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
And had Bond cleared the island before impact, do you think it would have suddenly turned NTTD from being a great film to a terrible film? I doubt it.
Whereas flipping it on its head the other way round, and going by what we actually got instead, for many it has turned a potentially great film into an outright disaster.
If you can prove that ‘for many’ it is an outright disaster we can talk. At the moment it feels like a vocal subsection of fans to me and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. I’m not really one for aggregating sites but whichever way you cut it, those sites point to a significantly better reception than both QoS and SP. I don’t see how that equates to ‘outright disaster’.
I believe it was one of Purvis & Wade or Michael G. Wilson who said that when we meet Bond in CR, he a guy who doesn’t really understand life. In No Time to Die, he finally “gets it” and pays the ultimate sacrifice to preserve his what really matters and his legacy, Madeleine and Mathilde. I can appreciate that’s not what everyone wants from a Bond film, and I don’t hold anything against those who don’t care for it. That being said, I think it makes a lot of sense with regards to the hero’s journey Craig’s Bond experiences and I think those who haven’t seen the film yet should go in with an open mind.
Too early to say yet, but there are plenty of heavily dissenting voices across all Bond forums, reviews, IMDB, etc. not to mention credible Bond fan YouTubers too.
We'll know more on how fans see this film once Bond 26 comes out, allowing for a time of reflection.
Great post. As I said many times death is his curse. It’s tragic but in the end, poetic.
Typically speaking Bond is a character that priorotizes and fights for Queen and country which has in some cases been explicitly pointed out in some of the films. Looking at Craig's Bond films, he hasn't made a single Bond film where he's been a full time employee at MI6. He's either quit or gone rogue which suggests his loyalty to what his job demands is quite flexible. Twice he's quit his job for a woman, the other time he quit and absconded because he took M's judgment call to take out a lead personally (grow up, 007) and he went rogue for failing to follow orders.
Examining these on a more comprehensive level suggests that it's not that surprising from an overarching narrative perspective that Bond would end up dead. Personally, as much as I've largely enjoyed Craig's performances, even though I don't thinknit was all too necessary to kill him off, I am okay with the fact that they did. This presents an opportunity to really celebrate Bond and bring back the character that's more alligned with expectations of how he is fundamentally recognised. With Craig-Bond dead, now we have a complete and brand new slate to start afresh. That being said, I would have preferred a different death for Craig-Bond but I suppose his motivations differ to that of the incarnations that preceeded him so I guess it's okay.
All I know is I want a Bond film that tonally captures the grit and glamour of Casino Royale , with more spycraft and a Bond who's loyalty is too Queen and Country/MI6 and the mission.
This! I read a wonderful review of the film from Time that summed it up the same way: “ In general Bond—first brought to life long ago in Ian Fleming’s novels—is a fantasy figure of freedom and licentiousness, but Craig is the only truly erotic Bond. By the end of No Time to Die, he understands what his freedom has cost him, and he doesn’t want it anymore. He throws it away for something greater.”
There we go. You can agree calling it an ‘outright disaster’ is premature.
Premature is my middle name. Just ask my wife...
We have.
I hope she gave a rock solid confirmation.
My research scientist friend, who is a major Bond fan, sent me this. Apparently some scientists have had their say regarding Safin's skin condition and more. ;)
I will read it in a moment; just getting my (safe and not mind altering) tea.
(P.S. inside it shows the press release of the article is entitled "A Flu To A Kill" - ha!)
This made me laugh, boys. 😃😄
Great read!
Middle of the road for me. While there were brilliantly executed portions, there were equally decisions I just could not gel with.
Positives:
- Daniel Craig was once again brilliant in the role, no complaints.
Bond and Madeleine's romance was way better played in this picture than last time in SPECTRE.
- The MI6 crew were a welcomed addition as always.
- Getting Jeffrey Wright back as Felix.
- The first half of the movie is spectacular.
- Paloma was great, really ended up wanting more of her.
- Nomi is hands down the best other Double-O we've ever had in the franchise. I would even say she has come second to Felix for best other agent in the franchise in general, period. Loved her character and the portrayal.
Negatives:
- Safin as a villain, in both character and plan, was dull and uninspired.
- Blofeld, Felix and Bond's deaths. Didn't care for how any of them were executed, no pun intended. All fell flat for me. Blofeld's was lackluster and made him feel even less menacing than in SPECTRE. It butchered the portrayal even further for me. Likewise, Leiter's death did nothing for me. Jeffrey Wright was extremely wasted in this movie. If he was going to die, he should have gone out more towards the end. He was basically a glorified cameo. And Bond's death just infuriated me, and not because of the sole reason of him dying. It felt extremely contrived what with the indestructible nanobots.
- These last few movies, for me, have really turned Bond into the "Do I Really Have To Do This?" superspy. Every plot he gets dragged into and feels like he'd rather be anywhere else doing something other than spy work. I'm tired of the personal stakes. I need Bond back on a mission for Queen and Country.
As it was, he sacrificed himself to save his daughter and her mother. Well, it is heroic to a degree, and makes sense given the series of contrivances they came up with (incurable nanobots). But it is also something we all would do, right?
Also, Mallory should be in prison for his part in creating all of this mess.
This is England, though - the elites don't go to prison. He might die by mysteriously zipping himself up inside a bag while in the bath, I suppose...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/13/mi6-spy-dead-bag-locked-himself-gareth-williams
Haha.
I was happy to see the gunbarrel at the opening but was surprised that no blood came down. Still it was great to see it. All Craig's gunbarrels have all been quite different, each one unique.
To be fair, if that all had to be done, at least it was in a definitive ending of a timeline! I would have been very upset if all that happened and that we’d continue a timeline where Felix is gone forever.
At least with a clean slate, we’ll not only get Felix back but also a new Rene Mathis!
Moore had 7 films in 12 years, Craig had a longer tenue but fewer films due to the long time between them. Where Moore had 2 years between films, Craig was well...nuff said.
If they hadn't gone down such an extreme route with this one - Felix and Bond dying, Bond having a child, etc. and stuck to a more traditional film with more or less the same storyline, what would the reaction have been from fans?
Would this film be dismissed as another run-of-the-mill film? Seen as another SPECTRE? And would this affect the timeline for the next actor who would be considerably younger? At least they could bring back the same M, Q and Moneypenny.
Or if they had been a bit more bolder and gone with an adaptation of YOLT - Blofeld instead of Safin, Bond kills Blofeld on his island then escapes and ends up with amnesia, how would fans have reacted to that tragic ending, and would this leave headaches again for the next actor stepping in, who would be considerably younger, but directly attached to the same timeline?
No right or wrong answer with this. I'm just pondering to how reactions would have been if NTTD had ditched the extreme plotlines. Would the film be as polarising, or would it be dismissed as just another Bond flick? Would it fare better against CR and SF, which it appears even the most hardcore NTTD fans still rate below those other two films?
Or is NTTD loved so much by its fans because it takes Bond to the extremes? Some fans actually wanted to see Bond die on screen?
Now, if they ended it like YOLT but then began the next film with a whole new cast, I might have rolled with that because any ties between the two would have been metaphorical.
But because Daniel Craig’s Bond actually aged, trying to recast with a younger actor would have felt false no matter what. So whether Craig’s Bond died or not, I would always prefer a clean slate that has zero ties to what came before.
Maybe the new Bond will have already had his Vesper or Tracy, but it’s definitely gotta be an iteration unique to his.