No Time To Die: Why It Should Not Have Been Made (The Way It Was)

1192022242532

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,861
    Yes, I think SP did get the ending right.

    Because he ends up with Madeleine, and because he throws away his gun, he pretty much needs to spare Blofeld before that. That all tracks. (And it all ties into Madeleine's conversation with him on the train.)

    It is the London stuff before the bridge scene that makes no sense.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    Why couldn't they Just let Blofeld escape? I mean it was pretty clear that they had to bring him back anyway. An imprisoned Blofeld is boring, however, since he cannot do a lot and is really wasted as a character. I guess the Problem was that they had absolutely no idea whether Craig was going to make a 5th film. Therefore, they needed an ending that somehow works as Craig's farewell as well as a build up to Craig's 5th film. I personally think that it is a bad comprinise. They shouldn't have used Blofeld or SPECTRE at all in Daniel Craig's Bond era. They could have done something really great with them with the next actor. Now SPECTRE and Blofeld are ruined for quite some time ...
  • Posts: 486
    echo wrote: »
    Yes, I think SP did get the ending right.

    Because he ends up with Madeleine, and because he throws away his gun, he pretty much needs to spare Blofeld before that. That all tracks. (And it all ties into Madeleine's conversation with him on the train.)

    It is the London stuff before the bridge scene that makes no sense.

    Yeah, I love Spectre and think it's great — but this is true. They knew they needed Bond in the haunted house MI6 buildling and they needed to get Madeleine in their with the red strings of fate and all that stuff. They knew they needed to get to the point of Blofeld on the bridge with the gun, so Bond can make a different choice. That's all fine. But it all fits together is just a biiiiiiiiit scuffed lol.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,355
    One thing that bothered me in NTTD and also in Spectre was how disrepectful Bond is to M. Perhaps it's not as bad in NTTD as M is no longer his boss, but still is disrespectful to the title. Obviously Spectre with the interaction after the credit sequence. You would never see Bond disrespecting Fleming's M or Connery/Moore disrepecting Bernard Lee.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,965
    One thing that bothered me in NTTD and also in Spectre was how disrepectful Bond is to M. Perhaps it's not as bad in NTTD as M is no longer his boss, but still is disrespectful to the title. Obviously Spectre with the interaction after the credit sequence. You would never see Bond disrespecting Fleming's M or Connery/Moore disrepecting Bernard Lee.

    It's been prevalent all the way through the Craig era after their were creeping hints of it through the Brosnan era. Bond is a military man and wouldn't show that level of disrespect to a superior. He wouldn't break into M's flat, wouldn't break into her house in SF looking like a bum, and wouldn't speak to Mallory the way he did in SP and NTTD.

    But, of course, it does make good drama. So there's always a trade-off.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,355
    One thing that bothered me in NTTD and also in Spectre was how disrepectful Bond is to M. Perhaps it's not as bad in NTTD as M is no longer his boss, but still is disrespectful to the title. Obviously Spectre with the interaction after the credit sequence. You would never see Bond disrespecting Fleming's M or Connery/Moore disrepecting Bernard Lee.

    It's been prevalent all the way through the Craig era after their were creeping hints of it through the Brosnan era. Bond is a military man and wouldn't show that level of disrespect to a superior. He wouldn't break into M's flat, wouldn't break into her house in SF looking like a bum, and wouldn't speak to Mallory the way he did in SP and NTTD.

    But, of course, it does make good drama. So there's always a trade-off.

    For some reason it didn't bother me with Craig and Dench's M. I understand the disrespect of him breaking into her house, twice. However, outside of that, I felt that there was always a mutual respect with those characters. Craig and Fiennes character incarnations just seem to hate each other.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 14,792
    BMB007 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SP's one is at least quite snappy and quick compared to those: he shoots a helicopter, it crashes, he chats to Blofeld and walks off. Done and dusted.

    Wait, you are okay with that?

    I was specifically comparing it with the quite long a drawn-out climaxes to FYEO and DAF, which for my money outstay their welcome.

    BT3366 wrote: »
    This is Blofeld, the villain most associated with Bond, Bond's arch enemy, the villain fans pleaded to come back, the one Eon wanted to bring back into the fold and fought to get the rights back for and the climactic confrontation is this: ridiculous shot, the copter coming down, a limp dialogue exchange and have the police take him away like the ending of a Batman '66 part 2 episode?


    It functions effectively enough, and the choice for Bond to give up his life as a spy is a big part of the story too at that point.
    BT3366 wrote: »
    One thing SP at least does do is show Blofeld being escorted away and having that closure. What was it in OHMSS and DAF where they figure Blofeld is defeated and not going back after him? Lazenby's Bond is more interested in having a drink.

    Yes the OHMSS one is pretty much inexplicable. Bond isn't in the middle of nowhere and horribly injured or anything. He's on a bobsleigh track (which are never exactly inaccessible) and quite near a nice little, quite busy town. Quite why he presumably has a look at Blofeld hanging in his tree and thinks 'ah sod it, I'm going to the casino' and wanders off is not really understandable! :)

    Good post. The ending we have in Spectre — Bond throwing down the weapon for the girl, is the obvious one inherent in that story. With the stuff it brings up about shadows of the past and choice. Big theme across the Craig movies is choice. I'm a little surprised it took them that many drafts to figure it out!

    Yes that's a good point. Ms Broccoli was talking in a recent podcast about how each of Craig's movies outlines a specific move in his career and life, and although there are obviously flaws in how it was all carried, she doesn't seem to be wrong. He is changed by the end of each movie.
    echo wrote: »
    Yes, I think SP did get the ending right.

    Because he ends up with Madeleine, and because he throws away his gun, he pretty much needs to spare Blofeld before that. That all tracks. (And it all ties into Madeleine's conversation with him on the train.)

    It is the London stuff before the bridge scene that makes no sense.

    Yeah, if he'd killed him he wouldn't be leaving that life behind: he'd be the same assassin he was at the beginning of the film. It's also a victory over Blofeld: Blofeld is still fuming about what James apparently 'did to him' in his childhood, whereas Bond shows he's the bigger man by just turning the other cheek and moving on from it. He has a future where Blofeld doesn't because he's dwelling in the past- he's even renamed himself after his long-dead mother.
    And that still holds true into NTTD: Bond is trying to make amends with his past with Vesper and move on whilst Blofeld is still maintaining his insane vendetta.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 14,792
    One thing that bothered me in NTTD and also in Spectre was how disrepectful Bond is to M. Perhaps it's not as bad in NTTD as M is no longer his boss, but still is disrespectful to the title. Obviously Spectre with the interaction after the credit sequence. You would never see Bond disrespecting Fleming's M or Connery/Moore disrepecting Bernard Lee.

    It's been prevalent all the way through the Craig era after their were creeping hints of it through the Brosnan era. Bond is a military man and wouldn't show that level of disrespect to a superior. He wouldn't break into M's flat, wouldn't break into her house in SF looking like a bum, and wouldn't speak to Mallory the way he did in SP and NTTD.

    But, of course, it does make good drama. So there's always a trade-off.

    For some reason it didn't bother me with Craig and Dench's M. I understand the disrespect of him breaking into her house, twice. However, outside of that, I felt that there was always a mutual respect with those characters. Craig and Fiennes character incarnations just seem to hate each other.

    I think he does respect him in SF: it's just a bit of protectiveness towards his M (Dench). And then in Spectre it's the same issue: he's loyal to M, the problem is he's more loyal to his M (Dench). And then in NTTD it's simply a matter that he's not under M's command any more, but then they find a ground of mutual respect and work from there.

    It's not as if Bond has always just blindly followed M. Look at Living Daylights, which a lot of fans point to as a 'straightforward mission film': he disobeys direct orders twice just because he thinks he knows best (three times if you include the hamper :) ).
  • Posts: 486
    mtm wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SP's one is at least quite snappy and quick compared to those: he shoots a helicopter, it crashes, he chats to Blofeld and walks off. Done and dusted.

    Wait, you are okay with that?

    I was specifically comparing it with the quite long a drawn-out climaxes to FYEO and DAF, which for my money outstay their welcome.

    BT3366 wrote: »
    This is Blofeld, the villain most associated with Bond, Bond's arch enemy, the villain fans pleaded to come back, the one Eon wanted to bring back into the fold and fought to get the rights back for and the climactic confrontation is this: ridiculous shot, the copter coming down, a limp dialogue exchange and have the police take him away like the ending of a Batman '66 part 2 episode?


    It functions effectively enough, and the choice for Bond to give up his life as a spy is a big part of the story too at that point.
    BT3366 wrote: »
    One thing SP at least does do is show Blofeld being escorted away and having that closure. What was it in OHMSS and DAF where they figure Blofeld is defeated and not going back after him? Lazenby's Bond is more interested in having a drink.

    Yes the OHMSS one is pretty much inexplicable. Bond isn't in the middle of nowhere and horribly injured or anything. He's on a bobsleigh track (which are never exactly inaccessible) and quite near a nice little, quite busy town. Quite why he presumably has a look at Blofeld hanging in his tree and thinks 'ah sod it, I'm going to the casino' and wanders off is not really understandable! :)

    Good post. The ending we have in Spectre — Bond throwing down the weapon for the girl, is the obvious one inherent in that story. With the stuff it brings up about shadows of the past and choice. Big theme across the Craig movies is choice. I'm a little surprised it took them that many drafts to figure it out!

    Yes that's a good point. Ms Broccoli was talking in a recent podcast about how each of Craig's movies outlines a specific move in his career and life, and although there are obviously flaws in how it was all carried, she doesn't seem to be wrong. He is changed by the end of each movie.
    echo wrote: »
    Yes, I think SP did get the ending right.

    Because he ends up with Madeleine, and because he throws away his gun, he pretty much needs to spare Blofeld before that. That all tracks. (And it all ties into Madeleine's conversation with him on the train.)

    It is the London stuff before the bridge scene that makes no sense.

    Yeah, if he'd killed him he wouldn't be leaving that life behind: he'd be the same assassin he was at the beginning of the film. It's also a victory over Blofeld: Blofeld is still fuming about what James apparently 'did to him' in his childhood, whereas Bond shows he's the bigger man by just turning the other cheek and moving on from it. He has a future where Blofeld doesn't because he's dwelling in the past- he's even renamed himself after his long-dead mother.
    And that still holds true into NTTD: Bond is trying to make amends with his past with Vesper and move on whilst Blofeld is still maintaining his insane vendetta.

    Yes! Heard that podcast. Obviously, authorial intent isn't always the end all be all — but it was sweet to hear not just that Broccoli's analysis lines up with my own, but also that she uses the exact same language I use lol. Especially when she said the point of NTTD is him "earning" the title of father, which Madeleine gives him in the end.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,858
    BMB007 wrote: »
    The ending we have in Spectre — Bond throwing down the weapon for the girl, is the obvious one inherent in that story. With the stuff it brings up about shadows of the past and choice. Big theme across the Craig movies is choice. I'm a little surprised it took them that many drafts to figure it out!

    I think it was there, but there was a prolonged struggle to get it across. In the early emails, the Sony execs talk about how they like the premise that SP will be 'Bond's last mission' but later they're looking for a convincing reason for why that'd be the case. Why would he walk away at this point, what was it about Madeleine that made him fall in love for the first time since Vesper ('why this girl, why now?', as one of the suits asks), etc. It was one of the studio execs that asked for Madeleine be written as a deeper character so that viewers would believe that Bond would give it up for her. When you look at those emails again, it's quite striking just how much input into the actual story ideas the Sony and MGM people had - they weren't just stumping up the money and waiting to collect. Bit concerning to think that Amazon execs might want or have similar input!

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,858
    mtm wrote: »
    if he'd killed him he wouldn't be leaving that life behind: he'd be the same assassin he was at the beginning of the film. It's also a victory over Blofeld: Blofeld is still fuming about what James apparently 'did to him' in his childhood, whereas Bond shows he's the bigger man by just turning the other cheek and moving on from it. He has a future where Blofeld doesn't because he's dwelling in the past.
    Yeah, definitely. I like this. Bond's refusal to be goaded into killing Blofeld also shows that Blofeld has no power over him - either in the present or as a memory of past trauma. Where poor little Franz has been spurred to all this by his lifelong grudge, Bond shrugs and walks away, leaving him powerless. You're right, mtm, that's a victory on more levels than one.

  • edited February 2022 Posts: 94

    I was taken out of the film about an hour and a half in, when Bond did his "I love you" speech, which struck me as quite out of character, even more than the strange tone he took with Blofeld in Belmarsh. I don't mind the cinematic Bond saying he's in love, but this was so melodramatic, over-earnest and pretty unconvincing. From then on, we had pouting sulky Bond after Maddy and the kid were taken, and then finally shot up, poisoned and blown up Bond.
    Someone on here said 'he only dies once in 25 films, I can cope with that'. Which is like Alan Partridge saying "the Titanic had many hours of pleasurable cruising before it hit the iceberg".

    I agree. When I first saw that scene when he said I love you I thought it was cringey and out of character. It worked when George Lazenby said it to Diana Rigg's Tracey.
  • It's been prevalent all the way through the Craig era after their were creeping hints of it through the Brosnan era. Bond is a military man and wouldn't show that level of disrespect to a superior. He wouldn't break into M's flat, wouldn't break into her house in SF looking like a bum, and wouldn't speak to Mallory the way he did in SP and NTTD.
    But, of course, it does make good drama. So there's always a trade-off.

    Spot on.

  • Posts: 1,876
    mtm wrote: »
    One thing that bothered me in NTTD and also in Spectre was how disrepectful Bond is to M. Perhaps it's not as bad in NTTD as M is no longer his boss, but still is disrespectful to the title. Obviously Spectre with the interaction after the credit sequence. You would never see Bond disrespecting Fleming's M or Connery/Moore disrepecting Bernard Lee.

    It's been prevalent all the way through the Craig era after their were creeping hints of it through the Brosnan era. Bond is a military man and wouldn't show that level of disrespect to a superior. He wouldn't break into M's flat, wouldn't break into her house in SF looking like a bum, and wouldn't speak to Mallory the way he did in SP and NTTD.

    But, of course, it does make good drama. So there's always a trade-off.

    For some reason it didn't bother me with Craig and Dench's M. I understand the disrespect of him breaking into her house, twice. However, outside of that, I felt that there was always a mutual respect with those characters. Craig and Fiennes character incarnations just seem to hate each other.

    I think he does respect him in SF: it's just a bit of protectiveness towards his M (Dench). And then in Spectre it's the same issue: he's loyal to M, the problem is he's more loyal to his M (Dench). And then in NTTD it's simply a matter that he's not under M's command any more, but then they find a ground of mutual respect and work from there.

    It's not as if Bond has always just blindly followed M. Look at Living Daylights, which a lot of fans point to as a 'straightforward mission film': he disobeys direct orders twice just because he thinks he knows best (three times if you include the hamper :) ).

    Or OHMSS when he turns to Draco when M won't sanction a rescue mission to Piz Gloria for Tracy. Bond hadn't resigned at that point.

    Also, Connery's Bond seemed to spar with M quite a bit at the beginning of DAF when meeting with Sir Donald, right in front of him, similar to the meeting in GF. It wasn't really disrespect but not exactly respectful either.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    One thing that bothered me in NTTD and also in Spectre was how disrepectful Bond is to M. Perhaps it's not as bad in NTTD as M is no longer his boss, but still is disrespectful to the title. Obviously Spectre with the interaction after the credit sequence. You would never see Bond disrespecting Fleming's M or Connery/Moore disrepecting Bernard Lee.

    To be fair, Mallory isn’t either of those Ms. I do like that each new M after Robert Brown has essentially been a brand new character that Bond has a slightly different dynamic with. M as played by Lee and Dench had a dynamic of a parent with a child (more so with Dench). With Mallory they’re much closer in age (close enough that Fiennes could have made a suitable contender for the role of Bond in 2005), and so Bond doesn’t have the same reverential respect and trust that he had with his older M’s. Sort of like how the dynamic is different from Boothroyd to Whishaw’s Q. It’s breaking tradition, but that’s the whole point.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,687
    The end of Spectre is another reason Bond had die in No Time To Die. They couldn't have ended Craig's final film with the same ending as Spectre.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,844
    I would take it a step further and say that SP was a perfect end for Craig's Bond. I don't buy into this idea that NTTD was inevitable for Craig's Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The end of Spectre is another reason Bond had die in No Time To Die. They couldn't have ended Craig's final film with the same ending as Spectre.

    Yes, absolutely. You’d had Bond end a film being “ready for duty” and you’d then had him leave the service in the next. You can’t really have him repeat either of those.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,687
    I don't buy into this idea that NTTD was inevitable for Craig's Bond.
    I don't know to be honest. I mean I don't believe it was always going to be the endgame, even if the option was discussed when Craig was cast, but I think the fact that Bond's death always came up in discussions on pages like this and was always sitting in the back of our minds, specifically in the Craig-era, I can't help but it feel it was, if not inevitable, always possible.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 642
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The end of Spectre is another reason Bond had die in No Time To Die. They couldn't have ended Craig's final film with the same ending as Spectre.

    Bond ends nearly every movie with a woman in his arms but Craig can't have two movies with a similar ending?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,844
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't buy into this idea that NTTD was inevitable for Craig's Bond.
    I don't know to be honest. I mean I don't believe it was always going to be the endgame, even if the option was discussed when Craig was cast, but I think the fact that Bond's death always came up in discussions on pages like this and was always sitting in the back of our minds, specifically in the Craig-era, I can't help but it feel it was, if not inevitable, always possible.

    It's... I... I just feel that if SP had been better received, Craig would have walked away there and then. Maybe the idea of killing Bond had been discussed, and then filled away. But Craig and EON decide that they don't want to end his run on SP, and so decide to go for broke with one last film, dusting off that ending.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,687
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The end of Spectre is another reason Bond had die in No Time To Die. They couldn't have ended Craig's final film with the same ending as Spectre.
    ...but Craig can't have two movies with a similar ending?
    It's also more to do with Craig's Bond always being a different place to where he started, and No Time to Die started with Bond happily retired with Madeleine, why end with that as well? Especially when it's his final film.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    I would take it a step further and say that SP was a perfect end for Craig's Bond. I don't buy into this idea that NTTD was inevitable for Craig's Bond.

    I’d say it’s inevitable in that Bond, regardless of who’s playing him, will never have a happy ending he wants. Bond chose the life of an assassin, and for that his life is cursed. It’s why Craig can’t just live the rest of his life with his lover and daughter. It’s why Lazenby never had a chance with Tracy. He’ll either die on the job or die old and alone.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,687
    I would take it a step further and say that SP was a perfect end for Craig's Bond. I don't buy into this idea that NTTD was inevitable for Craig's Bond.

    I’d say it’s inevitable in that Bond, regardless of who’s playing him, will never have a happy ending he wants. Bond chose the life of an assassin, and for that his life is cursed. It’s why Craig can’t just live the rest of his life with his lover and daughter. It’s why Lazenby never had a chance with Tracy. He’ll either die on the job or die old and alone.
    +1
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,861
    The ending of the TMWTGG novel I thought was pretty deft.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    echo wrote: »
    The ending of the TMWTGG novel I thought was pretty deft.

    If they hadn’t already done SKYFALL, Purvis & Wade probably would have gone with that kind of ending with Bond accepting the path he’s taken.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don't buy into this idea that NTTD was inevitable for Craig's Bond.
    I don't know to be honest. I mean I don't believe it was always going to be the endgame, even if the option was discussed when Craig was cast, but I think the fact that Bond's death always came up in discussions on pages like this and was always sitting in the back of our minds, specifically in the Craig-era, I can't help but it feel it was, if not inevitable, always possible.

    It's... I... I just feel that if SP had been better received, Craig would have walked away there and then. Maybe the idea of killing Bond had been discussed, and then filled away. But Craig and EON decide that they don't want to end his run on SP, and so decide to go for broke with one last film, dusting off that ending.

    Yeah I think that’s possible.
    Who knows, they may even have wanted to kill him in Spectre initially, but the story just didn’t lead in that direction and took them somewhere else.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2022 Posts: 7,955
    They briefly considered killing Bond for Craig‘s fourth film but it was dismissed pretty early on which is why it never made it to any outline/draft.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,687
    I think it was smart not to kill him in Spectre. Besides obvious reasons, to kill him after what Skyfall explored would've been too soon.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    Agreed.
Sign In or Register to comment.