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
Well, Blofeld died in FYEO. So why/how did he come back?
The ending to NTTD is a truly ballsy move, but Craig's films worked quite in some isolation from the other 20 ones. What will be interesting to see is how much the forthcoming movies will dip into both continuities to build their own universe.
Take it as a compliment that I read and enjoyed the whole thing. Channeling your Brady there, or at least Dimi.
One of the funniest lines for me was "Another child?"
And yes, he died with his boots on.
And yes! The "another child?" line was probably my favorite one in terms of lightheartedness, that's the one I was forgetting about. Surprised how many good, funny lines were in the Norway scenes.
At other points in NTTD, he just makes funny observations (about Nomi taking her wig off, Paloma asking him in a hurry to take off his clothes or Q's cat) that show him in a lighter mood than in Craig's previous films. I guess it comes from two things, the work of Phoebe Waller-Bridge, and Craig's experience on Knives Out, where he found one-liners that were in line with his own comic sensibility, which finally allowed him to inject more comedy in his Bond films.
Craig era Bonds fans have little to no emotional connection to the five previous Bond actors nor the Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman tone/narrative approach. Sean Connery's Bond is outdated, too sexist, too invulnerable to appeal to generation Z Bond fans. Same is true of Moore's Bond.
This is why so many YouTubers review NTTD and proclaim "Daniel Craig is the best Bond."I have seen a gen z guy say he hasn't seen any Bond films prior to Craig but thinks Craig is the best Bond. This is some of the silly, solipsistic stuff online. 🙄
Gen z-ers process Craig's films emotionally not with logic. Indeed, I would argue for all the negativity that the CraigisnotBond community brought to Bond fandom - even making Craig feel depressed during the production of Casino Royale - they were arguing from a logical foundation. Craig does not look like the cinematic James Bond - Sean Connery's looks remain the blueprint - so any criticism of Craig's appearance is logical (accepting such criticism can be harsh and trolling in nature). I would argue any Bond fan saying "Bond's death is a fitting end to Craig's era" are offering an illogical opinion. That's the difference.
When you have an an illogical opinion, when you state Craig is the best Bond but you have little or no knowledge of the other films in the franchise.... you're not going to be that bothered by the ending. This creates the disconnection. Long term fans do care (some/many) about Bond's apparent demise but watch most gen z YouTubers give their reviews of NTTD and you'll see the death of James Bond isn't a huge deal to them. They may find his death sad or a brave thing to do but hardly any will say "it's a betrayal of the franchise" because they're too young to relate to the original era Bond films.
This scene is even better on a second viewing when you know that M is directly responsible for helping create a situation that ends up costing Bond everything.
Thank you @00Heaven … as I told a few people today I woke up and my first thought was: was that a dream?…. And when I realized it wasn’t, a smile stretched across my face.
I will be seeing it again tomorrow and I can’t wait. It was more than I could ever have hoped for.
It was poignant and charming and exhilarating, but then the violence would come in and the tension would be ramped and Fukunaga very expertly wove in psychological horror. This was a big BIG film. Lots to still unpack.
I feel very grateful that this is the film we received.
Sounds like a load of bull.
When you have an an illogical opinion, when you state Craig is the best Bond but you have little or no knowledge of the other films in the franchise.... you're not going to be that bothered by the ending. This creates the disconnection. Long term fans do care (some/many) about Bond's apparent demise but watch most gen z YouTubers give their reviews of NTTD and you'll see the death of James Bond isn't a huge deal to them.
Allow me to deconstruct this strange statement:
... but this,
I'll happily agree with.
Craig agreed to come back on the condition his Bond died.
Danny Boyle and John Hodge disagree and are shown the door.
Cary Fukunaga hired. Screenplay rewritten.
B and MG don't want Bond to actually die. It's like Bond becoming a woman.. Eon will never do it so they contrive an ending in which the audience are fooled into believing Bond is dead. This gives the impression Craig's era has a definitive ending.
Bond saves the day but dies.
Every film critic and most casual or hardcore fans fall for the deception. "Bond is dead, what a shocking event!"
The deception had worked!
Eon refuse to confirm Bond is dead. For the next three or more years Barbara Broccoli gives no interviews to confirm Bond's death nor to confirm or deny a reboot is impending.
Eon never agreed to kill off Bond, they agreed to end Craig's tenure with the illusion that his Bond died. They knew pretending to kill off Bond would be the most outrageous and controversial moment in the franchise's near sixty year history and result in negative reaction but they also knew it would be temporary negativity because Bond 26 will show James Bond escaping death. He avoided the full scale impact of the missiles, he was several feet away from the missile strike. This can be done via a flashback scene showing the missile strike from a different camera angle. You see Bond (new actor) much further away from the missile as it impacts the ground. The explosion and blast wave push Bond away. He falls to the ground, gets up and runs away. By sheer luck he escapes the blast area. He is badly injured and with loss of memory.
This scenario is doable and can look exciting and dramatic. As for Bond's different looking face... the franchise has already set that precedent. Diamonds Are Forever's pre credit scene follows on from the end of OHMSS. I accept the start of Diamonds is not straight away after OHMSS but the pre credit scene is Bond trying to find and kill Blofeld. He wants to avenge Tracy's death. Bond looks different. He's morphed into Sean Connery!
The other way is Bond is disfigured from the missile strikes and gets surgery to alter his looks but I think that's a bit cheesy and too predictable.
Similar feelings here and I haven't even watched it. This was an act of sabotage entirely in keeping with recent trends in Hollywood in terms of how they treat classic franchises. It's cynical and shallow and done for the sole reason of pissing off longtime fans. Unless they have an alternate ending stored away somewhere and plan on releasing another version in the future, they've lost me as a fan. I don't care what they do with Bond after this but whatever they do will feel pointless.
As divisive as it is, this truly is a movie you have to see for yourself. I didn't like several of the spoilers I heard beforehand yet walked away either loving them or accepting them with almost no issues.
But they've been doing precisely that for 60 years. Bond actors age out and get replaced by younger actors. What was AVTAK to TLD? Or DAD to CR? What made NTTD's ending necessary? In fact I would argue the exact opposite of what this movie's defenders are saying, that killing Craig's Bond undermines the process of bringing Bond back. The reason why actors could so easily pass off the role to younger actors was because Bond DIDN'T die. And again, I really get the sense that people are just trying to justify the ending post-hoc when there really is not justification for it.
Hmm.... time will tell if my theory is right. Until we get official confirmation from Eon that Bond 26 is a reboot, my theory is still possible. 😉
You seriously believe the next era will be a continuation of Craig's arc, without Craig, where his clearly obvious death is explained away and some new actor is now looking to cure himself of the nanobots and return to Madeleine and Mathilde? I'd bet all the money I'll ever make that won't happen but I'll leave you to your optimism and high hopes. Just don't be let down when a few years pass and it clearly doesn't come to fruition, as it's incredibly, almost impossibly unlikely.
As for "people trying to justify it", I'd say that's completely unfair on the film and on the fans that enjoy it for what it was and what it was doing. For many of us, it makes perfect sense in the arc we've seen throughout Craig's era. Just because there are some that don't like it, that in no way undermines the opinion of those who did.
I've got three or more years to get prepared for the disappointment. I still maintain the marketing potential of 'Is Bond really dead?'... and we find out he's still alive.. is worth consideration. Eon would be a bit silly to dismiss this opportunity? I dunno, just a thought.
I wish I had a James Bond emoji. 😊