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
Leaving that aside though, there seems to be a couple of different issues floating around in the last couple of pages: one is continuity, the other is Bond's death. I think they are separate. Those arguing it makes sense to have killed Bond seem to ground that viewpoint on some version of the idea that:
(a) from a continuity perspective, Craig's Bond started with a bit of a reboot (becoming a 00, etc.) and so it makes sense to end that reboot with finality; and/or
(b) Craig's Bond has, from the get-go, made an effort to subvert the character a little bit and play up the tragic/flawed elements that have always been a part of Bond and therefore having him die in a tragic and possibly heroic way was the only way to go (or at least that it works).
On the other hand, those arguing it doesn't make sense, seem to ground that viewpoint on some variation of:
(a) the idea that from a continuity perspective, it doesn't make sense to kill him and then bring him back; and/or
(b) the fact that the constant threat of Bond's death, but that it never actually occurs, has been a fundamental tenant of the series, both novels and films, from the start - so much so that this is in fact integral to the character of Bond, regardless of who plays him.
I don’t think the continuity point supports either view. From a continuity perspective, there's nothing really wrong with bringing back a character previously killed in a series with so many continuity errors and issues we could fill these last 145 pages again listing them all. Bond gets older, gets younger, significant events which happen in one movie are entirely ignored in subsequent ones, supporting cast changes with no explanation, villains disappear, reappear, and then there are the continuity issues within various movies themselves. It's a film series that has lasted 60 years - its not all going to hang together perfectly and it absolutely doesn’t have to.
On the other hand, and along the same vein, I'm not at all swayed by the idea that Craig's Bond is somehow separate from the rest of the cannon with his own separate story and otherwise, from a continuity perspective, 'it doesn't make sense', or that another actor couldn’t have picked up after Craig had he lived at the end because of any sort of continuity based concerns (i.e. Bond’s wife and child). To make such an argument implies it always made sense before and that we were all of the view that there were no real continuity issues as we went through Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan, which is not the case. Each Bond has brought something different to the role and each one, while maybe not having quite as clearly defined a 'story arc' per-se as Craig, is to some degree separate from the last. Craig is maybe slightly different in degree, but not in concept. He's part of the series and does not stand alone and I don't think you can convincingly argue from a continuity perspective, that it therefore makes sense to have killed him off. With Daniel Craig, they told a set of stories about Bond, and that's just fine – had he lived, I personally would have had no problem with a new guy walking into M's office in the next movie for the next mission and have them just stay silent on the wife and child – this is frankly not really any different than what they’ve done pretty much every time a new actor picked up the gauntlet, to one degree or another – it would have been just fine.
Continuity in the James Bond films has always been a loose concept, and one that we have generally found not be particularly problematic - its always been easy to overlook these sorts of issues in favor of what Bond brings with each new iteration, and so it is with all of Daniel’s films – CR starts with him becoming a double-0, but he was a double-0 in Die Another Day – who cares? We ignore it and enjoy the film. So I'm not sure the continuity discussion is helpful either way.
The more compelling point I think is whether or not killing him in this film is the one step too far because it cuts directly across one of the most fundamental characteristics of the James Bond character, and, to add insult to injury, without good reason. I think it is. It doesn't mean I hated NTTD (I quite liked (most of) it) but I do not agree that Bond’s death ‘had to happen' because the 'subversive interpretation' of Bond which Craig (et.al) created during his time with Bond meant he stood alone and therefore they had to end his story with finality. Maybe they explored some different elements of Bond’s character but through all 5 movies he's still been Bond, through and through – a few minor compromises or the glimpse into his childhood don’t change that.
Bond, regardless of the changes over the years, whether it be his attitude towards women, drinking, smoking, etc., how the world in which he lives has progressed, the technology he uses, the enemies he fights, or the elements of his past explored, has always remained true to the very basic elements of his fundamental character – and maybe the most basic is his drive and ability to endure. For the first time, this has been thrown out the window, and, to me at least, without good reason. This is what really stings – there is no clear reason why it ‘had to happen’. It was a choice they made, whether because they believed it was the right one, or that they just wanted to send Daniel out with a bang and stir up some controversy. Frankly, I tend to towards the latter – it all feels a bit disingenuous – like they wanted to make a big statement for the sake of making a statement. It taints the Craig films for me and I wish they’d gone a different route.
One last point - none of this is based on the view that killing Bond is something ‘Fleming wouldn’t have done’. I agree we need not hold every plot decision or direction up against the Fleming-lens, however this is not a decision to have one of Bond’s missions take him into space rather than the Caribbean or eastern Europe (these sorts of updates are just a feature of the different decades in which the movies have been made). This was a fundamental shift in how we perceive Bond. Through all the books and films, Bond varies in different ways, the stories vary in different ways, but his fundamental character has remained generally intact – until the last 10 minutes of NTTD.
Fleming's Bond in the minds of some:
(Warning: NSFW)
https://www.ign.com/videos/2011/01/12/drive-angry-red-band-clip-xxx-gun-fight
PS. Very good post @JamesK. Sorry I only got to read it after replying to Darth. I think I'm coming to the end of discussing NTTD. I've said my piece and want to focus on B26.
You must live a very exciting life if what you see in NTTD is 'normality' 😂
What, haven't you ever erupted in an explosion of stinger missiles as you tell your wife you love her on your way to work?
I hope you get equally worked up about the 5000 plot contrivances that have saved his life up until now. He's probably owed a death don't you think?
Well, yeah, that's perfectly fair, @bondsum.
The same Bond fans: I watch Bond to escape reality and don't want to see my hero die
Cheers @DarthDimi. :)>-
Wait, what?? I didn't know they'd put together three endings - source for this (for my own curiosity)? If NTTD had ended with them on a beach at the end I'd be saying it was one of the best Bond films of all time and would bet the vast majority wouldn't have been hoping for his death.
Goddamn it, that would have been amazing. Maybe they'll release the alternate endings on the Blu-ray or something and I can just pretend that's the way it went.
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a37999304/no-time-to-die-alternate-ending-james-bond/
They could give the next Bond superpowers because why not?
I don’t think it does belong. But here we are. It is what it is. For clarity, negativity around B26 just seems premature to me. Negativity around NTTD, fill your boots.
Ultimately I think most people would agree with this. I think most of the back and forth is bogged down in the logic of it. On a visceral level I can see both sides of the coin.
I agree with this as well. The ending hit people so hard the drive to discuss it to achieve some sort of peace with it is strong for many (this is why I joined this forum). This I suspect is at least part of what drives such passionate debate in this case vs. discussing any other aspect of any other film in the series.
I don't hate Fleming, and I suspect you're confused about anyone else you're referring to with "Fleming haters". I have no problem with the giant squid in Dr No. It's wonderful. But if Fleming didn't write that, and Purvis & Wade did, people would crucify them. Same idea, different author, it's bad instead of good.
:))
Sky. Falling.
I've read most of the Fleming novels and not once ever encountered anything remotely resembling complexity. It's Bond's lack of complexity that makes him effective at his job. Blunt instrument and all that. Bond only got emotional in YOLT and that was because his wife had just been murdered. The "complexities" of the Craig era are really just plot contrivances that make his Bond keep quitting and going rogue because the producers fell on a winning formula with CR ("Bond becoming Bond") and kept repeating it for movie after movie, regardless if it made sense or not.