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
Nope.
So?
The only logical explanation for the ending would be to say in Bond26 that Bond accomplished this mission and returned (played by a new actor).
I think those are just fun nods for the fans (wish they’d do less of that though to be honest) rather than signs that the old films still count as part of this timeline.
The Craig era has always been its own thing, which is one of the reasons I liked the ending. As well as feeling fitting for this version of the character, it also seals off all the emotional baggage this run has and some of the missteps they made (Brofeld), which imo was a smart call. Craig’s been Bond for so long that someone else stepping into his shoes would feel weird, and I think the series will need a big change in direction to escape his shadow, that isn’t hampered by having to stick to the same world CR introduced. I think that’s already been sort of an issue with SP and NTTD. They seem to want to go a bit more “classic” and fun, but they’re limited by the fact that we’re still in gritty reboot land. So, the secret base can only be so extravagant, the henchmen still have to wear boring black gear, the gadgets can’t be too OTT, etc.
Things have changed a lot since 2006. The Craig era has done a good job of moving with the times and following trends, but I’m ready for a whole new take on it. I want to see Bond reimagined and bought bang up to date again, like GE and CR did. Just reboot (not necessarily an origin story) and cast new MI6 regulars to signal that it’s a fresh start. Problem solved. Keep Wishaw though please. If Dench got to stay across reboots then I think he should.
They've had ample time to start production on the next Bond, but as always, EON is just lazy, not starting the process until 2022...
Hopefully we can now go back to a 007 with a sense of humor, charisma, crazy stunts, silly plotlines and the audience feeling excited after leaving the cinema, instead of depressed.
Here's to hoping!
This +1
The nods to the past I feel were a way of catering to the die hards. (The casual fan after all, would have thought nothing of poison gardens or portraits of Robert Brown for example).
My opinion has, since the start, been that the Craig era was always intended to be self contained - an alternate timeline so to speak? Nothing demonstrates that more than the rollover of Judi Dench. In terms of continuity - there was none. It wasn’t possible. And to be fair, not like the series hasn’t been a bit hit and miss with timelines before - Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS after he invaded his volcano with ninjas in the prior story... If Craig’s universe was canon with the other Bonds that would mean they were “brothers” back then also? And if that’s the case why is Felix not missing a leg ? It’s the same character name, In the same series, but with a different take. Same as the novels are an alternative timeline to the films , to some of the continuity novels, to the video games, etc. They have always played pick and choose. Hell, Daltons Bond could have been its own self contained universe when you think about it. But I do get it, I get the level of upset this has caused amongst the fandom. If nothing else, they’ve ensured we’ll always talk about this one !
Ultimately though, Whomever Bond 7 is will have a free go at it without the emotional weight and story beats of the Craig era. For me, this was about ending Craig’s tenure as Bond with all the storylines that went with it - I don’t see this as killing off the same Bond Connery played, or Brosnan, or all of those between. But I fully respect the opinions of those who will feel that sense of betrayal to the character. And hey you never know, perhaps in time, In appraisal, opinions will change . Those that loved NTTD may come to hate it , those that hated it may come to appreciate where it stands. (For example - From my own recent rewatch of all of the films I found myself adoring For Your Eyes Only - not something I’d have imagined when I first watched it in my younger days ! )
The franchise and the character will move on . That’s for sure . I think there are elements of NTTD that proved - without being burdened by backstory - they could possibly still make a very good standalone adventure . It just so happened this one had to wrap up the loose ends of the 4 before. Whether the way it’s been wrapped up is agreeable or not I guess is the precise reason a varied fandom exists in the first place :)
Personally, I think killing him for good in NTTD was the most stupid decision EON have made and there have been plenty.
If they are killing Bond off and all the current cast I hope they also get rid of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade who continue to steal a living off Bond.
Since these morons are trying to reverse engineer a story out of CR it wouldn't surprise me if the next Bond is just a digital version of Craig's little finger because remember this line?
Vesper Lynd: You know James, I just want you to know that if all that was left of you was your smile and your little finger, you'd still be more of a man than anyone I've ever met.
James Bond: That's because you know what I can do with my little finger.
Aside from the stupidity of killing Bond I feel watching NTTD is the equivalent of watching my phone battery dying. It starts of really well and just get's worse and worse.
I always liked CR and QOS but NTTD's ending diminishes them. Not even sure if I can watch them now. Since they've killed his Bond off it seems like he was never really Bond, but more like a wanna-be Bond, or an imposter. Now it feels like the last "real" Bond movie was DAD, which I personally don't like, but at least the character I'm watching from start to finish is Bond, no questions asked. And at least he doesn't friggin die at the end. BTW, NTTD and DAD should really switch titles.
This Daniel Craig saga idea wasn't envisaged until production of Spectre, hence the haste and retrofitting stuff.
CR was a smash and at the time of release a standalone film. It wasn't 'The DC era part 1 of 5' at that stage. QOS was made as a sequel to CR and very publicly so, that was planned, but again not as part 2 of 5 if you get my meaning.
SF was a stand alone film! Nothing at all to do with this 'epic' saga. It was stated as such during production and upon release by Mendes and others. Definitely not part 3...
So instead of leaving SF out of any silly plan they got in their heads around the time of Spectre, presumably after watching the MCU and thinking oooh that's a good idea, they repackaged the Quantum organisation and pretended Silva was a Spectre agent or a free lance link or some such nonsense!
It didn't work very well for me. The only film they have fully stated is all part of this big master plan is NTTD, as a conclusion. The problem is it's a conclusion to a story that was never fully fleshed out to begin with, so it leaves it feeling weak and cobbled together. That's because it was. And that's a shame because the whole story, planned fully at the beginning could have been brilliant.
-1
Big disagree here.
I really wanted them to end the Craig era with a 'bang.' The simple question is 'What else could they done?' Have him ride off into the sunset with Madeleine? That would have been a rehash of SP. Bond dying was the only other definitive ending available to them. I suppose they could have included a coda which hinted at Bond's survival. It's quite bold they didn't chicken out like TDKR in this respect (I feel quite strongly that they should have cut at the scene where Alfred nods just to lend some ambiguity and finality to the story).
The death works for a number of reasons:
You could argue that Q (or Pfizer 😉) could have created a vaccine for those infected with Heracles. However, what sells the ending is Craig and Seydoux's performances. Bond never plays the victim in those moments. It's a beautiful performance from him. Furthermore, Fukunaga's elegant filmmaking makes what is a very distressing scene rather beautiful.
I think the tragedy of NTTD is that unlike say Logan or the Last Jedi which are built around the hero's death being an inevitability, NTTD teases Bond with the chance of a happy ending. Bond really wants to live, however, he is unable to. It's v sad. I'm not surprised NTTD will prove a divisive film. I think it'll reach OHMSS levels in years to come.
More people need to speak about how good Lisa-Dorah Sonnet is in NTTD. My whole cinema were awwing over everything she did. The kid sells it. (Also, can someone help me with the pronunciation of Mathilde. Is it Ma-tild or Ma-tilda)
Bond is going to die anyway. He's been shot by Safin (I believe three times, right?). He's loosing too much blood and has to reopen the blast doors. He's simply run out of time. I really doubt he could get off the island with whatever time was available to him.
If Bond was to leave the island, he would be Patient Zero for a new variant of Heracles. A variant which is particularly deadly to Madeleine and Mathilde. He knew he had to stay on the island to stop the contagion and save their lives.
Neither of these things had to happen, it was the choice of the script writers.
Bottom line is, what are the pros and cons of killing off the character ?
Pros - closes the DC era, hugh emotional impact, huge talking point, fixes debate with universe/time line
Cons - huge "downer", upsets some fans, reduces rewatch factor, villain wins again, effects future actors exits, erodes Bonds mythical status
I'm sure there's more on both sides
Him dying didn’t feel cheap to me either. I thought it felt entirely natural. A normal life will never be possible for him, but he gets to ensure his child will have one (thus avoiding another Bond/Madeline/Saffin) by sacrificing himself. It’s tragic. He finally finds a life past being a blunt instrument, but he’s ultimately too far gone to ever live that life. But it felt like a very fitting end to this era imo, very in keeping with the tragedy of DC’s take on the character. That was probably the biggest strength of the film for me. That it felt like this is what we’d been building towards, despite the fact that they’d obviously just made it up as they went along. It bought a lot of Craig era themes and motifs together in a satisfying way, like how SP tried (and failed, and I say that as someone who really enjoyed it) to do.
I don’t think they wrapped the overarching plot up very well (the SPECTRE story), but then to be fair, they were left with a very messy and contrived narrative to work with there, so I can’t blame them for shafting it in favour of a more personal angle. And character wise, I thought NTTD ended things perfectly.
But let me get this straight....
Q has harnessed the power of an EMP into a watch that is capable of destroying electronics of a whole section of the building in the film, yet his watch couldn't damage/destroy the tiny nanobots on Bond?
Or was that the point? He sacrificed himself and he didn't know he was already safe making it more tragic? They really labour the watch part when he kills Cyclops
Yeah, it does seem quite unfortunately timed in some respects (the virus plot, the downbeat ending), but then that’s not really the film’s fault to be fair, so I don’t think we can hold it against them.
It will be interesting to see whether the word of mouth about the ending affects the box office/audience response though. Still seems to be doing very well so far.
I know some are annoyed by this but this for me makes up for the huge disappointment of SPECTRE and I watched it the night before going to see NTTD for the first time, it hasn't improved and NTTD made me think even more so.
Mendes made a cracking film in Skyfall but SPECTRE was dross to me but NTTD despite that makes me think this is a hugely successful tenure and the best since Connery.
Also and I guess this is a case of your opinion of the film but DC got to break the rule of ending on a dud. The direction was impeccable, great performances, the action was the best of the era and some of the best of the series.
2 hrs 43 minutes flew by and I loved Bond and Felix's moments and how that ended, like the end hugely poignant. Also did anyone notice and my Wife pointed this out although I'd thought it on my first watch.
Of course this is going to be divisive but I think like Skyfall is that way here that NTTD will be a big hit with the masses like SF was. SF was seen as more than what people expect from a Bond film and I think NTTD also will have a similar affect.
DC's Bond was never going to walk into the sunset and enjoy life, also he wasn't going to end on being sent on his next mission.
This ending has upset some, even disgusted some but for me and others it was perfect and however distressing and traumatic, I'd have it no other way and I love WHATITW and OHMSS is my favourite Bond film, although if any other actor deserved to utilise that song it was DC.
His films got as close as that film and in some cases even more so to the level of emotion even before NTTD, so while some cry sacrilege, I approve.
One more watch for me next weekend with my parents and then some time away before the 4K UHD Blu-ray arrives, we'll see how I react the 3rd time.
I also like someone pointed out while emotional about Sean & Rog's death would never have been moved the way I was with Craig's last moments about their Bond's if that had happened he just elicits something that no other actor has in the role for me. So DC would have only caused that reaction because the other versions of Bond and I include Dalton in this, we never saw enough depth and characterisation to see anything but some cool guy who could handle himself in a tight spot.
Controversial but there you go, let the brickbats commence.
Awesome! : ) I grew up watching the Roger Moore Bond’s on ABC (I think). AVTAK was in 87? I think. I’m 45 now. I remember that it blew me away. Still remember it fondly! It’s my favorite Moore movie, which I know isn’t a popular opinion.