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
You have missed (or deliberately chosen to ignore) the point entirely
Haha!
See you in five to ten. (In time for the next film?)
You seem to be changing your point a couple of times mid-post.
Paragraph 1: It is reasonable for someone to be confused that Bond dies, and then they're told he will return.
Nick's TwentyTwo Cents: Yes, I agree with you that it's reasonable to expect some people to be confused by this.
Paragraph 2: This is just a statement declaring how other people can differentiate between this iteration of Bond, and Bond at large. Seems like everyone answered this question (?) quite appropriately.
Nick's TwentyTwo Cents: I personally have no problem differentiating this iteration of Bond / this Bond story, from the Bond legend at large.
Paragraph 3: It's plausible that this iteration Bond did, in fact, survive the end of NTTD?
Nick's TwentyTwo Cents: I do not believe it's plausible that Bond survived NTTD. They showed his smart blood vitals to be zero. The story they told did not include Bond surviving. If they bring Craig-Bond back for B26, it would take some serious retconning (it's not like they haven't done it before).
If we've all missed the point, could you state it clearly and concisely? Genuinely asking for clarity here, not trying to be a smartass.
Edited for my responses to everything.
It's impossible to know what the future holds but Vertigo was dismissed by most critics at the time of its release in 1958. Really, outside of just a few (largely French) cinephiles who were themselves making their earliest films, it wasn't taken seriously at all. Yet, in recent years it's been widely regarded as not just Hitchcock’s best movie, but in some quarters as the greatest movie of all time. *
There's an analogy to be made here, of course, with OHMSS, at least within the Bond fan community - though its not quite true that it took decades for that film to be reassessed (... maybe ten years, as I recall).
Personally, I think that NTTD will, in future years, be uncontroversially regarded as among the very best (and most important) Bond films in the entire series. But then I also think that time will be kind to Spectre, so who knows, really .... 😉
Tempus fugit, and all that!
* https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time
I remember this was a component of my very first impressions of the film, that in time, it'll be appreciated along with OHMSS, and for the same reasons.
There must have been a ton of "this-is-not-Bond" sentiment after that film!
And I sure hope Spectre becomes more appreciated with time! Love it.
That's fine, my initial email was in response to a comment by RC7 and subsequently MakeshiftPython, rather than yourself, but very happy for you to join in
Para 1 You and I are in agreement, but RC7 is surprised
Para 2 Was included merely to illustrate how the human mind can easily handle apparent contradictions, none of us have any difficulty with different iterations of Bond (or even, as in 1983, with having two Bonds at the same time)
Para 3 If you have no problem getting you head around Para 2 then you should have no problem getting your head around Para 3?
Whether Craig-Bond remains dead or comes back to life is entirely dependant on how the people who make James Bond feel at the time. For the moment that means he's dead, but people have been know to change their minds and, if they do, a way will be found to bring him back to life and I will have no greater problem accepting that than with the appearance of a completely new Bond
That's what I consider to be the "reality" of the situation
What happens in NTTD is just entertaining fiction
I think I only invited myself in to overcomplicate the plot because my first reaction was I agreed with RC7 and Makeshift.
The key difference here, as I interpret it, is: B26 as a brand new Bond story with no connection to the Craig Arc, vs. a B26 that is a direct continuation of NTTD/The Craig Arc. I'm for the former, against the latter.
I agree with this as well. Having said that, I think they have made it extremely difficult to do that for themselves, but objectively, of course they could do it. They could start B26 with Craig Bond and Baron Samedi walking in laughing together.
all goodz ma G
I don't think he'll be coming back either, but there will always be some sentimental types who don't want to let him go, as with all the Bonds
It is masterful filmmaking, historic, will remain controversial for some only due to the ending. I have not given thought to calling any Bond a masterpiece. But in my book (entitled 4Ever's Opinion On Bond Rarely Wavers) NTTD is definitely one of the best out of the entire history of Bond films.
I’m not surprised members of the public are confused Bond ‘died’ but will return.
I’m surprised a fan would labour the point Craig’s Bond ‘could return’. You ‘could’ be the next Bond. You won’t. Let’s leave it there and save the forum the semantic pedantry.
The reason why is probably because she is a lot more vocal about her admiration for Craig than MGW is. Whenever there are interviews with the 2 of them, it appears like `Babs' is the driving force in general now, and not MGW, and she is the one who appears a lot more gutted about Craig leaving the role than MGW is.
This is obviously only a shallow perception though. Maybe `Mickey' is a lot more influential behind the scenes, but he certainly doesn't come across this way on camera, looking more like an old man ready to retire. I also give MGW a free pass because he helped write LTK with Maibaum, with obvious Fleming moments lifted throughout, and one of my favourite films.
If he did, then this shows he is really out of touch and needs to leave. MGW has just gone down many notches in my estimation. I used to hold him in high esteem, as he helped Maibaum write Fleming moments into the scripts (LTK in particular).
I think he’s always been a mixed bag even during the 1980s. He helped write FYEO, but he also co-wrote AVTAK. He produced DAD, but he also produced CR.
I think part of why they went with his idea with Brofeld was because he’s always been the one villain that personally hurt Bond on a deep level and they wanted to keep that aspect. They were not going to repeat the Tracy angle, so instead they turned Bond and Blofeld into a Cain and Abel story.
I consider MGW's finest achievement to be his work on the LTK screenplay. That is one of the best and most interesting plots in the series for me.
LTK is also the one script in the franchise that feels like it's adapted straight from a Fleming novel, even though it isn't. I know it borrows a few unused scenes from LALD and is inspired by TMWTGG, but this is the one time when EON made a film that is `Fleming re-imagined' but pretty damn spot on to feeling like something Fleming wrote.
Completely. I'm still, weeks later, baffled at why they'd think killing Bond off would improve the movie in any way.
I don't know how many people here are familiar with The Legend of Zelda series, but most every game takes the same characters and settings and concepts and totally recontextualizes them each time to tell a different story. I think Craig's Blofeld and all the fan service are a bit like that.
Yeah, and have you seen fans trying to make sense of Link's timeline? lol It's INSANE! :) I'm a long time fan but I just row with it.
https://www.indiewire.com/2021/09/phoebe-waller-bridge-shaped-no-time-to-die-plot-1234667662/
It's too simplistic to assume that greater attention to the female characters is all Barbara. The two of them are a team.
That is a discussion for another thread though, isn't it?
What an interesting experience that I've had with this film; my first viewing left me flat and I left the theater not knowing how I felt.
Last night I had my second viewing ( IMAX) and it was a completely different experience; I loved it. It is a great way to end Craig's run as 007.
Now, with that said, I do have some major problems with a few things and it's critics are not off the mark , specifically the sequence with Blofeld, and the muddy, underdevelopment of the main Villain, Safin. His plot and motivations are very weak and this detracts from the power of the finale.
No Time to Die is beautifully directed: I would love to see what Cary Fukunaga could do with a clean slate.
I agree with you 100%. I don't think I left the first viewing feeling as flat as you may have, but everything else, right on the mark.
I haven’t seen it a second time, but I feel like this mirrors how I would feel. I was pretty mixed/negative on the film the first time (I loved it entirely up until Bond got back to London) but stewing on it in the week since I’ve seen it it’s been growing in appreciation in my mind. I still take issue with the same stuff that bothered me in the theater, like you mainly the Blofeld stuff and Safin’s underdevelopment, but I think I let that cloud my enjoyment of all the terrific stuff that runs all the way through the film. I think I’ll be much more favorable to it on a rewatch.
I agree, Up until Bond's return to London, it was close to perfection; from that point on the weakness of Safin's overall development, including his plot, detract from a beautifully directed and photographed film
My first reaction from the film was profound sadness. Until the ending, the movie was brilliant. It was leading to a wonderful finale with Bond and his budding family finally finding the peace they'd been struggling for for so long. For Bond to finally come so close to the life he didn’t realize he was looking for, only to have the rug pulled out from under him at literally the last second, was heartbreaking and frankly, unnecessary. However, I do acknowledge this was the end of Craig’s tenure and can see how the producers, director and Craig himself might want to bring a sense of finality to that.
All of that said, however, I think the ending points to an easy way of starting the next actor but continuing the story line. Apologies, I’m sure this has been raised at some point in the thread, but I frankly don’t have time to read all 140 pages to check.
The parallels between No Time To Die (at least the last third) and You Only Live Twice (novel) are obvious. In the book, Bond destroys Blofeld’s poison island by closing the valve which allows the naturally occurring geyser on the island to vent. He is essentially on top of the valve/door when the geyser erupts and causes a massive explosion, destroying the island. Bond is blown skywards, lands in the sea and then ultimately rescued by Suzuki, massively damaged, with no memory - this is essentially where we leave him. Back in England, Bond is presumed dead.
Then, in the Man With the Golden Gun (novel), we start in a world where Bond is dead, obituary published, funeral held, etc. and MI6 is clearly dealing with a situation where people ‘claiming’ to be Bond are calling, whether mentally unbalanced, pranksters, etc. Finally one pops up claiming to be James Bond, clears the relevant security protocols and tries to kill M, and we learn he’d been recovered by the Russians, rehabilitated and brainwashed over many months. M and Sir James Moloney (neurologist) rehab/de-program him and send him after Scaramanga to give him the chance to redeem himself.
It is difficult for me to look past the crystal clear parallels and obvious opportunity here. Bond was again on an island with a poison garden being run by a madman bent on mass destruction. Again, Bond enters the island (via the sea), kills him, destroys his work and then is caught in a massive explosion which Bond himself causes. No body is found. Chinese and Russian naval vessels were in the area at the time. In England Bond is presumed dead.
How suitable would it be for a new bond actor to pick up by entering MI6 and attempting to kill M, having been captured, rehabbed and programmed by Russia or China? Damage from the explosion makes it easy to explain a new look, and similarly brain damage makes it easy to explain a lack of connection to his immediate past. All of this comes straight from the storyline Fleming came up with and I can’t believe the possible link here isn’t intentional, or that they structured these elements of No Time to Die as just a ‘nod’ to You Only Live Twice.
I know everyone is saying ‘Bond is dead’, etc. and I get why, but I honestly don’t think its that simple. I think they’ve set this up well to continue the storyline, if they so choose, but in such a way that a new Bond makes sense, and a new set of missions unconnected to the past few films can begin.
Am I out to lunch on this?
What are you having? Lol.
This movie ends this incarnation of Bond; the next will have a clean slate.