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
That's normally the sign of a bad screenplay/movie. I think fans got a lot of propaganda and bad mouthing about what Boyle was doing and it looks like he was right sticking to his guns about Bond shouldn't die and the problems with the script.
I would have loved to have seen what Boyles film would have been. There where definitely a lot of raised eyebrows when they got rid of an multi Oscar winning director who is widely acclaimed and replaced him with a director who mainly has done tv series and a only a few major budget films
Bond 26 will be a hard reboot. In fact, even if Craig's Bond did survive NTTD, there would be far too much baggage for another actor to make the role his own without a hard reboot. I can't imagine another actor having to deal with Craig's Bond's past.
It's the modern social media 'buzz' trend is what all movies are after. People will go to see him die. I remember the people who weren't massive marvel fans rushing to the cinema because they heard Iron Man dies at the end. In fact the past two Bond films have felt almost like they have tried to mimic Avengers, bring more of 'team' into action sequences M (even fighting in Spectre), Moneypenny etc, the deaths of major characters, the arcing story etc.
Craig delayed his decision to return. It was up in the air, I guess. He was returning/he wasn't. B Broccoli got him to agree to come back but SPECTRE felt like his final Bond film. They were boxed into a corner because NTTD couldn't have the same ending as SP.
Most of my Bond film pals have ditched the film already and are mostly talking about the new Mission Impossible next year. I wonder how much those films dented the franchise most people find the MI stunts superior and the films basically gross the same now. Guaranteed pure escapism, rather than the 'which beloved character is dying next' the Craig era films started since Skyfall with M. Then again maybe they too might jump on the hype train and Ethan Hunt won't make it out of his next mission
But yeah, Bond 26 will have nothing to do with Bond 21-25.
No tribute at the end for Sean Connery is weird too.
@Pierce2Daniel firstly great post, don't agree with a lot of it but I enjoyed it and I understand your point of view, very well written as always my friend. I didn't quote it all so we didn't clog up the thread.
I love that Fleming quote, quite honestly that bit has stuck with me more than anything else from the novels. Those few sentences encapsulate everything James Bond is, and as always should be but it also describes why No Time To Die, is betrayal of the character of James Bond
He should always remain "a silhouette" although now with NTTD, he's been acknowledged by his MI6, likely with an obituary, and now has a "wife" and child who know his story and will continue to tell it but crucially know of his heroism. James Bond is an unsung hero and giving a big ending feels wrong
The film should have ended with him knowing his family were safe, have him staring death in the face (You Only Live Twice novel) and then have him attempt to escape.
Leave it up to us the audience, that way James Bond lives and potentially dies as, The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent, the man who was only a silhouette
Upon my first time seeing it, I was completely blown away. It was so much to take in and I got way too emotional. Don't think I've ever cried in the cinema before.
As of right now, I love the film. I've heard people say that it gets even better after the second viewing so I have high hopes. This time around I know what to expect and I know where I'm headed. After today I'll probably see it two or three more times.
Does anyone know how long the cinema run will be?
I would love that. I've never been interested in any form of spin-off, but this I'd be on board with.
This sounds such a better ending than what we got imo.
I wonder if the Boyle ending would have been like this
@JB770721 I think your right M:I has taken over a lot of Bond's Mantel, the problem I have with the current incumbents of EON is that they've become followers rather than innovators. It started with CR trying to be like Jason Bourne, now we have the continuity themes like the MCU.
Sorry to those accepting this, this isn't levelled at you.
The ending was always going to be divisive and if you don't think EON didn't know that you aren't very smart.
Craig's timeline was likely to be ended even before SPECTRE made it much more explicitly.
This isn't what happened in the last 20 films, it's bad enough hearing people trying to connect DC's era to 1962 - 2002.
Can't we just accept that Daniel's Bond isn't coming back and even if they hadn't made it quite as they did, I don't think they'd be recasting the actor in his era, the era was not going to be continued and I think that was something that was decided a lot earlier than some would like to think.
Regardless of the thinking that the main actor should have never had this much power, he did and in all fairness he didn't run the series into the ground from a financial point of view and also it has just been reported that NTTD has had the biggest UK opening weekend of any Bond film. So yes this is a terrible place to be in. I imagine all in involved are hanging their heads in shame at this situation.
I just think all you acting precious over this decision have a high inflated idea of what significance you have in the big scheme of things. I didn't like SPECTRE at all and have even entered into an on and off project with @peter to do a new version of the Bond 24.
Though this is just for fun, I've accepted it is part of this overall arc as much as I really don't like the film but have no illusions mine and Peter's ideas are going anywhere but having a bit of fun.
Seriously writing to EON, we are entering into SW fan boy territory here. Yes I'm sure BB & MGW are reading it now and thinking yes we must take into account miffed Bond fan when we consider what we do next.
I also think that those that really didn't like this era can now skip it like I get to LTK and go that was the end of that Bond for me and then go straight to CR.
I have no qualms with it and that universe is loosely connected to the TD films. Whereas DC's films aren't in one iota anything to do with the previous era of films.
It should make it quite easy to ignore it if you are that offended with how this era concluded.
This is spot on!
Has more come out about what the treatment actually was?
Here's what I don't get about the supposed "disagreement" --
Killing Bond was clearly their big idea, goal, hook, whatever, from the get-go. Probably the condition that got Daniel Craig to come back. This whole film is built around that idea, and leading up to it. Every decision they made clearly ladders toward it.
So if Boyle was against that key hook, why did he ever agree to do the film in the first place?
Surely they didn't work together for months and months with a major disagreement in place about the very core of the film. That would just be silly. And certainly Boyle wouldn't sign on to something he hated, knowing he'd just be overruled in the end. He may have been the director, but Bond is a producer's franchise. The buck was always going to stop with Barbara and Daniel.
I can't wait for someone to do a full breakdown of what the Boyle/Hodge script was.
Agree with what your saying, not really bothered anymore, I just think it's a gamble that may well pay off in the short term but may harm the future of the series going forward.
The moment Bond is shot in the side, it's clear he's a dead man. Then he's poisoned, so even if he gets out, he can never touch Madeleine or his daughter ever again. So the scene is about Bond facing his death at the end, and I found that personally very emotional and powerful. Craig's performance here is superb. A man who wants to live, wants a future with a wife and a child, but he will never have that in the end. He's given his all for duty and country. So it's tragic and, in that way, very poignant.
So from now on, when watching the last movie of an actor, instead of wondering how Bond will do, people will be wondering how the newly introduced characters and Bond will die?