I’m pleased you like it. :-)
“It's a shame because I really like the movie, but the ending left a sour taste in my mouth when it finished”.
WhereIsRent, that was/is me too - 100%.
As I suggest with my ending, I’d take not seeing Bond in person at the end of the movie or even some ambiguity - is he really dead or is he still alive? But for them just to explicitly kill him off in front of us, unexpected and brave as it is, just doesn’t work for me.
What you said is what it comes down to. That sense of movie myth and magic. He will be back, I’m sure. Is it ever going to be the same again? That, I’m less confident about. And, if that is the case, I think that’s sad. All for the sake of a decision to do “something different”.
And you’re also right about NTTD’s ending not fitting with the rest of the movie, let alone Craig’s other films.
If they really thought hard and took more care, I’m sure they could have packaged an ending that could have been bittersweet, poignant but true to the spirit of Bond and what we’ve seen in the Craig era. Instead, they went for abruptly going all out the other way and it’s a jarring shift.
I suppose, in the big picture, Bond will go on and us disapprovers will accept that this is just the way the producers (or rather Daniel Craig) decided to wrap up this era of the series. For me, it’ll always be a very disappointing way to end the five Craig films and a disappointing move in the history of the franchise.
reply
share
WhereIsRent (1080)
3 years ago
Spot on, it's a subverting expectations story trick that in my opinion has backfired. What for me has made Craig's Bond so iconic and standout is the journey he's been through over these five films. He's been through so much, he was betrayed by the love of his life who then died, he lost the closest person he's known as a mother figure when M died, he spent five years thinking someone who he'd fallen in love with had betrayed him and now not only was this not true but he's also not been there for his daughter in all that time.
But Bond's journey and his will to push forward despite all the pain was so endearing about this version of the character. People say Batman is the most tragic hero ever created but I'd say Craig's Bond gives him a good run for his money.
At the end of the movie with Bond basically giving up and embracing death, not even trying to escape just felt so out of character for a man that's endured and pushed forward through so much pain already. Also with your ending we have a passing of the mantle of 007 to Nomi so James Bond can finally be free and live. He no longer needs to define himself by being a part of Her Majesty's Secret Service and has more than earned a retirement.
But nah he dies and it's a bit too real and sad and didn't work at all. They should have gone for a sad yet heartwarming ending. He can still have a happy life, heck who knows maybe Q could have even found a way to reverse the nanobot DNA thing. It's a Bond movie and just because Craig has portrayed the most tragic iteration of the character doesn't mean his movies had to have an entirely tragic ending.
reply
share
MovieReporter (20)
3 years ago
Once again, with you all the way here.
And, yes, little (or rather no) thought was given to the possibility that, after some time, Q could deal with the DNA problem in some way. Okay, Bond didn't much have time to think about that but I don't really buy that he accepts it's all over there and then. That's not the Bond we saw from Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. And, alternative timeline/universe as it may be, it wasn't Daniel Craig's Bond either.
I wonder if we will get an interview with Boyle at some point. It would be good to get an idea of went on behind-the-scenes and what the "real" ending to NTTD should have been.
reply
share
WhereIsRent (1080)
3 years ago
That would be really interesting to read what was going on behind the scenes. I'd love to know what Danny Boyle and John Hodge's script was like but I do think it's good that Neil Purvis and Robert Wade got to finish off the Craig era seeing as they've been involved with writing the scripts on all of them.
It'd be interesting to see what Purvis and Wade really think of the ending as well. It seems really bizarre that they decided to end Spectre on quite a definitive happy note thinking it was the last Craig film only to then come back and do the complete opposite for Craig's actual last film. Something doesn't add up there at all for me which leads me even more to believe that Craig pushed for the "Kill Bond" ending.
reply
share
MovieReporter (20)
3 years ago
Yes, I forgot that Craig initially wasn’t coming back after Spectre. So that was pretty much served up as his exit!
Somewhat regretfully now, I hoped he would come back for at least one more. At the time, leaving after Spectre just seemed a bit premature. Now, I wish he didn’t! :-(
Oh well. I’ll gladly take Spectre’s ending as the closure to the Craig era which, as you point out, it was actually intended to be!
reply
share
WhereIsRent (1080)
3 years ago
Yes I'll take Spectre as the canon ending haha. I think that movie has some pacing problems and the script needed a few re-writes to tighten it up a bit but as an ending to the Craig era it was good enough.
It's a shame because NTTD actually gets rid of the problems I had with Spectre but creates a whole new problem with this disappointing ending haha.
reply
share