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
Well first of all, I wasn’t ecstatic to see Bond die. I was sad. Emotional ending. I then left the cinema, got over it because he’s only a fictional character, and thought “that ending felt right”.
Now, in my opinion, what feels right for Daniel Craig’s Bond wouldn’t necessarily be what feels right for Connery and Moore. And I could explain to you why that is. But why bother? It won’t stop you saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. There’s post after post after post on here from fans of the film about why they liked it. I know I personally have written a good few paragraphs about why I liked the ending over the last few months. If you’re still struggling to grasp why anyone would disagree with you, even after all this time, then frankly that’s a you problem.
I don’t buy that they had to kill off Craig’s Bond in order to “ clean the slate “.
Christian Bales Batman dies officially at the end of The Dark Knight Rises but Bruce Wayne lives on.It didn’t change the fact that Ben Afflecks and Robert Pattinsons versions of Batman are any less valid.They just take place in different timelines.
If Craig driving off to a happy ending with Madeline at the end of Spectre had been it for him,it wouldn’t change the fact that the next iteration of Bond will be a clean slate.Audiences will know it’s an entirely new continuity.
Like I said, these films involve very particular characters dying. Viewers normally wouldn't expect them to.
Again, there's your thing about 'copying', as if it would be a bad thing if this film did take influence from another one or even has these similarities at all. It's odd.
In a sense it doesn't really matter what you or I think the filmmakers were influenced by. The fact it's been noted by many people on this forum, and indeed people I watched the film with, that Bond's death was not unlike those of other 'unkillable' main characters recently is interesting though. Like I said, everyone I left the cinema with basically said NTTD's ending was not unlike Logan's. Even Dench's M, shocking as her death was, isn't the same as Bond. The title of M can always be replaced. James Bond is one man. The formula always dictates he comes out alive, until this one.
In a way, killing off characters has become pretty commonplace in modern film/tv anyway (Game of Thrones is a notable example of this), so this is just a specific extension of that.
True, and these two deaths I felt were handled very similarly. I don't think I'm going to convince you about this for whatever reason, and like I said at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I believe the filmmakers were influenced by or even intended. I can only point out my own individual views.
Personally, I found NTTD resembled Logan very broadly - the fact that both films are about these protagonists at a later point in their lives, both films involve said characters having daughters which we wouldn't normally expect, both of their closest allies die during the film (again, a subversion of what audiences would think typical for these movies), both characters die at the end, their deaths involve both of them sacrificing themselves and having a heartfelt goodbye to the ones they love, and both characters 'live on' through their children after this sacrifice in the form of stories, thus cementing their heroism (in Logan it's comic books, in NTTD it's Madeline telling Mathilde a story). Both are very different films, as is Avengers in which another central protagonist comes to terms with having a daughter and dies at the end. For whatever reason, be it the fact that NTTD was written long after these films, or indeed the general zeitgeist, it seems like writers have chosen to explore these specific ideas when it comes to these popular characters- their mortality, the impact of their heroism, how fallible they are. It's not different to most other genre or plot tropes in my view.
I'll point you to what I wrote above about how these universal themes seem to be implemented and interpreted in modern franchise films. Yes, many of these ideas are not in themselves new - characters dying, having kids, getting old etc. - but it's worth noting how they're adapted in these films, with these specific characters, and why these similarities seem to be within these different movies of similar notoriety. Regardless of whether you or I personally think NTTD was in any way influenced by Logan, or indeed Avengers, it's something worth thinking about when it comes to modern blockbusters. Why did they decide to kill off Bond now, in a fashion notably different to how similar ideas are handled in Fleming? Why did they decide to give Bond a daughter in this one, again in a remarkably different fashion to YOLT? These are pretty striking things to do, and were things until recently that would have been unthinkable to many fans and indeed the people making these films.
My point is these things seem to be more commonplace in movies in a relatively short space of time. It's interesting. Simply brushing it off and ignoring it seems a bit strange to me. It's how stories are told - old ideas and themes are reinterpreted to make something new. Stories take influence from each other. If Logan had plot points that resembled those of other films before it (it seems to take a lot from American Westerns, even directly referencing Shane) then Logan's strength was to incorporate these ideas into a superhero film and apply this fallibility to a character we thought of before as indestructible. Why's it copying if NTTD decided it wanted to explore these ideas with James Bond and was influenced by this other film perhaps? They're very different and unique films which use these modern plot tropes to explore their central protagonists.
The only thing I will agree with you on, what feels right about the closure to the Craig era, is that there couldn't be another film to continue on in the same timeline. Felix is dead, Bond is old, retired, and has a child. The script pretty much dictated that there would be no way back from the outset, so Bond dying was the only logical conclusion.
Could the film have worked without Madeline, daughter and Safin? Could it have worked with a more closer adaptation of YOLT, with Blofeld as the main villain, and Bond getting amnesia at the end? I would argue yes, and would have been a better film for it - but that's just me.
Please, at this point you're actively ignoring what I'm writing. I've very clearly stated several times that there's nothing wrong with being inspired by other things. All I'm saying is there's very little to say they were influenced by Logan specifically, because it's really not as unique as you seem to think it is.
As for viewers not expecting characters to die, yes, that would be the case if it were a character type or a known character who fufils the same role. It's not really all that different.
And Logan's wasn't unlike Bond's, because it wasn't that unusual a heroic death. It was nicely done, but there are thousands of examples of this kind of thing.
It hasn't really become commonplace, it's maybe more that you've started to watch more of that sort of stuff. As I say, characters have been dying in things since the start of storytelling.
I'm sure they were similar in some ways, but no, a few very general similarities like 'they were both sad' doesn't convince me they were specifically influenced by that one movie.
James Mangold didn't invent that sort of character death, just as you're saying, he had a dozen influences too, because it's not that unusual a situation.
Yes, all very common themes: especially for a hero to die a heroic death sacrificing himself for others, especially loved ones. Off the top of my head what's another recent movie where that happens.. A Quiet Place? I don't fancy trawling my memory for more but there are so many examples. I don't think Endgame was influenced by Logan especially either because it's just such a common and natural way to kill a hero - he sacrifices his life.
In fact NTTD is one of the more original twists on it I've seen: the idea that his touch would kill the ones he love, so he must die, is rather neat.
I would say it's likely they decided to kill Bond off because, exactly as they said, they thought about it for a long while right from the start and, after Spectre, he was all out of endings. Without repeating the end of Spectre there weren't many more satisfying endings for his story left. Why they decided to give him a daughter was most probably them working back from his death and thinking what would be a good, dramatic thing for him to die for. What would change James Bond's outlook on the world enough for that, and a child is a massively universal world-changer for so many people- you really don't have to have seen Iron Man of all things to discover that.
I don't think it is; these are well-worn stories which have been around forever; so much so that's it's impossible to point at one particular version and say that they must have taken inspiration from that. Maybe they've popped up more (twice) in amongst the dozens and dozens of superhero movies that have been around recently, but there are more movies besides those.
Personally I think amnesia is a dreadful hoary old cliche and I really hope it doesn't go down that path. I'm not sure you could take Madeline, Mathilde and Safin out of NTTD, because they are the story of NTTD. You wouldn't really have anything left.
Ok, I don't think we're going to agree on this and at this point I don't think there's much reason to think we'll get anywhere as we seem to be going round in circles/picking out little bits of each other's quotes and arguing. It's not very useful, ie. I never said Mangold invented that sort of character death in Logan and even said later that the film references Westerns in which there are similar death scenes - my point was how this sense of mortality as well as many of the ideas of this genre was applied to a superhero film, and why that's interesting. I think similar ideas are played with in NTTD and it might be the case that the success of Logan at least spurred them to explore them in a way in which they wouldn't have done earlier. Also you seem to just be saying 'no' when I point out a lot of similarities I personally found in both Logan and NTTD, take one specific thing out of these many points and applied it randomly to A Quiet Place (nevermind I've said constantly it's significant how these tropes have been in at least three franchise films, some of the biggest ones no less, with iconic heroes - AQP just doesn't apply in the same way so it's not a particularly good example unfortunately). Anyway, good talk, I'll agree to disagree :)
I had to go back and check! Turns out it was all in the Variety piece that Craig, BB, MGW and Fukunaga did. After Craig told the story about him putting the idea of Bond's death to Barbara Broccoli after the Berlin premier of CR in 2006 and BB apparently agreeing to it ('without a pause'), Barbara said that she then 'had to go and tell Michael' what she'd agreed to.
When MGW was asked how that conversation went, Craig leapt in and said 'Well, listen, listen, it was “no” for a long time. Don’t worry. I thought it was forgotten about, put it that way. I didn’t bring it back up again until this one.'
A couple of things from that:
1. If BB had agreed to it but the answer was no after she told MGW, I figured that, realistically, MGW was the only one who could've vetoed it.
2. Craig 'thought it was forgotten about' in 2006 and 'didn't bring it up again until this one' - which indicates that it wasn't planned all along and hadn't been discussed for SP.
In the same piece, MGW said that 'we wanted Daniel back and he was very reluctant' - given that Craig then brought up Bond's death for the first time since 2006 and that this time EON did agree and DC signed up for NTTD, I thought it was likely that Bond dying was Craig's condition for making the film. That's not as clear cut as 1. and 2., though - it's plausible, but it's me inferring, not them stating something explicitly.
So that's where I got it all from. Not ideal to base everything on one source, but with the Variety piece using direct quotations, rather than a journalist paraphrasing, I think 1. and 2. are probably safe, even if the third one's a bit speculative!
They very easily could have gone into an authentic adaptation of YOLT. Of course, Blofeld's escape would have had to have been engineered between films. But that could be done off screen and hopefully in a way that doesn't read as cliched. You could still have the incredible Matera opening (without Madeleine's childhood flashback). Blofeld still drives Bond and Madeleine apart. Then the rest of the film unfolds per Fleming's novel, perhaps changing the names of Tiger and Kissy and giving Blofeld a bigger scheme than luring locals into his poisonous garden. Craig's tenure ends with him killing Blofeld during the climax then getting amnesia and setting out for Russia. If they want to make it more uplifting, they could add a suggestion in there that some part of him remembers Madeleine and leave open the bittersweet possibility they might meet again, which would feel like a rather Fleming way to end things.
You could easily have had Blofeld as the main protagonist. Him and SPECTRE carry far more weight than Safin and his gang. Bond going to seek out Blofeld to finally kill him in his garden of death alone would have carried far more meaning to end the SPECTRE saga.
The story would have had to change, with no Madeline flashbacks, etc. but who cares. I think the whole story behind Madeline and Safin was very poor anyway, regardless of Bond also having a kid and dying at the end. It was very muddled, shoehorned, unnecessary, so ditching all this to make another movie instead - yes please!
As for the amnesia path, with a proper adapted version of YOLT, I would have loved it.
Bravo sir! Now we are talking!! That would have worked far better. =D>
Exactly. Which is why I'm looking forward to a direct sequel to Die Another Day.
THAT's the continuity no amount of missiles can destroy!
I'm half-kidding.
We can keep going in circles and saying how Bond shouldn’t die and maybe that was true before, but in my eyes Craig’s death as 007 was always possible because of the character development and explorations they did throughout, and everyone seemed to know that because this thread has consistently brought it up way before No Time To Die was even a thing. Like it or not.
Because Eon wanted to appease their directors when they wanted to add iconic touches from past films. That doesn't change the fact that Eon said that the Craig films ARE their own separate series from the rest. I'm just the messenger.
Aston Martin DB5 with ejector seat red button on gear stick, Judi Dench as M, Mallory's office, Aston Martin from TLD.
Which is why it is very difficulty to see the Craig era as standalone, with absolutely nothing to do with the previous 20 odd Bond movies that came before it, and which is why it leaves more questions than answers at Bond's death.
An amnesia ridden Bond sailing off into the sunset, then reappearing in the next film younger, different actor, and brainwashed, ready to kill M, poses far less questions and scrutiny, than killing Bond off completely, and then having him appear right as rain again in the next movie, Dallas Bobby Ewing shower style, as though it never happened, despite labelling it as yet another trendy `reboot' that DC Comics, Marvel and Disney would be proud of.
And I also think its worth looking at how trying to tie it to the old films makes even less sense. If this somehow (strangely) is all tied, how do you explain Blofeld, Moneypenny, and Q? Because everyone thats tried to form a narrative with all the films can't to do it because as soon as you get to Skyfall, Spectre, and now No Time To Die it doesn't work.
And no an amnesia Bond sailing off and coming back younger does pose more questions, because you can't go from exploring a James Bond whose an old dog with new tricks who had retired to a young fresh faced 007 with his own narrative and emotional arc because those do not fit together. A reboot is neat and simple, and allows for the next era to do whatever it wants because it's not tied down by the past, beyond the odd homage or reference through iconography to make the fans smile, especially since one of the biggest criticisms of the Craig-era as it went on was how much it was tied down by the film before it, so to try and continue that arc even further but this time with a younger actor would just cause more problems. It only worked with the other actors because they weren't tied down by heavy and important narrative arcs.
Fans and audiences accepted the reboot with Casino Royale, and people will accept it now because that's just how its gonna be, and any alternate just can't work logistically.
These homages are also explainable as alternate universes.
Yea, now we've had the mess of the 'CraigBond' era, we can have as many different cinematic 'Bondverses' as we like. It's sci-fi time!
He can die, come back to life, sprout wings, have X-ray vision, or removable heads like Worzel Gummidge, and it's all okay because they can 'reboot' and make a new Bond that starts again. What fun!