NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions SPOILERS ALLOWED

1161162164166167245

Comments

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Perhaps some people here are tired of the over the top reaction that the ending has garnered either positively or negatively and they're tired of having to respond or talk about it or to defend how they felt about it? This is a reaction thread to NTTD and my reaction was negative enough that I felt it sunk the rest of what was a top ten entry. They fumbled the ball in the home stretch when they really didn't need to. It was forced and just not even well done. The forced countdown of having buyers approaching the island: how easy would it have been for the Navy to blow up those ships either before or after they landed on the island? They wrote the ending so that it prioritized getting Bond in a position where he could die, no matter any logical inconsistencies.

    Honestly killing Bond for me has shattered an invisible wall of illusion in a way, very much like breaking the fourth wall in OHMSS. I never thought of Bond growing old, dying of old age, thought about what would happen if he were to die, etc. He's ageless. He doesn't have a life outside the screen because he's fictional character. In the wonky timeline the series has created nothing really follows or connects (not even the Craig movies) so why try to inject real life into something that has been fantastical from the start? I'm saying this as a big fan of Craig's entire run.

    As for resurrecting Batman and Superman, those are comic book characters. It's expected that they die and come back and stuff is retconned, etc. James Bond has never been about that and now they went and killed James Bond and so logically, James Bond is dead, over, finished. This isn't a comic book; Le Chiffre is dead, Silva is dead, Bond is dead and in the Bond universe you don't come back from being dead. I understand people appreciate this ending but can those people have sympathy with those of us who find it hard to wrap our minds around killing Bond in order to make a statement or cap off an era only to bring him back in the next film? I'm not being hysterical or dramatic and this franchise clearly means a lot to many people. I'm passionate about the series and I think that this is the single worst creative decision they've ever made.

    Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    jobo wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    And they’ve already made creative choices that Cubby wouldn’t have approved, such as the Bond Begins pitch that he shot down in 1986 because he thought audiences wouldn’t want to see Bond as a novice. His children proved him wrong!

    Noooooooooooo! You're wronnnnnnng!

    giphy.gif


    NOOOO!! Ian and Cubby were never wrong! About ANYTHING!!

    Oh hi, @jobo.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 383
    Aziz wrote: »
    ....Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.

    What a well written post. It echoes my own feelings entirely. And I have to admit, I'm fed up of seeing the words 'Batman' and 'Superman' used in the same breath as 'James Bond'.
    Batman and Superman are sci-fi fantasy comic book creations for children (and I loved them when I was a kid!). James Bond wasn't, and to kill him off in a currently fashionable superhero way, is bad form to me.
    It honestly feels like 'we can kill him off now because it happens in superhero movies, the audience won't mind'.
    Well I do!

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,409
    I personally feel that the ending of NTTD was entirely appropriate, fitting, and so very well done for Daniel Craig's Bond. Totally aside from what superhero movies, or any other films, are doing/have done.

    I greatly appreciate the story arc of this particular Bond and I really applaud EON for giving us the ending they did. I prefer it. I was not happy with the ending of Spectre. And since Casino Royale, I have very much enjoyed getting to know and experience this Bond's personal journey - which deserved a heroic, serious, courageous ending. Which is what I experienced on first viewing and even more firmly through my 3rd.

    Daniel gave us something fresh, a connected story arc we had not had before to this extent, a grittier, vulnerable, and (as were previous Bonds) a thoroughly courageous Bond. Of course, this is not for everyone. We all have our favourite Bond actors, Bond films, and different takes on Bond ... his era stands out as different; love it or loathe it. To give him a standard, drive off, happy ending would not have been as fitting. Just my opinion. But all my viewings just reaffirm for me that the choices made - by actors (all superb) and script (not perfect, but in general) - were good ones for Daniel's final Bond movie. And it is a brilliantly directed and gorgeously filmed Bond movie. NTTD is firmly one of my favourites and it will stay high in my rankings (which do fluctuate a bit).

    I understand why some people cannot accept the ending, or find it to be wrong for them. Not trying to convince anybody to change their own feelings. But I consider myself lucky to love this movie - because this caps off a remarkable, excellent Bond era for me, in the right way. So well deserved. And I am thrilled Cary directed it.

    I will watch this one many times in the years ahead. As I do Dr No, FRWL, TSWLM, FYEO, TLD, GE, TND, CR, and SF. Quite a satisfying smorgasbord for this one older (since 1971) Bond fan. B-)
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,150
    To quote Tiffany Case... “THEY JUST KILLED JAMES BOND!!!!!!”

    I still can’t believe it. Two weeks later.

    Ian and Cubby (and Harry too!) must be doing contortions in their graves. Poor things :(

    Ian must have had contortions from 1967 - 2002 (YOLT! DAF! MR! DAD!), with the exception of 1969 (OHMSS). And you don't have to believe it, but it IS a fact. Take it, or leave it, it's your free will. As it is my free will to like NTTD WITH THIS ending. Period.

  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 224
    As for resurrecting Batman and Superman, those are comic book characters. It's expected that they die and come back and stuff is retconned, etc. James Bond has never been about that and now they went and killed James Bond and so logically, James Bond is dead, over, finished. This isn't a comic book; Le Chiffre is dead, Silva is dead, Bond is dead and in the Bond universe you don't come back from being dead. I understand people appreciate this ending but can those people have sympathy with those of us who find it hard to wrap our minds around killing Bond in order to make a statement or cap off an era only to bring him back in the next film? I'm not being hysterical or dramatic and this franchise clearly means a lot to many people. I'm passionate about the series and I think that this is the single worst creative decision they've ever made.

    Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.
    Aziz wrote: »
    ....Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.

    What a well written post. It echoes my own feelings entirely. And I have to admit, I'm fed up of seeing the words 'Batman' and 'Superman' used in the same breath as 'James Bond'.
    Batman and Superman are sci-fi fantasy comic book creations for children (and I loved them when I was a kid!). James Bond wasn't, and to kill him off in a currently fashionable superhero way, is bad form to me.
    It honestly feels like 'we can kill him off now because it happens in superhero movies, the audience won't mind'.
    Well I do!

    Precisely this, and the fact that so many people who defend NTTD routinely invoke those franchises only further proves my point about Eon being chasing the worst trends in modern movies.
  • They've always chased trends I suppose, that's why the Your Eyes Only credits promise didn't happen. And then there's Miami Vice, Bourne. . .
    But I wish I could feel like 4everBonded above. He's a bit of an 'old timer' like me, yet he's embraced the movie and he's having more fun than me. I've never been so disappointed with a bond movie, and it's all because of the ending. I wish I could slap myself round the face with a wet fish* and snap out of it. I honestly do.

    *the one from TSWLM, preferably.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,409
    I think plenty of us are not automatically comparing Bond movies to superhero movies all the time or even as the foundation of our opinion of the movie. Some do find it relevant and that is okay as superhero movies are extremely popular and Bond films are always talked about in the context of its release; its time and place in moviegoing history.

    Just saying don't sweep us all into that net. To say people who like NTTD immediately think The Avengers End Game's success (just one example) is the driving reason why NTTD's story happened. Or why Craig's films happened the way they did, took this course. I don't think so, and it's certainly not my focus. I do not think EON chased the worst trends in movies etc.

    EON and Daniel Craig gave us a different, fresh take on Bond starting with Casino Royale. I am a fan of NTTD based entirely on its own merits as fine storytelling for Daniel Craig's Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,027
    I think @4EverBonded has written clear, concise and passionate thoughts above, and I certainly agree with her; this film was just so painfully beautiful. The emotional depths they explored rocked my soul, and I could never see any other ending except for the one they gave to us.

    If we all agreed on everything, life would be boring and stagnate. I hope those that despise this film will open themselves up just a little to see why others may adore this film (and I do adore it), because many of us can see why No Time To Die was also not the cup of tea some on this site wanted or expected...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,442
    Perhaps some people here are tired of the over the top reaction that the ending has garnered either positively or negatively and they're tired of having to respond or talk about it or to defend how they felt about it? This is a reaction thread to NTTD and my reaction was negative enough that I felt it sunk the rest of what was a top ten entry. They fumbled the ball in the home stretch when they really didn't need to. It was forced and just not even well done. The forced countdown of having buyers approaching the island: how easy would it have been for the Navy to blow up those ships either before or after they landed on the island? They wrote the ending so that it prioritized getting Bond in a position where he could die, no matter any logical inconsistencies.

    Honestly killing Bond for me has shattered an invisible wall of illusion in a way, very much like breaking the fourth wall in OHMSS. I never thought of Bond growing old, dying of old age, thought about what would happen if he were to die, etc. He's ageless. He doesn't have a life outside the screen because he's fictional character. In the wonky timeline the series has created nothing really follows or connects (not even the Craig movies) so why try to inject real life into something that has been fantastical from the start? I'm saying this as a big fan of Craig's entire run.

    As for resurrecting Batman and Superman, those are comic book characters. It's expected that they die and come back and stuff is retconned, etc. James Bond has never been about that and now they went and killed James Bond and so logically, James Bond is dead, over, finished. This isn't a comic book; Le Chiffre is dead, Silva is dead, Bond is dead and in the Bond universe you don't come back from being dead. I understand people appreciate this ending but can those people have sympathy with those of us who find it hard to wrap our minds around killing Bond in order to make a statement or cap off an era only to bring him back in the next film? I'm not being hysterical or dramatic and this franchise clearly means a lot to many people. I'm passionate about the series and I think that this is the single worst creative decision they've ever made.

    Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.

    It’s called rebooting. It’s not rocket science
  • Posts: 2,264
    Perhaps some people here are tired of the over the top reaction that the ending has garnered either positively or negatively and they're tired of having to respond or talk about it or to defend how they felt about it? This is a reaction thread to NTTD and my reaction was negative enough that I felt it sunk the rest of what was a top ten entry. They fumbled the ball in the home stretch when they really didn't need to. It was forced and just not even well done. The forced countdown of having buyers approaching the island: how easy would it have been for the Navy to blow up those ships either before or after they landed on the island? They wrote the ending so that it prioritized getting Bond in a position where he could die, no matter any logical inconsistencies.

    Honestly killing Bond for me has shattered an invisible wall of illusion in a way, very much like breaking the fourth wall in OHMSS. I never thought of Bond growing old, dying of old age, thought about what would happen if he were to die, etc. He's ageless. He doesn't have a life outside the screen because he's fictional character. In the wonky timeline the series has created nothing really follows or connects (not even the Craig movies) so why try to inject real life into something that has been fantastical from the start? I'm saying this as a big fan of Craig's entire run.

    As for resurrecting Batman and Superman, those are comic book characters. It's expected that they die and come back and stuff is retconned, etc. James Bond has never been about that and now they went and killed James Bond and so logically, James Bond is dead, over, finished. This isn't a comic book; Le Chiffre is dead, Silva is dead, Bond is dead and in the Bond universe you don't come back from being dead. I understand people appreciate this ending but can those people have sympathy with those of us who find it hard to wrap our minds around killing Bond in order to make a statement or cap off an era only to bring him back in the next film? I'm not being hysterical or dramatic and this franchise clearly means a lot to many people. I'm passionate about the series and I think that this is the single worst creative decision they've ever made.

    Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.

    Please show me where anyone with a positive reaction went as "over the top" as you did here.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,189
    I’m in Edinburgh Scotland to attend the Ray Harryhausen: Titan of Cinema exhibition. Last night I went to my 3rd viewing and enjoyed it very much.

    It will never unseat CR as my favorite of the Craig era, in fact, my overall top Bond; and is behind SF , which sits at # 2 . Eventually it will battle QOS for #3 . While I am aware of it’s flaws, I’ve come to really like Quantum’s rawness . SPECTRE will forever sit at the very bottom.

    I’ve heard that NTTD “improves” SP; possibly somewhat, but on the other hand, NTTD is pulled down by being so tied to SP. For example, I never for a minute do I buy that Bond loves Swann. And don’t get me started on the Blofeld scene; I hate it more and more with each viewing.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 691
    Just got back from FINALLY seeing it, I’ve been so busy with work, I haven’t had the time to go see it and do the complete Bondathon I was going to do beforehand. Oh well, I’ll save that for the blu ray/streaming release, and I’ll only do Craig’s tenure, which I’m sad to see the end of.

    Anyway, about NTTD. Great, memorable entry. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I have a couple issues like not seeing enough of Saffin or Paloma, but overall it’s a fine finale for Daniel. The ending and the usage of ‘We Have All The Time In The World’ was nice, although I rather feel like that song belongs to Bond and Tracy first, not Bond and Madeline, but as this was a different timeline, I can look over it, I guess.

    I’m a defender of Spectre but yeah, this is quite the improvement. I rank it over every Craig Bond film, except obviously Casino Royale, (but then there are no movies in this series that I love more than CR) and maybe Skyfall. I think right now, NTTD and SF are tied for me.

    Anyway, I’ll collect more of my thoughts about it later more extensively elsewhere.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Also, just to clarify, I don't despise it and I think 95% of the film is just brilliant. I really want to overlook my feelings on the ending but I just can't. I'm really glad others appreciate the entire thing as a package deal and based on the rest of the movie, I really want to as well. I just can't get past what I think is a self-serving decision to call attention to one actor passing the torch. There's enough impactful stuff in the rest of the movie to register as emotional and powerful that I don't think we needed them to take this big of a chance. It's already enough that you killed off Leiter and introduce Bond's child (which I actually had zero problems with since that is also from the YOLT novel) but to end the movie like that seems like they're, again, just following trends. All that being said, all the power to those who found the ending registered with them.
  • Perhaps some people here are tired of the over the top reaction that the ending has garnered either positively or negatively and they're tired of having to respond or talk about it or to defend how they felt about it? This is a reaction thread to NTTD and my reaction was negative enough that I felt it sunk the rest of what was a top ten entry. They fumbled the ball in the home stretch when they really didn't need to. It was forced and just not even well done. The forced countdown of having buyers approaching the island: how easy would it have been for the Navy to blow up those ships either before or after they landed on the island? They wrote the ending so that it prioritized getting Bond in a position where he could die, no matter any logical inconsistencies.

    Honestly killing Bond for me has shattered an invisible wall of illusion in a way, very much like breaking the fourth wall in OHMSS. I never thought of Bond growing old, dying of old age, thought about what would happen if he were to die, etc. He's ageless. He doesn't have a life outside the screen because he's fictional character. In the wonky timeline the series has created nothing really follows or connects (not even the Craig movies) so why try to inject real life into something that has been fantastical from the start? I'm saying this as a big fan of Craig's entire run.

    As for resurrecting Batman and Superman, those are comic book characters. It's expected that they die and come back and stuff is retconned, etc. James Bond has never been about that and now they went and killed James Bond and so logically, James Bond is dead, over, finished. This isn't a comic book; Le Chiffre is dead, Silva is dead, Bond is dead and in the Bond universe you don't come back from being dead. I understand people appreciate this ending but can those people have sympathy with those of us who find it hard to wrap our minds around killing Bond in order to make a statement or cap off an era only to bring him back in the next film? I'm not being hysterical or dramatic and this franchise clearly means a lot to many people. I'm passionate about the series and I think that this is the single worst creative decision they've ever made.

    Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.

    For the sake of clarity I have no idea who Tony Stark is I have never watched a Marvel Movie. I was riveted recently by Ralph Fiennes performance of "The Four Quartets."

    I argued in spring of 2019 on this site that Craig Bonds death was a thematically logical way to complete the cycle.

    I also would ask as I have twice but directly of you if Craig Bond had survived with his family how would Bond 26 work ? My question is a serious one I have no interest in persuading anyone of a different view point but I am fascinated to see those whom say Craig Bond should have survived how they would then pursue Bond 26 with a middle aged Bond alive with his family.

    I do completely disagree with you about the five movie cycle. It is a symphony in five movements where investment is built up with each movie. Skyfall arguably occurred after several routine missions after QOS but that is not discontinuity merely an interregnum.


  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,437
    Aziz wrote: »
    ....Like I said, do the ending for Fleming's YOLT instead, have people think he died, have him get amnesia, copy the ending of TDKR, whatever, don't kill James Bond just because they killed Tony Stark in a comic book movie.

    What a well written post. It echoes my own feelings entirely. And I have to admit, I'm fed up of seeing the words 'Batman' and 'Superman' used in the same breath as 'James Bond'.
    Batman and Superman are sci-fi fantasy comic book creations for children (and I loved them when I was a kid!). James Bond wasn't, and to kill him off in a currently fashionable superhero way, is bad form to me.
    It honestly feels like 'we can kill him off now because it happens in superhero movies, the audience won't mind'.
    Well I do!

    You know, when they killed The Joker in the 1989 movie, it felt wrong to me.
  • Posts: 523
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I will say, as interesting and different as it was to have a “Bond Begins” and “Bond Ends” movie, I hope they don’t do another origin or death story for Bond, at least for a very long time.

    I think NEVER again would be the preferred timeframe. Once was quite enough for me (and others). If killing Bond becomes a traditional (and very lazy) story telling device, it will do irreparable damage to the franchise. Once, you might be able to get by with it (be interesting to see Bond 26’s box office take). Twice...no way.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,442
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I will say, as interesting and different as it was to have a “Bond Begins” and “Bond Ends” movie, I hope they don’t do another origin or death story for Bond, at least for a very long time.

    it will do irreparable damage to the franchise

    In what way and how sure are you?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,590

    I also would ask as I have twice but directly of you if Craig Bond had survived with his family how would Bond 26 work ? My question is a serious one I have no interest in persuading anyone of a different view point but I am fascinated to see those whom say Craig Bond should have survived how they would then pursue Bond 26 with a middle aged Bond alive with his family.

    Easy answer.

    The ending should have followed the end of the YOLT novel, which is where they were heading in the film anyway. In case you didn't know the story, here it is more or less, tweaked slightly because of what has already happened in NTTD before it -

    Bond kills Safin, escapes the island wounded, gets amnesia, doesn't know who he is and doesn't know Madeline or his child exist. He lives a simple life as a Japanese fisherman with a Japanese woman, until one day hears about the word `Russia' which sounds familiar to him, and thinks he has a life that belongs there. The end of the film would be Bond setting off sail to Russia to find out who he is. Cut to the scenes in London with M and the gang, and then the final shot with Madeline and the daughter in the Aston, if you still love those bits so much.

    Had the film ended this way, this still could have been closure on Craig's tenure, or EON could have decided to adopt the opening to TMWTGG from the book that follows YOLT for the next film, with a new actor (Bond returns to kill M after being brainwashed by the KGB).

    Either way, it would still have been a tragic, depressing ending to Craig's reign, but wouldn't have been as polarising.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 49

    I also would ask as I have twice but directly of you if Craig Bond had survived with his family how would Bond 26 work ? My question is a serious one I have no interest in persuading anyone of a different view point but I am fascinated to see those whom say Craig Bond should have survived how they would then pursue Bond 26 with a middle aged Bond alive with his family.

    Easy answer.

    The ending should have followed the end of the YOLT novel, which is where they were heading in the film anyway. In case you didn't know the story, here it is more or less, tweaked slightly because of what has already happened in NTTD before it -

    Bond kills Safin, escapes the island wounded, gets amnesia, doesn't know who he is and doesn't know Madeline or his child exist. He lives a simple life as a Japanese fisherman with a Japanese woman, until one day hears about the word `Russia' which sounds familiar to him, and thinks he has a life that belongs there. The end of the film would be Bond setting off sail to Russia to find out who he is.

    Had the film ended this way, this still could have been closure on Craig's tenure, or EON could have decided to adopt the opening to TMWTGG from the book that follows YOLT for the next film, with a new actor (Bond returns to kill M after being brainwashed by the KGB).

    Either way, it would still have been a tragic ending to Craig's reign, but wouldn't have been as polarising either.

    And this new 15 year younger Bond is supposed to turn up int a world where Vesper, M and Felix are dead and Madeleine and Mathilde are just set aside. Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    Essentially your asking the audience who have been invested in this cycle for fifteen years to essentially ignore all the emotional and connected investment they have made. You are clearly not getting the point that for some of the audience Craig Bond sits inside its own self contained universe.


  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,590

    I also would ask as I have twice but directly of you if Craig Bond had survived with his family how would Bond 26 work ? My question is a serious one I have no interest in persuading anyone of a different view point but I am fascinated to see those whom say Craig Bond should have survived how they would then pursue Bond 26 with a middle aged Bond alive with his family.

    Easy answer.

    The ending should have followed the end of the YOLT novel, which is where they were heading in the film anyway. In case you didn't know the story, here it is more or less, tweaked slightly because of what has already happened in NTTD before it -

    Bond kills Safin, escapes the island wounded, gets amnesia, doesn't know who he is and doesn't know Madeline or his child exist. He lives a simple life as a Japanese fisherman with a Japanese woman, until one day hears about the word `Russia' which sounds familiar to him, and thinks he has a life that belongs there. The end of the film would be Bond setting off sail to Russia to find out who he is.

    Had the film ended this way, this still could have been closure on Craig's tenure, or EON could have decided to adopt the opening to TMWTGG from the book that follows YOLT for the next film, with a new actor (Bond returns to kill M after being brainwashed by the KGB).

    Either way, it would still have been a tragic ending to Craig's reign, but wouldn't have been as polarising either.

    And this new 15 year younger Bond is supposed to turn up int a world where Vesper, M and Felix are dead and Madeleine and Mathilde are juts set aside. Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years.

    No, they just reboot, which is what they are going to have to do now anyway. Either that, or they shouldn't have made the decision to kill Felix. Allow him to live, so the Bond world could continue with a new actor in the same timeline if they wanted to. Had they gone down this route instead, certain choices in NTTD wouldn't have been made to allow for this (Bond having a child, for example).

    And where did M get killed? And why is it a problem that Vesper died?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,590
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.
  • It’s called rebooting. It’s not rocket science

    We understand the idea of a 'reboot'. The problem is - it's a daft idea.
  • Posts: 351
    OK I need to answer this, I only took the comic-book death of Superman as an example. I have never seen the last Avengers bunch of films and forgot that they died at the end. That was really not in my thoughts.

    My take is that Fleming dared to go that route (FRWL), and flirted with it (YOLT), and that other stories told the demise of well established characters icons (Sherlock Holmes), so there is no reason for Bond not to go into that route.

    It's a matter of taste, I suppose.

    Again, I wanted to see Bond dead for QOS, where I expected the right ending would be Mr White shooting Bond dead, cut to black.

    You can feel this was an idea they flirted with since then, because in the Pre-Credits of Skyfall, this is exactly what happens: Bond is shot dead, cut to credits sequence.

    For me the spiral of QOS should have had the dead Bond at the end for the right ending (of course, he would have resurrected for the next film, that's his hobby), and the idea that the character is on a death wish, goes back to CR. Rewatch the films, and you can see that death & resurrection permeate the thematics of the Craig era.

    NTTD ending was the only possible ending, not just for the film. For the whole era.

    This gives his era a longevity that will last for a very long time.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 7,327
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m in Edinburgh Scotland to attend the Ray Harryhausen: Titan of Cinema exhibition. Last night I went to my 3rd viewing and enjoyed it very much.

    It will never unseat CR as my favorite of the Craig era, in fact, my overall top Bond; and is behind SF , which sits at # 2 . Eventually it will battle QOS for #3 . While I am aware of it’s flaws, I’ve come to really like Quantum’s rawness . SPECTRE will forever sit at the very bottom.

    I’ve heard that NTTD “improves” SP; possibly somewhat, but on the other hand, NTTD is pulled down by being so tied to SP. For example, I never for a minute do I buy that Bond loves Swann. And don’t get me started on the Blofeld scene; I hate it more and more with each viewing.


    Please start. Because I really don't get what's wrong with the Blofeld scene...?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 49

    I also would ask as I have twice but directly of you if Craig Bond had survived with his family how would Bond 26 work ? My question is a serious one I have no interest in persuading anyone of a different view point but I am fascinated to see those whom say Craig Bond should have survived how they would then pursue Bond 26 with a middle aged Bond alive with his family.

    Easy answer.

    The ending should have followed the end of the YOLT novel, which is where they were heading in the film anyway. In case you didn't know the story, here it is more or less, tweaked slightly because of what has already happened in NTTD before it -

    Bond kills Safin, escapes the island wounded, gets amnesia, doesn't know who he is and doesn't know Madeline or his child exist. He lives a simple life as a Japanese fisherman with a Japanese woman, until one day hears about the word `Russia' which sounds familiar to him, and thinks he has a life that belongs there. The end of the film would be Bond setting off sail to Russia to find out who he is.

    Had the film ended this way, this still could have been closure on Craig's tenure, or EON could have decided to adopt the opening to TMWTGG from the book that follows YOLT for the next film, with a new actor (Bond returns to kill M after being brainwashed by the KGB).

    Either way, it would still have been a tragic ending to Craig's reign, but wouldn't have been as polarising either.

    And this new 15 year younger Bond is supposed to turn up int a world where Vesper, M and Felix are dead and Madeleine and Mathilde are just set aside. Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.
    Stamper wrote: »
    OK I need to answer this, I only took the comic-book death of Superman as an example. I have never seen the last Avengers bunch of films and forgot that they died at the end. That was really not in my thoughts.

    My take is that Fleming dared to go that route (FRWL), and flirted with it (YOLT), and that other stories told the demise of well established characters icons (Sherlock Holmes), so there is no reason for Bond not to go into that route.

    It's a matter of taste, I suppose.

    Again, I wanted to see Bond dead for QOS, where I expected the right ending would be Mr White shooting Bond dead, cut to black.

    You can feel this was an idea they flirted with since then, because in the Pre-Credits of Skyfall, this is exactly what happens: Bond is shot dead, cut to credits sequence.

    For me the spiral of QOS should have had the dead Bond at the end for the right ending (of course, he would have resurrected for the next film, that's his hobby), and the idea that the character is on a death wish, goes back to CR. Rewatch the films, and you can see that death & resurrection permeate the thematics of the Craig era.

    NTTD ending was the only possible ending, not just for the film. For the whole era.

    This gives his era a longevity that will last for a very long time.

    Bingo. I have a suspicion when I sit down and watch the cycle again I will see even in his failed attempt to rescue Vesper exactly what you are talking about.

    I also think the pre credits sequence in Skyfall is showing us how Bond can die quite legitimately and with massive irony at the instruction of his surrogate mother.

    This is a man that does not care whether he lives or dies. Except the man that saves him, that gives him away out, is his enemy from the beginning.

    They are all looking in the mirror at their own reflection.

    White, Vesper, Madeleine all save Bond's life.

    M, Moneypenny Silva all comes close to killing him.

    Safin saves Madeleine, Mathilde and through Cuba Bond and then given his rejection puts Bond in his position as the unwanted un able survivor.

    So much in this and people want a 35 year old to carry on regardless of all this richness and texture.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    How does that work?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,189
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m in Edinburgh Scotland to attend the Ray Harryhausen: Titan of Cinema exhibition. Last night I went to my 3rd viewing and enjoyed it very much.

    It will never unseat CR as my favorite of the Craig era, in fact, my overall top Bond; and is behind SF , which sits at # 2 . Eventually it will battle QOS for #3 . While I am aware of it’s flaws, I’ve come to really like Quantum’s rawness . SPECTRE will forever sit at the very bottom.

    I’ve heard that NTTD “improves” SP; possibly somewhat, but on the other hand, NTTD is pulled down by being so tied to SP. For example, I never for a minute do I buy that Bond loves Swann. And don’t get me started on the Blofeld scene; I hate it more and more with each viewing.


    Please start. Because I really don't get what's wrong with the Blofeld scene...?

    “ Die Blofeld!” Cringe worthy.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    RC7 wrote: »
    Forgive my plaining speaking but that is to trash the last fifteen years and what happens when young bond gets his memory back.

    As opposed to trashing the past 70 years, which is what they decided to do instead.

    And young Bond doesn't need to get all his memory back. It would be a nice thing to use in future movies if they ever felt the need to resurrect it again. Like a timebomb inside Bond's head.

    How does that work?

    @jetsetwilly is being unnecessarily dramatic. Nothing was trashed.
Sign In or Register to comment.