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

1122123125127128249

Comments

  • Posts: 36
    slide_99 wrote: »

    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras. They can't have it both ways. They can't say that DC's tenure is its own thing while making 50th anniversary movies. Bond isn't 6 different characters, he's one character.

    I see where you are coming from, but I beg to disagree... mostly by considering the counterfactual going forward, what would happen in Bond 26 if Bond #7 were to be the continuation of DC's Bond.

    Even if CR was not meant to start an arc, by setting Bond’s origin story in modern times, the filmmakers automatically put it in a different continuum from the Connery-to-Brosnan films, assuming that Bond!time flows in a linear fashion. Given the loose plot continuity, limited character development and sliding timeline of pre-Craig films, with enough suspension of disbelief, Brosnan’s Bond just might be the guy who had once fought Goldfinger or married Tracy; CR!Bond who had just got his 00 license definitely was not that guy.

    The effort to build on the events of earlier films starting from CR was a realistic approach, sure; but later films became “hostages” of earlier choices that had profound impact on a character tasked with greater emotional depth. This did not fit well into a long-running, potentially open-ended franchise. By the time of NTTD, Craig’s Bond was weighed down by so much dramatic baggage (grieving over Vesper, the Blofeld connection, the Madeleine romance) that seeing how DC was determined to leave, there was no way to pave the road for the next Bond except by wrapping up “his” Bond storyline one way or another (retirement or death) to resolve all these plotlines, especially with the addition of Mathilde in NTTD… unless the new Bond was to be a telenovela. It would be impossible for DC’s successor to shrug off these relationships and go back to business as usual as the same guy, to say nothing of the fact that in this “non-sliding” timeline, Bond is at about retirement age.

    Whether killing Bond was better than retirement is another matter. IMO it fits the tone of the Craig era, where writers have emphasised the inherent drama, and more importantly, they had already used the retirement option at the end of Spectre; but I understand people who are upset by NTTD’s finale after 15 years of emotional investment and are loathe to see a cultural icon killed ostensibly to “freshen up” the franchise, or to pay homage to the star. YMMV, but as someone less invested in Craig’s Bond compared to most of his predecessors, I would be happy to see the return of standalone films. The story involving Madeleine and Mathilde may have worked for DC’s Bond, but I would not want to either see them die or see them as regulars.
    Well said! I don't think they needed to say his timeline is different. He'll he wins a DB5 when playing poker in CR that should of been a sign that it was different. Also no mention of Tracy in any of his films unlike how it was mentioned in past eras.

    As far as call backs one could say as this is a different Bond we see the call backs as when Craig's Bond hits similar beats but in different situations. Like an alternate universe where you might have similar things happen to you but not in the same way as they happen to you now. I don't mind them at all. NTTD is certainly heavy on homages to the past but as this was inspired by OHMSS, also had homages of the Connery era, I'm ok with it. Like a janitor whistles the Goldfinger tune, we see Bond pull out keep sakes from previous Connery films in his office, and main titles has actual footage from previous films in OHMSS. Certainly heavy on homages compared to what came prior. I could be wrong:) I love everything Bond including the Craig era. Sure some of the films are better than others but I like each for what they are. Trying to keep things positive!
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    Yes, the next film should not reference Craig's era at all. No need for it. That does mean losing the current MI6 staff I think. I don't know how they could carry anybody over for the next one.

    Also, re the gunbarrel: I like it a lot. And it does fit this film, foreshadows Bond's demise and leads into that snowy beginning in Norway. I
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,593
    Yes, the next film should not reference Craig's era at all. No need for it. That does mean losing the current MI6 staff I think. I don't know how they could carry anybody over for the next one.

    Also, re the gunbarrel: I like it a lot. And it does fit this film, foreshadows Bond's demise and leads into that snowy beginning in Norway. I

    Agree with you on all points.
  • matt_u wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Anyone else noticed? The first scene of NTTD where Saffin come to kill her father while she is a child is told in exact details by Madeleine Swann at about 1h29mn in SPECTRE.
    Sorry if this been posted before.

    Yep they even kept the details of Swann being in her bedroom upstairs playing and the Beretta hidden under the sink.

    One thing I found didn't quite tally up though is that in Spectre she says "little did he know I was upstairs playing in my bedroom", implying that he didn't even know she was in the house when he first came and that Madeline was upstairs when he came, but in NTTD they show her as downstairs when she first sees Safin and Safin first sees her? Guess we can put it down to faded childhood memories though when she told the story in Spectre, or maybe I'm just overthinking it lol!
  • Posts: 2,600
    Yes, the next film should not reference Craig's era at all. No need for it. That does mean losing the current MI6 staff I think. I don't know how they could carry anybody over for the next one.

    Also, re the gunbarrel: I like it a lot. And it does fit this film, foreshadows Bond's demise and leads into that snowy beginning in Norway. I

    EON definitely boxed themselves into a corner with the Scooby gang. If they all return, carrying on like nothing has happened, and Bond returns (new actor) like nothing ever happened, then this will be really pushing the credibility of the franchise, and testing the fan community like never before.

    It has to be a whole set of new actors now because of what they did in this disastrous mess.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,268
    Fifth time tonight, first with other people joining me. The picture wasn't the best at Empress Walk and it is of course not a "true" IMAX screen (apparently Scotiabank Theatre is the only real one in Toronto), and the sound was definitely not quite as good as it was at Scotiabank or Landmark.

    I still rate this as the best Bond film; its #23 position in my all-time Flickchart is unchanged from Tuesday, two spots ahead of Casino Royale at #25.

    Excited to return to Scotiabank tomorrow for another proper IMAX viewing!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,087
    matt_u wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Anyone else noticed? The first scene of NTTD where Saffin come to kill her father while she is a child is told in exact details by Madeleine Swann at about 1h29mn in SPECTRE.
    Sorry if this been posted before.

    Yep they even kept the details of Swann being in her bedroom upstairs playing and the Beretta hidden under the sink.

    One thing I found didn't quite tally up though is that in Spectre she says "little did he know I was upstairs playing in my bedroom", implying that he didn't even know she was in the house when he first came and that Madeline was upstairs when he came, but in NTTD they show her as downstairs when she first sees Safin and Safin first sees her? Guess we can put it down to faded childhood memories though when she told the story in Spectre, or maybe I'm just overthinking it lol!

    Well, yes, he knew she was in the house but he didn’t knew she was actually hiding upstairs.
  • Bond/Madeleine.

    I can only explain what I see. They are both on the outside both have had experiences which makes them profoundly different from those around them.

    He is a sociopath for king and country she has been hiding for ever.

    She is attracted to him but in denial just that instant thing that happens between people. He on the other hand as with all things is acting under an obligation in this case to White. Like Sciarra's wife but differently he believes he is filling a need except this time he is with a woman that holds him off and of course he is a kite in a Hurricane.

    She being the psychiatrist shows him there is away out of all of this and they eventually drive off across the channel and down the coast to Matera and whilst they are letting go cannot keep their hands off each other there are still ghosts for both of them. They are having more romance and stuff going on between them than most people experience in a life time. His body language emits entirely satisfied and her the cat with the cream. It oozes off the screen. He is so relaxed and she is all over him.

    Then it all goes wrong and eventually we are in Norway and somehow Lea and Daniel manage to convey with body language alone their connectedness their comfort with each other, their closeness and that they never stopped loving each other that they have always been in each others minds. When people really know each other they use a kind of physical short hand between themselves and I see it in spades. They inhabit the same space so knowingly and then off we go and he is stalwart and determined and heroic and she is at turns determined terrified and very very emotional and those lines about there is no one to stop us now elevate the entire story to another level they glimpsed Paradise but found death but out of it came a future.

    For me Daniel's era knocked all the others into the shade the first three and majesties were still great but this one is so special I do not really care if its the end. This is not a bit of escapism its a statement about tragedy, about sacrifice about the passage of time the use of it, time lost. It's about something we have lost, that our children and the young come before all, that there is a time when there is a "Reason To Die" and what is so wonderful is the story and its transmission is all wrapped up in the best values of the franchise.



  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    Yes, the next film should not reference Craig's era at all. No need for it. That does mean losing the current MI6 staff I think. I don't know how they could carry anybody over for the next one.

    Also, re the gunbarrel: I like it a lot. And it does fit this film, foreshadows Bond's demise and leads into that snowy beginning in Norway. I

    EON definitely boxed themselves into a corner with the Scooby gang. If they all return, carrying on like nothing has happened, and Bond returns (new actor) like nothing ever happened, then this will be really pushing the credibility of the franchise, and testing the fan community like never before.

    It has to be a whole set of new actors now because of what they did in this disastrous mess.

    I think it's more than audiences have changed in their response to continuity. When Bond actors changed in the 70s, no-one said: My God, you look completely different! Or wondered why Timothy Dalton was in such great shape for a 66 year old man (if Bond was born in 1920), or questioned why Felix Leiter, for goodness' sake, was sometimes an entirely different race, or why Christopher Lee's mistress suddenly resurfaced years later as a complete different person, or why Judi Dench didn't seem to notice when her top agent lost several inches in height and became a blond.

    I'm not sure if we've become more sophisticated or a lot less. Credibility as regards the Bond series is, like Sherlock Holmes, necessarily suspended, so in a sense, it doesn't matter. Part of me agrees that they need a new MI6 team; part of me would like to see them just bottle it out and continue without any explanation.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    Different MI6 crew should be no problem. Different for different eras. Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig, and whoever the new guy is. New crew. "Boxed themselves into a corner" sounds like they don't have options. Only if you think they had their hearts set on keeping all of them. I don't think so. New Bonds have new MI6 staff. Judi being a wonderful exception as M. She is still my very favorite M.
  • New Bonds have new staff? - the first three had the same team, Dalton had same M as part of Moore's run, and Q was right through to Brosnan. They need a new crew this time I feel, but carry over is normal
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,087
    This time is different. After the emotional send off to James by the MI6 team it would be quite awkward to see them doing stuff with another Bond.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,409
    New Moneypenny for Dalton, for Brosnan. It always in retrospect to me felt like yes, new MI6 crew with the new Bond. Except Judi stands out for me. And of course Desmond's Q1 Love him; don't know how I missed out on him staying. But this is actual such a nonissue for me. I just feel we need a whole new staff/crew including Q (and I love Ben in that role) for the next one. I'm sure EON figure out something - and if they DO keep any, they had better find the right script for that. Because I don't see it being viable. At all.
  • I agree with that - I do think we need all fresh
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,314
    Yes, the next film should not reference Craig's era at all. No need for it. That does mean losing the current MI6 staff I think. I don't know how they could carry anybody over for the next one.

    Also, re the gunbarrel: I like it a lot. And it does fit this film, foreshadows Bond's demise and leads into that snowy beginning in Norway. I

    EON definitely boxed themselves into a corner with the Scooby gang. If they all return, carrying on like nothing has happened, and Bond returns (new actor) like nothing ever happened, then this will be really pushing the credibility of the franchise, and testing the fan community like never before.

    It has to be a whole set of new actors now because of what they did in this disastrous mess.
    A very good point and one that I have echoed myself. We won't know the true repercussions of NTTD until Bond 26 is released in theatres and how they approach the reboot story.
    LizW wrote: »
    I think it's more than audiences have changed in their response to continuity. When Bond actors changed in the 70s, no-one said: My God, you look completely different! Or wondered why Timothy Dalton was in such great shape for a 66 year old man (if Bond was born in 1920), or questioned why Felix Leiter, for goodness' sake, was sometimes an entirely different race, or why Christopher Lee's mistress suddenly resurfaced years later as a complete different person, or why Judi Dench didn't seem to notice when her top agent lost several inches in height and became a blond.
    I get where you're coming from but the Bond series has always played it fast and loose with returning characters and actors since Dr No. Not so with the Craig era. The only casting impropriety within his whole tenure was Judi Dench. At the time of CR's release, some were willing to forgive this as Craig wasn't a big name actor and Judi Dench was. Aside from Dench, though, the entire Craig era really went out of its way to establish a continuity like no other had attempted before it, which is why there could be a hiccup or a disturbance in the Force with Bond 26. As I pointed out above, we won't know the true ramifications of NTTD with cinemagoers until Bond 26 is released and is out there in the theatres. Until then, the doubts and worries will fill many new topic threads to come.
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    Bernard Lee was M for both Connery and Moore, though, or am I wrong? And Robert Brown for both Moore and Dalton, and Dench for Brosnan and Craig. So one might argue that it's more normal than not to carry M over with the same actor. I agree it's difficult if you've killed him off. (I'd like to see Fiennes continue personally, as long as they keep Mallory more in character with SF and SP). Similarly Lois Maxwell continues through Connery and Moore.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    The way NTTD ended is the only reason why I really want a fully new crew.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 95
    Minion wrote: »
    It's a wondy why bondy even bothers posting here. Oh, right. The attention.

    I'm surprised a James Bond forum contains fans that are so adamant Bond is dead and it's impossible for him to return. The Craig version, I mean.

    I don't get why some people here can't consider Bond surviving. The Sun newspaper mentioned the possibility of Bond surviving death and that was back in 2018! They leaked an insider's quote that the intention was to have Bond escape death, leave NTTD on a cliffhanger or Bond returns via a Doctor Who regeneration reboot.

    My guess is Eon have seen the negative online reaction to the death of Bond and if... and I stress if... Eon believe the overall box office gross has taken a hit became of Bond's demise, because NTTD ends on a very sad note, they'll bring Bond back and not go the reboot route.

    The amusing aspect of this thread is people mention You Only Live Twice as the clear inspiration for the last act of No Time To Die. Safin has a poison garden in his base. Bond kills Safin. The base is destroyed. Bond dies. M and the others remember Bond. This is similar to YOLT.

    Blofeld has a garden of death in his castle. Bond kills Blofeld. The castle is destroyed. Bond escapes the destruction of the castle but assumed to be dead. An obituary is published.

    It's 100 percent certain Eon Productions know Bond survived the ending of YOLT and came back in The Man With The Golden Gun so it's not far fetched to think they can pay homage to that storyline - Bond is still alive - in Bond 26. I accept the facts as shown in NTTD. Bond has the nanobots virus, was shot and then missiles were targeted at him. But let's not forget this is the same Bond that jumped about fifty feet or more onto a crane and didn't break his arms. This is a Bond that drove an Aston Martin that did seven rolls in Casino Royale and he survived the crash. This is a Bond that was poisoned in CR and had cardiac arrest. My point is.. Craig's era has already shown his Bond is near indestructible so it's not a massive stretch of the imagination to assume Craig's Bond can escape a missile strike. Arguably very unlikely but not impossible.
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    ...For me Daniel's era knocked all the others into the shade the first three and majesties were still great but this one is so special I do not really care if its the end. This is not a bit of escapism its a statement about tragedy, about sacrifice about the passage of time the use of it, time lost. It's about something we have lost, that our children and the young come before all, that there is a time when there is a "Reason To Die" and what is so wonderful is the story and its transmission is all wrapped up in the best values of the franchise.

    Thanks for your wonderful review. I agree.
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    LizW wrote: »
    Bernard Lee was M for both Connery and Moore, though, or am I wrong? And Robert Brown for both Moore and Dalton, and Dench for Brosnan and Craig. So one might argue that it's more normal than not to carry M over with the same actor. I agree it's difficult if you've killed him off. (I'd like to see Fiennes continue personally, as long as they keep Mallory more in character with SF and SP). Similarly Lois Maxwell continues through Connery and Moore.

    I understand this is a controversial idea, but even way back in the late 1970s, when there had only been three Bonds, I sometimes thought of "James Bond" as a cover name. Each person came to inhabit this role. I know it doesn't quite fit with how things have played out over 60 years now, but to me it works better than ignoring that Bond has died.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 278
    Benjamin wrote: »
    LizW wrote: »
    Bernard Lee was M for both Connery and Moore, though, or am I wrong? And Robert Brown for both Moore and Dalton, and Dench for Brosnan and Craig. So one might argue that it's more normal than not to carry M over with the same actor. I agree it's difficult if you've killed him off. (I'd like to see Fiennes continue personally, as long as they keep Mallory more in character with SF and SP). Similarly Lois Maxwell continues through Connery and Moore.

    I understand this is a controversial idea, but even way back in the late 1970s, when there had only been three Bonds, I sometimes thought of "James Bond" as a cover name. Each person came to inhabit this role. I know it doesn't quite fit with how things have played out over 60 years now, but to me it works better than ignoring that Bond has died.
    I've said it before, but if the code-name thing became cannon it would really break any connection I felt to the character.
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    The way NTTD ended is the only reason why I really want a fully new crew.

    That's completely understandable.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 355
    My take is the MI6 team will be the same in Bond 26.
    They need them to establish familiarity to the audiences, to hook the new 007 actor as it happened during the pre-Craig era.
    There are several places they can go, I figure it might be something like Blofeld cloned 007 mind during the torture scene in SPECTRE (remember the needles?). So a new actor will have the old Craig Bond memories implanted.
    Maybe even Blofeld is still alive as he may have cloned his own mind too...
    As we head into a world here where people are talking about transhumanism, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the direction it goes in, and if a revived by new Blofeld SPECTRE is back.
    This allows you continuity, while having new actors for both 007 and Blofeld.
  • Posts: 2,600
    Stamper wrote: »
    My take is the MI6 team will be the same in Bond 26.
    They need them to establish familiarity to the audiences, to hook the new 007 actor as it happened during the pre-Craig era.
    There are several places they can go, I figure it might be something like Blofeld cloned 007 mind during the torture scene in SPECTRE (remember the needles?). So a new actor will have the old Craig Bond memories implanted.
    Maybe even Blofeld is still alive as he may have cloned his own mind too...
    As we head into a world here where people are talking about transhumanism, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the direction it goes in, and if a revived by new Blofeld SPECTRE is back.
    This allows you continuity, while having new actors for both 007 and Blofeld.

    That's the most ridiculous concept I've heard yet. :))
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,605
    Some fans are still in denial that Bond's dead.
  • Posts: 355
    James Bond Will Return ;)
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 616
    echo wrote: »
    Some fans are still in denial that Bond's dead.
    That's how I feel about Dou Dou.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 456
    Dou Dou's dead?!?!? NOOOOO!!!
  • Dead as a Dou Dou
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    edited October 2021 Posts: 59
    Oscar Goldman:

    "Dou Dou—a doll barely alive.
    Gentlemen, we can rebuild Dou Dou.
    We have the technology.
    We have the capability to make the worlds first bionic doll.
    Dou Dou will be that doll.
    Better than it was before.
    Better. Stronger. Faster."
Sign In or Register to comment.