Never.
Indeed. I genuinely think the film handled Bondâs death just about perfectly, akin to Maximusâ last stand in Gladiator. Weakened by a cowardly villainâs move but living long enough to kill him and go out on his own terms. Being outright pummeled to death in battle or shot dead on the spot wouldnât have sat well with me - we see Bondâs last moments but we also donât given the flash of the explosion.
In the heat of battle (the stairwell ascent, for example) he was always going to get the job done. By the time heâs climbing the ladder, Bond is the last person left inside the complex. All foes have been vanquished, and apart from the earpiece heâs all alone. Thereâs a haunting beauty about that. The focus of the five film arc has been on Craig, and there he is getting the last moment to himself. Heâs saving the greater world, but his immediate focus is Madeleine and Mathilde.
12 Likes
Well said.
I also think that having him killed off in a combat situation would have weakened the character. He can be shot and hurt and infected - but the only way to stop him is a missile attack.
Of course, it is also this culmination of events which takes away every chance from him to survive.
NTTD handles this really cleverly.
I still would have preferred a final Craig film giving him a happy ending, though.
Would it have been even more courageous to show him quitting the service for real and have the family life he wanted?
5 Likes
But Iâm afraid that would be a betrayal to Fleming, I mean, Bondâs a wish fulfillment, male fantasy character.
Fleming wrote the character as an escapism from his own marriage.
If Bond is going to retire with his family, then the death of both Tracy and Vesper would make no sense.
Thatâs what makes Bond an interesting character, everytime he falls in love, thereâs always a tragedy, so he could continue in protecting the Queen and Country.
And can you imagine Bondâs family popping out in every films in the future? Just to prove that heâs still the same character and not a codename?
3 Likes
Not leaving him with a happy ending just because Fleming did not is, IMO, not a good argument. Movie Bond was changed so much from Fleming that there is no need to stick to the literary ideas.
Also, with the Craig era ending on this film, who would have thought that he or his family could appear in the next era when the new guy is clearly the only 007?
I am just curious - wouldnât it been more surprising and shocking to have one Bond who could actually reach this goal at the end of his tenure?
3 Likes
Of course people would likely to find his family in the next Bond films, like what do you think happened to Madeleine and Mathilde? Whereâs Madeleine and Mathilde?
Does Bond going or coming home to them?
It would create a confusion, especially given the ending of NTTD where heâs dropped off by missiles.
Thatâs where the arguments about the codename theory would likely to return from the grave.
About the first statement: But the Producers keeps coming back to the roots, to the books? So, they still have respect to Fleming.
Because without Fleming, thereâll be no Bond films.
For me, itâs a sign of respect to Flemingâs concept of the character.
I still prefer killing him off, because Bondâs life for me is always a tragedy, heâs a blunt instrument of the British Government.
If youâre going to give him a family, then thatâs not Bond, itâs already a different character because heâs changed from the original concept.
He can fall in love, but couldnât commit to it, because of his job.
I think the way NTTD ended IS the happy ending with the family he always wanted.
The whole point of these filmsâ arc is that Bond canât have anybody he cares about in his life because the baddies would always go after them to get to him. We saw that first with Solange then it was reiterated with Fields.
Bond staying alive with a wife and daughter would inherently be a sad ending because you would know that at some point they would be gotten to. They, not just he, would always be âlooking over their shoulder.â
Bond removing himself from the picture ensured they could live a long and happy life.
So in a way, he DID get to fulfill his duty as a husband and father to his familyâŚ
12 Likes
Asking for clarification:
Husband?
Was he married to Madeleine? Did I missed something?
Because for all I know, theyâve been in a relationship as a partner, typical like âlived inâ partners or cohabitation.
Thank you 
Seeing how well the film establishes this is what really improved my estimation of it.
So many years after Vesperâs death, Bond is still consumed by guilt and canât even enjoy a stroll with Madeleine without peering behind him. And this is even after his seeming triumph over SPECTRE. Clearly, driving off together in the previous film was not the happy ending we all supposed. Now, imagine the kind of guilt he would feel if anything happened to Mathilde?
One could argue, as Madeleine does, that there is no one left to hurt them by the end of NTTD. Yet, who was Safin but the unlooked for pest (a mosquito?), bred out of the collateral damage pervasive to Bondâs world?
By the end of the film, Bond realizes there will always be Safins cropping up with the potential to harm the world. Heâs also realized that the world is in perfectly capable hands with the likes of Nomi, Paloma, Q, etc. The only thing that then matters is securing the safety of his family, so much so that he doesnât seem at all to care about the actual details or motivations of Safinâs scheme: heâs just a footnote in a long line of archetypes (note Bondâs perplexity at Safinâs petty self-mythology by displaying noh masks around his base). Tragically, he also realizes that he must die to truly secure his familyâs safety.
I believe that Bond had no intention of ever leaving the island once his family had been rescued, though I admit that the film might have been better written to drive this home. Why else, before his final confrontation with Safin, would Bond casually stop to admire his daughterâs doll while the missiles were minutes away?
2 Likes
Whatever the official name for their relationship is doesnât really change much about what weâre talking about here. I was only referencing their familial roles in a broad sense.
Call them whatever makes you happy.
2 Likes
The mistake was in giving Bond a family to begin with. When they went all in and said, oh yeah btw thereâs a daughter too, thatâs when it was no longer a Bond movie. The âBondâ character had to die at that point.
Whatever. They made that decision. Craigâs Bond happened on Earth-127 or some such nonsense.
Itâll be nothing if not fascinating to see what they do next.
2 Likes
Getting the vibe some people havenât actually read the book of You Only Live TwiceâŚ
12 Likes
Iâm aware of the son in YOLT. Believe the author made a mistake with that decision. It was a tired plot device back then, and it is now. Also, as others have said, the movies donât have to mirror the books exactly. Also, Bond didnât die in the books, etc etc.
I appreciated the realism of the Craig arc, but itâs all about balance. Craigâs Bond was a miserable so n so from the jump. Itâs one reason why when my wife watched the film with me she was rooting for the missiles at the end. Please put this poor soul out of his misery. In a very real way this version of Bond needed to die. And thatâs a shame. I need more balance in the character. Itâs ok for the man to enjoy his life/job sometimes, no?
2 Likes
I think the answer lies in what your version of the character is. And make no mistake, your version is as valid as mine.
If your version is maybe more a Roger Moore, escapist, Tarzan yell through the jungle type, then you might want him to enjoy his life/job sometimes and this ending might not fit with that.
If your version is, as mine is, more of the miserable so and so from the jump, an ultimately tragic character, then the ending as written is not only pure Bond, but is almost inevitable.
As we celebrate the 60th anniversary, maybe itâs important that us fans note that with that long of a time youâre going to get many iterations of the character. What âJames Bondâ means is different, and maybe even contradictory, to different people.
9 Likes
Certainly true. Certainly valid. Just my opinion, I wouldnât have killed the guy. Thatâs a unnecessarily dramatic decision for a 60 year old franchise and makes the transition to the next iteration unnecessarily weird. I wouldâve found another solution there. I donât know exactly what it wouldâve been, but for starters I wouldnât have given him a daughter. I had to strain my eyes not to roll them in the theater.
Definitely not Mooreâs Bond. That would not be my preference. But your point is well taken, the style of Bond is somewhat reflective of the time we live in. But there maybe a natural pendulum swing with the style as time goes on that makes sense.
4 Likes
You do realize that every actor starts a new tenure.
Confusion can only be caused by viewers who weirdly think itâs all one big story.
4 Likes
Iâm glad you asked. I was working on my next post in anticipation of this questionâŚ
We know there is no actual continuity with the character because of the different eras of the films, but there is a kind of continuity of personality. There is a kind of Bond-nature that continues on. This exists in such a way that the audience in a way suspends its disbelief that there canât be actual continuity from film to film. It has been an unwritten relationship between film makers and fans, as if to say, yeah we know, but⌠James Bond will return.
Right, deep thoughts, I get it. But Iâm just trying to get my head around why, to me, it matters that the last iteration of a 60 year old character died. On the face of it it shouldnât because of continuity logic, and yet it does.
2 Likes
Would it have been even more courageous to show him quitting the service for real and have the family life he wanted?
[/quote]
For me the happy end belongs to Sir Sean in NSNA with DominoâŚso in a way we had this already and I´m okay with ending Craigs arc with something new
3 Likes
That was the ending implied by SPECTRE, which was considered insufficient, and so NTTD.
And not experiencing a happy marriage, Fleming lacked the imagination/desire to provide one to his protagonist. Work was Flemingâs escape, and so his hero is dedicated to his workâno matter the cost.
I think implying the goal as achieved would be more potent/piquant than being shown it realized.
I think the best endings show Bond entering a potential limbo: on the cruise ship with Tiffany; circling the Earth with Holly; driving off with Madeleine; on the junk with Mary. We are told that James Bond will returnâbut the question is: âWhich Bond?â
Maybe that is why I admired Craig Bond without ever liking him much. I found the het male angst suffocating, as it was so alien to me. Hence my fondness for SPECTRE, in which the angst is replaced by conditioning.
I would like more ĂŠlan. Since Bond is a fantasy knight errant, allow him to be one with flair and wit. Miserabilism and luxury product placement are too discordant for me.
6 Likes
Tis the beauty of Spectre, DC is finally unshackled, with a fantastical performance that is full of swagger and humour. Itâs allowed to grow in a more grounded way in NTTD, which he performs as a more realistic summary of the previous performance, much like Connery between Goldfinger and Thunderball.
4 Likes