A hero, an icon is canonically dead.

I'm not really too sure if that has much meaning in terms of Bond. Casino Royale was a reboot was it not? That means that it - and all the subsequent Craig efforts - stand on their own, in a separate universe if you will from all the Bond films which came before.

Therefore I think they're free just to continue on with the mainline Connery -> Brosnan Bond series. Craig can just be parked off to the side, no harm done...

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

A hero, an icon is canonically dead.

I'm not really too sure if that has much meaning in terms of Bond. Casino Royale was a reboot was it not? That means that it stands on there on own, in a separate universe (if you will) from all the Bond films which came before.

Therefore I think they're free just to continue on with the mainline Connery -> Brosnan Bond series. Craig can just be parked off to the side, no harm done...

Yes it was technically a reboot but it doesn't lessen the blow that Craig's Bond is and forever will be dead. That's how it ended and it's depressing no matter what happens down the line.

Therefore I think they're free just to continue on with the mainline Connery -> Brosnan Bond series. Craig can just be parked off to the side, no harm done...

Interesting theory but I don't know how they would do that after what might be 25-30 years. Drop hints of Tracy's death perhaps. There's an irony to continuing the first timeline because it comes with all that 'baggage', yet back in 2002 no one would've called it that. The best way forward imo is by creating a third and perhaps everlasting timeline. Who says it can't be better than what's come before?

Haven't seen it yet & I usually DO NOT mind spoilers but GOD DAMN IT I HATE THIS ONE! 😭😭😭😭😭🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

@mechajutaro said:

Craig and Seydoux are the highlights and in part because I finally see their chemistry, which was not apparent from SPECTRE.

Racism rears it's head once again. You've fawned over the two white stars, while completely overlooking the actress of color who was brought on, for the express purpose of reminding us how woke Tinseltown was compared to the 2000s. You have no grasp of the suffering her ancestors endured, while in chains on a sugar plantation back in the 1800s

Quit being a plonker! 🙄

it is a shame these boards don't attract the same volume or range of contributions though.

I thought the ending of Bond was fair, and they gave themselves the get out for the future of the franchise with the repetition of 'it's just a number' and the fact the number was redesignated and then reassigned, showing 007 can be more or less anyone. It is hard to see how they'll reintroduce someone else with the same name though! Unless that's assigned too? I'd imagine they just start a new storyline with new Bond, acting like Craig's films never happened. Tbh, I think that's kinda fine at this point. New Bond, new bond storyline.

Can someone explain the vial of blood and the significance of it being in that water?

Watched No Time To Die a second time and not only does it hold up but it actually gets better.

@silverhawkins said:

it is a shame these boards don't attract the same volume or range of contributions though.

I thought the ending of Bond was fair, and they gave themselves the get out for the future of the franchise with the repetition of 'it's just a number' and the fact the number was redesignated and then reassigned, showing 007 can be more or less anyone. It is hard to see how they'll reintroduce someone else with the same name though! Unless that's assigned too? I'd imagine they just start a new storyline with new Bond, acting like Craig's films never happened. Tbh, I think that's kinda fine at this point. New Bond, new bond storyline.

They will start a new storyline but I don't see why they would need to act like it never happened. It did but it's in a separate arc so it wouldn't make sense to mention it in the next set of films. They weren't going to continue with his 'universe' even if he had lived. If we're lucky they'll keep the MI6 actors like how Judi Dench was between DAD and CR.

@thaira said:

Can someone explain the vial of blood and the significance of it being in that water?

I think Safin made the red vial poison from a strand of Madeleine's hair he picked up at her clinic during his visit. That's how he got her DNA and then programmed the nanobots inside of it to target her when making contact. So it has the ability to kill her and Mathilde since they share the same DNA (this wider reach of the weapon to not just target the one victim was Obruchev's creation). Safin scrapes it against Bond's face during their fight which causes the nanobots to go inside of his bloodstream, making him the weapon if he comes near Madeleine/Mathilde. The water they fight in doesn't have anything to do with the vial being transmitted to Bond. That's just where they happened to be.

@Damienracer said:

@silverhawkins said:

it is a shame these boards don't attract the same volume or range of contributions though.

I thought the ending of Bond was fair, and they gave themselves the get out for the future of the franchise with the repetition of 'it's just a number' and the fact the number was redesignated and then reassigned, showing 007 can be more or less anyone. It is hard to see how they'll reintroduce someone else with the same name though! Unless that's assigned too? I'd imagine they just start a new storyline with new Bond, acting like Craig's films never happened. Tbh, I think that's kinda fine at this point. New Bond, new bond storyline.

Bond has been around for 60 years what part of James Bond is not an assigned name and is his real name are you people struggling with? Jesus Christ! No, it's not assigned too only the 007 number is. I don't want this conversation again.

Why do you always have to be an asshole? Also, if you don't like the conversation don't participate!

@Damienracer said:

@bratface said:

@Damienracer said:

@silverhawkins said:

it is a shame these boards don't attract the same volume or range of contributions though.

I thought the ending of Bond was fair, and they gave themselves the get out for the future of the franchise with the repetition of 'it's just a number' and the fact the number was redesignated and then reassigned, showing 007 can be more or less anyone. It is hard to see how they'll reintroduce someone else with the same name though! Unless that's assigned too? I'd imagine they just start a new storyline with new Bond, acting like Craig's films never happened. Tbh, I think that's kinda fine at this point. New Bond, new bond storyline.

Bond has been around for 60 years what part of James Bond is not an assigned name and is his real name are you people struggling with? Jesus Christ! No, it's not assigned too only the 007 number is. I don't want this conversation again.

Why do you always have to be an asshole? Also, if you don't like the conversation don't participate!

If you don't like blunt honesty don't participate. How many times do I have read through obtuse Bond name gossip? Stop being a twat, Brat.

Seems to me that you are the twat. You are the one complaining, so take your own advice & don't participate!

@Russ007 said:

I saw the film opening day at 7 minutes past midnight and I was definitely kept wide awake throughout.

That's not to say I absolutely loved the film but the pacing and story was good enough to keep me entertained and wondering where it was going to take me next. The acting in this film is fantastic. Craig and Seydoux are the highlights and in part because I finally see their chemistry, which was not apparent from SPECTRE. This is one of the biggest positives of the film and it retroactively improves the quality of the former entry. Taking time at the start to show them in their honeymoon phase as a couple was very important and I enjoyed the scene where they eventually reunite once again. And speaking of that scene can I just say that the children in this film are actually good actors? Crazy I know, but they're a part of the film the same as anyone else.

Safin was a let down if I'm honest. Malek is a great actor but I didn't find the role to be that deep. It's underwritten. His personal backstory is cool and I like how it connects to Swann and the events mentioned in SPECTRE, but his evil scheme is paper thin. I don't quite get his motivations either. Did he want to kill SPECTRE or was that Blofeld? No idea. Also, why did Safin describe himself to be a passionate man when he acts so dispassionately? It's just weird.

I don't like how Fiennes' M berates Bond once again. Can't the writers allow these two characters to be on the same side for one second? It's overplayed at this point. Although it did give way to one of my favorite lines of the film: "Sir, you must be really thirsty."

Anyways, let me talk about the ending. It's still hard to believe that James Bond is dead. Like no ambiguity dead. I didn't want to believe it until the explosions passed his body. Up until that point I thought a bit of Deus Ex Machina would happen, despite his poisoned blood. I get that his entire arc as Bond is meant to be tragic and he was always a tortured, doomed individual but it still hits hard. To think that the man in Casino Royale is now dead is just depressing. With every new film Bond is rumored to die and I never thought I would care if he did, but I was proven wrong. It hit me hard and I teared up in the cinema, at home afterwards and the day after. A hero, an icon is canonically dead. And he won't be 'alive' to save the world until the next actor takes on the role in 6 year's time.

Although I guess I can take solace in the fact that through his self-motivated sacrifice, which is ultimately what it was, he was able to save a woman he loved for the first and only time. Something he failed to do with Vesper in Casino Royale and M in Skyfall. He wanted Madeleine to live but could only do that by staying away from her. However, he knew this was impossible as his love was too strong and therefore at that point he had no more reason to live. It's also obvious that Bond couldn't live a life away from his profession. We saw this in CR and SF. He can't help himself from returning. There's something inside of him that refuses to watch the world burn and he'd rather die trying to stop it than sit back - no matter how peaceful (read: boring) life in Italy, Turkey or Jamaica is. I think this character trait is essential to what makes Bond tick and is best exemplified in M's quote at the end of the film about a man who chose to live life to the fullest instead of prolonging it needlessly.

So, what did everyone else think of the film?

Good Bond film.

@bratface said:

@Damienracer said:

@silverhawkins said:

it is a shame these boards don't attract the same volume or range of contributions though.

I thought the ending of Bond was fair, and they gave themselves the get out for the future of the franchise with the repetition of 'it's just a number' and the fact the number was redesignated and then reassigned, showing 007 can be more or less anyone. It is hard to see how they'll reintroduce someone else with the same name though! Unless that's assigned too? I'd imagine they just start a new storyline with new Bond, acting like Craig's films never happened. Tbh, I think that's kinda fine at this point. New Bond, new bond storyline.

Bond has been around for 60 years what part of James Bond is not an assigned name and is his real name are you people struggling with? Jesus Christ! No, it's not assigned too only the 007 number is. I don't want this conversation again.

Why do you always have to be an asshole? Also, if you don't like the conversation don't participate!

YES .

It very much is his REAL name. The only way forward for Eon Productions now would be -{ say }- to release their 26th 'James Bond Themed' cinematic offering and call it something -{ LIKE }- , ahem ;) ! . . . . . MADELEINE SWANN 007 | " RED DAWN : RESURRECTION " .

( You get the idea ) .

@Russ007 said:

@thaira said:

Can someone explain the vial of blood and the significance of it being in that water?

I think Safin made the red vial poison from a strand of Madeleine's hair he picked up at her clinic during his visit. That's how he got her DNA and then programmed the nanobots inside of it to target her when making contact. So it has the ability to kill her and Mathilde since they share the same DNA (this wider reach of the weapon to not just target the one victim was Obruchev's creation). Safin scrapes it against Bond's face during their fight which causes the nanobots to go inside of his bloodstream, making him the weapon if he comes near Madeleine/Mathilde. The water they fight in doesn't have anything to do with the vial being transmitted to Bond. That's just where they happened to be.

Thank you. I mistook it as being a vial of blood and nothing else inside. :)

@Damienracer said:

Bond has been around for 60 years what part of James Bond is not an assigned name and is his real name are you people struggling with? Jesus Christ! No, it's not assigned too only the 007 number is.

I realize I'm jumping in the middle of a conversation, but I have to agree. The "James Bond is a name assigned to an agent" theory doesn't hold water. Bond was widowed in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and this fact is referenced in subsequent Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton Bond films.

Up until perhaps the Craig films we are meant to suspend our disbelief and assume these movies all take place in a kind of loose continuity even though that's impossible. When they do make a new Bond I will be more than happy to have this one discounted and start anew, preferably with Henry Cavill and going back to the fun Bond where he's smooth and suave and saving the world with a smile on his face in a pristine tux and ends with him in the arms of a beautiful woman. That's the version of the character I've been missing the last 15 years while admitting Casino Royale and Skyfall were good films, I just think it's time to go back to basics and scrap any more continuity based Bond films.

I think it´s one of the greatest Bonds ever and the boldest for sure! I think the producers won´t have the creative courage to do it again, but this ranks almost tied with Casino Royale and Skyfall. Loved it, though I deeply respect those who didn´t.

@LisbethBond said:

I think it´s one of the greatest Bonds ever and the boldest for sure! I think the producers won´t have the creative courage to do it again, but this ranks almost tied with Casino Royale and Skyfall. Loved it, though I deeply respect those who didn´t.

Granted I haven't watched the movie (I probably will eventually for free), and I understand that you liked it and I respect that, but why is it bold? Because they killed him? Showing a baby getting its head blown off would be bold, but no one wants to see that. Maybe if they'd done this in a time when it wasn't fashionable to kill off popular male heroes I'd be more inclined to accept it, but no. We know they're going to make more Bond movies, except now they'll have to retcon, explain away, or simply ignore this outcome, which makes it moot.

This movie is essentially New Coke, an attempt to mess with the formula everyone loved just to have to go back to the original formula after enough money is lost and customer disapproval reaches a fever pitch.