NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - Members' Reviews and Discussions (SPOILERS)

1141517192032

Comments

  • Posts: 2,592
    RC7 wrote: »
    I find Stromberg’s plan in TSWLM (my favorite Bond film) to be more straightforward, logical, and “realistic” than the mess in this film. The finale in TSWLM has an incredible Ken Adam set housing nuclear submarines and Bond’s mission is basically to stop 2 submarines from launching nukes on New York and Moscow. There’s a ticking clock to doomsday which really ratchets up the tension. It’s very grand scale but also very classic Bondish! No sappy and moapy villain with some magic pond of nanobots that might leak (?) somewhere unless the whole island is destroyed within the next 9 minutes. With Bond running to the top of the base so that he can face his destiny/death as some martyr for mankind. “No, we must kill Bond because if we try to kill the baddies approaching the island we might provoke an international incident”. Seriously? That’s the issue? It seems to me that every other Bond film had some serious threats of sparking international incidents (YOLT, TSWLM, MR, OP, TND, DAD, etc). and yet the solution was never to kill Bond. But here it’s the only solution?

    They can’t risk a boat entering and/or leaving the island. Heracles isn’t yet on the approaching boats, it’s on the island. Hence - destroy the island. It’s very simple. Hate the nanobots all you want, that’s a separate issue, but the logic is clear.

    And to clarify, the solution here is not to kill Bond. They expect him to clear the island before impact.

    And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.

    Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    I find Stromberg’s plan in TSWLM (my favorite Bond film) to be more straightforward, logical, and “realistic” than the mess in this film. The finale in TSWLM has an incredible Ken Adam set housing nuclear submarines and Bond’s mission is basically to stop 2 submarines from launching nukes on New York and Moscow. There’s a ticking clock to doomsday which really ratchets up the tension. It’s very grand scale but also very classic Bondish! No sappy and moapy villain with some magic pond of nanobots that might leak (?) somewhere unless the whole island is destroyed within the next 9 minutes. With Bond running to the top of the base so that he can face his destiny/death as some martyr for mankind. “No, we must kill Bond because if we try to kill the baddies approaching the island we might provoke an international incident”. Seriously? That’s the issue? It seems to me that every other Bond film had some serious threats of sparking international incidents (YOLT, TSWLM, MR, OP, TND, DAD, etc). and yet the solution was never to kill Bond. But here it’s the only solution?

    They can’t risk a boat entering and/or leaving the island. Heracles isn’t yet on the approaching boats, it’s on the island. Hence - destroy the island. It’s very simple. Hate the nanobots all you want, that’s a separate issue, but the logic is clear.

    And to clarify, the solution here is not to kill Bond. They expect him to clear the island before impact.

    And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.

    Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.

    If you can prove that ‘for many’ it is an outright disaster we can talk. At the moment it feels like a vocal subsection of fans to me and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I’m not really one for aggregating sites but whichever way you cut it, those sites point to a significantly better reception than both QoS and SP. I don’t see how that equates to ‘outright disaster’.
  • I said this in the non spoiler thread but I think it’s relevant here too. Given the subtext of the film (that has been established over the past 5), Bond’s death really isn’t that sad at all. It’s been pretty strongly established that Craig’s Bond wouldn’t be happy/fulfilled being a soulless killer, drinking, and having casual sex for the rest of his days and he just as well wouldn’t be happy wasting away in retirement either. Here, Bond came to understand that it just won’t be possible for him to have the peace and love he longed for ever since he fell in love with Vesper. Be it his inability to let go and trust wholeheartedly or the constant death and danger that surrounds he and the people close to him (which were quite poetically represented in literal terms by the nanobots for Madeleine and Mathilde), it was just never going to work. He understands that in order for him and the ones he loves to truly be at peace, he had to give up his life. He left this world happy and content because he knew he loved, was loved, and his family would live on without the spectre of death that hangs over him because he was willing to give his life for them. I don’t think he’d want to go on living the empty life of being an assassin or wasting away in Jamaica knowing what he had (and couldn’t have) in Madeleine or Mathilde. What would he have to live for? The tragedy of Craig’s Bond isn’t his death, it’s the perpetuating cycle of self sabotage and unhappiness that he doesn’t really become aware of until it’s too late. Bond and Madeleine had all the time in the world and he wasted so much of it because he couldn’t let the past go.

    I believe it was one of Purvis & Wade or Michael G. Wilson who said that when we meet Bond in CR, he a guy who doesn’t really understand life. In No Time to Die, he finally “gets it” and pays the ultimate sacrifice to preserve his what really matters and his legacy, Madeleine and Mathilde. I can appreciate that’s not what everyone wants from a Bond film, and I don’t hold anything against those who don’t care for it. That being said, I think it makes a lot of sense with regards to the hero’s journey Craig’s Bond experiences and I think those who haven’t seen the film yet should go in with an open mind.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 11,869
    @battleshipgreygt Great post. I certainly will be going in with an open mind, and already know I will enjoy the film. Like everyone here, I wasn't happy with what happens to Bond, but came to respect the producers' decision to give Craig's arc a definitive beginning and end.
  • @QBranch I think this is one of those films with something in it for everyone, even if you don’t like the direction the ending takes. I think something that was probably lost on a lot of the community is that from CR, Bond isn’t really treated as an aspirational character but rather like a real person. The trademark womanizing, cavalier attitude towards death, etc. aren’t played up in the male fantasy sense they were in the previous films… they’re played here as a trauma response. When you look at Craig’s tenure through that lens, ending with him riding off into the sunset or continuing to “be James Bond” makes a lot of sense with the traditional cinematic portrayal of Bond, but flies in the face of what we know of the Craig’s Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2021 Posts: 20,199
    I have changed the title from "possible spoilers" to "spoilers" because... well, subtelty is a foreign concept, it seems.
  • Posts: 2,592
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I find Stromberg’s plan in TSWLM (my favorite Bond film) to be more straightforward, logical, and “realistic” than the mess in this film. The finale in TSWLM has an incredible Ken Adam set housing nuclear submarines and Bond’s mission is basically to stop 2 submarines from launching nukes on New York and Moscow. There’s a ticking clock to doomsday which really ratchets up the tension. It’s very grand scale but also very classic Bondish! No sappy and moapy villain with some magic pond of nanobots that might leak (?) somewhere unless the whole island is destroyed within the next 9 minutes. With Bond running to the top of the base so that he can face his destiny/death as some martyr for mankind. “No, we must kill Bond because if we try to kill the baddies approaching the island we might provoke an international incident”. Seriously? That’s the issue? It seems to me that every other Bond film had some serious threats of sparking international incidents (YOLT, TSWLM, MR, OP, TND, DAD, etc). and yet the solution was never to kill Bond. But here it’s the only solution?

    They can’t risk a boat entering and/or leaving the island. Heracles isn’t yet on the approaching boats, it’s on the island. Hence - destroy the island. It’s very simple. Hate the nanobots all you want, that’s a separate issue, but the logic is clear.

    And to clarify, the solution here is not to kill Bond. They expect him to clear the island before impact.

    And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.

    Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.

    If you can prove that ‘for many’ it is an outright disaster we can talk. At the moment it feels like a vocal subsection of fans to me and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I’m not really one for aggregating sites but whichever way you cut it, those sites point to a significantly better reception than both QoS and SP. I don’t see how that equates to ‘outright disaster’.

    Too early to say yet, but there are plenty of heavily dissenting voices across all Bond forums, reviews, IMDB, etc. not to mention credible Bond fan YouTubers too.

    We'll know more on how fans see this film once Bond 26 comes out, allowing for a time of reflection.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,055
    I said this in the non spoiler thread but I think it’s relevant here too. Given the subtext of the film (that has been established over the past 5), Bond’s death really isn’t that sad at all. It’s been pretty strongly established that Craig’s Bond wouldn’t be happy/fulfilled being a soulless killer, drinking, and having casual sex for the rest of his days and he just as well wouldn’t be happy wasting away in retirement either. Here, Bond came to understand that it just won’t be possible for him to have the peace and love he longed for ever since he fell in love with Vesper. Be it his inability to let go and trust wholeheartedly or the constant death and danger that surrounds he and the people close to him (which were quite poetically represented in literal terms by the nanobots for Madeleine and Mathilde), it was just never going to work. He understands that in order for him and the ones he loves to truly be at peace, he had to give up his life. He left this world happy and content because he knew he loved, was loved, and his family would live on without the spectre of death that hangs over him because he was willing to give his life for them. I don’t think he’d want to go on living the empty life of being an assassin or wasting away in Jamaica knowing what he had (and couldn’t have) in Madeleine or Mathilde. What would he have to live for? The tragedy of Craig’s Bond isn’t his death, it’s the perpetuating cycle of self sabotage and unhappiness that he doesn’t really become aware of until it’s too late. Bond and Madeleine had all the time in the world and he wasted so much of it because he couldn’t let the past go.

    I believe it was one of Purvis & Wade or Michael G. Wilson who said that when we meet Bond in CR, he a guy who doesn’t really understand life. In No Time to Die, he finally “gets it” and pays the ultimate sacrifice to preserve his what really matters and his legacy, Madeleine and Mathilde. I can appreciate that’s not what everyone wants from a Bond film, and I don’t hold anything against those who don’t care for it. That being said, I think it makes a lot of sense with regards to the hero’s journey Craig’s Bond experiences and I think those who haven’t seen the film yet should go in with an open mind.

    Great post. As I said many times death is his curse. It’s tragic but in the end, poetic.
  • So, I think it's important to take a critical look at what Craig-Bond was living/fighting for and where exactly did his allegiances lie and if they changed at all.
    Typically speaking Bond is a character that priorotizes and fights for Queen and country which has in some cases been explicitly pointed out in some of the films. Looking at Craig's Bond films, he hasn't made a single Bond film where he's been a full time employee at MI6. He's either quit or gone rogue which suggests his loyalty to what his job demands is quite flexible. Twice he's quit his job for a woman, the other time he quit and absconded because he took M's judgment call to take out a lead personally (grow up, 007) and he went rogue for failing to follow orders.
    Examining these on a more comprehensive level suggests that it's not that surprising from an overarching narrative perspective that Bond would end up dead. Personally, as much as I've largely enjoyed Craig's performances, even though I don't thinknit was all too necessary to kill him off, I am okay with the fact that they did. This presents an opportunity to really celebrate Bond and bring back the character that's more alligned with expectations of how he is fundamentally recognised. With Craig-Bond dead, now we have a complete and brand new slate to start afresh. That being said, I would have preferred a different death for Craig-Bond but I suppose his motivations differ to that of the incarnations that preceeded him so I guess it's okay.

    All I know is I want a Bond film that tonally captures the grit and glamour of Casino Royale , with more spycraft and a Bond who's loyalty is too Queen and Country/MI6 and the mission.
  • I said this in the non spoiler thread but I think it’s relevant here too. Given the subtext of the film (that has been established over the past 5), Bond’s death really isn’t that sad at all. It’s been pretty strongly established that Craig’s Bond wouldn’t be happy/fulfilled being a soulless killer, drinking, and having casual sex for the rest of his days and he just as well wouldn’t be happy wasting away in retirement either. Here, Bond came to understand that it just won’t be possible for him to have the peace and love he longed for ever since he fell in love with Vesper. Be it his inability to let go and trust wholeheartedly or the constant death and danger that surrounds he and the people close to him (which were quite poetically represented in literal terms by the nanobots for Madeleine and Mathilde), it was just never going to work. He understands that in order for him and the ones he loves to truly be at peace, he had to give up his life. He left this world happy and content because he knew he loved, was loved, and his family would live on without the spectre of death that hangs over him because he was willing to give his life for them. I don’t think he’d want to go on living the empty life of being an assassin or wasting away in Jamaica knowing what he had (and couldn’t have) in Madeleine or Mathilde. What would he have to live for? The tragedy of Craig’s Bond isn’t his death, it’s the perpetuating cycle of self sabotage and unhappiness that he doesn’t really become aware of until it’s too late. Bond and Madeleine had all the time in the world and he wasted so much of it because he couldn’t let the past go.

    I believe it was one of Purvis & Wade or Michael G. Wilson who said that when we meet Bond in CR, he a guy who doesn’t really understand life. In No Time to Die, he finally “gets it” and pays the ultimate sacrifice to preserve his what really matters and his legacy, Madeleine and Mathilde. I can appreciate that’s not what everyone wants from a Bond film, and I don’t hold anything against those who don’t care for it. That being said, I think it makes a lot of sense with regards to the hero’s journey Craig’s Bond experiences and I think those who haven’t seen the film yet should go in with an open mind.



    This! I read a wonderful review of the film from Time that summed it up the same way: “ In general Bond—first brought to life long ago in Ian Fleming’s novels—is a fantasy figure of freedom and licentiousness, but Craig is the only truly erotic Bond. By the end of No Time to Die, he understands what his freedom has cost him, and he doesn’t want it anymore. He throws it away for something greater.”
  • Posts: 4,431
    In other Bond movies (and other movies) you get a "hard" countdown which IMHO is far better re ramping up the tension. "the boats are on their way" is too much of a fudge for me. We see Q tracking the boats so they have the co-ordinates. Why not fire missiles at the boats if they are what's defining the time limit? Or destroy the docking area so the boats cant load up? Not sure if it's been mentioned but M has a conflict of interests here as it maybe to his personal advantage to blow up the whole island.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,055
    M doesn’t want launch any missile in order to prevent a diplomatic escalation. Once they find out buyers are on their way to get Heracles the boats were 15 minutes away to reach Safin’s island. So they had just a 6 minutes window to destroy everything. At that point it was better to destroy the island and Heracles forever than just blowing up some ships in Russian waters, since there was no way to handle the situation diplomatically anymore. They destroy the ships and then what? Russians, American, Japanese would’ve go there finding out about Heracles. Russian MIGs were already flying over the island. It would’ve been a lose-lose situation for MI6. Bond knows it and goes all in to prevent Heracles spreading.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I find Stromberg’s plan in TSWLM (my favorite Bond film) to be more straightforward, logical, and “realistic” than the mess in this film. The finale in TSWLM has an incredible Ken Adam set housing nuclear submarines and Bond’s mission is basically to stop 2 submarines from launching nukes on New York and Moscow. There’s a ticking clock to doomsday which really ratchets up the tension. It’s very grand scale but also very classic Bondish! No sappy and moapy villain with some magic pond of nanobots that might leak (?) somewhere unless the whole island is destroyed within the next 9 minutes. With Bond running to the top of the base so that he can face his destiny/death as some martyr for mankind. “No, we must kill Bond because if we try to kill the baddies approaching the island we might provoke an international incident”. Seriously? That’s the issue? It seems to me that every other Bond film had some serious threats of sparking international incidents (YOLT, TSWLM, MR, OP, TND, DAD, etc). and yet the solution was never to kill Bond. But here it’s the only solution?

    They can’t risk a boat entering and/or leaving the island. Heracles isn’t yet on the approaching boats, it’s on the island. Hence - destroy the island. It’s very simple. Hate the nanobots all you want, that’s a separate issue, but the logic is clear.

    And to clarify, the solution here is not to kill Bond. They expect him to clear the island before impact.

    And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.

    Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.

    If you can prove that ‘for many’ it is an outright disaster we can talk. At the moment it feels like a vocal subsection of fans to me and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I’m not really one for aggregating sites but whichever way you cut it, those sites point to a significantly better reception than both QoS and SP. I don’t see how that equates to ‘outright disaster’.

    Too early to say yet, but there are plenty of heavily dissenting voices across all Bond forums, reviews, IMDB, etc. not to mention credible Bond fan YouTubers too.

    We'll know more on how fans see this film once Bond 26 comes out, allowing for a time of reflection.

    There we go. You can agree calling it an ‘outright disaster’ is premature.
  • Posts: 2,592
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I find Stromberg’s plan in TSWLM (my favorite Bond film) to be more straightforward, logical, and “realistic” than the mess in this film. The finale in TSWLM has an incredible Ken Adam set housing nuclear submarines and Bond’s mission is basically to stop 2 submarines from launching nukes on New York and Moscow. There’s a ticking clock to doomsday which really ratchets up the tension. It’s very grand scale but also very classic Bondish! No sappy and moapy villain with some magic pond of nanobots that might leak (?) somewhere unless the whole island is destroyed within the next 9 minutes. With Bond running to the top of the base so that he can face his destiny/death as some martyr for mankind. “No, we must kill Bond because if we try to kill the baddies approaching the island we might provoke an international incident”. Seriously? That’s the issue? It seems to me that every other Bond film had some serious threats of sparking international incidents (YOLT, TSWLM, MR, OP, TND, DAD, etc). and yet the solution was never to kill Bond. But here it’s the only solution?

    They can’t risk a boat entering and/or leaving the island. Heracles isn’t yet on the approaching boats, it’s on the island. Hence - destroy the island. It’s very simple. Hate the nanobots all you want, that’s a separate issue, but the logic is clear.

    And to clarify, the solution here is not to kill Bond. They expect him to clear the island before impact.

    And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.

    Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.

    If you can prove that ‘for many’ it is an outright disaster we can talk. At the moment it feels like a vocal subsection of fans to me and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I’m not really one for aggregating sites but whichever way you cut it, those sites point to a significantly better reception than both QoS and SP. I don’t see how that equates to ‘outright disaster’.

    Too early to say yet, but there are plenty of heavily dissenting voices across all Bond forums, reviews, IMDB, etc. not to mention credible Bond fan YouTubers too.

    We'll know more on how fans see this film once Bond 26 comes out, allowing for a time of reflection.

    There we go. You can agree calling it an ‘outright disaster’ is premature.

    Premature is my middle name. Just ask my wife...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,448
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I find Stromberg’s plan in TSWLM (my favorite Bond film) to be more straightforward, logical, and “realistic” than the mess in this film. The finale in TSWLM has an incredible Ken Adam set housing nuclear submarines and Bond’s mission is basically to stop 2 submarines from launching nukes on New York and Moscow. There’s a ticking clock to doomsday which really ratchets up the tension. It’s very grand scale but also very classic Bondish! No sappy and moapy villain with some magic pond of nanobots that might leak (?) somewhere unless the whole island is destroyed within the next 9 minutes. With Bond running to the top of the base so that he can face his destiny/death as some martyr for mankind. “No, we must kill Bond because if we try to kill the baddies approaching the island we might provoke an international incident”. Seriously? That’s the issue? It seems to me that every other Bond film had some serious threats of sparking international incidents (YOLT, TSWLM, MR, OP, TND, DAD, etc). and yet the solution was never to kill Bond. But here it’s the only solution?

    They can’t risk a boat entering and/or leaving the island. Heracles isn’t yet on the approaching boats, it’s on the island. Hence - destroy the island. It’s very simple. Hate the nanobots all you want, that’s a separate issue, but the logic is clear.

    And to clarify, the solution here is not to kill Bond. They expect him to clear the island before impact.

    And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.

    Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.

    If you can prove that ‘for many’ it is an outright disaster we can talk. At the moment it feels like a vocal subsection of fans to me and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I’m not really one for aggregating sites but whichever way you cut it, those sites point to a significantly better reception than both QoS and SP. I don’t see how that equates to ‘outright disaster’.

    Too early to say yet, but there are plenty of heavily dissenting voices across all Bond forums, reviews, IMDB, etc. not to mention credible Bond fan YouTubers too.

    We'll know more on how fans see this film once Bond 26 comes out, allowing for a time of reflection.

    There we go. You can agree calling it an ‘outright disaster’ is premature.

    Premature is my middle name. Just ask my wife...

    We have.
  • Posts: 2,592
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I find Stromberg’s plan in TSWLM (my favorite Bond film) to be more straightforward, logical, and “realistic” than the mess in this film. The finale in TSWLM has an incredible Ken Adam set housing nuclear submarines and Bond’s mission is basically to stop 2 submarines from launching nukes on New York and Moscow. There’s a ticking clock to doomsday which really ratchets up the tension. It’s very grand scale but also very classic Bondish! No sappy and moapy villain with some magic pond of nanobots that might leak (?) somewhere unless the whole island is destroyed within the next 9 minutes. With Bond running to the top of the base so that he can face his destiny/death as some martyr for mankind. “No, we must kill Bond because if we try to kill the baddies approaching the island we might provoke an international incident”. Seriously? That’s the issue? It seems to me that every other Bond film had some serious threats of sparking international incidents (YOLT, TSWLM, MR, OP, TND, DAD, etc). and yet the solution was never to kill Bond. But here it’s the only solution?

    They can’t risk a boat entering and/or leaving the island. Heracles isn’t yet on the approaching boats, it’s on the island. Hence - destroy the island. It’s very simple. Hate the nanobots all you want, that’s a separate issue, but the logic is clear.

    And to clarify, the solution here is not to kill Bond. They expect him to clear the island before impact.

    And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.

    Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.

    If you can prove that ‘for many’ it is an outright disaster we can talk. At the moment it feels like a vocal subsection of fans to me and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I’m not really one for aggregating sites but whichever way you cut it, those sites point to a significantly better reception than both QoS and SP. I don’t see how that equates to ‘outright disaster’.

    Too early to say yet, but there are plenty of heavily dissenting voices across all Bond forums, reviews, IMDB, etc. not to mention credible Bond fan YouTubers too.

    We'll know more on how fans see this film once Bond 26 comes out, allowing for a time of reflection.

    There we go. You can agree calling it an ‘outright disaster’ is premature.

    Premature is my middle name. Just ask my wife...

    We have.

    I hope she gave a rock solid confirmation.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    Unsure where to put this article ... click into the tweet to get to the article.
    My research scientist friend, who is a major Bond fan, sent me this. Apparently some scientists have had their say regarding Safin's skin condition and more. ;)
    I will read it in a moment; just getting my (safe and not mind altering) tea.
    (P.S. inside it shows the press release of the article is entitled "A Flu To A Kill" - ha!)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,199
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I find Stromberg’s plan in TSWLM (my favorite Bond film) to be more straightforward, logical, and “realistic” than the mess in this film. The finale in TSWLM has an incredible Ken Adam set housing nuclear submarines and Bond’s mission is basically to stop 2 submarines from launching nukes on New York and Moscow. There’s a ticking clock to doomsday which really ratchets up the tension. It’s very grand scale but also very classic Bondish! No sappy and moapy villain with some magic pond of nanobots that might leak (?) somewhere unless the whole island is destroyed within the next 9 minutes. With Bond running to the top of the base so that he can face his destiny/death as some martyr for mankind. “No, we must kill Bond because if we try to kill the baddies approaching the island we might provoke an international incident”. Seriously? That’s the issue? It seems to me that every other Bond film had some serious threats of sparking international incidents (YOLT, TSWLM, MR, OP, TND, DAD, etc). and yet the solution was never to kill Bond. But here it’s the only solution?

    They can’t risk a boat entering and/or leaving the island. Heracles isn’t yet on the approaching boats, it’s on the island. Hence - destroy the island. It’s very simple. Hate the nanobots all you want, that’s a separate issue, but the logic is clear.

    And to clarify, the solution here is not to kill Bond. They expect him to clear the island before impact.

    And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.

    Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.

    If you can prove that ‘for many’ it is an outright disaster we can talk. At the moment it feels like a vocal subsection of fans to me and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I’m not really one for aggregating sites but whichever way you cut it, those sites point to a significantly better reception than both QoS and SP. I don’t see how that equates to ‘outright disaster’.

    Too early to say yet, but there are plenty of heavily dissenting voices across all Bond forums, reviews, IMDB, etc. not to mention credible Bond fan YouTubers too.

    We'll know more on how fans see this film once Bond 26 comes out, allowing for a time of reflection.

    There we go. You can agree calling it an ‘outright disaster’ is premature.

    Premature is my middle name. Just ask my wife...

    We have.

    I hope she gave a rock solid confirmation.

    This made me laugh, boys. 😃😄
    Unsure where to put this article ... click into the tweet to get to the article.
    My research scientist friend, who is a major Bond fan, sent me this. Apparently some scientists have had their say regarding Safin's skin condition and more. ;)
    I will read it in a moment; just getting my (safe and not mind altering) tea.
    (P.S. inside it shows the press release of the article is entitled "A Flu To A Kill" - ha!)

    Great read!
  • Posts: 187
    Finally got around to seeing it despite my initial reservations.

    Middle of the road for me. While there were brilliantly executed portions, there were equally decisions I just could not gel with.

    Positives:
    - Daniel Craig was once again brilliant in the role, no complaints.
    Bond and Madeleine's romance was way better played in this picture than last time in SPECTRE.
    - The MI6 crew were a welcomed addition as always.
    - Getting Jeffrey Wright back as Felix.
    - The first half of the movie is spectacular.
    - Paloma was great, really ended up wanting more of her.
    - Nomi is hands down the best other Double-O we've ever had in the franchise. I would even say she has come second to Felix for best other agent in the franchise in general, period. Loved her character and the portrayal.

    Negatives:
    - Safin as a villain, in both character and plan, was dull and uninspired.
    - Blofeld, Felix and Bond's deaths. Didn't care for how any of them were executed, no pun intended. All fell flat for me. Blofeld's was lackluster and made him feel even less menacing than in SPECTRE. It butchered the portrayal even further for me. Likewise, Leiter's death did nothing for me. Jeffrey Wright was extremely wasted in this movie. If he was going to die, he should have gone out more towards the end. He was basically a glorified cameo. And Bond's death just infuriated me, and not because of the sole reason of him dying. It felt extremely contrived what with the indestructible nanobots.
    - These last few movies, for me, have really turned Bond into the "Do I Really Have To Do This?" superspy. Every plot he gets dragged into and feels like he'd rather be anywhere else doing something other than spy work. I'm tired of the personal stakes. I need Bond back on a mission for Queen and Country.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    My issue with Bond's death was that it was to save M+M rather than mankind. Had he found out that the doors had to be manually kept open, otherwise Heracles definitely gets out into the population, and he sacrificed himself to make sure it happened, I would have been fine with it.

    As it was, he sacrificed himself to save his daughter and her mother. Well, it is heroic to a degree, and makes sense given the series of contrivances they came up with (incurable nanobots). But it is also something we all would do, right?

    Also, Mallory should be in prison for his part in creating all of this mess.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 542
    Mallory should be in prison for his part in creating all of this mess.

    This is England, though - the elites don't go to prison. He might die by mysteriously zipping himself up inside a bag while in the bath, I suppose...

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/13/mi6-spy-dead-bag-locked-himself-gareth-williams
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Venutius wrote: »
    This is England - the elites don't go to prison. He might die by mysteriously zipping himself up inside a bag while in the bath, I suppose...

    Haha.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,450
    Besides, Mallory bombed all the evidence.

  • Draco20Draco20 USA
    Posts: 18
    I throughly enjoyed the movie. I think this was the only way Craig could have ended and I applaud Babs and Mikey for having the guts to take this approach. The 2hr 45 min run time, I did not notice and was have a roaring good time. I plan on seeing it a second time.
    I was happy to see the gunbarrel at the opening but was surprised that no blood came down. Still it was great to see it. All Craig's gunbarrels have all been quite different, each one unique.
  • Posts: 1,255
    To sum up my feelings about Bond's death, I'm glad they closed out the Craig era and gave us a clean slate to then reboot Bond. Loved Craig in the role but hated his universe complete with Foster Brothers, Felix dying, Spectre being destroyed and much more. I hope they get it right the next time.
  • Posts: 523
    My review for NTTD is coming soon. A comprehensive and in-depth look at the most divisive Bond film in history. Brace yourselves!

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,450
    delfloria wrote: »
    To sum up my feelings about Bond's death, I'm glad they closed out the Craig era and gave us a clean slate to then reboot Bond. Loved Craig in the role but hated his universe complete with Foster Brothers, Felix dying, Spectre being destroyed and much more. I hope they get it right the next time.

    To be fair, if that all had to be done, at least it was in a definitive ending of a timeline! I would have been very upset if all that happened and that we’d continue a timeline where Felix is gone forever.

    At least with a clean slate, we’ll not only get Felix back but also a new Rene Mathis!
  • Draco20Draco20 USA
    Posts: 18
    If and when a re boot comes I daresay that every part will be recast from M to Q to Moneypenny. Leiter and yes Blofeld. Given the long time between films nowadays it could be anywhere from 5-10 years. EON is in no hurry to continue the franchise. I'm okay with that.
    Moore had 7 films in 12 years, Craig had a longer tenue but fewer films due to the long time between them. Where Moore had 2 years between films, Craig was well...nuff said.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,592
    delfloria wrote: »
    To sum up my feelings about Bond's death, I'm glad they closed out the Craig era and gave us a clean slate to then reboot Bond. Loved Craig in the role but hated his universe complete with Foster Brothers, Felix dying, Spectre being destroyed and much more. I hope they get it right the next time.

    To be fair, if that all had to be done, at least it was in a definitive ending of a timeline! I would have been very upset if all that happened and that we’d continue a timeline where Felix is gone forever.

    At least with a clean slate, we’ll not only get Felix back but also a new Rene Mathis!

    If they hadn't gone down such an extreme route with this one - Felix and Bond dying, Bond having a child, etc. and stuck to a more traditional film with more or less the same storyline, what would the reaction have been from fans?

    Would this film be dismissed as another run-of-the-mill film? Seen as another SPECTRE? And would this affect the timeline for the next actor who would be considerably younger? At least they could bring back the same M, Q and Moneypenny.

    Or if they had been a bit more bolder and gone with an adaptation of YOLT - Blofeld instead of Safin, Bond kills Blofeld on his island then escapes and ends up with amnesia, how would fans have reacted to that tragic ending, and would this leave headaches again for the next actor stepping in, who would be considerably younger, but directly attached to the same timeline?

    No right or wrong answer with this. I'm just pondering to how reactions would have been if NTTD had ditched the extreme plotlines. Would the film be as polarising, or would it be dismissed as just another Bond flick? Would it fare better against CR and SF, which it appears even the most hardcore NTTD fans still rate below those other two films?

    Or is NTTD loved so much by its fans because it takes Bond to the extremes? Some fans actually wanted to see Bond die on screen?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,450
    If they had gone the YOLT route and then opened the next film with a new younger actor but the same MI6 team, I probably wouldn’t like that.

    Now, if they ended it like YOLT but then began the next film with a whole new cast, I might have rolled with that because any ties between the two would have been metaphorical.

    But because Daniel Craig’s Bond actually aged, trying to recast with a younger actor would have felt false no matter what. So whether Craig’s Bond died or not, I would always prefer a clean slate that has zero ties to what came before.

    Maybe the new Bond will have already had his Vesper or Tracy, but it’s definitely gotta be an iteration unique to his.
Sign In or Register to comment.