Does NO TIME TO DIE have the best ending in the franchise?

1141517192026

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Foremost I'm thinking about the film I'm watching. And the hopeful future for Bond presented in the moment.

    Easy for me, I have that focus.
    Sorry, I'm not getting this... hopeful future for Bond presented in which moment? At the end of NTTD?

    You mean getting reduced to meat chunks by a wave of missiles isn't hopeful to you?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,825
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Foremost I'm thinking about the film I'm watching. And the hopeful future for Bond presented in the moment.

    Easy for me, I have that focus.
    Sorry, I'm not getting this... hopeful future for Bond presented in which moment? At the end of NTTD?

    You mean getting reduced to meat chunks by a wave of missiles isn't hopeful to you?

    LOL, will you be here all week? :))
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,911
    Well watching OHMSS many many times over the years when James proposes to Tracy that they're friends, or lovers, and the Louis Armstrong song kicks in I'm actually not inclined to think "Yup, she's dead."

    That's not how I view these films.


    louis-armstrong.gif
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,825
    Well watching OHMSS many many times over the years when James proposes to Tracy that they're friends, or lovers, and the Louis Armstrong song kicks in I'm actually not inclined to think "Yup, she's dead."

    That's not how I view these films.


    louis-armstrong.gif

    Point taken.
  • edited August 2023 Posts: 3,327
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Personally the inclusion of WHATTITW garners no emotions from me whatsoever, not in the way OHMSS does. Seemed more to me like they used the song as a way to help send off Craig’s Bond, but it doesn’t work at all for me at all because I have zero engagement by that point.

    And that's because, there's the significance of Bond and Tracy, that song signifies their relationship.

    But the way NTTD used this song was like: 'This song represents the tragic romances in Bond's life'.

    It removed the real meaning of the song which was about the relationship of Bond and Tracy.

    NTTD put a bad mark on the song, so instead of people hearing WHATTIW and reminds them of Bond and Tracy romance, everytime they would hear it, they would be having some thoughts of "oh, something's tragic is happening to Bond's life again".

    They've made the song full of misery, depressing and dark, instead of sweet and tender like what it really represented before.

    It's a part of OHMSS' romance identity.

    Exactly. Using that song in NTTD tarnishes it, and also cheapens the film itself. Zimmer couldn't come up with his own personal song for this tragedy film, so had to rip off the one from OHMSS instead.

    And also, the usage of the OHMSS theme tune when Bond is talking to M? What was all that about? Totally inappropriate to stick it there, or to reuse it too. That theme belongs to one film.

    The only way I can deal with NTTD is pretend the film didn't exist, I never saw Bond die, I never heard the brilliant Armstrong song get so destroyed by being ripped off and linking it to such a bleak film, I never saw Felix die, I never saw Bond with a daughter. Utter shambles of a movie!

    The more I think about how crap NTTD, the angrier I get. I need to calm down... #-o
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited August 2023 Posts: 735
    I'm old enough to remember when the ending of OHMSS was controversial .... now it's rarely disputed as anything but classic, even somewhat foundational to the series itself.
  • Posts: 2,025
    @jetsetwilly & @SIS_HQ: The callback to WHATTITW is in the Purvis and Wade script. As the Craig series disassociated itself with previous Bonds, I don't understand the purpose of the callback. Why are we being reminded of something that never happened to this Bond? There couldn't have been a Tracy in this Bond's past because that would have meant he had also previously met Brother Blofeld.

    WHATTITW is a beautiful song that took me right back to OHMSS, which I regard as a better film. Why do it? Surely Billie Eilish and her brother could have created a love song for Bond and Madeleine that would have done for them what Armstrong's song did for Bond and Tracy.



  • Posts: 3,327
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly & @SIS_HQ: The callback to WHATTITW is in the Purvis and Wade script. As the Craig series disassociated itself with previous Bonds, I don't understand the purpose of the callback. Why are we being reminded of something that never happened to this Bond? There couldn't have been a Tracy in this Bond's past because that would have meant he had also previously met Brother Blofeld.

    WHATTITW is a beautiful song that took me right back to OHMSS, which I regard as a better film. Why do it? Surely Billie Eilish and her brother could have created a love song for Bond and Madeleine that would have done for them what Armstrong's song did for Bond and Tracy.



    Exactly! And if WHATTITW is in the script, and this was done by Beavis & Butthead, then they should never be allowed near a Bond script ever again.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2023 Posts: 16,592
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @mtm I did not refer to ego as a personality defect. Those are your words, your interpretation.

    Then what’s the point in mentioning it? If, as you suggest, all creation of art is down to ego (which I refute) then Cubby Broccoli made these films because of his ego, Connery was brilliant in them because of his ego, Dalton was driven by his massive ego. If you hold this to be true, why even bring it up in Craig’s case?
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly & @SIS_HQ: The callback to WHATTITW is in the Purvis and Wade script. As the Craig series disassociated itself with previous Bonds, I don't understand the purpose of the callback. Why are we being reminded of something that never happened to this Bond? There couldn't have been a Tracy in this Bond's past because that would have meant he had also previously met Brother Blofeld.

    WHATTITW is a beautiful song that took me right back to OHMSS, which I regard as a better film. Why do it? Surely Billie Eilish and her brother could have created a love song for Bond and Madeleine that would have done for them what Armstrong's song did for Bond and Tracy.



    Exactly! And if WHATTITW is in the script, and this was done by Beavis & Butthead, then they should never be allowed near a Bond script ever again.

    They’ve been willing to incorporate so many bits and pieces from Fleming over the years, moreso than any other writers, and as you’ve always said that’s the priority I’d have thought you’d have liked them. Even that comes from Fleming.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2023 Posts: 3,157
    It's strange to me, because I never really understood the resistance to re-using various themes in later films - I figured they're all part of Bond, surely it's perfectly legitimate to re-use them in appropriate situations? The brief excerpt from OHMSS worked really well in the SP trailer, didn't it? Why wouldn't it have a similar effect in an actual film? Etc. But when it actually came to it, yes, I have to say I wasn't sold on the re-use of WHATTITW at the end of NTTD. I get why they did it and I wasn't vehemently against it like some of us are, but still...
    I dunno, maybe if Billy Eilish had done an electro-noir version or Mark Lanegan had done it sparse, spectral and reflective - or even if it'd been an instrumental version - but the straight re-use didn't quite have the effect on me that it was supposed to do. It's probably too associated with Tracy to translate wholly successfully into a different scenario.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2023 Posts: 16,592
    Must admit I'm totally neutral on it. I don't love it, I don't hate it. I think it works in the film and is a nice acknowledgment of the history of the series (which makes sense at such a moment and makes it feel even more momentous I guess), but I can also see why some folk would have preferred something original.
    I guess I'd say the reprise of the melody in Matera was very nice.

    I suppose, other than the Bond and 007 themes recurring, and comedy flashes like the LALD quote in TMWTGG, the seals on this sort of thing were broken when David Arnold started off his first film by quoting both FRWL and OHMSS in his very first cue, weren't they?
  • Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »

    They’ve been willing to incorporate so many bits and pieces from Fleming over the years, moreso than any other writers, and as you’ve always said that’s the priority I’d have thought you’d have liked them. Even that comes from Fleming.
    Unfortunately the finished version doesn't usually feel that way.

    I'd be interested to know how much of Fleming began from them in earlier drafts, and how much eventually gets removed or watered down with rewrites from new scriptwriters.

    If what you say is true, and they do try and cram as much Fleming as they can in their earlier drafts, then I take back everything I said.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,157
    Cary Fukunaga said 'Barbara was the one that suggested that I read You Only Live Twice. So I think it was really important to her... I think she felt like reading that book would be the best way to understand this other side of Bond than the one that I had grown up with simply by watching the movies.' So they at least tried.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2023 Posts: 16,592
    mtm wrote: »

    They’ve been willing to incorporate so many bits and pieces from Fleming over the years, moreso than any other writers, and as you’ve always said that’s the priority I’d have thought you’d have liked them. Even that comes from Fleming.
    Unfortunately the finished version doesn't usually feel that way.

    I'd be interested to know how much of Fleming began from them in earlier drafts, and how much eventually gets removed or watered down with rewrites from new scriptwriters.

    If what you say is true, and they do try and cram as much Fleming as they can in their earlier drafts, then I take back everything I said.

    I think a lot remains in the scripts. Even quite subtly at times, right down to autobiographical details: they specified that Spectre should be partially set in Kitzbühel, and when Fleming lived in Kitzbühel he stayed with a family who provided therapy to people caught in a negative contest with their siblings, which is obviously a detail which had significant echoes in the film. As well as the whole thing being loosely based on Octopussy of course. They know their Fleming and always try to put as much in as they can. If the only thing you value is Fleming stuff being inserted in there above all else, then I think you're not going to find any other writers doing as much as they have done.
    They even removed a lot of the MI6 teamwork stuff from the draft of Spectre they inherited, deeming it too far into 'Mission Impossible territory'.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    mtm wrote: »

    They’ve been willing to incorporate so many bits and pieces from Fleming over the years, moreso than any other writers, and as you’ve always said that’s the priority I’d have thought you’d have liked them. Even that comes from Fleming.
    Unfortunately the finished version doesn't usually feel that way.

    I'd be interested to know how much of Fleming began from them in earlier drafts, and how much eventually gets removed or watered down with rewrites from new scriptwriters.

    If what you say is true, and they do try and cram as much Fleming as they can in their earlier drafts, then I take back everything I said.

    Well, what @MTM says is true, they really know their Fleming and always try to incorporate as much as they can. They've stated that in numerous interviews, and tbh I think it shows. I'm not a big fan of theirs mainly because they don't know how to write proper dialogue, but that's a completely different discussion.

    Many here don't like the V8 or WHATTITW, but to my mind it all hints at the one solution, that is the 'saga' explanation for Bond. In that way all Bond-films are Bond-stories retold over the years in 'modern' (corresponding to the age) settings. That makes sense, it also explains the DB5 in all of those films, and leaves a lot of room for creativity without damaging the concept.

    The only problem I have with NTTD is that it gives us an ending to the ambiguety Fleming created (even though he thought of killing Bond himself). The thing is, Bond always longed for a 'normal life' in the books (if you can call a chicken farm a normal life), settling down and retreating with the girl. But he also knew that would be giving up the life that he was living, and he wasn't sure he could do that. I've always loved that perspective, but NTTD makes the choice: he'll never have that life. He just touched it, had two minutes of it (him getting to know his daughter, making her breakfast) and his job took it away permanently.

    I think, in the end, most who oppose this film see their own 'Bond-universe' beeing destroyed (be it the 007-codename theory, or whatever other line of thinking persisted) as NTTD doesn't fit in. And tbh, I can imagine that. It has nothing to do with Craig and his incarnation though, it's the course the producers have taken for Bond. That would indeed explain why Craig's tenure for some has been burned with the last film (eventhough QoS is unequivocally the best film ever), and not with, say SP.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 2023 Posts: 16,592
    mtm wrote: »

    They’ve been willing to incorporate so many bits and pieces from Fleming over the years, moreso than any other writers, and as you’ve always said that’s the priority I’d have thought you’d have liked them. Even that comes from Fleming.
    Unfortunately the finished version doesn't usually feel that way.

    I'd be interested to know how much of Fleming began from them in earlier drafts, and how much eventually gets removed or watered down with rewrites from new scriptwriters.

    If what you say is true, and they do try and cram as much Fleming as they can in their earlier drafts, then I take back everything I said.

    Many here don't like the V8 or WHATTITW, but to my mind it all hints at the one solution, that is the 'saga' explanation for Bond. In that way all Bond-films are Bond-stories retold over the years in 'modern' (corresponding to the age) settings. That makes sense, it also explains the DB5 in all of those films, and leaves a lot of room for creativity without damaging the concept.

    Yes I think that in part is why the song is there: it wants to remind us of the long history of the Bond films and is a bit of technique to really pull on our heart strings a bit more and realise that this is James Bond, who we've been watching since the 60s, who just died in front of our eyes. Although I guess you could see that as a bit of a cynical, slightly meta trick (showing us that 60s song and the 80s car, almost feels like only a step away from a montage of Sean and Roger etc.), I'm not actually criticising that decision as it was part of the arsenal they had at their disposal which other films don't have, and you use everything to involve your audience as much as you can.

    The only problem I have with NTTD is that it gives us an ending to the ambiguety Fleming created (even though he thought of killing Bond himself). The thing is, Bond always longed for a 'normal life' in the books (if you can call a chicken farm a normal life), settling down and retreating with the girl. But he also knew that would be giving up the life that he was living, and he wasn't sure he could do that. I've always loved that perspective, but NTTD makes the choice: he'll never have that life. He just touched it, had two minutes of it (him getting to know his daughter, making her breakfast) and his job took it away permanently.

    Yes I think that's well-expressed, and it's what I quite like about that ending. I think everyone who's thought about it has always kind of wanted a happy ending for Bond where he becomes a normal person and stops having to kill people all the time, but we know that can never happen because: he's James Bond. Folks are always wanting to see him function as a normal person, whether that's to see May looking after him in his flat, or him playing a friendly round of golf with Bill Tanner etc. we want to see more of the 'real' side of his character. To actually finally explore that, and what would happen if he actually found a life, I don't really see as a failing. That he could only touch it for a few minutes, as you say, and to instantly realise he'd found his reason to die, is kind of perfect I think.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    The OHMSS theme was used to signify the return and reinstatement Bond to Her Majesty's Service. At least that's my interpretation of why it was used. I mean it's not like they used it for the action scenes.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2023 Posts: 3,800
    The OHMSS theme was used to signify the return and reinstatement Bond to Her Majesty's Service. At least that's my interpretation of why it was used. I mean it's not like they used it for the action scenes.

    It's just brief, I suppose.

    What really upset me is WHATTITW.

    If there's a song I would've liked to return, it's Surrender by KD Lang (maybe they could've used it for the Title Sequence of the next film), if there's a case with OHMSS, then I don't see any reason for not reusing those old themes back.

    Next time Bond fall in love, they should also use If There Was A Man for example (WHATTITW was already used).

    And there's a Dalton renaissance going on today, maybe they could also play If You Asked Me Too if there's another romance for Bond.

    I wish the Three Blind Mice was also played in NTTD, since they're celebrating the 60th and of Dr. No (there are even dots).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited August 2023 Posts: 41,011
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Foremost I'm thinking about the film I'm watching. And the hopeful future for Bond presented in the moment.

    Easy for me, I have that focus.
    Sorry, I'm not getting this... hopeful future for Bond presented in which moment? At the end of NTTD?

    You mean getting reduced to meat chunks by a wave of missiles isn't hopeful to you?

    LOL, will you be here all week? :))

    All week, my friend. Get your tickets now!

    As for the OHMSS tune, I do like it in NTTD. It's one of those divisive bits of the film that I'm on the side of enjoying. It doesn't have the exact same emotional impact as it does in OHMSS, of course, but it's still ballsy enough a decision to work.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    The OHMSS theme was used to signify the return and reinstatement Bond to Her Majesty's Service. At least that's my interpretation of why it was used. I mean it's not like they used it for the action scenes.

    It's just brief, I suppose.

    What really upset me is WHATTITW.

    If there's a song I would've liked to return, it's Surrender by KD Lang (maybe they could've used it for the Title Sequence of the next film), if there's a case with OHMSS, then I don't see any reason for not reusing those old themes back.

    Next time Bond fall in love, they should also use If There Was A Man for example (WHATTITW was already used).

    And there's a Dalton renaissance going on today, maybe they could also play If You Asked Me Too if there's another romance for Bond.

    I wish the Three Blind Mice was also played in NTTD, since they're celebrating the 60th and of Dr. No (there are even dots).

    Ithink it was used to link all Bond's 'true loves' together: Vesper, Tracy, Madeleine. All the others are just 'flings'. Actually, I think it's only Tiffany Case who ever returned in a subsequent novel, but there Fleming explains what usually happens: the love ends in complaints and misery and they break up, after all the excitement and adventure is gone (obviously, Kissy is a completely different story). Only Tracy and Vesper ever go beyond that in the novels, and I think WHATTIW is there to give Madeleine the same status.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2023 Posts: 3,800
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    The OHMSS theme was used to signify the return and reinstatement Bond to Her Majesty's Service. At least that's my interpretation of why it was used. I mean it's not like they used it for the action scenes.

    It's just brief, I suppose.

    What really upset me is WHATTITW.

    If there's a song I would've liked to return, it's Surrender by KD Lang (maybe they could've used it for the Title Sequence of the next film), if there's a case with OHMSS, then I don't see any reason for not reusing those old themes back.

    Next time Bond fall in love, they should also use If There Was A Man for example (WHATTITW was already used).

    And there's a Dalton renaissance going on today, maybe they could also play If You Asked Me Too if there's another romance for Bond.

    I wish the Three Blind Mice was also played in NTTD, since they're celebrating the 60th and of Dr. No (there are even dots).

    Ithink it was used to link all Bond's 'true loves' together: Vesper, Tracy, Madeleine. All the others are just 'flings'. Actually, I think it's only Tiffany Case who ever returned in a subsequent novel, but there Fleming explains what usually happens: the love ends in complaints and misery and they break up, after all the excitement and adventure is gone (obviously, Kissy is a completely different story). Only Tracy and Vesper ever go beyond that in the novels, and I think WHATTIW is there to give Madeleine the same status.

    But then, there should be an original theme song dedicated to Bond and Madeleine's romance, they're making the romance big, almost more bigger than both Bond and Vesper, and to the lesser extent, maybe Tracy, because she's the only Bond Girl whom Bond died for, yet it's all lazy that they're not given an original song that signifies their relationship?

    Flings? But of all the flings, it's only Pam, Kara and Natalya that had been given their own song with regards to their relationship with Bond?

    The reason why there's WHATTITW is to make Tracy's relationship with Bond unique from others.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2023 Posts: 3,157
    A happy ending for Bond, where he becomes a normal person? I dunno, I always wanted to think that he's out there somewhere in a permanent present, a force of opposition to megalomaniac supervillains everywhere. ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,592
    Which is good for us, but not really a reward for him.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 218
    mtm wrote: »

    They’ve been willing to incorporate so many bits and pieces from Fleming over the years, moreso than any other writers, and as you’ve always said that’s the priority I’d have thought you’d have liked them. Even that comes from Fleming.
    Unfortunately the finished version doesn't usually feel that way.

    I'd be interested to know how much of Fleming began from them in earlier drafts, and how much eventually gets removed or watered down with rewrites from new scriptwriters.

    If what you say is true, and they do try and cram as much Fleming as they can in their earlier drafts, then I take back everything I said.

    Well, what @MTM says is true, they really know their Fleming and always try to incorporate as much as they can. They've stated that in numerous interviews, and tbh I think it shows. I'm not a big fan of theirs mainly because they don't know how to write proper dialogue, but that's a completely different discussion.

    Many here don't like the V8 or WHATTITW, but to my mind it all hints at the one solution, that is the 'saga' explanation for Bond. In that way all Bond-films are Bond-stories retold over the years in 'modern' (corresponding to the age) settings. That makes sense, it also explains the DB5 in all of those films, and leaves a lot of room for creativity without damaging the concept.

    The only problem I have with NTTD is that it gives us an ending to the ambiguety Fleming created (even though he thought of killing Bond himself). The thing is, Bond always longed for a 'normal life' in the books (if you can call a chicken farm a normal life), settling down and retreating with the girl. But he also knew that would be giving up the life that he was living, and he wasn't sure he could do that. I've always loved that perspective, but NTTD makes the choice: he'll never have that life. He just touched it, had two minutes of it (him getting to know his daughter, making her breakfast) and his job took it away permanently.

    I think, in the end, most who oppose this film see their own 'Bond-universe' beeing destroyed (be it the 007-codename theory, or whatever other line of thinking persisted) as NTTD doesn't fit in. And tbh, I can imagine that. It has nothing to do with Craig and his incarnation though, it's the course the producers have taken for Bond. That would indeed explain why Craig's tenure for some has been burned with the last film (eventhough QoS is unequivocally the best film ever), and not with, say SP.

    Can I get a location for the chicken farm reference? I find the idea amusing, and if it’s real, where does it come from?
  • Posts: 3,327
    JustJames wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    They’ve been willing to incorporate so many bits and pieces from Fleming over the years, moreso than any other writers, and as you’ve always said that’s the priority I’d have thought you’d have liked them. Even that comes from Fleming.
    Unfortunately the finished version doesn't usually feel that way.

    I'd be interested to know how much of Fleming began from them in earlier drafts, and how much eventually gets removed or watered down with rewrites from new scriptwriters.

    If what you say is true, and they do try and cram as much Fleming as they can in their earlier drafts, then I take back everything I said.

    Well, what @MTM says is true, they really know their Fleming and always try to incorporate as much as they can. They've stated that in numerous interviews, and tbh I think it shows. I'm not a big fan of theirs mainly because they don't know how to write proper dialogue, but that's a completely different discussion.

    Many here don't like the V8 or WHATTITW, but to my mind it all hints at the one solution, that is the 'saga' explanation for Bond. In that way all Bond-films are Bond-stories retold over the years in 'modern' (corresponding to the age) settings. That makes sense, it also explains the DB5 in all of those films, and leaves a lot of room for creativity without damaging the concept.

    The only problem I have with NTTD is that it gives us an ending to the ambiguety Fleming created (even though he thought of killing Bond himself). The thing is, Bond always longed for a 'normal life' in the books (if you can call a chicken farm a normal life), settling down and retreating with the girl. But he also knew that would be giving up the life that he was living, and he wasn't sure he could do that. I've always loved that perspective, but NTTD makes the choice: he'll never have that life. He just touched it, had two minutes of it (him getting to know his daughter, making her breakfast) and his job took it away permanently.

    I think, in the end, most who oppose this film see their own 'Bond-universe' beeing destroyed (be it the 007-codename theory, or whatever other line of thinking persisted) as NTTD doesn't fit in. And tbh, I can imagine that. It has nothing to do with Craig and his incarnation though, it's the course the producers have taken for Bond. That would indeed explain why Craig's tenure for some has been burned with the last film (eventhough QoS is unequivocally the best film ever), and not with, say SP.

    Can I get a location for the chicken farm reference? I find the idea amusing, and if it’s real, where does it come from?

    It’s from one of the novels, but I can’t remember which one.
  • Posts: 2,025
    @mtm Interpreting the comments of others with statements they did not make requires mention.
  • Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    To actually finally explore that, and what would happen if he actually found a life, I don't really see as a failing. That he could only touch it for a few minutes, as you say, and to instantly realise he'd found his reason to die, is kind of perfect I think.
    I find that absolutely depressing. I don't particularly like seeing heroes die at the end of a film anyway, usually ruins it for me - unless it's done in a poignant way like Jack's death at the end of Get Carter, or the infamous stay-on-Bob's-face-in-the-back-of-a-car, in the 2 hander scene with Brosnan at the end of The Long Good Friday, or Gladiator, where Crowe is going to meet his family in the afterlife.

    But mostly films with that kind of ending I find utterly depressing and makes feel like I never want to watch it again.

    Seeing the hero dying at the end of a franchise that I've grown up with, then it's 100 times worse. I don't find anything perfect about this. Bond is a character I want to see cheat death every time, and live to fight another day, even an amnesia ridden one sailing off to Russia, not knowing who he is. Somehow you just know Bond will survive that too.

  • edited August 2023 Posts: 3,327
    Venutius wrote: »
    Cary Fukunaga said 'Barbara was the one that suggested that I read You Only Live Twice. So I think it was really important to her... I think she felt like reading that book would be the best way to understand this other side of Bond than the one that I had grown up with simply by watching the movies.' So they at least tried.
    Just a damn shame they couldn't go all the way and adapt the proper ending to YOLT. I'm sure most fans would have accepted that ending too.

    If those members on here who are ok seeing Bond die at the end of a movie, I'm fairly sure they'd accept a cliffhanger ending too, and wouldn't start hating the film because they didn't see Bond die at the end.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,800
    Venutius wrote: »
    Cary Fukunaga said 'Barbara was the one that suggested that I read You Only Live Twice. So I think it was really important to her... I think she felt like reading that book would be the best way to understand this other side of Bond than the one that I had grown up with simply by watching the movies.' So they at least tried.
    Just a damn shame they couldn't go all the way and adapt the proper ending to YOLT. I'm sure most fans would have accepted that ending too.

    If those members on here who are ok seeing Bond die at the end of a movie, I'm fairly sure they'd accept a cliffhanger ending too, and wouldn't start hating the film because they didn't see Bond die at the end.

    I'd accept the ending, as long as the execution is good, whether it's Bond dying or the cliffhanger of the YOLT novel.
  • @jetsetwilly why do you want the YOLT ending if the NTTD one is so depressing? Heroic sacrifice vs implied torture and execution. Mathilde grows up knowing what a hero her dad was vs him never meeting his kid, and them never knowing anything about him. Bond dying at peace with himself vs Bond losing his memory of who he is.

    I don’t find either depressing, because whatever emotion I feel watching these films is always tempered by the knowledge that I’ll watch more, so like @SIS_HQ I just want them to do whatever they’re doing well. But I think YOLT is definitely a bleaker ending in pretty much every way. I can understand thinking the NTTD ending is too sentimental or even too happy and triumphant in comparison, but depressing? It’s a happier ending.
Sign In or Register to comment.