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 completely agree, @ColonelSun and @AgentM72. And I cannot think of a more fitting, moving, emotionally resonating finish for Daniel Craig's Bond than what we have in NTTD. For it is his story, not any other Bond's.
The ending is difficult to watch, tragic, sad ... but ultimately a triumph of his spirit over this heart-wrenching fate. The way he lived, the way he died ... serving his country and his family, both of which he gave his all to protect. NTTD gives Daniel's Bond a heroic, noble, and strong finish that seems truly in character for his Bond. It hurts. But I appreciate the integrity of this ending.
The quote at the end of the film is appropriate. "The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time."
This Bond used his time well. What he did, even as he faced an inevitable death, mattered greatly and was in keeping with his own code to live by.
I know people are sad, hurt, feel punched in the gut by having Bond die. It hurt me deeply as I watched it unfold. But even at the first viewing, I felt this was noble and ultimately inspiring. It will be interesting to see how this films settles for fans, months and years from now. I genuinely value this one.
Random?? It is pretty obvious connection with YOLT, one of Fleming's most acclaimed novels in which he more or less killed off Bond himself. It is anything but random!
You were talking about how upsetting it was that EON decided to make a Bond film that gave audiences a downer ending.
They did that with OHMSS and now with NTTD.
And that was obviously intentional because in the official podcasts MGW brought up how Cubby always felt OHMSS was an important film in the series. So they definitely had that in mind when making NTTD in terms of how audiences will react to an emotional ending.
Not only that, but I have seen members claim Babs and Michael G Wilson "don't get Bond". Now, how's that for arrogance?
Some have been claiming that since 1995. Many did in 2002!
The fan's opinions on this forum has been divided massively, to an even larger extent than they were for Spectre.
But do you know what, having now seen NTTD twice now, I can confidently say I really enjoy it. There are some great moments and scenes and character work. Would I have preferred Bond didn't die? Yes I would, but he has and that's that. It was done with dramatic intent and as part of the whole DC era it works pretty well.
Some like it, some don't and that's cool, each to their own. We don't need to attack each others opinions. What we should be celebrating is that it appears to be doing well at the box office and will hopefully do well in the US and we're told "James Bond Will Return"
12 months ago I'd have happily settled for that.
EON's contact centre...
The Bond film franchise is now far bigger than Fleming's Bond had ever been. Also very different. The death of cinematic Bond should have been more connected to the mythos of the cinematic Bond. And I hope we all agree Bond dying in Scotland, or Jamaica would have been more poignant.
No, I don't agree at all. I think the location is great, and the decision to tie it in with YOLT an inspired choice!
Great locations! For the final scenes, I would not change it.
I was dreaming of Bond going to Norway and Japan and for the YOLT novel to be utilized somehow. So needless to say, I'm very happy! Can't believe they ticked all of them off in the same film! It's as if they have been reading my comments on this site through the years. I am willing to take the credit anyway ;)
I wasn’t the one that was called arrogant and the fact that there’s a polarizing ending doesn’t mean Bond 25 isn’t a celebration and a great moment for a lot of people.
I’m not saying they’re not allowed, I only feel that I can’t take them seriously since there’s little if no room for discussion.
Anyway I’m not saying that. I’m not saying it was the only possible outcome.
What I’m saying is that to me killing off Bond is a natural, meaningful, fitting closure for this unique take on Bond, especially since NTTD has been designed as a culmination of all the themes of the Craig era.
I was actually referring to this quote:
Fans can take the ending of this movie maybe only two ways:
1) Think it's appropriate, moving, done with integrity, just right for this particular Bond and thank you, Daniel and EON
OR
2) go full Tiffany: (here at the 3min 18 sec mark; I do not know how to make a gif) ;)
In addition to the option of killing Bond from DAF, there is another - only possible:
Noticed it was missing on first watch, second time I noticed that they did a match cut in the film and hid an edit so he goes from having a tie to not having a time in one camera move.
I feel though it was handled poorly, lacking in subtlety and giving way to a sentimental cheesefest.
Look at how elegantly Tracy’s death was handled in OHMSS. The actor’s expression doing most of the work instead of literally saying ‘I love you’. Also didn’t last for ages.
Less is certainly more when it comes to scenes of this nature. In my opinion that is, of course.
NTTD itself even illustrates that it can do better when Bond puts Madeleine on the train. I found that scene much better-handled than Bond’s demise.
If they had shown DC JB, mortally wounded, stuck on this island (with previously capable and adept Mallory gurning moronically on in the background) then cut to Madeleine, Mathilde, and Ms 007 2k21 in the dingy with explosions suddenly going off on the island, even showing the aftermath but without spelling it out, ala Sessame Street, most of us would have left the theatre remembering Matera, Jamaica, Cuba and Craig’s era fondly , enjoying the filum and taking our own interpretation of the ending away with us.
Instead we have the melting and fizzing DC ending. No room for any ambiguity there. Sorry for not being a film buff but did they really need to draw it in crayon?
Personally there was a lot to like in this film but the way they handled the ending was off note, in the bigger picture of Bond (screen and page, Daniel Craig to one side) and given the context recently of the majority of people being constrained due to C-19.
DC has been Bond for 15 years, rather a long time granted but many of us have been watching these films since were in short trousers in the 60s, 70s or 80s and for many of that cohort it’s hard to come to terms with JB melting and fizzing just to suit a particular lovey types aching need for an overarching narrative arc, because that’s what they do in comic book films, latterly . Oh for the days of Tim Burton, Michelle Pfiefer and a bit of bondage gear. Here’s Johnny.
Imply Bond is dead sure, (Bond being more than just one actor), but give us a kernel (colonel/commander) of hope at the least. It means a lot. Question if anyone, True Fan or casual would have walked out of the local Odeon deflated and feeling the need to vent if there were in any way an ambiguous end to this one (that doesn’t need to be JB in a Dinghy with Paloma/Dou-Dou whilst Boris Johnson & Prince Andrew attempt a WhatsApp Video Call)
The very first thing I said coming out of seeing Spectre was that they will adapt in some way the ending of Fleming's YOLT in the next one.
I guess even though I haven't seen the movie yet I can still discuss "macro" issues based on what other people have raised?
For myself, although I would prefer Bond not to die, I don't see it as a deal breaker if Craig-Bond goes out that way, as the Craig era has always leaned toward being completely self contained without fully committing to it until this final chapter.
SP aimed to wrap up the untidy loose ends of the failed QOS concept by incorporating them into a revival of Spectre, with Craig-Bond riding off into the sunset without too much fanfare. That could have been one suitable ending for the Craig-Bond cycle, if the producers and actor hadn't managed to reach agreement on a further instalment.
Spectre apparently defeated, Blofeld in prison, if not actually dead (satisfactory for the anti vigilante, anti corporal punishment section of the audience), Craig-Bond alive and moving his life in a new direction (leaving the audience to imagine the redemption and rehabilitation of their choice)
Eat, Pray, Kill. "James Bond had everything a modern secret agent is supposed to dream of having – a gun, a sports car, a successful career – yet like so many others, he found himself lost, confused, and searching for what he really wanted in life..."
However once they did agree to another final go-round they went back into full Skyfall mode, aiming for another shot at epic Oscar worthy drama, an iconoclastic Bond film to end all Bond films!!!
As part of the Grand Scheme they decided to try and address and incorporate some of the more controversial ideas that have been floating around - A female 007? A black 007? How about a black female 007! (IMO their solution to that conundrum is quite elegant) And instead of retiring, how about going full throttle "Tale Of Two Cities" and killing off James Bond all together this time?
"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." said Craig-Bond
Lots of fascinating discussion, looking forward to seeing for myself one day... (big sigh!)