› ›

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

1…171172174176177…298

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    One thing is that they won’t really be able to say “Bond has finally met his match!” In any new Bond films, because he already met his match, and it was Safin apparently. ;)

    Not that they use that sort of marketing anymore. Ugh, if anything, it makes me more upset that they didn’t use Blofeld as the main villain / Shatterhand type figure in NTTD; if they were going to kill bond, IMO, it must be Blofeld to do it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    One thing is that they won’t really be able to say “Bond has finally met his match!” In any new Bond films, because he already met his match, and it was Safin apparently. ;)

    Not that they use that sort of marketing anymore. Ugh, if anything, it makes me more upset that they didn’t use Blofeld as the main villain / Shatterhand type figure in NTTD; if they were going to kill bond, IMO, it must be Blofeld to do it.

    In a sense, Blofeld kinda did. Safin became who he was because of SPECTRE. Bond had to deal with a mess SPECTRE inadvertently created.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    One thing is that they won’t really be able to say “Bond has finally met his match!” In any new Bond films, because he already met his match, and it was Safin apparently. ;)

    Not that they use that sort of marketing anymore. Ugh, if anything, it makes me more upset that they didn’t use Blofeld as the main villain / Shatterhand type figure in NTTD; if they were going to kill bond, IMO, it must be Blofeld to do it.

    In a sense, Blofeld kinda did. Safin became who he was because of SPECTRE. Bond had to deal with a mess SPECTRE inadvertently created.

    That's true. Maybe even better because Blofeld did it from the grave. Not even killing Blofeld can stop him...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    But I totally get what you mean. I would have preferred they utilize Blofeld. They made good use of him to try to redeem how he was used in SP. Would have been more fun to see them really go for it.

    I said during the build up that if NTTD featured a jailbreak sequence with Hinx leading the charge, if would have shot the film up to a 10/10.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    But I totally get what you mean. I would have preferred they utilize Blofeld. They made good use of him to try to redeem how he was used in SP. Would have been more fun to see them really go for it.

    I said during the build up that if NTTD featured a jailbreak sequence with Hinx leading the charge, if would have shot the film up to a 10/10.

    And to a similar end, I think it would have made a cool epilogue scene at the end of Spectre where they're bringing Blofeld to his prison cell, and it zooms in and one of the guard/escorts is wearing a Spectre ring.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 735
    Do we know how much time elapsed between (1) Bond & Madeline driving off in London, at the end of SP, and (2) their arrival in Matera, at the beginning of NTTD? One week? Three months? Five years? Is there any indication of this at all in the second half of the PTS?

    It would be nice to think they had at least some significant amount of time together before Bond's self-imposed exile in Jamaica ....
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    NTTD is set in 2020, and after the titles it says “Five Years Later”, which makes the Matera section of the PTS set in 2015, the same year as SPECTRE.

    At the very least, it’s been under a year between the events of SP and the Matera sequence.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    NTTD is set in 2020, and after the titles it says “Five Years Later”, which makes the Matera section of the PTS set in 2015, the same year as SPECTRE.

    At the very least, it’s been under a year between the events of SP and the Matera sequence.

    So less than a year, really ... but I guess as the epilogue of NTTD makes clear, it's not in the duration but how we use our time that really counts.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    I’ll say this: my non-Bond fan friends have been absolutely gushing over this movie in a way I haven’t seen since SF. Sounds like EON made the right decisions here despite some bold claims to the contrary that they’ve confused and alienated the unwashed masses.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    TheQueensPeace wrote: »
    I sense a logical thread here which MIGHT just MIGHT counter the division. It's not the death of Bond so much as the issue of finality vs reboot. If the character is rebooted in say 2 years or so, one could say that the death, even in the craig iteration multiverse idea, simply loses currency, which begs the question why go thereat all? Irony: in killing Bond, they have made the most substantial and final thing consequence free and confusing to some, sacred to others. This is a philosophical debate of sorts which is something Craig always WANTED so it's not necessarily a 'bad' thing per se to see the polarities, provided it all stays 'nice' ;)

    That is the part I am trying to wrap my head around as well. I personally am very much in favour of actions having real consequences in films. All of the fake deaths and resurrections and whatnot are getting boring and leading to fans of popular culture apparently being completely unable to reckon with death at all. Every character comes back somehow, somewhere. That is one of the reasons I applaud Eon making the end of Craig's-Bond so very unambiguous. There is absolutely no way for him to come back from that. They didn't bomb a different island. He didn't jump out of the way off-screen. He didn't put the flying batmobile into auto-pilot or whatever. He is dead. End of.

    HOWEVER, there is the part that you mention: It doesn't matter. James Bond will Return. There wouldn't have been a new film with Craig anyway and they most likely would have rebooted anyway. So in fact there is no finality at all. There are no stakes or consequences whatsoever. In a way, by dying in NTTD, Bond has finally proven that he is immortal.

    And that kind puts the whole thing on it's head and makes you wonder what the hell is going on anyway. I am very conflicted on this. The first time I saw the film - eventhough I wasn't able to recognize it at the time - I was really upset and basically rushed out of the cinema not really engaging with what just happened. The second time, I thought the end was quite beautiful and emotionally affecting. Now, I don't know what to think...

    Man, this is such a good post. Well done.

  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    DoctorKaufmann wrote: »
    Coming to think about it, Bond should have survived and Craig should not have retired. And we should forget about Bond #7, but stick with Craig for the next movies. He and Madeleine should have married and have more children. Ad we see him changing diapers, feed the children, walk them around in a pram, and chatting with mothers with their kids in the park. I really would love to see that.

    And hopefully we wilkl get bonus tracks on the upcoming Bluray about Bond staying with Q (what he does, but we didn't see. Two options:
    1. Bond cleaning Q's flat, do all the shopping, feed his cats, and cook the meals.
    Or - more interesting IMO:
    2. Q getting mad at Bond for messing up his flat with dozens of empty Heineken cans, and empty take-away boxes.

    That would be a Bond film, I'd love to see.

    *travels according to dictation*

    This is such a ridiculous argument that it barely makes any sense. Strawman argument doesn't even begin to describe this clumsy post. Of course no one wants to see Bond married with children. Of course Craig was dead set on retiring and everyone knew it was his time to move on. But that doesn't mean we have to kill him in order to resolve the child plot and give the era a "conclusion". If a reboot is assumed whenever a new actor takes on the helm anyway, they could have left Bond alive with amnesia at the end of the movie or drifting off at sea or whatever and started the next movie with a new Bond in a new story and new direction with no references to Craig. Are you saying you can get over the idea of a dead character coming back to life in the next entry but can't get over the thought that "another version" of the character has a kid with a girl in the previous film?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    At this point it doesn’t matter. Bond died, now there will be a reboot. If that kills any enthusiasm about the future of the franchise for, oh well.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote: »
    DoctorKaufmann wrote: »
    Coming to think about it, Bond should have survived and Craig should not have retired. And we should forget about Bond #7, but stick with Craig for the next movies. He and Madeleine should have married and have more children. Ad we see him changing diapers, feed the children, walk them around in a pram, and chatting with mothers with their kids in the park. I really would love to see that.

    And hopefully we wilkl get bonus tracks on the upcoming Bluray about Bond staying with Q (what he does, but we didn't see. Two options:
    1. Bond cleaning Q's flat, do all the shopping, feed his cats, and cook the meals.
    Or - more interesting IMO:
    2. Q getting mad at Bond for messing up his flat with dozens of empty Heineken cans, and empty take-away boxes.

    That would be a Bond film, I'd love to see.

    *travels according to dictation*

    This is such a ridiculous argument that it barely makes any sense. Strawman argument doesn't even begin to describe this clumsy post. Of course no one wants to see Bond married with children. Of course Craig was dead set on retiring and everyone knew it was his time to move on. But that doesn't mean we have to kill him in order to resolve the child plot and give the era a "conclusion". If a reboot is assumed whenever a new actor takes on the helm anyway, they could have left Bond alive with amnesia at the end of the movie or drifting off at sea or whatever and started the next movie with a new Bond in a new story and new direction with no references to Craig. Are you saying you can get over the idea of a dead character coming back to life in the next entry but can't get over the thought that "another version" of the character has a kid with a girl in the previous film?

    I think he was just kidding.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    I am always surprised when I see people suggest the "amnesia ending" as a good idea or even an improvement on what happened in NTTD. Do people seriously like this idea, or is it only palatable because it's Fleming, the Messiah that could do no wrong? I think it would be a truly horrible ending! It would be far more tragic and heartbreaking than him dying. Adding to that it would be significantly more confusing to most people, especially the more casual fans. I think the only reason it is even considered by us is because we have read it before. 99% of the people who have seen NTTD have not read YOLT the novel, and I think they would be perplexed and horrified at how they could come up with such an odd idea.

    Based on the continuity argument, it improves absolutely nothing - in fact, in my opinion, it muddies the water even more. Bond dying to save the world and his family is sad and heroic. Bond getting amnesia and leaving everything behind like a confused, solitary individual is... just outright depressing.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    But… it’s Fleming!

    @jobo I very much agree. IMO the amnesia ending would only work in the context of following OHMSS and preceding TMWTGG as a final installment for one’s tenure. But given that this was his last film and that it follows SP, it just wouldn’t work.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Again, how does him being dead in one movie, alive in the next work but him getting amnesia in one movie and then being back to normal with a new actor not work?
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote: »
    Again, how does him being dead in one movie, alive in the next work but him getting amnesia in one movie and then being back to normal with a new actor not work?


    I didn't say it wouldn't work, necessarily. I am saying it would be no improvement at all, wouldn't make any more sense or be less confusing, and that it would be far more tragic and unsatisfying.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    ColonelAdamski wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    In six years, or however long, when we get a new Bond film with a new Bond actor, new Whitehall Brigade, and new megalomaniacal villain, where Bond rides off into the sunset with a new Bond Woman as he's done 24 out of the last 25 times, how would that affect your view of the end of NTTD? Are you happy to just write off NTTD as though it doesn't exist? Would you write off the whole Craig Era? Curious about your thoughts.

    This is the thing. I'm not sure how I'd approach it now, because they could kill off the new Bond in the film after that, couldn't they?
    They've actually damaged the franchise for me.

    If anything, that could be better because then the stakes in the movie will be much higher? Certainly higher than if you *know* Bond will live.

    Or perhaps, lower, because whether Bond lives or dies is no longer such a big issue?

    But I agree with the other posters, it won't happen.

    That's part of what I was trying to get at.
    On the one hand, it is now on the table that Bond could potentially die. That should mean, that the stakes for the films are raised after decades of "well, he'll get out of it in some ridiculous way anyway" (at this point, I will leave to the side the argument that that is the central appeal of the character).
    On the other hand: It doesnt matter, they will reboot anyway.
    On the other, other hand: They can't pull the same trick twice. These were very, very specific circumstances that made it (in my eyes) work this time. If they cast Tom Hardy and after two films he doesn't want to do it anymore, so they just randomly kill him, I can't see how I wouldn't hate that.

    Still very interesting to think about.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    ColonelAdamski wrote: »
    DavidWebb wrote: »
    Overall, I liked it, it was a decent way to end the 5 movie stretch.

    If it was a five film series which started in 2006, and that was the last movie, then I'd agree. But it's the twenty-fifth film in a sixty year series, and it's not even the last film. So no, killing him off doesn't work for many people.
    It does work for many too though, obviously.

    In six years, or however long, when we get a new Bond film with a new Bond actor, new Whitehall Brigade, and new megalomaniacal villain, where Bond rides off into the sunset with a new Bond Woman as he's done 24 out of the last 25 times, how would that affect your view of the end of NTTD? Are you happy to just write off NTTD as though it doesn't exist? Would you write off the whole Craig Era? Curious about your thoughts.

    This is fascinating to me because I was just thinking on this.
    Is this the end? How Bond leaves this mortal coil? Do I watch DAD and think 'but I know the day you die now'? Do I watch SP & pretend he has a happy-ever-after with Madeline?
    To me, each movie (even QOS) is a self-contained reality, unlike say, the Jones movies. And each actor's tenure is like a separate universe. Indeed, the genius of this franchise lies in the ability of the movies to let us mentally compartmentalize. Did Bond lose the love of his life in Vesper? Or was it Tracy? See? Pulp fiction at it's finest.
    If you agree here I might even buy you a delicatessen, in stainless steel... ;)

    There's an interesting almost mythical notion to this. If this is - at least roughly - canonically the way every incarnation of James Bond dies, than we now have a set of markers that signify the end. Basically, like some kind of myth where we either know the end already or there are prophecies of some kind. Bond retires to Jamaica and is called back for one last mission? Oh oh. Felix Leiter dies? Oh oh. Bond has a daughter. Oh oh. M or MI6 release a WMD into the wild? Oh oh.

    I don't actually think that, but it is a storytelling avenue to go down.
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    One thing is that they won’t really be able to say “Bond has finally met his match!” In any new Bond films, because he already met his match, and it was Safin apparently. ;)

    Not that they use that sort of marketing anymore. Ugh, if anything, it makes me more upset that they didn’t use Blofeld as the main villain / Shatterhand type figure in NTTD; if they were going to kill bond, IMO, it must be Blofeld to do it.

    Another thing to grapple with: Safin decidedly wasn't Bond's match. I actually consider that a very smart decision by the filmmakers. Bond very easily defeats him and kills him almost as an afterthought (I maintain that Bond would have survived the gunshot wounds, because Bond always survives everything - whoops). And Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote: »
    Again, how does him being dead in one movie, alive in the next work but him getting amnesia in one movie and then being back to normal with a new actor not work?

    Because it would make an awful final installment for an actor.

    Craig Bond forgets who he is, the end? Why is that better, because he’s merely alive? He might as well be dead.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,078
    They can't kill off 'the character' and expect people to simply accept the same character coming back without any explanation. It's either a different character or he didn't die. One or the other, anything different is daftness.
    I understand what a 'character arc' is, and what a 'timeline' is, but it's just a stupid idea. I read a lot of fiction and there has to be an element of narrative cohesion for it to work. And they've up the Bond franchise for me by killing off a character and saying - five minutes later, that he's not dead after all. It's complete billy-bollocks.
    There's always been a loose chronology with Bond. In Brosnan's last movie there was a scene where Rosa Klebb's shoe was in it, and I know it's impossible that 49 year old Brosnan in 2002 was 32 in 1963 (or whatever their ages were), but there was still the knowing wink to the audience that it was the same character. It didn't make sense, but it still worked for me. Straight up killing him off and bringing him back doesn't make sense but doesn't work for me. It breaks a wall. It's dishonest.
    How can you invest any emotion in a screen character who can be killed off and resurrected without explanation at whim?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    ColonelAdamski wrote: »
    They can't kill off 'the character' and expect people to simply accept the same character coming back without any explanation. It's either a different character or he didn't die. One or the other, anything different is daftness.
    I understand what a 'character arc' is, and what a 'timeline' is, but it's just a stupid idea. I read a lot of fiction and there has to be an element of narrative cohesion for it to work. And they've fucked up the Bond franchise for me by killing off a character and saying - five minutes later, that he's not dead after all. It's complete billy-bollocks.
    There's always been a loose chronology with Bond. In Brosnan's last movie there was a scene where Rosa Klebb's shoe was in it, and I know it's impossible that 49 year old Brosnan in 2002 was 32 in 1963 (or whatever their ages were), but there was still the knowing wink to the audience that it was the same character. It didn't make sense, but it still worked for me. Straight up killing him off and bringing him back doesn't make sense but doesn't work for me. It breaks a wall. It's dishonest.
    How can you invest any emotion in a screen character who can be killed off and resurrected without explanation at whim?

    That’s a problem for you and a subset of fans.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    "Daftness" would be the mysterious resurrection of a man who got blasted into oblivion. I'm not sure it's either a different character or he didn't die.

    - Here's Bond again!
    - Wait, didn't he die?
    - That was another film, mate.
    - So?
    - The Bonds stand on their own more or less.
    - So I don't have to worry about previous movies?
    - You don't have to worry about previous movies.
    - I see. Well, let's have some fun then. Are buying nachos?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    ColonelAdamski wrote: »
    They can't kill off 'the character' and expect people to simply accept the same character coming back without any explanation. It's either a different character or he didn't die. One or the other, anything different is daftness.
    I understand what a 'character arc' is, and what a 'timeline' is, but it's just a stupid idea. I read a lot of fiction and there has to be an element of narrative cohesion for it to work. And they've up the Bond franchise for me by killing off a character and saying - five minutes later, that he's not dead after all. It's complete billy-bollocks.
    There's always been a loose chronology with Bond. In Brosnan's last movie there was a scene where Rosa Klebb's shoe was in it, and I know it's impossible that 49 year old Brosnan in 2002 was 32 in 1963 (or whatever their ages were), but there was still the knowing wink to the audience that it was the same character. It didn't make sense, but it still worked for me. Straight up killing him off and bringing him back doesn't make sense but doesn't work for me. It breaks a wall. It's dishonest.
    How can you invest any emotion in a screen character who can be killed off and resurrected without explanation at whim?

    It’s gonna be a different incarnation of the character of James Bond.
    Like Craig was a different incarnation compared to Brozza and Dalton a different incarnation compared to Moore.
    Is that so difficult to comprehend?
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,078
    matt_u wrote: »
    It’s gonna be a different incarnation of the character of James Bond.
    Like Craig was a different incarnation compared to Brozza and Dalton a different incarnation compared to Moore.
    Is that so difficult to comprehend?

    Nope. It's only during Craig's 'special' tenure we're asked to accept this stupid 'alternate universe'.
    Brosnan sniffed the shoe, mate.

  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,078
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    That’s a problem for you and a subset of fans.

    That's right. And I'm not saying people who are happy to accept zombie-Bond are wrong - in fact, in many ways they're luckier, in being able to enjoy the new Bond film without this silly nagging feeling that they've cocked it up splendidly. More power to you!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    The problem here is to believe that all the different incarnation of Bond before Craig were set within the “same universe”. Even tho a few times they toyed with this notion, with embarrassing results like in FYEO, I fail to understand how DAD could be set within the same universe of DN. Perhaps because believing in such idea doesn’t make any sense.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,078
    There are a lot of things in fiction that don't make sense, and there's a symbiotic relationship between reader and author when it comes to narrative cohesiveness. Yes, it's impossible that Brozza sung Underneath The Mango Tree in '62, but it's acceptable in terms of the fictional narrative.
    Blowing the main character up and claiming he's dead, and then saying he'll be back, isn't acceptable.
    If it's acceptable to you - bully for you. You're the one having more fun!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    It’s not about being acceptable. It’s about facing the fact that every new actor brought a different take to the character and that all the different eras have never been connected. Craig brought this notion to the extremes, obviously, since it’s the first Bond with a real continuity and comprehensive story arc between all films (like in the books), but his death at the end of NTTD is basically irrelevant regarding B26. The next film will be a total new take, like it always happened, and won’t reference the previous era.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I think it's a shame the ending naturally consumes everyone's opinions of NTTD, because there's a lot to love and equally dislike about it, that's barely been spoke about.

    How great were the hand to hand fights in this film? The fight's with Logan Ash and Primo actually felt life or death. I was on the edge of my seat at every viewing
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 3,152
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
    Good point, actually. Viewed like this, it removes the 'Bond gave up' complaints. Instead, you can say that Bond chose his own ending - that no one could stop him but himself and he chose to go out standing up and facing it. He didn't passively accept death - he actively chose it so that Madeleine and Mathilde could live. Men like Bond have died to protect women and children for millennia - so this was old-school positive masculinity to the end. Bond was a hero to the (literal) death. Good one, IG - this might be the start of my being able to reach an accommodation with all of this!
Sign In or Register to comment.