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

1101102104106107298

Comments

  • Posts: 2,400
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Looking back after a few days after both viewings, I'm thinking about what I would look forward to seeing again (with SP, there was nothing, so I knew I would never warm to it). The one section that consistently pops into my mind is Bond's adventure with Paloma. The highlight of the film. Also, the stuff with Felix.

    Funnily enough I thought the Cuba bit didn't quite live up to what it should have been: it was just a bit of a fight, really, whereas for me it needed to be something a bit crazier and sparkier- more of a fun time. Like most of the action scenes it was a bit uninspired and with very little in the way of 'Bond moments'. In a way I can't help but compare it to something like the opera bit from Mission Impossible Rogue Nation, where it was essentially Ethan and Ilsa's 'first date' and worked in the same way in that film as a relatively light hearted action set piece with a male and female lead getting to know each other, and I thought that was much more successful in terms of spark and humour -and invention in the action- than this was.
    I also think that Cuba didn't serve Nomi well at all considering that she had just been set up as an adversary to Bond- she's barely in it. I can imagine a version where it's more playful between the two of them and they get to have a bit of interplay. I feel like we didn't even really get a reaction from Nomi from having lost there: I can imagine her giving Bond a smile and a salute or something as he makes off which would make her feel more on his level.

    Can't agree with that. The scene where he falls through the roof onto the bar table, jumps up like a indestructable badass and continues to poor a drink for Paloma and himself is a great and very bondian moment for me. I love Dan's acting during that scene. He is as suave and cool as Connery ever was.

    It's honestly a masterstroke in itself that that scene - which on paper is like something you'd expect from a lesser Moore film or DAF - doesn't come across as camp but merely a moment of badassery from Bond and Paloma.

    Yes, looking at my description of the scene as written, it sounds very campy, but it really works perfectly on screen.

    It was one of my biggest uncertainties on first viewing, kind of like "this is fun but should it really be here? I'm not sure", it was one of those tiny things that made me hesitate to give the film a 10/10 and instead go with a "conservative" 9.5 on first watch, but both times since I have loved that moment.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Anyone who truly believes or is worried that James Bond will be played by a black woman is an easily manipulated gammon.

    IMO
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Anyone who truly believes or is worried that James Bond will be played by a black woman is an easily manipulated gammon.

    IMO

    I have seen online comments from people who refuse to watch this film, since they have heard that Bond is played by a transvestite in this one.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,634
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Anyone who truly believes or is worried that James Bond will be played by a black woman is an easily manipulated gammon.

    IMO

    Online culture wars... something EON stands above.
  • Posts: 3,279
    Luds wrote: »
    So I saw it tonight. I really enjoyed the film, the story and the acting, the references to previous movies. During the ending I was a bit emotional, I enjoyed the whole surprise with Mathilde and Swann being Bond's new Tracy. The whole OHMSS vibe and score was well done, and when the end credits started I suddenly felt angry and left the theater before they ended, didn't see if there was a Bond will return message, but now I read that there was. How dare they mess-up with Bond, right? Hard to fathom how the story could continue.

    I was listening to various people's reaction. Things like "... so that's how they want to force us to accept this black girl as the new star, by killing Bonf off" and "No choice now they have to reboot again otherwise I'm done with the series without Bond". All that got me thinking. Seriously, would the producers really consider moving away from James Bond's character and continue the series without him? Are they this Woke? That's more than a small risk, it's flirting with disaster. Not that it couldn't work mind you, but seriously, I'm having a hard time seeing this as a real possibility.

    So my money would be on a reboot, doesn't have to be an origin story like CR though. Anyhow, Had not gone to the theater since I took my kid to Frozen 2! I'm going again to Dune in a few weeks. I bet I won't be as shocked with this one as with NTTD! I've become quite a Dune fan since first posting in KTBEU, but anyhow, it was nice to go to the theater even if on the frikkin first Saturday of a Bond release there were at most 40 people in there. I could hear positive reactions throughout the flick, but after the ending, all I was hearing were negative reactions. If we're heading towards a reboot though, was the killing of Bond really necessary? Certainly has a different taste than having the lovely family end happy and leave in the sunset.

    Welcome back Luds. Long time no see. Nice to see folk again from KTBEU.

    My reaction was exactly the same as yours. I was enjoying the movie until the end, then I suddenly became angry. Its a strange film to put out after the miserable 2 years of pandemic and lockdowns. People want to be cheered up and lifted now, and this film definitely doesn't do that. It leaves audiences depressed.

    I predict a backlash once the dust has settled, but not just yet.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,117
    One small observation: a bit like the Shanghai sequence in Skyfall, it just seems a bit odd to have Bond living in Jamaica but never interacting with any actual Jamaicans. I prefer him to be a bit involved with the location he’s in rather than it just being a backdrop.
  • Posts: 3,279
    mtm wrote: »
    One small observation: a bit like the Shanghai sequence in Skyfall, it just seems a bit odd to have Bond living in Jamaica but never interacting with any actual Jamaicans. I prefer him to be a bit involved with the location he’s in rather than it just being a backdrop.

    I didn't notice that, but now you mention it yes.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,634
    mtm wrote: »
    One small observation: a bit like the Shanghai sequence in Skyfall, it just seems a bit odd to have Bond living in Jamaica but never interacting with any actual Jamaicans. I prefer him to be a bit involved with the location he’s in rather than it just being a backdrop.

    I didn't notice that, but now you mention it yes.

    I can easily see this Bond as more of a recluse to be honest. He doesn't strike me as a people person.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 15,117
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    One small observation: a bit like the Shanghai sequence in Skyfall, it just seems a bit odd to have Bond living in Jamaica but never interacting with any actual Jamaicans. I prefer him to be a bit involved with the location he’s in rather than it just being a backdrop.

    I didn't notice that, but now you mention it yes.

    I can easily see this Bond as more of a recluse to be honest. He doesn't strike me as a people person.

    True, and obviously we’re shown he’s self-sufficient, but then we see him happily going into town and to a nightclub.
    Perhaps all it needed was instead of finding the cigars in his house he could have had someone he knows locally (a Quarrel-type friend if you need a Fleming reference) to tell him someone was looking for him. Some sort of sense that he’s actually in a locale with the people rather than it just being somewhere for a load of British and American people to talk.
  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    Posts: 371
    I that when Bond is walking up to the top of the compound (blood dripping), as the missiles approach (his end); that this scene mirrors his beginning, when he is walking up the stairs at Mr. White’s house to give that famous line. Thoughts?

    My first impression was that they just stole that "the death of Leonidas" scene from "300".
  • Posts: 14,864
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Saw the movie last night. After having time to digest the movie and everything I saw, I have to say I loved this movie. From the backstory of Madeline as a child, to the plot about the nano-bots, to Bonds death it was a great movie. Daniel Craigs performance as Bond is what drives this movie. All the actors played their rolls well. The movie is character driven as apposed to action driven. Thats not to say the action wasn’t great because it was. Some of the best in the series. A lot of shocking moments in the movie good and bad. From Felix’s death, to M being one of the main reasons of the creation of this virus, to the destruction of Spectre, to Bond having a daughter!!! I also loved all these Easter eggs in this film paying tribute to the novels and past films.

    Now the big elephant in the room. I know many fans are not happy with Bond getting killed and those feelings are 100% justified. We all grew up with Bond in different decades. He was our hero so seeing our hero die is hard for some. When I heard the rumors that Bond was gonna die in NTTD I was ok with it as long as it made sense in the story. To me it made sense. He has to go back to open the blast doors, he got shot doing so, and was not going to make it out in time. Him getting infected with the disease knowing he would of killed Madeline and his daughter if he came back to them justified his decision to stay and die. We all know Craigs Bond movies are meant to be one big separate story from all the previous movies.

    Bond dying is not far fetch because they are gonna reboot the series again. Hopefully when they do they go back to more stand alone movies for the series. I think thats what is needed and whats missed from the Bond franchise. The Craig arc was fun but we need to go back to the traditional stand alone films.

    So overall great movie. So far it ranks 3 out of the 5 Craig films with SF and CR ranking higher at the moment. Need to see it again to see if it moves up in my rankings. Gonna make a pros and cons list of this movie once I see it again. But just wanted to give my first reaction to the film.

    Nice post @fjdinardo . I think on long term this is going to be beneficial for the franchise. For decades we took Bond for granted: we knew whatever danger he was I'm he'd survive. They teased us in the past about his possible death, but the joke got old fairly quickly. Now we know James Bond will return, but from now on when we enter the theatre we will say to ourselves "maybe he will not survive". And in this continuity that just ended, he lives on in Mathilde.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    Zekidk wrote: »
    It does say a lot that there was more chemistry between Bond and Paloma in 10 minutes, that there have been in two movies between Bond and Madeleine.

    To each his own - but, in this case, not for me.
    Paloma was fun but fantastical, and NTTD is a movie with much more than mere fun on its mind. Never thought I'd say that before Craig, but here we are, and with Paloma we have a very superficial chemistry akin to his relationship with Bond Girls of yore (minus the sex this time, of course).

    Whereas with Madeleine it's a weightier, more troublesome, and hence much more grown-up relationship that we've not really seen before, not with Vesper. [Though maybe that's where things were headed with Tracy, as their time together really was so short - if we go beyond the Craig arc of films.]

    That is, a relationship based on a mutual past full of painful memories, essential distrust & emotional loss, in which both Madeleine and Craig Bond (like Tracy before them) face the troublesome question of how to dispense with such baggage and move forward into a more productive & self-sustaining future. Madeleine can do it; but Bond can't. And that's his tragedy. So Craig Bond needs Madeleine far more than he needs ... Paloma, or whomever. And he knows it. And I for one felt that in Craig's performance throughout NTTD - and, yes, even in Spectre.

    It was never going to be about 24×7 romantic fireworks between he and Madeleine, as in those blissful days with Vesper. Bond is in late middle age now and attempting to settle down with a kindred soul (who's still pretty hot, btw) and on his way towards reconstituting something like the family that was taken from both he & Madeleine at a young age.

    But Craig Bond's fatal flaw, of course, is his inability to trust women (or maybe anyone, for that matter) ... and so he messes it up completely and then misses out on what would have been a richly satisfying five years with both Madeleine & their daughter.

    You know, the funny thing is that Craig has said in at least one interview for NTTD that, and I paraphrase, "We aren't making Hamlet here." But you know, they really were kind of doing exactly that, perhaps not consciously, of course. But I sense they were reaching for something of an almost Shakespearean grandeur, however ridiculous that might sound.

    And for me ... it kind of worked.
  • Posts: 7,506
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    One small observation: a bit like the Shanghai sequence in Skyfall, it just seems a bit odd to have Bond living in Jamaica but never interacting with any actual Jamaicans. I prefer him to be a bit involved with the location he’s in rather than it just being a backdrop.

    I didn't notice that, but now you mention it yes.

    I can easily see this Bond as more of a recluse to be honest. He doesn't strike me as a people person.

    True, and obviously we’re shown he’s self-sufficient, but then we see him happily going into town and to a nightclub.
    Perhaps all it needed was instead of finding the cigars in his house he could have had someone he knows locally (a Quarrel-type friend if you need a Fleming reference) to tell him someone was looking for him. Some sort of sense that he’s actually in a locale with the people rather than it just being somewhere for a load of British and American people to talk.

    The film has far too many characters already in my opinion.
  • Posts: 14,864
    Feyador wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    It does say a lot that there was more chemistry between Bond and Paloma in 10 minutes, that there have been in two movies between Bond and Madeleine.

    To each his own - but, in this case, not for me.
    Paloma was fun but fantastical, and NTTD is a movie with much more than mere fun on its mind. Never thought I'd say that before Craig, but here we are, and with Paloma we have a very superficial chemistry akin to his relationship with Bond Girls of yore (minus the sex this time, of course).

    Whereas with Madeleine it's a weightier, more troublesome, and hence much more grown-up relationship that we've not really seen before, not with Vesper. [Though maybe that's where things were headed with Tracy, as their time together really was so short - if we go beyond the Craig arc of films.]

    That is, a relationship based on a mutual past full of painful memories, essential distrust & emotional loss, in which both Madeleine and Craig Bond (like Tracy before them) face the troublesome question of how to dispense with such baggage and move forward into a more productive & self-sustaining future. Madeleine can do it; but Bond can't. And that's his tragedy. So Craig Bond needs Madeleine far more than he needs ... Paloma, or whomever. And he knows it. And I for one felt that in Craig's performance throughout NTTD - and, yes, even in Spectre.

    It was never going to be about 24×7 romantic fireworks between he and Madeleine, as in those blissful days with Vesper. Bond is in late middle age now and attempting to settle down with a kindred soul (who's still pretty hot, btw) and on his way towards reconstituting something like the family that was taken from both he & Madeleine at a young age.

    But Craig Bond's fatal flaw, of course, is his inability to trust women (or maybe anyone, for that matter) ... and so he messes it up completely and then misses out on what would have been a richly satisfying five years with both Madeleine & their daughter.

    You know, the funny thing is that Craig has said in at least one interview for NTTD that, and I paraphrase, "We aren't making Hamlet here." But you know, they really were kind of doing exactly that, perhaps not consciously, of course. But I sense they were reaching for something of an almost Shakespearean grandeur, however ridiculous that might sound.

    And for me ... it kind of worked.

    Really interesting analysis.

    (But on a side note I kind of like Paloma.)
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,169
    Feyador wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    It does say a lot that there was more chemistry between Bond and Paloma in 10 minutes, that there have been in two movies between Bond and Madeleine.

    To each his own - but, in this case, not for me.
    Paloma was fun but fantastical, and NTTD is a movie with much more than mere fun on its mind. Never thought I'd say that before Craig, but here we are, and with Paloma we have a very superficial chemistry akin to his relationship with Bond Girls of yore (minus the sex this time, of course).

    Whereas with Madeleine it's a weightier, more troublesome, and hence much more grown-up relationship that we've not really seen before, not with Vesper.
    I agree with most of that, and come to think of it, I didn't know what I was thinking when comparing the two. One an extrovert, like most other women in the series, and one - Madeleine - written almost as an introvert or phlegmatic, which in my opinion just makes her kind of boring.
  • First and foremost to be able to type that I’ve seen the film is quite amazing given the past few years, which I hope all members and their families have managed through as best as possible. I loved this movie. Favorite pre title sequence of any Bond film already that almost starts like a horror film and harkens back to live and let die and the man with the Golden Gun where the villain is introduced immediately, albeit this time with a visceral punch. And Matera was just incredible with what I think will be remembered as Craig’s best car chase sequence. I saw the movie with my dad and he actually didn’t care for the Jamaica and Cuba scenes because they were too light and Roger Moore style but to me they worked very well as this was still a fully retired Bond who certainly has a lighter view on life than in his active service days. The Spectre party sequence was terrific and to me it felt like once we’re in his garage with the Vantage the film goes into classic bond mode with a capital B. I particularly loved the chase sequencing in Norway and the idea of Bond leveraging the trees around him to evade the attackers, that is pure Fleming and the For Your Eyes Only callback with Ash’s death. The sequence in the factory and poison garden was also a standout with Bond in absolute top form. Now to the elephant in the room-Death. Three cornerstone characters (Blofeld, Felix and Bond) all pass in this film. I know this is controversial and will be for many but to me this is what makes the Craig era completely unique and unforgettable. This era humanized every character involved, these are real people and no one is infallible or a comic book character. Daniel’s bond from minute 1 has been a real man in realistic situations that has endured tragedy but consistently does whatever he can to help his country. The scene was handled extremely well and ties up his era completely. I’ve loved this era as it has now produced 3 films currently in my top 5 all time but am also excited to see likely a hard reboot prospectively just as long as invisible cars don’t magically reappear again 😊. A few standout performances, Lea Seydoux was fantastic in this film and I think she’s a top 5 Bond Girl all time. Ralph Fiennes with his best turn as M, and Christoph Waltz with a chilling and I think much more effective take on Blofeld. Cary Fukunaga for making the longest Bond film ever absolutely zip by and balancing action and plot/character development and Linus Sandgren for incredible cinematography including the standout spectre raid on the lab, and Hans Zimmer for an incredible score. Finally, there is the man I started watching at age 20 uncertain of what I would think after having becoming a “Bondie” with Pierce as the bond of my youth. Now as a 35 year old man I am absolutely convinced that Daniel Craig will always be my favorite James Bond and is certainly the Sean Connery of my generation of fans. He made Bond real, and never more so than in this movie where we may have received the most layered and best performance of James Bond in any film. Thank you Daniel what a run.
  • Posts: 7,506
    Matt519007 wrote: »
    First and foremost to be able to type that I’ve seen the film is quite amazing given the past few years, which I hope all members and their families have managed through as best as possible. I loved this movie. Favorite pre title sequence of any Bond film already that almost starts like a horror film and harkens back to live and let die and the man with the Golden Gun where the villain is introduced immediately, albeit this time with a visceral punch. And Matera was just incredible with what I think will be remembered as Craig’s best car chase sequence. I saw the movie with my dad and he actually didn’t care for the Jamaica and Cuba scenes because they were too light and Roger Moore style but to me they worked very well as this was still a fully retired Bond who certainly has a lighter view on life than in his active service days. The Spectre party sequence was terrific and to me it felt like once we’re in his garage with the Vantage the film goes into classic bond mode with a capital B. I particularly loved the chase sequencing in Norway and the idea of Bond leveraging the trees around him to evade the attackers, that is pure Fleming and the For Your Eyes Only callback with Ash’s death. The sequence in the factory and poison garden was also a standout with Bond in absolute top form. Now to the elephant in the room-Death. Three cornerstone characters (Blofeld, Felix and Bond) all pass in this film. I know this is controversial and will be for many but to me this is what makes the Craig era completely unique and unforgettable. This era humanized every character involved, these are real people and no one is infallible or a comic book character. Daniel’s bond from minute 1 has been a real man in realistic situations that has endured tragedy but consistently does whatever he can to help his country. The scene was handled extremely well and ties up his era completely. I’ve loved this era as it has now produced 3 films currently in my top 5 all time but am also excited to see likely a hard reboot prospectively just as long as invisible cars don’t magically reappear again 😊. A few standout performances, Lea Seydoux was fantastic in this film and I think she’s a top 5 Bond Girl all time. Ralph Fiennes with his best turn as M, and Christoph Waltz with a chilling and I think much more effective take on Blofeld. Cary Fukunaga for making the longest Bond film ever absolutely zip by and balancing action and plot/character development and Linus Sandgren for incredible cinematography including the standout spectre raid on the lab, and Hans Zimmer for an incredible score. Finally, there is the man I started watching at age 20 uncertain of what I would think after having becoming a “Bondie” with Pierce as the bond of my youth. Now as a 35 year old man I am absolutely convinced that Daniel Craig will always be my favorite James Bond and is certainly the Sean Connery of my generation of fans. He made Bond real, and never more so than in this movie where we may have received the most layered and best performance of James Bond in any film. Thank you Daniel what a run.


    Great review. Agree with everything.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Question about the missile silo that was converted into the manufacturing farm…

    What exactly was in the water/liquid that Waldo fell in to? Was this supposed to be where the nano-bots were harvested?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 308
    The killing of Bond is morally unjustifiable.

    Daniel Craig doesn't own Bond, he never created the character, he never bought the film rights. He is just the hired actor. He has no moral right to insist his return to the role is dependent on/conditional upon Bond dying (James Page confirmed that in the new podcast). Yes, Barbara Broccoli can agree to anything Craig wants but that doesn't make it morally right.

    As I've mentioned a million times before, i genuinely don't believe Bond is dead (anyone that can't see the huge box office potential of a Bond missing presumed dead storyline... must be a bit short sighted imho) but I stand by my my previous paragraph. You cannot justify killing off Bond because the current owners of Bond were bequeathed the character and Craig is not a beneficiary nor share holder in the Ian Fleming estate. What gives him the right to demand Bond is killed?

    No right whatsoever.

    We now have this perverse situation where the sycophantic media - the Bond Experience, James Cordon, Jimmy Fallon, Graham Norton et al - are sucking up to the guy that got his selfish wish to kill off James Bond.



    Outrageous.

  • Posts: 38
    I would love to eventually find out just how many shots it took to blend the staircase fight together.

    My "boss" so to speak interviewed Daniel and Daniel happened to mention offhand that they only filmed two takes of the stairwell, there's definitely at least one hidden cut (as Primo's body swings past the camera) so both are in the film, though if I haven't caught any other cuts that just means there's a bit of alternation between the two.

    If I can remember correctly it's 3 stiches. I don't think there are any stiches once we get to Primo we're just into normal coverage by there, it's lower down the stairs getting us as far as Primo.
  • mattjoesmattjoes matjoevakia
    Posts: 6,795
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Great read @mattjoes. Very interesting to get your thoughts as you were spoiler-free!
    Dead!

    Thank you! And that word will haunt me for days, haha.

    @mattjoes I second that. Do you have a photographic memory lol? The detail there is incredible. The unthinkable.... you captured it perfectly. Nicely done!

    Thank you. I don't know, I just went home after the movie was over and immediately started writing, because I didn't want to forget what had gone through my mind. I just wrote it from memory. I've had more thoughts about the film since then, of course, but I didn't write those, just what I experienced in the theater.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,117
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The killing of Bond is morally unjustifiable.

    Daniel Craig doesn't own Bond, he never created the character, he never bought the film rights. He is just the hired actor. He has no moral right to insist his return to the role is dependent on/conditional upon Bond dying (James Page confirmed that in the new podcast). Yes, Barbara Broccoli can agree to anything Craig wants but that doesn't make it morally right.

    As I've mentioned a million times before, i genuinely don't believe Bond is dead (anyone that can't see the huge box office potential of a Bond missing presumed dead storyline... must be a bit short sighted imho) but I stand by my my previous paragraph. You cannot justify killing off Bond because the current owners of Bond were bequeathed the character and Craig is not a beneficiary nor share holder in the Ian Fleming estate. What gives him the right to demand Bond is killed?

    No right whatsoever.

    We now have this perverse situation where the sycophantic media - the Bond Experience, James Cordon, Jimmy Fallon, Graham Norton et al - are sucking up to the guy that got his selfish wish to kill off James Bond.



    Outrageous.

    If you’re upset then the film did it’s job: it’s supposed to be a sad ending.
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 57
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The killing of Bond is morally unjustifiable.

    Daniel Craig doesn't own Bond.... blah blah blah

    This thread has struggled back up to a point where people are making genuine observations and first reactions. If you are going to repeat yourself endlessly, can you at least find a thread where it is relevant so I can choose to ignore that instead? Much appreciated.
  • Great review from Matt519007. Had my 4th viewing yesterday. I'll wait for the bluray for my 5th screening, (as Halloween Kills,Venom,Ghostbusters,Dune,Spiderman are all on their way to UK Cinemas in the next few months) Think No Time To Die is an absolute classic, once you get over the initial shock. Will be in my top 5 (1.OHMSS 2.Casino Royale 3.Skyfall 4.No Time To Die 5.Licence To Kill). Well done to Fukunaga for creating such a memorable, if divisive movie.
  • NoWisemanNoWiseman Germany
    edited October 2021 Posts: 34
    Although it might be argued by NTTDetractors that is was Conan Doyle himself who killed Holmes (even thought I believe Fleming wanted to kill Bond a few times).

    EDIT: Also I think Conan Doyle retroactively had Holmes survive that.

    Conan Doyle had the foresight to tell an ambiguous ending to his hero. Its only Watson finding the walking stick and a note from Holmes. He (or someone else) didn't see Holmes actually die.

    That's nothing you can say about NTTD.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,049
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The killing of Bond is morally unjustifiable.

    Daniel Craig doesn't own Bond, he never created the character, he never bought the film rights. He is just the hired actor. He has no moral right to insist his return to the role is dependent on/conditional upon Bond dying (James Page confirmed that in the new podcast). Yes, Barbara Broccoli can agree to anything Craig wants but that doesn't make it morally right.

    As I've mentioned a million times before, i genuinely don't believe Bond is dead (anyone that can't see the huge box office potential of a Bond missing presumed dead storyline... must be a bit short sighted imho) but I stand by my my previous paragraph. You cannot justify killing off Bond because the current owners of Bond were bequeathed the character and Craig is not a beneficiary nor share holder in the Ian Fleming estate. What gives him the right to demand Bond is killed?

    No right whatsoever.

    We now have this perverse situation where the sycophantic media - the Bond Experience, James Cordon, Jimmy Fallon, Graham Norton et al - are sucking up to the guy that got his selfish wish to kill off James Bond.



    Outrageous.

    It's fine to stand by your own feelings and comments. It's less okay to keep repeating yourself ad nauseum to the point where it feels like you're trolling. I agree that killing Bond off is the result of numerous creative decisions throughout this era that Craig has had a higher than usual input into in comparison with the other actors (though he's just one voice in a room of many and I don't care what James Page says about it); that's one of the reasons why it's appropriate that his Bond be the one who snuffs it - because whether you loved his time in the role or not, it's done now and the next guy can have a clean slate without the narrative baggage of the last few films. Consider it an experiment rather than a statement of ownership.

    Bond's death left a sour taste in my mouth as well, for what it's worth. But I admire the risk taken and I'm excited for what comes next - maybe it'll be an era more to my liking.

    Either way, you're going to just have to get over it. You'll drive yourself and/or everyone else mad, and not in the inspiring way.
  • mattjoesmattjoes matjoevakia
    Posts: 6,795
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The killing of Bond is morally unjustifiable.

    Daniel Craig doesn't own Bond, he never created the character, he never bought the film rights. He is just the hired actor. He has no moral right to insist his return to the role is dependent on/conditional upon Bond dying (James Page confirmed that in the new podcast). Yes, Barbara Broccoli can agree to anything Craig wants but that doesn't make it morally right.

    As I've mentioned a million times before, i genuinely don't believe Bond is dead (anyone that can't see the huge box office potential of a Bond missing presumed dead storyline... must be a bit short sighted imho) but I stand by my my previous paragraph. You cannot justify killing off Bond because the current owners of Bond were bequeathed the character and Craig is not a beneficiary nor share holder in the Ian Fleming estate. What gives him the right to demand Bond is killed?

    No right whatsoever.

    We now have this perverse situation where the sycophantic media - the Bond Experience, James Cordon, Jimmy Fallon, Graham Norton et al - are sucking up to the guy that got his selfish wish to kill off James Bond.



    Outrageous.

    If you’re upset then the film did it’s job: it’s supposed to be a sad ending.

    That depends on what you're upset about. If you're sad because he died but feel it fits the film (and probably the film series), then the film did its job. If the choice to end the film that way makes you sad because you think it's wrong, then the film didn't work for you.

    But calling it morally unjustifiable seems a bit extreme to me, to say the least.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    Extreme and a bit over the top.

    "I didn't like the film, therefore it's selfish and unjustifiable" as opposed to it simply being a matter of taste and opinion.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 15,117
    NoWiseman wrote: »
    Although it might be argued by NTTDetractors that is was Conan Doyle himself who killed Holmes (even thought I believe Fleming wanted to kill Bond a few times).

    EDIT: Also I think Conan Doyle retroactively had Holmes survive that.

    Conan Doyle had the foresight to tell an ambiguous ending to his hero. Its only Watson finding the walking stick and a note from Holmes. He (or someone else) didn't see Holmes actually die.

    That's nothing you can say about NTTD.

    Well not really: Holmes dies in The Final Problem- Doyle killed him off. He didn't intend to bring him back, but he did because he needed the money, basically.
    Craig's Bond is dead, he won't be back.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The killing of Bond is morally unjustifiable.

    Daniel Craig doesn't own Bond, he never created the character, he never bought the film rights. He is just the hired actor. He has no moral right to insist his return to the role is dependent on/conditional upon Bond dying (James Page confirmed that in the new podcast). Yes, Barbara Broccoli can agree to anything Craig wants but that doesn't make it morally right.

    As I've mentioned a million times before, i genuinely don't believe Bond is dead (anyone that can't see the huge box office potential of a Bond missing presumed dead storyline... must be a bit short sighted imho) but I stand by my my previous paragraph. You cannot justify killing off Bond because the current owners of Bond were bequeathed the character and Craig is not a beneficiary nor share holder in the Ian Fleming estate. What gives him the right to demand Bond is killed?

    No right whatsoever.

    We now have this perverse situation where the sycophantic media - the Bond Experience, James Cordon, Jimmy Fallon, Graham Norton et al - are sucking up to the guy that got his selfish wish to kill off James Bond.



    Outrageous.

    If you’re upset then the film did it’s job: it’s supposed to be a sad ending.

    That depends on what you're upset about. If you're sad because he died but feel it fits the film (and probably the film series), then the film did its job. If the choice to end the film that way makes you sad because you think it's wrong, then the film didn't work for you.

    But calling it morally unjustifiable seems a bit extreme to me, to say the least.

    I guess if the film has really upset you because it's a very sad ending, it's okay to react in a slightly OTT way and hopefully he'll cool down soon.
    After all, there were lots of people a year or two ago who said that having any other character (and her race and gender definitely had nothing to do with it) known as 007 was just too much and they wouldn't accept it, and yet I haven't seen anyone saying that the film was unwatchable because of that or that they walked out when it was confirmed in the movie. People just calm down and get used to these things with time.
  • NoWisemanNoWiseman Germany
    edited October 2021 Posts: 34
    mtm wrote: »

    Well not really: Holmes dies in The Final Problem- Doyle killed him off. He didn't intend to bring him back, but he did because he needed the money, basically.
    Craig's Bond is dead, he won't be back.

    It's been a while since i last read it. But as far as i remember, they never found Holmes body.
Sign In or Register to comment.