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
SF: a dark figure from M's past returns to seek revenge.
SP: a dark figure from Bond's past returns to seek revenge.
NTTD: a dark figure from Madeline's past returns to seek revenge.
They've effectively done the same story three times in a row. It gets even worse when you realize that Waltzfeld's relationship with Bond in SP was basically a copy of Silva's in SF. Whereas Silva and Bond were metaphorical brothers fighting over their metaphorical mother, M, the producers took that idea and made it literal in SP, while removing the thematic significance. It's probably the most baffling decision in any Bond movie because it's totally irrelevant, and was obviously just a feeble attempt by the producers to add some drama to a lackluster story.
To me, these creative decisions suggest that EON is not confident in their ability to just send Bond out on missions like they used to. Maybe they don't like the idea of Bond being an operator. Maybe they think that a character like that won't be likable or sympathetic in today's world. I don't know, but I definitely don't like what they've turned Bond into in the past decade, which is basically a tragic superhero who's the center of a world filled with a rogue's gallery of Batman-like villains, as opposed to what he's supposed to be: a cynical but suave spy who is sent to assassinate people and romance attractive women along the way.
Wonderful, couldn’t have said it better myself.
When Spock died in ST2 it was emotional for me, because it was emotional for Kirk & the rest. And at that point I had no idea they were going to concoct a way to bring him back.
When Han died in The Force Awakens, I was unaffected. When Kirk died in ST: Generations, I was slightly pissed, if anything. Same as when Bond died. I was like, oh, saw that coming. How original. Not.
I can think of a few scenarios where Bond dying would have mattered greatly to me (I won't bore y'all with any of them here though). But the old "So, let's figure out a way [your protagonist name here] dies" method of coming up with a story is just lazy & actually fairly unprofessional. The professional writers GET you to care what they write. They don't just expect whatever they come up with (especially by committee) will be sufficient to successfully activate your emotion chip.
@thelivingroyale, I tend to agree with you more often than not, but this is something I think you have nailed 100%. For me, your description of Craig's Bond, his personal journey and the emotions and reasons behind it, are exactly what I have felt but not articulated so clearly. Thank you for this. Including the questioning of "melodrama" usage, which to me is used too quickly and flippantly on this forum (not just for Craig's movies). It seems to be applied for any more serious scene that has personal emotions from Bond.
I think there is a portion of Bond fans who simply who do not really want the older formula for Bond movies to change much; at all. Harkening back to Moore's era. Even among those who liked Casino Royale, I feel sure that a certain percentage truly wanted only single missions after that one, with extravagant villains and more humor.
I have always wanted the series to grow, change with the times, yet remain very Bondian. We just have our own opinion, of course - based on our own memories, favorite films, what we individually get out of Bond movies.
So yes, I enjoyed Craig's era being different, and I look forward to the next set of Bond movies. I never wanted things to stay the same all the time. I nearly gave up, felt the series may have nowhere to go, after TMWTGG; one of my least enjoyed films then as I left the cinema muttering, and one I still do not enjoy much at all. (I know plenty of folks here really like the movie.) I respect that it is a different journey of enjoyment for each Bond fan. But I'm quite happy. With Sean setting the template (and how I love FRWL), Moore (who saved the series by being mostly himself and not trying to imitate Sean; refreshing); and Dalton through Craig, with only two of Brosnan's being really disappointing for me. Each Bond fan has their own gut feeling of what is "Bondian" or not, and we simply don't all think or feel alike; I personally don't mind that. I chime in with my opinion at times, sure, but never think spending time trying to convince others to change their mind is a good use of time.
+100. I'll add that this, quoted from @thelivingroyale:
...Something else to live for, finally? But instead he realises he’s too far gone when he’s poisoned, and sacrifices himself...
Is all the more poignant when you realise that Heracles and the missiles were created by and fired by, respectively, Britain. Very symbolic when you take into account everything else in @thelivingroyale's great post.
100% this. Well said.
Would it surprise you to learn that this person hasn't even seen the film?
Oh yeah? Talk about clairvoyant because it's right on the money.
Yeah, I figured you'd say something like that.
There is not a current mainstream film series in existence that doesn't try to achieve continuity, overarching multi-film plots and emotional resonance. The Marvel Universe didn't create this but it certainly popularised it. I'm not a Marvel fan at all, but I watched Infinity Wars and Endgame. And from what I can tell the death of Tony Stark was important to fans - although they have multiple lead characters so while they made his story tragic, most other leads characters had happy endings. So there was still optimism and continuing storylines in future films for other major characters like Spiderman etc.
But in NTTD...Bond is both dead and he's going to return. It was such a clear 'decision' that for me it was difficult to appreciate it in the moment of the narrative because it has such ramifications and then within minutes I realised it doesn't really have any ramifications because James Bond will return. In the cinema since 2006 they've given Superman a kid and they've killed Superman. And since 2006 they've done the same to Bond. Luke Skywalker, Iron Man, Wolverine, Superman. Not just killed, with Luke, Wolverine and Bond they've deconstructed them, showed they are flawed heroes with hollowed, tortured lives. Watch out Batman and Indiana Jones... because there are no other heroes left to kill.
I guess the lack of investment from me personally is because I was taken out of the film at key moments. I hear the We Have All The Time In The World theme and I wonder...why have they done this? He visits Vesper's grave and I'm thinking...really, he's still cut up about this. They introduced the child and I thought...yep, they're going to kill him. And in some ways it was merciful relief. I was glad for the character. He suffered so much, continually throughout his tenure. That's what the filmmakers and actor wanted this Bond to be. Just as Moore barely suffered at all.
There are moments in the film where I definitely think 'I don't want to see that in Bond'. That's my personal preference. That's not me saying 'they CAN'T do this', that's me saying 'I don't WANT them to do this.' That's a preference, it's valid and should not have to be apologised for. That does not make me entitled or a hater. If you follow a sports team and they select a player you don't think should be in the starting team...that is a choice that they've made that you disagree with. That doesn't mean you hate the team or you stop being a fan. It just means you disagree with their style.
But Craig has his walled off quintet of movies. Reset, rebooted and cherry picked iconography and nostalgia points for the fans. His Bond is fairly consistent in character. I will watch those five as their own entry. Much like Craig's Bond at the start of SF - they like to be alone. Waiting on a beach with a beer in a dingy shed for me to watch. While the other 20 films are back at Mi6 headquarters happily doing their nine to five jobs.
I'll always hail the glory of CR. I was onboard for it as soon as it was announced. I was on board for Craig as soon as he was announced (I'd just seen Munich and thought 'that guy would be perfect as a determined, icy killer'.) He has done wonders for the series and brought it a level of critical praise and commercial success unseen since Connery. I love the first three Craig films. And I still have to watch NTTD a few more times to see if it grabs me. I suspect I'll enjoy it a lot more the second time around. And it is certainly better than SP by a long stretch. But by the same token, I think in future years it will be low down on my rewatch list because of that ending. Because I won't always be in the mood for a downer film where my favourite hero dies.
As the sky fell and Bond stood tall, as those missiles came bearing down on him...what I felt was - this is the destruction of the Bond series as we know it. It signals the end of the Craig era for sure. And probably in an appropriate way. But it also ends everything that went before. The vague hopes people had of Bond getting his Vesper obsession out of his system and getting on with the missions. I thought it was done at the end of QoS, I thought it was done at the end of SF. And I knew better than to think it at the end of SP.
But thankfully it was ended with the biggest full stop possible. In a way I choose to focus on the positive of decisions I disagree with. I'm glad the Craig era is over, I'm glad it was a good film and I'm glad they did it their way and that it was self-contained. Imagine if they had still made CR but not as a reboot but still killed him off in NTTD. Then they would be really killing off the Bond of Connery through to Brosnan as well.
Throughout the fifteen years of Craig I've come to the realisation that the days of consequence free, fun, one-off adventures of a man saving the world with a vodka martini and a raised eyebrow are gone and are never coming back. What I choose to raise my glass (and eyebrow) to are the twenty 007 adventures we got that more or less had this ethos at the heart of their creation. Sure there is LTK and the end of OHMSS and parts of the Brosnan era that buck that trend. But by and large we have those gloriously varied and largely fun films to watch. Remember our times in the cinema watching those films for the first time. And much like Madeline to her child at the end of NTTD, you may find yourself breaking out the Connery and Moore films, looking at your loved one and saying 'let me tell you a story about a man called Bond...James Bond.'
Damn I love Calvin's videos. The man is hilarious.
Wow, really well written MB. Though actually I think the original Bond ended with LTK. Brosnan was a soft reboot. Craig was a hard reboot.
Brosnan's Bond sniffed the boot, Craig's Bond got the final boot.
LOL. Good one. Will you be here all week? ;)
No need to be sorry, V.
But "James Bond will return" undercuts it. Even if the credits said cheekily, "Will James Bond return?," it would have been better.
It's funny how the endings are quite similar (family in Italy while everyone back home is sad) — with the exception of TDKR goes very literal with the rebirth whereas NTTD goes more esoteric/spiritual. Fitting for a film where they filmed in Matera and call everyone in the family (Bond/Swann/Mathilde) "angels"!
Still can't get over how this film *really* leans into the transcendent romance and that the leads are gods. It rocks!
But in those films, Bond does indeed go on a "mission." He is assigned to find Patrice; he is assigned (via dead M) to go to Sciarra's funeral and follow that lead; he is assigned to get info from Blofeld to locate Valdo. But I agree that plot points are similar (you can find them in TWINE and LTK as well).
All that said, what people are comparing these films to soap operas? That has not been a recurring conversation as far as I can tell.
You’re right on the money, @NickTwentyTwo ;)
There are two critiques that come up:-
Safin is vague, undefined and his motives incoherent.
People do not see chemistry between Lea and Daniel.
My view is that Rami and Lea offer highly nuanced performances not normally associated with big tent movies and avoid the melodramatic. Only at the end does Lea really let go which makes those scenes that much more impactful.
Neither of them are operatic or melodramatic and the reason Mathilde comes off because again its not overwrought. When Bond is chased across Norway with the family in the back you can sense Bond thinking with both sides of his brain. I have got to get out of this and good god I have got to get them out of this. It's the opposite of all those tongue in cheek melodramatic stunts down the years.
In the end discussions are 80% about the meaning of words and no one will change anyones mind but I do not receive Melodrama in NTTD I see a well-crafted story which provides the observer with the chance to engage emotionally. That some do not want that in a Bond Film is an entirely separate point though perfectly understandable if you want what I view as Bond Lite.
What seems to be missing from these conversations is that since DAF and the fall from grace we have had 36 years of one off missions with horizontal story telling, do B & M not have the artistic right to change, particularly as someone else has said, connected story telling is now de rigour because the way we watch the medium has radically changed since 1971.
This part of the conversation feels like those conversations about Bands making the same music they made in 71/74. I freely admit I am radically different to how I was in 71 and that for these last 15 years Bond and I have travelled round the egg and found the maximum symmetry is just a blessing.
The next set of films may not be my particular Vodka Martini.
This is where I’m at.
My own personal frustration with NTTD was it took 6 years to carry on a frustrating story with underwhelming characters and arcs. I really wanted to leave the era feeling elated like Casino or Skyfall. Maybe others felt the same?
Awesome post. Can’t say I fully agree with everything you wrote but I certainly respect your opinion.
For me, the film I was looking for was a tight book adaptation of YOLT. Blofeld escapes, and camps out on his Japanese island, surrounded by his garden of death. Bond and Madeline are no longer an item, so no personal baggage, and no child in tow. Bond is on a mission to find and kill Blofeld, and is sent in to the castle of death ALONE (with no female 007 tag team).
Bond kills Blofeld, escapes injured, loses his memory and spends the last part of the film tragically with amnesia, living as a Japanese fisherman and hooks up with some female. Then one day he sets sail off to Russia, as he believes he has connections there.
This would have ended the Craig era perfectly - Fleming adapted birth of the character in CR, and a Fleming adapted ending with YOLT. Tragic, downbeat ending, but Bond is still alive, and a perfect way to kick-start the next actor at the beginning of TMWTGG.
This would have been far more satisfying to most audiences, It would still provide the shock elements, the soap opera drama, a different angle and new take on the character, the tragic ending, but would also satisfy the Fleming purists too, and there would be far less questions asked of the franchise and where it goes next, instead of the confused muddle and pissed off fanbase that we got instead, particularly with the mocking `James Bond will return' straight after seeing him stupidly killed off.
Time for me has not healed. If anything I'm more pissed off now about NTTD, and the poor choices the production team made instead of adapting far superior material from Fleming.
It's actually pretty much unforgivable what they have done, and almost on a parallel to the shitshow that was DAD, but in a different way.