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

15960626465298

Comments

  • Qba007 wrote: »
    Agreed, I don't know why some fans are hell bent on forcing some sort of continuity onto a franchise that has little to no regard for continuity. Bond is like Batman in that sense, you can reset, recast, reboot all you want. They even have multiple going at the same time. Craig Bond is dead. James Bond will return. The king is dead, long live the king.

    So from now on, when watching the last movie of an actor, instead of wondering how Bond will do, people will be wondering how the newly introduced characters and Bond will die?

    They don't have to die and I don't think the audience going in thinking that death is a possibility for any particular character isn't necessarily a bad thing.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    There will be a reboot. Craig's five films form their own closed story arc which is now over. The next Bond film will be a business-as-usual adventure, without any references to Vesper, Madeleine etc.
    The character of James Bond played by Daniel Craig is dead. He ain't coming back.
  • Posts: 6,665
    I don't have any problem with him dying. Not may main concern with the film.

    But I'll say this in favour of it, the next time around, we'll be jumping up and down our seats, afraid that the man will catch a bullet, be mangled, or die. It'll bring the sense of danger back. Bond can die, he's human, not a superhero from Krypton.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,105
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    First impressions of NTTD just got out of the cinema, possibly DC best film at least as good as CR.
    IMy eyes welled up more than once during this film, it got me emotionally.

    Delighted you liked it! Here's hoping my second viewing tomorrow is more positive

    I was locked into the film immediately, a lot of what was going on resonated with me on a personal level. I did not like SF or SP so my expectations were very low so that may have factored.

    I thought NTTD was a fitting end to DC era and made sense to me, DC era is a microcosm outside the rest of the films. Bond was a true hero in NTTD for me.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,834
    Ok I just need to jump in here, I don’t understand this desire to have him survive for Bond 26. If he had survived the end of the film, the Craig-era still wouldn’t continue and a reboot would still be on the cards. You can’t go from a enclosed continuity where the actor has gone through being called an “old dog” and has actually retired, to a younger actor whose gonna give them however many more films. It makes no sense. In my opinion, Craig’s era was always gonna be its own thing, and I don’t think that’ll do any damage to the franchise whatsoever. Bond 26 can now move forward with its own ideas and freshen things up. No letters or complaints are gonna make that any different.

    I understand people didn’t like the ending, but it’s done. They’re not gonna add an alternative one, and they’re certainly not gonna have him miraculously survive with a new face in the next one, because again you just can’t continue the Craig-era anymore, especially with a new actor.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Univex wrote: »
    I don't have any problem with him dying. Not may main concern with the film.

    But I'll say this in favour of it, the next time around, we'll be jumping up and down our seats, afraid that the man will catch a bullet, be mangled, or die. It'll bring the sense of danger back. Bond can die, he's human, not a superhero from Krypton.

    Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
  • Is this the Marmite of Bond films? My non-Bond fan friends love it; my non-Bond fan colleagues hate it.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,185
    Univex wrote: »
    I don't have any problem with him dying. Not may main concern with the film.

    But I'll say this in favour of it, the next time around, we'll be jumping up and down our seats, afraid that the man will catch a bullet, be mangled, or die. It'll bring the sense of danger back. Bond can die, he's human, not a superhero from Krypton.

    Yes exactly, it brought it back to reality as Craig's Bond has done from the start.

    Of course I understand that James Bond is supposed to be the guy who always gets away, even though he pretty much tries to get himself killed in the line of fire on each and every film (often multiple times) but it can become comical, and it might have at some point.

    I'm glad that NTTD dared to ask the question "What would james Bond actually die for, and how would that look like?"
    And his ending was perfect to me, on an epic scale, sacrificing himself for queen and country but also, and more importantly, on an emotional and personal level because he got the peace of mind knowing that Madeline gave him something to leave behind in the form of his daughter, and he got to express his feelings as well. Nothing left unsaid.

    I live in a Bond multiverse anyway where there are multiple Bond's: Books, Games, Comics, just because one storyline ended, doesn't mean the character is gone.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Is this the Marmite of Bond films? My non-Bond fan friends love it; my non-Bond fan colleagues hate it.

    So clearly one of those groups aren t real non-fans.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I doubt Bond is dead. No body found means Bond doesn't have to be dead.

    They literally show Bond's life parameters and they're all ZERO. He's dead. 100% dead.
  • Controversial, but I really enjoyed it.
    The Good:
    - The action: It was used sparingly but when it was there, it was done well. The stunt work - particularly the vehicles - was superb.
    - Daniel Craig had fun throughout this, which made it fun to watch throughout.
    - The use of sound from Bond's perspective: hearing momentary distortion from the water and the muffled sound after the first explosion worked really well.
    - The portrayal of minor characters. Even the scientists with little screen time were humanised in very little time through good dialogue and performances.
    - SPECTRE were nasty here. Seeing innocent people brutally killed isn't that common in a Bond film. It really sold SPECTRE as an evil organisation, especially after the scientists were so naturally played.
    - The climactic shootout shouldn't have been so exciting, but it was. The use of a "single-shot" with the camera following Bond sold the jeopardy.
    - The SPECTRE party really sold how ethereal and unsettling the organisation is. Far more, in fact, than the entire previous film. It was satisfying yet disturbing to see their own weapon used against them.
    - Paloma: capable, charismatic and a genuinely strong female character without being unlikeable.
    - The score. Hans Zimmer struck a perfect balance of Bondian mood and his own style. Every scene was well scored.
    - Safin's plan (to begin with). The idea that Bond is up against someone with a similar agenda to his own made for an interesting story.
    - The side villains. Very strong personalities who seemed like a real tangible threat.
    - The conflict between Bond and M. There were some real layers to this. Bond's disappointment and sarcasm against M's guilt and frustration.
    - "It blew his mind." Enough said.
    - We Have All The Time In The World. To me, it wasn't Tracy's song but the song that related to Bond becoming warmer and more human but with a tinge of tragedy. For me, its use here was very fitting.

    The Bad:
    - The international incident M kept mentioning. How was it avoided? Did it even happen?
    - Safin's second plan. Who was he actually targeting? Why? What was the point?
    - Exposition through dialogue. Yes, we can see that they're magnets. Yes, we can see you turned the weapon against SPECTRE. You literally just showed us. We're not dumb.
    - "Do you know what time it is?" You can't set up your own punchline. That's not how it works in Bond.
    - The abrupt ending. You kill the main character after 60 years and we don't get to see the consequences? That's it? Really?

    The Undecided:
    - Mathilde. The apple scene was great and her dialogue in the car really humanised her which built the jeopardy. But biting Safin's hand was a bit Disney/Pixar.
    - Bond's death. It's a bold move and I respect it, but the way it was done has been seen so many times before and felt anti-climactic. I have to admit that I didn't feel it at all. The concept shook me but the execution really didn't.
    - Safin. Very menacing in the first half - cold and cadaverous with lifeless eyes. But he became a glorified frail, angsty child in the second half.
    - Nomi. Her insecurities and constant digs really grated in the first half but her wit and toughness really came out towards the end.
  • Posts: 2
    @bondywondy I certainly think that could be a possibility. There are so many references to Fleming's YOLT, that it could be hinting in that direction as a way out, ie following it with a TMWAGG style resolution. As final as the end seems.

    Personally it wouldn't feel that satisfactory to me, as the realisation at the end of NTTD that his existence was a permanent threat to his family, and the resulting sacrifice, was what made NTTD's ending so powerful.

    And NTTD was always more of an echo of Fleming's later stories, rather than strictly following the plot.

    Alternately they could go down the oft mooted idea of making the next one a period piece set in the 1950s - if they were going to do that, now would make more sense than ever as it would be clear that they are not continuing the same story, which otherwise feels like it needs some explanation.

    A period piece would make it clear that Bond films have been playing different variations on the same melody.

    Or something else, entirely. But it does feel they sort of need to do something to acknowledge the end.

    Still it will be interesting to see how they do follow that, that's for sure. I don't think I've anticipated the next story so much before.
  • Posts: 4,599
    "He's not really dead. As long as we remember him."
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 295
    There is major story potential in Bond surviving. The quest to find Bond. That is a strong premise for Bond 26.

    I accept a "he's not dead, we sure fooled you suckers!" explanation might be silly but it is what it is. I'd rather see Bond alive than dead. You can contrive a reason why/how he's still alive and my guess is 80 percent or more of the overall worldwide audience won't care if it's unbelievable. If the precredit explanation scene is thrilling the audience will buy into Bond's escape from death.

    Most film goers don't care about the why. They just pay the ticket and popcorn and enjoy the film at a superficial level.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    This is a lost cause.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,105
    Bond is definitely dead, DC era is over.

    I expect a hard reboot across the board for the next film.
  • Posts: 4,599
    Perhaps he used his EMP watch to force the missiles to explode early and create some form of plasma gas shield that protected him. The EMP watch also effected the personal monitoring kit, explaining why Q saw his vital signs at zero and also knocked out the nanobots. The extreme heat also cauterized his bullet wound.

    Indeed, a lost cause.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    matt_u wrote: »
    This is a lost cause.

    No, it isn t. Bond 26 could be set on the astral plane.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    Simon wrote: »
    I think I have figured out why the ending didn't work for me, on a personal level.

    From day one, I always interpreted it that in every film, it was the same James Bond. As an example:

    Lazenby's Bond: Get's married
    Connery's Bond in DAF: The opening I interpreted as his revenge-mission for Tracy's murder
    Moore: Visits Tracy's grave
    Dalton: Alluded to Tracy at Felix's wedding

    Yes, the era and elapsed time from Dr No doesn't make sense, but that was a piece of Hollywood-ness I happily bought into. For me, they are the same man.

    So when Casino Royale rocked up and did the first mission, it didn't bother me. In my head canon, DC's character could have his mobile phone and DB10, and then still be the man who takes on Goldfinger where the DB5's tracking system seemed other-worldly. Same man, be damned with the era consistency.

    By killing DC's Bond, it somewhat breaks a mythos I didn't know I had built up of my own volition and experiences with the films since the day I bought my first copy of TSWLM on VHS. More so because it traced DC from his induction into the Double-O's, through to death, with a story 'arc' undeniably linking the two. You can't just say "NTTD is how he dies, but Bond 26 could happen before that". Nor would I try. That's just silly, these are just movies afterall...

    Now this isn't a post to assign blame to EON, DC, etc, for "raping my childhood" like Star Wars fans did to the prequel/sequel trilogies, or to somehow say how my opinion or thoughts are correct; just to put over why I think that no matter how well a death for 007 was handled (and I still don't think it was handled all that well), that for me (and maybe others) that the end result could never be satisfying.

    To be clear, I know these are just movies, and when the next 007 jumps off a dam, or onto Gibraltar, or however they introduce him, it will be business as usual for me. But I can't help shake the feeling that subverting, not just expectations, but what was for me an unwritten rule of Bond movies, NTTD and it's ending will always sit just too far out of the comfort zone for my own viewing pleasure.

    No, I get you, I think your reaction is perfectly understandable. Part of what makes the cinematic Bond the icon he is, is that he's the same guy having these amazing adventures. It does make him larger than life, almost a folk hero, but for many that is part of his appeal. He's saved the world a lot.

    The 'sliding timeline', where it's the same hero at roughly the same age, despite the fact these stories have been told over a period of decades, is basically the way the films had handled things pre-Craig. It's how Marvel comics operate, with Spider-Man's first stories obviously happening in the Sixties, but the character is still going on now having adventures in 2021, despite having aged maybe ten years. If you think about it too much it doesn't make sense, and you have to do some tidying up of old stories in your head, but you know it's the same character. Comic fans have coped with this for years, it's not too big of a concept to grasp. It's a loose continuity, with the audience expected to roll with the contradictions and make a bit of effort to make it work.

    Deciding to make a story about Bond's first mission but giving it a contemporary setting obviously screamed reboot, but I was okay with that because I could still feel it was the same guy, only before we'd seen him in Dr No. I could deal with the cognitive dissonance of the different decades. Even when Skyfall introduced quite different looking versions of Moneypenny and Q, I could roll with it. Felix was always shifting in appearance, so he wasn't a big deal. Bond being said to have aged was awkward, but again, it was a good story and I could deal with it fairly easily. Spectre ****** it for me though, reintroducing Blofeld in a ham-fisted way. And then when I heard Daniel Craig wanted his version of the character to be in a separate self-contained continuity, I was annoyed. I was annoyed because, firstly, it makes Bond smaller - it's not as bad as the codename theory *spits*, but it has many of the same issues; secondly, it gives the film-makers an excuse to continually redo important events in the hero's life - firsts and lasts, basically.

    Even with CR seen as a reboot, at least the films were building Bond back up, laying building blocks for the future legend; with NTTD, it's the end of that. Reset button pressed, back to square one.

    I went into NTTD expecting Bond to die at the end, and expecting to hate the whole film. I didn't - I enjoyed it a lot more than Spectre, which I've only seen twice. I thought the film was entertaining, but that the melodrama was overplayed. I know I'm silly wanting a Bond film to be subtle, but I do tend to need that if a film wants to push my emotional buttons. I was unmoved by the events of the film - it was what I'd expected, just not as annoying as I had feared.

    I do know what it's like for people to see a film that destroys the others in a series - I was a huge fan of The Bourne Identity, and part of what I loved about it was the Bourne/Marie romance; when Supremacy came out and fridged Marie I was taken completely by surprise, I was angry and I felt it had killed the franchise for me, and though I'm no longer angry, I never regained my love for The Bourne Identity. Horrible experience. I'm genuinely sorry for those people who got bushwhacked by NTTD's ending - must have been horrible.

    I'll probably get the Blu-ray when it comes out to see what I think of the film. Taken on its own terms I suspect it will sit somewhere in the middle of Craig's Bond run, above Spectre certainly, maybe the same as QoS or a little above or below.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    Bond is definitely dead, DC era is over.

    I expect a hard reboot across the board for the next film.
    +1

    Like I’ve said, even without his death, EON were not gonna carry on his continuity with the younger actor we’re sure to get for Bond 26.
  • bondywondy wrote: »
    There is major story potential in Bond surviving. The quest to find Bond. That is a strong premise for Bond 26.

    I accept a "he's not dead, we sure fooled you suckers!" explanation might be silly but it is what it is. I'd rather see Bond alive than dead. You can contrive a reason why/how he's still alive and my guess is 80 percent or more of the overall worldwide audience won't care if it's unbelievable. If the precredit explanation scene is thrilling the audience will buy into Bond's escape from death.

    Most film goers don't care about the why. They just pay the ticket and popcorn and enjoy the film at a superficial level.

    Not sure how you survive a direct hit from a missile!
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,105
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Bond is definitely dead, DC era is over.

    I expect a hard reboot across the board for the next film.
    +1

    Like I’ve said, even without his death, EON were not gonna carry on his continuity with the younger actor we’re sure to get for Bond 26.

    There is a good reason Bond has lasted this long, ok its a given great character though the films continue because they change things up.

    Personally I thought NTTD was awesome can't wait to see it again.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 295
    @bondywondy I certainly think that could be a possibility. There are so many references to Fleming's YOLT, that it could be hinting in that direction as a way out, ie following it with a TMWAGG style resolution. As final as the end seems.

    Personally it wouldn't feel that satisfactory to me, as the realisation at the end of NTTD that his existence was a permanent threat to his family, and the resulting sacrifice, was what made NTTD's ending so powerful.

    And NTTD was always more of an echo of Fleming's later stories, rather than strictly following the plot.

    Alternately they could go down the oft mooted idea of making the next one a period piece set in the 1950s - if they were going to do that, now would make more sense than ever as it would be clear that they are not continuing the same story, which otherwise feels like it needs some explanation.

    A period piece would make it clear that Bond films have been playing different variations on the same melody.

    Or something else, entirely. But it does feel they sort of need to do something to acknowledge the end.

    Still it will be interesting to see how they do follow that, that's for sure. I don't think I've anticipated the next story so much before.

    There is no financial reason to do a period piece because there won't be any product placement sponsorship deals. You can't sell 1960's cars and watches to 21st century consumers. Can't see Eon ever going the period route.

    There is one other huuuuuuuuuuuuuge reason to keep Bond alive. The marketing. The producers never do any interviews saying "Bond died in NTTD."

    Is Bond really dead? The question remains unanswered for three of so years while we wait for Bond 26's release.

    The first teaer trailer has the tagline:

    Legends Never Die...

    And we see a one second shot of the next Bond actor's face in near darkness!

    Bond 26 would be the most hyped Bond film ever because of the mystery over Bond's death.

    It's too good a scenario to waste. Bond returning from his apparent death. It's a classic premise. Eon would be crazy to dismiss it out of hand?

    And you give the plot that extra twist by having Bond alive and losing his memory and working for the villains!

    Barbara, you should consider this idea! Well maybe. She can do what she likes but maybe Bond escaping death is the most obvious way to do Bond 26. 😊





  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    Oh please. People complained about the same thing with Dalton over 30 years ago, that he didn’t have as many conquests compared to Moore rogering four different birds in a single film.

    And Sir Rog bedding much much younger women, who could've been his daughters, even grand daughters.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,036
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    Oh please. People complained about the same thing with Dalton over 30 years ago, that he didn’t have as many conquests compared to Moore rogering four different birds in a single film.

    And Sir Rog bedding much much younger women, who could've been his daughters, even grand daughters.

    Dalton had... two (?)... in each film. Seems plenty to me.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    bondywondy wrote: »
    @bondywondy I certainly think that could be a possibility. There are so many references to Fleming's YOLT, that it could be hinting in that direction as a way out, ie following it with a TMWAGG style resolution. As final as the end seems.

    Personally it wouldn't feel that satisfactory to me, as the realisation at the end of NTTD that his existence was a permanent threat to his family, and the resulting sacrifice, was what made NTTD's ending so powerful.

    And NTTD was always more of an echo of Fleming's later stories, rather than strictly following the plot.

    Alternately they could go down the oft mooted idea of making the next one a period piece set in the 1950s - if they were going to do that, now would make more sense than ever as it would be clear that they are not continuing the same story, which otherwise feels like it needs some explanation.

    A period piece would make it clear that Bond films have been playing different variations on the same melody.

    Or something else, entirely. But it does feel they sort of need to do something to acknowledge the end.

    Still it will be interesting to see how they do follow that, that's for sure. I don't think I've anticipated the next story so much before.

    There is no financial reason to do a period piece because there won't be any product placement sponsorship deals. You can't sell 1960's cars and watches to 21st century consumers. Can't see Eon ever going the period route.

    There is one other huuuuuuuuuuuuuge reason to keep Bond alive. The marketing. The producers never do any interviews saying "Bond died in NTTD."

    Is Bond really dead? The question remains unanswered for three of so years while we wait for Bond 26's release.

    The first teaer trailer has the tagline:

    Legends Never Die...

    And we see a one second shot of the next Bond actor's face in near darkness!

    Bond 26 would be the most hyped Bond film ever because of the mystery over Bond's death.

    It's too good a scenario to waste. Bond returning from his apparent death. It's a classic premise. Eon would be crazy to dismiss it out of hand?

    And you give the plot that extra twist by having Bond alive and losing his memory and working for the villains!

    Barbara, you should consider this idea! Well maybe. She can do what she likes but maybe Bond escaping death is the most obvious way to do Bond 26. 😊





    He's dead man, give it up.
  • Posts: 6,665
    matt_u wrote: »
    This is a lost cause.

    Yeah, it's too bad, cause I wonder if we're ever going to talk about the other stuff in the film. It seems people are fixated on the ending, and there's so much else to discuss.

    I can't help but think, for example, that if there weren't a child, the film would focus deeper in the feelings Bond and Swann had for each other, just the two. And maybe the film could've sell it a bit better. I don't know. Brilliant bit of casting though, the girl had Bond's eyes and nose, and hair. But I can't help but think they over crammed the film. It could have been much simpler, tight. And the writing of/for some characters, could've been much, much better. Those are the things that are still cringeworthy to me, not the bloody ending.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    matt_u wrote: »
    This is a lost cause.
    Yeah I’m pretty much ignoring bondy’s posts from this point on as it’s just him shaking his fist in the clouds and not reading the room.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,834
    I'd really like to her people's thoughts on Madeleine and Mathilde as a mother and daughter, because I was personally extremely convinced by it. Seydoux, and even the child actress, really sold the close relationship they had.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    The man got a missile on his forehead.
    Ok, he Is strong, but I think you are overstimating him
Sign In or Register to comment.