Where does Bond go after Craig?

1129130132134135228

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,115
    I'm not really sure what there is to be inspired by The Batman, as delforia says it's pretty much there already in terms of tone. Bond will be younger in the next one I'm sure but that was always going to be the case.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,205
    Well, I think one meta thing they could take from The Batman is to give a filmmaker more or less carte blanche when they have a convincing vision for a film. I’m sure Matt Reeves still got notes from DC and Warner, but he seems to have been allowed to make the film he wanted to make and they didn’t try to shove him into existing timelines or dictate what the tone should be so it fits with their other products. They chose him because his pitch got where they wanted to go and then they let him do his thing. That is something EON could copy, giving even more control to a filmmaker to a point that the film could be very different from what we are used to. Problem with that is a) a lot of people would argue we’ve had a period of experimentation and external (actor) influence, so it’s time to go back to basics and b) „don’t let other people f**k it up“
  • Posts: 1,314
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh
  • Posts: 2,898
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    The decision to kill off Bond is something I will never get on board with, no matter that Bond can always be rebooted once again (yawn) into another brand new shiny DC/Marvel-esque timeline.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,115
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 1,278
    delfloria wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Given the success of The Batman,I can see the next version of Bond following in a similar fashion.The early days of Bond,but not an origin story.

    I think that's very likely, a bit like how CR followed on from Batman Begins/used a similar reboot premise. I can see them having some sort of little arc for Bond within the film if that's the case (I know some fans don't like that, but it depends on how it's done. Hopefully no retreading of the Craig era in terms of what they focus on). Also, after NTTD broke even they'll want something more stripped back, or at least cheaper, and The Batman's a good example of a franchise film that's ambitious while keeping its budget under £200 Million and being faithful to the tone/spirit of the source material. Perhaps we'll see some the mystery/detective elements of it creep into Bond 26 (much like how the Fleming novels take a lot of inspiration from the 50s hardboiled detective novels and have Bond doing more investigating than in a lot of the newer films). I enjoyed that film for what it's worth (the script had its faults, but the cinematography, direction, editing, score and sound design were excellent. I enjoyed it a lot).

    Personally, I think the Craig era is too close to The Batman in tone and they would be more likely to go with their own well received Bond/Paloma styled light hearted adventure. Or at least I hope so.

    To clarify, I don't think Bond 26 will try and emulate The Batman's tone necessarily. Batman and Bond are different characters and their franchises are different too. If it does take influence from The Batman it'll be through more broad ideas - general story concepts, themes, embracing a more stripped back direction etc. (even for practical reasons they'll need to do the latter. The final Craig films had bloated budgets and didn't pay off for them as they'd hoped).

    A few fans have said they'd want a whole film more along the lines of the Cuba sequence in NTTD. I get where they're coming from. It's worth noting however that the sequence is also full of Bond trope subversions (Paloma ultimately being a competent agent despite how ditzy she initially appears, SPECTRE's meeting not being in a stuffy boardroom but a bonga bonga party) and has some rather dark moments in it that wouldn't look out of place in a Horror film. It's not just light hearted, but uses effective contrasts of tone and brings something new to the table. I'm not sure I'd want an entire movie of Bond simply running about from set piece to set piece in some sort of 'romp', the film constantly trying to outdo itself in terms of scale but ultimately without much to invest in. There are already plenty of films like this, most lesser than Bond. I'd rather that these fun action/set pieces be tied together with something a bit more narratively fresh.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 1,863
    A whole film along the lines of Matera -v- a whole film along the lines of Cuba?
    Matera, for me. Could we still have Paloma in it, though? ;)
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,775
    Venutius wrote: »
    A whole film along the lines of Matera -v- a whole film along the lines of Cuba?
    Matera, for me. Could we still have Paloma in it, though? ;)

    +1
  • Posts: 2,898
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.
  • Posts: 12,724
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.
  • Posts: 734
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It's hard to disagree with this.

    But whatever mess the series is in, it is what it is and I expect the best way to go ahead is make Bond films like they used to. Singular adventures, without any reference to the silly little fact that they killed the character off in the previous film.

  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,898
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 11,291
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Frank Galvin : Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2022 Posts: 12,115
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Exactly, I can totally understand why some people weren’t keen on it -some fans especially- and it perhaps wasn’t the Bond film the world needed at that moment in time, but the ending worked for me. No one loved seeing him die, but that was rather the point.
  • Posts: 12,724
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Die hard Bond fans are also different people who see the films differently. Mental I know.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,115
    I can’t imagine anyone wanted Tracy to die, but it makes for a powerful ending to OHMSS when she does. Good drama is not as simplistic as ‘the characters we like survive’: otherwise Obi Wan would have sailed through all three of those films without a scratch.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited April 2022 Posts: 1,706
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Exactly, I can totally understand why some people weren’t keen on it -some fans especially- and it perhaps wasn’t the Bond film the world needed at that moment in time, but the ending worked for me. No one loved seeing him die, but that was rather the point.

    But it is for a completely different reason. Those who liked the ending were upset to see Bond die, but in the framework that the filmmakers intended. In other words the gambit worked, you bought in emotionally, which works out to your benefit. I don't want to speak for others, but it seems, like with me, those who disliked the ending didn't care for the death because it didn't work as intended, and felt as though we were being overly manipulated, rather than genuinely earning our emotions. No right/wrong, obviously, in the end it is visceral and any argument in this instance works backwards from that fact. And of course, I don't think I'll ever feel satisfied with Bond dying on screen.
  • Posts: 1,413
    My take on the Craig era is that it needed Bond to die and close it out completely so that the next iteration of Bond can start completely anew. Why? Because I do not want the world created for Craig's Bond to infiltrate into the next series. I want Felix, Blofeld, Mathis and Spectre reinvented and returned to the world of Bond. Also, regarding Bond's death, Eon themselves have stated that the Craig films are their own series which is separate from the previous films and has effect on the overall on the previous series of Bond films. In those, Bond has never died.
  • Posts: 2,898
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Die hard Bond fans are also different people who see the films differently. Mental I know.

    Like I said, if EON only knew how many Bond fans would be ecstatic at seeing Bond die, they should have done it years ago, and many times over.
  • Posts: 2,898
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Frank Galvin : Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it.

    Now that is a great movie. Newman at his best.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I'm not the biggest fan of Bond dying, but I can't pretend I didn't hear rumours that it was going to happen, because the rumours were consistenty present. But my major shock was how blatant it was, because I thought for a character like James Bond, ambiguity and style when it comes to him dying would have suited him better.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 1,863
    mtm wrote: »
    No one loved seeing him die, but that was rather the point.
    Can't put it any better than that. I'm someone who'd really rather not have had that ending and I don't think it's ever going to sit well with me, but I have reached an accomodation with it now.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,205
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Exactly, I can totally understand why some people weren’t keen on it -some fans especially- and it perhaps wasn’t the Bond film the world needed at that moment in time, but the ending worked for me. No one loved seeing him die, but that was rather the point.

    Good point. The story wasn't designed to come out during a pandemic.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2022 Posts: 12,115
    Birdleson wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Exactly, I can totally understand why some people weren’t keen on it -some fans especially- and it perhaps wasn’t the Bond film the world needed at that moment in time, but the ending worked for me. No one loved seeing him die, but that was rather the point.

    But it is for a completely different reason. Those who liked the ending were upset to see Bond die, but in the framework that the filmmakers intended. In other words the gambit worked, you bought in emotionally, which works out to your benefit. I don't want to speak for others, but it seems, like with me, those who disliked the ending didn't care for the death because it didn't work as intended, and felt as though we were being overly manipulated, rather than genuinely earning our emotions. No right/wrong, obviously, in the end it is visceral and any argument in this instance works backwards from that fact. And of course, I don't think I'll ever feel satisfied with Bond dying on screen.

    That’s fine but it’s not really what we’re talking about, which is someone being baffled at the idea that anyone could possibly enjoy that ending because of the character of Bond dying. I was explaining why it works for a lot of people, as you also pointed out.
    And yes, I’m sure a fair few people had the problem with it you describe, and that’s totally fine, it’s a shame it didn’t work for them. I don’t think it’s the only reason that people didn’t like it: some folks clearly just didn’t want to see him die no matter what, as pointed out above by people who say as much (and as you yourself say in this very post). My point in replying to livingroyale was agreeing that it’s not too hard to see it from different points of view, and it’s not really baffling that there are different takes on it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2022 Posts: 12,115
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Exactly, I can totally understand why some people weren’t keen on it -some fans especially- and it perhaps wasn’t the Bond film the world needed at that moment in time, but the ending worked for me. No one loved seeing him die, but that was rather the point.

    Good point. The story wasn't designed to come out during a pandemic.

    Yeah I tend to imagine that if they’d started making it in early 2020 rather than finishing it by then, it would have maybe been a bit more of an upbeat crowd pleaser: I’d be interested to hear the producers’ thoughts on that and whether they think they would have changed it if they’d known. It’ll be interesting to see what tone MI7 takes considering it was made in that timeframe.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 374
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for others, but it seems, like with me, those who disliked the ending didn't care for the death because it didn't work as intended, and felt as though we were being overly manipulated, rather than genuinely earning our emotions.
    This. It didn't reach me at all emotionally. I'd heard rumours and I thought the idea was cheap and gimmicky. I really didn't like the idea of a completely separate continuity, though, and still don't.

    A while back someone wondered why so few people where interested in talking about Bond having a child in NTTD - well, when the reset button is pushed so quickly afterwards, what is there to talk about? Things just tend to become meaningless, or at least that's how I feel about these things. With separate What If? continuities anything goes; Bond can have a child, become a traitor, lose him arm and have it replaced with a cyborg limb, fail to save the world and see it destroyed in nuclear Armageddon, etc. I feel the same way about the movies made about super-heroes that are primarily defined by their comic book continuity - a lot of it fails to reach me because it lacks weight.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 11,291
    NTTD also separates itself by presenting Bond 5 years after retirement.
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It's hard to disagree with this.

    But whatever mess the series is in, it is what it is and I expect the best way to go ahead is make Bond films like they used to. Singular adventures, without any reference to the silly little fact that they killed the character off in the previous film.

    I'll disagree.

    NTTD is self-contained, even beyond Craig films 1-4, by taking place 5 years after his retirement. There's no expectation that will happen again anytime soon, if ever.

    On that point alone, for the general audience and those following more closely there shouldn't be any confusion when a younger Bond shows up for duty as 007. There should not be thoughts or speculation that Bond is returning from retirement. Or from the dead. He's just Bond as he is for the latest mission.

    And during his tenure as 007 (I'm not counting the flip request from Nomi on the plane) and for all the actors, he never did die on a mission.

    Credit to the filmmakers is my thinking for how they linked the story in subtle ways to Bond's (and Fleming's and the original producers') WWII origins, and the deeper ethos of sacrifice and duty and even family. What was worth fighting for. The incredible real world delays due to the pandemic just added to those themes, giving an unexpected relevance. They really made it count.

    So to me the the franchise is strong as ever, it's a great time to be a Bond fan, and the future is bright.


  • edited April 2022 Posts: 716
    I think out of the death scenes in Layer Cake, GoT s01e09 (Ned Stark) and NTTD, Bond's death was arguably the one with least emotional impact. I think it might have been the lack of graphic content (which does make it feel less final however).

  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,898
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Exactly, I can totally understand why some people weren’t keen on it -some fans especially- and it perhaps wasn’t the Bond film the world needed at that moment in time, but the ending worked for me. No one loved seeing him die, but that was rather the point.

    But it is for a completely different reason. Those who liked the ending were upset to see Bond die, but in the framework that the filmmakers intended. In other words the gambit worked, you bought in emotionally, which works out to your benefit. I don't want to speak for others, but it seems, like with me, those who disliked the ending didn't care for the death because it didn't work as intended, and felt as though we were being overly manipulated, rather than genuinely earning our emotions. No right/wrong, obviously, in the end it is visceral and any argument in this instance works backwards from that fact. And of course, I don't think I'll ever feel satisfied with Bond dying on screen.

    That’s fine but it’s not really what we’re talking about, which is someone being baffled at the idea that anyone could possibly enjoy that ending because of the character of Bond dying. I was explaining why it works for a lot of people, as you also pointed out.
    And yes, I’m sure a fair few people had the problem with it you describe, and that’s totally fine, it’s a shame it didn’t work for them. I don’t think it’s the only reason that people didn’t like it: some folks clearly just didn’t want to see him die no matter what, as pointed out above by people who say as much (and as you yourself say in this very post). My point in replying to livingroyale was agreeing that it’s not too hard to see it from different points of view, and it’s not really baffling that there are different takes on it.

    If a certain section of the fanbase are so thrilled at seeing Bond die, its a shame we never saw Connery get killed on a cruise liner by Kidd and Wint, or Moore fall to his death off the golden gate bridge, or Dalton setting himself on fire along with Sanchez. That poor section of the fanbase, the ones who want to see Bond die, really missed an opportunity there.

    EON take note. More Bond deaths next time please, as this is what a certain section of the fanbase now demand.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2022 Posts: 12,115
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't want to speak for others, but it seems, like with me, those who disliked the ending didn't care for the death because it didn't work as intended, and felt as though we were being overly manipulated, rather than genuinely earning our emotions.
    This. It didn't reach me at all emotionally. I'd heard rumours and I thought the idea was cheap and gimmicky. I really didn't like the idea of a completely separate continuity, though, and still don't.

    A while back someone wondered why so few people where interested in talking about Bond having a child in NTTD - well, when the reset button is pushed so quickly afterwards, what is there to talk about? Things just tend to become meaningless, or at least that's how I feel about these things. With separate What If? continuities anything goes; Bond can have a child, become a traitor, lose him arm and have it replaced with a cyborg limb, fail to save the world and see it destroyed in nuclear Armageddon, etc. I feel the same way about the movies made about super-heroes that are primarily defined by their comic book continuity - a lot of it fails to reach me because it lacks weight.

    That sort of is every single Bond film up until 2005 though, isn’t it? They’ve never had continuity. Bond and Blofeld meet face to face in one film, and Blofeld fails to recognise him in the next one (because he’s wearing glasses?) etc. The Craig ones are the only ones to have proper continuity.
Sign In or Register to comment.