It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I wouldn’t disagree with what you, or @Reflsin2bourbons is saying.
I’ve interpreted this film, and the way it was shot (surreal/dreamlike), as Bond seeing his last few years of life, flashing before his eyes, in the moment that the missiles hit him.
It’s we the audience that finally catch up to him at the very end.
It’s almost like an adult fairy tale to me, and I can understand why some may hate my interpretation, or agree with it, and still dislike it.
To me, it was awesome.
As an American, I see many people being insolent and disloyal toward their bosses...and M isn't even Bond's boss at this point in the story!
I don't know if British audiences read this relationship differently and demand more loyalty from Bond even in retirement, but this changed dynamic definitely seems to be a sore point with some who watch NTTD. It's a great point that Bond just saw Leiter being killed so of course Bond is teed off!
Also, it's dramatic and who doesn't like seeing pros like Fiennes and Craig go toe-to-toe (as they may this year at the Oscars)?
Also, it's fiction! I'd rather have fictional drama than the real-world drama I see in my country.
I think that's fine; for me these films should always exist in Bondland, not our own. Somewhere more glamorous and perfect, where you arrive to casinos by personal boat with fireworks going off behind you and where beach bars are filled with attractive people playing dangerous games with scorpions.
Yeah well I suppose no points for guessing my least favourite Connery and Moore films. And they both have the Gilbert virus of jumping around far too much. All three are films where the fantastical of Bond brush too close to sci-fi for my tastes
Yes, and I'd like to mention that No Time To Die pulls off the surrealism better than the other two. I think the ending and all the logical qualm I have about it ultimately puts it bottom of the three though.
I don't think so. Bondland should never be divorced for our own: otherwise when the films try to appeal to the human side to the character they will fail in my eyes. How can I take the character's struggles as deeply as I should when I don't believe any of this is real?
What of the man tired smelling sweat and smoke in the casino of a partially failed French town? Whose job half the time seems to be about stopping communist funding (and then another bit dealing? Because even with the world ending plots, Fleming was still always keeping it believable (hence the "Fleming Effect", the focus on the drinks and cars and systems).
Minor Bond rumor.
Also, I worked a full day. I see this thread with a ton of responses. My hopes go up about getting Bond news. BUT NOOOOOOOO! It's the same person who doesn't get filmmaking and even worse: Doesn't respect others' opinions. Just assuming we'll follow theirs as fact! Bond is one of the ultimate fantasies mixed with realism. I'd say NTTD does this at least decently. Uh-oh, I'm defending NTTD! I'd better hide from a certain someone!
quote=Seve
Top "Traditional" Action Movies by year (i.e. not Sci-Fi or Superhero)
Yes, I have chosen to exclude them, as I wanted to look at ones where the degree of action "realism" is a factor
Superheros movies have always ignored the rules of physics, for example. in the "real" World, Ironman would never have survived most of the crashes he endured while developing his suit in Ironman 1, but in a Superhero movie no part of the audience seems to care about that.
Whereas there is a significant portion of action movie fans who find the Fast & Furious franchise to be ridiculous and won't watch them.
On the other hand Fast & Furious are able to draw in Superhero movie fans instead
Bond fans accept a certain level of "incredibility", but I believe there is a line beyond which they would become unhappy.
I don't see NTTD as Bond's flashback while waiting for the missiles to arrive. If that was the case, his flashback was 2 hours and 43 minutes long, easily enough time to escape, and his flashback included Madeleine's flashback which feels very much like a Jorge Luis Borges short story.
Bond films often strain reality because they've too often ventured into silliness. But I don't want a Bond film ripped from today's headlines. When I read someone saying Bond is needed more than ever because there is so much wrong in the world, I oppose that idea. Bond is an escape from reality. And in the end, a fictional character never solves problems in the real world.
The nanobots, essentially anticipating Covid, weren't real-world enough? I can't think of a more immediately prescient Bond movie.
I agree that it's dreamlike, a bit like the YOLT novel.
It’s still heightened reality though, and often the villains in these films are third parties/heightened versions of evil rather than those directly related with any of these political conflicts. That said I would argue it’s less complete escapism from the political/societal ills of our real world. It’s simply nice to know someone like Bond can come along, even in a world with such conflicts, and defeat such evils.
You kind of took what I said a little too literally. His last few years flashing before his eyes, but we, the audience, are seeing the film version of that, and catch up with him, at the end.
It's an interpretation. You don't have to like it, but I'm not expecting you to.
It's the way I've interpreted this film since the first time I saw it. The way it was shot, *was* very dream-like, and like an adult fairy tale to me.
The first words I uttered to my wife after our viewing is exactly what I wrote yesterday: the last few years of his life, flashing before his eyes, and we only catch up to him at the very end.
I wouldn’t say it’s dream-like strictly speaking (although I can understand why that’s a description being used here, and I think that’s an interesting way of looking at this film). For me it’s a bit more impressionistic and heightened stylistically than a lot of other Bond films, and of course with a very odd story.
@mtm :
The sunset-like purple skies throughout ; driving through the tunnel in Matera (in the PTS and at the end); the dreamy quality of the opera music, the hotel room romance, the burning of the secrets… even the opening credits and imagery. Q’s lab seemed almost nightmarish to me; the house in Finland; the shootout and kidnapping in the forest, the Poison Garden, all of it to me seemed so surreal. Every shot was filmed in a way that was a step out of reality, and into a dreamscape. To me. I thought it was beautifully shot.
I love that certain scenes in the later Craig era really upped the atmosphere in terms of the filmmaking. My favourite examples are when Bond is placed into the middle of the villain's territory. I'm thinking specifically of Silva's ghost town island with all the crumbling buildings and the jaunty old French music playing over everything (which is a lovely little touch that just makes it that extra bit creepy and accentuates how archaic and again ghostly everything there is). It has this weirdness to it that makes it feel like Bond is in a dangerous situation. Same for the first bit of the SPECTRE party. That's something I feel some of the pre 2012 Bond films lack a bit for me, despite how good they are, and actually reminds me a lot of certain Fleming novels. It's that sense that Bond has stepped into an unknown world. I'd love to see that same approach in the new era.
Okay cool, I see where you're coming from.
Yes that island is wonderfully atmospheric. I feel the same about the shots of the DB5 arriving at Skyfall: it's so wonderfully oppressive, and the music is fantastically bleak at that point too.
I think QoS had its moments of style, but if there's something CR arguably missed it's those moments of real atmosphere being conjured. And maybe that wouldn't have been a bad thing, evoking that sense of sweat and smoke of a casino at three in the morning.
Yes agreed about the pre-2012 films, it's why sometimes I think SF might just pip CR for me in terms of the Craig Bonds- SF is just a much more aesthetically stylish product in terms of sound and vision, and that's a big part of Bond for me: it should be hokum but presented in a ridiculously lush and stylish box. And that goes back to Fleming: silly adventure stories but wrapped up in all of these luxury brands and high living and Fleming's brilliant prose, giving a feel of quality it almost doesn't deserve. That's kind of half the point of 007 to me.
Did you just ask if EMP-proof nanobots that could target certain genotypes and races (despite races having high genetic variation) weren't real world enough? COVID wasn't a weapon, certainly did not discriminate, and if Bond sacrificed himself for the sake of his family not getting COVID then I'd be very disappointment at the waste of 2 hours for a disease that probably a quarter of the world got anyway.
With that sort of logic gene therapy makes sense because it's just skin bleaching, hair transplants and plastic surgery.
Never mind just that, a high-security convict probably arrested for serious terrorism and espionage charges has a bionic eye in sync with another one eyed man and is able to attend his birthday party in absentia with the rest of his criminal organisation. Never mind why the hell SPECTRE have birthday parties like they're a social club. Like I said, NTTD lacks a base feeling of reality.
Fair enough that these films involve rogue elements/third parties, but of course these are due to political (fear of insulting) reasons, not ever storytelling reasons.
Well the story doesn't need to be "ripped from today's headlines." There are interesting espionage stories and plots that have been in existence since the Second World War that would still function today. And even stuff from today's headlines wouldn't involve Bond solving real problems. It's hardly as if Bond is going to stop rampant inflation, end Russia's war in Ukraine and stop climate change in a film.
But if Bond dealt with foreign sabotage, businessmen dodging sanctions to fund private military companies, or smuggling of natural resources from sanctioned countries, then there's a very realistic element to the film that can be developed into something fantastical and ridiculous.
Take Licence to Kill. I wasn't around for that but I imagine the War on Drugs was mentioned in the news quite often, along with mentions of corrupt South/Central American countries helping facilitate big cartels. That's a solid basis for a story that the film uses but it ultimately doesn't stay a boring documentary about solving the drug problem. There are Hong Kong narcotics ninja involved, Q uses a broom radio, 007 waterskies away with no skis, and a man has his head blown off in a decompression chamber.
Not entirely wrong, but I think it plays into the idea that it's the best storytelling option and has become so over time having such villains in these films. The villains in Bond are always going to be outliers to some extent anyway (ie. Dr. No is still a fantastical villain with a God complex regardless of whether he's working for SPECTRE as in the film or the Russians as per the novel).
No, Peter. I didn't take your comment literally at all. We all know what it means to have one's life flash before one's eyes. I disagree with your interpretation, by having a little fun with it.
I missed the humour, but expected you wouldn’t appreciate the interpretation.
I don't disagree to be contentious. That I disagree with your interpretation doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. Your analysis and justifications are interesting. I am not being contradictory. I can appreciate something without liking it. For example, I do not like the sport of basketball, but I do appreciate the skill it takes to play.
It’s fine, mate. I understood. I repeated yesterday that people won’t like what I’m saying, won’t like my interpretation. So I was expecting you, and others, not to appreciate , or I should have said, “like” my perspective.
But I wasn’t really asking anyone to agree or like it, so it really is no problem.
Btw, I have already pitched a Bond 26 titled "JAMES BOND IN HELL" and starring Daniel Craig here some time ago. Satan himself could be the main villain of the movie.
It's already been done with Malek's Safin, though.
His cinema is the equivalent of eating quaaludes. (Though of course I loved the cinematography of Blade Runner II).
There are several things to consider for the next chapter of Bond:
- The actor casting. Many options to choose from, one including a very young actor like Timothee Chalamet and maybe exploring Bond's youth like his Commander days. (I think MGW wrote such a script right before Dalton was cast). Or just getting someone around 37/40 wich IMHO would be safer.
- Framing the story. I think that they could frame that everything that happened once Bond is tortured in the chair in SPECTRE and free himself, up to the ending of NTTD could be revealed as a dream. Or, he is just coming back after being officialy killed. They might start with the new actor with a different face claiming to be Bond going back to MI6 and trying to kill M like in the MWTGG book. Think about it, they can have the whole old character's cast in place, (familiarity), and then explore something new with the new actor. A Bond who needs to find out what was done to him and destroy evil (ie go from where Fleming left off). In that sense, I think the MWTGG book should be mined for the next one. Like, they are not sure this guy is Bond and send him on a suicide mission.
- SPECTRE is I think important. All the Craig films relate to what is happening in real life to us regarding the evil characters and feels really modern. It's crazy how QOS, as mediocre as it was, was current with the water thing. We live in a world, more than before, that wealthy people are working hard to remodel into something that is lucrative to the power top, essentialy viewing humanity as culture crop (ie people just consume and make money for the top, should shut up, not be creative etc.). Even going back to the Sean era, you can see how SPECTRE relate to evil as it is enhanced today.
- Look at what was done in the last 25 years, they killed rock'n'roll (only the old timers are left, and they are dying one by one), they killed creativity in films (Marvel, DC, F&F), and comics which aren't relevant anymore, they killed Star Wars as a brand, they killed traditions (churches are burnt, terrorism is in the rise tenfold). Institutions are crumbling. But deep inside them, there are some people still fighting to get back to normal, because you can't kill humanity. Some of that was in SPECTRE with the takeaway of MI6 with the new computerised, surveillance team.
- Looking back on it, Bond remains strong, but the evil in the world would probably love to take away the franchise from the team, and dilute it in a series or something. Babs and MGW are the guardians of the temple. They need to frame a return that not only pushes Bond in the next chapter, but also relate even more to the chaos of today.
Personaly, I can't wait.
It’s an interesting book with Bond being forced to prove himself to M (and M in turn having to prove how useful his best agent still is) by assassinating an enemy of MI6. There’s a great cat and mouse element, the villain is presented as being far too skilled to take on, and Bond is quite conflicted about killing them anyway.
There’s loads you could do those basic concepts - M pulling the strings and trying to kill two birds with one stone (sending Bond on a dangerous mission to prove his agent to MI6, and to kill someone problematic for MI6), Bond knowing the mission is dangerous and not enjoying doing M’s dirty work (more a thing of some of the short stories like FYEO but it’s there), Bond having to go undercover to get closer to the villain perhaps. Doesn’t need to be 100% faithful but I can imagine it being a nice basic story to start a new era.
Yeah, he completely throws away a role which could have stolen that film. Even imagining Craig in it, it’s the opportunity for the sort of turn he did in Logan Lucky: not in it for long but makes a big comic impression. ATJ just isn’t really in the same league.