The only way they could have Bond survive is to bring back DC for one more, in my opinion. The way they've sold this as being his last film for so many years now makes it seem unlikely, although not impossible in the cinematic world.
One outlandish thought I've had was that the press tour of constantly pushing the narrative of it being Craig's last has all been part of the plot of the movie to make everyone think he truly is dead.
I really cannot wait to see how they spin this ending and the future of the franchise.
Let's not forget that M himself suggested Bond might have wanted to stay dead near the beginning of Skyfall when he reappears. So such a plan might be on the agenda.
(That said, I agree, I can't see them pulling back from this...)
Thanks @caractacus potts I will look up those links, I really do miss those parodies, but I wonder how they'd do No Time To Die due to its ending? Did they do every Bond film - they didn't, did they? I'd have like to have seen the do OP and NSNA.
There's one brilliant Mad edition I got when doing a three month tour of the US in my Gap Year, when those big movies such as Batman, Indy and Lethal Weapon 2 were out, LTK also. But the funniest piece was one called 'Only in the Middle of the Night' which did cartoons of what ordinary folk turn their minds to when they can't get to sleep. My fave was a grisley faced middle aged man sitting up in bed looking grim as he belatedly thought up his riposte to a wise-ass who shouted at him as he was daydreaming at the lights...
Thanks @caractacus potts I will look up those links, I really do miss those parodies, but I wonder how they'd do No Time To Die due to its ending? Did they do every Bond film - they didn't, did they? I'd have like to have seen the do OP and NSNA.
There's one brilliant Mad edition I got when doing a three month tour of the US in my Gap Year, when those big movies such as Batman, Indy and Lethal Weapon 2 were out, LTK also. But the funniest piece was one called 'Only in the Middle of the Night' which did cartoons of what ordinary folk turn their minds to when they can't get to sleep. My fave was a grisley faced middle aged man sitting up in bed looking grim as he belatedly thought up his riposte to a wise-ass who shouted at him as he was daydreaming at the lights...
I think the only films they parodied were the ones already scanned in that blog I linked to. I don't know why they didn't do more. They did tend to parody more serious adult oriented films even though the readers were primarily impressionable youth. As a lad I knew the plots of a lot of Restricted movies just because I read the MAD parodies!
Will there be a NTtD parody? looking at wikipedia the magazine barely still exists, is no longer sold at newsstands and is primarily classic reprints with little new material. I haven't seen a new copy in years, so don't know if the new material includes any movie parodies. Still, if they did, this year theres so few new films that NTtD might be an obvious film deserving of parody.
Someone more hip than I should alert us if there is a MADmagazineNTtD parody.
I appreciate your endeavor to establish some ambiguity but unfortunately there's no doubt about it: Craig's iteration is dead, which doesn't mean it's the case for the generic character considering Bond 26 will take place within a completely disconnected timeline, like the original series (no Tracy and no Cold War in the DC era...).
You have to see this reboot as a series within the series with a beginning, a middle and an end. You have to make your brain forget what happened from CR06 to NTTD and see the next iteration of Bond as a brand new one, with a character who will not be nuked by a missile one day.
You have to see this reboot as a series within the series with a beginning, a middle and an end. You have to make your brain forget what happened from CR06 to NTTD and see the next iteration of Bond as a brand new one, with a character who will not be nuked by a missile one day.
I agree whole heartedly with that. Much as it idea pains me, I don't think there's much choice. CraigBond was nuked. He's dead. James Bond, though, is not.
I suppose one could approach it in much the same way as Tarantino's Inglorious B* or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which one discovered sealed with an alternative universe.
Churlishly I'll point out that the producers may be on to something here. Many of the great fictional heroes have died, surely? Holmes did once, and he seems to later on doesn't he? Or doesn't Ian MacKellan play a slightly senile elderly Holmes in one recent film? Don't know if he dies, but there all kinds of these things, I think Philip Marlow was depicted in a Florida care home in one recent novel. Poirot died at Christie's hand (Agatha, not Doctor) and it seals their legend perhaps, in the same way that having all these different actors and style of movie helped cement Bond's image in the popular imagination in a way that arguably has not happened with Ford's Indiana Jones.
I don't think this concept of alternative universe would be a good thing for Bond.
If the producers want to bring back the character, they will have to reboot the series once again, but this time, the reason will be obvious and logical, whereas I never really thought a complete reset was the only solution after DAD.
In the 1953 CR novel, Bond is not supposed to be a brand new agent within the 00 section. He has a certain kind of experience of the field and he doesn't discover the job using his licence to kill for the first time. That's why more than fifteen years later, I continue to say I would have loved Brosnan to have his own FYEO. Even considering hiring someone else was the right thing to do, CR06 could have perfectly belonged to the original series with a story settled in the classic timeline, forgetting this idea of showing Bond's debuts. I always prefer not to know the past of a fictional character I'm supposed to identify with, it's the best way to keep the part of mystery that makes a heroe so special and singular.
May be Barbara and Michael themselves still don't know what to do... Doyle really killed Holmes, but had to change later.
Have you considered the chances of recovering the original James Bond? The one who began with Sean Connery and reached to Pierce Brosnan. He's not dead, and even his Judi Dench's M is alive...
May be Brosnan could play an old retired Bond
But the option I like the most is a James Bond in the 50s or 60s, like the novels. A Fleming's Bond in his own age. That would be really great, but I understand that's difficult because it would make movies much more expensive.
"But the option I like the most is a James Bond in the 50s or 60s, like the novels. A Fleming's Bond in his own age. That would be really great, but I understand that's difficult because it would make movies much more expensive."
Not necessarily. I would even say it should be the opposite. A story taking place in the 50s has to embrace the codes of the typical spy movies and thrillers, which means much less action, much less stunt sequences, much less explosions...so much less money to spend uselessly.
Making a period film is still expensive because of the settings, costumes, and props. Many of these have to be created from scratch because the originals might not be available or usable. Cutting corners with CGI tends to look obvious.
More to the point, a period Bond film or franchise would be close to commercial suicide. A modern Bond film is made for a mass audience, and a large part of that audience (esepcially the younger, most lucrative, part) will immediately tune out if the film is set in the past, even 50-60 years ago. That said, I notice that the latest Kingsman film is set in 1910s Russia---but the trailer makes evident that the film's feel for the period is shakyand superficial and just window-dressing for modern action film cliches. I don't think we'd want any period Bond films like that.
Other reasons too - the movies get commercial tie-ins with the latest drinks, maybe Bollinger was around then but it wouldn't look the same, etc - supposing they wanted a deal with Nyetimber - a brilliant English 'sparkling wine' that I personally recommend, well, can't do it for the film. Ditto any cars etc
Then you have an entire army of fans who dig the new fashions, we have a forum devoted to this stuff. They'd be lost. Women also check out what other women are wearing in the film, but by definition it can't be the latest fashion etc even if they like what they see.
And am I alone in thinking that 1950s post-war Bond is kind of depressing now while at the time it was exotic, I mean to have olive oil for anything other than drops to de wax your ear was a novelty.
On the other hand, I've been wrong before. They could have license to almost make it wholly unPC and weird and wild, a bit like Cruella in a way, sort of dark and gothic and glam - I'm warming to it - but I can't see it a big franchise. Maybe it could almost sort of work as a three film prequel to Dr No? Sort of tying in with the early Connery Bonds almost? Almost a bit Indiana Jones in its territory?
I doubt very much we'll ever see a period-piece Bond movie, at least on the big screen. However, if they divide up the Bond franchise much as they have Star Trek these days, it's entire possible there could be a TV series set in another time period.
Then you have an entire army of fans who dig the new fashions, we have a forum devoted to this stuff. They'd be lost. Women also check out what other women are wearing in the film, but by definition it can't be the latest fashion etc even if they like what they see.
I would think for clothing collectors, trying to track down authentic vintage clothing originals would be even more fun than just purchasing something currently available on every store shelf
To cover old ground, good points about Bond being killed by his team, who created the nanobots. With all the tech Q et al have, surely they could have put Bond in an induced coma, and kept him in a specialist unit until they can find a cure… Or he could be rescued post explosion and have facial reconstruction, a nice way to introduce a new Bond.
Although there was buyers on the way to the island, what danger were they, the navy could have easily taken them out.
Every person I have spoken to who has seen NTTD, does not like the end, can see huge plot holes and has better ideas than the finished product.
DC Bond is certianly dead, he wanted out with no ambiguity, this affected how the script was written, maybe prioritising his needs over the general publics expectations.
I will watch it again because the first hour is great, but I feel cheated.
I was speaking to a 25 year old following his first viewing. He's not a huge fan but certainly makes a point of seeing every Bond film at the cinema. He's not happy with the ending at all. He was adamant - James Bond should not die! 😤 Other casual film goers have all expressed the same view.
There is greatness within NTTD which just makes me more annoyed with the ending. It could have been a very good Bond film but is sullied.
"Any of the opposition around..?"
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,709MI6 Agent
If its true that three different endings to No Time To Die were filmed, I wonder what the other two endings were? I wonder if we'll ever get to see these endings or if they'll ever be discussed.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
That’s where it’s odd because everyone I’ve spoken loves the film…not just like it, but REALLY like it…to the point where they will go and see it again…
YNWA 97
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
Well, in the interests of fairness and honesty I should say that my sister went to see it a fortnight ago and she thought it was brilliant - so I have had to revise my views.
Not of the movie - it's rubbish - but of my sister.
That said, with the DVD release due on 20 December, at least that solves the problem of what to get her for Christmas....
Probably at least one of them not killing Bond. I don't see three different ways of showing Bond's death, otherwise it would be a little bit creepy from Craig, Broccoli, Wilson and Fukunaga.
I would have ADORED the one with Madeleine and her daughter going back home and Mathilde suddenly seeing dou-dou on her bed, having the same smile as the one she has in the V8 when Madeleine pronounces the last sentence of the movie.
I might agree that a handful of people actually dislike the film, but would say the majority of people dislike the ending and would have preferred an alternative.
Of people I know who’ve seen it, the hardcore Bond fans are the ones less impressed while the casual fans like it. One basically said ‘About time” at the seeming killing of Bond, which supports my contention they were deconstructing Bond. Their point was they were sick of the character and glad to see him killed off.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
Comments
The only way they could have Bond survive is to bring back DC for one more, in my opinion. The way they've sold this as being his last film for so many years now makes it seem unlikely, although not impossible in the cinematic world.
One outlandish thought I've had was that the press tour of constantly pushing the narrative of it being Craig's last has all been part of the plot of the movie to make everyone think he truly is dead.
I really cannot wait to see how they spin this ending and the future of the franchise.
Let's not forget that M himself suggested Bond might have wanted to stay dead near the beginning of Skyfall when he reappears. So such a plan might be on the agenda.
(That said, I agree, I can't see them pulling back from this...)
Thanks @caractacus potts I will look up those links, I really do miss those parodies, but I wonder how they'd do No Time To Die due to its ending? Did they do every Bond film - they didn't, did they? I'd have like to have seen the do OP and NSNA.
There's one brilliant Mad edition I got when doing a three month tour of the US in my Gap Year, when those big movies such as Batman, Indy and Lethal Weapon 2 were out, LTK also. But the funniest piece was one called 'Only in the Middle of the Night' which did cartoons of what ordinary folk turn their minds to when they can't get to sleep. My fave was a grisley faced middle aged man sitting up in bed looking grim as he belatedly thought up his riposte to a wise-ass who shouted at him as he was daydreaming at the lights...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Napoleon Plural sez:
Thanks @caractacus potts I will look up those links, I really do miss those parodies, but I wonder how they'd do No Time To Die due to its ending? Did they do every Bond film - they didn't, did they? I'd have like to have seen the do OP and NSNA.
There's one brilliant Mad edition I got when doing a three month tour of the US in my Gap Year, when those big movies such as Batman, Indy and Lethal Weapon 2 were out, LTK also. But the funniest piece was one called 'Only in the Middle of the Night' which did cartoons of what ordinary folk turn their minds to when they can't get to sleep. My fave was a grisley faced middle aged man sitting up in bed looking grim as he belatedly thought up his riposte to a wise-ass who shouted at him as he was daydreaming at the lights...
I think the only films they parodied were the ones already scanned in that blog I linked to. I don't know why they didn't do more. They did tend to parody more serious adult oriented films even though the readers were primarily impressionable youth. As a lad I knew the plots of a lot of Restricted movies just because I read the MAD parodies!
Will there be a NTtD parody? looking at wikipedia the magazine barely still exists, is no longer sold at newsstands and is primarily classic reprints with little new material. I haven't seen a new copy in years, so don't know if the new material includes any movie parodies. Still, if they did, this year theres so few new films that NTtD might be an obvious film deserving of parody.
Someone more hip than I should alert us if there is a MAD magazine NTtD parody.
I appreciate your endeavor to establish some ambiguity but unfortunately there's no doubt about it: Craig's iteration is dead, which doesn't mean it's the case for the generic character considering Bond 26 will take place within a completely disconnected timeline, like the original series (no Tracy and no Cold War in the DC era...).
You have to see this reboot as a series within the series with a beginning, a middle and an end. You have to make your brain forget what happened from CR06 to NTTD and see the next iteration of Bond as a brand new one, with a character who will not be nuked by a missile one day.
You have to see this reboot as a series within the series with a beginning, a middle and an end. You have to make your brain forget what happened from CR06 to NTTD and see the next iteration of Bond as a brand new one, with a character who will not be nuked by a missile one day.
I agree whole heartedly with that. Much as it idea pains me, I don't think there's much choice. CraigBond was nuked. He's dead. James Bond, though, is not.
I suppose one could approach it in much the same way as Tarantino's Inglorious B* or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which one discovered sealed with an alternative universe.
Churlishly I'll point out that the producers may be on to something here. Many of the great fictional heroes have died, surely? Holmes did once, and he seems to later on doesn't he? Or doesn't Ian MacKellan play a slightly senile elderly Holmes in one recent film? Don't know if he dies, but there all kinds of these things, I think Philip Marlow was depicted in a Florida care home in one recent novel. Poirot died at Christie's hand (Agatha, not Doctor) and it seals their legend perhaps, in the same way that having all these different actors and style of movie helped cement Bond's image in the popular imagination in a way that arguably has not happened with Ford's Indiana Jones.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
@caractacus potts there really ought to be an international crowd-funding page for a Mad magazine parody of NTtD!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I don't think this concept of alternative universe would be a good thing for Bond.
If the producers want to bring back the character, they will have to reboot the series once again, but this time, the reason will be obvious and logical, whereas I never really thought a complete reset was the only solution after DAD.
In the 1953 CR novel, Bond is not supposed to be a brand new agent within the 00 section. He has a certain kind of experience of the field and he doesn't discover the job using his licence to kill for the first time. That's why more than fifteen years later, I continue to say I would have loved Brosnan to have his own FYEO. Even considering hiring someone else was the right thing to do, CR06 could have perfectly belonged to the original series with a story settled in the classic timeline, forgetting this idea of showing Bond's debuts. I always prefer not to know the past of a fictional character I'm supposed to identify with, it's the best way to keep the part of mystery that makes a heroe so special and singular.
May be Barbara and Michael themselves still don't know what to do... Doyle really killed Holmes, but had to change later.
Have you considered the chances of recovering the original James Bond? The one who began with Sean Connery and reached to Pierce Brosnan. He's not dead, and even his Judi Dench's M is alive...
May be Brosnan could play an old retired Bond
But the option I like the most is a James Bond in the 50s or 60s, like the novels. A Fleming's Bond in his own age. That would be really great, but I understand that's difficult because it would make movies much more expensive.
"But the option I like the most is a James Bond in the 50s or 60s, like the novels. A Fleming's Bond in his own age. That would be really great, but I understand that's difficult because it would make movies much more expensive."
Not necessarily. I would even say it should be the opposite. A story taking place in the 50s has to embrace the codes of the typical spy movies and thrillers, which means much less action, much less stunt sequences, much less explosions...so much less money to spend uselessly.
Making a period film is still expensive because of the settings, costumes, and props. Many of these have to be created from scratch because the originals might not be available or usable. Cutting corners with CGI tends to look obvious.
More to the point, a period Bond film or franchise would be close to commercial suicide. A modern Bond film is made for a mass audience, and a large part of that audience (esepcially the younger, most lucrative, part) will immediately tune out if the film is set in the past, even 50-60 years ago. That said, I notice that the latest Kingsman film is set in 1910s Russia---but the trailer makes evident that the film's feel for the period is shaky and superficial and just window-dressing for modern action film cliches. I don't think we'd want any period Bond films like that.
Other reasons too - the movies get commercial tie-ins with the latest drinks, maybe Bollinger was around then but it wouldn't look the same, etc - supposing they wanted a deal with Nyetimber - a brilliant English 'sparkling wine' that I personally recommend, well, can't do it for the film. Ditto any cars etc
Then you have an entire army of fans who dig the new fashions, we have a forum devoted to this stuff. They'd be lost. Women also check out what other women are wearing in the film, but by definition it can't be the latest fashion etc even if they like what they see.
And am I alone in thinking that 1950s post-war Bond is kind of depressing now while at the time it was exotic, I mean to have olive oil for anything other than drops to de wax your ear was a novelty.
On the other hand, I've been wrong before. They could have license to almost make it wholly unPC and weird and wild, a bit like Cruella in a way, sort of dark and gothic and glam - I'm warming to it - but I can't see it a big franchise. Maybe it could almost sort of work as a three film prequel to Dr No? Sort of tying in with the early Connery Bonds almost? Almost a bit Indiana Jones in its territory?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I doubt very much we'll ever see a period-piece Bond movie, at least on the big screen. However, if they divide up the Bond franchise much as they have Star Trek these days, it's entire possible there could be a TV series set in another time period.
napoleon sez:
Then you have an entire army of fans who dig the new fashions, we have a forum devoted to this stuff. They'd be lost. Women also check out what other women are wearing in the film, but by definition it can't be the latest fashion etc even if they like what they see.
I would think for clothing collectors, trying to track down authentic vintage clothing originals would be even more fun than just purchasing something currently available on every store shelf
You Only Live Twice.. Once when you are born
and once when you look death in the face..
To cover old ground, good points about Bond being killed by his team, who created the nanobots. With all the tech Q et al have, surely they could have put Bond in an induced coma, and kept him in a specialist unit until they can find a cure… Or he could be rescued post explosion and have facial reconstruction, a nice way to introduce a new Bond.
Although there was buyers on the way to the island, what danger were they, the navy could have easily taken them out.
Every person I have spoken to who has seen NTTD, does not like the end, can see huge plot holes and has better ideas than the finished product.
DC Bond is certianly dead, he wanted out with no ambiguity, this affected how the script was written, maybe prioritising his needs over the general publics expectations.
I will watch it again because the first hour is great, but I feel cheated.
I will watch it again because the first hour is great, but I feel cheated.
You are not alone.
Yep. This.
I was speaking to a 25 year old following his first viewing. He's not a huge fan but certainly makes a point of seeing every Bond film at the cinema. He's not happy with the ending at all. He was adamant - James Bond should not die! 😤 Other casual film goers have all expressed the same view.
There is greatness within NTTD which just makes me more annoyed with the ending. It could have been a very good Bond film but is sullied.
If its true that three different endings to No Time To Die were filmed, I wonder what the other two endings were? I wonder if we'll ever get to see these endings or if they'll ever be discussed.
That’s where it’s odd because everyone I’ve spoken loves the film…not just like it, but REALLY like it…to the point where they will go and see it again…
Ditto. And it’s only a handful of people on here too that dislike it.
Well, in the interests of fairness and honesty I should say that my sister went to see it a fortnight ago and she thought it was brilliant - so I have had to revise my views.
Not of the movie - it's rubbish - but of my sister.
That said, with the DVD release due on 20 December, at least that solves the problem of what to get her for Christmas....
NOTHING!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A much better reason for deep-seated conflict in the family than the usual politics and conspiracy theories! 👍
Ha!
Probably at least one of them not killing Bond. I don't see three different ways of showing Bond's death, otherwise it would be a little bit creepy from Craig, Broccoli, Wilson and Fukunaga.
I would have ADORED the one with Madeleine and her daughter going back home and Mathilde suddenly seeing dou-dou on her bed, having the same smile as the one she has in the V8 when Madeleine pronounces the last sentence of the movie.
I might agree that a handful of people actually dislike the film, but would say the majority of people dislike the ending and would have preferred an alternative.
If more members voted in the poll in the JB Films sub-forum we would know the answer to that issue.
We do know the the answer to the ending question at least.
https://poll.pollcode.com/43782747_result?v
Of people I know who’ve seen it, the hardcore Bond fans are the ones less impressed while the casual fans like it. One basically said ‘About time” at the seeming killing of Bond, which supports my contention they were deconstructing Bond. Their point was they were sick of the character and glad to see him killed off.
Plenty of ‘hardcore’ Bond fans on here…still only a handful of them bellyaching…seems far more ‘hardcore’ Bond fans like it 🍸
How do you know the ‘majority’ of people would prefer an alternative ending? 🤔