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 wish I could soften my stance and warm to the film, I really enjoy most of everything pre London. Perhaps NTTD, needed to be a more sombre film in general to stick the landing?
Last time I watched the film I was annoyed with the aircraft carrier scene, not only does the stealthy bird remind me of switch blades from DAD, but I hate the way they're joking around and reinstating Bond's code number just felt a bit tacked on. More importanly, all this is happening while Bond's family is hostage, for the first time in the series, it's like the magnitude of this moment was completely lost on everyone making the film.
Bond has never had higher stakes
Oh I can't deny it's a gutsy decision for the Bond series. Again, in itself it makes sense to end the Craig era in this way. I can't say I'm against them doing this with other established heroes either (I personally loved Logan, for example, which shares quite a few superficial similarities with NTTD).
I think I struggle with NTTD's ending because I find everything leading up to it to be a bit flawed at times. There's much I really like in the film - I really dig the idea of the nanobots, the idea of SPECTRE being destroyed by this one man out for revenge, the Cuba sequence, the opening in Norway etc. There's genuinely a lot that's great in this movie.
I guess personally, the emotional impact of the ending is dulled because I find that certain plot points take me out of the movie. I never once, for instance, believed that Madeline was a SPECTRE agent and betrayed Bond, nor did I find the revelation that Blofeld had orchestrated this deceit believable. That's a big chunk of the film's emotional heft (which plays into the tragedy of the ending) that's dulled. Safin's strange shift from a vengeful loner into a villain with rather unclear motives is another one (it's a bit tricky to feel that Bond is dying for a noble world saving cause when you have to think about what's actually going on). The first time I watched it I personally found the constant exposition about nanobots a bit on the nose too and just got the sense where it was heading.
So in that sense it's not an ending that hits me in the gut in the way it should. But then again it's a controversial ending. Fans and general audiences seem to have different reactions to it.
Agreed about Boyle. I remember actually being a bit apprehensive when he was announced as director (I must be the only person who isn't a big fan of the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony segment with Craig's Bond and the Queen). He can have a very impressionistic style as a filmmaker which works on films like Trainspotting, 127 Hours and Trance, but I don't think gels with a Bond film. I have no doubt that while his script had a lot of potential I've also accepted that it was also probably a bit dull in places and would have had more 'out there' ideas than the NTTD we got. I don't think we would have gotten a better film under his direction.
There are flaws in the greatest of productions.
In the end, it comes down to personal tastes and prejudices.
With NTTD, I walked out of my first viewing believing that this was an allegory of this character's life, rather than a literal interpretation of a Bond adventure.
Does that make sense?
I've often stated it feels as if I'm watching the final moments of Bond's life seen through his eyes; that the film I'm watching is his final recollections, right before he stops breathing.
From my first viewing to my last, it's always felt like NTTD was dream-like rather than literal.
I don't expect this to be a correct interpretation, but it's certainly one that hit me upon my first watch...
That's a cool way of looking at it. I like it. Actually that's kind of how I view Logan in the context of the X-Men series so I understand what you're saying.
As you said it all comes down to personal taste and how much you engage with a film.
If you never want to see Bond die then you can *never approve* of the decision to kill him off nor approve of NTTD's ending.
No-one will ever convince you to look at the overall merits of NTTD. Bond dies. If you don't like that, deeply dislike that, it's non-negotiable.
But I accept it's time to move on. I don't intend my comments to be harsh on Eon. Bond will return.
;)
Thank you.
Being somewhat thick, I’m not sure how far away nano tech is, but I went with it (not even consciously), as I go with light sabers and batmobiles and men and women who can fly.
Because it’s a movie.
And although nano-tech may not be here in our world, it was still presented in a grounded way in the film-world—at least to me.
When I see a movie set in the old west where the actors have pearly white teeth I get taken out of the film. Funny that a comedic film like Back To The Future III gets this. Same with nanobots. We may have them as depicted in NTTD, someday... in the 23rd Century...
I actually have the same problems with white teeth in period pieces.
I just did t have the same issues with nano-tech as you did.
It didn’t take me out of the film.
My brain processed this as being like a virus. As I said, I’m pretty thick, especially when it comes to tech (ask my kids and wife), and the way nanobots were presented in NTTD seemed grounded and simple enough to follow.
But at the same time it feels like it could exist. Like a sort of nightmarish extension of the technologies we have today. It helps that there's the five year time jump in NTTD so there's this sense that the world has moved on while Bond is in retirement. In the context of the film I think it works.
I don't think it negates the initial more 'realistic' (although I don't like this term when describing Bond movies) direction of the first Craig films. The truth is his films were slowly becoming more fantastical by SF, so it makes sense that NTTD builds upon that in the way it does.
Perhaps I'm speculating, but maybe that idea was something producers always had in mind with this film. Not to say that it was always going to be set in Bond's head, but that it was always going to be more fantastical, grand, and in some places dream-like (or perhaps more accurately nightmarish). A step away from the more grounded direction Craig's first two films took. So Fukunaga throwing out ideas such as that make more sense.
Might explain Boyle being hired initially. As I said he has a more impressionistic style as a filmmaker than other Bond directors.
That’s an interesting idea.
I never did fully understand the Boyle hiring , so this could be an explanation (plus there was supposedly a “golden idea” in their pitch (which I never discovered what that was. I’d love to get my hands on the actual script one day)).
Perhaps it was Bond's daughter being introduced to the story? If I recall correctly that was a Hodge idea but I don't know for sure. Would have been odd considering Madeline didn't even seem to be in the story until it came to further drafts... again, from what I recall.
I'd love to read it too. From how Boyle described it at the time (ie. about a future Cold War, Bond going back to his roots etc.) I thought it was going to be a more low key, FRWL style adventure. Having subsequently seen little bits of information about the script, as well as very early concept art floating around these forums, it seems more like it was always going to be that bigger, more fantastical and even 'different' Bond movie. Certainly more 'out there'. The basic elements of NTTD were set out by producers anyway (Bond retiring, going on a final mission, and dying by the end being the main ones) so it's possible they were interested in trying to push things in the direction/tone I mentioned. Which makes sense considering it was Craig's last film so it would have stood out in relation to his tenure (as the NTTD we got does).
I think I largely agree with this assessment.
Leiter's death was a shock to me--bracing--because it felt like the stakes were high again.
Blofeld's death was muddled, and the impact less--also because it was the second major death in quick succession. Okay, anything can happen now.
Bond's death was--drawn out--and by that point, even though I had avoided spoilers, I was kind of anticipating it (from all the nanobot exposition about funerals and families, etc.).
But then I was *very* moved by the memorial toast (pitch-perfect), and by the final scene with Madeleine and Mathilde as well.
I think the Craig films nailed their endings, time and time again. Even SP.
You could, if you wanted, watch the whole thing as a serial. The films are certainly episodic enough, and even though it cannot possibly have been planned, they did a decent job knitting it all together.
Safin as Bonds shadow even works fairly well - it’s Bonds job to take down Spectre and Blofeld, after all and it’s even personal. But for Safin it is too. And it’s Safin that does it. Blofeld took away Bonds adoptive parents (Oberhausen, M through Silva) and Safins literal parents.
Orphans and parents are a big deal throughout — so Bond becoming one, and sacrificing himself to save his kid, Mathilde - from either death by nano, or being orphaned as the virus is keyed to Madeline — makes perfect thematic sense.
It literally goes right back to Vesper and the conversation on the train in Casino Royale.
Given the various messes affecting production over the years, it’s really quite an amazing piece of work, and as Bond fans we should probably stick it on more of a pedestal frankly. Artistically it’s an amazing piece of work.
And I say that as someone who really didn’t think much of Craig’s casting, and still thinks Brosnan was screwed over somewhat.
My feelings exactly.
We reach.
Oh they weren’t planned. Couldn’t have been. But they did a bang up job of making it all look that way narratively, and one of the reasons is that ‘parenthood/orphan’ theme is a through line picked up in every single Craig era movie. It gave them thematic framework on which to build.
I know from videos and reading what most of the story beats are. For me Craig's era ended when he drove off at the end of Spectre. After that moment, I don't want to know.
Bond movies have had downbeat endings before and worked. Not every movie ends with "That is not the soap" I can understand that. But the decision to end it like this feels very wrong. And I think the song "We have all the time in the world" should only belong to one movie.
Could Fleming have written a good death for Bond? Am I insane for skipping it? Is there enough good stuff in there to give it a go?
Or does anyone else, who has seen it, reject it from their own personal Bond canon?
When I read that the ending 'would upset some die-hards' in a review, I actively tried to find out the ending, because I suspected they'd 'gone there'. When I found out they indeed had, I hadn't any desire to watch the movie.
I did realise that if I ever got into an discussion about the stupid idea of killing Bond off after 60 years of movies, my argument would be lessened by the fact I'd not seen the movie. So I got a dodgy download just to see the thing, which I've since replaced with another quality download, but even now I don't have a physical copy of it, and I've not spent any money on the movie at all apart from a CD of the soundtrack which I'd ordered prior to the film's release.
I've watched it a few times, because I'd prefer to like it, I honestly would. I always love a new Bond movie, and had booked a whole weekend away centered around the first showing in a city near me in March '20, (which never happened, as we know). But I'm glad I never got to see it in the cinema, without knowing the ending. Because I'd have come out that annoyed and exasperated. Especially after such a strong and fun first half.
So as much as there is such a thing as a 'personal cannon', I'd say I've rejected it too.
I remember Craig on some America TV show saying he was coming back for a fifth, and I though it was a bad idea, because both SF and Spectre ended with some type of finality. And I was never 100% on board with Craig as Bond anyway, (though he is a phenomenal actor and has great screen presence). But little did I know how much of a bad idea it was going to be.
The bad idea of all bad ideas.
I'm truly jealous of fans who can enjoy NTTD. I wish I could the party