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

1228229231233234294

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited December 2021 Posts: 6,846
    WhyBond wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    I believe Craig's Bond is the same one portrayed by the previous actors only just starting out his career. There are too many homages throughout the arc that it's the same guy.
    I am totally against having a Bond multiverse or having him resurrected in a different time frame. It defeats the purpose of Bond being a realistic spy series that so many want because there is no coming back from the dead.
    Knowing how EON follows trends I will not be surprised if they CGI previous actors and have them assist Bond #7 in his missions.

    Craig being the same character as his predecessors makes no sense. His run has been established as a different continuity since 2006. I don’t get why some are in denial of that.

    Drives DB5, shoots a Walther, drinks martinis, says Bond James Bond and references to past films. Yea same guy.
    Giving Bond a death just opens up multiverse theories and a whole bunch of other stuff not necessary for this series.

    None of that disproves it’s a different timeline.

    Felix walking with both legs is enough to shut down the theory that Craig was the same guy.
    I'm with you whybond.
    Craig being the same character as his predecessors makes no sense. His run has been established as a different continuity since 2006. I don’t get why some are in denial of that.

    I get it MSP, I really do. No denial from me.
    Daniel Craig is playing someone called James Bond who is a new character. There was another character called James Bond, but the last movie with him in was Die Another Day, (where he still had his jet-pack, scuba-alligator stored at Q branch etc).
    But Casino Royale was a re-boot, and that meant a new James Bond. Not the same character, as you say.
    Now the next movie we have will have yet another character, who will also be called James Bond, but it'll be the third James Bond, right?
    Unless they decide to carry on with the first one. If they do that, then we'll only have had two James Bonds.
    The only thing we definitely know is, we won't get the second James Bond character back, because he's dead.
    The first one is still alive though, so they can bring him back if they want.
    Yep, I get it. I'm not in denial at all, I completely understand what they've gone and done.

    What I am in denial of - is the idea that there's any narrative sense in a series that tells you it's the same character ('Ian Fleming's James Bond' - it's at the start of every film), yet now wants us to accept they're different characters at the same time.

    That’s your hang up. Not mine.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 52
    WhyBond wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    I believe Craig's Bond is the same one portrayed by the previous actors only just starting out his career. There are too many homages throughout the arc that it's the same guy.
    I am totally against having a Bond multiverse or having him resurrected in a different time frame. It defeats the purpose of Bond being a realistic spy series that so many want because there is no coming back from the dead.
    Knowing how EON follows trends I will not be surprised if they CGI previous actors and have them assist Bond #7 in his missions.

    Craig being the same character as his predecessors makes no sense. His run has been established as a different continuity since 2006. I don’t get why some are in denial of that.

    Drives DB5, shoots a Walther, drinks martinis, says Bond James Bond and references to past films. Yea same guy.
    Giving Bond a death just opens up multiverse theories and a whole bunch of other stuff not necessary for this series.

    None of that disproves it’s a different timeline.

    Felix walking with both legs is enough to shut down the theory that Craig was the same guy.

    Yet many had no issues with inserting Daniel Craig into GoldenEye and reliving past missions of the previous actors in video games.

    Daniel's era was all about destroying the Bond tropes of yesteryear and answering fan questions of What if Bond had a kid, got shot, died etc.
  • That’s your hang up. Not mine.

    It's to do with the way we've approached fictional characters in literature for hundreds of years, and movies also, (until recently). If it's a 'hang up' then it's one based on the ages old relationship in art, between the narrator and the audience, an the trust that builds between the two that creates emotional attachment in a single fictional 'character'.
    What is a character worth, if it can be killed, then simply bought back in the next installment? How is the reader/viewer expected to care about the fiction existence of such a character?
    If I'm unhappy with what they've done, at least listen to my reasons, which I think are valid, even though you don't think they're important. Don't just accuse me of having a 'hang up'.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,523
    00Heaven wrote: »
    To be fair to those that dislike NTTD it's a bit different to other movies or as @peter said Tenet... For them this is an established IP for a very long time... So I can empathise with it in a lot of ways... It's also a Bond forum so I expect this kind of discourse, providing it's fair and balanced. You could argue that the people who love NTTD do the same by posting about it a lot.

    At any rate, Merry Christmas / happy holidays everyone :).

    Agreed @00Heaven ... And I truly have enjoyed reading the critics of NTTD; I may not agree with what they're saying, but what they say has value and made me think about why I feel something about the same film, but the end result for me was positive....

    But there are others who seem to push their dislike at every opportunity and it's spread into other, unrelated threads.

    @ColonelAdamski I must admit when I see you've posted, I get ready for another jab at the film that is recycled from all of your posts that have come before, but; not everything I said was directed at you specifically. I was observing the general traits of the haters....

    However, I do appreciate your passion for the films, books, history of the character. It is clear you have intelligent and very strong opinions about this creation, and I can admire that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited December 2021 Posts: 6,846
    That’s your hang up. Not mine.

    It's to do with the way we've approached fictional characters in literature for hundreds of years, and movies also, (until recently). If it's a 'hang up' then it's one based on the ages old relationship in art, between the narrator and the audience, an the trust that builds between the two that creates emotional attachment in a single fictional 'character'.
    What is a character worth, if it can be killed, then simply bought back in the next installment? How is the reader/viewer expected to care about the fiction existence of such a character?
    If I'm unhappy with what they've done, at least listen to my reasons, which I think are valid, even though you don't think they're important. Don't just accuse me of having a 'hang up'.

    Like I said, that’s your problem. Most people perfectly understands the conceit that Craig’s films were a reboot and that the next guy will be another reboot. It’s not exactly a brand new concept that different iterations of characters have different timelines. Nobody confuses the continuity of 90s animated Batman with the movies.
    WhyBond wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    I believe Craig's Bond is the same one portrayed by the previous actors only just starting out his career. There are too many homages throughout the arc that it's the same guy.
    I am totally against having a Bond multiverse or having him resurrected in a different time frame. It defeats the purpose of Bond being a realistic spy series that so many want because there is no coming back from the dead.
    Knowing how EON follows trends I will not be surprised if they CGI previous actors and have them assist Bond #7 in his missions.

    Craig being the same character as his predecessors makes no sense. His run has been established as a different continuity since 2006. I don’t get why some are in denial of that.

    Drives DB5, shoots a Walther, drinks martinis, says Bond James Bond and references to past films. Yea same guy.
    Giving Bond a death just opens up multiverse theories and a whole bunch of other stuff not necessary for this series.

    None of that disproves it’s a different timeline.

    Felix walking with both legs is enough to shut down the theory that Craig was the same guy.

    Yet many had no issues with inserting Daniel Craig into GoldenEye and reliving past missions of the previous actors in video games.

    Daniel's era was all about destroying the Bond tropes of yesteryear and answering fan questions of What if Bond had a kid, got shot, died etc.

    The video games aren’t canon.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 11,291
    Regarding the suggestion of different characters, my natural focus is for how the Bond actors play the same character.

    For example before CR was properly filmed and released in 2006, to my mind ALL the actors from Connery to Brosnan played Bond with the Vesper story in the background. I didn't need it presented to me on screen, it's cooked into the character and is what makes sense of him, defines him. And it will be simmering under the surface for future actors in the Bond role whether or not it's presented on screen or referenced in dialogue. Simple.

    So the Craig Bond era had an unusually close focus on character I enjoyed, benefiting from the Ian Fleming story being available to set things up. They mined gold from it. It builds up the franchise and my enjoyment of the previous films the way OHMSS and LTK did and do. And I'm ready for more.

    clip_image009.gif
  • peter wrote: »
    @ColonelAdamski I must admit when I see you've posted, I get ready for another jab at the film that is recycled from all of your posts that have come before, but; not everything I said was directed at you specifically. I was observing the general traits of the haters....

    However, I do appreciate your passion for the films, books, history of the character. It is clear you have intelligent and very strong opinions about this creation, and I can admire that.

    Thanks for that Peter. And in response I will happily admit I've beaten the same drum too many times since I re-joined on here. In the past few weeks I've tried to contribute to other threads, and not just wring my hands about NTTD.
    I think the trouble is, people see a new name here and someone coming in all negative all the time, and they have no idea about their investment in the character. I don't think I took that into consideration.
    Now, it's almost Xmas day (three minutes!) and I have one, or maybe two new Fleming Folio editions for me tomorrow, hopefully, so here's wishing everyone a happy Xmas, and I hope Santa swells your collection with something Bondian!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,523
    Happy Christmas @ColonelAdamski ... Your love for Bond can never be called into question, and outside of NTTD, I think we'd have many intersecting agreements about 007 and the series.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 7,322
    peter wrote: »
    @ColonelAdamski I must admit when I see you've posted, I get ready for another jab at the film that is recycled from all of your posts that have come before, but; not everything I said was directed at you specifically. I was observing the general traits of the haters....

    However, I do appreciate your passion for the films, books, history of the character. It is clear you have intelligent and very strong opinions about this creation, and I can admire that.

    Thanks for that Peter. And in response I will happily admit I've beaten the same drum too many times since I re-joined on here. In the past few weeks I've tried to contribute to other threads, and not just wring my hands about NTTD.
    I think the trouble is, people see a new name here and someone coming in all negative all the time, and they have no idea about their investment in the character. I don't think I took that into consideration.
    Now, it's almost Xmas day (three minutes!) and I have one, or maybe two new Fleming Folio editions for me tomorrow, hopefully, so here's wishing everyone a happy Xmas, and I hope Santa swells your collection with something Bondian!

    I’ll be the first to admit I made that assumption/poor judgement. It does seem like you have a heavy investment in the stories and fair reasons for not liking NTTD. Thanks for continuously responding and being patient. It seems like you’ll contribute a lot of value to the forums.

    I hope you end up with some new Folios! I’ve got a few now and they’re gorgeous editions.
  • donnydracodonnydraco America
    Posts: 16
    Here's a fantastic video delving into the problematic facets to Safin. If you're pressed for time, fast-forward to the author's revisions at 20:40; they're quite brilliant, and compounds my frustrations that the NTTD writers couldn't weave the threads nearly as deftly.

  • Posts: 7,424
    00Heaven wrote: »
    To be fair to those that dislike NTTD it's a bit different to other movies or as @peter said Tenet... For them this is an established IP for a very long time... So I can empathise with it in a lot of ways... It's also a Bond forum so I expect this kind of discourse, providing it's fair and balanced. You could argue that the people who love NTTD do the same by posting about it a lot.

    At any rate, Merry Christmas / happy holidays everyone :).


    I, for one, prefer a message of love rather than a message of hate. But each to their own, obviously... ;)
  • I'll make mine more 'a whisper of hate' in the future.
  • Posts: 1,176
    Yeah I’d describe NTTD’s ending is bittersweet whereas OHMSS’s is unambiguously bleak.

    Yeah Bond dies but he gets a hero’s death, saves the world, leaves a familial legacy behind, and becomes a legend. In OHMSS the villains get away, his wife and chance for a normal life are brutally cut down in front of him and we leave on Bond as a broken man, clutching the lifeless body of Tracy.

    OHMSS may have a bleak ending.But at least James Bond is alive to continue on.And as tragic as Traceys death is,instead of meeting her end by suicide,she was saved by Bond and for a short,but joyous time,she fell in love and was truly happy.

    Bond is dead by the end of NTTD.His family lives on but Bond is dead.

  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 1,707
    Yes, there is no real parallel.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Yeah I’d describe NTTD’s ending is bittersweet whereas OHMSS’s is unambiguously bleak.

    Yeah Bond dies but he gets a hero’s death, saves the world, leaves a familial legacy behind, and becomes a legend. In OHMSS the villains get away, his wife and chance for a normal life are brutally cut down in front of him and we leave on Bond as a broken man, clutching the lifeless body of Tracy.

    OHMSS may have a bleak ending.But at least James Bond is alive to continue on.And as tragic as Traceys death is,instead of meeting her end by suicide,she was saved by Bond and for a short,but joyous time,she fell in love and was truly happy.

    Bond is dead by the end of NTTD.His family lives on but Bond is dead.

    Yep. Well stated, sir!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,292
    Bond dies but he managed to accomplish his mission, saving the world and his family.

    In OHMSS Bond loses and Blofeld wins.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2021 Posts: 17,289
    matt_u wrote: »
    Bond dies but he managed to accomplish his mission, saving the world and his family.
    The world? As in the WHOLE world? No, thousands of those nanobots were launched into the skies as Bond died and self-replicated on the winds, gaining self-awareness & devising a plan to destroy humanity.
    That's the next movie, by the way.... ;)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 11,291
    chrisisall wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Bond dies but he managed to accomplish his mission, saving the world and his family.
    The world? As in the WHOLE world?
    Hmm, not wrong to suggest that Bond saved the world. Based on Safin's mischief that could kill estimated millions or more, targeting societal disruption and potentially race and other biases like what he considered undesirable physical conditions or traits or thoughts.

    Plus who wants to step forward and tell the Leiter family that HE didn't save the world one last time.

    70e6241c21956544818ca83d47eca6673fb474cf.gifv
    viewer.php?img=James-Bond-James-Bond-agent-007-smiley-emoticon-001277-facebookZ8YGO7.gif
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited December 2021 Posts: 357
    Craig being the same character as his predecessors makes no sense. His run has been established as a different continuity since 2006. I don’t get why some are in denial of that.

    Maybe because of the portrait of a previous non-Craig-Bond M on the wall?

    "No Time To Die features another special M Easter egg. The movie reveals that MI6 headquarters in Whitehall has portraits of two previous Ms; Judi Dench and the M played by Robert Brown. In the previous Bond continuity, Brown was M in four films and oversaw two 007s, Roger Moore in Octopussy and A View To A Kill and Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights and License To Kill. Brown died in 1989, a few months after License To Kill's theatrical release. However, by virtue of his portrait appearing in No Time To Die, Brown's M officially joins the canon of Craig's Bond movies, and the character is likely the immediate predecessor of Judi Dench's M.

    Why Bernard Lee didn't also receive a portrait in No Time To Die isn't known but it's possible that implying there were a total of four Ms across five Craig Bond movies may have been considered too many."


    I don't get this 'he's not the same "character"' stuff, he's James Bond, the guy from the Ian Fleming books isn't he? He's not Jason Bourne or Ethan Hunt.

    He's always the same "character", but just as I can accept him moving from the 1950s to the 1990s and beyond, or aging from his 30s to his 50s and then back to his 30s, or being played by three different actors in consecutive movies, I can accept that he got killed this time around

    James Bond is always the "character" and always reflects certain aspects of Fleming, if not always as much as one would like or emphasising particular aspects as much as another might like.

    Benedict Cumberbatch isn't Jeremy Brett, isn't Peter Cushing, isn't Basil Rathbone, but they all end up at Baskerville Hall in the end.

    Adam West isn't Michael Keaton, isn't Val Kilmer, isn't George Cooney, isn't Christian Bale, isn't Ben Affleck, isn't Robert Pattinson...

    And we don't need any "Spider-Man, No Way Home" to try and link it all together into a wacky multiverse

    They all exist as versions of the same thing, as interpreted by different people

    Nothing more, nothing less
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 1,707
    I would think that’s reading way too much into the whole situation. I’m pretty sure that it’s just a tribute, because we already had Bernard Lee’s portrait in a film, and I don’t think it was supposed to be thought about in terms of continuity and so on.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,322
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would think that’s reading way too much into the whole situation. I’m pretty sure that it’s just a tribute, because we already had Bernard Lee’s portrait in a film, and I don’t think it was supposed to be thought about in terms of continuity and so on.

    Yep. A nod to previous Bond films for Bond fans and that's it. I thought they had a Bernard Lee portrait in this film as well, but just not seen in the final film? Across from Robert Brown, perhaps?
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would think that’s reading way too much into the whole situation. I’m pretty sure that it’s just a tribute, because we already had Bernard Lee’s portrait in a film, and I don’t think it was supposed to be thought about in terms of continuity and so on.

    Yep. A nod to previous Bond films for Bond fans and that's it. I thought they had a Bernard Lee portrait in this film as well, but just not seen in the final film? Across from Robert Brown, perhaps?

    Personally I agree, because I don't think of there being any meaningful continuity between Bond eras at all

    But if people want to discuss continuity and insist that Craig's is somehow separate from all the others, or more separate than any of the others, then there is the portrait, up on the wall, refuting their argument.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    Hahahaha folks bending backwards on why OHMSS ending is somehow less bleak than NTTD.

    You guys remind me of Austin Powers after his wife exploded.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Moderator
    edited December 2021 Posts: 13,105
    Need I remind everyone that Dalton was Rassilon in Doctor Who? Therefore, James Bond is a Timelord, we just didn’t see him regenerate. A cluster of missiles to the face is nothing.

    What? It’s a better rationale than NTTD ending in a way that is in line with Fleming. It isn’t.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited December 2021 Posts: 357
    Need I remind everyone that Dalton was Rassilon in Doctor Who? Therefore, James Bond is a Timelord, we just didn’t see him regenerate. A cluster of missiles to the face is nothing.

    What? It’s a better rationale than NTTD ending in a way that is in line with Fleming. It isn’t.

    I like your thinking...

    Vesper's mausoleum was actually his Tardis, but then it got blown up and he knew that sooner or later it was going to be the end of the line for him...

    no-time-to-die-grave-2337706.jpg?r=1582893809632
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,292
    chrisisall wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Bond dies but he managed to accomplish his mission, saving the world and his family.
    The world? As in the WHOLE world? No, thousands of those nanobots were launched into the skies as Bond died and self-replicated on the winds, gaining self-awareness & devising a plan to destroy humanity.
    That's the next movie, by the way.... ;)

    Lol what.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Moderator
    Posts: 13,105
    Seve wrote: »
    Need I remind everyone that Dalton was Rassilon in Doctor Who? Therefore, James Bond is a Timelord, we just didn’t see him regenerate. A cluster of missiles to the face is nothing.

    What? It’s a better rationale than NTTD ending in a way that is in line with Fleming. It isn’t.

    I like your thinking...

    Vesper's mausoleum was actually his Tardis, but then it got blown up and he knew that sooner or later it was going to be the end of the line for him...

    no-time-to-die-grave-2337706.jpg?r=1582893809632

    I think we’re on to something here. What if, wait for it..... what if Safin’s island is Trenzalore?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    matt_u wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Bond dies but he managed to accomplish his mission, saving the world and his family.
    The world? As in the WHOLE world? No, thousands of those nanobots were launched into the skies as Bond died and self-replicated on the winds, gaining self-awareness & devising a plan to destroy humanity.
    That's the next movie, by the way.... ;)

    Lol what.

    You don't think anything less than a fuel-air explosion or a nuke could get rid of all the millions of nanobots, do you? It was just a big, hot sneeze that killed most of them, but spread the rest out.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,322
    Seve wrote: »
    Need I remind everyone that Dalton was Rassilon in Doctor Who? Therefore, James Bond is a Timelord, we just didn’t see him regenerate. A cluster of missiles to the face is nothing.

    What? It’s a better rationale than NTTD ending in a way that is in line with Fleming. It isn’t.

    I like your thinking...

    Vesper's mausoleum was actually his Tardis, but then it got blown up and he knew that sooner or later it was going to be the end of the line for him...

    no-time-to-die-grave-2337706.jpg?r=1582893809632

    I think we’re on to something here. What if, wait for it..... what if Safin’s island is Trenzalore?

    Nerds. ;)
  • Posts: 7,424
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would think that’s reading way too much into the whole situation. I’m pretty sure that it’s just a tribute, because we already had Bernard Lee’s portrait in a film, and I don’t think it was supposed to be thought about in terms of continuity and so on.

    Yep. A nod to previous Bond films for Bond fans and that's it. I thought they had a Bernard Lee portrait in this film as well, but just not seen in the final film? Across from Robert Brown, perhaps?

    I saw the film five times on the cinema, and I was consciously looking for a prtrait og Lee the last four times without finding it. I think it is strange to leave him out, the most classic M of them all. I don't really know what the justification was for that.
Sign In or Register to comment.