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

1163164166168169245

Comments

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    Yes, @echo. Thanks very much for your words here.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 341
    echo wrote: »
    But NTTD has made me rethink my gender expectations. Why is the appropriate end to any meaningful romance in a Bond film that the woman has to die? Seems a bit sexist. Why can't Bond die for once?

    Yes, exactly ... it's a story for our times.

    And was it not always so? Different stories, different times?

    It turns out that Bond stories are a lot more flexible than anyone might have imagined in the '50s. And they will continue to be so in the decades ahead.

  • Posts: 351
    This act of subversion is not too extreme! This act of subversion is the ultimate Bond film!
  • AceHole wrote: »

    And wasn’t Tony Stark one of the original Beatles…?
    :>

    No. However, I do believe that Pete Wurst was one of the original Avengers. ;)
  • Posts: 2,366
    echo wrote: »
    But NTTD has made me rethink my gender expectations. Why is the appropriate end to any meaningful romance in a Bond film that the woman has to die? Seems a bit sexist. Why can't Bond die for once?

    I think repeated application of the trope would be sexist and unoriginal, but when restricted to Tracy and Vesper it makes the point that if Bond settled down with either of them he would "die" as well, in the sense of no longer being a fantasy figure but a domestic one. Vesper and Tracy have to die for the series to continue, just as in NTTD Bond has to die because the series can't continue with him as a family man. Tracy and Vesper's deaths also show that Bond has made a Faustian bargain--he's most alive when on the job, but the job also prevents him from having permanent attachments and romances. Unlike Bond, Vesper and Tracy won't return to life, unless someone has the horrifically ill-conceived idea to remake OHMSS or CR. There's something special in a death being permanent and beyond any demarcation of continuity.
    Certainly with the deaths of Leiter, Blofeld, and then Bond, NTTD has perhaps the highest stakes of any Bond film. Why can't any of these people die? Otherwise, there's just no danger. For that, NTTD should be commended.

    Killing off a villain who, in his modern form, has only been in one previous film doesn't raise the stakes that high. Killing off Felix does, but after you realize Bond dies, and that the film has been leading up to this, you know he'll be back too. The stakes are raised for one film and then immediately reset--nobody who sees the next Bond film will go in thinking Bond might die. That will only happen if the actor is appearing in what he's agreed on to be his last film in the series.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 224
    echo wrote: »
    But NTTD has made me rethink my gender expectations. Why is the appropriate end to any meaningful romance in a Bond film that the woman has to die?

    She doesn't. In some movies Bond has a female lover or a male partner that gets killed to further motivate him and make the audience hate the villain(s). Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but did anyone ever have a problem with it?
    Seems a bit sexist.

    How many men are killed in these movies? Hundreds? The female characters who are killed off just stand out more.
    Why can't Bond die for once?

    Because it's his series and he's not a superhero you can just continually reboot.
    Certainly with the deaths of Leiter, Blofeld, and then Bond, NTTD has perhaps the highest stakes of any Bond film. Why can't any of these people die? Otherwise, there's just no danger. For that, NTTD should be commended.

    Blofeld can die. It was done in the novels and FYEO (the movie). Maybe Felix can die, though I'd argue that it should be done properly and not just for shocks. I don't understand why subversion for its own sake should be commended. And yet it's probably the most common bit of praise I see for the Craig era, as if all it really did was make positives negatives and vice versa.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,150
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    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.


    Why?

    BTW, "Cringe" is the German Youth Word of 2021. Apparently there is a jury which decides on this.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,150
    If people from EON visit this forum, maybe they can recruit some people around here to write the next Bond movie, as they apparently know better, how to write a proper Bond movie. Honestly, I don't and can't.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,054
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    Not for the better

    It depends. The Craig era has been the most successful run since Connery at the boxoffice. In truth, Craig holds a better per-movie average than Sean adjusting for inflation, even with NTTD’s gross being damaged by the pandemic.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,189
    Ryan wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    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.


    Why?

    It’s overly melodramatic and clumsy. I would have found it more satisfying had Blofeld coyly taunted Bond, never giving him the name. Bond becomes increasingly frustrating and demands the name. Blofeld looks up and after a pregnant pause says …….
    Cuckoo. Bond snaps and without say a word , with a single hand, grabs Blofelds throat . Over the intercom Tanner screams James! James! It has no effect. Then Noimi says , Commander Bond. Bond snaps out of his rage and release his grip.


    Isn't Nomi already gone off chasing Ash by that point? I think it's just Tanner at that point. Not that that changes your point overall, but just to clarify.

    That’s an easy fix, she remains in the observation room the entire time. I think her calling him Commander at that moment , and his reacting, would have been a nice moment for the two.

  • 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.

    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.



    How would the next movie work? In the exact same way that they did the transition from YOLT to OHMSS, DAF to LALD, AVTAK to TLD, and LTK to GE. Just change the actor with zero fanfare, move on to the next story, don't dwell on a specific movie being an actor's last one. Again, it's self-serving in a way and seems to me like you're putting your era's legacy above the legacy of the character and franchise as a whole. I think an audience would EASILY forget about any of the plot threads in the Craig era once we have a new actor doing different things, taking a different approach to the material, being involved in different stories, etc.

    What confuses me is how people rationalize the Craig era being a pocket universe or somehow separate from the "main timeline". First off, I disagree with the notion of there being a "main timeline", as if it makes any sense that Brosnan from 1995 fought Goldfinger back in 1964. It was enough that an audience could accept this as being the same man, that every film and new actor just continued showing the exploits of this ageless icon. Over the course of 40 years, continuity just didn't matter (I know I never cared about it).

    But then Craig shows up and they say they want to restart fresh, new continuity (or a continuity that actually makes sense). Craig never fought Goldfinger in 1964. That stuff never happened because we just got too bloated and maybe you want to start a new tenure differently. Fine. But then you start to introduce the GF Aston Martin. You have the same M from the Brosnan era. You reference and wink at stuff from the "previous timeline". If you want a clean break, divorced from everything before and want to forge ahead with a new interpretation of James Bond, why reference previous elements that are unmistakably James Bond?

    Because this history is precisely what makes James Bond....well, James Bond. Craig Bond is not actually divorced from the "main timeline" but a part of it. Isn't that what the point of SF was? "The old ways are the best"? So if in this new timeline you actually kill James Bond, this is killing the actual James Bond, not a different version of the character, pocket universe, whatever. Honestly all of this is enough to tie one's head into knots. Unless you're somehow saying that Craig Bond isn't just a new actor putting his own spin on the character like all of the previous ones? So this Bond is an imposter of sorts, a mimic or shadow that in fact isn't the same character and doesn't have any traits of classic, "main timeline" Bond, which I would definitely not agree with.

    As for not knowing who Tony Stark is, do a Google search. There's really no reason to be willfully ignorant in this day and age when someone is drawing parallels between one franchise and another. I can really understand having never watched a Marvel movie but knowing the context of killing a superhero, like they also did with Superman and which has been done in canon many times over, should be enough to understand the gist of an argument? Also as a tangential side note, we can thank the Marvel universe for introducing this idea that continuity in a series has to be clear and consistent, that one story has to build off of and continue into the next. We can't just have the same characters, but they have to be interconnected and their stories follow a rigidly outlined timeline.
  • Posts: 2,591
    echo 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.
    Exactly. Well said.

    It makes Bond look stupid if the audience is sitting out there watching future movies thinking, "Um, Bond, you don't know it but you have a secret soulmate and child out there." The sword of Mathilde, if you will.

    I know Fleming did exactly that with the child, but for only one book, and it was a different social era, when men took pride in their virility that they could have secret children somewhere.

    But now we're in a world of DNA knowledge and databases.

    I wouldn't have opted for the child angle in the first place for the movie, so this wouldn't have been an issue for the next Bond film. So if we are talking about rewriting the end of the movie in fantasy land, we may as well address that aspect too.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,591
    Minion wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?

    It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.

    Because it's about the character, not the particular timeline he appears in.


    But how exactly is the character now ruined? And how is Connery in Goldfinger or Moore in Live And Let Die now trashed?
    Because!

    Because, because, because!

    Because of the wonderful things he does.
    We're off to see the Wizard. The wonderful Wizard of Oz.

    (sorry, couldn't resist).... ;))
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,591
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    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.
    giphy.gif

  • What confuses me is how people rationalize the Craig era being a pocket universe or somehow separate from the "main timeline".

    I tend to think that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli who have a certain amount of input to these films know better. Cf the interview at the start of filming.

    Yes I agree with you, you are confused.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191

    What confuses me is how people rationalize the Craig era being a pocket universe or somehow separate from the "main timeline".

    I tend to think that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli who have a certain amount of input to these films know better. Cf the interview at the start of filming.

    Yes I agree with you, you are confused.

    What confuses me is why people cling to the notion of a main timeline in the first place. Any attempt at creating such a thing is built on quicksand. Passing references to the death of Tracy aren't enough for a timeline in which the James Bond of LTK is literally the same man who fought Blofeld in a hollowed-out volcano or travelled into space. Some bits are carried over from one film to the next, but they can't weigh up against the de facto continuity reset at the beginning of each film pre-Craig. Unless I am mistaken, a timeline requires continuity, and continuity was relinquished early on. It just never was a big deal for the people making the Bonds. The idea was that at any point in time, new fans could be lured in, even if they hadn't ever seen another Bond film. Keep the continuity bar as low as possible, and you're guaranteed to build the biggest fan base, especially in an age when home video access to films (and the required "homework" before the release of a new entry in a series) was almost non-existent.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »

    What confuses me is how people rationalize the Craig era being a pocket universe or somehow separate from the "main timeline".

    I tend to think that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli who have a certain amount of input to these films know better. Cf the interview at the start of filming.

    Yes I agree with you, you are confused.

    What confuses me is why people cling to the notion of a main timeline in the first place. Any attempt at creating such a thing is built on quicksand. Passing references to the death of Tracy aren't enough for a timeline in which the James Bond of LTK is literally the same man who fought Blofeld in a hollowed-out volcano or travelled into space. Some bits are carried over from one film to the next, but they can't weigh up against the de facto continuity reset at the beginning of each film pre-Craig. Unless I am mistaken, a timeline requires continuity, and continuity was relinquished early on. It just never was a big deal for the people making the Bonds. The idea was that at any point in time, new fans could be lured in, even if they hadn't ever seen another Bond film. Keep the continuity bar as low as possible, and you're guaranteed to build the biggest fan base, especially in an age when home video access to films (and the required "homework" before the release of a new entry in a series) was almost non-existent.

    When i read the original post my initial reaction was to offer a very detailed rebuttal on the wider question you answer but for the sake of levity I decided on a tongue in check response.

    But of course you are right. This main timeline argument is a straw man argument. I would rather discuss the idea that if George had stayed they could have mined the loss of Tracey in his future behaviour. To look at it the other way round the writing of Blofeld as Franz Oberhauser maybe unpopular but it is a clear statement that this little bit of lore belongs to Craig Bond alone. It is so radically different and important to the narrative he is not Donald Pleasance or Kojak.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 341
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    What confuses me is how people rationalize the Craig era being a pocket universe or somehow separate from the "main timeline".

    I tend to think that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli who have a certain amount of input to these films know better. Cf the interview at the start of filming.

    Yes I agree with you, you are confused.

    What confuses me is why people cling to the notion of a main timeline in the first place.

    While, true, there were but vestiges of a "main timeline" before Craig, the number of his films and length of his tenure, plus maybe the influence of the MCU, seems to have obscured this for many, perhaps especially younger fans.

    But now having established a "timeline" with Craig who is to say what direction EON will go in next? Perhaps they'll regard it as a successful aberration of a kind but go back to the prevailing model of self-contained stories with little to no continuity as in films 1 - 20. That might seem strange for many, especially casual viewers. ("But you just killed him! Who is this new guy? A codename James Bond?")

    Or does EON establish a new series of interconnected stories with one actor, as with Craig, which will probably require another origin story? And is that origin story always to be a variation on Casino Royale?

    I suppose there might be other unforeseen ways forward after this break with tradition. But what might they be? And how will they go about it, assuming Broccoli & Wilson are still around come production time for Bond 26?
  • Posts: 351
    There will still be there.

    There are two options, either they killed Bond to signify them quitting the series.

    Or they will continue with the slate wiped clean.

    I think it's clearly possible that they continue the storyline with the new actor, playing the same Bond as Craig, only without knowledge of what has gone before. Who knows. Wait and see.
  • Jan1985 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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.

    Exactly. Well said.

    What has been trashed?

    It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.

    I don't get it, too.
    The only thing, that matters, is, what happens in the movie I watch.
    When I watch "GoldenEye" I don't think about Felix Leiter surviving a shark attack or Tracy dying.
    Actually it's not important, if what happened in other movies, might have happened to Bond in the specific film I watch. I don't think to myself "Bond already was in space", when I see "GoldenEye". It doesn't matter. And it doesen't matter how Bond might die some day, when watching "GoldenEye".
    And when I watch "Tomorrow Never Dies", it's not important what has happened in "GoldenEye".

    A nod to another film is only relevant, when the movie makes that not by itself.

    This is really spot on, and how I usually view the films as I watch too! Sometimes there is a direct reference, like Moore's Bond visiting Tracy's grave and that makes you think about the events of the film 11 years prior.
    "Keep your hair on!"
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 224
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    What confuses me is how people rationalize the Craig era being a pocket universe or somehow separate from the "main timeline".

    I tend to think that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli who have a certain amount of input to these films know better. Cf the interview at the start of filming.

    Yes I agree with you, you are confused.

    What confuses me is why people cling to the notion of a main timeline in the first place. Any attempt at creating such a thing is built on quicksand. Passing references to the death of Tracy aren't enough for a timeline in which the James Bond of LTK is literally the same man who fought Blofeld in a hollowed-out volcano or travelled into space. Some bits are carried over from one film to the next, but they can't weigh up against the de facto continuity reset at the beginning of each film pre-Craig. Unless I am mistaken, a timeline requires continuity, and continuity was relinquished early on. It just never was a big deal for the people making the Bonds. The idea was that at any point in time, new fans could be lured in, even if they hadn't ever seen another Bond film. Keep the continuity bar as low as possible, and you're guaranteed to build the biggest fan base, especially in an age when home video access to films (and the required "homework" before the release of a new entry in a series) was almost non-existent.

    The way I understood the pre-Craig movies is that they were all one character's story, or maybe transcendent mythology would be a better term. So while Brosnan's Bond may not have been done the exact same things in the exact same context that Connery and Moore did, they did all have the same story: they all fought Dr. No and Goldfinger, they all married Tracy and lost her, they all went into space on the Moonraker shuttle, and they all avenged Felix's wife.

    That being said, it is technically possible that they could be the same literal flesh-and-blood man for the 40 years between DN and DAD. If we suspend disbelief and say that Bond is 25 in DN, he'd be 65 in DAD. Let's just say he took care of himself and had a good diet. It's far-fetched but it could technically work. I mean, Harrison Ford's been playing Indiana Jones for 40 years.

    However, I prefer to be less literal and consider DN-DAD to be a general continuity instead of a specific one like Craig's.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    slide_99 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    What confuses me is how people rationalize the Craig era being a pocket universe or somehow separate from the "main timeline".

    I tend to think that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli who have a certain amount of input to these films know better. Cf the interview at the start of filming.

    Yes I agree with you, you are confused.

    What confuses me is why people cling to the notion of a main timeline in the first place. Any attempt at creating such a thing is built on quicksand. Passing references to the death of Tracy aren't enough for a timeline in which the James Bond of LTK is literally the same man who fought Blofeld in a hollowed-out volcano or travelled into space. Some bits are carried over from one film to the next, but they can't weigh up against the de facto continuity reset at the beginning of each film pre-Craig. Unless I am mistaken, a timeline requires continuity, and continuity was relinquished early on. It just never was a big deal for the people making the Bonds. The idea was that at any point in time, new fans could be lured in, even if they hadn't ever seen another Bond film. Keep the continuity bar as low as possible, and you're guaranteed to build the biggest fan base, especially in an age when home video access to films (and the required "homework" before the release of a new entry in a series) was almost non-existent.

    The way I understood the pre-Craig movies is that they were all one character's story, or maybe transcendent mythology would be a better term. So while Brosnan's Bond may not have been done the exact same things in the exact same context that Connery and Moore did, they did all have the same story: they all fought Dr. No and Goldfinger, they all married Tracy and lost her, they all went into space on the Moonraker shuttle, and they all avenged Felix's wife.

    That being said, it is technically possible that they could be the same literal flesh-and-blood man for the 40 years between DN and DAD. If we suspend disbelief and say that Bond is 25 in DN, he'd be 65 in DAD. Let's just say he took care of himself and had a good diet. It's far-fetched but it could technically work. I mean, Harrison Ford's been playing Indiana Jones for 40 years.

    However, I prefer to be less literal and consider DN-DAD to be a general continuity instead of a specific one like Craig's.

    One wonders, though, whether there ever was a "story" of Bond before Craig, with the notable exception of OHMSS perhaps (and also LTK?) on account of the personal involvement of our guy. Whenever I think about GF, DAF, AVTAK... I see stories with Bond in them, but never the story of Bond. CR may very well have been the first time in the entire series that Bond himself, as a character, was subjected to change, that his views and traits were challenged, that he himself had to make amends, had to learn, had to see things in a different way.

    If everything before CR is supposed to exist in the same narrative spacetime continuum, even disregarding the fact that fashion, technology, habits, world politics... change while Bond essentially remains the same "young man" (even if he ages, then de-ages abruptly, then ages again...), how do we explain the lack of memory Bond clearly suffers from? Diamonds in a satellite in '71... and again in '02. No comment? Space tech lifts off from volcano and ancient pyramid bases, men with steel teeth bite through thick cables, but a secret, private base from which a satellite is controlled is somehow hard to believe? A bikini babe has to shoot at thugs with a machine gun on an oil rig but a woman with a crossbow needs a morality lesson when trying to take revenge for the loss of loved ones? (And that comes from the same man who will essentially tell his superiors to stick it where the sun don't shine while he messes up Key West and a South-American banana republic, leaving a trail of blood several astronomical units long!)

    The Bond character is constantly being reset. As an icon, he transcends the need for any character development of the typical protagonist. He is a collection of enjoyable elements which we are constantly happy to consume without needing any befores or afters. That is also why he is constantly in danger of "pastiche" as Timothy Dalton once put it, and why, every once in a while, he needs to be rebuilt from scratch (e.g. Bond in TLD), albeit loyal to that elusive "Bond formula" that almost escapes definition but is something we immediately recognise when we see it.

    This, at least, is how I see the Bond series before Craig--and possibly after Craig. As such, there is no timeline for me. You can watch most of the classics in any permutation of your choosing: that should never create any issues. Bond can drive that brand new AM Vanquish in a world full of pop electronics today, and flog the engine of an old Bentley in a Jamaica pre-moon landing tomorrow. Hey, it's that guy James Bond! And that's all that matters.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 224
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    What confuses me is how people rationalize the Craig era being a pocket universe or somehow separate from the "main timeline".

    I tend to think that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli who have a certain amount of input to these films know better. Cf the interview at the start of filming.

    Yes I agree with you, you are confused.

    What confuses me is why people cling to the notion of a main timeline in the first place. Any attempt at creating such a thing is built on quicksand. Passing references to the death of Tracy aren't enough for a timeline in which the James Bond of LTK is literally the same man who fought Blofeld in a hollowed-out volcano or travelled into space. Some bits are carried over from one film to the next, but they can't weigh up against the de facto continuity reset at the beginning of each film pre-Craig. Unless I am mistaken, a timeline requires continuity, and continuity was relinquished early on. It just never was a big deal for the people making the Bonds. The idea was that at any point in time, new fans could be lured in, even if they hadn't ever seen another Bond film. Keep the continuity bar as low as possible, and you're guaranteed to build the biggest fan base, especially in an age when home video access to films (and the required "homework" before the release of a new entry in a series) was almost non-existent.

    The way I understood the pre-Craig movies is that they were all one character's story, or maybe transcendent mythology would be a better term. So while Brosnan's Bond may not have been done the exact same things in the exact same context that Connery and Moore did, they did all have the same story: they all fought Dr. No and Goldfinger, they all married Tracy and lost her, they all went into space on the Moonraker shuttle, and they all avenged Felix's wife.

    That being said, it is technically possible that they could be the same literal flesh-and-blood man for the 40 years between DN and DAD. If we suspend disbelief and say that Bond is 25 in DN, he'd be 65 in DAD. Let's just say he took care of himself and had a good diet. It's far-fetched but it could technically work. I mean, Harrison Ford's been playing Indiana Jones for 40 years.

    However, I prefer to be less literal and consider DN-DAD to be a general continuity instead of a specific one like Craig's.

    One wonders, though, whether there ever was a "story" of Bond before Craig, with the notable exception of OHMSS perhaps (and also LTK?) on account of the personal involvement of our guy. Whenever I think about GF, DAF, AVTAK... I see stories with Bond in them, but never the story of Bond. CR may very well have been the first time in the entire series that Bond himself, as a character, was subjected to change, that his views and traits were challenged, that he himself had to make amends, had to learn, had to see things in a different way.

    If everything before CR is supposed to exist in the same narrative spacetime continuum, even disregarding the fact that fashion, technology, habits, world politics... change while Bond essentially remains the same "young man" (even if he ages, then de-ages abruptly, then ages again...), how do we explain the lack of memory Bond clearly suffers from? Diamonds in a satellite in '71... and again in '02. No comment? Space tech lifts off from volcano and ancient pyramid bases, men with steel teeth bite through thick cables, but a secret, private base from which a satellite is controlled is somehow hard to believe? A bikini babe has to shoot at thugs with a machine gun on an oil rig but a woman with a crossbow needs a morality lesson when trying to take revenge for the loss of loved ones? (And that comes from the same man who will essentially tell his superiors to stick it where the sun don't shine while he messes up Key West and a South-American banana republic, leaving a trail of blood several astronomical units long!)

    Again, the DN-DAD continuity doesn't have to be a literal, temporal continuity, just a narrative one that plays fast and loose with time. When Felix says to Dalton-Bond, "he was married once, but it was a long time ago," we understand that he's talking about Tracy. Same when Elektra asks Brosnan-Bond if he ever lost someone close to him and he avoids the question. It doesn't mean that Dalton and Brosnan Bonds specifically lost Tracy in 1969, but it does mean that they have the same life events in their pasts, because they're the same character, and not "resets" or reboots.
    The Bond character is constantly being reset. As an icon, he transcends the need for any character development of the typical protagonist. He is a collection of enjoyable elements which we are constantly happy to consume without needing any befores or afters. That is also why he is constantly in danger of "pastiche" as Timothy Dalton once put it, and why, every once in a while, he needs to be rebuilt from scratch (e.g. Bond in TLD), albeit loyal to that elusive "Bond formula" that almost escapes definition but is something we immediately recognise when we see it.

    Resets and reboots are a very recent thing in cinema. They are cynical attempts to get audiences back in theaters after a franchise has run out of steam. Bond was never reset before Craig. In DAD, R mentions how Bond has gone on 20 missions. He has all the old gadgets in lab. Fan lip service? Definitely. But it's also the filmmakers visually-confirming that, one way or other, Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan are the same character with the same life story.
    This, at least, is how I see the Bond series before Craig--and possibly after Craig. As such, there is no timeline for me. You can watch most of the classics in any permutation of your choosing: that should never create any issues. Bond can drive that brand new AM Vanquish in a world full of pop electronics today, and flog the engine of an old Bentley in a Jamaica pre-moon landing tomorrow. Hey, it's that guy James Bond! And that's all that matters.

    The Craig era forces the issue of multiple timelines, though.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Again, the DN-DAD continuity doesn't have to be a literal, temporal continuity, just a narrative one that plays fast and loose with time. When Felix says to Dalton-Bond, "he was married once, but it was a long time ago," we understand that he's talking about Tracy. Same when Elektra asks Brosnan-Bond if he ever lost someone close to him and he avoids the question. It doesn't mean that Dalton and Brosnan Bonds specifically lost Tracy in 1969, but it does mean that they have the same life events in their pasts, because they're the same character, and not "resets" or reboots.
    When it's said that Batman experienced childhood trauma that set him on the path to become a superhero, we know its referring to his parents being killed in front of him. That doesn't mean any of the different interpretations of Batman function within the same timeline, it just means that's part of his character. AKA, Moore and Dalton could both have been married to Tracy as part of their backstory, but that doesn't mean they're literally the same character as George Lazenby's James Bond. You are welcome to believe they exist in a linear timeline, but you're also giving that notion more consideration than EON ever did.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,552
    Agreed. I think the more you try to connect all of the Bond films, the more you embark on a pointless, impossible mission. The character has fundamental attributes, as @Minion said so well, and after that, any story is fair game. They're all just Bond stories, not one interconnected Bond story stretching from a 25 year old Connery Bond to a 65 year old Brosnan Bond.
    The novels were more or less a connected string of chronological stories, but the films clearly diverted from that.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 383
    Minion wrote: »
    It’s called rebooting. It’s not rocket science

    We understand the idea of a 'reboot'. The problem is - it's a daft idea.

    In a series where that’s already more or less been happening routinely every 8-12 years? I don’t see your point, sir.

    It hasn't been 'reebooting' though, has it? In DAD there were many references to Brozza being the same old Bond. Even down to a bit of Klebb shoe-sniffing.
    The daftness with the current situation is we're now supposed to accept that the Craig era is a different character to the previous Bond movies. Except it's the same character, with a different 'arc'.
    It's daftness! Either he's the same James Bond screen character, or he's a different one. And if the latter is the case, then give him a different name. Don't call him 'Ian Fleming's James Bond' at the start.
    Look, I'm not confused, and I understand that superheroes get killed off and it's a modern trend. But it's daft. At the end of Skyfall they were obviously saying 'Bond is back', we were back to the classic cinematic Bond of old. Then what happened? They killed him off two movies later and we're to assume he wasn't the same old Bond after all, it's an alternative universe Bond, based on this one actor. It's a narrative mess, a complete narrative mess. And now we know he can be killed off and just return when someone says the magic word ("reeeeeboooottt!'). Who cares what happens to him? He's like Dr Who now, he just regenirates.
    So yes, daft. I'm calling it very daft.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    I mean, you're welcome to call that daft, but you're also equating Brosnan sniffing an old shoe as proof he went through the events of From Russia With Love. :))
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 224
    Minion wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Again, the DN-DAD continuity doesn't have to be a literal, temporal continuity, just a narrative one that plays fast and loose with time. When Felix says to Dalton-Bond, "he was married once, but it was a long time ago," we understand that he's talking about Tracy. Same when Elektra asks Brosnan-Bond if he ever lost someone close to him and he avoids the question. It doesn't mean that Dalton and Brosnan Bonds specifically lost Tracy in 1969, but it does mean that they have the same life events in their pasts, because they're the same character, and not "resets" or reboots.
    When it's said that Batman experienced childhood trauma that set him on the path to become a superhero, we know its referring to his parents being killed in front of him. That doesn't mean any of the different interpretations of Batman function within the same timeline, it just means that's part of his character. AKA, Moore and Dalton could both have been married to Tracy as part of their backstory, but that doesn't mean they're literally the same character as George Lazenby's James Bond.

    That's precisely what I said, although I would say they are the same character, only in (possibly) different temporal contexts. In other words, Dalton's Bond could have experienced everything that the previous Bonds did, only in a different time frame. Like maybe he lost Tracy in 1979 as opposed to 1969. Something like that. It's not really an issue with me. The real issue is the Craig era.
    You are welcome to believe they exist in a linear timeline, but you're also giving that notion more consideration than EON ever did.

    I'm only taking it into consideration because EON created a hard, closed, unambiguous continuity with Craig that is clearly very different from fast-and-loose continuity they had before. This is only an issue because EON made it one. They could have avoided this by simply not killing his Bond off at the end of NTTD. There would still be continuity issues given that Blofeld and Spectre are re-introduced in his timeline, but those issues wouldn't be as severe as they are now. NTTD's ending forces us to consider the Craig to basically be an AbramsTrek-style remake of the Bond series. That's not how it started out, but it is how it ended up.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    DAD was the anniversary Bond. The acknowledgement of 20 films is meaningless, other than an almost breaking-the-fourth-wall bit of fan service.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,150
    Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, and Chris Pine all played Jack Ryan, and Ryan gets younger and younger, Or William Shatner and Chris Pine both played/play Captain Kirk, And Shatners Kirk died in GENERATIONS. In THE DARK KNIGHT ISES, Nolan kind of plays with the possibility, that Batman died, he even dies officially, with Alfred crying his heart out, that he could not protect Master Bruce. Only thqat we learn, that somboedy (Bruce Wayne) has repaired with autopuilot, so he could escape, before the nuclear bomb goes off. We had Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Christian Bale, Ben Affleck and Robert Pattinson play Batman.
    And I stooped watching the MCU films after the sconde AVENGER movie (and before that, I did not most of them), because I don't like to be forced to watch EVERY Marvel movie, otherwise you don't understand, waht's going on.
Sign In or Register to comment.