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
Why?
Right. Off to see it a fourth time anyway :). Enjoy your weekend folks!
And so Bond is dead and his past thrashed? Me that thought that You Only Live Twice.
Quite so, Michelle.
Whether or not NTTD provided the conclusion to DC’s 007 arc that any of us WANTED is up for debate.
But is was always going to be the conclusion that this 15yr incarnation of James Bond needed…
And not agreeing with how the producers have handled the creative decisions over the Craig tenure (or even before) and wishing to see a change of creative direction with more focus & better writing does not make any fan ‘entitled’, ill-informed or anything of the sort.
And wasn’t Tony Stark one of the original Beatles…?
:>
It’s overly melodramatic and clumsy. I would have found it more satisfying had Blofeld coyly taunted Bond, never giving him the name. Bond becomes increasingly frustrating and demands the name. Blofeld looks up and after a pregnant pause says …….
Cuckoo. Bond snaps and without say a word , with a single hand, grabs Blofelds throat . Over the intercom Tanner screams James! James! It has no effect. Then Noimi says , Commander Bond. Bond snaps out of his rage and release his grip.
Yes, it's Fleming. I've seen the film twice and I don't know that I quite bought Bond in that moment. I get that Blofeld is taunting him and bragging that, once again, he has been the author of all of Bond's pain, having destroyed his relationship with Madeleine.
But I'm just not sure I see Craig's acting transition in that scene from "cool" Bond to "die Blofeld die" Bond.
I think Madeleine maybe needed to linger in that room with Blofeld a little longer, for dramatic purposes.
Yeah, I actually found Craig's performance in that scene to be quite odd (not poor, just out of step with the rest of his performance) and his delivery of that line felt somehow out of his comfort zone - which was not something I ever thought I'd say considering the kind of Bond he has been and the type of scene that it is. Something felt off throughout. I think maybe there was too much casual dialogue.
Exactly. Well said.
It makes Bond look stupid if the audience is sitting out there watching future movies thinking, "Um, Bond, you don't know it but you have a secret soulmate and child out there." The sword of Mathilde, if you will.
I know Fleming did exactly that with the child, but for only one book, and it was a different social era, when men took pride in their virility that they could have secret children somewhere.
But now we're in a world of DNA knowledge and databases.
While I like the scene, I do agree with you in part. I get that they were trying to keep Bond’s verbal reaction minimal to save it for the explosive “die” part, but something feels missing. It might just be due to the acting transition you mentioned. I noticed on a repeat viewing that his expression really starts to crumble when Blofeld mentions that all of Madeleine’s secrets are ones that Bond needs which links back to the “we all have our secrets” bit and that Bond had to painfully learn the lesson that secrets don’t always mean betrayal.
In a way, I think Bond's reaction to Blofeld trying to show Madeleine her father's death video in SP is much more believable...that seems very Fleming, protecting the damaged love interest.
I get what they were going for in NTTD, and I generally loved the film, but this is the one scene where I think the acting/writing *may* have missed the mark.
On an unrelated (ha) note, after Blofeld's death, I loved, loved, loved Q's quip about "Good thing he's not really your brother." Funny and a trenchant commentary on SP and "Brofeld."
Yes, the scene seems written for the build-up to the Fleming quote as opposed to a cathartic moment of realization for Bond. I think it's fine but lacking a bit. Just missing something right before he snaps.
Loved the Q quip as well.
Isn't Nomi already gone off chasing Ash by that point? I think it's just Tanner at that point. Not that that changes your point overall, but just to clarify.
What has been trashed?
It’s odd to me because most seemed to accept this era is separate from the rest of the series, which it is, only to say the entirety of the series is now “ruined” because of the directions they took in Craig’s final film? I don’t get it.
I don't get it, too.
The only thing, that matters, is, what happens in the movie I watch.
When I watch "GoldenEye" I don't think about Felix Leiter surviving a shark attack or Tracy dying.
Actually it's not important, if what happened in other movies, might have happened to Bond in the specific film I watch. I don't think to myself "Bond already was in space", when I see "GoldenEye". It doesn't matter. And it doesen't matter how Bond might die some day, when watching "GoldenEye".
And when I watch "Tomorrow Never Dies", it's not important what has happened in "GoldenEye".
A nod to another film is only relevant, when the movie makes that not by itself.
With NTTD once was more than enough.
In a series where that’s already more or less been happening routinely every 8-12 years? I don’t see your point, sir.
Because it's about the character, not the particular timeline he appears in.
But how exactly is the character now ruined? And how is Connery in Goldfinger or Moore in Live And Let Die now trashed?
Because, because, because!
Going forward we'll likely think of the five Craig films as a single entity ... as one particular Bond story, perhaps informed by, but not directly related narratively to all the others that went before it.
I wouldn't say the character is ruined. I would say that killing off a previously-unkillable hero, regardless of "timeline" shenanigans, is fundamentally an act of subversion on the part of the filmmakers. And unlike, say, Bond not caring about whether his martini is shaken or stirred in CR, or the CIA being villains in QOS when previously they were always allies, this act of subversion is too extreme, has no narrative justification whatsoever, and was done simply because it guarantees a shock and emotional gut-punch for the audience. That's what I've been saying all along.
For decades, I have held up OHMSS as the gold standard of Bond films, particularly with the poignant ending. And CR is the only film that has come close to rivaling it, again because of the tragedy.
But NTTD has made me rethink my gender expectations. Why is the appropriate end to any meaningful romance in a Bond film that the woman has to die? Seems a bit sexist. Why can't Bond die for once?
Certainly with the deaths of Leiter, Blofeld, and then Bond, NTTD has perhaps the highest stakes of any Bond film. Why can't any of these people die? Otherwise, there's just no danger. For that, NTTD should be commended.
James Bond will return. He will just be different than this now-concluded era.
Excellently stated, @echo! You’ve put into words what many of us felt. The invincible Bond of the past is dead. Ironically, it’s the dead one who killed him.