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
Yes definitely. The introduction of a black female 007 and knocking back Bond's advances, which likewise Paloma does too. By the end of the film, it felt to me like they really wanted to punish the character for some reason. Send him into the lonely wilderness for 5 years, then give him everything a normal person would want (woman he loves and a child, the chance of a normal life, etc.) yet cruelly take it away from him at the end, forcing him to commit suicide.
By the end of the film I felt nothing but pity for Bond. I felt sorry for him, and this is not a feeling I want watching a Bond film, so therefore as a one-off experiment, it didn't work for me.
So no, the film doesn't hate Bond and actually goes out of its way to depict him as a hero, albeit a slightly more tragic/Byronic one than we're used to.
Personally, I wish the film had leaned into Bond's flaws a bit more. There's always the theme of good vs evil in these stories, but I think Bond works best when there's a sense that he's almost one step away from that darkness. I definitely got that sense in SF and many of the Fleming novels. I dunno, maybe instead of Blofeld's elaborate plan to trick Bond into thinking Madeline betrayed him (which becomes more nonsensical the more I think about it) Bond instead realises that the only way to protect Madeline after the SPECTRE attack is to act cruelly to her/break off their relationship? Maybe after that his retirement is much more like what we saw of him in SF - ie. he's returned to his life of casual sex, too much drink etc and there's a sense that he's bored until Felix comes along. Just something like that so Bond can ultimately be redeemed by the end of the film.
If they were that embarassed there wouldn’t be any callbacks. All they’ve done is acknowledge how times have changed since then.
The only thing that I think you could take as a slight against the past from the Craig era was the exploding pen line in Skyfall. But even then, Bond proves there is still a place for that stuff with the gadget filled DB5, and we got even more of it in the next two films. So, even in that case, I think it was probably just them leaning into the whole “espionage is changing/old school is still cool” theme of that film, rather than them saying “wasn’t the Brosnan era embarassing”.
Cheers. It's something I've written about in the past, but I always wonder why they didn't come up with something like that. Seems like the sort of thing a director, producer or script doctor would suggest to streamline the script (the film as it is is a wee bit convoluted with lots of plot strands. Ditching Blofeld's deception would have ironed it out a little bit in that sense).
I’d say there was a big change between the Cubby/Saltzaman and Michael/Barbara eras in HOW Bond as the character within the universe is revered. In the Cubby era, Bond is practically faultless, adored by everyone to the point that when he walks into M’s office we get a brief moment of both Moneypenny and Smallbone sighing as if they met the most dreamlike man in their lives. When he walks into a casino, every woman is eyeing him. We linger on the receptions keeping their eyes locked on Bond. Then there’s even changed from how Fleming depicted him. In the novel of GF, it’s Hawker who points out the duplicate golf balls and other tricks of Goldfinger, but then the movie changes that by having Bond discover those for himself and show them to Hawker, who then adoringly looks up to Bond “you crafty!” Cubby Bond has knowledge of every detail about any subject to the point of absurdity. It’s like any humanity of Fleming was being was being chipped away in favor of this near Superman example of everyone’s adoration. Only M and Q gripe about Bond because they’re cranky old men. He’s very much an exaggeration of male fantasy. Dalton did try to dial that back but only to the extent to how Fleming depicted him, where Bond can sometimes be a little more hot headed than we saw with Connery and Moore.
But starting with the Michael/Barbara era, we get moments that probably would have NEVER flew under Cubby’s reign: Like Moneypenny going on a date with another gentleman. Characters like Jack Wade and Zukovski mocking Bond’s spy gentleman old fashioned mess “oh for crying out loud, another stiff-ass Brit”. Paris Carver slapping Bond across the face, who in the Cubby era would have more likely flung her arms open and embrace him “OH JAMES, I MISSED YOU!”
So I can see why being brought up from one era to the next that it would feel like there’s some contempt for Bond in the newer films because he’s no longer adored the way he used to be. I think he’s still very much revered, there’s just a bit more pushback in the modern era compared to the classical one. But when all the chips are down, people in Bond’s world still revere him. It’s all on display right after he dies where the MI6 staff take a moment to memorialize him with a drink, leaving one out symbolically for Bond. And then with Madeleine ready to tell her daughter a story about her father, who glowingly smiles.
So, no. NTTD doesn’t hate Bond at all. That’s just a viewpoint from those who can’t understand the idea of killing Bond.
Excellent analysis, @MakeshiftPython.
The only character imo that really benefited the most was MS. Everyone else felt like charecterizations of a first draft and I personally felt this was Craig's worst portrayal of Bond (not to be confused with worst acting performance).
The Craig era comes off as experimental and it worked beautifully with CR and has been replicated to varying degrees with inconsistent levels of success, which have been mostly disappointing. The Bond/MS relationship is bogus to me and I find the love they have for each other unearned and rather distracting, especially from Bond's POV.
NTTD was touted as a celebration of all that is Bond but it takes more than the db5 and lifting music from an infinitely superior Bond entry to convince fans that NTTD is a great entry because it isn't. Not for me anyway. There are some great moments in this film that contradict the notion that the film hates Bond but simultaneously there are moments where the film compromises who Bond is. I felt like I was watching Daniel Craig the actor for the most part rather than watching James Bond.
The death of Bond doesn't bother me. It was a bold move to kill him off in the first place, I just didn't like how it was executed. NTTD had a great opportunity to tell a very interesting and engaging story that culminates with Bond's death but the whole affair felt rather pedestrian and the filmnitsrlf peaked the moment Bond arrived in Cuba. In any case the Craig era is it's own isolated timeline from the previous 19 films which is fine I guess but Bond 26 needs to take a very hard look at all 25 Bond films and study what, why and how the best films of the 25 worked, how to really celebrate and appreciate who Bond is and start setting trends again. Bond shouldn't have to be as neutered as he's been these last couple of films and that requires a mature and intelligent script oozing with fun and excitement.
Really nice to see you back mate, great review. I enjoyed the film more than you did but I agree on how they lifted the OHMSS music. I’m not even sure it works as a red herring. The only people who’d recognise it are Bond geeks like us, but did it really wrongfoot any of us into thinking Madeline would die? I just thought it was a bit cheap and was right on the line of robbing the film of its own identity, by tying it to a film that it’s not even very similar to at all.
Just the opposite.
That's very well put, @MakeshiftPython. I think you've encapsulated the different eras and the reasons for that very well. Times changes and the film Bond, at the very least, has to keep up with them in order to be relevant and not to become an "elegant anachronism".
The difference is that Barbara and Michael were adapting to a post-9/11, Bourne-inflected world when the "fun" of the Cubby era had changed.
When the series stops evolving, it's over. That's how Bond has survived all these decades. And that's why Eon will never go for period adaptations.
If they had hated him, they would have followed other franchises like Star Wars where Skywalker became a dis-illusioned and nasty person and suddenly wasn't the positive and wise character he once was. Thor in the recent movie is often bumbling and stumbling through and has others to help him. Maybe it's a Disney thing! LOL!
As eloquently pointed out by other people in this thread, James Bond has to evolve in order to survive.
I recall the change in tone from Connery to Moore, Moore to Dalton, Dalton to Brosnan and Brosnan to Craig. The series has always evolved and changed tone. At one time, Bond movies set the pace and was the one copied. Sadly with 1973 LALD Bond became the series that would copy others.
I would like to see the producers really lean in to being different with whatever this re-invention is that Barbra mentioned. Whether that's a return to a "popcorn" Bond where the glamour is back, he knows the wines, and has the facts and style, or they take him to a younger place where we see how he evolved and what made him the man he is. Please don't neuter him and let him continue to be the character that men want to be, and women want to be with.
I think NTTD was a good film. I don't think the producers hate the character.
I love the Craig era, but I have missed that aspect of the character in his films.
I think it’s fine when it’s something that feels in character for Bond to know, like some of what you listed above. The ones that really stretch it are in OHMSS when Bond seems to be an expert lepidopterist, or knowing the origin of a rare orchid. Bond should be highly knowledgeable but not to the point of absurdity.
I always liked that exchange in DAF where Bond shows his knowledge of a vintage wine “1851, unmistakable”, but then when asked about diamonds he gives a generic description and M retorts “refreshing to hear there’s one subject you’re not an expert on”.
Craig Bond does shows his knowledge, like being able to spot a vehicle from a distance and know it’s a 1948 Rolls Royce Silver Wraith. But they definitely don’t play it up as much as they did with Connery and Moore.
JB "That gun seems more fitting for a woman."
Largo "Do you know a lot about guns?"
JB "No I know a little bit about women."
LALD with the coffee maker and M's exasperated look when handed the cup with the "IS that all it does." Great stuff!
“Who’d want to have me killed?”
“Jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors. The list is endless.”
I think Barbara and Michael took their chances and decided to modernise Bond so he could survive as a cinematic success and appeal to newer generations. It’s the price that had to paid for having 007 today. That doesn’t mean it was the only direction they could go in but rather the most marketable.
This means that some (in my opinion, good) things have been lost. The traditional Bond is a character from the Cold War. That’s why I prefer the old films. That’s when he stands out the most as a unique character. The modern Bond isn’t much different to any other modern heroes from other franchises.
I appreciated making Bond more human and less bidimensional, but I am not sure they managed to find a good balance and preserve his essence.
Good post, @underwater_mayhem!
I often wonder if some of those lost things you justifiably mentioned could be retrieved, in parts, by going period with the next few films. I understand that the tone of, and liberties taken by, the next films, whether period or not, will still have to pass modern scrutiny. But perhaps some callbacks to the old Bond films can be permitted in that case, even by a modern audience.
Bond walking away from the service in SP would also have been an appropriate ending for Craig (his only happy ending!).
- you get introduced to Blofeld in NTTD, then see him more in action in SP
- You finish off the double bill with Bond’s happy ending
- There’s something surreal about watching Bond get blown to bits, and then attend the Day of the Dead festival in his skeleton suit
I think this is secretly the best way to watch these two films.
Kind of a Christopher Nolan slant to it.