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
In the 1990s DC comics killed off Superman. The alien Doomsday took him out. Superman came back to life.
In 1981 Abba were killed off. They were reborn in 2021 using Swedish patented nanotechnology clone-ware:
So anyone can come back to life, Bond included. 😉
This has needlessly removed rather than enforced a concept of Bond with consequence, when his USP was a world without one! Yes, confront death. Sure: HINT at his being as dead as the daughter's dodo toy. But by making it SO utterly final and at once brutally charmless AND self indulgently mawkish? It has really, utterly, ended the series imho. And hey: like I said, maybe it was indeed 'time'. Shame. But if it's what they all wanted? fair enough
But it SHOULD have been possible to keep plots and characters interesting without dramatic / melodramatic gimmick. If that is IMPOSSIBLE? Then yes, series died with Bond, here. But the Fleming argument is a dead end. Ian is but ONE part of this movie mythology and whether he intended to or not, he did not kill Bond, definitively, perhaps foreseeing an Arthurian merit to an Avalon eternity of pulp thrills whereby one flirts with death yet never commits, just like all Bond's relationships save one or two? ;)
MOD EDIT: Please watch the language and avoid double posts in the future. Thanks.
apologies (did not see a double post; typing in haste; bad language not my default but hey..if bond movies now do it..) x
Yeah, the producers should listen to people who apparently disliked the last three movies. :)) THAT'S the base!
I mean... its pretty dang decent given it was essentially a three month rush job, after Dan Romer was let go.
All they will have had was the Bond theme, and they even did the opening song.
Agree 100%. Exactly the way I feel. Thank you.
Agreed. I think the problem stems from EON creatively copying other franchises, not being as successful at it and then pivoting rather than fix and address the actual issues. QoS was undercooked (for obvious reasons) and the editing of the film poorly imitated Paul Greengrass' approach with his Bourne films. Simple fixtures moving forward but there was no need to change Bond himself. Craig's portrayal in CR and QoS was his interpretation that worked and had they not messed things up, Craig could have completed a successful 4th film back in 2015 and we could have potentially already had Bond actor #7 a film in with his second being breleaaed next year....potentially.
I just hope in the next bond's they go back to the regular formula...
As someone who wrote on behalf of "access media," and therefore knows several other writers in that field who are much more professionals in it than I am, I don't know a single one who would be dishonest about how they felt about a film just so they could have a shot at seeing the next one. Their credentials will do that for them. I resent that notion.
I am sure the next Bond will be a business-as-usual entry with a lighter touch. Bond franchise has a habit of lightening itself after some grittier entries. Now the grittiness lasted for 15 years so one could even argue it is way overdue.
Fleming touched on Bond's death in FRWL and, as we know, YOLT, and, for me, it was clear, Craig's Bond just could never drive off into the sunset. Those fans who are struggling with the end of NTTD might find, in time, they will appreciate Craig's Bond was a tragic figure from the start. So, for me, his death was inevitable.
So, this film began with Bond retired with Madeleine, so I think it would've been weak to just have the ending be Bond retires with Madeleine and now his daughter. I also think it would've been weak to just have Bond retire alone because we saw that in Jamaica. And having Bond return to the service would have also been a mistake because it would basically undo everything the ending of Spectre and this film was trying to explore.
The only thing I can personally say I would've changed about the ending is the scene afterwards. The Madeleine and Mathilde scene with them driving to Matera I like, but I feel the MI6 scene could've been stronger. I'm not 100% on whether I would've liked a funeral, because that may have felt too much like Skyfall, even though we didn't see M's funeral. - but I do think the ending we did get may have been a bit abrupt.
Exactly this. You just feel violated. It may sound melodramatic to those who are able to accept the ending and move on, but there are many of us who consider Bond, the character, to be a cultural icon. Therefore, what has just been done is perhaps the most hideous act of iconoclastic sabotage in cinema history, at least to my mind.
And why? For what possible gain? To satisfy an actor’s ego perhaps? To dig them out of a plot hole of their own making. The somewhat glib death of Blofeld was bad enough, but to then slay the golden goose! It is insanity.
And yes Craig's bond was very tragic figure.. But always saw it as why he becomes such a cold ruthless character as he is... The way he got hurt, betrayed.. Created what he is.
I am fine with Bond's death and am eager to see how/if that death makes sense within the scope of the film. My only concern is that EON, DC, and CJF opted for a Logan-type story, one with a child and one in which our hero dies. Over the past few films, EON has been accused of being a Copy Cat outfit, and I fear that this storyline will only add to the criticisms.
Ultimately, though, I am a Bond fan and a DC fan. I echo David Zaritsky's thinking on the film: "You have to respond to the movie as it actually is and not the film you think it's supposed to be." I plan to do that tomorrow night.
I can't wait to see ya on the other side.
Sure, Fleming brought him back - in absolutely ridiculous, contradictory manner - but that was a poor novel written by a sick, dying man who had lost his spark. Bonds return in TMWTGG is ridiculous partly because in FRWL the Russians conclude that killing M wouldn't make any difference, partly because if they would have caught someone like Bond they would've shot him in the bowels of Lubyanka without any hesitation, especially if he was amnesiac, thus worthless to interrogate.
But again I personally feel the ending was a perfect full circle from Casino Royale, which Fukunaga himself stated he wanted to do with No Time To Die.
Hadn't thought about it like that mate. That's a really good way of looking at it.
Speaking for myself, I would have preferred watching NTTD hoping he survived, rather than watching NTTD knowing he died
It may not be the happiest ending, but creatively speaking, it feels like the right one and by far the most emotionally affecting as a cinematic experience.
I would have loved if he'd somehow pulled a TDKR-style comeback in the last second, but I don't think I would have respected the film's ambition as much as I do.
They brought Daniel Craig's era in with a huge roll of the dice. They ended it the same way. Mad respect.
Bond: "What do you do?"
Nomi: "I am diver."
Bond: "What do you dive for?"
Nomi:"Mostly old wrecks"
Bond: "Well, then you are in the right place"
+1. Just a single beep on Q's monitor would suffice. They could have kept the whole sequence with him standing on top of the silo and shots of the missiles hitting their targets, but left out the two second shot where he's clearly being blown to pieces. Now that would have generated a lot more (positive) press and debate, than what we are reading, now that it is just controversial.