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
Love this post.
Is it possible to think he's both underdeveloped and underrated? Because I think I'm in that camp.
Seeing the film a second time tomorrow, so I'll be able to better judge after that.
As did I, to my wife. It's really going to confuse the casual folk come Bond 26..
What a perfect way to describe that man.
Yes he does. One of the most iconic villains in all of cinema and he’s accidentally killed by nanobots whilst sat in prison.
Yeah completely agree on this mate
Instead of having Blofield be one of the maniacal villians in history, he's a plot point
I wish they would have left that brilliant Blofeld showdown from the YOLT novel well alone, if they weren't going to do it justice in NTTD
There are one or two lines in the film that perfectly encapsulate what's going on. Safin telling Bond that they are both in a tragedy of their own making (?) makes sense when you look back at his era and realise everything has been a disaster and there's no point in doubting so will his future. Although I am of course still uncomfortable with his death. I'm too invested in his Bond not to care. It will be a different experience watching the man in Casino Royale knowing he will have a child and eventually die on the job. But then again 00s have a very short life expectancy.
One scene that needs a mention is the one where Bond and M are talking outdoors because it explains why Mallory eventually agrees to send the missiles. Also explains why Bond is okay with that. He understands the game they're playing. Always has. At the end it's actually Bond who pushes M to make the decision to follow through and it goes back to that discussion/mutual agreement.
There's so many other amazing things I picked up on this rewatch, so I'd definitely recommend going a second time if you're uneasy about the film and especially the ending. I'm already planning to see it a third time.
This (and about a half dozen other reasons) are why OHMSS is playing over that scene. Might be my favourite understated scene in all of Bond. I can't wait to return to this movie in two days and then again the day after.
They did the same thing with Mr. White.
All it takes is Barbara Broccoli to say to the screenwriters "Bond isn't dead... let's find a way to bring him back" and Bond comes back.
If anything, fans are looking at NTTD too seriously. It's not meant to be real. It's escapism. This is why I reckon a reboot will not happen.
If you think of No Time To Die as the Bond equivalent of Star Trek 2 The Wrath of Khan you may see what I'm getting at. Spock dies but brought back to life in Star Trek 3 The Search For Spock. Bond 26 can be Bond equivalent of Star Trek 3.
As I say, fans are taking the death too seriously but Barbara Broccoli and the writers may be playing a huge practical joke on the audience. Playing with your emotions. Indeed, the final line of NTTD is...
James Bond will return.
.... which is Eon telling you James Bond is not dead. He's not dead. The text doesn't say
A rebooted James Bond will return.
It's just James Bond and there's only one James Bond. Not six clones played by six actors. One Bond played by six actors. Conclusion: Craig's Bond is alive and will be played by a new actor.
See what I mean? 😊
There is only one James Bond therefore it is impossible for Bond to have died in NTTD. Each Bond film features James Bond. The actors change and the time period moves on but it's still James Bond. There's no alternative reality Bonds (lol). It's always the same guy. If you kill Bond it can never be the same guy again so you establish a paradox. Bond dead but still alive.
The only alternative is Bond remains alive.
Also, Craig's Bond is in no way connected to any other. He's his own universe. It's been pretty clear that's the case since before Casino was even released. And again, even if Craig's Bond didn't die, they'd still reboot it, because to carry on his narrative with a different, younger actor, would make no sense.
And killing Bond makes sense? Lol
Tell that to all the fans that feel betrayed by that decision!
Oh well I tried. I can't convince you lot you are all wrong. Wait and see... in three years time Bondywondy will be proven right and you can say "sorry, Bondywondy, you were right all along."
😎 😉
It actually does make sense. You (and others) may not like it, but this separate continuity allows them to kill Bond without and real impact to future films. What wouldn't make sense is to carry on this iteration of Bond who has been aging in-story over the past 3 films.
True, but they wanted to tell a story where Bond does die.
So I feel it's extremely full circle to, in the end, have Bond face a hard choice created by something that'll always be a part of him. Literally, the nanobots, but figuratively, you could say it's also his life as a 00.
Could be worse. Craig Bond could have slam dunked Blofeld into a chimney stack.
I know this, because I haven’t seen it yet
Got tickets to Wednesday 7pm IMAX. I’m beyond stoked.
I can't remember, are you one one of the MI-6C members based around Toronto? I only ask because I have a ticket for IMAX at the same time in Whitby.
Blofeld was not the focus of this film (even though evil plot, birthday party, head of Spectre, yes, yes) - and any more of him would have been distracting and we would have ended up with a 3 hr film. I was pleased with the way this story handled him and killed him off pretty quickly. Give him a menacing enough intro, having Madeleine leave in a high state of stress, Bond and him one on one, and that very unexpected death after Bond saying "Die, Blofeld, Die" (which I keep reading members say IS from Fleming). Then he is tossed aside, done. I like that.
Shoot me now, but I did not want him to be a huge part of this movie. NTTD is a long film, but it moves along very well, does not lag. If the story were to spend more time on Blofeld himself, it would have taken away from the main thrust of this entire film. Which is, in my opinion, is Bond's personal life, his soul, as well as the end of his career. So yes that means saving the world (naturally) from this new techno biochemical weapon AND resolving his relationship with Madeleine; to give himself some happiness in his life of always living in the shadows.
I am glad we did NOT get more time with Blofeld ... or MI6 office in turmoil ... or longer drawn out scenes in the poisonous garden.
I would have like a bit more with Felix, for sure. And I would have cut some of the evil scientist's scenes in order to give us that.
But my quibble with this film are very slight. I think it does a good job telling this particular, personal, final story of this particular James Bond. It is gut wrenching, and sad, and truly tragic. But also noble and heroic, and therefore fitting for James Bond.
The ending of NTTD doesn't endanger the series one bit. The mere fact there will be a new Bond actor will lure people to the theatres in droves.
When Skyfall came out I had a chat with then around 60 year old man and his wife about Bond films and how long they've been going to see them. Both had seen some of Connery ones on their first release. They were convinced that it was established in Brosnan films that Brosnan's Bond was the son of Bond played by Connery. I told them that it was supposed to be the same guy. Both shook their head in amused disbelief. Based on those clearly long time (casual) Bond fans the ending of NTTD doesn't mean a thing in the long run.