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
Wonderful post.
Bond and Madeleine are absolutely believable to me as a couple, and it's very much like Bond and Kara as a subtler, less montagey romance.
I don't think the ending is contra Fleming - NTTD adapts the ending YOLT perfectly in my opinion. Amnesiac Bond was actually a walking and talking corpse - he had lost his identity. And him wandering into Russia would've meant certain death if Fleming had been faithful to his own canon - in FRML Smersh conclude that killing M wouldn't change a thing. Fleming knew and supposed that his readers knew also that Soviets held a grudge for a long time against spies, see Sidney Reilly's fate for instance. Agreed, Fleming doesn't actually describe the death of Bond, but leaves it for the reader to fill the blanks. Bond's return in TMWTGG was worst writing/plotting Fleming ever put on paper. Sure, it was nice that he wrote another Bond, but Bond's comeback was straight out from some Mad/Cracked parody.
This is a really good post with a perspective that I hadn’t thought about. Thanks. Vesper set an extremely high bar, as she and Craig has electric chemistry, the romance felt real. But as you say, they were young. I do think Bond always loved Vesper more than Madeline. That was the true love of his life.
Agreed. Yes. The love he had for Vesper (the armor dialogue), I never felt that connection between he and Seydoux. Bond was enamored with Vesper, couldn’t take his eyes off her. The shower scene they had. That is James Bond showing love at a level he has never shown before imo. I think with Madeline, it was more of “she could understand him” type of deal. When you base a large portion of the film’s motor around this, I dunno if it was strong enough to work. Thinking or writing out loud lol.
This for me demonstrates one of the best things about this forum; other people's well considered opinions that are different from my own making me see things from a different angle.
I too am not sold on their relationship and didn't feel much chemistry between them after two viewings of NTTD and several SP. However next time I watch I will do so with a different perspective. Good stuff
Their relationsship is forced. She hardly smiles at him, and for two movies they have spent more screentime arguing and mistrusting each other, than looking like two people in love. A one-minute sequence before hell breaks loose in Matera, isn't going to cut it, especially because they immediately after have no connection with each other for five years. They even left each other at the end of SP, with no emotional ties, before the final showdown. I know the script for NTTD dictates feelings here, but chemistry is not found in words alone, and personally I haven't seen any spark between the two of them.
Think that's where I am with it! Delighted to see so many enjoyed it, and has some really good stuff in it. But it just didnt resonate with me, am debating whether to see it a third time, but dont think I be bothered if I dont!
Am with you on that. The ending, strangely left me unmoved, but that moment at Vespers grave was beautiful!
A lot is to be said about the motive of "time" in this film because in a lot of ways time just runs out for Bond. Time runs out to leave the island. Time runs out with what little happiness and moments he had with his family. Time ultimately runs out on life, just as it does for each and everyone one of us. It's tragic and poetic at the same time.
Even at the very beginning Madeleine questions why he's looking over his shoulder still. You could almost argue it's a nod that he's looking towards the past - along with being hyperaware of danger thanks to the life he has led so far. But overall, Bond in this movie for the first half isn't really living in the present or looking towards any future for himself. He's simply EXISTING. He could do with a therapist. Ah, oh, wait... lol.
When Bond when he goes to Madeleine in Norway I think it just seals what he's always known and felt for her.
Had he escaped, IMHO, he would still have had the same problem. He'd still have trust issues and still struggle. That's just who he is. A true happy ending wouldn't have existed. Sure, we can imagine it would but he's simply too damaged in this arc.
I just want to say, you're not allone in this, as i'm feeling absolutely the same. I saw it on Sep. 30th over here in germany and as of now i have no intend to touch this movie ever again. It killed my life long affection for the cinematic Bond in its last act. I was sad and angry when i left the cinema. And it hasn't changed till today.
I know some Scandinavian actresses screen tested, including Norwegian Igrid Bolsø Berdal and Synnøve Macody Lund.
Thanks for the info.
Yes. I'm usually pretty good at putting a wall up if film makers are trying to manipulate my emotions too blatantly, but there's a deep personal resonance for me both with that music and what Bond was actually doing. I knew it was coming and I thought I'd got defences in place in readiness for it, but they fell away when the music played. Too close to home. Hands up - they got me good.
I sent an unsolicited email to Eon suggesting that idea is adapted/extended. Rather than Bond coming back to kill M, you could have Bond with amnesia and he's working for the villain. This would be an interesting way to make Bond 26. At some point in the story Bond is located by the 00s, 'captured' and his memory returns. You wouldn't do the whole film with Bond as a villain. I reckon film goers would accept the scenario for 50 to 60 percent of the story. He reverts back to hero before the third act of the story. 🙂
When fans say "Bond is dead, just accept it" maybe they're not seeing the potential of Bond alive but missing in action. There will be screenwriters out there (maybe Purvis and Wade too) that would jump at the chance to write a 'Bond missing in action' story and I cannot see a woman as financially astute as Barbara Broccoli automatically dismissing the idea.
If she wants to reboot and start from point zero that is her prerogative. I'm sure a rebooted Bond 26 can have a decent plot and push the franchise forward in a new ish direction but Bond missing in action, presumed dead, is arguably a more dramatic premise.
Had we seen this YOLT book ending, an amnesia Bond not knowing who he is, living in a Japanese village, instead of Bond's screen death by missiles, would you have been very disappointed by NTTD?
I have not watched this yet, but I will soon ...
You may have hated it, but I think fans would have still lapped it up, if done in a good way. If fans can easily accept Bond having a kid and getting killed, they would just as easily accept this too.
I don’t know how it changed so drastically for me, but within minutes of watching NTTD I felt a deep connection to their relationship. I hated SP and maybe liked Madeleine a little bit but wasn’t crazy about her or anything. NTTD changed my feelings about her/them drastically within minutes and I can’t quite put my finger on “how” with only one viewing, but this is largely why I loved this movie so much and the revelations in the third act worked so well for me. This very much is a film about their relationship and the viewer liking or disliking the film will rely on their belief in the love story.
However, they have SCREWED the timeline completely. Daniel’s Bond was a reboot of the series and to an extent was a great idea, poorly executed.
By the end of SF, they had established the new M (Mallory) and got rid of the MI6 building in Spectre bringing everything into place for the future of bond - (M’s office was reminiscent of the earlier films, the relationship between Moneypenny and Bond was more like the old films and Q was opening up more to Bond compared to when he was first introduced in SF).
The bond universe was set in place by the end of Skyfall and you could easily argue that the classic films from Dr.No onwards could have happened at any point after SF. I thought the whole point of making M’s office at the end of SF was to answer that question of how Daniel’s Bond’s beginnings link up.
Spectre’s release introduced Blofeld, explaining how Bond was introduced to the supervillain. Blofeld’s infamous scar down his right eye was created, meaning this happened BEFORE the events of the Sean Connery films.
It would have made more sense to carry on with the new Blofeld, Mallory, Moneypenny and Q (as much as the actors themselves were willing) whilst introducing the next actor to play Bond as it would have meant that although the actor for Bond had changed, at least it was the same ‘universe’.
Instead, it was Daniel Craig’s last and unfortunately someone (maybe Craig himself) thought it would be a great idea for Craig to show the beginnings and end of Bond. The producers bought it and probably thought it was cool and perhaps a fitting way of ending Daniel’s time in the series.
Unfortunately though as I mentioned at the top, they’ve screwed the timeline and the possibility of any of the pre-Daniel Craig films being able to happen as they introduced Blofeld in the last film yet it was only a mere 5 years later that Bond dies. All of the events in between such as Blofeld’s YOLT volcano missile plot couldn’t have happened in that time as Blofeld was a prisoner since.
It also doesn’t make sense in the Daniel Craig Bond universe that Blofeld played a relatively small part. He was caught, arrested and put into prison, then died. Hardly the character he had become in the previous movies.
CR and QoS are their own little cul-de-sac. (Bond at the start of his career)
Skyfall is standalone (Bond much later in his career)
Spectre and NTTD then want to pretend as if everything joins together, which results in multiple conflicting iterations being mushed together to create...I don't know what.
It feels such a shame and a waste that they regained the rights to use Blofeld, Bond’s biggest arch enemy… and he just died in prison in the next film????
I think it’s just selfish that they wanted Daniel Craig to have HIS perfect ending without thinking of the fanbase, the story, the continuity which has obviously become an after-thought.
@sworddevil1 It’s been two days, and I’m not sure that I want to see NTTD again. I’ll probably go to support the franchise (and eat movie popcorn), but yikes!