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

1212224262732

Comments

  • Posts: 1,005
    It's so obvious that they wanted the death, and worked backwards with the plot trying so hard to make it the the ultimate hero's demise. You can imaging them making the list and ticking off all the stuff that would matter, even down to him smiling and accepting his fate happily because he's already saved the world, and is saving his family by dying, all in one remarkable firework display. How wonderful!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    It's so obvious that they wanted the death, and worked backwards with the plot trying so hard to make it the the ultimate hero's demise. You can imaging them making the list and ticking off all the stuff that would matter, even down to him smiling and accepting his fate happily because he's already saved the world, and is saving his family by dying, all in one remarkable firework display. How wonderful!

    See, I knew you’d come around to it! ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,959
    It's so obvious that they wanted the death, and worked backwards with the plot trying so hard to make it the the ultimate hero's demise. You can imaging them making the list and ticking off all the stuff that would matter, even down to him smiling and accepting his fate happily because he's already saved the world, and is saving his family by dying, all in one remarkable firework display. How wonderful!

    Is that a criticism? I tend to think that if you've worked at making your ending satisfying and a culmination of the whole story then that's a good thing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    They did introduce the nanobots properly, from a dramatic point of view...it was very clear what Bond was choosing at the end.

    They could have called the film The Death Collector, without giving too much away (unlike A Reason to Die).
  • mtm wrote: »
    If Bond had been shot 3 times, why did he even need to be poisoned? Or if he were poisoned, and the missile strike was imminent, why did he need to be shot? It's almost comical how overkill his death is.

    Well he's Bond. We know he dies hard: folk around here would have been complaining if it had been easy because we've seen how he can escape death and bullets usually pose no obstacle to him.

    Yeah, Bond’s an over the top character in an over the top film series. I think a character like that needs an over the top death.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    mtm wrote: »
    It's so obvious that they wanted the death, and worked backwards with the plot trying so hard to make it the the ultimate hero's demise. You can imaging them making the list and ticking off all the stuff that would matter, even down to him smiling and accepting his fate happily because he's already saved the world, and is saving his family by dying, all in one remarkable firework display. How wonderful!

    Is that a criticism? I tend to think that if you've worked at making your ending satisfying and a culmination of the whole story then that's a good thing.

    There’s definitely the school of thought that the best kind of writing is starting from the beginning and working your way from there and coming up with the conclusion along the way.

    But let’s be honest, that’s never been how Bond films (or books) were written. EVER. There’s always been that formula fans revere. You can’t call it “organic writing” when you’ve already got the skeletal structure of your Bond film written in stone.

    Though the thought of attempting to organically write a Bond film amuses me. Just imagining those at EON trying to have a crack at a script organically, but then they corner themselves into a scene where Bond can only die. “Darn it! I inadvertently lead to Bond’s death! Now I have to rewrite from page 90!”
  • Posts: 4,762
    @chrisisall : I couldn't agree more with your opening post. I hate NTTD because of its insistence on furthering (and finalizing) this awful tone set in motion by Spectre of Bond suddenly having to have this annoying continuity, so much so that NTTD destroys the only interesting aspects of that continuity (the Blofeld buildup, SPECTRE itself, etc.). It's by far my least favorite Bond movie.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    mtm wrote: »
    If Bond had been shot 3 times, why did he even need to be poisoned? Or if he were poisoned, and the missile strike was imminent, why did he need to be shot? It's almost comical how overkill his death is.

    Well he's Bond. We know he dies hard: folk around here would have been complaining if it had been easy because we've seen how he can escape death and bullets usually pose no obstacle to him.

    Yeah, Bond’s an over the top character in an over the top film series. I think a character like that needs an over the top death.

    I am not so sure about that. Wasn't Craig's version of Bond always praised for being so vulnerable and human?

    I don't mind Bond dying but I am not a fan of the overly heroic way he was killed. There have been times when great emotions have been shown in a much more subtle way. The brilliant ending of OHMSS comes to mind as well as the few references to Tracy's death in TSWLM, FYEO and LTK.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,959
    mtm wrote: »
    It's so obvious that they wanted the death, and worked backwards with the plot trying so hard to make it the the ultimate hero's demise. You can imaging them making the list and ticking off all the stuff that would matter, even down to him smiling and accepting his fate happily because he's already saved the world, and is saving his family by dying, all in one remarkable firework display. How wonderful!

    Is that a criticism? I tend to think that if you've worked at making your ending satisfying and a culmination of the whole story then that's a good thing.

    There’s definitely the school of thought that the best kind of writing is starting from the beginning and working your way from there and coming up with the conclusion along the way.

    Yes that is fair enough, but I think with a film it's trickier as it goes through so many drafts. And as you say, it's not like every other Bond film hasn't been written with the idea of him beating the baddie and getting the girl at the end in the writers' heads right from the start and them steering the plot in that direction.
    (No I wasn't being literal about every other Bond film, internet pedants! :D )
    Though the thought of attempting to organically write a Bond film amuses me. Just imagining those at EON trying to have a crack at a script organically, but then they corner themselves into a scene where Bond can only die. “Darn it! I inadvertently lead to Bond’s death! Now I have to rewrite from page 90!”

    Ha! I can believe there's an element of that though. We were talking about the ending to Spectre the other day and how they probably considered killing Bond in that one as it seemed to be Craig's last, but the story with Blofeld being his foster brother and all that just wouldn't have let them take the story in that direction. It wouldn't have been a satisfying ending for Bond to die in that one.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 14,959
    GBF wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If Bond had been shot 3 times, why did he even need to be poisoned? Or if he were poisoned, and the missile strike was imminent, why did he need to be shot? It's almost comical how overkill his death is.

    Well he's Bond. We know he dies hard: folk around here would have been complaining if it had been easy because we've seen how he can escape death and bullets usually pose no obstacle to him.

    Yeah, Bond’s an over the top character in an over the top film series. I think a character like that needs an over the top death.

    I am not so sure about that. Wasn't Craig's version of Bond always praised for being so vulnerable and human?

    I don't mind Bond dying but I am not a fan of the overly heroic way he was killed. There have been times when great emotions have been shown in a much more subtle way. The brilliant ending of OHMSS comes to mind as well as the few references to Tracy's death in TSWLM, FYEO and LTK.

    Tracy wasn't a hero though: Bond is the biggest hero in the world. It would have been a 60 year anticlimax for him to just slide on some ice and bump his head whilst putting the bins out. He's a vulnerable Bond but he's still Bond: just watch Skyfall where he gets shot straight through the shoulder (from the back- and the shrapnel ends up in the front!) and then happily jumps off a digger onto a moving train. Then he gets shot and falls off that train about half a mile into a river below and still survives! I don't know about you, but I wasn't getting the impression he was easy to kill from that... :))

    And was the ending to OHMSS subtle? I mean, I'm not saying it was badly done but I'm not sure it was subtle. And I don't go to Bond films for subtlety anyway.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2022 Posts: 8,025
    “Fridging the girlfriend” has never been a subtle story development. Its not even novel. It worked great in OHMSS because Tracy was so well developed and it HURT us as much as it did Bond. If it didn’t work it would be considered cheap.

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 15,818
    I find Bond's death unintentionally funny.

    It's so over the top I can't help but break into laughter during the shot of Q trying to control his tears by deep breathing.


    There are certain dramatic scenes in cinema history I tend to find unintentionally
    hilarious. GOODFELLAS and HEAT have several funny scenes that were dramatic on their first viewing. The "Go get your shine box" scene in GOODFELLAS was quite disturbing when I first saw it. Suddenly that little interaction became hilarious.


    Clark getting pounded in SUEPRMAN II after giving up his powers to so he could sleep with Lois is also pretty damned funny.

    I think Bond's death in NTTD is right up there with those scenes.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,730
    If Bond had been shot 3 times, why did he even need to be poisoned? Or if he were poisoned, and the missile strike was imminent, why did he need to be shot? It's almost comical how overkill his death is. Why not have Bond strangled and crushed, along with shot, poisoned and blown up? Go the whole hog.

    And yes, I am aware that the poison wasn't lethal to Bond, but still...

    Overkill aside, several people in the forum have mentioned that the circumstances of Bond's death are unclear (recently I recall @Some_Kind_Of_Hero). Is he dying from his wounds or is he sacrificing himself, or both.

    Some people are convinced he wasn't going to die from his wounds, and so his death was the result of his choice to stay on the island to protect his family, and nothing else.

    Others say he was already going to die from his wounds, and the poisoning merely made him accept death more quickly, knowing that trying to leave the island would endanger his family.

    Others don't even care.

    From reading what the producers have said about the scene, as well as forum posts debating the scene, to me it now seems the emphasis was definitely on having Bond sacrifice himself for the safety of his family, which is a more meaningful, heroic, noble way to go.

    But why not leave it just at poisoning then? Why have the wounds?

    A couple of months ago I discussed possible reasons with a couple of people in another thread. Maybe the filmmakers didn't want anyone to wonder why Bond didn't try to leave the island, poison and everything, so that later he would at least try to find a solution to the nanobot thing, Q's words notwithstanding. The wounds would have prevented him from escaping in time, or escaping at all, nullifying that issue.

    More obviously, the wounds also make the scene dramatically more intense.

    But whatever purpose the wounds might serve, I wonder if ultimately they make the scene more muddled than clear, just as it has been argued by some people. Perhaps Bond could have just decided to stay on the island while in good health, poisonous nanobots aside. It worked in Terminator 2, after all.

    That's not even getting into the idea that having Bond both shot and poisoned might be overkill!
  • Posts: 511
    Bond’s death also had to be his decision to make. If he simply got shot and died, that wouldn’t be meaningful.

    “You only live twice, once when you are born, and once when you look death in the face”.

    Bingo. This is the key. Once the Hero lets go and accepts, they transcend.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    00Beast wrote: »
    @chrisisall : I couldn't agree more with your opening post. I hate NTTD because of its insistence on furthering (and finalizing) this awful tone set in motion by Spectre of Bond suddenly having to have this annoying continuity, so much so that NTTD destroys the only interesting aspects of that continuity (the Blofeld buildup, SPECTRE itself, etc.). It's by far my least favorite Bond movie.

    Thanks, and I agree; it's my least favourite Bond movie as well. It used to be Moonraker, but suddenly that film doesn't seem so bad anymore.
  • Posts: 1,571
    Tragic heroes don't survive. Do you think Titanic, for just one example, would not have been one tenth as successful artistically and financially had Jack survived. Many repeat viewers would not have gone to see it multiple times.
  • Posts: 1,571
    If they put Harry Styles in the part I'll be hoping the character dies, thus necessitating a re-casting, in the darn PTS !
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    chrisisall wrote: »
    00Beast wrote: »
    @chrisisall : I couldn't agree more with your opening post. I hate NTTD because of its insistence on furthering (and finalizing) this awful tone set in motion by Spectre of Bond suddenly having to have this annoying continuity, so much so that NTTD destroys the only interesting aspects of that continuity (the Blofeld buildup, SPECTRE itself, etc.). It's by far my least favorite Bond movie.

    Thanks, and I agree; it's my least favourite Bond movie as well. It used to be Moonraker, but suddenly that film doesn't seem so bad anymore.

    You monster!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    chrisisall wrote: »
    00Beast wrote: »
    @chrisisall : I couldn't agree more with your opening post. I hate NTTD because of its insistence on furthering (and finalizing) this awful tone set in motion by Spectre of Bond suddenly having to have this annoying continuity, so much so that NTTD destroys the only interesting aspects of that continuity (the Blofeld buildup, SPECTRE itself, etc.). It's by far my least favorite Bond movie.

    Thanks, and I agree; it's my least favourite Bond movie as well. It used to be Moonraker, but suddenly that film doesn't seem so bad anymore.

    You monster!

    I am what EON hath created.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    tumblr_nutie4oTbM1s2wio8o1_1280.gif
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,730
    chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    00Beast wrote: »
    @chrisisall : I couldn't agree more with your opening post. I hate NTTD because of its insistence on furthering (and finalizing) this awful tone set in motion by Spectre of Bond suddenly having to have this annoying continuity, so much so that NTTD destroys the only interesting aspects of that continuity (the Blofeld buildup, SPECTRE itself, etc.). It's by far my least favorite Bond movie.

    Thanks, and I agree; it's my least favourite Bond movie as well. It used to be Moonraker, but suddenly that film doesn't seem so bad anymore.

    You monster!

    I am what EON hath created.

    Other films promised you the moon, but they, uh, "delivered."
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    Maybe Bond's sacrifise would have been less controversial when the nano bot poisoning had been explained a bit better. It was only told by Q that the nano bots will stay in Bond forever. But in a franchise where the range of the possible has always been widened it feels just a bit unsatisfying that a cure is just impossible. I think that is also the reason why the producers decided that Bond was shot and injured so that he had no time to escape.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    00Beast wrote: »
    @chrisisall : I couldn't agree more with your opening post. I hate NTTD because of its insistence on furthering (and finalizing) this awful tone set in motion by Spectre of Bond suddenly having to have this annoying continuity, so much so that NTTD destroys the only interesting aspects of that continuity (the Blofeld buildup, SPECTRE itself, etc.). It's by far my least favorite Bond movie.

    Thanks, and I agree; it's my least favourite Bond movie as well. It used to be Moonraker, but suddenly that film doesn't seem so bad anymore.

    Agree with all of this, I personally have DAF down there with MR but at least they are still both reasonably fun to watch, even if flawed. NTTD is firmly at the bottom of the pile for me.

    It was extremely deflating to walk out of the cinema having watched a Bond film so flawed and joyless I had no desire to ever see it again. I knew I would never sit through that again and there was no point adding it to my Bond collection.

    Hopefully, a new direction can reinvigorate the series again.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,550
    GBF wrote: »
    Maybe Bond's sacrifise would have been less controversial when the nano bot poisoning had been explained a bit better. It was only told by Q that the nano bots will stay in Bond forever. But in a franchise where the range of the possible has always been widened it feels just a bit unsatisfying that a cure is just impossible. I think that is also the reason why the producers decided that Bond was shot and injured so that he had no time to escape.

    This I agree with. We are conditioned to assume that Bond, Q, someone will find a solution in the end. "Nothing will stop me now!" has always been step 1 towards failure for the bad guy. Most people are left unconvinced that Bond has died when MI6 is doing its little eulogy scene because they keep expecting Bond to walk in, even if we saw him get dissolved in a sea of fiery turmoil. The film requires us to intellectually process the inevitability of his sacrifice, while the emotional parts of our brains keep insisting on waiting for the big cinematic miracle, the happy ending. Even though NTTD does everything it can to convince us that Bond is dead (the nanobots, Q's conversation with Bond, Bond's conversation with Madeleine, Bond's bullet wounds, the blast pulverising Bond), he is James Bond, dammit! He's more man of steel than Superman! I took his death in as a beautifully poetic closure to Craig's tenure, but I understand why many still feel like something was missing...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 14,959
    I think his death scene only makes sense if it's his death: nothing about the film told me that it was going to be undermined- it was telling us that this was it, no way out. I certainly wasn't expecting to see him walk back in because the grammar of the film had told me he was dying for good, in the same way that his sudden and unearned 'deaths' at the beginning of Spectre or YOLT told me that he was coming back.
    Obviously I wanted him not to be dead, but that's why it's powerful.
  • Posts: 1,005
    00Beast wrote: »
    It's by far my least favorite Bond movie.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Thanks, and I agree; it's my least favourite Bond movie as well.

    I feel less lonely now. I couldn't even bring myself to buy the DVD.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2022 Posts: 8,025
    mtm wrote: »
    I think his death scene only makes sense if it's his death: nothing about the film told me that it was going to be undermined- it was telling us that this was it, no way out. I certainly wasn't expecting to see him walk back in because the grammar of the film had told me he was dying for good, in the same way that his sudden and unearned 'deaths' at the beginning of Spectre or YOLT told me that he was coming back.
    Obviously I wanted him not to be dead, but that's why it's powerful.

    Yeah, it would have been a cheat, an insult to audiences if he suddenly appeared alive at the end after all that. Would have shot the film down a few slots in my ranking.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    NTTD *desperately* needed a cameo from someone in Italian intelligence. Surely they must be wondering about all the destruction from CR, QoS, SP, and NTTD!
  • Posts: 1,394
    echo wrote: »
    They did introduce the nanobots properly, from a dramatic point of view...it was very clear what Bond was choosing at the end.

    They could have called the film The Death Collector, without giving too much away (unlike A Reason to Die).

    Again.He doesn’t choose to die.He just accepted his fate.He was so badly shot that he was clearly dying.He barely managed to make it to the top of that ladder.Even if he tried to escape the blast radius,his chances of making it and surviving were about zero.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    He knew he had to die in order to spare Madeleine and Mathilde. That's part of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.