NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1103104106108109298

Comments

  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    matt_u wrote: »
    Blofeld at the party directly refers him to "his brother". But then they make it also clear they're not related. It's just Blofeld who is obsessed with this thing. He killed his father because of that, I mean...

    Yes, and then there is the superb FYEO-like dangling vehicle moment when a trapped Ash says to Bond: "Help me out here, brother." But Bond responds, "I had a brother, his name was Felix Leiter."

    And that was completely satisfying - on multiple levels, not least in succinctly consigning any significance of "Bro-feld" to the dustbin. Though it may also remind us, inappropriately, of the humorous "I had a brother once" line from DAF, which can't have been intended.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    In a world filled with a plethora of reboots, retcons, remakes, etc... I can't believe how hard it seems to be to accept that Bond too can be rebooted again. For some, that is.

    Granted, my friends and I also joked that now Mathilde can grow up and be the new Bond (but we weren't being serious, of course).
  • @Feyador i really appreciated your comments on the tragedy of the story and how Bond and Madeleine dovetail so nicely together.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    slide_99 wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I think there is going to be some confusion on the part of the general public. I had to have a conversation with my girlfriend after the movie about how there can be another James Bind movie if he's dead. She has watched all the films with me (some more than once, she's a great sport, love her) but she still didn't get it. Anyone else have this problem with friends or family members who aren't as into it as us?

    I have this problem and I've been a fan since the 90s. The reason why the loose continuity worked was because every actor simply passed the baton to the next guy. They apparently can't do that here with NTTD's ending. It breaks the continuity, not in the strict, literal sense, since there wasn't any to start with, but in the overall metatextual sense. That's why Eon didn't do it in the past. They understood it back then. They've lost the plot now due to their preoccupation with following trends, the so-called "woke" agenda of breaking down and replacing beloved characters, and the (possible) arrogance of their lead star.

    I don't see how you could read the words 'James Bond Will Return' and think the beloved character is being replaced.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited October 2021 Posts: 575
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I do think there is a woke agenda. I was a bit drowsy before the film started (no joke), but a few minutes later I was fully awake!

    Haha. If we had an awards system, take my award :D.

    BTW, hello @mtm surprised you're a bit late to the party! Don't think I've seen you in here before today.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    00Heaven wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I do think there is a woke agenda. I was a bit drowsy before the film started (no joke), but a few minutes later I was fully awake!

    Haha. If we had an awards system, take my award :D.

    BTW, hello @mtm surprised you're a bit late to the party! Don't think I've seen you in here before today.

    Hello; yeah I had to wait a hugely long time to see it! :)
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Feyador wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    It does say a lot that there was more chemistry between Bond and Paloma in 10 minutes, that there have been in two movies between Bond and Madeleine.

    To each his own - but, in this case, not for me.
    Paloma was fun but fantastical, and NTTD is a movie with much more than mere fun on its mind. Never thought I'd say that before Craig, but here we are, and with Paloma we have a very superficial chemistry akin to his relationship with Bond Girls of yore (minus the sex this time, of course).

    Whereas with Madeleine it's a weightier, more troublesome, and hence much more grown-up relationship that we've not really seen before, not with Vesper.
    I agree with most of that, and come to think of it, I didn't know what I was thinking when comparing the two. One an extrovert, like most other women in the series, and one - Madeleine - written almost as an introvert or phlegmatic, which in my opinion just makes her kind of boring.

    That's interesting, the introvert/extrovert dichotomy. But I think you're right, Madeleine is an introvert of a kind, not dynamic, a psychotherapist (of course) who was taught to hide as a child, just as she has passed on the same survival skills to her daughter. It's almost as if that "hiding" aspect has formed a necessary part of Madeleine's core being (as in, she's always hiding, to some extent), and was literally in hiding when Bond found her in the Hoffler Clinic), and that's all reflected in a kind of constantly cool impassivity that so many fans (not me) find frustrating in her character. Yet Madeleine is someone who doesn’t want to attract attention. But, of course, Lea Seydoux is acting-up a storm, as it were, even when - or especially when - her character is not communicating anything verbally. Her face is so expressive she almost doesn't need to say anything at all.


  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    matt_u wrote: »
    I didn’t know that phrase was so popular worldwide.

    "Bunga Bunga"

    Oh, yeah ... it's notorious. And I understood exactly what Bond meant when he uttered it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can easily see this Bond as more of a recluse to be honest. He doesn't strike me as a people person.

    Indeed - although, that's part of CraigBond's appeal for me, tbh!
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Good heavens, where to start, Luds. Okay, just a few things.
    Nomi is not returning. I don't believe any MI6 characters are returning, and I don't think they should. Barbara already said it will be a reboot. By the way, "woke" is insulting in my opinion. All the bruhaha about it before the film seemed empty when I saw this movie; which others have also said. Nomi is fine, nothing to get concerned about. She is NOT replacing Craig's Bond and will not be the new Bond.

    This ending was Craig's Bond'sending. His is the only complete Bond story we have. And we don't need another. Next film will be different. We have had how many actors as Bond now? So "your Bond" and "my Bond" and Fleming's from the novels have all had different characterizations for all these years. The films will continue, no worries. No need to tie in Craig's Bond's story. Will the next one have any reference to Craig's Bond at all? I don't know, but if so I would think it would be very slight indeed. Nothing should tie his into the next new era. I appreciate NTTD and I'm quite happy will be getting a new, different kind of Bond next. Whoever that is. I do hope he will be a good actor, but no need to take the exact same tone of Daniel's Bond. So I think it sounds like you are very very concerned, and I don't think you need to be.

    I do think having Bond die fit this particular Bond, yes. I wouldn't change NTTD's ending. It was fitting and I thought very well done.

    Haha, yeah posting at 2 am after a long day isn't ideal to properly express one's thoughts ;)

    I'll admit I haven't really followed Bond news and murmurs recently so an came in to this movie without any kind of expectations other than seeing a good movie for Craig's last outing. In a sense I didn't see it with hardcore bond fan eyes like I had in the past, so I could compare my state of mind to a lot of people in the audience who sees a Bond flick on opening weekend, Bond fans for sure though. I think that the general concensus amongst viewers was that the movie was very enjoyable but the ending was a shock. Leaving your fanbase confused isn't ideal, many were visibly upset and frustrated. Personally my frustration wasn't about the possibility of the continuation of the franchise without Bond but in the fact that Bond's death was just cowardice. He didn't sacrifice himself as a necessity to open defective "blast doors" or something like that, he could have left but decided not too. He could have lived his life and see his daughter grow-up from a distance. It just didn't feel like something he'd do, to me at least. It didn't need to be a "happy ever after" story either, it seemed to just be a death just for the sake of it and left a bad taste in my mouth. As much as I enjoyed the entire Craig run, the emotional roller coaster with Swann and Mathilde, I certainly would have preferred a different conclusion. But yes I did enjoy Craig's last hurrah.

    Going back to discussions and reactions from other viewer after the flick, the main confusion was about the death of the character and where the franchise was going. I discussed this with a couple I had talked to before the flick and the lad was basically saying he was done with Bond if the series was going to continue without Bond. It seems like a plausible reaction for many fans. No doubt many fans assume there is going to be another reboot and with such an ending there's not much of a choice. I like to see the entire Connery to Brosnan as a single imperfect timeline, Craig's is certainly on its own, I would have prefered the new Bond to not need yet another reboot.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Welcome back Luds. Long time no see. Nice to see folk again from KTBEU.

    My reaction was exactly the same as yours. I was enjoying the movie until the end, then I suddenly became angry. Its a strange film to put out after the miserable 2 years of pandemic and lockdowns. People want to be cheered up and lifted now, and this film definitely doesn't do that. It leaves audiences depressed.

    I predict a backlash once the dust has settled, but not just yet.

    Nice to see you too willy!

    I suppose it depends on where the story goes as they say. With a death ending like this you kinda have to see Craig's timeline as just one of multiple Bond timelines amongst others rather than something set in stone that the other flicks would have to deal with in a way, that this is Bond's end and anything the next Bond actor does is in Craig's past all leading to his end. It's a bit weird.
  • bondywondy wrote: »
    The killing of Bond is morally unjustifiable.

    Daniel Craig doesn't own Bond, he never created the character, he never bought the film rights. He is just the hired actor. He has no moral right to insist his return to the role is dependent on/conditional upon Bond dying (James Page confirmed that in the new podcast). Yes, Barbara Broccoli can agree to anything Craig wants but that doesn't make it morally right.

    As I've mentioned a million times before, i genuinely don't believe Bond is dead (anyone that can't see the huge box office potential of a Bond missing presumed dead storyline... must be a bit short sighted imho) but I stand by my my previous paragraph. You cannot justify killing off Bond because the current owners of Bond were bequeathed the character and Craig is not a beneficiary nor share holder in the Ian Fleming estate. What gives him the right to demand Bond is killed?

    No right whatsoever.

    We now have this perverse situation where the sycophantic media - the Bond Experience, James Cordon, Jimmy Fallon, Graham Norton et al - are sucking up to the guy that got his selfish wish to kill off James Bond.



    Outrageous.

    Oh, come on. "Morally unjustifiable?" Sorry to knock you off your high horse, but: James Bond is a fictional character. Creating a popular fiction is nothing more or less than telling an entertaining lie. You "genuinely don't believe Bond is dead"? Good. Neither do I -- because I never "genuinely believed" that Bond was alive. You don't like the film? Fine, that's totally your prerogative. You want to accuse Daniel Craig or Barbara Broccoli of any sort of crime? Please. Get over yourself. The only crime they've committed is inventing a fiction that you personally dislike.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    The other thing I thought about was, if we’re to take Craig’s era as one standalone timeline, is that this timeline “gobbled up” the Vesper story, despite the fact that the Vesper story is fairly integral to the character of Bond. I wonder if future Bond films will have to pretend Vesper doesn’t exist? Mentioning Vesper in any way would cause some confusion I think.
    I suppose they never mentioned Vesper in any films leading up to CR so it may be a non issue. But it isn’t exactly unprecedented; Tracy was brought up in the Moore and Dalton eras.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,152
    Luds wrote: »
    With a death ending like this you kinda have to see Craig's timeline as just one of multiple Bond timelines amongst others rather than something set in stone that the other flicks would have to deal with in a way, that this is Bond's end and anything the next Bond actor does is in Craig's past all leading to his end. It's a bit weird.

    I suppose they could get Hiddleston, bulk him up and ask us to squint hard enough to pretend it was the same character played by Craig - then his films could be standalone missions set in the period between QOS and SF. But that would be bad.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    A return to Dr. No-era Bond films is what’s needed; standalone missions with no mention of Vesper, Tracy, anyone.
    But after the Craig era, are films like that going to be enough to meet the high bar set by the Craig era for a majority of audiences (not talking about our niche group of Bond fans here)? Hard to say.
    It’ll be a long time before they sort out what to do with the franchise I think, and a long time until we get another movie.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    The other thing I thought about was, if we’re to take Craig’s era as one standalone timeline, is that this timeline “gobbled up” the Vesper story, despite the fact that the Vesper story is fairly integral to the character of Bond. I wonder if future Bond films will have to pretend Vesper doesn’t exist? Mentioning Vesper in any way would cause some confusion I think. I suppose they never mentioned Vesper in any films leading up to CR so it may be a non-issue. But it isn’t exactly unprecedented; Tracy was brought up in the Moore and Dalton eras.
    It's certainly integral to the literary James Bond, and now the Craig-era, but as you've said yourself its been shown that it doesn't need to be integral if it's not addressed or even just not a part of James Bond's arc, just as Tracy wasn't integral or even a thing within the Craig-era. As for going forward, the beauty of James Bond, proven by the last nearly 60 years, is that he's very mouldable, and you can do a lot with him, so while Vesper and Tracy were important to James Bond's of the past, there's so much to James Bond that there's many avenue's they can explore with our next 007.

    For example, maybe they'll want to explore his military background more going forward. Not to the point where we spend a whole film seeing it, but just how that could affect a James Bond in the world we currently live in, rather than exploring how losing a loved one can affect him.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Nice idea!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    A return to Dr. No-era Bond films is what’s needed; standalone missions with no mention of Vesper, Tracy, anyone.

    Dr No had him meet Felix for the first time, and had his first tangle with Spectre which ran through the next six films or so (and actually had the antagonists in the next film take revenge over). Those films were less standalone than the ones which came later.
  • Posts: 2,402
    mtm wrote: »
    A return to Dr. No-era Bond films is what’s needed; standalone missions with no mention of Vesper, Tracy, anyone.

    Dr No had him meet Felix for the first time, and had his first tangle with Spectre which ran through the next six films or so (and actually had the antagonists in the next film take revenge over). Those films were less standalone than the ones which came later.

    I seriously think we need a one-two punch of proper LALD and MR adaptations. Or do MR first I guess but if that's gonna be the first one then he should probably end up with Gala Brand at the end of the movie.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    mtm wrote: »
    A return to Dr. No-era Bond films is what’s needed; standalone missions with no mention of Vesper, Tracy, anyone.

    Dr No had him meet Felix for the first time, and had his first tangle with Spectre which ran through the next six films or so (and actually had the antagonists in the next film take revenge over). Those films were less standalone than the ones which came later.

    I seriously think we need a one-two punch of proper LALD and MR adaptations. Or do MR first I guess but if that's gonna be the first one then he should probably end up with Gala Brand at the end of the movie.

    I just had that thought as well; maybe some good proper adaptions are what’s needed.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,546
    mtm wrote: »
    A return to Dr. No-era Bond films is what’s needed; standalone missions with no mention of Vesper, Tracy, anyone.

    Dr No had him meet Felix for the first time, and had his first tangle with Spectre which ran through the next six films or so (and actually had the antagonists in the next film take revenge over). Those films were less standalone than the ones which came later.

    Good point, but I think the films are always going to have recurring characters like Felix and the Whitehall brigade, and I wouldn’t say it affects their stand-alone status. Similarly with having an overarching criminal organization with whom Bond continually butts heads. DN, GF, FRWL are interchangeable in a way CR and QOS, SP and NTTD are not. IMO of course.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    @Feyador i really appreciated your comments on the tragedy of the story and how Bond and Madeleine dovetail so nicely together.

    Thank you!
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    I'm curious if the 3rd act of the film would have been the same if it had been shot in Imax as Fukunaga wanted (which wasn't possible because Nolan had all Imax cameras on Tenet). Would we have had the long take on the stairs ? Not sure.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    It's Cary. We would have had a long take somewhere (which I appreciate from him). That stairwell fight was a good decision for it, but he could have chosen other points in the film too, of course.
  • Posts: 15,110
    pachazo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I think there is going to be some confusion on the part of the general public. I had to have a conversation with my girlfriend after the movie about how there can be another James Bind movie if he's dead. She has watched all the films with me (some more than once, she's a great sport, love her) but she still didn't get it. Anyone else have this problem with friends or family members who aren't as into it as us?

    But there's ALWAYS a confusion in the public. People think James Bond is a codename, they don't know it was first a series of novel, etc. Heck, I'm sure you can find a few people thinking James Bond is a British spy stealing from the rich to give to the poor, living at 221B Baker Street and who got his 00 status by pulling a sword from a stone.
  • Still digesting the movie so I’ll break it down into pros and cons:

    Pros:
    -The movie is colorful! Lovely cinematography all around
    -The PTS was nice and intense. Not as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale’s but I dug it quite a bit.
    -I enjoyed the title sequence as well, apart from the dull section where he’s just showing faces again.
    -the movie up through the Cuba section is a lot of fun. It really feels like classic Bond to me. Lovely locations, playful humor but not too silly (Waldo aside) and some decent action.
    -Sound design is really good. The explosion impacting Bond’s hearing, the growling engines in the Norwegian woods, the crash of the waves at Safin’s base. A lot of really cool stuff.
    -The square scene with the DB5 and the one take stairwell sequence are very solid action scenes.
    -Safin’s base is super cool.
    -The retuning players from Spectre give better performances.
    -The score was really good. I liked it listening to it isolated but it works even better in context. Not as good as Arnold’s stuff but I preferred it to Newman’s.
    -Paloma was a fun character
    -Craig was good, even if he sounded like he wasn’t using the same accent as the previous films.

    Con’s:
    -M being a total incompetent, and the fight he had with Bond was odd.
    -Everything in London was more or less awful. Just gobs and gobs of exposition that killed the movie’s pace in its tracks.
    -Waldo’s poor comedic relief was grating. I did like his death though.
    -The henchman was disappointing. Didn’t do anything memorable and I don’t think we even got his name. Ash was given more to do than he was.
    -Most of the action was thoroughly unremarkable.
    -Safin was completely bungled. They had him give a whole villain speech and he still couldn’t explain what he was doing or why.
    -The stuff with Bond’s daughter and his death and the very ending was wayyyyy too sentimental. Cloying music, tearful dialogue. C’mon, we don’t need this sort of ham in a Bond film.
    -The story was trying to do WAY too much, and ended up just being totally muddled by the end of it. They should have had a much simpler narrative, and just shouldn’t have even bothered connecting it to Spectre.

    Overall very mixed on the film, a lot more negative than positive feelings right now unfortunately. I think I liked it more than Spectre but not by much which is surprising to me.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 411
    CR the novel he quits espionage.
    OHMSS he quits, falls in love and gets married, and cries.
    LTK he quits.
    YOLT novel he’s depressed, nearly gets fired by M, he has a child.
    LALD novel he cries.
    “QoS he goes rogue”: Bond goes rogue or defies orders in some way in nearly every single Bond story there is.
    So I’m not sure what your point is. Bond has always been an emotional character. To think that “being hindered by emotion and self doubt” are “too feminine” to be characteristics of Bond… categorically wrong and borderline offensive. I know those weren’t your comments, but it makes me fairly frustrated to hear those types of things.

    Three times in the novels, out of 13, and two of those near the end, when Fleming was becoming bored with the character and deliberately experimenting.

    Once in the movies, out of 20, pre Craig.

    Not 5 out of 5, as with Craig-Bond.

    And I disagree with you that Bond goes rogue in nearly every single Bond story

    I'm not against the occasional splash of character development in Bond's life, but having a personal emotional crisis in every single movie is too rich for my blood

    IMO in the past Bond may have been an emotional character, but Craig-Bond has turned him into a melodramatic one, which ain't my cup of meat.
    I have been reading Bond novels in the movie theater before it starts. I get there early; today about 40 minutes early. We have reserved seats. I've read several short stories and today am re-reading Live And Let Die. Bond does have internal struggle, strong emotions, inner conflict about killing and is not a one dimensional cardboard cartoon Man Of Action only. And boy Fleming could write great description of places and atmosphere.

    Do I think Craig's Bond is too emotional, veered too much in that direction? No, I do not. Never felt that. I'm really glad we got a realistic, fully fleshed out, vital, gritty, conflicted, and at times vulnerable Bond. I love Fleming; I love Craig's Bond. I would change some things about his two of his films, but Casino Royale, Skyfall, and No Time To Die - those I value as is. Most especially CR and NTTD; nearly flawless films and I wouldn't want any other actor in them (from the ones we have had at least).

    The difference in the novels is that he doesn't quit his job and run off every time. He has moments of doubt and reflection, but most of the time he enjoys what he is doing for a living and trusts and believes in those he works for. With Craig-Bond, he seems so miserable most of the time, I wonder why he ever became a secret agent in the first place
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    Venutius wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can easily see this Bond as more of a recluse to be honest. He doesn't strike me as a people person.

    Indeed - although, that's part of CraigBond's appeal for me, tbh!

    Same here. I like the loner Bond.
  • Posts: 1,394
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    DC's films are not new to copying trends. TSWLM ended with 'James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only', Star Wars went mega, and Moonraker went into production instead. Bond has copied as much as it has influenced.

    Yeah but usually the Bond series would course-correct. After MR they went back to basics with FYEO and apart from some subtle influences from Indiana Jones and Miami Vice with OP and LTK, respectively, Bond did pretty much its own thing until the 2000s. SF blatantly copies a major plot point from TDK and its villain can basically be seen as Batman's Joker. And with Specter, cinemasins even quipped about it being written by an algorithm since it borrowed so heavily from other franchises.
    It's easy to forget that this course-correction only came about due to UA losing a hell of lot of money over Heaven's Gate which required For Your Eyes Only to have a lower budget than MR. Another reason, apart from the early 1980's recession and solvency of UA, was the unease that Moore wouldn't sign on for FYEO, holding out for a bigger paycheck. Cubby almost went with Michael Billington, who'd always remained in the wings as Moore's understudy throughout the 70's. The first script of 1981's FYEO was even written as an introduction for a new 007, which is why it feels quite different throughout, apart from the additional material that was penned to accomodate Moore at a later stage once he agreed to sign-on.
Sign In or Register to comment.