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
SPECTRE was okay, I think it bookmarked the Craig era nicely. QoS though, didn't work for me so much. I thought he was a bit of a dick saying "I never left" and walking off like that. He wasn't that likable throughout the film, actually.
True, to be honest, that "We Have All The Time In The World" doesn't need to replicate here, I didn't enjoyed it in NTTD.
Such a lack of creativity (no originality), half of the aspects in the Bond-Madeleine romance were all a rehash/recycle or replicate of those past romances, even the train scene reminds me of the train scene/dinner that Bond and Vesper had in CR, and even some of the dialogues, one (I don't remember it particularly) felt like it came from Natalya in GE (I'm not sure is it about making choices, like "we always have a choice"), and confronting Bond about his killings.
The romance that relied on replications, lack of uniqueness and distinctiveness, no originality, lack of creativity.
That's one of the reasons too why I'm not a fan of it.
In the same way GL ruminates on souvenirs from previous films not starring him, the use of We Have All the Time in the World in NTTD is intended to remind us of a previous outing not starring DC. Or SC in DAF seeking revenge on Blofeld for the murder of Tracy whom he did not meet because Bond was played by another actor in another reality. Or RM visiting Tracy's grave even though Tracy was never in the RM reality or alternate universe, or however one wishes to think of each individual Bond's timeline. Which suggests, albeit awkward, the desire for continuity. While I accept a new actor playing Bond, I don't like the idea that each new Bond era simply wipes out the pasts of previous Bonds. When Felix changed from DN to GF, was that the same Felix, or a new Felix without an apparent past? When I read a Bond novel, I don't expect the character to be a different character because of a new author. (Horowitz understood what Deaver did not.) CR was a great beginning for the DC. Arguably it could have been a prequel to DN. Unfortunately adhering to the story arc removed all semblance of continuity and connection to previous Bonds and stories. While I object to killing off Bond, maybe it's for the best. I don't hate the DC series, I just think the writers and producers boxed themselves in. As a previous poster suggested, maybe this can be the series Bobby Ewing moment. Let's return to stand alone Bond stories.
That’s actually one of my minor issues with DN: Felix is kind of a pointless addition. Why introduce him, and why have it be the first time Bond ever met him? Reading the novel really illustrated to me how his appearance was arbitrary. I guess they wanted Sean Connery to not hang out with a black guy so much.
I agree with that.
The strongest ally Bond ever had, IMO, is Kerim, with Tanaka a close second.
I'm the same.
Bond being the same character was always part of the fun of Bond movies for me. I've said on here lots of times that 'Brosnan sniffed the shoe', which is my way of saying no matter how outlandish, improbable and just ridiculous it is that it was the same man, it was the same man.
Now there's two Bonds, because they killed the last one. So the next will be the third, or perhaps it'll be the same as the one before the last or what the f*ck does it matter anyway. They've kind of spoiled it for me.
Depends how you look at it. Perhaps it’s really just a fun Easter egg for the fans, rather than the filmmakers explicitly telling us it’s supposed to be the exact same guy that fought Rosa Klebb in 1963. SF has Q make a remark about exploding pens and Bond has the same DB5 as Connery’s, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re literally connected.
In the end, they’re just movies. Bond can die and live on in a different iteration. It’s not history set in stone.
It's a floating timeline.
Yes, I've been told many times to 'get over it, they're only movies'.
It happens every time I try to point out the ridiculousness of a film dramatically killing off a character then saying he'll return in the credits ten minutes later.
Seems I'm a very silly-billy.
How is it ridiculous? We’re talking about a fictional character, not a historical figure.
How is it not ridiculous? They kill him, and they say he's not dead.
Okay, they say he'll be back, but it'll be a different character. But it's still the same character. Just in a different 'timeline'.
Look, I can see everyone here's great with it, and I'm obviously stuck in some alternate universe myself where I expect the makers of any movie I see to be honest with their narrative if they expect me to invest one iota of emotion in the movie.
But seriously, can you imagine them saying 'Spartacus will be back', after the end of that movie? Or 'Scarface will be back'. You know, you've just seen them die.
This is why I keep going on about sci-fi and comic books. Because they've done it there, they can do it with Bond and everyone in the world is okay with it but me.
If they kill Ethan Hunt off, would it be okay to to say he's not dead at the end, and will be returning with a different actor in an alternate universe? I suppose it would to most.
But anyway, as everyone says, it's only a movie. And if the next Bond author makes Bond gay, or a woman, it's only a book. Why bother caring?
They’re talking about the next Bond, not Craig. Most people understand that conceit.
There may well be an element of that unfortunately. But in fairness Leiter appearing and following Bond around during the first Jamaica scenes does give the film that sense of mystery/tension that it needed for the cinematic version of the story to work (ie. we the viewer, and of course Bond in this film, don't know who Leiter is, which really adds to that sense that Bond has to uncover this mystery while not knowing who to trust). It's the same logic for all the other changes/additions - Quarrel and Bond not knowing each other prior, the Jones scene, the addition of Professor Dent. It feels a lot more cat and mouse and gives more mystery for Bond to unravel. It arguably adds more stakes (or at least highlights more) the whole radio/missile jamming plot with the CIA getting involved.
For me, the book doesn't quite have that same atmosphere. Apart from a rather obvious attempt to poison his fruit and a much better attempt to plant the centipede in his bed, he and Quarrel basically decide to go to Crab Key which, while very sensible, probably would have fallen a bit flat if adapted faithfully for the film version. That's not to say DN is a bad book - it's great, but I do think the most interesting stuff happens when Bond is first briefed by M and once he arrives at Crab Key.
For me the best thing about the DN novel is how fantastical and otherworldly it gets. Stuff like the staff at No's lair looking very pale and dead-eyed, the Giant Squid, No's appearance etc. I don't think the film was ever going to have that same atmosphere stylistically, even if the budget had been larger.
In that sense I can understand why they instead decided to extend the plot in the way they did. When I first watched the film it the red herrings of Leiter and Quarrel did ultimately keep me engaged and again added to the mystery. I do agree on the whole though, there's a lot of stuff in DN that's actually quite unnecessary when you think about it (I mean, they even decided to keep the part where Bond has to give up his Beretta, which always confused me before I read the book).
I understand it too. But I can still understand it and think it's ridiculous.
Understanding it's not the problem.
Because you want to view all the Bond films being part of the same narrative and NTTD shatters that?
In a way. But I'm not that strict, I was quite happy with Craig's tenure being seen as the 'Bond begins' trilogy (or quadrilogy, it that's a word). I don't mind the chronology not working after all these years, but I liked being comfortable in the knowledge that all the different actors were playing the same character. I could still do that up to and including Spectre. But the ending of NTTD has forced me to accept that in the James Bond movie series, there are now two different James Bonds. The blonde one who died, and the other one. And perhaps the next will be the third? I don't know.
It really doesn't matter, but it's knocked quite a bit of the fun out of of the series for me. The death scene meant nothing emotionally, it was just a big cringe. It wasn't the death of Bond, it was the death of a Bond.
Being told "there'll be another Bond along soon" ten minutes after we're supposed to be shocked and moved by the death of Bond is just cheap, unfair, and really, really tacky. I'm amazed they even let it happen, but on seeing the people on here think I'm am absolute idiot for thinking like this, I'm beginning to think I should try and re-think it. But my common sense tells me killing off someone in a movie, and then saying "hey, he's not dead, we're going to bring him back" is just complete daftness. And people on here saying "what don't you understand? It's a different timeline*" doesn't make me think it's any less daft.
I'm sorry about that.
*Or reboot/character arc/alternate universe/incarnation etc etc. . .
To a lesser extent I cannot deny feeling some inertia at the concept of Bond dying. It just doesn't fit the DNA of his character - always on top, always an escape plan.
In any case I feel as though they put all the good character beats into Casino Royale and had nowhere to go after that.
Nihilism and redemption? QoS
Mortality? SF
I dunno what SP was trying to do. They were out of ideas for Bond.
So what's left? Ah, let's kill him.
The Craig era is a classic example of diminishing returns. It really is.
That’s why I admire the choice. NTTD is special precisely because this is the ONE instance where Bond can’t get out of a situation alive. It’s unprecedented for the character because some of us have it too wired into our heads that Bond should come out on top every time all the time. But it’s not such a betrayal of the character for me because one of the great appeals of Bond is his mortality.
Admittedly, I never liked thinking of Bond as an aspirational figure like other fans seem to. I don’t want to actually be Bond. That’s not a fantasy that appeals to me. There’s plenty aspects about Bond and his world that still appeal to me greatly.