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
Not that they use that sort of marketing anymore. Ugh, if anything, it makes me more upset that they didn’t use Blofeld as the main villain / Shatterhand type figure in NTTD; if they were going to kill bond, IMO, it must be Blofeld to do it.
In a sense, Blofeld kinda did. Safin became who he was because of SPECTRE. Bond had to deal with a mess SPECTRE inadvertently created.
That's true. Maybe even better because Blofeld did it from the grave. Not even killing Blofeld can stop him...
I said during the build up that if NTTD featured a jailbreak sequence with Hinx leading the charge, if would have shot the film up to a 10/10.
And to a similar end, I think it would have made a cool epilogue scene at the end of Spectre where they're bringing Blofeld to his prison cell, and it zooms in and one of the guard/escorts is wearing a Spectre ring.
It would be nice to think they had at least some significant amount of time together before Bond's self-imposed exile in Jamaica ....
At the very least, it’s been under a year between the events of SP and the Matera sequence.
So less than a year, really ... but I guess as the epilogue of NTTD makes clear, it's not in the duration but how we use our time that really counts.
Man, this is such a good post. Well done.
This is such a ridiculous argument that it barely makes any sense. Strawman argument doesn't even begin to describe this clumsy post. Of course no one wants to see Bond married with children. Of course Craig was dead set on retiring and everyone knew it was his time to move on. But that doesn't mean we have to kill him in order to resolve the child plot and give the era a "conclusion". If a reboot is assumed whenever a new actor takes on the helm anyway, they could have left Bond alive with amnesia at the end of the movie or drifting off at sea or whatever and started the next movie with a new Bond in a new story and new direction with no references to Craig. Are you saying you can get over the idea of a dead character coming back to life in the next entry but can't get over the thought that "another version" of the character has a kid with a girl in the previous film?
I think he was just kidding.
Based on the continuity argument, it improves absolutely nothing - in fact, in my opinion, it muddies the water even more. Bond dying to save the world and his family is sad and heroic. Bond getting amnesia and leaving everything behind like a confused, solitary individual is... just outright depressing.
@jobo I very much agree. IMO the amnesia ending would only work in the context of following OHMSS and preceding TMWTGG as a final installment for one’s tenure. But given that this was his last film and that it follows SP, it just wouldn’t work.
I didn't say it wouldn't work, necessarily. I am saying it would be no improvement at all, wouldn't make any more sense or be less confusing, and that it would be far more tragic and unsatisfying.
That's part of what I was trying to get at.
On the one hand, it is now on the table that Bond could potentially die. That should mean, that the stakes for the films are raised after decades of "well, he'll get out of it in some ridiculous way anyway" (at this point, I will leave to the side the argument that that is the central appeal of the character).
On the other hand: It doesnt matter, they will reboot anyway.
On the other, other hand: They can't pull the same trick twice. These were very, very specific circumstances that made it (in my eyes) work this time. If they cast Tom Hardy and after two films he doesn't want to do it anymore, so they just randomly kill him, I can't see how I wouldn't hate that.
Still very interesting to think about.
There's an interesting almost mythical notion to this. If this is - at least roughly - canonically the way every incarnation of James Bond dies, than we now have a set of markers that signify the end. Basically, like some kind of myth where we either know the end already or there are prophecies of some kind. Bond retires to Jamaica and is called back for one last mission? Oh oh. Felix Leiter dies? Oh oh. Bond has a daughter. Oh oh. M or MI6 release a WMD into the wild? Oh oh.
I don't actually think that, but it is a storytelling avenue to go down.
Another thing to grapple with: Safin decidedly wasn't Bond's match. I actually consider that a very smart decision by the filmmakers. Bond very easily defeats him and kills him almost as an afterthought (I maintain that Bond would have survived the gunshot wounds, because Bond always survives everything - whoops). And Safin didn't kill him. He didn't infect him with a virus that would someday kill Bond. Bond is totally fine. He could have accepted that Madeleine and Mathilde will someday soon die gruesomely due to him being alive, just like Vesper, M, Mathis and so many others have, but he wasn't able to. Safin didn't kill him. He just ("just") snookered him into a position, where Bond didn't want to go on.
Because it would make an awful final installment for an actor.
Craig Bond forgets who he is, the end? Why is that better, because he’s merely alive? He might as well be dead.
I understand what a 'character arc' is, and what a 'timeline' is, but it's just a stupid idea. I read a lot of fiction and there has to be an element of narrative cohesion for it to work. And they've up the Bond franchise for me by killing off a character and saying - five minutes later, that he's not dead after all. It's complete billy-bollocks.
There's always been a loose chronology with Bond. In Brosnan's last movie there was a scene where Rosa Klebb's shoe was in it, and I know it's impossible that 49 year old Brosnan in 2002 was 32 in 1963 (or whatever their ages were), but there was still the knowing wink to the audience that it was the same character. It didn't make sense, but it still worked for me. Straight up killing him off and bringing him back doesn't make sense but doesn't work for me. It breaks a wall. It's dishonest.
How can you invest any emotion in a screen character who can be killed off and resurrected without explanation at whim?
That’s a problem for you and a subset of fans.
- Here's Bond again!
- Wait, didn't he die?
- That was another film, mate.
- So?
- The Bonds stand on their own more or less.
- So I don't have to worry about previous movies?
- You don't have to worry about previous movies.
- I see. Well, let's have some fun then. Are buying nachos?
It’s gonna be a different incarnation of the character of James Bond.
Like Craig was a different incarnation compared to Brozza and Dalton a different incarnation compared to Moore.
Is that so difficult to comprehend?
Nope. It's only during Craig's 'special' tenure we're asked to accept this stupid 'alternate universe'.
Brosnan sniffed the shoe, mate.
That's right. And I'm not saying people who are happy to accept zombie-Bond are wrong - in fact, in many ways they're luckier, in being able to enjoy the new Bond film without this silly nagging feeling that they've cocked it up splendidly. More power to you!
Blowing the main character up and claiming he's dead, and then saying he'll be back, isn't acceptable.
If it's acceptable to you - bully for you. You're the one having more fun!
How great were the hand to hand fights in this film? The fight's with Logan Ash and Primo actually felt life or death. I was on the edge of my seat at every viewing