When they reboot, I think they should take it back to the 60’s and make it a period spy thriller. That would solve the “spies are outdated” and computers can do everything motif they’ve been dealing with for 3 films now. Plus it would distinguish it from Craig’s era as well as other modern spy franchises like Mission Impossible
@fussballgeniesser2 жыл бұрын
I think that's what there going to do considering it ends with Lea Seydoux starting to tell a story about James Bond to her daughter
@alexhuddleston39502 жыл бұрын
I think that's what Tarantino said he would do if he ever got to do one
@jim5862 жыл бұрын
Hasn’t that already been done? Austen Powers?
@StefanTravis2 жыл бұрын
It's a very interesting idea, but I don't for a moment think they'll do it. Old Bond movies now are retro, but the attraction of any Bond film on release is in it's futuristic gadgets and supervillains with impossibly techno-lairs.
@DJEdSaunders2 жыл бұрын
Completely agree. But I’d go further. Put in the 50’s to Fleming’s world. Make it a period piece like tinker tailor
@rickywinterborn10042 жыл бұрын
I don’t see any need to impose a “timeline” or set of rules upon Bond. He died in this one and he’ll come back in the next one played by a new actor. Pointless exercise trying to attach logic to 25 films spanning decades, just enjoy it!
@joeogle77292 жыл бұрын
Yeah. Although if they do to continue with this storyline, I hope they buy the writers and marketers MANY strong six packs of laga
@bloat12352 жыл бұрын
Exactly, we've had like 6 Bonds now, has Bond remained a middle aged man for 65 years? Probably not. So if one iteration of his character dies, I don't see how it effects anything. I mean, he's even faced off different versions of Blofeld.
@NFawc2 жыл бұрын
Because that wasn't what the character is about. He always somehow cones good and survives. But, after 60yrs THESE writers believe they have the right to pi$$ that legacy up the wall. There was a far more intelligent and uplifting ending where Bond survived in this film...
@lukejack58372 жыл бұрын
Amen
@strikerbowls7912 жыл бұрын
He didn’t die...
@callumbarrington8982 жыл бұрын
Bond has been around for fifty nine years. Each time an actor takes the part, the character is essentially rebooted. His age is changed, his background is changed, but he remains the same man. So the ending of this movie is a clean slate for the next actor to take over, separate from the Daniel Craig era, which existed in its own timeline, whilst still remaining within the original continuity. The next Bond could be a Cold War period piece, reverting to the original Fleming outline.
@Hero_Of_Old2 жыл бұрын
This
@ukevo2 жыл бұрын
@@womble1981 And Roger Moore's Bond and Timothy Dalton's Bond go and visit the grave of his late wife. There are tons of callbacks to previous eras. Even Craig's Bond owning the Aston Martin's from Goldfinger and Living Daylights, despite him in theory being a complete reboot. The series sits in a weird dead-zone where there is and isn't continuity between the different actors. I don't think it's right for people to come out with sweeping statements about how they're all different characters being played by different actors when the evidence on screen contradicts that.
@kadiummusic2 жыл бұрын
There is a reason the others didn't die and that reason has nothing to do with the betterment of the Bond journey. I has do to do with ego.
@humphreybradley30602 жыл бұрын
I agree with Mark, the Craig era Bond films are a separate series within the franchise & can start again with a new Bond. Looking forward to seeing where they take it, but Craig was MY Bond & it won’t be the same
@BlinkyBM2 жыл бұрын
"James Bond isn't fantasy" is utter, utter nonsense.
@KeithFraser822 жыл бұрын
I take Mark's side in the "Bond is about as fantastical as Batman" debate; the nanomachines in No Time To Die are at least as sci-fi as anything in at the very least the Nolan Batman movies, as is the "smart blood" and some of the stuff from older Bond movies like the space warfare in Moonraker and the space death rays from Diamonds Are Forever and Die Another Day. (Some versions of Batman obviously interact with characters who are more overtly "fantasy" rather than "soft sci-fi", like Superman, Wonder Woman, Poison Ivy etc.)
@sorel73422 жыл бұрын
I agree. Plus I don’t see Batman as 100% ‘fantasy’ as his only “superpower” is being really rich. That’s not the same level of fantasy as like superman who is an alien that flies. Obviously he’s fictional but not fully fantastical
@distant_planet77802 жыл бұрын
Did you notice that the symbols Q uses to track Bond and 007 in the final sequence are psi and phi? :)
@KrillLiberator2 жыл бұрын
@@ashroskell That would be a beautiful thing. The fun you can have with an alternative Cold War when you know the real one's outcome is just glorious. Plus I've already seen the argument threads where the anti-woke brigade are getting angry about the 'woke retconned 60s' which they literally only imagined in their heads - and actually getting angry at the real world for it. I really wanna see a product which annoys them for its decency.
@gregstephens2 жыл бұрын
Totally agree. Bond is just as fantastical as Batman.
@chacecrowell2 жыл бұрын
Honestly the Moonraker plot was more believable to me for some reason
@lennydaiglejr30942 жыл бұрын
Confusion? How difficult is it to grasp that a completely new cinematic incarnation of a literary character is possible?
@michaelantonyaustin2 жыл бұрын
The best thing about the Daniel Craig run is that it feels like a complete and natural story arc for his version of the character.
@DHTCF2 жыл бұрын
Gonna disagree with that. It was an interesting idea, but I think the ending of NTTD has shown the flaw in the idea. Better to have free-standing films.
@kadiummusic2 жыл бұрын
It suited Craig's ego and HIS legacy. Period.
@hat89182 жыл бұрын
Casino Royale was almost a word for word adaptation of the first Bond novel. It was weird that people attributed that film, as some kind of new-interpretation of the character. It was even weirder when the Bond writers believed their own praise, and wrote this weird fan-fiction. Fun but overly pretentious film, in which the aspirations to redefine the character, overshadowed what made Casino Royale so good in the first place... I know more about Bond's childhood trauma than I do the villain's plot.
@andrewevansmusic32222 жыл бұрын
The other big revelation for me was that the repeated delays were clearly not just because they felt it might be a bit busy at the premier or that Bond belongs on the big screen (though these things are both true), it's that the entire plot essentially revolves around a global pandemic in which you can't come into contact with people!
@TravisTLCdrumming2 жыл бұрын
I think they changed the weapon based on this too. A villain who’s whole gimmick is based on organic plants uses unexplainable nanobots?? What was the garden for then?? It seems clear to me that was entirely changed, and could explain a lot of why Safin is missing so much. Perhaps what was cut was him explaining the original virus thus it all has to go? Perhaps we’ll never know.
@peema102 жыл бұрын
The setup in Casino Royale made it pretty clear that this was a new timeline. The only continuity was using Judy Dench and that could be written off as the same actor in a separate iteration of the role.
@LabradorIndependent2 жыл бұрын
That's because in Skyfall Bond is a little past his prime. It's still in the Casino Royale timeline. The painting in No Time To Die was a really nice homage, since those paintings were clearly past M's. It's not supposed to indicate continuity.
@cookieface802 жыл бұрын
The two Ms she plays have different real names. Barbara Mawdsley in Goldeneye - Die Another Day and Olivia Mansfield in Casino Royale - Skyfall.
@chacecrowell2 жыл бұрын
@@cookieface80 you know those spies and their codenames
@ukevo2 жыл бұрын
He does own the Aston Martin's from Goldfinger and Living Daylights though...I think the studio have kind of gotten muddled between their desire for a fresh start and their desire to hark back to previous eras. I've enjoyed the Craig films very much nonetheless, but I think they've put themselves in a very tricky position now
@TravisTLCdrumming2 жыл бұрын
@@cookieface80 absolutely correct. Two different characters. Same actor.
@harryallsopp91362 жыл бұрын
For me, the stinger answers more questions than it raises. Had the Broccolis had any intention of continuing with the Nomi character or the daughter as I've heard people leaving the theatre saying, the credits would have read "007 will return." The explicit use of his name expells any rumours as to the future of the franchise. New actor, new direction.
@Matt.Pattinson2 жыл бұрын
I thought it was quite apparent that the Daniel Craig films were in their own universe and not part of an ongoing continuity starting from Doctor No.Both Connery and Lazenby went up against Spectre and Blofeld in their films but Craig meets organisation for the first time in his 3rd movie and suddenly has a personal connection to Blofeld that was never part of the earlier movies.
@nweston992 жыл бұрын
They are. 100%. It doesn't help though, that Judi Dench played two different Ms
@laRoz672 жыл бұрын
@@nweston99 ...Or that they brought the Goldfinger DB5 back in Skyfall. Grrr... You can suspend disbelief but not defy logic.
@LabradorIndependent2 жыл бұрын
@@laRoz67 I think we're left to assume that the DB5 was MI6 gear from the 1960s, even in the Craig timeline. It's just that there wasn't a person named James Bond actually around in those days. I think it's actually a great way to bring back tech from the older films while staying true to the new continuity.
@oskaretc2 жыл бұрын
Some BBC employees have reported they can still hear Simon and Mark yelling "no, he can't", "yes, he can" a full month later.
@sonicgoo11212 жыл бұрын
What struck me was that for such a long film a lot of characters felt underwritten. Lashana Lynch barely had anything to do and what was there felt like it came out of nowhere, like most of her part was cut. Léa Seydoux has a lot of story, but all in service of the overarching plot and barely any character. The only exception is Ana de Armas, who got a nice reveal and some clever action in the five minutes she was there. Whichever member of the committee wrote that part should get to do an entire film.
@LabradorIndependent2 жыл бұрын
@@ringbearer1420 The Cuba section was outstanding - as I think was the first act in Italy. We're probably going to see the entire franchise get rebooted in a few years, but I'd love to see a film set in this continuity with a few returning characters.
@cookieface802 жыл бұрын
@@ringbearer1420 Ana De Armas was the best part though.
@v4vendetta6592 жыл бұрын
Craig is quoted as saying: “When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara [Broccolli] and Michael [G. Wilson] was that I would like to be killed off when I am finished.” This bombshell would mean Bond’s death in No Time To Die’s ending was planned by the star as far back as 2005 when he was first cast as 007 in Casino Royale.
@videogamenostalgia2 жыл бұрын
Kermode's take on the Bond continuity is spot on. The Craig movies have a clear arc, and his version of Bond's story has a very definitive end. The canon has always been 'soft', so they'd be totally justified carrying on with a new James Bond as if the death never happened.
@timothyw982 жыл бұрын
It was defantly a reboot after Moore because Felix was alive in License to Kill when he was killed in Live and Let Die. Kermode could be right in saying that Connery, Lazenby and Moore are the same time. Remember Moore was seen putting flowers by Tracies grave in For Your Eyes Only.
@FroMarty2 жыл бұрын
@@timothyw98 Felix wasn’t killed in live and let die. They even cast the same Felix actor in LTK as LALD to foster a sense of continuity
@philcorrigan56412 жыл бұрын
It’s weird how Simon is really struggling with the simple concept of a reboot here, saying they can’t restart the franchise with a new Bond because the character has been killed off. A reboot literally means starting again and ignoring all previous continuity. Why is that so hard to grasp??
@timothyw982 жыл бұрын
@@FroMarty My bad, forgot about him still being alive in LALD
@kalsolarUK2 жыл бұрын
@@timothyw98 Felix Leiter was not killed in Live and let die
@kingofthesharks2 жыл бұрын
I found it kinda poetic that NTTD had elements of MGS1 thru MGS4, a franchise that in turn had paid many tributes to Bond (especially in MGS3) over the years. From Foxdie=Heracles to Otacon/Q on Codec guiding us thru the base. I think Kojima should be grinning about now.
@v01c32 жыл бұрын
Yep, thought the same thing once Blofeld died. Wonder if there’ll be more video game references like that
@KeithFraser822 жыл бұрын
"Bond?! BOND!"
@ricardogainda9182 жыл бұрын
We even had nanobots/nanomachines and an emotional ladder climb !
@rayespidol19962 жыл бұрын
I thought I was the only one who thought that! Hahaha
@Johnny-ux7yi2 жыл бұрын
the only thing missing is Q on Codec after Bond dies saying "Bond? Respond. Bond?! BOND!!!".
@georgesdelatour2 жыл бұрын
NT2D is, for the most part, a well-made film. But, for me, it doesn’t really feel like a Bond film. It’s both spectacular, and not a lot of fun. I left the cinema feeling more like I did after watching Seven than I did after watching Raiders of the Lost Ark. All of the Daniel Craig Bond films have adopted a darker tone than the Connery, Moore or Brosnan films, and have often concluded with the death of a loved character: Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale, M in Skyfall, and now Bond himself in NT2D. The model - made very explicit in NT2D - is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, the Bond film which has undergone the most extreme revaluation of just about any film ever. For many years OHMSS was considered the worst Bond film, and today it’s often considered the best. As far as I remember, it’s the only pre-Craig Bond film to end tragically. The problem is, NT2D’s determination to deliver a valediction - in which not just Bond, but Felix Leiter, Blofeld and the whole of Spectre are dispatched - means that Bond doesn’t get to enjoy any temporary moment of triumph across two and a half hours. Hence my Seven comparison. Every Bond film features Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, plus a heroine, a baddie and a novelty henchman. Given this film’s determination to feature the deaths of Leiter, Blofeld and the whole of Spectre, and to wrap up Bond’s romance to Madeleine Swan, this film was always going to be choc-full of characters. But the script adds several extra on top of that. Some of them should have been cut. The most glaring problem with this character profusion is that we don’t get anything like enough screen time with the excellent Rami Malek to really establish him as Bond’s antagonist, Safin. I think it would have been better to have merged Safin’s character with the Russian scientist Obruchev, and even with the double agent Ash. Have Safin/Obruchev appear to be a bumbling minion who turns out to be an evil mastermind. Safin, rather than the nondescript Ash, could then kill Felix Leiter, making his death seem to matter more to the story.
@matthewwells16062 жыл бұрын
I've always liked the theory that "James Bond" is just an alias assigned to an agent, and that any MI-6 schmuck can be "James Bond." They are all Bond. None of them are Bond.
@jameshegarty10972 жыл бұрын
I can’t believe Simon is so stuck on Bond dying and then coming back in a reboot.
@anthonyweston6302 жыл бұрын
It’s tedious
@alaninsoflo2 жыл бұрын
@@anthonyweston630 And yet still correct.
@bazh60412 жыл бұрын
Yet no one mentioning that Felix Lighter already died once before.
@kirk17012 жыл бұрын
@@bazh6041 Which movie? In _License to Kill_ he was mortally wounded, not killed.
@slavatoin82732 жыл бұрын
@@kirk1701 being mortally wounded means that you die from your injuries.
@oliversmith7972 жыл бұрын
There's a nod in the final scene as to how they can bring him back without breaking continuity. Madeleine's final line "Let me tell you a story about a man called James Bond" sets up a new set of James Bond stories -- all the stories Madeleine is telling her daughter. They can still star Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris and Ben Whishaw if they want. Bond always dies on that Island, but there are many more stories to tell.
@bencoat1242 жыл бұрын
Hi Oliver - you and Jack Fitzgerald should get working on that screenplay immediately :- )
@mgytitanic19122 жыл бұрын
Do you know, that would work extremely well.
@theagg2 жыл бұрын
Yep, you could even go further and spin all the prior Bond movies, from Connery to Brosnan, into the Daniel Craig world, as stories about the 'real man' but with a fictional twist, that Madeline tells to their daughter as she grows up. I'd be perfectly happy with that..
@johnshields36582 жыл бұрын
The moment the song started in the opening scene, my wife and I turned to each other said "Uh oh". The referential bits of Bond, which I've always liked, were particularly good in this outing
@yosolo57972 жыл бұрын
There were rumours that Danny Boyle walked away from the project over the plan to kill Bond, but I thought that was just Internet mutterings....now it seems like that was probably accurate
@mauromatos31242 жыл бұрын
Daniel Graig and Tim Dalton are my two favourites. The darkness of their Bond almost belongs in a different franchise.
@saxbend2 жыл бұрын
Bond films are stories that can happen in any order. Bond undertakes each mission with simultaneously the memories of all of his other adventures and none of them. We weren't bothered about seeing Felix Leiter fully able bodied in films made after Licence to Kill. Similarly we needn't concern ourselves about Bond being alive in subsequent films. It's the same man and also not. It's a future Bond and also a past Bond. None of that is important. All that matters is that it's James Bond in a form that is both fresh and familiar at the same time.
@MidlandSkies2 жыл бұрын
Just the fact that the actors change is enough for me to accept that these are different timelines/cinematic universes/canons. It's like all the different reimaginings of Sherlock Holmes, they're distinct. So personally I loved NTTD, and that Craig's time as Bond felt like a complete arc (whereas we only saw snippets of the others).
@iangriffiths57252 жыл бұрын
I agree with Mark that there is no continuity in Bond. It always makes me chuckle how people get their knickers in a twist over the time-line in Bond, when it seems obvious to me that the series has always been rebooted with each new lead-actor. After all, Daniel Craig never married the countess, Roger Moore never saw Felix get his legs bitten off by a shark on his wedding day, and we never saw Sean Connery earn his double-oh status - these are all obviously completely different interpretations of the character and I'm fine with that. The Daniel Craig era stands as an arc in it's own right, and you can decide if like it or not without it affecting your opinion of the other films, or any that may come in the future. Personally, I mostly liked them, and I admire them having the guts to kill Bond, although I still hate the idea of Blofeld being Bond's step-brother. By way of comparison, nobody ever had to explain to me that Adam West's Batman was a different take to Christian Bale's. I managed to work that out all by myself. Oh, and while we're on the subject, John Boorman's "Excalibur" isn't a sequel to "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (no matter how much I wish it was ;) )
@GetterRay2 жыл бұрын
But multiple actors visited the same grave for the same wife. There was continuity in Bond up until the reboot, and then we got into a new continuity and we'll go into a third one with a new actor. Mark didn't say there was no continuity in Bond, he said that there was continuity, up to a point.
@rossybw2 жыл бұрын
@@GetterRay I feel like there are set events in the canonical Bond’s life. He gets married, his wife dies. He drives an Aston Martin. He is a commander in the Royal Navy. He is friends with Felix from the CIA. He likes his Vodka Martini, shaken not stirred. Recast, reboot, whatever - these are elements that have probably happened (or will happen) to any Bond. A limited amount of continuity that assists with character building. The rest of the story can vary. Peter Parker’s uncle Ben dies. Batman’s parents are killed outside a theatre - and I’m sure that there are non-fantasy equivalents of this.
@ahlads2 жыл бұрын
The film has major flaws: Bonds death Bonds death via cheap CGI missile strike. Bond killing Blofeld - sudden rage and choking him in order to move plot forward (needs to touch him in order for virus to work) Range Rover/forest chase scene - basically one big advertisement for Range Rover because they were dispatched way too easily. Main villain seemed to have no motive and his utterings made zero sense. Spectre dispatched in 10 seconds after many films as the all knowing all seeing crime organisation that could never be destroyed. Opening set the scene for major villain turned out to be one of the worst Bond villains. All in all the it had some good set pieces but the film is not really to the standard of Casino Royale or Skyfall. I found Spectre to be a better film. I would say it's just above QoS in terms of ranking Craigs output.
@KeithFraser822 жыл бұрын
I'm on board for blue-haired future Mathilde as cyberpunk Jane Bond 2049.
@luke-alex2 жыл бұрын
I thought it was widely suspected that he died, given the name of the movie and that it was Craig's last Bond (and his first Bond is an origin story, so it sort of made sense). Also, I totally agree with Kermode about the We Have All the Time in the World soundtrack thing. When I heard it being used near the start of the movie, it *did* signal to me that something tragic was going to happen, but not necessarily what (it made me more prepared for and accepting of Bond dying at the end).
@nicktalksbond2 жыл бұрын
Try to discuss Bond timelines and continuity. Ha! Have fun! Its makes no sense. And it doesnt need to. The series’ dalliance with it has been flawed at best, you can look at five dozen examples of contradictory things within the series, and ultimately who really cares. Anyhoo, looking forward to a new Bond, in a new rebooted series, and for it to go back to “the old ways”.
@paulpatterson35142 жыл бұрын
It's a good Die Hard/generic action film. It's not a good James Bond film . .
@MartinhoRamos19902 жыл бұрын
I struggle to get if Simon is playing a character or if he's just dumb.
@ericcoyle35202 жыл бұрын
Do Bond set in the 60s. This would allow a complete re boot or change the whole cast.
@DeadManVlog2 жыл бұрын
****Spoiler Comment**** To answer the person who wrote in at 9.30 ish - Craig's Bond *did* die undefeated. Sacrifice. The only way to be victorious, as long as you accept that you must die in exchange. I kinda think Craig's Bond had to end this way, it would have ultimately been less as a whole, if he didn't die at the end of the fifth film. Bond is an example of a pure hero archetype. In all the other films he's close to death, but then ends up winning in resounding fashion by the end. A pure example of the Hero archetype: either they willingly sacrifice themself and are then resurrected (Harry Potter in the second movie (technically) and the last film (actually.) Or they sacrifice themselves so that the threat from the great evil can be vanquished decisively. Also, Bond dying in this film was Daniel Craig's idea, as was the plot itself I believe. I didn't want Bond to die. But in a real enough to life film (just about) this is one hero who couldn't rise again, like a phoenix from the flames. As he gets to do that in one way as it is, and we all know very well that you can't have anything both ways.
@RC-uy8lb2 жыл бұрын
Mark is spot on. They need an entirely new cast to make the reboot work. Personally I hope Nolan does an origins story with George MacKay as a much younger Bond in training.
@progressivedemagogue84802 жыл бұрын
Exactly I’ve thought MacKay and obviously the Nolan theory is about. Young Bond in the 60s, perhaps pre 00
@Fed8042 жыл бұрын
The only thing I would say is that Bond (especially with Craig’s Bond) has to be sensual. One thing I really love (among many) is how sensual and sexy NTTD was. I feel that has to be continued. I like Nolan Films but they really aren’t that for me.
@videogamenostalgia2 жыл бұрын
Bond movies reflect the attitudes and anxieties and technologies of the time. The fact that they each carry very specific quirks of their decade is charming. A period piece or an origin story would be a very creatively lazy approach.
@vickster50012 жыл бұрын
He’s high on my Bond list too. Saw Munich: Edge of War at the London film festival and he gets better and better. Totally a rising star.
@Dohsoda2 жыл бұрын
James Bond isn't fantasy? Hello people, Roger Moore had a laser gun🔫 battle in outer space 🌌🚀.
@scaryjeff2 жыл бұрын
Having fantastical elements doesn't put a film in the 'fantasy' genre.
@NFawc2 жыл бұрын
For 60yrs and 24 films the writers passed Bond and the canon on. THESE writers decided THEY get to kill Bond off in a cheap lazy emotional grabbing bit of writing. Frankly arrogant as well as lazy!
@CraigCairney832 жыл бұрын
In a period where the world has been shit for some time, I needed some escapism and boom! They kill off James Bond. What an absolute gut punch!!
@keithcashin58222 жыл бұрын
That’s exactly the way I felt
@Glasstable20112 жыл бұрын
However, they wrote and filmed this prior to the pandemic. It would likely have been a very different plot if the film was made post-Covid but the fact is it was literally ready to go… and then the world shut down. I never thought a Bond film would make me cry but I welled up at the end, which was beautifully executed (no pun intended)
@Flynn942 жыл бұрын
“He will be the Bobby Ewing of detectives” 😂😂😂
@edc78802 жыл бұрын
I find the killing off of Bond in NTTD very self indulgent. It's like Daniel Craig has climbed the Bond ladder and then pulled it up behind him! Booooo. PS I still enjoyed the film
@razzle19642 жыл бұрын
'James Bond will return' ... as a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle.
@marioavossa2 жыл бұрын
There is a *sort of* precident with this kind of thing. OK, not in the same realm but pretty close and that was with Star Trek. They kill off Kirk in the tatfest that is Star Trek:Generations and then reboot the original with an entire new cast but with a definitive nod to the past. Maybe thats what they are going to do with it. But we shall see. I do agree with Mark that none of the current cast can be in future Bonds if it is a full reboot and not the usual soft reboots.
@matthewvernon37742 жыл бұрын
I love that Mark and Simon embody both sides of the No Time To Die debate here. I'm firmly on Mark's side of the discussion and struggle to see how people would see it differently but then there's Simon, eloquently arguing his point and I can at least see and respect his irritation and confusion, even if I still think he's mistaken in some ways.
@kingofthesharks2 жыл бұрын
I kinda prefer each Bond actor + MI6 cast to be in their own separate, enclosed continuity. My only issue is if takes several years between films that we forget what happened in the preceding film. I found myself wishing I watched a Craig-era recap before viewing NTTD as I kinda forgot some elements/relations. Craig's tenure was longer than RDJ as Iron Man. That's a lot to keep up with, especially if it isn't an annual TV show that keeps our memories up to date each year.
@rickjay38052 жыл бұрын
When they killed off Bond, they killed off my interest in any future Bond films. They could have rebooted without Bonds death like they have in the past. This stupid idea will cost them a lot of money.
@charliebryer28022 жыл бұрын
Simon’s argument that if Bond can die & be replaced there’s no jeopardy is cancelled out by his opinion that Bond cannot die. If Bond CAN die, surely this actually adds a jeopardy that has been missing from the franchise, as we always previously knew that despite all the danger and whatever situation he found himself in- he absolutely wouldn’t die.
@AlexCameron-Depiqd2 жыл бұрын
Totally agree with Mark on this one. The only way forward now is a new James Bond, a new narrative take on the character with new supporting cast. Still James Bond, still 007 but a new story.
@jjlfitzgerald2 жыл бұрын
In the final scene of the film Madeleine says to Mathilde words to the effect of “let me tell you about a man, a man called James”. Am I alone in thinking this sets up all future bond films as tales written by Mathilde about her dad, based on memories from her mum and other people who knew him? Same character, different stories, no need for same actor - as narrator / curator she’s a small child who barely met Craig, leaving it open to interpretation. So it’s both a continuation, and…not. Which is exactly what the series plays on throughout.
@neilslater11822 жыл бұрын
Yeah that was definitely my take on it. It also allows the Craig films to function as a prequel, and then everything Dr No onward can be retrospectively be seen as 'stories' told about him.
@chacecrowell2 жыл бұрын
Also could be a prologue stuck at the end and Craig's movies were her stories learned through her time at MI6
@Waiskimys2 жыл бұрын
Taking things a bit too literally. It's just there to add to the tone of these being remarkable stories of action and espionage, not so much as a literal "this is how we are going to explain the literal, surface-level story".
@bosyber2 жыл бұрын
@@Waiskimys It doesn't need to be literal for it to be quite a valid and useful take. If you take it that way, minor inconsistencies (or even bigger ones) are just 'storytelling' (personally, that's how I've decided to deal with both Star Trek 'continuity' as well as Star Wars multiple re-canonising efforts and movies 'timeline' for example - quite liberating really).
@dandan842 жыл бұрын
My first thought was that future Bond would be Mathilde Bond - his daughter grown up as the new loose canon spy, but female this time.
@robinstanley8562 жыл бұрын
I think you have to view the 25 yr group of work in a different way. Each film had a specific goal for its time in artistic & commercial context. Having said that, love this discussion. I’m a Sherlock Holmes fan, welcome to our world.
@elocrellim2 жыл бұрын
"Bond isn't fantasy" is an egregious statement. At their best, Bond films can be grounded cold war noir thrillers like From Russia with Love, Licence to Kill, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale. But thats like four of 25 films. Has this man never seen a Roger Moore film? It's complete fantasy. The majority of the franchise are fantasy films, many of them being farces or parodies of the films before them.
@dash11412 жыл бұрын
Yeah… there are some really bad James Bond movie s
@ManCave19722 жыл бұрын
Well, I was disappointed to be honest. The film was too long, a bit confused and to do that at the end just made me feel like WTF. When it ended I felt a compelling need to watch a Roger Moore one, probably Spy Who Loved Me.
@deejaytee2 жыл бұрын
Mark's story about the Mouse Trap reminds me of when I walked out of the first LOTR movie and (not knowing anything about LOTR beforehand) was like "I can't believe they killed Gandalf!"
@all1nerd3772 жыл бұрын
Thematically it would have been more powerful if Bond and Blofeld had killed each other in the end!
@tropicalcatdetective2 жыл бұрын
Just like Sherlock and Moriarty going over the Reichenbach Falls together.
@katywain86422 жыл бұрын
I couldn't agree more with Mark about the mouthed family bit. It made me simultaneously laugh and well-up. A simple and beautiful line, perfectly delivered.
@MRWilliamson5962 жыл бұрын
I can accept that Batman is only as much a fantasy as Bond, but they also haven't killed off Batman in a film! They do it in the comics a bunch of times (because comic readers get that there are different timelines etc). Unlike, say, Professor X who has died in a film and then returned in a subsequent one, because X Men is sci-fi and that's allowed. Also - Mark says there's no continuity between the Bonds but Q and M and Felix continue all the way through! Llewelyn played Q from Connery all the way up to Brosnan!
@secretagentbloke2 жыл бұрын
I agree with mostly everything that Mark said, with the exception of the other characters returning for the next one. I never had an issue with Judi Dench returning as M, Desmond Llewelyn being Q for multiple Bonds or even Maud Adams being both Scaramangas girlfriend and Octopussy. Then again, perhaps the next film will not be a James Bond film, and just a 007 film? 🤔
@MatthewMulligan9992 жыл бұрын
I think claiming James Bond is less fantasy than Batman might not hold up to scrutiny! Definitely a lot of escapism involved in both
@KeithFraser822 жыл бұрын
Depends on the version of Batman. The Nolan films "only" have sci-fi technology comparable to what you might see in a Bond film (nuclear fusion, super-materials, fear toxin); the DCEU films where he hangs around with gods and punches aliens are obviously a bit more fantastical.
@filmreviews...withthechair97332 жыл бұрын
Tosh. Mark is wrong. There is a weird continuity between all Bonds and this does some, but not irreparable, damage to that feeling of the man. Craig had Bond in his sights as soon as he tired of the character, but it is vaguely perverse they allowed him to intervene enough to kill him off. I actually thought the film was decent but left shocked, and that shock gradually became mild dislike. It's still the third best of his because the other two are rubbish, and okay, this is a Craig opening and closing, but in that case this isn't cannon (and the other ones are, with repeated references to his marriage) so all of Craig's can disappear up his actorly swanny. Harrumph
@OrcunBasar2 жыл бұрын
Mark I generally like your reviews but here you’re talking a huge pile of nonsense and shows clearly how little you know Bond history! James Bond has always been implied to continue through the years between each actor! So each time a new actor took over the role, they ‘loosely’ continue the timeline set by the ‘previous’ Bonds! Funny enough you accept the connection and continuity between Connery and Lazenby’s Bonds, which you are correct about. Diamonds are Forever continues exactly from where OHMSS left off - Bond is hell bent on finding Blofeld to get revenge for killing his wife! And yes Roger Moore’s Bond is part of that continuity and timeline as several movies into Moore’s tenure, at the start of For Your Eyes Only, the movie begins with Moore’s Bond visiting his dead wife’s grave for crying out loud!! And yes Dalton’s and Brosnan’s Bonds also continue the same Bond since Connery’s Bond! Jump to YEARS LATER and in Brosnan’s third outing as Bond - The World is not Enough, Elektra King asks Bond ‘have you ever lost a loved one Mr Bond?’ to which Bond (Brosnan perfectly) executes a simple yet haunted silent look as if to say ‘No I don’t want to talk about the tragedy of my dead wife who was the love of my life’ and changes the subject immediately by commenting about something else! So YES they were all loosely continuation of the same character UNTIL Craig’s era! After 9/11 and the success of the more gritty spy series at the time (Bourne and Mission Imposs movies), the producers felt that it was best to ‘reboot’ with the newly available Casino Royale rights they had just secured at the time after years of legal battles etc. But that was just pure luck and coincidence that they got the rights at that exact period and could go back to the very first book and reboot with a new younger Bond! So technically and chronologically speaking Craig’s Casino would have been the first movie followed by Connery’s Dr No and from then on, the remainder of Craig’s Bond movies could have taken place at any point in the historic timeline of the franchise!! But that can’t be the case now because they wrecked the continuity with the last 2 movies especially! That’s what’s so infuriating to me! For me the best of Craig’s is still Casino, closely followed by Quantum because it’s a coherent story arc that follows over the 2 movies! Quantum does have its issues granted BUT still for me better than Skyfall! I really don’t get the hype about Skyfall!? Yes it’s a beautifully shot movie with some nice pieces BUT it takes some HUGE liberties and some serious plot holes which ruin the story for me! That’s why it’s my 3rd favourite of the DC Bonds. SPECTRE and NTTD were a poor end to Craig’s era. Total trash! And a REALLY REALLY STUPID end (again with some giant plot holes) to NTTD! These last 2 movies are just forgettable! Why would you kill him off??!! Especially as they do not have another ‘Casino Royale’ story to reboot the franchise with a new Bond!! Clearly they will get a new bond and start making new movies but it’ll feel cheap and make the audience feel cheated. Whoever thought this was a good way to end Craig’s era was really really misguided! The franchise is more important than any person or actor! Just really really disappointed with the decisions from Eon and the Broccolis for these last 2-3 movies!
@portaccio2 жыл бұрын
Batman is fantasy. James Bond is fantasy. James Bond IS fantasy.
@mileslaw2 жыл бұрын
Bond is fantasy. Maybe a different kind of fantasy when you compare it to Batman, but it is fantasy.
@BoilingKoolaid2 жыл бұрын
I don't see the problem. When Daniel Craig started, he was a new Bond and a new 00. He wasn't a seasoned agent. He hadn't lived the Connery or Dalton experiences. He wasn't a continuation of Bronson or Lasenby. I think in a time where we have multiverses in Marvel movies and DC comic movies, the audience is capable of seeing James Bond be different without stressing over the "chronology" of the character.
@tmo77772 жыл бұрын
It's very simple. BOND was captured and DRUGGED Everything in the Daniel Craig Film was a Hallucination. He is rescued by Agents from M I 5 and Then he Gets Patched up and Goes on His next Mission Dr. NO. and reboot The Series.
@calreid65962 жыл бұрын
The timeline is very VERY loose, but if you look at For Your Eyes Only as evidence, Moore and Lazenby’s Bond at least, are the same character. Furthermore as Connery was the same as Lazenby’s Bond, those three are arguably the same. Afterwards it’s less vague. Craig’s Bond, like Nolan’s Batman, is a self-contained version of that character. It is simply a different interpretation of Bond by the same studio.
@paulriddell10002 жыл бұрын
I 100% agree with Simon and Mark is a million miles off the mark. Bond is dead. This is meant to be the same man in the first Fleming novel in 1953 and the first Bond film in 1962. And now he has been blasted to smithereens. Really. This is not Daniel Craig. This is a character that is now dead. You can’t reboot this. There are not infinite other Bonds. There’s one Bond. He’s dead. Fleming didn’t do it (although he tried). The films have always kept him alive. And OHMSS had no place in this film. No relevance. That should have stayed in that film. And perhaps the music could have been used in the pre credits of FYEO, and maybe during the brief reference in Spy. Mark is wrong. Simon is so right. Sorry.
@egodreas2 жыл бұрын
Must say that I'm very surprised to hear Simon say something as silly as "Batman is fantasy and Bond is not". They are basically identical in every way, except one is better dressed and doesn't travel as much. They are both playboy crimefighters with silly gadgets, trying to defeat supervillains with physical deformities. They can (and will) get rebooted for as long as they keep making money. And that is OK.
@anythingandeverythingwithjp2 жыл бұрын
Daniel Craig’s Bond was a reboot of the franchise. Daniel Craig was the origin story of Bond. It’s gonna be rebooted again in an earlier timeline.
@dkarras2 жыл бұрын
Except for having to report to the same M as Brosnan’s Bond did of course. The Bond timeline has always been messy but Tracy was a throughline (either directly or hinted at) until the Craig era. I suppose now w/ the legal troubles behind them a reboot is in order though w/ a clean slate to craft the world Bond exists in w/out any baggage. &/or do a pre MI6 Bond building to the one we’ve had all these years.
@cookieface802 жыл бұрын
@@dkarras It's not the same M, it's just the same actress (the two Ms both have different real names).
@dkarras2 жыл бұрын
@@cookieface80 when you can quote the time code in which this appears in ANY of the films I will begin care. Until then she will remain anachronistically the same M as she is portrayed in the both Brosnan & Craig films.
@aerosnail2 жыл бұрын
Honestly, the death was forced. Yes, he could not be near his family, but that didn't meant he couldn't live on AWAY from them, contacting them at a distance, for example. This movie felt like Daniel Craig saw "Logan" and wanted to go out the same way. Spoiler alert, "Logan" is a much better movie. Of the Craig series, I'll rewatch Casino Royale and Skyfall, the other ones were all meh...
@stephengilloway67802 жыл бұрын
In the same way that 007 is a designation is it not possible that James Bond is also just a code name, that allows for it to be adopted by a different agent?
@Hargiwald2 жыл бұрын
Only me just leaving the cinema underwhelmed? They want to bookend Craig's era with Bond dying? Fine. They want to "appeal to blue haired feminists"? Fine. Well... I'm not sure I think they did, but I love blue haired feminists either way. But, I just didn't like the movie that much. To begin with, one of the core foundations for the movie's emotional story is based on Bond's relationship with and love for Madeleine Swan, which just never worked for me. Its conception in "Spectre" felt rushed and false and "No Time to Die" didn't do enough to change that, kid or no kid. I will say the chemistry between Craig and Seydoux was better this time around, though. I also had issues with the main story line. The objectives of the villain, after he'd gotten his revenge, was quite unclear, and I really didn't get what was at stake, and hence felt that nothing really was. I guess it was the world as usual, but I don't know how and why. To care, I would have needed that to be clearer. These issues I already had with the film didn't really set me up well for a sad "the hero sacrifices himself" sort of ending, especially as it seems Bond's love for Swan and his grief to never be able to be with her again is a big part of his motivation. I also couldn't help thinking missiles can be cancelled and re-launched, but I'm no military weapons expert so I won't harp on about that. The main problem is that when I should have been sad (and god know I cry at the movies quite easily) I was instead pondering whether Bond's sacrifice made sense or not. The whole thing just felt unearned, and you really should make sure you've earned it if you're going to do a thing like killing Bond. All that said, the action was mostly great and a clear step up from Spectre. Especially the Cuba Scenes with Ana de Armas were great fun. And Nomi was great too. Any one of those two characters get a spin-off movie, I'll give it a watch. And of course Craig brought his best for this last installment and performance wise ended his run on a high note.
@vickster50012 жыл бұрын
Totally agree with Mark about the Bond franchise. I’ve never viewed them as a continuum. Brosnan wasn’t the same man as previous Bonds to me either. It’s not like Doctor Who. Each Bond actor is an interpretation of the man for me, so I have no problems with Daniel Craig’s era being a complete story for his Bond. I also agree though that sadly it means the whole cast will likely need rebooting as seeing them back with a new actor would be odd. Shame as I love Whishaw as Q. Oh and the family moment was really lovely.
@taker682 жыл бұрын
I didn't mind the ending but the getting there was flawed. The villain is so under used and under developed. The guy who can take out Spectre should be a real bad ass. I don't see why Bond has to die just because he can't ever see his daughter again. Had some good scenes but I think only Casino Royale and Skyfall were the successes of Craig's era. The girlfriend still isn't as good as Vesper or Tracy, Blofeld is meh.
@lauraforrester29102 жыл бұрын
1. Daniel Craig’s Bond movies are a capsule, enclosed and separate which is EXACTLY how the franchise should move forward. 2. The best thing about The Mousetrap, and the secret to it’s longevity, is that they regularly switch who the killer is.
@dejjibd4242 жыл бұрын
If you enjoyed this I really recommend seeing Dune at the cinema. Visually stunning.
@bdcash2 жыл бұрын
Amazingly, I had avoided all spoilers. I didn't think Bond would get a happy ending, one way or the other. I'm sorry to see the end of Craig's Bond as his version of the character was much better fleshed out than the others.
@Rlc1975-t7w2 жыл бұрын
HOW DARE THEY KILL BOND!😡 What gives them the right? BASTARDS😡
@knownpleasures2 жыл бұрын
It’s not a continuum Mark?!? So how come Roger Moore in For your eyes only in 1981 goes to Tracy’s grave clearly marked 1969 as year of death who was married to George Lazenby
@kalsolarUK2 жыл бұрын
I'm 100% with Simon. Why should I care about the next Bond? They could kill him at will now, every other movie.
@shanepjdunne2 жыл бұрын
Daniel Craig’s Bond films are a separate stand alone Bond series and Character. His films can be seen as a complete character arc from start to finish and should be viewed as exactly that, ignoring all other bond films. Any new bond films will be scripted and cast as if Craig’s Bond didn’t happen because they didn’t in chronology with the rest of Bond.
@colinrumford14472 жыл бұрын
Surely you're aware of the whole Kevin McGlory legal battle over Thunderball and Blofeld.
@superkeaton99122 жыл бұрын
Can't see why Simon was so stuck on the idea of Bond dying in one series of films with one actor and then being played again by a different actor in a different series.
@GrimUpNorth_yt2 жыл бұрын
It's not for you to "understand", it just is. I feel the same way and wish they hadn't killed him off. But hey ho that's just my take. There's no right or wrong.
@janakafernando42832 жыл бұрын
Disagree with the comment about "wiping the slate clean". Judi Dench managed to cross over from the Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig era as the same character, but in a reboot of the franchise
@vultan20002 жыл бұрын
Compare and contrast Jack Ryan. Multiple actors, but no suggestion they are the same version of the character.
@ScottPlayz123452 жыл бұрын
Actually disagree with Mark here. Obviously we understand that new actors come in and it’s not just a continuous story but it’s also basically remained the same without any major changes. Bond and the other characters are eternally in the same situation ready for the next mission at the next film. By killing bond I think you do create a problem. You have no broken with all the previous films so where does it start now? Carry on in present day? Go back to the 60s? I understand artistically it was good for Bond to sacrifice himself but difficult to continue the franchise
@Wladislav2 жыл бұрын
One of my main annoyances with the Daniel Craig Bond films, especially the Sam Mendes stuff, is that they went into the backstory/family direction with them. That totally doesn't fit 007 if you ask me. Especially when it resulted into the horrible Austin Powers 3 retread that was Spectre. No Time To Die wants to tie everything in a neat little bow far too much. (The nanobots keeping me apart from my family!) Such finality does not fit James Bond. Now that they basically _have to_ wipe the slate clean, I sure hope we will be rid of the background digging from Skyfall to No Time To Die.
@charliefine42742 жыл бұрын
Such a terrible ending. Fuming. We just want a Bond movie - not that.
@joegotham272 жыл бұрын
I agree with Mr Kermode - I don't think one can create an argument that because this Bond died that another version of Bond can't start again, that's essentially what happens as each new actor takes over - it's not just one continuous timeline because if you're working from that premise then you'd have to also admit that he'd already be in his 100s in age
@swannrob2 жыл бұрын
A villain who constructs an evil lair on a Japanese island with a Japanese garden, Japanese tatami mats while wearing Japanese clothes who Bond does a dogeza Japanese style apology to BUT........ the villain is not Japanese, none of his crew are Japanese and there are no Japanese characters in the entire film.
@Zeppelin1802 жыл бұрын
Craig’s Bond was never married to Tracey. Best just to think of it as a metaverse...
@PaulStargasm2 жыл бұрын
Problem with Mark's take is that he says that the Craig Bond isn't the Lazenby Bond and says to do the next Bond you need a completely new cast, but Craig's Bond kept the M casting from Pierce Brosnan's Bond.
@TravisTLCdrumming2 жыл бұрын
Yes same actor but entirely different characters. They even have two different names.
@jqyhlmnp2 жыл бұрын
Nothing lamer than “okay child, let me tell you a story about bond… James Bond” 🤮
@portaccio2 жыл бұрын
I take it you've never seen a James Bond film before. Cheesy clichéd lines have been a long running staple of these films for 6 decades.
@richardayton68622 жыл бұрын
Have to side with Mark on the argument about continuity in the series. Simon seems to have completely misunderstood it.
@cookieface802 жыл бұрын
You don't need to go forward 15 years. They already have a new female 007.
@20thCenturyPox2 жыл бұрын
Bond isn't fantasy? That's just ridiculous.
@canonogic2 жыл бұрын
Why do people get angry when characters die ffs. Craigs Bond got a proper story and character arc/development throughout his film run. It was a great ending to a brilliant set of movies.
@Boxeydude12 жыл бұрын
"You have to do it again with an entirely new cast" *looks at Judi Dench staying post-Pierce Brosnan*
@movieman82us2 жыл бұрын
Or Desmond Llewelyn who was Q all the way back to Connery through Brosnan.
@nothingtoseehere23362 жыл бұрын
@@cockshield Oh wow, interesting. Where have you got this info from?
@Spencerharrison2 жыл бұрын
What do I go to a Bond movie for? Not whatever this was.
@kalsolarUK2 жыл бұрын
They ripped off too much music, phrases and emotional cues from ohmss. That annoys me even more than Bond's death...which was a dumb idea itself
@OneFaintingRobinOld2 жыл бұрын
I think the thing is with what happens next is that just recasting the actor and pretending like nothing else happened, like they used to, probably wouldn't fly with the audiences like it did forty years ago. Reboots are how the industry works now, and it's what people expect; no one's questioning whether Robert Pattinson should be playing the 'same' Bruce Wayne as Ben Affleck, no one asked whether Batfleck was the same as Christian Bale's version. Bond fans would obviously accept a 'well this is just the same guy' explanation, it's part of the franchise, that's fine, but these films are made for wider audiences than that, and that just isn't how things are made. Besides, a proper, hard reboot does give them space to really play around a bit with what happens next. Gives them space to do something quite fresh and different.