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

1169170172174175245

Comments

  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    @Seve, only you could take a movie in which the love interest dies and the hero ostensibly loses and call it a "happy" ending just because Bond shoots a guy in the leg and stands over him. A guy who by the way, in case you've forgotten, promptly escapes and nearly allows for Bond and M to be killed at the start of the next movie. =))

    Yes, I would argue CR absolutely has a bittersweet ending. You'd have to be blind to think otherwise. But, I guess it's not worth fussing over unless the boys are the ones dying, huh?
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    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.

    You cannot say Craig's Bond lost Tracy. The slate had been wiped completely clean with CR. There's no past stories, no Tracy, no OHMSS, no DB5. CR and QoS followed this new timeline...until we start getting references and nods to older films, the GF DB5 shows up, Dench's M...How can this Bond both be a different version of the character and yet the same one??? It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too, make a daring new series with no ties to the previous movies and yet that also heavily borrows from/references the past movies? It's like doublethink, they say and think two different things at once and believe both of them simultaneously. Unless the references are just an excuse to get cute and meta; THAT is what 's daft, in my opinion, being self aware of prior films but only within the context of an anniversary or because we want to have the DB5 in action again.

    I've been thinking that at least when main characters die in other franchises (be it Marvel, DC, Dallas, whatever) they explain how this character has been resurrected. Even Justice League, as bad as it was, showed the team having to revive Superman. He didn't just come back at the end to beat up the bad guy with no explanation. Yet people are fine with a mortal human character dying in one movie and the expectation is that in the next one he's going to be alive and well with no explanation given as to how this can be. Because you can just change actors and it's implied that the next guy's era will just be a rebooted timeline anyway. Even if you're ok with the ending or even love it, surely you can understand why some can't or won't accept this? It's never happened before, it's jarring, they made a far bigger deal of an actor leaving the role than they needed to. It calls attention to itself, it's self-serving, and you could say that it's a stunt because they needed "closure".

    At this point, anything goes so we may as well abandon title sequences, the gun barrel, regular cast of characters, just do whatever with the character.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Minion wrote: »
    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.

    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…

    Is the prerequisite to enjoying an escapist spy series that you have to have a happy family? Everyone needs to have kids and throw the ball around with dad on Sunday afternoon?
  • Posts: 7,327
    Minion wrote: »
    @Seve, only you could take a movie in which the love interest dies and the hero ostensibly loses and call it a "happy" ending just because Bond shoots a guy in the leg and stands over him. A guy who by the way, in case you've forgotten, promptly escapes and nearly allows for Bond and M to be killed at the start of the next movie. =))

    Yes, I would argue CR absolutely has a bittersweet ending. You'd have to be blind to think otherwise. But, I guess it's not worth fussing over unless the boys are the ones dying, huh?


    But... but... the f***ing Bond Theme is playing at the end!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,442
    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.

    You cannot say Craig's Bond lost Tracy. The slate had been wiped completely clean with CR. There's no past stories, no Tracy, no OHMSS, no DB5. CR and QoS followed this new timeline...until we start getting references and nods to older films, the GF DB5 shows up, Dench's M...How can this Bond both be a different version of the character and yet the same one??? It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too, make a daring new series with no ties to the previous movies and yet that also heavily borrows from/references the past movies? It's like doublethink, they say and think two different things at once and believe both of them simultaneously. Unless the references are just an excuse to get cute and meta; THAT is what 's daft, in my opinion, being self aware of prior films but only within the context of an anniversary or because we want to have the DB5 in action again.

    I've been thinking that at least when main characters die in other franchises (be it Marvel, DC, Dallas, whatever) they explain how this character has been resurrected. Even Justice League, as bad as it was, showed the team having to revive Superman. He didn't just come back at the end to beat up the bad guy with no explanation. Yet people are fine with a mortal human character dying in one movie and the expectation is that in the next one he's going to be alive and well with no explanation given as to how this can be. Because you can just change actors and it's implied that the next guy's era will just be a rebooted timeline anyway. Even if you're ok with the ending or even love it, surely you can understand why some can't or won't accept this? It's never happened before, it's jarring, they made a far bigger deal of an actor leaving the role than they needed to. It calls attention to itself, it's self-serving, and you could say that it's a stunt because they needed "closure".

    At this point, anything goes so we may as well abandon title sequences, the gun barrel, regular cast of characters, just do whatever with the character.

    I think the problem is more on people overthinking this stuff.

    When Craig Bond unveils the DB5, my mind isn’t scrambling to try to make sense of how he could have it when he isn’t related to previous iterations of Bond. I either it’s the one he won in CR, or it’s an old relic of Q Branch that spies in the 60s in Craig’s timeline likely used. After all, the 00 section existed for half a century before Craig Bond was promoted.

    Ultimately, it’s just a fun Easter egg. No different than when Auric Goldfinger cameos in CR.

    For M, it was originally supposed to be a new actor for CR, but Martin Campbell insisted on keeping Dench. I don’t agree with that choice, but there it is. I accept her as a different version of M that we saw from Brosnan’s run.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 2,592
    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.

    You cannot say Craig's Bond lost Tracy. The slate had been wiped completely clean with CR. There's no past stories, no Tracy, no OHMSS, no DB5. CR and QoS followed this new timeline...until we start getting references and nods to older films, the GF DB5 shows up, Dench's M...How can this Bond both be a different version of the character and yet the same one??? It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too, make a daring new series with no ties to the previous movies and yet that also heavily borrows from/references the past movies? It's like doublethink, they say and think two different things at once and believe both of them simultaneously. Unless the references are just an excuse to get cute and meta; THAT is what 's daft, in my opinion, being self aware of prior films but only within the context of an anniversary or because we want to have the DB5 in action again.

    I've been thinking that at least when main characters die in other franchises (be it Marvel, DC, Dallas, whatever) they explain how this character has been resurrected. Even Justice League, as bad as it was, showed the team having to revive Superman. He didn't just come back at the end to beat up the bad guy with no explanation. Yet people are fine with a mortal human character dying in one movie and the expectation is that in the next one he's going to be alive and well with no explanation given as to how this can be. Because you can just change actors and it's implied that the next guy's era will just be a rebooted timeline anyway. Even if you're ok with the ending or even love it, surely you can understand why some can't or won't accept this? It's never happened before, it's jarring, they made a far bigger deal of an actor leaving the role than they needed to. It calls attention to itself, it's self-serving, and you could say that it's a stunt because they needed "closure".

    At this point, anything goes so we may as well abandon title sequences, the gun barrel, regular cast of characters, just do whatever with the character.

    Well said. There is not much more to be knocked around on NTTD anymore. I think its exhausted to death now on here. As a quick summary after endless pages of repeating -

    NTTD fans - they almost unanimously love everything about the movie, including Bond having a child, and Bond dying at the end. They see it as a fitting way to go, a closure to the Craig era, despite what ever happened to previous Bond's when they bowed out, or whatever was written in the books. Killing off the character was the only way to go in their eyes, and they are rating it just below CR and SF, but some are hailing it as maybe the best Bond film ever. Bravo for being able to understand it and absorb it in this way, because I sure as hell can't.

    NTTD haters - they often appreciate moments in the film (usually the first hour), before they feel it slowly starts to lose its way, killing off main supporting characters (Felix), strange interactions with M and Blofeld, Bond gets a daughter, and then an ending which they are definitely not happy with. Killing off the main character seems a step too far for the franchise, and feels more like it was self-serving to Craig and his tenure. Criticism is also thrown around for not adapting the YOLT novel ending properly, and disregarding Fleming for something else - which appears to be following the latest trend of killing the main guy off (yet even Noland didn't dare go the whole way in doing this with Batman, probably because he knew what the backlash would be).

    Right or wrong, this is a generic summary of both camps as of today (give or take here and there). Fans keep repeating their love of the film, and haters keep responding saying what they hate about the film. The fans then criticise the haters for holding this view, and the haters respond in kind, and on it goes. etc. etc.

    I don't feel I have anything more to add on this subject anymore. I said what I felt at the time of watching the film. My view may change over time (I seriously doubt it) and maybe some of the fans here may also change their view over time too. But neither camp is reasoning with the other one, so we are stuck in endless arguments over the exact same things, over and over again.

    How long before Bond 26 comes out? (yawn)...

    8->
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,442
    Just because Bond had never been killed before doesn’t mean it should have never happened. That’s the kind of thinking I don’t agree with. That the unprecedented should be avoided because filmmakers/writers from a bygone era never came up with those ideas.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    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.

    At this point I almost feel the same way. Been a fan for twenty years and left NTTD depressed, numb, down, just not in good spirits. I almost don't care what happens next. This is how you lure in fans for the inevitable return? You make them think about life's harsh realities and do profound rumination on life and death that make one consider their horrible existence?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,442
    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.

    At this point I almost feel the same way. Been a fan for twenty years and left NTTD depressed, numb, down, just not in good spirits. I almost don't care what happens next. This is how you lure in fans for the inevitable return? You make them think about life's harsh realities and do profound rumination on life and death that make one consider their horrible existence?

    That’s not what it did to me. I came out with a grin on my face and was thinking about how exciting it was to not only see the end of an era but think of what the possibilities are for BOND 26.

    Craig’s run was actually the first iteration of Bond I watched from beginning to end. I only saw DAD as my first Bond film in theaters, so Brosnan was already established in the role by the time I got into Bond.
  • Posts: 2,592
    Just because Bond had never been killed before doesn’t mean it should have never happened. That’s the kind of thinking I don’t agree with. That the unprecedented should be avoided because filmmakers/writers from a bygone era never came up with those ideas.

    I don't like depressing endings much in movies. If a film usually has a sad ending, its not one I immediately reach for to cheer myself up, so only find myself watching them once or twice and then never to be repeated. I don't stick on The Champ or The Elephant Man to be cheered up.

    With Bond I want to be uplifted, entertained, thrilled. I don't want to feel downbeat and sad. Even CR, SF or OHMSS never made me feel this way, because the main character still lives to fight another day.

    So no I don't agree with you. Killing off Bond is not something I ever wanted to see. I appreciate for others it's something you are all ecstatic about. I just wondered how you managed to survive for so long watching Bond movies, hoping he was going to snuff it in the end, only to be disappointed that he lives to fight another day.

    Well you finally got your wish, the perfect ending ever to a Bond movie. James Bond dies, RIP.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,442
    Just because Bond had never been killed before doesn’t mean it should have never happened. That’s the kind of thinking I don’t agree with. That the unprecedented should be avoided because filmmakers/writers from a bygone era never came up with those ideas.

    I just wondered how you managed to survive for so long watching Bond movies, hoping he was going to snuff it in the end, only to be disappointed that he lives to fight another day.

    Well you finally got your wish, the perfect ending ever to a Bond movie. James Bond dies, RIP.

    I never hoped for Bond to die. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion unless you think of things in a binary matter.
  • Posts: 2,592
    Just because Bond had never been killed before doesn’t mean it should have never happened. That’s the kind of thinking I don’t agree with. That the unprecedented should be avoided because filmmakers/writers from a bygone era never came up with those ideas.

    I just wondered how you managed to survive for so long watching Bond movies, hoping he was going to snuff it in the end, only to be disappointed that he lives to fight another day.

    Well you finally got your wish, the perfect ending ever to a Bond movie. James Bond dies, RIP.

    I never hoped for Bond to die. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion unless you think of things in a binary matter.

    Well it certainly put a big grin on your face as you left the cinema. ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    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.

    You mean Batman And Robin allowed BB to be accepted because it refrained from killing the Dark Knight? That makes zero sense. B&R could have killed Batman, sent him to Oa, turned him into a talking turnip,... No one would have pulled a "wait, isn't he dead?" when BB arrived. People move on, you know. These hysterics are getting more ridiculous by the day.

    But hey, we're bound to find out. In a few years, EON will most likely deliver Bond 26. We'll see then how many people will be confused beyond measure or unwilling to accept the new Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython The Black Lodge
    Posts: 5,442
    Just because Bond had never been killed before doesn’t mean it should have never happened. That’s the kind of thinking I don’t agree with. That the unprecedented should be avoided because filmmakers/writers from a bygone era never came up with those ideas.

    I just wondered how you managed to survive for so long watching Bond movies, hoping he was going to snuff it in the end, only to be disappointed that he lives to fight another day.

    Well you finally got your wish, the perfect ending ever to a Bond movie. James Bond dies, RIP.

    I never hoped for Bond to die. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion unless you think of things in a binary matter.

    Well it certainly put a big grin on your face as you left the cinema. ;)

    The movie as a whole gave me a grin, for sure. There’s more to it than just Bond dying. I was also happy to get a solid Bond film as Craig’s last. If I thought the film sucked, that would be far worse than the conceit of Bond dying.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited November 2021 Posts: 447
    You can still love and enjoy the movie and be sad that Bond died at the end of it. I'm sure for most people here he is their childhood hero and something that had us all enraptured when we were young.

    I think it would be weird if someone enjoyed the movie but didn't feel a bit sad that Bond died at the end of it.

    I do. I naturally don't like to see him die and wished he had a happy ending because that is what we all want for our heroes and it's a very natural human desire... A very heart over head thing. But that wasn't on the cards for this man. He was like a cat with nine lives and eventually they ran out.

    I still loved the movie though and I think they did nail it in the best way that they could.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,054
    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.

    It's a monumental achievement.
  • Posts: 351
    Jeez guys, cool down about the negativity! Even Spock died. Then he came back in the next film. As Hitchcock used to say, it's only a movie!
  • Posts: 4,851
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    You mean Batman And Robin allowed BB to be accepted because it refrained from killing the Dark Knight? That makes zero sense. B&R could have killed Batman, sent him to Oa, turned him into a talking turnip,... No one would have pulled a "wait, isn't he dead?" when BB arrived.

    Yeah, I don't get it either.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    a few Brosnan dissers on here. Once again: fine! But know this: no Brozza? No Craig! It was Pierce's safe, third way Blairite Bond that made the franchise 'safe' again as the world was not quite readied for the Tim take. And Pierce DID incorporate some Fleming and profound bits; he just did not make an entire movie about it and in part because he and EON played it safe.

    So when the market changed and they knew they COULD do the kind of thing prohibited commercially for over a decade? They went with an 'actor, actor' (Daniel). Pierce is endearingly lacking in self awareness of his own supreme self confidence. He oozes suavity from every pore and is a hard worker.

    Could he have pulled off Craig era level intensity? No, course not. But he was a solid action performer and in GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies, especially, exudes the right gravitas and style. Also, SOME ideas he mooted in interviews have indeed found their way into Craig's tenure in NTTD, too (retirement from killing; return of Blofeld; OHMSS style Bond film). Cut the Irish fella some slack ;)
  • Posts: 351
    Ever noticed how often, the actors had ideas that were denied to them, but taken onto the next regime? For example, Lazenby wanted a Pop song for the credits. They said no. Then Paul McCartney sings Live and Let Die. Brosnan essentially wanted to do the films that Craig did.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    Stamper wrote: »
    Ever noticed how often, the actors had ideas that were denied to them, but taken onto the next regime? For example, Lazenby wanted a Pop song for the credits. They said no. Then Paul McCartney sings Live and Let Die. Brosnan essentially wanted to do the films that Craig did.

    precisely
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 2,592
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    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.

    You mean Batman And Robin allowed BB to be accepted because it refrained from killing the Dark Knight? That makes zero sense. B&R could have killed Batman, sent him to Oa, turned him into a talking turnip,... No one would have pulled a "wait, isn't he dead?" when BB arrived. People move on, you know. These hysterics are getting more ridiculous by the day.

    But hey, we're bound to find out. In a few years, EON will most likely deliver Bond 26. We'll see then how many people will be confused beyond measure or unwilling to accept the new Bond.

    It's easier to see the Batman films as different entities entirely. Different crew, different producers, entirely different company making the films (and a very long time period between the 2 set of films.)

    Whereas Bond is a family run business (probably the only franchise left that still is), and there is a franchise trademark continuity throughout - gunbarrel, Bond theme, Aston Martin, PTS, etc. It all belongs to one series.

    And one last flaw in your argument - Batman didn't die, either in BAR, or TDKR. The producers had more sense... ;)

  • Posts: 2,592
    Just because Bond had never been killed before doesn’t mean it should have never happened. That’s the kind of thinking I don’t agree with. That the unprecedented should be avoided because filmmakers/writers from a bygone era never came up with those ideas.

    I just wondered how you managed to survive for so long watching Bond movies, hoping he was going to snuff it in the end, only to be disappointed that he lives to fight another day.

    Well you finally got your wish, the perfect ending ever to a Bond movie. James Bond dies, RIP.

    I never hoped for Bond to die. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion unless you think of things in a binary matter.

    Well it certainly put a big grin on your face as you left the cinema. ;)

    The movie as a whole gave me a grin, for sure. There’s more to it than just Bond dying. I was also happy to get a solid Bond film as Craig’s last. If I thought the film sucked, that would be far worse than the conceit of Bond dying.

    I'm not so sure on that. I wasn't a massive fan of either SP or QoS, but I didn't leave the cinema upset or down because of them. I just felt certain things could have been improved on, but that was that.

    I can even bring myself to rewatch them both too, whereas I honestly think I will struggle watching NTTD again, mainly because of that damn ending!
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    edited November 2021 Posts: 74
    Pierce's requests, assembled and paraphrased, thus:

    1: Auteur director like Tarantino or Ridley Scott /Ang Lee? Craig gets Sam Mendes and almost, Danny Boyle!
    2: A final confrontation with Blofeld (Craig gets it in SPECTRE /NTTD).
    3: A woman who 'means' something (Brozza almost got that with Paris and Elektra; Craig got actual Vesper)
    4: Bond hates the killing and retires with a woman he loves after facing Blofeld (see again: SPECTRE)
    5: Remake OHMSS as on HIS majesty's secret service (not quite but NTTD is almost there as indeed was TWINE in its way?).

    The difference, I think? Craig was apologetic for his drunken meeting bond movie pitch post theatre wrap with Mendes (he phoned barbara next day..and she actually liked the pitch!); whereas Brozza uncharacteristically lost his charming diplomacy (initially his USP), being publicly critical of the Broccolis. Hence, Barbara and Michael perhaps, I speculate, warmed more to Dan's suggestions than to Pierce's and in any event, franchise was at once more secure and bolder by then ..
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 2,592
    Pierce's requests, assembled and paraphrased, thus:

    1: Auteur director like Tarantino or Ridley Scott /Ang Lee? Craig gets Sam Mendes and almost, Danny Boyle!
    2: A final confrontation with Blofeld (Craig gets it in SPECTRE /NTTD).
    3: A woman who 'means' something (Brozza almost got that with Paris and E;ektra; Craig got actual Vesper)
    4: Bond hates the killing and retires with a woman he loves after facing Blofeld (see again: SPECTRE)
    5: Remake OHMSS as on HIS majesty's secret service (not quite but NTTD is almost there as indeed was TWINE in its way?).

    The difference, I think? Craig was apologetic for his drunken meeting with Mendes where Brozza uncharacteristically lost his charming diplomacy (initially his USP), being publicly critical of the Broccolis. Hence, Barbara and Michael perhaps, I speculate, warmed more to Dan's suggestions than to Pierce's and in any event, franchise was at once more secure and bolder by then ..

    There were bigger factors at play here - 9/11, CR novel rights and Jason Bourne. 9/11 changed the mood of the planet immediately. Tongue-in-cheek was definitely out.

    And a new action hero, sharing the same initials as Bond, and more in line with the original Fleming novels was faring better with audiences than an aging Brozza, surfing high on a CGI wave.

    And EON finally secured the rights to CR and wanted to go back to the beginning again. Hence the reboot.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    edited November 2021 Posts: 74
    Pierce's requests, assembled and paraphrased, thus:

    1: Auteur director like Tarantino or Ridley Scott /Ang Lee? Craig gets Sam Mendes and almost, Danny Boyle!
    2: A final confrontation with Blofeld (Craig gets it in SPECTRE /NTTD).
    3: A woman who 'means' something (Brozza almost got that with Paris and E;ektra; Craig got actual Vesper)
    4: Bond hates the killing and retires with a woman he loves after facing Blofeld (see again: SPECTRE)
    5: Remake OHMSS as on HIS majesty's secret service (not quite but NTTD is almost there as indeed was TWINE in its way?).

    The difference, I think? Craig was apologetic for his drunken meeting with Mendes where Brozza uncharacteristically lost his charming diplomacy (initially his USP), being publicly critical of the Broccolis. Hence, Barbara and Michael perhaps, I speculate, warmed more to Dan's suggestions than to Pierce's and in any event, franchise was at once more secure and bolder by then ..

    There were bigger factors at play here - 9/11, CR novel rights and Jason Bourne. 9/11 changed the mood of the planet immediately. Tongue-in-cheek was definitely out.

    And a new action hero, sharing the same initials as Bond, and more in line with the original Fleming novels was faring better with audiences than an aging Brozza, surfing high on a CGI wave.

    And EON finally secured the rights to CR and wanted to go back to the beginning again. Hence the reboot.

    Agreed on all fronts and suspect pierce accepted that in the end; SONY deal also perhaps changed dynamic: IE no over investment in renewing an expensive contract for one movie when you can get an arguably better suited actor on a 3 picture deal at half the money and same return etc. Nonetheless, Pierce did have ideas. Not a total clothes horse as painted by many..just not QUITE the 'actor' calibre of Daniel but then frankly, even Tim is slightly upstaged on that front (literally,, in so far as Dalton is a better stage than screen actor and COULD have been another Olivier imho)..

    Incidentally, there was also a rumour that Clive Owen was ruled out on similar grounds without even being considered, contrary to the press vibe at time. £££ $$$ : one poster on here (Luds?) all but had him signed up..while others posting in error, I assume, indicated Owen's agent was after a cut of gross..which even Pierce never dared seek out. Craig was paid 8 million upfront for Casino, with option on movies 2 and 3 in contract and renewal should those go ahead successfully. The rest, as they say, is ..geography ;)

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2021 Posts: 20,191
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    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.

    You mean Batman And Robin allowed BB to be accepted because it refrained from killing the Dark Knight? That makes zero sense. B&R could have killed Batman, sent him to Oa, turned him into a talking turnip,... No one would have pulled a "wait, isn't he dead?" when BB arrived. People move on, you know. These hysterics are getting more ridiculous by the day.

    But hey, we're bound to find out. In a few years, EON will most likely deliver Bond 26. We'll see then how many people will be confused beyond measure or unwilling to accept the new Bond.

    It's easier to see the Batman films as different entities entirely. Different crew, different producers, entirely different company making the films (and a very long time period between the 2 set of films.)

    Whereas Bond is a family run business (probably the only franchise left that still is), and there is a franchise trademark continuity throughout - gunbarrel, Bond theme, Aston Martin, PTS, etc. It all belongs to one series.

    And one last flaw in your argument - Batman didn't die, either in BAR, or TDKR. The producers had more sense... ;)

    I agree. Batman is a different thing altogether. I'm not the onewho (for the umptieth time) is trying to make a point concerning Bond by referring to Batman. I was responding to another member's false argument.

    In fact, this once again demonstrates that all the negative speculation concerning the future of Bond is pointless. Think about it. We haven't really seen anything quite like this before and therefore we can't be sure how people will respond. All I'm reading is how this is sure to damage the series, hurt the "franchise" (a word people continue to use without understanding what it means) and such and such, but then arguments are sought, by both sides, in other series, hoping that examples there can lead to trustworthy predictions concerning Bond. Yet... there really aren't cases like this that we've seen before; this is a unique thing. Therefore, we don't know and we can't know. We can only speculate, presume and assume. But audiences can be very unpredictable, fickle and surprisingly easy to turn. So let's stop assuming to know how audiences will respond when in 3, 4, 5? years from now, a new Bond suddenly kicks off a new series.

    We're essentially going in circles. One side says, "but this is what happened to Batman, Superman, M:I, ..." and then the other side responds by saying, "but they're not the same thing." Come back an hour later and the same discussion can be read, but with both sides switched. It has become clear to me that this is absolutely silly since, again, we have nothing to compare NTTD with or to, nothing that can teach us something about audiences' response to NTTD + 1. Every time someone digs up another great example of what happened to another character in another film series (or "franchise" if you like), someone else is bound to point out the fundamental differences between both. Your post pretty much proves my point, @jetsetwilly ;-).

    And lastly, I'm not sure there is a flaw in my argument, my good friend. Batman didn't die. I never claimed that much. @slide_99 was trying to make a point about NTTD and the future of Bond by comparing them to Batman (first mistake, see above) and also by implying that the Nolan films and Pattinson's Batman got lucky that Batman wasn't killed, or else! (second mistake). I was merely pointing out that nothing that happened in B&R had any direct effect on the Nolan films--and you seem to agree with me.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    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.

    You mean Batman And Robin allowed BB to be accepted because it refrained from killing the Dark Knight? That makes zero sense. B&R could have killed Batman, sent him to Oa, turned him into a talking turnip,... No one would have pulled a "wait, isn't he dead?" when BB arrived. People move on, you know. These hysterics are getting more ridiculous by the day.

    But hey, we're bound to find out. In a few years, EON will most likely deliver Bond 26. We'll see then how many people will be confused beyond measure or unwilling to accept the new Bond.

    It's easier to see the Batman films as different entities entirely. Different crew, different producers, entirely different company making the films (and a very long time period between the 2 set of films.)

    Whereas Bond is a family run business (probably the only franchise left that still is), and there is a franchise trademark continuity throughout - gunbarrel, Bond theme, Aston Martin, PTS, etc. It all belongs to one series.

    And one last flaw in your argument - Batman didn't die, either in BAR, or TDKR. The producers had more sense... ;)

    You need to get over it, dude. They killed him. He dead.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    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.

    You mean Batman And Robin allowed BB to be accepted because it refrained from killing the Dark Knight? That makes zero sense. B&R could have killed Batman, sent him to Oa, turned him into a talking turnip,... No one would have pulled a "wait, isn't he dead?" when BB arrived. People move on, you know. These hysterics are getting more ridiculous by the day.

    But hey, we're bound to find out. In a few years, EON will most likely deliver Bond 26. We'll see then how many people will be confused beyond measure or unwilling to accept the new Bond.

    It's easier to see the Batman films as different entities entirely. Different crew, different producers, entirely different company making the films (and a very long time period between the 2 set of films.)

    Whereas Bond is a family run business (probably the only franchise left that still is), and there is a franchise trademark continuity throughout - gunbarrel, Bond theme, Aston Martin, PTS, etc. It all belongs to one series.

    And one last flaw in your argument - Batman didn't die, either in BAR, or TDKR. The producers had more sense... ;)

    You need to get over it, dude. They killed him. He dead.

    People don't like the ending (or do), fine, they can repeat that as often as they like. It's the argumentation that falls flat time and again (on both sides.) That's where I'm agreeing with you @RC7. People have to get over it, on both sides. "But Fleming...!" "But Barbara Broccoli...!" "But Batman...!" Granted, I went there myself a month ago. Then I thought about it and realised none of these arguments, on either side of the debate, makes sense. There is no objective measure of truth here, no "Fleming metric", no "good/bad because". Any argument as to why Bond's death should or shouldn't have happened can just as easily be debunked, usually by draining the same well (Fleming, heroes-do(n't)-die, you-just-do(n't), ...).

    It's all a matter of taste, folks. We can't explain, prove or predict. It's that simple.
  • Posts: 7,327
    @jetsetwilly

    - "I don't feel I have anything to add on this subject anymore."

    Goes on to write about six more comments close to essay length... ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.