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
Awesome! Hope you enjoy! I watched Spectre on IMAX. We only have one IMAX relatively close- 1 hr 30 min away. First showing sold out. For Wed.
However I just wanted to make a comment to those who want to attribute any lack of chemistry between Craig and Seydoux to the15 year difference in their ages
I have to ask - what kind of warped PC planet are you living on?
Hugh Jackman is married to a woman 13 years older than him, are you saying they can't possibly be in love or have any chemistry?
Jason Momoa and Lisa Bonet are a couple, but he is 11 years younger than her (shock, horror!)
Michael Caine is 14 years older than his wife (surely there can't be any chemistry there?)
Elton John is 15 years older than his partner, now husband (OMG, what can they possibly have in common with that age difference?)
Mary Tyler Moore was 18 years older than her husband for 34 years (incredible!)
Keith Richards is 13 years older than his wife (what can she possibly see in him?)
These are celebrities, of course, but in fact there are thousands of ordinary couples around the world sharing an ordinary every day level of sexual chemistry with each other despite an apparently relationship crippling age difference
(Rant over)
Also, good to see you Seve!!
It was something I was consciously thinking about in both the SPECTRE party/massacre sequence and in Blofeld's one-and-dead appearance but forgot to remark on until now. The way this movie just shoves SPECTRE and Blofeld aside so it can focus on Bond is one of the most inspired decisions behind it.
Yet at the same time, we actually got a better version of the organization than I think we've had. We see them accomplish a couple of plots successfully, they inspire some fear in Bond, we get the great Godfather line, "Blofeld sends his regards!" A creepy calling card, an absolutely bizarre birthday party. And Bond and Blofeld goading the hell out of each other. I think they shone brightly and then burned out fast and it was terrific.
Absolutely, but it's also why I feel NTTD isn't exactly a "hard" sequel to SPECTRE, they did the absolute minimum they had to do in order to close those plot threads and get out of the hole Mendes left them in, allowing NTTD to largely stand on its own. At least I felt that way. I'd at least say it's not nearly as much of a sequel as Quantum was to Casino Royale.
Yeah… sure…
I'm sure we have clear motivations for this disagreement ;) , but I don't think Mendes left them in any kind of hole. Whether one likes the movie or not, Spectre gave Bond a happy ending if Craig was to finish, and left the pieces in place for the "Blofeld escapes and kills Madeleine and Bond goes back into action" many expected. And those same pieces were there for the partial reversal in expectations we got with NTTD.
But I do agree that it's slightly less than a sequel than QOS was. Partly because I think there's more thematic overlap with that and CR06, in my view because Quantum of Solace finds a way to make the events of Casino Royale actually mean something. NTTD is more like a serialized sequel.
I respectfully and profoundly disagree that it makes sense. Not wishing to bore you or others too long but here are reasons why it makes no sense and is therefore wrong.
1 - 'Morality'
Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson didn't create James Bond. They were bequeathed the character due to bloodline. Ian Fleming created James Bond and Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman created/developed the cinematic version. From the most basic moral standpoint you can easily argue B and MG have no unilateral moral right to kill off Bond. They inherited the character so it is morally incumbent upon them to preserve Bond, not kill him off to appease an actor in his final film portraying James Bond.
2 - 'Divisive'
Killing James Bond creates a huge and potential forever rift in the fanbase. Many fans will never forgive or understand why Eon killed off Bond. I'm not going to guess what percentage of the fanbase hate the death of James Bond but it exists and will continue to exist. This is Eon's fault. There was zero reason to create this division in the fanbase. It serves no purpose at all. It doesn't bring the Bond fans closer together so it was nonsensical of Eon to allow the division to happen.
3 - 'Disrespectful'
Killing Bond is completely disrespectful to all the fans that have loyally supported the franchise since 1962. If Eon Productions can't see that or can see that but couldn't care less, that doesn't say much about them, does it? Nope.
4 - 'Continuity nightmare'
Killing off Bond destroys any semblance of linear continuity in the franchise. If Bond is dead in NTTD but alive in Bond 26 it's inherently nonsensical. Sure, fans can argue "it's just a reboot, deal with it!" but that doesn't negate nor justify the fact Bond died in Bond 25. You kill off Bond but he's still alive. Nonsensical.
5 - 'Arrogance'
It is the height of arrogance for Eon to kill off Bond, expect fans to be emotionally affected by his death, but then expect them to forget his death (or put it to one side) and form a long queue to see Bond 26. It's arrogant presumption to expect fans to accept his death then sheepishly accept he's alive again.
6 - 'Meaningless death'
The death of Bond is meaningless because we all know Bond isn't dead. People can argue and say "but Bond is dead, the next Bond isn't Craig's Bond!" but imho that view is nonsensical. The next Bond will be a 00, be referred to as James Bond, get orders from M, go on missions. He's still James Bond in character and job so his death in the previous film is meaningless. Death has meaning because it's loss. The person never comes back but Bond is coming back in Bond 26 so it's a lossless death. Nonsensical.
All these reasons give me hope Bond isn't dead. The death of James Bond is a deliberate cliffhanger? It's possible. We'll have to wait and see.
Beside the fact that it doesn’t make any sense to me. Stating that this is a meaningless death is just wrong, totally wrong, since Bond’s death is extremely meaningful to Craig’s Bond journey. It’s a self contained arc. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
It's also meaningful for a whole host of other reasons but it's been stated here ad nauseum (by you too my friend) and I'm getting a little tired.
I'm sad bond died and that Craig's bond is a tragic hero. It would be lovely for him to end on a happy note but thematically for what he's been through it makes sense.
I want to touch on some of the comments re blofeld and the strangling. The more I've thought about it, the more I'm happy with how off kilter it is. I think it's meant to be. In that moment bond snaps. A moment where he is truly out of control of his emotions. Why? Well blofeld in this iteration had a hand in all his tragedy. So the more I think about it, the more that whole scene is quite chilling.
Yes Bond has all the reasons in the world to lose control in that moment. Blofeld basically just told him that the fallout of all the happy life he was planning to live with the woman he loved was based on a lie… and Blofeld was responsible for that. He did so much damage to Bond in the end. This may be the most diabolical incarnation of Blofeld of the entire franchise, but still…
Oh yes, it was that guy called Ian! What a patzer! No clue about Bond, that’s for sure! Why are the modern films discarding Fleming? ;))
Did anyone notice how manipulative Madeleine is with Bond? Throughout she comes across as manipulative. Here's a man forever driven by his job but can be punished by his sentiment. In the end, ultimately he is punished by it.
Manipulative? No, I didn't see that at all. He dumps her, so she respectfully lets him go and raises his child. That is the opposite of manipulation.
I'm glad more and more people are coming out of the taboo to say this. Let me add to that and say I agree.
He's quite spell binding in this. I commented to a friend that this was a better performance than this performance in knives out. He immerses you in what turmoil his bond is going through and despite some of the faults of the writing still pulls it off.
I doubt the academy will break that taboo though. I'm just glad some fans are recognising it has outside shot potential and are proud of it too.
I deleted my own ranking in the ranking thread, because I wasn’t sure anymore. After like half an hour (!).
Hopefully a second viewing will bring more clarity.
This is where I'm at. I can't decide if it's top tier or bottom tier. It's going to need more viewings. I don't know if I'll ever place it in the middle.
I'm mobile at the mo so being lazy so not explaining it well. It wasn't specifically that overarching theme and admittedly it may take another viewing. Perhaps it may be that manipulative is too harsh a word... maybe it is more that she knew and understood him very well, too well, in terms of his drivers and behaviour. Re: killing blofeld and lying to him over his daughter.
Don't. You'll start the circular stuff off again!! ;)
My takeaway from this is what a pleasure. Where fans can argue it is/isn't Fleming convincingly I have to start thinking that we're all right. Not a bad thing at all but an observation where I don't think anyone will 'win' the debate. The fact we have passionate fans like this where we can talk our favourite subject is great.
Anyway, time to get my backside in gear and get some stuff done!
Edit: apologies for the double post. Mobile and all that.
Killing Blofeld was an accident, not manipulation. It's Bond who grabs hold of her hand after she refuses the initial handshake. Again, the opposite of manipulation.
Lying about the child is quite understandable. What do you do when the father returns after five years having initially dumped you and your child? It is very understandable why she would be protective. One can even interpret it as an attempt to protect Bond: She knows she and the child is in danger, and she doesn't want to give him a further incentive to protect them and risk his life for them. Again, the opposite of manipulation.