› ›

NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1…9394969899…298

Comments

  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    Drinman wrote: »
    Does anyone else feel almost as if it was a modern take on a Lewis Gilbert-type Bond film? I was surprised it gave off that vibe considering it had such emotional depth.

    It does have some elements of the grandiosity and scope of Gilbert’s.
    Safin's plan was to kill millions upon millions of people, which makes him to be more like Stromberg or Drax than Le Chiffre, Silva or Greene. He definetely was the most grandiose villain of the Craig era, based on the carnage he plans to inflict upon mankind.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    CR is far and away the best of Craig’s run.It was all downhill from there.

    The most accurate thing I've read in this thread today. I'm seriously jealous for all those here who love the film. I really wish I could too.

    Having seen it twice, and hating it more second time, I've almost tried to wipe it from my memory, pretend the film doesn't exist. I'm actually annoyed when I see Craig or one of the team pop up on Youtube now to promote it.

    This film has had a very bizarre affect on me to say the least. Right now I can't bring myself to rewatch any of Craig's films because of NTTD. I never thought after waiting so long for a Bond film that it would have this kind off affect on me.

  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    Zekidk wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    No he isn't. Q clearly explains this to him. That he can live but anyone he comes into physical contact with dies. So he sacrifices himself.
    I think I hear Safin say to Bond that anyone he touches will die ... but then don't the nanobots have to be coded to someone's DNA to have that effect?

    Or is it the result of the Bond/Safin fight in the (presumably) toxic pool that makes his death inevitable. Bond's facial bleeding at this point is similar to what we see with the SPECTRE agents in Cuba, which suggest a like kind of poisoning. Or is the facial bleeding a result of the fighting in the stairwell?

    Or maybe it is the gunshot wounds, or perhaps only the incoming missiles, that make his death inevitable?

    Thinking about it again, it's all a little confusing to me ....
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    jobo wrote: »
    Sounds like a load of bull.
    I agreed with pretty much everything said there. Didn't sound like bull to me.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »

    I say it constantly lol but if any of these people were in charge of the Bond franchise we’d have just watched the 24th remake of Dr. No.

    Or another film in the mould of CR. Modernise Bond, but go back to the novels and use up what material is left. And stay faithful to the books, not reinvent Fleming into something else. Had NTTD ended like YOLT ended, NTTD would actually be one of my favourite Bond films.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    echo wrote: »
    It's been two days since I've seen NTTD and I'm still kind of shocked at how much this film seems to be designed for the hardcore fans (moreso than the general public)...all of the OHMSS film nods and the radical but strangely faithful adaptation of the YOLT novel.

    If it was faithful to YOLT, I would have loved this film.
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »

    I say it constantly lol but if any of these people were in charge of the Bond franchise we’d have just watched the 24th remake of Dr. No.

    Or another film in the mould of CR. Modernise Bond, but go back to the novels and use up what material is left. And stay faithful to the books, not reinvent Fleming into something else. Had NTTD ended like YOLT ended, NTTD would actually be one of my favourite Bond films.

    Yes. Probably no. 2 for me if that was the case.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    NeverSayNever wrote: »
    Hi from an MI6 newbie, but a lifelong Bond fan. I just stumbled onto this forum last night, and this thread has been a great read – I am only about halfway through it.

    I saw NTTD a few days ago and am still having trouble organising my thoughts about it. It is not my cup of tea (glass of vodka martini?), but to borrow a phrase beloved by parents, I am not angry, just disappointed.

    Online user reviews tend to go for extremes (best Bond film ever vs worst Bond film ever)… I rather agree with the reviewer who said NTTD was made by people who do not like Bond films. It is a fitting goodbye to Daniel Craig and an OK film, but to me, it is not really a Bond film, at any rate not a good Bond film, despite having the requisite bells and whistles. By contrast, say, Moonraker is pretty dire as a film but firmly belongs in the Bond canon.

    The Bond film canon thrives on formula, and has amassed a great deal of goodwill over the years thanks to it. Where Fleming’s Bond often comes across as a borderline-psychopath loner with a tough, thankless job and a troubled personal life, the pre-Craig films have collectively been glossier and more light-hearted than Fleming’s source material, and have enjoyed broader appeal than the books.

    Some attitudes and tropes have aged better than others (Live & Let Die kinda makes me groan in its entirety), in the same way as much of the “science” from 1960’s and 70’s Bonds no longer holds water, and there is nothing wrong with a thoughtful update (Judi Dench’s M being a great example); but IMO a Bond film constant is that it should be, broadly speaking, fun to watch, no matter what politics its makers or viewers stand by. It does not have to be an Oscar contender; its major selling point is a guaranteed two hours of an escapist thrill ride, offering glimpses of a dangerous-but-glamorous, devil-may-care fantasy lifestyle.

    Mess with the formula too much, tip the balance too far, and the appeal fades. Strip away too much of movie!Bond’s mystique, take away his ability to cheat death and danger, and he is just a burned-out guy with issues. Too much “entertainment” results in the likes of Octopussy, too much “gritty realism”, while arguably truer to Fleming, makes the films start to lose their identity, approaching run-of-the-mill action flicks or, in NTTD’s case, dissolving into action-filled melodrama. There are plenty of good films in both categories, but it is disappointing to see Bond folding into either, or both. Casino Royale and Skyfall struck the right balance; IMO the other three Craig films did not.
    (as an aside, I realise that in another film universe, the same arguments could be used against Nolan’s superb Batman films; and I do not have a good answer as to why IMO the realistic take works better there. Maybe by following Nolan chronologically, the Bond update seems derivative rather than fresh).

    As someone here said, the filmmakers’ and Craig’s stated intention, starting from CR, was to subvert the genre and the character. An intriguing and initially well-executed premise that may have been needed to take the franchise into the 21st century, but one that does not seem to work as well over time. IMO they overdid it with the constant subversion reaching its peak in NTTD, deconstructing stale and successful clichés alike in a soap-opera-worthy plot seemingly written by committee (don't get me started on the child, a plot trope to end all plot tropes that is as un-Bond-like as it gets).

    NTTD felt drawn-out, disjointed, ponderous and bleak most of the time despite the action. In striving to make Bond more realistic and more relevant, they only made him dour and downbeat. By amping up the emotional stakes, I think the filmmakers actually made it less engaging, especially given Craig’s all-too-evident character fatigue and the lack of chemistry between him and Lea Seydoux. The writers left so much of the viewers’ expected involvement hanging on the Bond-Madeleine family drama that it derailed the overall plot while the main villain was reduced to a cipher (no CR pun intended) and other characters (most woefully Ana de Armas’ Paloma, but also Felix Leiter, Moneypenny, even Blofeld) were left short-changed. This also applies to the “new 007”, whose character plays out more like a walking plot device than a real person, so little effort seems to have gone into her story. Compare her portrayal to Skyfall’s Moneypenny, and the difference leaps to the eye. And the multi-film storyline, a departure from the pre-Craig film canon not too bothered with continuity, was no help here, weighing the plot down with emotional baggage from previous films.

    From a box-office perspective, so long as viewers buy into the first film of a “saga” (as was the case with CR), it helps keep a captive audience for the duration of the arc. Looking back at the five latest films, it seems that their overarching plot was the filmmakers’ intention starting from Casino Royale, and I suspect that the success of Nolan’s Batman films, among others, may have been an added push in that direction for later films. But where Skyfall is brilliant and gripping on its own merits, Spectre and NTTD over-rely on the overarching plot to maintain interest. And it looks like by getting to co-produce Spectre and NTTD (a position no other Bond actor got up to), Craig had a great deal of creative control over the plot and above all, over the ending to suit his vision of the character – based on his post-Spectre quotes, I am positive that he was an enthusiastic supporter, if not the main proponent, of the final twist. To most viewers it is Marmite; my experience was more of a "meh"...

    Then again, the fact that the Craig films have become a standalone franchise-within-a-franchise may be a good thing after all. For DC Bond fans, they provide the character with a complete, stylistically consistent story with a closure that, like it or not, followed from the plot and character development in his five films. For those less taken with Craig’s Bond (I am clearly in the latter camp, CR and Skyfall notwithstanding), it helps set these films apart from the rest of the canon. Whether Bond 26 will start another arc or follow the more loosely-tied plot convention of the first 20 films, for better or worse, NTTD has left behind it a clean slate, albeit of the scorched-earth variety, but I actually think it may be easier post-NTTD to pick up where the earlier Bonds left off, more or less. Either that, or make films set in the 1960s, Fleming-era.

    NTTD has its highlights; the Matera chapter is gripping, the all-too-short Cuban sequence (kudos to Ana de Armas, who had great chemistry and good banter with DC!) is the highlight on par with the best Bond films, and the cinematography is beautiful. But to me it looks like, in between obsessively tying up loose ends, knocking down plot clichés, and giving Daniel Craig his desired exit, while ticking the requisite number of Bond boxes, NTTD ended up smaller than the sum of its parts and forgot to be a Bond film somewhere along the way.

    100% spot on pal. =D>
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,327
    studio wrote: »
    At the end of the book You only live twice, Kissy is pregnant by Bond, she doesn’t tell him , so there’s more book related storylines than the poison garden. ( in the discussion they seem to miss that fact)

    The only part worth adapting to screen of YOLT is the final part, which EON almost did, but didn't go the whole hog and adapt the final chapter `Sparrows Tears'. Had they given us that ending instead, I would have enjoyed the film a whole lot more.

    It would still have given closure to the Craig era, still would have been a downbeat, sad ending. I just feel cheated.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    This film has stuck in my mind after seeing it more than most others. I think I can only say that about GF, OHMSS, FYEO (my first) and CR.
    Has it "stuck in your mind...more than most others" after seein git, or has it stuck in your mind "after seeing it more than most others"?

    I have seen it once.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    bondywondy wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    AgentJamesBond007 wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @bondywondy, I know I and others have explained it several times before (not that it needs explaining) but why's it so hard to understand that Craig's self-contained era ends with Bond's death and the next era will be fresh, starting anew, perhaps not as a budding, rookie 007 but rather an experienced 007 in the midst of his tenure? Bond clearly died, that missile smacked down right in front of him. We'd be getting into some truly ludicrous territory if he somehow survived that (and there's no reason to even come up with an explanation for his survival, because this is the end of this Bond's tale - Craig isn't returning for any more films.) There needn't be any confusion on the matter. It sounds like you really don't want to accept his death, which is fine, but you're trying to box in others and make some "factual" reasonings as to why he survived that clearly aren't there or even remotely hinted at.

    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.

    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. 😊

    There would be no reason to promote this movie as “the epic conclusion” if they’re just going to continue this storyline with an entirely different actor as Bond.

    Yes because it's a bait and switch. It's all a deception. Eon agree to Craig's request to kill off Bond, to have the "epic conclusion" but they had no intention of really killing off Bond. Never heard of plot twists? Bond 26 is the plot twist - Bond survives the attack on Safin's Island.

    Put it like this.... if you owned the Bond franchise and you genuinely believed you could fool the world's film going audience into thinking Bond is dead... when you never intended to kill him off... would you do it?

    I reckon you might because it's something radical. Something different.

    And just for the record, the 2018 Sun newspaper hinted at what I'm suggesting.
    An insider said: “There were discussions about killing off Bond in dramatic fashion at the end. It would be a final hurrah for Daniel, and leave fans hanging. “It would also leave it open for a twist in the next instalment — either Bond hadn’t died or there could be a Doctor Who-esque regeneration with a new actor.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/7102013/danny-boyle-quit-james-bond-franchise-in-a-row-over-offing-the-super-spy-in-dramatic-finale-to-the-25th-film/amp/

    There you go, it was rumoured in August 2018! A twist ending where Bond survives.

    You're being fooled. James Bond is not dead. It was decided in 2018 to do a twist ending. The reboot will cause too much of a backlash so they'll go with Bond hasn't really died. How come I'm the only person mentioning this Sun quote?

    It's telling you what Eon planned!!!!! What more evidence do you need!

    UvYJlFG95WNvCtUC9Ht62dWUaoaQEmJiwN9bkxQs4G8-bS22v4BQyDE0neEBWyUxlGeS5ZiKbZ0epBZLspEXRKVchApppyNPoMMA658hMxs44m-dh9IsjtMlOADO

    I tell you what... will you say "sorry, bondywondy, you were right!"... if Bond 26 is a direct sequel to NTTD and we see Bond survive? Will you admit you were wrong and I was right?

    I got a sneaky feeling you will be proven wrong. I'm my heart I don't believe Barbara Broccoli would kill off James Bond. She knows that is a step too far.

    I already know I won’t ever have to tell you that you were right. You aren’t now and you won’t ever be.
  • jobojobo
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,507
    Birdleson wrote: »
    So, EON thoroughly hit their mark with you and some others on here. You obviously received it the way it was intended to be received, and EON definitely didn't hold anything back in that regard. Not me really, even though I can enjoy most of the film. I was never dialed into the melodrama. Maybe in a different time, place, mood, body, I may have, but not now.

    I always make sure to wear my melodrama body when needed.
  • jobojobo
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,507
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Sounds like a load of bull.
    I agreed with pretty much everything said there. Didn't sound like bull to me.

    Yes, it is! I am gen Z and a Craig fan, and I am not going to accept being classified as not a real Bond fan that "wouldn't mind if they kill Bond"! I grew up watching the classic films, I have read all the novels repeatedly, NTTD made me cry on three separate viewings.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,327
    jobo wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Sounds like a load of bull.
    I agreed with pretty much everything said there. Didn't sound like bull to me.

    Yes, it is! I am gen Z and a Craig fan, and I am not going to accept being classified as not a real Bond fan that "wouldn't mind if they kill Bond"! I grew up watching the classic films, I have read all the novels repeatedly, NTTD made me cry on three separate viewings.

    I would never call anyone not a real fan, whether they like NTTD or not. But I got the gist of what he was trying to say, that there is a trend in Hollywood at the moment for overdramatic death endings, with the Marvel franchise and films like The Last Jedi. This is what general movie audiences have come to accept now, so I felt NTTD was trying to appeal to that demographic too with the ending.

    This doesn't mean by having this opinion that I would say anyone who loved the end of NTTD isn't a Bond fan. But I'm hazarding a guess this is the demographic that EON may have been tapping into.

    Had they made NTTD purely for hardcore Fleming purists like me (and I am in the minority, I know), then they would have adapted the final chapter of YOLT and used that ending instead. Sadly I am in the minority.
  • DoubleOhDaltonDoubleOhDalton
    Posts: 65
    Feyador wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    No he isn't. Q clearly explains this to him. That he can live but anyone he comes into physical contact with dies. So he sacrifices himself.
    I think I hear Safin say to Bond that anyone he touches will die ... but then don't the nanobots have to be coded to someone's DNA to have that effect?

    Or is it the result of the Bond/Safin fight in the (presumably) toxic pool that makes his death inevitable. Bond's facial bleeding at this point is similar to what we see with the SPECTRE agents in Cuba, which suggest a like kind of poisoning. Or is the facial bleeding a result of the fighting in the stairwell?

    Or maybe it is the gunshot wounds, or perhaps only the incoming missiles, that make his death inevitable?

    Thinking about it again, it's all a little confusing to me ....

    His face is bleeding from Safin smashing the vile coded with Mads DNA against his face.

    The residue is also on Safin so he too can no longer be with her.

    The title sequence foreshadows this when the statue starts to bleed.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,112
    Lovely how everyone keeps on discussing this film. Bond might have died at the end of the film, but he’s very much alive.

    I didn’t look for half a day and I missed 160+ posts and several pages. Really enjoyed you’re write-up btw @Creasy47.

    Someone pointed out how Craig’s Bond is close to Dalton and Lazenby, and I agree. For me those three are the most human Bond portrayals.

    I love the mostly carefree escapism of Connery/Moore/Brosnan, but in terms of caring for the character Lazenby/Dalton/Craig take the cake imo.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Sounds like a load of bull.
    I agreed with pretty much everything said there. Didn't sound like bull to me.

    Yes, it is! I am gen Z and a Craig fan, and I am not going to accept being classified as not a real Bond fan that "wouldn't mind if they kill Bond"! I grew up watching the classic films, I have read all the novels repeatedly, NTTD made me cry on three separate viewings.

    I would never call anyone not a real fan, whether they like NTTD or not. But I got the gist of what he was trying to say, that there is a trend in Hollywood at the moment for overdramatic death endings, with the Marvel franchise and films like The Last Jedi. This is what general movie audiences have come to accept now, so I felt NTTD was trying to appeal to that demographic too with the ending.

    This doesn't mean by having this opinion that I would say anyone who loved the end of NTTD isn't a Bond fan. But I'm hazarding a guess this is the demographic that EON may have been tapping into.

    Had they made NTTD purely for hardcore Fleming purists like me (and I am in the minority, I know), then they would have adapted the final chapter of YOLT and used that ending instead. Sadly I am in the minority.

    If that is the case, it is what they should do. The franchise has always moved with the times and has to to survive. Recruiting new fans is essential.
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Sounds like a load of bull.
    I agreed with pretty much everything said there. Didn't sound like bull to me.

    Yes, it is! I am gen Z and a Craig fan, and I am not going to accept being classified as not a real Bond fan that "wouldn't mind if they kill Bond"! I grew up watching the classic films, I have read all the novels repeatedly, NTTD made me cry on three separate viewings.

    I would never call anyone not a real fan, whether they like NTTD or not. But I got the gist of what he was trying to say, that there is a trend in Hollywood at the moment for overdramatic death endings, with the Marvel franchise and films like The Last Jedi. This is what general movie audiences have come to accept now, so I felt NTTD was trying to appeal to that demographic too with the ending.

    This doesn't mean by having this opinion that I would say anyone who loved the end of NTTD isn't a Bond fan. But I'm hazarding a guess this is the demographic that EON may have been tapping into.

    Had they made NTTD purely for hardcore Fleming purists like me (and I am in the minority, I know), then they would have adapted the final chapter of YOLT and used that ending instead. Sadly I am in the minority.
    Marvel movies may be the worst thing that ever happened to cinema. Their influence over the entire industry (shock deaths, way too much slapstick comedy, etc.) is horrendous. I do feel that their doings influenced the death of Bond in this movie. I may be completely off, but that’s my take. Don’t try to be hip Eon, just be Fleming.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,480
    I don't take the ending as melodramatic, by the way. Mainly because if this were real life there would have been a lot more crying, pleading, begging even; what we would say is over the top. A lot more.

    I have thought about this ending a good deal now (I will see it for the 3rd time tomorrow). I think the script is succinct and the acting is very much sincere, realistic without going overboard. I give a lot of credit to Cary and whoever else wrote the entire ending sequence.

    So my overall thoughts are that if a story of Bond dying was to be done at all - this is definitely the right actor, director, and script. We all may want to tweak the script a little or a lot. But I stand by it and because it wraps up this Bond's story arc, I greatly appreciate what we have been given in NTTD.
  • CrzChris4CrzChris4
    edited October 2021 Posts: 463
    Got to see this on Wednesday in IMAX. I really liked this one up until the moment I didn’t — I can appreciate that others get something from the ending, and in time maybe I’ll be able to get satisfaction from it, too. I just feel there were many different things that could’ve been done that would have been far more interesting and served the character better. Especially as his sacrifice and death don’t seem to mean much as the film wraps immediately and says that he will return in the credits. Craig got his Logan for better or for worse. I’m just not sure if it was necessary and I feel the ending casts a huge shadow over the film that’ll make it one of the worst ones for me in terms of rewatchability.

    One standout moment I absolutely loved — Bond visiting Vesper’s grave. Such a powerful moment when the music started playing. Craig’s “I miss you” was just absolutely heartbreaking and actually brought some tears to my eyes.
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    Can you imagine, and indulge me please, if Eon had released a carbon copy (modernized) remake of Never Say Never Again (and called it NTTD)? What would the response have been? :))
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,327
    jobo wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Sounds like a load of bull.
    I agreed with pretty much everything said there. Didn't sound like bull to me.

    Yes, it is! I am gen Z and a Craig fan, and I am not going to accept being classified as not a real Bond fan that "wouldn't mind if they kill Bond"! I grew up watching the classic films, I have read all the novels repeatedly, NTTD made me cry on three separate viewings.

    I would never call anyone not a real fan, whether they like NTTD or not. But I got the gist of what he was trying to say, that there is a trend in Hollywood at the moment for overdramatic death endings, with the Marvel franchise and films like The Last Jedi. This is what general movie audiences have come to accept now, so I felt NTTD was trying to appeal to that demographic too with the ending.

    This doesn't mean by having this opinion that I would say anyone who loved the end of NTTD isn't a Bond fan. But I'm hazarding a guess this is the demographic that EON may have been tapping into.

    Had they made NTTD purely for hardcore Fleming purists like me (and I am in the minority, I know), then they would have adapted the final chapter of YOLT and used that ending instead. Sadly I am in the minority.

    If that is the case, it is what they should do. The franchise has always moved with the times and has to to survive. Recruiting new fans is essential.

    Absolutely. But I just didn't think it was necessary to kill Bond off. The death ending could have been done in an ambiguous way, or they could have used the end of the YOLT novel.

    Neither of these endings would have turned NTTD into a bad movie, and wouldn't have prevented it from attracting a new audience either. But it would have stopped Fleming fans like me from being turned off.
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Sounds like a load of bull.
    I agreed with pretty much everything said there. Didn't sound like bull to me.

    Yes, it is! I am gen Z and a Craig fan, and I am not going to accept being classified as not a real Bond fan that "wouldn't mind if they kill Bond"! I grew up watching the classic films, I have read all the novels repeatedly, NTTD made me cry on three separate viewings.

    I would never call anyone not a real fan, whether they like NTTD or not. But I got the gist of what he was trying to say, that there is a trend in Hollywood at the moment for overdramatic death endings, with the Marvel franchise and films like The Last Jedi. This is what general movie audiences have come to accept now, so I felt NTTD was trying to appeal to that demographic too with the ending.

    This doesn't mean by having this opinion that I would say anyone who loved the end of NTTD isn't a Bond fan. But I'm hazarding a guess this is the demographic that EON may have been tapping into.

    Had they made NTTD purely for hardcore Fleming purists like me (and I am in the minority, I know), then they would have adapted the final chapter of YOLT and used that ending instead. Sadly I am in the minority.

    If that is the case, it is what they should do. The franchise has always moved with the times and has to to survive. Recruiting new fans is essential.

    Absolutely. But I just didn't think it was necessary to kill Bond off. The death ending could have been done in an ambiguous way, or they could have used the end of the YOLT novel.

    Neither of these endings would have turned NTTD into a bad movie, and wouldn't have preventing it from attracting a new audience either. But it would have stopped Fleming fans like me from being turned off.

    I’m with @jetsetwilly. I’d like to add to his thoughts and say that Eon May lose fans over this. I know some Bond fans on my area that say they’re done with the franchise. Will they stick to that? Will others? Creatively was it a good decision? That can be debated until kingdom come. It’s a circular argument. Was it a good business decision? Only time and the numbers will tell. How much does it drop off next weekend will be a big sign of much legs it has. It’s an unnecessary risk, and it is turning a portion of the fan base off. If you lose 5%, that’s a ton of money. Why Chance that?
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 941
    Birdleson wrote: »
    So, EON thoroughly hit their mark with you and some others on here. You obviously received it the way it was intended to be received, and EON definitely didn't hold anything back in that regard. Not me really, even though I can enjoy most of the film. I was never dialed into the melodrama. Maybe in a different time, place, mood, body, I may have, but not now.

    The melodrama left me cold, too, though overall I enjoyed the movie. I think it didn't help that NTTD was hamstrung by being so connected to Spectre, and Spectre didn't make the Madeline/Bond pairing work like it should have done, at least for me. NTTD did well to make Madeline interesting to me, because in Spectre she was one of the least interesting women from Craig's era, but they just didn't get enough little moments together to really pull me in.
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    Does anyone know who some of the other actresses were that tried out for Madeline? I really think they did a poor job of casting due to the lack of chemistry between her and DC. She’s a fantastic actress in her own right, but I don’t think she was a good fit for this particular role.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    sworddevil1 wrote: »
    Does anyone know who some of the other actresses were that tried out for Madeline? I really think they did a poor job of casting due to the lack of chemistry between her and DC. She’s a fantastic actress in her own right, but I don’t think she was a good fit for this particular role.

    Every time she appeared on screen the film turned downbeat into a depressing pit, but I think this was more down to the script than the actress playing her.
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited October 2021 Posts: 346
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's been two days since I've seen NTTD and I'm still kind of shocked at how much this film seems to be designed for the hardcore fans (moreso than the general public)...all of the OHMSS film nods and the radical but strangely faithful adaptation of the YOLT novel.

    If it was faithful to YOLT, I would have loved this film.

    Re Echo's comment,
    I can't see how a film that kills off a 59 year old film hero is designed for hardcore fans. Surely that would be a strange way to appeal to them! But I accept thematically speaking the film contains elements that trigger a nostalgic response in hardcore fans. The most obvious trigger being the use of We Have All The Time In The World.

    As for the use of YOLT, in the novel Bond was presumed dead. He killed Blofeld but Bond did not die. He returned in The Man With The Golden Gun, brainwashed, and attempted to assassinate M.

    It's not that far fetched to think EON paid homage to YOLT and the fake death of Bond. It's not that far fetched to imagine Bond (Craig's version) will be alive in Bond 26. I would hazard a guess Bond 26 will feature an amnesiac Bond as opposed to a rebooted Bond (which will destroy all Bond continuity.) Eon could do the subplot of Bond trying to kill M at the start of or midway through Bond 26. That's other reason why fans should not automatically assume Bond 26 will be a full reboot.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    bondywondy wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's been two days since I've seen NTTD and I'm still kind of shocked at how much this film seems to be designed for the hardcore fans (moreso than the general public)...all of the OHMSS film nods and the radical but strangely faithful adaptation of the YOLT novel.

    If it was faithful to YOLT, I would have loved this film.

    Re Echo's comment,
    I can't see how a film that kills off a 59 year old film hero is designed for hardcore fans. Surely that would be a strange way to appeal to them! But I accept thematically speaking the film contains elements that trigger a nostalgic response in hardcore fans. The most obvious trigger being the use of We Have All The Time In The World.

    As for the use of YOLT, in the novel Bond was presumed dead. He killed Blofeld but Bond did not die. He returned in The Man With The Golden Gun, brainwashed, and attempted to assassinate M.

    It's not that far fetched to think EON paid homage to YOLT and the fake death of Bond. It's not that far fetched to imagine Bond (Craig's version) will be alive in Bond 26. I would hazard a guess Bond 26 will feature an amnesiac Bond as opposed to a rebooted Bond (which will destroy all Bond continuity.) Eon could do the subplot of Bond trying to kill M at the start of or midway through Bond 26. That's other reason why fans should not automatically assume Bond 26 will be a full reboot.

    If Bond 26 opened with an amnesia Bond, and continued the arc from YOLT into TMWTGG, I would love that.

    It would also bizarrely make me enjoy NTTD a whole lot more than I previously did.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    I disagree that she lacks complete chemistry with Craig. I guess people see "chemistry" as two over-excited, madly-in-love 16 year-olds going at it like a Christmas tree. That was Bond and Vesper when both were young and hadn't built a lot of experience in life yet. The post-SF Bond is a changed man, older, quieter and someone who may not have to behave like a love crazy adolescent when feeling for someone else. I honestly fail to see the lack of chemistry between Bond and Madeleine. I believe those two. But their love is enveloped by tragedy and several unfinished businesses.

    This, by the way, is also a highly subjective thing. Some will tell you that Bond and Kara had zero chemistry in TLD, others will tell you that their romance is one of the best we've ever seen. So there's that. ;-)
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I disagree that she lacks complete chemistry with Craig. I guess people see "chemistry" as two over-excited, madly-in-love 16 year-olds going at it like a Christmas tree. That was Bond and Vesper when both were young and hadn't built a lot of experience in life yet. The post-SF Bond is a changed man, older, quieter and someone who may not have to behave like a love crazy adolescent when feeling for someone else. I honestly fail to see the lack of chemistry between Bond and Madeleine. I believe those two. But their love is enveloped by tragedy and several unfinished businesses.

    This, by the way, is also a highly subjective thing. Some will tell you that Bond and Kara had zero chemistry in TLD, others will tell you that their romance is one of the best we've ever seen. So there's that. ;-)

    This^
Sign In or Register to comment.