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

1148149151153154298

Comments

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,293
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    Hence it’s impact. That’s why the film makers are in control and not fans.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 131
    Why is Bond having a child such a bad thing? Fleming did it.

    ...and Bond remained blissfully unaware. In all likelihood, Bond the literary and film character had dozens of children - and never knew. It does not make him a responsible citizen, but he was never perfect.

    Knowingly having a child is arguably the most life-changing experience one can have, and in Bond's case, the extent of the change it brings about (as we see happening in NTTD) makes him too much of a cliched action movie father for him to remain intriguing. Bond's family subplot comes across like a compilation of tropes, the behind-the-scenes pregnancy coming from soap operas and the protect-the-child from 1990s action flicks. It may be subversive, but by no means original.
  • Posts: 131
    Qba007 wrote: »
    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.

    My thoughts exactly.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 372
    In what story Bond discovers he has a child? Also on note, they wanted to this for QOS already, as Haggis original script had a kid in.

    I don't see why every woman he bed should find Bond attractive. The point of every film is conflict, that's how a story evolves, if everyone agree on everything, you have no film, just something boring. So Bond encountering women who despise him on first sight, thumb their nose to him, then "forcing" himself on them (thru co-working, collaboration to bring down a vilain, etc.), having his dance around them until they crack, is conflict --> resolution.

    There's nothing rapey about it. It was exactly the relationship of Bond and Pussy in Goldfinger. Yes 007 was a bit brutal in the barn, but remember, they have a fight first, people forget that. The woman is strong and loves a challenge. She put 007 to the test. If Bond had given up and gone out, she would have qualified him as subhuman, a submissive woman. Different women in Bond films have different psychology. Nothing is dated about it.

    In fact it's demeaning to Pussy Galore to qualify the scene as rape. She gets what she wants, the way she wants it. She's a special case, Bond doesn't force himself on Dink, for example, or Jill. They have different psychology and personality than Pussy who is a nutcase. But don't we love nutcases? And Pussy.

  • Posts: 7,506
    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.


    I find NTTD very rewatchable. I have seen it four times in quick succession and enjoyed it massively.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,215
    Stamper wrote: »
    In what story Bond discovers he has a child? Also on note, they wanted to this for QOS already, as Haggis original script had a kid in.

    I don't see why every woman he bed should find Bond attractive. The point of every film is conflict, that's how a story evolves, if everyone agree on everything, you have no film, just something boring. So Bond encountering women who despise him on first sight, thumb their nose to him, then "forcing" himself on them (thru co-working, collaboration to bring down a vilain, etc.), having his dance around them until they crack, is conflict --> resolution.

    There's nothing rapey about it. It was exactly the relationship of Bond and Pussy in Goldfinger. Yes 007 was a bit brutal in the barn, but remember, they have a fight first, people forget that. The woman is strong and loves a challenge. She put 007 to the test. If Bond had given up and gone out, she would have qualified him as subhuman, a submissive woman. Different women in Bond films have different psychology. Nothing is dated about it.

    In fact it's demeaning to Pussy Galore to qualify the scene as rape. She gets what she wants, the way she wants it. She's a special case, Bond doesn't force himself on Dink, for example, or Jill. They have different psychology and personality than Pussy who is a nutcase. But don't we love nutcases? And Pussy.

    I think the bolded part is spot on, but i don’t think the way Bond forces himself on Pussy is at all what you’re describing in the next paragraph. He quite literally physically forced himself on her, resulting in the tussle you mentioned, but the collaboration and co-working comes after that. This scene, IMO is INCREDIBLY dated because that scene does not ring true to life at all. There no way in hell that scene would fly today and the tonal playfulness is the only thing that keeps it from being completely egregious. There’s ways that you can depict a strong woman “putting up a challenge” and getting what she wants in 2021 but the barn scene in Goldfinger is certainly not that.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    Just received the making of book. Some really nice never before seen photos and a good read, along with interesting insights on the making of the film from start to finish. I'll share some glimpses of the book on the inside so you'll know what to expect.... Enjoy!

    51621891270_19fd34de0b_b.jpg

    51620192252_4d82099a97_b.jpg

    51621893555_e4c96f0ef2_b.jpg

    51621675544_5d748d8be6_b.jpg

    51621024616_de56d779d0_b.jpg

    51620192677_c90b299d32_b.jpg

    51620192657_5308bbd512_b.jpg

    51621024721_d327e192a7_b.jpg

    51621250718_498b0b02d1_b.jpg

    51621675814_5b5f1d4fdb_b.jpg
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    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.

    So now we're just going to start saying Bond kills himself as a statement of fact? He'd been shot, he was bleeding out, he had to get up and open the doors and was clearly using his last strength to do so. Do you think all the soldiers in World War 1 who went over the top 'killed themselves' as well? I suppose he could have hobbbled away and not opened the doors, not very heroic though is it? Is that want you want for your hero, hiding away and letting the bad guys plan win so he can run off with his lady? That's not my Bond.

    Some people seem to be making the mistake of thinking they speak for everyone when they say what a Bond film should be. The definition of entitled fandom, thinking every film has to be exactly how YOU want it, or it's wrong. It's a pretty basic concept that many many people want something different to what you want, and that's OK. We have plenty of films of the type you want to see, plenty of us are happy with this one so everyone wins in the end no?
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    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.

    Thanks for putting it much better than I did, and that's a very good point on civil rights campaigners in the 60s. It doesn't reflect well on anyone to pretend it was OK then, it wasn't, most people just hadn't realised it (or more likely didn't want to, plenty still don't). As you say, it's perfectly possible to love the films and still acknowledge slightly less great aspects of them that fortunately, we've progressed from.

    Quite odd to me that some people will die on the hill of the importance of mistreating women as a character trait of their hero. He can be a womaniser without having to get into assault territory, as he's managed in most of the films. In this film we see him twice immediately have a crack, with Nomi and Paloma. They haven't in any way changed Tue character or made him 'woke' Bond, they've just changed the world around him so it bears some relation to reality, as it should be. The same people say Bond isn't fantasy like Star wars, but really want certain aspects of it to be a fantasy world. Absolutely no logic in all this 'Bond should be realistic he's not like Batman, except with women which should pander to my fantasies, and he can't die either.
    ' How they expect anyone to know how to satisfy such inconsistent demands I don't know.

    Perhaps the most ignorant comment in all this was 'how can 007 be a black woman'. Someone really doesn't understand how MI6, an agency operating undercover worldwide, in real life might need a very, very diverse recruitment policy. No, it should all be white men because for some reason that is very important to them, because things were like that when society denied civil rights to a huge amount of the population, and it was just so much better like that. 60 years on and people struggle with a black female agent in a Bond film, it's quite depressing.

    It's complete cognitive dissonance and rather infuriating how people can say 'oh that's how it was then' and no-one should express that maybe it wasn't great, just deal with it. But when a film today is in line with 'how it is now' the same people are completely unwilling to adjust at all and absolutely refuse to 'deal with it' on the very same terms they set for the past, and the same adjustment they've expected everyone else to make. It's so hypocritical and entitled, essentially demanding the entire world is constantly fitting around their feelings. Everyone else has to adjust, but never them. We're supposed to begin learning empathy and that we are not the centre of the world sometime around 5 years old.
  • 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.

    So now we're just going to start saying Bond kills himself as a statement of fact? He'd been shot, he was bleeding out, he had to get up and open the doors and was clearly using his last strength to do so. Do you think all the soldiers in World War 1 who went over the top 'killed themselves' as well? I suppose he could have hobbbled away and not opened the doors, not very heroic though is it? Is that want you want for your hero, hiding away and letting the bad guys plan win so he can run off with his lady? That's not my Bond.
    Not my Bond either. They could have just stuck to a much better script that didn't allow Bond to be shot in the first place, or gone with the much better tragic ending from the YOLT novel that allowed Bond to live. Cubby will be turning in his grave at this.
    Some people seem to be making the mistake of thinking they speak for everyone when they say what a Bond film should be. The definition of entitled fandom, thinking every film has to be exactly how YOU want it, or it's wrong. It's a pretty basic concept that many many people want something different to what you want, and that's OK. We have plenty of films of the type you want to see, plenty of us are happy with this one so everyone wins in the end no?
    Would you have been unhappy with this film had Bond survived....? Hmmm, I'm guessing no. ;)

  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    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.

    Who knows, some fans have a very specific, very individual list of things that can and can't be done, when the films need to be real (except when they want it to be fantasy of course), that apparently they know the rest of the world agrees with for they are the true arbiter of Bond. It's even in Fleming, but that doesn't matter, even if if Bond has kids everywhere, he should just never know about them. What a heroic quality.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,025
    Why is Bond having a child such a bad thing? Fleming did it.
    Didn't Fleming say he was starting to struggle with the books because having a wife and child had made him less ruthless and that had led to his decision to kill Bond in the next novel? Sounds like Fleming was well aware of the dichotomy, both for himself and Bond.
  • Posts: 7,506
    Spoofs have parodied Bond for decades: - "Why doesn't the bad guy just shoot Bond??"

    In NTTD the bad guy just shoots Bond, and I love it! That scene is an iconic, chilling moment. With that moment the brutal realisation comes: This Bond film will have real consequences.
  • 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.

    Why is Bond having a child such a bad thing? Fleming did it.

    Who knows, some fans have a very specific, very individual list of things that can and can't be done, when the films need to be real (except when they want it to be fantasy of course), that apparently they know the rest of the world agrees with for they are the true arbiter of Bond. It's even in Fleming, but that doesn't matter, even if if Bond has kids everywhere, he should just never know about them. What a heroic quality.

    I wouldn't have had a problem with Bond having a child either. Yes, this did happen in YOLT (although Bond was never aware).

    I have an issue with disregarding Fleming and opting for something far cheaper in shock value instead. I don't know which fans they were trying win over with this ending, because I don't think it would have turned anyone off by having Bond survive.

    As for Cubby's cinematic vision, that was to entertain audiences and let them leave the cinema feeling good - where the men walk that little bit taller. This film certainly doesn't do that either.
  • Posts: 3,293
    jobo wrote: »
    Spoofs have parodied Bond for decades: - "Why doesn't the bad guy just shoot Bond??"

    In NTTD the bad guy just shoots Bond, and I love it! That scene is an iconic, chilling moment. With that moment the brutal realisation comes: This Bond film will have real consequences.

    Would you have hated this film had Bond survived?
  • Posts: 7,506
    jobo wrote: »
    Spoofs have parodied Bond for decades: - "Why doesn't the bad guy just shoot Bond??"

    In NTTD the bad guy just shoots Bond, and I love it! That scene is an iconic, chilling moment. With that moment the brutal realisation comes: This Bond film will have real consequences.

    Would you have hated this film had Bond survived?

    Not necessarily, but it would have been less unique. Just another Bond flick. And it would have lacked the emotional punch which I enjoyed massivey.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,837
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    edited October 2021 Posts: 22
    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.

    So now we're just going to start saying Bond kills himself as a statement of fact? He'd been shot, he was bleeding out, he had to get up and open the doors and was clearly using his last strength to do so. Do you think all the soldiers in World War 1 who went over the top 'killed themselves' as well? I suppose he could have hobbbled away and not opened the doors, not very heroic though is it? Is that want you want for your hero, hiding away and letting the bad guys plan win so he can run off with his lady? That's not my Bond.
    Not my Bond either. They could have just stuck to a much better script that didn't allow Bond to be shot in the first place, or gone with the much better tragic ending from the YOLT novel that allowed Bond to live. Cubby will be turning in his grave at this.
    Some people seem to be making the mistake of thinking they speak for everyone when they say what a Bond film should be. The definition of entitled fandom, thinking every film has to be exactly how YOU want it, or it's wrong. It's a pretty basic concept that many many people want something different to what you want, and that's OK. We have plenty of films of the type you want to see, plenty of us are happy with this one so everyone wins in the end no?
    Would you have been unhappy with this film had Bond survived....? Hmmm, I'm guessing no. ;)

    Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I wasn't happy with Spectre and he survived that. Or DAD, or TWINE, OR AVTAK, or MR etc etc. This film is easily in my top 10 so yes, there are Bond films he survives in I didn't particularly rate and I prefer this one in which he dies to the majority of others. It's about the story and film as a whole.

    Do we need to keep reminding you that not everyone likes the same things as you? You say 'which fans are EON trying to win over'? They're not trying to win over fans, they're telling what they think is a good story and hope people like it. It seems in most of the world, most people do so can we stop pretending a few angry fans on a forum represents the overwhelming public reaction? Everyone I know who's seen it has liked it, Bond fan or not. I'm afraid you're just going to have to come to accept that and stop convincing yourself you speak for the world.

    The day EON deliberately makes films or takes polls as you suggest to appeal to whining fans is the day Bond really will die. Film is a form of art and trying to please everyone is a compromise of integrity that in the end is rarely satisfying for anyone. Look what happened with Rise of Skywalker which is essentially a piece of fan fiction that sold out all the main characters to please angry people on the internet.
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    Posts: 22
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 372
    Re: The Goldfinger barn scene, remember Honor Blackman came straight off playing Cathy Gale in two seasons of The Avengers. Maybe my view of the scene is tainted because I feel the actress clearly brings that baggage to the Bond film, which might elude people who aren't familiar with all her 40 + episodes and her attitude in them.

    So I still defend that scene because it's a bit Steed/Gale, they have a clear strong attraction, they are being playful about it. You know, kinky people and all that.

    Re: making of book. It looks awesome!
  • Posts: 1,394
    Was talking to someone at work yesterday who is a casual fan of the series who said to me “ I guess that means no more James Bond movies then “.

    I tried explaining that there will be more Bond to come but will be played by a different actor.She said “ But Bond is dead now “.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    After 3 times I've seen it this would be my summary:

    - This is a well-crafted, superb film with high production and entertainment value, well worth the price of it's admission (especially in IMAX)

    - I just love the look and feel of the film. Cary Joji Fukunaga's film is up there with the best ones in the series.

    - Sandgren's images are close to being on par with Deakins' work in SKYFALL - the movie looks terrific!

    - Daniel Craig looked awesome in this film - his best since Quantum of Solace and presents his best acting of all of his Bond films ... maybe his best performance so far in general

    - The action scenes are breathtaking. I am super excited about the DB5 scene with Bond just staring, thinking of what to do and the whole Cuba-Sequence. Also all of Matera, the heist, Norway ... it's all top-notch

    - I still think Waltz' Blofeld is weak and he is the worst leftover of SPECTRE incorporated into NTTD

    - Madeleine as a character is way better fleshed out and acted - I like her very much in this film

    - Craig's best on-screen chemistry is with Ana de Armas

    - The soundtrack is WAY better than the ones from SKYFALL or SPECTRE (the latter being the worst in the series, imho), ranking behind Qos and CR, very close to the latter mentioned. I liked all the links to Arnold and Barry, still there's Zimmer's sound in it. Well done.

    - Safin is a weak villain but well acted by Malek. His revenge on SPECTRE is made clear but not his plan poisoning half of the world (or more). The script could have been better in this regard.

    - The showdown between Bond and Safin is OK - but not more

    - I do not mind the ending at all - quite the opposit for me: I left the theater really moved and it's a wonderful closure to Craig's arc ... James Bond will return though

    - I was worried about Nomi and that whole topic. I did not mind her at all, yet she shares some witty scenes with Bond which I enjoyed.

    - All Q scenes are just wonderful. I laughed a lot and enjoy his protrayal of Q the best since our late Desmond for sure.

    - I liked the henchmen and other baddies, really

    - Really enjoyed the return of Felix, not so much his death (OK but not really necessary, imho). But Wright and Craig still work very well together on-screen and it was wise to bring him back for Craig's last

    - I did not mind Mathilde at all (quite the opposit again), however all her scenes with Malek were strange and I did not get it or better phrased: They left me cold but should not have done so

    - The poisonous garden is somewhat wasted but was great it was in the movie

    - Bond's begging is a bit too much for me. I get the scene - I would preferred it a little less intense (Bond feels too weak and a bit out of character) - but they way it is otherwise

    I rank Craig's movies like this:
    1. CR
    2. QoS
    3. SF/NTT (a tie for me)
    ... (a big gap here) ...
    4. SP (I really dislike this film even it has some TREMENDOUS scenes)
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,622
    Great summary @SeanCraig I agree with pretty much all of it mate
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,045
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Was talking to someone at work yesterday who is a casual fan of the series who said to me “ I guess that means no more James Bond movies then “.
    I tried explaining that there will be more Bond to come but will be played by a different actor.She said “ But Bond is dead now “.

    I had the same conversation with a kid at school, (I work in a school). She said "I saw the film and he dies in the end but then it said he's coming back - huh?".
    I couldn't bring myself to tell her about this 'timeline' daftness, so I just said, "yea, it's a bit silly".
    Because it is a bit silly. And I'd hoped by now I could get my head around it and enjoy the film, but I can't get round the fact that they killed him off, but he's not dead. It's just this 'character arc' that's finished.
  • Posts: 3,293
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.
  • Posts: 3,293

    Do we need to keep reminding you that not everyone likes the same things as you? You say 'which fans are EON trying to win over'? They're not trying to win over fans, they're telling what they think is a good story and hope people like it. It seems in most of the world, most people do so can we stop pretending a few angry fans on a forum represents the overwhelming public reaction? Everyone I know who's seen it has liked it, Bond fan or not. I'm afraid you're just going to have to come to accept that and stop convincing yourself you speak for the world.

    The day EON deliberately makes films or takes polls as you suggest to appeal to whining fans is the day Bond really will die. Film is a form of art and trying to please everyone is a compromise of integrity that in the end is rarely satisfying for anyone. Look what happened with Rise of Skywalker which is essentially a piece of fan fiction that sold out all the main characters to please angry people on the internet.

    `A few angry fans'....`whining fans'....next you will be labelling us anti-woke too, as I know this is a subject very close to your heart. ;)

  • Posts: 7,653
    My wife liked the movie a lot even if she considers the James Bond will return a bit of a cop out, he is dead after all. I left the cinema disappointed with the Craig family emo tales James Bond and am looking forward to the next Bond movie, realising that this Era has nothing much to offer for me after CR.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2021 Posts: 10,512
    I’m not sure the film is all that polarising. I’ve seen lots of arguing on this site about it, but I’m yet to meet anyone in person who thought it was crap. The only thing going against it currently is the US box office, but given that it’s done really well elsewhere, what’s more likely? That Americans and only Americans (who’ve paid to see superheroes die in droves) have a specific aversion to Bond dying? Or that most people don’t care about his death, and there’s other factors going on there (pandemic, Venom 2, etc)? I think Bond dying is more of a fanboy complaint than a general audience one, so I agree with those saying it’s a vocal minority.
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't see what egg was desperately needed to be cracked with Bond 25? Did EON do a poll to the Bond community globally and asked what their perfect ending to a Bond film would be, and they all said `we would love to see Bond commit suicide after infecting his other half and his daughter.'

    I doubt any fan would have seriously wanted this before its release, and had the film ended on a happier note (Bond lives to fight another day), I doubt all the NTTD's lovers would have said `great movie, but terrible ending! Bond should have died!'

    I remember saying on here that I liked the idea of him dying before it released. Think I remember @Pierce2Daniel saying the same. I wanted a closed off ending that kept the next guy free from Craig’s baggage, and I thought Bond’s death would be a fitting way to do that, given the ongoing theme of him not being able to have a normal life. If they wanted him retired, they should have ended it with SP, and either him going back into retirement or normal service resuming wouldn’t have felt worth the six year wait for Craig’s return for me. I wanted a film that was different, unconventional, and that gave us a proper ending no Bond had gotten before, and I got that.

    But that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not about what we want or didn’t want. They had a vision and told the story they wanted to tell, and I respect them for doing that. The worst thing about most modern blockbusters imo is how bland, safe and made by commite they feel. So, I’m glad EON aren’t doing things based off what the “global Bond community” thinks.

    I do rather like the irony that the same people who accuse them of making Bond 'woke' and just following trends in other films to be popular, at the same time are trying to tell us no-one likes this film and EON obviously had no regard for public reaction. It's really quite incredible, it's Schroedinger's Bond film.

    You are mentioning `woke' way too many times on here, to the stage where it looks like you are pursuing some kind of agenda against sexist Bond fans who like their Bond all masculine and tough, `Man talk' and slapping backsides.

    Haha. I’m all for masculine Bond - but ‘man talk’ and slapping arses is not ‘masculinity’ in effect. I find it hilarious in an ironic way. If I saw someone actually doing that I’d think they were a tosser.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    So I was reading about nanobots. Apparently they can be deactivated using an EMP. Then it just dawned on me.. Bond's watch had an EMP device installed by Q! Why didn't Bond use it to deactivate the nanobots inside him???? Was it not powerful enough??

    51592049089_98c2a3c4cc_b.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.