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

18990929495246

Comments

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,364
    the ending really shocked me,
    but what shocked me far more is the reaction of the series fans ,
    can't you see it! , everybody dealing with it like it is just another Bond finale,
    no it is not , it is the series finale even if they say "James Bond will return" at the end of the film ,
    can't you see that any reboot will be of no real thrill as it simply will be in the "past" ,
    every upcoming film will be a memory or a flash back ,
    our beloved series was destroyed once and forever for fulfilling the ambition of a selfish actor who wanted everything James Bond to be related to him from cradle to grave by a stupid producers that sold their inheritance in the cheapest way ,
    can't you see it is the death of the series itself!!! ,
    it was the most stupid move in cinematic history ,
    yesterday was one of the worst days of my life.

    Well, Blofeld died in FYEO. So why/how did he come back?
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 354
    Also, the Craig reboot had him becoming a double 0 agent at the beginning of Casino Royale. So, would that mean that the previous missions happened in the future?

    The ending to NTTD is a truly ballsy move, but Craig's films worked quite in some isolation from the other 20 ones. What will be interesting to see is how much the forthcoming movies will dip into both continuities to build their own universe.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,448
    @Creasy47 , great post!

    Take it as a compliment that I read and enjoyed the whole thing. Channeling your Brady there, or at least Dimi.

    One of the funniest lines for me was "Another child?"

    And yes, he died with his boots on.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,390
    Thanks so much, @Thunderfinger; I was just remarking to someone else "there's no way anyone reads that rambling mess of a post." I'm glad a few of you have, I had a lot to say and a lot to be happy about because it's been so damn long since I was this vocal and happy about a new Bond installment.

    And yes! The "another child?" line was probably my favorite one in terms of lightheartedness, that's the one I was forgetting about. Surprised how many good, funny lines were in the Norway scenes.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 354
    "What? Another child?" is also the line that comes the closest to the type of humor Craig favoured in his previous entries. Bond would use quips when he's in pain or in shock, to try to show he's not hurt. And learning about a child is definitely a shock to him.
    At other points in NTTD, he just makes funny observations (about Nomi taking her wig off, Paloma asking him in a hurry to take off his clothes or Q's cat) that show him in a lighter mood than in Craig's previous films. I guess it comes from two things, the work of Phoebe Waller-Bridge, and Craig's experience on Knives Out, where he found one-liners that were in line with his own comic sensibility, which finally allowed him to inject more comedy in his Bond films.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 95
    Near the start of this thread I mentioned the disconnect between film critics and long term fans. As I suspected would happen, the same disconnect has occurred with Craig era Bond fans and long term fans.

    Craig era Bonds fans have little to no emotional connection to the five previous Bond actors nor the Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman tone/narrative approach. Sean Connery's Bond is outdated, too sexist, too invulnerable to appeal to generation Z Bond fans. Same is true of Moore's Bond.
    Online definition:
    Generation Z - "the generation reaching adulthood in the second decade of the 21st century, perceived as being familiar with the internet from a very young age."

    This is why so many YouTubers review NTTD and proclaim "Daniel Craig is the best Bond."I have seen a gen z guy say he hasn't seen any Bond films prior to Craig but thinks Craig is the best Bond. This is some of the silly, solipsistic stuff online. 🙄

    Gen z-ers process Craig's films emotionally not with logic. Indeed, I would argue for all the negativity that the CraigisnotBond community brought to Bond fandom - even making Craig feel depressed during the production of Casino Royale - they were arguing from a logical foundation. Craig does not look like the cinematic James Bond - Sean Connery's looks remain the blueprint - so any criticism of Craig's appearance is logical (accepting such criticism can be harsh and trolling in nature). I would argue any Bond fan saying "Bond's death is a fitting end to Craig's era" are offering an illogical opinion. That's the difference.

    When you have an an illogical opinion, when you state Craig is the best Bond but you have little or no knowledge of the other films in the franchise.... you're not going to be that bothered by the ending. This creates the disconnection. Long term fans do care (some/many) about Bond's apparent demise but watch most gen z YouTubers give their reviews of NTTD and you'll see the death of James Bond isn't a huge deal to them. They may find his death sad or a brave thing to do but hardly any will say "it's a betrayal of the franchise" because they're too young to relate to the original era Bond films.



  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,390
    @bondywondy, and for those of us who are lifelong Bond fans, who aren't Gen Z, and who loved the ending? Seems you keep trying to categorize viewers and explain away why it's not "okay" to love or even accept the ending for what it is, like it's somehow objectively, factually incorrect to do so.
  • Way too many generalisations there
  • echo wrote: »
    I loved how prickly Bond was toward M and the dangerous situation M created. The man wasn't his superior anymore; Bond owed him no deference.

    And I'm pretty sure Craig and Fiennes enjoyed playing new dimensions of their characters.

    This scene is even better on a second viewing when you know that M is directly responsible for helping create a situation that ends up costing Bond everything.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,031
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I'm seeing it again this afternoon. Can't wait. I'm sure I'll have some more thoughts.

    BTW, someone may be able to expand better on this that I can...

    But Heracles in mythology. Isn't he eventually driven mad and from that then accidentally goes on to kills his wife and children?

    Sacrificing yourself really does become the Herculean thing to do in the end then.

    I just thought that was a nice little inclusion.

    @peter I'm glad to see you enjoyed it!!

    Thank you @00Heaven … as I told a few people today I woke up and my first thought was: was that a dream?…. And when I realized it wasn’t, a smile stretched across my face.

    I will be seeing it again tomorrow and I can’t wait. It was more than I could ever have hoped for.

    It was poignant and charming and exhilarating, but then the violence would come in and the tension would be ramped and Fukunaga very expertly wove in psychological horror. This was a big BIG film. Lots to still unpack.

    I feel very grateful that this is the film we received.
  • Posts: 7,332
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Near the start of this thread I mentioned the disconnect between film critics and long term fans. As I suspected would happen, the same disconnect has occurred with Craig era Bond fans and long term fans.

    Craig era Bonds fans have little to no emotional connection to the five previous Bond actors nor the Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman tone/narrative approach. Sean Connery's Bond is outdated, too sexist, too invulnerable to appeal to generation Z Bond fans. Same is true of Moore's Bond.
    Online definition:
    Generation Z - "the generation reaching adulthood in the second decade of the 21st century, perceived as being familiar with the internet from a very young age."

    This is why so many YouTubers review NTTD and proclaim "Daniel Craig is the best Bond."I have seen a gen z guy say he hasn't seen any Bond films prior to Craig but thinks Craig is the best Bond. This is some of the silly, solipsistic stuff online. 🙄

    Gen z-ers process Craig's films emotionally not with logic. Indeed, I would argue for all the negativity that the CraigisnotBond community brought to Bond fandom - even making Craig feel depressed during the production of Casino Royale - they were arguing from a logical foundation. Craig does not look like the cinematic James Bond - Sean Connery's looks remain the blueprint - so any criticism of Craig's appearance is logical (accepting such criticism can be harsh and trolling in nature). I would argue any Bond fan saying "Bond's death is a fitting end to Craig's era" are offering an illogical opinion. That's the difference.

    When you have an an illogical opinion, when you state Craig is the best Bond but you have little or no knowledge of the other films in the franchise.... you're not going to be that bothered by the ending. This creates the disconnection. Long term fans do care (some/many) about Bond's apparent demise but watch most gen z YouTubers give their reviews of NTTD and you'll see the death of James Bond isn't a huge deal to them. They may find his death sad or a brave thing to do but hardly any will say "it's a betrayal of the franchise" because they're too young to relate to the original era Bond films.



    Sounds like a load of bull.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,448
    This film has stuck in my mind after seeing it more than most others. I think I can only say that about GF, OHMSS, FYEO (my first) and CR.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 354
    Even these "typical" Gen Zers have at least seen parts of the previous films on TV. They may not be heavily into some films made 55 years ago, but Craig's tenure (and the advent of Blu-ray) has raised the profile of the whole franchise, not created a gap between his films and everything that had happened before.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,199
    @bondywondy insists on putting people in boxes and slapping them with weird generalizations so as to present us with some "fan theory" pseudoscience. He clearly cannot accept the fact that some of us -- what's the term? "true" fans? -- can, indeed, accept or even appreciate certain moments in this film. He writes,

    When you have an an illogical opinion, when you state Craig is the best Bond but you have little or no knowledge of the other films in the franchise.... you're not going to be that bothered by the ending. This creates the disconnection. Long term fans do care (some/many) about Bond's apparent demise but watch most gen z YouTubers give their reviews of NTTD and you'll see the death of James Bond isn't a huge deal to them.

    Allow me to deconstruct this strange statement:
    • an "illogical'" opinion: since when do we evaluate the "logic" behind an opinion? And even if we did, who is to decide which opinions are logical and which aren't?
    • If you aren't bothered by the ending, your opinion is illogical, that's what the first sentence says. Well, I'm not bothered by the ending... so according to some newcomer, my opinion of the film doesn't make any sense?
    • I am a long term fan. I've been an active, conscious Bond fan for well over three full decades and a member of this community for over 16 years so I'm pretty sure I do, indeed, qualify as a long term Bond fan. I do care about Bond's demise in this film. That is, I appreciate the way they've handled it and I find it far from misplaced in this era. I have also actively lived through the Brosnan years and half-and-half through the Daltons. Neither seemed ready to have that iteration of Bond killed in a final outing of the respective actor.
    • There we go: the boxes. "Gen z YouTubers". I don't care much for comments on YT, FB, Twitter and other sewer pits of the social media phenomenon. Is Bond's death a huge deal to them, or isn't it? I don't know and I don't give a damn. I'll make up my own mind...

    ... but this,
    jobo wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Near the start of this thread I mentioned the disconnect between film critics and long term fans. As I suspected would happen, the same disconnect has occurred with Craig era Bond fans and long term fans.

    Craig era Bonds fans have little to no emotional connection to the five previous Bond actors nor the Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman tone/narrative approach. Sean Connery's Bond is outdated, too sexist, too invulnerable to appeal to generation Z Bond fans. Same is true of Moore's Bond.
    Online definition:
    Generation Z - "the generation reaching adulthood in the second decade of the 21st century, perceived as being familiar with the internet from a very young age."

    This is why so many YouTubers review NTTD and proclaim "Daniel Craig is the best Bond."I have seen a gen z guy say he hasn't seen any Bond films prior to Craig but thinks Craig is the best Bond. This is some of the silly, solipsistic stuff online. 🙄

    Gen z-ers process Craig's films emotionally not with logic. Indeed, I would argue for all the negativity that the CraigisnotBond community brought to Bond fandom - even making Craig feel depressed during the production of Casino Royale - they were arguing from a logical foundation. Craig does not look like the cinematic James Bond - Sean Connery's looks remain the blueprint - so any criticism of Craig's appearance is logical (accepting such criticism can be harsh and trolling in nature). I would argue any Bond fan saying "Bond's death is a fitting end to Craig's era" are offering an illogical opinion. That's the difference.

    When you have an an illogical opinion, when you state Craig is the best Bond but you have little or no knowledge of the other films in the franchise.... you're not going to be that bothered by the ending. This creates the disconnection. Long term fans do care (some/many) about Bond's apparent demise but watch most gen z YouTubers give their reviews of NTTD and you'll see the death of James Bond isn't a huge deal to them. They may find his death sad or a brave thing to do but hardly any will say "it's a betrayal of the franchise" because they're too young to relate to the original era Bond films.



    Sounds like a load of bull.

    I'll happily agree with.
  • Posts: 7,332
    I am a gen Z and a Craig fan. But I am also a fan of all the other Bond actors, the classic films which I grew up with, the Fleming novels which I have read repeatedely. The ending of NTTD has made me cry on three different viewings (which I rarely do) and probably will the next time as well. And that's part of the reason why I love it!
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 95
    My guess is this is what has happened with Bond's death.

    Craig agreed to come back on the condition his Bond died.

    Danny Boyle and John Hodge disagree and are shown the door.

    Cary Fukunaga hired. Screenplay rewritten.

    B and MG don't want Bond to actually die. It's like Bond becoming a woman.. Eon will never do it so they contrive an ending in which the audience are fooled into believing Bond is dead. This gives the impression Craig's era has a definitive ending.

    Bond saves the day but dies.

    Every film critic and most casual or hardcore fans fall for the deception. "Bond is dead, what a shocking event!"

    The deception had worked!

    Eon refuse to confirm Bond is dead. For the next three or more years Barbara Broccoli gives no interviews to confirm Bond's death nor to confirm or deny a reboot is impending.

    Eon never agreed to kill off Bond, they agreed to end Craig's tenure with the illusion that his Bond died. They knew pretending to kill off Bond would be the most outrageous and controversial moment in the franchise's near sixty year history and result in negative reaction but they also knew it would be temporary negativity because Bond 26 will show James Bond escaping death. He avoided the full scale impact of the missiles, he was several feet away from the missile strike. This can be done via a flashback scene showing the missile strike from a different camera angle. You see Bond (new actor) much further away from the missile as it impacts the ground. The explosion and blast wave push Bond away. He falls to the ground, gets up and runs away. By sheer luck he escapes the blast area. He is badly injured and with loss of memory.

    This scenario is doable and can look exciting and dramatic. As for Bond's different looking face... the franchise has already set that precedent. Diamonds Are Forever's pre credit scene follows on from the end of OHMSS. I accept the start of Diamonds is not straight away after OHMSS but the pre credit scene is Bond trying to find and kill Blofeld. He wants to avenge Tracy's death. Bond looks different. He's morphed into Sean Connery!

    The other way is Bond is disfigured from the missile strikes and gets surgery to alter his looks but I think that's a bit cheesy and too predictable.




  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,390
    @bondywondy, I know I and others have explained it several times before (not that it needs explaining) but why's it so hard to understand that Craig's self-contained era ends with Bond's death and the next era will be fresh, starting anew, perhaps not as a budding, rookie 007 but rather an experienced 007 in the midst of his tenure? Bond clearly died, that missile smacked down right in front of him. We'd be getting into some truly ludicrous territory if he somehow survived that (and there's no reason to even come up with an explanation for his survival, because this is the end of this Bond's tale - Craig isn't returning for any more films.) There needn't be any confusion on the matter. It sounds like you really don't want to accept his death, which is fine, but you're trying to box in others and make some "factual" reasonings as to why he survived that clearly aren't there or even remotely hinted at.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 227
    the ending really shocked me,
    but what shocked me far more is the reaction of the series fans ,
    can't you see it! , everybody dealing with it like it is just another Bond finale,
    no it is not , it is the series finale even if they say "James Bond will return" at the end of the film ,
    can't you see that any reboot will be of no real thrill as it simply will be in the "past" ,
    every upcoming film will be a memory or a flash back ,
    our beloved series was destroyed once and forever for fulfilling the ambition of a selfish actor who wanted everything James Bond to be related to him from cradle to grave by a stupid producers that sold their inheritance in the cheapest way ,
    can't you see it is the death of the series itself!!! ,
    it was the most stupid move in cinematic history ,
    yesterday was one of the worst days of my life.

    Similar feelings here and I haven't even watched it. This was an act of sabotage entirely in keeping with recent trends in Hollywood in terms of how they treat classic franchises. It's cynical and shallow and done for the sole reason of pissing off longtime fans. Unless they have an alternate ending stored away somewhere and plan on releasing another version in the future, they've lost me as a fan. I don't care what they do with Bond after this but whatever they do will feel pointless.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 4,684
    Also, Bond 26 would always have been a reboot, whether he died or not. For example, imagine Nicholas Hoult or whoever is cast as the next James Bond. An actor in his early 30s, or even just an actor younger than Craig. There's no feasible way he could continue the same story arc that was explored in Craig's era. You can't have a James Bond who has explored being called an "old dog" and who has retired, to then continue that with a young actor - it makes no sense. No Time To Die was always going to be a definitive ending, death or not.
  • I can't remember ever having seen such strong opinions about a film from people who haven't seen it. To each their own I guess
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,390
    I can't remember ever having seen such strong opinions about a film from people who haven't seen it. To each their own I guess

    As divisive as it is, this truly is a movie you have to see for yourself. I didn't like several of the spoilers I heard beforehand yet walked away either loving them or accepting them with almost no issues.
  • That's entirely the point, I didn't like the Dark Knight Rises in part because it wasn't the story I wanted - too little Batman and the inference he'd only ever been active for a few months, but I saw it before deciding for myself, even if I did go in spoiled and sceptical
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 227
    Denbigh wrote: »
    You can't have a James Bond who has explored being called an "old dog" and who has retired, to then continue that with a young actor - it makes no sense.

    But they've been doing precisely that for 60 years. Bond actors age out and get replaced by younger actors. What was AVTAK to TLD? Or DAD to CR? What made NTTD's ending necessary? In fact I would argue the exact opposite of what this movie's defenders are saying, that killing Craig's Bond undermines the process of bringing Bond back. The reason why actors could so easily pass off the role to younger actors was because Bond DIDN'T die. And again, I really get the sense that people are just trying to justify the ending post-hoc when there really is not justification for it.
  • Posts: 95
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondywondy, I know I and others have explained it several times before (not that it needs explaining) but why's it so hard to understand that Craig's self-contained era ends with Bond's death and the next era will be fresh, starting anew, perhaps not as a budding, rookie 007 but rather an experienced 007 in the midst of his tenure? Bond clearly died, that missile smacked down right in front of him. We'd be getting into some truly ludicrous territory if he somehow survived that (and there's no reason to even come up with an explanation for his survival, because this is the end of this Bond's tale - Craig isn't returning for any more films.) There needn't be any confusion on the matter. It sounds like you really don't want to accept his death, which is fine, but you're trying to box in others and make some "factual" reasonings as to why he survived that clearly aren't there or even remotely hinted at.

    Hmm.... time will tell if my theory is right. Until we get official confirmation from Eon that Bond 26 is a reboot, my theory is still possible. 😉
  • Your theory is indeed possible, but hugely unlikely as they won't want a Bond out there with a child somwhere
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,390
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondywondy, I know I and others have explained it several times before (not that it needs explaining) but why's it so hard to understand that Craig's self-contained era ends with Bond's death and the next era will be fresh, starting anew, perhaps not as a budding, rookie 007 but rather an experienced 007 in the midst of his tenure? Bond clearly died, that missile smacked down right in front of him. We'd be getting into some truly ludicrous territory if he somehow survived that (and there's no reason to even come up with an explanation for his survival, because this is the end of this Bond's tale - Craig isn't returning for any more films.) There needn't be any confusion on the matter. It sounds like you really don't want to accept his death, which is fine, but you're trying to box in others and make some "factual" reasonings as to why he survived that clearly aren't there or even remotely hinted at.

    Hmm.... time will tell if my theory is right. Until we get official confirmation from Eon that Bond 26 is a reboot, my theory is still possible. 😉

    You seriously believe the next era will be a continuation of Craig's arc, without Craig, where his clearly obvious death is explained away and some new actor is now looking to cure himself of the nanobots and return to Madeleine and Mathilde? I'd bet all the money I'll ever make that won't happen but I'll leave you to your optimism and high hopes. Just don't be let down when a few years pass and it clearly doesn't come to fruition, as it's incredibly, almost impossibly unlikely.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,684
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    You can't have a James Bond who has explored being called an "old dog" and who has retired, to then continue that with a young actor - it makes no sense.

    But they've been doing precisely that for 60 years. Bond actors age out and get replaced by younger actors. What was AVTAK to TLD? Or DAD to CR? What made NTTD's ending necessary? In fact I would argue the exact opposite of what this movie's defenders are saying, that killing Craig's Bond undermines the process of bringing Bond back. The reason why actors could so easily pass off the role to younger actors was because Bond DIDN'T die. And again, I really get the sense that people are just trying to justify the ending post-hoc when there really is not justification for it.
    Yes, but it was easy back then because we never had a true arc for James Bond. We never addressed his age, his relationships, or even his origins as a 00, and all those things have been addressed in the Craig-era, so it's not the same. And personally, I don't think anything is undermined, if Brosnan's Bond had died at the end of Die Another Day, it would've made no difference. Casino Royale would've been the same; a reboot. Exactly what Bond 26 will do and would always have done for the reasons I've said.

    As for "people trying to justify it", I'd say that's completely unfair on the film and on the fans that enjoy it for what it was and what it was doing. For many of us, it makes perfect sense in the arc we've seen throughout Craig's era. Just because there are some that don't like it, that in no way undermines the opinion of those who did.
  • Exactly, this is now an old Bond, whereas Moore's Bond, for example, was not - he was an old actor, not the same thing
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 95
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondywondy, I know I and others have explained it several times before (not that it needs explaining) but why's it so hard to understand that Craig's self-contained era ends with Bond's death and the next era will be fresh, starting anew, perhaps not as a budding, rookie 007 but rather an experienced 007 in the midst of his tenure? Bond clearly died, that missile smacked down right in front of him. We'd be getting into some truly ludicrous territory if he somehow survived that (and there's no reason to even come up with an explanation for his survival, because this is the end of this Bond's tale - Craig isn't returning for any more films.) There needn't be any confusion on the matter. It sounds like you really don't want to accept his death, which is fine, but you're trying to box in others and make some "factual" reasonings as to why he survived that clearly aren't there or even remotely hinted at.

    Hmm.... time will tell if my theory is right. Until we get official confirmation from Eon that Bond 26 is a reboot, my theory is still possible. 😉

    You seriously believe the next era will be a continuation of Craig's arc, without Craig, where his clearly obvious death is explained away and some new actor is now looking to cure himself of the nanobots and return to Madeleine and Mathilde? I'd bet all the money I'll ever make that won't happen but I'll leave you to your optimism and high hopes. Just don't be let down when a few years pass and it clearly doesn't come to fruition, as it's incredibly, almost impossibly unlikely.

    I've got three or more years to get prepared for the disappointment. I still maintain the marketing potential of 'Is Bond really dead?'... and we find out he's still alive.. is worth consideration. Eon would be a bit silly to dismiss this opportunity? I dunno, just a thought.

    I wish I had a James Bond emoji. 😊
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 354
    They won't do that, as it would cheapen the emotional weight of the ending. This continuity, the second of the Bond franchise, is now over. In this one, Bond dies or, if a miracle happened offscreen, will spend the rest of his days in isolation. Then, there will be other films in the franchise, that will have common points with the two previous continuities, but they will be their own thing. SPECTRE will be a thing there, there will be a new Leiter, a new Blofeld, etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.