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
And the ones that mainly bother have to do with some dialogue, forced elements, M's depiction and the kid being such a prominent part of the 3rd act.
That being said, that first part of the film is really a killer, with some of the best scenes the series has to offer.
Interestingly, I went with my son. He is 16 and only really knows the Craig era, but is a Bond fanatic. He loved NTTD and is ok with the death of Bond as he has been sensitised by the Marvel parallel universe way of thinking. “They’ll do it like Spider-Man.” So maybe a generational thing. That logic provides zero solace for this old dinosaur though. Still smarting and bitter.
If this was a general question, I'd like to see it again on the big screen but our local cinema is really too small and I made the mistake of getting front row seats so we were looking upwards - after a couple of years not going to the cinema it was disorienting (and also people's manners! - constant stream of people's shadows on the screen as they came in 20 minutes late. It's as though they've forgotten how to go to the cinema).
I will definitely buy the DVD and in a way I prefer this, as we have a large TV screen at home and I like occasionally focusing on the detail and pausing it (like M's office, with which I am a bit obsessed, sadly). We have all the other Bond films on DVD.
I'm not a Marvel fan. Will watch it if it's on. I've never had any problem with different actors at different eras - that's the nature of fiction. I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan as well and there is no need to overthink all this, because fictional temporal logic has its own structure. I'm 56.
Marvel is the McDonald’s of cinema. Even if I don’t necessarily like everything about the ending, NTTD is luckily far away from being anything like that ;)
Interesting perspective, thank you for sharing that. I was wondering how much younger fans would take it.
I utterly disliked the PB era and made no secret of it. I preferred the direction they were pushing the series in with TD, although they still couldn't relinquish the shackles of a very successful and loved Bond's era from that.
So the DC era was a breath of fresh air and despite me utterly abhorring SPECTRE, this is my favourite era and 4/5, (well that is my take on things) is hugely impressive.
Though I digress, this idea that DC never had any moments or very few where individuals felt they couldn't celebrate triumphantly.
DC's films are laced with a dark tragedy, so even the great action sequences end with him not accomplishing what he set out to, or the conclusions of those scenes were hardly ones that left you grinning from ear to ear.
I think with the exception of SP (maybe the PTS) DC's films have always fulfilled me. I guess it comes down to what you want from a Bond film. This was how they approached this version of the character, Bond killing Dryden and earning his 00 status made me grin.
No, the conclusion of Madagascar isn’t what we have usually seen from Bond but you get DC learning not long after and his way he creates a diversion and gets the info to continue his investigation is pure cinematic Bond. The film set out how this Bond would continue. Not always succeeding but not for the lack of trying. Though the way this era ends is a combination of tragedy but no one can say that Dan’s Bond doesn’t save the day and with the biggest stakes of a Bond film since MR I think it can be argued.
The previous 20 were a different take on the character, those had those moments, even the so called dark revenge one couldn't help itself from lapsing into RM antic, one of my biggest problems with LTK, at times a jarring mess of a film, at least QOS stuck to its guns.
Though this idea that DC didn't give you this elation, then why do you assume that those that don't like this ending and feel betrayed that his era should have ended with an uncharacteristically upbeat ending?
Why should it, if you think DC has never been a triumphant Bond, why should be now bow out on a moment reminiscent of other Bond's for fan's sake. The film has moments that harken back to the previous film, nods but when it comes to ending this tenure, this time, then Craig was always going to leave us, not with a fanfare but with a sense of tragedy.
I think some have mistaken the death of Craig Bond for the death of Bond full stop. No one is saying the others died just this reiteration.
Yes I'm a Craig Bond fan, have no issues with admitting it, I'm no new to the series, I saw my first Bond film aged 5 in 1977. So my time with the series has no bearing on me liking older versions of Bond more, I'm as invested in 2006 - 2021 as anyone who came to Bond through DC, I have memories of seeing Bond for over 40 years.
I and others possibly buck the idea that I'd naturally prefer Bond of old but no I like this supposed woke, over sensitive take on the character instead.
Connery is the best Bond, I'll admit it but Craig is my favourite. I think if you bought into this era and took that journey with Craig's Bond you will accept this more than if you just love Bond in general. You've gone to see the DC films but aren't that attached to them, you feel it is just another actor playing the part and this wasn't a game changer for the Bond series.
I'm not sure how I could find myself getting upset about previous versions of Bond dying as we never dug enough into their characters, for the most part Bond was placed into a mission, with the traits, not a lot of depth but then that worked for a number of decades.
So someone saying I don't think I could have held it together if so and so had died on screen. Although this would be about your emotional attachment due to nostalgia, growing up with that Bond, I think you'd be confusing the actor with the character. At no point are getting to know this person intimately, GL gives us the most insight previously.
Dalton for all the Fleming purists claims doesn’t give us much more beneath the skin than the previous occupants of the roles.
Whereas DC's Bond (although I know some hate this route the character took and would just like the stereotypical model of the character they associate with) they did dig into his psyche, went beneath the skin and told his story.
So if as part of the character they decide to go from beginning to end, that is the only real justification for someone being genuinely upset, we've got people who haven't even experienced the film just read these threads and then will watch it.
I'm sorry I don't really think you can appreciate the film as it was meant to be, you practically know everything, yet we are supposed to think when you see that you've experienced the film.
I'm sorry but I will be discounting anyone that has read all these spoilers, I'm not sure your opinions can be taken seriously or you will have the genuine reaction to the film.
Though I think some just hate this version of the character and have had the knives out from the beginning so will take great delight in tearing the film to pieces or hoping the box office drops off so they can say I told you so.
Although if those that feel that way went and saw the film without reading every big point in the plot and this was their reaction, then I'm likely to accept that however much they pour scorn on it to those that keep saying I know all the spoilers and I'm not happy but I'll see it anyway.
Fair enough knowing the big moment but having read how it plays out, in some cases in this thread discussed in great detail, sorry your reaction to the film will be flawed.
This was not how the film was meant to be experienced and going in with this information and already knowing this and having formed an opinion you don't like already, instead of just waiting till you've seen the film and experienced these moments and then saying how you feel.
I imagine some of you will call this arrogance but I feel there is enough evidence to say you will never see the film like I and others saw it because you have spoiled it for yourself. Therefore your opinion on it when you see it, needs to have this taken into account and had some consideration that you didn't experience the film the way it should be.
You might have surprised yourself with going in relatively green but no walking in knowing the outcome is going to colour your opinion from the get go, you can’t see it like those of us that could wait and didn’t walk in with this information.
Those who still have open minds even spoiled it that is their business but those having already expressed they don’t like it and have already pretty much had it spelt out to them, well….
Right now, I’d take that! 😂
"History isn't kind to men who play God line" more like it appeared in the trailer. That was a fantastic line and it was sandwiched in during the film. Craig's delivery in the trailer was spot on
Sure, it has its flaws but it's escapist fiction...
It seems to me that they (Eon) have decided to clear the decks completely so that they have more scope to do what they want in future. Otherwise, I guess they'd eventually get to the James Bond centenary and still be making the same film.
I wonder if they'll now be looking to the continuation novels for material?
Had Craig's Bond survived NTTD he is the winner. He can go off with Madeleine and Mathilde and have a family life or still remain an active 00. He retains his inherent heroic status.
By ending Craig's tenure with Bond atomized (!) it plays into the hands of anti Craig Bond fans. "See, we told you he wasn't right for the role. Barbara Broccoli appeased him too much and you get a crappy, depressing ending."
You know home media has upgraded from dvd right? Blu ray superseded dvd and now there’s 4K?
I myself have only watched the film once.I think it’s kind of silly these days to see a film multiple times in a theatre when you only have to wait a few months ( sometimes even less than that ) for a film to arrive on home media.
I had a bit a strange feeling during some scenes in NTTD. Too many innocent people are killed by the baddies and too many people are shot overall (especially by Bond). I prefer a longer brutal fight (like to one in CR) to numerous gun fights (NTTD).
My wife watched it with me yesterday and thought that way too many poeple die in NTTD.
I am content with just one viewing at a cinema. It'll come on home video soon anyway.
What a completely pointless argument to make. The people on "CraignotBond" have made up their mind anyway. Why should the producers care about them? Why should we care?
This kind of sums up my own feelings, I loved CR & liked QoS, But thought the arc started to change with SF which I think had a problem with it's identity it was conflicted, more like the first two DC films right up until the DB5 was revealed then it went more back to the past which they continued into SP which as you say was boring and very long winded with some rather dubious plot elements (Austin Powers, need I say more).
Now we come to NTTD, I saw the movie at a minute past midnight on first release & had no idea how the action would pan out, as always the action was top draw, will not argue with that, however it was ticking along nicely up beat even, right up until Felix was killed, I think at this point I started having issues again like SF the direction & tone changed getting more morbid & serious which is not my idea of a Bond movie, just my opinion shared with some, not all, in the end I think I've accepted the death as basically can't do anything about it, still think it's a mistake though that hasn't been done before in 59 years.
I started of liking DC as Bond but laterly I've gone off his incarnation, I think that's because he's had too much input.
EON, ie, BB & MGW, I have never believed they "Don't get it", however I believe they have the same problem a lot a creative companies go through, they get too close to their product that they don't see any issues, I think now is the perfect opportunity to step back & look at the core elements, going forward with luck they'll get some new blood on the creative side.
So you think they went to the effort to put a daughter in and then won't bring that up in the subsequent film? I hope you're right but I suspect they have opened a can of worms here with the whole daughter thing.
You'd better turn off ITV then, they seem to show Bond films about every week these days
You could also say the same in other movies where there is no blood line but the relationship is there (Shane, Logan)
I find your deduction extremely far-fetched. References are sometimes just playful and meant as little more than "fan service". This film did not tell us that a six-decade cycle was just closed. And even then, it doesn't validate any predictions about the future. The next Bond film could be a formulaic adventure that just happens, without any origin stories or whatever. And we would all accept that.
I hope you're right. But it seemed just a little excessive this time and referencing Dr No does make it seem like - here we are, we've come full circle. It was an offering to the fans, an appeasement, a final farewell, before Bond gets killed, signalling the end of the Bond we knew. Now for something new...
If Bond was given the opportunity to get close to her before he died then you'd have people complaining about that. As it is we already have people complaining that he has a daughter full stop. I think given the circumstances they handled it well while still trying to appease everyone on that point.
A minor gripe I know but it stood out to me upon last viewing. The girl who played Mathilde was great though and she looked like Lea and Daniel's child