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

1146147149151152298

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Finally saw the film. My reaction? Very disappointed. Maybe more so because this was supposed to remove the bitter aftertaste of SP. Instead it just wallowed more in what made the previous film a mess. Yes the action scenes were more impressive and had more energy but the melodrama, combined with the sacrificial savior of the world (something out of Star Wars or Marvel I guess) really bring the film down to “follow the latest trend” drivel. It has a feeling of “written by committee” all over it - let’s include some Bondian touches but let’s not forget that this is Bond of the Marvel era so we have to follow those trends or people won’t watch us. Never mind Fleming or what came before, going back to 1962. At the end of the day it feels like a sell-out of the franchise. No passion that involves being faithful to the character and the franchise. But more about making a buck! Yes, we can kill Bond and then slap on the end that “Bond will return”. How? Why? Make sense? Doesn’t matter. Nothing has to make sense anymore. We do it because we can and the audience is too stupid to ask such questions. Makes a buck, right? Follows the trends, right? Well then that’s all that matters. We can just reboot again. Will worry about that when we get there. But here in the now we need to give people something shocking so here goes. We killed M, we killed Felix, we turned Blofeld into a brother, so why not kill Bond too? There are no rules except those we make up ourselves. Death sells and beloved characters getting knocked off is cool so that’s what we go with.

    The film is too long and nothing that happens at the poison garden or the factory at the end is interesting. In fact nothing with Rami Malek or his half-baked scheme is interesting. Why is he doing what he is doing? None of that is explained. We’re supposed to just accept that he’s a crazy who fancies himself as a “savior” of mankind. But even in his warped mind what he’s doing is supposed to make some kind of sense. He babbles something about people wanting to be led and told what to do. Ok, that’s fine but what does that have to do with you trying to wipe out large segments of the population with your smart DNA virus? How does that make you a savior? Again, what’s the scheme here? It’s never explained to us. Is this supposed to be some kind of population control scheme a la Bill Gates? If so that’s never clarified. So we have a boring mumbling villain with a scheme which we don’t know what it is. That’s great. And then the secondary villain - Brother Blofeld. Another fail. Bringing back someone who didn’t work in the previous film and putting him in a Hannibal Lector cage for more of the same boring nonsense - “I’m the author of all your pain and can really get under your skin”. Blah.

    Madeline is back (yawn) and now Bond has a child with her. Great. Need I say anything else about this? What’s the point? And of course Bond can’t be a daddy so that’s yet another reason to kill him. And speaking of killing Bond, I just can’t fathom this. Isn’t that precisely why Danny Boyle was fired? Because he wanted to kill Bond. So they bring Fukunaga on board and go ahead and do the same exact thing anyway? How does that make sense? Baffling.

    So what did I like? Only 4 scenes. That’s it. The snowy opening in Norway, the scenes in Matera, loved Bond at his home in Jamaica and his bathing waterfall outside (that stuff feels right out of Fleming, could be Fleming’s home where he wrote the novels), and my favorite is the stuff in the forest in Norway. Everything from the Land Rover chases to the suspense in the forest is extremely well executed and shot. We’ve never really had a scene like this in Bond and this was a welcome addition for sure. The closest we ever came to forest action would be Corinne being chased by dogs in MR and the twins stalking 009 in OP. Both had some eerie horror film overtones without going into actual horror, both very well done. This one fits the same bill as well except done on a grander scale. And that’s pretty much all that I liked about the film. I did not like the Cuba scenes (the SPECTRE meeting was ridiculously bad with Blofeld talking to them through some cheesy eyeball) and the whole shootout that followed left me completely disengaged. None of it felt tense or exciting. Just a bunch of people firing machine guns. I don’t get what people enjoy in that entire sequence. Even the praise for Ana de Armas from all the critics is strange. I just don’t get it. Her giddy school girl routine was annoying. Good looking she is for sure but that’s it.

    Black female 007? Woke, anyone? No thanks. So I guess 007 is just a number that anyone can carry. Not only that but now apparently even James Bond is a code name too that anyone can carry. Because this Bond is dead. So we’ll have another agent who will be James Bond next. Oh man, it just gets more and more painful.

    So because of the few exciting scenes I guess I’ll place it just above QOS and SP but it’s nowhere near SF and CR. Not even close. And I don’t even consider those 2 masterpieces. What’s really interesting is that I have zero interest in seeing the film again. Even QOS and SP I wanted to see again in the theater, even after being disappointed on first viewing. I mean it’s Bond after all, right? But with this one I just don’t care anymore.


    Can I borrow this passage for a seminar I’m doing next week? 101 misunderstandings in popular culture and other waffle.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,314
    I guess an overly simplistic way of looking at it is this …


    A critical element of Bond / heroes that is sorely absent for me nowadays is “would I want to be this guy”. It’s the same for Indy, the goonies, ghostbusters, Han Solo, Luke etc etc. Im a child of the 80s as you can probably tell - As a kid I emulated each of these characters etc. As I’m sure most people my age did. Who now can kids emulate outside of marvel.

    Everyone is miserable the whole time. Jesus did you see man of steel or Batman v superman.

    There’s a reason why those 80s icons have endured. There’s a reason why they are still drawing crowds now, 30 years on through remakes / reboots etc. The people writing and making those films understood character and entertainment. You left the cinema wanting to see more, and re-enacted in your own mind the adventures they might have had.

    I’m not a kid anymore of course but part of the appeal of all these IPs is that they have a nostalgia about them. Including aspects of bond. Sure you can push the formula but ultimately I don’t think NTTD would make millions of dollars if Connery and Moore hadn’t won people over 50 years ago

    However ridiculous moonraker is, or even TSWLM, etc is that those films make me smile. They make me happy.

    Who in 30 years is going to want to remake Bond dying?
  • Posts: 7,506
    Yes, 007 is a number anyone can carry. That has always been the point…
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,025
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I like CR and QOS. There's such a big disconnect between them and SF-SP-NTTD that in a way, I've always felt that when Craig-Bond walks off into the night at the end of QOS, he didn't really return. We never got that energized, youthful Bond back. They did a soft reboot (again) with SF.
    This. Absolutely.


  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    edited October 2021 Posts: 972
    00Heaven wrote: »
    It's a bit like Batman where it's all a multiverse... So of course Bond will return but it will be a different timeline with a new actor.

    Have you guys ever watched Nolan's Batman and Burton's Batman? Think that... I'm not sure how many times people have explained this now :(.

    You're just going to give yourself a headache if you ponder it any differently. Just take everything at face value. It's easier that way.

    It's new territory and I'm not at all disappointed. Time for reinvention! \:D/

    At least in Nolan's Batman, the ending showed Bale's Bruce Wayne having a good life in normalcy with his loved one in a cafe even though at first we all thought he died.. Nothing as depressing as NTTD. That's how they could've handled the final run for Craig's Bond instead of showing our hero blown up to smithereens.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,293
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Seriously, if people can't handle the last two Craig films, what about the 70s Bonds? Is MR a never-happened? Is DAD a never-happened? Are we really going to punch holes in a film series (or as some wrongfully call it, a "franchise") because some films pose a bit of a challenge here or there? It's everybody right, of course. I just find it laughably immature. It's the KOTKS effect.

    DAD certainly is a `never happened' for me. I dismiss it now as not being part of the franchise. Childish of me? Absolutely!
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    One thing I can’t wrap my head around. Won, the producers, BB, MGw, etc. had to know that this movie would not resonate with all fans, and that it would be extremely divisive. When you decide to kill James Bond after 60 years of him saving the day, being the hero that can’t be stopped, that’s as radical a move as cinema has experienced in many years (and never in Bond’s history). Cost th a minimum of $100 to $200 million in the states, and who knows how much overall. The object of any film is to be successful, and that means to make as much $ as possible. So, why were they so hell bent on killing Bond (an enormous calculated risk, destined to bring disdain from many fans), instead of just playing it safe? Doing a good job, pushing the envelope, but not breaking the 4th wall (killing Bond). They could have killed off Q, Moneypenny, Felix, M, and Leiter -even Madeline, and had an enormous impact. Safin (Dr. No) is killing everyone that Bond cares about, and he must seek out Blofeld for help. But again, why do it? They must not h e cared about the box office. And it is a disappointment there. At least it hurts them in the pocketbook; that’s my Quantum of Solace. Maybe it will teach them a lesson.

    I thought the line about the ending was “they’re just following trends”. Surely if that’s the case then Bond dying would be popular?

    Ultimately, fans (as in, those of us who come on this site, and have these sorts of debates) are a tiny minority. The film is still doing very well at the box office on the whole. Not so much in America, but there is a pandemic and lots of competition because of the massive backlog of films that have been waiting to come out. And the demographic they’re reportedly struggling with in the US is young people, who definitely don’t care about Bond dying. They’re used to that sort of thing in films now. The grumbling seems to be coming from older fans who miss the old formula.

    We’ll never know how well it would’ve done under normal circumstances, but I’d imagine being up against Venom 2 is much, much more of a factor than Bond dying. My barber, a man who’d you never see discussing films in a geeky online space like this, understood that they’ll just “start again next time”. Everyone I know in real life who’s seen it did, actually. The only places I’ve seen grumbling about the ending are on here and in the Guardian comment section. And as recent elections should show you, the internet isn’t real life. I really don’t think most people are as up in arms over the ending as you. People are used to heroes dying, people are used to reboots. Most will just watch it and move on.
  • Posts: 7,506
    The US has a strange political landscape to say the least... So if there was anywhere the undeserved, but sadly existing, woke label would go down badly, it's there. It is not something I care about at all though, to be honest. It's their loss...
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,025
    Canon. It's a strange one, these days. Previously, EON determined what was and what wasn't canon. CR67? No. NSNA? No. That was the official line, whether you agreed with it or not, and it probably still is. But audiences aren't just passive receptors any more - we don't just take what we're given, like it or lump it. It's our response that invests something with meaning. Or doesn't. And because it's personal, that meaning's going to have a lot of subjectivity in it. So if someone wants to regard SF as the end of Craig's arc, I can't say that's wrong. Ok, objectively, they're incorrect - but if it's what works for them? Have at it. I'm not free of this myself: I loved The Bourne Identity, but didn't like the sequels at all and as far as I'm concerned, Bourne and Marie are happily running a bike and surf shop on Mykonos to this day! ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Venutius wrote: »
    Canon. It's a strange one, these days. Previously, EON determined what was and what wasn't canon. CR67? No. NSNA? No. That was the official line, whether you agreed with it or not, and it probably still is. But audiences aren't just passive receptors any more - we don't just take what we're given, like it or lump it. It's our response that invests something with meaning. Or doesn't. And because it's personal, that meaning's going to have a lot of subjectivity in it. So if someone wants to regard SF as the end of Craig's arc, I can't say that's wrong. Ok, objectively, they're incorrect - but if it's what works for them? Have at it. I'm not free of this myself: I loved The Bourne Identity, but didn't like the sequels at all and as far as I'm concerned, Bourne and Marie are happily running a bike and surf shop on Mykonos to this day! ;)

    This is very much a modern phenomenon, where feelings trump facts. ‘I’ don’t like it’, ‘it’s not what ‘I’ wanted, so ‘for ‘me’ it didn’t happen’. Except it did. I don’t give two turds how people view the films, like them, loathe them, watch them, ignore them. But EON decide what’s canon. Let’s not get the two confused.
  • This is very much a modern phenomenon, where feelings trump facts. ‘I’ don’t like it’, ‘it’s not what ‘I’ wanted, so ‘for ‘me’ it didn’t happen’. Except it did. I don’t give two turds how people view the films, like them, loathe them, watch them, ignore them. But EON decide what’s canon. Let’s not get the two confused.

    This ☝🏼
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 676
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is very much a modern phenomenon, where feelings trump facts. ‘I’ don’t like it’, ‘it’s not what ‘I’ wanted, so ‘for ‘me’ it didn’t happen’. Except it did. I don’t give two turds how people view the films, like them, loathe them, watch them, ignore them. But EON decide what’s canon. Let’s not get the two confused.

    That's because there's a modern trend in Hollywood to make movies that piss fans off by killing off beloved characters for shock value. These movies are made by people who more interested in nihilistic subversion than telling a good story. I get that from the people who made the recent Star Wars and Terminator movies and I get that from the people who made NTTD, too, because they've all made similar comments about the franchises they were attached to.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,025
    It is a modern phenomenon - because people's relationship with media has changed in the last couple of decades, no? We don't sit there being spoonfed any more, we actively engage with the material and negotiate our own accomodations with it, don't we? I don't think that's a bad thing.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is very much a modern phenomenon, where feelings trump facts. ‘I’ don’t like it’, ‘it’s not what ‘I’ wanted, so ‘for ‘me’ it didn’t happen’. Except it did. I don’t give two turds how people view the films, like them, loathe them, watch them, ignore them. But EON decide what’s canon. Let’s not get the two confused.

    That's because there's a modern trend in Hollywood to make movies that piss fans off by killing off beloved characters for shock value. These movies are made by people who more interested in nihilistic subversion than telling a good story. I get that from the people who made the recent Star Wars and Terminator movies and I get that from the people who made NTTD, too, because they've all made similar comments about the franchises they were attached to.

    Studios don’t make films to piss off fans. Regardless, this is irrelevant to my point.
  • Posts: 131
    slide_99 wrote: »
    That's because there's a modern trend in Hollywood to make movies that piss fans off by killing off beloved characters for shock value. These movies are made by people who more interested in nihilistic subversion than telling a good story. I get that from the people who made the recent Star Wars and Terminator movies and I get that from the people who made NTTD, too, because they've all made similar comments about the franchises they were attached to.

    Killing off characters seems to be the most "creative" idea scriptwriters can come up with, unable to think of something truly original, which is then dressed up for publicity as shock value and subversion... and has by now defeated the object by having become repetitive across franchises. In this sense, the "real" subversion was the way Nolan ended TDKR ;)
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    edited October 2021 Posts: 22
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is very much a modern phenomenon, where feelings trump facts. ‘I’ don’t like it’, ‘it’s not what ‘I’ wanted, so ‘for ‘me’ it didn’t happen’. Except it did. I don’t give two turds how people view the films, like them, loathe them, watch them, ignore them. But EON decide what’s canon. Let’s not get the two confused.

    That's because there's a modern trend in Hollywood to make movies that piss fans off by killing off beloved characters for shock value. These movies are made by people who more interested in nihilistic subversion than telling a good story. I get that from the people who made the recent Star Wars and Terminator movies and I get that from the people who made NTTD, too, because they've all made similar comments about the franchises they were attached to.

    Whether people like it or not, does anyone really believe this was done for 'shock value'? Craig clearly wanted to do this and I don't believe at all that was his reason. It's a story they wanted to tell and I respect them for doing it. Others are saying this will cost them money and is a commercially terrible thing to do, so which is it supposed to be - controversy to bring in more money, or telling the story they want without regard to the box office? It can't be both.

    You think the people making Bond films like TMWTGG, AVTAK, DAF, DAD were more interested in telling a good story than the makers of NTTD? Some of you are hilarious. There was more 'real' Bond in this film than several of Moore's combined if we're going to start going down that road. But you know what, I still love Moore, even though he is definitely not the same man as Connery played, and bears more or less no relation to the books except a couple of scenes in FYEO. We've already had different actors playing a completely different James Bond. Even Connery within his own changed from a taut spy thriller to verging on sci-fi (and he himself didn't like it). Thank God for variety, imagine if we had 25 versions of the same film.

    Honestly, consider Bond films history and ask if what you're saying makes any sense at all considering what's gone before. In the series' history there's been a lot more for those who like a camp action fantasy than something a bit more down to earth ...

    From what I'm reading they seem to be annoying the right people so they've done something right.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is very much a modern phenomenon, where feelings trump facts. ‘I’ don’t like it’, ‘it’s not what ‘I’ wanted, so ‘for ‘me’ it didn’t happen’. Except it did. I don’t give two turds how people view the films, like them, loathe them, watch them, ignore them. But EON decide what’s canon. Let’s not get the two confused.

    That's because there's a modern trend in Hollywood to make movies that piss fans off by killing off beloved characters for shock value. These movies are made by people who more interested in nihilistic subversion than telling a good story. I get that from the people who made the recent Star Wars and Terminator movies and I get that from the people who made NTTD, too, because they've all made similar comments about the franchises they were attached to.

    Still believing the majority of the fans here are pissed off?

    First (some) Bond fans were pissed off by CR because Craig wasn't another Connery copy.
    Then, (some) Bond fans were pissed off by QoS because it looked more like a Bourne film than a JB film.
    Then, (some) Bond fans were pissed off because Bond looked ugly and old in SF.
    Then, (some) Bond fans were pissed off because they made Blofeld Bond's foster brother.
    Now, (some) Bond fans are pissed off because they killed him off.

    Point is (some) fans are always going to be upset by whatever creative choice. Obviously Bond dying is huge, but let's not forget how the foster brother angle has been blown completely out of proportions over the past 5 years. They can't make everyone's happy but one thing is for sure: EoN doesn't make movies in order to piss off fans. Portions of the fandom are always going to complain about something.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 131
    which is it supposed to be - controversy to bring in more money, or telling the story they want without regard to the box office? It can't be both.

    Why do you see controversy and "telling the story" as being mutually exclusive? It may have happened that the two considerations pointed to the same conclusion.
    Some of you are hilarious.

    [...]
    From what I'm reading they seem to be annoying the right people so they've done something right.

    Are these comments really necessary?
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 676
    Whether people like it or not, does anyone really believe this was done for 'shock value'?

    Yes. I think Craig and BB wanted a big, emotional sucker punch for Craig's last Bond movie. I think they had blinders on and became so obsessed about killing off his Bond that they structured an entire movie around it and didn't even think about the broader implications because they've now succumbed to the reboot/timeline craze.
    Others are saying this will cost them money and is a commercially terrible thing to do, so which is it supposed to be - controversy to bring in more money, or telling the story they want without regard to the box office? It can't be both.

    Hollywood cares about messaging more than it cares about profit. Far more. Hollywood absolutely greenlights movies it knows will bomb just as long as those movies are part of a larger cultural trend it is trying to force on the public. And NTTD doesn't really qualify anyway since no Bond movie has ever outright bombed.
    You think the people making Bond films like TMWTGG, AVTAK, DAF, DAD were more interested in telling a good story than the makers of NTTD?

    Not necessarily, but they also weren't interested in burning the series down and subverting Bond's character the way they are now.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 7,506
    matt_u wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is very much a modern phenomenon, where feelings trump facts. ‘I’ don’t like it’, ‘it’s not what ‘I’ wanted, so ‘for ‘me’ it didn’t happen’. Except it did. I don’t give two turds how people view the films, like them, loathe them, watch them, ignore them. But EON decide what’s canon. Let’s not get the two confused.

    That's because there's a modern trend in Hollywood to make movies that piss fans off by killing off beloved characters for shock value. These movies are made by people who more interested in nihilistic subversion than telling a good story. I get that from the people who made the recent Star Wars and Terminator movies and I get that from the people who made NTTD, too, because they've all made similar comments about the franchises they were attached to.

    Still believing the majority of the fans here are pissed off?

    First (some) Bond fans were pissed off by CR because Craig wasn't another Connery copy.
    Then, (some) Bond fans were pissed off by QoS because it looked more like a Bourne film than a JB film.
    Then, (some) Bond fans were pissed off because Bond looked ugly and old in SF.
    Then, (some) Bond fans were pissed off because they made Blofeld Bond's foster brother.
    Now, (some) Bond fans are pissed off because they killed him off.

    Point is (some) fans are always going to be upset by whatever creative choice. Obviously Bond dying is huge, but let's not forget how the foster brother angle has been blown completely out of proportions over the past 5 years. They can't make everyone's happy but one thing is for sure: EoN doesn't make movies in order to piss off fans. Portions of the fandom are always going to complain about something.


    This^

    The only thing we know for certain when a new Bond film comes out, is that some people will hate it and likely be very vocal about it on the internet. Trying to make a Bond film that pleases everyone is completely pointless, as it is never a possibility. What we should hope for is that whoever is involved with the film; producers, director and actors make the decisions that mean something to them and follow through on them with conviction.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Whether people like it or not, does anyone really believe this was done for 'shock value'?

    Yes. I think Craig and BB wanted a big, emotional sucker punch for Craig's last Bond movie. I think they had blinders on and became so obsessed about killing off his Bond that they structured an entire movie around it and didn't even think about the broader implications because they've now succumbed to the reboot/timeline craze.

    They already took the hard reboot route 15 years ago.

    Besides, Bond 26 would've been a total reboot anyway even without that massive ending, since the Craig story arc is deliberately the first self contained one.

    Anyway there's someone really believing DAD was set within the same, let's say, OHMSS timeline? Every new actor from Moore on that took the role caused a soft reboot to the franchise, even before Craig.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    I think some of you constantly do EON a disservice. I'm pretty sure they thought about this decision long and hard. They wouldn't have just said "let's kill bond!", "OK!" and then just ran with that. They're a business at the end of the day and they're not going to go around shooting themselves in their feet.
  • Posts: 526
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is very much a modern phenomenon, where feelings trump facts. ‘I’ don’t like it’, ‘it’s not what ‘I’ wanted, so ‘for ‘me’ it didn’t happen’. Except it did. I don’t give two turds how people view the films, like them, loathe them, watch them, ignore them. But EON decide what’s canon. Let’s not get the two confused.

    That's because there's a modern trend in Hollywood to make movies that piss fans off by killing off beloved characters for shock value. These movies are made by people who more interested in nihilistic subversion than telling a good story. I get that from the people who made the recent Star Wars and Terminator movies and I get that from the people who made NTTD, too, because they've all made similar comments about the franchises they were attached to.

    This
  • Yeah, I think the constant cries of “I don’t like it, therefore it must have just been done for shock value/to follow trends/to copy Marvel/etc” are getting pretty tiring.

    If you don’t like the ending, cool, but criticise it on its own terms. I think it’s very unfair to make up an imaginary motivation for it and hold that against them. They told the story they wanted to tell. Whether you like that story or not is up to you, but I think casting doubt on their reasons for doing it is a bit of a stretch. Even if they were just doing it for the sake of following trends (very unlikely imo, I think they just thought it was a fitting ending), you have no way of knowing that. We’re random people on a fansite, we don’t know what the creative process was.

    Criticise the film all you like, but please can we stop acting like we know what was going through the minds of the writers and producers. I also think it’s notable that we actually do have a few members here who work in the industry, and that sort of criticism never comes from them.
  • The death at the end really bugs me. The heroes I grew up with don’t die at the end of the movie. They come back to fight another day. That’s why we walked out of our movie theaters excited and uplifted. We used to have happier heroes, happier movies, happier TV shows. That’s why I don’t even watch moderns films or TV. It’s all dark and depressing.

    My heroes don’t die or sacrifice themselves. Rambo, Indy, McClane, Riggs, Bond. Until now. Now they can kill Bond as many times as they want. Because the producers are being “daring”. Nothing is off the table now. There are no rules. With the next film they’ll just pretend it never happened. Or it was a different James Bond. Bond is now a code name I guess. Anybody can be James Bond. Stuff like this can only make sense to millennials who grow up with this kind of nonsense. Those of us older actually stop and think “wait, this doesn’t make sense”. Wake up, people! Don’t be sheeple!
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,025
    slide_99 wrote: »
    That's because there's a modern trend in Hollywood to make movies...killing off beloved characters.
    I suspect that this is the key point. The recent cinematic trend of having the hero die at the end. There must've been half-a-dozen examples in the last few years. Would Bond have been killed off without this wider trend? Can't say for sure - but I'm doubtful. EON have plenty of past form for co-opting trends into Bond films, after all.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The death at the end really bugs me. The heroes I grew up with don’t die at the end of the movie. They come back to fight another day. That’s why we walked out of our movie theaters excited and uplifted. We used to have happier heroes, happier movies, happier TV shows. That’s why I don’t even watch moderns films or TV. It’s all dark and depressing.

    My heroes don’t die or sacrifice themselves. Rambo, Indy, McClane, Riggs, Bond. Until now. Now they can kill Bond as many times as they want. Because the producers are being “daring”. Nothing is off the table now. There are no rules. With the next film they’ll just pretend it never happened. Or it was a different James Bond. Bond is now a code name I guess. Anybody can be James Bond. Stuff like this can only make sense to millennials who grow up with this kind of nonsense. Those of us older actually stop and think “wait, this doesn’t make sense”. Wake up, people! Don’t be sheeple!

    Nope.
  • Stuff like this can only make sense to millennials who grow up with this kind of nonsense. Those of us older actually stop and think “wait, this doesn’t make sense”. Wake up, people! Don’t be sheeple!

    I think I’m about your age and it made sense to me. @4EverBonded is one of our original fans who got into the series when Connery was still Bond, and she loved it.

    Rambo died at the end of the original novel by the way, and I think that’s a very strange example to use if we’re talking about happy films starring happy heroes.
  • Stuff like this can only make sense to millennials who grow up with this kind of nonsense. Those of us older actually stop and think “wait, this doesn’t make sense”. Wake up, people! Don’t be sheeple!

    Rambo died at the end of the original novel by the way, and I think that’s a very strange example to use if we’re talking about happy films starring happy heroes.
    Yes and there’s a reason they didn’t carry Rambo’s death over into FIRST BLOOD. I’m sure it wasn’t just because they wanted a sequel. They knew it would be too much of a downer for the audience. And the film is already a pretty sad piece.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    The death at the end really bugs me. The heroes I grew up with don’t die at the end of the movie. They come back to fight another day. That’s why we walked out of our movie theaters excited and uplifted. We used to have happier heroes, happier movies, happier TV shows. That’s why I don’t even watch moderns films or TV. It’s all dark and depressing.

    My heroes don’t die or sacrifice themselves. Rambo, Indy, McClane, Riggs, Bond. Until now. Now they can kill Bond as many times as they want. Because the producers are being “daring”. Nothing is off the table now. There are no rules. With the next film they’ll just pretend it never happened. Or it was a different James Bond. Bond is now a code name I guess. Anybody can be James Bond. Stuff like this can only make sense to millennials who grow up with this kind of nonsense. Those of us older actually stop and think “wait, this doesn’t make sense”. Wake up, people! Don’t be sheeple!

    Didn't know most of the fans inhere are actually millenials, lol.
Sign In or Register to comment.