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
My circle of family and friends didn't like it either, and we are based in the UK. Not sure if that says much. Going by the critics and the fans on here, it seems like the whole of planet earth loved the film....except just us few unfortunates. ;)
Thank you - agree completely. It's a paper tiger invoked by people who think they ought to be top dog. Women, non-white people and LGBT people inhabit the Earth as well; women constitute slightly more than 50% of the population of the USA, for example. Here to stay, like it or not.
They did state "this installation is from the fifties", then nuked it to oblivion killing the main character. It's a very obvious allusion to Fleming's character, which began in 1952.
Hotheads who choose to always go back to those same political rants will be served warnings. This forum is about Bond, not about Left or Right, MeToo, PC, ..., and certainly not in this thread.
I think this is correct and very well put. It seems to me that it’s how we are supposed to view the DC era. Unfortunately, I’m not there yet. I still cannot get my head around killing Bond. I get the contradiction in my argument as if Bond had survived and lived happily ever after with Madeleine and Mathilde I would have been happy. I guess therefore that my gripe isn’t the DC story arc, just the way it ended.
My wife and family also didn't like it, and we're from Portugal, so you guys are definitely not alone in this, @jetsetwilly.
In my friend group - one of my friends enjoyed/loved it but still struggles to wrap his head around the ending.. My other friend saw it last night and the text I got gave me some schadenfreude lol. I think his consensus was... Right time to do this and that while the movie was a bit long he enjoyed it overall (and he was very, very surprised!)
Lots of ranging opinions and clearly some little niggles with the movie but not by any means outright negative ones.
However, the Bond producers have never mentioned previous to NTTD that Craig’s films were supposed to be his own era and a stand-alone series. When CR came out, they spoke about creating a film exploring Bond’s origins and the following films explored that further such as exploring Quantum, those responsible for killing Vesper, leading to a new M and introducing Blofeld for the first time. I honestly think they were “setting the scene” with the previous films where they’d established the ‘Bond’ universe.
It’s really annoying now that they decided to kill him off that all of a sudden the Craig films are meant to be their own series of films. I honestly don’t think this is what they set out to achieve but it’s an easy get-out now.
I still like the film and if I try not to over-think it, the death scene is really touching. It’s just annoying that now we’ve moved on from those days where “Bond saves the day and gets the girl”, this super-spy who just didn’t die because he’s the best of the best and can get out of any situation is now just another spy, who might get killed numerous different times now whenever the producers feel like because it was a “different universe” or “different series”.
I realized about ten minutes before the end of NTTD the direction it was going on that first viewing, and I handed my wife a fresh kleenex from a packet in my pocket, and which she really needed. I was still so in shock even as it was unfolding I couldn't quite fully feel my emotions, and it was still clicking in about all the elements of the movie that were leading up to these moments.
(Apples to oranges comparison maybe, but it was a little like when I was in the theater in 1980 for The Empire Strikes back during that big reveal. I was in also in cinematic shock way back then the first time.)
The first time in NTTD I got a sinking feeling was early on when there were references to OHMSS musically, and in terms of something that was said. That gave me a bit of a chill, esp. because I thought that they wouldn't try to do a really close parallel to OHMSS again, and so that meant....? But I couldn't quite believe it. When Felix died, my wife and I whispered to each other that we couldn't believe it was happening. But rather than taking that as a warning, I almost went back to thinking that they wouldn't let both die in one movie.
Anyway, the second viewing I could see how everything fit in, and I felt the emotional roller coaster a bit more deeply.
You know, I don't want them to do this ever again with the Bond series. It's the exception that proves the rule. But Daniel Craig for me somehow earned it and could pull it off.
But then he did quit being 007 at the end of the last one and drive off into the sunset- as he was into his 50s we weren't going to see him return to MI6 full-time, and we've had six years to get used to that. I would say it's not really out of nowhere as the last film was an ending to his Bond too.
The idea of killing off James Bond is ludicrous to me, and even a few weeks in I'm still surprised they actually went there. I've been reading this thread and many people seem okay with it, which is a good thing, and means they can enjoy the movie much more than me. I don't really understand the idea of a 'reboot', and if I'm honest, I wish I'd never heard the word. As far as I can tell, it's something that usually happens in superhero movies and sci-fi. I always approached the James Bond movies as drama, based on a literary character. So I don't see the 'it's good for Batman, so it's good for Bond' argument standing up.
I just can't get my head around seeing a screen character killed off, only to be told, "don't worry, he'll be back" in the credits. Is he dead or not?
I can't see how it works. Do we now have to think that the next Bond is in an 'alternate universe' like in sci-fi movies? And now he's been killed off once, he can be killed off as many times as they want, because he'll return anyway in the form of a 'reboot'.
I can't be alone in thinking the series has lost a great deal of its narrative credibility. How are we supposed to care that he died, when he's not really dead, (which he can't be if he's going to return, right?).
And I know people will be reading this screaming inwardly don't you get it? it just means he's dead in Craig's timeline!!!. Okay, well does that mean he can die and come back as many times as he wants, and the reason he can do that is because 'it's a timeline'.
Oh, right. A timeline. Silly me, I didn't know it was a timeline. Whatever that is.
Sorry to start off my first post with a moan. I'll enjoy contributing here, (particularly in the literary section, I'm a big Fleming fan), but after reading all these reactions I felt the need to put my two-penneth in!
Yes Craig was in his 50’s but if they’d brought in a new actor and just ‘carried on’ like they always have done with the films, this would have been fine. They achieved with Craig what they wanted to, they told Bond’s origins and they could have kept going with stand-alone films from now on.
To me it’s always been a bit like The Simpsons, they don’t age, there’s hundreds of episodes set over 3 decades but Lisa is still 8 years old. I’ve always seen the Bind films like that, even though the actor ages, the premise is still set between Bond’s late 30s to 50, in the prime of his career.
When Bond drove off into the sunset in SP, yes he’d left the service but that doesn’t really mean anything he could (and did) come back when needed.
I've been watching Bond since 1977. As I caught up on the previous ones on TV, in my mind I assumed that Sean Connery's Bond had retired off stage. And then as the changes for each Bond came I often assumed the same thing.
Sometimes "James Bond" for me has always been one person in alternate timelines.
But at the same time, somehow, "James Bond" for me was also a codename/secret identity for different people who "became" this elite secret agent. As time has gone on I've leaned more toward this second idea.
As Daniel Craig's Bond said in his first movie, "I understand 00s have a short life expectancy." James Bond beat the odds time and time again over decades, but this was the one time that events and fate caught up to him.
I do think that a somewhat lighter approach with the next James Bond might be a good idea. But I'd still like some dramatic depth.
To me he had actually left at the end of SP- coming into NTTD I certainly didn't expect him to be 007 at the end ready to do more missions: he had retired and retired people don't just go back to the thing they left indefinitely.
Thanks for the welcome!
I've always enjoyed the fact Bond was always supposed to be the same character. Brosnan sniffed Rosa Klebb's shoe, after all. I know it's impossible that they're the same person, but there was always a knowing wink to the audience that said yea, it's the same bloke. I could easily go along with that. Rog at Tracy's grave, Tim being married 'a long time ago' etc.
And I was okay that we had a 'Bond begins' story set in modern times. It was certainly a shake up, but it worked. His death though, doesn't work. Because NTTD will be the 'one he dies in', just like YOLT is 'the one with the volcano'. But his death means nothing at all, if he's coming back. And if he's coming back as an 'alternate timeline' or whatever, than that's just even sillier because it means they can kill him, reboot him, kill him, reboot him ad infinitum. It's daft, and it's unfair on the viewer. You can't ask people to invest emotion in killing a character off, only to say "it's okay, he'll be back as a different character". Or rather, the same character, in an alternate universe, or timeline, or separate 'reboot', or whatever they want to call it.
They've cocked it up for me, I'm afraid.
Welcome to the forum, and welcome to the anti NTTD club. We need to stick together round these parts.... :-h
We have just bought a house in Gibraltar. Where in Portugal are you based?
Exactly this! They’ve always meant to be the same one person, even though they’ve been played by different actors. All of those references - Brosnan sniffing klebb’s shoe, Moore visiting Tracey’s grave, Lazenby sat at the desk going through his old memorabilia was all done to tie in the different actors to the same Bond character. To constantly remind us that although the actor has changed, it’s the same Bond, he’s been through all of this.
As I said earlier, DC’s Bond was supposed to be the origins of the character and how he became to be the Bond we all became fans of until NTTD came along when someone thought it would be a good idea and fitting to send Craig off with a decent ending to his time as Bond. It’s ruined all of the hard work put into the previous films where they were firmly setting the character into the Bond universe we all knew and loved.
I'm more anti the whole Bond reincarnation thing. The movie itself is mostly great up to the end. But even the way he accepts his death is something Bond would never do. Safin says "I've infected you" and that's enough for him to not even try to escape?
I can see how they tried to give him a heroes death, but I think the cinematic James Bond deserved so much better.
And what was with the sitting in the car, waiting for them to shoot through the windows at the start? Did anyone else find that very out of character?
I saw For Your Eyes Only in the theater a few times in 1981, and was confused at first about why he was placing flowers at Tracy's grave, and who she was. Then in that early VHS era I finally saw OHMSS and sort of understood. As you say, twisting my mind a little I could say he was the "same" person, while at the same time being a different actor. It sometimes had my head spinning, but then I told myself that these movies were more to enjoy, not to think about too much.
I'm sorry that No Time To Die has seemingly almost messed up the whole series for you. And I don't think you're alone. My guess is that maybe a third of the serious fans feel more or less the same way? Not sure.
It seems right now like NTTD is going to be a divisive film, and perhaps more so than any of the others.
At some point do you think you might try to see it again? Or was once more than enough? There might be a chance that on seeing it again you might appreciate more of the good qualities in it.
In any case, there's another thread where members list their favorite Bond movies in order, and I'd be interested to see your list there if you feel like it at some point.
Yeah, I was never actually sure that I believed the guy in FYEO was the same one who went into space in a shuttle. Beyond YOLT I felt like they kind of left continuity by the wayside and each film was pretty much a bubble. Now we have a bubble that stretches around 5 films, that's fine for me.
The guy in LALD even seemed to meet the fully grown son of the guy who was in Dr No (and was the same age as Bond then!) :)
In time, I'd very much like to see a carefully worded poll amongst Bond fans on this. Did it spoil the movie for me? Yes, frankly. Did it spoil the series? Well no, because there's been double-taking pigeons and Tarzan yells and I got over those. But I have to admit I find something slightly disrespectful about killing him off this late in the game. It's almost like it's on a whim, and they're only now allowed to do so because of the current craze for cinema superhero reboots. It feels like a cheap shot.
Crikey, I wouldn't know where to start. I'd rather watch Die Another Day than For Your Eyes Only, but I can see that For Your Eyes Only is a better movie. It's like the Ramones and Beethoven. I'd rather hear the Ramones, but does that make them better?
But I suppose that's the whole point, what do you prefer? I'll give it a go.
It’s meaningful to Craig’s Bond story. A story set within a deliberately self contained arc where we were able to witness Bond really evolving as a character, for the first time, through its five installments.
Having said that, I’m fully convinced that this is gonna be the first and last time Bond dies in a JB film.
I do hope so Matt.
I can add 'self contained arc' to my list of reasons why he can be killed, given an obituary and yet 'will return'. So the list is..
Self contained arc.
Alternate timeline.
Reboot
Alternate Universe.
So anything can happen in any movie series and be completely swept aside as if it never happened, as long as you say it's one of the above. I think I'm starting to understand now.