Does NO TIME TO DIE have the best ending in the franchise?

1101113151626

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I personally would have preferred the more ambiguous ending, mainly for the repeat viewings. Last time I watched NTTD, I turned it off before Safin shot him. I don't enjoy seeing Bond get obliterated, I felt the shot itself was unnecessary.

    Yeah, an ambiguous ending would have been much better and would have demanded repeat viewings. You're not alone. I also don't like watching Safin shooting Bond, because for a clever spy like Bond, it's really embarrassing watching that moment. Because Bond usually observes his surroundings in true spy fashion, before making a move. It explains why he usually inspects his hotel rooms, before settling down.
    They should have found a way for Safin to infect Bond differently. I feel they should have been an inventive hide-and-seek moment between Bond and Safin. Maybe through a complex maze designed by Safin, then in the process, he infects Bond and Bond kills him without getting injured. Then a Bond that's not wounded, stands up like a hero and waits for the missiles to rain down on him without fear.
    Also, Zimmer's Final Ascent fits the moment, but I would have loved to hear the Bond theme....even if it was a poignant or bitter-sweet rendition or better still the usual bullish version of the Bond theme, to close-off the last seconds of Bond.
    I don't like the idea of Bond dying, but I think there were better ways of doing it, to make it look more heroic. I still feel a director like Martin Campbell would have done Bond's death better.

    For better or for worse they went with the ending they did, and they clearly wanted that finality to the Craig era. I must admit though, on my first viewing it felt like there were beats and set ups to things that just didn't seem to come. The emphasis on the smart blood, Bond's vital signs etc. Maybe it's just me. I don't know, I was almost expecting a scene at the end where Q is in his lab staring at Bond's vitals, and M or Moneypenny enter. Some back and forth about how potentially he could have gotten out before they admit Bond's gone and leave. The camera slowly tracks towards the screen, the Bond theme quietly starts to build up until a single 'beep' and we cut to black. Almost Inception-esque I guess.

    I get what they were trying to do with the final confrontation between Bond and Safin. Safin's a physically weak villain, and despite getting shot, Bond is able to break his arm. It's an uncannily cruel way for a Bond villain to die. One almost feels bad for Safin. He wasn't born a monster but became one because of SPECTRE. But still, he's doomed Bond to his fate. The problem is his character has gone so off the rails at this point and the little monologue he gives about heartbreak is so flowery, vague and cringeworthy, that for me the impact is lessened. I dunno, if Safin had been more upset, asked Bond why he couldn't just appreciate what he was doing as both men have had their lives ruined by SPECTRE, maybe it would have had more impact. I mean, that's actually the one thing these two men actually have in common. It's all very interesting but the way it's executed lessens it for me.

    Yeah. But I just wanted at least a hint of ambiguity towards Bond's death or something complex that leaves a happy feel. Also, a more engaging confrontation between Bond & Safin...it was just too straightforward for a complex character like Bond.

    Yes, even Fleming, he never killed Bond in the most obvious or straightforward way, each books had always that ambiguous feeling to it.

    Or dare I say it, a vague cliffhanger that leaves audiences up for speculations.

    Well, Fleming definately contemplated killing Bond numerous times. He got sick and tired of the character himself, or, more likely, the success of Bond. In YOLT he basically killed him, only to change his mind and let him drift off and be saved.
    The fact that Bond becomes a father and doesn't know it, goes to Russia on a hunch and finally is send to England to kill of M has a similar darkness to it as NNTD has. I nthat regard I find it quite Fleming-esque. The tragedy of finally getting the family he always craved for, and then not beeing there to enjoy it is right there in both stories.

    That's a good point.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @mtm
    mtm wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Does anyone seriously believe that's the best ending in the franchise? The main character in twenty-five films is blown to bits. If I was supposed have a lump in my throat and feel a little teary-eyed, that didn't happen. The story of Safin's bio weapon seems nothing more than a contrivance that allows DC to exit the series. Five actors before Craig exited the series. None insisted their final appearances be intertwined with the fate of the character they were playing.

    Over and over we are reminded of OHMSS. That was the best ending in the franchise and done with a less accomplished actor than Craig.

    If you believe that the ending where an important character dies and the whole thing ends on a sad note is the best ending, it's surely not that hard to believe that someone else somewhere will believe the same of the other one which is very similar to that?

    I still maintain that Licence To Kill is the one Bond film where James Bond dying would have been worth it. Because Dalton's Bond threw everything at it. It was about getting Sanchez killed or nothing. The way Dalton's Bond jumped on the trucks in the finale, explained that he didn't care about himself, as long as Sanchez dies. Not that I would have liked Dalton's Bond to die, but the film seems like the one Bond's death would have really been worth it, because of how Dalton's Bond went at it all alone. I just didn't feel the same about NTTD.

    It's an interesting thought and I can imagine that, although it would have been a pretty meaningless death.
    What I kind of don't understand is why they didn't kill Felix. What was the point of him surviving?

    You could have simply said yes or no and then followed up with an explanation. The rest really wasn't necessary.

    What wasn't necessary?







  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,941
    I understand not liking the ending, but what other alternative was there? Continuing on the story threads of Craig’s Bond with a new actor? No thank you. This era always broke the rules, might as well go out doing the same thing.

    Bond five years after retirement.

    If the choice is death or accidie...





    accidie.png
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited July 2023 Posts: 2,187
    thedove wrote: »
    I still maintain that Licence To Kill is the one Bond film where James Bond dying would have been worth it. Because Dalton's Bond threw everything at it. It was about getting Sanchez killed or nothing. The way Dalton's Bond jumped on the trucks in the finale, explained that he didn't care about himself, as long as Sanchez dies. Not that I would have liked Dalton's Bond to die, but the film seems like the one Bond's death would have really been worth it, because of how Dalton's Bond went at it all alone. I just didn't feel the same about NTTD.

    No way Albert would have approved of that! He was also against a "Bond Begins" premise that MGW proposed when Moore left the role. Does anyone know if Broccoli even try to get the rights to CR or was that a Barbara and MGW play?

    I digress, I think Albert would have never let any of the actors who played Bond call the shot. He famously butt heads with Connery as Connery wanted more creative input. Lazenby says he was told to just act and one feels that even Moore didn't get much say on the stories that were told.

    Yeah. Agreed. Cubby never liked anything unorthodox. But I think Dalton was the only Bond who told Cubby how he wanted his Bond and Cubby agreed because, he had always wanted Dalton as Bond. But luckily, Dalton did it exactly as Fleming wrote Bond.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,491
    My two cents, you want to kill a character, a beloved cinematic character that has had a film series over the past 60 years go ahead and kill him. However make his death mean something. Make it poignant, make it heroic, give it some deep meaning. Don't have him passively stand and getting obliterated by missiles. Whether we wish to acknowledge it but the character has gotten out of tight scrapes. Although some want to paint Daniel's Bond has it's own entity, the fact is that the character has been portrayed by other actors and gone on exciting missions.

    Bond has been on his knees in front of a ruthless assassin, he has a spear gun pointed at him by a villain, he's had his wife murdered in front of him by his mortal enemy. Bond has survived a duel with a deadly marksman, faced a giant of a man with steel teeth. He's been pushed out of airplanes without a parachute. I could go on.

    To see him simply give up and let death happen doesn't ring true to the character. Less true to the character is giving him a daughter and a girlfriend that he apparently loves to no end. They crammed in stuff without really thinking of the emotional impact. I left the theatre with a hollow feeling. I felt meh. For a character that I have watched since the 80's in theatres. For a character that I have hero worshipped for as long as I can remember, the death was meh. I felt nothing. This means the death was not impactful or emotional.

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Daniel's films and portrayal of Bond. Sure this Bond didn't know or appreciate the finer things in life. He never showed his superior knowledge over dinner with a villain. But he was Bond, James, FUCKING BOND" He needed a emotional send off. We didn't get it and I hope the film series can come back and
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 2,029
    Whether Bond retired or died, the Craig storyline was not going to continue. The gutsier call would have been Bond driving off into the sunset a happy man as he intended to in OHMSS.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    They did that at the end of the previous film.
  • Posts: 2,029
    mtm wrote: »
    They did that at the end of the previous film.

    For NTTD it would have still been the gutsier ending.

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,339
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Whether Bond retired or died, the Craig storyline was not going to continue. The gutsier call would have been Bond driving off into the sunset a happy man as he intended to in OHMSS.

    In OHMSS the whole point is that Bond will never be able to find peace, it's a recurring theme in quite a few novels. I think that would be the wrong ending for Bond. He's not only the glamour spy with the exciting lifestyle, he's paying a price for it.

    I think the whole Craig era is a very good deduction of what Fleming intended Bond to be.
    thedove wrote: »
    I still maintain that Licence To Kill is the one Bond film where James Bond dying would have been worth it. Because Dalton's Bond threw everything at it. It was about getting Sanchez killed or nothing. The way Dalton's Bond jumped on the trucks in the finale, explained that he didn't care about himself, as long as Sanchez dies. Not that I would have liked Dalton's Bond to die, but the film seems like the one Bond's death would have really been worth it, because of how Dalton's Bond went at it all alone. I just didn't feel the same about NTTD.

    No way Albert would have approved of that! He was also against a "Bond Begins" premise that MGW proposed when Moore left the role. Does anyone know if Broccoli even try to get the rights to CR or was that a Barbara and MGW play?

    I digress, I think Albert would have never let any of the actors who played Bond call the shot. He famously butt heads with Connery as Connery wanted more creative input. Lazenby says he was told to just act and one feels that even Moore didn't get much say on the stories that were told.

    Yeah. Agreed. Cubby never liked anything unorthodox. But I think Dalton was the only Bond who told Cubby how he wanted his Bond and Cubby agreed because, he had always wanted Dalton as Bond. But luckily, Dalton did it exactly as Fleming wrote Bond.

    Not sure, Cubby had wanted the rights for CR for years. I don't know what he'd have done if he'd gotten them. I think he'd have made a faithfull adaptation, so, a Bond begins story.
  • Posts: 2,029
    @CommanderRoss Never finding peace perhaps makes Bond a tragic individual. I would have preferred an ending in which Bond didn't die. Instead of killing him, not ever being with Madeleine and Mathilde again because of the bio-weapon would have been a more tragic option.

    No matter how NTTD ended, Bond 26 will face considerable writing challenges as many viewers will be baffled by his death in the previous film. Once they hear Bond, James Bond, they'll forget the previous film quickly and all will continue as normal.

    For many of us long term fans, it was a disappointment and will remain so.

    I wonder if the producers of future installments of John Wick, Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan, and Ethan Hunt among others will decide killing off their main character is a direction they ought to go.

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,339
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @CommanderRoss Never finding peace perhaps makes Bond a tragic individual. I would have preferred an ending in which Bond didn't die. Instead of killing him, not ever being with Madeleine and Mathilde again because of the bio-weapon would have been a more tragic option.

    No matter how NTTD ended, Bond 26 will face considerable writing challenges as many viewers will be baffled by his death in the previous film. Once they hear Bond, James Bond, they'll forget the previous film quickly and all will continue as normal.

    For many of us long term fans, it was a disappointment and will remain so.

    I wonder if the producers of future installments of John Wick, Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan, and Ethan Hunt among others will decide killing off their main character is a direction they ought to go.

    Well, to start with the last, I think you can only do that after a few actors have played the role, so no. That wouldn't work. I understand people not liking it, and I'm no big fan myself. But it is what it is and I think for the general public it's far less a thing than for Bond fans.

    I'm just curious where they'll take it as the geo-political landscape has changed so much, they'll have to make some hard choices.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 16,624
    CrabKey wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    They did that at the end of the previous film.

    For NTTD it would have still been the gutsier ending.

    I can't see it myself. Repeating the ending of the last film, right down to doing it again with the same female lead, wouldn't have felt very gutsy to me at all. In many ways quite the opposite: it would have been playing safe.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    For many of us long term fans, it was a disappointment and will remain so.

    And for many of us long term fans it worked very well.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited July 2023 Posts: 699
    Madeline could have gotten infected and sacrificed herself instead, allowing Bond to live a life of peace raising his daughter.

    But ultimately this is all pointless, because Craig would only do the movie if he got the ending he wanted.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited July 2023 Posts: 9,511
    Wait, @slide_99 , you finally watched the film you’re so highly critical of, 😂…

    Edit: honestly, @slide_99 , this is like me criticizing Dead Reckoning, a film I will never watch. This is like critiquing a book where I flipped through a few pages, and not bothered with first page to last. It’s absurd. I’d like to actually hear your opinion on a film you watched, from first to last scene.

    Anything you say lacks any credibility because, by your own admission, you’ve never watched the film that you have such a deep distaste for.

    I respect that some can’t stand this film,— they have valid reasons (which I don’t have to agree with), because they watched it! Some have even seen it more than once!

    But your perspective comes from a place of great hubris.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,800
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Madeline could have gotten infected and sacrificed herself instead, allowing Bond to live a life of peace raising his daughter.

    But ultimately this is all pointless, because Craig would only do the movie if he got the ending he wanted.

    But then again, it would repeat the same with Vesper in CR, so turning Madeleine into Vesper 2.0?

    Remember, the early drafts of QoS have Bond finding out Vesper's kept child and he would adapt that child to raise, so basically echoing it here?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I do think it's crazy that Bond's death eclipses the fact that he also had a child in NTTD, it's mad to think that never gets spoken about
  • Posts: 1,088
    peter wrote: »
    I respect that some can’t stand this film,— they have valid reasons (which I don’t have to agree with), because they watched it! Some have even seen it more than once!

    Good to read. I might remind you of that next time you're telling people to "get over yourself", simply because they don't like a movie.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Thanks @ColonelAdamski !

    It’s all in the way someone expresses themselves. I’ve had many posts on this forum with me exchanging dialogue with those who are respectful of my views and me of theirs. It’s always interesting and enlightening.

    Unfortunately that’s never been with you, so….. maybe be a little kinder in your words!

    Thanks buddy!! Have a great day! 👍🏻
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 16,624
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Madeline could have gotten infected and sacrificed herself instead, allowing Bond to live a life of peace raising his daughter.

    But ultimately this is all pointless, because Craig would only do the movie if he got the ending he wanted.

    But then again, it would repeat the same with Vesper in CR, so turning Madeleine into Vesper 2.0?

    Remember, the early drafts of QoS have Bond finding out Vesper's kept child and he would adapt that child to raise, so basically echoing it here?

    Yes it's funny how pretty much all of the other endings have been done: he's lost his lover, left the service, faked his own death, retired to seclusion in paradise, rejoined the service, gone off into the sunset with his lover... him dying was almost the only ending they had left! :)

    I'm glad they didn't do that thing with Vesper having a child though: I wasn't keen on the idea of her killing herself and leaving her child in danger. Maybe you could have spun it that she thought if she removed herself from the equation they'd have no more reason to threaten her child, but feels a bit strained.
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I do think it's crazy that Bond's death eclipses the fact that he also had a child in NTTD, it's mad to think that never gets spoken about

    Yes that is quite funny. This is pretty much never known as 'the one where James Bond has a child'. It's interesting in a way; you'd think there would have been a big fan kickback to that, but I think most folk accepted it fine..?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    One of the best but it definitely left me destroyed for a couple of hours.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,941

    The filmmakers cleverly distracted from the child character by using
    Bond's death.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    The filmmakers cleverly distracted from the child character by using
    Bond's death.



    I still spotted it; she was right there with the bunny ;)
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 4,490
    This debate will go on forever and I understand the pros and cons. Killing Bond worked for me in a story where we learn that he is a father. An ending with a happy Bond family would be odd for me.
    Killing Felix in the same story is a bit annoying, though.
    While I love the last third of NTTD much more than most of the other members, I think that the biggest plot hole for me is the departure of Nomi. Why should she leave in the boat? This feels very forced. I would accept it if she would have been shot in the leg or something...

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    She's protecting Madeline and the kid; I think that works.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,800
    No Time To Die was a film with many interesting concepts but failed in execution.

    Like what I've said, I really liked the concept of Bond dying, it's unique, yet risky and interesting, the problem perhaps is the execution, or how the film handled it.

    It doesn't helped that the romance of Bond and Madeleine was just meant to reference OHMSS instead of creating an original romance, the use of the We Have All The Time In The World theme for example, it felt cheap and lazy and removed any of the supposed genuinity of the Bond and Madeleine romance, I mean I would've possibly bought the relationship had they created a new and original theme song for Bond and Madeleine instead of stealing OHMSS and instead made people reminded of Bond and Tracy romance instead of the romance of Bond and Madeleine.

    Look at Bond's relationship with Kara for example, why I bought it? Because their romance was given originality, their own identity, so instead of Kara coming off as another Tracy, she comes off as another lover, a second chance for Bond to fall in love again (If There Was A Man really worked as their love song).

    So, instead of me feeling for the death of Bond because of investing for his relationship with Madeleine, it reminded me of OHMSS instead and realized that the film failed in handling the ending.

    There's no originality and it's already an anomaly in what they're supposed to show or what they're aiming.

    If they've gave the romance of Bond and Madeleine some originality instead of relying on the past romances, it would've worked.

    Because for me, that death of Bond was a symbol of Bond's love for Madeleine (sure, there's the daughter, but the final scenes before him getting killed already closed the envelope that it's still because of his love for Madeleine).

    Not even the daughter thing was given emphasis other than to act as a shock to audience, even Bond doesn't have that much time with his daughter, there's no time of them together, the daughter thing was just a foil, it's not natural there in the narrative, if one may remove the daughter thing, nothing in the narrative or the story would've changed, so again, interesting concept but failed execution.

    Second, the death of Felix Leiter, again, good concept, but failed in execution again, why? Because it brought no weight, it carried no weight at all, because the relationship between Bond and Felix wasn't fleshed out enough, it's been years since we've seen Jeffrey Wright.

    In Licence To Kill, the near death experience of Felix was really felt because his relationship with Bond was at least developed, we've seen him more in so many films in the past, how many films he'd appeared in before LTK? Many.

    Here, he made an appearance in CR, then he's almost like a guest or cameo in QoS, he'd just appeared in that bar then he's gone (but you can correct me here as it's been a long time since I've seen the film), then since 2008, it's been 3 or 4 years, and he didn't appeared in Skyfall, then another 2 years in SPECTRE (he didn't appeared again), then another 5 years before he appeared again in NTTD but he appeared there just to get killed.

    And yes, Nomi, again, the concept behind the character was interesting, but failed in execution, again.

    I liked Nomi, and I think Lashana Lynch was fine in the role (she did her best), but she's underused, she's wasted, I liked the idea of having a replacement for Bond's number, it's interesting (though, I wished the film explored that more), but, she's not used well in the film, she's just there like a prop.

    This film had many interesting concepts but failed in execution.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,941
    Leiter's dialog confronted Bond with concepts of family and getting home that he was left to consider on the life raft. Anticipating later events.

    Film's end rightly focused on Bond over everything else. Nomi's value to the story already played out.

    Credit to actor-producer Daniel Craig for apparently demanding the happiest Bond film ending ever in SP.



  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 699
    00 designations were never meant to be employee ID numbers. A 00 is assigned to a specific agent, like a code name. Imagine if Bond was sent to meet 003 somewhere and 003 was a completely different person because the original one was killed. There'd be too many identification issues and it would actually negate the whole purpose of 00s.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 220
    slide_99 wrote: »
    00 designations were never meant to be employee ID numbers. A 00 is assigned to a specific agent, like a code name. Imagine if Bond was sent to meet 003 somewhere and 003 was a completely different person because the original one was killed. There'd be too many identification issues and it would actually negate the whole purpose of 00s.

    You say that, but I think we already had a few oo6’s didn’t we?
    There’s a nice implication that there are only *ever* nine people with the full ‘license to kill’ (double oh ten doesn’t work, and no one would want to be double oh thirteen, and that’s just how we brits work) and it sets up the football shirt-esque quip aboit retiring the number. (Bond is the Ronaldo of double O agents.)
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,160
    slide_99 wrote: »
    ultimately this is all pointless, because Craig would only do the movie if he got the ending he wanted.
    Beat me to it. What alternative ending could there have been? Actually, none - because the chance to play Bond's death was the reason that Dan agreed to make the film and the death was 'bolted on', as Boyle put it. No matter what script variation they'd gone with, NTTD would have ended with Bond dying.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I do think it's crazy that Bond's death eclipses the fact that he also had a child in NTTD, it's mad to think that never gets spoken about

    Yes that is quite funny. This is pretty much never known as 'the one where James Bond has a child'. It's interesting in a way; you'd think there would have been a big fan kickback to that, but I think most folk accepted it fine..?

    Not sure about that. More the case that Bond's death completely overshadows and eclipses everything else before it, so it's known as the one where Bond dies.

    Had there been a less controversial ending to NTTD, then I think more would have been made of the daughter storyline.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2023 Posts: 6,393
    Beyond Bond dying, I think the toast scene and the end Madeleine/Mathilde scene are quite lovely and well-realized.

    They could have had an Fleming-esque amnesia scene of Bond at the end but that would mean that they would have to excise the missiles and the nanobot storyline entirely, which would change the movie including Safin's revenge on Bond and Blofeld's death. If you start pulling down the nano scaffolding as some here would prefer, you end up with a different movie entirely.
Sign In or Register to comment.