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 wholeheartedly agree with this.
Even if I thought Madeleine was the best Bond girl of all time, I probably wouldn’t want to see a new iteration of her character ever again as if associate her too much of Craig’s iteration. She should remain exclusive to his run. I don’t even want to see a new Vesper again (unless there’s ever a series of streaming movie adaptations faithful to the novels, but that’s a whole other thing).
I don't think EON will go for this, but since Amazon now has partial ownership I've been wondering the same thing myself. Again, I don't think it'll ever happen, but it might be interesting to see some well-made period streaming movies set in the 1950s and 1960s. The problem is that this might dilute the brand. Bond has for so long been a series of event movies, and so expanding into streaming might have considerable risks.
I don’t think it’ll ever happen either. Just saying that’s the only way I can imagine seeing Vesper, or any character unique to those novels returning again. Aside from recurring characters like Felix or Mathis, unique characters like Tracy, Dr. No, Goldfinger, should never make a reappearance. I think that’s why EON created Madeleine, as they felt a new character made more sense for Craig whereas if they had brought back Tracy we’d be constantly anticipating a bullet hitting her head.
Yes, that is a good point. And of course Madeleine's back story is a bit similar to Tracy's...
Certainly an intentional nod to Tracy, but probably as far as they were willing to go. Instead of a broken woman who’s suicidal, it’s a therapist trying to escape her dreary upbringing.
Okay, that's hilarious!
Yes, Madeleine's much more of a modern woman. And this comes from someone who reveres the Tracy character.
In SP I find Madeleine's feisty/angry scenes to be her best (not unlike Tracy)--particularly after the snow chase. And then she's great/vulnerable in L'Americain.
If they had given her more feistiness/defiance at the Morocco base, either in the meteorite scene or when Bond is being tortured, her character would have made more of an impression in that film.
Madeleine just seems so passive/along for the ride throughout this section (compare, say, Honey), and of course, she gets kidnapped--yawn.
It's like the writers forgot about her character at this point. If they had kept better track of her, when she leaves Bond before the climax, it would have had more impact.
Owen Gleiberman: ...."Consider how the ending of “No Time to Die” completes the James Bond films. Think of how many of those movies, over 60 years, reference death in the title. “Live and Let Die.” “Tomorrow Never Dies.” “Die Another Day.” “You Only Live Twice.” The essence of James Bond, as a character, is that he lives every day on the edge of death — and that he embraces that precarious and existential state of being. It’s what liberates him. (It’s what makes him, in the earlier films, a libertine.) But the reason he accepts death is that he knows he’d be dying for a higher purpose: MI6, Britain, Western Civilization. He’s the knight of the postwar world, and he lives out its freedoms and its pleasures. But he’ll die, at any moment, for that life he believes in protecting. And that’s why what he does at the end of “No Time to Die” feels right. It’s not a change of character. It’s a quintessentially Bondian move. He embraces death…as an act of saving."
Then Bond is taken prisoner by MI6 and set back on his feet.
As the Bond series always try to stay on the edge of the real world "progress", I think transhumanism is going to be explored next, allowing to build upon the Craig era set-up.
That will mean Bond + Blofeld back, and the saga continuing.
It's also very Fleming. In YOLT he died, having being transformed and more humanised than ever by the OHMSS events.
Clearly TMWTGG was meant to start a huge evolution in the series, having a "NU" Bond now still going.
I don't think they ever intended the Craigs as a mini-series. I think the intent was setting the fundactions for the next 40 years of 007, and I remember either Babs or Craig saying so in past interviews.
I agree as well. No Vesper, no Tracy, no Madeleine - give the new timeline a new love interest. I know others have mentioned a desire to see Gala Brand adapted, and I too would welcome that, but I wouldn't object to another original character a la Madeleine. Just not the Madeleine.
It's confirmed - Mathilde is the new 007. ;)
I will feel much better when I see the film again tonight!
Reminds me of Jurassic Park.
Agree. Eva Green's was as definitive a portrayal of Vesper as Diana Rigg's was of Tracy, and Vesper as a character belongs firmly in Casino Royale, which is in no need of remakes for the foreseeable future.
I'd like to see these, and period stories are certainly a more feasible proposition via streaming as opposed to cinema releases. If the makers keep two distinct Bond story formats/timelines, period films or series on TV and modern-setting films as "event cinema", it could strengthen the brand by potentially attracting a wider viewership rather than dilute it. Other "universes" (OK, mostly superhero-centric, but still) have branched into TV series (and/or cartoons) and it helped rather than hurt them.
SPECTRE can still be on the table, but Blofeld should stay in the past.
Same here.
:)) :)) :))
I disagree. CR was fairly grounded because it more or less reflected the tone of the novel, which was still fantastical in concept rather than “realistic”. I never took that film to be a signifier that all of Craig’s films would stick to that, and I think it was a mistake for critics of Mendes’ films to assume that much. When CR came out I was always confident that the Bond film tropes would gradually be integrated, and it felt natural that Craig’s fourth would culminate the way it did (I only wish Quantum, an abysmal name, was left unnamed like in CR for a smoother transition but oh well).
I thought QOS really bungled partly because it tried to act way too hard as a sequel to CR rather than progress towards the traditional Bondian elements. There was no reason not to bring back Q, for example. There was no reason to continue the Bond Begins stuff when it was beautifully concluded in CR. So I was very relieved when SF returned to the tone of classic films while at the same time feeling not too distant from CR.
My main concern is that because they "did it in a Bond movie", people will feed conspiracy theories about Bill Gates using Covid vaccines to make us all subservient. ;-)
You sure sound subservient, though.
😊
And not to be confused with Sergeant Deux-Deux.
Thank you for this. I fully agree and this is exactly how I felt watching the film and how I think it was meant to be understood. It truly made a repeat viewing of the PTS a more heart-wrenching experience knowing the full scale of the movie's plot. I don't think anyone else could have played this but Craig and Seydoux. Your last paragraph is so well stated.
Only to my wife, @Thunderfinger. ;-)
Best post I've read in a long time.
I do feel nervous about Bond 26 though, because everything is on the table with the ending of NTTD, I never thought we'd witness the death of Bond. Now we have I think subverting expectations will become the new normal going forward and standalone missions will be a think of the past.
Whenever Barbara talks about the next Bond film, she talks about what emotional journey Bond will go on, so I can't see standalone impersonal missions coming back and I think Bond being promiscuous has gone too. It's more likely they'll build another new universe with Bond #7, which to my mind would dilute the specialness of Daniel's run.
Daniel is my favourite and I've loved the arc we've gone on with him but I do think his world is the smallest of all the actors, every new character seems to know of past characters and events and such. As much I enjoyed Spectre and NTTD, I sort of wish we would have got to see that mission M handed to him at the end of Skyfall instead
They’d clone a “sexist misogynistic dinosaur”