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
Yep they even kept the details of Swann being in her bedroom upstairs playing and the Beretta hidden under the sink.
It's weird that they got the bleach under the sink detail right but managed to mix up or bungle some other similar, key details (such as Madeleine's occupation changing from SP to NTTD).
Ah, so we can have a computer generated, bald, elderly Connery as the Bond in this new/original Bond timeline! Great! ;)
I guess NTTD exists in a slightly different timeline to Spectre's. ;))
Assuming that the nanobots are metal, you could just use a magnet to draw them out of Bond's body. It's the reason why people with metal fillings can't get MRI's.
You mean medical doctor to psychiatric doctor? No intention to be a smartass, just honestly asking for clarification; it's possible I'm not 100% what her professions specifically are :))
Umm is that true in US?........i still have a few metal fillings, but i seem to remember when i had an MRI scan in the UK, that having metal fillings was the one thing that was allowed, as most people have them.......mind you when they switched the MRI machine on, my head ended up magnetized to the machine.....:)
As long as you weren't dropped into a shark tank at any point.
As far as I remember she's a psychiatrist in both.
Interesting that you say that...
I also noted that there's some other religious allegories going on. E.g. in Skyfall Bond's hobby is resurrection... In NTTD... you could argue that the ending is visually trying to show ascension.
Not that I know much about the Bible beyond that though.
Well he also defeats Lucifer and gives his life to save the world with a wound in his side...
Maybe it was a CT (x-ray) scan you had, which is different. Metal can definitely interfere with MRI scans since they're using magnetic imaging to look into you. My point was just that metal can't be too hard to get out of someone's body, especially in the somewhat-fantastical world of Bond.
I've always argued that he owes more to Greek mythological heroes than to actual espionage stories. Theseus and the Minotaur, for example, has the basic ingredients for a Bond story: a trained warrior is sent undercover to an enemy power that is extorting payment from his home country, he finds himself in a strange, outlandish location (the Labyrinth), he uses his sex-appeal to get help, and he must face a seemingly indestructible henchman. At the end he runs away with the girl (he kind of ditches her, too, but that something we generally don't see Bond do).
All that's missing is being given special weapons from the gods, which is the role that Q plays.
Interesting. I like it.
Did it? I didn't spot that. What, was it something like psychotherapist to psychiatrist or something (although I know one is a sub branch of the other)?
Someone mentioned it had around the initial release and I thought it was the case but perhaps not. I didn't take notice when I saw it.
Yes, I am so glad and appreciate that the Craig era gave us the films it did and broke the mold, gave us a fresh, different take on Bond ... and a completed story arc from rookie 00 agent to the end. This was the fitting, heroic, and noble end for this particular Bond.
I find NTTD so deeply rewarding, even with the ending being incredibly difficult (especially at first viewing). I have seen it three times now, and each time I find more to appreciate. And I am not worried about future films. Bond never needs to die again in any movie. This one is definitive for that. This time was the right time to do that, and for those of us who appreciate the brutal, realistic, wounded, vulnerable, yet truly heroic Bond that is Daniel Craig's Bond - this ending is appropriate and beautifully done.
Bond fans will mostly stay divided on this one, but that is okay. It really is. We don't need to try to fully convince others to change their minds. All our feelings are valid. But it is nice to discuss because I find other insights people have that open up even more things for me to enjoy. That is why I am on this forum. Not to try to dissuade people; but to share, yes. As many of you know (but new members may not) I am one of the oldest members here. And I fully embraced Craig's take on Bond, from 1st viewing of Casino Royale through the ending of No Time To Die. I value his work as Bond very much. Daniel Craig really did the role justice.
I'm thankful (and a bit surprised) the producers had the guts to go all the way with this, and I'm really glad they hired Fukunaga to direct. That turned out to be such a major factor why this film works so well and is such a beautiful, stunning, meaningful, layered Bond film. NTTD is a gem. I set aside Daniel Craig's era with a toast and much respect. Cheers!
On to the next Bond - which will be different, as it should be. B-)
Well said. I agree.
Well said. I am still in awe of this film and the guts it took to push it to this level.
I saw the film last Friday, opening night, and had successfully avoided spoilers with the small exception that I saw a credit for Mathilde Swann and deduced a child was part of the story. I have not gone back for a second screening, but will probably do so if I can talk my kids into going. They are in their 20's and show literally no interest. I decided to both let the movie sink in a bit before reviewing and to get a feel for the tenor of the message board before offering any substantial comment. It appears that, with a few exceptions, both the critical comments and the overly effusive comments are equally well received, and I am glad for that. Thank you all.
No Time to Die is a great action/drama movie with all the parts you would expect in the genre. Very well acted, great locations, some stunning shots and exciting action. Is it a great Bond film? I think the answer lies in the pages above. The beauty of Bond lies in the eyes of the beholder. I have asked myself several times, "what exactly have I beheld?" A very, very good Bond film is my answer.
For fifteen years we as Bond fans have been asked to examine James Bond's past as Daniel Craig reveals it to us over the course of four and a half films. Circumstances in Bond's life, most particularly his reunion with Madeline Swann and the revelation of the existence of his daughter, force him, and us, to now consider Bond's future. Of course, Bond being Bond, the very small matter of saving the world has to be undertaken before that future can be decided. In keeping with the theme of juxtaposing the past with the future, we find that it is Madeline's past that has triggered the events placing the world population in jeopardy and hers, her daughter's and Bond's along with it. From this, we are not treated to a "classic" Bond film compared against the entire franchise history, but are treated with a compelling story that winds its way to a dramatic finish.
Daniel Craig delivers a terrific performance in his final turn as Bond. From the incredibly moving "I miss you" spoken to the late Vesper Lynd to the final confrontation with Ernst Blofeld to the assault upon the evil Safin's lair and person to the fateful final decision, Craig delivers. The filmmakers complete the story arc begun in Casino Royale and give Craig an ending to his run in unprecedented fashion. They kill him. Bond...James Bond...dies at the end of this film. Does this film stand or fall on this event that is singular in a twenty-five film run over the course of sixty years? Again, that lies in the eyes of the beholder, whether a lifetime fan of the series or a first-time viewer.
For me, I can get past the death. I can suspend that fact in some cinematic ether and be ready for the next installment and the next actor to play this iconic role. Rather, the film "fails" for me in a more personal and critical fashion. When I say "fail" I really mean its failure to achieve "great Bond film" status to me for reasons that are primarily personal and do not reflect necessarily upon the greatness of the film in general.
From a classic Bond fan standpoint, I did not think the action scenes were particularly stunning. Very good and exciting, yes. But they were short and not the spectacular cliff-jumping, boat over the road, roof top running scenes I was hoping for. The all too brief scene in Cuba with Ana de Armas was delightful Bond fun. It did not fit in this film as well as it would have in many others, but it was a visual treat. The villain was a creep and had a diabolical plan, but was otherwise fairly benign and not a Bond-worthy adversary in my opinion. The villain and action were sufficient for a good action film and I won't belabor the point so that I can come to the point.
No Time to Die hinges upon the love story contained within the last two installments of the films. We meet Madeline Swann through her father's connection to Spectre and reach our climax through her somewhat hazily related connection to Safin and Safin's connection to Spectre. For us to believe in the choice made by Bond in the climax, we have to believe in his love for Madeline. And I do not. For all the great casting, through all the great acting, I did not see a genuine love develop between these two. The onscreen time was too brief and the scenes either unartfully written or insincerely spoken for me to believe that a life or death decision was going to be made upon it. I teared up exactly one time in two hours and forty-three minutes. When Daniel Craig looked upon Vesper's tomb and said softly "I miss you," I believed him. And it hurt. I cannot say the same for any of the scenes between Craig and Seydoux. And that hurts as well. But its the story it hurts, not the viewer. Which brings us to Mathilde. She had to be in the story. Without her, Bond dying to save Madeline would have brought a likely audible "B.S!" from me right in the theater. But I have a daughter and I would have done the same. It almost saves the story for me, but not quite.
Regarding the death of Bond, I think what many are trying to say is less "they have no right to do that" than that it is a little insulting to the fans who have supported the films for many, many years. Our Bond cheats death to the very brink, but he survives and gets the girl. We recognize that with some exception, particularly the Craig arc, the films are intended stand alone. Continuity lies solely in the importance of the canon, of the backstory, of the adherence to the formula, and of the acknowledgement of Ian Fleming's character. The death of Bond is jarring to the continuity so defined. It just has a small feeling of the long-time fan being taken advantage of. For those with other favorite Bonds, it gives rise to the feeling of "why would you do for Daniel Craig what you did not do for Connery, for Moore, for Brosnan?" They neither demanded nor were offered such an ending. Again, I personally can accept it and move on from it with no hard feeling, but understand that others may choose not to. Or, more likely, to continue on as Bond fans but just be mad about the time they killed our hero.
If they hire me to write Bond 26, we are just going to move on like nothing happened. I am going to run some dots across your screen and give you a gun barrel and some cool bloodflow. Then we are going be in an incredibly picturesque location and we are going to chase somebody and you're going to see who is being chased because he is going to be constantly looking over his shoulder and into mirrors and reflections. And we are going to use boats and planes and motorcycles and cars and skateboards to chase this guy and he is going to be constantly shouting into his radio "who is this guy?!!?" And then we are going to corner him and he is on his back staring up into a Walther pistol and he is going to ask the camera "who are you?" And finally we are going to see the chaser and he is going to answer "Bond. James Bond." And off we go. As simple as that.
James Bond did not survive No Time to Die. But James Bond will survive No Time to Die. The more you think about it, there really is no conflict between those two sentences.
@LeonardPine sorry for the late reply, I am with you on this one being a strange Bond film and on liking the action scenes (up to the end of the Cuban sequence, in my case). Once it is available outside cinemas, I will certainly rewatch the first hour before Felix's death scene, but am less certain about the rest. Bond's death per se was well staged dramatically, but the second half of the film leading up to it struck me as rather uneven.
I may not have loved Spectre, but it was entertaining enough when it came out (if for no other reason than to see the footage from the Rome shoot). I must say I quite liked its ending, regardless of the implausibility of the Madeleine romance; it could be said that NTTD had to end the way it did because they had used up the upbeat ending option in SP and did not want to repeat themselves, though my pet theory is that DC insisted on getting killed off a la Harrison Ford in The Force Awakens.
I am also curious to see where the consensus will settle on this one, but I suspect it may be easier to properly rate it vis-a-vis other Bond films once Bond 26 is out.
Hah, this would be wild.
Could not agree more. The writers decided to make the Madeleine relationship into a pivotal point in Bond's decisions, but did not put in enough effort to make it believable. I may go further criticism-wise in doubting the casting of Lea Seydoux back in Spectre (surely someone could have been found who would have had more chemistry with DC?) and in not liking the introduction of Mathilde (again, it looks as if by bringing her in, the writers picked the most obvious and much-used plot device in motivating the hero), but you put it very well.
Again, excellently put.
hear, hear! I wish I could watch your Bond 26 already :)
I see where you are coming from, but I beg to disagree... mostly by considering the counterfactual going forward, what would happen in Bond 26 if Bond #7 were to be the continuation of DC's Bond.
Even if CR was not meant to start an arc, by setting Bond’s origin story in modern times, the filmmakers automatically put it in a different continuum from the Connery-to-Brosnan films, assuming that Bond!time flows in a linear fashion. Given the loose plot continuity, limited character development and sliding timeline of pre-Craig films, with enough suspension of disbelief, Brosnan’s Bond just might be the guy who had once fought Goldfinger or married Tracy; CR!Bond who had just got his 00 license definitely was not that guy.
The effort to build on the events of earlier films starting from CR was a realistic approach, sure; but later films became “hostages” of earlier choices that had profound impact on a character tasked with greater emotional depth. This did not fit well into a long-running, potentially open-ended franchise. By the time of NTTD, Craig’s Bond was weighed down by so much dramatic baggage (grieving over Vesper, the Blofeld connection, the Madeleine romance) that seeing how DC was determined to leave, there was no way to pave the road for the next Bond except by wrapping up “his” Bond storyline one way or another (retirement or death) to resolve all these plotlines, especially with the addition of Mathilde in NTTD… unless the new Bond was to be a telenovela. It would be impossible for DC’s successor to shrug off these relationships and go back to business as usual as the same guy, to say nothing of the fact that in this “non-sliding” timeline, Bond is at about retirement age.
Whether killing Bond was better than retirement is another matter. IMO it fits the tone of the Craig era, where writers have emphasised the inherent drama, and more importantly, they had already used the retirement option at the end of Spectre; but I understand people who are upset by NTTD’s finale after 15 years of emotional investment and are loathe to see a cultural icon killed ostensibly to “freshen up” the franchise, or to pay homage to the star. YMMV, but as someone less invested in Craig’s Bond compared to most of his predecessors, I would be happy to see the return of standalone films. The story involving Madeleine and Mathilde may have worked for DC’s Bond, but I would not want to either see them die or see them as regulars.
Thanks for the kind words. Ha ha, Daniel Craig and I have about the same chance to appear in the credits of Bond 26. But, I have let Barbara know I am available.