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

1141142144146147298

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    slide_99 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    The thing that Daniel brought to the character and the series is Bond’s inner life, the emotions and the complexity of his emotional life that was in the books but never really translated it into the screen.

    Barbara Broccoli.

    I've read most of the Fleming novels and not once ever encountered anything remotely resembling complexity. It's Bond's lack of complexity that makes him effective at his job. Blunt instrument and all that. Bond only got emotional in YOLT and that was because his wife had just been murdered. The "complexities" of the Craig era are really just plot contrivances that make his Bond keep quitting and going rogue because the producers fell on a winning formula with CR ("Bond becoming Bond") and kept repeating it for movie after movie, regardless if it made sense or not.

    You might want to read them again then.
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    The thing that Daniel brought to the character and the series is Bond’s inner life, the emotions and the complexity of his emotional life that was in the books but never really translated it into the screen.

    Barbara Broccoli.

    I've read most of the Fleming novels and not once ever encountered anything remotely resembling complexity. It's Bond's lack of complexity that makes him effective at his job. Blunt instrument and all that. Bond only got emotional in YOLT and that was because his wife had just been murdered. The "complexities" of the Craig era are really just plot contrivances that make his Bond keep quitting and going rogue because the producers fell on a winning formula with CR ("Bond becoming Bond") and kept repeating it for movie after movie, regardless if it made sense or not.

    You might want to read them again then.

    Yes.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 693
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    The thing that Daniel brought to the character and the series is Bond’s inner life, the emotions and the complexity of his emotional life that was in the books but never really translated it into the screen.

    Barbara Broccoli.

    I've read most of the Fleming novels and not once ever encountered anything remotely resembling complexity. It's Bond's lack of complexity that makes him effective at his job. Blunt instrument and all that. Bond only got emotional in YOLT and that was because his wife had just been murdered. The "complexities" of the Craig era are really just plot contrivances that make his Bond keep quitting and going rogue because the producers fell on a winning formula with CR ("Bond becoming Bond") and kept repeating it for movie after movie, regardless if it made sense or not.

    You might want to read them again then.

    Under your strict guidelines, I suppose, right? Just to make sure I get all the complexity when Bond dumps bat guano onto Dr. No?
  • bondsum wrote: »
    Nanobots were only a factor. There was also having to go back to open the doors and getting shot up. Everything was stacking against him that even if he had no nanobots he wouldn’t have been able to hobble out of the firing range.
    You're right. There was the additional being shot up, which Bond had recovered from before in SF and on many other occasions, plus the opening of the missile doors that Bond had to stick around for (not sure why?)—but these are both plot contrivances that I can see having been written to try and justify his self-sacrifice. For me, I just didn't buy any of them. It was almost like if you don't buy the nanobots then there's always being shot, or the missile doors for you to pick 'n' choose from.

    I hope you get equally worked up about the 5000 plot contrivances that have saved his life up until now. He's probably owed a death don't you think?

    Good work, @notimetocry. "You're Owed a Death" is now the top fancandidate for the title of B26.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    The thing that Daniel brought to the character and the series is Bond’s inner life, the emotions and the complexity of his emotional life that was in the books but never really translated it into the screen.

    Barbara Broccoli.

    I've read most of the Fleming novels and not once ever encountered anything remotely resembling complexity. It's Bond's lack of complexity that makes him effective at his job. Blunt instrument and all that. Bond only got emotional in YOLT and that was because his wife had just been murdered. The "complexities" of the Craig era are really just plot contrivances that make his Bond keep quitting and going rogue because the producers fell on a winning formula with CR ("Bond becoming Bond") and kept repeating it for movie after movie, regardless if it made sense or not.

    You might want to read them again then.
    =))

    That response was fantastic, Dimi. =D>
  • Posts: 526
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I could do without closure.

    Yes. We've never really had it in a Bond story before and that formula is obviously working. Why do we have to start now...

    Because it makes sense? Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen every other film.

    But by doing it, they've created a world of different 'Bonds' relative to the actor. It doesn't make sense to me, as someone who was bought up with Cubby's idea of 'no actor is bigger than James Bond'.
    Killing him off then saying he'll be back in the credits doesn't make any sense at all. And the only argument I can see for it making sense on here is - "oh, it's a reboot, like Batman/Superman/Captain Caveman or whatever, so there'll be another reboot'.
    It's all daft.

    Agreed. I read an IMDB review that said that the psychological effect of seeing Craig's Bond die has repercussions for the series as a whole. I'd agree with that, too. Craig's movies being a self-contained timeline isn't really the point. The point is that having any incarnation of Bond being killed off fundamentally damages the character. Each Bond actor survives to pass the baton to the next. Except Craig's. Because he's special. Or something.
    This sums it up perfectly. After 60 years, it’s kind of hard for this not to be the case. I’ve read online where many people say they are done with the franchise after this. Why take the risk if you’re EON? Doesn’t make sense to me. Did they think this was going to propel the franchise forward and make $2 billion or something? It’s ludicrous. There’s no way to know, but I’m willing to bet good $ that this film would have made a lot more $ with a happy ending, or at the least, no Bond death. It would pay off for all the misery this Bond went through. I’m simply going to forget NTTD, and let it conclude mentally with Spectre. That’s good enough for me. I saw NTTD once, and I will not watch it again. I’ll make my own ending. To each their own.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I could do without closure.

    Yes. We've never really had it in a Bond story before and that formula is obviously working. Why do we have to start now...

    Because it makes sense? Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen every other film.

    But by doing it, they've created a world of different 'Bonds' relative to the actor. It doesn't make sense to me, as someone who was bought up with Cubby's idea of 'no actor is bigger than James Bond'.
    Killing him off then saying he'll be back in the credits doesn't make any sense at all. And the only argument I can see for it making sense on here is - "oh, it's a reboot, like Batman/Superman/Captain Caveman or whatever, so there'll be another reboot'.
    It's all daft.

    Agreed. I read an IMDB review that said that the psychological effect of seeing Craig's Bond die has repercussions for the series as a whole. I'd agree with that, too. Craig's movies being a self-contained timeline isn't really the point. The point is that having any incarnation of Bond being killed off fundamentally damages the character. Each Bond actor survives to pass the baton to the next. Except Craig's. Because he's special. Or something.
    This sums it up perfectly. After 60 years, it’s kind of hard for this not to be the case. I’ve read online where many people say they are done with the franchise after this. Why take the risk if you’re EON? Doesn’t make sense to me. Did they think this was going to propel the franchise forward and make $2 billion or something? It’s ludicrous. There’s no way to know, but I’m willing to bet good $ that this film would have made a lot more $ with a happy ending, or at the least, no Bond death. It would pay off for all the misery this Bond went through. I’m simply going to forget NTTD, and let it conclude mentally with Spectre. That’s good enough for me. I saw NTTD once, and I will not watch it again. I’ll make my own ending. To each their own.

    Ehhhh...

    Casino Royale had a sad ending, and that did great.

    Skyfall had a sad ending, and that did great.

    Bond dying matters less than you think. To paraphrase Ernst Stavro Blofeld, news of B26 will soothe these wounds. Overtime NTTD will feel like less of a betrayal than it does now, I promise you.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 346
    Seve wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love the fact Bond took a hailstorm of missiles to the face, yet there are still fans suggesting he’s alive. I would say I’m surprised but it seems symptomatic of today’s society where a fair portion seem incapable of accepting reality...

    ...Daniel Craig’s Bond died. The character of James Bond didn’t
    Yes. It was confirmed in the film, and confirmed several times after the fact by those creatively in charge of the film.

    Interesting

    So you find it quite unreasonable for someone to see the character of James Bond killed on screen, and then moments later see a post script which states that "James Bond will return" and not wonder if that means he is did not die after all?

    You choose to make the distinction between "James Bond as played by Daniel Craig" and "James Bond the immortal character" and will be unfazed when a complete stranger turns up in Bond 26 as if nothing had happened

    Yet somehow you are surprised that others might think Craig-Bond is not dead and could yet appear in Bond 26

    I agree with you that the intention of everyone involved in making NTTD is that Craig-Bond will not return

    But I'm not at all surprised that others think he might, particularly casual viewers who do not hang on EON's every announcement.

    And in the World of James Bond, Never Say Never Again!

    1657962993-DrSpockFascinating.jpg

    I mean, really, it's hard to argue with your point here. Fundamentally, the film says "James Bond is dead", and then "James Bond Will Return". They're diametrically opposed statements to make. I tend to agree with those that liken it to "The king is dead, long live the king", and that James Bond stories will return, but you're not wrong.

    Until we know the story premise of Bond 26... noone can state with absolute certainty Craig's Bond is dead. It's just people's opinions posted on the internet. We don't know what Eon will do. 😉
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love the fact Bond took a hailstorm of missiles to the face, yet there are still fans suggesting he’s alive. I would say I’m surprised but it seems symptomatic of today’s society where a fair portion seem incapable of accepting reality...

    ...Daniel Craig’s Bond died. The character of James Bond didn’t
    Yes. It was confirmed in the film, and confirmed several times after the fact by those creatively in charge of the film.

    Interesting

    So you find it quite unreasonable for someone to see the character of James Bond killed on screen, and then moments later see a post script which states that "James Bond will return" and not wonder if that means he is did not die after all?

    You choose to make the distinction between "James Bond as played by Daniel Craig" and "James Bond the immortal character" and will be unfazed when a complete stranger turns up in Bond 26 as if nothing had happened

    Yet somehow you are surprised that others might think Craig-Bond is not dead and could yet appear in Bond 26

    I agree with you that the intention of everyone involved in making NTTD is that Craig-Bond will not return

    But I'm not at all surprised that others think he might, particularly casual viewers who do not hang on EON's every announcement.

    And in the World of James Bond, Never Say Never Again!

    1657962993-DrSpockFascinating.jpg

    I mean, really, it's hard to argue with your point here. Fundamentally, the film says "James Bond is dead", and then "James Bond Will Return". They're diametrically opposed statements to make. I tend to agree with those that liken it to "The king is dead, long live the king", and that James Bond stories will return, but you're not wrong.

    Until we know the story premise of Bond 26... noone can state with absolute certainty Craig's Bond is dead. It's just people's opinions posted on the internet. We don't know what Eon will do. 😉

    How is the flat earth community these days?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,078
    JamesK wrote: »
    The issue with the nanobots thing was that that didn't have to happen at all. .. . . . . .

    JamesK, thankyou for typing that long message on the previous page. One of the most level-headed posts about the whole thing, I thought.
  • Posts: 526
    Minion wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I could do without closure.

    Yes. We've never really had it in a Bond story before and that formula is obviously working. Why do we have to start now...

    Because it makes sense? Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen every other film.

    But by doing it, they've created a world of different 'Bonds' relative to the actor. It doesn't make sense to me, as someone who was bought up with Cubby's idea of 'no actor is bigger than James Bond'.
    Killing him off then saying he'll be back in the credits doesn't make any sense at all. And the only argument I can see for it making sense on here is - "oh, it's a reboot, like Batman/Superman/Captain Caveman or whatever, so there'll be another reboot'.
    It's all daft.

    Agreed. I read an IMDB review that said that the psychological effect of seeing Craig's Bond die has repercussions for the series as a whole. I'd agree with that, too. Craig's movies being a self-contained timeline isn't really the point. The point is that having any incarnation of Bond being killed off fundamentally damages the character. Each Bond actor survives to pass the baton to the next. Except Craig's. Because he's special. Or something.
    This sums it up perfectly. After 60 years, it’s kind of hard for this not to be the case. I’ve read online where many people say they are done with the franchise after this. Why take the risk if you’re EON? Doesn’t make sense to me. Did they think this was going to propel the franchise forward and make $2 billion or something? It’s ludicrous. There’s no way to know, but I’m willing to bet good $ that this film would have made a lot more $ with a happy ending, or at the least, no Bond death. It would pay off for all the misery this Bond went through. I’m simply going to forget NTTD, and let it conclude mentally with Spectre. That’s good enough for me. I saw NTTD once, and I will not watch it again. I’ll make my own ending. To each their own.

    Ehhhh...

    Casino Royale had a sad ending, and that did great.

    Skyfall had a sad ending, and that did great.

    Bond dying matters less than you think. To paraphrase Ernst Stavro Blofeld, news of B26 will soothe these wounds. Overtime NTTD will feel like less of a betrayal than it does now, I promise you.

    I hope you’re right. I would have viewed this film, probably at least 6-8 times if it had a different ending. Definitely affected my number of viewings, and mindset about Bond in general.
  • notimetocrynotimetocry Bristol
    edited October 2021 Posts: 22
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I could do without closure.

    Yes. We've never really had it in a Bond story before and that formula is obviously working. Why do we have to start now...

    Because it makes sense? Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen every other film.

    But by doing it, they've created a world of different 'Bonds' relative to the actor. It doesn't make sense to me, as someone who was bought up with Cubby's idea of 'no actor is bigger than James Bond'.
    Killing him off then saying he'll be back in the credits doesn't make any sense at all. And the only argument I can see for it making sense on here is - "oh, it's a reboot, like Batman/Superman/Captain Caveman or whatever, so there'll be another reboot'.
    It's all daft.

    Agreed. I read an IMDB review that said that the psychological effect of seeing Craig's Bond die has repercussions for the series as a whole. I'd agree with that, too. Craig's movies being a self-contained timeline isn't really the point. The point is that having any incarnation of Bond being killed off fundamentally damages the character. Each Bond actor survives to pass the baton to the next. Except Craig's. Because he's special. Or something.
    This sums it up perfectly. After 60 years, it’s kind of hard for this not to be the case. I’ve read online where many people say they are done with the franchise after this. Why take the risk if you’re EON? Doesn’t make sense to me. Did they think this was going to propel the franchise forward and make $2 billion or something? It’s ludicrous. There’s no way to know, but I’m willing to bet good $ that this film would have made a lot more $ with a happy ending, or at the least, no Bond death. It would pay off for all the misery this Bond went through. I’m simply going to forget NTTD, and let it conclude mentally with Spectre. That’s good enough for me. I saw NTTD once, and I will not watch it again. I’ll make my own ending. To each their own.

    I for one am glad they take risks. Do we really want a studio pumping out films by committee that have been structured by focus group to maximise return?

    It's clear this was an artistic decision. Some here are asking if it was a stunt to cause controversy and draw in crowds (come on) while others wonder why EON would do something so stupid that is guaranteed to put people off. Can't both be right can they? I think neither are.

    It's clearly what Craig and the producers wanted to do artistically, to the point of dropping an Oscar winning director so they could do it. Whether we agree or disagree, I think we should respect they did what they wanted to artistically without regard for box office. I think they know the box office is far more affected by the overall quality of the film making, script, and action, which they absolutely hit out of the park and are all in another league to Spectre and most Bond films frankly. How Cary got the feel of a Bond film so right (ending notwithstanding) starting his research when he got the gig is incredible. The jokes actually zing (thanks Phoebe), I didn't see any intrusive CGI, the action is exciting, the supporting cast are fantastic, the cinematography is sublime. The Jamaica.and Cuba sequence is the best classic Bind sequence we've had since, well I don't even know when, I'm not sure we've had a sequence that fun and exciting since Connery.

    That's what will influence most casual viewers more, Bond dying is a point of interest but not a deal-breaker for most people. Just like for most of us Batman dying wouldn't particularly bother us if the rest of the film is fantastic.
  • Just like for most of us Batman dying wouldn't particularly bother us if the rest of the film is fantastic.

    *SPOILER WARNING* The new Superman is bi. Yes, in the comic books. Jon Kent, son of Clark & Lois, is coming out. I'm sure DC Comics is just trying to destroy public interest in their flagship character...

    (Or maybe, just maybe, they're trying to change with the times & keep an 80+ year old character interesting to modern audiences.)
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 693
    Minion wrote: »

    Casino Royale had a sad ending, and that did great.

    Skyfall had a sad ending, and that did great.

    ???
    Casino Royale ends with Bond standing over the villain, gun in hand, stating his name. That got applause back in 2006. And Skyfall ends with Bond going back to work "with pleasure." Also not a sad ending. I'm not even sure how you can compare those to NTTD.


  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    matt_u wrote: »
    There’s a brief moment right before the impact where the missiles in the sky reminded me of fireworks. A subtle hint to the great and passionate celebration of a true hero NTTD is.

    Yes, I love that ... as well as the expression on his face and the countenance of his body language before it all. He never gave up ... and doesn't flinch before the inevitability of his oncoming death. That's a hero.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    They also did it with a Robin. And Wonder Woman, I believe.

    The point being: Change Happens. It's useless to try to resist; best perhaps to go with the flow.
  • slide_99 wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »

    Casino Royale had a sad ending, and that did great.

    Skyfall had a sad ending, and that did great.

    ???
    Casino Royale ends with Bond standing over the villain, gun in hand, stating his name. That got applause back in 2006. And Skyfall ends with Bond going back to work "with pleasure." Also not a sad ending. I'm not even sure how you can compare those to NTTD.


    The comparison is: CR ended with Vesper dead... and Bond soldiering on. SF ended with M dead... and Bond soldiering on. NTTD ends with Bond dead...and Madeline soldiering on, telling Mathilde stories about her father. The saga comes full circle. Bond is dead, long live Bond. If you don't like the movie, too bad; your loss. I thought it was a great Bond flick and I'm not alone. I hope some day you'll join us...
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I do wish we had smaller moments with Bond alone, just to drink in the supposed loneliness he felt during retirement, that drove him to sacrifice himself for the family he craved.

    It's a shame we were in such a rush to get back to London
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »

    Casino Royale had a sad ending, and that did great.

    Skyfall had a sad ending, and that did great.

    ???
    Casino Royale ends with Bond standing over the villain, gun in hand, stating his name. That got applause back in 2006. And Skyfall ends with Bond going back to work "with pleasure." Also not a sad ending. I'm not even sure how you can compare those to NTTD.


    The comparison is: CR ended with Vesper dead... and Bond soldiering on. SF ended with M dead... and Bond soldiering on. NTTD ends with Bond dead...and Madeline soldiering on, telling Mathilde stories about her father. The saga comes full circle. Bond is dead, long live Bond. If you don't like the movie, too bad; your loss. I thought it was a great Bond flick and I'm not alone. I hope some day you'll join us...

    Love it.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I do wish we had smaller moments with Bond alone, just to drink in the supposed loneliness he felt during retirement, that drove him to sacrifice himself for the family he craved.

    It's a shame we were in such a rush to get back to London

    I think we did get some of those moments ... on his boat ... returning with the fish ... in the shower... later, pensively looking towards the water. Perhaps others I've overlooked?

    Some more such moments might have been nice, but the stolid expression on his face throughout these communicated that loneliness as well.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    Spectre should have been Bond vs Mr. White. And not even introduce Spectre; keep Quantum. Take the supposed Quantum of Solace ending and tie it up. Guy Haines and White, Bond gets both. Write DC Bond 4 based around the ending, and CR plus QOs. Forget Skyfall in the 4th movie.

    1. No need to reach, and introduce such unnecessary story elements (Blofeld, Spectre, etc.)
    2. Bond takes on Quantum and wins. Exposes its worldwide syndicate, and saves the day.
    3. No Madeline and Mr. White garbage. Madeline isn’t in the film.
    4. The best part, there is no NTTD
    5. Call the movie Risico
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,547
    I think in hindsight, the best plan (as suggested many times before), would have been to keep Spectre/Blofeld for another movie, and have the Craig era play out Quantum a bit before introducing the big baddies at the right time. But of course they couldn't because:
    1. They never know if they're going to make one after,
    2. They just won the rights back and probably felt pressure to use them right away,
    3. Apparently including Spectre / Blofeld is how they got Mendes back.

    I'd post this question in the Production Thread, but it can't go there yet; is it basically agreed at this point that Boyle left the project because he did not want to kill Bond?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    The comparison is: CR ended with Vesper dead... and Bond soldiering on. SF ended with M dead... and Bond soldiering on. NTTD ends with Bond dead...
    'Bond dead'. That's the fundamental difference between the ending of NTTD and those of CR and SF. Vesper and M are major characters, unquestionably, and their deaths meant something, both to Bond and the viewer. But they're not Bond. It's not the same. It really isn't.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Feyador wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I do wish we had smaller moments with Bond alone, just to drink in the supposed loneliness he felt during retirement, that drove him to sacrifice himself for the family he craved.

    It's a shame we were in such a rush to get back to London

    I think we did get some of those moments ... on his boat ... returning with the fish ... in the shower... later, pensively looking towards the water. Perhaps others I've overlooked?

    Some more such moments might have been nice, but the stolid expression on his face throughout these communicated that loneliness as well.

    Yeah that's a good point, I could be forgetting a few more as well.
    I just felt Bond's isolation more in Skyfall than in NTTD. Perhaps because he was paired up through NTTD quite a bit of it? More of a visual storytelling might have helped here, have him I'm isolation longer or not have the Jamaica Nomi scene maybe?

    @NickTwentyTwo it's not confirmed mate but it's assumed Boyle left because of the ending
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,610
    Spectre should have been Bond vs Mr. White. And not even introduce Spectre; keep Quantum. Take the supposed Quantum of Solace ending and tie it up. Guy Haines and White, Bond gets both. Write DC Bond 4 based around the ending, and CR plus QOs. Forget Skyfall in the 4th movie.
    Oh right, Guy Haines isn't tied up yet. They'll have to do more tying up in Bond 26. 🙂
    [/irony off]
  • Posts: 526
    I think in hindsight, the best plan (as suggested many times before), would have been to keep Spectre/Blofeld for another movie, and have the Craig era play out Quantum a bit before introducing the big baddies at the right time. But of course they couldn't because:
    1. They never know if they're going to make one after,
    2. They just won the rights back and probably felt pressure to use them right away,
    3. Apparently including Spectre / Blofeld is how they got Mendes back.

    I'd post this question in the Production Thread, but it can't go there yet; is it basically agreed at this point that Boyle left the project because he did not want to kill Bond?

    I think Mendes really cost them. Evidently he and DC did not get along during SP (please correct me if I’m wrong). And he introduced the mess that is Spectre. Spectre to me is more like what should be the first film of maybe a trilogy or something. They had a great arc going, and there is no way (to me) that Blofeld was 1/4 as good as Mr. White. White is sinister, and ominous. See chair interrogation scene in Qos. Why did they go with so much more slapstick in SP? Does anyone know?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    marc wrote: »
    Spectre should have been Bond vs Mr. White. And not even introduce Spectre; keep Quantum. Take the supposed Quantum of Solace ending and tie it up. Guy Haines and White, Bond gets both. Write DC Bond 4 based around the ending, and CR plus QOs. Forget Skyfall in the 4th movie.
    Oh right, Guy Haines isn't tied up yet. They'll have to do more tying up in Bond 26. 🙂
    [/irony off]

    :))
  • Jordo007 wrote: »
    I do wish we had smaller moments with Bond alone, just to drink in the supposed loneliness he felt during retirement, that drove him to sacrifice himself for the family he craved.

    It's a shame we were in such a rush to get back to London

    I agree in part, but Bond seemed to be very jaded and lonely. I think there is a huge difference in his entire demeanor between his Jamaica scenes and his Norway scenes which shows just how much he's evolved emotionally. There is that moment in Jamaica when Nomi accuses him of having nothing to live for and he stares at his lap for a while before looking up and it's written all over his face. Craig played it perfectly.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    marc wrote: »
    Spectre should have been Bond vs Mr. White. And not even introduce Spectre; keep Quantum. Take the supposed Quantum of Solace ending and tie it up. Guy Haines and White, Bond gets both. Write DC Bond 4 based around the ending, and CR plus QOs. Forget Skyfall in the 4th movie.
    Oh right, Guy Haines isn't tied up yet. They'll have to do more tying up in Bond 26. 🙂
    [/irony off]

    :)>-

    Sorry mods. Accidentally posted.
  • Venutius wrote: »
    The comparison is: CR ended with Vesper dead... and Bond soldiering on. SF ended with M dead... and Bond soldiering on. NTTD ends with Bond dead...
    'Bond dead'. That's the fundamental difference between the ending of NTTD and those of CR and SF. Vesper and M are major characters, unquestionably, and their deaths meant something, both to Bond and the viewer. But they're not Bond. It's not the same. It really isn't.

    You've only taken PART of my point to respond to and that really takes the whole issue out of context. As I've said, here & elsewhere: Bond is dead, LONG LIVE BOND. The next fellow may well be closer to your liking than Craig ever was. Live in hope, not in regret.
Sign In or Register to comment.