Bond's death...wasn't he already dying from gunshot wounds?
Andy007
Posts: 100MI6 Agent
As epic or controversial as Bond's death was to every fan out there, I felt his sacrifice to the missiles was not the cause of his death. He was shot 3 times by Safin, even if he gets off the island, what can anyone do to heal him, emergency treatment etc. He was starting to bleed to death. Bond had Heracles, but why not tell Miranda or Q he's been shot several times anyway & has no chance of survival. It was stated he ran out of time, but his wounds were fatal without emergency hospital treatment. He was a dieing man. Can anyone confirm his gunshot wounds, seemed like one to shoulder, leg and somewhere else, maybe 2 on the legs. Does anyone believe Bond could've survived his injuries?
Comments
Oh, I don't know are we past spoilers now or what? Can't we change it to 'Bond's demise' and maybe the word 'dying' too and bung it in the No Time To Die section or am I in a snitty mood?
I agree with your view on Bond's death, it reminds me of some kind of comedy finale - is it Naked Gun? - where you see someone shot, stamped on, blown up to underline their demise. I found myself wholly disconnected at this point tbh, the idea he can run around like a loon after all that, makes one wonder if John Lennon had it in him to write another song that fateful evening if you can survive being shot at close range so often...
Of is it a gag? No Time To Die? Why We've Got All the Time in the World.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
My initial thought was Bond knew he was dying, so he deliberately blew himself up to avoid any possibility of his body passing on nanobots at the funeral.
I seem to have missed this thread for some reason. I agree with NP and will move this to the NTTD forum, correcting the spelling in the process.
And yes, it was in one (or maybe two) of the Naked Gun films.
Guy Caballero (Joe Flaherty) survives even more bullets in SCTV's Godfather parody, doesnt even ruin his nice overcoat though the cash in his pocket gets shredded
so yes CraigBond was a wimp
I agree he was definitely dying and would have bled to death. A single gun shot to any part of the body can be fatal. Let alone three, it's clear he is losing a lot of blood.
I'd never thought of that. Not sure if that's what Bond / The Writers had in mind, but having seen what happened to the mourners at that other chaps' funeral, it could have been a possibility. Although, I doubt it. By that stage MI6/Q knew the effect the 'virus' has on contacts even after death so no doubt his body would have been confined and would have been cremated or buried at sea anyway, had there been any body to recover.
It could have been relevant if Bond didn't ask Q how to get rid of Heracles while the subject had already been discussed in M's office with the Scooby-gang.
I even think it's the opposite: it's precisely because Bond is showed as a man who can't be stopped by gunshots that they decided to find a "personal" reason to justify his death. If he was doomed because of lethal injuries, why having this DNA matter during the fight with Safin ?
What a pity ! Bond officially dying because of lethal injuries during a mission for Queen and Country would have been very faithful to Fleming's vision. Instead of that, they considered this sham as the only possible way to make the audience believe in a memorable ending.
Barbara Broccoli answering some questions after the Premiere: "What ? Rosa Klebb ? Who's that ?"😂
Interesting thought, although think of all of the little bits of vapourised Bond raining down on Madeline and Mathilde on the island next door 😁
The exposure to the virus is more interesting than the bullets, because Bond has just learned he has a child. It is tragic irony, that his very relatedness will doom her, fundamental to the plot, not tacked on. It is also why there is the DNA spiral imagery during the credits., and why the story begins with Madeleine trying to tell him she is pregnant
@caractacus potts your point is relevant but in that case, why creating some ambiguity plotwise ? Was it inconceivable to have Bond directly infected instead of being shot ?
I don't really see the ambiguity: we see that he's infected- he will kill his family if he sees them again. He must die to protect them. That's kind of the whole point.
That he's shot both allows Safin to actually infect him in the first place (he's not match for Bond physically otherwise so he wouldn't have got near him) and it gives the audience a visual representation that he's dying in front of our eyes.
Correct me please if I'm wrong, but Bond's intention was to open the bay doors to allow an effective nullifying cruise missle strike. Safin reverses this and Bond returns to reopen them, before being shot because at this point the missiles were already in flight. He knew then he had no time to escape. After being shot - and fatally so - the reality sets in. In fairness to Craig he does a fairly decent job interprrting Bond's physical and emotional condition. But yes, the whole "I'm doing this to save my wife and daughter" stuff shouldn't be relevant to Bond's sacrifice. There's a bigger picture at stake and Bond knows it - he knew it even before Safin attacks him. The mawkish sentimentality during thus clkmax feels like adding pain ontop of pain. In fact, he could say everything without the virus turmoil because he's still going to die in a cruise missile strike or from gun shot wounds. This is narrative structure with cherries and cream on top which is why NTTD is such a weary product.
Bond could still try and survive it, and he’s Bond: we know he can escape and/or survive anything. So really in order to kill James Bond we know he has to decide to die. And the film gives him the perfect reason to die.
I don’t find it mawkish at all, I don’t understand why you’d think dying to save his family would be irrelevant.
I don't really see the ambiguity: we see that he's infected- he will kill his family if he sees them again. He must die to protect them. That's kind of the whole point.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't seem to worry about anything after Cuba. Doesn't he represent a danger anyway for every person whose DNA is related to any single Spectre member killed during the party ? Isn't Madeleine the daughter of a former Spectre agent herself ? Perhaps there are many other "Madeleines" in the world and they (and their relatives) are not worth less than Swann or Mathilde lifewise.
@emtiem do you see my point ?
Yes it's a plothole that I've spotted before too, but it doesn't change how the ending works.
I'd be surprised if anyone was thinking about that plothole while they were actually watching the film.
That's precisely why this ending bothers me. It's too convenient plotwise. It's like when Bond says "plenty of time ! plenty of time !". I found it quite disturbing the first time I watched the movie. It's an artificial way to tease what's going to happen. Does Bond usually show such a degree of confidence and laxity while the world is about to burn ? No ! The climax is a countdown and Bond is supposed to have enough experience and maturity to be aware every single detail counts. He can take a breath only when the mission is over...
I feel like you're determined to find fault with anything here, you keep dancing around saying how every part of it is bad. I don't know what you mean by convenience plotwise. A minute ago the plot was 'ambiguous'.
Does Bond usually show a sense of confidence? James Bond 007? I would say the one thing which pretty much defines his character is confidence, huge self-confidence. Did Sean or Roger's Bonds never take time or breath to utter a single witticism in the third acts of their films? I very much doubt it. So: yes, yes he does.
Am I ? Well, if that's what you think then I must be terribly unclear because my only wish is trying to understand some writing choices.
I don't consider pointing out some elements is an end in itself. To be honest, I'm one of those who claim the death of Bond is not a problem at all given Fleming's vision, that's why I'm very suprised by your judgment. Reading your last comment, I feel like I'm the ugly duckling while I'm just not keen on the path they have taken to achieve their goal. Is it crime of the century ? I don't think so 😉
I'm just saying I felt there was something weird in the "plenty of time ! plenty of time !" line. The context, the words and the way Bond says it, like if it was a means to make the audience guess what was going to happen (Zimmer's score also contributes to that feeling).
I don't expect everyone here to share my point of view, but at least are there people who see what I mean (and I'm not only speaking to you @emtiem) ?
I don’t find it mawkish at all, I don’t understand why you’d think dying to save his family would be irrelevant
So you don't think he'd decide to die to save thousands of other lives by sacrificing himself? Bond was returning to reunlock the Bay doors BEFORE he was shot, so he made a choice, one not based on his family issue but one based on the mission he'd taken on. He'd discussed the ramifications with M and knew the risk he was running. There was no way out for him, no time for escape even then. Now, in years gone by, he'd have a handy gadget to assist his survival, or as in OHMSS some prudent dodgy editing, but not in this movie. He will die in the blast. Then he's shot. Then he's scratched with the nano-virus. All of which will kill him. So, cake, cherries and cream.
Well no, he’s confident that he can make it out before he’s shot. He still has hope and the usual confidence in himself: he’s been in tighter spots than this. But when he’s infected he knows that’s it, there’s no point -and indeed he mustn’t try- to escape.
I’ve seen heroes sacrifice themselves for unseen thousands before, I want something a bit fresher. And this is James Bond, I don’t want him dying easy.
Is cake, cherries and cream supposed to be bad? 😄
Is cake, cherries and cream supposed to be bad? 😄
OMG certainly not !! 😉😉
I get it, it's an overkill.
Dying from a gunshot was okay, but to have him infected with that virus only to create a dramatic effect between him and Madeleine is one of my problems with the film until now, for someone who didn't bought their relationship, that concept made me shy away from the film.
Like they've just did that infected with the virus thing because they could inject that scene with drama, and it's contrived, especially as it's served no purpose other than that of dramatic and sentimental effect that he could never touch his family again, that's contrived, and the more I think about it, the more I get cringe, because that doesn't belong in the Bond world, it's soap opera melodramatic writing.
It doesn't helped that the love story felt shallow for me.
I don't think the film is the best, but dying to save his new family seems a perfect end for Bond to me. To be honest dying for unseen millions is less of an interesting or dramatic concept I think.
It's a bit like how Goldfinger and Thunderball both have a nuclear bomb countdown at the end, but I would say GF's is much tenser and more exciting, because we can see the bomb right there in front of us (unlike in TB) and we know that our hero James is in direct danger from it, and we care for him (in TB he's nowhere near the bomb). It's just how films work- we feel more for the characters we can see and have been made to care for than we do for millions of unseen people. It doesn't mean we don't care at all when Bond saves the world in Moonraker, for example, but it does have a more direct effect when he or people he cares about are in danger. Writing that off as 'soap opera' is silly, it's just how film drama works.
Like they've just did that infected with the virus thing because they could inject that scene with drama, and it's contrived, especially as it's served no purpose other than that of dramatic and sentimental effect that he could never touch his family again
Yes, the dramatic storyline served no purpose other than to produce drama, but again, I'm not sure how that's a bad thing. Bond films usually find very contrived reasons for a car chase 😁 - I found this much less contrived!
Having watched the new The Sound of OO7 preview, I was interested in the section which reveals Hans Zimmer's approach to the scoring of this sequence, which he compared musically to a requiem. They went into some depth about how the entire finale was scored, utilising Eilish's theme to draw out the emotion. Whatever else I draw from the climax, I would add it is emotionally scored and therein for me lies much of the problem, it forces us as an audience to confront Bond's emotional state of mind in the manner not seen since the relatively low-key ending to OHMSS. However, Tracy's sudden death and Bond's reaction had a definite touch of bitterness and shock, extenuated by Barry's beautiful underplayed scoring. NTTD seems too deliberately telegraphed to be successful. Zimmer's more soaring choices may be considered by some (like me) a step too far.
Do you find many action scenes to be telegraphed through their scoring? Isn't adding the Bond theme in just a way of forcing us to be excited?
Thanks for not putting a spoiler in the topic title I came across in the recent discussions section here.
I've been too busy to see that film yet...
It’s been over a year now. If you can’t have been bothered to see the film in that time, then seeing a major spoiler online is hardly the OPs fault, and can’t be that upsetting to you if you can go a whole year without watching it. Posting spoilers is fair game now. At least you haven’t found out he has a daughter and a Dou Dou as well. Although he fails to save Dou Dou, which may cause you distress.
big difference between the shock endings of OHMSS and NTtD is who dies in that final scene.
In OHMSS Bond is there to deliver the dazed reaction shot just in time for the credits to roll, so we are left to observe and empathise with our heroes bewildered reaction. That works because he's our protagonist, we've been experiencing the whole story through his eyes all along. (its a bit like the last shot of chinatown)
in NTtD it is Bond himself who dies, and even if there were anybody else on the island to witness it, their reaction shot would not have the same impact, because we havent been experiencing the story so far through their eyes. Also it would not have worked if Bond just dropped dead all of sudden and the credits rolled immediately. As the protagonist, his death scene needs to be dragged out and hammed up, then we get the eulogising from supporting characters.
different narrative rules when the protagonist dies.
Yeah aren't you a great one?
You don't know what's going on in people's lives. I might have a bloody great reason for not having watched a film this year. You don't know...
Spoilers may be fair game to you after a year.
That's called selfishness. Grow up and respect your fellow human beings.
It's only fair game because you yourself had the time to see it.
Change your attitude.
To be fair, I thought your rant was being sarcastic. I didn’t think it was genuine. It’s pretty obvious if you come on a Bond forum a year after a films release that the latest one is going to be talked about ad nauseam and have spoilers everywhere. You can’t blame anyone but yourself for expecting a spoiler free Bond forum a year on 🤦♂️ It’s a pretty daft thing to do.