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

18283858788298

Comments

  • Zekidk wrote: »
    thetruth wrote: »
    See?

    People have no issue with seeing Bond die.

    A lot of people have an issue with seeing Bond die.

    Evidently, not that much.

    Hmm... IMDB comment section. 19 of the 20 last comments deemed "most helpful" have severe issues with Bond dying. That's the voice of the largest movie community on the internet. It doesn't prove that a majority have issues with Bond dying, not a all, but it does prove that those who do, are voicing their opinion and being heard.

    Vocal minority.

    Need to let the dust settle on this one before making an accurate assessment. Once a new actor steps into the role and a new film is out, then we will start to see the true reflections on this movie. And that's a few years away.

    Brosnan's reign and the likes of DAD may have been hailed by many to be great back then, yet we all know where his reign and that film belongs now. CR became the new benchmark, and that was unfortunate for Brosnan and his swansong.

    DAD also got a fair amount of negative reviews at the time though, so I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. NTTD doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as divisive amongst critics and audiences at large. It’s just divisive amongst nerds like us on the internet.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 984
    Those saying Safin was a weak villain probably forgot or didn't know about Dominic Greene :))
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 355
    Imho Bond is 99 percent not dead. Eon are doing bait and switch or whatever the cinematic version of fooling the audience is called.😉

    You all see NTTD and think he's dead but he survives to die another day. Pardon the Bond film pun.

    It's easy to prove Bond is not dead. The title proves it. No Time To Die.

    The title is telling you Bond survived.

    I don't have any valuable rare Bond merchandise to wager. Had I a rare Bond item I would bet James Page that James Bond - Daniel Craig's Bond - will be alive and (relatively) well at the start of Bond 26 or certainly mid-way through the storyline.

    I'm 99 percent certain Eon have done this death to fool the worldwide audience and appease Craig's desire never to return to the role. What everyone forgets is the incredible marketing potential of Bond assumed dead! It's a 'once in a franchise lifetime' opportunity to do the storyline and the hype and expectation can reach an unprecedented level.

    New Bond actor.
    Amazon co-producing film.
    Bond presumed dead.
    Bond actually alive.
    Teaser posters hyping up the 'is he or isn't he dead?' premise.

    Bond recovers from his near death experience and loses memory. He works as a freelance assassin and hired by the new villain. Bond is now a villain so you get a classic plot twist.

    M discovers Bond is alive...



    and sends 009 and 010 on an extraction mission. Capture Bond! Send him back to London. His hasn't paid his last income tax return!

    😊

    So er.... anyway Bond is working for the bad guy. The bad guy wants to topple some government, maybe the European Union of Bond's world. I dunno, some made-up organization. The villain has prototype Artificial Intelligence robots. Bond is hired to work out how to topple the organization. The 00s have to stop Bond and the villain from destroying this organization and seizing its assets and weapons arsenal. And the film has a subplot with Bond having a relationship with a female member of the villain's group. How will Bond react when he remembers he's a 00 agent and he's in love or lust with a woman working for the bad guys? So you get an emotional subplot. A conflict of interest.

    The film uses CGI to create the robots on screen. Bond 26 is semi sci-fi in tone. Robots are the natural progression from nanobots. The robots will be designed to look nothing like Terminator cyborgs so you avoid any comparison.

    The whole nanobots subplot can be resolved with Bond having a temporary antidote and at the end of the film he gets a full vaccine.

    The Madeleine and Mathilde subplot is easily resolved. Following Bond's "death" in No Time To Die Madeleine and Mathilde have been given new identifies and live in an undisclosed location. At the end of the film Bond says he never wants to see them again because he'll only bring pain into their lives. "They deserve a life without me."
    So you resolve his family subplot. Madeleine and Mathilde are never mentioned again.

    I believe Bond back from dead is doable. You show Bond a few feet away from the blast zone. The missile strike was near him, not on him.

    That's how he survives.

    You show the flashback from a different angle and we see Bond wasn't hit by the explosion. He was injured but managed to avoid death. Bond is found by some fishermen and they help him recover.

    It's 100 percent a possible storyline if Eon have faith in keeping Bond alive.

    Ideally the title would be called Envy of the Dead because Moneypenny visits Tracy's grave (Bond has no grave as no body found) and she says she envies the dead because they longer have to bear the feelings of grief and sadness.

    I accept another title with death/die is milking it 😉 however Envy of the Dead would be appropriate and sounds like an Ian Fleming title. The title sets the tone for the film.

    I could write a short treatment of the storyline and submit it to Eon as an unsolicited submission. They might like the ideas contained within the treatment. They'll never ask me to send it so I can just email it to them. I don't mind. They can recycle it if they want.

    At the end of the day I don't want to see James Bond dead. Bond should live on. It's not for Daniel Craig to decide. I don't care if his Bond is or isn't part of official canon. Bond should not die and then a few years later... it's a new alternative reality Bond. It's silly.

    There's only one cinematic James Bond.





  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Safin was better than Greene and even Waltz's Blofeld but he wasn't on Le Chiffre or Silva's level in my opinion. I enjoyed his end of the world style plot though, it was great that Daniel got a high stake's plot to end on
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    Qba007 wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Qba007 wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Surely the biggest boost to Craig's ego would have been to keep Bond alive and to continue doing the role so he could get all the lavish compliments or whatnot? Admittedly, he was showing his age in this one a bit and I think this was the perfect time to end it. I'm glad they didn't try to fool us into thinking Bond was some young man here. Now Craig goes back to being an actor who used to play James Bond and still has to somewhat carve a career for himself (Though I believe he will do very well in that regard... Just look at Knives Out)

    But, yeah, I don't see how killing off Bond boosts Craig's ego. I think everyone involved in the production knew very well the kind of reaction that we'd have, good and bad.

    Are we to regret that Bond didn't die in AVTAK just because he was played by RM who was older than Craig in NTTD?

    I want whatever you're smoking if that's what you gleaned from my post.

    I do not smoke.

    Sorry @00Heaven, it is possible that I didn't quite catch the intent of your post the first time I read it. My intent was to say that Craig's age doesn't justify killing Bond in NTTD.

    Should be me that apologises mate. I was a bit snippy with you so I'm sorry for that.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 625
    Zekidk wrote: »
    thetruth wrote: »
    See?

    People have no issue with seeing Bond die.

    A lot of people have an issue with seeing Bond die.

    Evidently, not that much.

    Hmm... IMDB comment section. 19 of the 20 last comments deemed "most helpful" have severe issues with Bond dying. That's the voice of the largest movie community on the internet. It doesn't prove that a majority have issues with Bond dying, not a all, but it does prove that those who do, are voicing their opinion and being heard.

    It's totally normal, that people who don't like something or have a problem with something will speak out about it more than people who are satisfied with a movie. That always has been the case online for ages.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I thought the fight sequences were great in this film, Daniel has always been brilliant in the action.
    I love the fact Bond is brutal and ruthless in NTTD
  • Posts: 1,314
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Imho Bond is 99 percent not dead. Eon are doing bait and switch or whatever the cinematic version of fooling the audience is called.😉

    You all see NTTD and think he's dead but he survives to die another day. Pardon the Bond film pun.

    It's easy to prove Bond is not dead. The title proves it. No Time To Die.

    The title is telling you Bond survived.

    I don't have any valuable rare Bond merchandise to wager. Had I a rare Bond item I would bet James Page that James Bond - Daniel Craig's Bond - will be alive and (relatively) well at the start of Bond 26 or certainly mid-way through the storyline.

    I'm 99 percent certain Eon have done this death to fool the worldwide audience and appease Craig's desire never to return to the role. What everyone forgets is the incredible marketing potential of Bond assumed dead! It's a 'once in a franchise lifetime' opportunity to do the storyline and the hype and expectation can reach an unprecedented level.

    New Bond actor.
    Amazon co-producing film.
    Bond presumed dead.
    Bond actually alive.
    Teaser posters hyping up the 'is he or isn't he dead?' premise.

    Bond recovers from his near death experience and loses memory. He works as a freelance assassin and hired by the new villain. Bond is now a villain so you get a classic plot twist.

    M discovers Bond is alive...



    and sends 009 and 010 on an extraction mission. Capture Bond! Send him back to London. His hasn't paid his last income tax return!

    😊

    So er.... anyway Bond is working for the bad guy. The bad guy wants to topple some government, maybe the European Union of Bond's world. I dunno, some made-up organization. The villain has prototype Artificial Intelligence robots. Bond is hired to work out how to topple the organization. The 00s have to stop Bond and the villain from destroying this organization and seizing its assets and weapons arsenal. And the film has a subplot with Bond having a relationship with a female member of the villain's group. How will Bond react when he remembers he's a 00 agent and he's in love or lust with a woman working for the bad guys? So you get an emotional subplot. A conflict of interest.

    The film uses CGI to create the robots on screen. Bond 26 is semi sci-fi in tone. Robots are the natural progression from nanobots. The robots will be designed to look nothing like Terminator cyborgs so you avoid any comparison.

    The whole nanobots subplot can be resolved with Bond having a temporary antidote and at the end of the film he gets a full vaccine.

    The Madeleine and Mathilde subplot is easily resolved. Following Bond's "death" in No Time To Die Madeleine and Mathilde have been given new identifies and live in an undisclosed location. At the end of the film Bond says he never wants to see them again because he'll only bring pain into their lives. "They deserve a life without me."
    So you resolve his family subplot. Madeleine and Mathilde are never mentioned again.

    I believe Bond back from dead is doable. You show Bond a few feet away from the blast zone. The missile strike was near him, not on him.

    That's how he survives.

    You show the flashback from a different angle and we see Bond wasn't hit by the explosion. He was injured but managed to avoid death. Bond is found by some fishermen and they help him recover.

    It's 100 percent a possible storyline if Eon have faith in keeping Bond alive.

    Ideally the title would be called Envy of the Dead because Moneypenny visits Tracy's grave (Bond has no grave as no body found) and she says she envies the dead because they longer have to bear the feelings of grief and sadness.

    I accept another title with death/die is milking it 😉 however Envy of the Dead would be appropriate and sounds like an Ian Fleming title. The title sets the tone for the film.

    I could write a short treatment of the storyline and submit it to Eon as an unsolicited submission. They might like the ideas contained within the treatment. They'll never ask me to send it so I can just email it to them. I don't mind. They can recycle it if they want.

    At the end of the day I don't want to see James Bond dead. Bond should live on. It's not for Daniel Craig to decide. I don't care if his Bond is or isn't part of official canon. Bond should not die and then a few years later... it's a new alternative reality Bond. It's silly.

    There's only one cinematic James Bond.





    Can’t help but think a better use of your time would be to accept that Craig’s bond is dead and any future iteration is either non Craig universe type storytelling or a restart.

    I hope they don’t do the whole origin again as we can’t top Casino IMo. I also don’t think you can restart with golden gun - going to assassinate M. It’s not a positive enough introduction to a new actor.

    Who knows. We’ll find out in about 5 years time 😂
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    Craig has always been first rate in running/jumping/punching/gun play/driving.
    Second only to Lazenby in punch ferocity/velocity imho.
    More vicious than even Connery in brawls.
    No silly Brosnan/Moore wincing. No Dalton over-emoting.
    Drawback to that asset is the deficit: Craig's 007 never had a ski or scuba scene and yes, those things are fairly vital Bond tropes imho.
  • Just got out of a showing in the US. Wow, I think I hated it! It was an ok movie, not a good BOND movie at all.

    Highlights were Cuba and Bond actually talking like a real person. (Skyfall and Spectre I feel like he was weirdly quiet)

    Lowlights were just about everything else. Family themes, Bond has a daughter, Bond dies are all out of place in what I come to these movies for.

    Is there any precedence for Bond having a kid in the books? I remember him "dying" and having amnesia as a Japanese fisherman, but nothing about a kid.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,009
    Just got out of a showing in the US. Wow, I think I hated it! It was an ok movie, not a good BOND movie at all.

    Highlights were Cuba and Bond actually talking like a real person. (Skyfall and Spectre I feel like he was weirdly quiet)

    Lowlights were just about everything else. Family themes, Bond has a daughter, Bond dies are all out of place in what I come to these movies for.

    Is there any precedence for Bond having a kid in the books? I remember him "dying" and having amnesia as a Japanese fisherman, but nothing about a kid.

    Bond gets Kissy pregnant in YOLT.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I don’t think the character will be monogamous going forward. To me, No Time To Die was just an effort to introduce Bond girls who didn’t need to sleep with Bond, plus I imagine it was also an effort to keep the focus on Bond and Madeleine. As for the no sex, I mean, feels weird to say, but Craig has had sex in all of his films. In this film, he has sex within the first half an hour…

    Well OHMSS has Bond ask Tracey to marry him....the night after he has had sex with two women!

  • Considering the debate on whether audiences will like this movie or not, I wanted to share my experience. The theater was full. Everyone responded very positively to all the twists. They were shocked yet sad about Madeleine's "betrayal," they laughed at all the humor, they were touched to meet Mathilde. I didn't sense any negative reaction to anything. The last ten minutes, the audience was shocked into silence. And we all got up and left in silence. Yet out in the lobby, I was surprised to look around the crowd and see....smiles. Everyone including grown men started immediately smiling and chatting about how wonderfully sad the ending was and how they loved seeing his daughter in the final shot. So many positive comments and responses. I had cried myself and expected to see tears. But words like "amazing" and "awesome" were being used. And then I realized, everyone was just as moved as I was by a wonderfully crafted story and while it was tragic and sad, a good story excites people regardless so yes, there can be smiles amidst the tears. I think Cary and Daniel and the rest achieved what they set out to do. Daniel seems incredibly proud of this film. And he should be.
  • Posts: 7,507
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Considering the debate on whether audiences will like this movie or not, I wanted to share my experience. The theater was full. Everyone responded very positively to all the twists. They were shocked yet sad about Madeleine's "betrayal," they laughed at all the humor, they were touched to meet Mathilde. I didn't sense any negative reaction to anything. The last ten minutes, the audience was shocked into silence. And we all got up and left in silence. Yet out in the lobby, I was surprised to look around the crowd and see....smiles. Everyone including grown men started immediately smiling and chatting about how wonderfully sad the ending was and how they loved seeing his daughter in the final shot. So many positive comments and responses. I had cried myself and expected to see tears. But words like "amazing" and "awesome" were being used. And then I realized, everyone was just as moved as I was by a wonderfully crafted story and while it was tragic and sad, a good story excites people regardless so yes, there can be smiles amidst the tears. I think Cary and Daniel and the rest achieved what they set out to do. Daniel seems incredibly proud of this film. And he should be.

    I have seen the film twice in the cinema now, and my experience has been similar.
  • BelinusBelinus Scotland
    Posts: 48
    matt_u wrote: »
    The film makes it perfectly clear. If Bond survives the nanobots in his body designed to kill Swann and their daughter will eventually spread, unless he locks himself into perpetual lockdown without letting anyone touch his skin.
    For a man, especially like him, death is a better option.

    This makes sense to me as the reason that Bond stopped trying but I don’t think the film made it perfectly clear, at least not to me, my wife or my son.

    Even though it gives lots of reason to the final events, I still wish it hadn’t happened.
  • Posts: 2,171
    The whole “nanobot” thing to me seems very superfluous. Just make it a virus. One that is mixed with the dna of its eventual target and the poison flowers from the garden.
  • jobo wrote: »
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    Considering the debate on whether audiences will like this movie or not, I wanted to share my experience. The theater was full. Everyone responded very positively to all the twists. They were shocked yet sad about Madeleine's "betrayal," they laughed at all the humor, they were touched to meet Mathilde. I didn't sense any negative reaction to anything. The last ten minutes, the audience was shocked into silence. And we all got up and left in silence. Yet out in the lobby, I was surprised to look around the crowd and see....smiles. Everyone including grown men started immediately smiling and chatting about how wonderfully sad the ending was and how they loved seeing his daughter in the final shot. So many positive comments and responses. I had cried myself and expected to see tears. But words like "amazing" and "awesome" were being used. And then I realized, everyone was just as moved as I was by a wonderfully crafted story and while it was tragic and sad, a good story excites people regardless so yes, there can be smiles amidst the tears. I think Cary and Daniel and the rest achieved what they set out to do. Daniel seems incredibly proud of this film. And he should be.

    I have seen the film twice in the cinema now, and my experience has been similar.

    Good to hear. I'm going to see it again immediately and hope to see the same audience reaction. Honestly, left the cinema with a feeling and an experience I'll never forget.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Yes but M is the one who commission it. Not safin. So the garden is irrelevant
  • Posts: 12,514
    There was one guy at my theater (which was packed) who said to me and some others, “that pissed me off, Bond doesn’t die, I’ve been to every premiere since 1964…” there will definitely be some disconnect from some older viewers I think, especially if they aren’t as acquainted with the Fleming novels.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,278
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    thetruth wrote: »
    See?

    People have no issue with seeing Bond die.

    A lot of people have an issue with seeing Bond die.

    Evidently, not that much.

    Hmm... IMDB comment section. 19 of the 20 last comments deemed "most helpful" have severe issues with Bond dying. That's the voice of the largest movie community on the internet. It doesn't prove that a majority have issues with Bond dying, not a all, but it does prove that those who do, are voicing their opinion and being heard.

    It's totally normal, that people who don't like something or have a problem with something will speak out about it more than people who are satisfied with a movie. That always has been the case online for ages.
    Yes, but the point is, that these comments won't figure as "most helpful" unless a lot of other users agree, by clicking at the button. I reckon that not only people who disapprove read the comment section?
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    The theater was full (...) they were touched to meet Mathilde (...) The last ten minutes, the audience was shocked into silence (...) everyone was just as moved as I was
    How do I subscribe? I want that mind-reading pill!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Yes but M is the one who commission it. Not safin. So the garden is irrelevant

    Safin's garden provides the poisons that makes nanobots deadly. This way he's able to provide every aspect of the production of the weapon.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    thetruth wrote: »
    See?

    People have no issue with seeing Bond die.

    A lot of people have an issue with seeing Bond die.

    Evidently, not that much.

    Hmm... IMDB comment section. 19 of the 20 last comments deemed "most helpful" have severe issues with Bond dying. That's the voice of the largest movie community on the internet. It doesn't prove that a majority have issues with Bond dying, not a all, but it does prove that those who do, are voicing their opinion and being heard.

    It's totally normal, that people who don't like something or have a problem with something will speak out about it more than people who are satisfied with a movie. That always has been the case online for ages.
    Yes, but the point is, that these comments won't figure as "most helpful" unless a lot of other users agree, by clicking at the button. I reckon that not only people who disapprove read the comment section?

    The internet is full of ourageous comments that get thousands of likes. Nothing unusual about that. That's the environment. And every Bond film made has had vocal detractors.
  • Posts: 486
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The Madeleine and Mathilde subplot is easily resolved. Following Bond's "death" in No Time To Die Madeleine and Mathilde have been given new identifies and live in an undisclosed location.

    Why would Madeleine and Mathilde need new identities, Madeleine herself says to Bond there's nobody left to harm them. Who would they need hide from?
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Ideally the title would be called Envy of the Dead because Moneypenny visits Tracy's grave (Bond has no grave as no body found) and she says she envies the dead because they longer have to bear the feelings of grief and sadness.

    Eh? Would this be the Naomie Harris Moneypenny visiting a grave for a Tracy whom the Craig Bond never met or a recast Moneypenny visiting the grave of the Tracy belonging to the 1962-1989 era Bond? Either way it's fan service which would confuse the general audience.

    Bond26 is likely going to be a reboot. I'm a huge fan of Craig's Bond but after 15 years of one interpretation of Bond I look forward to a fresh start personally. Hopefully by fresh that'll mean a change from Purvis and Wade once and for all.
  • Posts: 3,278
    @jobo
    I find that arrogant. Many are actually arguing their case and have great points. You (and I) may disagree but simply slapping a "ourageous"-label on and calling people with another opinion for detractors?
  • Posts: 7,507
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @jobo
    I find that arrogant. Many are actually arguing their case and have great points. You (and I) may disagree but simply slapping a "ourageous"-label on and calling people with another opinion for detractors?

    No, you misunderstood my point. I am not saying the comments criticizing NTTD are necessarily outrageous. I am only saying that giving validation to a comment on the internet because it gets many likes is pretty pointless.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    the thing is this is an anonymous board, largely. If someone is pitching detailed story treatments here then they are probably a kid. Let's encourage them nicely whilst saying: EON will NEVER accept or use unsolicited material. You have good ideas. But not for Bond. Rename your character. Write your own hero. That's how Indiana Jones started as a hero, afterall: lucas and spielberg frustrated they could not make a Bond movie!
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,278
    @jobo
    Yes, if the comment is about politics, sex or religion, but over the years I have found that the "most helpful" user comments on IMDB are usually either spot on or just a good read, where I simply disagree. The same with their rating system.
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    Posts: 140
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Barbara Broccoli says the film is a great way for people to come together to get over the coronavirus pandemic

    She was right. Everyone at my IMAX enjoyed this flick.

    I burst out laughing at the end as everyone at my IMAX was speechless that Bond was blown to bits. Not a single applause.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @jobo
    Yes, if the comment is about politics, sex or religion, but over the years I have found that the "most helpful" user comments on IMDB are usually either spot on or just a good read, where I simply disagree. The same with their rating system.

    The most useful meter for whether the general audience likes a film or not are Box Office numbers. Those have been generally high through out the Craig era, NTTD included. Yet people have argued that no, the tone of the Craig movies is not what people want only because they don't like it themselves. It's tiresome and frankly quite ridiculous.
  • BelinusBelinus Scotland
    Posts: 48
    I’ve always liked / loved Bond films but feel that DC took it to a new level. It will be hard to imagine a new Bond that isn’t DC.
Sign In or Register to comment.