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 think it's natural that people who dislike something intently, and certainly those who use the word 'hate', are more vocal than those who step back, are happy, and just appreciate something. Movies is just one example.
1: Bond. In SPACE? Or at least locked in a missile silo.
2: Bond captured/tortured a la Die Another Day but for whole film.
3: Bond's protege (Lily James?) was going to save him.
4: There would have been Ken Adam level designs, very Moonraker movie and indeed, the book.
5: There would be flashbacks with Bond training Lily. Think Mission:Impossible 3.
6: A Maori henchman as Bond's main captor.
7: Boyle initially was on board with Bond dying and wanted to reference explicitly not implicitly #met007. He changed mind on those points and was adamant the main villain be specifically Russian, which would politicise things. His Bond would have ended like Fleming's: a knighthood is offered and Bond ponders, as credits roll.
So basically: GRAVITY + MISSION IMPOSSIBLE + MOONRAKER/Kubrick/60s; subversive yes but upbeat and genuinely surprising whilst remaining 'Bond'. But I guess we just weren't ready for that.
Irony: Killing Bond is far less radical than what Boyle had in mind. But he is an auteur filmmaker rather than company man so quite WHY they hired him without factoring that in is beyond me? But he gave us HAPPY AND GLORIOUS for the Olympics. And to me, that is more canonical than either SPECTRE or NTTD ;)
Strange because many of those who claim to adore this groundbreaking film seem to be making many comments.
That sounds like a much more interesting film, as you say, by a real filmmaker. Much better than the incoherent, mawkish sub-marvel film we got.
That sounds like a much more interesting film, as you say, by a real filmmaker. Much better than the incoherent, mawkish sub-marvel film we got.[/quote]
Thanks, TheTruth ;) X
Though nb I do like Cory as filmmaker and he did some great stuff in NTTD.
Bond is not an auteur product, imho. Mendes changed that. They toyed with making it more director oriented in the 90s /early 00s. Ridley and Tony Scott both mooted for a Brosnan entry but it did not happen.
I think for a Bond film? You need a capable craftsperson. John Glen, Spottiswoode, Campbell. But it's a mistake to let one vision shake things up on what, by nature, is a coca cola formula with which you need not mess
But this is Bond. Known for getting out of the most impossible situations. And he can cliff-dive for sure. That is so true. He even got his 00-number back. Maybe some were fooled by the many, many Lynch interviews.
I like him. I'm just very glad he did not helm this one.
I don't think PC wokeness is what is wrong with this film. I was actually ok with Craig's relationship with the women in NTTD. It felt right for an actor of his age. I cringe now watching the later Moore films when he starts bedding women. Its like a pervy old grandad seducing young glamour models at times.
Totally agree.
Most film goers are not genuine fans so won't care Bond is dead. As I mentioned earlier in this thread... a true fan has an emotional connection to the source material. For example Rian Johnson was not a true Star Wars fan. He got to direct Star Wars ep 8 and decided Luke was to toss away his lightsaber as if were chewing gum. Any true fan would know that was disrespectful to the source material and a more fitting reaction would be:
Rey hands the lighsaber to Luke. He looks at it and gives an affectionate smile.
"It's good to have it back. Thank you, Rey."
That's how a true Star Wars fan would write that moment but Johnson, just taking the job because he was offered it by Lucasfilm and guaranteeing a big salary, completely disrespects the backstory and uses the scene to make a cheap joke.
This disrespectful approach to film making is seen in NTTD when the producers/writers/lead actor and director conspire to subvert the source material. The greatest way to subvert a character is to completely dismantle it, to kill it off. It's worth mentioning that a few days before the release of NTTD, the director Cary Fukunaga did a dismantling job on Cubby Broccoli's Bond by more or less saying Sean Connery's Bond was a rapist.
Given the fact Bond 25 exists because of the success of the previous Bond films - the Connery Bond films are the very foundation of the franchise, the blueprint - you could argue Fukunaga's rapist comment was completely uncalled for and very dismissive of Connery's interpretation of Bond and his contribution to the success of the franchise. It's not that surprising a director that regards the original era Bond as a rapist has no qualms about killing Bond. Fukunaga has no emotional connection to the character. Likewise, Daniel Craig has no emotional connection to Bond. If he valued Bond as a heroic enduring character he'd hardly sign off on Bond getting killed. I assume Eon would have kept Craig's Bond alive had Craig hinted about a possible return in Bond 26.
But my first point at the start of the post is how the franchise is dependent on casual Bond fans. They have limited to no real emotional connection to Bond so they won't care about his death. They'll forget about Bond's death in a week or two's time and be more interested in the new Spider-Man and Matrix films.
My interpretation is this: I am pretty certain it is not a new idea completely. I am willing to bet killing Bond has been on the table earlier from time to time. It is easy to see that this was deemed the ideal moment: Actor's last film, closing of an arch, the ideal actor to pull it off convincingly etc. Who first mentioned it as a possibility is almost irrelevant. I am pretty sure the producers were easily sold on the idea, if it wasn't theirs to begin with.
Exactly my interpratation too. The only way to eliminate the threat entirely is to never let the poison leave the island.
For a man, especially like him, death is a better option.
I want whatever you're smoking if that's what you gleaned from my post.
I do not smoke.
Craig's bond: lonest serving ok but by default as they only make these movies now every 5 years or so? Took down a terror bank; stopped a water monopoly. GREAT
Then? saved an elderly gran; stopped a spy network that might have helped his own work. Got Covid. Had kid. Died ;)
BOND CAN BE THE NEW KENNY! :D
Sorry @00Heaven, it is possible that I didn't quite catch the intent of your post the first time I read it. My intent was to say that Craig's age doesn't justify killing Bond in NTTD.
He had been mortally wounded by the gunshots and was out of time.
He knew getting out was against the clock. He knew he was pretty much done for but had some hope but Q confirmed it’s eternal.
So it’s a rock and hard place. Had he tried to get down from the tower he still wouldn’t of made it in time. Instead he accepted the grim fate.
I just wish he had said something directly to his child. And that the final shot before we flash to white was of her eyes not Madeleine’s.
100%. During the making of QOS, Craig said 'you've got to forget you're making a Bond film, really.' I didn't take that to mean you just flush everything, I took to mean don't just hang it on an established framework and rely on the tropes. After QOS, they backtracked a bit onto a more familiar path and ended up with what was a sometimes awkward hybrid. Still good - but CR and QOS were genuinely great and I wish they'd forged ahead down that road. Still mourn the lack of a Bond-on-a-mission-at-the-height-of-his-powers movie that we might've got in the long gap between QOS and SF.
RE Q /gadgets etc: those had to come back. they just did not have to make a 'thing' of it. 'HEY! LOOK! HERE IS THE NEW Q!'
THAT kind of indulgent plot substitute filler killed this series imho.
Irony: they HAD a Q branch in BOTH Casino and Quantum. They even had two recurring actors. Precisely what Boothroyd would be: a kind of unsung hero type; brisk, civil servant /ex army armourers. As in QUARTERMASTERS!
There was nothing original, funny or endearing about making q a needy geek.
And there was no point in rebooting MoneyPenny just to put her back behind a desk with bugger all to do.
So yes, I adore SKYFALL. But those reasons, among others = why it basically ended Craig's Bond and the series in many senses rather than refreshed it??
One thing I loved about NTTD was the tension in the action scenes, you really feel that it's life or death, when Bond is in danger you feel it. Fukunaga has definitely raised the barbiturates action scenes in the series
I spent most of the first viewing on the edge of my seat, which as my girlfriend pointed out, was not romantic at all for our first time back in the cinema 😅
Where are you getting all this from? The only thing I can find elsewhere is the Russian and Maori villains, and rumours of him wanting/not wanting to kill Bond.