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
Watching the film mostly. I mean I need to give it another proper watch through, but having looked at a few clips when people have been complaining about it or discussing it (including Mr.Z and Calvin, they’ve become habitual viewing of late) and applying a bit of… narrative sense, I can see where some of the things people complain *aren’t* there either actually are (but too low in the mix)
or can see where something was headed to or from something that was maybe cut out. (Like most of the actual motivations and aims of Safin, including the ‘Doctor No’ stuff, which I think was definitely more intended in the beginning rather than properly explained at the end. Why, for example, did they even need one of the scientists that worked on Heracles after they had stolen it and the initial programming of that version to kill off Spectre? One thing that hangs awkwardly is why Safin didn’t just kill Bond *as well* at that point. Personally, I think at one point Safin preferred to imagine himself as Madelines actual ‘father’ but they kind of lost that thread as it went on and the ending was shot.)
There's nothing there to draw the conclusion they reshot anything after covid though.
I don’t think they did. But I can well suspect that a bit of dialogue looping and edits may have happened to help bring it in line.
For reference, Mark Hamill was still looping lines for the original Star Wars after it was out and in Theatres, and it was much harder to do then than it is now.
Because it was for first reactions at the time and people keep posting in it. We could always change it to a thread about current reactions vs. initial reactions or something to that effect.
Ask and ye shall receive. Fixed it.
In all the time I've been posting here under this name and my previous name, I've always tried to steer clear of talking down to people and telling them what they should and shouldn't do. I always get told how to conduct myself by others though. It's a bit of a thing on this forum I've found.
Don't tell me what to care, and not care about, please.
I'm not miserable about NTTD, just disappointed.
They already did. Believe it or not, but some here had an almost lifelong affection for this movies, and this film singlehandly killed it along with its main character. It took the joy out of Bond fandom. That indeed feels miserable, and it's not going away as fast as one hoped for.
I was ten, when i first saw Moonraker. And as much as i loved the Moore-Bond back then, i was pumped for the Craig Bond, when CR came out. I think, you can have this character in many different ways. But for me the essence of it has always been, that in the end this man finds a way out, no matter what life throws at him - or some megalomaniac weirdo. You can have this storys with light comedy or tell it as a grim thriller, Dalton-Style. But giving up was never an option for Bond.
Now in NTTD i saw him willingly die, because he can't have a family. They turned Bond into a tragedy. These images are now part of the 007-Universe, and they won't leave my mind, even if they start another timeline in the future.
I was fuming, when i left cinema last November. Angry. Depressed. And it stayed with me in terms of Bond. As i said, it killed the joy for me, or better the magic.
That said, when you've watched this character as long as most of us have, it will have an impact seeing him die for the first time, even if it's in its own little timeline. Heck, the very idea of seeing Craig's Bond, one of my favourite incarnations of the role, die in a way I felt unsatisfying was... well, I wouldn't quite say upsetting, but I suppose near enough it.
The truth is, people do connect with fictional characters, and when they see something that feels antithetical to said character, or goes against the grain of what they see as central to them, it will get this sort of reaction from some fans. They will get a bit annoyed, upset maybe, and try to find reasons. Is it the Producers trying to copy a supposed 'hero has a family and dies' trope from other franchise films? Is it them trying to be 'woke'? (this is a particularly slippery path to go down). Or was it just them trying something new which ultimately proved a bit controversial?
Personally, I feel going forward the idea of 'reinventing' Bond in a new timeline (as Broccoli recently said) is potentially exciting. There's much in NTTD that worked. For all my gripes with it there were genuine moments of fun, the fantastical, excitement, even darkness - all of which I want to see in my Bond films. CR, SF and even much of QOS were great too. My hope is they do try and revisit what makes the character who he is (potentially revisiting/adapting aspects of the novels) and keep this in mind throughout, but ultimately it's up to them at this point. There's much to be hopeful about though. Anyway, at the end of the day James Bond will, and yes he always will, return.
I'd say that's obvious. It'd be different if NTTD were some kind of trendsetter, but Hollywood has already done shock/emotional death scenes for Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Wolverine, John Connor, and Tony Stark. The past decade has seen the destruction of multiple franchises, often by the same types of filmmakers for the same exact reasons ("we need change, we need to subvert expectations," etc).
I don't think there's anything brave about NTTD. To kill off not only CraigBond, but Felix and Blofeld all in one movie, and then simply reboot the series with the next film like a video game, is the height of Hollywood cravenness and cynicism. Because of this "continuity" cheat, the death scenes are rendered meaningless beyond the initial shock.
As I've said before, if this is how EON uses its intellectual property it might as well just use the Bond Codename theory. Before the Craig era it was a dumb idea, but now that Bond (at least movie Bond) is no longer a specific character, but a video game character who can be reimagined and rebooted at will, it hardly matters anymore.
Felix had his legs bitten off in one film and came back with a new set of pins a few years later, no-one seemed to complain then.
Arguably you're demonstrating what I said about fans being upset and wanting to find justification for it. I've been down this route before and debated this at length with people in real life and on these forums. I'm of the opinion that while the Producers do not live in a bubble and were aware that their decision to kill Bond had some precedent with other franchises, but why does it make the decision in itself cynical, opportunistic or indeed brave? It might be the case where they thought this was the most logical conclusion for Craig's tenure, and indeed felt limited by some sort of unsaid 'rule' in the past in which Bond cannot be killed.
Also why does it render Bond or Leiter's death meaningless? Like I said, Craig's Bond was one of my favourite incarnations of the character, and one I saw as very distinct from the others. The fact that I care about his send off not feeling satisfactory is telling. I did actually get an emotional punch out of Leiter's death for what it's worth, and always do whenever I rewatch the film/the scenes with Bond and him leading to his death. Because at the end of the day they're their own distinct versions of those characters, versions of them that I watched over the course of these films and liked, in a way I never felt with the majority of the one time Leiters in the previous films.
I find it odd that you lump all those franchise films/their character's deaths in the same category. Logan is, in my opinion, one of the best superhero films ever made, and actually reinforces what it means to be a hero through the character's death and him becoming a father. I actually wish I got as much of an emotional punch out of Bond's death in NTTD as I do with Wolverine's in Logan. Also, none of these franchises are dead. Personally, I'm glad that we live in a world where we have Tim Burton's Batman alongside Nolan's and now Reeve's. They feel like their own worlds, distinct from one another, the characters themselves different versions of the same person. More like comics as opposed to video games I'd argue. I find them all exciting in their own ways. Just like the fact that the literary Bond is separate from the film series, and indeed how I view the Fleming books as being separate from the God awful continuation novels from Gardner onwards.
Anyway, I get the frustration as I said, but at the end of the day they're movies made to be sold and enjoyed. Surely it's a good thing that Bond can return and potentially be made better?
I see your point but
A. Bond's death had been decided back in 2006, before any of those movies had been made or even thought to be made.
B. In my opinion, Bond's death was leagues better and more emotional than any of those you mentioned (apart from Wolverine's, I haven't seen the movie yet) and also part of a movie that was much better than those where those deaths happened (again, apart from Logan, which I haven't seen). Those deaths were just done to justify the characters' absence in future movies and make a clean slate for new characters.
I have no problem with Bond's death, that's how he's created that when he finds peace for himself, there's a tragedy waiting near him.
My only problem with his death was the way it's executed and handled, I felt that it's a bit contrived and not organic.
We know that when Bond's dead, no questions, his story was closed, unlike to him ending with his family that it would leave a lot of questions like will Bond stay as a family man in the future films? Same question as still, how will they continue if he's already a family man, that's a lot more harder to answer than to just have him die.
Me too. I think it would have been far braver to follow the end of the YOLT novel than kill Bond off (amnesia, sails off to Russia). Killing him off is what has become the norm these days. It's almost expected.
It's what made Top Gun 2 such a refreshing change, and I'm hoping Hollywood (and the Bond producers) sit up and notice the universal praise Cruise is getting for TGM, and also the outstanding BO figures too. You can still make films cheesy, corny, happy, uplifting endings without controversial hero deaths, or silly over complicated plots, or PC correctness and box ticking, and audiences will (shock horror) love it.
Tom Cruise reminded us all what we used to love going to the cinema for. A thrill ride, feel-good, entertained, and ultimately walk out on a high.
NTTD achieved none of this.
I bet there were a lot more happy smiley faces coming out of TGM than NTTD though... ;)
So what? Apples and oranges. You think people walked out of OHMSS all smiles like TGM?
Had NTTD gone down a similar route and tone as TGM, I reckon the BO takings would be much higher, and there would be less polarised fans hating the film.
But for those who love NTTD, you won't see the point I'm making.
And if you have to go as far back as 1969 to try and compare a similar feeling, then it is clutching at straws. Different time, different market, and OHMSS was always going to get a fairly free pass as it relied heavily on the novel (which was regarded as Fleming's best).
NTTD doesn't have the good fortune to be based on such quality material. Instead it was cobbled together, kitchen sink an' all. Every man and his dog probably had input into the muddled rewritten script. And there is still light years difference between seeing a Bond girl die, and Bond himself dying.
It also didn't helped that NTTD followed SPECTRE (which many considers to be one of the worst Bond Films).
Had NTTD be a standalone film, maybe I would have liked it more, there's no need to tie those loose ends, there's no loose ends at all, Blofeld was captured and arrested, Bond drives with Madeleine on the sunset and that's it.
They could start a new adventure all over again, just like in classic era.
That's exactly what they should have done with NTTD. Craig should have called it a day with SP, or if he came back then a tragic ending of Bond not knowing who he is and sailing off to Russia would have been acceptable to most fans (including the ones who hate the film for killing Bond off).
That would have been the only way to end the film in such a downbeat way and keep everyone onside. It would pose intriguing questions for the next film (and the next Bond).
It might not be fair to compare TG:M to NTTD. The latter's hype was extinguished slightly by the many Covid delays. The budget was overinflated too compared to Top Gun's (if anything this is what Bond can learn - that a successful, entertaining film can be made for under $200 Million). This is not to speak of the quality of either film or say which is better (haven't seen TG:M yet so I can't... personally I find Tom Cruise a creepy screen presence, and I wasn't particularly into the original... it's something I'd rather wait to see rather than pay for a ticket). Overall, I'm actually surprised how little the ending of NTTD impacted general audience's enjoyment of NTTD (many people I know seemed to like it and understood that was the end of Craig's era but not the series, ). The tone of the film is a factor, but not necessarily the defining one I'd argue.