NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1959698100101298

Comments

  • Posts: 380
    OH LOOK!! Bond didn't die he had a miraculous last minute escape. I mean come on, that sort of stuff was ok in a 1930s Flash Gordon serial or the 60s Batman series but in a major modern franchise movie I don't think so. Especially as the next Bond movie could be four or more years away. It's got to be a fresh start. New M,Q, Moneypenny and no connection to Craig's films at all. But please God no more how Bond became Bond storylines, been there done that.
  • astansillastansill London
    Posts: 34
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    OH LOOK!! Bond didn't die he had a miraculous last minute escape. I mean come on, that sort of stuff was ok in a 1930s Flash Gordon serial or the 60s Batman series but in a major modern franchise movie I don't think so. Especially as the next Bond movie could be four or more years away. It's got to be a fresh start. New M,Q, Moneypenny and no connection to Craig's films at all. But please God no more how Bond became Bond storylines, been there done that.

    Definitely this! I want to see Bond 26 back to the old regular format, stand-alone films, no story-arcs, not rebooting, just a regular film with a good plot where bond saves the day and here’s hoping to a proper gunbarrel again 😂.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Zekidk wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I disagree that she lacks complete chemistry with Craig. I guess people see "chemistry" as two over-excited, madly-in-love 16 year-olds going at it like a Christmas tree.
    Can't we argue our case, without trying to patronize other users at the same time?

    Their relationsship is forced. She hardly smiles at him, and for two movies they have spent more screentime arguing and mistrusting each other, than looking like two people in love. A one-minute sequence before hell breaks loose in Matera, isn't going to cut it, especially because they immediately after have no connection with each other for five years. They even left each other at the end of SP, with no emotional ties, before the final showdown. I know the script for NTTD dictates feelings here, but chemistry is not found in words alone, and personally I haven't seen any spark between the two of them.

    Was I patronizing anyone? I was merely trying to explain that a "chemistry between Bond and ..." can mean different things to different people. I--and that's just me--simply feel that a middle-aged man with tons of scars, some of which aren't physical, doesn't have to drop on his knees and profess his undying commitment to a woman if he truly loves her. Love can exist in silence without celebrating it the way romcom Hollywould has taught us. At the end of QOS, a clear statement is made: it may look like love, but that doesn't mean it is.

    Madeleine hardly smiling at Bond is a personality trait, not a damnation of their relationship. She doesn't strike me as the smiling type anyway, what with all those traumatic experiences in her young life. Also, yes, in two movies they have spent more screentime arguing and mistrusting each other because, honestly, we would have grown tired pretty fast of scene after scene after scene of people holding hands and kissing and sharing poems under a tree in the park, at least in a Bond film. A friend of mine told me in 2006, after seeing CR for the first time, that it was a good film but he could have done without "all the romantic stuff at the end". I guess the Bonds aren't meant for hardcore romance, though, admittedly, some pull it off quite well, like OHMSS. Then again, Rhett and Scarlett spend more of GWTW bickering than kissing, and theirs is generally considered one of the most epic movie romances ever. Same with Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca, a romance so magnificent that most of the film feels like mourning the loss of it. So I guess that "a one-minute sequence before hell breaks loose in Matera" is going to have to cut it since I sincerely doubt many of us would have appreciated a full act of the film devoted to Bond and Madeleine enjoying life with nothing to threaten it. (Also, let's play fair: their togetherness scenes before the train arrived lasted a lot longer than just one minute.)

    A romance, in my humble opinion, at least--and I'm certainly not trying to patronize anyone--doesn't always have to be shown with all the typical sparks, joys and laughs to be believable. Will a romance survive tragedy? What if two people get separated over an issue of mistrust? How has it affected their lives? How quickly can the old flame be rekindled when they see each other again? There are more interesting aspects to a romance in my opinion than the obvious happy ones.

    I have stated before that as an introvert and, in fact, from personal experience, I find it easy to appreciate the connection these two have established since l'Américain. Again, I'm not trying to patronize; I'm just saying what I, personally, feel whenever I watch SP and also when I was watching NTTD. And that allows me to disagree with anyone who, as a general statement, posits that Bond and Madeleine have no chemistry between them. In fact, I think this is one of the easiest things to agree to disagree over, simply because it depends so much on what we, as viewers, take away from what we're seeing.

    I do agree that "chemistry is not found in words alone", but I also doubt that it is automatically established through lengthy scenes of lovemaking, kissing and cosy fireplace conversations. (Star Wars Episode II, anyone?) And once again I submit to you that it ultimately boils down to personal impressions. Some will walk away from NTTD feeling that Bond and Madeleine are a colder pair than Bond and Tiffany Case, while others will see it as one of the romantic highlights of the series. But however you slice it, it is a very subjective thing, and that's just what I was trying to explain, without patronizing anyone. But I nevertheless apologize if I came off that way, @Zekidk.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    bondywondy wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's been two days since I've seen NTTD and I'm still kind of shocked at how much this film seems to be designed for the hardcore fans (moreso than the general public)...all of the OHMSS film nods and the radical but strangely faithful adaptation of the YOLT novel.

    If it was faithful to YOLT, I would have loved this film.

    Re Echo's comment,
    I can't see how a film that kills off a 59 year old film hero is designed for hardcore fans. Surely that would be a strange way to appeal to them! But I accept thematically speaking the film contains elements that trigger a nostalgic response in hardcore fans. The most obvious trigger being the use of We Have All The Time In The World.

    As for the use of YOLT, in the novel Bond was presumed dead. He killed Blofeld but Bond did not die. He returned in The Man With The Golden Gun, brainwashed, and attempted to assassinate M.

    It's not that far fetched to think EON paid homage to YOLT and the fake death of Bond. It's not that far fetched to imagine Bond (Craig's version) will be alive in Bond 26. I would hazard a guess Bond 26 will feature an amnesiac Bond as opposed to a rebooted Bond (which will destroy all Bond continuity.) Eon could do the subplot of Bond trying to kill M at the start of or midway through Bond 26. That's other reason why fans should not automatically assume Bond 26 will be a full reboot.

    If Bond 26 opened with an amnesia Bond, and continued the arc from YOLT into TMWTGG, I would love that.

    It would also bizarrely make me enjoy NTTD a whole lot more than I previously did.

    I sent an unsolicited email to Eon suggesting that idea is adapted/extended. Rather than Bond coming back to kill M, you could have Bond with amnesia and he's working for the villain. This would be an interesting way to make Bond 26. At some point in the story Bond is located by the 00s, 'captured' and his memory returns. You wouldn't do the whole film with Bond as a villain. I reckon film goers would accept the scenario for 50 to 60 percent of the story. He reverts back to hero before the third act of the story. 🙂

    When fans say "Bond is dead, just accept it" maybe they're not seeing the potential of Bond alive but missing in action. There will be screenwriters out there (maybe Purvis and Wade too) that would jump at the chance to write a 'Bond missing in action' story and I cannot see a woman as financially astute as Barbara Broccoli automatically dismissing the idea.

    If she wants to reboot and start from point zero that is her prerogative. I'm sure a rebooted Bond 26 can have a decent plot and push the franchise forward in a new ish direction but Bond missing in action, presumed dead, is arguably a more dramatic premise.

    She is already on record as saying the next Bond will be a reboot.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    @DarthDimi I certainly did not take your post as patronizing. Also, I do happen to agree with you regarding Madeleine and James in NTTD. And onscreen chemistry is definitively subjective. The whole tone, atmosphere, and feeling on NTTD is filled with layers, depth, and meaning - very different from Spectre. I am glad we got to know Madeleine a lot more in this one. I personally find their chemistry real, the tenderness and love believable in NTTD.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    @TripAces yes, I thought so, but could not remember where. I'm glad of that.
  • Posts: 1,970
    My issue with the Craig era being self contained is that none of the emotional pay offs in NTTD are earned. They are piggy backing on the emotional connections and creative hard work of the Cubby era rather than building something new themselves.

    This is an issue I have with the Craig era as well. They piggy back on all the connections during the Cubby era when theres not suppose to be an connections to that era in the Craig era because its a new timeline where those connections dont exist.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2021 Posts: 24,187
    astansill wrote: »
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    OH LOOK!! Bond didn't die he had a miraculous last minute escape. I mean come on, that sort of stuff was ok in a 1930s Flash Gordon serial or the 60s Batman series but in a major modern franchise movie I don't think so. Especially as the next Bond movie could be four or more years away. It's got to be a fresh start. New M,Q, Moneypenny and no connection to Craig's films at all. But please God no more how Bond became Bond storylines, been there done that.

    Definitely this! I want to see Bond 26 back to the old regular format, stand-alone films, no story-arcs, not rebooting, just a regular film with a good plot where bond saves the day and here’s hoping to a proper gunbarrel again 😂.

    Well, that dreadful retconning seems to be the bread and butter of the Fast & Furious series these days, and no, I don't like it.

    I too would prefer the next Bond film to start with Bond getting a mission from M, pass through Moneypenny's office for some giggles and then Q's for some gadgets and get on with it. I'm all for a soft reboot but it would be too soon after the Craig era to restart another "cycle" of Bond Begins, The Dark Spy and then Bond Ends. And that's not a damnation of the Craig era at all, because I love it to death--pun intended. And because I love it so much, I want it to maintain its originality and uniqueness in the series a little while longer, without another similar run overwriting it to obsoletion. But a reboot (whatever that means) doesn't have to imply that everything done in the Craig Bonds will just be lazily repeated in the next guy's era.

    There is still room for dramatic punches to be thrown; in fact, I firmly believe there is some really good stuff left unused in Fleming's books. But to try to work in the amnesia angle immediately after this film isn't my idea of doing it well. I've never been a fan of amnesia plots anyway. They often feel forced, artificial, medically inaccurate and over too soon and too easily. Also, I want to bury the Craig era with dignity; a retcon telling us that--FOOLED YOU!--this Bond isn't dead, would be like defecating on the dramatic completion of this Bond's arc and everything leading up to it.

    @bondywondy
    You sent an email to EON with story suggestions? How cute is that! Except that you're neither the first nor the last to do that and whoever is at the receiving end will have deleted your mail after reading the first three words. Don't hold your hopes up that that person, who isn't BB or MGW by the way, has given you more than 2 seconds of his attention. Besides, as soon as EON decides to take advice from entitled fans, this film series (which some people for some reason are eager to call a "franchise", which means something else, but I digress) will go down the toilet faster than yesterday's meal. Trust me, they will have gone through this exercise more often than you have. These people know their Fleming inside-out; they have been witness to or involved in the making of these films since the '60s. They have heard the talks, had the conversations, done the thinking, ... If and when they're ready to go for the amnesia plot, they'll squeeze it in. But right now, they're celebrating the release of NTTD, which is obviously turning out a successful one (or at least as successful as can be in these times) and they have said that all the planning may resume sometime next year. Maybe... because these people aren't going to have themselves flogged into another production just because some entitled fans crave product and believe they can do things better. In fact, they'll be laughing hard whenever the press takes some idiot's blog's seriously and posts about the next Bond being a lady. They'll be laughing when the press takes another fan's desires for where the story should go next seriously. They must be laughing a lot, I can imagine. At least I'm happy for Cubby that he never had to suffer the idiocies of social media and the eagerness of entitled fans to "contribute" -- you should see the smirk on my face -- to the legacy that he built.
    @DarthDimi I certainly did not take your post as patronizing. Also, I do happen to agree with you regarding Madeleine and James in NTTD. And onscreen chemistry is definitively subjective. The whole tone, atmosphere, and feeling on NTTD is filled with layers, depth, and meaning - very different from Spectre. I am glad we got to know Madeleine a lot more in this one. I personally find their chemistry real, the tenderness and love believable in NTTD.

    I guess we're on the same page then, @4EverBonded! :-) I even liked what they had going on in SP. But yes, it reaches deeper still in NTTD.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,978
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Lovely how everyone keeps on discussing this film. Bond might have died at the end of the film, but he’s very much alive.

    I didn’t look for half a day and I missed 160+ posts and several pages. Really enjoyed you’re write-up btw @Creasy47.

    Someone pointed out how Craig’s Bond is close to Dalton and Lazenby, and I agree. For me those three are the most human Bond portrayals.

    I love the mostly carefree escapism of Connery/Moore/Brosnan, but in terms of caring for the character Lazenby/Dalton/Craig take the cake imo.

    Thank you so much for reading.
  • I agree with the comments about Bond and Madeleine. While I agree that she was underwritten in Spectre, I liked her and understood what they were trying to do. Madeleine was never intended to be written as the same romance as Vesper. Just take the two train scenes in contrast. In CR, the scene is definitely charged full of chemistry and the two are full of banter and sizing each other up. Bond even admits to feeling "skewered" after she accurately but brutally "reads him" (though he was clearly enjoying himself). In Spectre, Madeleine spends the dinner scene in the train asking Bond about him, wanting to understand his perspective and choices in a world she clearly already understands. And in that scene, she never actually judges him for his answers. And Bond is leaning forward over the table as if he's captivated by her being the first one to ever stop to ask him.
    Interviews for Spectre said they wanted Madeleine to be soulful and I think they hit it out of the park with Lea though she was served better in NTTD. Madeleine is soulful, somber, mature, and incredibly sincere with the limited words she uses. Bond is older and damaged and the tender, quieter love suits him. He had awesome chemistry with Paloma, but I disagree with the comments that she should have been the female lead. It doesn't suit what Craig's Bond wants at this time in his life.
    Also, Vesper and Bond did get a "young love" style montage, but that served the storyline and needed to be given to secure the shock of Vesper dying and that she was playing him the entire time. Madeleine gets an overarching thread in two films. It's her actions that show how she feels. While it could have been definitely better handled and written, she offers her love so innocently in Spectre after he had done little to earn it, then tries to leave so she wouldn't be the one to change him. She never betrayed him the way Vesper did. She handles his rejection with complete grace, bears/loves/raises his child for five years, never stops loving him, forgives him for his mistrust with little explanation offered, and then takes him back. This is why Bond didn't want to live without her in the end. She genuinely offered him everything and more that he thought he was getting with Vesper at the time. I think Lea plays the scene in Norway when he's confessing how he feels beautifully. She is not a typical Bond girl - flashy, flirtatious, etc. She was never intended to be one. Not another Bond girl would have made the choices she made. Bond's words are very telling. He says he doesn't regret a moment of his life that led him to Madeleine. That includes Vesper's death too. All of that led him to Madeleine.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    I agree with the comments about Bond and Madeleine. While I agree that she was underwritten in Spectre, I liked her and understood what they were trying to do. Madeleine was never intended to be written as the same romance as Vesper. Just take the two train scenes in contrast. In CR, the scene is definitely charged full of chemistry and the two are full of banter and sizing each other up. Bond even admits to feeling "skewered" after she accurately but brutally "reads him" (though he was clearly enjoying himself). In Spectre, Madeleine spends the dinner scene in the train asking Bond about him, wanting to understand his perspective and choices in a world she clearly already understands. And in that scene, she never actually judges him for his answers. And Bond is leaning forward over the table as if he's captivated by her being the first one to ever stop to ask him.
    Interviews for Spectre said they wanted Madeleine to be soulful and I think they hit it out of the park with Lea though she was served better in NTTD. Madeleine is soulful, somber, mature, and incredibly sincere with the limited words she uses. Bond is older and damaged and the tender, quieter love suits him. He had awesome chemistry with Paloma, but I disagree with the comments that she should have been the female lead. It doesn't suit what Craig's Bond wants at this time in his life.
    Also, Vesper and Bond did get a "young love" style montage, but that served the storyline and needed to be given to secure the shock of Vesper dying and that she was playing him the entire time. Madeleine gets an overarching thread in two films. It's her actions that show how she feels. While it could have been definitely better handled and written, she offers her love so innocently in Spectre after he had done little to earn it, then tries to leave so she wouldn't be the one to change him. She never betrayed him the way Vesper did. She handles his rejection with complete grace, bears/loves/raises his child for five years, never stops loving him, forgives him for his mistrust with little explanation offered, and then takes him back. This is why Bond didn't want to live without her in the end. She genuinely offered him everything and more that he thought he was getting with Vesper at the time. I think Lea plays the scene in Norway when he's confessing how he feels beautifully. She is not a typical Bond girl - flashy, flirtatious, etc. She was never intended to be one. Not another Bond girl would have made the choices she made. Bond's words are very telling. He says he doesn't regret a moment of his life that led him to Madeleine. That includes Vesper's death too. All of that led him to Madeleine.

    Take a bow. What a lovely post.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 66
    @00Heaven
    You're very kind.

    There is much to Madeleine that just gets overlooked. Two lines hit me in the gut in the film. After Bond accuses her of betraying him, won't listen to her at all, and pushes her onto a train, she desperately asks "how will I know you're okay." And then after he tells her he learned she didn't betray him, she says she understands that's who he is. After five years of heartbreak, she said that. I think she's wonderful.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    studio wrote: »
    At the end of the book You only live twice, Kissy is pregnant by Bond, she doesn’t tell him , so there’s more book related storylines than the poison garden. ( in the discussion they seem to miss that fact)

    The only part worth adapting to screen of YOLT is the final part, which EON almost did, but didn't go the whole hog and adapt the final chapter `Sparrows Tears'. Had they given us that ending instead, I would have enjoyed the film a whole lot more.

    It would still have given closure to the Craig era, still would have been a downbeat, sad ending. I just feel cheated.

    Craig wanted to go out a hero, not an amnesiac, so presumably that is why his Bond died. (This also appears to be why Boyle left the project.)

    Now if Craig had one more Bond in him, they could have retained the amnesia cliffhanger.

    The problem is that if Craig Bond were not dead (he is), when he regains his memory he will remember the child.

    Fleming knew that they only way Bond could go on is if he didn't *know* about the child.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,848
    @Creasy47. Great write-up….and she is adorable. Hopefully, the two of you will have plenty of “Bond Stories” to share in the future.
    I’m off to see NTTD this afternoon. Just listening to “We have all the Time in the World” by Louis Armstrong – which I did a-lot on Friday – has already made me teary eyed.

    Anyway, they say an occasional cry is good for the soul.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,978
    Thank you, @Dwayne, I'm certain we will!

    Yes, that song hits quite differently when attached to this film.
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 154
    bondywondy wrote: »
    When fans say "Bond is dead, just accept it" maybe they're not seeing the potential of Bond alive but missing in action.

    This Bond is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If he hadn't been visibly vaporised he'd be pushing up the daisies due to his bullet wounds! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! He is an ex-Bond!

    The film clearly showed DC getting peppered with missile strikes all around him, and the island being decimated. There is no 'the missile blew him out to sea' scenario. He is gone. Finished. Snuffed it. Popped his clogs. Croaked.

    The only scenario for even the most talented of screenwriters is to take something that SOME people didn't like, and make a mockery of it for EVERYONE by undoing it. And saying that, the Bond films very much do not have the most talented of screenwriters so long as Purvis and Wade are still on board. (They get a bit TOO much grief, mind you, but I don't think anyone puts them in Hollywood's upper echelons).

    I am not a fan of the ending, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you shouldn't just accept the obvious and move on from it.

    There will be another Bond. There will be plenty more Bond films. They won't reference NTTD, and nor will they need to. James Bond will return, and if your feelings towards NTTD haven't softened by then, you still have 20-odd other films you can still enjoy. And by not referencing NTTD, it also leaves the door open for a (long in the future) return of Leiter, Blofeld, and Spectre. By extending NTTD's timeline in to future films with a 'he didn't really die' story, Bond films will also have to acknowledge the death of these, and I for one would rather have future films do Spectre better justice than the last two films have, and a return in some form for 007's greatest friend and foe, not just cast them off because the ending of ONE film did not sit right with some people.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Simon wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    When fans say "Bond is dead, just accept it" maybe they're not seeing the potential of Bond alive but missing in action.

    This Bond is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If he hadn't been visibly vaporised he'd be pushing up the daisies due to his bullet wounds! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! He is an ex-Bond!

    The film clearly showed DC getting peppered with missile strikes all around him, and the island being decimated. There is no 'the missile blew him out to sea' scenario. He is gone. Finished. Snuffed it. Popped his clogs. Croaked.

    The only scenario for even the most talented of screenwriters is to take something that SOME people didn't like, and make a mockery of it for EVERYONE by undoing it. And saying that, the Bond films very much do not have the most talented of screenwriters so long as Purvis and Wade are still on board. (They get a bit TOO much grief, mind you, but I don't think anyone puts them in Hollywood's upper echelons).

    I am not a fan of the ending, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you shouldn't just accept the obvious and move on from it.

    There will be another Bond. There will be plenty more Bond films. They won't reference NTTD, and nor will they need to. James Bond will return, and if your feelings towards NTTD haven't softened by then, you still have 20-odd other films you can still enjoy. And by not referencing NTTD, it also leaves the door open for a (long in the future) return of Leiter, Blofeld, and Spectre. By extending NTTD's timeline in to future films with a 'he didn't really die' story, Bond films will also have to acknowledge the death of these, and I for one would rather have future films do Spectre better justice than the last two films have, and a return in some form for 007's greatest friend and foe, not just cast them off because the ending of ONE film did not sit right with some people.

    Post of the day! But @bondywondy never responds to any comment. There's no discussion. He's just here to repeat his disgruntlement over the ending. He should feel right at home in the YouTube comment section.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    The Craig era is completely separate from the previous movies, a self-contained arc. Volcano Lairs and Liparus battles happened to some other fella.

    Exactly so ... and it's really the thematically-consistent emotional richness and degree of psychological complexity that separate the Craig films from the first twenty in the series.

    Forever to be controversial within the fandom, to be sure ...
  • Posts: 7,507
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    I agree with the comments about Bond and Madeleine. While I agree that she was underwritten in Spectre, I liked her and understood what they were trying to do. Madeleine was never intended to be written as the same romance as Vesper. Just take the two train scenes in contrast. In CR, the scene is definitely charged full of chemistry and the two are full of banter and sizing each other up. Bond even admits to feeling "skewered" after she accurately but brutally "reads him" (though he was clearly enjoying himself). In Spectre, Madeleine spends the dinner scene in the train asking Bond about him, wanting to understand his perspective and choices in a world she clearly already understands. And in that scene, she never actually judges him for his answers. And Bond is leaning forward over the table as if he's captivated by her being the first one to ever stop to ask him.
    Interviews for Spectre said they wanted Madeleine to be soulful and I think they hit it out of the park with Lea though she was served better in NTTD. Madeleine is soulful, somber, mature, and incredibly sincere with the limited words she uses. Bond is older and damaged and the tender, quieter love suits him. He had awesome chemistry with Paloma, but I disagree with the comments that she should have been the female lead. It doesn't suit what Craig's Bond wants at this time in his life.
    Also, Vesper and Bond did get a "young love" style montage, but that served the storyline and needed to be given to secure the shock of Vesper dying and that she was playing him the entire time. Madeleine gets an overarching thread in two films. It's her actions that show how she feels. While it could have been definitely better handled and written, she offers her love so innocently in Spectre after he had done little to earn it, then tries to leave so she wouldn't be the one to change him. She never betrayed him the way Vesper did. She handles his rejection with complete grace, bears/loves/raises his child for five years, never stops loving him, forgives him for his mistrust with little explanation offered, and then takes him back. This is why Bond didn't want to live without her in the end. She genuinely offered him everything and more that he thought he was getting with Vesper at the time. I think Lea plays the scene in Norway when he's confessing how he feels beautifully. She is not a typical Bond girl - flashy, flirtatious, etc. She was never intended to be one. Not another Bond girl would have made the choices she made. Bond's words are very telling. He says he doesn't regret a moment of his life that led him to Madeleine. That includes Vesper's death too. All of that led him to Madeleine.


    Take a bow from me too, @BlondeBond. Very good points and well written.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 693
    NoWiseman wrote: »
    I'm actually annoyed when I see Craig or one of the team pop up on Youtube now to promote it.

    This film has had a very bizarre affect on me to say the least. Right now I can't bring myself to rewatch any of Craig's films because of NTTD. I never thought after waiting so long for a Bond film that it would have this kind off affect on me.

    I just want to say, you're not allone in this, as i'm feeling absolutely the same. I saw it on Sep. 30th over here in germany and as of now i have no intend to touch this movie ever again. It killed my life long affection for the cinematic Bond in its last act. I was sad and angry when i left the cinema. And it hasn't changed till today.

    Same here, except I haven't and won't ever watch NTTD. But just knowing its ending has left me cold for the franchise. Casino Royale, which used to be one of my favorites, was on last night and I couldn't bare to watch it. It just made me feel sick. I don't care if the ending was "right for the plot" as some claim. They shouldn't have written that plot to begin with. And I don't see how they can come back from this without a massive retcon.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    This is the morning after NTTD. The word I keep coming up with is.....unnecessary
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    @00Heaven
    You're very kind.

    There is much to Madeleine that just gets overlooked. Two lines hit me in the gut in the film. After Bond accuses her of betraying him, won't listen to her at all, and pushes her onto a train, she desperately asks "how will I know you're okay." And then after he tells her he learned she didn't betray him, she says she understands that's who he is. After five years of heartbreak, she said that. I think she's wonderful.
    Yes, fully agree with your remarks here and above .... Madeleine's is a realistic, truly flesh & blood charactrization, which is unlike any we have had in the series. Vesper .... and [gulp] Tracy included.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 484
    At the moment, Batman enters its fifth live action continuity: the Adam West TV show, the Burton-Schumacher films (with three different leads and a lot of retcons), the Dark Knight trilogy, the short-timed Snyderverse, and now the forthcoming film with Robert Pattinson. And there's also some continuity for the animated series overseen by Bruce Timm an Paul Dini (originally an extension of the first two Burton films, it took a life of its own), with the film and video games spin-offs, and a different continuity for Lego Batman. Yet, people still love the character.

    TDKR is quite a mess, with Nolan being about as much out of inspiration as Mendes was for parts of Spectre. But even if Bruce Wayne/Batman ultimately survives the events, it's obvious that the films that were shot after the trilogy aren't retcons, they're part of different continuities. And TDKR being quite messy doesn't prevent me from loving BB and TDK or from having hope for the next film. Because it's not some retcon.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,276
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    A romance, in my humble opinion, at least--and I'm certainly not trying to patronize anyone--doesn't always have to be shown with all the typical sparks, joys and laughs to be believable.
    (...)
    And once again I submit to you that it ultimately boils down to personal impressions. Some will walk away from NTTD feeling that Bond and Madeleine are a colder pair than Bond and Tiffany Case, while others will see it as one of the romantic highlights of the series. But however you slice it, it is a very subjective thing, and that's just what I was trying to explain, without patronizing anyone. But I nevertheless apologize if I came off that way, @Zekidk.
    I understand all that you are saying and respect your opinion. And yes...in movies feelings are often build through conflict.

    But when two people are in love they will usually do almost anything to be with each other. At the end of SP (after the Morocco-scenes), they just leave each other, so it’s safe to assume, there’s no real emotional attachment there. Then he saves her from Blofeld, drives off into the sunset, takes her to Matera, and then they leave each other again…for five years. Bond even says to her when putting her on the train that ”you will never see me again.” That’s not something a person in love would say to a woman he has strong feelings for, is it? Fast-forward five years to the scene in the cabin where he then says ”I have always loved you” moments after hooking up with her again and just before knowing there’s a child. Oh really, you have always loved her, but not once in five years you wanted to find out anything about her? Show, don't tell, man!

    The train-scene when Bond and Vesper first meet in CR? Now, that’s chemistry! They were helped by a better script, though.
  • Posts: 346
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    When fans say "Bond is dead, just accept it" maybe they're not seeing the potential of Bond alive but missing in action.

    This Bond is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If he hadn't been visibly vaporised he'd be pushing up the daisies due to his bullet wounds! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! He is an ex-Bond!

    The film clearly showed DC getting peppered with missile strikes all around him, and the island being decimated. There is no 'the missile blew him out to sea' scenario. He is gone. Finished. Snuffed it. Popped his clogs. Croaked.

    The only scenario for even the most talented of screenwriters is to take something that SOME people didn't like, and make a mockery of it for EVERYONE by undoing it. And saying that, the Bond films very much do not have the most talented of screenwriters so long as Purvis and Wade are still on board. (They get a bit TOO much grief, mind you, but I don't think anyone puts them in Hollywood's upper echelons).

    I am not a fan of the ending, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you shouldn't just accept the obvious and move on from it.

    There will be another Bond. There will be plenty more Bond films. They won't reference NTTD, and nor will they need to. James Bond will return, and if your feelings towards NTTD haven't softened by then, you still have 20-odd other films you can still enjoy. And by not referencing NTTD, it also leaves the door open for a (long in the future) return of Leiter, Blofeld, and Spectre. By extending NTTD's timeline in to future films with a 'he didn't really die' story, Bond films will also have to acknowledge the death of these, and I for one would rather have future films do Spectre better justice than the last two films have, and a return in some form for 007's greatest friend and foe, not just cast them off because the ending of ONE film did not sit right with some people.

    Post of the day! But @bondywondy never responds to any comment. There's no discussion. He's just here to repeat his disgruntlement over the ending. He should feel right at home in the YouTube comment section.

    I responded to a few. 😊 The Sun quoted an insider saying Bond can survive or they reboot.

    It's 50:50?

    We're not Eon so we can't say with 100 percent certainty what will happen. That's all I'm saying. 😉
  • Posts: 526
    Random thoughts:
    1. Ending is going to alienate more fans than people think.
    2. Madeleine Swan was tedious, lacked energy, and was a stale character. She brought the movie down. Paloma and Nomi were great.
    3. Spectre and NTTD should not have been made.
    4. Some fans will look at this as the end of Bond, and move on from the franchise because they believe he is dead. Period. So they’re done.
    5. In the reboot to come, please no: Spectre, Blofeld, Dr. No, etc. Let’s come up with some original villains and a FRESH story. This Bond is not connected to any continuity and does his own thing. Follow the tone of Casino and QOS. But the villains, and so on, 60 years is enough.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Random thoughts:
    1. Ending is going to alienate more fans than people think.
    2. Madeleine Swan was tedious, lacked energy, and was a stale character. She brought the movie down. Paloma and Nomi were great.
    3. Spectre and NTTD should not have been made.
    4. Some fans will look at this as the end of Bond, and move on from the franchise because they believe he is dead. Period. So they’re done.
    5. In the reboot to come, please no: Spectre, Blofeld, Dr. No, etc. Let’s come up with some original villains and a FRESH story. This Bond is not connected to any continuity and does his own thing. Follow the tone of Casino and QOS. But the villains, and so on, 60 years is enough.

    I would like to now see more unused Fleming -

    1. the gangsters in DAF. In fact much of this book still hasn't been used.

    2. the card game at Blades from MR

    3. Viv Michel being held captive at a motel by gangsters who are about to rape her, only for Bond to rescue her.

    4. The opening to TMWTGG, and the rest of this novel properly adapted.

    There is enough material there to last around 4 movies, at least. A new actors entire reign.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    When fans say "Bond is dead, just accept it" maybe they're not seeing the potential of Bond alive but missing in action.

    This Bond is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If he hadn't been visibly vaporised he'd be pushing up the daisies due to his bullet wounds! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! He is an ex-Bond!

    The film clearly showed DC getting peppered with missile strikes all around him, and the island being decimated. There is no 'the missile blew him out to sea' scenario. He is gone. Finished. Snuffed it. Popped his clogs. Croaked.

    The only scenario for even the most talented of screenwriters is to take something that SOME people didn't like, and make a mockery of it for EVERYONE by undoing it. And saying that, the Bond films very much do not have the most talented of screenwriters so long as Purvis and Wade are still on board. (They get a bit TOO much grief, mind you, but I don't think anyone puts them in Hollywood's upper echelons).

    I am not a fan of the ending, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you shouldn't just accept the obvious and move on from it.

    There will be another Bond. There will be plenty more Bond films. They won't reference NTTD, and nor will they need to. James Bond will return, and if your feelings towards NTTD haven't softened by then, you still have 20-odd other films you can still enjoy. And by not referencing NTTD, it also leaves the door open for a (long in the future) return of Leiter, Blofeld, and Spectre. By extending NTTD's timeline in to future films with a 'he didn't really die' story, Bond films will also have to acknowledge the death of these, and I for one would rather have future films do Spectre better justice than the last two films have, and a return in some form for 007's greatest friend and foe, not just cast them off because the ending of ONE film did not sit right with some people.

    Post of the day! But @bondywondy never responds to any comment. There's no discussion. He's just here to repeat his disgruntlement over the ending. He should feel right at home in the YouTube comment section.

    46299fcb258943223e52295604fae363.jpg
  • foo_yukfoo_yuk Canada
    Posts: 26
    Random thoughts:
    1. Ending is going to alienate more fans than people think.
    2. Madeleine Swan was tedious, lacked energy, and was a stale character. She brought the movie down. Paloma and Nomi were great.
    3. Spectre and NTTD should not have been made.
    4. Some fans will look at this as the end of Bond, and move on from the franchise because they believe he is dead. Period. So they’re done.
    5. In the reboot to come, please no: Spectre, Blofeld, Dr. No, etc. Let’s come up with some original villains and a FRESH story. This Bond is not connected to any continuity and does his own thing. Follow the tone of Casino and QOS. But the villains, and so on, 60 years is enough.

    In regards to 3, how did these fans come to terms with Casino Royale? There we have a Bond who becomes a 00 in 2006, (we clearly see the date on the surveillance discs in the Bahamas). He couldn’t have been the same Bond galavanting with sexy KGB agents or blowing up chemical factories in the USSR… he’d have been just a kid. Therefore, the next Bond is no different than Craig’s start, regardless if Craig’s Bond dies, goes to clown college or travels through time and gets stuck in the Wild West.
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 154
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The Sun quoted an insider saying Bond can survive or they reboot.

    Ah yes, The Sun, that well known bastion of truth and journalistic integrity.

    https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/ten-shameful-moments-from-the-suns-past/
Sign In or Register to comment.