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

1147148150152153298

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,025
    Remember how David Morrell got around Rambo's death? He started the novelisation of First Blood II with something like 'But he didn't die, after all.' As easy as that, eh? With one bound, he was free. If I'd been a fan of the original book, I wouldn't have read the sequel and thought 'oh, that's all right then', I'd've gone 'pffft' and chucked it. There's suspension of disbelief and there's taking the proverbial...
  • Posts: 526
    Honestly, this could go on forever, and probably will. The film is divisive (more than any other Bond film imo). I’ve made my peace with it, and the Craig arc...the one that duly made me a Bond fan, or at least, a fan of Craig’s Bond. My take about ending won’t change: it’s the biggest downer I’ve ever experienced at a theatre. It was unnecessary. And the worst part, I think, is that we (those of us that hated the ending) had to wait 6 years for this?? 6 long years?? I hope people can see why this movie has left such a bitter aftertaste for some of us.
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    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.
    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.

    So again, as is becoming a recurring theme, you're inventing reasons in your head for why it's bad.

    Please tell us exactly what this 'agenda' is that Hallywood is trying to force down our throat? Your first paragraph sounded like you might almost give a genuine film based reason for why you don't like it, and then you've gone off into conspiracy-ville about agendas and messaging. So now Hollywood greenlit this movie knowing it would bomb to send some 'message', but it's actually doing well so I guess they got that wrong and...do you even see how messed up this logic is?

    You state they wanted to 'burn down the series' and expect people to take you seriously? You think that was their intention? I guess they failed so you and they are both wrong hey? Please explain how Roger Moore's carry on global celebrity 'spy' Bond didn't subvert the character any more than Daniel Craig?

    Unless someone gives a reason for liking this on an intellectual basis rather than inventing imaginary motives for the producers you cannot possibly know to be true, while throwing in references to 'wokeness' and 'agendas' you're rather giving away the real reasons you don't like it, and it's ugly.

    In terms of 'messaging' what is it that is so important about the 1960s that call films should keep promoting forever? I mean, should we not go back further if we want to keep things traditional and all films promote native Indian culture? You're being rather woke expecting token white men to keep replacing the true culture of California.

  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    00Heaven wrote: »
    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.

    There are some proper crazies about. I doubt EON will be shedding tears if they lose them.
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    Someone actually said 'wake up sheeple'! 😂

    I call bingo, we've now had 'woke', 'agenda', and 'sheeple'. When did this forum get infiltrated by David Icke?

    There an interesting set of fans who will defend Bond more or less raping women in old films (and frankly SF and SP were a bit dodge here) because it was 'of it's time', but get very very angry now if they perceive Bond does anything remotely 'of it's time'. It seems racism and sexism are the only 'messages' Bond should be sending according to some very strange people on the on the internet.
  • Posts: 3,293
    Someone actually said 'wake up sheeple'! 😂

    I call bingo, we've now had 'woke', 'agenda', and 'sheeple'. When did this forum get infiltrated by David Icke?

    There an interesting set of fans who will defend Bond more or less raping women in old films (and frankly SF and SP were a bit dodge here) because it was 'of it's time', but get very very angry now if they perceive Bond does anything remotely 'of it's time'. It seems racism and sexism are the only 'messages' Bond should be sending according to some very strange people on the on the internet.

    It seems you are on some kind of woke agenda too.... ;)
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 676
    So again, as is becoming a recurring theme, you're inventing reasons in your head for why it's bad.

    Please tell us exactly what this 'agenda' is that Hallywood is trying to force down our throat? Your first paragraph sounded like you might almost give a genuine film based reason for why you don't like it, and then you've gone off into conspiracy-ville about agendas and messaging. So now Hollywood greenlit this movie knowing it would bomb to send some 'message', but it's actually doing well so I guess they got that wrong and...do you even see how messed up this logic is?

    I didn't say they'd greenlight NTTD knowing it'd bomb. I say they do sometimes greenlight movies that they know will bomb. Look up various funding schemes for movies: tax breaks, money laundering, etc. But that has little do with what I'm saying about NTTD. It's a separate issue. My only point was that money is not the only thing that motivates Hollywood.
    You state they wanted to 'burn down the series' and expect people to take you seriously? You think that was their intention? I guess they failed so you and they are both wrong hey?

    As I've said many times before, the Bond producers are following a subversive and divisive cultural trend of killing off action heroes: Han Solo, Luke, John Connor, Wolverine. Simply put, if this weren't a trend in the past decade, the producers would have not made this movie, or at least they wouldn't have ended it the way they did.
    Please explain how Roger Moore's carry on global celebrity 'spy' Bond didn't subvert the character any more than Daniel Craig?

    Roger Moore's Bond didn't spend his entire tenure being deconstructed and then finally being blown up..
    Unless someone gives a reason for liking this on an intellectual basis rather than inventing imaginary motives for the producers you cannot possibly know to be true, while throwing in references to 'wokeness' and 'agendas' you're rather giving away the real reasons you don't like it, and it's ugly.

    What imaginary motives? The evidence is in the movie itself and what the people who made it have said in interviews.
    In terms of 'messaging' what is it that is so important about the 1960s that call films should keep promoting forever? I mean, should we not go back further if we want to keep things traditional and all films promote native Indian culture? You're being rather woke expecting token white men to keep replacing the true culture of California.

    Nobody wants the same movie to be made over and over. But not killing any iteration of Bond seems like a simple and obvious rule that would only be broken for trendy reasons or shock value, especially if they intend to continue the series. The Bond formula is general enough to allow for plenty of originality and creativity without dividing the fanbase with drastic and extreme decisions.


  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 676
    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!

    I'm a Millennial and I hate the ending.

    Venutius wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think they'd ever even consider killing off Craig-Bond if other franchises hadn't done similar things. The Craig era was a trend-chasing era. Bourne with QOS, Batman with SF, Marvel with SP, and now Star Wars with NTTD. Ever since QOS (which I like) it seems like Bond has been getting filtered through the lenses of other series instead of establishing its own identity.

    And didn't Craig even have a supporting role in one of the Star Wars sequels? I'm pretty sure he's friends with Rian Johnson, the guy who made The Last Jedi. They did Knives Out together. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Craig wanted to give Bond the Luke Skywalker treatment.
  • Posts: 1,405
    From now on, we know they have balls to kill Bond. We will never know for sure from now on if James Bond will survive until the very end of the movie.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I don't think they'd ever even consider killing off Craig-Bond if other franchises hadn't done similar things. The Craig era was a trend-chasing era. Bourne with QOS, Batman with SF, Marvel with SP, and now Star Wars with NTTD. Ever since QOS (which I like) it seems like Bond has been getting filtered through the lenses of other series instead of establishing its own identity.

    And didn't Craig even have a supporting role in one of the Star Wars sequels? I'm pretty sure he's friends with Rian Johnson, the guy who made The Last Jedi. They did Knives Out together. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Craig wanted to give Bond the Luke Skywalker treatment.

    LOL the idea of killing off Luke was even part of George Lucas’ original pitch for the sequel trilogy. Come on!

    “Marvel with SP”, “SW with NTTD”? Don’t make me laugh.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 650
    Someone actually said 'wake up sheeple'! 😂

    I call bingo, we've now had 'woke', 'agenda', and 'sheeple'. When did this forum get infiltrated by David Icke?

    There an interesting set of fans who will defend Bond more or less raping women in old films (and frankly SF and SP were a bit dodge here) because it was 'of it's time', but get very very angry now if they perceive Bond does anything remotely 'of it's time'. It seems racism and sexism are the only 'messages' Bond should be sending according to some very strange people on the on the internet.
    Bond is a womanizer. Get over it. If it comes across too “rapey” for you then you’re watching the wrong series. If this stuff really bothers you then how many Bond films can you actually watch? Just one? NTTD? Which is the one truly “woke” Bond film and the only one that makes you happy it seems. Because Bond has his way with women in all the other films. Yes, including Solange in CR and Fields in QOS.

    I know you want to remove all that from the Bond series because you find it offensive. But the rest of us don’t. So guess who’s in the minority? And guess who’s not a Bond fan?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,683
    Let's stop with the personal, ad hominem attacks and broad generalizations against one another. It's been requested in the past, several times over the last few weeks, but some of you can't seem to help yourselves. If you really can't accept the other side's viewpoint, stop replying and move on. It's pretty simple. It's getting ridiculously petty at this point. Let's play nice, shall we? We tire of mentioning this to no avail and asking nicely, so warnings will be imminent if not.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    From now on, we know they have balls to kill Bond. We will never know for sure from now on if James Bond will survive until the very end of the movie.

    Well, there will always be external factors involved that may or may not be applicable as they are here. For example, we knew it would be Craig's final film ... and, after watching the film, that Bond's death makes sense (to me, anyway) both emotionally & thematically in relation to the entire Craig arc. But, in theory, I agree ... and in doing so NTTD has brought a sense of genuine jeopardy to a character that hasn't had it since ... forever.

    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.
  • Posts: 131
    There are some proper crazies about. I doubt EON will be shedding tears if they lose them.

    For sure, and there are some remarkably rude brand-new members about, too.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,261
    Minion wrote: »
    Very clever stuff.

    It's not a different actor that's the problem though. The problem is, they've killed off the character.
    People keep saying that's a problem, but no one can offer any solid reasoning to back that up. It's James Bond, not a documentary. James Bond can return in the same way Batman can. It's no different. You might not like it, but the best thing Babs and MGW did after taking the reins of the franchise was stopping to adhere to the status quo.

    You're absolutely right. Besides, Bond is a fictional character, who was brought to life by six actors over the run of 59 years. He does not exist in reality, nor do Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, or Bruce Wayne. They are creators of some writers. And we will have a seventh actor getting his take on Bond. And Fleming has been dead for almost 60 years. We don't know, what he would have thought about how his novels got adopted on film. We will never know. Or what would Shakespeare have said, if he knew, what they were doing with his plays?
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    Someone actually said 'wake up sheeple'! 😂

    I call bingo, we've now had 'woke', 'agenda', and 'sheeple'. When did this forum get infiltrated by David Icke?

    There an interesting set of fans who will defend Bond more or less raping women in old films (and frankly SF and SP were a bit dodge here) because it was 'of it's time', but get very very angry now if they perceive Bond does anything remotely 'of it's time'. It seems racism and sexism are the only 'messages' Bond should be sending according to some very strange people on the on the internet.
    Bond is a womanizer. Get over it. If it comes across too “rapey” for you then you’re watching the wrong series. If this stuff really bothers you then how many Bond films can you actually watch? Just one? NTTD? Which is the one truly “woke” Bond film and the only one that makes you happy it seems. Because Bond has his way with women in all the other films. Yes, including Solange in CR and Fields in QOS.

    I know you want to remove all that from the Bond series because you find it offensive. But the rest of us don’t. So guess who’s in the minority? And guess who’s not a Bond fan?

    Yes he's a womaniser. That's fine. Womanising doesn't mean 'forcing yourself against someone's will.' It's much better when it's women finding him irresistible down to his charm and looks rather than being coerced isn't it? Well to me at least, I'm just glad I don't have a daughter with some of the frankly creepy things I've seen written on this forum about what is important to people in a film.

    Its strange, don't you think, how people who get very angry that Bond isn't womanising enough, don't get angry that Roger Moore wasn't anything like the Bond character? Why doesn't that make them equally angry? That was also nothing like Bond. It's almost like the only single characteristic some people care about is weird sexual fantasies. And if that's so, you are really not a Bond fan. That's part of the character, but to only get upset about that one particular part says a lot about a person.

    A lot of assumptions in your post. Most frightening is that you seem to think anyone who even slightly feels women should be treated decently, can't be a Bond fan. I'm probably older than you. I like pretty much all Bind films except AVTAK, DAF, and DAD. And that's nothing to do with women.

    You see, I don't want to remove that from Bond. It's still there, he sleazed into both Nomi and Paloma in this film. He's the same character. They haven't changed him, they've changed the world around him, rightly. He sleazes on, sometimes it doesn't work. I find women sexier who have some self-respect, I guess some don't.

    Anyway, if the most important thing to you in a film is that 'Bond has his way with women' we probably want different things out of films. I'll rest assured I'm in the majority, because Bond films will definitely make me happier in future than you. I'm sorry you won't be able to enjoy films that reflect reality rather than your fantasies. I'm sure there's websites somewhere you can use.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    From Cary -

    "The (DB5's) armour is like (Bond's) armour. So when he's in that square and the car's being shot up, it's like his heart is being attacked, and she's in there trying to wake him up."
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    A lot of burning hate and unrelenting resentment on this thread. Sad to see that. And it is growing, which concerns me.

    I think for some people their guts are in such a knot that they have to vent strongly and just spew all the pent up poison they feel inside after watching NTTD. OK then, just please go vent in that manner somewhere else other than this forum. It sure feels like most civil discussion is drowned out at the moment by anger, denial, and bitterness wrapped up in frustration ... because this movie is done, fini, in the cinemas around the world and nothing you or I can do to change the ending.

    You hate a film? You cannot accept its ending without deepening anger and resentment? Then I suggest you do not watch it again. Don't put yourself through that any more. You still love Bond films and novels? Then go enjoy the ones you like. I am not being flippant. I mean that. Have your say in a civil way, then do something positive for yourself (and others). If talking about NTTD helps you feel better, that's great as long as it is not hate-filled commentary. I am not sensing relief from some members in this thread; just the opposite.

    There are all kinds of Bond fans around the world. We will disagree on many things. NTTD is divisive because of its ending. C'est la vie. There WILL be the next Bond movie, and I hope it is one enjoyed by all who are having such a tough, truly miserable time with NTTD. I don't like to see people churning and this upset and it snowballing worse and worse. I don't wish turmoil inside Bond fans churning into deep hatred and burning revenge against EON; or attacking others with differing views. Come on, now. Take care of yourselves, take a step back.

    We cannot change each other's minds. It is okay to differ wildly about movies. It is just when the level of hate spills into attacking each other and wild surmises about EON's motivations that I get concerned for members here. It feels like a mob mentality brewing, with anger overriding everything else. Try stepping back a bit.
  • Posts: 131
    Feyador wrote: »
    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.

    The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.
  • Please explain how Roger Moore's carry on global celebrity 'spy' Bond didn't subvert the character any more than Daniel Craig?

    Someone made a good point the other day, about how if Purvis and Wade came up with some of the weirder bits of the Fleming novels (the comedy dream sequences, outright fourth wall breaks, giant squid, etc) they’d be slated for it. And yeah, to be honest, I’ve often thought the same is true of Moore’s Bond. He gets a pass, because we all grew up with him and love him. But he looks and acts nothing like Fleming’s character. Over the years on here, I’ve seen some members who are most vocally in favour of Bond staying white because of the books then turn around and defend the merits of Moonraker (film). Doesn’t make sense to me.

    I do love Roger Moore for the record. He was brilliant and the series never would’ve survived if he hadn’t reinvented it the way he did. But I do think he marked the point where Bond transcended the source material, and where Fleming stopped being the absolute be all and end all. Moore proved that playing it fast and loose with the rules and giving us a different take could not only work, but is sometimes necessary to keep the brand relevant.


    Someone actually said 'wake up sheeple'! 😂

    I call bingo, we've now had 'woke', 'agenda', and 'sheeple'. When did this forum get infiltrated by David Icke?

    There an interesting set of fans who will defend Bond more or less raping women in old films (and frankly SF and SP were a bit dodge here) because it was 'of it's time', but get very very angry now if they perceive Bond does anything remotely 'of it's time'. It seems racism and sexism are the only 'messages' Bond should be sending according to some very strange people on the on the internet.

    Disagree on SF and SP being dodge (it’s unrealistic, having the women fall at his feet so quickly, but that’s Bond, and it was 100% consensual) but yeah I can see where you’re coming from, I do think some people get strangely defensive over the old films and Bond’s sexism (or the actors, I remember somebody gleefully posting gifs of Connery slapping women around in the thread about his passing, because people had been criticising him over those comments he made).

    Same with the racism in the novels. Like yeah, Fleming was a man of his time, but we can still admit that wasn’t okay. I think it’s silly to let those grim bits affect our enjoyment of all the other good stuff. I certainly wouldn’t knock GF down my rankings because of the rapey bit in the barn. But we don’t have to defend those bits either, we can acknowledge they‘ve aged awfully. I think the problem with the defence of “it was the 50s/60s, everyone was doing it” is that there were people back then (feminists, civil rights campaigners, etc) who knew that wasn’t okay. And making excuses for the people on the wrong side of history does a disservice to those people who were on the right side, imo.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    Feyador wrote: »
    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.

    The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.

    Yes, but something about NTTD within the context of the entire series seems to have provoked, pro or con, a much deeper response within the fandom than any other film .... as if we each feel the necessity to confront our own understanding of the character (and how he does or does not change) and then take ownership of it.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    Feyador wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.

    The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.

    Yes, but something about NTTD within the context of the entire series seems to have provoked, pro or con, a much deeper response within the fandom than any other film .... as if we each feel the necessity to confront our own understanding of the character (and how he does or does not change) and then take ownership of it.

    Agreed, and that's one of the reasons why this film is special imo.
    A lot of burning hate and unrelenting resentment on this thread. Sad to see that. And it is growing, which concerns me.

    Nah... it's not growing.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 650
    matt_u wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.

    The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.

    Yes, but something about NTTD within the context of the entire series seems to have provoked, pro or con, a much deeper response within the fandom than any other film .... as if we each feel the necessity to confront our own understanding of the character (and how he does or does not change) and then take ownership of it.

    Agreed, and that's one of the reasons why this film is special imo.
    Oh the film is “special” alright.

    So if at the end of GF Bond got sucked out of the airplane window and Goldfinger emerged victorious would you also call it a “special” film?

    Because it’s divisive it’s special? Yeah, ok.

    I recall just a few years ago over on the IMDB Bond discussion boards things being discussed like the death of Bond or James Bond being a code name instead of an actual agent’s real name. Not a single fan was okay with either of these 2 things. No matter how hardcore Craig fans they were they all said this would be stepping over the line and going way too far and that the producers would never go for such a thing. And yet here we are. Surprise, surprise. I just wonder if all those fans are outraged now or if they suddenly changed their tune.

    Things that were unthinkable just a few years ago are suddenly okay now? Because other franchises are doing it?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    matt_u wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.

    The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.

    Yes, but something about NTTD within the context of the entire series seems to have provoked, pro or con, a much deeper response within the fandom than any other film .... as if we each feel the necessity to confront our own understanding of the character (and how he does or does not change) and then take ownership of it.

    Agreed, and that's one of the reasons why this film is special imo.
    Oh the film is “special” alright.

    So if at the end of GF Bond got sucked out of the airplane window and Goldfinger emerged victorious would you also call it a “special” film?

    Because it’s divisive it’s special? Yeah, ok.

    That analogy doesn’t work, because GF as a story doesn’t build up to Bond’s death. NTTD does.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Feyador wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.

    The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.

    Yes, but something about NTTD within the context of the entire series seems to have provoked, pro or con, a much deeper response within the fandom than any other film .... as if we each feel the necessity to confront our own understanding of the character (and how he does or does not change) and then take ownership of it.

    It doesn’t feel that different to any previous release to me. There is always a small vocal minority who will attempt to justify why it’s the end of days. Happened with SP before, and SF before that, and so on. It’ll happen again with B26, and 27…
  • Posts: 3,293
    RC7 wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.

    The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.

    Yes, but something about NTTD within the context of the entire series seems to have provoked, pro or con, a much deeper response within the fandom than any other film .... as if we each feel the necessity to confront our own understanding of the character (and how he does or does not change) and then take ownership of it.

    It doesn’t feel that different to any previous release to me. There is always a small vocal minority who will attempt to justify why it’s the end of days. Happened with SP before, and SF before that, and so on. It’ll happen again with B26, and 27…

    I have never seen this level of polarising after a Bond film before. SP and SF didn't have anything as controversial as Bond having a child and then killing himself. We are in unchartered waters now. This isn't on the same level as M dying, or Blofeld being Bond's brother.
  • Posts: 87
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.
  • Posts: 3,293
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    Exactamundo! ^:)^
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    RC7 wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.

    The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.

    Yes, but something about NTTD within the context of the entire series seems to have provoked, pro or con, a much deeper response within the fandom than any other film .... as if we each feel the necessity to confront our own understanding of the character (and how he does or does not change) and then take ownership of it.

    It doesn’t feel that different to any previous release to me. There is always a small vocal minority who will attempt to justify why it’s the end of days. Happened with SP before, and SF before that, and so on. It’ll happen again with B26, and 27…

    I have never seen this level of polarising after a Bond film before. SP and SF didn't have anything as controversial as Bond having a child and then killing himself. We are in unchartered waters now. This isn't on the same level as M dying, or Blofeld being Bond's brother.

    Why is Bond having a child such a bad thing? Fleming did it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Qba007 wrote: »
    If NTTD ended up like every Bond movie, it would be hard to find a viewer to wish Bond had been killed.

    If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.

    The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.

    It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.
Sign In or Register to comment.