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
Ok so barring the last five minutes I would say this is top ten bond. I have made peace with bonds death though so it’s moved up a long way. It’s great fun, just the right side of silly, exciting, cool all I want.
I had a thought that might have been cool. In the final scene when M clinks his glass with Bonds, it might have been fun for there to be a Walther on the table, and when Ms glass is placed next to bonds - if shot from above - it made the 007 logo. I would have also liked maybe a photo of bond in naval uniform on the table just to scratch that particular itch as well.
That all sounds lovely.
I think so too. Not every fan is on board, but the film has hit very well with audiences on the whole, from die hard fans to casuals. Considering how much OHMSS has risen up over time as well, maybe the same will also happen with NTTD for those who did not like it at first. I do want the films to stay away from tackling Bond's "beginning" or "end" in the future though; once with Craig was fine, but that kind of stuff would get seriously repetitive.
I would be surprised if Tanner was Q's type.
I'm gonna take a wild guess that this is a post from some other random spammer who has previously been banned. @DarthDimi @Benny can we maybe nip this one in the bud before it turns into something annoying? For this to be someone's first and only post on the forums is a terrible omen.
OHMSS earned relatively good reviews and good box office when it premiered. But after Lazenby's departure the film became perceived as a failure because, after Connery returned and Moore took over, the public viewed Lazenby as a one-hit wonder and assumed his film couldn't have been very good. Opportunities to dispel this were limited in the pre-video era, since the film was re-screened less often than other Bonds and butchered on television. It's not an accident that after OHMSS began circulating on VHS and DVD its reputation rose and many people decided that even if Lazenby wasn't their cup of tea the film was.
NTTD has premiered to very good reviews and is a definite success at the box office, given Covid-19's impact. But those who had problems with the film don't have them because of misconceptions caused by the film's lack of availability, or because they disliked the lead actor. They have problems with a set of narrative decisions undertaken by the film. And there's no way of telling whether time will lead to increased acceptance or scrutiny of them.
We also have to consider that public taste changes over time and that the Craig era will be viewed in a different light after the new Bond actor takes over. The Brosnan era was looked on far more positively before Craig came in, then its reputation suffered; the Dalton era came in for drubbing after Brosnan took over but its reputation increased during the Craig era. After the new Bond makes his mark it's possible more people will come to regard NTTD as the greatest triumph of the series, the shining apotheosis of Bond as a character. It's also possible that people will increasingly view the film as a labored dead end. It's also possible that both opinions will thrive, probably with positive voices in the majority since the film has the lingering advantage of a positive reception. LTK and QoS have risen in public estimation despite mixed receptions, whereas films once positively received, like DAF and NSNA, have declined in general esteem.
:)) :))
@Revelator - the voice of reason. B-)
Well said. Only time will tell for sure - I'm just shooting out possibilities. I do have a good gut feeling though time will treat the Craig era well; all these years later, CR and SF are easily some of the most widely beloved movies in the series, and most of the other actors didn't get to have even two on that level.
@PBar007
That's quite the entrance, sir. Too early to judge, perhaps, but if any other posts from you are to be in the same vein, let me give you a small 'warning' right away: this forum is not the YouTube comment section. That should do for now.
Pussy galore was gay
Wint and Kidd were gay
Guess what. The world keeps turning.
Well said.
We sometimes have a tendency to try and guess what the standing of a film will be in X years time and somehow extrapolate our current view from that ("I think the film is good, because even though it doesn't work for some right now it will be viewed as a classic in 15 years."), which is all kinds of backwards. And still I will continue to do it...
James Bond soon sorted that out though.
LOL, if they did that scene today, can you imagine the hand-wringing!
Anyway, watched it NTTD again last night. I'm afraid I can't get past the ending. Killing him off was, for me, much too big a problem to get past, and I'm afraid it ruins the film. And I'm not going to make excuses, saying it's 'not Fleming' or it's not 'the real James Bond'. It's just a dishonest narrative trope to kill off a character then have him return with no explanation other than 'it's a timeline/character arc/alternate universe.
For me, it doesn't work at all.
It appears so, of course. But James Bond Will Return!
If anyone can explain it without using the words Reboot/character arc/timeline, I'd be most interested.
Is he dead or not?
EDIT: I found out the explanation you need: the Bond that died is a clone. Look at the picture with the V8 that I posted before. There are two Bond in one frame. One died, the other one survived! :D
I believe we have not seen the last of this Bond!
You are right @ColonelAdamski, there is no in-universe/timeline explanation for further James Bond films. He's dead. That's it. The only explanation is the reality of it, which is the meta-explanation of: These are all fictional films and they will just do different fictional films about a different fictional version of this fictional character.
It sucks that this ruins the film for you. I hope you can come around on it in the future, or that it at least doesn't impact your enjoyment of previous films.
My problem is - I cant shake the feeling that it's dishonest to expect the viewer to just shrug it off as this 'timeline' nonsense. I watched it with a friend last night and she said "is that it? No more Bond movies?", and I had to explain that there's this thing called a 'timeline', and she just said "well that's silly". She felt just like me, and it must be because we're of the same age, and expect the same things from films. Neither of us know anything about superhero movies and reboots, so this idea of killing him off and having him return in the next film is alien to us.
I've read all the explanations on here, and it seems people like me are in the minority. It won't hamper my enjoyment of the rest of the films, but it's certainly left a bad taste for this film, and the whole Craig era, because we know that it's all heading towards this this sad (albeit heroic) ending.
I don't watch many big budget movies, and I don't watch TV, so I expect I'm way out of the loop on current trends.
Craig’s Bond is 100% dead in the timeline WE are living. Don’t know about fantasy worlds inside people’s brains. :D
Yes. I welcome more creative touches in the modern Bond films in general, and the PTS especially. NTTD flirted with Nordic Noir, but I'm sure there's a lot more that could be done.