NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1128129131133134298

Comments

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 439
    and here's another, alas, written before the final instalment, so the analogy is incomplete

    Stage 1 of alchemy – nigredo (blackening) in Casino Royale
    Stage 2 of alchemy – albedo (whitening) in Quantum of Solace
    Stage 3 of alchemy – cintrinitas (yellowing) in Skyfall
    Stage 4 of alchemy – rubedo (reddening) in Spectre
    Stage 5 of alchemy - ??? (???) in No Time To Die

    http://bilalhafeez.com/imagine-if-carl-jung-pyschoanalysed-james-bond/

    210915180517-daniel-craig-casino-royale-file.jpg
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Seve wrote: »
    Here's one interpretation

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-inner-life-of-james-bond/309457/

    "Was James Bond—neck-snapper, escape artist, serial shagger—the last repudiation of his creator’s cultural pedigree? Take that, fancy books; take that, whiskered shrinks. I, Ian Fleming, give you a hero almost without psychology: a bleak circuit of appetites, sensations, and prejudices, driven by a mechanical imperative called “duty.” In Jungian-alchemical terms, 007 is like lead, the metal associated with the dark god Saturn, lying coldly at the bottom of the crucible and refusing transformation. Boil him, slash him, poison him, flog him with a carpet beater and shoot his woman—Bond will not be altered."

    "Fleming’s novels, too, skirt the droning vacuum of Bond’s inner life. Is he human at all? From time to time he slumps, depressively—as, for example, in the opening pages of Thunderball: “Again Bond dabbed with the bloodstained styptic pencil at the cut on his chin and despised the face that stared sullenly back at him from the mirror above the washbasin. Stupid, ignorant bastard!” But this discontent is due to the fact that he has a hangover, he is between missions (traditionally a dangerous moment for Bond), and he has cut himself shaving. An immediate and physical ennui, in other words. He’ll be all right in a minute."

    original.jpg


    This may’ve be an intent that Bond never changes @Seve, but that’s wholly impossible, isn’t it? Because he was written by a flesh and blood human who, like all of us, grows with each victory or disappointment; changes with a death or new
    Love, or overcoming insurmountable odds.

    He, James Bond, did change in the books and the author made very conscious decisions (like his heritage and parental upbringing, or lack thereof), and unconsciously (the James Bond of Casino Royale is much more remarkably filled out with each subsequent novel, so that by the end he is very much a flesh and blood human with plenty of characteristics.

    James Bond is not a blank slate, in my opinion.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,588
    TripAces wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    But what subversion?

    The way every single Craig movie spends its runtime deconstructing Craig's Bond and then reconstructing him for the final scene only, promising audiences a proper Bond movie next time out. It worked with CR, but they repeated it for another 3 movies, and now with NTTD they've completed the deconstruction of Craig's Bond by blowing him up.

    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."
    The subversion is less about gun barrels and martinis and more about altering Bond as a character: making him Blofeld’s foster brother, a family man, a father and, ultimately, a tragic figure. Bond had his issues in pre-Craig films, but the only time he was ever tragic before was for a minute or so at the end of OHMSS. This is like filling a cake with baked beans and insisting it is still a cake because it has icing on top.

    Yeah, this. The Craig era has all the trappings of Bond, all the superificial stuff that Mendes was obsessed with (Goldfinger Aston Martin since he had a toy one as a kid), but in my opinion there's a big, empty hole in the center of the Craig era, and that's Craig's Bond himself. It's partially his own fault but it's more due to the producers not having a clear idea of what to do with his character after CR.

    I think they had a really good clue. This is a Bond dealing with existential angst, based on choice or lack thereof. And it is a Bond attempting to refine himself, constantly: Carl Jung's theory of "individuation," based on ideas of alchemy, as presented by Paracelsus. Let's not forget, Jung was interested in Paracelsus...and Ian Fleming asked Jung to translate his lecture on Paracelsus into English. There is no doubt that Fleming was very much interested in the writings of Jung and the ways in which they related to/from Paracelsus.

    Any discussion of Craig's version of Bond and that character's status as myth and as hero starts right there: with Jung and Paracelsus.

    This is the most sophisticated set of Bond films in the franchise's history, by far. There is a lot to unpack.

    Yes, this is very interesting information... is there something specific that can be read that has more on this?

    The connection between Fleming and Jung has been documented in his biographies. This 2013 article in The Atlantic also mentions it: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-inner-life-of-james-bond/309457/

    To me, to better understand Craig's Bond is to understand Jung. And I knew this Bond was different from that standpoint almost immediately, in CR, during the PTS and these images right here:

    43645391.jpg

    combat-toilettes-728x428.jpg

    The use of the mirror here is critical and not accidental. In Jungian terms, the mirror is the symbol of man's duality: between the person he is (or wants to be) and his shadow self. Star Wars dealt with this a little bit in TESB, when Luke has to face himself. In CR, the mirror shatters, and this adds further weight to its importance.

    Mirrors play a HUGE role in DC's five films, far more than they had in the previous 20.

    2013-06-17-08-58-30-pm-mirror.jpg

    skyfall_-_stressed.jpg

    skyfall-house-of-mirrors.jpg?w=640

    21815928-7755887-image-a-34_1575474179933.jpg

    Bond is continuously battling this duality within himself and explains why, so often, he leaves MI6 or feigns death, only to go back. I could go further into Bond's decisions and choices, but the scene in Jamaica, when Bond is contemplating going to Cuba is key and really demonstrates how Craig's Bond struggles with duty and self. The scene in the bathroom in CR, when Bond cleans and gathers himself after the stairwell fight really demonstrates this, as well.

    This duality within Bond is also illustrated when Madeleine is drunk in the hotel room in Tangier in SP. She looks at him and says, "There are two of you. Two Jameses." Right? Indeed.

    NTTD works for me because in death, Bond achieves what he likely could not in life. His split selves will go their separate ways. The assassin has died; but the myth lives on in the stories that Madeleine will tell Mathilde.

    There is more, but I'll leave it at that, for now.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 439
    peter wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »

    This may’ve be an intent that Bond never changes @Seve, but that’s wholly impossible, isn’t it? Because he was written by a flesh and blood human who, like all of us, grows with each victory or disappointment; changes with a death or new
    Love, or overcoming insurmountable odds.

    He, James Bond, did change in the books and the author made very conscious decisions (like his heritage and parental upbringing, or lack thereof), and unconsciously (the James Bond of Casino Royale is much more remarkably filled out with each subsequent novel, so that by the end he is very much a flesh and blood human with plenty of characteristics.

    James Bond is not a blank slate, in my opinion.

    Well, in this case I am just providing some additional information I found on the topic of the possible Jung / Bond connection, not necessarily endorsing it

    I agree James Bond is a more fully rounded character than this commentator is giving him credit for

    Perhaps at times he aspires to be as hard as nails and impervious to emotion, traits he believes to be desirable in his chosen profession, but on the other hand Fleming also deals with the man behind the facade, which is why that character is a step up from a character like Sherlock Holmes, who remains unchangeable

    We may learn things about Sherlock's past which indicate how he became the Sherlock we know and love, but in the end he always remains the same Sherlock we met in the first story.

    James Bond also has that aspect, but he is also shaped by events that occur after we are introduced, as with Vesper in CR the novel. But it happens slowly and he also has many novels where he remains unchanged over the course of the story.

    In particular I think you also need to bear in mind this point that was made

    "Fleming’s novels, too, skirt the droning vacuum of Bond’s inner life.... he is between missions (traditionally a dangerous moment for Bond)... An immediate and physical ennui, in other words."

    Fleming's Bond is an excitement junky, he addicted to the danger of the mission, in-between he is easily bored and finds an office bound job or a "normal" male / female relationship in someway unfulfilling

    On the other hand Craig-Bond seems all too ready to throw in the towel at the drop of a hat (another bit of hyperbole there, but you can smell what the Rock is cooking)

  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    On the subject of mirrors and duality, the first one that immediately come to mind to me is that shot near the end of Spectre where Waltz's face is literally on top of Craig's in a reflection.

    That and Safin more or less outlines the whole "we're more or less the same you and me" trope in NTTD.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Ian Fleming’s James Bond is a defined by his complex feelings. He’s motivated by duty but he is a man who gets tired, burned out, discouraged, wounded. Bond suffers a lot, dreams about a different future. Dreams even about family. He has a lot of humanity. In the end, he’s a hero.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @TripAces … in depth research, well done. Very enlightening…
  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    @TripAces . Interesting stuff! Thanks for sharing.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,588
    Yeah, really great stuff all around. I was thinking about the use of mirrors in Lucia’s home in Spectre as well, Safin saying “I could be looking at my own reflection”, Bond’s reflection revealing him to Patrice, and their silhouettes fighting in Shanghai making it difficult to keep track of who’s who… intentionally?
    One is a man hired and paid for murder… and the other meets his fate on the pavement below moments later!

    You’re mentioning his decision-making in Jamaica on whether or not he would go to Cuba, and I think it makes NTTD all the more heartbreaking, really. His fate has always been sealed and he never really had the option of leaving his life.

    A lot of people say he is motivated by his duty, but I think more fundamentally his motivation is different: to feel. He is numb and that’s why he can only be a 00; the missions are dangerous, as outlined in CR the novel. The orphan angle for characters is very overused nowadays, but for Bond I imagine he was actually very close to his parents, making their death all the more traumatic.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 439
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Here's a question. I think we all assume that it was Craig's decision to leave, and the producers reluctantly gave him this send off. Not that I expect this to happen, but let's say Craig, once again, has second thoughts. In a year or so, before the replacement has been established/revealed to the public, Craig wishes to return. Hypothetically, do you think Broccoli and Co. say, "No we're done, thank you". Or, do they find a back door solution (maybe not teleportation, but something even tangental to a physical possibility) in order to bring him back for one more? Or do they just make a stand alone and not even bother to explain anything?

    Don't bother telling me how ludicrous or impossible the scenario is, this is all in fun (though, now that it is in my head...).

    Daniel Craig will return in "Never Say Die Again"?

    But IMO that scenario only plays out if Bond 26 bombs, in which case the contradiction becomes even more mind blowing

    Craig-Bond dies / New Bond returns and bombs / Geriatric Craig-Bond rises from the grave

    But if 1980s Bond fans managed to cope with Connery and Moore both appearing as Bond in 1983 I guess they can handle anything

    sean-connery-roger-moore-007-1.jpg
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,588
    @Birdleson I could see them concocting a situation where Bond survives but goes into exile. A YOLT-style survival where he’s blown into the water rather than blown to pieces. In the PTS, we’d get whatever current villain murdering Madeline and Mathilde, and with nothing left to lose, Bond is thrust into action once again.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 572
    @Birdleson I could see them concocting a situation where Bond survives but goes into exile. A YOLT-style survival where he’s blown into the water rather than blown to pieces. In the PTS, we’d get whatever current villain murdering Madeline and Mathilde, and with nothing left to lose, Bond is thrust into action once again.
    They could have Bond wake up from a nightmare which would be done to signal that NTTD - or a portion of it - was just him in his sleep. (Not saying I like the idea, but it is a possibility.)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,588
    JamesStock wrote: »
    @Birdleson I could see them concocting a situation where Bond survives but goes into exile. A YOLT-style survival where he’s blown into the water rather than blown to pieces. In the PTS, we’d get whatever current villain murdering Madeline and Mathilde, and with nothing left to lose, Bond is thrust into action once again.
    They could have Bond wake up from a nightmare which would be done to signal that NTTD - or a portion of it - was just him in his sleep. (Not saying I like the idea, but it is a possibility.)

    Yes they could, and that would be terrible. I read somewhere though that the whole thing could be a fever dream before Bond wakes up on Blofelds operating table in Spectre, which was a fun thought.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,201
    If Craig did want to come back, I think EON wouldn’t take him because they put so much work on this being his definitive finale that it would be hard to walk that back. At best they could maybe do a special film, like a one-off period piece so to make it clear it’s not part of the original five film canon.

    I also think Amazon would rather move forward a with new actor as that would be the cheaper option. With Craig’s schedule being busy with Knives Out sequels they would have to pay more than it is worth.

    As it is, I think Craig is as likely to return for a sixth film as Sir Rog was likely to do an eighth.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 439
    If Craig did want to come back, I think EON wouldn’t take him because they put so much work on this being his definitive finale that it would be hard to walk that back. At best they could maybe do a special film, like a one-off period piece so to make it clear it’s not part of the original five film canon.

    I also think Amazon would rather move forward a with new actor as that would be the cheaper option. With Craig’s schedule being busy with Knives Out sequels they would have to pay more than it is worth.

    As it is, I think Craig is as likely to return for a sixth film as Sir Rog was likely to do an eighth.

    First rule of Bond Club;-

    Never Say Never Again

    RYxQZIBm9BaXXCzRWXjv_1082140196.jpeg
  • Posts: 3,327
    slide_99 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    But what subversion?

    The way every single Craig movie spends its runtime deconstructing Craig's Bond and then reconstructing him for the final scene only, promising audiences a proper Bond movie next time out. It worked with CR, but they repeated it for another 3 movies, and now with NTTD they've completed the deconstruction of Craig's Bond by blowing him up.

    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."
    The subversion is less about gun barrels and martinis and more about altering Bond as a character: making him Blofeld’s foster brother, a family man, a father and, ultimately, a tragic figure. Bond had his issues in pre-Craig films, but the only time he was ever tragic before was for a minute or so at the end of OHMSS. This is like filling a cake with baked beans and insisting it is still a cake because it has icing on top.

    Yeah, this. The Craig era has all the trappings of Bond, all the superificial stuff that Mendes was obsessed with (Goldfinger Aston Martin since he had a toy one as a kid), but in my opinion there's a big, empty hole in the center of the Craig era, and that's Craig's Bond himself. It's partially his own fault but it's more due to the producers not having a clear idea of what to do with his character after CR.

    I have been mulling over NTTD and was wondering did Craig get bigger than the character in the end?

    Wasn't it Cubby who said "No actor is bigger than James Bond.." ? It seems Craig managed it. He seemed to be allowed a lot more input and control than any of the other Bond actors.

    I've mostly loved Craig's era but after NTTD I just wondered if it was the case of him overshadowing the character...?

    I didn't really think this until NTTD, but I agree with you. It appears like Babs pulled out all the stops to allow Craig to return one last time, but it seems she did this from day one, even persuading him for CR, which he was reluctant to do at first even back then.

    Fortunately he had no input in the script with CR, which is why it is one of the best films in the franchise. But I'm hazarding a guess Craig has been behind all the personal backstory and family angst ever since - M dying, Bond's family home, Brofeld, Bond being a father, and Bond dying.

    In SF it was palatable, but in SP and NTTD they pushed this angle way too far, IMO.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Seve wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    But @Seve … as I mentioned above: Bond was doubtful and had existential issues from the very first novel…

    But, as I mentioned, he doesn't act on them like an impulsive teenager

    The novels LALD, MR, DAF, FRWL, DN, GF, TB are missions carried out without excessive angst on Bond's part and with mutual trust between Bond and his employers

    Whereas Craig-Bond couldn't give us that even once in five attempts

    I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling this either.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 439
    foo_yuk wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But surely you can see how it dampens our enthusiasm for going into the theater and seeing a new James Bond film. I mean we’re sitting there knowing it is leading to his death. There’s nothing pleasant about it from this perspective. How are we supposed to enjoy everything in between? I don’t need some grand arc to define the Craig Era. I just wanted a fun Bond film. I’m so disappointed and, rational or not, angry.

    Honest question, does knowing Tracy is killed immediately after their wedding dampen your enjoyment of the fun in OHMSS? Bond fails to protect the woman he loves, and Blofeld gets the last laugh on him. It ends on a somber note of defeat :)

    Thinking about it now, that my have accounted for a fair bit of the drop of in popularity of that film, perhaps just as much as the lack of Connery?

    James Bond fails...

    It's a fine ending in retrospect, but what did audiences make of it at the time?
  • Posts: 3,327

    It’s funny they lasted for 15 years, but I guess it became a place of sanctuary for the Craig haters after CR was a hit. I used to visit their forums along with @jetsetwilly because it was fun to try to debate the merits, at least with those that were sensible enough to agree to disagree (and there weren’t many)..

    Them were the days. At least they'll be happy now Craig's run has finally come to an end. Their nightmare is over....

    :))

    But did they not also demand to bring back Brosnan? He'd be the oldest active Bond in the franchise history by now.
    And are we really going down the road, that NTTD is a bad movie. because Bond has only sex with one woman? Seriously? Good old Sir Roger Moore laid four young women in AVTAK who could have been his daughters (at least), and came over as a hornly old man. Apparently they thought, they could compensate Moore looking 60+ in this movie-

    I think they wanted Brozza back at the time CR was released. After that they wanted anyone else to replace Craig.

    I watched FYEO again yesterday (been a while), and what struck me with it was three things -

    1) How down-to-earth it was for a Moore film. And surprisingly relies heavily on Fleming's short stories and unused novel bits, but woven into a new script very cleverly. Maibaum really knew what he was doing when given a direction from Cubby. If only we had more of this in the Craig era.

    2) How old Roger looked in this. It really needed a new actor by this time.

    3) How upbeat those 80's films ended on. It reminded me again of what it was like to feel good after a Bond movie, instead of being pissed off.
  • Posts: 3,327
    peter wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Here's one interpretation

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-inner-life-of-james-bond/309457/

    "Was James Bond—neck-snapper, escape artist, serial shagger—the last repudiation of his creator’s cultural pedigree? Take that, fancy books; take that, whiskered shrinks. I, Ian Fleming, give you a hero almost without psychology: a bleak circuit of appetites, sensations, and prejudices, driven by a mechanical imperative called “duty.” In Jungian-alchemical terms, 007 is like lead, the metal associated with the dark god Saturn, lying coldly at the bottom of the crucible and refusing transformation. Boil him, slash him, poison him, flog him with a carpet beater and shoot his woman—Bond will not be altered."

    "Fleming’s novels, too, skirt the droning vacuum of Bond’s inner life. Is he human at all? From time to time he slumps, depressively—as, for example, in the opening pages of Thunderball: “Again Bond dabbed with the bloodstained styptic pencil at the cut on his chin and despised the face that stared sullenly back at him from the mirror above the washbasin. Stupid, ignorant bastard!” But this discontent is due to the fact that he has a hangover, he is between missions (traditionally a dangerous moment for Bond), and he has cut himself shaving. An immediate and physical ennui, in other words. He’ll be all right in a minute."

    original.jpg


    This may’ve be an intent that Bond never changes @Seve, but that’s wholly impossible, isn’t it? Because he was written by a flesh and blood human who, like all of us, grows with each victory or disappointment; changes with a death or new
    Love, or overcoming insurmountable odds.

    He, James Bond, did change in the books and the author made very conscious decisions (like his heritage and parental upbringing, or lack thereof), and unconsciously (the James Bond of Casino Royale is much more remarkably filled out with each subsequent novel, so that by the end he is very much a flesh and blood human with plenty of characteristics.

    James Bond is not a blank slate, in my opinion.

    Bond was never a blank slate. It was basically the inner thoughts of Fleming at the time he wrote the books, and this is reflected throughout, including the slow deterioration of his health. It's Fleming's fantasy lived out through the pages, nothing more and nothing less.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    matt_u wrote: »
    Ian Fleming’s James Bond is a defined by his complex feelings. He’s motivated by duty but he is a man who gets tired, burned out, discouraged, wounded. Bond suffers a lot, dreams about a different future. Dreams even about family. He has a lot of humanity. In the end, he’s a hero.

    Yes, and at the end of NTTD he is motivated by a real duty and not an imagined one.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,327
    TripAces wrote: »

    This duality within Bond is also illustrated when Madeleine is drunk in the hotel room in Tangier in SP. She looks at him and says, "There are two of you. Two Jameses." Right? Indeed.

    NTTD works for me because in death, Bond achieves what he likely could not in life. His split selves will go their separate ways. The assassin has died; but the myth lives on in the stories that Madeleine will tell Mathilde.

    There is more, but I'll leave it at that, for now.

    Nice theory, but I think you are looking too deep into this. Fleming wrote his novels mainly on impulse. He bashed out the words on his typewriter when he was back at Goldeneye, living out his fantasies. What Bond wears, where he travels, how he looks at other people and things. It's almost an auto-biography of Fleming. Sometimes he saw it as a chore, sometimes escapism, but it made him more money, and he got to live out his fantasies.

    I don't think Fleming was more concerned about the works of Jung when he wrote the books. He was more concerned with what kind of watch Bond wears, what gun he uses, the brand of his shaver, playing a game of golf, ski chases, cold showers, scrambled eggs, what his hotel room is like, what is on the menu, etc. He aimed the books at warm-bloodied hetro-sexual teenagers on trains, from what I recall.

    Now EON may have been using Jung when concocting the scripts. I have no doubt this may have been the case, looking at how much input from different people the scripts have these days. It's all done by committee.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Seve wrote: »
    foo_yuk wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But surely you can see how it dampens our enthusiasm for going into the theater and seeing a new James Bond film. I mean we’re sitting there knowing it is leading to his death. There’s nothing pleasant about it from this perspective. How are we supposed to enjoy everything in between? I don’t need some grand arc to define the Craig Era. I just wanted a fun Bond film. I’m so disappointed and, rational or not, angry.

    Honest question, does knowing Tracy is killed immediately after their wedding dampen your enjoyment of the fun in OHMSS? Bond fails to protect the woman he loves, and Blofeld gets the last laugh on him. It ends on a somber note of defeat :)

    Thinking about it now, that my have accounted for a fair bit of the drop of in popularity of that film, perhaps just as much as the lack of Connery?

    James Bond fails...

    It's a fine ending in retrospect, but what did audiences make of it at the time?
    I guess those of us who appreciate NTTD are the forward-thinkers in this scenario. Glad in the 50-years between movies we seem to have eclipsed the cranky cantankerous lot and become the audience majority. :D
  • Posts: 3,327
    Minion wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    foo_yuk wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But surely you can see how it dampens our enthusiasm for going into the theater and seeing a new James Bond film. I mean we’re sitting there knowing it is leading to his death. There’s nothing pleasant about it from this perspective. How are we supposed to enjoy everything in between? I don’t need some grand arc to define the Craig Era. I just wanted a fun Bond film. I’m so disappointed and, rational or not, angry.

    Honest question, does knowing Tracy is killed immediately after their wedding dampen your enjoyment of the fun in OHMSS? Bond fails to protect the woman he loves, and Blofeld gets the last laugh on him. It ends on a somber note of defeat :)

    Thinking about it now, that my have accounted for a fair bit of the drop of in popularity of that film, perhaps just as much as the lack of Connery?

    James Bond fails...

    It's a fine ending in retrospect, but what did audiences make of it at the time?
    I guess those of us who appreciate NTTD are the forward-thinkers in this scenario. Glad in the 50-years between movies we seem to have eclipsed the cranky cantankerous lot and become the audience majority. :D

    Is it possible to appreciate CR but not NTTD and still be seen as forward thinking...?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,480
    OK, crazypants idea from me: If EON and Daniel want his return in ANY way (I so doubt it, but here we go) ..

    New Bond, new actor, same MI6 crew (yes, I shall try to make everybody happy!) and Daniel's Bond returns.

    After retro style but updated, fun PTS introducing the new guy (a la Dalton's intro would be a nice touch, clinging to a mountain). New Bond is NOT a rookie 00, but has a couple of missions under his belt (sort that with dialog explained succinctly). THEN somebody mentions 007 Daniel's James Bond (various contexts possible due to his attitude or accomplishments).
    -
    Cut to bring on a nostalgic bit with some of the MI6 in M's (still Ralph) office explaining, enjoying sharing favorite moments from Daniel's Bond (with humor, then some serious respect).

    Maybe that "somebody" who mentions him is in M's office is Q. And the reason why he is brought up is the New Bond is finishing up specific training on a new weapon. And the comparisons are chatted about, of Daniel's Bond being skeptical of the "brand new world" yet doing whatever it took to get the job done (pulling every lever, hitting every button as Q was saying to him "Now listen very carefully, 007"), etc. sort of "old school" brilliant vs. "new" Bond brilliant.

    And the new guy must be brilliant, not a rookie, but with a different attitude (at least slightly) to be noticeably different. We get to him in more depth after an interlude to explain Daniel's Bond returning. Because this (Craig's) Bond would be in the movie but in a different capacity.

    So a warm, then serious moment of sharing memories (takes shorter on film than for me to type all this; should not be lengthy). And THEN ...

    Moneypenny says quietly "Three years now ... is there anything coming back to him yet? Any progress? I mean personally ..."

    M replies "Well. I suppose this is as good a time as any. I do have something to share, but only got clearance on it this morning."

    "Clearance, Sir?" Tanner almost frowns.

    "Yes, because now we are talking about something nobody - doctors, scientists, nobody - could have foreseen. And this ... new gift ... may well involve technical strategic planning for future missions. Bond's recall for his job is quite one-sided. He remembers fights in detail, missions, can quote technical points and studies as though reading from the reports. His grasp of new weaponry - understanding it, mind you, with only limited physical use - is blazing quick and nothing short of astonishing."

    "Our old 'blunt weapon' has sharpened now?" Again Tanner, not quite ready to believe this.

    M looks Tanner in the eye. "Sharp as a blade, yes. As Q can testify. And as our 009 will soon find out."
    He gestures to all of them.
    "Yes, Bond is recovering. To a point. And we have Safin's mania about protecting his fortress to thank. That secret submerged chamber. But you were right Q. As soon as his heartbeat showed up on your monitor, there it was: a miracle before our eyes and thank God Bond was pushed down into it from the blast. "

    M takes a drink. (as does every audience watching this movie, along with a big grain of salt ...)

    "And now three years later, the main progress I can share is that physically he will function quite all right. Never in the field again, of course. But he'll manage to have a life. His mind is another matter. As you all were a little aware about that."

    As M talks, slow fade to show Bond in a hospital setting, walking on a treadmill, looking unfit but alive and calm, listening to something via earbud (perhaps music, perhaps audio mission summary).
    (M's voiceover) "Three years on, with the most innovative care in the world, it is still extensive memory loss. Though selective. He knows who he is up to a point, he realizes that he was an agent and a damn good one. His recall of weapons and strategic planning for missions is incredible, as we are finding out now. It's mostly just his personal life, his whole background, seems to be ... wiped clean."

    Moneypenny: "So he doesn't ... he cannnot yet ... remember his family? At all?" the tenderness in her voice is palpable.

    Back to close up on M:
    A flicker of different emotions on his face briefly, then simply and curtly:
    "He's still in semi-isolation as Q works on finalizing the antidote to the poison that infected him. His family is not safe from that. Yet."
    Last drink and puts down his empty glass.
    "He knows his name. His job. Or rather what is developing into a new job. The rest will have to surface whenever fate determines that is to be; or he subconsciously allows it to be."

    Q gives a little cough. "So 009, does Seamus, know any of this yet?."

    M allows a little smile. "He's about to, Q. He's about to find out in a big way."

    *******
    And on to music cue and new scene ... And NO I have not resolved how to have two agents named James Bond (though I thought Seamus a good idea, as it is Irish version of James. I think.)

    Daniel's Bond goes on to be uber, super, charged up trainer of new 00 agents. Just not physically capable of much anymore. But his brain is super charged. This gives Daniel the chance to be his own Bond, just older and have fun with it, in one film or a couple more IF DONE RIGHT and the audiences and EON approve. Whew!

    Focus rest of movie on NEW Bond, Seamus Bond (bear with me - I know somehow he must be "James Bond" but hey this my 1st ever attempt at fan fiction, trying to solve the next movie (but I am sure EON already have sort of a plan for that). Focus on NEW Bond, his mission, all about him ... but with Daniel's Bond being the brilliant older guy training him further, pushing him, goading him when need be, to help him be the best he can be.

    End of movie could show a glimmer of reunion between Bond and Madeleine and his daughter - but should be brief, after some kind of explainer about neutralizing the nanobots (still has them, they are "eternal" but new nanobot introduced to neutralize them thanks to Q's extreme brilliance and determination). AND the new 009 Bond wining and dining a gorgeous, returning Paloma (yay! Give her another Cuba type scene in this one). That could ALL work except for the problem with the name. Bond, James Bond. Work with a great script (to make my mess cohesive and meaningful) and the same brilliant actors.

    Everybody's happy pretty much, right? I got them all together again, including Paloma! Daniel would be awesome as an older mentor kind of guy. With his family at the end. I would not kill Madeleine or Mathilde. I don't want a true YOLT ending. I would have Daniel's Bond directing the action of the new 009 (cos he is still 007 and Nomi took 008) just not in the field. But he could do something great with that role IF he wanted to. (I think he is happy to walk away completely, to be honest.)

    Off I go. Now I need a drink. B-)

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,588
    FWIW: Daniel made a cameo on SNL this evening, with Rami hosting, in two separate skits.
  • LizWLizW England
    Posts: 30
    Seve wrote: »
    and here's another, alas, written before the final instalment, so the analogy is incomplete

    Stage 1 of alchemy – nigredo (blackening) in Casino Royale
    Stage 2 of alchemy – albedo (whitening) in Quantum of Solace
    Stage 3 of alchemy – cintrinitas (yellowing) in Skyfall
    Stage 4 of alchemy – rubedo (reddening) in Spectre
    Stage 5 of alchemy - ??? (???) in No Time To Die

    http://bilalhafeez.com/imagine-if-carl-jung-pyschoanalysed-james-bond/

    210915180517-daniel-craig-casino-royale-file.jpg

    This is great - thank you. I have an interest in alchemy.

  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    So are we back to the denial bit in the five stages of grief or...? ;)

    I loved Craig as bond but it's time to go. Sure it's all fun and hypothetical and yep they'd find a way out of the hole... But 'all good things....'
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I don't know. Some people seem to actually want him back in the next one, or one after. I feel like it was wrapped up very fittingly and he should definitely not be back. Clean slate, I hope.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I love the fact Bond took a hailstorm of missiles to the face, yet there are still fans suggesting he’s alive. I would say I’m surprised but it seems symptomatic of today’s society where a fair portion seem incapable of accepting reality.
Sign In or Register to comment.