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
Kidding. You make a good point. I hold each movie responsible for what it is within that film.
Well, if I look at my own choices...two out of three ain't bad. We just seem to differ on NTTD.
Hey- I enjoy SP quite a bit... but that was very funny.
If that means we're getting a GoldenEye next, I'm in!
Obviously FRWL is where the Bond franchise gets sullied. We go from a bad*ss Bond who kills in cold blood and beds women without a second thought to a character who develops feelings for a woman he’s meant to be seducing and gets over emotional when his friend dies. Just not James Bond, clearly.
I guess if you are going to kill a character that has lived since 1962 and 24 other film adventures, make it count. I don't feel the film makers made it count. The plot has holes and the reason for Bond to just suddenly feel like giving up was the best route was unforgiveable to me.
Does this sully me on the entire arc of Craig's portrayal? I don't think it dampens my love of his other films. It changed the way I perceived him as an actor. The fact that he insisted on this type of ending shows to me an ego that he was bigger than the character.
He remains my second favourite actor to portray the character and will likely continue to hold on to number 2. However Brosnan and Moore may climb ahead at some point if only for their appreciation of the character and their continued love for what he did for their careers.
I’m not sure if he insisted on it as much as it was thought to be the best route to go creatively. If they didn’t think so the producers wouldn’t have made the film at all. So I don’t see what that says about Craig as an actor.
Are you surmising their only reason for making the film was to kill Bond? Killing an iconic character was the best route to go creatively?
Rocky, Wick, Indy, The Equalizer, Hunt, Bourne for whatever reasons haven't gone that creative route. Because it doesn't feel creative.
Sure, we can move on and enjoy a new Bond. But I do think the end of NTTD will always hang over the series for those who've been with the series for a couple of or more Bonds.
They killed Superman in Batman vs. Superman... and Buffy in season 5.... but yeah, they both got revived. :P
I actually used to think that too. That Bond's death was a bit of fade chasing. To be honest, having thought about it/rewatched the film and gotten what I have out of it (both good and negative), I genuinely believe with a franchise like Bond and EON they'd only do what they think best for their stories. We can agree or disagree with these creative decisions, or it can be reminiscent of something else (it's happened in the past). But the safest thing to do would have been not to kill off Bond in NTTD.
Personally, I can't say what their sole reason was for creating this film. I had nothing to do with that process. From what I've read they seemingly felt that a satisfying ending to the Craig era was needed and could be done, so there's a case to be made it goes deeper than simply killing Bond. I can see that. More importantly I can feel that watching NTTD.
We've all been with two or more Bonds. We've all watched individual Bonds and many of us love specific Bonds whose movies came out before we were born. While some of us have more memories of going to see specific movies, we all share this. I do. It really doesn't matter if it was seeing GF in cinemas or SF, or anything in-between. We all share this. So I don't see why it should hang over the series if we've 'been with the series for a couple of Bonds', any more than the other examples I've given of creative decisions some of us don't like 'sullying' the films.
The explosions cracked the facade he was standing on, and he was thrown into the experimental cryo chamber underneath. Nanobots healed his burns and prepared him for future re-awakening. 007 Resurrection: The World Will Be Enough
Fair enough about mortality. Personally I sometimes think that's what Bond always naturally contains, weird as it sounds (death follows Mr. Bond very naturally in his profession, unfortunately).
But Bond will go on. It's astounding how long it's continued and how many different types of fans it has (both casual and more dedicated).
From what I can tell from interviews and behind-the-scenes anecdotes, the producers wanted to make another movie with Craig and his price tag for returning was to kill him off. He wouldn't have done the movie at all without the ending, which is why the whole movie feels reverse-engineered.
So, it's not so much that they made a movie specifically to kill him off, it's that they caved to the demand of their star instead of telling him to take a hike and finding a replacement actor, which is what Cubby would've done.
I know it's a sore point around here, but I actually do think Babs had some sort of obsession with Craig. There's plenty of evidence for it, from the over-the-top praise (calling him one of the greatest actors ever, etc.) to the amount of creative control she gave him over the movies, which is something no previous actor had, not even Connery.
Do you not think the 'for some reason' there might be an indication that the producers might have actually agreed that this decision was best (whether or not it actually originated with Craig)?
It's not like EON haven't said no to actors returning in the past or gone in different creative directions. And honestly, the whole 'Cubby would've done this' idea is very boring. The man sent Bond into space because he thought it'd be a) a good adventure and b) it'd be profitable. Both of which it was. Don't tell me he wouldn't have done something out of the box for Bond and simultaneously in line with the mainstream of movies. At any rate we have no idea what he would have thought as he's long dead and the closest we have to his business process is, in fact, his daughter and step son who actually run the franchise, and from what I understand actually follow in his example, if not his exact lessons in the film business! Oh, and not only have they made money but have garnered critical praise and, second hand, kept a fan base going (more than Cubby managed to do over a long term, especially during the latter parts of his tenure, good as he was). It really is such a stupid argument, the whole 'Cubby would have done this'. We as fans know nothing about what he'd do one way or the other, and shouldn't use that idea to justify our biases or personal opinions in an online post.
Yes, I agree, but not how it was done. It was lazy writing IMHO. TWINE & SF were better written than this.
HAHAHAaaa, you won the internet today, man! =D>
One rises to meet a challenge. ;)
@007HallY
This is an excellent post. "Cubby would never have" and "Fleming would never have" are empty arguments. Both men have been dead for decades.
There is always a context and a "zeitgeist" within which new Bond films are fabricated. MR is a perfect example—people can scoff at it now, but in '79, with Star Wars mania in full swing and space exploration being a hot topic, it made financial sense. Just like how the Craig era reflected post-9/11 sensibilities with a grittier, more grounded approach. EON has always adapted Bond to fit the zeitgeist, and any speculation about what Fleming or Cubby would have done is just that—speculation.
We can't truly know how Cubby or Fleming would feel about the Craig era in today's world. Nor can we predict how Cubby would have steered EON through the challenges it faced after CR, or where Fleming might have positioned Bond on the shifting chessboard of 21st-century geopolitics.
Bond has always evolved with the times, whether for better or worse. The idea that there’s a "pure" version of Bond that must be adhered to ignores how much the series has shifted over the decades. Fleming’s Bond was already different from the cinematic Bond that emerged under Cubby Broccoli, and every era since has been shaped by cultural shifts, audience expectations, and industry trends.
As fans, we may hope for our beloved series to defy trends—or better yet, to set new ones—but even Bond films exist within Hollywood conventions, influenced by what has made other films successful. No matter how much I want to defend NTTD, I don’t like that Bond was killed. But I’m not the least bit surprised that it happened eventually.
Was it the Fleming-thing-to-do? We don't know.
Was it the 2020s-thing-to-do? Sadly, I think so, yes.
Did it have to happen? Evidently, no.
Do I wish it didn't happen? Absolutely!
Can I come to terms with the fact that it happened? Easily.
Has it tainted my Bond fandom, sullied the Craig era for me, or rendered my expectations of future Bond films cynical? As 'M' would have said, "No, that would be unprofessional."
Précisément, as another great character adapted from page to screen might say.
Yeah, That's interesting. I think i could say Casino Royale 'sullied' the Brosnan era for me.
Because after being blown away by Craig's performance and the film itself, the Brosnan era just seemed so lightweight..
And for how stupid DAD is at times, I’d always go for that one as opposed to the likes of QOS and SP purely on the basis that I can have fun with it.
That depends on your idea of 'fun..' ;)