s tenure as Bond with all the storylines that went with it - I don’t see this as killing off the same Bond Connery played, or Brosnan, or all of those between. But I fully respect the opinions of those who will feel that sense of betrayal to the character. And hey you never know, perhaps in time, In appraisal, opinions will change . Those that loved NTTD may come to hate it , those that hated it may come to appreciate where it stands. (For example - From my own recent rewatch of all of the films I found myself adoring For Your Eyes Only - not something I’d have imagined when I first watched it in my younger days ! )

    The franchise and the character will move on . That’s for sure . I think there are elements of NTTD that proved - without being burdened by backstory - they could possibly still make a very good standalone adventure . It just so happened this one had to wrap up the loose ends of the 4 before. Whether the way it’s been wrapped up is agreeable or not I guess is the precise reason a varied fandom exists in the first place :)
  • 007bondUK007bondUK England
    Posts: 25
    Technically Craig's Bond died twice, almost three times during his tenure. The de-fib scene in CR, shot by Moneypenny in Skyfall and now for good in NTTD.

    Personally, I think killing him for good in NTTD was the most stupid decision EON have made and there have been plenty.

    If they are killing Bond off and all the current cast I hope they also get rid of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade who continue to steal a living off Bond.

    Since these morons are trying to reverse engineer a story out of CR it wouldn't surprise me if the next Bond is just a digital version of Craig's little finger because remember this line?

    Vesper Lynd: You know James, I just want you to know that if all that was left of you was your smile and your little finger, you'd still be more of a man than anyone I've ever met.
    James Bond: That's because you know what I can do with my little finger.

    Aside from the stupidity of killing Bond I feel watching NTTD is the equivalent of watching my phone battery dying. It starts of really well and just get's worse and worse.

  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 695
    Strict continuity is tough to do. You have to commit to it, set rules and rigidly stick by them, otherwise there's no point. Babs and MGW wanted to have it both ways with the Craig era, they wanted a new timeline while also engaging in constant fan lip service, especially since SF. In the end, everything became muddled as they tried to make the movies more traditionally "Bond" while simultaneously subverting everything Bond was. Maybe Bond only works without strict continuity. Maybe the producers just don't know what they're doing, aside from chasing box office and Oscars.

    I always liked CR and QOS but NTTD's ending diminishes them. Not even sure if I can watch them now. Since they've killed his Bond off it seems like he was never really Bond, but more like a wanna-be Bond, or an imposter. Now it feels like the last "real" Bond movie was DAD, which I personally don't like, but at least the character I'm watching from start to finish is Bond, no questions asked. And at least he doesn't friggin die at the end. BTW, NTTD and DAD should really switch titles.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I'm seeing it again tonight :)
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    The whole continuity and overarching story didn't fully satisfy because it was never intended, at least not in the beginning. That's the problem and one of the main reasons for any weaknesses.
    This Daniel Craig saga idea wasn't envisaged until production of Spectre, hence the haste and retrofitting stuff.
    CR was a smash and at the time of release a standalone film. It wasn't 'The DC era part 1 of 5' at that stage. QOS was made as a sequel to CR and very publicly so, that was planned, but again not as part 2 of 5 if you get my meaning.
    SF was a stand alone film! Nothing at all to do with this 'epic' saga. It was stated as such during production and upon release by Mendes and others. Definitely not part 3...
    So instead of leaving SF out of any silly plan they got in their heads around the time of Spectre, presumably after watching the MCU and thinking oooh that's a good idea, they repackaged the Quantum organisation and pretended Silva was a Spectre agent or a free lance link or some such nonsense!
    It didn't work very well for me. The only film they have fully stated is all part of this big master plan is NTTD, as a conclusion. The problem is it's a conclusion to a story that was never fully fleshed out to begin with, so it leaves it feeling weak and cobbled together. That's because it was. And that's a shame because the whole story, planned fully at the beginning could have been brilliant.
  • Posts: 82
    Agree with all of that, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that Eon improvises from film to film, should it? There are so many variables they don’t control. We’d all love to find method in it of course. That’s the ineffable compulsion of art, surely. I’m watching QoS just now. I love the whole South American tone and colours to it. It’s almost a standalone movie imho. And that’s fine. We can’t retcon our lives. I think what Eon and DC have done with NTTD is astonishing, given the gaps between films, the effect of that on over emphasising DC’s age, the bloated direction of SM. Personally, the worst offence against the spirit of Bond in the past 3 movies has been the appalling tailoring. Isn’t it great we have such a diversity of opinions? How liberating after 18 months of grim.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Absolutely, it's the diversity of opinion that, most of the time, keep these chat boards so enjoyable.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Perhaps its an age thing re universes. My son is a big Spiderman fan and reminded me that Green Goblin is returing in the upcoming film and he is from another "universe" - he's far more laid back and just enjoys each movie for what it is.
  • Posts: 82
    Yes the comics got over continuity decades ago. They had to, there were so many titles being written by different writers. Whereas with Bond….
  • 007bondUK wrote: »
    Personally, I think killing him for good in NTTD was the most stupid decision EON have made and there have been plenty

    -1

    Big disagree here.

    I really wanted them to end the Craig era with a 'bang.' The simple question is 'What else could they done?' Have him ride off into the sunset with Madeleine? That would have been a rehash of SP. Bond dying was the only other definitive ending available to them. I suppose they could have included a coda which hinted at Bond's survival. It's quite bold they didn't chicken out like TDKR in this respect (I feel quite strongly that they should have cut at the scene where Alfred nods just to lend some ambiguity and finality to the story).

    N1OZ4zw.gif

    The death works for a number of reasons:
    1. Bond is going to die anyway. He's been shot by Safin (I believe three times, right?). He's loosing too much blood and has to reopen the blast doors. He's simply run out of time. I really doubt he could get off the island with whatever time was available to him.
    2. If Bond was to leave the island, he would be Patient Zero for a new variant of Heracles. A variant which is particularly deadly to Madeleine and Mathilde. He knew he had to stay on the island to stop the contagion and save their lives.

    You could argue that Q (or Pfizer 😉) could have created a vaccine for those infected with Heracles. However, what sells the ending is Craig and Seydoux's performances. Bond never plays the victim in those moments. It's a beautiful performance from him. Furthermore, Fukunaga's elegant filmmaking makes what is a very distressing scene rather beautiful.

    I think the tragedy of NTTD is that unlike say Logan or the Last Jedi which are built around the hero's death being an inevitability, NTTD teases Bond with the chance of a happy ending. Bond really wants to live, however, he is unable to. It's v sad. I'm not surprised NTTD will prove a divisive film. I think it'll reach OHMSS levels in years to come.

    giphy.gif

    More people need to speak about how good Lisa-Dorah Sonnet is in NTTD. My whole cinema were awwing over everything she did. The kid sells it. (Also, can someone help me with the pronunciation of Mathilde. Is it Ma-tild or Ma-tilda)
  • Posts: 82
    The former. With a hint of the e being enunciated. French innit, so I defer to native speakers. And they could have done anything with the ending,
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 4,617
    The death works for a number of reasons:

    Bond is going to die anyway. He's been shot by Safin (I believe three times, right?). He's loosing too much blood and has to reopen the blast doors. He's simply run out of time. I really doubt he could get off the island with whatever time was available to him.
    If Bond was to leave the island, he would be Patient Zero for a new variant of Heracles. A variant which is particularly deadly to Madeleine and Mathilde. He knew he had to stay on the island to stop the contagion and save their lives.


    Neither of these things had to happen, it was the choice of the script writers.

    Bottom line is, what are the pros and cons of killing off the character ?

    Pros - closes the DC era, hugh emotional impact, huge talking point, fixes debate with universe/time line

    Cons - huge "downer", upsets some fans, reduces rewatch factor, villain wins again, effects future actors exits, erodes Bonds mythical status

    I'm sure there's more on both sides
  • Posts: 380
    Just got back from my screening and I guess my anger will subside in the coming hours but right now I'm going to watch Goldfinger to help me scrub this travesty of a Bond film from my mind. And it's not just the end it's pretty much the entire film.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    I really can’t think of a better way to end it than Bond’s death, personally. If he retires and gets a normal life after all, then like @Pierce2Daniel said, we’re essentially just where we were in SP. And there’s the question over whether Bond could really have a normal life anyway. He’d always be looking over his shoulder, he made his bed when he became a 00. He could’ve survived and left Madeline to raise Mathilde, gone back to MI6 and resigned himself to being a man of the shadows, but Craig is pushing 60 and we’ve been doing the whole “Bond is getting on a bit” thing for three films now. Not sure normal service resumed would’ve convinced for me. And I think they were wise to avoid an open ending like that, because I don’t think the next actor should be saddled with all the baggage of the Craig era (the realistic aesthetic, the emotional baggage of Vesper/Madeline, foster brother Blofeld).

    Him dying didn’t feel cheap to me either. I thought it felt entirely natural. A normal life will never be possible for him, but he gets to ensure his child will have one (thus avoiding another Bond/Madeline/Saffin) by sacrificing himself. It’s tragic. He finally finds a life past being a blunt instrument, but he’s ultimately too far gone to ever live that life. But it felt like a very fitting end to this era imo, very in keeping with the tragedy of DC’s take on the character. That was probably the biggest strength of the film for me. That it felt like this is what we’d been building towards, despite the fact that they’d obviously just made it up as they went along. It bought a lot of Craig era themes and motifs together in a satisfying way, like how SP tried (and failed, and I say that as someone who really enjoyed it) to do.

    I don’t think they wrapped the overarching plot up very well (the SPECTRE story), but then to be fair, they were left with a very messy and contrived narrative to work with there, so I can’t blame them for shafting it in favour of a more personal angle. And character wise, I thought NTTD ended things perfectly.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 11
    I was talking to the one of the staff at the local cinema the reaction to the film by most people he talks to as they leave is 'depressed' he said he frequently gets told by people they expected a spectacle and escapism in these covid times and leave feeling deflated that films ultimate hero dies.

    But let me get this straight....
    Q has harnessed the power of an EMP into a watch that is capable of destroying electronics of a whole section of the building in the film, yet his watch couldn't damage/destroy the tiny nanobots on Bond?
    Or was that the point? He sacrificed himself and he didn't know he was already safe making it more tragic? They really labour the watch part when he kills Cyclops

  • Posts: 82
    I think the basic deal is you either buy into the overarching journey or you don’t. Because details.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Its easy to create a scenario where he is within the explosion but we dont see him die, the audeince can make up their own minds. add to this a scenario where, if he survived, he could not come back and had to dissapear. Then, writers choice, leave it there or a final scene to hint/confirm he survived. I realise some are happy with his death but there were other options.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    JB770721 wrote: »
    I was talking to the one of the staff at the local cinema the reaction to the film by most people he talks to as they leave is 'depressed' he said he frequently gets told by people they expected a spectacle and escapism in these covid times and leave feeling deflated that cinemas ultimate hero dies.

    Yeah, it does seem quite unfortunately timed in some respects (the virus plot, the downbeat ending), but then that’s not really the film’s fault to be fair, so I don’t think we can hold it against them.

    It will be interesting to see whether the word of mouth about the ending affects the box office/audience response though. Still seems to be doing very well so far.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I loved it even though both times and even more so as my Wife was with me, I let the tears roll properly.

    I know some are annoyed by this but this for me makes up for the huge disappointment of SPECTRE and I watched it the night before going to see NTTD for the first time, it hasn't improved and NTTD made me think even more so.

    Mendes made a cracking film in Skyfall but SPECTRE was dross to me but NTTD despite that makes me think this is a hugely successful tenure and the best since Connery.

    Also and I guess this is a case of your opinion of the film but DC got to break the rule of ending on a dud. The direction was impeccable, great performances, the action was the best of the era and some of the best of the series.

    2 hrs 43 minutes flew by and I loved Bond and Felix's moments and how that ended, like the end hugely poignant. Also did anyone notice and my Wife pointed this out although I'd thought it on my first watch.
    That Felix's death and his sinking slightly mirrored Vesper's, I think intentional but it was rather beautiful, I loved their final scenes together, though I've always thought DC & JW have such great chemistry.

    Of course this is going to be divisive but I think like Skyfall is that way here that NTTD will be a big hit with the masses like SF was. SF was seen as more than what people expect from a Bond film and I think NTTD also will have a similar affect.

    DC's Bond was never going to walk into the sunset and enjoy life, also he wasn't going to end on being sent on his next mission.

    This ending has upset some, even disgusted some but for me and others it was perfect and however distressing and traumatic, I'd have it no other way and I love WHATITW and OHMSS is my favourite Bond film, although if any other actor deserved to utilise that song it was DC.

    His films got as close as that film and in some cases even more so to the level of emotion even before NTTD, so while some cry sacrilege, I approve.

    One more watch for me next weekend with my parents and then some time away before the 4K UHD Blu-ray arrives, we'll see how I react the 3rd time.

    I also like someone pointed out while emotional about Sean & Rog's death would never have been moved the way I was with Craig's last moments about their Bond's if that had happened he just elicits something that no other actor has in the role for me. So DC would have only caused that reaction because the other versions of Bond and I include Dalton in this, we never saw enough depth and characterisation to see anything but some cool guy who could handle himself in a tight spot.

    Controversial but there you go, let the brickbats commence.
  • Posts: 526
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don’t know if you guys saw this on the other thread but the friend I’m going to see it with on Thursday (I decided to go ahead), has been to every Bond film opening night since DN. The only Bond films I’ve missed in the theater since GF have been OHMSS and TND.

    I’ve seen them at the theatre since A View To A Kill. To see them all since Dr. No is extremely impressive. It has crossed my mind to try it Thursday, but I just can’t make myself do it as of now. Hope the viewing is better than we think. Just curious: does your friend know the ending?

    Snap! My first Bond at the cinema was AVTAK too. We must be of similar age.

    Awesome! : ) I grew up watching the Roger Moore Bond’s on ABC (I think). AVTAK was in 87? I think. I’m 45 now. I remember that it blew me away. Still remember it fondly! It’s my favorite Moore movie, which I know isn’t a popular opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.