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
I agree. I suppose they had to find a different ending to the 'happy ever after' ending of SP. It's a shame that by choosing to bump off daddy Bond they've created a story ending that overshadows the actual film for some.
You see each change of actor as portraying a different screen character? I'd say that's quite an unusual way of viewing the franchise, but if it works for you, go for it.
You made it!
Tried to make this point a while back. It’s potentially the most badass thing he could do.
It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall in the script meetings when this ending was being discussed. I'm sure they gave a great deal of thought to the 'what' and the 'how'.
Good point. Overall CJF handles a Bondfilm better than Mendes, especially where action and staging of combat is concerned.
Not a different screen character. A different (sometimes a radically different) incarnation of the same character. It’s not unusual. We were never supposed to see all the different eras like a connected storyline set within the very same “universe”, even before Craig. Every era has always been its own thing.
Absolutely.
It's also one of those things where people's perceptions of the same things differ wildly.
Critics of the ending are absolutely correct that it is constructed. It is very much constructed. I'll have to watch the film a couple more times and think about it some more to really pull everything together, but the major story beats are very much there to put Bond in that situation at the very end. The most obvious is when Bond basically asks Q the question every audience member has to have: How do you get rid of it? And Q says, you can't. They're eternal. And you can think that as well done or think it's cheap, but they really have put a lot of thought into how you could possibly put Bond in a position like that.
Yep. It’s this, which is what makes the film so beautiful. In Jamaica, Nomi accuses him of nothing to live for, and he ends the movie with a reason to die. It also adds an incredible richness to his entire tenure, imo, that someday this Bond would make this choice for his family.
But the Craig era will, no doubt, hang heavily over whatever comes next, much as Connery's did for about ten years after his tenure.
With Bond only the universe of the one movie you watch at the moment counts.
So if Bond is well and alive in Bond 26, then he never died in that universe.
There is no need to try and put Bond 26 in connection with other Bond films.
And even when Bond in DAD has a connection to Rosa Klebb's shoe, it doesn't mean, that he was also married to Tracy. It just means, that he might have had an encounter with a Klebb-like character in his DAD-universe.
The only connection a movie has to another Bond film is the one they show you on screen.
So there don't has to be any connection to any other Bond film with Bond 26.
It simply doesn't matter, that he died in Bond 25, because that's not part of the Bond 26 timeline/universe.
Furthermore, does this ambiguity, to whatever extent it's there, improve or worsen the ending?
The latter is in all cases the true reason for him not getting off that island in time, but in spirit I'd like to think that Bond would do such a thing as the former for family. I think the way it was supposed to be viewed is in fact that emotional-type ending, where Bond gives up his life for his family's. But yes, I think it really came down to his injuries.
Haha -- Indeed, there is definitely some truth to that.
I don't see how it adds richness to anything. Felix dies. Blofeld dies. Craig-Bond dies. Was there no other way for the filmmakers to give exits to these characters? And that's not even including Mathis and Dench-M. Reading the plot rundown on wikipedia, this movie comes off as a controlled demolition to me, just burning everything down so they can start fresh or whatever for the next "reboot" (ugh).
What was the point of Craig's tenure as Bond? What was his story? He becomes Bond briefly, then quits, becomes Bond again, quits again, comes back again, and dies? Casino Royale's ending sets up a line of films that we never got: a young, badass Bond tearing sh*t up. Instead we got 4 movies of a broken, miserable man, 3 of them suddenly involving an "old" and out-of-date James Bond who ultimately ends up getting blown up by his own Navy.
Craig was finished in 2015. Why on earth did they wait 5 years (not including the one-year delay) to bring him back for this? To give him a big sendoff? Why? Why does he need a sendoff? He's not the first actor to play Bond, he's the sixth, and while he may have revitalized the role in 2006 he certainly didn't define it any more than Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan did. It feels like they broke Cubby's rule of the actor becoming bigger than the character.
Hold on, are you telling me you've been blowing up the forums about this and still haven't even watched the bloody film?
I think the answer is in Bond's last moments. He doesn't tell Madeleine that he's shot or doesn't have enough time to make it out. She didn't even know the missiles were on the way yet. She accurately assumes the only possible reason he had for not attempting to leave was that he was poisoned with her nanobots which he confirms. The script even has her desperately pleading that there must be a way to stop the poison. Because in that moment, that's what mattered. Bond also doesn't even tell Q he's shot or respond to Q's repeated concern over his lack of time. And it might be a stretch, but he doesn't even ask Q about a possible place to survive the blast when Q has been mapping out the base with Qdar the entire time. He only asks about the nanobots looking for a semblance of hope. When Q says the nanobots are harmless as long as he’s not near to the target, Bond says “that’s not going to work,” not “it’s fine, I’m dying anyway.” Whether he could have made it out in time or survived his wounds is a realistic consideration for us outside of the film, but in my opinion from what is presented onscreen, it's not relevant to Bond's decision to stay.
Yes, I think any iteration of Bond would have sacrificed himself for his family (had each one had a family, of course), just as every Bond mission has implied the willingness to sacrifice himself for the greater good. And both of those things have happened with the conclusion of NTTD.
That willingness to sacrifice himself has always separated him, both morally & ethically, from criminals like Dr. No ("I thought there may even be a place for you in SPECTRE") and Scaramanga ("Come, come Mr. Bond ...").
And for 24/25 films he has accomplished what needed to be done without requirement of it ... which is a pretty good run, really.
Who claimed that Craig defined the character "more" than the others? How do you even do such a thing? Craig re-defined the character, but only in the smallest of ways because the "definition" of Bond is pretty thin anyway. Every actor re-defined Bond to some extent. But to define Bond "more" than others? I guess when you get to do more films (e.g. Craig vs. Lazenby) and slightly more personal stories (e.g. Lazenby vs. Moore) you end up crawling under Bond's skin a bit more than the other guy. But "define more"? I can't tell you that much more about Craig's Bond than about Connery's, except for circumstantial details, i.e. things that have happened to him.
What was the point of Craig's tenure? I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Since when is there a "point" to an actor's tenure? What was the point of Moore's? Of Brosnan's? What does that mean? They went from adventure to adventure, and we love them. Craig's Bond simply faced more bumps in the road by design. But let's be fair. If Dalton's films had been better received, they might have gone there too. He went from "M can fire me!" to "piss off, I'm just doing what I want!". Brosnan wishes (and so do I) that his stories could have been a little edgier too. (The "rogue" portion of DAD feels like a compromise.) Craig is the first Bond whose uneven loyalty to the system was embraced by audiences, enough to make it a staple of his films.
That is part of the zeitgeist, by the way. The heroes of now operate for us, not for their masters (I have to kill a bombmaker and beat LeChiffre because I am convinced it's the right thing to do); they follow their orders but not unconditionally (we are a part of the State but the State doesn't own us). It's the culmination of fifty years of neo-liberalism; in the end, the individual will fight for itself rather than for the "status quo". Craig's Bond doesn't fit the ultra-loyal, no-questions-asked "Golden Generation mentality" because modern audiences wouldn't find that appealing. Craig's Bond is obedient but only on his own terms, the paradoxical way of thinking that many of us carry over to our job, community and other institutions every day in this day and age (there really is an "I" in the team of 2021). It's no wonder then that the "here's your assignment Bond, now go and do your job" formula doesn't work anymore. For England, James? No, for me.
They waited five years because that's how long it took to get this film made. Why is James Cameron taking 14 (!) years to give us another Avatar? Because that's how long it's taking him. Don't overthink this. We have followed the various stages of the film's development. No one decided to wait 5 years. That's what happened. There were setbacks they had to face: the suits were quarrelling, COVID happened, it didn't work out with Boyle, ... None of this was desirable, but it happened. There's no plan behind the five-year gap, only a linear sequence of events that led to this point.
Why he needs a sendoff? He doesn't. They chose to give it to him. Craig is a popular Bond. And some folks felt that he definitely had one more Bond in him. If the rights to CR hadn't landed in EON's lap, Brosnan would most likely have gotten a 5th film. Could have been a symbolic sendoff to, in some shape or form. We don't know. Doesn't matter. Why did they keep Moore on, when some--not me!--were screaming he was getting a bit long in the tooth? Same thing. He was popular, he was reliable. Don't overthink it.
It's all a culmination of events, my friend. Frankly, I think it's a victory they got this film made and released. It's cost them though, costs that will require years to recuperate. NTTD was birthed in a very difficult climate, arguably the most difficult of any of the Bonds so far. I applaud the fact that they finally got here. I'm confident that if they had known this is what was coming to them, NTTD wouldn't have happened. But all the struggles will lend the film some sympathy too. It will always be remembered, I'm sure, as the Bond film that had to fight for its life and barely made its money back, if at all, mostly because of a global pandemic that neither allowed the film to be shelved indefinitely, nor to be released with guaranteed financial success.
Yes, he hasn't seen it. It's quite incredible... ;))
Alright, I should've marked it as ironic or funny or not to be taken seriously. I thought this to be obvious, but apparently some people did not realize this. Mea culpa. ^:)^ ^:)^
Absolute insanity.
There is ambiguity, but I'm not sure it's in the narrative events of the conclusion. I think the film shows us that there is little possibility of Bond getting to safety.
What may be confusing (but certainly effective emotionally for us as viewers), is that as the ending plays out, Bond is in dialogue with both Q & Madeleine, neither of whom are aware that Bond has been gravely wounded. All they come to know is that he has been poisoned with the nanobots targeted for Madeleine & Mathilde and assume it to be the reason for him not getting to safety. And as audience members, we may take our cue from them - and that is certainly how I viewed it the first time I saw the film.
Where there is ambiguity is the question of what is going on in Bond's mind in those last few minutes before his death:
At what point does he decide he is "not going to make it"?
Or is it, rather, an awareness & acceptance that he is "not going to make it"?
I lean toward the latter interpretation, whereas many or most favour the former it seems ...
But whatever the case it all makes for a rich and devastatingly emotional conclusion to the film.
That's quite a good point. Bond sends Madeleine, Mathilde and Nomi to safety with the boat. He then opens the blast doors and gives M the "go" to launch the missiles, and he wuill have a little over 9 minutes to get off the island. At that point he might have had a chance to get off, but then, how should he do it? The boat is gone, with Madeline, Mathilde and Nomi. To jump into the sea and swim to the next island? But then Safin closes the blast doors, and Bond rushes to re-open them. He is the attacked and shot by Safin, before Safin "poisons" him with the nanobots. And we see, he is severly wounded, with blood dripping with every "step" he makes to the controle room. So, being injured hampers him strongly, and the nanobot poison just "tops" all of this. Q and Madeleine don't know about his injury. So, I think, we can assume, he would not have made it, as the missiles approach the island very fast, he is bleeding out (his shirt gets blood-soaked,m we can see that, when he stand atop the bunker), and due to the nanobots he would never be able to come near Madeleine and Mathilde without killing them. So, this seems to add up, and I assume, he might not have made it anyway, as he has nothing, that could help him to leave the island.
The "stealthy bird" is still there. He can't achieve flight with it from the sea, but it can be used as a submersible/boat. I assume that was his plan.
Probably. But the heavy injuries and the poisoning made this impossible. If Safin had not re-closed the blast doors, plus the injury made this obsolete, as time was running out with the missiles approaching the island very fast.
I agree with you bro. After the shock of the ending passes, some of the haters will appreciate this film. Just like OHMSS was not well received in 1969 but by the Nineties hard core fans came to appreciate it. In the Mi6 survey of ranking the films for the 50th anniversary in 2012 prior to SF release, OHMSS came in a strong Fourth.
And I have to say that Craig went out with a bang (no pun) in his final outting. Most Bond Actors final films (save for LTK) stunk.
I loved Swan since seeing her in that green dress in SPECTRE and she just looks so good in her clothes in both of her Bond films. Malik is a good villain, good to see Q, Moneypenny, and Fiennes as M as well as the final turn for Jeffrey Wright's Leiter. I give the film two thumbs up and eventually the haters will come around.
Yes, there are less than five minutes before impact when Q resumes contact with Bond, after Bond has killed Safin and proceeds literally to hobble back to the control room to reopen the blast doors, bleeding all the way. (Actually, 4:44, we can see it clearly indicated on Q's monitor when the camera cuts back to him.)
As Bond converses with Q and then Madeleine, the camera continues to chart the progressive breakdown of Bond's body, as he next barely manages (whether through resignation, physical incapacity, or likely some combination of the two) to climb the ladder leading to the roof of the control room. Once he reaches the roof, he pauses again to speak to Madeleine, and then badly falls to his hands and knees as he tries to stand up, with absolute agony registered on his face.
With about 90 seconds left before impact (by my rough estimate) there is a reverse shot from behind Bond in which we can clearly see, from his perspective, just how far away the water is - and it's far. In the same shot we can also see at least one of the two gunshot wounds to his back.
Even with all the will in the world, he's not getting off that island ....