The movie didn't quite work for me. I quite enjoyed the first 2/3rds or so and the action was well crafted and suspenseful. Overall though I felt like it was too much for one film. Killing Felix, killing Bond, killing Blofeld, Bond having a daughter, etc. I mean, if every Bond film could be distilled to "the one where ____", then this would have too many to name.
Yeah, but there's one big 'the one where....' you haven't mentioned @urhash - you didn't walk out before the end did you!
That said, in terms of look and theme you may be right, the idea where it could be 'the one in Japan' or 'the one with the underwater car' or 'the one with Grace Jones and the Eiffel Tower' - they are arguably long gone, there's a lot going on these days.
Thanks Chrisno1, means a lot coming from you. I've always appreciated your well-written reviews, especially your novel reviews. I'm glad we both agree on Lea Seydoux.
I think she's in my top 5 best Bond Girls now.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I was frustrated and in angry disbelief when it became clear they were about to kill off Bond, our Bond. I knew I had witnessed some incredible moments during the film but this was a deal breaker. Most seemed to agree from their initial reviews.
Nonetheless I heard other Bond fans profess the utility of a second viewing so I went again to see what all of the hype was about. I’ve now seen it three times and am convinced this is a fantastic Bond movie- although not perfect.
Analysing my reaction and disappointment after the first viewing, I now accept it was more than disbelief. It was a perhaps a validly held concern about the future of the longest running franchise in movie history- despite the promise Bond would return. During a time when nothing historic or of cultural relevance is fashionably allowed to be celebrated, I have sympathy for those stubbornly remaining in this camp.
But surely similar sentiments must have been felt by the audience back in 1969 after they watched the latest Bond instalment end in heartbreak? ‘This isn’t a Bond movie’ they would have said. Yet Bond continued, rebooted, refreshed and revitalised with Live and Let Die. Diamonds didn’t happen..
Watching the movie again forces you to evaluate the experience in its own right.
The direction is perhaps the best of any Bond movie and I believe is a key factor in how a nearly 3 hour movie feels like it flies by. Special mention to Cary for providing the most kickass action scenes in Bond history.
I challenge you to name a movie in the franchise with better acting by our lead and the main Bond girl, perhaps only Casino Royale could be seriously viewed as a rival in this regard.
Rami Malek is exceptional and haunting for every moment he’s on screen. Albeit a trick was clearly missed with the specific nature of Safin’s plan not disclosed, nor any seeming particular motivation. Perhaps that would pass in a fun Bond film focussed on gags and action, but not in this quasi horror/thriller/love story.
Repeat viewings also settle the case that Zimmer’s soundtrack holds up to scrutiny. Somehow even Noemie becomes less unbearable. She is entirely unnecessary to the plot and feels like a last minute add-on to an already completed story. At the same time I’m left not caring all that much after a third viewing.
We are also saturated with references to movie and literary Bond, enough to satisfy any obsessed Bond fan.
Beyond the undercooked villain plot, the biggest fault is clearly the scant disregard for any semblance of continuity. We all know it can’t possibly be the ‘same’ Bond since the 60s, but literally killing off the character takes some coming back from and I’m honestly concerned for how they will possibly bring back a ‘classic’ Bond, although I have faith they will.
It also must be said that killing off Bond is quite easy (albeit daring) and doesn’t exactly require much creativity. A true one trick pony.
Repeat viewing transforms your experience of this movie. As will I believe, the subsequent reboot getting back to classic Bond, allowing us to enjoy this heart wrenching but magnificent movie in its own right in full knowledge that our licensed troubleshooter returned.
I remember a question being asked to Daniel in a press junket if his movies before NTTD are now prequels. He said sure, yes.
Now I will see the past movies in a new light, a pre Bond not yet a complete man as the one we see in NTTD, but a great yet compassionate soldier when the time called for it.
That may be what he wanted, a flawed human being who’s only torture was not sacrificing himself enough for something bigger than him. And each movie was a progression to that excellence.
Definitely going to get a Steelbook Blu-ray Collection of the Daniel Craig era and watch them again. If anyone has insight on any pre release, let us know in the chat.
You can count me as one those traditional Bond fans who hated the ending of it. My username was created in protest of the ending.
Craig’s Bond deviated so much from the classic Bond formula, and it was hard to accept that Casino Royale, despite it being a good film, and especially when I saw it yesterday.
I drove back from the theater just numb inside, just empty. I went in without spoilers. They sure surprised and evoked emotion in me, to which I congratulate them on that.
I disagree with the people who say Bond isn’t a superhero. He’s not a superhero in the Marvel sense, like Avengers, per se, but saving the world and overcoming the odds after adversity and vulnerability is the Bond we all love.
Much of the movie was good and enjoyable. I noticed recycled materials from past Bond films, which I enjoyed. An unpopular opinion was I enjoyed the title song and the opening credits. It gave me goosebumps.
I didn’t like the gunbarrel except it was at the beginning of the movie. Another unpopular opinion is I would probably call Spectre my favorite of Craig’s movies because that was the closest we got to traditional Bomd, in my opinion. That includes the gunbarrel, which may have had the gun visible, but I’ll take it.
If Bond dying was a condition of Craig coming back, then I would rather have just had a recast. Thank you for some great moments and performances, but it would’ve been time to move on.
Sure, things are going to be more technologically advanced, plots may be more sophisticated, but Bond movies had the same formula more or less for 40 years. They made it work all of that time.
Now, since were likely to get another reboot after the 2006 reboot, I just don’t know anymore. I personally like the standalone movies. One thing I didn’t like about Spectre was bringing back Blofeld and making him Bond’s brother. I’ll take new characters with new adventures, please. I’d rather have had Blofeld left in the past.
The scenes with Bond, Madeleine and their daughter were touching. I enjoyed the opening sequence. When it came to the new 007, I don’t feel anybody should have that code name except Bond himself.
However, I was able to accept it more after Bond regained his 00 status and got his code name back. If Nomi was 007 the entire movie, that would’ve been harder to accept.
The thing about Craig’s Bond is I think they were good movies. I just didn’t think they were good Bond movies. There were times throughout Craig’s run that I recognized the Bond of old, but a lot of times, it didn’t feel like Hond at all.
They said James Bond will return, I can only hope James Bond as we know him will also return.
Just watched it for the first time. When the credits rolled I've never seen a more deflated audience at a Bond film in my life. This was a real crusher. The hero I've idolized for so long was just killed with nothing left at the end to give fans a "pick me up". Barbara and Michael and Cary all have said in interviews that it's all about the fans. Killing James Bond is not what the fans come to the theaters to see. I plan on watching once or twice more but this honestly feels like one that I'm not even sure I want to own a copy of. I will buy it just because I love the franchise, but it's going to be difficult to casually watch this knowing what the ending holds.
Having said that, I enjoyed 95% of this movie but felt there were some plot holes. Particularly with Bond being "infected". They could have easily written a segment in where Q has developed an antidote for Bond based on Madeline and Mathildes DNA. Ah well, it is what it is. Perhaps I've written all of this too quickly, but for now, I have a sinking feeling in my stomach that a Bond film has never given me.
And finally, I do not understand the name of the movie or the song. What about this movie screams "No Time to Die"? Leiter, Blofeld, and Bond...all dead. There's apparently plenty of time to die! And the song is written based on Bond believing Madeline betrayed him in the beginning which turns out not to be true.
All these fans saying, I hated it - I'd only see it twice more at the cinemas!
If all the women I'd bedded had said, well, that was rubbish - only two more shags for you my friend, just to be sure! I might have had a decent sex life! Ah well.
Never once said I hated it. I enjoyed all of the film except for the dejecting ending. The reason I'll watch it again in theaters is because I have some family members that haven't been able to watch yet and want to attend with me next week. I assure you it isn't just so I can get another satisfying dose of Bond dying.
If when patient zero of the Madeleine virus touches any other human, that person becomes a carrier of the Maddy-virus. Through exponential human contact 90+% of the world population would recieve the virus until it inevitably caught up to Maddy and Matilda. Then it would be a sacrifice.
The problem is that Q says that it's harmless unless you're near the target - implying only patient zero is a threat and cannot spread the virus to infinite carriers. And Bond follows up with: "That's not going to work" - Implying he is offing himself for the selfish reason that he can't live happily unless he's near the target, rather than he would inevitably kill her if he lived at all.
Kincaid was just their version of Alfred, with Silva Bond’s Joker. There’s the empty manor house with a hidden underground system and Bond’s maladjusted orphan with a secret identity. The villain kills a woman close to the hero in both movies, the hero travels to an Asian super city after an ancillary bad guy, and the villain is captured and escapes after wreaking havoc, which appears to be part of his unbelievable master plan. Both have hero cars loaded with gadgets, hero associates who make the gadgets, villains with odd hair color and facial deformities, speeches about how the hero and villain are basically the same, and acts of terrorism that mask a more personal agenda.
How? The nanobots are only lethal to them if he comes in direct physical contact. Had Bond survived, he could have stayed in their lives from a distance, watched his daughter grow up, and been there as more than just a memory and stories. I mean, he even already has a house so far off the grid M thought he was dead. Meanwhile, Q could have looked for a solution — exactly how can he say mechanical devices are unstoppable forever?
Like Skyfall, this is another creaky Bond script that tries to be clever but makes less and less sense the more you look at it, except in superficially arousing emotions.
If they wanted Bond to sacrifice himself, all they had to do was make him manually hold the blast doors open so everyone else could escape. It would have been even more tragic if Q told him he had a solution to destroy the nanobots. But someone has to stay to make sure, and Bond is the only one strong enough (because Nomi is shot in the arm or something). Bond could still have had the conversation with Swann, etc., but his act would have clearly been sacrifice rather than just standing around waiting for bombs.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I tend to agree with those who say that Bond would have eventually killed Madeleine and Mathilde by casual contact, spread via countless accidental carriers. That said, it probably would have been a 'cleaner' solution to simply make him toxic to the entire world. Either way. I'm more or less at peace with how they did it.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Saw NTTD and was even less impressed than the first time. The plot weaknesses are more apparent and the lack of clear thematic grounding is obvious. In OHMSS there’s the irony that Tracy doesn’t want to live at the beginning, and then when she has the most reason to at the end, is killed. Bond, in the meantime, wants nothing but to live his hedonistic bachelor life but by the end wants to give it all up for the woman he loves — ironically, the second time with tragic consequences. Blofeld, for all his former grand dreams of conquest, just wants to be pardoned and left alone. All three work for change that will never happen and have happiness denied, and the plot is driven by this. But NTTD just shoehorns in its ideas with glimpses and shorthand images. We don’t see Bond wrestling with not having a wife and child at the beginning as an existential problem, for instance, or Swann struggling with her childhood all through the movie and the parallels to her own mother/daughter relationship because now her child is in jeopardy by association, too. The villain’s motivation is some murky psychobabble. The audience has to create the connections in their mind because the movie doesn’t do the hard work dramatically and show us. Instead, it has some hazy connections through scenes driven mostly by their sentimentality and reminder of what we know from OHMSS.
If that’s the case, then Bond would merely need to be quarantined until a solution could be found. Since Q can track or identify the nanobots, it stands to reason he could also build something to test for them in people who come in contact with Swann or Mathilde. For that matter, how do we know Saffin hasn’t infected others as a fail safe? It’s all just a Maguffin to kill Bond at the end.
I think we've all noticed how many people find the time to die in NTTD. Felix Leiter, Blofeld, SPECTRE and of cource Bond himself. Ironically I think this would've been too many major characters killed of if Bond himself didn't die. If SPECTRE, Blofeld and Leiter died in the same movie and Bond survived this is wasting too many major characters in one movie, creating iconic character death overload. But since Bond dies this is the end of CraigBond's journey. It's a story with a begining and an end and his arch enemies needed to be defeated. What absolutely couldn't have worked if Bond survived was the child Mathilde. Bond with a kid would be completely wrong over several movies. It's debatable if Bond should have a kid at all (yes, I know he has a kid in the books), but I haven't seen a single person saying Mathilde should be a returning character.
Like some others I feel Safin's motivation isn't shown or explained properly after Blofeld dies. I also feels Blofeld isn't used well enough in SP or NTTD. Blofeld should've Bern the main villan in NTTD. First controlling events from his cell via his eye, then escaping and controlling events directly. Safin would've been a henchman, SPECTRE's poison expert. This solution even offers a better use of Nomi and (if wanted) a way for Bond to survive. There's no Mathilde. In the finale it's Nomi who returns to open the blast doors. She has a fight with Safin and kills him, but gets infected by a string that can kill millions. She opens the blast doors and sacrifices herself. Nomi can give Bond the 007-designation at this time or when she does in the movie. This gives Nomi a heroic death and stops any idea of her being the future lead in Bond movies.
But isn't Bond supposed to be the main hero in a James Bond movie, you may ask? Of cource. Bond goes after Blofeld, performs a jaw-dropping stunt (there was no such thing in NTTD) and strangles Blofeld, YOLT- style. Matilde returns in the boat to pick him up and we get a classic Bond movie ending.
Comments
Good point.
The movie didn't quite work for me. I quite enjoyed the first 2/3rds or so and the action was well crafted and suspenseful. Overall though I felt like it was too much for one film. Killing Felix, killing Bond, killing Blofeld, Bond having a daughter, etc. I mean, if every Bond film could be distilled to "the one where ____", then this would have too many to name.
Yeah, but there's one big 'the one where....' you haven't mentioned @urhash - you didn't walk out before the end did you!
That said, in terms of look and theme you may be right, the idea where it could be 'the one in Japan' or 'the one with the underwater car' or 'the one with Grace Jones and the Eiffel Tower' - they are arguably long gone, there's a lot going on these days.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I 100% agree with your thoughts. This was the perfect end for DC's tenure, and I loved every minute of it.
I'm delighted the red faced 'gammons' can't stand this film... Their time is over, never to return.
Thanks Chrisno1, means a lot coming from you. I've always appreciated your well-written reviews, especially your novel reviews. I'm glad we both agree on Lea Seydoux.
I think she's in my top 5 best Bond Girls now.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
🍸🍸
Watch again for an exceptional Bond movie
I was frustrated and in angry disbelief when it became clear they were about to kill off Bond, our Bond. I knew I had witnessed some incredible moments during the film but this was a deal breaker. Most seemed to agree from their initial reviews.
Nonetheless I heard other Bond fans profess the utility of a second viewing so I went again to see what all of the hype was about. I’ve now seen it three times and am convinced this is a fantastic Bond movie- although not perfect.
Analysing my reaction and disappointment after the first viewing, I now accept it was more than disbelief. It was a perhaps a validly held concern about the future of the longest running franchise in movie history- despite the promise Bond would return. During a time when nothing historic or of cultural relevance is fashionably allowed to be celebrated, I have sympathy for those stubbornly remaining in this camp.
But surely similar sentiments must have been felt by the audience back in 1969 after they watched the latest Bond instalment end in heartbreak? ‘This isn’t a Bond movie’ they would have said. Yet Bond continued, rebooted, refreshed and revitalised with Live and Let Die. Diamonds didn’t happen..
Watching the movie again forces you to evaluate the experience in its own right.
The direction is perhaps the best of any Bond movie and I believe is a key factor in how a nearly 3 hour movie feels like it flies by. Special mention to Cary for providing the most kickass action scenes in Bond history.
I challenge you to name a movie in the franchise with better acting by our lead and the main Bond girl, perhaps only Casino Royale could be seriously viewed as a rival in this regard.
Rami Malek is exceptional and haunting for every moment he’s on screen. Albeit a trick was clearly missed with the specific nature of Safin’s plan not disclosed, nor any seeming particular motivation. Perhaps that would pass in a fun Bond film focussed on gags and action, but not in this quasi horror/thriller/love story.
Repeat viewings also settle the case that Zimmer’s soundtrack holds up to scrutiny. Somehow even Noemie becomes less unbearable. She is entirely unnecessary to the plot and feels like a last minute add-on to an already completed story. At the same time I’m left not caring all that much after a third viewing.
We are also saturated with references to movie and literary Bond, enough to satisfy any obsessed Bond fan.
Beyond the undercooked villain plot, the biggest fault is clearly the scant disregard for any semblance of continuity. We all know it can’t possibly be the ‘same’ Bond since the 60s, but literally killing off the character takes some coming back from and I’m honestly concerned for how they will possibly bring back a ‘classic’ Bond, although I have faith they will.
It also must be said that killing off Bond is quite easy (albeit daring) and doesn’t exactly require much creativity. A true one trick pony.
Repeat viewing transforms your experience of this movie. As will I believe, the subsequent reboot getting back to classic Bond, allowing us to enjoy this heart wrenching but magnificent movie in its own right in full knowledge that our licensed troubleshooter returned.
I remember a question being asked to Daniel in a press junket if his movies before NTTD are now prequels. He said sure, yes.
Now I will see the past movies in a new light, a pre Bond not yet a complete man as the one we see in NTTD, but a great yet compassionate soldier when the time called for it.
That may be what he wanted, a flawed human being who’s only torture was not sacrificing himself enough for something bigger than him. And each movie was a progression to that excellence.
Definitely going to get a Steelbook Blu-ray Collection of the Daniel Craig era and watch them again. If anyone has insight on any pre release, let us know in the chat.
When you say red faced gammons, are you referring to die hard Fleming fans?
Surely the advantage of having such a vast movie franchise is that it gives you scope to try out new ideas. Like Bond dying at the end of a story?
Spoilers
You can count me as one those traditional Bond fans who hated the ending of it. My username was created in protest of the ending.
Craig’s Bond deviated so much from the classic Bond formula, and it was hard to accept that Casino Royale, despite it being a good film, and especially when I saw it yesterday.
I drove back from the theater just numb inside, just empty. I went in without spoilers. They sure surprised and evoked emotion in me, to which I congratulate them on that.
I disagree with the people who say Bond isn’t a superhero. He’s not a superhero in the Marvel sense, like Avengers, per se, but saving the world and overcoming the odds after adversity and vulnerability is the Bond we all love.
Much of the movie was good and enjoyable. I noticed recycled materials from past Bond films, which I enjoyed. An unpopular opinion was I enjoyed the title song and the opening credits. It gave me goosebumps.
I didn’t like the gunbarrel except it was at the beginning of the movie. Another unpopular opinion is I would probably call Spectre my favorite of Craig’s movies because that was the closest we got to traditional Bomd, in my opinion. That includes the gunbarrel, which may have had the gun visible, but I’ll take it.
If Bond dying was a condition of Craig coming back, then I would rather have just had a recast. Thank you for some great moments and performances, but it would’ve been time to move on.
Sure, things are going to be more technologically advanced, plots may be more sophisticated, but Bond movies had the same formula more or less for 40 years. They made it work all of that time.
Now, since were likely to get another reboot after the 2006 reboot, I just don’t know anymore. I personally like the standalone movies. One thing I didn’t like about Spectre was bringing back Blofeld and making him Bond’s brother. I’ll take new characters with new adventures, please. I’d rather have had Blofeld left in the past.
The scenes with Bond, Madeleine and their daughter were touching. I enjoyed the opening sequence. When it came to the new 007, I don’t feel anybody should have that code name except Bond himself.
However, I was able to accept it more after Bond regained his 00 status and got his code name back. If Nomi was 007 the entire movie, that would’ve been harder to accept.
The thing about Craig’s Bond is I think they were good movies. I just didn’t think they were good Bond movies. There were times throughout Craig’s run that I recognized the Bond of old, but a lot of times, it didn’t feel like Hond at all.
They said James Bond will return, I can only hope James Bond as we know him will also return.
I did like the music, thinking this has been the best since David Arnold left.
Just watched it for the first time. When the credits rolled I've never seen a more deflated audience at a Bond film in my life. This was a real crusher. The hero I've idolized for so long was just killed with nothing left at the end to give fans a "pick me up". Barbara and Michael and Cary all have said in interviews that it's all about the fans. Killing James Bond is not what the fans come to the theaters to see. I plan on watching once or twice more but this honestly feels like one that I'm not even sure I want to own a copy of. I will buy it just because I love the franchise, but it's going to be difficult to casually watch this knowing what the ending holds.
Having said that, I enjoyed 95% of this movie but felt there were some plot holes. Particularly with Bond being "infected". They could have easily written a segment in where Q has developed an antidote for Bond based on Madeline and Mathildes DNA. Ah well, it is what it is. Perhaps I've written all of this too quickly, but for now, I have a sinking feeling in my stomach that a Bond film has never given me.
And finally, I do not understand the name of the movie or the song. What about this movie screams "No Time to Die"? Leiter, Blofeld, and Bond...all dead. There's apparently plenty of time to die! And the song is written based on Bond believing Madeline betrayed him in the beginning which turns out not to be true.
That pretty much sums it up yes
All these fans saying, I hated it - I'd only see it twice more at the cinemas!
If all the women I'd bedded had said, well, that was rubbish - only two more shags for you my friend, just to be sure! I might have had a decent sex life! Ah well.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Didn’t hate it at all. Loved 99% of it. Had it not been for the last 1% it would be right up there. But Bond giving up and dying 😞
Ah - then you are like my past lovers! 99%! 😀
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Never once said I hated it. I enjoyed all of the film except for the dejecting ending. The reason I'll watch it again in theaters is because I have some family members that haven't been able to watch yet and want to attend with me next week. I assure you it isn't just so I can get another satisfying dose of Bond dying.
Spot on! 100% agree.
🤪😋
Bond gives up? 🤔
Haven't seen that version…the one I’ve seen - several times - Bond sacrifices himself for Madeleine and his daughter.
Yes, I saw the same version as Sir Miles.
Yes I get what you are saying. But all the films and books I always thought he’d try and survive and see what happens - only an opinion of course
If when patient zero of the Madeleine virus touches any other human, that person becomes a carrier of the Maddy-virus. Through exponential human contact 90+% of the world population would recieve the virus until it inevitably caught up to Maddy and Matilda. Then it would be a sacrifice.
The problem is that Q says that it's harmless unless you're near the target - implying only patient zero is a threat and cannot spread the virus to infinite carriers. And Bond follows up with: "That's not going to work" - Implying he is offing himself for the selfish reason that he can't live happily unless he's near the target, rather than he would inevitably kill her if he lived at all.
Kincaid was just their version of Alfred, with Silva Bond’s Joker. There’s the empty manor house with a hidden underground system and Bond’s maladjusted orphan with a secret identity. The villain kills a woman close to the hero in both movies, the hero travels to an Asian super city after an ancillary bad guy, and the villain is captured and escapes after wreaking havoc, which appears to be part of his unbelievable master plan. Both have hero cars loaded with gadgets, hero associates who make the gadgets, villains with odd hair color and facial deformities, speeches about how the hero and villain are basically the same, and acts of terrorism that mask a more personal agenda.
How? The nanobots are only lethal to them if he comes in direct physical contact. Had Bond survived, he could have stayed in their lives from a distance, watched his daughter grow up, and been there as more than just a memory and stories. I mean, he even already has a house so far off the grid M thought he was dead. Meanwhile, Q could have looked for a solution — exactly how can he say mechanical devices are unstoppable forever?
Like Skyfall, this is another creaky Bond script that tries to be clever but makes less and less sense the more you look at it, except in superficially arousing emotions.
If they wanted Bond to sacrifice himself, all they had to do was make him manually hold the blast doors open so everyone else could escape. It would have been even more tragic if Q told him he had a solution to destroy the nanobots. But someone has to stay to make sure, and Bond is the only one strong enough (because Nomi is shot in the arm or something). Bond could still have had the conversation with Swann, etc., but his act would have clearly been sacrifice rather than just standing around waiting for bombs.
I tend to agree with those who say that Bond would have eventually killed Madeleine and Mathilde by casual contact, spread via countless accidental carriers. That said, it probably would have been a 'cleaner' solution to simply make him toxic to the entire world. Either way. I'm more or less at peace with how they did it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Saw NTTD and was even less impressed than the first time. The plot weaknesses are more apparent and the lack of clear thematic grounding is obvious. In OHMSS there’s the irony that Tracy doesn’t want to live at the beginning, and then when she has the most reason to at the end, is killed. Bond, in the meantime, wants nothing but to live his hedonistic bachelor life but by the end wants to give it all up for the woman he loves — ironically, the second time with tragic consequences. Blofeld, for all his former grand dreams of conquest, just wants to be pardoned and left alone. All three work for change that will never happen and have happiness denied, and the plot is driven by this. But NTTD just shoehorns in its ideas with glimpses and shorthand images. We don’t see Bond wrestling with not having a wife and child at the beginning as an existential problem, for instance, or Swann struggling with her childhood all through the movie and the parallels to her own mother/daughter relationship because now her child is in jeopardy by association, too. The villain’s motivation is some murky psychobabble. The audience has to create the connections in their mind because the movie doesn’t do the hard work dramatically and show us. Instead, it has some hazy connections through scenes driven mostly by their sentimentality and reminder of what we know from OHMSS.
If that’s the case, then Bond would merely need to be quarantined until a solution could be found. Since Q can track or identify the nanobots, it stands to reason he could also build something to test for them in people who come in contact with Swann or Mathilde. For that matter, how do we know Saffin hasn’t infected others as a fail safe? It’s all just a Maguffin to kill Bond at the end.
I think we've all noticed how many people find the time to die in NTTD. Felix Leiter, Blofeld, SPECTRE and of cource Bond himself. Ironically I think this would've been too many major characters killed of if Bond himself didn't die. If SPECTRE, Blofeld and Leiter died in the same movie and Bond survived this is wasting too many major characters in one movie, creating iconic character death overload. But since Bond dies this is the end of CraigBond's journey. It's a story with a begining and an end and his arch enemies needed to be defeated. What absolutely couldn't have worked if Bond survived was the child Mathilde. Bond with a kid would be completely wrong over several movies. It's debatable if Bond should have a kid at all (yes, I know he has a kid in the books), but I haven't seen a single person saying Mathilde should be a returning character.
Like some others I feel Safin's motivation isn't shown or explained properly after Blofeld dies. I also feels Blofeld isn't used well enough in SP or NTTD. Blofeld should've Bern the main villan in NTTD. First controlling events from his cell via his eye, then escaping and controlling events directly. Safin would've been a henchman, SPECTRE's poison expert. This solution even offers a better use of Nomi and (if wanted) a way for Bond to survive. There's no Mathilde. In the finale it's Nomi who returns to open the blast doors. She has a fight with Safin and kills him, but gets infected by a string that can kill millions. She opens the blast doors and sacrifices herself. Nomi can give Bond the 007-designation at this time or when she does in the movie. This gives Nomi a heroic death and stops any idea of her being the future lead in Bond movies.
But isn't Bond supposed to be the main hero in a James Bond movie, you may ask? Of cource. Bond goes after Blofeld, performs a jaw-dropping stunt (there was no such thing in NTTD) and strangles Blofeld, YOLT- style. Matilde returns in the boat to pick him up and we get a classic Bond movie ending.