NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions SPOILERS ALLOWED

16970727475246

Comments

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 95
    bondywondy wrote: »
    You can have Bond survive in Bond 26 and he decides not to see Madeleine and Mathilde ever again. He will bring too much pain into their lives so he cuts them out of his life. No emotional bagage. No Bond with family. That's the way to end that subplot.

    All it takes is Barbara Broccoli to say to the screenwriters "Bond isn't dead... let's find a way to bring him back" and Bond comes back.

    It's just James Bond and there's only one James Bond. Not six clones played by six actors. One Bond played by six actors. Conclusion: Craig's Bond is alive and will be played by a new actor.

    See what I mean? 😊

    There is only one James Bond therefore it is impossible for Bond to have died in NTTD. Each Bond film features James Bond. The actors change and the time period moves on but it's still James Bond. There's no alternative reality Bonds (lol). It's always the same guy. If you kill Bond it can never be the same guy again so you establish a paradox. Bond dead but still alive.

    The only alternative is Bond remains alive.

    You know, this won't happen. Bond is not a Marvel Super Hero (or DC hero), never was, never will be. And to make him survive THIS, would really be worse than all the silliness in the Moore era (I actually happen to love Moore's Bond movies). And Conan Doyle's weird solution to Holmes surviving the drop down the Reichenbach falls was clumsy, awkward and silly. And mind you, when he wrote "The Final Problem", he really killed Holmes, as he wanted to get rid off him, and the odd theory how Holmes could survive and Moriarty dying is just lame and unconvincing at best.

    In the 1990s DC comics killed off Superman. The alien Doomsday took him out. Superman came back to life.

    In 1981 Abba were killed off. They were reborn in 2021 using Swedish patented nanotechnology clone-ware:


    So anyone can come back to life, Bond included. 😉


  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    edited October 2021 Posts: 74
    see, thing is: this 'death' does not make the stakes higher for the next iteration. It makes them utterly futile. Because if we now know the continuity can be rebooted? Then in effect that is little to no difference from regeneration a la Dr Who or multiverse marvel stuff.

    This has needlessly removed rather than enforced a concept of Bond with consequence, when his USP was a world without one! Yes, confront death. Sure: HINT at his being as dead as the daughter's dodo toy. But by making it SO utterly final and at once brutally charmless AND self indulgently mawkish? It has really, utterly, ended the series imho. And hey: like I said, maybe it was indeed 'time'. Shame. But if it's what they all wanted? fair enough

    But it SHOULD have been possible to keep plots and characters interesting without dramatic / melodramatic gimmick. If that is IMPOSSIBLE? Then yes, series died with Bond, here. But the Fleming argument is a dead end. Ian is but ONE part of this movie mythology and whether he intended to or not, he did not kill Bond, definitively, perhaps foreseeing an Arthurian merit to an Avalon eternity of pulp thrills whereby one flirts with death yet never commits, just like all Bond's relationships save one or two? ;)
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    edited October 2021 Posts: 74
    as dobby says to mark in peep show: you really ****** this. :)

    MOD EDIT: Please watch the language and avoid double posts in the future. Thanks.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    MOD EDIT: Please watch the language and avoid double posts in the future. Thanks.
    apologies (did not see a double post; typing in haste; bad language not my default but hey..if bond movies now do it..) x
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,043
    slide_99 wrote: »
    For the people complaining about negative fan reaction to NTTD, including from those like me who haven't (and won't) see it, well, maybe Eon shouldn't have done something so extreme and divisive. The Bond fanbase is now going the Star Wars route, but that's not because of the fans, it's because of out-of-touch and careless producers who think they have a right to piss people off and not face backlash. How about this: just make a good movie that satisfies everyone? It's actually not difficult. They've been doing it for decades. They did it as recently as CR. There is simply no excuse for the decision Eon made.

    Yeah, the producers should listen to people who apparently disliked the last three movies. :)) THAT'S the base!
  • Posts: 4,431
    Trying to view it another way, IF they had an open ended final scene, would those who enjoy NTTD be complaining and want a full on death? And the mainstream viewers? Would they be complaining that they did not get to see Bond vaporized? I get all the dicussion re arc etc but would it have hurt the movie that much to have an open end and, heaven help us, a glimmer of hope? Has NTTD given us something that very few wanted ? Does anyone know anyone who, pre NTTD was arguing for a vaporisation final scene?
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    bondywondy wrote: »
    In the 1990s DC comics killed off Superman. The alien Doomsday took him out. Superman came back to life.
    Isn't Superman also technically an alien? And he is superhero with superhuman powers, something which Bond conceptionally isn't.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    So anyone can come back to life, Bond included. 😉
    That certain incarnation of Bond who played poker against Le Chiffre and threw a knife to Silva's back won't. He's dead and will remain so.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,549
    zimmer was DEFINITELY off his game for this one. Oh the missed opp! The guy excelled AT naval themed super heroic themes. But aside from a few quick goosebump riffs? cut and paste dark knight B list tracks imho and in any event now blurred by THAT ending so even if Zimmer does get me roused up..it dampens in seconds knowing Bond is toast.

    I mean... its pretty dang decent given it was essentially a three month rush job, after Dan Romer was let go.

    All they will have had was the Bond theme, and they even did the opening song.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,054
    The score was very good with a couple of wonderful tracks. Ten years complaining for the lack of the title song within the score, now they do it masterfully (just listen to Home, Lovely to See You Again or Final Ascent) but the complaining goes on...
  • Posts: 523
    bondywondy wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    James Bond will return.

    .... which is Eon telling you James Bond is not dead. He's not dead. The text doesn't say

    A rebooted James Bond will return.
    Casino Royale was a reboot, and at the end of Die Another Day, it said James Bond will return.

    Also, Craig's Bond is in no way connected to any other. He's his own universe. It's been pretty clear that's the case since before Casino was even released. And again, even if Craig's Bond didn't die, they'd still reboot it, because to carry on his narrative with a different, younger actor, would make no sense.

    And killing Bond makes sense? Lol

    Tell that to all the fans that feel betrayed by that decision!

    Oh well I tried. I can't convince you lot you are all wrong. Wait and see... in three years time Bondywondy will be proven right and you can say "sorry, Bondywondy, you were right all along."
    😎 😉

    It actually does make sense. You (and others) may not like it, but this separate continuity allows them to kill Bond without and real impact to future films. What wouldn't make sense is to carry on this iteration of Bond who has been aging in-story over the past 3 films.

    I respectfully and profoundly disagree that it makes sense. Not wishing to bore you or others too long but here are reasons why it makes no sense and is therefore wrong.

    1 - 'Morality'
    Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson didn't create James Bond. They were bequeathed the character due to bloodline. Ian Fleming created James Bond and Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman created/developed the cinematic version. From the most basic moral standpoint you can easily argue B and MG have no unilateral moral right to kill off Bond. They inherited the character so it is morally incumbent upon them to preserve Bond, not kill him off to appease an actor in his final film portraying James Bond.

    2 - 'Divisive'
    Killing James Bond creates a huge and potential forever rift in the fanbase. Many fans will never forgive or understand why Eon killed off Bond. I'm not going to guess what percentage of the fanbase hate the death of James Bond but it exists and will continue to exist. This is Eon's fault. There was zero reason to create this division in the fanbase. It serves no purpose at all. It doesn't bring the Bond fans closer together so it was nonsensical of Eon to allow the division to happen.

    3 - 'Disrespectful'
    Killing Bond is completely disrespectful to all the fans that have loyally supported the franchise since 1962. If Eon Productions can't see that or can see that but couldn't care less, that doesn't say much about them, does it? Nope.

    4 - 'Continuity nightmare'
    Killing off Bond destroys any semblance of linear continuity in the franchise. If Bond is dead in NTTD but alive in Bond 26 it's inherently nonsensical. Sure, fans can argue "it's just a reboot, deal with it!" but that doesn't negate nor justify the fact Bond died in Bond 25. You kill off Bond but he's still alive. Nonsensical.

    5 - 'Arrogance'
    It is the height of arrogance for Eon to kill off Bond, expect fans to be emotionally affected by his death, but then expect them to forget his death (or put it to one side) and form a long queue to see Bond 26. It's arrogant presumption to expect fans to accept his death then sheepishly accept he's alive again.

    6 - 'Meaningless death'
    The death of Bond is meaningless because we all know Bond isn't dead. People can argue and say "but Bond is dead, the next Bond isn't Craig's Bond!" but imho that view is nonsensical. The next Bond will be a 00, be referred to as James Bond, get orders from M, go on missions. He's still James Bond in character and job so his death in the previous film is meaningless. Death has meaning because it's loss. The person never comes back but Bond is coming back in Bond 26 so it's a lossless death. Nonsensical.

    All these reasons give me hope Bond isn't dead. The death of James Bond is a deliberate cliffhanger? It's possible. We'll have to wait and see.

    Agree 100%. Exactly the way I feel. Thank you.
  • Above all, what people forget is that many fans, myself included, accepted Casino Royale as an origin story that could in theory set up ANY remake /tweak/merger of subsequent Bonds. Including winning the licence to GO big and bold and brash OR remain in THAT specific continuity and TONE, as they did with Quantum. Skyfall, however great and loved by me, muddied that trajectory because whilst it kept Bond grounded and did touch on loss, it pointed at having finally arrived at the right to do old school Bond, with or without Craig /that continuity. It was an upbeat but deep metatextual essay on Bond. SPECTRE blurred ALL those possibilities together but retained some childlike innocence. NTTD retains that messy over ambitious tonal blur yet loses the soft charm: worst of all worlds and a coherent match for neither the first or second batch of Craig's entries (imho).
    This is spot on. After Quantum, I would say the most serious Bond movie ever, we started a trip into camp land...then it went off the rails in Spectre. Honestly though, the version of Bond that I loved (CR, QOS), ended with Quantum. Dalton was edgy, gritty and tough as nails. Craig took it to another level imo. I don’t understand why they went away from the formula of the CR, QOS.

    Agreed. I think the problem stems from EON creatively copying other franchises, not being as successful at it and then pivoting rather than fix and address the actual issues. QoS was undercooked (for obvious reasons) and the editing of the film poorly imitated Paul Greengrass' approach with his Bourne films. Simple fixtures moving forward but there was no need to change Bond himself. Craig's portrayal in CR and QoS was his interpretation that worked and had they not messed things up, Craig could have completed a successful 4th film back in 2015 and we could have potentially already had Bond actor #7 a film in with his second being breleaaed next year....potentially.
  • JohnBarryJohnBarry Dublin
    Posts: 34
    Ok, so here is where I am at with the ending. I understand and even admire that his death is a culmination of not just the events of the movie but also the themes of Craig's tenure as a whole. I appreciate the logic and storytelling of it. But ending the movie on such a downer just doesn't sit well with me. It is an emotional reaction.
  • Jrh7Jrh7 Uk
    Posts: 2
    I loved the movie apart from... A few small bits, but hated absolutely hated the ending, should never of happened. I feel they ruined it for the fans. I feel they need to have two endings on the dvd release.. One version for the fans so they can watch the movie through without the bad ending... One where he escapes, like always. And the over version for people that want to see the bad ending.
    I just hope in the next bond's they go back to the regular formula...
  • Posts: 2,265
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I feel this movie will be The Last Jedi of the Bond series.Well received by the access media ( Those who get paid to watch the film but are obligated to write a good review rather than risk losing exclusive interviews and set visits ) but really divisive amongst the hard core fan base ( The people who actually pay to see the movies multiple times,buy the blu ray,merchandise)

    As someone who wrote on behalf of "access media," and therefore knows several other writers in that field who are much more professionals in it than I am, I don't know a single one who would be dishonest about how they felt about a film just so they could have a shot at seeing the next one. Their credentials will do that for them. I resent that notion.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    Jrh7 wrote: »
    I loved the movie apart from... A few small bits, but hated absolutely hated the ending, should never of happened. I feel they ruined it for the fans. I feel they need to have two endings on the dvd release.. One version for the fans so they can watch the movie through without the bad ending... One where he escapes, like always. And the over version for people that want to see the bad ending.
    I just hope in the next bond's they go back to the regular formula...
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your insinuation that people who like the way movie ended aren't fans. And if you've read Fleming you'd know that Bond doesn't always escape safe and sound in the end. One could even argue that he killed him in YOLT in any other way than in strict physical sense.
    I am sure the next Bond will be a business-as-usual entry with a lighter touch. Bond franchise has a habit of lightening itself after some grittier entries. Now the grittiness lasted for 15 years so one could even argue it is way overdue.
  • Posts: 1,298
    Jrh7 wrote: »
    I loved the movie apart from... A few small bits, but hated absolutely hated the ending, should never of happened. I feel they ruined it for the fans. I feel they need to have two endings on the dvd release.. One version for the fans so they can watch the movie through without the bad ending... One where he escapes, like always. And the over version for people that want to see the bad ending.
    I just hope in the next bond's they go back to the regular formula...
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your insinuation that people who like the way movie ended aren't fans. And if you've read Fleming you'd know that Bond doesn't always escape safe and sound in the end. One could even argue that he killed him in YOLT in any other way than in strict physical sense.

    Fleming touched on Bond's death in FRWL and, as we know, YOLT, and, for me, it was clear, Craig's Bond just could never drive off into the sunset. Those fans who are struggling with the end of NTTD might find, in time, they will appreciate Craig's Bond was a tragic figure from the start. So, for me, his death was inevitable.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,684
    This has already been mentioned to some degree, but I just wanted to add this to my comments about the ending we got making sense, in terms of the actual narrative and even just writing in general, to have Bond survive and either somehow be with Madeleine and his daughter, or just decide to go off on his own, would make no sense in terms of storytelling, because it's well known, that it's often a bad idea to just end your film the way it began. I understand the franchise is known for having Bond just return for the next mission, but this is different because it's a solid ending to Craig's tenure and his arc.

    So, this film began with Bond retired with Madeleine, so I think it would've been weak to just have the ending be Bond retires with Madeleine and now his daughter. I also think it would've been weak to just have Bond retire alone because we saw that in Jamaica. And having Bond return to the service would have also been a mistake because it would basically undo everything the ending of Spectre and this film was trying to explore.

    The only thing I can personally say I would've changed about the ending is the scene afterwards. The Madeleine and Mathilde scene with them driving to Matera I like, but I feel the MI6 scene could've been stronger. I'm not 100% on whether I would've liked a funeral, because that may have felt too much like Skyfall, even though we didn't see M's funeral. - but I do think the ending we did get may have been a bit abrupt.
  • I_SpyI_Spy Scotland
    Posts: 5
    thetruth wrote: »
    I do agree that it feels like an insult to a lot of Bond fans. There's no denying the emotional investment that many people have with Bond, probably stretching back to their childhoods. A key element of Bond is that he always escapes alive. It's a constant that you can rely on. This seems like an unnecessary slap in the face when they could easily have left some ambiguity.

    Exactly this. You just feel violated. It may sound melodramatic to those who are able to accept the ending and move on, but there are many of us who consider Bond, the character, to be a cultural icon. Therefore, what has just been done is perhaps the most hideous act of iconoclastic sabotage in cinema history, at least to my mind.

    And why? For what possible gain? To satisfy an actor’s ego perhaps? To dig them out of a plot hole of their own making. The somewhat glib death of Blofeld was bad enough, but to then slay the golden goose! It is insanity.

  • Jrh7Jrh7 Uk
    Posts: 2
    I never thought he would and should just drive off into the sunset... Just end up rejoining mi6.. And carrying on doing what he does..
    And yes Craig's bond was very tragic figure.. But always saw it as why he becomes such a cold ruthless character as he is... The way he got hurt, betrayed.. Created what he is.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,364
    In 36 hours, I will be walking out of the theater after my first viewing of NTTD. I know most of the spoilers and Easter eggs. This does not bother me. I have seen many film adaptations of novels and plays in which I already knew the ending...didn't matter. In this case, I am glad I am prepared.

    I am fine with Bond's death and am eager to see how/if that death makes sense within the scope of the film. My only concern is that EON, DC, and CJF opted for a Logan-type story, one with a child and one in which our hero dies. Over the past few films, EON has been accused of being a Copy Cat outfit, and I fear that this storyline will only add to the criticisms.

    Ultimately, though, I am a Bond fan and a DC fan. I echo David Zaritsky's thinking on the film: "You have to respond to the movie as it actually is and not the film you think it's supposed to be." I plan to do that tomorrow night.

    I can't wait to see ya on the other side.
  • Posts: 4,431
    @Denbigh Fair point re the movie not ending where it had finished. But it was SP thet put them there so, in effect, you are saying that the SP ending forced the writers to come up with something different. If SP had kept Bond in service, would a more positive ending for NTTD be accceptable from a story telling perspective?
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Fleming touched on Bond's death in FRWL and, as we know, YOLT, and, for me, it was clear, Craig's Bond just could never drive off into the sunset. Those fans who are struggling with the end of NTTD might find, in time, they will appreciate Craig's Bond was a tragic figure from the start. So, for me, his death was inevitable.
    In my opinion the same applies to Fleming's Bond. Even his second life - during which he had forgotten who he was - with Kissy Suzuki was fleetingly short and his peace gone when he saw that one single word.
    Sure, Fleming brought him back - in absolutely ridiculous, contradictory manner - but that was a poor novel written by a sick, dying man who had lost his spark. Bonds return in TMWTGG is ridiculous partly because in FRWL the Russians conclude that killing M wouldn't make any difference, partly because if they would have caught someone like Bond they would've shot him in the bowels of Lubyanka without any hesitation, especially if he was amnesiac, thus worthless to interrogate.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,684
    patb wrote: »
    @Denbigh Fair point re the movie not ending where it had finished. But it was SP thet put them there so, in effect, you are saying that the SP ending forced the writers to come up with something different. If SP had kept Bond in service, would a more positive ending for NTTD be accceptable from a story telling perspective?
    Possibly, but I suppose it depends on the assumption a lot of people have made (which I think is just based on the fact that Harrison Ford personally asked to be killed off), that Daniel Craig wanted it to end this way. Again, we'll never know for sure, at least for a while.

    But again I personally feel the ending was a perfect full circle from Casino Royale, which Fukunaga himself stated he wanted to do with No Time To Die.
  • Posts: 7,332
    I really did not know that the fact that Bond always survives was such a religius thing for fans. For me it is only natural that after 25 films (and about the same number of books) we have a story where he doesn't, and it only improves the character in my opinion. Well, well...
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,364
    I think it is also important to note that the two stalwarts of the series, Roger Moore and Sean Connery, have passed since the last film. To what extent that factored into the decisions on NTTD is questionable and maybe irrelevant, but I can't help but think that the death of James Bond is an ironic salute to RM and SC as much as it is a symbolic end to DC's tenure.
  • Posts: 523
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Above all, what people forget is that many fans, myself included, accepted Casino Royale as an origin story that could in theory set up ANY remake /tweak/merger of subsequent Bonds. Including winning the licence to GO big and bold and brash OR remain in THAT specific continuity and TONE, as they did with Quantum. Skyfall, however great and loved by me, muddied that trajectory because whilst it kept Bond grounded and did touch on loss, it pointed at having finally arrived at the right to do old school Bond, with or without Craig /that continuity. It was an upbeat but deep metatextual essay on Bond. SPECTRE blurred ALL those possibilities together but retained some childlike innocence. NTTD retains that messy over ambitious tonal blur yet loses the soft charm: worst of all worlds and a coherent match for neither the first or second batch of Craig's entries (imho).
    This is spot on. After Quantum, I would say the most serious Bond movie ever, we started a trip into camp land...then it went off the rails in Spectre. Honestly though, the version of Bond that I loved (CR, QOS), ended with Quantum. Dalton was edgy, gritty and tough as nails. Craig took it to another level imo. I don’t understand why they went away from the formula of the CR, QOS.

    Agreed. I think the problem stems from EON creatively copying other franchises, not being as successful at it and then pivoting rather than fix and address the actual issues. QoS was undercooked (for obvious reasons) and the editing of the film poorly imitated Paul Greengrass' approach with his Bourne films. Simple fixtures moving forward but there was no need to change Bond himself. Craig's portrayal in CR and QoS was his interpretation that worked and had they not messed things up, Craig could have completed a successful 4th film back in 2015 and we could have potentially already had Bond actor #7 a film in with his second being breleaaed next year....potentially.
    Agree completely. Yes.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,083
    patb wrote: »
    Trying to view it another way, IF they had an open ended final scene, would those who enjoy NTTD be complaining and want a full on death? And the mainstream viewers? Would they be complaining that they did not get to see Bond vaporized? I get all the dicussion re arc etc but would it have hurt the movie that much to have an open end and, heaven help us, a glimmer of hope? Has NTTD given us something that very few wanted ? Does anyone know anyone who, pre NTTD was arguing for a vaporisation final scene?

    Hadn't thought about it like that mate. That's a really good way of looking at it.

    Speaking for myself, I would have preferred watching NTTD hoping he survived, rather than watching NTTD knowing he died
  • Posts: 791
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Jrh7 wrote: »
    I loved the movie apart from... A few small bits, but hated absolutely hated the ending, should never of happened. I feel they ruined it for the fans. I feel they need to have two endings on the dvd release.. One version for the fans so they can watch the movie through without the bad ending... One where he escapes, like always. And the over version for people that want to see the bad ending.
    I just hope in the next bond's they go back to the regular formula...
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your insinuation that people who like the way movie ended aren't fans. And if you've read Fleming you'd know that Bond doesn't always escape safe and sound in the end. One could even argue that he killed him in YOLT in any other way than in strict physical sense.

    Fleming touched on Bond's death in FRWL and, as we know, YOLT, and, for me, it was clear, Craig's Bond just could never drive off into the sunset. Those fans who are struggling with the end of NTTD might find, in time, they will appreciate Craig's Bond was a tragic figure from the start. So, for me, his death was inevitable.

    It may not be the happiest ending, but creatively speaking, it feels like the right one and by far the most emotionally affecting as a cinematic experience.

    I would have loved if he'd somehow pulled a TDKR-style comeback in the last second, but I don't think I would have respected the film's ambition as much as I do.

    They brought Daniel Craig's era in with a huge roll of the dice. They ended it the same way. Mad respect.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,045
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I thought a lot of the humour in NTTD fell flat, I think the overall tone was all over the place. The only line I remember getting a laugh was M's ffs.
    I found this exchange quite funny:
    Bond: "What do you do?"
    Nomi: "I am diver."
    Bond: "What do you dive for?"
    Nomi:"Mostly old wrecks"
    Bond: "Well, then you are in the right place"
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I would have preferred watching NTTD hoping he survived, rather than watching NTTD knowing he died
    +1. Just a single beep on Q's monitor would suffice. They could have kept the whole sequence with him standing on top of the silo and shots of the missiles hitting their targets, but left out the two second shot where he's clearly being blown to pieces. Now that would have generated a lot more (positive) press and debate, than what we are reading, now that it is just controversial.
  • Posts: 25
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Okay, maybe Bond is dead.

    If Bond is dead.... every fan will have to decide if they want to continue supporting the franchise. I can't see a valid reason to see Bond 26 if Eon destroyed the magic of Bond, his heroic status etc. You'll be giving Eon and Amazon money they don't deserve.

    Let me guess....you hate the Star Wars sequel trilogy and think that Kathleen Kennedy should be fired as well?
    I am baffled by all the negative reviews on IMDb, there were loads of Fleming references and great Bond moments in this film though many reviews claim the opposite.

    Also complaints of being long and boring, personally I thought the pacing was good and despite its run time the film flew by.

    (Adopts old woman loosing her teeth voice as she thoughtfully rubs her chin)

    It's one thing I have learned in all my years on the internet. Is that you need to learn to dismiss and ignore certain comments. Many of the negative comments are coming from beta males who just see Bond as a personal stand in, and represent a time when the hero wins without any or little effort. These are often the kind of people who have no purpose and thrust in life and think that the only way that they can succeed is that everyone else looses. And they become resentful and angry if anyone outshines them.

    It's one thing I have learned in all my years on the internet. Is that you need to learn to dismiss and ignore certain comments. Many of the negative comments are coming from beta males who just see Bond as a personal stand in, and represent a time when the hero wins without any or little effort. These are often the kind of people who have no purpose and thrust in life and think that the only way that they can succeed is that everyone else looses. And they become resentful and angry if anyone outshines them. These are often the kind of people who have no purpose and thrust in life and think that the only way that they can succeed is that everyone else looses. And they become resentful and angry if anyone outshines the them." I am gobsmacked. Here's me thinking I was a rounded individual, family, friends, enjoy cinema, play sport, have a couple of beers at the weekend etc etc - when in fact I am a beta male with no purpose and thrust in life. And why, because I didn't rate NTTD.

    I am away to break the sad news to my missus..

    I must be getting too old what the hell is a beta male, I know what an alpha is but WTF, anyway I think it sounds a lot like having a go at those who didn't enjoy NTTD. Which I'm reliably informed is a no-no, so watch yourself @vittoriacolona.

    Nowhere did I claim that "

    I was very specific in what type of person I was referring to. It was in reference to a posters comment on the amount of negativity on IMBD.


    Many of the critiques I have seen towards NTTD, are not rooted in the quality or the facts of the film. But the center around the fact that it's a (strong) Black female/replacement of 007, a gay Q and a Bond who is too angsty/wrapped up in family. I have seen similar complaints lobbed at other films tv and shows, especially on IMBD.

    If my complaints were just aimed at those who did not like NTTD I would have addressed several other posters on here. It would also make me hypocritical given the fact that I thought the film was okay. Not great but okay. My main enjoyment being the performances, but a very disappointing story that needed to be worked on some more.

    bondywondy wrote: »
    Okay, maybe Bond is dead.

    If Bond is dead.... every fan will have to decide if they want to continue supporting the franchise. I can't see a valid reason to see Bond 26 if Eon destroyed the magic of Bond, his heroic status etc. You'll be giving Eon and Amazon money they don't deserve.

    Let me guess....you hate the Star Wars sequel trilogy and think that Kathleen Kennedy should be fired as well?
    I am baffled by all the negative reviews on IMDb, there were loads of Fleming references and great Bond moments in this film though many reviews claim the opposite.

    Also complaints of being long and boring, personally I thought the pacing was good and despite its run time the film flew by.

    (Adopts old woman loosing her teeth voice as she thoughtfully rubs her chin)

    It's one thing I have learned in all my years on the internet. Is that you need to learn to dismiss and ignore certain comments. Many of the negative comments are coming from beta males who just see Bond as a personal stand in, and represent a time when the hero wins without any or little effort. These are often the kind of people who have no purpose and thrust in life and think that the only way that they can succeed is that everyone else looses. And they become resentful and angry if anyone outshines them.

    So, anyone who dares to criticise this film or are negative of it are "beta males who just see Bond as a personal stand in and represent a time when the hero wins without any or little effort. These are often the kind of people who have no purpose and thrust in life and think that the only way that they can succeed is that everyone else looses. And they become resentful and angry if anyone outshines the them." I am gobsmacked. Here's me thinking I was a rounded individual, family, friends, enjoy cinema, play sport, have a couple of beers at the weekend etc etc - when in fact I am a beta male with no purpose and thrust in life. And why, because I didn't rate NTTD.

    I am away to break the sad news to my missus..

    Nowhere did I claim that " anyone who criticizes NTTD is beta male.

    I was very specific in what type of person I was referring to. It was in reference to a posters comment on the amount of negativity on IMBD.


    Many of the critiques I have seen towards NTTD, are not rooted in the quality or the facts of the film. But the center around the fact that it's a (strong) Black female/replacement of 007, a gay Q and a Bond who is too angsty/wrapped up in family. Not a chest thumping demi god who achieves all victories without any struggle or effort have seen similar complaints lobbed at other films tv and shows, especially on IMBD.

    If my complaints were just aimed at those who did not like NTTD I would have addressed several other posters on here. It would also make me hypocritical given the fact that I thought the film was okay. Not great but okay. My main enjoyment being the performances, but a very disappointing story that needed to be worked on some more.


Sign In or Register to comment.