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
So again, as is becoming a recurring theme, you're inventing reasons in your head for why it's bad.
Please tell us exactly what this 'agenda' is that Hallywood is trying to force down our throat? Your first paragraph sounded like you might almost give a genuine film based reason for why you don't like it, and then you've gone off into conspiracy-ville about agendas and messaging. So now Hollywood greenlit this movie knowing it would bomb to send some 'message', but it's actually doing well so I guess they got that wrong and...do you even see how messed up this logic is?
You state they wanted to 'burn down the series' and expect people to take you seriously? You think that was their intention? I guess they failed so you and they are both wrong hey? Please explain how Roger Moore's carry on global celebrity 'spy' Bond didn't subvert the character any more than Daniel Craig?
Unless someone gives a reason for liking this on an intellectual basis rather than inventing imaginary motives for the producers you cannot possibly know to be true, while throwing in references to 'wokeness' and 'agendas' you're rather giving away the real reasons you don't like it, and it's ugly.
In terms of 'messaging' what is it that is so important about the 1960s that call films should keep promoting forever? I mean, should we not go back further if we want to keep things traditional and all films promote native Indian culture? You're being rather woke expecting token white men to keep replacing the true culture of California.
There are some proper crazies about. I doubt EON will be shedding tears if they lose them.
I call bingo, we've now had 'woke', 'agenda', and 'sheeple'. When did this forum get infiltrated by David Icke?
There an interesting set of fans who will defend Bond more or less raping women in old films (and frankly SF and SP were a bit dodge here) because it was 'of it's time', but get very very angry now if they perceive Bond does anything remotely 'of it's time'. It seems racism and sexism are the only 'messages' Bond should be sending according to some very strange people on the on the internet.
It seems you are on some kind of woke agenda too.... ;)
I didn't say they'd greenlight NTTD knowing it'd bomb. I say they do sometimes greenlight movies that they know will bomb. Look up various funding schemes for movies: tax breaks, money laundering, etc. But that has little do with what I'm saying about NTTD. It's a separate issue. My only point was that money is not the only thing that motivates Hollywood.
As I've said many times before, the Bond producers are following a subversive and divisive cultural trend of killing off action heroes: Han Solo, Luke, John Connor, Wolverine. Simply put, if this weren't a trend in the past decade, the producers would have not made this movie, or at least they wouldn't have ended it the way they did.
Roger Moore's Bond didn't spend his entire tenure being deconstructed and then finally being blown up..
What imaginary motives? The evidence is in the movie itself and what the people who made it have said in interviews.
Nobody wants the same movie to be made over and over. But not killing any iteration of Bond seems like a simple and obvious rule that would only be broken for trendy reasons or shock value, especially if they intend to continue the series. The Bond formula is general enough to allow for plenty of originality and creativity without dividing the fanbase with drastic and extreme decisions.
I'm a Millennial and I hate the ending.
I don't think they'd ever even consider killing off Craig-Bond if other franchises hadn't done similar things. The Craig era was a trend-chasing era. Bourne with QOS, Batman with SF, Marvel with SP, and now Star Wars with NTTD. Ever since QOS (which I like) it seems like Bond has been getting filtered through the lenses of other series instead of establishing its own identity.
And didn't Craig even have a supporting role in one of the Star Wars sequels? I'm pretty sure he's friends with Rian Johnson, the guy who made The Last Jedi. They did Knives Out together. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Craig wanted to give Bond the Luke Skywalker treatment.
LOL the idea of killing off Luke was even part of George Lucas’ original pitch for the sequel trilogy. Come on!
“Marvel with SP”, “SW with NTTD”? Don’t make me laugh.
I know you want to remove all that from the Bond series because you find it offensive. But the rest of us don’t. So guess who’s in the minority? And guess who’s not a Bond fan?
Well, there will always be external factors involved that may or may not be applicable as they are here. For example, we knew it would be Craig's final film ... and, after watching the film, that Bond's death makes sense (to me, anyway) both emotionally & thematically in relation to the entire Craig arc. But, in theory, I agree ... and in doing so NTTD has brought a sense of genuine jeopardy to a character that hasn't had it since ... forever.
As an aside, it's interesting and sometimes bewildering to read the comments in response to the film. It's almost as if NTTD is a kind of Rorshach test saying more about those of us commenting on it than the film itself.
For sure, and there are some remarkably rude brand-new members about, too.
You're absolutely right. Besides, Bond is a fictional character, who was brought to life by six actors over the run of 59 years. He does not exist in reality, nor do Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, or Bruce Wayne. They are creators of some writers. And we will have a seventh actor getting his take on Bond. And Fleming has been dead for almost 60 years. We don't know, what he would have thought about how his novels got adopted on film. We will never know. Or what would Shakespeare have said, if he knew, what they were doing with his plays?
Yes he's a womaniser. That's fine. Womanising doesn't mean 'forcing yourself against someone's will.' It's much better when it's women finding him irresistible down to his charm and looks rather than being coerced isn't it? Well to me at least, I'm just glad I don't have a daughter with some of the frankly creepy things I've seen written on this forum about what is important to people in a film.
Its strange, don't you think, how people who get very angry that Bond isn't womanising enough, don't get angry that Roger Moore wasn't anything like the Bond character? Why doesn't that make them equally angry? That was also nothing like Bond. It's almost like the only single characteristic some people care about is weird sexual fantasies. And if that's so, you are really not a Bond fan. That's part of the character, but to only get upset about that one particular part says a lot about a person.
A lot of assumptions in your post. Most frightening is that you seem to think anyone who even slightly feels women should be treated decently, can't be a Bond fan. I'm probably older than you. I like pretty much all Bind films except AVTAK, DAF, and DAD. And that's nothing to do with women.
You see, I don't want to remove that from Bond. It's still there, he sleazed into both Nomi and Paloma in this film. He's the same character. They haven't changed him, they've changed the world around him, rightly. He sleazes on, sometimes it doesn't work. I find women sexier who have some self-respect, I guess some don't.
Anyway, if the most important thing to you in a film is that 'Bond has his way with women' we probably want different things out of films. I'll rest assured I'm in the majority, because Bond films will definitely make me happier in future than you. I'm sorry you won't be able to enjoy films that reflect reality rather than your fantasies. I'm sure there's websites somewhere you can use.
"The (DB5's) armour is like (Bond's) armour. So when he's in that square and the car's being shot up, it's like his heart is being attacked, and she's in there trying to wake him up."
I think for some people their guts are in such a knot that they have to vent strongly and just spew all the pent up poison they feel inside after watching NTTD. OK then, just please go vent in that manner somewhere else other than this forum. It sure feels like most civil discussion is drowned out at the moment by anger, denial, and bitterness wrapped up in frustration ... because this movie is done, fini, in the cinemas around the world and nothing you or I can do to change the ending.
You hate a film? You cannot accept its ending without deepening anger and resentment? Then I suggest you do not watch it again. Don't put yourself through that any more. You still love Bond films and novels? Then go enjoy the ones you like. I am not being flippant. I mean that. Have your say in a civil way, then do something positive for yourself (and others). If talking about NTTD helps you feel better, that's great as long as it is not hate-filled commentary. I am not sensing relief from some members in this thread; just the opposite.
There are all kinds of Bond fans around the world. We will disagree on many things. NTTD is divisive because of its ending. C'est la vie. There WILL be the next Bond movie, and I hope it is one enjoyed by all who are having such a tough, truly miserable time with NTTD. I don't like to see people churning and this upset and it snowballing worse and worse. I don't wish turmoil inside Bond fans churning into deep hatred and burning revenge against EON; or attacking others with differing views. Come on, now. Take care of yourselves, take a step back.
We cannot change each other's minds. It is okay to differ wildly about movies. It is just when the level of hate spills into attacking each other and wild surmises about EON's motivations that I get concerned for members here. It feels like a mob mentality brewing, with anger overriding everything else. Try stepping back a bit.
The same is true about any work of art that is open to interpretation and depends on emotional resonance to be appreciated. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that.
Someone made a good point the other day, about how if Purvis and Wade came up with some of the weirder bits of the Fleming novels (the comedy dream sequences, outright fourth wall breaks, giant squid, etc) they’d be slated for it. And yeah, to be honest, I’ve often thought the same is true of Moore’s Bond. He gets a pass, because we all grew up with him and love him. But he looks and acts nothing like Fleming’s character. Over the years on here, I’ve seen some members who are most vocally in favour of Bond staying white because of the books then turn around and defend the merits of Moonraker (film). Doesn’t make sense to me.
I do love Roger Moore for the record. He was brilliant and the series never would’ve survived if he hadn’t reinvented it the way he did. But I do think he marked the point where Bond transcended the source material, and where Fleming stopped being the absolute be all and end all. Moore proved that playing it fast and loose with the rules and giving us a different take could not only work, but is sometimes necessary to keep the brand relevant.
Disagree on SF and SP being dodge (it’s unrealistic, having the women fall at his feet so quickly, but that’s Bond, and it was 100% consensual) but yeah I can see where you’re coming from, I do think some people get strangely defensive over the old films and Bond’s sexism (or the actors, I remember somebody gleefully posting gifs of Connery slapping women around in the thread about his passing, because people had been criticising him over those comments he made).
Same with the racism in the novels. Like yeah, Fleming was a man of his time, but we can still admit that wasn’t okay. I think it’s silly to let those grim bits affect our enjoyment of all the other good stuff. I certainly wouldn’t knock GF down my rankings because of the rapey bit in the barn. But we don’t have to defend those bits either, we can acknowledge they‘ve aged awfully. I think the problem with the defence of “it was the 50s/60s, everyone was doing it” is that there were people back then (feminists, civil rights campaigners, etc) who knew that wasn’t okay. And making excuses for the people on the wrong side of history does a disservice to those people who were on the right side, imo.
Yes, but something about NTTD within the context of the entire series seems to have provoked, pro or con, a much deeper response within the fandom than any other film .... as if we each feel the necessity to confront our own understanding of the character (and how he does or does not change) and then take ownership of it.
Agreed, and that's one of the reasons why this film is special imo.
Nah... it's not growing.
So if at the end of GF Bond got sucked out of the airplane window and Goldfinger emerged victorious would you also call it a “special” film?
Because it’s divisive it’s special? Yeah, ok.
I recall just a few years ago over on the IMDB Bond discussion boards things being discussed like the death of Bond or James Bond being a code name instead of an actual agent’s real name. Not a single fan was okay with either of these 2 things. No matter how hardcore Craig fans they were they all said this would be stepping over the line and going way too far and that the producers would never go for such a thing. And yet here we are. Surprise, surprise. I just wonder if all those fans are outraged now or if they suddenly changed their tune.
Things that were unthinkable just a few years ago are suddenly okay now? Because other franchises are doing it?
That analogy doesn’t work, because GF as a story doesn’t build up to Bond’s death. NTTD does.
It doesn’t feel that different to any previous release to me. There is always a small vocal minority who will attempt to justify why it’s the end of days. Happened with SP before, and SF before that, and so on. It’ll happen again with B26, and 27…
I have never seen this level of polarising after a Bond film before. SP and SF didn't have anything as controversial as Bond having a child and then killing himself. We are in unchartered waters now. This isn't on the same level as M dying, or Blofeld being Bond's brother.
If you want to go to the cinema for a melodrama, you go to see a melodrama or stay at home to see news of the day, if you want to see a Bond movie you do not expect a family melodrama.
The main reason that Bond movies are my favourite because they can be watched many times. In case of NTTD on second and subsequent views it is not so funny knowing the ending. This is the biggest problem with this movie. In OHMSS, Bond does not die, which is marked by John Barry with the optimistic OHMSS at the end.
Exactamundo! ^:)^
Why is Bond having a child such a bad thing? Fleming did it.
It’s good job you have 24 others you can watch repeatedly then. Sometimes you’ve got to crack a few eggs.