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

14142444647298

Comments

  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    I was listening to this podcast this morning - very entertaining. It went out earlier in the week before the film's release so there are no spoilers. It gave me a sense of just how much Bond has changed over the years, including accusations of sexism, snobbery and sadism...in a review of one of the novels from 1958. And I didn't realise he had, in canon, a kid already (by Kissy Suzuki). I'm sure more hardcore fans know this.

    https://play.acast.com/s/the-rest-is-history-podcast/101.jamesbond
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,714
    Fans: EON needs to go back to Fleming!
    EON: We've loaded the new film with Fleming material.
    Fans: When we say "Fleming," we just mean Bond should grimace and punch people in the neck for two hours.
  • Jeffrey wrote: »
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    But Ian Fleming himself never penned a true death scene for Bond. The crew that ultimately penned this film shouldn’t have been afforded that chance.

    It is that audacity that riles me as well.

    Agreed. 68 years of tradition, and an inviolable rule breached. Who ultimately gets the blame for it? Is this the carrot that brought Craig back?

    No, because in Danny Boyles script Bond would not die. So Craig said yes to Bond 25 without the plan of killing Bond.

    Unless the wish was the script to be altered with Bond dying which resulted in Boyle leaving.

    It looks like actors (even when they are not producers) may have more power than directors !

    NTTD : Danny Boyle doesn't want the end > Boyle leaves.
    SP : Ralph Fiennes doesn't want M to be a traitor > the story changes.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    bondywondy wrote: »
    it's not about Q gay

    Thats barely anything in the film. Why is it a sticking point for you? Are gay people not allowed to be acknowledged unless they’re villains or something?
  • mrlynxmrlynx Maine
    edited October 2021 Posts: 57
    [/quote] It looks like actors (even when they are not producers) may have more power than directors !

    NTTD : Danny Boyle doesn't want the end > Boyle leaves.
    SP : Ralph Fiennes doesn't want M to be a traitor > the story changes.[/quote]

    It also just indicates what stale ideas the in-house screenwriters have been trotting out over the years. Everyone's a traitor, everyone is Bond's cousin or childhood ice cream man, M's incompetence motivates the villain, etc


  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,710
    Bond's child with Kissy is a footnote in YOLT, only to show the consequences Bond leaves behind in full ignorance.

    But then again, people read things in different ways. So, it's all open to interpretation. EON's interpretation, in this case. I've no problem with that. But I don't have to like it or read it the same way.

    And if we're going back to Fleming, why not having him smoke fifty cigs a day and be a Benzedrine addict? Oh, because that's not the bit that Fleming wrote that really translates well into the cinematic character...right. So why is it being a
    dad
    , knowingly, this time around?

    Choices, choices
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,231
    Re: Nomi

    I think my biggest issue with the character is not her being 007, or her attitude and her lack of growth over the film. No, my biggest issue is that you could take her out of the film almost entirely and the story would not be any worse off. She has almost zero impact on the advancement of the plot. She's on the periphery, gets a scene or two to trade barbs with Bond and then retreats back to the periphery again. The film's focus on resolving Bond's personal arc with Madeleine etc. means that the thematic resonance of Nomi taking over his number is pushed into the background when you could easily make a film out of it all by itself. She's not really a character in the end, at all. She's a distraction to the story rather than an aid to it, which is a shame as Lynch sold us something that sounded far more interesting in the lead up to the film's release, and it just wasn't there for me and ultimately slowed an already bloated film down.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Re: Nomi

    I think my biggest issue with the character is not her being 007, or her attitude and her lack of growth over the film. No, my biggest issue is that you could take her out of the film almost entirely and the story would not be any worse off. She has almost zero impact on the advancement of the plot. She's on the periphery, gets a scene or two to trade barbs with Bond and then retreats back to the periphery again. The film's focus on resolving Bond's personal arc with Madeleine etc. means that the thematic resonance of Nomi taking over his number is pushed into the background when you could easily make a film out of it all by itself. She's not really a character in the end, at all. She's a distraction to the story rather than an aid to it, which is a shame as Lynch sold us something that sounded far more interesting in the lead up to the film's release, and it just wasn't there for me.

    Well said. And my exact reading of it. She wasn't necessary. Besides, Bond doesn't need those kind of sidekicks, IMO. Have him infiltrate an island alone. Have him destroy an entire island and operation alone. That's what makes him a hero, IMO. He also didn't need Way Lin, or Jinx for that matter. It's a tendency that remotes to the Moore years, I believe. But I never liked it. Granted, TB had the para-diving army, but that was background noise for what Bond was gonna do, alone. So were Moore's armies. But fellow agents, for me never did work, with the exception of 006 for narrative purposes.

    One of my major gripes with the DC films were the earphones, the constant teaming up, the scooby gang, ... Sorry, but not my Bond.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    I'm inclined to agree @CraigMooreOHMSS. Nomi didn't really add anything to the movie. She was just a fast-tracked, prickly 00 agent that couldn't match James Bond for getting the job done. I felt the biggest loss to the movie was Ana de Armas' absence in the second half. With what little screentime she was actually given, she lit up the screen and left a large vacuum as soon as she departed. It's a shame the story had to switch from Cuba and Jamaica back to Europe, as I liked where the movie was at when it was centred in the Caribbean.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 364
    The film was written on the hoof and by committee from a basic script that was never properly polished, hence the feeling of fragmentation between scenes and some lack of continuity. This is why some parts work, others don't but on the whole it's messy.

    Unless you have the clout of Quentin Tarantino, M. Night Shyamalan, Christopher Nolan you're never gonna have a Bond film made by one screenwriter/director. I'm assuming the likes of Tarantino are rare in Hollywood. Almost every big budget film has multiple writers (some uncredited).

    Unless Eon capitulate on an unprecedented scale and let Christopher Nolan write the screenplay (maybe with his brother), you'll never get Bond films written without a committee of writers.

    I would put a bet on Nolan being a likely choice to write and direct Bond 26. Co-writer anyway. A rebooted Bond is the idea time for Nolan to do a Bond film. Place your bets!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I've mentioned this on another page, I think there's a lot more to it than just him not being able to be with Madeleine and his daughter. To me, it's a perfect end to his character arc. In Casino Royale, with the death of Vesper, we were shown this idea that Bond can't really have that kind of life. And now in No Time To Die, he's given just a hint of what he could have, but at the end of the day, he dies, because James Bond can't escape the life he's built for himself.

    He'd never be able to escape it, even when Madeleine basically says there's no one left to hurt us, he literally has this virus now, and that in many ways could be loosely interpreted as this part of him that will never go away, just like his life as a 00 and a killer, so in the end, it killed him, and I think this was his way of admitting that, and saying if I really can't have this life that I want, then I'll just accept it and die. Obviously, there's a lot more story significance with the literal fact that if he tried to see Madeleine or Mathilde, or even interacted with someone who then interacted with them, he would kill them, so he'd rather die than let that happen.

    I just think it's a lot more poetic, and makes sense in the arc that we've received throughout the Craig-era.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Why is everyone so impressed by a film making them feel sad? I don’t have a problem with people crying but this obsession with “emotion” in everything from tv baking shows to feature films is like some type of addiction used to mask narrative faults and inability to engage an audience through other means.

    I prefer things like Raiders, Goldfinger, jaws. You know just balls out entertaining thrill rides that can exist without negative cheap shots.

    You realize that being entertained and being thrilled are emotions, right?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 364
    Hope I'm allowed two posts in a row. Sorry.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    it's not about Q gay

    Thats barely anything in the film. Why is it a sticking point for you? Are gay people not allowed to be acknowledged unless they’re villains or something?

    Not relevant to the Bond universe unless it serves the plot in a meaningful way. Gender signalling by Eon. Woke a-go-go!

    Fleming used homosexuality as a plot point. Pussy Galore was a lesbian and Bond cured her of that affliction.
    Goldfinger (novel) ends as Bond looks into Pussy’s “deep blue-violet eyes that were no longer hard … He bent and kissed them lightly. He said, ‘They told me you only liked women’. She said, ‘I never met a man before.’” Bond promises her “a course of TLC”, before she looks up at his “passionate, rather cruel mouth” and it comes “ruthlessly down on hers”.

    Yes, it's very outdated and sexist and maybe homophobic in tone but it served a plot point. What is the relevance of Q's homosexuality? Are we to imply Q loves/is sexually attracted to Bond? Lol
    "James, save me!"
    "Oh not right now, Q"
    😄



  • Posts: 625
    mrlynx wrote: »
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    This has probably been posted elsewhere, but I laughed when thinking of this scene earlier.


    Anyway, I just hope we aren’t waiting too long for news on Bond 26, but I feel like it’ll be at least a year before any details. The Craig films have proven to be financially successful, I just hope whoever takes over from here isn’t interested in the same emotional, angsty story arcs that plagued Craig’s era IMO.

    You can still have fun watching a movie with emotion. I enjoy Casino for that reason. Same with Skyfall, Dench’s M’s death felt earned. But IMO, nothing about Mathis’, Blofeld’s, Leiter’s or Bond’s felt that way to me. They were simply deaths used to get an emotional reaction from the audience.

    I sincerely wish they’d opted to use Blofeld and Spectre with Bond #7 because Craig’s era wasted those immensely. Waited decades for their return and they ended up as afterthoughts.

    My guess for a best possible scenario is an announcement on October 5, 1962 - the 60th anniversary. A casting choice, or at least a production announcement. Then again, given their track record, EON's desire to "let Daniel have his moment" could stretch for a good 3 or so years...

    It will for sure.
    There will be a 60th anniversary celebration WITH Daniel, I bet.
    He will be Bond on paper and in PR stuff (and the new video game?) for at least another 2 years I believe.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Hope I'm allowed two posts in a row. Sorry.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    it's not about Q gay

    Thats barely anything in the film. Why is it a sticking point for you? Are gay people not allowed to be acknowledged unless they’re villains or something?

    Not relevant to the Bond universe unless it serves the plot in a meaningful way. Gender signalling by Eon. Woke a-go-go!

    Fleming used homosexuality as a plot point. Pussy Galore was a lesbian and Bond cured her of that affliction.
    Goldfinger (novel) ends as Bond looks into Pussy’s “deep blue-violet eyes that were no longer hard … He bent and kissed them lightly. He said, ‘They told me you only liked women’. She said, ‘I never met a man before.’” Bond promises her “a course of TLC”, before she looks up at his “passionate, rather cruel mouth” and it comes “ruthlessly down on hers”.

    Yes, it's very outdated and sexist and maybe homophobic in tone but it served a plot point. What is the relevance of Q's homosexuality? Are we to imply Q loves/is sexually attracted to Bond? Lol
    "James, save me!"
    "Oh not right now, Q"
    😄



    Why don’t you hold heterosexuality to the same standard? When we find out Moneypenny is on a date in GE, it’s not a plot point, but nobody complains about that. But if Q is revealed to like guys, OH MY GOD!
  • Posts: 4,617
    All fair points but I'm not sure if it's over thinking. Isn't the whole point that we (the punter) are meant to aspire/dream of being in his world, to escape ours? All the time, have we been watching a character who actually aspires to our World? Of course, by defintion, if we liked our World so much, we would not be paying £10 to visit the movies and escape if for a couple of hours. Cinema is there to fufill our needs, is that not it's first priority? If Bond aspires to making breakfast, nappies etc then fair enough but the people watching that have got the T shirt on that front. It's really not that interesting. To balance that, I'm perhaps confusing love with domesticity. Seeing a character bereft of long term love is tragic but do we want Bond to be portrayed as a tragic figure ? I dont think most movie gowers want that. He experiences it and overcomes. ("To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.") - But thats not we we get with NTTF
  • Posts: 3,327
    bondywondy wrote: »
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family. He would’ve accepted death even without those injuries caused by Safin that shot him in the back. The Jack London quote at the end is just another reminder for that.

    So he basically commits suicide because he can't be with a women he'd been separated from for five years until two days ago and a daughter he's only known for a day. This is not how I want a Bond film to end.

    I think I'm a fairly open minded Bond fan. Skyfall really shock up the Bond formula and did things I'd never expect to see in a Bond and I love it. But there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and NTTD crosses them.

    Yes, imho the Craig era is not the cinematic James Bond. Too many liberties taken. Too many lines crossed. This is James Bond:


    The music, the vibe. The alpha male hero out to save the world and do it with style. The Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman version.

    It's not about Bond with a wife (that's why Fleming killed her off after the wedding!), it's not about Bond's children, it's not about Blofeld some pseudo half brother, it's not about M and Moneypenny and Q following Bond around the world, it's not about Q gay, it's not about having the f word used, it's not about too much introspection and nihilism.

    But most of all... the next era/chapter of James Bond should bring back the glamour. Make the audience want to be Bond for two hours. Not feel sorry or empathy for him. Ideally, cast a conventionally handsome guy that sells the glamour and charm.

    We can all argue about plot and direction and action quota vs drama quota, introspection vs carefee narrative, but at the end of the day it all comes down to glamour. The sexy, dangerous world of James Bond.

    I don't think Barbara Broccoli ever got that. It's time to bring back the glamour, the aspirational quality and joy to the franchise. With the death of James Bond in No Time To Die, the need for joy and glamour to return is essential.

    Well said!

    I saw it again yesterday with some friends in the hope that I may change my opinion. Sadly, no. Hated it more this time round.

    Surprisingly all 4 of my mates who watched it were not impressed either (and I made sure I didn't let them know my opinion of it before going in).

    When the dust is finally settled on this one, I believe this will be seen as the worst in Craig's tenure. Yes, worse than both QoS and SP.

    You are supposed to come out of a Bond film walking a bit taller and feeling like you could take on the world (as Cubby always claimed). Not come out of the cinema depressed and feeling sorry for Bond.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Fans: EON needs to go back to Fleming!
    EON: We've loaded the new film with Fleming material.
    Fans: When we say "Fleming," we just mean Bond should grimace and punch people in the neck for two hours.

    Where was the loaded Fleming material in NTTD, other than a garden with some poisonous plants?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    bondywondy wrote: »
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family. He would’ve accepted death even without those injuries caused by Safin that shot him in the back. The Jack London quote at the end is just another reminder for that.

    So he basically commits suicide because he can't be with a women he'd been separated from for five years until two days ago and a daughter he's only known for a day. This is not how I want a Bond film to end.

    I think I'm a fairly open minded Bond fan. Skyfall really shock up the Bond formula and did things I'd never expect to see in a Bond and I love it. But there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and NTTD crosses them.

    Yes, imho the Craig era is not the cinematic James Bond. Too many liberties taken. Too many lines crossed. This is James Bond:


    The music, the vibe. The alpha male hero out to save the world and do it with style. The Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman version.

    It's not about Bond with a wife (that's why Fleming killed her off after the wedding!), it's not about Bond's children, it's not about Blofeld some pseudo half brother, it's not about M and Moneypenny and Q following Bond around the world, it's not about Q gay, it's not about having the f word used, it's not about too much introspection and nihilism.

    But most of all... the next era/chapter of James Bond should bring back the glamour. Make the audience want to be Bond for two hours. Not feel sorry or empathy for him. Ideally, cast a conventionally handsome guy that sells the glamour and charm.

    We can all argue about plot and direction and action quota vs drama quota, introspection vs carefee narrative, but at the end of the day it all comes down to glamour. The sexy, dangerous world of James Bond.

    I don't think Barbara Broccoli ever got that. It's time to bring back the glamour, the aspirational quality and joy to the franchise. With the death of James Bond in No Time To Die, the need for joy and glamour to return is essential.

    Well said!

    I saw it again yesterday with some friends in the hope that I may change my opinion. Sadly, no. Hated it more this time round.

    Surprisingly all 4 of my mates who watched it were not impressed either (and I made sure I didn't let them know my opinion of it before going in).

    When the dust is finally settled on this one, I believe this will be seen as the worst in Craig's tenure. Yes, worse than both QoS and SP.

    You are supposed to come out of a Bond film walking a bit taller and feeling like you could take on the world (as Cubby always claimed). Not come out of the cinema depressed and feeling sorry for Bond.

    What about OHMSS?
  • Posts: 4,617
    I find, when talking to mainstrean movie fans, they refer to movies within franchises a "The one ......." "The one where M dies", "The one with the whales", "The one with the ewoks" etc etc. Well, NTTD will be lablled as you know what. All the other ellements will be forgotten. Whether history will be kind the NTTD? I have no idea.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    I don't think anyone asked for more risks. Have they not taken more than enough?
  • Posts: 6,710
    bondywondy wrote: »
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family. He would’ve accepted death even without those injuries caused by Safin that shot him in the back. The Jack London quote at the end is just another reminder for that.

    So he basically commits suicide because he can't be with a women he'd been separated from for five years until two days ago and a daughter he's only known for a day. This is not how I want a Bond film to end.

    I think I'm a fairly open minded Bond fan. Skyfall really shock up the Bond formula and did things I'd never expect to see in a Bond and I love it. But there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and NTTD crosses them.

    Yes, imho the Craig era is not the cinematic James Bond. Too many liberties taken. Too many lines crossed. This is James Bond:


    The music, the vibe. The alpha male hero out to save the world and do it with style. The Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman version.

    It's not about Bond with a wife (that's why Fleming killed her off after the wedding!), it's not about Bond's children, it's not about Blofeld some pseudo half brother, it's not about M and Moneypenny and Q following Bond around the world, it's not about Q gay, it's not about having the f word used, it's not about too much introspection and nihilism.

    But most of all... the next era/chapter of James Bond should bring back the glamour. Make the audience want to be Bond for two hours. Not feel sorry or empathy for him. Ideally, cast a conventionally handsome guy that sells the glamour and charm.

    We can all argue about plot and direction and action quota vs drama quota, introspection vs carefee narrative, but at the end of the day it all comes down to glamour. The sexy, dangerous world of James Bond.

    I don't think Barbara Broccoli ever got that. It's time to bring back the glamour, the aspirational quality and joy to the franchise. With the death of James Bond in No Time To Die, the need for joy and glamour to return is essential.

    Well said!

    I saw it again yesterday with some friends in the hope that I may change my opinion. Sadly, no. Hated it more this time round.

    Surprisingly all 4 of my mates who watched it were not impressed either (and I made sure I didn't let them know my opinion of it before going in).

    When the dust is finally settled on this one, I believe this will be seen as the worst in Craig's tenure. Yes, worse than both QoS and SP.

    You are supposed to come out of a Bond film walking a bit taller and feeling like you could take on the world (as Cubby always claimed). Not come out of the cinema depressed and feeling sorry for Bond.

    I truly appreciated these two posts. It's wonderful to not feel alone in what one feels.

    Well said, my friends.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I've mentioned this on another page, I think there's a lot more to it than just him not being able to be with Madeleine and his daughter. To me, it's a perfect end to his character arc. In Casino Royale, with the death of Vesper, we were shown this idea that Bond can't really have that kind of life. And now in No Time To Die, he's given just a hint of what he could have, but at the end of the day, he dies, because James Bond can't escape the life he's built for himself.

    He'd never be able to escape it, even when Madeleine basically says there's no one left to hurt us, he literally has this virus now, and that in many ways could be loosely interpreted as this part of him that will never go away, just like his life as a 00 and a killer, so in the end, it killed him, and I think this was his way of admitting that, and saying if I really can't have this life that I want, then I'll just accept it and die. Obviously, there's a lot more story significance with the literal fact that if he tried to see Madeleine or Mathilde, or even interacted with someone who then interacted with them, he would kill them, so he'd rather die than let that happen.

    I just think it's a lot more poetic, and makes sense in the arc that we've received throughout the Craig-era.
    Not sure if my post got lost in the ether.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Bond fans: “EON needs to take more risks.”
    EON: NTTD
    Bond fans: “Not like that!”

    I never once asked for more risks.
    Yes, I had the same thought. I don't remember too many asking for another tear-jerker ending. Didn't we already have that with CR and SF anyway? Not really much of a risk when you've already done it before with other characters.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,710
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I've mentioned this on another page, I think there's a lot more to it than just him not being able to be with Madeleine and his daughter. To me, it's a perfect end to his character arc. In Casino Royale, with the death of Vesper, we were shown this idea that Bond can't really have that kind of life. And now in No Time To Die, he's given just a hint of what he could have, but at the end of the day, he dies, because James Bond can't escape the life he's built for himself.

    He'd never be able to escape it, even when Madeleine basically says there's no one left to hurt us, he literally has this virus now, and that in many ways could be loosely interpreted as this part of him that will never go away, just like his life as a 00 and a killer, so in the end, it killed him, and I think this was his way of admitting that, and saying if I really can't have this life that I want, then I'll just accept it and die. Obviously, there's a lot more story significance with the literal fact that if he tried to see Madeleine or Mathilde, or even interacted with someone who then interacted with them, he would kill them, so he'd rather die than let that happen.

    I just think it's a lot more poetic, and makes sense in the arc that we've received throughout the Craig-era.
    Not sure if my post got lost in the ether.

    Oh sure, it made sense within the narrative they constructed. Absolute sense. Logic, even.

    What I don't like is the (whole) narrative they constructed
    (relationship and parenthood - not sold on either)
    Strangely enough, I think Vesper could've pulled it off, minus the
    kid
    . A
    Kid
    doesn't belong in a Bond movie, unless he's trying to sell a wooden elephant to Roger Moore. And we know what he did to that one.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    TripAces wrote: »
    If NTTD is making this many "Bond fans" whine like toddlers, then I know I'm gonna love it. =D>

    That's usually a good indicator for me as well!

    Not a Bond fan, then?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    Thank you @Univex and @bondsum. I will say that I'm not averse to sidekicks as concept though, and in the case of Wai Lin etc her presence makes a bit of sense considering the conflict that is attempting to be started in the plot of TND. I also really enjoy seeing Bond and Leiter team-up together. Always have. Nomi is just a very missed opportunity in this case. And I don't think Lynch was able to pull off the big quips well either, unfortunately.

    "Do you know what time it is? Time to die."

    That one elicited a few groans from my audience and I was with them on it. Very forced. Which is a shame as there were some really nice lines in Bond and Nomi's initial exchange, from both parties.

    The idea of Bond losing his number to another agent, male or female, would have been better served in a film that had less going on.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Seeing it again tonight, hopefully it'll improve on second viewing. Forgetting the ending, I was unimpressed with the second act of the film, it felt in a rush to get to the climax

    I hate to make this comparison, but it reminded me of DAD, in that the moment we leave Cuba it fell off a cliff, like with DAD, the moment Bond has a shave it goes down hill
    The Norway stuff disappointed me a bit, I expected them to use the Atlantic Road better

    Did anyone notice Bond called Blofeld, Blofield at one point? It really pricked my ears up

    I picked that up too.
  • Posts: 4,617
    @Denbigh All fair, another point. Once we have different universes with unique character arcs, we starts to have different Bonds. So when you say Band cant have that kind of life, are we discussing the DC Bond exclusively or the wider James Bond. Does the DC Bond have character traits unique to him? So when , in future , we have discussions about James Bond, we have to define which one we are talking about? Was the PB Bond equally trapped as you described or happier with his life? All interesting stuff
  • Posts: 3,333
    I absolutely love your posts @Univex and @jetsetwilly. But @Univex, you're forgetting Tiffany Case who told that kid to blow up his pants in DAF. But I get your point and I agree with it.
Sign In or Register to comment.