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
Eh I don’t really buy that since the whole point of putting the 00 agents in the field is largely to do the thing that Heracles is going to do for them. I also think that totally flys in the face of “knowing when *not* to pull the trigger” as well since once Heracles is activated from afar there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. Not to mention M was staunchly against nefarious, all-powerful government tech in Spectre because he knew what could happen if used inappropriately.
You’re probably right but that’s the exact same argument that was used against the 00 section in Skyfall that was presumable settled with the whole Silva debacle.
Also, imagine having the DB5 able to be invisible in GF... people swallow the nanobots thing in NTTD because they don't realize the level of technology needed to do what they were doing in the movie, which we won't be able to do in any of our lifetimes.... just sayin'.
It makes me wonder if they were trying to riff on The Property of a Lady but ultimately abandoned that effort.
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1162433/James-Bond-25-title-plot-Genoma-of-a-Woman-Daniel-Craig-Genome-Matera
I don’t think it’s that, because I doubt many expect accurate science from a Bond film in the first place. I don’t anyway.
I think it basically comes down to presentation, how believeable they make the fantasy. Bond should be surreal, but it shouldn’t become an all out cartoon. NTTD’s nanobots are in a well crafted film that looks like it takes place in a world that’s just about recognisable as our own, so the audience goes along with it. DAD on the other hand goes so far into sci-fi land (in the aesthetic sense, not saying the science is less believeable), with such piss poor CGI, that it all just seems a bit naff.
This reply is excellent, sir! Pointing out what I miss from my own perspective is truly appreciated.
But I'm a science fan, and the nanobot thing makes zero sense IMO. Thus, sadly, the whole movie is a wash for me.
Fair enough mate, I can see why it’d bug you if you actually know about that stuff.
I think it’s a different context though. Skyfall was about scrapping the 00s because we were in the age of cyber warfare, do we need men like Bond when there’s men like Q. Heracles on the other hand was an outright weapon. So, I think you can kind of rationalise why Mallory was in favour of one but not the other. You’re right though, I do think that seems like a bit of an oversight on the writers’ part.
Home Premiers on Prime are usually in 4K. I can't wait to watch this with my Dolby Atmos sound.
Aside for Paloma who was terrific (funny and slightly quirky, not to mention beautiful - the kind of girls I like) I couldn’t get into the Cuba scenes. I feel like the beginning when we saw the Spectre agents could have been slower and darker and done in a more mysterious way to add to the surrealism not unlike how Kubrick or Lynch may have done it. Also, I didn’t appreciate the humour in the action scenes as I like consistency in films so an ongoing darker tone would have suited me better. The comedy during the action scenes took me out of the film which was also partly the case in the scene where the scientist was kidnapped. This scene could have been cooler without the humour. Also, why does Bond just walk into the open on that Cuban street with bullets flying around him? Was he already having suicidal thoughts? I can’t believe he wasn’t even hit.
They may return to Bond films that are centered around comedy like with the Moore films but I hope not. If they do though, they need someone to play Bond who can really pull it off like Moore could. Anything less and it wouldn’t work for me. I don’t think Brosnan pulled it off at all.
I think they need to return to Fleming and really inject more of the suaveness and charm into Bond that Craig lacked coupled with the brutality that Craig had. In terms of comedy, if it were natural and appeared in the non action scenes then this would be fine. A lengthy opening scene in black and white but where the blood and explosions are in red and orange would be cool. The sequence should show Bond as a commander in a recent war seeing they want to keep it contemporary. Then at the end just before the opening credits, we see a see a shot of Bond where only he bleeds into colour so we see the colours of his naval uniform although maybe this last part could come across as a little cheesy unless it’s incorporated into the credits sequence, maybe. I think Eon should do their best to keep at least Wishaw and Fiennes, especially Fiennes with obviously no reference to the Craig era obviously. This is what happened for the first three Craig films where Dench continued to play M. I don’t get the questions regarding where Bond will now go. Prior to the Craig era, there was very little continuity in Bond films although there are references to his wife. The next Bond will be the third separate chapter in the series or maybe the fourth if you look at OHMSS as being the start of the second chapter seeing Blofeld didn’t recognize Bond and we assume that Thunderball didn’t happen and Bond had never actually seen Blofeld before but was only told to pursue him…and then of course his wife dies. I can’t remember if there was reference to the fact that Bond had seen Blofeld before. A good excuse to watch the film again nearer to Christmas time. :-)
Actually, nanorobotic technology already exists. Researchers are already looking into how the technology can be used to combat cancer and other illnesses. So it is definitely NOT outside the realm of possibility that MI6 would have this technology and be working on it. I bought it 100%.
On the other hand, the technology could also be developed to create antidotes. So Bond could have been saved by nanobots that work to counter or destroy the nanobots in his system. But how long that would take? Perhaps 2-3 years, in which he'd have to live in solitary.
If he touches other people the poison will eventually reach Madeleine and Matilde. Six degrees of separation and all that...
Oh yeah. Thanks.
I mentioned it before somewhere but I think this is the purpose also of the mosquito dialogue with Mathilde in the back of the Toyota in Norway.
I know most people are going to tell me I’m wrong, but the way I look at it is that Bond was poisoned with more than just Madeline & Mathilde’s DNA. This justifies his decision to stay on the island even greater. It’s possible that tiny little vial also had the DNA of other individuals as well, not just Madeline & Mathilde. They were just the icing on top. If he did leave, he would be a walking bioweapon to all civilization.
On the other hand, I think he knew he wouldn’t make it out in time given the bullet wounds he sustained. Look at how long it took him to climb the flight of stairs back to the control room. Imagine how long it would’ve taken him to go back down to the tunnels, and all the way back down to the sub pen where the glider was (assuming that was the escape route).
Absolutely correct!
Nanobots or no Nanobots, Bond was not getting off that island.
But about the line: "Anyone we touch, we are their curse."
Not exactly, at least not to me, but that line is very much doing double duty. It literally refers to both Madeleine & Mathilde, but it also figuratively refers to all those, especially women, who have not survived their relationship to Bond. The nanobots may be dodgy science, I don't know, but they do function well as a metaphor - at least in this instance.
And after NTTD, potentially last-time poster...
I have been a serious fan of the Bond universe for over 40 years. I have read all the original novels, the short-stories, all the continuation novels, read many other books (from the making-of books, to cultural studies, to autobiographies). I have owned all the films on VHS, DVD, BluRay (and up to Friday, was seriously considering collecting them all again on 4k ultra HD).
So I feel I am entitled to the position I am taking here (and please note this is purely a personal view, I fully understand that other, similarly invested, fans will take a differing, even diametrically opposite, view).
As well as being a Bond fan, I have always read and watched a vast array of other espionage novels, films, and TV series. Most have had their respective strengths and weaknesses, but Bond has always been (to me at least) different. Bond was always the agent who, via some combination of derring-do and good fortune, escaped the impossible predicament and won the day. Yes there was often a personal cost associated with that victory, be it physical or emotional, and sometimes an extreme cost (losing his only wife) but at at the end of the day the foe was vanquished and Bond survived.
This though is apparently not enough for the current production team/director/star actor. Now they have to go for a cheap, Marvel Universe-esque, death of the main character to achieve some of emotional narrative arc. The have a Bond who increasingly loses - who lets Silva kill M, who lets Safin rob Madeleine of her true love and father of her daughter, and that daughter of her father. Instead it leaves us with a Bond who in the face of adversity, simply accepts his fate rather than fight it tooth and nail in the hope that some day, somehow, they would work out a way to rid him of the nanobots.
I suspect this reflects a writing team that has simply run out of good ideas and so reached desperately for something that would give the film some kind of impact. This can be seen in how poor the villains are in the recent films - we have an organisation (SPECTRE) that is apparently everywhere, but gets wiped out in a moment in Cuba... We have a new villain, whose plan is, what?. It also seems to reflect the demands of an actor who it was increasingly clear was simply "over" being Bond and was happy to be rid of him - forever.
Whatever the case, after carefully considering this over the past few days since watching the film on it opening in Australia, I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer be invested (or even interested) in James Bond as a character while the current "guardians" of the franchise hold the reins - he is as effectively dead to me as the Daniel Craig Bond was at the film.
In many ways this is actually something that has been coming for many years - while Casino Royale was a tremendous film, each movie since than has gotten worse and worse, to the point where I have actually enjoyed many other espionage films and books by a considerably greater margin.
So at this point I wave farewell to the Bond universe as it has now been fundamentally altered in a way that means - to me - it is no longer the Bond universe I have so cherished these past four decades, and will move on to other espionage works that do not so fundamentally change the nature of their main character.
The latter. It was a DNA targeting bio weapon in TWINE as well. They revealed it recently in an interview.
Welcome to the forum, and you are not alone in this opinion, even on here. There are a few (including me) who have found the ending one step too far, and I feel as strongly as you do about my feelings towards the franchise, and in particular the Craig era.
All we can hope for is a radical reboot with the next actor, and maybe an overhaul of the creative team too. The writers need to leave, and we need new blood throughout. I'm hoping we see a return to the unused Fleming material for Bond 26, this is one thing that will win me back over. An actor that embodies what we expect the cinematic Bond to look and act like, including the actor wanting a return to the books would be another steer back in the right direction too (ala Dalton).
Hopefully you stick around on the forums for a while.
Isn't it weird that with NTTD, the most outlandish rumours are the ones that had some form of truth to them.
Put the rumour up against NTTD and you can see the grain of truth to it
Genome of a woman, makes sense to the plot
Possible remake OHMSS, they did in a sense.
Female 007, they did.
A PTS without Bond, sort of I guess.
Bond is depressed, in Jamaica perhaps.
Bond has a child, they did it.
Daniel's Bond vs Dr No, perhaps considered it.
A plot similar to covid, eerily so it seems.
Bond dies, sadly true.
A lot if not all of these I dismissed as rubbish tabloid junk, but when you step back and take it all in there was a lot of truth in there, especially in stories that seemed too crazy to be true. With some I think they were more true and the producers lost their nerve in the editing room, Safin being Dr No and the virus plot especially.
Also welcome @FarewellBond great first post mate, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy but I hope that doesn't dampen your love for Bond
I've browsed here for years and, like you, signed up just to make my feelings known on how disappointed I am in the direction the franchise has gone. I think we're in the minority on here, but I hope you stick around.
There's always the Horowitz novel next year!
So this is what the filmmakers meant when they said they would put Bond into the age of MeToo: they literally made him toxic. By touching the women he loves, he will kill them. Toxic masculinity made manifest. Bravo.
The thing is, MeToo is not applicable to Bond. Perverts like Harvey Weinstein are rich and use their positions of power in society to abuse women without consequence. That's not James Bond. He's not an influential movie mogul, politician, CEO, or billionaire, he's an anonymous spy. Sometimes he has to seduce women to accomplish a mission, but he's not an abuser of women and he's certainly no rapist.
The filmmakers were incredibly off-base with their comments.
He touched Blofeld and killed him too. Was that toxic masculinity?
Yes, but then he was severly injured, Safin shot at leat 5-6 times at him, he was bleeding a lot, and the missiles were approaching, and he could never have made it off the uisland after Safin re-closed the blast doors.
Nope. He touched Madeleine, who already had this nanobot stuff at ther hands. As it didn't have his DNA, but Blofeld's, he killed Blofeld. Q jokes something like "good thing, he wasn't your real brother"), which apart from the nice quip actually excplained this.