I didn't read all 11 pages of replies but, I did read some and wanted to give my comment :-) ...
I've followed the exploits of Bond ever since I can remember and now, I do some Bond shorts - funny green screen - which I'll give you guys the link at some point but, on to the topic at hand. Some movies are better than others and I guess that this varies from one person to the next. Each movie led to another one cause, well - JB just travels through the decades and don't really discuss some small (yet important) details - why does he now have a cell phone, was he ever married or not and like - so many things - too long to list.
The problem with NTTD is that the ending leaves little for a loose-sequel. He's dead and that's pretty definitive.
Although...he could be found in the ocean and disfigured and then, his face is reconstructed and we go on from there with another actor taking over. But, I don't think this will happen.
So - what's next. If "THIS" JB is not still alive - the next movie will be another universe or a reboot something like that but, it will be a clear line that all previous iterations are "erased". It bothers me. All the time I invested in JB cheating death and defeating evil - it "never happened". And, I'm going to go one step further - it bothered me that JB was earning is double-0. The producers were telling me that everything I've seen in the past was nil.
So, we are looking at the prospect of another reboot - PLS GOD NO! Or...best case scenario - the movie begins with JB in action - he's there, it's exploding - no questions. In both these cases - I don't want Spectre resuscitated - especially that I've got to say I was disappointed with Craig's Spectre. Spectre is best savoured when we are given a glimpse for several movies and then - the reveal comes. In this case there's was no reveal. Or there was a terrible reveal: JB met his half-brother. The plot from Austin Powers who was itself a parody of JB. This makes me think of Chris Lloyd who made a short parody of Rick and Morty. The prankster pranked.
I don’t believe a reboot means the previous films never happened, because I still have all of the previous films on disc and can watch them whenever I like.
I just think the next iteration will provide us something new. They will reinvent Bond in order to involve him in new stories, with new stakes and new character development, which is the right thing to do.
When an actor leaves the role, life still goes on and we know there will always be someone to take over. I don't think they will use the same timeline as the original one, although there are some elements I love, like the fact Bond is a widower.
I was thinking, with the new Superman trailer coming out today, that Superman is becoming a bit like Bond in a way in that it's a new actor with a new interpretation of the character, but they're using the iconic John Williams theme tune! Much like with Bond, it's sort of unthinkable to have a new Bond film, in whatever style, without his theme.
It took me 5 years to process the shock that is 007s Death. It was this morning having a shave when it hit me, what problem I have with the End- of Bond! The scripting the hazard of the arriving boats with the bombs was lazy from the beginning. But I accept that being confronted with a virus weapon you want to burn it with fire as a political leader before it falls in wrong hands!
I lived the last years with my man Bond sacrificing himself for the product of the one time his sex was not senseless- his offspring alive and well.
But he was not in a position of sacrifice, but in the decision to decide if to run, jump and hide and escape from the explosion of the villains lair or if to commit suicide by accepting the bombs.
Bond did not sacrifice himself for his daughter, he gave up!
This is really bitter and depressing End for Bond imho.
My perfect End for Bond 25?
Bond survives in a YOLT Fleming way and is having a Shower Scene with Ana De Armas while being watched by Q and M through a Drone!
Why is he so easily giving in and giving up his own life?
Probably he would not take risks being a dad, but on the otherhand q could deprogramm the designervirus maybe? Please.
I really like No Time to Die best from the Craig Era and he Fukunaga gets a lot right, but I wish now for another End. I am a Primo Fan, he like Jaws works for 2 Villains., which I think is awesome and outrageous how I like my Bond Flick! Fleming would have liked this in my book as well.
Seydoux touched my heart with her performance.
Craig Bond with his hip trademark ASMR Acting(why does Bond have to whisper creepifull like Nolan Batman) was redeemed with being the Dad in his Arc, which was a soap opera drama with Blofeld being the long lost brother all along.
I hope, Folks, I do not sound disrespectful to the artists.
Nothing prevent Bond from deciding not to see Madeleine and Mathilde again so they won't be infected with Herakles. It's painful, but Bond knows pain like nobody else.
After all, one can hardly imagine Bond as a family guy. The only life he's made for is the life he's been living so far. That's why I find the ending of OHMSS so powerful (both in the novel and the film). Bond is cursed because of the path he has chosen, and the only genuine happiness he can enjoy is being certain he'll always remain an essential asset for his country. He has at least one thing to believe in, otherwise he would have given up long ago.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,873Chief of Staff
It doesn’t matter if Bond decides to stay away from Madeleine & Mathilde or not…eventually Herakles would reach them regardless, the virus would infect everyone on the planet, but it’s only designed to kill relatives of Bond…that’s how this virus is designed. Bond HAD to die.
One can argue from the moment the whole factory gets destroyed by the nukes, there's nothing left of Herakles except Bond. Madeleine and Mathilde will just have to stay away forever from every person Bond is gonna touch from this point, which does not appear impossible considering the probability of meeting and the global population. I understand they tried to find a way to have Bond trapped, but I think it doesn't completely work plotwise.
Madeleine and Mathilde will just have to stay away forever from every person Bond is gonna touch from this point, which does not appear impossible considering the probability of meeting and the global population
It's not just staying away from whomever Bond touches, but whoever Bond touches then will then go on to touch others, and those people then touch and so on and so on. Do you remember when the first cases of Covid were reported in whichever country you're in? It was just one or two cases reported on the news at first, then after a couple of weeks it was thousands of people. Viruses don't just go from one person to another, they spread exponentially. One person touches ten people, then each of those ten touch ten other people, then each of those touch ten more, and you're already in the thousands etc. And unlike Covid there would be absolutely no attempt made to try and stop its spread- pretty soon everyone in London would be carrying it, and then it would spread even further. Madeline and Mathilde would never be safe if Bond left that island.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,873Chief of Staff
I see you don’t understand just how the virus works…Bond touches one person and they get the virus, they each touch ten people, they get the virus…they each touch ten people, they get the virus…and so on…wouldn’t take long before the whole world is infected with that version of the virus…it’s clearly explained in the movie…🙂 it completely works plot wise.
Yes, the covid example is a good one because we all witnessed how quickly it spread over the world.
I think the main issue I have with this ending is the real reason of Bond's death. After all, he is in the middle of nowhere with no medical assistance, and one can imagine he's not gonna make it this time given his four/five bullet wounds.
When I discovered the movie, I remember being struck by the blood he's losing and the way he's walking to reach the control room. Then I thought Bond was doomed precisely because of the 'short' life expectancy that comes with his job. For the first time since 1962, we got a scene where Bond is beaten, and he knew this day would come, as an echo to CR06 (the short life expectancy) and Fleming (and also the extraordinary last paragraph of Trigger Mortis).
I also tend to think Bond sacrifices himself because of the way Herakles is supposed to work, but I do prefer the symbolic behind the fatal injuries during the mission, as a tribute to the man dedicating his life to protecting his country. I rewatched the movie a few weeks ago, and once again, I didn't really focus on this DNA matter because I'm not particularly interested in it plotwise. That's probably why the final dialogue with Madeleine makes me confused.
Yeah, I think if it works for you then there's nothing wrong with Bond's cause of death just being shot too much. Because as Fleming and CR said, it was coming for him sooner or later.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,873Chief of Staff
There would be medical assistance fairly close one would assume because they had a plane flying overhead…granted, Bond may have bled out before it got to him.
I used a wrong expression. It doesn't confuse me. I just don't pay attention to it. I focus instead on Bond's lethal injuries and I tend to think he's doomed whatever the matter with Herakles. I do believe he bleeds out and he's not gonna make it for the first time in 25 EON films. Just look at the superhuman efforts he needs to make to get to the control room, climb the ladder and reach the roof of the facility. I find it very moving and one can see the link with Fleming and the short life expectancy of a double o.
I belong to those fans who consider Craig as a phenomenal Bond - he's in my top 3 along with Connery and Dalton - but who have no real interest in the last movies because of the family item which is a key element plotwise while the movies I love are genuine spy thrillers (FRWL, FYEO, TLD, CR06). Having said that, I completely respect those who enjoy this item and I wish I could feel the same. Unfortunately, I don't, despite the fact I rewatched NTTD at least six or seven times since its release.
Then I guess you can imagine why I don't focus on the family subplot leading to Bond's sacrifice and why I don't really pay attention to the final dialogue between Bond and Madeleine.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,873Chief of Staff
Yes, that’s fair enough…I guess I don’t understand why anyone would watch a film and not pay attention to the dialogue 🤷🏻♂️especially more than six or seven times 🙂
Well, I guess such a thing can happen when a topic doesn't appeal someone. Each spectator has his own way of enjoying a film. From the moment I know what this dialogue deals with, I watch it with no real interest. It doesn't mean I reject it, I just don't focus on it with the intensity other people would.
It's like an art exhibition. There are pieces you'll probably pay more attention to than others.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,873Chief of Staff
Yes…but it’s an integral part of the film…but, as you say, we all have our own preferences…it’s a shame you didn’t listen to the dialogue as it would have explained exactly what Herakles does and you would have understood why Bond sacrifices himself 🙂
Yes, it's an integral part when you truly feel involved in the story. If, from the beginning, the stakes don't convince me as a spectator, then the movie quickly becomes a sequence of scenes I just try to enjoy irrespective of the whole plot.
Having said that, I perfectly understand the family subplot and the reason why Bond sacrifices himself. To be honest, a part of me expected Bond to die in this one because I thought it would be relevant towards this version of the character (despite the sadness of the move). But like I said in a previous post, I'd have preferred another kind of demise, something more in line with the short life expectancy of a double o, a la FRWL (the original ending of the novel). Something Fleming describes in one of the first chapters of CR, something Bond himself mentions in M's flat in the 2006 film, and something Anthony Horowitz underlines in the last paragraph of Trigger Mortis. They chose to delve deeply into the family item instead. Fair enough.
The good thing is, after the trilogy SF-Sp-NTTD, it seems very unlikely the next film will deal with family once again. That's why I'm looking forward to seeing what Heyman and Pascal are going to do.
A better question might be why did they start NTTD 😉
Since buying the Blu Ray I’ve watched the whole film a grand total of ONCE! The more I think about it the more disappointed I am by it. I just watch the five minutes of the Jamaica scenes which is mainly very good and sometimes the Cuba scenes. I have no desire whatsoever to revisit the last act.
Comments
Hello all,
I didn't read all 11 pages of replies but, I did read some and wanted to give my comment :-) ...
I've followed the exploits of Bond ever since I can remember and now, I do some Bond shorts - funny green screen - which I'll give you guys the link at some point but, on to the topic at hand. Some movies are better than others and I guess that this varies from one person to the next. Each movie led to another one cause, well - JB just travels through the decades and don't really discuss some small (yet important) details - why does he now have a cell phone, was he ever married or not and like - so many things - too long to list.
The problem with NTTD is that the ending leaves little for a loose-sequel. He's dead and that's pretty definitive.
Although...he could be found in the ocean and disfigured and then, his face is reconstructed and we go on from there with another actor taking over. But, I don't think this will happen.
So - what's next. If "THIS" JB is not still alive - the next movie will be another universe or a reboot something like that but, it will be a clear line that all previous iterations are "erased". It bothers me. All the time I invested in JB cheating death and defeating evil - it "never happened". And, I'm going to go one step further - it bothered me that JB was earning is double-0. The producers were telling me that everything I've seen in the past was nil.
So, we are looking at the prospect of another reboot - PLS GOD NO! Or...best case scenario - the movie begins with JB in action - he's there, it's exploding - no questions. In both these cases - I don't want Spectre resuscitated - especially that I've got to say I was disappointed with Craig's Spectre. Spectre is best savoured when we are given a glimpse for several movies and then - the reveal comes. In this case there's was no reveal. Or there was a terrible reveal: JB met his half-brother. The plot from Austin Powers who was itself a parody of JB. This makes me think of Chris Lloyd who made a short parody of Rick and Morty. The prankster pranked.
What are your thoughts?
I don’t believe a reboot means the previous films never happened, because I still have all of the previous films on disc and can watch them whenever I like.
I just think the next iteration will provide us something new. They will reinvent Bond in order to involve him in new stories, with new stakes and new character development, which is the right thing to do.
When an actor leaves the role, life still goes on and we know there will always be someone to take over. I don't think they will use the same timeline as the original one, although there are some elements I love, like the fact Bond is a widower.
Just wait and see.
I was thinking, with the new Superman trailer coming out today, that Superman is becoming a bit like Bond in a way in that it's a new actor with a new interpretation of the character, but they're using the iconic John Williams theme tune! Much like with Bond, it's sort of unthinkable to have a new Bond film, in whatever style, without his theme.
Not to forget the gunbarrel. I just expect it to be at the beginning of the films, and if possible with the Binder design like in Spectre.
Alright chaps,
I had an epiphany and I've solved the meaning of NTTD. In retrospect the message is quite simply really:
"If you have children, then your life is over". Bond discovers he has a daughter and then dies at the end of the film. It couldn't be more obvious.
Much in the same way that the ending of Se7en was about the downsides of surprises.
I shall now apply this nuanced critical theory to many other classic films.
Great idea! Obviously the New Testament is about the price of celebrity, especially in a toxic political environment.
Hi fellow Bondians!
It took me 5 years to process the shock that is 007s Death. It was this morning having a shave when it hit me, what problem I have with the End- of Bond! The scripting the hazard of the arriving boats with the bombs was lazy from the beginning. But I accept that being confronted with a virus weapon you want to burn it with fire as a political leader before it falls in wrong hands!
I lived the last years with my man Bond sacrificing himself for the product of the one time his sex was not senseless- his offspring alive and well.
But he was not in a position of sacrifice, but in the decision to decide if to run, jump and hide and escape from the explosion of the villains lair or if to commit suicide by accepting the bombs.
Bond did not sacrifice himself for his daughter, he gave up!
This is really bitter and depressing End for Bond imho.
My perfect End for Bond 25?
Bond survives in a YOLT Fleming way and is having a Shower Scene with Ana De Armas while being watched by Q and M through a Drone!
Bond did not sacrifice himself for his daughter, he gave up!
If he lives, she dies; so it was a sacrifice.
Why is he so easily giving in and giving up his own life?
Probably he would not take risks being a dad, but on the otherhand q could deprogramm the designervirus maybe? Please.
I really like No Time to Die best from the Craig Era and he Fukunaga gets a lot right, but I wish now for another End. I am a Primo Fan, he like Jaws works for 2 Villains., which I think is awesome and outrageous how I like my Bond Flick! Fleming would have liked this in my book as well.
Seydoux touched my heart with her performance.
Craig Bond with his hip trademark ASMR Acting(why does Bond have to whisper creepifull like Nolan Batman) was redeemed with being the Dad in his Arc, which was a soap opera drama with Blofeld being the long lost brother all along.
I hope, Folks, I do not sound disrespectful to the artists.
Nothing prevent Bond from deciding not to see Madeleine and Mathilde again so they won't be infected with Herakles. It's painful, but Bond knows pain like nobody else.
After all, one can hardly imagine Bond as a family guy. The only life he's made for is the life he's been living so far. That's why I find the ending of OHMSS so powerful (both in the novel and the film). Bond is cursed because of the path he has chosen, and the only genuine happiness he can enjoy is being certain he'll always remain an essential asset for his country. He has at least one thing to believe in, otherwise he would have given up long ago.
It doesn’t matter if Bond decides to stay away from Madeleine & Mathilde or not…eventually Herakles would reach them regardless, the virus would infect everyone on the planet, but it’s only designed to kill relatives of Bond…that’s how this virus is designed. Bond HAD to die.
One can argue from the moment the whole factory gets destroyed by the nukes, there's nothing left of Herakles except Bond. Madeleine and Mathilde will just have to stay away forever from every person Bond is gonna touch from this point, which does not appear impossible considering the probability of meeting and the global population. I understand they tried to find a way to have Bond trapped, but I think it doesn't completely work plotwise.
Madeleine and Mathilde will just have to stay away forever from every person Bond is gonna touch from this point, which does not appear impossible considering the probability of meeting and the global population
It's not just staying away from whomever Bond touches, but whoever Bond touches then will then go on to touch others, and those people then touch and so on and so on. Do you remember when the first cases of Covid were reported in whichever country you're in? It was just one or two cases reported on the news at first, then after a couple of weeks it was thousands of people. Viruses don't just go from one person to another, they spread exponentially. One person touches ten people, then each of those ten touch ten other people, then each of those touch ten more, and you're already in the thousands etc. And unlike Covid there would be absolutely no attempt made to try and stop its spread- pretty soon everyone in London would be carrying it, and then it would spread even further. Madeline and Mathilde would never be safe if Bond left that island.
I see you don’t understand just how the virus works…Bond touches one person and they get the virus, they each touch ten people, they get the virus…they each touch ten people, they get the virus…and so on…wouldn’t take long before the whole world is infected with that version of the virus…it’s clearly explained in the movie…🙂 it completely works plot wise.
Yes, the covid example is a good one because we all witnessed how quickly it spread over the world.
I think the main issue I have with this ending is the real reason of Bond's death. After all, he is in the middle of nowhere with no medical assistance, and one can imagine he's not gonna make it this time given his four/five bullet wounds.
When I discovered the movie, I remember being struck by the blood he's losing and the way he's walking to reach the control room. Then I thought Bond was doomed precisely because of the 'short' life expectancy that comes with his job. For the first time since 1962, we got a scene where Bond is beaten, and he knew this day would come, as an echo to CR06 (the short life expectancy) and Fleming (and also the extraordinary last paragraph of Trigger Mortis).
I also tend to think Bond sacrifices himself because of the way Herakles is supposed to work, but I do prefer the symbolic behind the fatal injuries during the mission, as a tribute to the man dedicating his life to protecting his country. I rewatched the movie a few weeks ago, and once again, I didn't really focus on this DNA matter because I'm not particularly interested in it plotwise. That's probably why the final dialogue with Madeleine makes me confused.
Do you see my point?
Yeah, I think if it works for you then there's nothing wrong with Bond's cause of death just being shot too much. Because as Fleming and CR said, it was coming for him sooner or later.
There would be medical assistance fairly close one would assume because they had a plane flying overhead…granted, Bond may have bled out before it got to him.
Which dialogue confuses you at the end? 🙂
I used a wrong expression. It doesn't confuse me. I just don't pay attention to it. I focus instead on Bond's lethal injuries and I tend to think he's doomed whatever the matter with Herakles. I do believe he bleeds out and he's not gonna make it for the first time in 25 EON films. Just look at the superhuman efforts he needs to make to get to the control room, climb the ladder and reach the roof of the facility. I find it very moving and one can see the link with Fleming and the short life expectancy of a double o.
I belong to those fans who consider Craig as a phenomenal Bond - he's in my top 3 along with Connery and Dalton - but who have no real interest in the last movies because of the family item which is a key element plotwise while the movies I love are genuine spy thrillers (FRWL, FYEO, TLD, CR06). Having said that, I completely respect those who enjoy this item and I wish I could feel the same. Unfortunately, I don't, despite the fact I rewatched NTTD at least six or seven times since its release.
Then I guess you can imagine why I don't focus on the family subplot leading to Bond's sacrifice and why I don't really pay attention to the final dialogue between Bond and Madeleine.
Yes, that’s fair enough…I guess I don’t understand why anyone would watch a film and not pay attention to the dialogue 🤷🏻♂️especially more than six or seven times 🙂
Well, I guess such a thing can happen when a topic doesn't appeal someone. Each spectator has his own way of enjoying a film. From the moment I know what this dialogue deals with, I watch it with no real interest. It doesn't mean I reject it, I just don't focus on it with the intensity other people would.
It's like an art exhibition. There are pieces you'll probably pay more attention to than others.
Yes…but it’s an integral part of the film…but, as you say, we all have our own preferences…it’s a shame you didn’t listen to the dialogue as it would have explained exactly what Herakles does and you would have understood why Bond sacrifices himself 🙂
Yes, it's an integral part when you truly feel involved in the story. If, from the beginning, the stakes don't convince me as a spectator, then the movie quickly becomes a sequence of scenes I just try to enjoy irrespective of the whole plot.
Having said that, I perfectly understand the family subplot and the reason why Bond sacrifices himself. To be honest, a part of me expected Bond to die in this one because I thought it would be relevant towards this version of the character (despite the sadness of the move). But like I said in a previous post, I'd have preferred another kind of demise, something more in line with the short life expectancy of a double o, a la FRWL (the original ending of the novel). Something Fleming describes in one of the first chapters of CR, something Bond himself mentions in M's flat in the 2006 film, and something Anthony Horowitz underlines in the last paragraph of Trigger Mortis. They chose to delve deeply into the family item instead. Fair enough.
The good thing is, after the trilogy SF-Sp-NTTD, it seems very unlikely the next film will deal with family once again. That's why I'm looking forward to seeing what Heyman and Pascal are going to do.
A better question might be why did they start NTTD 😉
Since buying the Blu Ray I’ve watched the whole film a grand total of ONCE! The more I think about it the more disappointed I am by it. I just watch the five minutes of the Jamaica scenes which is mainly very good and sometimes the Cuba scenes. I have no desire whatsoever to revisit the last act.