No Time To Die: Production Diary

1191419151917191919202507

Comments

  • Posts: 17,821
    I really, really hope you're wrong about your predictions there, @Shardlake. A continued personal angle and or films digging into Bond's psyche post-Craig – rather than fun and exciting travelogues, is where I draw my line as a Bond fan. Won't bother watching the films if so.

    Guess Bond 25 will be no different, but I do hope Fukunaga will inject some fun to it at least.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    We might get those types of missions sporadically, especially once the competition from Cruise et all isn't there in the future. MI has that sort of thing in a bow at the moment, and the next one will likely be more of that now that Fallout has tied up most of the narrative threads of that series, but it won't be there for too much longer.

    Bond can go back into that niche again during the next era, even if it still maintains a touch of the personal stuff.

    Though I honestly struggle to see what could be left of Bond to viably explore in terms of his backstory.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Benny wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    That really makes no sense at all. Bond 26 can still fill that spot in 2022 or 2023 or whatever, with Turner or anyone else, even with Craig.

    If Bond 25 comes out in 2020, we won't get another Bond film until November 2024 at the earliest. The biggest breaks usually occured between actors leaving and taking on the role.

    I think Bond 25 is the we will see for a while, so it is important that they don't c### it up, to quote Mallory.

    It's looking more and more like Bond 25 will be a straight up sequel to Bond 24, and the rumoured YOLT script is in play. I suppose it makes good symmertery, as Craig started with a adaptation of the first book. YOLT was the last Bond story Fleming ever fully completed.

    What is any of this based on?
    What suggests this is a sequel to SP? Because Madeleine Swann is returning?
    What other than fan speculation suggests that Bond 25 will be an adaptation to YOLT?
    You really should back up your claims with evidence old boy.

    Speaking about 25 being a sequel of SP, well, it's pretty obvious. They brought back the main Bond girl of the last movie in the same role, which is something totally new for the franchise, so it's pretty clear that they're going to explore Bond emotions and Bond state of mind (something I'm pretty interested given some previous works - True Detective and Maniac - made by Fukunaga). Madeleine was the character that convinced Bond to quit, to stop and think about the possibility of a different life, and in the end Bond himself choose her over the MI6. So the movie will be a direct sequel to SP, at least from a character development and emotional arc point of view.

    I'm just speculating but given who's gonna direct, Madeleine's return, the "Shatterhand" placeholder and the fact that this is 99,9% goin to be Craig's last mission, I'm pretty confident that the movie will present a kind of "broken" Bond, diving a bit in 007 state of mind.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,453
    matt_u wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    That really makes no sense at all. Bond 26 can still fill that spot in 2022 or 2023 or whatever, with Turner or anyone else, even with Craig.

    If Bond 25 comes out in 2020, we won't get another Bond film until November 2024 at the earliest. The biggest breaks usually occured between actors leaving and taking on the role.

    I think Bond 25 is the we will see for a while, so it is important that they don't c### it up, to quote Mallory.

    It's looking more and more like Bond 25 will be a straight up sequel to Bond 24, and the rumoured YOLT script is in play. I suppose it makes good symmertery, as Craig started with a adaptation of the first book. YOLT was the last Bond story Fleming ever fully completed.

    What is any of this based on?
    What suggests this is a sequel to SP? Because Madeleine Swann is returning?
    What other than fan speculation suggests that Bond 25 will be an adaptation to YOLT?
    You really should back up your claims with evidence old boy.

    Speaking about 25 being a sequel of SP, well, it's pretty obvious. They brought back the main Bond girl of the last movie in the same role, which is something totally new for the franchise, so it's pretty clear that they're going to explore Bond emotions and Bond state of mind (something I'm pretty interested given some previous works - True Detective and Maniac - made by Fukunaga). Madeleine was the character that convinced Bond to quit, to stop and think about the possibility of a different life, and in the end Bond himself choose her over the MI6. So the movie will be a direct sequel to SP, at least from a character development and emotional arc point of view.

    I'm just speculating but given who's gonna direct, Madeleine's return, the "Shatterhand" placeholder and the fact that this is 99,9% goin to be Craig's last mission, I'm pretty confident that the movie will present a kind of "broken" Bond, diving a bit in 007 state of mind.

    Completely correct.
  • Posts: 632
    Univex wrote: »
    That really makes no sense at all. Bond 26 can still fill that spot in 2022 or 2023 or whatever, with Turner or anyone else, even with Craig.

    If Bond 25 comes out in 2020, we won't get another Bond film until November 2024 at the earliest. The biggest breaks usually occured between actors leaving and taking on the role.

    I'd beg to differ. YOLT was 1967 with Lazenby coming in and OHMSS releasing in 1969. Connery came back in 1971 with Moore taking over in 1973. Moore departed in 1985 with Dalton taking over in 1987. So far that's every two years. The six year gap between Dalton and Brosnan was for legal reasons, not due to casting. The four years between Brosnan and Craig also had part of that gap due to obtaining rights. With the legal aspects pretty much squared away, I can't see EON taking more than 2 or 3 years tops between outings, particularly with 2022 being the 60th anniversary.

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Tuxedo wrote: »
    Imagine colorful and bright exotic places. Q sends Bond equipment like Little Nelly. Felix teams up with Bond to go after a larger than life villain with a creepy henchman. Some scuba diving, some skiing. Nothing personal - just a clear mission. And a lot of style in drinks, food and clothing. All this set up today with today's music. Well...*sigh*

    Been waiting for that Bond film since 2006.

    Your wish may get true now that CF on board but things will be a little personal but not like previous one's.

    The issue for me with the Craig era more than anything, is the never-ending personal angle. This is why his tenure as Bond will never get my full appreciation, as we've yet to see just a "good 'ol" Bond mission. It's very tiresome, IMO.

    They probably will stick to that personal angle for Craig's last Bond movie. They started with it, and hopefully they will end it with B25, so that Craig's successor can start without it and we'll be back to "Bond gets a mission and will fulfill it. Period."
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't have any problems with the introspective navel gazing Bond. If that's what they want to do, go for it, even though I personally find it tiresome after all this time.

    Where I have issues is when you want me to believe that this wreck is also the quipping, super cool Bond of yore. I don't buy 5ft whatever, tight suit fitting Craig as that Bond. I bought him as the broken Bond, who openly cried when his girlfriend and boss died. Not the one who couldn't care less when his new love left him on the streets of London.

    So whatever they do for the next one, I hope they try to remain internally consistent. It's this trying to have it both ways which fails for me, as it did in TWINE.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2018 Posts: 2,541
    I think biggest challenges for Cary is to maintain a balance of everything and not making it too depressing or overdoing it just because this one is Craig's last doesn't mean it can't have one good action sequence/ one hot steamy scene/ an exotic location that fits perfectly to the story/some good humour just not coming from Craig/ Some realistic gadgets/Drinks/ gunbarrel / Song which evokes the bond feeling/ Sound track well suited for the sequences.
  • Posts: 632
    For me, there are two James Bonds-Fleming's and EON's, with Fleming's being the more tortured of the two. Brosnan (for now) closed the era of EON's, with Craig's interpretation really bringing the Fleming out more, as evidenced by the introspection his character has had. Closing out 25 with Craig makes sense that they keep the personal, darker angle. Fleming's Bond dealt with depression and mental health issues, particularly at the end. Once we move on to Bond 26 though, I think it's fair game for whatever interpretation comes next. It's safe to say it won't please everyone, though.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Some Bond movies the vast majority of Bond fans would hate but I would love to see:

    1. A Bond movie with Bond only having a supporting role
    2. A Bond movie without any villains
    3. A Bond movie made up of 4-6 independent short films, each about a small mission

    So what you're really saying is that you don't want an elevated Bond movie, you want a Bond movie that isn't a Bond movie?

    A direct adaptation of Fleming's TSWLM might come close to what you want. Bond only drops by much later in the story, the villains are, at best, two thugs sent by someone we don't even get to see and you can tell the love stories of Viv, her dealings with the owners of the motel, Bond's pursuit of Blofeld and of course the actual events of the book.

    EDIT: Your three points feel like what Jon Peters had ordered from Kevin Smith's Superman Lives script, according to Smith himself:

    1) Supes won't fly.
    2) He won't be wearing the costume.
    3) He has to fight a giant ******** spider at the end of the movie.

    ;-)

    Or Darren Aronofskys' BATMAN BEGINS script, where Butlert Alfred would repülaced by Afro-American car repairman named Al.
  • Posts: 1,927
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Some Bond movies the vast majority of Bond fans would hate but I would love to see:

    1. A Bond movie with Bond only having a supporting role
    2. A Bond movie without any villains
    3. A Bond movie made up of 4-6 independent short films, each about a small mission

    So what you're really saying is that you don't want an elevated Bond movie, you want a Bond movie that isn't a Bond movie?

    A direct adaptation of Fleming's TSWLM might come close to what you want. Bond only drops by much later in the story, the villains are, at best, two thugs sent by someone we don't even get to see and you can tell the love stories of Viv, her dealings with the owners of the motel, Bond's pursuit of Blofeld and of course the actual events of the book.
    I don't care about the Bond formula, I care about Bond as a character. Any movie James Bond appears in is a Bond movie in my book.
    Then going by this way of thinking, CR '67 must be high on your list as it features multiple Bonds?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have any problems with the introspective navel gazing Bond. If that's what they want to do, go for it, even though I personally find it tiresome after all this time.

    Where I have issues is when you want me to believe that this wreck is also the quipping, super cool Bond of yore. I don't buy 5ft whatever, tight suit fitting Craig as that Bond. I bought him as the broken Bond, who openly cried when his girlfriend and boss died. Not the one who couldn't care less when his new love left him on the streets of London.

    So whatever they do for the next one, I hope they try to remain internally consistent. It's this trying to have it both ways which fails for me, as it did in TWINE.

    I love Craig in the part, but I feel that he was best utilised in his first two films. The tone of them, although not to everyone's liking, suited him to a tee. He was good in Skyfall but I do find the jump from rookie to seasoned agent a tad jarring. And he was fine in SP as well - it's a perfectly fine performance - but the identity his version of the character got a bit diluted in the melodrama of it all. I do hope he's a bit rougher in Bond 25, as that's simply what he does best. I know people don't want that too much, but they've only one film to wait before they get something more suited to their taste.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Craig seems to get tarred with the personal angle but it didn't start in his era.

    Yes it's more intense but Brosnan was doing it from TWINE onwards.

    I don't necessarily think they'll jetison the idea entirely with the next Bond, probably not so integral to the plot but it will be there still.

    I think the days of A to B travelogues where Bond is just used as a device to get you from one scene to another with no real insight into the character are long gone.

    I don't think you'll find any subsequent actor taking on the part not wanting to dig into Bond's psyche and show what makes him tick.

    DC's Bond has shown this and the next actor will want their chance to show their Bond isn't just some cool guy by the name of James Bond who goes on missions.

    The element of the fanbase that want this back again I'm afraid are likely to be disappointed. I could be wrong but the way that things have moved on I don't see the kind of Bond that Connery or Moore played ever happening again.

    @Shardlake, I believe you hit the nail on the head! Good post.

    Maybe someday, as a counterreaction to these psychological explorations of our heroes as Platonic 'guardians', archetypical representations of the Spirit, films will try to recapture a more superficial sense of the slick spy of old, but I doubt we'll ever be able to escape these personal dramas entirely.

    Lest we forget, Bond's very first appearance ever, in Fleming's Casino Royale, already features moments of personal dilemma's for Bond, for example when he pitches his own feelings against reason after surviving the torture session. He contemplates leaving the service in pursuit of matrimonial happiness. Later in the book series, no doubt in parallel with Fleming's own souring reflections on life and death, on the meaning of it all, many such moments of contemplating Bond's inner universe, his loyalty towards the secret service and more, are presented. In a sense, the 21st century Bond "drama's" aren't a modern thing but simply an aspect of Fleming's writings that was, for a few decades, mostly ignored. The cinematic Bond, for a while, had other goods to deliver and was going perfectly strong doing so. Yet even then, when we consider the pre-CR "counterreaction" films, like OHMSS, FYEO, TLD & LTK and GE, films that were trying to break free from a popcorn Bond that had often ended a previous actor's reign, one thing that binds them is that they almost always include some personal case for Bond, something that goes a bit further than M's mere instructions. In a sense, some of these Bond films, as with most of the Craigs, play out the stark contrast between 007 as an expendable resource (M's perspective) and James Bond as a human being with a sense of justice, personal pride and anger. Some adventures can easily work around those issues, making them barely matter, and others turn them into the main deal for most of the film.

    The Craig era, coinciding with other film series that throw their heroes on the couch, like Nolan's Batman trilogy and the Bourne films, can be seen as just a modern thing, something dreadfully different from the "golden age Bond". But I think it was a natural thing to happen, not only because audiences have grown more sophisticated and, in a way, tired of vacant heroes, but also because these conflicts and dilemmas are in Bond's DNA and have been ever since the publication of Casino Royale.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have any problems with the introspective navel gazing Bond. If that's what they want to do, go for it, even though I personally find it tiresome after all this time.

    Where I have issues is when you want me to believe that this wreck is also the quipping, super cool Bond of yore. I don't buy 5ft whatever, tight suit fitting Craig as that Bond. I bought him as the broken Bond, who openly cried when his girlfriend and boss died. Not the one who couldn't care less when his new love left him on the streets of London.

    So whatever they do for the next one, I hope they try to remain internally consistent. It's this trying to have it both ways which fails for me, as it did in TWINE.

    I love Craig in the part, but I feel that he was best utilised in his first two films. The tone of them, although not to everyone's liking, suited him to a tee. He was good in Skyfall but I do find the jump from rookie to seasoned agent a tad jarring. And he was fine in SP as well - it's a perfectly fine performance - but the identity his version of the character got a bit diluted in the melodrama of it all. I do hope he's a bit rougher in Bond 25, as that's simply what he does best. I know people don't want that too much, but they've only one film to wait before they get something more suited to their taste.
    I agree.

    Even for this last one though, I hope they don't try to blend cinematic iconic Bond with Craig Bond. For me, it just doesn't work although I realize some bought it.

    Craig's (and EON's) problem here is that they think that iconic Bond can just be switched on and acted. It can't. It's an attitude. A projection. It's far more difficult to make convincing than many believe, and particularly in the context and within the confines of a broken hero continuity narrative which they have given us since 2006.

    The difference between James Bond and Batman/Bourne etc. is that most of us (I hope) want Bond films to continue and to continue regularly. For that to happen, direct continuity and explicit character 'arc' must stop imho. It can be subtle, but it can't be as direct as it has been. If so, then we will become like any other 'stop-start' series. Perhaps fine for Broccoli, but I'm sure most of us here don't want that.
  • Posts: 632
    I purchased La La Land's expanded TWINE score and after listening to it last night I really, really, REALLY hope Arnold returns. I miss a cool moment being punctuated by a variation of the Bond theme. Even with Arnold scoring the first two Craig's we didn't really get that as he was still "becoming" Bond. I had hoped that by Skyfall Arnold would grace us with all the Barry classics that he threw into TND, but alas it wasn't meant to be.
  • Posts: 5,767
    If anyone wants to offend Bond fans should start by saying once and for all that Thomas Newman is the worst composer to have worked on the franchise, since he's the one who started adding the Bond theme in its full form in SF after David Arnold had successfully only used the theme in the end credits. You can't piss off Bond fans when you start re-using traditional elements like Newman did.

    Wasn´t that a recording or at least an Arrangement based on Arnold, rather than Newman?
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2018 Posts: 2,541
    JET007 wrote: »
    I purchased La La Land's expanded TWINE score and after listening to it last night I really, really, REALLY hope Arnold returns. I miss a cool moment being punctuated by a variation of the Bond theme. Even with Arnold scoring the first two Craig's we didn't really get that as he was still "becoming" Bond. I had hoped that by Skyfall Arnold would grace us with all the Barry classics that he threw into TND, but alas it wasn't meant to be.

    Compared to Newman Arnold was way better but if I were to rank Arnold scores it still won't be in my top 5. I want someone way better than both of them which won't be that difficult to find imo.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,453
    The difference between SF/SP and TLJ is that while TLJ does attempt a greater depth of storytelling, they never lose sight of that STAR WARS tone of adventure and fun space action. I feel like SF and SP push things too far into Melodrama, to the point where lose that fun escapist tone. I feel this especially during the Scotland sequence in SF. I like to have themes and character in a movie, I just don't like them to become the driving force, especially in Bond.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 5,767
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Craig seems to get tarred with the personal angle but it didn't start in his era.

    Yes it's more intense but Brosnan was doing it from TWINE onwards.
    And Dalton in LTK before that.
    And Connery in DN. Dr. No suggests that Bond join SPECTRE. Bond replies that his Department of choice then would be Revenge.



    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have any problems with the introspective navel gazing Bond. If that's what they want to do, go for it, even though I personally find it tiresome after all this time.

    Where I have issues is when you want me to believe that this wreck is also the quipping, super cool Bond of yore. I don't buy 5ft whatever, tight suit fitting Craig as that Bond. I bought him as the broken Bond, who openly cried when his girlfriend and boss died. Not the one who couldn't care less when his new love left him on the streets of London.

    So whatever they do for the next one, I hope they try to remain internally consistent. It's this trying to have it both ways which fails for me, as it did in TWINE.
    +1. Bold. In Capitals.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Craig seems to get tarred with the personal angle but it didn't start in his era.

    Yes it's more intense but Brosnan was doing it from TWINE onwards.

    I don't necessarily think they'll jetison the idea entirely with the next Bond, probably not so integral to the plot but it will be there still.

    I think the days of A to B travelogues where Bond is just used as a device to get you from one scene to another with no real insight into the character are long gone.

    I don't think you'll find any subsequent actor taking on the part not wanting to dig into Bond's psyche and show what makes him tick.

    DC's Bond has shown this and the next actor will want their chance to show their Bond isn't just some cool guy by the name of James Bond who goes on missions.

    The element of the fanbase that want this back again I'm afraid are likely to be disappointed. I could be wrong but the way that things have moved on I don't see the kind of Bond that Connery or Moore played ever happening again.

    @Shardlake, I believe you hit the nail on the head! Good post.

    Maybe someday, as a counterreaction to these psychological explorations of our heroes as Platonic 'guardians', archetypical representations of the Spirit, films will try to recapture a more superficial sense of the slick spy of old, but I doubt we'll ever be able to escape these personal dramas entirely.

    Lest we forget, Bond's very first appearance ever, in Fleming's Casino Royale, already features moments of personal dilemma's for Bond, for example when he pitches his own feelings against reason after surviving the torture session. He contemplates leaving the service in pursuit of matrimonial happiness. Later in the book series, no doubt in parallel with Fleming's own souring reflections on life and death, on the meaning of it all, many such moments of contemplating Bond's inner universe, his loyalty towards the secret service and more, are presented. In a sense, the 21st century Bond "drama's" aren't a modern thing but simply an aspect of Fleming's writings that was, for a few decades, mostly ignored. The cinematic Bond, for a while, had other goods to deliver and was going perfectly strong doing so. Yet even then, when we consider the pre-CR "counterreaction" films, like OHMSS, FYEO, TLD & LTK and GE, films that were trying to break free from a popcorn Bond that had often ended a previous actor's reign, one thing that binds them is that they almost always include some personal case for Bond, something that goes a bit further than M's mere instructions. In a sense, some of these Bond films, as with most of the Craigs, play out the stark contrast between 007 as an expendable resource (M's perspective) and James Bond as a human being with a sense of justice, personal pride and anger. Some adventures can easily work around those issues, making them barely matter, and others turn them into the main deal for most of the film.

    The Craig era, coinciding with other film series that throw their heroes on the couch, like Nolan's Batman trilogy and the Bourne films, can be seen as just a modern thing, something dreadfully different from the "golden age Bond". But I think it was a natural thing to happen, not only because audiences have grown more sophisticated and, in a way, tired of vacant heroes, but also because these conflicts and dilemmas are in Bond's DNA and have been ever since the publication of Casino Royale.

    Two exceptionally fine posts by a couple who truly get the essence, the DNA, of James Bond.
  • Posts: 10
    After watching MI: Fallout and The Night Comes for Us, I think the Bond producers should make upgrading the FIGHT CHOREOGRAPHY a priority for Bond 25.

    See if Wolfgang Stegemann or Iko Uwais is available.

    Btw, if you haven't seen "The Night Comes for Us", give it a watch. Indonesian Martial Arts/Triad epic!
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2018 Posts: 2,541
    The difference between SF/SP and TLJ is that while TLJ does attempt a greater depth of storytelling, they never lose sight of that STAR WARS tone of adventure and fun space action. I feel like SF and SP push things too far into Melodrama, to the point where lose that fun escapist tone. I feel this especially during the Scotland sequence in SF. I like to have themes and character in a movie, I just don't like them to become the driving force, especially in Bond.

    Only scene I find melodramatic in skyfall was M's death in ending and Spectre was "full of it".
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Coincidentally, Liang Yang, who portrays the decoy John Lark in that bathroom fight scene, was apparently a stuntman who worked on Skyfall.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have any problems with the introspective navel gazing Bond. If that's what they want to do, go for it, even though I personally find it tiresome after all this time.

    Where I have issues is when you want me to believe that this wreck is also the quipping, super cool Bond of yore. I don't buy 5ft whatever, tight suit fitting Craig as that Bond. I bought him as the broken Bond, who openly cried when his girlfriend and boss died. Not the one who couldn't care less when his new love left him on the streets of London.

    He was motivated by his duty. It's 007 after all. BTW in SP it always seemed to me that it was Madeleine the one more interested in a love relationship between the two. She's the one who tries to play with Bond's psyche in order to convince him to quit the life of her father. She's the one that really fall in love with him, as proven by the torture scene. She's the one who seem to really care about a real relationship and that's why she decides to leave after she understood - in the Hildebrand Print and Rarities scene - that Bond cared most about his work than her feelings.

    I'm pretty curious now because she's an interesting character that wasn't able to express its full potential. But I'm 100% sure that if she's goin to suffer a "Tracy" treatment Bond reaction to her death would be totally different than Vesper's.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    matt_u wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have any problems with the introspective navel gazing Bond. If that's what they want to do, go for it, even though I personally find it tiresome after all this time.

    Where I have issues is when you want me to believe that this wreck is also the quipping, super cool Bond of yore. I don't buy 5ft whatever, tight suit fitting Craig as that Bond. I bought him as the broken Bond, who openly cried when his girlfriend and boss died. Not the one who couldn't care less when his new love left him on the streets of London.

    He was motivated by his duty. It's 007 after all. BTW in SP it always seemed to me that it was Madeleine the one more interested in a love relationship between the two. She's the one who tries to play with Bond's psyche in order to convince him to quit the life of her father. She's the one that really fall in love with him, as proven by the torture scene. She's the one who seem to really care about a real relationship and that's why she decides to leave after she understood - in the Hildebrand Print and Rarities scene - that Bond cared most about his work than her feelings.

    I'm pretty curious now because she's an interesting character that wasn't able to express its full potential. But I'm 100% sure that if she's goin to suffer a "Tracy" treatment Bond reaction to her death would be totally different than Vesper's.
    I get the duty bit. I was making a point about the nonchalance not squaring well with the inner turmoil within the same cinematic characterization.

    In terms of Bond's feelings towards Madeleine, sadly Smith's song indicates something more than what you suggest, which leads to further confusion for the viewer. They have an opportunity to address what these two have going on (is it a relationship of convenience of one of heartfelt commitment?) soon enough, and they'd better get it right.

    I'd be quite happy if she ends up being a conflicted Vesper type who leans to the dark side - one who was playing him. As I mentioned earlier, she has that mischievous thing going on. Perhaps he ends up saving her from herself, and that is the 'complete arc' vs. Vesper who he failed to save. On Valentine's Day, how more apropos is that?
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited December 2018 Posts: 2,541
    bondjames wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have any problems with the introspective navel gazing Bond. If that's what they want to do, go for it, even though I personally find it tiresome after all this time.

    Where I have issues is when you want me to believe that this wreck is also the quipping, super cool Bond of yore. I don't buy 5ft whatever, tight suit fitting Craig as that Bond. I bought him as the broken Bond, who openly cried when his girlfriend and boss died. Not the one who couldn't care less when his new love left him on the streets of London.

    He was motivated by his duty. It's 007 after all. BTW in SP it always seemed to me that it was Madeleine the one more interested in a love relationship between the two. She's the one who tries to play with Bond's psyche in order to convince him to quit the life of her father. She's the one that really fall in love with him, as proven by the torture scene. She's the one who seem to really care about a real relationship and that's why she decides to leave after she understood - in the Hildebrand Print and Rarities scene - that Bond cared most about his work than her feelings.

    I'm pretty curious now because she's an interesting character that wasn't able to express its full potential. But I'm 100% sure that if she's goin to suffer a "Tracy" treatment Bond reaction to her death would be totally different than Vesper's.
    I get the duty bit. I was making a point about the nonchalance not squaring well with the inner turmoil within the same cinematic characterization.

    In terms of Bond's feelings towards Madeleine, sadly Smith's song indicates something more than what you suggest, which leads to further confusion for the viewer. They have an opportunity to address what these two have going on (is it a relationship of convenience of one of heartfelt commitment?) soon enough, and they'd better get it right.

    I'd be quite happy if she ends up being a conflicted Vesper type who leans to the dark side - one who was playing him. As I mentioned earlier, she has that mischievous thing going on. Perhaps he ends up saving her from herself, and that is the 'complete arc' vs. Vesper who he failed to save. On Valentine's Day, how more apropos is that?

    I would very much like Madeline to turn into a villianous Character which would very well explain why she didn't have any sort of chemistry with Bond in SP.
  • Posts: 6,710
    After her father perhaps. A true shady character. But that would mean Bond gets betrayed by two existentially significant women. Damn, guy sure knows how to pick them, right? But @bondjames treatment of that angle works very nicely, I must say.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @Univex. It's just a thought given the film's release date. I can't imagine she's being brought back just to be dispensed with quickly, and she's no Tracy and so they'd be foolish to try to make her into one (I did a group viewing of OHMSS with some of the gang here last night and that film is untouchable).

    I'm curious to see what they end up doing with her. Unless she will exist only in flashbacks or shows up at the end.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2018 Posts: 24,257
    I'm rather fond of Madeleine. Despite what many claim, I find her fitting very well into the long list of Bond girls, albeit perhaps more the literary ones. She keeps her distance, has a troubled past of sorts, knows when to remain quiet and balances between reluctance and desire when she follows Bond around. She's not unlike the literary Tiffany Case, Domino or even Solitaire.

    Madeleine rarely smiles and there's an introverted aura around her, emphasised by the fact that when we see her, it's in an empty office in an underpopulated building standing alone in the mountains, or in a hotel room that seems to exist in a different dimension, cut off from the world so to speak, or in the desert, in Blofeld's remote hideout... Even in London, we rarely see her except in vacant streets or empty buildings. Her own father, from whom she had grown alienated, is seen in this film all by himself, hidden away in a barely accessible room in a shack hidden in the mountains, behind thick layers of mist. The Whites are synonymous with being "alone" and possibly "lonely" too. Bond is also alone: look at his apartment. Even Moneypenny calls him out on it.

    Perhaps it's because I'm something of an introvert too, someone who wouldn't mind journeying around the world if it was just me and only one significant other, that I'm drawn to their relationship, that despite the emotional barriers I can still sense the warmth that exists between them. Perhaps I'm being reminded of relationships that I have had, which weren't all that different, of two people mostly left to themselves, meeting up, bonding quickly but solidly, living the 'L Américain scene as it were. Perhaps from experience, I recognise chemistry where others see an impossible team-up; I can feel love where others find nothing of the sort. Their romantic cue in the score exists of barely more than a few piano notes and some distant strings. Everything expresses the "aloneness" of Madeleine and Bond. I can accept that this is not what most people want to see, but then only about 25 % of the population is introverted, so perhaps that explains the overwhelming hostility towards Madeleine in some discussions.

    In any case, having watched SP close to 15 times now, possibly more, I can safely say that I enjoy the presence of Madeleine; and even though there's barely any competition as it is, I think she's the second best Bond girl in the Craig era, behind the near perfect Vesper of course. After seeing SP for the first time in 2015, I walked out thinking that if they ever brought her back, it would make perfect sense, at least to me. And though I haven't the faintest idea of what they're planning to do with her in B25, I will concede that if she spends a good portion of the film alongside Bond, like she does in SP, I'll probably come out a happy fan.
Sign In or Register to comment.