Does NO TIME TO DIE have the best ending in the franchise?

11214161718

Comments

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited July 2023 Posts: 1,384
    I thought Fukunaga shot three different endings. I would like to know what the other two endings are about and if the footage is still in EON's vault.
  • mattjoesmattjoes matjoevakia
    Posts: 6,789
    I feel comfortable saying No Time to Die is in the top 27 Bond film endings.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,123
    So not the bottom 27. Cool.

    Did Danny Boyle's script have a similar ending?


  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 4,401
    I thought Fukunaga shot three different endings. I would like to know what the other two endings are about and if the footage is still in EON's vault.

    Wasn't that only a rumour?
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 3,042
    So not the bottom 27. Cool.

    Did Danny Boyle's script have a similar ending?


    From what I can tell the producers had certain fundamental parts of the story worked out beforehand. So I'm relatively sure Boyle and Hodge's script involved a retired Bond being brought back for a last mission, and indeed him dying at the end, even if it was otherwise very different compared to what we got.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,016
    So not the bottom 27. Cool.

    Did Danny Boyle's script have a similar ending?


    I'd heard that his script didn't have Bond dying and that was the reason he was sacked. But then I also heard that he didn't want any other screenwriters to come work on the script which caused his firing.
  • Posts: 1,563
    Is the Boyle script available to read?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,028
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    No Time To Die was a film with many interesting concepts but failed in execution.

    Like what I've said, I really liked the concept of Bond dying, it's unique, yet risky and interesting, the problem perhaps is the execution, or how the film handled it.

    It doesn't helped that the romance of Bond and Madeleine was just meant to reference OHMSS instead of creating an original romance, the use of the We Have All The Time In The World theme for example, it felt cheap and lazy and removed any of the supposed genuinity of the Bond and Madeleine romance, I mean I would've possibly bought the relationship had they created a new and original theme song for Bond and Madeleine instead of stealing OHMSS and instead made people reminded of Bond and Tracy romance instead of the romance of Bond and Madeleine.

    Look at Bond's relationship with Kara for example, why I bought it? Because their romance was given originality, their own identity, so instead of Kara coming off as another Tracy, she comes off as another lover, a second chance for Bond to fall in love again (If There Was A Man really worked as their love song).

    So, instead of me feeling for the death of Bond because of investing for his relationship with Madeleine, it reminded me of OHMSS instead and realized that the film failed in handling the ending.

    There's no originality and it's already an anomaly in what they're supposed to show or what they're aiming.

    If they've gave the romance of Bond and Madeleine some originality instead of relying on the past romances, it would've worked.

    Because for me, that death of Bond was a symbol of Bond's love for Madeleine (sure, there's the daughter, but the final scenes before him getting killed already closed the envelope that it's still because of his love for Madeleine).

    Not even the daughter thing was given emphasis other than to act as a shock to audience, even Bond doesn't have that much time with his daughter, there's no time of them together, the daughter thing was just a foil, it's not natural there in the narrative, if one may remove the daughter thing, nothing in the narrative or the story would've changed, so again, interesting concept but failed execution.

    Second, the death of Felix Leiter, again, good concept, but failed in execution again, why? Because it brought no weight, it carried no weight at all, because the relationship between Bond and Felix wasn't fleshed out enough, it's been years since we've seen Jeffrey Wright.

    In Licence To Kill, the near death experience of Felix was really felt because his relationship with Bond was at least developed, we've seen him more in so many films in the past, how many films he'd appeared in before LTK? Many.

    Here, he made an appearance in CR, then he's almost like a guest or cameo in QoS, he'd just appeared in that bar then he's gone (but you can correct me here as it's been a long time since I've seen the film), then since 2008, it's been 3 or 4 years, and he didn't appeared in Skyfall, then another 2 years in SPECTRE (he didn't appeared again), then another 5 years before he appeared again in NTTD but he appeared there just to get killed.

    And yes, Nomi, again, the concept behind the character was interesting, but failed in execution, again.

    I liked Nomi, and I think Lashana Lynch was fine in the role (she did her best), but she's underused, she's wasted, I liked the idea of having a replacement for Bond's number, it's interesting (though, I wished the film explored that more), but, she's not used well in the film, she's just there like a prop.

    This film had many interesting concepts but failed in execution.
    Tbh all I'm reading here is 'i don't like it so it failed'.
    A child is (normally) the epithany of the love of two people, as is referenced by Bond when he tells Madeleine she made the most wonderful thing in. The world. It's not there to shock the audience, it's there to give Bond reason to make the final decision, protect his family for always, as in his blood is the inherent death of his child. A small cut could be her death.
    Now, personally I don't like the unlimited aspect of this smart blood, but that's a different problem.

    Bond greets Felix as an old friend, they have some banter together, Felix convinces Bond to come back into the game. So how does it not carry any weight? Bond is losing everything he cared for in this film (his job, friends, even his number), except for beeing able to safe his own family (and getting his nr back).

    How is Nomi underused? She's a pivotal part of every part of the film except for the start.

    I find the nr. Thing funny, but why would you want to explore that more? What does that add, getting your designated staff number back?

    Btw iirc Fleming does mention a 0011, the numbers are randomly chosen and do not follow a pattern, which fits with mi6 culture in the early years after the war.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,393
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    No Time To Die was a film with many interesting concepts but failed in execution.

    Like what I've said, I really liked the concept of Bond dying, it's unique, yet risky and interesting, the problem perhaps is the execution, or how the film handled it.

    It doesn't helped that the romance of Bond and Madeleine was just meant to reference OHMSS instead of creating an original romance, the use of the We Have All The Time In The World theme for example, it felt cheap and lazy and removed any of the supposed genuinity of the Bond and Madeleine romance, I mean I would've possibly bought the relationship had they created a new and original theme song for Bond and Madeleine instead of stealing OHMSS and instead made people reminded of Bond and Tracy romance instead of the romance of Bond and Madeleine.

    Look at Bond's relationship with Kara for example, why I bought it? Because their romance was given originality, their own identity, so instead of Kara coming off as another Tracy, she comes off as another lover, a second chance for Bond to fall in love again (If There Was A Man really worked as their love song).

    So, instead of me feeling for the death of Bond because of investing for his relationship with Madeleine, it reminded me of OHMSS instead and realized that the film failed in handling the ending.

    There's no originality and it's already an anomaly in what they're supposed to show or what they're aiming.

    If they've gave the romance of Bond and Madeleine some originality instead of relying on the past romances, it would've worked.

    Because for me, that death of Bond was a symbol of Bond's love for Madeleine (sure, there's the daughter, but the final scenes before him getting killed already closed the envelope that it's still because of his love for Madeleine).

    Not even the daughter thing was given emphasis other than to act as a shock to audience, even Bond doesn't have that much time with his daughter, there's no time of them together, the daughter thing was just a foil, it's not natural there in the narrative, if one may remove the daughter thing, nothing in the narrative or the story would've changed, so again, interesting concept but failed execution.

    Second, the death of Felix Leiter, again, good concept, but failed in execution again, why? Because it brought no weight, it carried no weight at all, because the relationship between Bond and Felix wasn't fleshed out enough, it's been years since we've seen Jeffrey Wright.

    In Licence To Kill, the near death experience of Felix was really felt because his relationship with Bond was at least developed, we've seen him more in so many films in the past, how many films he'd appeared in before LTK? Many.

    Here, he made an appearance in CR, then he's almost like a guest or cameo in QoS, he'd just appeared in that bar then he's gone (but you can correct me here as it's been a long time since I've seen the film), then since 2008, it's been 3 or 4 years, and he didn't appeared in Skyfall, then another 2 years in SPECTRE (he didn't appeared again), then another 5 years before he appeared again in NTTD but he appeared there just to get killed.

    And yes, Nomi, again, the concept behind the character was interesting, but failed in execution, again.

    I liked Nomi, and I think Lashana Lynch was fine in the role (she did her best), but she's underused, she's wasted, I liked the idea of having a replacement for Bond's number, it's interesting (though, I wished the film explored that more), but, she's not used well in the film, she's just there like a prop.

    This film had many interesting concepts but failed in execution.
    Tbh all I'm reading here is 'i don't like it so it failed'.
    A child is (normally) the epithany of the love of two people, as is referenced by Bond when he tells Madeleine she made the most wonderful thing in. The world. It's not there to shock the audience, it's there to give Bond reason to make the final decision, protect his family for always, as in his blood is the inherent death of his child. A small cut could be her death.
    Now, personally I don't like the unlimited aspect of this smart blood, but that's a different problem.

    Bond greets Felix as an old friend, they have some banter together, Felix convinces Bond to come back into the game. So how does it not carry any weight? Bond is losing everything he cared for in this film (his job, friends, even his number), except for beeing able to safe his own family (and getting his nr back).

    How is Nomi underused? She's a pivotal part of every part of the film except for the start.

    I find the nr. Thing funny, but why would you want to explore that more? What does that add, getting your designated staff number back?

    Btw iirc Fleming does mention a 0011, the numbers are randomly chosen and do not follow a pattern, which fits with mi6 culture in the early years after the war.

    Okay, it's understandable, I do get it, after all, it's subjective.

    But again, I liked the concept of those things, those were the concepts, what I'm talking in there is the shortcomings of the film in how they've did those.

    Regarding the death of Felix Leiter, still, it still doesn't carry any weight because it's not developed well, okay, there's Felix who convinced Bond to come back into the game, but the thing is, we've never seen this version of Felix hanging out with Bond more to prove it.
    Man, I wish Felix Leiter appeared in SPECTRE or in Skyfall, so there's that fleshing out more of their relationship.

    Compared it to the Classic Felix Leiter of the old Bond films, he appeared in many Bond films prior to LTK just to develop his relationship with Bond more, and seeing them hanging out with each other more than once, so by the time LTK happened and Felix Leiter's life was put in danger, it's felt because we knew how fleshed out their relationship was, we knew how long it was, because we've really seen them together so many times, not just by occasion.

    So, it's a good concept of like what you've said, having Bond lost all of what he cares about, but the problem is all of what he cared about had been given a brief and small time to be with him, yes, even his daughter.

    The problem was Bond didn't have any time with his daughter, aside from him peeling an apple and cooking a pancake for his daughter, that's all, had they given the chance to have Bond at least talk to his daughter on the radio in that ending, I think that would've added a lot more weight.

    And there's that question of is she or not? kind of thing of whether she's Bond's daughter or not, because of Madeleine's denial, so how could it carry any weight?

    The audience (I'm with them) kept guessing at whether Mathilde is Bond's daughter or not, then she's revealed to be by giving a hint in the ending which made us all "okay, so she is", so where's the emotional weight? It's not felt, because it's been stolen by this never ending guesses whether Mathilde was Bond's daughter or not.

    And again, if it is, there's none still, because we're not given much more of Bond's moments with her.

    Now, that ending was just down to Bond and Madeleine, with the daughter on the background.

    Again, we cared about the concept, it's felt throughout the film, but the problem was how we've actually seen it in the film.

    About Nomi, I know it, she's a pivotal part of the film, it's in there, but the thing is, she's not given much due, her character failed in the Norway sequence, she's absent for the whole action and arrived late.

    Sure, to enhance the familial relationship of Bond to Madeleine and Mathilde, but sure, they could find a way to include Nomi in the action without ruining that moment of Bond with his family.

    Her character made sense in the first half, but in the second half, she suddenly turned into a bit of redundancy (I still liked Nomi), but I wish she'd been utilised a lot more in the second act.

    For its very long runtime, these things aren't that fleshed out.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 3,042
    thedove wrote: »
    So not the bottom 27. Cool.

    Did Danny Boyle's script have a similar ending?


    I'd heard that his script didn't have Bond dying and that was the reason he was sacked. But then I also heard that he didn't want any other screenwriters to come work on the script which caused his firing.

    I think the stuff about Boyle walking because of the ending was just a rumour. There was also a spin on the story at the time where Boyle was the one who pushed for Bond's death. Like I said, from what I can tell it was pretty much set in stone during pre-production, and any director/scriptwriter would have had to incorporate Bond's death in some form. I have, however, heard that it was John Hodge who came up with the idea of introducing Bond's daughter, but I'm not sure about this either.

    To be honest, with a director like Boyle disagreements over bringing on other writers are more likely the reason for him leaving than this particular story decision. He's not a director who's ever really worked on something as big as Bond, and is probably used to having a great degree of creative control over the script/who gets to write it, even if hiring script doctors and other writers is the norm for these films. From what has come out about the script it seems very odd anyway.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Is the Boyle script available to read?

    No, and I don't suspect it will be available for a while.

    We do, however, have concept art that someone else on these forums posted (I actually don't remember who it was so I apologise to them as this was a nice find).

    https://imgur.com/a/B8JQn0O
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited July 2023 Posts: 2,943
    Yes, last year Danny Boyle told Radio Times that Bond would still have died had he directed NTTD: 'The truth is that Daniel had negotiated with them as part of his deal that he could die, which is a surreal prospect. That was built in. It’s an understandable exit plan for Daniel, and we embraced that hugely. We had a plan for him... But the passageway to it was obviously very different.' So while the nature of Bond's death would have been different, it would still have happened under Boyle.
    Regarding the script, Boyle told Esquire 'They want you to freshen it up a bit, but not really challenge it, and we wanted to do something different with it. Weirdly — it would have been very topical now — it was all set in Russia, which is of course where Bond came from, out of the Cold War. It was set in present-day Russia and went back to his origins, and they just lost, what’s the word... they just lost confidence in it. It was a shame really.'
    He also confirmed that it was Hodge's idea for Bond to have a daughter: 'The idea that they used in a different way was the one of [James Bond’s] child, which [Hodge] introduced [and which] was wonderful.'
    Regarding his exit, Boyle told the Guardian that 'I work in partnership with writers and I am not prepared to break it up … We were working very, very well, but they didn’t want to go down that route with us. So we decided to part company.' I'd say that supports the earlier rumours that EON wanted to drop Hodge and Boyle wouldn't stay on with another writer, so he left in sympathy with Hodge. Not that he was too bothered: 'We all got very well paid, so you have to hold your hand up. You can’t walk around with grievances.'
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 3,042
    It's very strange hearing Boyle talk about the story compared to what subsequently came out about it. He makes it sound like some sort of FRWL-esque story - limited number of locations, mentions of the Cold War, going back to Bond's 'roots' etc. And yet from the concept art it's obvious it was meant to be quite grand in scale, probably even bigger than the NTTD we got. Hell, there's even a mention somewhere about his story 'going into space' by the third act.

    It'd be interesting to read this script, but I suspect it's not a fully polished draft and would be quite an odd reading experience. I suspect a big part in all this is that it wasn't working for whatever reason, to the point where it was slowly slipping away from being a Bond film. Don't think we'll be seeing Boyle return to Bond.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited July 2023 Posts: 2,943
    I hope not, tbh. I thought Boyle was a bad fit from the moment he was announced and always feared that he might try to pull some daft trick with it at some point. His Sex Pistols film appears to have been a complete travesty, with Boyle saying that he actually hoped that Rotten would hate it. That suggests that Boyle's got little respect for source material and probably enjoys confounding people. Not what I want from a Bond director, tbh.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,393
    Even Keanu Reeves wished to kill his character off, just because of his tension with the studios.
    “Yeah, he’s got to die”: Keanu Reeves Forced Director to Kill His Character in ‘John Wick 4’ Only for The Studio to Humiliate Him Later

    https://fandomwire.com/yeah-hes-got-to-die-keanu-reeves-forced-director-to-kill-his-character-in-john-wick-4-only-for-the-studio-to-humiliate-him-later/

    Now, would this face the same reactions as people about NTTD did?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,943
    'We’re like, ‘Yeah, he’s got to die. And we got to come up with the coolest way to make [that] happen... We wrote the movie backwards off that one thing.'
    Well, there's the proof that these things do happen! ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 15,108
    Venutius wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    ultimately this is all pointless, because Craig would only do the movie if he got the ending he wanted.
    Beat me to it. What alternative ending could there have been? Actually, none - because the chance to play Bond's death was the reason that Dan agreed to make the film and the death was 'bolted on', as Boyle put it. No matter what script variation they'd gone with, NTTD would have ended with Bond dying.

    But also: what ending for Bond was left that they hadn't already done?


    007HallY wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    So not the bottom 27. Cool.

    Did Danny Boyle's script have a similar ending?


    I'd heard that his script didn't have Bond dying and that was the reason he was sacked. But then I also heard that he didn't want any other screenwriters to come work on the script which caused his firing.

    I think the stuff about Boyle walking because of the ending was just a rumour. There was also a spin on the story at the time where Boyle was the one who pushed for Bond's death. Like I said, from what I can tell it was pretty much set in stone during pre-production, and any director/scriptwriter would have had to incorporate Bond's death in some form. I have, however, heard that it was John Hodge who came up with the idea of introducing Bond's daughter, but I'm not sure about this either.

    Yes I remember the rumour at the time being that Boyle had to go because he wanted Bond to die, and the producers didn't want that. That's half of the reason why I guessed Bond died in NTTD when Eon were saying 'no spoilers' after the premiere.
    Venutius wrote: »
    'We’re like, ‘Yeah, he’s got to die. And we got to come up with the coolest way to make [that] happen... We wrote the movie backwards off that one thing.'
    Well, there's the proof that these things do happen! ;)

    I think that's fine isn't it? Weren't people saying that a big problem with the Craig films was that they didn't know where they wanted to end up with it when they started? With this film they knew exactly where they wanted it to go.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 3,042
    Venutius wrote: »
    I hope not, tbh. I thought Boyle was a bad fit from the moment he was announced and always feared that he might try to pull some daft trick with it at some point. His Sex Pistols film appears to have been a complete travesty, with Boyle saying that he actually hoped that Rotten would hate it. That suggests that Boyle's got little respect for source material and probably enjoys confounding people. Not what I want from a Bond director, tbh.

    To be entirely fair Rotten can be a bit of old git and likely would have hated any film/show about the Sex Pistols. Boyle is, however, a very impressionistic filmmaker. He enjoys blurring the line between reality and how his characters see the world (there are many scenes in Trainspotting which does this, and it's there in films like 127 Hours and Trance). I've said in the past that I suspect the producers wanted NTTD to be a very different type of Bond film - much more dark in places, apocalyptic, fantastical, and indeed impressionistic at times. It's definitely there in the film we got, at least to a degree. So him being hired makes sense.

    That said it seems like he just wasn't the right man for the job, and it's likely that his script was a bit of a mess. I suspect he and Hodge crossed a line somewhere between making a Bond film - however unusual a Bond film it was - and something else entirely. And yes, it's debatable how much love he has for the source material (however much this is needed - he is, after all, a republican who directed the Queen and Craig for that short film for the 2012 Olympics).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 15,108
    Whilst Boyle is by no means a sure thing (Yesterday was hideous I think) he is at least an interesting and experienced director with a voice and a very creative flair at times, plus a sense of humour. Whilst his Bond film may not have been great, I think I'd probably gamble losing NTTD over seeing what he would have done. I think it would have been interesting if nothing else.
  • Posts: 3,042
    mtm wrote: »
    Whilst Boyle is by no means a sure thing (Yesterday was hideous I think) he is at least an interesting and experienced director with a voice and a very creative flair at times, plus a sense of humour. Whilst his Bond film may not have been great, I think I'd probably gamble losing NTTD over seeing what he would have done. I think it would have been interesting if nothing else.

    It would certainly be interesting to read his script. The concept art looked interesting.

    I dunno though. I like many of Boyle's films (Trainspotting for me is one of the best film adaptations of a novel and even improves on it in my opinion), but at the same time I have a lot of trust in BB and MGW's conception of James Bond, despite my issues with some of their films. I get the sense they generally have a good grasp on how to adapt Fleming's character for modern films, and if they had some sort of creative disagreement with a director there must have been a reason. That and what has come out about his film makes it sound very strange.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,108
    Yes that is a good point. If they thought it was off then their judgement was probably right. I'm not sure we've ever heard about any road not taken on these films which sounded like a missed opportunity, did we?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,634
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes that is a good point. If they thought it was off then their judgement was probably right. I'm not sure we've ever heard about any road not taken on these films which sounded like a missed opportunity, did we?


    George’s seven picture deal?

    ( 😂 )
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,108
    Ha! Well sure, but I meant in BB & MGW's time. Even with Cubby there was stuff like the prequel idea for Bond 15, or Sam Neill etc. Not that those were sure things, but potentially could have been interesting.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited July 2023 Posts: 2,943
    mtm wrote: »
    But also: what ending for Bond was left that they hadn't already done?

    Although, it's not as if they killed Bond at the end of NTTD because that was the only thing left to do - if it hadn't been for Dan wanting to play the death and BB, MGW and the studio agreeing that it could happen, Bond wouldn't have died. So without that they'd've had to have had some callback to past endings or a variation thereon. That's presuming that Dan would've agreed to make the film at all if Bond didn't die...
    mtm wrote: »
    I think that's fine isn't it? Weren't people saying that a big problem with the Craig films was that they didn't know where they wanted to end up with it when they started? With this film they knew exactly where they wanted it to go.

    Yes, exactly - I remember on here a while back when some people were dubious, even though Peter told them repeatedly that it was fairly commonplace to write an ending first and then work out how the rest of the script got there. Given Peter's profession, you'd think they'd've taken his word for it - so it amused me to see a direct quote from the John Wick guy saying that's exactly what they'd done. Vindication for Peter! :D
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,393
    mtm wrote: »
    Ha! Well sure, but I meant in BB & MGW's time. Even with Cubby there was stuff like the prequel idea for Bond 15, or Sam Neill etc. Not that those were sure things, but potentially could have been interesting.

    Craig's Bond movie between QoS and Skyfall, I think they're planning some?

    Is it Once Upon A Spy? Some sources even stated that it involved Bond killing M.

    Edit: It's written by Peter Morgan

    https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/peter-morgans-unmade-bond-movie-once-upon-a-spy-wouldve-featured-007s-most-shocking-kill-yet-102987/

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/20/lost-james-bond-film-once-upon-a-spy-007-killing-m

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 15,108
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But also: what ending for Bond was left that they hadn't already done?

    Although, it's not as if they killed Bond at the end of NTTD because that was the only thing left to do - if it hadn't been for Dan wanting to play the death and BB, MGW and the studio agreeing that it could happen, Bond wouldn't have died. So without that they'd've had to have had some callback to past endings or a variation thereon. That's presuming that Dan would've agreed to make the film at all if Bond didn't die...

    Sure, that's a given that he wanted to do that; but maybe he wanted to do it because it was the only ending left? The only other ones I can think of would be that he turns evil, or becomes M! :)
    Just going off into the sunset again... I can see why Craig may not have wanted to do that.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Ha! Well sure, but I meant in BB & MGW's time. Even with Cubby there was stuff like the prequel idea for Bond 15, or Sam Neill etc. Not that those were sure things, but potentially could have been interesting.

    Craig's Bond movie between QoS and Skyfall, I think they're planning some?

    Is it Once Upon A Spy? Some sources even stated that it involved Bond killing M.

    Edit: It's written by Peter Morgan

    Yeah I read about Morgan's draft but it sounded like it needed more work; I'm not sure they missed any opportunities there.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,943
    mtm wrote: »
    maybe he wanted to do it because it was the only ending left? The only other ones I can think of would be that he turns evil, or becomes M! :)
    Just going off into the sunset again... I can see why Craig may not have wanted to do that.
    Yeah, maybe - I can see Craig being interested in doing different things with it, rather than just playing it safe. But then, Dan first broached the idea of Bond dying in his final film way back in 2006 (after the Berlin premiere of CR, apparently) - well before there'd've been any perception that they'd exhausted all other avenues. I suspect the dramatic potential appealed to him, rather than it stemming from any sense of creative redundancy after just one film. That's just my perception, though - I could be totally off the mark there, obvs.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,108
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    maybe he wanted to do it because it was the only ending left? The only other ones I can think of would be that he turns evil, or becomes M! :)
    Just going off into the sunset again... I can see why Craig may not have wanted to do that.
    Yeah, maybe - I can see Craig being interested in doing different things with it, rather than just playing it safe. But then, Dan first broached the idea of Bond dying in his final film way back in 2006 (after the Berlin premiere of CR, apparently) - well before there'd've been any perception that they'd exhausted all other avenues. I suspect the dramatic potential appealed to him, rather than it stemming from any sense of creative redundancy after just one film. That's just my perception, though - I could be totally off the mark there, obvs.

    He did, sure; but you can come to the same conclusion 15 years apart for different reasons. It may well have seemed increasingly more of a valid idea as they progressed through the films. And if you're doing the final James Bond story, as this effectively was; what else are you going to do? Irma Bunt and her giant Australian rats?
  • Posts: 3,042
    One thing I will say about Craig's films is that you can't fault the originality of the endings, at least in terms of the Bond series. Like I've said in the past CR and SF have such great endings, both being interesting from a story perspective while also being... well, awesome.

    I do wonder if we can really go back to a more stereotypical 'Bond sleeps with the girl' ending for Bond 26. But at the same time I don't want them to repeat any notes from the Craig era endings.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 2,101
    mtm wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    maybe he wanted to do it because it was the only ending left? The only other ones I can think of would be that he turns evil, or becomes M! :)
    Just going off into the sunset again... I can see why Craig may not have wanted to do that.
    Yeah, maybe - I can see Craig being interested in doing different things with it, rather than just playing it safe. But then, Dan first broached the idea of Bond dying in his final film way back in 2006 (after the Berlin premiere of CR, apparently) - well before there'd've been any perception that they'd exhausted all other avenues. I suspect the dramatic potential appealed to him, rather than it stemming from any sense of creative redundancy after just one film. That's just my perception, though - I could be totally off the mark there, obvs.
    And if you're doing the final James Bond story, as this effectively was; what else are you going to do? Irma Bunt and her giant Australian rats?

    That would’ve been more probable than Nanobots.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited July 2023 Posts: 2,943
    007HallY wrote: »
    it seems like he just wasn't the right man for the job, and it's likely that his script was a bit of a mess. I suspect he and Hodge crossed a line somewhere between making a Bond film - however unusual a Bond film it was - and something else entirely.
    Yes, that sums up my thinking on this one too, tbh. Haven't seen an overt statement to this effect, but this is the gist of it when you put together the various bits of information that've come out in several pieces in the last few years.

Sign In or Register to comment.