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

1168169171173174298

Comments

  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    anyone notice it's not just OHMSS snuck into the score? In Bond's last stand pre THAT death? there is a triumphal flavour of a few bars of GOLDFINGER /YOLT. Incidentally, both LTK and GoldenEye did a similar thing..
  • Posts: 3,164
    aside from Arnold's Vesper theme quoted in there I can definitely hear some of Newman's action motifs, during the Matera scene specifically. And some of Arnold's QOS...

    As Arnold himself said on Twitter I think at the time of release, brings together elements from all the various scores.
  • fadetoblack7fadetoblack7 Chicago IL
    Posts: 60
    I think there’s a AVTAK score reference when M and Bond are talking outside in London if I’m not mistaken?
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    I think there’s a AVTAK score reference when M and Bond are talking outside in London if I’m not mistaken?

    OHMSS
  • fadetoblack7fadetoblack7 Chicago IL
    Posts: 60
    Minion wrote: »
    I think there’s a AVTAK score reference when M and Bond are talking outside in London if I’m not mistaken?

    OHMSS

    Gotcha. My bad.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    anyone notice it's not just OHMSS snuck into the score? In Bond's last stand pre THAT death? there is a triumphal flavour of a few bars of GOLDFINGER /YOLT. Incidentally, both LTK and GoldenEye did a similar thing..

    Great find. Just listening to this, but can't spot it. Around what time?
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 659
    Minion wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    What if Bond never comes back?

    And the next Bond is the adventures of Mathilde Bond?

    After all, Barbara said James Bond will never be played by a woman, and that we need to create women's characters instead.

    Which is what they did with NTTD. They created a woman Bond. So that's one possibility that NTTD is a backdoor pilot to the new Bond. Mathilde Bond.

    I'm fine with them not making any more Bond movies. They've made enough, and the subversion is only going to get worse as time goes on, IMO.
    Yeah, why can't they just keep telling the same story over and over again? Character development is for nerds!
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    What if Bond never comes back?

    And the next Bond is the adventures of Mathilde Bond?

    After all, Barbara said James Bond will never be played by a woman, and that we need to create women's characters instead.

    Which is what they did with NTTD. They created a woman Bond. So that's one possibility that NTTD is a backdoor pilot to the new Bond. Mathilde Bond.

    I'm fine with them not making any more Bond movies. They've made enough, and the subversion is only going to get worse as time goes on, IMO.

    Subversion can be a good thing. Sticking to the same formula for everything leads to stagnation, which it seems is what some people want for some reason. Shaking things up exists to allow the old ways to come back stronger and more interesting.

    You can have character development and originality without subversion and deconstruction. Craig spent 3 out of his 5 films playing a broken-down Bond before they finally bumped him off. Subversion is simply taking what's been done before and inverting it. It's not creative. If anything it signals a lack of creativity.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    Venutius wrote: »
    What’s to like?...Bond being terribly written?
    'You shot him at pointblank range and threw him off a roof!'
    'I did my best not to.'

    That's funnier than getting into some deep water or New York New York, no?

    Man that scene frustrates me. Bond has every opportunity to level with M, but always opts to needlessly complicate it to the point where she personally brings agents to escort him.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    end of 'i'll be right back'. GOLD-FINGER ONLY LIVES TWICE..It is there but it's not there. the horns. the two beat punch combo blast just as Bond is fading toward death, he gets one final sexy bum wiggle orchestral jive
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    TR007 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Here's something.

    When NTTD was released, someone posted an "illegal" video of Bond's death, filmed in the theater. I downloaded that but haven't looked at it in weeks.

    I just did. I slowed it way down and froze the image in the last frame in which we see Bond. Holy crap.

    As someone who views DC's Bond as Jungian in nature, as embodying the duality of man, what I saw made the hairs on my neck stand up--for lack of a better cliche.

    His image is split in two. Not his body. We see no blood and gore. What we see are two of him, one magnified and superimposed over the other, just as the screen goes completely white.

    :-O
    That scene cuts way too fast in the cinema. Would you be able to post a screenshot please?

    Screenshot, if not illegal on this board, would be appreciated.

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,261
    Seve wrote: »
    Yup. What’s done is done.

    Live with it.

    That's right, James Bond's are like buses - if you don't like one, another will be along in (some period of time).

    skynews-bond25-bath_5519237.jpg?20210921122001

    2645.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=91e71a09c22138a533f9dcc9997014e7


    wktX7ONJ8k3prCsuS9KspzG_8JwRA9ZjaJ0dxbdbwaQ1bG0-gBE-6OUe0NP3nJsaBj4y_eCTCmg3qkoflxt_BM1XoabTI2BOE9mE1wvepTudicLY5Rm-pcn26Ivv5urzcIT62-tnsV-0RzCgoGNV3FZAEMrts5pbwP_PIw_wZQ

    D1ctqrXWkAAgsyS?format=jpg&name=small
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    So death is the only "proper" ending in your opinion?
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Apparently this is for some. I don't get it myself, personally, as it seems incredibly obvious, but I've tried to explain it a few times now with no success. It's not even a subjective thing, it's clearly what the series is going to do.

    If you don't get it then how can you explain it?
    Yet you continue to assert your own view and criticise others who have a different view for doing the same...

    I entirely "get" your point of view, and on one hand I compartmentalise my Bonds and have no problem understanding that it is only Craig-Bond who is dead and look forward to the next Bond

    But on the other hand I don't agree with killing off the character and feel there was too much melodrama in the Craig era. (one persons "character development" can be another persons "melodrama")
    What I don’t get is how it’s apparently so different to what came before. I know there was some carryover between films from 1962 to 2002, but did people really see Moore’s Bond as the same Bond from OHMSS, for example? He was married to Tracy, but he was essentially playing a whole different character. And even if we do accept Connery to Brosnan as the exact same person, why is an immortal never aging man who has a new face and a complete personality transplant every few years believeable, but Bond dying and the story starting anew is silly/sci-fi/etc?

    I knew the ending would be divisive, but I really didn’t expect it to confuse so many people.

    To a casual viewer killing Bond and then saying "he will return" is confusing

    To those who don't believe the character should be killed off and then brought back in the next movie it is ridiculous.

    I think it works for Bond specifically. Because he chose a life of killing, he can never truly find a happy ending for himself. He lost Tracy, he lost Vesper, and now he lost his shot at being a part of a family, and in the end he accepts it because he did everything he could to protect them, which is why the last expression on his face that we see is him looking serene. He knows his legacy will last beyond his death. I think it’s beautiful.

    Not "Bond", this line of thinking only applies to "Craig-Bond" who seems to have been in a downward emotional spiral since day one.

    "Book-Bond" is an adrenaline junkie and espionage is his drug of choice. Cold killing is part of it and he has mixed feelings about that side of it. However he also understands that life without the excitement is not for him, as the "ennui" he feels prevents him from living a "normal" life and sustaining a "normal" couple relationship. Only late in the series does "Book-Bond" get married and Tracy dies before we find out whether Bond can sustain it.

    With "Craig-Bond" it's the deaths of those around him that bother him (fair enough in a "normal" person, but do real secret agents have that much empathy?). At the beginning of NTTD it appears he is capable of living the quiet life if only the World would stop interrupting him.

    However "where there is life there is hope".

    The two plot mechanisms viewers seem to have identified for Crag-Bonds death-wish are

    Noble sacrifice due to fatal bullet wounds (the "Danny Archer" scenario) or due to incurable nanobots (The Sydney Carton scenario)

    It's all good, but IMO it's "Craig-Bond" not "James Bond"
    Minion wrote: »
    And that’s why I don’t view it as a sad ending. Certainly it’s more optimistic than CR or SF were. Maybe a lot of those most critical of the decision don’t have families themselves to really understand the point it was making… at least, not happy ones. I dunno, just thinking out loud…

    CR ending sad? Standing over Mr White - Look out villains, James Bond is coming to get you! IMO that is a positive ending.

    SF ending sad? Yes, M is dead, but there is a new M, it's downbeat, but the message is that life goes on, the struggle against evil will continue

    SP ending... Craig-Bond has had enough, see you on the next episode of "Escape to the Country"

    NTTD - “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.”

    IMO, on balance, James Bond sacrificing his life has to be a sad ending, no matter how noble it is

  • Posts: 1,314
    I’d quite like to see bond in the navy, getting recruited secretly by M. Then his first missions he’s a cock sure over confident , young man who spends his money on fast cars and fine living. Then over the course of the film learns how to be the best 00 in the Servcie.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    The fact that you only view their deaths as “shock value” says a lot. So what’s the point of killing Tracy? “Shock value”?

    The only long term character development that matters is that of James Bond

    Other characters only need to be developed as far as necessary to serve the individual story in which they appear

    Meeting Tracy and marrying allows development of Bond's character
    Tracy dying allows further development of Bond's character

    Meeting Vesper allows development of Bond's character
    Vesper dying allows further development of Bond's character

    Meeting Madeleine allows development of Craig-Bond's character
    Being prepared to sacrifice his life for her and his daughter is also character development for Craig-Bond

    But I'm not sure how actually dying advances the cause?

    Because, when "James Bond returns", it will be as if all that character development never happened.



  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 659
    Bond movies don't need to focus on developing him. With a few exceptions like the deaths of Vesper and Tracy, he's an absolute, even in the novels. This character has existed for 70 years and been on-screen for 60. He doesn't have any secrets. People go to Bond movies to watch him do Bond things, not to see what personal issues he has to overcome with each new movie. There's always room to do something new with him, like put him in an unprecedented situation or different kinds of enemies to deal with, but they shouldn't involve him personally.
  • slide_99 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    What if Bond never comes back?

    And the next Bond is the adventures of Mathilde Bond?

    After all, Barbara said James Bond will never be played by a woman, and that we need to create women's characters instead.

    Which is what they did with NTTD. They created a woman Bond. So that's one possibility that NTTD is a backdoor pilot to the new Bond. Mathilde Bond.

    I'm fine with them not making any more Bond movies. They've made enough, and the subversion is only going to get worse as time goes on, IMO.

    Subversion can be a good thing. Sticking to the same formula for everything leads to stagnation, which it seems is what some people want for some reason. Shaking things up exists to allow the old ways to come back stronger and more interesting.

    It also just keeps the series popular. I was happy with the Brosnan era, and I originally struggled to adjust to Craig. But I’ve had conversations about the new Bond films since with people who I never thought I’d be able to talk about James Bond with. And just look at the box office of the last few films.

    I’d still be happy with a formulaic Bond film every two years, because I’m a fanboy. But the current blockbuster landscape is so oversaturated with franchises that currently hold a lot more cultural capital than Bond (spies haven’t been a big craze for a long, long time), and I think the reason the last few have done so well despite that is that EON have managed to turn it into a real event. Every new Bond film now immediately takes the UK by storm. And I’m not sure that would’ve been possible if we’d just stuck to Bond on a mission every time. Most of us would be happy. But general audiences already have plenty of other Bond films they can watch for that.
    Seve wrote: »
    Do you think people in the 1700s were booing whatever production of Hamlet was on because he’d died at the end of the last one?

    Whether you like the ending or hate it, “he’s dead and we’ll get a whole new version next time” really isn’t silly or hard to grasp. The series has always been different takes on the same character (Brosnan sniffing Klebb’s shoe isn’t a sign of continuity, it’s just a cheeky nod, same as the OHMSS references in NTTD). The Craig era just made a point of setting this new take apart in a more concrete way and giving it a proper ending for a change.

    So death is the only "proper" ending in your opinion?

    Not sure how you managed to get that from my post since I never even implied that but no, of course not. Him retiring again for good or something would’ve been just as concrete. Even him going back to active service could work as a proper ending, if it was forshadowed and given weight. But I do think death was the most fitting ending for the story they’d been telling.
    Seve wrote: »
    To a casual viewer killing Bond and then saying "he will return" is confusing

    If you’ve been living under a pop culture rock and have missed the wealth of different unrelated Spidermen, Batmen, etc, and the Bond reboot we’ve already had, then I guess it could be confusing. But again, ironically, I haven’t met anyone who was confused in real life. I’ve just seen comment after comment still going on about it on here.

    I’m sure some people are confused, but as ever, I think it’s the internet amplifying the voice of a vocal minority. Most people are used to reboots, and most people don’t think this deeply into it in the first place. They just watch the film, move on, and forget about it until they see a trailer for the next one. And even the ones who are confused will immediately get it when they cast the new guy.
  • Posts: 372
    Hmmm, I'm not sure any franchise out there currently hold a lot more cultural capital than Bond.

    Even IMF films with Tom the man Cruise are just tap water/elevator music films, like all Marvel and DC. They are made to be enjoyed in the cinemas, and forgotten 10mn after getting out. Only crazy die hard fans spend time on board dissecting the IMF films. They are just ephemeral enjoyments, only revisited for continuity when a new one comes up.

    Bond is an institution, and it achieved that taking crazy risks, all it's films and litterature life. (The novels set the template). He is in place Spider-Man will never be. (the film Spider-Man. The comics was made institution by Lee/Ditko/Romita/Kane and no film has come close).

    I don't get the hoopla around Bond dying because I've expected Bond to die (pardon the formulation) back in 2008 with the first sequel. For me that was the only way to top CR. I'm amazed they finally got there because they beat around the bush for 3 intermediary films of relative importance, that otherwise, kept the British end up because they were still boldly going places Bond had never went before.

    Go back to the novels. They aren't cliche about some guy in a white smoking suit that get the women and drink and smoke and gamble and had gomina in his hair and his assigned a mission and get it done and get the girl in the end. They are deep exploration of the masculine and feminine psyche.

    What happened during the Craig season is they went back Fleming. And they are far from having exhausted the source. The 60's films might have exhausted the stories and situations, but not the subtext. And there's plenty more where that come from.



  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited November 2021 Posts: 357
    Seve wrote: »
    So death is the only "proper" ending in your opinion?
    Not sure how you managed to get that from my post since I never even implied that but no, of course not. Him retiring again for good or something would’ve been just as concrete. Even him going back to active service could work as a proper ending, if it was forshadowed and given weight. But I do think death was the most fitting ending for the story they’d been telling.

    Cool, "most fitting" is a better choice of words

    To me "proper" implies that previous endings were wrong or inadequate in some way
    Seve wrote: »
    To a casual viewer killing Bond and then saying "he will return" is confusing
    If you’ve been living under a pop culture rock and have missed the wealth of different unrelated Spidermen, Batmen, etc, and the Bond reboot we’ve already had, then I guess it could be confusing.

    Batman died? Spideman died? Connery-Bond died? Rog-Bond died? etc
    Sorry, yes, I missed that

    As far as I'm aware franchises usually don't kill off the titular character (they just stop after the last instalment doesn't make enough money at the box office) So reboots are usually just a new actor playing the same character, as in the Bond franchise up until NTTD, even if they do choose to retell the origin story in a slightly different way.

    However Iron-man and Wolverine might change all that in the near future?
    Nothing surer than that those two won't be staying dead forever

    Black Widow is one exception I can think of, killed off before getting to star in her own movie!
    And Captain Kirk of course, but many Star Trek fans didn't like that either
    I’m sure some people are confused, but as ever, I think it’s the internet amplifying the voice of a vocal minority. Most people are used to reboots, and most people don’t think this deeply into it in the first place. They just watch the film, move on, and forget about it until they see a trailer for the next one. And even the ones who are confused will immediately get it when they cast the new guy.

    That's right, anyone who disagrees with you must be a vocal minority with their head stuck in an echo chamber...

    This is a fan site, where people enjoy discussing the minutiae that "normal" movie goers overlook

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,261
    It is not about people, who are a minority, because they do not like NTTD and its ending. That's fine. We have freedom of speech and, among others, freedom of opinion. The thing is, that people, who dislike NTTD and Bond dying, can't and don't want to accept, that there are people out there, who actually like NTTD and its ending. For them, this people are ignorants, have bad or no taste, no understanding of Bond, and maybe of movies in general. I am not really a fan of FRWL, TB and YOLT. There, I said it. And for me, Bond is a fictional character, not a living person. Like Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Lord Peter Wimsey, Miss Marple (talking about how far away Margaret Rutherford's wonderful takke on Miss Marple, is as far awy as possible from Dame Agatha's Miss Marple. Or Peter Ustinov and Kenneth Branagh from Agatha Christie's Poirot).

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,261
    Post removed by moderator.
    The image has nothing to do with the discussion @DoctorKaufmann and is nothing more than spam. Please refrain from posting such things again. Thanks
  • Seve wrote: »
    That's right, anyone who disagrees with you must be a vocal minority with their head stuck in an echo chamber...

    This is a fan site, where people enjoy discussing the minutiae that "normal" movie goers overlook

    No, I think (as in, I reckon) you’re the minority, based off my entirely anecdotal experience (never meeting anyone in real life with these complaints) and the fact that the film is still doing very well, making lots of money and getting good audience scores.

    And I only said that to disagree with your point about casual/normal moviegoers being confused, you were the one who bought them up. You were saying people won’t understand, I was saying I think those that don’t are in the minority, because the only place I’ve seen confusion is here (which as you say, is a fansite, pretty far removed from the average viewer experience).
    Seve wrote: »
    Batman died? Spideman died? Connery-Bond died? Rog-Bond died? etc
    Sorry, yes, I missed that

    Batman as good as died in The Dark Knight Rises. Missing, presumed dead until we see him retired and sunning himself in Spain or somewhere with Catwoman at the end. Then Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character takes the mantle.

    They started over with Ben Affleck just three years later, and I don’t remember anybody asking where Joseph Gordon Levitt had gone, why he was out of retirement, why he didn’t have Catwoman with him, etc. Because people understood it was a reboot. Just as people understood that Craig’s Bond was a reboot, and just as people will understand that this new Bond is another reboot.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited November 2021 Posts: 659
    Seve wrote: »
    That's right, anyone who disagrees with you must be a vocal minority with their head stuck in an echo chamber...

    This is a fan site, where people enjoy discussing the minutiae that "normal" movie goers overlook

    No, I think (as in, I reckon) you’re the minority, based off my entirely anecdotal experience (never meeting anyone in real life with these complaints) and the fact that the film is still doing very well, making lots of money and getting good audience scores.

    And I only said that to disagree with your point about casual/normal moviegoers being confused, you were the one who bought them up. You were saying people won’t understand, I was saying I think those that don’t are in the minority, because the only place I’ve seen confusion is here (which as you say, is a fansite, pretty far removed from the average viewer experience).
    Seve wrote: »
    Batman died? Spideman died? Connery-Bond died? Rog-Bond died? etc
    Sorry, yes, I missed that

    Batman as good as died in The Dark Knight Rises. Missing, presumed dead until we see him retired and sunning himself in Spain or somewhere with Catwoman at the end. Then Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character takes the mantle.

    They started over with Ben Affleck just three years later, and I don’t remember anybody asking where Joseph Gordon Levitt had gone, why he was out of retirement, why he didn’t have Catwoman with him, etc. Because people understood it was a reboot. Just as people understood that Craig’s Bond was a reboot, and just as people will understand that this new Bond is another reboot.

    First, many of our complaints are based on the Craig era mimicking other franchises, particularly with all this "reboot" nonsense. Secondly, would the Batman reboots have worked if any of the previous continuities had killed off Batman? Killing off a character on-screen regardless of reboots might make it harder for audiences to accept that he's coming back in a different continuity, not easier. That's why you don't kill off the hero of his own series. A month after learning about NTTD's ending, I'm still utterly baffled as to why Eon made this decision.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    That's right, anyone who disagrees with you must be a vocal minority with their head stuck in an echo chamber...

    This is a fan site, where people enjoy discussing the minutiae that "normal" movie goers overlook

    No, I think (as in, I reckon) you’re the minority, based off my entirely anecdotal experience (never meeting anyone in real life with these complaints) and the fact that the film is still doing very well, making lots of money and getting good audience scores.

    And I only said that to disagree with your point about casual/normal moviegoers being confused, you were the one who bought them up. You were saying people won’t understand, I was saying I think those that don’t are in the minority, because the only place I’ve seen confusion is here (which as you say, is a fansite, pretty far removed from the average viewer experience).
    Seve wrote: »
    Batman died? Spideman died? Connery-Bond died? Rog-Bond died? etc
    Sorry, yes, I missed that

    Batman as good as died in The Dark Knight Rises. Missing, presumed dead until we see him retired and sunning himself in Spain or somewhere with Catwoman at the end. Then Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character takes the mantle.

    They started over with Ben Affleck just three years later, and I don’t remember anybody asking where Joseph Gordon Levitt had gone, why he was out of retirement, why he didn’t have Catwoman with him, etc. Because people understood it was a reboot. Just as people understood that Craig’s Bond was a reboot, and just as people will understand that this new Bond is another reboot.

    First, many of our complaints are based on the Craig era mimicking other franchises, particularly with all this "reboot" nonsense. Secondly, would the Batman reboots have worked if any of the previous continuities had killed off Batman? Killing off a character on-screen regardless of reboots might make it harder for audiences to accept that he's coming back in a different continuity, not easier. That's why you don't kill off the hero of his own series. A month after learning about NTTD's ending, I'm still utterly baffled as to why Eon made this decision.

    Because they thought there was a good story to be told of Bond dying. That’s all.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,972
    Seve wrote: »
    The only long term character development that matters is that of James Bond. Other characters only need to be developed as far as necessary to serve the individual story in which they appear.
    Meeting Tracy and marrying allows development of Bond's character
    Tracy dying allows further development of Bond's character
    Meeting Vesper allows development of Bond's character
    Vesper dying allows further development of Bond's character
    Meeting Madeleine allows development of Craig-Bond's character
    Being prepared to sacrifice his life for her and his daughter is also character development for Craig-Bond
    But I'm not sure how actually dying advances the cause?
    Because, when "James Bond returns", it will be as if all that character development never happened.

    Nail. Head. 👍
  • Checking in with this thread every now and then, its hard to ignore the cliché that sometimes the best art is divisive ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Count me in the live and let live camp. Those who didn't like it, that's fine and sorry to hear! Those who enjoyed it (like myself) had a good experience and good memories. Much better approach than to live and let die over this...?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,830
    Controversial opinion:… apart from the Brosnan Era, I adore Bond via Fleming (I couldn’t quite relate to the Bond in continuation novels… other than Colonel Sun), and Connery to Laz to Moore to Dalton to Craig has given me such great pleasure….

    And the Craig Era, to me, has been the cherry on the top, that (and here’s the controversial opinion that I will later put into the Controversial Thread), I may never need to see another Bond film again (other than in passing).

    Connery was the ultimate in cool-killer sex appeal with charisma oozing from his every pore…

    Laz felt like the innocent Bond (with flaws);

    no one could match Moore’s dapper public school boy;

    Dalton’s jadedness, but more so his unstoppable drive, was unmatched…

    But Craig’s blunt instrument mixed with humanity and passion completes everything I need from this character… So do I need to see another incarnation of the character after this dramatic five film arc?

    I’m not so sure that I do….
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 49
    peter wrote: »
    Controversial opinion:… apart from the Brosnan Era, I adore Bond via Fleming (I couldn’t quite relate to the Bond in continuation novels… other than Colonel Sun), and Connery to Laz to Moore to Dalton to Craig has given me such great pleasure….

    And the Craig Era, to me, has been the cherry on the top, that (and here’s the controversial opinion that I will later put into the Controversial Thread), I may never need to see another Bond film again (other than in passing).

    Connery was the ultimate in cool-killer sex appeal with charisma oozing from his every pore…

    Laz felt like the innocent Bond (with flaws);

    no one could match Moore’s dapper public school boy;

    Dalton’s jadedness, but more so his unstoppable drive, was unmatched…

    But Craig’s blunt instrument mixed with humanity and passion completes everything I need from this character… So do I need to see another incarnation of the character after this dramatic five film arc?

    I’m not so sure that I do….

    I always think its healthy to stop interacting when you have said and responded to everything just once but this post was on my MI6 screen on my phone and it struck me that you have said what I feel.

    Inevitably my views have changed since the mid sixties, my needs have changed, but Daniel's introduction has changed the way I see the entire sequence, aside from Majesties, which I own and watch once a year, I do not hanker to watch any of the others. I admire the first three, Timothy's are a mixture and certainly both have real moments and start well but by that point the real challenge of how to 'end' a bond movie was an issue.

    Daniel has taken it to a different level of intensity where what happens to him leaves an indelible mark on him and the audience. We get a chance to see what that means, real change occurs and it leaves its mark on him and the audience. We are on a journey and of course his death is entirely logical as a consequence.

    However in the sameway I am not interested in the early films any more (I never watched the Moore films more than once on release) it is likely that it may not be important to me to see what comes after. I would not have been surprised if Barbara and Michael stopped, indeed I am more surprised they are carrying on.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    peter wrote: »
    Controversial opinion:… apart from the Brosnan Era, I adore Bond via Fleming (I couldn’t quite relate to the Bond in continuation novels… other than Colonel Sun), and Connery to Laz to Moore to Dalton to Craig has given me such great pleasure….

    And the Craig Era, to me, has been the cherry on the top, that (and here’s the controversial opinion that I will later put into the Controversial Thread), I may never need to see another Bond film again (other than in passing).

    Connery was the ultimate in cool-killer sex appeal with charisma oozing from his every pore…

    Laz felt like the innocent Bond (with flaws);

    no one could match Moore’s dapper public school boy;

    Dalton’s jadedness, but more so his unstoppable drive, was unmatched…

    But Craig’s blunt instrument mixed with humanity and passion completes everything I need from this character… So do I need to see another incarnation of the character after this dramatic five film arc?

    I’m not so sure that I do….

    That is controversial. It's impossible to imagine, at this point, a Bond film coming out that I won't be interested in seeing day one.
  • Posts: 526
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    That's right, anyone who disagrees with you must be a vocal minority with their head stuck in an echo chamber...

    This is a fan site, where people enjoy discussing the minutiae that "normal" movie goers overlook

    No, I think (as in, I reckon) you’re the minority, based off my entirely anecdotal experience (never meeting anyone in real life with these complaints) and the fact that the film is still doing very well, making lots of money and getting good audience scores.

    And I only said that to disagree with your point about casual/normal moviegoers being confused, you were the one who bought them up. You were saying people won’t understand, I was saying I think those that don’t are in the minority, because the only place I’ve seen confusion is here (which as you say, is a fansite, pretty far removed from the average viewer experience).
    Seve wrote: »
    Batman died? Spideman died? Connery-Bond died? Rog-Bond died? etc
    Sorry, yes, I missed that

    Batman as good as died in The Dark Knight Rises. Missing, presumed dead until we see him retired and sunning himself in Spain or somewhere with Catwoman at the end. Then Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character takes the mantle.

    They started over with Ben Affleck just three years later, and I don’t remember anybody asking where Joseph Gordon Levitt had gone, why he was out of retirement, why he didn’t have Catwoman with him, etc. Because people understood it was a reboot. Just as people understood that Craig’s Bond was a reboot, and just as people will understand that this new Bond is another reboot.

    First, many of our complaints are based on the Craig era mimicking other franchises, particularly with all this "reboot" nonsense. Secondly, would the Batman reboots have worked if any of the previous continuities had killed off Batman? Killing off a character on-screen regardless of reboots might make it harder for audiences to accept that he's coming back in a different continuity, not easier. That's why you don't kill off the hero of his own series. A month after learning about NTTD's ending, I'm still utterly baffled as to why Eon made this decision.

    Spot on. Exactly right.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Eighth viewing tonight. Had my most profound emotional reaction thus far. Not just to the ending, but to the humor, to the sweeping romance, to the other moments of solemnity, to the innumerable times where Bond kicks absolute ass throughout the film. The ending for Bond is undoubtedly sad, but what follows is an on-screen, joyous ode to the character. This film as a whole could not have been a bigger celebration of James Bond. The greatest franchise film ever made.
Sign In or Register to comment.