It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As much as I enjoyed NTTD, I think the lure (apart from the money) to get Craig back was to let him "kill off" his version of Bond. I think they built the movie around the ending, so I do agree that it was an indulgence of the star. But I still like the ending and the movie, overall.
It also completely frees up EON creatively. Sort of. As long as it is still Ian Flemings James Bond, with all his vices, snobbery, ruthlessness and sexual appetites, they can work the script around the character, so no matter the current cultural hang-ups and political backdrop, he remains the same man. That is paramount.
I wonder why he felt it was so important, to kill him off?
I haven't wanted to watch a CraigBond film since the release of NTTD. I really wish it had never been made and we had the SPECTRE ending for his era, (or Skyfall, even better).
I would disagree that any creative decision is an indulgence just because it came from one of the producers originally (15 years ago!). Everyone had years to mull it over and consider it and clearly decided it's something they'd like to do. It was also Craig's idea to hire Sam Mendes, and I'm not sure that would be described as indulging him.
There's also nothing wrong with building a movie with an ending in mind, is there?
Equally we have many people complaining that they hadn't planned this cycle of films well enough, and when we discover that they actually had decided how they'd like to end it right back after the film film all those years ago, well that's wrong too, they shouldn't have done that.
I would guess it's an ending to the cycle, a fulfilment of the promise "Double 0s don't have a very good expectancy".. it's just an ending. And after Spectre they couldn't really have him driving off into the sunset again, equally it would be weird to have him just join MI6 full time again and undermine the ending to the previous one: there weren't many endings left to pick from! Fleming came close to killing him off too, I wonder what the reaction would have been if he'd gone through with it, all those years ago.
My theory is in 2017 Daniel Craig went to see Logan. Like many viewers seeing the ending probably impacted him (it's an excellent film in my opinion) and he wanted something similar for his tenure as Bond. There's of course Avengers and the new Star Wars films which also have had beloved characters dying in dramatic ways.
I know it's been claimed that the ending was discussed when Craig was initially cast but I'm sceptical whether this is even true or if it was taken as seriously as the producers now make out. I have no doubt regardless that this current trend in big franchise films had an influence. It's a controversial ending for sure though, and I can see why it doesn't do anything for a lot of people on an emotional level (I kind of put myself in that category, as much as I think an ending where Bond 'dies' could have been interesting).
I think the only ending I would have been ok with for NTTD would be the faithful adaptation of YOLT, where Fleming did come close to killing him off. Bond sailing off to Russia, not knowing who he is anymore. That to me would have been a far more satisfying conclusion to end the Craig era, but I appreciate not everyone would have liked that, and much preferred to see Bond blown up into a million pieces instead, so he's definitely dead.
Logan isn't exactly the first film where the hero dies though, I doubt anyone would need that inspiration before it occurred to them.
Don't forget that Nolan's Batman films (which started with an origin story at the same time Bond had one) ended with him effectively dying too, but they rather wimped out on it.
FRWL was Fleming's Reichenbach moment.
The problem with Marvel films, in my view, is that they are lightweight and don't feel like they have stakes. Die in one film, be resurrected in the next. Same thing about the last Nolan Batman movie--Nolan didn't have the courage of his convictions, in the end.
NTTD differs. They did in fact "kill Bond now!" Those are stakes, in fact, the highest stakes.
Fleming's Bond had stakes. So does Craig's, in a way that few other Bonds did (save OHMSS).
YMMV.
For what it's worth we don't know if TDKR 'wimped out' with the ending. It doesn't seem like test audiences reacted negatively and Nolan didn't do reshoots to backtrack on Wayne's 'death'. From what I can tell Nolan's intention was always to have a more upbeat ending to close the trilogy in a way he deemed satisfying. Like I said though, we just don't know.
NTTD's ending has more in common with Logan's in terms of tone and even plot points - the more definitive (and somewhat self-sacrificial) death of the protagonist, the sombre tone. Much more general points are the fact that Bond has a daughter much like Logan does in that film and both movies end with the character's memory living on with said daughters through stories. I'm not saying NTTD ripped off Logan, nor that all these similarities were conscious/intended, but I'm sure some sort of influence was taken with regards to execution of Bond's death, given how popular and well received Logan was. It's how movies are written, made and even produced - a more direct cultural osmosis one could say.
I didn't say they changed the ending, just that they didn't go through with a proper death. echo coincidentally said the same thing as me right after.
Those are all pretty bog standard themes though, I think it would be quite easy to have never seen or heard of Logan and come up with that.
That appears to be the case, although many defenders of NTTD and it's death scene won't concede to this. It was all part of the master plan apparently, nothing to do with film trends, and Craig had very little input in the decision either.
Meanwhile back on planet earth...
Whereas the ending of NTTD was already going bravely down the route of finally adapting YOLT, and they should have continued right until the downbeat cliffhanger end.
Done properly, NTTD could have become another 100% bona fide solid Bond classic, properly adapting Fleming right to the end, and would have kept the majority of the fanbase on board, instead of dividing and polarising it, and it still would have got bums on seats at the BO.
If killing Bond off completely can still pull in the audiences, I doubt an amnesia ridden Bond sailing off to Russia would have detracted the BO figures any further, and if anything would have kept it very intriguing for the next actor to step in.
I've not heard about Wilson vetoing the idea, where did you hear that? Otherwise I'd say you make a good point about Spectre's ending, but there are quite a few leaps in there which would need some backing up first. But killing off heroes is not a new thing.
My guess about Spectre would be that because that film's plot seemed to fall apart quite badly while they were making it, that may have been an element too far to try to cram in. Or maybe Mendes just didn't like the idea: he had just killed off M after all.
It's not really evidence that the idea to kill him wasn't there from the start (it's not exactly a wild idea: everyone dies), just that plans change, and then sometimes they change back again. How many times have we heard about an idea for a scene or stunt which gets dropped from one Bond film just to end up in the next?
As I already said, you can say you don't like something without having a go at those who do.
I guess what I was trying to get at is Nolan may not have had any intention to kill Batman off anyway, so didn't wimp out as much as make a conscious decision. Ah well, just a little point, and I completely get what you mean in this context.
Like I said, the tone struck me as very particular, and very similar to Logan (very sombre with M's reading, the pathos of the final interaction between Bond/Madeline). If anything I'd have said if they hadn't have seen Logan the result would have been closer to TDKR (so either a 'gotcha' or something much more ambiguous). Again, whether or not such an idea was thought about in 2006, I'm willing to bet the producers, Craig, Fukanaga, and all of the writers have seen Logan (as well as the other films I mentioned) and at least had it at the back of their minds when revisiting the idea of Bond dying (this trend in other franchise movies possibly even spurred them to do so). Like I said, it's pretty common with these types of movies, and films are not made in a vacuum.
Exactly.
I thought Logan was decent, but having a main character's death and treating it in a sombre way really isn't something it was the first movie ever to do. I'm sure they had seen it, they're professional filmmakers so they'd keep up on all films, but I don't think they'd have never thought to treat James Bond's death as a sad thing without seeing it, that's all.
Which pisses me off even more. I really thought that the injection of the Smartblood would have counteracted it in some way either.
Hmm, I suppose we'll have to disagree then. For what it's worth when I watched NTTD for the first time (didn't know the end was coming) the group I was with all left the cinema remarking how similar the ending was to Logan's. I personally think it's there, and that if Logan, Avengers and the new Star Wars films hadn't killed off major characters we most likely wouldn't have seen it with Bond in NTTD.
Star Wars killed off main characters right from 1977; it's really not a new thing. If NTTD had come out in 1992 maybe we'd be saying how it must have ripped off the end of T2 with a sombre death and a child grieving our hero's loss, but instead we're saying how it can only have taken inspiration from the more recent films that did the same thing.
The old trilogy killing off characters isn't quite the same as when the franchise does it in the new ones though. The point is they're beloved and established characters in a franchise that has become iconic over a long period of time. In 1977 the series and characters were new. It's different, more shocking and even saddening seeing Hans Solo, Luke Skywalker etc. die in these new films because they've been around so long and audiences have almost come to see them as immortal. That's the point. Logan and Avengers did this too. One doesn't expect these characters to die in their films, unlike the Terminator.
Is there any reason why it would be a bad thing if NTTD did legitimately take influence from these films - not only in terms of the general idea but also execution - for its ending? It just seems highly plausible given how many times this has happened in franchise films in the years running up to NTTD.
You really don't have to have seen a character in a previous movie to become attached to them.
It's not a bad thing, it's just that killing off a hero is simply nothing new and they wouldn't have required inspiration from one particular film that did it. Is there any reason why you think they would have needed to see another film to come up with the idea, bearing in mind James Bond is a human character and every single human being who has ever lived has or will die? :)
We need to care about a character for his/her death to be impactful.
That said, you could wish Tracy to die on a meta level, because of the effect it will have on Bond. Sadly they rarely went anywhere with it in the movies.
She really doesn't want to leave the Bond thing alone does she! Let him promote his movie! :D
Sure, but that's not the point. Audiences have different expectations for these characters who die in these newer franchise films compared to those who do in, say, the original Star Wars trilogy. For viewers watching Logan for the first time, for instance, many probably would have believed that the character would eventually make it and get a happy ending. I did. It's shocking seeing him die at the end because previous films (one could say 'tradition') dictates that he always save the day and comes out alive. With Tony Stark and Wolverine, we've seen them do this throughout the course of several films. It hits harder, or is at least notably different for many viewers than something like Obi Wan Kenobi's death.
Because James Bond has never died in any other film before this. The Bond formula is built around him escaping any perilous situation and getting the girl. It's unheard of seeing him die, at least without there being a 'gotcha' moment where it's revealed he's made it, or there being some sort of ambiguity. It's similar to the characters of Wolverine and Tony Stark, both of whom were always expected to save the day and live to fight again, and both of whom died in their films in the years leading up to NTTD. Both films were very successful too, as a matter of fact. Like I said, I found the tone, heavy pathos and the definitive nature of the character's death very similar to Logan's death scene, and it bore much more resemblance with that than it did with TDKR for me.
Essentially it's a very specific thing to do with established, big franchise characters such as Bond, and it's telling this has been done before. It's a trend, a very odd and modern one, but a trend nonetheless.
Again though, lead characters have died in plenty of films before. You're saying it's different because they're in a sequel, but it's not really. A lead character is a lead character, whether or not people have seen them before. If Logan had featured a character totally new to the screen you probably wouldn't have expected him to die either.
Well, technically that's not true of course: he died in Casino Royale in '67. Yes it's a comedy, and I must admit as a kid I always found that ending a bit shocking in a way. But it goes to show there is nothing new under the sun. I don't think EON ripped that ending off though, they thought of their own version of his death.
Regardless, just because EON haven't done something before it doesn't mean new things are inconceivable to them, otherwise they would literally have put the same script on the screen every time. You seem to imagine they could only have thought of this by copying something else and you can only imagine them doing it another way without it, but if you watch the clip above you can see these themes were clearly on Craig's mind even before he signed up, and we all know the producers were on the same wavelength at the time.
Can you think of many upbeat death scenes? As I remember, Logan was all about Logan basically getting old and worn out and being ready to die, which isn't really what NTTD was about at all. All it features in common is the lead character dying, which you can find in many, many films, plays and stories of all forms. Check out Sherlock Holmes or Robin Hood.
If we look at this conversation, you're saying that they must have seen and consciously copied Logan because the lead character dies, but all I'm saying is that there's not enough info there to be so sure, and that killing off a character is so common (and indeed one of only about three possible endings for any character- and the ultimate end for every character) that they wouldn't have needed inspiration. Indeed they killed off one of the main heroes only two films before.
It's very different seeing James Bond die than it is seeing a protagonist in a stand alone film die. It's not just a case of these characters being in a sequel but having been in several films where there are fixed audience expectations for them (ie. to always make it out alive, no matter what). The point is Logan was not a new character but a well established, popular and recurring protagonist.
I'm not saying characters dying is new in general. You can point out as many characters dying as you want (Casino Royale '67 is a bit of odd one as it's a spoof/for all intents and purposes not a 'proper' James Bond film). It's not the same for the reasons I've stated many times.
I think this was addressed above too - it may have been brought up by Craig, but they didn't act on it until NTTD, even when they presumed SP would be his last film. It's not inconceivable they were influenced to revisit this idea by the fact that Avengers and Logan had their heroes die while still being well received.
Like I said, TDKR has a 'death' but the point is it's subverted because Batman falls into a similar category of viewers not expecting him to die. While the death itself is not 'upbeat' (although the unveiling of the statue is far less sombre than the low key memorial Bond gets in NTTD) this is what we'd typically expect for a big franchise character. Anyway, it's not just a case of the death being sombre but how it's handled I find similar to Logan - they could have had Bond die in a similar way to the YOLT novel or Sherlock Holmes in Connan-Doyle's short story: have a fight with the villain, die in what is essentially a blaze of glory, have fewer words with Madeline before his demise etc. That's not to mention the fact that these characters eventually are revealed to have survived. They chose instead to have him sacrifice himself for someone he loves, as well as a heartfelt goodbye. It's very serious, very emotional and played completely for pathos. There's no ambiguity that he's dead. Like Logan it features Bond coming to terms with the fact that he has a daughter. There's more similarities than just the character's death.
I also find what you were saying about EON 'copying' stuff into their script strange as you seem to accept the idea of killing a character off isn't new. You presumably (I gather anyway) believe that art isn't created in a vacuum? Art, especially films, is mostly a process of reinterpreting visual and story ideas. It's why we have genres, plot tropes, specific visuals which crop up in films again and again etc. Hell, it's why the Bond formula exists which they used as a template for the majority of the series. It's not copying. You seem to think that NTTD is a lesser film if it took any inspiration from anything before it (or at least this is the impression I get). I don't understand why as it's really not unusual for films, especially Bond films (ie. Bond taking influence from Hitchcock's North By Northwest for their stunts in FRWL, the producers adapting Moonraker with Bond going to space the way they did two years after the massive success of Star Wars).
Yes, there seem to be a lot of reasons why this is 'different' and they must have copied Logan ;)
I get what you're saying, the films you mention kill off a hero in existing IP, just like the Terminator films always do etc. But part of the situation is that we get very few blockbusters these days which aren't based on existing IP, so killing off any hero character is just by sheer weight of numbers likely to see an existing character die. It's not a modern trend to kill off existing characters, it's a modern trend to have existing characters in every film. That some of them die is almost incidental.
I'm not saying anything is inconceivable, you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is we can't possibly know what they definitely were or weren't influenced by, and killing off a main character is such a common story that they wouldn't have needed to have been influenced by any particular film. Maybe they did see Saving Private Ryan or whatever and decide to do it, but they really wouldn't need to have. As I say, they had just killed off M.
And yet these are all themes which are so common in anything: there aren't just two ways to kill off a character and nothing else.
Not sure what you mean here. Are you trying to say there's a logical fallacy there? A character dying is so common that's kind of beyond the point of copying it from something else, it's up there with writing 'The End' at the close of a movie- you don't copy it from something, it's basically a choice you make: Is the character alive or dead at the end of the story?
I quite literally said the opposite when you asked exactly that question earlier: please at least read what I'm saying.
To repeat, what I'm saying is that the themes that NTTD ends on are so universal and have been mixed in so many ways through so many stories since stories were first told that it's very hard to point at a film we've seen and say that they definitely took something -very general- from that movie. And a superhero movie at that.