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

1102103105107108298

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    NoWiseman wrote: »
    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 has been a while since i last read it. But as far as i remember, they never found Holmes body.

    I doubt they'll find 007's either! :)
  • NoWisemanNoWiseman Germany
    edited October 2021 Posts: 34
    mtm wrote: »

    I doubt they'll find 007's either! :)

    Yes, not very likely. But Holmes was presumed dead. Bond was blown to peaces before my very eyes. Personally i prefer the Conan Doyle way. But that's just me.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,682
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    Going in blind, I ended up liking what they did with that 007 character. It was amusing to have Bond and 007 running around as two different people. I also liked 007's concern that they would take away her number.

    I didn't like the ending. It was sad because Bond died, of course, but I think I was more sad or annoyed because I felt disconnected from the film. To provide a random example, it is as if the filmmakers had had the idea to have Bond go undercover into a farm dressed as a cow. That's not a sad development in the story (I mean, it's just Bond doing his job), but it would make me sad because it would be antithetical to what I expect from these films.

    But as you say, feelings and opinions can change with time. I'm going to watch the film again and see how I feel about the ending. Not so much because I want to like it, but because I want to know how I'm going to feel about it with time. If I grow to like it, that's cool. I did like the rest of the film!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.

    Going in blind, I ended up liking what they did with that 007 character. It was amusing to have Bond and 007 running around as two different people. I also liked 007's concern that they would take away her number.

    Yes, that little gag of her repeatedly asking "what number?" was quite cute.

    And Bond's reaction to learning she was 007 was exactly what I thought it would be: showing nothing on the surface but just a hint of irritation- it was a nice little moment.

    mattjoes wrote: »
    I didn't like the ending. It was sad because Bond died, of course, but I think I was more sad or annoyed because I felt disconnected from the film. To provide a random example, it is as if the filmmakers had had the idea to have Bond go undercover into a farm dressed as a cow. That's not a sad development in the story (I mean, it's just Bond doing his job), but it would make me sad because it would be antithetical to what I expect from these films.

    I didn't get that feeling myself about that particular part of the story, but then equally I did have a bit of an impression of the plot and script being slightly patchwork-ish rather than a totally coherent whole that felt like one strong voice was behind it, so I can see where you're coming from with that and I may even feel the same in time.
  • Well I went in to this movie with no expectations other than to enjoy the latest Bond film, so I was completely blindsided by the sadness within. Given, many of Craig’s Bond film have had that darker tone, so I don’t know what I was expecting. Objectively it was a good film. It has all the elements of a Bond movie. I did feel like a lot of the one liner jokes were jarring in a film with such a dark tone, but that’s a minor complaint. It brings an end to the Craig era and now it can be rebooted again. It really is fitting, as these films have really explored the Bond character in a unique way. So this was certainly a unique film. I need to rewatch it to truly appreciate it, I think.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,834
    Look, I love James Bond as much as the next guy, but please don't start bringing the idea of "morals" into it.

    It's not that deep.
  • Posts: 87
    The reboot of the Bond franchise was absolutelly justified due to obtaining the rights to the Casino Royale book. This time it will be artificially forced by breaking the rule of previous 24 films that Bond does not die.

    There are rules in the World: the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West, Bond does not die. I do not see here questionmarks so don't feel that something must be explained.

    Breaking the rules threatens that one day we will wake up in chaos and anarchy and that Bond movies will turn into ordinary American action movies without grace and distance to itself (drilling emotions and character or family relationships). And references to earlier movies in the series might won't mean much. Just like not much means "James Bond will return" in NTTD.

    As an actor, DC showed Bond's origins brilliantly, but as the NTTD's co-producer let Bond be killed.

    Still hope this is not really … it will turn out in Bond 26.

    Today I'm watching NTTD for the fourth time ...
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    People do know this whole "James Bond can't die rule" is just something made up by themselves. No-ones ever said he can't die. No-ones stated it as rule. It's not in a government official booklet somewhere. He's a fictional character who can go through many different situations. Also, I find it a bit ridiculous to compare such a fictional character to the "rules" of the world??
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited October 2021 Posts: 467
    Let's also keep in mind that, for the next adventures, the audience will assume that James Bond COULD die. He's mortal and human. This gives stakes to the stories. Even if it's a given that Bond will win and triumph in most of the films they'll produce in the future, there will still some degree of uncertainty, while it was for instance a given that Roger Moore would win, kill the villain and get the girl in the end (with the girl never seen again).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    People do know this whole "James Bond can't die rule" is just something made up by themselves. No-ones ever said he can't die. No-ones stated it as rule. It's not in a government official booklet somewhere. He's a fictional character who can go through many different situations. Also, I find it a bit ridiculous to compare such a fictional character to the "rules" of the world??

    He can't go into space, get married, or stop being 007 either. Except when he does :)
  • Posts: 14,800
    NoWiseman wrote: »
    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.

    No but Doyle wanted him dead, dead.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    And Fleming toyed with the idea (with less finality than Doyle did of course) in FRWL.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Fleming also wrote that bond knew he would be dead by his 45th birthday, as I remember.
  • Posts: 14,800
    mtm wrote: »
    And Fleming toyed with the idea (with less finality than Doyle did of course) in FRWL.

    Even YOLT toyed with it, in a more symbolic way. Even if Bond was alive, there was a point of non return for him: he had lost his memory, killed his nemesis and, even though he remained unaware of it, was going to become a father.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    And Fleming toyed with the idea (with less finality than Doyle did of course) in FRWL.

    Even YOLT toyed with it, in a more symbolic way. Even if Bond was alive, there was a point of non return for him: he had lost his memory, killed his nemesis and, even though he remained unaware of it, was going to become a father.
    Similarly in NTTD, Bond is also at a point of no return even if he were to survive, infected with a poison that would instantly kill the only family he’s ever had.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.


    I didn't like the ending. It was sad because Bond died, of course, but I think I was more sad or annoyed because I felt disconnected from the film. To provide a random example, it is as if the filmmakers had had the idea to have Bond go undercover into a farm dressed as a cow.

    You may just have given EON the idea for B26 s PTS. Just think of the awesome reveal!
  • Posts: 14,800
    jake24 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    And Fleming toyed with the idea (with less finality than Doyle did of course) in FRWL.

    Even YOLT toyed with it, in a more symbolic way. Even if Bond was alive, there was a point of non return for him: he had lost his memory, killed his nemesis and, even though he remained unaware of it, was going to become a father.
    Similarly in NTTD, Bond is also at a point of no return even if he were to survive, infected with a poison that would instantly kill the only family he’s ever had.

    Yes, we couldn't get to the statu quo ante if Bond had survived and the next Bond film was in the same continuity.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 14,861
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.


    I didn't like the ending. It was sad because Bond died, of course, but I think I was more sad or annoyed because I felt disconnected from the film. To provide a random example, it is as if the filmmakers had had the idea to have Bond go undercover into a farm dressed as a cow.

    You may just have given EON the idea for B26 s PTS. Just think of the awesome reveal!

    He's been a gorilla, a horse and a crocodile before (all in the same film!), why not :)
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited October 2021 Posts: 467
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I didn't like the ending. It was sad because Bond died, of course, but I think I was more sad or annoyed because I felt disconnected from the film. To provide a random example, it is as if the filmmakers had had the idea to have Bond go undercover into a farm dressed as a cow. That's not a sad development in the story (I mean, it's just Bond doing his job), but it would make me sad because it would be antithetical to what I expect from these films.

    It would also rip off another spy movie.

    0003290_m.jpg
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 49
    My second viewing enabled me to see the characters and their nuances more clearly. The scene with Madeleines mother and indeed Safin all the way through grow on repetition. The scene with Madeleine and Safin came over as more uncomfortable and awkward than ever.

    It is clear to see now Naomi's film was Skyfall and she simply foiled many scenes and extending Q once again worked a treat. I loved the irritation over Tanners worrisomeness but the three actors at the core of this film Daniel, Lea and Lisa-Dorah though weighing in very differently were superb. The latters performance must have a good deal to do with Lea.

    When I consider the atmosphere of the novels of the latter two of the Blofeld Trilogy and The Man With the Golden Gun if I really needed to look for authenticity (which I do not need) I find it there. The complexity and inner turmoil of Bond are all over those books and it was that kind of inner reflection that I have loved with Daniel's Bond from the moment Vesper sat down in front of him on the train.

  • Posts: 6,682
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.


    I didn't like the ending. It was sad because Bond died, of course, but I think I was more sad or annoyed because I felt disconnected from the film. To provide a random example, it is as if the filmmakers had had the idea to have Bond go undercover into a farm dressed as a cow.

    You may just have given EON the idea for B26 s PTS. Just think of the awesome reveal!

    Haha! "Ms. Goodthighs? I'm with Her Majesty's government. I've come to rescue you. Check my udder. You'll find a radio in my left teat and a dart gun on the right. No, the other right; the one you're touching contains highly corrosive acid."
  • Posts: 1,964
    Ludovico wrote: »
    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.

    Exactly!!! Every Bond film from here on out will be a must see cause we will never know if he will die or not. Its gonna be a great move long term killing off Bond in NTTD
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.


    I didn't like the ending. It was sad because Bond died, of course, but I think I was more sad or annoyed because I felt disconnected from the film. To provide a random example, it is as if the filmmakers had had the idea to have Bond go undercover into a farm dressed as a cow.

    You may just have given EON the idea for B26 s PTS. Just think of the awesome reveal!

    Haha! "Ms. Goodthighs? I'm with Her Majesty's government. I've come to rescue you. Check my udder. You'll find a radio in my left teat and a dart gun on the right. No, the other right; the one you're touching contains highly corrosive acid."

    Just send them the manuscript. For dramatic effect, throw in a branding.
  • Posts: 87
    jake24 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    And Fleming toyed with the idea (with less finality than Doyle did of course) in FRWL.

    Even YOLT toyed with it, in a more symbolic way. Even if Bond was alive, there was a point of non return for him: he had lost his memory, killed his nemesis and, even though he remained unaware of it, was going to become a father.
    Similarly in NTTD, Bond is also at a point of no return even if he were to survive, infected with a poison that would instantly kill the only family he’s ever had.

    I don't think there will be a problem with that. Until Bond26 is created, there should be a cure for COVID-19, so an antidote may be developed for nanobots as well. A side effect could be a lack of memory about Madelaine and Mathilde. There is a problem with missiles - blank cartridges? I prefer to leave it to the film writers.

    But the fact that the title sequence starts with DN's title sequence is evidence of something more than just closing the arc of the DC era.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Unfortunately, I think there is going to be some confusion on the part of the general public. I had to have a conversation with my girlfriend after the movie about how there can be another James Bind movie if he's dead. She has watched all the films with me (some more than once, she's a great sport, love her) but she still didn't get it. Anyone else have this problem with friends or family members who aren't as into it as us?
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Watched SP again a couple of days ago to see if it had retrospectively improved before watching NTTD for 3rd time.
    I've come to the conclusion that Christophe Waltz is a very, very poor Blofeld, worst in the series and in a series that has Charles Grey's Blofeld that is some achievement. I don't know if its the writing, the acting or a combination of both. Absolutely zero menace in the whole portrayal in my opinion. At best he comes across as smug and irritating.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    pachazo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I think there is going to be some confusion on the part of the general public. I had to have a conversation with my girlfriend after the movie about how there can be another James Bind movie if he's dead. She has watched all the films with me (some more than once, she's a great sport, love her) but she still didn't get it. Anyone else have this problem with friends or family members who aren't as into it as us?

    Similar issue with my girlfriend as well. Her theory is that Mathilde Bond will grow up and become a spy, have a few of her own films.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 648
    pachazo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I think there is going to be some confusion on the part of the general public. I had to have a conversation with my girlfriend after the movie about how there can be another James Bind movie if he's dead. She has watched all the films with me (some more than once, she's a great sport, love her) but she still didn't get it. Anyone else have this problem with friends or family members who aren't as into it as us?

    I have this problem and I've been a fan since the 90s. The reason why the loose continuity worked was because every actor simply passed the baton to the next guy. They apparently can't do that here with NTTD's ending. It breaks the continuity, not in the strict, literal sense, since there wasn't any to start with, but in the overall metatextual sense. That's why Eon didn't do it in the past. They understood it back then. They've lost the plot now due to their preoccupation with following trends, the so-called "woke" agenda of breaking down and replacing beloved characters, and the (possible) arrogance of their lead star.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,834
    slide_99 wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I think there is going to be some confusion on the part of the general public. I had to have a conversation with my girlfriend after the movie about how there can be another James Bind movie if he's dead. She has watched all the films with me (some more than once, she's a great sport, love her) but she still didn't get it. Anyone else have this problem with friends or family members who aren't as into it as us?

    I have this problem and I've been a fan since the 90s. The reason why the loose continuity worked was because every actor simply passed the baton to the next guy. They apparently can't do that here with NTTD's ending. It breaks the continuity, not in the strict, literal sense, since there wasn't any to start with, but in the overall metatextual sense. That's why Eon didn't do it in the past. They understood it back then. They've lost the plot now due to their preoccupation with following trends, the so-called "woke" agenda of breaking down and replacing beloved characters, and the (possible) arrogance of their lead star.
    But I don't understand this notion. The original loose continuity was completely removed with Casino Royale, which is in no way connected to any other film. So how would Bond 26 be any different than this? Why have they all of a sudden lost the plot?

    Also, what's all this about the "woke agenda" and "arrogance of the lead star"? Where is this coming from? Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean there's an agenda. That's just insulting the intelligence of the filmmakers and even fans who like it and have their own ideas of why it works as an ending.
  • Posts: 6,682
    I do think there is a woke agenda. I was a bit drowsy before the film started (no joke), but a few minutes later I was fully awake!
Sign In or Register to comment.