Why kill Bond? - No Time to Die (2021) Discussion

[–] Cranmer (139) 2 years ago

My guess is they got the idea from DC Comics who have been killing off superheroes (and then bringing them back again) for years. It's just a way of getting publicity and 'rebooting' the series.

And to be fair the black lesbian 007 was eventually put in her place by Bond and she submitted to his authority, so he wasn't exactly cucked by her.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (12244) 2 years ago

More copying the current era of superhero films (Endgame, Logan, BvS) also new Star Wars trilogy (Han/Luke) plus the young daughter thing (Endgame/Logan, and even the new SW from a certain pov)

reply

[–] ehewitt (30) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] millsey72 (9590) 2 years ago

Because if he lived, he would not have been able to touch his family because of the nanobots. His death was his choice

reply

[–] JoWilli (15258) 2 years ago

he could have lived in a plastic bubble. he would be Bubble Bond.

reply

[–] mav100000 (340) 2 years ago

Did everyone forget that EMP technology was used in the film? Nanobots are ROBOTS! EMP kills robots! He would have been fine!

reply

[–] ehewitt (30) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] fc31 (4583) a year ago

Majority of nanobots used in biology are not mechanical, otherwise they can't multiply, you just have to wait for their batteries to run out, it won't be long before they are all dead.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 4 months ago

Bond can survive anything.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6758) 2 years ago

Fake / contrived gravitas.

The "Bond" series turned into soap opera with Craig. They genuinely believed they had done something more than take a beloved self-genred franchise and turned it into a series of limp genetic action films.

They became basically so non memorable, that they did the only thing they could - which they hadn't had to do in 20+ movies - in order to try and stand out. So they literally killed "Bond" just as surely as they had the concept of the Bond film series a few entries prior to this one.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (12244) 2 years ago

Yeah it felt kind of cheap. a gimmick, lets kill bond to set it apart from the previous films and MI/Bourne etc.. Ooh so edgy. meh.

Still, Fleming kind of did the same for one of the novels (as did Conan Doyle)

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6758) 2 years ago

You talking the YOLT book?

Years since I've read them so I can't even remember if that ends with Bond dead or whether it tells us he survived. Either way, I'd love to see them redo that trilogy plus TMWTGG (or maybe just OHMSS, YOLT & TMWTGG) as serious period set adaptation...

reply

[–] bozo_500 (12244) 2 years ago

FRWL novel ended with Bond possibly dead (but not really)

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6758) 2 years ago

Really? I don't remember that...

More than once from Fleming then because he definitely is assumed dead in YOLT - think he gets blown up over the edge of a castle or something and blasted into the sea.

I can't remember whether the reveal that he was picked up from the water by fishermen is in the same book or the start of TMWTGG...

reply

[–] enriquesingh (1772) 2 years ago

Yeah, I hated those decisions... Bond being treated like a bitch throughout the entire movie and sacrificing himself.

The reason why these movies became successful was because they were like a straight guy's ultimate FANTASY, beat the bad guys with cool gadgets, save the world, get the girl/s... I understand it was a bit of a formula and may have become a bit repetitive-predictable, but I'm sure they could have come up with something better than what they came up with... anyways most people I believe accepted this, but to me it was lame seeing Bond heartbroken, crying in every movie... on this last movie they overdid it.

reply

[–] TandyMan (10373) 2 years ago

I suspect it was for terrible reasons yet to be revealed. On the surface it seems like a cheap gimmick meant to drum up some fresh excitement for a very old franchise. But I believe they're going to a press a new agenda in the next film to permanently mess up the lore. Some version of the Bond persona being a cover and code name.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13382) 2 years ago

Spoiler (in the subject line) alert!

reply

[–] JoWilli (15258) 10 months ago

ORLY?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33999) 2 years ago

Seriously?
https://moviechat.org/tt2382320/No-Time-to-Die/615648ecb0ef803354f533bd/Please-do-not-post-spoilers-in-the-post-title-If-the-body-of-the-post-contains-spoilers-put-a-spoiler-warning-in-the-title

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 2 years ago

That was a year ago.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33999) 2 years ago

So what? A spoiler is still a spoiler.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 2 years ago

Does that apply to all movies?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33999) 2 years ago

Yes, I use the Spoiler format or at least give people fair warning.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 2 years ago

Its not a spoiler when the movie has been out a year or more. I intentionally avoid movie boards so that I wont be spoiled. If people are dumb enough to visit a site that talks about movies then thats their own fault.

I had no idea Bond died because I was smart to watch the movie first before coming to talk about the movie.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33999) 2 years ago

Right, so the fact that there’s a pinned post, right at the top of the board, requesting that no one puts a spoiler in their title, applies to everyone else and not you?

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 2 years ago

Its just on one of over 50,000 movies on MC. Again if you visit a movie site that talks about movies and get spoiled, thats not my fault.

There is no spoiler alert on the Jaws site? Can I post spoilers there?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33999) 2 years ago

Do whatever you like, one click of the Ignore button and all your spoilers disappear.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 2 years ago

The irony that its ok to make jokes about Trump dying and spamming a board is ok but you cant post spoilers on a movie that was released a year ago. I really dont get this site.

RIP Donald Trump
posted 10 months ago by [deleted]
3 replies | jump to latest
That's what you say about dead people.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5ec362b3b81ede6fceab3615/Nancy-Pelosi-Says-Morbidly-Obese-Trump-Taking-Hydroxychloroquine-Is-Not-a-Good-Idea

Maybe Trump will drop dead then America's biggest problem will have taken care of itself.

https://moviechat.org/nm0081182/Joe-Biden/6287f0c7476fae69bbf2098a/Daily-reminder-thank-God-for-Joe-Biden?page=14

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33999) 2 years ago

Just follow the rules, it’s really quite easy.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33999) 2 years ago

Well, I have to say that amending the title of your post is very gracious of you. 👍

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 2 years ago

That wasn't me, that was a moderator. I guess this is the only movie where you cant post spoilers. He or she must really like this movie.

So its ok to post spoilers on other movie boards?

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (33999) 2 years ago

You could have posted ‘Why kill Bond?

Just as effective, without breaking the rules.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (13382) 2 years ago

yes, but ,

Why cant you just not post them in the actual subject line where its 10x more likely they will accidentally spoil the movie for someone?

reply

[–] millsey72 (9590) 2 years ago

Its never ok to post spoilers until a film becomes 50 years old. Its important to respect all users of this site

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) a year ago

Thats my bad.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9590) a year ago

Thats still no excuse. You should ban yourself from postings on these boards for 90 days as punishment

reply

[–] MCguy (949) 3 months ago

I had someone tell me 50 years is not enough. Seriously.

reply

[–] thingmakersback (1188) 3 months ago

And, by the logic of those sad puppies who dread to stumble on a spoiler while they read endless posts and reviews of a movie, FOREVER is just long enough...

Here's the, scant, logical basis: All media (well, more or less) is now available and people whose parents were not born when said media was first released, are coming to it fresh and for the very first time. We must protect these fragile flowers from the knowledge that Rosebud was a sled and sunlight slew Nosferatu.

reply

[–] MCguy (949) 3 months ago

HA!

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6334) 10 months ago

No, only to this piece of shit movie.
I don't know if moviechat did it because they licked bond's ass, or because they wanted to avoid a ton of people complaining about possible spoilers of this crappy piece of shit movie.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 10 months ago

Yeah, dont know why this movie is flagged by mods and not other new movies. People post spoilers all the time and they are not deleted. If people are dumb enough to visit a movie site that talks about movies then its your own fault for getting spoiled.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6334) 10 months ago

Totally.
Also, what is a spoiler for this piece of crap?
That they kill Bond?
That he has a daughter?
Are those big reveals?

They certainly feel like tacked on, cheap gimmicks that don't even belong to 007.
It's a fucking non canon retcon that nobody will give a fuck in a couple of years. Like the whole Craig fiasco.

reply

[–] redban (5225) 3 months ago

Because it was Daniel Craig’s last movie as Bond, so they wanted to send the message that this was it for him

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17225) 3 months ago

It was a dumb way to end the franchise IMO. I imagine the next Bond will be a transgender non binary black lesbian latina woman.

reply