Where can I vote in this poll?
Who knows? I have no idea if people on this board are representative of anything or even if they're all individuals versus some duplicates and so forth. I also don't know if the people I know personally are representative of anything, but at least I actually know them.
I also don't know if anyone is "bellyaching" anymore than if others are "bootlicking" for expressing other opinions. What I do know is that everyone's entitled to their opinions and, indeed, to speculate on a future none of us that I'm aware of knows with certainty.
I have been checking out the reviews for Casino Royale and QoS in the archived forums and it's fascinating stuff, inc @Gassy Man 's high praise for the former, in contrast to his views on the latest one, plus some old names to conjure with all those years ago. Some of it really is quite prescient in terms of where Craig's Bond can ultimately go.
@chrisno1 should check them out, though in truth most of us read other people's reviews so we can air our own opinions to some extent, and that ship has sailed on those forums it seems.
To some extent, to see fans offer high praise or slate CR shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Obviously I slag both films off!
Why should I read them ? What will I learn ? Or are they just great reviews ?
I think Casino Royale was the best Bond film since the Golden age of the 60s, and though Connery and Lazenby still edge out Craig in my opinion as the better Bonds, there's no doubt that Craig himself is a big part of the reason these more recent films work when they do. Though I still think Casino Royale's major flaw was the romance needed a little more development, that movie was the high-water mark of the last five films. The biggest problem overall has been the writing, which to my mind, never measured up to what Craig and the rest of the casts could delivery. While the Connery films, by comparison, were firing on all cylinders, only Casino Royale, to me, could make that claim with the Craig ones.
Amazing. I never knew there were that many hardcore Bond fans so desperate to see the character finally killed off. How they survived previous Bond movies, where Bond lives to fight another day must have been so disappointing for them.
Well, it looks like you finally got your wish. Bond was murdered on screen, just to keep you hardcore fans happy. RIP.
People are allowed to enjoy a films ending even if you don’t. No need to get snarky about it.
No need to get offended by my flippant comment either. I'm allowed to dislike the ending just as much as you loved the ending.
Anecdotal evidence perhaps, but 90% of people on this forum who voted (currently 93 in number) would have preferred a different ending.
This reminds me of one my NUJ meetings where opinions would get heated and votes cast - out of the thousands of members however, only about 15 or 20 would turn up most times!
Nobody cares what we think and what's done is done.
I'll also add that me, or Gassy Man, or Chris No 1, or Revelator repeatedly writing essays about what's wrong with NTTD doesn't in itself mean that we are right and fans of the film are wrong, and there's no getting around the fact that they waited years and paid money to watch a movie they enjoyed while we didn't!
There aren't that many of us really, we're a select crowd. Though I'm happy to vent - up to a point - it's odd because believe it or not I don't sit around trying to convince my sister that she shouldn't have enjoyed the film she did!
And I'll also say I didn't post so much on Spectre - because I enjoyed it! I did my review, returned to it a bit, but no big deal.
I talk and discuss this film negatively because it's a Bond forum, and I didn't rate it personally - but it won't even affect the next one because it has to be a total reboot.
Well @chrisno1 they are a fascinating time capsule of what fans thought when the film came out, and some of the comments are quite prescient in terms of unexplained stuff in CR, others saying 'But naturally the next film will explain all that...' when I'm not sure it did. There's also a sense of plus ca change in terms of some being pro and others against.
This topic may have been brought up by someone, but is it just me? Or were there a lot of scenes that were filmed that didn't make the final edit? May we see an extended edition when the DVD comes out? I wonder if those three different endings rumors are true and if we'll get to see it or get an idea of what they were?
I have no problem whatsoever with people expressing their opinions…I just don’t like people claiming that the majority disliked the ending…there is no proof to back this up 🍸
I understand that change can be scary for some…do you just want the exact same film time after time…?
93 people out of how many…? Hardly the ‘bigger picture’ 🍸
Don’t you find that people are quicker to complain than praise? The internet seems to prove this - anecdotal or not 😉
I think a lot of people are staying out of the way of the debate due to the very high level of emotions.
Tricky one - I dont hate the ending, just makes me sad.
Gets easier on the 3rd watch LOL
Lea got a bit of unfair flak for SPECTRE but I think she was amazing in this.
I have prob bigger things to niggle about if honest.
Cutting the speargun bit.
Some things felt a bit rushed also - would of liked to see more of Bond doing things like sailing / at home in 🇯🇲
A lot of the people who had reservations about NTTD loved OHMSS and CR, so the answer is obviously no.
Change for the sake of the change is not good in itself. Otherwise we would have to applaud if the next Bond film featured the character undergoing gender reassignment surgery or quitting the secret service to become a dentist.
Sometimes I think the writers were better at change during the Brosnan era. They did things like a female M, the villan being a former 00-agent, the villan being a former Bond girl etc.
With Craig the changes were M getting killed, Blofeld as Bond's "brother" and lots og huge changes in NTTD.
Not every movie needs a big "hook". Some movies don't even require an arch for Bond. These hooks innthe story should be rarer and usually smaller in scale in my opinion.
Ah, you've spotted me hiding behind this glass of vodka martini.
Not particularly, The Bond films I love are far and few between - early Connery, OHMSS, Daltons films, and then CR. I would hardly call LTK, OHMSS or CR standard run-of-the-mill (and which I love), and the rest of the formula driven flicks I can take or leave.
So change doesn't scare me at all. But killing off Bond is just a dumb thing to do for the series and franchise.
Agreed. My favourite Bond films are FRWL and OHMSS, so hardly the more formulaic of the series.
Save the early OHMSS pretensions I actually really enjoyed most of the film, until the ending which I found completely unnecessary.
I also don’t like that it’s clearly been written that way at Craig’s behest, no doubt as some attempt to avoid any future typecasting or calls for him to resume the role in the future. Bond has made Craig an exceedingly rich man, he doesn’t need to go back to the role for money and so now wants to escape Bond’s shadow. EON has put Craig’s wishes before the Bond franchise, which to my mind is unacceptable. Craig increasingly had too much influence on the movies, be it wardrobe, casting, music (allegedly) and script, but killing off Bond was an indulgence too far frankly.
Regrettably this has also now set the precedent for any new actor coming into the role who is more than halfway successful, who wants their own “character arc”.
No actor if true should be bigger than the franchise. Bond should be paramount.
I have this odd feeling however that if the film hadn't ended that way it just might not be that good - what makes this film special? It's like Spectre without Spectre. With another name, another villainous organisation it wouldn't be much to shout about really, it's all about the mystery unravallling. Likewise with this film, it's Bond's daughter and that he dies that is the big deal, otherwise I'm quite sure what the angle is despite some exciting and impressive looking scenes beforehand.
Whatever failings NTTD has its still infinitely superior to Spectre.
I think if the film had finished with a tense, open ending, leaving the audience to make up its own mind and get the masses talking, "Is James Bond dead..?!" Would have been just as dramatic and effective and wouldn't have affected the rest of the film, which I enjoyed and thought had some truly great sequences and moments.
An ending with Bond being graphically pulverised and multiple scenes to confirm his death was too far for me, I'm afraid.
Would it had been such a shock / emotional impact that way though?
I would say 99% of the audience would presume he survived like he has always done in the past if they left it open
Definitely my preference too, and I’m sure that those who love the film (current ending and all) would still love it all the same.
The problem for me is not Bond dying but the manner in which it was done. If Bond had died choosing to hold the blast doors open so Madeline and Mathilde could get away or, perhaps, fighting Saffin and Obruchev trying to escape, realizing that if they get away they'll unleash the nanobots on the world, then it would have seemed sacrifice.
That's not what we get in No Time to Die. We get resignation. Bond, presumably, realizes there's no point in going on, both because he's shot up and because he's infected with the nanobots. He's actually called in the strike that's going to kill him, and rather than go on, he climbs to the roof to watch it come in because, what's the point?
This is not Bond as we've seen him before. He's always been prepared to sacrifice himself but never to just accept that he's doomed. Had he, he would have failed countless times. His nature has to be to win, even if it looks like there's no way.
It's not even May Day in A View to a Kill, who perhaps could have jumped off the handcart but instead -- wanting Zorin to know she was the one who defeated his plans, stays to get blown up. Bond is more like Leamas climbing back down off the wall because he knows dying is the only way out.
I've read how people think the major theme of No Time to Die is love or trust, but to me, it's really futility. We see this repeated all through the movie. Swann is unable to save her mother. Mr. White kills Saffin's family only to leave the son alive to seek revenge. M starts a horrible covert program only to have it get out of control. Blofeld and SPECTRE are killed by it. Felix tries to save the day but is killed by a traitor, Bond unable to save him. Bond and Swann try to start a relationship, but it's doomed from the start. At each turn, characters are involved in futile attempts for positive change, and at each turn, they are defeated, Bond being the ultimate expression of this -- he not only dies but never has a full relationship with Swann and Mathilde now loses her father, like Bond did. Even the title -- No Time to Die -- sounds rather like a cynical (if generic) comment on the matter.
I've been saying for a while that Bond's arc throughout the five films, where he and MI:6 seem to either fail or cause disastrous outcomes for some characters, is like a serious version of Get Smart! But, Bond is also very much a Charlie Brown character. He's ostensibly the hero, but a lot doesn't work out for him, partly because of his actions and choices and partly because of circumstance. Nomi's Snoopy, Moneypenny is Sally, Tanner is Linus, Q is Schroeder, etc. It's enough that were they to do a Halloween movie, Craig's Bond would get a rock (which he kind of does at the end of NTTD with the whole island thing).
Speaking of endings, NTTD reminds me a lot in tone and ending to Operation Crossbow, which very much was a more cynical, anti-heroic take on "suicide mission" movies like The Guns of Navarone (itself a bit more cynical than some). To me, the Star Wars movie Rogue One used it pretty clearly as a template, but there's a lot in NTTD that reminds me of it, too, including the ending.