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
This is the problem trying to apply old school thinking of Bond with modern Bond. The pointless hope that things would magically revert to the old Cubby formula like from one’s childhood. This was never going to happen with Craig.
They likely didn’t have a plan for a self contained arc, but I guarantee they NEVER had plans to give Craig an old Cubby standard Bond adventure.
I noticed that too, going to see it for the 4th time tonight. I love the film.
We are like kites, flapping in the rain.
I might need to work on that last sentence.
Quite right.
In 1965 you could buy a kid a James Bond toy, today not so much. Does Craig Bond have a racer set? Even in the 90s the closest thing there was to a James Bond toy was the video games, but they had broader appeal of course.
Is there a Corgi DB5 too?
The important question here is, was NTTD a successful Bond film? Most of us seem to be in agreement that -- the ending aside -- this was an exciting, well made movie. Some of us are unhappy with the fact that Bond "died" at the end of this film. Others see it as the logical finale to the Craig arc in the Bond storyline. I count myself among the latter; if you're among the former, well, that's okay. James Bond will return, as will most of the rest of us. Maybe the next few films will be more to your liking.
The one point I'd like to make in parting has to do with the notion that Craig, Barbara B and Michael G don't have the "right" to "kill" Bond. Sorry, but the laws of intellectual property rights state that you're wrong. Eon Productions are the only folks with the right to make films regarding James Bond 007. Their lawyers have spent a lot of time and money ensuring that this is so. Eon splits those rights 50/50 with MGM Studios, and now that Amazon has bought MGM, it looks like Jeff Bezos is the only other fellow on the planet that BB and MGW have to answer to. Do you think Jeff would have spent all that money to buy an asset that was about to become worthless? I suspect not. I'm very interested to see where the franchise goes next...far more so than if Craig/Bond had just chosen to spend the remainder of his days fishing in the waters off Jamaica. As I've stated previously, all the best hero tales have a definitive ending -- and the fact that we know the endings to the stories of Robin Hood, King Arthur, Gilgamesh and Heracles doesn't mean that people have stopped telling stories about them. Now, James Bond has joined the immortals, but we need not fret. After all, "this sort of thing never happened to the other fellow..."
Carry on, all...
I know, I know.
I’m inclined to agree. I think this feels raw for many, but in three films and 10 years time it’ll just be the one where Daniels bond dies.
The only way forward is Bond not dead. Just bring him back in Bond 26. Problem solved. Sure, it may be a bit silly but you avoid a schism in continuity. Bond dead then alive is too problematic and weird.
It's a no brainer to have Bond survive the nanobots infection and the missile strike. If you do the survival scene in a dramatic way, most people will accept it. The Bond films are not meant to be that realistic so Eon can get away with a very improbable escape from death scene.
Have you even bothered watching the film?
Wow you should have mentioned this before. 😉
What continuity, prey tell? Have we ever had anything even remotely like continuity before Craig?
Well said. Thanks.
https://www.cnet.com/news/no-time-to-die-all-your-burning-bond-questions-answered-major-spoilers/
"What is Heracles?
Heracles was the Greek name for the hero of antiquity called Hercules by the Romans. Persecuted by the goddess Hera, Heracles infamously killed his own children and was forced to perform 12 labors as a penance. The legend chimes with the ending of the film. A villainous centaur tricked Heracles' wife into giving the hero a poisoned shirt that burned his skin, similar to how the bioweapon kills a person it touches. Once poisoned, Heracles built his own funeral pyre and was incinerated, just as a poisoned Bond chose to be blown up. The similarity doesn't end there: Heracles' human body burned, but his godlike self rose to Olympus to live on. And while Daniel Craig's version of the character may die, the character of James Bond is eternal."
Have you seen the film? He's dead as a dodo. To have him somehow escape the vaporization would be even more daft than having him come back without explanation after killing him off.
They've painted themselves into a corner, obviously. But they can't renege on what they've done. I know you don't like what they've done, but face it. He's brown bread.
But of course, I was silly to be sad, because that was from a different character arc, as I've since learnt.
To be fair Goldfinger was always right. Whether it was Bond hit by missiles or expelling his last breath at a retirement home, he was always going to die.
No, he hasn't. I stopped giving him oxygen about 45 pages ago.
No, I still need to work on that last bit.
Well, he survived that 322 foot drop into the river in SKYFALL. How about this...........
Sorry if this been posted before.
He always does.
Would a radiation dose kill the nanobot virus?......mind you Bond could end up bald? :)