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
100%. Great summary, @ColonelSun.
And if I'm understanding it correctly (need to see the film again), there is a major element of a conscious, heroic sacrifice in it as well.
Because Bond is essentially carrying a new "variant" of the virus that targets Madeleine and Mathilde. So obviously, he can't touch them. But also, anyone else in the world he touches gets infected - so if he leaves that island, and comes into contact with any other humans, ever, he's running the risk the "Madeleine variant" gets out in the wild and eventually finds its way back to his family.
When Madeleine says, "there's no one left to hurt us," the tragic realization on Daniel's (brilliantly acted) face, is that he is the last one who can hurt them. He sacrifices himself consciously to protect them, not just now (from himself) but in the future (from the variant if it ever left that island). He's the only carrier. He stops it in its tracks there.
Sure, he could probably radio Q, dive into the sea, hope for a medical transport to deal with the gunshot wounds, etc. - but he knows it will never end, they'll always be in danger if he leaves that island.
And as @ColonelSun pointed out, he's already mortally wounded by Safin's gunshots. Those weren't just for shock/show. He's a dead man walking and knows it. But his last act is to consciously sacrifice himself to protect his family instead of continuing to fight in futility. The heroic act isn't living to fight another day. It's stopping fighting, so they can live another day.
He's a killer. Cursed with bringing death to everything he touches. His final "kill" is himself, for the noblest and most heroic reasons possible.
If one is committed to the thought experiment of James Bond dying, and he has to, then I can't honestly think of a better way to do it. That's why this film is special to me and joins the upper ranks in the franchise.
And if you don’t like that then cool, but can we not embarass ourselves with hyperbolic predictions over the death of one of the biggest moneymakers in cinema? NTTD is shaping up to be a big hit. Good reviews and it’s outdoing box office predictions. MGM has just been accquired by Amazon, who will definitely be seeing 007 themed dollar signs (and no chance are Amazon now considering pulling out of that deal over the ending, sorry but that’s “my uncle works at nintendo” territory) and there’s even a new video game on the way.
If you didn’t enjoy it, I feel bad for you (genuinely, I’ve been there myself, a disappointing Bond film always hits you hard), but that doesn’t mean the series is failing.
It’s fine not to like the ending, but I don’t get how it was rushed or unearned. The whole film built up to that point perfectly imo, and they did a good job of making it feel natural in the context of the Craig era, by tying it into his ongoing themes.
And I thought the MI6 regulars had nicely sized roles in this one. They had roles in the story, but imo it felt more organic than in SP. We didn’t have them running around in the field or anything like that.
The next film will offer someone a chance to join a prestigious long running series, that’s been making more money and getting more critical acclaim than ever, playing one of the most iconic heroes in cinema (and a cultural icon in Britain), for obscene amounts of money, working with all sorts of big names and Oscar winners, and even getting free Aston Martin privileges. There isn’t a single actor in the world who would turn that down because they didn’t like the ending of the last film (and plenty do like it anyway, the film is doing well).
It’s fine not to like the film, but please can we not project our opinions like this.
As for Boyle and his alternative take: like any director, they sat down and agreed this was final for Daniel and they shared an idea of confronting things like #metoo /Russian threat etc. So there was initially agreement. But Boyle wanted a space based rocket Moonraker level macguffin; he wanted Bond to confront, explicitly rather than implicitly, changes in sexual politics and yes, he wanted a finality as much as Craig but in an upbeat, more open manner (knighthood, I think and NOT mawkish 4th wall death narrative; ironically Boyle's is the more Fleming-ian, too, imho and right esp for now when we need the boost post covid etc). Basically, they had the same vision and concerns but in very differing key to execution, right to the wire and reconciliation could and should have been possible in those visions. Production designs were made. Craig had shot an Omega watch advert in his gear readied for the Boyle shoot. Sets were being built. It got far and wish they'd release the treatment 'by accident', same way we can now read Trevorrow's episode 9 draft for Star Wars..
Yes. Totally agree. If you look at Craig's Bond journey from the wild card, arrogant novice OO7 in CR, to a man who, due to his job, is ultimately condemned to never find true happiness and inner peace, it's a sad and yet, because he remains committed to his duty even until his last breath, a strangely triumphant ending. I loved NTTD. Some might not quite get it (just see some of the comments on this thread), but I strongly suspect, with time, those who are unsure or unmoved at the moment might change their mind. Remember it took time for some people to really get and open up to OHMSS.
Thank you Agent M72
I too thought it was the perfect way to end Craig's run, for once it is no longer just about the mission, and the thing he most wants he can no longer have. So he sacrifices himself to save the world, his country, his colleagues, and his family.
I still don’t understand why the tone of the film or the time it’s released (not their fault) makes the death unearned though to be honest.
It’s very in keeping with the themes of the Craig era, and him being infected with the virus even provides us with a perfect metaphor for why he has to die. Like some of us were saying a few pages back, he can’t have a normal life. If he went back to Madeline and Mathilde, he’d bring the baggage of his life as a 00 with him and put their lives at risk. The virus acts as a nice literal embodiment of that idea.
So, he has to sacrifice himself. He can never have a normal life, but Mathilde still can with Madeline. He breaks the cycle, “gives her a chance” by ensuring at least one of her parents gets to live, and escape from the assassin/spy world that it’s too late for him to break free from.
I had a lot of issues with the film, but I thought the ending was beautifully done, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.
Yeah, you're right. We just don't get it and are too stupid to understand. Thanks for educating us.
Hope you don't mind me jumping on here, but I wanted to add a thought to your post. Bond's sacrifice is made even more meaningful when you add in a few more themes from other films. Blofeld makes the statement in Spectre that all the women in his life end up dead and continuingly reminds Bond that everything in his life turns to ruin. After we have witnessed this happen frequently over the course of four films, Bond is actually able to save the women in his life instead of them, once again, ending up dead not just because of involvement with him but because he has heartbreakingly become the physical manifestation of his lifestyle ruining everyone/thing he touches.
Also in Spectre, Bond promises White that he will protect Madeleine and "keep her alive." And years later, he still does so only this time he keeps her alive by protecting her from himself. Which is also even sadder as he has recently realized for the first time that he was capable of creating life and not just causing death.
When you add all this in with how White was responsible for all the heartache and betrayal in CR only to have Bond be denied his chance at happiness and family with White's daughter, I find this to be masterful storytelling. I personally think it will make a repeat viewing of CR (especially the final scene) have more emotional punch...and who thought that was possible?
Completely agree. That’s what I was getting at on the last page, but wasn’t clever enough to put into words, thank you.
And yeah while I had problems with the film, I think NTTD has really bought the Craig era together, and that ending will make viewing the whole thing a really cohesive and emotional experience. Beautiful bit of storytelling.
I hope we get standalone films next, but I really do think this era has turned out to be a worthwhile experiment.
Now: imagine him dying in MOONRAKER. YOLT. DAD. NTTD has all their sci fi eccentricities and lacks the logical pay off of equally camp upbeat end?
THAT is where I am 'at' with NTTD. The fusion was awkward in tone and fission resulted. Kill him by all means and do so with bathos, pathos and..um..ana de armas ;) (3 musketeers joke there).
As for covid? Sure, they could not have known the world was headed this way. But fact is, they had TWO YEARS in effect of delay and surely, a simple reading of world mood MIGHT have resulted in a simple tweak to make that ending and indeed, tone overall, a BIT more open and upbeat. You can still kill him. Or leave it open. And in any event still get closure on man and era. Daniel Craig is but one iteration of Bond: fine, ergo reboot possible. But ON that very note..what makes him so specifically in need of a grand send off denied his predecessors? Bit odd, frankly.
But nb: all 'imho' and subject to change and in no way compromising my respect for franchise and its producers. I am just gutted, naturally.
SPOT ON.
I just want to point out that, as I see things, if Bond wouldn't be poisoned by Safin he still would've been able to survive. There was the glider waiting for him. He accept death because even if he would've managed to survive he wouldn't be able to live the life he wanted to live. This is why the ending is so powerful, and the final quote from London is just a reminder of this notion.
Not having a go at the Colonel, (it's confusing). If he's a dead man already, the poisoning plays zero role in his death other to add a level of drama that plays no causal role in the outcome, it just adds to Bond's misery. The writers have shot him, poisoned him and them he's vapourised my a Navy missile and we are debating which one of these three is the cause of death.
Beautiful and the perfect counter comment to the real world where no one must die however poor their life experience, Bonds ending is elevating and a wonderful testament to the idea we should rediscover away to die with grace and dignity. What is also fascinating to me is the ending is even more on point in that regard given the last 20 months.
And speaking of which, are we heading for the third time, towards two 007 series, one with Bond and another with Nomi? (And this time with EON at the helm of both)
Ergo, I believe he didn't even try. Because to me it is far easier to stomach that he realizes he is in an unwinnable situation and makes the concious decision to sacrifice himself for his family, than him just... failing and being killed by the villain.
100%. The film is filled with references, I think, because they were making a conscious effort to make a modern equivalent of OHMSS -- it wasn't, "hey, we need to repeat these elements," but instead, "let's do a little revealing nod towards our intentions."
And I think this absolutely will be seen with time the way OHMSS was. It already is, in many respects. It will be, "Hey, remember that super sad one where he actually died once? Such a downer. But damn, it was one of the best films."
Absolutely! So many wonderful callbacks and payoffs to Craig's era in this film, honestly. It's one of the most deep and self-aware Bond scripts we've had, certainly up there in the league with Casino and Skyfall. Maybe surpassing, just in terms of its sheer ambition as well.
But don't @ me on that last one, I still think Casino is about as close to a perfect Bond film as you can get. ;)
Are we debating the cause? Assumed the coroner's report would say, pretty definitively, "Missiles."
I like that, I really do. But that doesn't change the fact that it is still a massive downer for me.
From day one, I always interpreted it that in every film, it was the same James Bond. As an example:
Lazenby's Bond: Get's married
Connery's Bond in DAF: The opening I interpreted as his revenge-mission for Tracy's murder
Moore: Visits Tracy's grave
Dalton: Alluded to Tracy at Felix's wedding
Yes, the era and elapsed time from Dr No doesn't make sense, but that was a piece of Hollywood-ness I happily bought into. For me, they are the same man.
So when Casino Royale rocked up and did the first mission, it didn't bother me. In my head canon, DC's character could have his mobile phone and DB10, and then still be the man who takes on Goldfinger where the DB5's tracking system seemed other-worldly. Same man, be damned with the era consistency.
By killing DC's Bond, it somewhat breaks a mythos I didn't know I had built up of my own volition and experiences with the films since the day I bought my first copy of TSWLM on VHS. More so because it traced DC from his induction into the Double-O's, through to death, with a story 'arc' undeniably linking the two. You can't just say "NTTD is how he dies, but Bond 26 could happen before that". Nor would I try. That's just silly, these are just movies afterall...
Now this isn't a post to assign blame to EON, DC, etc, for "raping my childhood" like Star Wars fans did to the prequel/sequel trilogies, or to somehow say how my opinion or thoughts are correct; just to put over why I think that no matter how well a death for 007 was handled (and I still don't think it was handled all that well), that for me (and maybe others) that the end result could never be satisfying.
To be clear, I know these are just movies, and when the next 007 jumps off a dam, or onto Gibraltar, or however they introduce him, it will be business as usual for me. But I can't help shake the feeling that subverting, not just expectations, but what was for me an unwritten rule of Bond movies, NTTD and it's ending will always sit just too far out of the comfort zone for my own viewing pleasure.
If Bond survived - even if it's the most absurd explanation ever put into a film - he survived.
I think everyone is taking this too seriously. You're thinking too logically. Bond has never been true to real life, it's a fantasy version of real life, an exaggeration, so why do we all assume Bond is dead?
My prediction is he's alive. No reboot in Bond 26. The explosions were close by, no missiles hit Bond. There you go, there's the explanation. 😄
Bond survives, loses memory similar to YOLT and TMWTGG, he recovers, a temporary antidote to nanobots is discovered, he becomes a mercenary/assassin for hire. The new enemy hire him. MI6 discover Bond is alive and send 00s to retrieve him. The new enemy are cyber terrorists with a small supply of AI robot assaasins. That's the outline of Bond 26?
No reboot necessary.
We're all complicating/ overthinking it. He's not dead. It's a narrative cliffhanger to make you think he's dead when in reality Eon are paying homage to the end of YOLT. It's obvious.
My prediction James Bond is not dead. He's alive and working for the bad guys! What a twist. And the film has advanced robot assassins targeting the 00s!
Huge potential! I've emailed Eon with my unsolicited ideas. We want Bond alive. He has to survive. None of this 'Bond is dead' nonsense. It's a brilliant trick to fool everyone.
Envy of the Dead
Ideally that would be the title for Bond 26 but death/die has been overused in the franchise so forget that title. Anyway... I'm sticking with my belief James Bond did not die at the end of NTTD.
There is no body because his body literally doesn't exist anymore. It was destroyed by the missiles.
Delighted you liked it! Here's hoping my second viewing tomorrow is more positive
PS IF DC is within another universe and all the others played the same James Bond, does that make PB still James Bond in the original universe? He was never "fired", they left him in limbo (to return?) whilst writing about another James Bond.
Rewinding Bond's death would be a bigger sin than killing him in the first place. For those who do appreciate the emotional angle NTTD went for, it would be a terrible course to take.
For those who don't like the ending, any new Bond film is good news any way.
People keep saying the word 'reboot' like Bond 26 has to justify how he is alive. Just make a good film, forget multi-film story arcs and go for it. If B26 is a good film, 10 minutes in we wont care he died in NTTD, explanation or not.
Make a Bond film, keep the Bond elements, and wink and nod to the past if appropriate and inconsequential to the plot. Job done.