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 didn't like STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, but I wasn't going on about it for months continuously like a broken record.
Dude, I said Skyfall was garbage & got shot down left & right for it. I said SPECTRE was good clean fun & got told how stupid it was over & over. I explained why I'll never watch No Time To Die ever again, and the tidal wave of folks in love with the film washed over me.
OTOH, I see folks beginning to agree with me (after years) that License To Kill is a pretty great Bond film, and not just a Miami Vice clone for the big screen. That Thunderball is not THE BEST BOND MOVIE ever made. That The Man With The Golden Gun is not utter trash that should be avoided at all costs. That Brosnan was not THE ONLY Bond to ever use a machine gun...
Give it time, my friend. Five years from now we will no doubt see our takes on these newer movies gain a more general acceptance.
As a kid I remember thinking On Her Majesty's Secret Service was one hell of a movie. Even with the sad ending. People ended up catching up to me there too.
We've said all our criticisms of NTTD.
Let everyone get tired of it.
Then we can start bringing up our reasons for disliking it again... without feeling like heretics. ;)
"We're not worthy, we're not worthy..." -Wayne & Garth
Hey, I got a Marvel comic book from the 80's starring that guy!
Thanks to the Mods for doing a great job during the release. I've been on forums where a wave of anarchy and mischief overwhelms activity, that didn't happen here. And if anything negative comments were protected thought, even shepherded at times over positive reactions is what I saw when I read through the previous pages.
After a point it becomes about behavior and civility as much as it does offline in the real world. It shouldn't become someone's personal Vietnam.
Mods gotta mod.
Lovers gotta love.
Haters gotta hate.
Critical thinkers gotta make the waves. :P
I write this, not to rant again about the movie. But to express my understanding for members like @jetsetwilly or @ColonelAdamski and why they can't let go so easily.
When NTTD came out a few month ago, i wrote here to express - and in some way process - my frustration and anger about the movie, the narrative choices and especially its ending. But at one point, i had to withdraw from this forum and others, because i wanted to get rid of all these negative feelings.
What's left today is the sad fact, that this movie alienated me from a fictional character, that i dearly loved for over forty years of my life. I wasn't prepard for Bonds death, when i witnessed it in the cinema an the shock never left me. It's a deep nagging feeling. Very hard to ignore and not so easily pushed aside. Advices like 'go and watch the other 24 films' never really helped. The image of his demise stays with me.
Reading the variety article renewed my frustration and my former appreciation for the actor has reached a low point, because now i know, it was mainly Craigs own wish to kill off James Bond.
And suddenly there's the voice of Judi Dench in my head: "I want you to take your ego out of the equation..."
As i said, it's in my head and therefore an impression, not a fact. See, i don't want to convince you here, i just expressed my actual feelings and my understanding for some other members at this forum.
And no, i don't like this particular decision one bit. But i wrote that a few times already und as others here said, there's no point in repeating it again and again.
I guess none of us know the answer to that.
Rather, we have no way of knowing if this is true, but more specifically, we can more confidently assume the poster was just not happy with a creative decision. And that's fine.
It was redundant to add M's quote, other than to make the lead actor seem like a selfish dolt.
He really didn't know how many movies were in his contract?
Anyway, he wanted to kill Bond off, he said "it was how I wanted it to go", and he eventually got his way. I'm sure we can all at least agree on that.
Redundant: Not from my perspective. I've got the impression after reading the article a few days ago.
selfish: Yes. My opinion.
dolt: Never said this. I think, Mr. Craig is an highly intelligent man and a good actor.
He wanted to subvert the formula, and he certainly did that. But we can't say he specifically wanted Bond dead because it furthered the story. Because there was no story at that point - they had to write the story round his desire for Bond's demise, (as evidenced in the Fukunga interview in Empire).
So like NoWiseman, I'm less inclined to think Craig was primarily concerned with artistry . . . it seems to me he was more interested in taking the character where no Bond actor had gone before. Which some might see as a bold move, and others could see as egotistical.
And whether you choose the former or the latter - all depends on whether you liked the ending or not.
It's called spit-balling.
I've sat in on many spit-balling sessions for films (whether for a project I've been working on, or projects I've been associated with).
Ideas like the one we got in NTTD come up all the time, along with a slew of others (one of them, if you remember, Fukunaga shared: Bond wakes up with Blofeld still drilling into his head);
My point is, very rarely are spit-balling sessions about ego. Instead--
It's about the creative team finding the story (through a lot of compromises), that they collectively think is the best story that they want to share with their global audience.
In this case, it was Bond's death, something Craig supposedly aired fifteen years ago. The actor saw this as a clear, direct path of how he envisioned his tenure to go. It was no guarantee that was ever going to happen, but, in the end, it did.
To assume it's about ego, rather than story-telling and how spit-balling sessions go, you should really sit in on one of these-- they're fascinating @ColonelAdamski and @NoWiseman ...
It's a shame you didn't care for the direction they took, but in the end, it is what it is.
To act like the ending of NTTD was totally at Craig's ego/discretion is poppycock.
I just met with a financier and a producer for lunch a few weeks ago. The entire three hour meeting was an unofficial spit-balling session about one of my projects. It happens and I'm sorry it makes the mind boggle.
It's clear in my post, and from the history of this film, the creative team had many, many, many, many sessions.
Once again, it is what it is. Saying that, it's worth repeating: you didn't like the film and that's not being argued. I have just painted an alternative picture where I don't think this decision was necessarily about ego, but a creative team collectively agreeing (after many hours of spit-balling), that this was the best way to tell their story.
And so far, I can't blame them. Not only was it a film I personally love, but it did pretty damn good business worldwide BECAUSE of repeat viewings (which means NTTD had global appeal-- a very difficult thing to accomplish).
EDIT: and @echo makes a very clear point: if the creative team disliked Craig's suggestion, they didn't have to hire him back for a fifth film. He was a free agent at the time, he was not under contract.
That's true.
And once again: as @echo stated: if the creative team (which at one point or another, will have included the distributors (Universal, MGM etc), the producers, director, writers; even casting directors get brought in on these conversations, as well as costume and set designers!), they could have walked away from Craig. He wasn't under contract for NTTD.
That's my experience too. Sadly much too often.
All these people had a great interest in Craigs return. By now he is an economic force in the business. And IF he only comes back on the condition, that his character dies on screen, they would never ever call in the next guy and do some risky business instead.
I agree @NoWiseman that Craig has been a very popular Bond. But, as he himself admits, he's not a writer... So if the creative team felt his idea was crazy, I have to believe they'd have made a collective decision to walk, after all;
It was the perfect time to announce a new James Bond (until he was on Colbert, many assumed Craig was done, so walking away from him at this point would not have caused a ripple in the series. In fact, the opposite would have happened: the declaration that EoN is on the hunt for a new Bond always creates excitement and buzz).
But instead, the creative team must have thought this was a fitting idea for this Bond. Craig's intuition was correct. And the creative team thought so too.
And it seems that the correct decision was made; this film appealed to a global audience. As you know: that is indeed a very difficult talent to have, and the work that goes into putting out a global success in an unpredictable environment is an impossible task. They collectively (from the distributors, to producers, writers, director and so on) thought this was the best story they could tell, and they told it.
In the end, it hit a sore spot with a minority of Bond fans, but hit a bigger mark with the global audience. And that's what show-business is all about-- making money. Cubby knew that too (if the films made a buck, there'd be another...).
This film didn't hit with you, but NTTD happened for more reasons than one person's supposed inflated opinion of himself (i.e. his ego).
If NTTD had been cancelled and another movie had been made instead, and NTTD's script had been leaked online as an unmade Bond movie, how would we react to it? Would we breathe a sigh of a relief at EON coming to its senses or would we be pissed off at having missed out on a "daring" Bond movie?
I wouldn't be "pissed off " at anything @slide_99 ... but in a franchise that I assume will be going on in some form or another, for many more years to come, give me something risky before returning to what's deemed "safe"...
Although, with the ever-changing landscape that is the blockbuster-world, I can't see Broccoli ever being predictable again; no, I don't see a Craig 2.0 in our future-- she's a smarter producer to know not to do that. But I believe the Craig era showed she could successfully stretch the character and his stories, while still maintaining a strong foot-hold in what it means to be a James Bond film.
NTTD is a big hit worldwide, there is no way of denying it. Most of the audience love it, some like me do not. I'm not arguing about that.
I'm just reacting to the quotes from the variety piece. It's stated, that the idea of Bonds death was a very early one. Broccoli, Wilson, Purvis and Wade have gone along with it. Of Boyle, we don't know. When Fukunaga came in, it was a done deal.
But again, my actual impression is, that it was Craig, who got the ball rolling in this direction. His word has some weight. To establish a new actor is always risky, no matter at what time it happens. We all know the MGM-Situation and how expensive these movies are. Craig means money. He wanted his big dramatic bang, he'd got it, many love it, i hate it. More is not to say at the moment.