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
I suppose they had to do the shot, otherwise people wouldn't accept Bond's death. Once they'd made the monumentally stupid decision to kill off James Bond, they had to go the whole way and show him being blown to hell.
That's very true, I'm just not a fan of the moment itself, it seems very gratuitous. Like you rightly say, they didn't want to leave any hope and I think that was a bit cruel towards the audience.
I will say the pan up "hero shot" of Bond when he looks up at his fate is glorious, even in the face of danger Bond is still strong and defiant. Love that
I do love the way Bond kills him without even looking though. Safin has become irrelevant at that point; it's nicely done.
I've always felt it's like he's putting Safin out of his misery. Not to say that it's necessarily there in the film itself (Malek plays it a bit too dramatically, but it's apparent he's become this twisted monster and certainly lives with the physical effects of the SPECTRE poisoning, which could have been interesting to play on if Safin had had more self awareness of this). Could have been similar to The Third Man where Lime nods at Martins before he's shot, in effect giving him permission to kill him.
As screen deaths go, it's a noble end, for sure. I just wish it wasn't part of a sixty year film franchise that had previously celebrated a character that always triumphantly escapes at the last moment.
Yeah. But I just wanted at least a hint of ambiguity towards Bond's death or something complex that leaves a happy feel. Also, a more engaging confrontation between Bond & Safin...it was just too straightforward for a complex character like Bond.
Yes, even Fleming, he never killed Bond in the most obvious or straightforward way, each books had always that ambiguous feeling to it.
Or dare I say it, a vague cliffhanger that leaves audiences up for speculations.
Exactly. I think we long suspected that Bond was going to die in NTTD. But I guess the reason most of us weren't too worried about his death, was that a great deal of us were thinking it wouldn't be as blatant as it turned out to be.
I know what you mean, Buddy. But I just wanted something clever, stylish and complex.
I'm of the same mind. Thanks for that, @mtm ... A nice, simple perspective, that covers why some of us feel the way we do about the conclusion to this film, and this Bond's era.
Have it be Blofeld who came to visit the family that day. Get rid of the SPECTRE party and instead have it as a SPECTRE meeting. Bond is there and disrupts the party. Blofeld escapes to his island. He wants to destroy Bond's lover and child. The whole movie is greatly improved with Blofeld as the villain.
Bond kills Blofeld by accident. How anti-climatic is that. Plus Blofeld looks like a nitwit having his agents party in Cuba. To me NTTD has Bond and Blofeld issues and it suffers from both!
Also, the big campaign that Eon set on social about 'don't spoil the film for others' basically confirmed that he did die! :D
Bond films don't usually have spoilers!
Really? I didn’t know they had that campaign for NTTD, I must’ve missed it XD. If I’m being honest, as NTTD’s release came closer and closer I tuned out all the marketing and advertisements for the film, and I’m glad I did that. I just wanted to see the movie at the point, and felt if I kept up with the marketing campaign, the movie would’ve been spoiled for me on whole, which I’m glad it wasn’t.
Over and over we are reminded of OHMSS. That was the best ending in the franchise and done with a less accomplished actor than Craig.
If you believe that the ending where an important character dies and the whole thing ends on a sad note is the best ending, it's surely not that hard to believe that someone else somewhere will believe the same of the other one which is very similar to that?
It's an interesting thought and I can imagine that, although it would have been a pretty meaningless death.
What I kind of don't understand is why they didn't kill Felix. What was the point of him surviving?
Maybe, it's just odd that considering the number of his friends who have been killed over the years it seems a bit odd to make a whole film about Bond out revenge, and the cause is a friend who hasn't been killed. It's so much of an issue that they had to add a wife who they then kill off in a much worse way (but then never really gets mentioned again). Anyway, off topic I guess.
It's an implication of a great concept but poor (or failed) execution.
The difference was that all those allies Bond lost over the years were killed by people that MI6 wanted dead, anyway. Bond only went rogue because the Americans and the British refused to do anything about Sanchez. I think LTK did a pretty good job of justifying Bond's actions.
Same boat here, rewatched it a couple of weeks ago for the first time in a long time. Didn’t enjoy it quite as much this time around, but I still thought the ending was perfect apart from the OHMSS nods.
No way Albert would have approved of that! He was also against a "Bond Begins" premise that MGW proposed when Moore left the role. Does anyone know if Broccoli even try to get the rights to CR or was that a Barbara and MGW play?
I digress, I think Albert would have never let any of the actors who played Bond call the shot. He famously butt heads with Connery as Connery wanted more creative input. Lazenby says he was told to just act and one feels that even Moore didn't get much say on the stories that were told.
Well, Fleming definately contemplated killing Bond numerous times. He got sick and tired of the character himself, or, more likely, the success of Bond. In YOLT he basically killed him, only to change his mind and let him drift off and be saved.
The fact that Bond becomes a father and doesn't know it, goes to Russia on a hunch and finally is send to England to kill of M has a similar darkness to it as NNTD has. I nthat regard I find it quite Fleming-esque. The tragedy of finally getting the family he always craved for, and then not beeing there to enjoy it is right there in both stories.
In the end, the person is gone, only the hero (the myth) is left.
Other than many I wasn't prepared for his death, as I managed to stay away from all Bond-related info months before release, and I was indeed shocked and confused. I think it works in the film, I also love the film itself and consider it extremely well made. But I'm still not sure if I like the fact that we got to this point.
But as I said, if they (officially) move on to the saga-concept, it will mean we'll get stand alone missions again and I'll be quite happy.
The whole point is that there is no solution...that is the Reason to Die.
It could have been called No Reason to Die. Conveniently leaving out a comma, for marketing purposes.
You could have simply said yes or no and then followed up with an explanation. The rest really wasn't necessary.