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
Yes. I may not like the idea of killing him, but if that’s the direction they chose to go and it was done well, I can’t complain.
This is coming from someone who had a reaction of “I don’t even want to see this movie now” once they were spoiled the ending after the premiere. Of course I was still there on opening night and didn’t have an issue with it. Would I have liked if he didn’t have to die? Yes. But if they had to go that route, I think they succeeded.
In the same general boat; I was going to see it no matter what, but I did purposefully spoil that part for myself because I didn't want to be surprised by Bond dying potentially. I suspected this might be the case based on a lot of clues. It sounded terrible on paper, and though it's still not the direction I would have gone in, I've accepted it as it is. Not the ending I would prefer, but about as "not bad" for what it is as I could hope for. If someone had told me before this came out that a Bond film with Bond dying would be my #10 in my ranking of the 25, I'd laugh. But the film does so much right for me I can't help but love it.
Same deal with STAR TREK: LOWER DECKS. It’s not at all what I wanted out of Trek, and I initially ignored it outright until friends of mine convinced me to give it a shot. And it’s now my favorite Trek series in 20 years.
But I’ve ranked it as high as #7 and only a low of #10 so far. I think it will move around in the 7-13 range for me as time passes, which is a job well done. I said before it came out that if it’s a top 10-15 entry I’ll be happy.
I think a far more interesting question is why the films fortunes differ so much between the UK, Europe and the USA.
I have always been surprised by the success of Craig-Bond in the USA. Two countries separated by a common language still holds good in a number of area including art and the USA itself has many distinctions.
The films feel much more european than transatlantic to me.
Mathieu Amarlic and the other European Actors added so much texture not to mention all the actress's.
I do not think your right about the good will that preceded Craig- Bond the reality is Daniel got a lot more bums on seats that previously were not there and people came out saying my goodness there was a real story. There is a big Craig Bond audience which functions outside of this deep fan thing just as there is with any franchise where the numbers suddenly grow beyond the core.
Not only were the stories flatlining before Daniel the audiences were to.
This is a good point. Moonraker marked the nadir for me with its lazer battles, Bondola, Jaws falling in love etc. It was truly silly, yet at least it could be forgiven for being a fun ride. NTTD just left me feeling flat.
No offence to our American friends on the forum but I'm glad Bond doesn't pander to the US audience, the same way I'm glad something like Top Gun doesn't pander to UK audiences. They should always be what they are and allow the audience to take it or leave it
The only minor thing that irks me when I watch Casino, is when Bond says cell phone to M at the end of the film. Every time without fail I cringe
The Craig films really lost momentum once Haggis was no longer involved as a screenwriter. It's pretty clear that he contributed some of the best elements of CR and QoS (the scene on the plane with Mathis?).
And judging by his TV background, he could have plotted a proper multifilm arc for Bond.
(I'm aware Haggis is having a lot of legal issues (that may be real, or may be Scientology-revenge-driven). Who knows?)
Yep, thought the same thing. Someone somewhere even mentioned that they specifically state in the scene at Q's house that he was included in the original DNA set, but I can't recall. It's a bit muddy, like most of the nanobots stuff, but it's not like it's a plot hole. Safin didn't know Bond would be there and Madeleine didn't touch him specifically to transmit the nanobots, I think. So he either had one type of nanobot that kills Blofeld or two. Who know, maybe the stuff Safin gave Madeleine where the exact same nanobots as the ones from Cuba, anyway. Hardly makes a difference.
I do think it is a missed opportunity that there wasn't a scene where Bond uses the nanobots he has inside of him as a weapon, for example to take out some guys in Safin's base. Maybe it's too sci-fi, but I thought the strongest symbolism of the ending was that him being basically a living weapon made him too dangerous for the world (or him having a family made him too soft to go on like that, you decide) and him actually using the thing he finally has to die for on purpose - and not just on accident as with Blofeld - would have driven that home a bit more neatly.
It also just could have been an unusual action sequence where Bond for some reason doesn't have a firearm, but if he gets skin contact, the other guys die.
Great question. I suppose they just plugged in the genetics of only the SPECTRE agents that were going to be at the party.
But, they could have included Blofeld's DNA in that Cuba attack, and nothing would have been different, as you say. Bond touching Madeleine's arm would be redundant. It would still make sense for Safin to give the perfume to Madeleine though as he wouldn't necessarily expect Bond to meet with Blofeld along with Madeleine.
Fans would’ve been excited.
Not as Bond’s ones, of course, haha.
Maybe a giant squid.
It would have settled things, but personally I don't enjoy seeing any Bond fan disappointed, angered or upset about what happens in the films, whether they agree with me or not, but it is inevitable.
You're so edgy!
We literally see Bond’s head get crushed in every gory detail. Madeleine then admits she never loved him. Nomi is happy that Bond is dead because the only good cis gender white heterosexual male is a dead one, especially if his balls are squashed like guacamole. It ends with the very firs cameo of Barbara Broccoli, maniacally laughing as she sets fire to photos of Cubby and Ian Fleming. Like Robert DeNiro in CAPE FEAR
True. Still heightened the onscreen drama and tension and thus did its job.
This would have been very, very sci-fi for Bond (at least Craig's Bond) but I actually love the idea of a hero taking on guys with guns armed only with a deadly sense of touch.
Now the other fella should have The Other Fella as location.
I'm pretty sure that Tony Stark will be part of a Marvel film in the not so far future. Reboot, prequel...
But yes, it would have sounded weird to have such credits. However, I was happy to read that James Bond will return" and this disn't lower the quality of NTTD for me.
I have no doubt we’ll see Tony Stark and Steve Rogers again on the big screen. Like Bond, it’ll just get set on a different continuity. My bet is that only happens if the MCU sees a notable downslide at the box office (not accounting COVID). Once that happens, we should expect to see new reboots of those characters.
They’re DEFINITELY going to introduce Wolverine/Logan in the near future.
Why single out Bond? ALL films this year have been impacted by this pandemic. There has yet to be a billion dollar grossing film.
So when discussions regarding NTTD’s box office are brought up, there will always be the two major points: 1) that it was effected by the pandemic, and 2) that it was still able to gross over $700 worldwide in spite of it.