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

18182848687298

Comments

  • Posts: 3,160
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    I have no problem with Bond dying. (...) The fact he can’t see Madeline and his daughter again is what is the real heartbreaker and the motivator for his decision. Without those two he has nothing left to live for
    That seems like the general consensus. For some - and that is including me - I found it to be very weak. I don't have a problem with Bond dying, but really, come on? He is a father, and there are so many ways he could still be with his family and see his kid grow up. So he kills himself only because he can't touch them? I don't buy it.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    That's nice, @MakeshiftPython.

    I think it's natural that people who dislike something intently, and certainly those who use the word 'hate', are more vocal than those who step back, are happy, and just appreciate something. Movies is just one example.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    Boyle wanted/almost got/left coz it did not work out (nb I am speculating in total but the bits do add up)

    1: Bond. In SPACE? Or at least locked in a missile silo.
    2: Bond captured/tortured a la Die Another Day but for whole film.
    3: Bond's protege (Lily James?) was going to save him.
    4: There would have been Ken Adam level designs, very Moonraker movie and indeed, the book.


    5: There would be flashbacks with Bond training Lily. Think Mission:Impossible 3.
    6: A Maori henchman as Bond's main captor.
    7: Boyle initially was on board with Bond dying and wanted to reference explicitly not implicitly #met007. He changed mind on those points and was adamant the main villain be specifically Russian, which would politicise things. His Bond would have ended like Fleming's: a knighthood is offered and Bond ponders, as credits roll.

    So basically: GRAVITY + MISSION IMPOSSIBLE + MOONRAKER/Kubrick/60s; subversive yes but upbeat and genuinely surprising whilst remaining 'Bond'. But I guess we just weren't ready for that.

    Irony: Killing Bond is far less radical than what Boyle had in mind. But he is an auteur filmmaker rather than company man so quite WHY they hired him without factoring that in is beyond me? But he gave us HAPPY AND GLORIOUS for the Olympics. And to me, that is more canonical than either SPECTRE or NTTD ;)
  • That's nice, @MakeshiftPython.

    I think it's natural that people who dislike something intently, and certainly those who use the word 'hate', are more vocal than those who step back, are happy, and just appreciate something. Movies is just one example.

    Strange because many of those who claim to adore this groundbreaking film seem to be making many comments.

  • Boyle wanted/almost got/left coz it did not work out (nb I am speculating in total but the bits do add up)

    1: Bond. In SPACE? Or at least locked in a missile silo.
    2: Bond captured/tortured a la Die Another Day but for whole film.
    3: Bond's protege (Lily James?) was going to save him.
    4: There would have been Ken Adam level designs, very Moonraker movie and indeed, the book.


    5: There would be flashbacks with Bond training Lily. Think Mission:Impossible 3.
    6: A Maori henchman as Bond's main captor.
    7: Boyle initially was on board with Bond dying and wanted to reference explicitly not implicitly #met007. He changed mind on those points and was adamant the main villain be specifically Russian, which would politicise things. His Bond would have ended like Fleming's: a knighthood is offered and Bond ponders, as credits roll.

    So basically: GRAVITY + MISSION IMPOSSIBLE + MOONRAKER/Kubrick/60s; subversive yes but upbeat and genuinely surprising whilst remaining 'Bond'. But I guess we just weren't ready for that.

    Irony: Killing Bond is far less radical than what Boyle had in mind. But he is an auteur filmmaker rather than company man so quite WHY they hired him without factoring that in is beyond me? But he gave us HAPPY AND GLORIOUS for the Olympics. And to me, that is more canonical than either SPECTRE or NTTD ;)

    That sounds like a much more interesting film, as you say, by a real filmmaker. Much better than the incoherent, mawkish sub-marvel film we got.
  • Zekidk wrote: »
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    I have no problem with Bond dying. (...) The fact he can’t see Madeline and his daughter again is what is the real heartbreaker and the motivator for his decision. Without those two he has nothing left to live for
    That seems like the general consensus. For some - and that is including me - I found it to be very weak. I don't have a problem with Bond dying, but really, come on? He is a father, and there are so many ways he could still be with his family and see his kid grow up. So he kills himself only because he can't touch them? I don't buy it.
    I don’t think he would have been clear of the blast radius in time. Wasn’t he bleeding out as well. I can understand your frustrations and it is a pretty hard thing to get over. Personally it emotionally worked for me.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    edited October 2021 Posts: 74

    That sounds like a much more interesting film, as you say, by a real filmmaker. Much better than the incoherent, mawkish sub-marvel film we got.[/quote]

    Thanks, TheTruth ;) X

    Though nb I do like Cory as filmmaker and he did some great stuff in NTTD.

    Bond is not an auteur product, imho. Mendes changed that. They toyed with making it more director oriented in the 90s /early 00s. Ridley and Tony Scott both mooted for a Brosnan entry but it did not happen.

    I think for a Bond film? You need a capable craftsperson. John Glen, Spottiswoode, Campbell. But it's a mistake to let one vision shake things up on what, by nature, is a coca cola formula with which you need not mess

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    LizW wrote: »
    For heaven's sake, Paloma sparkled thanks to Ana and to Cary for putting her in this. Everything about her interaction with Bond was just right. And they left it with her happy for him to stay longer next time.

    If it had been otherwise, more in line with the old Bond girl instantly wants to undress Bond and makes that known clearly on the screen, I actually would have been slightly disappointed here. This film is never glaringly "pc" or "woke" (Both terms of which I am easily fed up with people harping on about - nothing in NTTD to complain about, in my opinion, on that territory; none at all). For me, as a female viewer who enjoys many of the incarnations of Bond girls in the history of Bond films, I found Paloma in every way to be just right in this film. It was spot on perfect and she served this story like a glowing gem in a fresh, appropriate way.

    As a female viewer as well, I completely agree. The allegations about 'wokeness' are a paper tiger: you'd have to be really knuckle-dragging to consider this an excessively PC film.
    That's so true. And for months some were moaning, just so SURE than this would be so "woke" as to be painful for them to view. Film comes out and its *crickets* because there is nothing to complain about. At all. Anyway, those folks will continue on that path, but it seems not a happy one.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,160
    Re: Boyle script. Wow... so more action, more sets, more lighthearted and ending with a knighthood? Sounds great. Are there any links where we can find any information about this script?
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    I have no problem with Bond dying. (...) The fact he can’t see Madeline and his daughter again is what is the real heartbreaker and the motivator for his decision. Without those two he has nothing left to live for
    That seems like the general consensus. For some - and that is including me - I found it to be very weak. I don't have a problem with Bond dying, but really, come on? He is a father, and there are so many ways he could still be with his family and see his kid grow up. So he kills himself only because he can't touch them? I don't buy it.
    I don’t think he would have been clear of the blast radius in time.
    But this is Bond. Known for getting out of the most impossible situations. And he can cliff-dive for sure.
    some were moaning, just so SURE than this would be so "woke" as to be painful for them to view.
    That is so true. He even got his 00-number back. Maybe some were fooled by the many, many Lynch interviews.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, you could start your campaign now to get Boyle to direct the next one.
    I like him. I'm just very glad he did not helm this one.
  • Posts: 3,272
    LizW wrote: »
    For heaven's sake, Paloma sparkled thanks to Ana and to Cary for putting her in this. Everything about her interaction with Bond was just right. And they left it with her happy for him to stay longer next time.

    If it had been otherwise, more in line with the old Bond girl instantly wants to undress Bond and makes that known clearly on the screen, I actually would have been slightly disappointed here. This film is never glaringly "pc" or "woke" (Both terms of which I am easily fed up with people harping on about - nothing in NTTD to complain about, in my opinion, on that territory; none at all). For me, as a female viewer who enjoys many of the incarnations of Bond girls in the history of Bond films, I found Paloma in every way to be just right in this film. It was spot on perfect and she served this story like a glowing gem in a fresh, appropriate way.

    As a female viewer as well, I completely agree. The allegations about 'wokeness' are a paper tiger: you'd have to be really knuckle-dragging to consider this an excessively PC film.
    That's so true. And for months some were moaning, just so SURE than this would be so "woke" as to be painful for them to view. Film comes out and its *crickets* because there is nothing to complain about. At all. Anyway, those folks will continue on that path, but it seems not a happy one.

    I don't think PC wokeness is what is wrong with this film. I was actually ok with Craig's relationship with the women in NTTD. It felt right for an actor of his age. I cringe now watching the later Moore films when he starts bedding women. Its like a pervy old grandad seducing young glamour models at times.



  • I think for a Bond film? You need a capable craftsperson. John Glen, Spottiswoode, Campbell. But it's a mistake to let one vision shake things up on what, by nature, is a coca cola formula with which you need not mess

    Totally agree.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Yes, @jetsetwilly, I did some comments saying that they had thought it would be too PC, too woke, but truly was not. So perhaps many were pleasantly surprised by that at least.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 295
    Matt007 wrote: »
    After my first viewing and initial disbelief at the creative decision at the end of the film I’m ready to watch it again.

    Have to say the word of mouth on social media from the man in the street seems to be overwhelmingly positive so hey, what do we know

    The early review stateside are mainly positive, bumping the Rotten Tomatoes percentage up a few points to 84% and the box office is stellar.

    Here in the uk my local cinema at the weekend is doing great business

    I might be pissing in the wind trying to like something I fundamentally disagree with, but at least it secures the franchise for at least the short term future.

    Most film goers are not genuine fans so won't care Bond is dead. As I mentioned earlier in this thread... a true fan has an emotional connection to the source material. For example Rian Johnson was not a true Star Wars fan. He got to direct Star Wars ep 8 and decided Luke was to toss away his lightsaber as if were chewing gum. Any true fan would know that was disrespectful to the source material and a more fitting reaction would be:

    Rey hands the lighsaber to Luke. He looks at it and gives an affectionate smile.

    "It's good to have it back. Thank you, Rey."


    That's how a true Star Wars fan would write that moment but Johnson, just taking the job because he was offered it by Lucasfilm and guaranteeing a big salary, completely disrespects the backstory and uses the scene to make a cheap joke.

    This disrespectful approach to film making is seen in NTTD when the producers/writers/lead actor and director conspire to subvert the source material. The greatest way to subvert a character is to completely dismantle it, to kill it off. It's worth mentioning that a few days before the release of NTTD, the director Cary Fukunaga did a dismantling job on Cubby Broccoli's Bond by more or less saying Sean Connery's Bond was a rapist.
    “Is it Thunderball or Goldfinger where basically Sean Connery’s character rapes a woman?” said Fukunaga. “She’s like ‘No, no, no,’ and he’s like, ‘Yes, yes, yes.’ That wouldn’t fly today.”

    Given the fact Bond 25 exists because of the success of the previous Bond films - the Connery Bond films are the very foundation of the franchise, the blueprint - you could argue Fukunaga's rapist comment was completely uncalled for and very dismissive of Connery's interpretation of Bond and his contribution to the success of the franchise. It's not that surprising a director that regards the original era Bond as a rapist has no qualms about killing Bond. Fukunaga has no emotional connection to the character. Likewise, Daniel Craig has no emotional connection to Bond. If he valued Bond as a heroic enduring character he'd hardly sign off on Bond getting killed. I assume Eon would have kept Craig's Bond alive had Craig hinted about a possible return in Bond 26.

    But my first point at the start of the post is how the franchise is dependent on casual Bond fans. They have limited to no real emotional connection to Bond so they won't care about his death. They'll forget about Bond's death in a week or two's time and be more interested in the new Spider-Man and Matrix films.




  • Posts: 7,500
    I think the more likely case is that both Craig and the producers saw eye to eye when it came to giving Bond an emotional death. Danny Boyle didn’t agree.

    I do look forward to finding out what exactly Boyle’s script would have been. That will always be the most interesting behind the scenes info for NTTD.

    My interpretation is this: I am pretty certain it is not a new idea completely. I am willing to bet killing Bond has been on the table earlier from time to time. It is easy to see that this was deemed the ideal moment: Actor's last film, closing of an arch, the ideal actor to pull it off convincingly etc. Who first mentioned it as a possibility is almost irrelevant. I am pretty sure the producers were easily sold on the idea, if it wasn't theirs to begin with.
  • Zekidk wrote: »
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    I have no problem with Bond dying. (...) The fact he can’t see Madeline and his daughter again is what is the real heartbreaker and the motivator for his decision. Without those two he has nothing left to live for
    So he kills himself only because he can't touch them? I don't buy it.
    So apparently I’ve read that if Bond comes into contact with anyone the virus will spread until it eventually kills Madeline. This would solve your issue, but I must have missed it when I watched it but I’ll keep a look out for it.
  • Posts: 6,665
    They should've made it a genetically engineered virus, and not nanobots, just to make it clearer, and to better connect with the villain's ancestry.
  • Posts: 7,500
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    I have no problem with Bond dying. (...) The fact he can’t see Madeline and his daughter again is what is the real heartbreaker and the motivator for his decision. Without those two he has nothing left to live for
    So he kills himself only because he can't touch them? I don't buy it.
    So apparently I’ve read that if Bond comes into contact with anyone the virus will spread until it eventually kills Madeline. This would solve your issue, but I must have missed it when I watched it but I’ll keep a look out for it.

    Exactly my interpratation too. The only way to eliminate the threat entirely is to never let the poison leave the island.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 553
    That's the issue, anyone coming into contact is a permanent carrier - every newsagent, waiter...anyone who touches Bond's skin however briefly is now a carrier who would kill Madeleine and daughter if coming into contact. It would be a like a pandemic where everyone in contact gets infected and the disease never leaves your blood.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    The film makes it perfectly clear. If Bond survives the nanobots in his body designed to kill Swann and their daughter will eventually spread, unless he locks himself into perpetual lockdown without letting anyone touch his skin.
    For a man, especially like him, death is a better option.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Qba007 wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Surely the biggest boost to Craig's ego would have been to keep Bond alive and to continue doing the role so he could get all the lavish compliments or whatnot? Admittedly, he was showing his age in this one a bit and I think this was the perfect time to end it. I'm glad they didn't try to fool us into thinking Bond was some young man here. Now Craig goes back to being an actor who used to play James Bond and still has to somewhat carve a career for himself (Though I believe he will do very well in that regard... Just look at Knives Out)

    But, yeah, I don't see how killing off Bond boosts Craig's ego. I think everyone involved in the production knew very well the kind of reaction that we'd have, good and bad.

    Are we to regret that Bond didn't die in AVTAK just because he was played by RM who was older than Craig in NTTD?

    I want whatever you're smoking if that's what you gleaned from my post.
  • Posts: 87
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Surely the biggest boost to Craig's ego would have been to keep Bond alive and to continue doing the role so he could get all the lavish compliments or whatnot? Admittedly, he was showing his age in this one a bit and I think this was the perfect time to end it. I'm glad they didn't try to fool us into thinking Bond was some young man here. Now Craig goes back to being an actor who used to play James Bond and still has to somewhat carve a career for himself (Though I believe he will do very well in that regard... Just look at Knives Out)

    But, yeah, I don't see how killing off Bond boosts Craig's ego. I think everyone involved in the production knew very well the kind of reaction that we'd have, good and bad.

    Are we to regret that Bond didn't die in AVTAK just because he was played by RM who was older than Craig in NTTD?

    I want whatever you're smoking if that's what you gleaned from my post.

    I do not smoke.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    actually? rog' dying in AVTAK makes perfect sense. He is on film 7. Has done every bond trope from scuba to ski, saved the world and done old school normal espionage, via light and dark. And that whole film has a downbeat feel. And he COOKS! Though prefer him in shower with fit American to be honest..but anyway..

    Craig's bond: lonest serving ok but by default as they only make these movies now every 5 years or so? Took down a terror bank; stopped a water monopoly. GREAT

    Then? saved an elderly gran; stopped a spy network that might have helped his own work. Got Covid. Had kid. Died ;)
  • Hay I've had a great idea, lets get Matt Stone & Trey Parker to right future Bonds then they can kill him in every film & bring him back in the next without any explanation.

    BOND CAN BE THE NEW KENNY! :D
  • Posts: 87
    Qba007 wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Surely the biggest boost to Craig's ego would have been to keep Bond alive and to continue doing the role so he could get all the lavish compliments or whatnot? Admittedly, he was showing his age in this one a bit and I think this was the perfect time to end it. I'm glad they didn't try to fool us into thinking Bond was some young man here. Now Craig goes back to being an actor who used to play James Bond and still has to somewhat carve a career for himself (Though I believe he will do very well in that regard... Just look at Knives Out)

    But, yeah, I don't see how killing off Bond boosts Craig's ego. I think everyone involved in the production knew very well the kind of reaction that we'd have, good and bad.

    Are we to regret that Bond didn't die in AVTAK just because he was played by RM who was older than Craig in NTTD?

    I want whatever you're smoking if that's what you gleaned from my post.

    I do not smoke.

    Sorry @00Heaven, it is possible that I didn't quite catch the intent of your post the first time I read it. My intent was to say that Craig's age doesn't justify killing Bond in NTTD.
  • Regarding Bond killings himself.

    He had been mortally wounded by the gunshots and was out of time.

    He knew getting out was against the clock. He knew he was pretty much done for but had some hope but Q confirmed it’s eternal.

    So it’s a rock and hard place. Had he tried to get down from the tower he still wouldn’t of made it in time. Instead he accepted the grim fate.

    I just wish he had said something directly to his child. And that the final shot before we flash to white was of her eyes not Madeleine’s.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895

    Agreed. I love QoS, and it was the direction I was eager for the Bond series to go in. The films didn't need bloody Q and gadgets. They'd proved that with the fantastic CR.

    Much as I like SF (it's still overrated) and I enjoyed this last film, i still think it's a shame they almost got cold feet and went all formulaic on us with regards to Bond’s MI6 environment.

    100%. During the making of QOS, Craig said 'you've got to forget you're making a Bond film, really.' I didn't take that to mean you just flush everything, I took to mean don't just hang it on an established framework and rely on the tropes. After QOS, they backtracked a bit onto a more familiar path and ended up with what was a sometimes awkward hybrid. Still good - but CR and QOS were genuinely great and I wish they'd forged ahead down that road. Still mourn the lack of a Bond-on-a-mission-at-the-height-of-his-powers movie that we might've got in the long gap between QOS and SF.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    RE the missing Bond mission 2010-12: try The International, starring Clive Owen. Bond film by another name. And at the then wind down of financial crisis, Bond vs cabal of city bankers would have made total sense.

    RE Q /gadgets etc: those had to come back. they just did not have to make a 'thing' of it. 'HEY! LOOK! HERE IS THE NEW Q!'
    THAT kind of indulgent plot substitute filler killed this series imho.

    Irony: they HAD a Q branch in BOTH Casino and Quantum. They even had two recurring actors. Precisely what Boothroyd would be: a kind of unsung hero type; brisk, civil servant /ex army armourers. As in QUARTERMASTERS!

    There was nothing original, funny or endearing about making q a needy geek.
    And there was no point in rebooting MoneyPenny just to put her back behind a desk with bugger all to do.

    So yes, I adore SKYFALL. But those reasons, among others = why it basically ended Craig's Bond and the series in many senses rather than refreshed it??
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,480
    @TheQueensPeace thanks for posting what we know about Boyle's version. That doesn't sound like a Bond film at all to me if I'm honest but interesting never the less

    One thing I loved about NTTD was the tension in the action scenes, you really feel that it's life or death, when Bond is in danger you feel it. Fukunaga has definitely raised the barbiturates action scenes in the series

    I spent most of the first viewing on the edge of my seat, which as my girlfriend pointed out, was not romantic at all for our first time back in the cinema 😅
  • Boyle wanted/almost got/left coz it did not work out (nb I am speculating in total but the bits do add up)

    1: Bond. In SPACE? Or at least locked in a missile silo.
    2: Bond captured/tortured a la Die Another Day but for whole film.
    3: Bond's protege (Lily James?) was going to save him.
    4: There would have been Ken Adam level designs, very Moonraker movie and indeed, the book.


    5: There would be flashbacks with Bond training Lily. Think Mission:Impossible 3.
    6: A Maori henchman as Bond's main captor.
    7: Boyle initially was on board with Bond dying and wanted to reference explicitly not implicitly #met007. He changed mind on those points and was adamant the main villain be specifically Russian, which would politicise things. His Bond would have ended like Fleming's: a knighthood is offered and Bond ponders, as credits roll.

    So basically: GRAVITY + MISSION IMPOSSIBLE + MOONRAKER/Kubrick/60s; subversive yes but upbeat and genuinely surprising whilst remaining 'Bond'. But I guess we just weren't ready for that.

    Irony: Killing Bond is far less radical than what Boyle had in mind. But he is an auteur filmmaker rather than company man so quite WHY they hired him without factoring that in is beyond me? But he gave us HAPPY AND GLORIOUS for the Olympics. And to me, that is more canonical than either SPECTRE or NTTD ;)

    Where are you getting all this from? The only thing I can find elsewhere is the Russian and Maori villains, and rumours of him wanting/not wanting to kill Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.