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
Nice post. I think that SP should have been the end. It wrapped everything up, and it was a throwback Bond film in many ways (I always see Roger Moore’s influence on this film). And while DC for me is the best Bond ever, by a large margin, well, he’s my favorite actor period, waiting 6 years (to get what we got) is ridiculous. Agree that Cubby would NOT have waited this long. Just goes to show how much influence DC had over his Bond. They were willing to appease him in almost any way it seems. They were also looking for a new Bond, supposedly, when Fukunaga was at the helm (this is off of memory, so I may be incorrect). I had a really bad feeling about NTTD when I became familiar with Fukunaga’s prior works, and the more I read about him and his philosophy, I was like, “this movie could turn out very badly.” More on him in another post, but I don’t think they could have made a much worse choice for a director. Wish it could have concluded with SP, and Bond driving off into the sunset. And if I never see that damn DB5 again, it will be too soon.
"You always have a choice"
And on the bridge he makes that very choice between killing or now, (M on one side, Maddy on the other, could it be any more obvious?), and throws his gun away.
The even left his 'retirement' vague, (I thought you'd left' could be taken either way). So it would have been nice and easy to go to the next actor with a smooth transition and no need for 'reboots' or any real explanation. It was great.
But one more film, and it's like soap opera Bond, with him professing his love, finding his kid he didn't know he had, then they kill off Felix, and blow up James Bond.
What
A
Mess.
The film has its strengths, and if it wasn't about James Bond it's be a good action/romance. But as a Bond film, killing off the character after sixty years isn't really fair on the fans of the franchise. And I can't be the only one wondering what makes Daniel Craig's Bond so special that he has the say in killing him off.
Uhm, what? Based on the response on this site, most of the fans are fine with the path they chose.
The people who can accept the 'character timeline' idea unflinchingly, are quite happy seeing Bond die, and would, I imagine, not care if it happened again. Which now it's been done once, could be done again.
To be honest, I loved the ending, but the idea of Bond being killed off again doesn't appeal me at all. I'd love NTTD to be the Bond film where Bond dies for the time being.
Yes, I've seen this said a few times. Lots of people are confident they won't do it again. Who knows?
One thing's for sure, for older cinematic Bond fans like me and others, even doing it once is a bitter narrative pill to swallow.
I'd love to find out if the people that hate the ending are mostly like me. Older fans, who don't watch Marvel type films and aren't in touch with this modern 'timeline' idea of the same character having Star Trek like alternate universes.
My one gripe with this thread title is saying the film shouldn't have been made. They can make whatever film they want, they can have a flying Bond with X-ray eyes if they like. That's the nature of art. And we all have the right to say if we like it or not. That's how it works. I'd never say people that like it shouldn't like it. But I can explain why I don't like it.
I liken the 'timeline' idea to the Dallas 'Pam's Dream; series. I think killing off Bond and having him bought back to life in a 'different timeline' is just as daft as the whole of that series of Dallas being Pam's dream. I should imagine people who watched Dallas were either annoyed at the idea, where other just shrugged their shoulders and said "as long as it's good TV and I enjoy it, I don't care".
I'm an older Bond fan who had no problem with NTTD...because it's a one off.
I'm not guaranteeing that it wont happen again, but it's not usual for EON to go for the same fan splitting story line twice in a row. Maybe TSWLM and MR are similar in villains plan to destroy the world. But killing Bond isn't likely to be on future Bond films must haves.
Has the killing Bond in NTTD given fans who didn't like this a fear of where Bond will head in future films?
Why would it become a mainstay for future Bond actors? It's never been done before and the series has been evolving since GF. EON have always taken chances, sometimes good, sometimes not so good. But I actually like that they're will to take risks with the films. Sure they don't always appease the fans, but they'll come back and wow us with something else.
After a six year hiatus after LTK, a film I very much enjoy, we got GE. A film that was a massive hit and began the road for a new group of Bond fans. At first I myself wasn't a big fan. Gone were the usual Bond family members, and in their place a new crew, a new cast. It was for me a big shock. However over the years I've gotten more and more on board, till the point that I rate GE very highly now. I'm not saying give NTTD a chance and oneday you might enjoy it. But I am saying is have some faith in the series. We've come this far, it'd be a pity to give up on our favourite fictional spy now.
I don't know about 'fear', but it's certainly made me realise that the old days of Bond getting his mission, gadgets etc at the start, and going off on singular adventures with evil baddies and beautiful women is well and truly over. It wouldn't surprise me if they make some quite radical changes to the character in line with current heightened sense of social awareness, (I'm sure you know what I mean). It could well be that there will soon be aspects of James Bond even more divisive than his death. But I'm rambling. . .
I still have the old Bond movies on DVD, and my Fleming books, so the old Bond is there if I want.
The world has moved on (mr Bond!), and there's no room anymore for the loner Bond; the man for whom 'the same view would always pall'.
This. It's only the ending of 1 Bond film. This is just 1 of many timelines. The ending of this film doesn't affect any of the other timelines. There will be many more Bond films to come with different actors.
I still expect the decision to kill Bond (in this film) to be controversial a few decades from now. But people won't be nearly as angry about it.
It'll be moreso "well, that wasnt a good decision" moreso than "this is the biggest betrayal I've ever been in the series". Emotions will calm down.
And it will age better than SPECTRE. Having a disagreeable ending in 1 film is still better than Retconning and ruining previous films.
I only count two. How many timelines have you got?
We could start a competition to see who has the most!
Personally, I thought it was the complete opposite of style over substance/shock value. I thought the ending matched up really well with the themes they’d been exploring throughout this era. Bond ruining everything he touches, lost childhoods leading to screwed up people. Bond realising he was too far gone to have a normal life, and sacrificing himself to ensure his daughter could, was the most heroic I’ve found the character since Dalton took down Sanchez. Loved it, and while I would have been happy with SP as an ending at the time, I’m really glad Craig decided to return with hindsight.
I think it’s left the series in a great place too. CR was a real shock to the system for me when it came out. I wasn’t keen on the origin story or how they ditched all that iconography. Seeing the whole run has made that click for me. I’ve enjoyed having a run that feels like a complete story, and while I struggled to adjust to it at first, I think this experimentation will be good for the future of the brand. I don’t see the point in being a Fleming purist when half the films have nothing to do with him personally. The series never would have taken off if Connery hadn’t made his dry civil servant type so ridiculously cool. Fleming didn’t want Connery and there’s a quote somewhere about how he hated the film of DN (him making Bond Scottish as a nod is a fan myth iirc, he was just interested in his own ancestry). Roger Moore was essentially playing a whole different character. Bond’s greatest strength has always been its flexibility. The reason it’s lasted so long is that we’ve had double taking pigeons and gritty thrillers under that same beautiful umberella. The older I get, the more I find something to enjoy about all those takes, and the more hesitant I am to go full Partridge and start going on about getting Bond wrong. I like how the Craig era has broken more rules than ever. It makes the future of the series tantilisingly unpredictable for me.
The Man With the Golden Typewriter book is arriving tomorrow, I'll be interested to see if there's any clues on the literary Bond's Scottish father in that.
Anyway, more on point - I think there's a valid argument for the killing of Bond being acceptable because it's a current trend to kill off major characters. I don't think they'd have been able to kill of Moore's Bond in 1985, and return with a new Bond in 1987, without there being much more of a kerfuffle than there is now.
The line ended up as 'give a damn', but that story shows that Craig enjoyed subverting Bond traditions. So I can well imagine him wanting his Bond to die.
I expect a lot of people would say "what would Cubby have thought!".
But as I say, it's up to them to make whatever film they want, and it's up to us to enjoy it, or not.
Great read, and a fine post @thelivingroyale
:-bd
I can’t claim it’s true for certain to be fair, that’s just what I remember reading on here, so I’m not sure what the source was. But Andrew Lycett’s biography talks about how Fleming thought DN (the film) was “dreadful”, iirc. He thought people who’d read the book would be disappointed. Since OHMSS (the novel) came out not long after, that makes me inclined to believe that the Scottish link being down to Connery was just fan speculation.
He did visit the sets of the next two though to be fair, so maybe the box office helped him come around. But I think it’s notable that he didn’t want Connery and wasn’t satisfied with Connery on first viewing. If we’d gotten David Niven or someone else who Fleming saw as more befitting of Bond’s social class, then would the series have taken off? I think it was Connery’s working-class masculinity, and how he combined that with the gentleman side, that made Bond such an iconic, alpha male hero. It just goes to show imo that the series has always played it fast and loose with the source material and Fleming’s wishes, and that doesn’t always have to be a bad thing.
I seem to remember he was doing research on the Bond name in 1960, and wondered if the name might have Scottish roots, as Fleming's grandfather was Scottish. So he was toying with the idea before Connery was cast - but perhaps we'll never know if Connery's casting prompted him to give Bond a Scots dad in the OHMSS novel.
It was a nice touch in Skyfall though, having Bond in Glen Coe, where his father lived.
Well said and reflective of my own thoughts. I can't say I've seen GE go up in my estimation, somewhat because the Dalton era didn't get its full due, but who knows? I've loved the Craig era. Does that mean I won't look forward to the next? Not at all. It will be tough to follow but that's what a fan does, hopes for the best.
Another great post. It's discussions like these that make this site fun to come to, whichever side you happen to fall on.
This was everything I was dreading about this film.
WTH were they thinking?
Yes, I wanted a place where we could do just that.
Cubby thought A View to a Kill was a good idea.
Enjoy your safe space. ;)
Here is a point I'd like to take further with those who are disappointed by, dislike or downright hate NTTD or the Craig era. This is a series marked by various phases, tones, etc. Why does the representation of one mean loss of hope in something that has been going for so long and changed, adapted, moved forward, etc.?
I've been through numerous decades of Bond films and had my own ups and downs as a hardcore fan. I couldn't wait for the Moore era to finish after AVTAK and got Dalton and was overjoyed. I found the Brosnan era to be underwhelming but never gave up. The Craig era was, for me, a breath of fresh air and appreciated it for what it did instead of just trotting out what has gone before. But there have been moves there that haven't lived up to it for me as well. Didn't mean I lost any hope or felt things were too far gone to care again.
I just find it interesting that Bond fans would be this turned off so as not to look forward to what comes next as opposed to the naysayers who say Bond is dead and whine about woke and Bond being a woman on the various Facebook sites advertising NTTD on streaming. They will likely forget it all by the time the new one comes out.
I think @murdock summed up my feelings perfectly. Check the boxes. NTTD does my feel like a Bond movie to me. Spectre tied it all up, and the story was told. But no, wait! There is Spectre Part 2 aka NTTD. It would have been so much better for the franchise (and those of us anti-NTTD folks) if Eon had not purchased the rights to Spectre and Blofeld. Did we really need Spectre or Blofeld? Blofeld has been satirized to death. A generic, and cartoony type in most incarnations. The Craig series worked its *** off to make Bond be taken seriously by audiences, which is what I’ve always wanted, and many others. Let’s be realistic too: Waltz was terrible in the role. If anyone judged his acting based on SP and NTTD only, where would you rate him as an actor? But, I could tolerate him to an extent I’m SP, that was the story, good or bad. It isn’t a good idea imo for the main star of a franchise to have so much creative control. Having some say of course is necessary, to basically control the creative process, no. Because it’s all about THEM. Again, I love DC, but for him to probably and likely decide the fate of a character that has existed so long before him..that’s too much power for any actor to have.
Because NTTD is another example of the Bond series riding the coattails of other franchises like Marvel, SW, and GOT, where shock deaths were used to make up for the lack of actual storytelling. Giving James Bond of all characters a shock death is unforgivable. Craig and EON knew they were sparking controversy for its own sake. They saw the reaction to the (awful) SW sequels, hell Craig even cameo'd in one of them. They knew they were essentially making the Bond version of The Last Jedi, where the hero is a broken-down wreck and gets bumped off for an annoying female replacement. They knew it'd piss off fans and they did it anyway.
Only Christopher Nolan's involvement can get me interested in any more Bond movies, as he's the only filmmaker in Hollywood who has the right sensibilities for it, and I simply don't trust BB and MGW's guidance anymore. BB's gushing over Craig is particularly bizarre. You'd think he and not Connery was the first James Bond. Maybe it was because he was the first Bond she cast. Whatever, it doesn't matter. They did what they did and now they have to live with the cultural fallout for this.