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
And then she'll take her along to watch Bond 26 - see Daddy didn't die after all!
But seriously folks
"Achieves what he... could not in life" and what would that be exactly?
Where in Craig's movies does James Bond say he wants to live on as a myth?
How does "dying" substitute for "living a life of peace and contentment with a family"?
Out of two awful choices he chooses the one he considers least awful, that's all.
"His split selves will go their separate ways". Agent Bond is dead and Bond the man is dead, same destination. Sydney Carton had nothing to live for, Bond did (because once you've opened the Pandora's box that contains nanobots and invisible cars, a Q cure for nanobots is just SOP)
In any case I'm finding it very hard to believe that the people who make James Bond are this deeply philosophically sophisticated.
For a start, 99.999% of the audience (including Oscar voters) will have been completely oblivious to all this symbolism you speak of, and the producers know that, so why would they bother to go into that level of detail?
For a second, if they were really that clever and subtle they wouldn't make the kind of plotting errors and script weaknesses which seem to occur somewhere in pretty much every James Bond movie I've seen, Craig's included.
The same people who gave us the Quantum organisation, then ditched it, then retrospectively rolled it up into Spectre were all on the same page with regard to developing Jung symbolism all the way from CR to NTTD?
I find that hard to believe
I think, in reality, a little bit of Jung went a long way with Fleming, and I don't believe it was central to the character either then or now
Introspective Fleming wanted to better understand himself, Babs and Craig wanted to turn James Bond into "Sex and the City" with explosions, and poor old Jung just wants to rest in peace.
"Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be."
― Andrei Tarkovsky
While I'm reporting this quotes from the greatest director ever, I'm holding a book titled "James Bond explained to cinephiles" where there's a chapter that deals with all the philosophical aspects and symbolism work within SP.
I think the only *real* scripting errors were in Spectre.
As has been discussed relentlessly, the self contained stories of CR, QOS, SF all logically work fine if you either just watch the film, or spend any amount of time thinking about them.
The intention, when using symbolism, isn't that the audience recognizes the symbolism; the symbolism is that for a reason, it communicates an idea, a story.
I guess they don't care about winning an Oscar...? Not sure why that part is in your comment.
I'm not convinced by you that Babs and Craig wanted to "turn James Bond into "Sex and the City" with explosions".
So what, it's a Bond film, where villains are able to build lairs inside volcanos without anyone noticing and our hero can improvise a parasail and surf tsunami waves or fly helicopters in ways that defy the laws of physics
So of course he can survive a hailstorm of missiles to the face, that he doesn't is solely because that is not the intention of the producers (at the moment), nothing to do with what does or does not constitute "reality"
Thanks @jetsetwilly007 it's also interesting that Craig got a co-producer credit on SP and NTTD. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure no other Bond actor got anything like this.
Aside from that i'm really interested in Danny Boyle's version of his involvement with the film.
Que?
If the audience doesn't recognise the symbolism, then who is the idea being communicated too?
I've often read it suggested that Babs has an ambition to make an Oscar worthy Bond movie, SF was one attempt, I think NTTD is another
It's called hyperbole
"exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
Daniel Craig is one of the three co-producers. Co-producer ranks under associate producer (one on NTTD, Gregg Wilson, who had this title since Skyfall), executive producer (Chris Brigham, a newcomer to the franchise) and producer (Barbara and Michael).
And being a producer on a project means two things:
- you have some actual input on the project, either financially or creatively, that is a major reason for the project to exist
- you're getting residuals through the PGA or whatever system is in place
The residuals system in cinema is extremely flawed, due to the long documented methods in Hollywood of "creative accountancy", which make even huge hits stay in the red, so they don't have to pay a bunch of people, even in the main cast. But if you have a deal as a producer, you're making points on the gross revenue, not the net revenue, so you're getting a cut of the box office, whatever it is. While these things have to be negotiated when you're just an actor.
There are actors who play a huge part behind the scenes to get scripts rewritten, but don't get any credit as a producer, especially as some actors prefer to get a fixed fee rather than also betting on the box office. But it's not surprising at all that after the huge box office for Skyfall, to which he was a main factor, Craig would get a bigger cut on the next entries, which the co-producer title allows. But the directions taken in NTTD have probably very little to do with him being co-number 5 in the producing hierarchy from the credits.
Also, I understand your hyperbolization, I just think the point you’re trying to make with it is wrong.
Replace ending of NTTD with Bond and Madeline driving off together. Is it feasible?
No, not after everything that happens in NTTD.
Safin was a guy who wanted to keep Madeleine as some sort of slave, because he felt she had a debt to him after he saved her life. Bond rejected Madeleine when he assumed she had lied to him but, after they're reunited, treat her as an equal (something that the character hadn't always done in previous iterations with other women). You don't need to read Jung to get that the way the villain behave highlights what Bond does right.
Right answer. I'm tired.
Maybe BloodBreak can be the name of the next film.
It’s short for Barbara. Very casual way to refer to her; hopefully no one in the forums would call her that to her face unless they were close friends! :))
It definitely implies that Blofeld's ruined childhood was the impetus for his behavior. There's no other point to the adoptive brother backstory. If the filmmakers wanted the Nine Eyes stuff to be the primary scheme, they shouldn't have devoted so much screen time to the family angle.
Seems like jobo is saying the family stuff isn’t responsible for all of Blofeld’s activity, and you’re arguing that the family stuff is more prominent than the non family stuff. Both valid, but not the same topic.
The story concludes with Bond dying. That is the reality of this film.
I know it is shorthand for Barbara. But I read it as disparaging a great majority of the time. NOT always, but majority, is my impression. People complain and call her Babs. People complain and call her Barbara simply does not land the same way with me.
I don't like it, the whining and anger and then "Babs" this "Babs" that. Just wanted to state that clearly for once as it has always, for years, bugged me that tone that too often goes along with people have negative comments directed towards Barbara use the friendly chummy shorthand "Babs" and I read it as disrespectful too often. And it would be like calling Michael "Mikey". Shorthand but sarcastic or disrespectful.
There, I've had my say on it. But that was overdue. Carry on.
Says the poster with 4 in their name instead of For ;) ;) (I'm just teasing, of course)