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
because the Bond films are beacons of flawless continuity so this is a violation of all that we are "entitled to" as fans, who, apparently, practically own the Bond film series considering all that we are "owed" and have the "right" to "demand" from the producers. (Let's petition, let's send them open letters, let's hashtag this and hashtag that like a bunch of moronic teenagers.)
Get over it, people. Leave the childish whining over misplaced jewels to the Kardashian tribe and move on. James Bond is dead, long live James Bond.
Yet, I don't remember people that didn't like the movie ever being so judgmental about people that do like it. Certainly not to the extent of name-calling.
Have you read the comments these past several months? Some members went so far as to drop numerous posts attacking the film without having even seen the film. "Reading the wiki summary is enough for me." Yeah, that's childish. Raising tombstones because the series supposedly died, yeah, that's childish, or at least childishly dramatic.
Name-calling? What name-calling did I do? Oh, I called the hashtag crowd moronic teens. Yes, and I'll stand by that.
Lastly, I wasn't being judgmental about people who dislike the film. I'm being judgmental of the petitioners, hashtaggers and entitled fans. Like or dislike, I don't mind either way. But when someone decides that "we" should send "Babs" a letter explaining how to do a Bond film well, to that person I say get over it, mate.
Nobody said that. Like I said in my comment, not talking about just being disappointed in the film. We were on about the social media nutjobs, the people who dedicate all their time online to hating the stuff they’re supposedly fans of on Twitter and Youtube. Not liking a film is normal. Talking about why you don’t like it is normal, to a point. But if you find yourself dedicating a whole Twitter account to grieving over a fictional character’s temporary death in a film you didn’t like, then yeah, chances are you’ve got some issues.
I’m glad that’s over with and the mods shut that down. At least on this forum.
Exactly. Remember when DC was announced? We have members who never really took to him. That's fine. And then there were those who set up the 'CraigNotBond' website. Evidently, those folks have serious issues.
And to be honest,
makes little sense. I seem to recall that because I like NTTD,
- I am not a "true fan",
- I don't "get" Bond,
- I don't "understand Fleming",
- I'm just willing to accept anything EON feeds me without thinking,
- ...
The pot and the kettle and all that?
Fair enough.
'Temporary death' though.
I know it's "only a movie", and these days it doesn't matter because, well, timelines and alternate universes and all that fun stuff. But you can surely see why there are some people who think a 'temporary death' doesn't quite work in a drama series.
Temporary death, Seriously?
There's no coming back from it short of Zombie Bond, but I don't think they'll go there.
It's only a movie.
And saying that dismisses the stupidity of having the main character in a real world drama dead ..... but not dead really?
Do you adopt a similar shoulder shrugging attitude to literature? If it really doesn't matter, how can it matter in the context of the movie or novel?
'It worked, but it didn't matter'. There's people on the Easter Egg thread finding all kinds of deep meanings to all kinds of things, yet when I try to point out that his screen death didn't work, I'm told I'm taking it too seriously.
Silly me, looking for some sense. I should just accept he's dead, but not dead really.
I'm still wondering how this phrase applies to Bond.
Craig’s Bond is dead, but they’re not going to stop making Bond films, so the character will live on in another reinterpretation of the legend. Works for me.
“Real world drama”? These are action adventure films, not docudramas.
Shrugging isn’t the right phrase. More like understanding the conceit that these are fictional films that don’t need to be completely interconnected.
It only matters in the context of Craig’s run. His run is finished, therefore someone else will step in and have their own take on Bond that doesn’t depend on what happened in NTTD.
It’s really not that perplexing.
You're quite right, it's completely understandable. They've removed Cubby's 'no actor is bigger than Bond' idea, and replaced it with a new model where each actor is playing a different character, and has their own separate universe.
Except it's the same character, of course. It's still Ian Fleming's Bond, but he can die and come back within each actor's timeline. But he probably won't die for a while because Craig's Bond was special.
And just because he's dead at the moment, he's not really.
Yes, I get it now. Thanks for helping me out guys, I appreciate it.
However, for me, he is a unique phenomenon who people have been following for 60 years. A 60 year franchise is built around him and is still going strong. This is why the character is certainly bigger than the actor and why, as good as Craig was, the concept of walking the cliched path of secret daughters and "a heroes death", cos that's what the actor wanted, was a colossal misstep.
Just because it's a given, as a human character, he must eventually die, doesn't mean we have to tread that weary path in the movies. For me, Bond has always passed away of a heart attack in his 70s, with a drink in his hand and 30 year old woman straddling him. If anyone is going out like that, it's James Bond. If anyone is giving up and getting blown up, it's pretty much any bang average movie character you can name.
This is a reasonable assessment and I have often found myself feeling the same way. It has fed into my line of thinking that the Craig era has been an experiment, and that's largely why I'm glad it's officially self-contained, even if a lot of it worked on its own terms. It's got a beginning, a middle and an end; it's over and done with and the next thing will be its own with different mistakes and different creative wins.
Bond dying and then being alive is no more absurd and nonsensical than somehow morphing from a 57 year old Roger Moore to a 40 year old Timothy Dalton.
It's not even really 'the death of James Bond', it was simply 'the death of Craig's Bond'.
What does that even mean?
Colossal misstep, yes. Unfortunately, the second half of NTTD is just that for me too.
That's a good way of looking at it. I read Carte Blanch last year and that's exactly how I approached it, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can't seem to feel the same about NTTD though.
It's quite different for me. Changing an actor that's playing the same character ("he was married once") works, regardless of the age. Killing off a character then saying he'll return in the same film is a much more of a leap. Basically, it's taking the piss.
I didn't find it satisfying as others did in NTTD, I'm jealous of those who did because it put a dampener on my enjoyment of the film. When I think of NTTD, I'll never forget hearing jeering, booing and people leaving early on opening night in the cinema I saw it in.
I don't think self sacrifice is satisfying to a character that the world you're watching is built around. If it's in a film were it's one and done no sequels, then fine or if they have an ensemble cast of heroes, like the superhero films then fair enough. But not for a film like Bond
Of course, putting 'james bond will be back' just after you killed him off is a bit strange, but it's an assurance to the general public, of whom many might be confused if there wasn't a line at the end. I think the producers are far more afraid to lose them, than a couple of diehard fans.
What I find odd, is that you're capable of doing that exercise with the literary version, but not with the film version. For me it works the other way around. It's why so few continuation novels don't work for me.
Thanks for getting the post back on track ! Here, here !
I quite enjoy most of the continuation novels in a 'let's see what they do with it' way. It's easier to accept the continuation novels as experiments on the theme of the 'real' (Fleming) Bond. I don't approach them as the same character, though Horowitz gets close, and I like that too.
Which is how CraigMooreOHMSS suggested 'CraigBond' be approached. An experiment on the theme of the real James Bond.