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

1138139141143144298

Comments

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    matt_u wrote: »
    They should not have killed Bond. It was a shock value stunt designed to create a “buzz.” That worked out really well in the states: costing them $100-$200 million. DUMB decision. The end.

    Haha. Bond’s death is not a factor in the US performance.

    Yes it is, but it's certainly not the only factor. It's definitely been getting some bad word of mouth that has put some people off. Couple that with some people still being afraid to go out because of Covid and the biggest problem of them all, which is that the majority
    of the younger generation here just doesn't seem too interested in Bond. It will be interesting to see how Eon tackles that issue going forward. But yes, Bond's death has certainly turned some people off.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    It’s 100% fair to hate this idea, but it’s a question of pure personal tastes and perception of the saga. There’s no logical explanation behind it because regarding Craig we are talking about a self contained story. An established self contained deconstructed story arc with a begin and an end. Plus, from now on the notion that Bond can actually die - even if I don’t think it will happen ever again - is something extremely Fleming accurate because his Bond was a human being and the saga treated Bond too many times like he wasn’t.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    At the end of the day, we can all throw our toys out of the pram about whatever we choose. But it is what it is. I’ve always just rolled with their decisions. Doesn’t mean I have always liked them. If Bond is your true love you hold on to the positives. If you can’t, you might as well file the divorce papers and move on.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    Stamper wrote: »
    I think people should not miss the point. The point being that now, in the series, anything can happen. Previously, Bond escaped (in the old series) the most incredible situations intact. It came to a point that no one believed him to be human.

    That was disconnected from where cinema was going, so CR bought it all back to earth, and NTTD enforces the point. Hard.

    Yes and no, I mean they are still fantastically "unreal" when it comes to much of the action and typical genre scenarios ... while attempting to adhere to an unprecedented degree of psychological complexity.

    And so the "real" and the "unreal" do not always mesh seamlessly, which may be the contradiction at the heart of the Craig era. That Craig & Broccoli have pushed the films in the direction of being $300 million dollar prestige art-house films is, perhaps, an unresolvable contradiction.

    Yes, perhaps the last time prior to NTTD that I felt Bond was in any real jeopardy was the confrontation on the train with Grant in FRWL. But that was experienced as a child ...

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    For anyone struggling with how they continue on with another actor after this, Corridor Crew have hilariously (and in an EXCEPTIONALLY violent way!) solved your problems :))

    That made me cry with laughter! Genius 🤣
  • I don't think any explanation will help, any time soon, for people who are terribly upset about Bond dying in this film. Trying to explain why others, like me, have no big problem with it also is fruitless. We just feel and experience the film differently. And I have no angst or worries about the next Bond film. Bond will return. I hope they do not try to connect anything major to Craig's era. But others hope so. And so it goes ... each feeling and perspective is valid for each individual. I love the film, and I value it, and I am eager for the next film. I don't need to explain why I feel this way, in detail, because really no explanation I give will help people who are strongly opposed to the film or at least to Bond's death in it.

    I think trying to explain things to make the other person see things more clearly (meaning the perspective we have) is just repetitive knocking heads against walls. Same as it ever was, yes.

    I could not agree with you more. I have no problem with people not liking Craig Bond because it is radically different from at least two previous stints. I find it fascinating to see the Genesis of Craig Bond in Dalton.

    However what I do find puzzling is the surprise that Daniels arc stands outside of the others. From the very beginning I have taken it as a read that this was a complete reboot. It was a deconstruction from the get go and Judy's involvement and input changed markedly with Daniel.

    So for Daniels final film to lead to him dying, apart from being thematic completely logical it means that the future is now wide open to relook at this fascinating British Iconic from a new perspective. Given Barbara and Michael have the reigns on this listening to them even in the Caribbean at the launch of filming they were making the same point Craig Bond stands alone. Of course people do not have to like it but this was always the intent and then when you go "all in" over five films it makes the notion of continuity even harder. Again people do not have to like that and their is no pointing in trying to persuade anyone of anything BUT thats where we are.



  • Posts: 1,045
    However what I do find puzzling is the surprise that Daniels arc stands outside of the others. From the very beginning I have taken it as a read that this was a complete reboot. It was a deconstruction from the get go and Judy's involvement and input changed markedly with Daniel.

    I though a bit different - at the end of Skyfall, when they used the old M office, and Moneypenny was at her desk, I thought they'd done with the 'reboot' stuff, and we were going to get back with the 'one mission per film' formula. I honestly thought, with Craig's 'with pleasure' line, that the whole reboot/actor arc whatever was done with.
    I think the producers thought so too. Does anyone agree?
  • Posts: 1,045
    Stamper wrote: »
    I think people should not miss the point. The point being that now, in the series, anything can happen. Previously, Bond escaped (in the old series) the most incredible situations intact. It came to a point that no one believed him to be human.
    That was disconnected from where cinema was going, so CR bought it all back to earth, and NTTD enforces the point. Hard.

    What you're saying is, now we know he can be killed, he's become human, more fallible, and therefore we can invest more emotion in the situations where his life is threatened.
    My counter-argument would be, if he can be bumped off and simply bought back to life again in the next film anyway, then any 'death' of Bond is devoid of any emotional attachment anyway.
  • NoWisemanNoWiseman Germany
    edited October 2021 Posts: 34
    I don't think any explanation will help, any time soon, for people who are terribly upset about Bond dying in this film. Trying to explain why others, like me, have no big problem with it also is fruitless. We just feel and experience the film differently.

    This!

    I had a hard time with NTTD and still try to forget it. I don't care about so called rules of the franchise, continuity or logic. I just don't like it on a very personal level, because i simply don't want to witness, how my cinematic hero of over 40 years sacrifices his life. There is no wrong or right here, i think.

    You can't argue about emotions.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    However what I do find puzzling is the surprise that Daniels arc stands outside of the others. From the very beginning I have taken it as a read that this was a complete reboot. It was a deconstruction from the get go and Judy's involvement and input changed markedly with Daniel.

    I though a bit different - at the end of Skyfall, when they used the old M office, and Moneypenny was at her desk, I thought they'd done with the 'reboot' stuff, and we were going to get back with the 'one mission per film' formula. I honestly thought, with Craig's 'with pleasure' line, that the whole reboot/actor arc whatever was done with.
    I think the producers thought so too. Does anyone agree?

    I don’t think they ever intended to slip back into some kind of ‘formula’. It was a bit of fan service to cap a film which was, to a certain extent, left field.
  • However what I do find puzzling is the surprise that Daniels arc stands outside of the others. From the very beginning I have taken it as a read that this was a complete reboot. It was a deconstruction from the get go and Judy's involvement and input changed markedly with Daniel.

    I though a bit different - at the end of Skyfall, when they used the old M office, and Moneypenny was at her desk, I thought they'd done with the 'reboot' stuff, and we were going to get back with the 'one mission per film' formula. I honestly thought, with Craig's 'with pleasure' line, that the whole reboot/actor arc whatever was done with.
    I think the producers thought so too. Does anyone agree?

    Yes. But Spectre, shoehorning Blofeld to the previous 3 films and their antagonists motives (weakly done in the films 3rd act) put heed to that.

    You could also argue that the ending of QOS was the end of the reboot/arc and that Skyfall was a one mission film. But Skyfall, with its ending in M's old office etc does indicate it in a clearer fashion.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,025
    What you're saying is, now we know he can be killed, he's become human, more fallible, and therefore we can invest more emotion in the situations where his life is threatened.
    My counter-argument would be, if he can be bumped off and simply bought back to life again in the next film anyway, then any 'death' of Bond is devoid of any emotional attachment anyway.
    Yes - the first point might be the intention, but the second point could well be the result. How many people place value on something if, when it breaks, they can just throw it away and get another one? Risky strategy, this.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Venutius wrote: »
    What you're saying is, now we know he can be killed, he's become human, more fallible, and therefore we can invest more emotion in the situations where his life is threatened.
    My counter-argument would be, if he can be bumped off and simply bought back to life again in the next film anyway, then any 'death' of Bond is devoid of any emotional attachment anyway.
    Yes - the first point might be the intention, but the second point could well be the result. How many people invest value in something when they can just throw it away and get another one? Risky strategy, this.

    They’ve been doing just that for 60 years every time they recast. It’s no different. Anyhow, the hypotheticals that imply he’s now going to be slaughtered at will are way wide of the mark. This won’t happen.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,164
    And again, the "it's good for Batman, it's good for Bond" argument. Can I remind everyone that Bond is supposed to be a drama, based in the real (albeit fantastic) world? He's not Luke Skywalker, Batman or Captain Kirk.
    These movies aren't supposed to be fantasy movies, (despite Moonraker).

    I'm sorry but - really? It's not a drama. Maybe at first, but by now they've created their own genre - the spy genre. And massive blockbusters are a genre onto itself now. I get that some would like to think Bond is above the likes of the MCU or DC or Fast and Furious but sorry - it is absolutely within that ballpark. And 'rebooting' with new characters and different timelines, nothing fantastical about it. Different takes on iconic characters by different creators - hell are people pretending the Cumberbatch/Moffat Sherlock is a sequel to Conan Doyle's? How about someone like Dracula? Certainly was nothing fantastical for Batman for *decades*, right up until 2022 or whenever the new Flash film comes out, which will bring back Michael Keaton's Batman. When Tom Cruise will be done with Mission Impossible, I'd imagine they'll also 'reboot' with a whole new cast, closer to the tone of the original series. Hell, even The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo got 'rebooted' after one film (albeit while half pretending it's a sequel by using the iconography established by Fincher - sound familiar...?) This is what happens when you have such a long-lasting IP, that's how that's handled. This is only really becoming an issue (and really only amongst a certain part of the audience) because Bond has never been so serialised right up until this point.

  • Posts: 1,045
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes - the first point might be the intention, but the second point could well be the result. How many people place value on something when they can just throw it away and get another one? Risky strategy, this.

    Given that NTTD was Craig's last film, they could have used that fact to engineer an ending that would make the audience believe that they were actually going to kill him off. Then have him escape at the last minute (I admit my idea of him riding out of the explosion, across the sea on Rog's jetski is too 1970's), but that would have been a fabulous 'punch the air' moment, like we used to have.

    I would also like to respond to the people that are saying us 'toy-throwers' are somehow ignorant of tragedy in literature or cinema. I don't think that's the case. I visit the arthouse cinema more than the multiplex, and I've read Jude the Obscure; I understand how tragedy works.
    And I understand how a James Bond film works for me, and this one doesn't.
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    If you don't like Bond dying as a narrative or emotional device, that's fine, there's plenty of decent arguments against it. I am OK with it (just) and think it is pretty in line with the character Fleming created, there's plenty in the books to suggest Bond wouldn't live into a long retirment. Fleming never sent Bond into space, and that is Bond actually going off into the sci-fi/fantasy realm, not what No Time To Die does. Him going off and living his family life would be nicer, but I think probably actually more far fetched, and perhaps not great for his daughter in the long run.

    However, using the chronology argument to argue against him dying is just plain daft. We've seen Bond go from a grizzled world weary spy in North Korea to his first mission in the next film. This is a film series of 25 films. I can't believe anyone genuinely find it hard to understand how a film character can die in one film and come back in another. People are genuinely confused by that?

    Yes it's difficult to watch, but that doesn't make it wrong, or justify fairly tenuous arguments as to why it can't happen based on the inviolability of continuation. If your main argument against something in Bond is continuity, especially between actor, you're not on very solid ground because it's always paid lip service to it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Some of you are going to be utterly confused when Bond 26 rolls around and the film doesn’t answer how Bond survived a bombardment of missiles, aren’t you?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,025
    Having the same character played by different actors is 'no different' to actually killing off that character and then just carrying on in the next film? Really, though?
  • Posts: 1,045
    I can't believe anyone genuinely find it hard to understand how a film character can die in one film and come back in another. People are genuinely confused by that?

    I think incredulous would be a better word for how I feel. I just think it's a daft proposition to have to accept.
    It's the same character, but a different timeline.
    Yea, it's an explanation, of sorts, but it's a daft one. When Doyle bought back Sherlock Holmes at least there was a reasonable explanation behind his resurrection. I think, when you're asked to care about a character, there should be a duty of narrative coherency from the authors.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Venutius wrote: »
    Having the same character played by different actors is 'no different' to actually killing off that character and then just carrying on in the next film? Really, though?

    They’re the same character but every change of actor is a metaphorical rebirth. The James Bond that mourns Vesper whilst clutching her lifeless body, is not the ‘incarnation’ of Bond that drives through the same city atop a Gondola past a double-taking pigeon.

    The death is merely a hard full stop on this incarnation. And I get why people don’t like it. But it’s overreaching to suggest there’s some narrative imperative that he live for the films to continue.
  • Venutius wrote: »
    Having the same character played by different actors is 'no different' to actually killing off that character and then just carrying on in the next film? Really, though?

    I don’t think it’s any different really, because it’s difficult to rationalise the first four Bonds as still being the same character anyway. Why didn’t he age from 1962 to 2002? Why does he have a different face every time?

    Sometimes it’s fun making up our own headcanons around that (I quite like the idea of Dalton and Brosnan having their own timeline; Alec’s death could set up TLD’a training exercise, the new M finding out about LTK could be the reason for his psych evaluation in GE), but ultimately, it’s best to just accept that these are different takes on the same character. So, with that in mind, I don’t see any issue with giving one of those takes a proper ending for a change.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,164
    I just realised that part of why this is so much easier to accept with Batman - or even Sherlock Holmes - is different takes on the character in 1. different media (we already have different Bonds in original book form, comic books, and film) and 2. different creative forces with directors having a far closer involvement. (The Burton era of Batman which spanned Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney in a Bond-like fashion with different directors, then the Nolan with Bale, Zack Snyder with Ben Affleck, and then Matt Reeves with Robert Pattinson). While here even if the directors are different, it's still the EON show.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    However what I do find puzzling is the surprise that Daniels arc stands outside of the others. From the very beginning I have taken it as a read that this was a complete reboot. It was a deconstruction from the get go and Judy's involvement and input changed markedly with Daniel.

    I though a bit different - at the end of Skyfall, when they used the old M office, and Moneypenny was at her desk, I thought they'd done with the 'reboot' stuff, and we were going to get back with the 'one mission per film' formula. I honestly thought, with Craig's 'with pleasure' line, that the whole reboot/actor arc whatever was done with.
    I think the producers thought so too. Does anyone agree?

    The sequel made Blofeld Bond’s foster brother, connected all Craig’s adventures and ended with Bond leaving MI6 for good throwing away his PPK. Once SP came out you should’ve understood that they were not done with the reboot approach.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Having the same character played by different actors is 'no different' to actually killing off that character and then just carrying on in the next film? Really, though?

    They’re the same character but every change of actor is a metaphorical rebirth. The James Bond that mourns Vesper whilst clutching her lifeless body, is not the ‘incarnation’ of Bond that drives through the same city atop a Gondola past a double-taking pigeon.

    The death is merely a hard full stop on this incarnation. And I get why people don’t like it. But it’s overreaching to suggest there’s some narrative imperative that he live for the films to continue.

    Yes, exactly.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    I wonder how much of this is just denial in action.

    By the way, I'm back from those bullets I asked for last night. My arc was complete. But as you can tell I'm a different incarnation of the same person now.

    Sorry. I know I shouldn't be that sarcastic :P
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    Venutius wrote: »
    Having the same character played by different actors is 'no different' to actually killing off that character and then just carrying on in the next film? Really, though?

    Really. It's always been pretty explicit the Craig films are in a different timeline/universe to the others anyway, so now those who didn't like Craig can put the next actor back in the original universe if they like (depending on how it's written), you'd think they'd be happy.

    There was always absolutely no way to fit Craig into the previous timeline, so killing him is completely irrelevant. To believe Casino Royale, and what follows with Spectre (even ignoring Brofeld) you have to believe this Bond is in a different universe so I don't see why now it's suddenly a problem. Have people been thinking Craig's bond was in the same timeline as the others? I think we've found our problem. As someone put it best, this is not the same guy who drove across Venice in a gondola.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,045
    To believe Casino Royale, and what follows with Spectre (even ignoring Brofeld) you have to believe this Bond is in a different universe so I don't see why now it's suddenly a problem. Have people been thinking Craig's bond was in the same timeline as the others? I think we've found our problem. As someone put it best, this is not the same guy who drove across Venice in a gondola.

    Then I wish they'd have created a brand new character and blown him up instead. Because they've messed everything up for me by asking me to accept an 'alternate Bond universe', where he can die, then appear again in yet another 'universe'.
    And there's only one universe anyway. Perhaps we should say 'another galaxy' instead? Like in Star Wars?
    Jesus, he'll be back with a Walther light-saber and a Moneypenny droid next.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,114
    RC7 wrote: »
    At the end of the day, we can all throw our toys out of the pram about whatever we choose. But it is what it is. I’ve always just rolled with their decisions. Doesn’t mean I have always liked them. If Bond is your true love you hold on to the positives. If you can’t, you might as well file the divorce papers and move on.

    Well stated.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,025
    Anyway, none of this will matter once Fukunaga admits that NTTD only happens in Bond's head while he's unconscious in SP and that the third act of SP is really the end of Craig's arc, after all. What? Could happen...
  • Posts: 1,314
    I think my main issue is that bond having a kid, failing to leave and dying makes his life more normal. I don’t watch James Bond because he’s normal.

    I watch it to escape normality.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,293
    However what I do find puzzling is the surprise that Daniels arc stands outside of the others. From the very beginning I have taken it as a read that this was a complete reboot. It was a deconstruction from the get go and Judy's involvement and input changed markedly with Daniel.

    I though a bit different - at the end of Skyfall, when they used the old M office, and Moneypenny was at her desk, I thought they'd done with the 'reboot' stuff, and we were going to get back with the 'one mission per film' formula. I honestly thought, with Craig's 'with pleasure' line, that the whole reboot/actor arc whatever was done with.
    I think the producers thought so too. Does anyone agree?

    Yes I agree 100%. SP was cobbled together on the back of SF, trying to find another personal angle for Bond to keep Craig and Mendes interested in doing another one, this time making the backstory around Blofeld being his brother, which most of the fanbase regarded as garbage. They shoehorned in the SPECTRE-behind-everything arc, and it shows.

    And then to persuade Craig back for his final film, they tried yet another personal backstory angle, and we don't need to repeat what that was.
Sign In or Register to comment.