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
The film ends with "James Bond will return"
IMO the film is just as "categorical" that he will survive
If you were watching the film without any outside knowledge of "internal Bond politics", which is most people, there will be likely be some confusion on that point.
It's a contradiction the audience hasn't had to deal with before, being asked to accept that it's only one actors incarnation of Bond that is dead.
However it's no less strange than having two Bonds at the same time back in in 1983, so I'm sure we'll all come to terms with it, either way, in time.
They're basically the same thing.
"He died chasing a dream. Isn't that the way to go?"
"I'd rather not go at all."
That's interesting, because the soap opera-ish nature of the last three Craig films actually makes them seem less deep to me, and more contrived, but to each his own.
I don't see why the Craig era needs a closed-off ending, especially one where they kill off his Bond. Why, to keep his family safe? Spectre is gone. Bond's enemies are all dead. Who's there to threaten his family? Eon could have written any number of endings but they chose to follow a trend instead. At least, that's how it seems to me.
NTTD seems to be a giant subversion of the Bond formula where Bond himself becomes the sacrificial lamb in order to atone for all the women he got killed like Solange, Fields, and Severine. So he (and Felix) dies protecting the women. It's why they gave his Bond a daughter and not a son.
The thing is, since Bond didn't directly get any of those women killed, and since they died while he was on missions to protect the (perceived) greater good, his death doesn't come off as any kind of heroic act, but rather a bitter statement derived from the feminist resentment of certain people involved in the production. Is Bond also atoning for all the men he's killed? Apparently not, since he doesn't save any.
I don't think Bond got any women killed so much as they "all ended up dead" as Blofeld puts it. So I didn't view Bond atoning for anything; rather he was finally able to protect the women in his life at the expense of himself. Considering his previous failures at doing so had haunted him, I found it to be a deeply personal closing to his character, not any kind of feminist statement.
This is really well said. And I have said, and felt, since first viewing of NTTD, that this was a fitting finish for Daniel Craig's Bond. It is heroic, noble, and quite appropriate. It would not work with any other Bond we have had. It completes his story arc, and I think they did it incredibly well. To have Bond die, in any way, has to be the most difficult task anybody could come up with for a Bond movie. It could have easily been mishandled by a different director, actor, or script. The story is not seamless, but it is very good and holds together well and serves the purpose of giving us this story, as a complete finish for this particular Bond. I really appreciate NTTD.
Also, I agree that Fleming as a source should not be the be all/end all of requirements. As the touchstone, yes, and there is still plenty of details to use. But bring in other elements, while still keeping it true enough as Bond - not go any Marvel superhero route, etc. EON can do that, stay on course enough. I am not slavish about Fleming, but I respect it should be at the core. I think several members want more and more Fleming, direct from the books; but I don't think that way.
Exactly.
Somewhat similar. I came out thinking "that was a really good movie." Not necessarily a great Bond movie. After letting it soak for over a week, I don't think I will see it again at the theater, will definitely stream it again at some point. Ending doesn't really bother me now. Overall, I was just a bit underwhelmed by the action and the story. At the end of the day, it is probably a top 10-13-ish Bond film for me.
Somebody wrote NTTD is: a bitter statement derived from the feminist resentment of certain people involved in the production. Is Bond also atoning for all the men he's killed? Apparently not, since he doesn't save any.
Well. I just spotted that. Geez! Sigh ... so NO. Nope, that is not it. Not a "feminist resentment". I'll let it go at that. I agree with Jobo and BlondeBond re that comment.
That is a foolish comment indeed. So Bond doesn't bed every female he crosses paths with, and the 007 number is assigned to a woman... Feminist resentment?? Why must everything that might be squeezed into a certain box also necessarily be taken there? Sometimes, an idea is just an idea, and there's no hidden agenda.
Couldn't he just "successfully protect the women in his life"?
Why does it have to be "at the expense of himself"?
Are you saying Craig-Bond had some kind of Deathwish?
This is my take too. You can dislike the circumstances but I struggle to see how you can dislike his actions in said circumstances.
👍
I think some part of me had been secretly thinking that some day they may want to show Bond dying and how on earth could they make it work? Until Craig, it made me shudder. Not that I thought of it frequently; I did not. But NTTD settles it for me, and all involved can be proud of getting that right. It was handled with respect for Bond, in a beautiful film shot with realism and symbolism, superb acting from exactly the right cast for this story, and done with integrity.
Closure happens. Like it or not, closure and taxes are the only certainties in life.
Out of universe: the baggage. Craig’s connected mini series had a lot of baggage. Vesper, Madeline, SPECTRE, Brofeld, the realistic aesthetic (even NTTD, as old school as it is in some ways, could only push those classic Bond elements so far; compare Saffin’s base and army to Blofeld’s in YOLT). If they wanted to go a bit more fantastical next time, for example, then it would’ve felt strange to jump from the Craig era straight into a film with a flying spy car or whatever. Equally, after a few films of quite an emotional connected story, it might feel strange to jump into a standard Bond on a mission film with no emotional baggage whatsoever. Closing off the Craig era allows them a clean slate, free of any baggage or expectations.
In universe: Well, the baggage again. Just think about what the virus/nanobot thing really represents. Bond ruining everything he touches, unable to leave the baggage of the spy world behind. Spectre are dead, but who’s to say more enemies wouldn’t crawl out of the woodwork? He can’t have a normal life, as we saw from the PTS. He’d always be looking over his shoulder. And that would’ve screwed Mathilde up, same as him, same as Madeline, same as Saffin. He could’ve abandoned his family and gone back to MI6, but that wouldn’t have been very narratively satisfying.
Better to leave all that behind and start fresh imo, and I thought his death felt like a fitting way of doing that.
I found Saffin’s plot towards the end the weakest part of the film (didn’t really get it), but I’d assume the consequences of that virus getting out would be deadly for the whole world, right? So, he did save men as well as women.
The movie is categorical. Bond dies. End of the story. Game over. The fact that the end credits end with the classic JB will return card doesn’t mean Craig’s incarnation of Bond survived. It just means the saga will continue with a brand new Bond in the future. That’s not about opinions or points of view. That’s just reality, or accepting reality. Craig’s Bond after five adventures died. The fact that the missiles killed him shouldn’t be even discussed and I’m frankly tired of being forced to repeat the obvious.
It's just a matter of personal taste which you prefer
If it's done well, I can accept it either way
I just wish I could go and see for myself...
But whether you like NTTD or not, just remember you are all more fortunate than me in NZ Level 3!
Hang on, have you not seen the film?
Not sure if you're being forced to repeat anything, but I could be wrong...and as myself and others have pointed out, there is reason to question how they're going to frame the transition to the new Bond - whether some sort of continuation of the world they've built the last 5 movies, whether significant or minor, or a clean slate.
I certainly agree that Daniel Craig as Bond (or "Daniel Craig's Bond", if you like) is done - hard to argue that isn't true, and they will now reinvent the series.
Yes. We've never really had it in a Bond story before and that formula is obviously working. Why do we have to start now...
Because it makes sense? Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen every other film.
It makes sense because of the few plot elements introduced in the last few minutes of the film, which absolutely didn't have to be there. But anyways, ultimately some of us are happy with it, some of us are not. There's no right or wrong here; in my view anyway.
I assume you're in Auckland. Best wishes to you from Wellington.
But by doing it, they've created a world of different 'Bonds' relative to the actor. It doesn't make sense to me, as someone who was bought up with Cubby's idea of 'no actor is bigger than James Bond'.
Killing him off then saying he'll be back in the credits doesn't make any sense at all. And the only argument I can see for it making sense on here is - "oh, it's a reboot, like Batman/Superman/Captain Caveman or whatever, so there'll be another reboot'.
It's all daft.
Agreed. I read an IMDB review that said that the psychological effect of seeing Craig's Bond die has repercussions for the series as a whole. I'd agree with that, too. Craig's movies being a self-contained timeline isn't really the point. The point is that having any incarnation of Bond being killed off fundamentally damages the character. Each Bond actor survives to pass the baton to the next. Except Craig's. Because he's special. Or something.
And yes, I know it's also impossible that Bond was in his fifties in 2021 and his thirties in 1962, but that stretch wasn't nearly as problematic as blowing him to smithereens on screen and then saying "it's okay, he'll be back".
Eh? So he didn't die?
As I've said before, how can we invest any emotion in the death scene when they'll just bring him back for the next film anyway. Is he like Wile E Coyote where he can get blown up but still survive or something?
Beep beep!
What bollocks!
Doesn't mean everyone needs to, but I'm definitely in that boat.
I guess Bond has never really worried to much about continuity from actor to actor, or sometimes even from film to film, but at the very least we always left him alive at the end of each novel / film (or at least with a reasonable degree of certainty he may have survived) and therefore able to return, if he so chose, to the next adventure. Choosing to kill him, if that's what they did, undermines that element of the character in my eyes.
Give it one thing, it's certainly controversial and generating discussion. Maybe the most controversial film so far.
Cheers