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
At the same time, I'll be able to happily walk into the cinema when the next James Bond film is released.
QOS was already doing a lot of that in 2008. It was made a big deal back than that it was the first Bond film to continue a story. SF was, at least at the time, a brief break before they continued on with SP and NTTD.
Little did we know what was in store! Brother Blofeld, Dad Bond, killing off Felix and then blowing up James Bond himself.
Gee, thanks for that!
Like I said, many of you guys set your expectations waaaayyy off.
OHMSS clearly would disagree with the "never" in this claim — and I'd argue LTK too. Hell, even the Brosnan ones too all have a personal bend to them too (albeit they don't commit to it, but it's been there).
When you want to tell story, you make emotion. Look at all the acclaimed filmmakers who praise OHMSS — which was the only pre-Craig one to really commit to drama!
This isn’t even a new norm anymore, it’s just the norm.
Same with the Fleming argument. "Fleming never--" But he did. He made lots of things fairly personal for Bond.
*affect
A film affects you, or has an effect on you.
Sorry for the extreme pedantry but I think I read somewhere you like this sort of thing.
To the point of your post, extremely fair, I’ve been happy to not be emotionally affected by Bond films up until this point, but equally happy that this film did have an emotional impact with me.
The one I've resigned to never understanding is 'who' vs 'whom'. I know it's like, "one if it's the subject, the other if it's the object" or something, but I don't even really understand that.
Sometimes I can intuit when "whom" sounds more correct, but that's it.
Same here. I just can’t help it. It gets me every time. Same when I listen to certain tracks on the score.
This was a great moment that seems to get overlooked a little.
This is a very general statement that is categorically untrue of either the films nor the novels.
I was only talking about the films.
I didn't say Bond's emotions weren't included in the movies, obviously they were. But they never drove the plot in the way they have in the Craig era. You could almost call NTTD an 'action romance'.
That's what I meant when I said the movies were never about James Bond's emotions.
It comes from people who just have eaten too much Star Wars stuff.
They're not actually brothers (as mentioned in NTTD), just related from youth.
People project their hatred from other films on the idea. Those guys just were involved at a point in time when they were younger, it's just a simple film idea. Nothing to do with the fiasco that was "I am your father" "Nooooooo--ooooo-oooohhhhh".
Also, Bond dies at the end of FRWL novel, and we all knew he would return, just like Sherlock Holmes.
Also Bond doesn't die at the end of FRWL, he goes unconscious as Fleming was toying with the idea of killing him, but IIRC Dr. No picks up right after FRWL, solidifying the decision not to have Bond die at the end of FRWL... unless you believe the code-name theory?
OHMSS, LTK are entirely driven by Bond's feelings. GE, TND, TWINE, DAD all do it. Hell, TLD too. Like, regardless of opinions on whether this is good or not — it's an actual lie to say the films were "never about James Bond's emotions" before the Craig films.
It got me good when the echo of the music filtered in like a memory. I'd've liked a longer pause for reflection before he spotted the card, but it still worked.
If you don't think there's an obvious difference between narrative dynamics of the Craig era and what went before, then fine.
In the interests of not clogging this thread up with a back and forth, I'd like to formally apologise to you and everyone else I've offended by saying 'Bond films were never about Bond's emotions before the Craig era'.
I dearly wish I'd have added the words 'mostly never', but I wrote it quick and for that I'm very, very sorry.
Bond doesn’t retire in GE,TND,TWINE,DAD,or TLD.There’s nothing wrong with Bond having feelings cos he’s not a robot.Craig’s Bond was nearly always giving up,and got didn’t learn from the hard lesson he got at the climax of CR - that a person like him could never have a normal life and settle down.
The Bonds of previous eras do get affected by their emotions ( Connerys over the death of Jill Masterson,Dalton over the attack on Felix ) but they don’t pack it in and the movies never lost sight of the mission at hand.The Craig era was all melodrama.
Bond gets revenge on Blofeld at the start of DAF ( or so he thinks) and then it’s back to work.
There's no need; NTTD was a first-person shooter.
A simple “besides those” would have sufficed, you don’t have to be catty about it.
DAF is widely regarded as one of the great missed opportunities of the series for that reason though. And while Bond not being able to have a normal life is a running theme of the Craig era, I don’t see how was he supposed to take that away from the end of CR? Vesper betrayed him. For all he knows, they could’ve lived happily ever after if it wasn’t for that.
Personally, I don’t think that theme would’ve resonated at all if they hadn’t actually explored it, and I don’t think it’s fair to describe that character development as “he keeps giving up”. He plans to get out while he still has a soul, but Vesper betrays him. M ordering Moneypenny to take the shot highlights to him how disposable he really is, and that sends him into a crisis, but his sense of duty won’t let him stay dead, and M helps him to see the big picture with her sacrifice. So, he’s back, and he doesn’t want a desk job. He knows this is it for him, and that he’ll die doing this, but then he’s reminded of Vesper. Of the man he used to be. And he meets Madeline, a woman just as damaged as he is. Someone who understands. Someone who can help him escape without that being unfair, because she’s got her own baggage. But then she betrays him, or so he thinks. Just as Vesper did. So, this breaks him, and he resigns himself to an utterly empty existence, until he sees the opportunity to get out of it when Felix comes along. He’s got his reason to live/die (his duty) back, but then this is all thrown up in the air when he reunites with Madeline, and finds out about Mathilde. Something else to live for, finally? But instead he realises he’s too far gone when he’s poisoned, and sacrifices himself to give his daughter the chance he never had.
All those instances of him quitting were very different to eachother (with the exception of the intentional parallels between Vesper/Madeline), and I thought all that built perfectly to him learning that lesson in a very natural and fittingly tragic way. And with that in mind, I don’t think it’s fair to say Craig’s Bond was a man who kept giving up. Because even if we do look at it in that quite reductive way (quitting is just giving up, what a coward) he could never actually do it. If anything, he was a man who kept trying to “give up” (aka save himself from a short life of remorseless killing, keep a shred of humanity and get out alive) but his sense of duty just wouldn’t let him. Surely seeing Bond sacrifice so many chances to get out, eventually leading up to a death he knew was inevitable, just reaffirms his sense of duty, and shows how loyal and devoted to keeping the peace he really was?
I also don’t really understand the Bond fan definition of melodrama. I associate that word with Eastenders style hysterics, but apparently it means any kind of plot or character development that stops Bond from shooting and punching things, no matter how temporarily that is.
The end touches me, "I miss you", too. Bond's look at the grave and the delivery of this line are perfect.
I think it's all a reflection of the times. A Moore-era Bond who enjoys living alone, enjoys the danger of his work and prefers casual sex to long-term relationships wouldn't fly these days. There has to be a reason for his 'coldness'; some explanation why he's 'damaged'.
I remember when they were promoting the Casino Royale movie, and they were saying "we're going to explore his beginnings, and what makes him the type of person he is". Which was all very worthy, but was it needed?
I mean, it was a great film, but did they go too far in subsequent films in exploring the Bond angst?