NO TIME TO DIE - Questions Thread

12627293132

Comments

  • edited February 10 Posts: 4,167
    I genuinely think in an ideal world Malek would have played Blofeld in SP. A different, slightly younger version of the character, certainly more disconnected from Bond/one who couldn’t have known him as a child, but it would have been interesting seeing him do a more fleshed out version of his performance in NTTD. I may well be the only one who thinks this though!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I really enjoyed Malek in NTTD, and I’m sure I’m alone on this, on this site.
    To me he was frightening because he was an incel with nothing to lose. As soon as I saw the film, I immediately saw him as this tragic figure with arrested development; a young man who fell in love with a girl a few years his junior, and pined for her through most of his life.



  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited February 10 Posts: 1,711
    007HallY wrote: »
    Anyway, I’m of the opinion that Safin was never intended to be Dr. No (his backstory is far too distinct and him being revealed as the character adds so little).

    Well, Franz Oberhauser had a pretty distinct backstory, and many fans think his reveal as Blofeld adds very little. So they could be said to have a track record for that kind of thing! (Having said that, I personally love SP and NTTD and Brofeld)

    The fact that a character calls Safin "Doctor" is pretty significant. They did not randomly have a single person call him "Doctor" when he is not obviously a doctor, for no reason. At some point, he was surely "Dr Something". We know the name was changed too. Malek joked in an interview about being unsure what his character's "final name" actually is in the film.

    Maybe it was Dr Safin, maybe Dr No, or maybe Dr Smith. Just in my opinion, it'd be extraordinarily weird to have a Dr with a Noh mask who reminds people of Dr No and then call him Dr Smith. It would also be weird to think it important to backtrack on the name Dr Safin or Dr Smith and delete nearly all references to the Dr thing. If it's Dr No, you can imagine the decision to undo it.

    While I feel reasonably certain that he was Dr No at one point (or maybe his dead father was), I don't think it would be that interesting. I'm more eager to know what else they had in mind--the cult-like atmosphere among his people on the island, for example, and the story behind him using that Noh mask as a logo on all those screens. There was clearly a lot more to what exactly he was leading. (Interesting that the word "Noh" isn't even said in the film)

    I also remember Malek talking about filming an intense scene with Daniel, and that the two of them kissed after finally getting it right. It's hard to know what scene that could be...the chat where Bond is on his knees is pretty great and pretty intense, but they don't appear to have been filmed together.



  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 10 Posts: 3,152
    (or maybe his dead father was)
    Now that's an idea I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest before - good one, ProfJoe.

  • edited February 10 Posts: 4,167
    007HallY wrote: »
    Anyway, I’m of the opinion that Safin was never intended to be Dr. No (his backstory is far too distinct and him being revealed as the character adds so little).

    Well, Franz Oberhauser had a pretty distinct backstory, and many fans think his reveal as Blofeld adds very little. So they could be said to have a track record for that kind of thing! (Having said that, I personally love SP and NTTD)

    The fact that a character calls Safin "Doctor" is pretty significant. They did not randomly have a single person call him "Doctor" when he is not obviously a doctor, for no reason. At some point, he was surely "Dr Something". We know the name was changed too. Malek joked in an interview about being unsure what his character's "final name" actually is in the film.

    Maybe it was Dr Safin, maybe Dr No, or maybe Dr Smith. Just in my opinion, it'd be extraordinarily weird to have a Dr with a Noh mask who reminds people of Dr No and then call him Dr Smith. It would also be weird to think it important to backtrack on the name Dr Safin or Dr Smith and delete nearly all references to the Dr thing. If it's Dr No, you can imagine the decision to undo it.

    While I feel reasonably certain that he was Dr No at one point (or maybe his dead father was), I don't think it would be that interesting. I'm more eager to know what else they had in mind--the cult-like atmosphere among his people on the island, for example, and the story behind him using that Noh mask as a logo on all those screens. There was clearly a lot more to what exactly he was leading. (Interesting that the word "Noh" isn't even said in the film)

    I also remember Malek talking about filming an intense scene with Daniel, and that the two of them kissed after finally getting it right. It's hard to know what scene that could be...the chat where Bond is on his knees is pretty great and pretty intense, but they don't appear to have been filmed together.



    Obviously I don’t know for sure (none of us do). But personally, I’d have thought if Safin had - as late as filming- been Dr. No at one point the producers would have taken more effort to erase any reference to this in post production. Taking the ADR’d ‘doctor’ off at the end of that sentence you mentioned would have been easy to do. But they didn’t. To me it comes off less as a loose thread and more as a sort of reference/easter egg (again, the fact that it’s ADR’d means it was done later in the process when Safin was presumably no longer Dr. No. It’s the process that would be used to change lines/get rid of those ‘doctor’ references, not create one). Safin is definitely modelled off of Dr. No, and the Costume Designer pretty much states that’s where a lot of the inspiration for his clothes came from, but it seems more reference than adaptation. His backstory is so specific and different to No’s anyway, and it’s highly unlikely to have been completely changed with the limited reshoot time and post production schedule they had. Realistically had Safin been No at one point it would have been in early drafts of the script. By shooting this would have long been written out to the point where the ‘doctor’ line would not be a leftover. I suspect Safin by design was always intended to pay homage to No and some of these more ‘classic’ Bond villains because that’s the direction the producers wanted to take this film.

    I only did a quick search, but I can’t find any reference to Safin’s name being changed (but I don’t know for sure). I mean, the character’s name is literally Lucifer Safin anyway. I’m sure Malek would have questioned whether this was meant to be his character’s real name or an alias, and I can imagine that being discussed (I am genuinely surprised it was in fact meant to be his real name by the way). It’s funny watching him claim it’s pronounced a certain way it in interviews that barely conceals ‘Lucifer Satan’.

    From my understanding Malek and Craig kissing probably happened more than once after intense scenes and was a little in joke they had (although I’m not even sure then if Craig was joking about kissing him more than once or not, haha). From my understanding they shot all their scenes together (I know what you mean though, that particular scene is filmed in such a way that each shot is a single on both characters, with only wide shots showing them together. It may well have been done like this to create more a sense of adversity. As I said I don’t know all the ins and outs though. And hey, before I knew I was under the impression Malek wasn’t the actor playing Safin during the PTS because we never fully see his face. We know it actually was him from BTS photos).
  • peter wrote: »
    I really enjoyed Malek in NTTD, and I’m sure I’m alone on this, on this site.
    To me he was frightening because he was an incel with nothing to lose. As soon as I saw the film, I immediately saw him as this tragic figure with arrested development; a young man who fell in love with a girl a few years his junior, and pined for her through most of his life.
    Why doesn't Safin do anything about this love for most of his life? How old is he in the PTS for him to be falling in love with a little girl? Why make nanobots to kill her if he loves her so much (no matter how twisted their love is)? And then why keep them on hand? If he has a propensity for young Swann girls, why let Mathilde go away? He isn't even disappointed that Mathilde spurned him, just a little annoyed which doesn't match with his obsession with Madeleine?

    Some things that make it hard to suspend my disbelief: Why is Madeleine the psychiatrist for both Safin and Blofeld? Who decided it was a good job to hire someone who had emotional baggage with Blofeld to be his psychiatrist (never mind allowing Bond physical contact with him)? How the hell does Blofeld have a communications system from a high security prison? How does nobody realise Madeleine is pregnant and has a child? That isn't the sort of thin easily hidden.

    More general film questions I have: Why not blow up the boats instead of the factory? Since nobody is there to load the boats, why are they a threat? If willing to blow up the centre, why not wait for the boats to get really close and kill them all? Why does Bond only go to open the doors (surely it would make sense to send the agent without their kid there)? Slightly funny but: what would Safin had done with the nanobots stuff if Nomi had come on the island?

    And finally: Who made the decision in a relatively contemporary set of films with realistic stakes to produces an hour into future based film and plot? Craig's movies have all been contemporary threats: terrorism financing, unethical business practices and monopolization, cyberterrorism and sabotage, and government surveillance. Why does the film go straight to programmed nanobots that are unaffected by EMPs that affect DNA?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,814
    It's actually Lyutsifer, a Russian variation.

    Lucifer seeks to disrupt order and unity. Therefore, chaos.
    The thing that no one wants to admit is that most people want things to happen to them. We tell each other lies about the fight for free will and independence, but we don't really want that. We want to be told how to live and then die when we're not looking. People want oblivion, and a few of us are born to build it for them. So here I am - their invisible god sneaking under their skin.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    I really enjoyed Malek in NTTD, and I’m sure I’m alone on this, on this site.
    To me he was frightening because he was an incel with nothing to lose. As soon as I saw the film, I immediately saw him as this tragic figure with arrested development; a young man who fell in love with a girl a few years his junior, and pined for her through most of his life.
    Why doesn't Safin do anything about this love for most of his life? How old is he in the PTS for him to be falling in love with a little girl? Why make nanobots to kill her if he loves her so much (no matter how twisted their love is)? And then why keep them on hand? If he has a propensity for young Swann girls, why let Mathilde go away? He isn't even disappointed that Mathilde spurned him, just a little annoyed which doesn't match with his obsession with Madeleine?

    Some things that make it hard to suspend my disbelief: Why is Madeleine the psychiatrist for both Safin and Blofeld? Who decided it was a good job to hire someone who had emotional baggage with Blofeld to be his psychiatrist (never mind allowing Bond physical contact with him)? How the hell does Blofeld have a communications system from a high security prison? How does nobody realise Madeleine is pregnant and has a child? That isn't the sort of thin easily hidden.

    More general film questions I have: Why not blow up the boats instead of the factory? Since nobody is there to load the boats, why are they a threat? If willing to blow up the centre, why not wait for the boats to get really close and kill them all? Why does Bond only go to open the doors (surely it would make sense to send the agent without their kid there)? Slightly funny but: what would Safin had done with the nanobots stuff if Nomi had come on the island?

    And finally: Who made the decision in a relatively contemporary set of films with realistic stakes to produces an hour into future based film and plot? Craig's movies have all been contemporary threats: terrorism financing, unethical business practices and monopolization, cyberterrorism and sabotage, and government surveillance. Why does the film go straight to programmed nanobots that are unaffected by EMPs that affect DNA?

    🤷‍♂️… I’ve got too many posts on why I think the character works for me. They’re all on here. Too long for me to go into again. But, then again, not for me to explain to anyone; it either works for you, or doesn’t. It obviously doesn’t for you.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    I started reading this thread, and quickly got angry. Did they HAVE to kill Bond? No, but that's not why I hate this movie. This whole Stargate nanobots thing. It's the single stupidest thing a Bond movie has ever asked us to swallow. Suddenly the invisible car seems entirely plausible. I can't even try to watch this film a second time, and that's NEVER happened before. Nanobots. They might just have well introduced aliens from outer space into the mix...
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Bond did nanobots better 20 years ago in Everything or Nothing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    Bond 26: No no bots
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 10 Posts: 18,281
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I started reading this thread, and quickly got angry. Did they HAVE to kill Bond? No, but that's not why I hate this movie. This whole Stargate nanobots thing. It's the single stupidest thing a Bond movie has ever asked us to swallow. Suddenly the invisible car seems entirely plausible. I can't even try to watch this film a second time, and that's NEVER happened before. Nanobots. They might just have well introduced aliens from outer space into the mix...

    That's what I was thinking as I first watched the film in the cinema back in October 2021. Not being in any way scientifically minded I don't know how feasible something like nanobots is but I would imagine it shades more into spy-fi territory or straight up pure science fiction than anything remotely grounded in reality. Of course, as Kingsley Amis pointed out in The James Bond Dossier, science fiction is a kind of sub-genre part of Bond's adventures sometimes since Fleming onwards but I agree that this goes too far in this direction. It seems like a development of the smart blood idea in Spectre and that was also pretty far-fetched sounding.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 10 Posts: 17,804
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I started reading this thread, and quickly got angry. Did they HAVE to kill Bond? No, but that's not why I hate this movie. This whole Stargate nanobots thing. It's the single stupidest thing a Bond movie has ever asked us to swallow. Suddenly the invisible car seems entirely plausible. I can't even try to watch this film a second time, and that's NEVER happened before. Nanobots. They might just have well introduced aliens from outer space into the mix...

    That's what I was thinking as I first watched the film in the cinema back in October 2021. Not being in any way scientifically minded I don't know how feasible something like nanobots is but I would imagine it shades more into spy-fi territory or straight up pure science fiction than anything remotely grounded in reality. Of course, as Kingsley Amis pointed out in The James Bond Dossier, science fiction is a kind of sub-genre part of Bond's adventures sometimes since Fleming onwards but I agree that this goes too far in this direction. It seems like a development of the smart blood idea in Spectre and that was also pretty far-fetched sounding.

    Yes, but the 'smart blood' thing was just trackers. These are virus-sized robots capable of analyzing DNA, targeting, killing & replicating... I'm sure that in a Bond film in 2221 it might work....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I started reading this thread, and quickly got angry. Did they HAVE to kill Bond? No, but that's not why I hate this movie. This whole Stargate nanobots thing. It's the single stupidest thing a Bond movie has ever asked us to swallow. Suddenly the invisible car seems entirely plausible. I can't even try to watch this film a second time, and that's NEVER happened before. Nanobots. They might just have well introduced aliens from outer space into the mix...

    That's what I was thinking as I first watched the film in the cinema back in October 2021. Not being in any way scientifically minded I don't know how feasible something like nanobots is but I would imagine it shades more into spy-fi territory or straight up pure science fiction than anything remotely grounded in reality. Of course, as Kingsley Amis pointed out in The James Bond Dossier, science fiction is a kind of sub-genre part of Bond's adventures sometimes since Fleming onwards but I agree that this goes too far in this direction. It seems like a development of the smart blood idea in Spectre and that was also pretty far-fetched sounding.

    Yes, but the 'smart blood' thing was just trackers. These are virus-sized robots capable of analyzing DNA, targeting, killing & replicating... I'm sure that in a Bond film in 2221 it might work....

    I agree that the nanobots left me disappointed too. It feels so far into the future that they might as well have gone for time travel.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,814
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I started reading this thread, and quickly got angry. Did they HAVE to kill Bond? No, but that's not why I hate this movie. This whole Stargate nanobots thing. It's the single stupidest thing a Bond movie has ever asked us to swallow. Suddenly the invisible car seems entirely plausible. I can't even try to watch this film a second time, and that's NEVER happened before. Nanobots. They might just have well introduced aliens from outer space into the mix...

    That's what I was thinking as I first watched the film in the cinema back in October 2021. Not being in any way scientifically minded I don't know how feasible something like nanobots is but I would imagine it shades more into spy-fi territory or straight up pure science fiction than anything remotely grounded in reality. Of course, as Kingsley Amis pointed out in The James Bond Dossier, science fiction is a kind of sub-genre part of Bond's adventures sometimes since Fleming onwards but I agree that this goes too far in this direction. It seems like a development of the smart blood idea in Spectre and that was also pretty far-fetched sounding.

    Yes, but the 'smart blood' thing was just trackers. These are virus-sized robots capable of analyzing DNA, targeting, killing & replicating... I'm sure that in a Bond film in 2221 it might work....

    I agree that the nanobots left me disappointed too. It feels so far into the future that they might as well have gone for time travel.

    Five years or more into the future is plenty. At this point technology accelerates exponentially or thereabouts. So I didn't skip a beat on the nanobots element. Also recognizing the smart blood lead-in six years prior.

    BOND-nanobots-02.gif
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I started reading this thread, and quickly got angry. Did they HAVE to kill Bond? No, but that's not why I hate this movie. This whole Stargate nanobots thing. It's the single stupidest thing a Bond movie has ever asked us to swallow. Suddenly the invisible car seems entirely plausible. I can't even try to watch this film a second time, and that's NEVER happened before. Nanobots. They might just have well introduced aliens from outer space into the mix...

    That's what I was thinking as I first watched the film in the cinema back in October 2021. Not being in any way scientifically minded I don't know how feasible something like nanobots is but I would imagine it shades more into spy-fi territory or straight up pure science fiction than anything remotely grounded in reality. Of course, as Kingsley Amis pointed out in The James Bond Dossier.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I started reading this thread, and quickly got angry. Did they HAVE to kill Bond? No, but that's not why I hate this movie. This whole Stargate nanobots thing. It's the single stupidest thing a Bond movie has ever asked us to swallow. Suddenly the invisible car seems entirely plausible. I can't even try to watch this film a second time, and that's NEVER happened before. Nanobots. They might just have well introduced aliens from outer space into the mix...

    That's what I was thinking as I first watched the film in the cinema back in October 2021. Not being in any way scientifically minded I don't know how feasible something like nanobots is but I would imagine it shades more into spy-fi territory or straight up pure science fiction than anything remotely grounded in reality. Of course, as Kingsley Amis pointed out in The James Bond Dossier, science fiction is a kind of sub-genre part of Bond's adventures sometimes since Fleming onwards but I agree that this goes too far in this direction. It seems like a development of the smart blood idea in Spectre and that was also pretty far-fetched sounding.

    Yes, but the 'smart blood' thing was just trackers. These are virus-sized robots capable of analyzing DNA, targeting, killing & replicating... I'm sure that in a Bond film in 2221 it might work....

    I agree that the nanobots left me disappointed too. It feels so far into the future that they might as well have gone for time travel.

    So that's how Bond could've survived! I hope Purvis and Wade aren't reading this. Don't want to give them any more ideas...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I started reading this thread, and quickly got angry. Did they HAVE to kill Bond? No, but that's not why I hate this movie. This whole Stargate nanobots thing. It's the single stupidest thing a Bond movie has ever asked us to swallow. Suddenly the invisible car seems entirely plausible. I can't even try to watch this film a second time, and that's NEVER happened before. Nanobots. They might just have well introduced aliens from outer space into the mix...

    That's what I was thinking as I first watched the film in the cinema back in October 2021. Not being in any way scientifically minded I don't know how feasible something like nanobots is but I would imagine it shades more into spy-fi territory or straight up pure science fiction than anything remotely grounded in reality. Of course, as Kingsley Amis pointed out in The James Bond Dossier, science fiction is a kind of sub-genre part of Bond's adventures sometimes since Fleming onwards but I agree that this goes too far in this direction. It seems like a development of the smart blood idea in Spectre and that was also pretty far-fetched sounding.

    Yes, but the 'smart blood' thing was just trackers. These are virus-sized robots capable of analyzing DNA, targeting, killing & replicating... I'm sure that in a Bond film in 2221 it might work....

    I agree that the nanobots left me disappointed too. It feels so far into the future that they might as well have gone for time travel.

    Five years or more into the future is plenty. At this point technology accelerates exponentially or thereabouts. So I didn't skip a beat on the nanobots element. Also recognizing the smart blood lead-in six years prior.

    BOND-nanobots-02.gif

    Okay, two points.
    1) Where are our flying cars?
    2) Why aren't we using nanobots for routine arterial cleaning at LEAST yet?
    Answer: this is not the 22nd Century.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    I agree with all the above that the nanobots are a little too far into sci-fi than sci- fact.
    But given the theme of NTTD (We Have All The Time In The World) and with a deadly virus threatening the world, is NTTD not a loose remake of OHMSS.
    As much as I love the Lazenby classic, I always found Blofeld's way of dispensing virus Omega to be absurd and silly.

    In a Manchester nightclub a group of friends is enjoying a night out. Dancing and laughing, one of the friends looks at her watch and makes a mad dash to the exit.
    Girl - 'RUBY...Ruby where are you going?'

    Ruby - 'Ummm, nowhere, I just need to get some air.'

    Girl - 'Has anyone ever noticed Ruby disappears at exactly midnight when we go out?'

    Girl 2 - 'Yeah she does, one day she was in the toilet and I could hear some creepy sounding guy on a radio. She's never been the same since she went to that Swiss clinic to be honest.'

    I always found the idea of the angels of death and their execution to be too much to swallow. Similarly to the nanobots in NTTD.

  • Posts: 1,997
    Coming on the heels of a Jaws-like space capsule eating rocket launched from a dormant volcano, Telly's radio hypnosis doesn't seem that wacky. But then Stromberg had a sea version of the Blofeld rocket that could swallow submarines. You've got to wonder if anyone at the shipyard ever thought to ask why the front of a tanker opened.
  • Posts: 5,996
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Coming on the heels of a Jaws-like space capsule eating rocket launched from a dormant volcano, Telly's radio hypnosis doesn't seem that wacky. But then Stromberg had a sea version of the Blofeld rocket that could swallow submarines. You've got to wonder if anyone at the shipyard ever thought to ask why the front of a tanker opened.

    Well, the Jaws-like space capsule really did exist, and was British to boot :

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Coming on the heels of a Jaws-like space capsule eating rocket launched from a dormant volcano, Telly's radio hypnosis doesn't seem that wacky. But then Stromberg had a sea version of the Blofeld rocket that could swallow submarines. You've got to wonder if anyone at the shipyard ever thought to ask why the front of a tanker opened.

    I don't really understand how such a supertanker wouldn't immediately sink once its bows are open either.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,177
    As much as I like the pre title sequence of NTTD Craig's era really should have ended with him driving off into the sunset in SP. NTTD is a tonal and convoluted mess at times with a script that is hesitant to commit to anything, the nano bots are only a small part of the problem.
  • Posts: 1,078
    As much as I like the pre title sequence of NTTD Craig's era really should have ended with him driving off into the sunset in SP.

    Completely. Or even end with Skyfall's 'getting back to work'.

    NTTD was a disaster for many aficionados.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    As much as I like the pre title sequence of NTTD Craig's era really should have ended with him driving off into the sunset in SP.

    Completely. Or even end with Skyfall's 'getting back to work'.

    NTTD was a disaster for many aficionados.

    NTTD was not a disaster for this aficionado, but I will concede this: the film didn't necessarily need to happen. Here's why.

    There's so much undiscovered territory between Bond Beginning (CR - QOS) and Old Man Bond (SF). The latter makes us think of Bond as not a young man anymore; he may want to consider retiring, he looks out of shape, he doesn't pass the tests, and so on. To see him rebuild himself, gain confidence again and take out Silva would have been a great way to immortalize him before allowing him a peaceful pension. Yet SP completely forgot about all this old Bond stuff, and NTTD made his return after many years look like a walk in the park. All the drama from SF was either ignored or contradicted.

    I simply think that the career jump between QOS and SF was too abrupt. At least two standalone films could have been positioned between those two. In 2012, I wasn't ready for signs of Bond's exhaustion just yet, but that's the hard bullet I had to bite through. I ultimately accepted the meal that they had offered me, and perhaps that's also why Bond's demise in NTTD didn't offend me all that much. They'd been saying goodbyes for almost 10 years! They'd been hammering nails in his coffin since the SF PTS. In a way, I was getting used to the idea that Craig's tenure would either end with a retirement (SP) or something more dramatic (NTTD).
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,177
    As much as I like the pre title sequence of NTTD Craig's era really should have ended with him driving off into the sunset in SP.

    Completely. Or even end with Skyfall's 'getting back to work'.

    NTTD was a disaster for many aficionados.

    Nothing feels organic in NTTD that is why it fails, to be fair the DC experiment had already failed long before this film.

    P.S. I love DC's first two films.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited February 12 Posts: 735
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    As much as I like the pre title sequence of NTTD Craig's era really should have ended with him driving off into the sunset in SP.

    Completely. Or even end with Skyfall's 'getting back to work'.

    NTTD was a disaster for many aficionados.

    NTTD was not a disaster for this aficionado, but I will concede this: the film didn't necessarily need to happen. Here's why.

    There's so much undiscovered territory between Bond Beginning (CR - QOS) and Old Man Bond (SF). The latter makes us think of Bond as not a young man anymore; he may want to consider retiring, he looks out of shape, he doesn't pass the tests, and so on. To see him rebuild himself, gain confidence again and take out Silva would have been a great way to immortalize him before allowing him a peaceful pension. Yet SP completely forgot about all this old Bond stuff, and NTTD made his return after many years look like a walk in the park. All the drama from SF was either ignored or contradicted.

    I simply think that the career jump between QOS and SF was too abrupt. At least two standalone films could have been positioned between those two. In 2012, I wasn't ready for signs of Bond's exhaustion just yet, but that's the hard bullet I had to bite through. I ultimately accepted the meal that they had offered me, and perhaps that's also why Bond's demise in NTTD didn't offend me all that much. They'd been saying goodbyes for almost 10 years! They'd been hammering nails in his coffin since the SF PTS. In a way, I was getting used to the idea that Craig's tenure would either end with a retirement (SP) or something more dramatic (NTTD).

    I think you're onto something ....

    "Goodbyes" and a lot of foreshadowing of inevitable death were very much a part of the Craig run from its very beginning.

    His Bond almost seemed to be rushing towards death from that seemingly suicidal chase at the beginning of CR. Perhaps this was bound to happen when you leaven the fantasy of entries 1 - 20 with some markedly closer to the reality of human existence.

    This semi-realistic sense of deathward trajectory includes the death of Vesper herself, and in Bond's fatalistic line about 00s having a short life expectancy. The matter of fact disposal of Mathis' body in QOS is also a smack in the face of those who didn't want to see it.

    It's even hinted at in the Matera scene of NTTD, in the car, when Madeleine has to beg Bond to save them. For a moment he seems overcome by this death impulse, absolutely devastated by her supposed betrayal ....

    It's this theme of mortality (not the fantasy of immortality) in which the ending of NTTD makes greater emotional sense. But it was there from the very beginning, if only we'd had eyes to see it ...
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    Two great posts @DarthDimi and @Feyador :-bd
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    As much as I like the pre title sequence of NTTD Craig's era really should have ended with him driving off into the sunset in SP.

    Completely. Or even end with Skyfall's 'getting back to work'.

    NTTD was a disaster for many aficionados.

    NTTD was not a disaster for this aficionado, but I will concede this: the film didn't necessarily need to happen. Here's why.

    There's so much undiscovered territory between Bond Beginning (CR - QOS) and Old Man Bond (SF). The latter makes us think of Bond as not a young man anymore; he may want to consider retiring, he looks out of shape, he doesn't pass the tests, and so on. To see him rebuild himself, gain confidence again and take out Silva would have been a great way to immortalize him before allowing him a peaceful pension. Yet SP completely forgot about all this old Bond stuff, and NTTD made his return after many years look like a walk in the park. All the drama from SF was either ignored or contradicted.

    I simply think that the career jump between QOS and SF was too abrupt.

    I blame Mendes.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 12 Posts: 3,152
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I simply think that the career jump between QOS and SF was too abrupt. At least two standalone films could have been positioned between those two.
    Indeed, so. We left Bond at the height of his powers and in the very next film, we're beyond the prime of his career? 'Abrupt', indeed. There has to be a longer time-jump in the internal Bondworld between QOS and SF than the four years between the actual films themselves. There's a few clues that this is so:
    Silva's 'Is there any of the old 007 left?' suggests that Bond has a far greater renown by the time of SF than can have been produced by the missions in CR and QOS alone. In NTTD, Felix says that he 'heard' that Bond had 'stopped trusting pretty faces a long time ago'. Realistically, that can only be a reference to Madeleine (and, by extension, Matera) - which suggests that Felix hasn't seen Bond since at least before the events of SP. Yet in the sinking trawler, Bond says to him 'We've been in worse than this' - that can't just refer to the dive bar in Bolivia in QOS. CraigBond and Leiter therefore seem to have been on missions that we've not seen on screen. Given the probably relatively short internal time gap between SF and SP, the likelihood is that those missions took place between QOS and SF. Ludovico's suggestion of a series of graphic novels set between those two films gets more appealing every time I think about it!
    One caveat about Bond and ageing in SF. It is a key point of the story, it does play a part (the train fight with Patrice suggests that Bond's not quite the same killing machine that dealt with Slate in QOS) and it's certainly part of Mallory's perception of Bond as a veteran agent. However, the main reason that Bond's physically under-par for part of SF isn't actually his age, it's because he's got toxins leaking into him from the irradiated bullet frags. After all, he doesn't regain his full health and abilities later in the film by getting any younger - he regains them after the bullet frags have been removed.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,978
    @Venutius, is that last point really the case? I've never caught that. I just figured it was another piece of plot armor that only matters when the script calls for it, like Bond's shoulder in TWINE. It bugs me that he can't save Severine yet becomes another master marksman immediately after somehow.
Sign In or Register to comment.