James Bond’s Fate- Daring, or Derivative? [SPOILERS]
SpectreOfDefeat
Posts: 404MI6 Agent
James Bond’s death in No Time to Die might seem to be a shocking and provocative story beat. However, the plot strand of the hero unexpectedly carrying out a noble act of self-sacrifice has been used before, most notably in a number of blockbuster films made during the six-year hiatus between SPECTRE (2015) and No Time to Die (2021). For example…
Wolverine dies at the end of Logan (2017)
Luke Skywalker dies at the end of Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Tony Stark (Iron Man) dies at the climax of Avengers: Endgame (2019)
All three of these characters are the heroic leads of their respective franchises; all three give their lives as part of a desperate sacrifice aimed at protecting others; and all three character deaths come as highly unexpected and emotive plot twists to the audience. Sound familiar? I therefore contend that, regardless of Eon’s claims that the plot arc of Bond’s death was envisioned as far back as 2006- which may or may not be the case- No Time to Die took more than a little inspiration from its franchise rivals here. There are other similarities between films here too. In Logan (2017) Wolverine even dies while defending a previously unknown adopted daughter from harm. So what do others think of this theory? Was Bond’s death partially inspired by other critically acclaimed blockbusters of the late 2010s? Or is it simply a spectacular coincidence? What do others think?
"The spectre of defeat..."
Comments
Oh, it's derivative all right but the influences go back a lot further than those examples- 1967, to be precise.
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/discussion/54920/spoilers-nttds-a-remake-of-the-last-bond-film-youd-expect
SpectreOfDefeat is so good at calming down the forum by not raising hard and divisive issues! That's his main strenght in my opinion, 😀
have we completely given up on SPOILER warnings then?
I know CoolHondBond and LadyRose both recently said they knew the ending before they finally saw the movie
I imagine its pretty well known by this point- but for the benefit of the uninitiated, I've tagged my original post and changed the subtitle.
I suspect that the public will remember NTTD mostly as "the one where Bond dies" in the same way as some other Bond films are only widely remembered for one thing- Moonraker as "the outer space one", Thunderball as "the underwater one"...
"The spectre of defeat..."
I now wish we'd agreed on a stated spoiler period when the film was released or even earlier. However, there has to be a time to assume that most people know the major plot point of the movie and like SoD above I believe we've reached that point.
Should we try to discuss what the thread was supposed to be about, or is it already to late? 😁
We can certainly try. I reckon that Bond's death in NTTD is comparatively less meaningful than (say) the similar scenes in the films I mentioned; with Luke Skywalker and Wolverine, both character's deaths symbolise a 'passing of the torch' moment to a new hero introduced to carry on their legacy- Rey in SW and the daughter character in Logan, respectively.
With Bond's death, the same triumphant moment doesn't work because...err...who, within the universe of NTTD, is going to take up Bond's mantle? Not the MI6 regulars, or Mathilde. Nomi, perhaps, given that Bond has acted as a grudging mentor figure of sorts throughout the film, but if Nomi reappears in Bond 26 surely this would be alongside a new Bond actor. So if CraigBond's death is intended to act as 'passing the torch' to a new generation of heroes, it is highly unsatisfactory. While I recall being somewhat ambivalent about Bond's death in my original review of NTTD posted on this site, I've only grown more critical of it since, and the lack of viewer satisfaction from the botched symbolism of Bond's death moment is a big reason why.
"The spectre of defeat..."
If Nomi returns in Bond26 it can only mean one of two things:
This is of course Nomi is very much tied to a timeline where James Bond dies. She can't turn up again unless Bond is a code name or Bond is never used again in a movie. I don't think that'll happen because it would be disastrous. Nomi belongs 100% to the CraigBond timeline and can't appear in a Bond movie ever again. Bond 26 won't be a passing of the torch to a new generation in my opinion. I think EON has to start a new timeline witha new Bond. It's possible they continue a lose Connery-Brosnan timeline, but I'd probably prefer a comletely new timeline.
Please add me to that list too Potts. I deliberatley read the premise on Wiki weeks before I got to the cinema. - Glad I did too. - Felt absolutely underwhelmed, and that is so wrong for a Bond film. 😒
Oh and it was just derivative! SP was too.
Isn't the hero living after saving the day and kissing the girl really derivative too? Aren't all Bond films incredibly derivative of those first two or three Bond films in the 60s?
Oh yes, but there is derivative that is part of the entertainment, the fantasy and for those of us who have enjoyed Bond for decades, something of tradition.
Derivative that is underwhelming, unsatisfying and crashingly disappointing is something else altogether. This is entertainment after all. 😁
That's entirely subjective, and there are an awful lot of people who look at the whole concept of James Bond and think it's derivative hokum and find it underwhelming in its entirety.
Personally I found ending to be satisfying and dramatic, it worked for me. Have I seen heroes die before? Of course. Have I seen them live before? Of course.
I still don't think that had to kill him off. Creating more of an ambiguous ending.. Is he dead? Did he survive? Would still have been a big depart from the usual Bond film endings and would have created the same amount of drama and intrigue and left things open to conjecture and personal opinion. It was just a step too far for me. I struggle to just brush it off as "it's just DC's Bond timeline".
I get round that problem by seeing CR-06 as a stand alone film, and when I am in the mood for SF, I can see it as a 'new beginning' for Bond the way the final scene plays out. - Conveying the idea that Bond is still out there, doing his duty.
I like the open ended idea you mentioned above a lot @The Red Kind. It would have been an excellent way for Mr Craig to bow out, and everyone could decide for themselves.
Ah well, ad it stands it is what it is! But it does mean there are now three Bond films I have little time for. (QoS as the way the action scenes were chop edited. Its concept has grown on me over time.)
I get round that problem by seeing CR-06 as a stand alone film
It's quite a funny (depending on your point of view) bit of trivia that I think there's only one actor credited in the opening titles of CR whose character survives CR and/or the next four films!
Apologies if I may seem to be trolling this thread but you all got it wrong about Bond's death. He is still alive for the following reasons:
1) The film is called No Time To Die (and not Time To Die)
2) Bond survives 2 explosions earlier in the film - one at Vesper's grave and the other in the stairwell with the grenades
3) You don't actually see Bond's body explode or disintegrate - there is a white/yellow light that moves towards him filling up the screen. He could easily have been blown backwards and then covered up by the concrete blocks he is standing on which could protect him from the immediate explosions
4) The last frame of the film states "James Bond will return"
5) There is a faint rumbling sound when the words "James Bond will return" appear. This could possibly be the explosions from earlier being heard from the distance. Is this Bond waking up?
So there you have it, our 100 year old Bond is still alive and well ))