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
They don't have to die and I don't think the audience going in thinking that death is a possibility for any particular character isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The character of James Bond played by Daniel Craig is dead. He ain't coming back.
But I'll say this in favour of it, the next time around, we'll be jumping up and down our seats, afraid that the man will catch a bullet, be mangled, or die. It'll bring the sense of danger back. Bond can die, he's human, not a superhero from Krypton.
I was locked into the film immediately, a lot of what was going on resonated with me on a personal level. I did not like SF or SP so my expectations were very low so that may have factored.
I thought NTTD was a fitting end to DC era and made sense to me, DC era is a microcosm outside the rest of the films. Bond was a true hero in NTTD for me.
I understand people didn’t like the ending, but it’s done. They’re not gonna add an alternative one, and they’re certainly not gonna have him miraculously survive with a new face in the next one, because again you just can’t continue the Craig-era anymore, especially with a new actor.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
Yes exactly, it brought it back to reality as Craig's Bond has done from the start.
Of course I understand that James Bond is supposed to be the guy who always gets away, even though he pretty much tries to get himself killed in the line of fire on each and every film (often multiple times) but it can become comical, and it might have at some point.
I'm glad that NTTD dared to ask the question "What would james Bond actually die for, and how would that look like?"
And his ending was perfect to me, on an epic scale, sacrificing himself for queen and country but also, and more importantly, on an emotional and personal level because he got the peace of mind knowing that Madeline gave him something to leave behind in the form of his daughter, and he got to express his feelings as well. Nothing left unsaid.
I live in a Bond multiverse anyway where there are multiple Bond's: Books, Games, Comics, just because one storyline ended, doesn't mean the character is gone.
So clearly one of those groups aren t real non-fans.
They literally show Bond's life parameters and they're all ZERO. He's dead. 100% dead.
The Good:
- The action: It was used sparingly but when it was there, it was done well. The stunt work - particularly the vehicles - was superb.
- Daniel Craig had fun throughout this, which made it fun to watch throughout.
- The use of sound from Bond's perspective: hearing momentary distortion from the water and the muffled sound after the first explosion worked really well.
- The portrayal of minor characters. Even the scientists with little screen time were humanised in very little time through good dialogue and performances.
- SPECTRE were nasty here. Seeing innocent people brutally killed isn't that common in a Bond film. It really sold SPECTRE as an evil organisation, especially after the scientists were so naturally played.
- The climactic shootout shouldn't have been so exciting, but it was. The use of a "single-shot" with the camera following Bond sold the jeopardy.
- The SPECTRE party really sold how ethereal and unsettling the organisation is. Far more, in fact, than the entire previous film. It was satisfying yet disturbing to see their own weapon used against them.
- Paloma: capable, charismatic and a genuinely strong female character without being unlikeable.
- The score. Hans Zimmer struck a perfect balance of Bondian mood and his own style. Every scene was well scored.
- Safin's plan (to begin with). The idea that Bond is up against someone with a similar agenda to his own made for an interesting story.
- The side villains. Very strong personalities who seemed like a real tangible threat.
- The conflict between Bond and M. There were some real layers to this. Bond's disappointment and sarcasm against M's guilt and frustration.
- "It blew his mind." Enough said.
- We Have All The Time In The World. To me, it wasn't Tracy's song but the song that related to Bond becoming warmer and more human but with a tinge of tragedy. For me, its use here was very fitting.
The Bad:
- The international incident M kept mentioning. How was it avoided? Did it even happen?
- Safin's second plan. Who was he actually targeting? Why? What was the point?
- Exposition through dialogue. Yes, we can see that they're magnets. Yes, we can see you turned the weapon against SPECTRE. You literally just showed us. We're not dumb.
- "Do you know what time it is?" You can't set up your own punchline. That's not how it works in Bond.
- The abrupt ending. You kill the main character after 60 years and we don't get to see the consequences? That's it? Really?
The Undecided:
- Mathilde. The apple scene was great and her dialogue in the car really humanised her which built the jeopardy. But biting Safin's hand was a bit Disney/Pixar.
- Bond's death. It's a bold move and I respect it, but the way it was done has been seen so many times before and felt anti-climactic. I have to admit that I didn't feel it at all. The concept shook me but the execution really didn't.
- Safin. Very menacing in the first half - cold and cadaverous with lifeless eyes. But he became a glorified frail, angsty child in the second half.
- Nomi. Her insecurities and constant digs really grated in the first half but her wit and toughness really came out towards the end.
Personally it wouldn't feel that satisfactory to me, as the realisation at the end of NTTD that his existence was a permanent threat to his family, and the resulting sacrifice, was what made NTTD's ending so powerful.
And NTTD was always more of an echo of Fleming's later stories, rather than strictly following the plot.
Alternately they could go down the oft mooted idea of making the next one a period piece set in the 1950s - if they were going to do that, now would make more sense than ever as it would be clear that they are not continuing the same story, which otherwise feels like it needs some explanation.
A period piece would make it clear that Bond films have been playing different variations on the same melody.
Or something else, entirely. But it does feel they sort of need to do something to acknowledge the end.
Still it will be interesting to see how they do follow that, that's for sure. I don't think I've anticipated the next story so much before.
I accept a "he's not dead, we sure fooled you suckers!" explanation might be silly but it is what it is. I'd rather see Bond alive than dead. You can contrive a reason why/how he's still alive and my guess is 80 percent or more of the overall worldwide audience won't care if it's unbelievable. If the precredit explanation scene is thrilling the audience will buy into Bond's escape from death.
Most film goers don't care about the why. They just pay the ticket and popcorn and enjoy the film at a superficial level.
I expect a hard reboot across the board for the next film.
Indeed, a lost cause.
No, it isn t. Bond 26 could be set on the astral plane.
No, I get you, I think your reaction is perfectly understandable. Part of what makes the cinematic Bond the icon he is, is that he's the same guy having these amazing adventures. It does make him larger than life, almost a folk hero, but for many that is part of his appeal. He's saved the world a lot.
The 'sliding timeline', where it's the same hero at roughly the same age, despite the fact these stories have been told over a period of decades, is basically the way the films had handled things pre-Craig. It's how Marvel comics operate, with Spider-Man's first stories obviously happening in the Sixties, but the character is still going on now having adventures in 2021, despite having aged maybe ten years. If you think about it too much it doesn't make sense, and you have to do some tidying up of old stories in your head, but you know it's the same character. Comic fans have coped with this for years, it's not too big of a concept to grasp. It's a loose continuity, with the audience expected to roll with the contradictions and make a bit of effort to make it work.
Deciding to make a story about Bond's first mission but giving it a contemporary setting obviously screamed reboot, but I was okay with that because I could still feel it was the same guy, only before we'd seen him in Dr No. I could deal with the cognitive dissonance of the different decades. Even when Skyfall introduced quite different looking versions of Moneypenny and Q, I could roll with it. Felix was always shifting in appearance, so he wasn't a big deal. Bond being said to have aged was awkward, but again, it was a good story and I could deal with it fairly easily. Spectre ****** it for me though, reintroducing Blofeld in a ham-fisted way. And then when I heard Daniel Craig wanted his version of the character to be in a separate self-contained continuity, I was annoyed. I was annoyed because, firstly, it makes Bond smaller - it's not as bad as the codename theory *spits*, but it has many of the same issues; secondly, it gives the film-makers an excuse to continually redo important events in the hero's life - firsts and lasts, basically.
Even with CR seen as a reboot, at least the films were building Bond back up, laying building blocks for the future legend; with NTTD, it's the end of that. Reset button pressed, back to square one.
I went into NTTD expecting Bond to die at the end, and expecting to hate the whole film. I didn't - I enjoyed it a lot more than Spectre, which I've only seen twice. I thought the film was entertaining, but that the melodrama was overplayed. I know I'm silly wanting a Bond film to be subtle, but I do tend to need that if a film wants to push my emotional buttons. I was unmoved by the events of the film - it was what I'd expected, just not as annoying as I had feared.
I do know what it's like for people to see a film that destroys the others in a series - I was a huge fan of The Bourne Identity, and part of what I loved about it was the Bourne/Marie romance; when Supremacy came out and fridged Marie I was taken completely by surprise, I was angry and I felt it had killed the franchise for me, and though I'm no longer angry, I never regained my love for The Bourne Identity. Horrible experience. I'm genuinely sorry for those people who got bushwhacked by NTTD's ending - must have been horrible.
I'll probably get the Blu-ray when it comes out to see what I think of the film. Taken on its own terms I suspect it will sit somewhere in the middle of Craig's Bond run, above Spectre certainly, maybe the same as QoS or a little above or below.
Like I’ve said, even without his death, EON were not gonna carry on his continuity with the younger actor we’re sure to get for Bond 26.
Not sure how you survive a direct hit from a missile!
There is a good reason Bond has lasted this long, ok its a given great character though the films continue because they change things up.
Personally I thought NTTD was awesome can't wait to see it again.
There is no financial reason to do a period piece because there won't be any product placement sponsorship deals. You can't sell 1960's cars and watches to 21st century consumers. Can't see Eon ever going the period route.
There is one other huuuuuuuuuuuuuge reason to keep Bond alive. The marketing. The producers never do any interviews saying "Bond died in NTTD."
Is Bond really dead? The question remains unanswered for three of so years while we wait for Bond 26's release.
The first teaer trailer has the tagline:
Legends Never Die...
And we see a one second shot of the next Bond actor's face in near darkness!
Bond 26 would be the most hyped Bond film ever because of the mystery over Bond's death.
It's too good a scenario to waste. Bond returning from his apparent death. It's a classic premise. Eon would be crazy to dismiss it out of hand?
And you give the plot that extra twist by having Bond alive and losing his memory and working for the villains!
Barbara, you should consider this idea! Well maybe. She can do what she likes but maybe Bond escaping death is the most obvious way to do Bond 26. 😊
And Sir Rog bedding much much younger women, who could've been his daughters, even grand daughters.
Dalton had... two (?)... in each film. Seems plenty to me.
He's dead man, give it up.
Yeah, it's too bad, cause I wonder if we're ever going to talk about the other stuff in the film. It seems people are fixated on the ending, and there's so much else to discuss.
I can't help but think, for example, that if there weren't a child, the film would focus deeper in the feelings Bond and Swann had for each other, just the two. And maybe the film could've sell it a bit better. I don't know. Brilliant bit of casting though, the girl had Bond's eyes and nose, and hair. But I can't help but think they over crammed the film. It could have been much simpler, tight. And the writing of/for some characters, could've been much, much better. Those are the things that are still cringeworthy to me, not the bloody ending.
Ok, he Is strong, but I think you are overstimating him