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
I guess at that point Eon would be afraid that they were signaling that the series was over. It's different with Craig leaving because everyone knows there's always a next Bond...
I don't see Bond dying as Craig being a diva either. It was a discussion that was had between he and EON, and EON wouldn't let it happen if they didn't believe in the idea as well. You learn as much listening to them all discussing that creative choice and how it came about. And as I stated, the entire era was leading to this kind of ending, or made the idea of Bond dying far more inevitable than surprising, because those themes have been tightly woven from the beginning. Bond dying in the Craig era is far more fitting than Moore's Bond dying, when 95% of those movies weren't taking themselves seriously. There it would've felt bizarre and out of place, but here it's very fitting and makes sense.
Why do they need to blow up the island? What is the end game? Who were the buyers? Why don't we know who they are? To my mind it is contrivance on top of contrivance.
It's done, Bond is dead. In some ways I am enjoying the corner that EON has now got on it's hands. Seems fitting that they now are having to re-imagine the character. At least we know they won't kill him again anytime soon. Until the next actor demands it.
Personally I find Danny Boyle not the soundest source on any of it, considering the fact that he left the film. But even if that is true, it still makes sense, as @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 already elequently put it. Now, should we consider that 'diva' behaviour, or the dedication of Craig to the Bond he played? If anything I've never seen Craig behave entitled in anything, but he's been extremely dedicated to all the roles he played. If you think this is too much influence, that is a fair stance. But by what I've read from your and @thedove 's point of view, it seems you both let the presumption of a diva-Craig wanting to kill off the character for his own enjoyement colour the execution of it all, and I wonder if that's fair.
Now there are a few things in the last sequences that are perhaps a bit overdramatic and may feel a bit contrived, but storywise I think it all worked properly. The only real fair point I see is the fact that he sends Nomi away,but at the same time: he knew the rockets were coming, and trusted himself to open the doors. Perhaps not realising Safin was still there or thinking he could easily dispose of him himself, it makes sense for Bond to also send Nomi away. After all, the less people are at risk (of not making it back) the better. And that risk was big, no matter all the epic action-movie escapes we've grown so accustomed to in films.
Personally I didn't like the fact that he got infected at the last moment. That was too much. I'd have preferred him to just not make it, as he was wounded enough, and I think that's more fitting for the warrior he's always been. It wouldn't have changed much, he still would've had his converstation with Madeleine, he still could've climbed the stairs. But at least his enemy would've been time and space, everyday limits we all cope with, instead of the doomsday-blood that could only ask of him to kill himself to protect his loved ones.
My actual opinion on all this is that I don't think that Dan got the idea to kill Bond in a fit of iconoclastic glee - I think he wanted to go there because he could see the dramatic potential it offered. I don't think that Craig's a diva and I don't think that he had too much influence with EON. I'm actually glad that Dan had that input and that BB and MGW took his concerns and ideas seriously. I think that Craig genuinely cared about the films and that he wanted them to be as good as they could possibly be. I think that Dan's films benefited greatly from his influence.
I'm not sure what to think of Boyle. So often in these cases one says this, the other the opposite and in the end the truth is actually in the middle, as both sides failed miserably to communicate in a normal manner. So he might've been under the impression that this was the case, whilst that still could've been 'on the table'. Other than that, I completely agree with the rest of your post.
To continue with the Star Wars example, it's no surprise that TFA, which was basically a remake of ANH, was the most well received of the three films. There were other factors at play as well, of course.
Well, that's the thing. I'm curious about what they wanted, but I won't believe anything until I see proof. I'm happy with the film we got, so I'm probably happy that he left, but I don't think I'll ever be sure of it.
If that’s how one likes it, that’s fine of course. To each his/her own.
Considering the NTTD ending next to the OHMSS one makes me dislike the former even more. OHMSS is so much more classy, definitely a case of less is more imo. In general I’d say downer endings should always remain a bit restrained in their execution, they hit me harder that way.
If it’s too much on the nose, too much trying to emphasise that “this is so sad you know”, it becomes a bit of an eye-roller for me. I’m afraid NTTD was exactly like that.
I'm very surprised CR isn't in the list.
The story was written from the start to lead to Bond dying, so in a sense the story serves the death rather than the reverse.
My vote goes to OHMSS.
I like to be as controversial as the real academy awards! LOL!
Well, that, honestly, makes no sense. After all, you're stating it's not good enough to get your vote. So, following that line of thinking, it probably isn't the best to anyone, hence beeing nominated won't increas its chances of winning, which then makes the nomination nothin more than clutter.
It's a good ending to the film, but I don't think it carreis as much Bondian weight as the nominations we got.
The votes looked like this!
Our next category was created by @NickTwentyTwo with assistance of @alibondgirl. The Bondie is for great scenes that don't feature James Bond! Many times in the series there have been wonderful scenes where our man is no where in sight. Might be villains plotting, or other nefarious actions! I made one small change and removed Necros fighting with Number 4 and inserted the meeting of Klebb with Tatiana in FRWL
Here are the nominees:
So what does the academy think? Which scene deserves a Bondie for being the best without James Bond?
him.
I liked that it showed us them as the Evil Counterpart of MI6.
Great idea for the change you made. I’ll go Spectre meeting as well.
But today, DN.