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

194959799100294

Comments

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,560
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I disagree that she lacks complete chemistry with Craig. I guess people see "chemistry" as two over-excited, madly-in-love 16 year-olds going at it like a Christmas tree. That was Bond and Vesper when both were young and hadn't built a lot of experience in life yet. The post-SF Bond is a changed man, older, quieter and someone who may not have to behave like a love crazy adolescent when feeling for someone else. I honestly fail to see the lack of chemistry between Bond and Madeleine. I believe those two. But their love is enveloped by tragedy and several unfinished businesses.

    This, by the way, is also a highly subjective thing. Some will tell you that Bond and Kara had zero chemistry in TLD, others will tell you that their romance is one of the best we've ever seen. So there's that. ;-)

    Wonderful post.

    Bond and Madeleine are absolutely believable to me as a couple, and it's very much like Bond and Kara as a subtler, less montagey romance.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,440
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    bondywondy wrote: »
    It's not that far fetched to imagine Bond (Craig's version) will be alive in Bond 26.
    We saw Craig's Bond standing right next to spot where a Harpoon missile detonated and his body being totally engulfed by a fireball. We also saw his vital readings being zero. He is as dead as the horse you're flogging. Bond 26 won't be continuation to Craig era.

    I don't think the ending is contra Fleming - NTTD adapts the ending YOLT perfectly in my opinion. Amnesiac Bond was actually a walking and talking corpse - he had lost his identity. And him wandering into Russia would've meant certain death if Fleming had been faithful to his own canon - in FRML Smersh conclude that killing M wouldn't change a thing. Fleming knew and supposed that his readers knew also that Soviets held a grudge for a long time against spies, see Sidney Reilly's fate for instance. Agreed, Fleming doesn't actually describe the death of Bond, but leaves it for the reader to fill the blanks. Bond's return in TMWTGG was worst writing/plotting Fleming ever put on paper. Sure, it was nice that he wrote another Bond, but Bond's comeback was straight out from some Mad/Cracked parody.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I disagree that she lacks complete chemistry with Craig. I guess people see "chemistry" as two over-excited, madly-in-love 16 year-olds going at it like a Christmas tree. That was Bond and Vesper when both were young and hadn't built a lot of experience in life yet. The post-SF Bond is a changed man, older, quieter and someone who may not have to behave like a love crazy adolescent when feeling for someone else. I honestly fail to see the lack of chemistry between Bond and Madeleine. I believe those two. But their love is enveloped by tragedy and several unfinished businesses.

    This, by the way, is also a highly subjective thing. Some will tell you that Bond and Kara had zero chemistry in TLD, others will tell you that their romance is one of the best we've ever seen. So there's that. ;-)

    This is a really good post with a perspective that I hadn’t thought about. Thanks. Vesper set an extremely high bar, as she and Craig has electric chemistry, the romance felt real. But as you say, they were young. I do think Bond always loved Vesper more than Madeline. That was the true love of his life.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    Posts: 73
    But as you say, they were young. I do think Bond always loved Vesper more than Madeline. That was the true love of his life.
    I think there was definetely chemistry between Craig and Seydoux. In my opinion Bond's and Madeline's romance is different than Bond's and Vesper's. I think Bond realized the he loved Madeline only after he thought that she had betrayed her.

  • Posts: 526
    But as you say, they were young. I do think Bond always loved Vesper more than Madeline. That was the true love of his life.
    I think there was definetely chemistry between Craig and Seydoux. In my opinion Bond's and Madeline's romance is different than Bond's and Vesper's. I think Bond realized the he loved Madeline only after he thought that she had betrayed her.

    Agreed. Yes. The love he had for Vesper (the armor dialogue), I never felt that connection between he and Seydoux. Bond was enamored with Vesper, couldn’t take his eyes off her. The shower scene they had. That is James Bond showing love at a level he has never shown before imo. I think with Madeline, it was more of “she could understand him” type of deal. When you base a large portion of the film’s motor around this, I dunno if it was strong enough to work. Thinking or writing out loud lol.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 606
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I disagree that she lacks complete chemistry with Craig. I guess people see "chemistry" as two over-excited, madly-in-love 16 year-olds going at it like a Christmas tree. That was Bond and Vesper when both were young and hadn't built a lot of experience in life yet. The post-SF Bond is a changed man, older, quieter and someone who may not have to behave like a love crazy adolescent when feeling for someone else. I honestly fail to see the lack of chemistry between Bond and Madeleine. I believe those two. But their love is enveloped by tragedy and several unfinished businesses.

    This, by the way, is also a highly subjective thing. Some will tell you that Bond and Kara had zero chemistry in TLD, others will tell you that their romance is one of the best we've ever seen. So there's that. ;-)

    This for me demonstrates one of the best things about this forum; other people's well considered opinions that are different from my own making me see things from a different angle.
    I too am not sold on their relationship and didn't feel much chemistry between them after two viewings of NTTD and several SP. However next time I watch I will do so with a different perspective. Good stuff
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,063
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I disagree that she lacks complete chemistry with Craig. I guess people see "chemistry" as two over-excited, madly-in-love 16 year-olds going at it like a Christmas tree.
    Can't we argue our case, without trying to patronize other users at the same time?

    Their relationsship is forced. She hardly smiles at him, and for two movies they have spent more screentime arguing and mistrusting each other, than looking like two people in love. A one-minute sequence before hell breaks loose in Matera, isn't going to cut it, especially because they immediately after have no connection with each other for five years. They even left each other at the end of SP, with no emotional ties, before the final showdown. I know the script for NTTD dictates feelings here, but chemistry is not found in words alone, and personally I haven't seen any spark between the two of them.
    I really like this by David Arnold ~
    Hn52c2w.jpg
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    Posts: 73
    I think with Madeline, it was more of “she could understand him” type of deal.
    My take is that they were in Matera on a "let's see how this thing works out" trip, taking it slowly since both of them carried some heavy baggage.

  • Posts: 5,424
    Birdleson wrote: »
    So, EON thoroughly hit their mark with you and some others on here. You obviously received it the way it was intended to be received, and EON definitely didn't hold anything back in that regard. Not me really, even though I can enjoy most of the film. I was never dialed into the melodrama. Maybe in a different time, place, mood, body, I may have, but not now.

    Think that's where I am with it! Delighted to see so many enjoyed it, and has some really good stuff in it. But it just didnt resonate with me, am debating whether to see it a third time, but dont think I be bothered if I dont!
  • Posts: 77
    Surely the point about the Madeleine character is that she’s as ****ed up emotionally as he is, and finds it hard to express love. A very modern relationship but also it reclaims emotional damage and complexity from the Bond character and permits it of the female. Their chemistry is slightly stilted, but it’s genuine. And those two actors are too good to have simply not clicked in character. It’s intentional.
  • Posts: 5,424
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    Got to see this on Wednesday in IMAX. I really liked this one up until the moment I didn’t — I can appreciate that others get something from the ending, and in time maybe I’ll be able to get satisfaction from it, too. I just feel there were many different things that could’ve been done that would have been far more interesting and served the character better. Especially as his sacrifice and death don’t seem to mean much as the film wraps immediately and says that he will return in the credits. Craig got his Logan for better or for worse. I’m just not sure if it was necessary and I feel the ending casts a huge shadow over the film that’ll make it one of the worst ones for me in terms of rewatchability.

    One standout moment I absolutely loved — Bond visiting Vesper’s grave. Such a powerful moment when the music started playing. Craig’s “I miss you” was just absolutely heartbreaking and actually brought some tears to my eyes.

    Am with you on that. The ending, strangely left me unmoved, but that moment at Vespers grave was beautiful!
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 560
    I think Bond always knew he loved Madeleine but struggled to rationalise that love when he clearly hadn't processed his past and all the pain that it caused.

    A lot is to be said about the motive of "time" in this film because in a lot of ways time just runs out for Bond. Time runs out to leave the island. Time runs out with what little happiness and moments he had with his family. Time ultimately runs out on life, just as it does for each and everyone one of us. It's tragic and poetic at the same time.

    Even at the very beginning Madeleine questions why he's looking over his shoulder still. You could almost argue it's a nod that he's looking towards the past - along with being hyperaware of danger thanks to the life he has led so far. But overall, Bond in this movie for the first half isn't really living in the present or looking towards any future for himself. He's simply EXISTING. He could do with a therapist. Ah, oh, wait... lol.

    When Bond when he goes to Madeleine in Norway I think it just seals what he's always known and felt for her.

    Had he escaped, IMHO, he would still have had the same problem. He'd still have trust issues and still struggle. That's just who he is. A true happy ending wouldn't have existed. Sure, we can imagine it would but he's simply too damaged in this arc.
  • NoWisemanNoWiseman Germany
    Posts: 34
    I'm actually annoyed when I see Craig or one of the team pop up on Youtube now to promote it.

    This film has had a very bizarre affect on me to say the least. Right now I can't bring myself to rewatch any of Craig's films because of NTTD. I never thought after waiting so long for a Bond film that it would have this kind off affect on me.

    I just want to say, you're not allone in this, as i'm feeling absolutely the same. I saw it on Sep. 30th over here in germany and as of now i have no intend to touch this movie ever again. It killed my life long affection for the cinematic Bond in its last act. I was sad and angry when i left the cinema. And it hasn't changed till today.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,487
    Does anyone know who some of the other actresses were that tried out for Madeline? I really think they did a poor job of casting due to the lack of chemistry between her and DC. She’s a fantastic actress in her own right, but I don’t think she was a good fit for this particular role.

    I know some Scandinavian actresses screen tested, including Norwegian Igrid Bolsø Berdal and Synnøve Macody Lund.
  • Posts: 526
    Does anyone know who some of the other actresses were that tried out for Madeline? I really think they did a poor job of casting due to the lack of chemistry between her and DC. She’s a fantastic actress in her own right, but I don’t think she was a good fit for this particular role.

    I know some Scandinavian actresses screen tested, including Norwegian Igrid Bolsø Berdal and Synnøve Macody Lund.

    Thanks for the info.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 1,855
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    One standout moment I absolutely loved — Bond visiting Vesper’s grave. Such a powerful moment when the music started playing. Craig’s “I miss you” was just absolutely heartbreaking and actually brought some tears to my eyes.

    Yes. I'm usually pretty good at putting a wall up if film makers are trying to manipulate my emotions too blatantly, but there's a deep personal resonance for me both with that music and what Bond was actually doing. I knew it was coming and I thought I'd got defences in place in readiness for it, but they fell away when the music played. Too close to home. Hands up - they got me good.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 119
    bondywondy wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's been two days since I've seen NTTD and I'm still kind of shocked at how much this film seems to be designed for the hardcore fans (moreso than the general public)...all of the OHMSS film nods and the radical but strangely faithful adaptation of the YOLT novel.

    If it was faithful to YOLT, I would have loved this film.

    Re Echo's comment,
    I can't see how a film that kills off a 59 year old film hero is designed for hardcore fans. Surely that would be a strange way to appeal to them! But I accept thematically speaking the film contains elements that trigger a nostalgic response in hardcore fans. The most obvious trigger being the use of We Have All The Time In The World.

    As for the use of YOLT, in the novel Bond was presumed dead. He killed Blofeld but Bond did not die. He returned in The Man With The Golden Gun, brainwashed, and attempted to assassinate M.

    It's not that far fetched to think EON paid homage to YOLT and the fake death of Bond. It's not that far fetched to imagine Bond (Craig's version) will be alive in Bond 26. I would hazard a guess Bond 26 will feature an amnesiac Bond as opposed to a rebooted Bond (which will destroy all Bond continuity.) Eon could do the subplot of Bond trying to kill M at the start of or midway through Bond 26. That's other reason why fans should not automatically assume Bond 26 will be a full reboot.

    If Bond 26 opened with an amnesia Bond, and continued the arc from YOLT into TMWTGG, I would love that.

    It would also bizarrely make me enjoy NTTD a whole lot more than I previously did.

    I sent an unsolicited email to Eon suggesting that idea is adapted/extended. Rather than Bond coming back to kill M, you could have Bond with amnesia and he's working for the villain. This would be an interesting way to make Bond 26. At some point in the story Bond is located by the 00s, 'captured' and his memory returns. You wouldn't do the whole film with Bond as a villain. I reckon film goers would accept the scenario for 50 to 60 percent of the story. He reverts back to hero before the third act of the story. 🙂

    When fans say "Bond is dead, just accept it" maybe they're not seeing the potential of Bond alive but missing in action. There will be screenwriters out there (maybe Purvis and Wade too) that would jump at the chance to write a 'Bond missing in action' story and I cannot see a woman as financially astute as Barbara Broccoli automatically dismissing the idea.

    If she wants to reboot and start from point zero that is her prerogative. I'm sure a rebooted Bond 26 can have a decent plot and push the franchise forward in a new ish direction but Bond missing in action, presumed dead, is arguably a more dramatic premise.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,898
    bondywondy wrote: »
    It's not that far fetched to imagine Bond (Craig's version) will be alive in Bond 26.
    We saw Craig's Bond standing right next to spot where a Harpoon missile detonated and his body being totally engulfed by a fireball. We also saw his vital readings being zero. He is as dead as the horse you're flogging. Bond 26 won't be continuation to Craig era.

    I don't think the ending is contra Fleming - NTTD adapts the ending YOLT perfectly in my opinion. Amnesiac Bond was actually a walking and talking corpse - he had lost his identity.

    Had we seen this YOLT book ending, an amnesia Bond not knowing who he is, living in a Japanese village, instead of Bond's screen death by missiles, would you have been very disappointed by NTTD?

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,440
    Ok I am putting this here because the Linus Sandgren thread does not say spoilers allowed. Cinematography in NTTD is brilliant, outstanding.
    I have not watched this yet, but I will soon ...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,843
    A YOLT ending would have only worked for me if it was actually a follow up to OHMSS, or a story similar enough to follow it. Bond getting amnesia may be true to Fleming, but it wouldn’t have worked in NTTD. It would have made it a lesser film.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    After spoiling the movie (heard about the death scene), wallowing in that for a week, finally deciding to see the movie, and following this thread since page one, I have come to this conclusion. Spectre and NTTD simply should not have been made. Skyfall was a reboot, and a stand alone film. The end of Skyfall was a mission handed to 007, “are you ready to get back to work (M)? Bond, “with pleasure M, with pleasure.” He does 2 stand alone films based on Fleming based material and we don’t have this horrid arc that has caused all of this mess. New actor comes in for 26, and all is good. And Bond is alive and well at the end. Just like all the other Bonds before him. That’s my take.
  • Posts: 2,898
    A YOLT ending would have only worked for me if it was actually a follow up to OHMSS, or a story similar enough to follow it. Bond getting amnesia may be true to Fleming, but it wouldn’t have worked in NTTD. It would have made it a lesser film.

    You may have hated it, but I think fans would have still lapped it up, if done in a good way. If fans can easily accept Bond having a kid and getting killed, they would just as easily accept this too.
  • skropper13skropper13 United States
    Posts: 117
    cwl007 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I disagree that she lacks complete chemistry with Craig. I guess people see "chemistry" as two over-excited, madly-in-love 16 year-olds going at it like a Christmas tree. That was Bond and Vesper when both were young and hadn't built a lot of experience in life yet. The post-SF Bond is a changed man, older, quieter and someone who may not have to behave like a love crazy adolescent when feeling for someone else. I honestly fail to see the lack of chemistry between Bond and Madeleine. I believe those two. But their love is enveloped by tragedy and several unfinished businesses.

    This, by the way, is also a highly subjective thing. Some will tell you that Bond and Kara had zero chemistry in TLD, others will tell you that their romance is one of the best we've ever seen. So there's that. ;-)

    This for me demonstrates one of the best things about this forum; other people's well considered opinions that are different from my own making me see things from a different angle.
    I too am not sold on their relationship and didn't feel much chemistry between them after two viewings of NTTD and several SP. However next time I watch I will do so with a different perspective. Good stuff

    I don’t know how it changed so drastically for me, but within minutes of watching NTTD I felt a deep connection to their relationship. I hated SP and maybe liked Madeleine a little bit but wasn’t crazy about her or anything. NTTD changed my feelings about her/them drastically within minutes and I can’t quite put my finger on “how” with only one viewing, but this is largely why I loved this movie so much and the revelations in the third act worked so well for me. This very much is a film about their relationship and the viewer liking or disliking the film will rely on their belief in the love story.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    Posts: 73
    Had we seen this YOLT book ending, an amnesia Bond not knowing who he is, living in a Japanese village, instead of Bond's screen death by missiles, would you have been very disappointed by NTTD?
    No I wouldn't - but of course the preceding movie or at least its third act would have to been completely different than what we've got. The ending of NTTD adapted the ending of YOLT dramatically/thematically. Was it absolutely necessary for Bond to die as certainly as he did? No. Did that decision damage the movie? In my opinion, no. Was it contra Fleming? In my opinion, no. Does the death of Bond onscreen damage the franchise? I don't think so.

  • astansillastansill London
    Posts: 29
    I have to agree with other users on this forum who feel that as Daniel Craig got on so well with the producers and has had a lot of productive input, they thought it would be a great idea to kill off bond so that Daniel has seen him through from the beginnings of achieving his licence to kill through to the very end.

    However, they have SCREWED the timeline completely. Daniel’s Bond was a reboot of the series and to an extent was a great idea, poorly executed.

    By the end of SF, they had established the new M (Mallory) and got rid of the MI6 building in Spectre bringing everything into place for the future of bond - (M’s office was reminiscent of the earlier films, the relationship between Moneypenny and Bond was more like the old films and Q was opening up more to Bond compared to when he was first introduced in SF).

    The bond universe was set in place by the end of Skyfall and you could easily argue that the classic films from Dr.No onwards could have happened at any point after SF. I thought the whole point of making M’s office at the end of SF was to answer that question of how Daniel’s Bond’s beginnings link up.

    Spectre’s release introduced Blofeld, explaining how Bond was introduced to the supervillain. Blofeld’s infamous scar down his right eye was created, meaning this happened BEFORE the events of the Sean Connery films.

    It would have made more sense to carry on with the new Blofeld, Mallory, Moneypenny and Q (as much as the actors themselves were willing) whilst introducing the next actor to play Bond as it would have meant that although the actor for Bond had changed, at least it was the same ‘universe’.

    Instead, it was Daniel Craig’s last and unfortunately someone (maybe Craig himself) thought it would be a great idea for Craig to show the beginnings and end of Bond. The producers bought it and probably thought it was cool and perhaps a fitting way of ending Daniel’s time in the series.

    Unfortunately though as I mentioned at the top, they’ve screwed the timeline and the possibility of any of the pre-Daniel Craig films being able to happen as they introduced Blofeld in the last film yet it was only a mere 5 years later that Bond dies. All of the events in between such as Blofeld’s YOLT volcano missile plot couldn’t have happened in that time as Blofeld was a prisoner since.

    It also doesn’t make sense in the Daniel Craig Bond universe that Blofeld played a relatively small part. He was caught, arrested and put into prison, then died. Hardly the character he had become in the previous movies.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    Posts: 73
    The Craig era is completely separate from the previous movies, a self-contained arc. Volcano Lairs and Liparus battles happened to some other fella.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 13
    Continuity is all over the place. It's not an arc. It's a mess.

    CR and QoS are their own little cul-de-sac. (Bond at the start of his career)

    Skyfall is standalone (Bond much later in his career)

    Spectre and NTTD then want to pretend as if everything joins together, which results in multiple conflicting iterations being mushed together to create...I don't know what.
  • astansillastansill London
    Posts: 29
    @AntCornfield Exactly! They’ve messed with it too much, I didn’t mind the reboot with CR and QOS, it’s a shame that since then they’ve completely got lost with what they were originally trying to achieve. They should have just carried on with the ‘beginnings of’ idea and let the next bond actor take over and carry on.

    It feels such a shame and a waste that they regained the rights to use Blofeld, Bond’s biggest arch enemy… and he just died in prison in the next film????

    I think it’s just selfish that they wanted Daniel Craig to have HIS perfect ending without thinking of the fanbase, the story, the continuity which has obviously become an after-thought.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Anyone else need therapy after this?

    Yes. I’m calling Monday to get an appointment. That was sheer brutality. Never been that emotional leaving a theatre.

    @sworddevil1 It’s been two days, and I’m not sure that I want to see NTTD again. I’ll probably go to support the franchise (and eat movie popcorn), but yikes!
Sign In or Register to comment.