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 always assumed Primo was a lone wolf, a sort of 'gun for hire' type. Hence why his DNA wasn't in the SPECTRE database.
Honestly, it would have been nice if they'd incorporated the idea of Safin essentially 'taking over' the remaining SPECTRE goons. I know it's a convoluted movie anyway (sometimes needlessly so) but such a plot point could have been interesting and added that extra layer to the film.
I do wonder if the film suffers from a bit of overthinking in regards to the Heracles plot. I get the sense that much of the concept (ie. the idea of the nanobots being 'passed' from person to person) was influenced by the fact that Bond's death was planned early on, and Fukunaga needed a way of accomplishing this which felt dramatic and logical.
I mean, a nanobot that delivers a toxin that's programmed by one's specific DNA is perfectly sufficient. Fantastical perhaps, but it's perfectly clear and can be visually conveyed. There's just a bit too much exposition in the film we got I feel with all this 'it can be passed down' and 'it's eternal' nonsense. The consequences of the weapon is conveyed well enough during the Cuba sequence.
Yes, and the fact that it's clearly ADR'd tells me the producers thought a good chunk of viewers wouldn't be able to keep up with everything. I sympathise somewhat - I had to take a moment and think about the plot on my first watch because there's so much going on. Not necessarily during that particular sequence though, haha.
Like I said, I think much of this comes from overthinking and a bit too much exposition which has a tendency to either bore or confuse some viewers. Even just a more elegant way of explaining the nanobots would have helped. I dunno, Safin could have had a little speech about how the seeds of some sort of poisonous flower (doesn't need to be real) attaches itself from animal to animal before killing a very specific prey, much like Heracles. Just something like that could have cut down on the amount of pure exposition that grinds the pace a bit.
Completely agree mate. There was so many loose threads to tie up, it felt they didn't have enough time to focus on the newer elements
The good: the pts, Léa, the cinematography, title sequence & title song, Ana, Cuba scene, Magnussen, the portret of Robert Brown, French dialogue, and some really lovely cars: Astons, Maserati and Lancia.
The bad: the plot, killing off staple characters either too unceremoniously (Felix, Blofeld) or too sentimentally (Bond), some terrible outfits for Bond, Bond crawling and begging, the ending, the use of OHMSS music and the mundane Zimmer score.
Yeah. Sometimes I imagine how good the film would have been if Safin was a fresh villain and there was no Madeleine or Blofeld or anything or anyone from Craig's previous Bond films. Then have Bond focus solely on Safin with lots of thrills. Maybe just bring back Wright's Felix.
Yeah. I agree with most. But I like Zimmer's score and I'm not that crazy about Eilish's title song. But I can understand its dirge-like style.
Mod edit: please avoid double posting.
Agreed on the good except Lèa, I think, I know that she's a good actress, but she's just not the one I could see Bond settling down with, she had limited facial expressions and reactions, she's stiff, the way she played the character in SPECTRE was still the same in NTTD, and there's really no spark or warmth between her and Craig/Bond, I just don't feel the love/romance, their banter, I just don't feel it, it's not there.
Also, for the Good, maybe I would also add Lashana Lynch (yes, and her character, Nomi).
I thought she's good, I really liked her banter with Bond, she might been sidelined in the middle act of the film, but her banter with Bond still keeping her up, she had a good chemistry with Craig/Bond too.
And when it comes to the bad, I would also add the child angle (like involving the child in the dangerous scenes, Madeleine's denying of " she's not yours", and the sudden happening of it felt contrived).
But agreed about the rest.
Yeah. I think Seydoux isn't bad. But for some reason, she just doesn't have chemistry with Craig. Chemistry is an innate thing. It can't be forced.
If I might contribute (and I’m a few sips into a tumbler of Johnnie Walker, so please pardon any unclarities…), I hope I can snag your post to tap into this discussion point, because it’s a fascinating one that’s been discussed a good deal since the film’s production. Apologies, too, if this is getting off topic at all!
COVID intertwining with NTTD’s Heracles plot has got to be one of the strangest “life imitating art” moments in recent history. Granted filmmakers (Bond’s included) have fudged the truth in the past, so it seems very fair to be skeptical of Fukunaga’s statement that editing was locked before the pandemic emerged in full force (setting aside later reshoots/edits for production placement updates here). That said, I think the “COVID sensitivities => edit to feature nanobots” theory is based in an outlook that originated in, and is confined to, the period of post-production, starting from when the pandemic really kicked off (especially Spring 2020).
I think we need to go back further, to when the film was in early pre-production, and the filmmakers were trying to generate a story in the first place. I’ll cite this article from January 2017 [https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond-25-neal-purvis-robert-wade-interview], where P&W discuss the difficulty of building a plot where the Bond villains seem to have manifested in real life. (Their take, don’t shoot the messenger, and all that.) The Western concern with Russian activity at that time, combined with reports of Boyle’s story as a modern day Cold War plot, and our leftover Russian villain in the final product, IMO is sufficient basis to shift our focus. Just to remind folks, as we know Bond films “rip from the headlines,” these were the pre-production headlines (late 2018 in particular - to spare you a click, it’s the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury): https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43315636.amp
I’m at risk of rambling, so to cut to the chase - I would argue it’s not an amazing coincidence that the Heracles plot developed just before COVID. Rather, it seems Heracles was just a high-tech twist on a pressing global threat (the kind that P&W love to tap in to) from 2017-18 times, namely, Russian baddies spreading an invisible, microscopic killer on UK home soil. (Safin passing the perfume to Madeline is the most explicit instance of this.) Even Safin’s facial disfigurement from poisoning has been read as being inspired by the real-life poisoning of Ukrainian president Yushchenko [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17570-skin-growths-saved-poisoned-ukrainian-president/]. I first read that from a fellow MI6 poster, so apologies to that gent that I don’t recall who it was - @CraterGuns , at least, has mentioned it. Even that high-tech twist was first considered for TWINE, if I’m not mistaken, not to mention its featuring in the gaming world in Everything or Nothing.
There’s a great book on this topic I would recommend, appropriately titled From Russia with Blood, available too on Kindle if you’re an audio listener like me [https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Blood-Kremlins-Ruthless-Assassination/dp/0316417238]. Essentially, to make sense of the COVID coincidence, I would emphasize the “high-tech Russian aerosol killer on UK soil” angle prevalent during the screenwriting process, rather than the “global virus that threatens to kill millions” aspect that appeared later on…strange though that coincidence well and truly is! Hopefully haven’t come off as hectoring or one of those “well AKSHUALLY” type here, as I deeply enjoy reading folks’ posts and probing into the myriad production mysteries of this film! 🙂
My guess is that the nanobots were added long before Covid to distinguish the virus plot from OHMSS, not to change anything Covid-related.
Is there a chance that they thought the weapon being fully organic would paint M in an even worse light than this film already does?
Breaking the Biological Weapons Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention (and getting caught doing it) is about as big a no-no in international relations as there is, short of starting a war. [As a sidenote: At the time of the Skripal poisonings in Britain, Novichok, which is a chemical and not a biological weapon, was not on the list of substances banned through the Chemical Weapons Convention].
So maybe they thought nanobots sounded more controllable then a poison, or a virus or a "toxin" and it would feel more acceptable for M to have a Black Lab create something like this, rather than a classical Bio-Weapon.
M doesn't mind a little waiting on the side, she'd just prefer if it wasn't six years.
Nice :D
In all seriousness, in spite of NTTD taking 6 years to come out, I think it makes sense to give some distance between Bond tenures. I think part of what helped Craig be easily accepted besides just being good in the part is that four years had passed after DAD. So it’s not like it was just a sudden replacement of Brosnan. And of course Brosnan benefited from the six year gap after LTK.
Would Dalton have been easily more welcomed, especially in the US if his tenure started in 1989, four years after Sir Rog? Part of the consensus at the time was that he was thought to play the part too seriously and wasn’t as fun. Perhaps it was too quick and dramatic of a shift from Sir Rog’s lighter tenure to Dalton’s darker and contemplative Bond.
Sir Rog even had his own growing pains with LALD coming out only a year and a half after DAF. It wasn’t until TSWLM that his tenure was truly solidified and he secured a new generation of fandom.
I know many fans are unreasonably impatient, but I think by 2025 once Bond 26 rolls out, we’ll be even more eager to see that film than if it were coming out in 2023. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
I think so.
I'm also thinking about OHMSS, of course people couldn't still get over from Connery and all of that had put a pressure on Lazenby, if OHMSS was released in 1971 instead, would the people easily accepted it?
Would the people easily accepted Lazenby? Would Lazenby still get pressured?
Because I think part of it, why people wasn't that fond of OHMSS by the time it came out, was because it's too sudden quick of change, just two years right after Connery left the role, and even the tone of the film that's different from the previous ones,and all of that put a pressure on Lazenby, because the Connery magic was still not gone yet in people's minds at the time.
Like what you've said, a sudden quick of change.
It makes sense because it's the term of moving on, people could easily get over with what happened in the tenure of the last actor, and could easily accept the new one.
Yeah. There's truth in this.
The only thing that is different this time is they are following "the death of Bond". It'll be interesting to see how that impacts the marketing and promotion of Bond 26, it's like the elephant in the room
Yeah, everything about Craig's run (good and bad) will exist only in his films.
The *only* thing I could see being referenced post-Craig is Vesper, but she's important to the character at large, not just Craig.
They never mentioned her before, of course, but they could in the future just like they could reference Bond having been married in the future.
Exactly.
I like the idea. It makes perfect sense to me.
I often wonder what would've happened if Fleming hadn't sold the rights to CR when he did, and if that book had been in the hands of EON from day 1. How tempting would it have been for Cubby and Harry to proceed in the order of publication? (Not much, I take it, considering the fact that they wanted to start with TB.) But just imagine... the opening paragraph of the book, only adapted with Connery in his early '30s... A young Connery Bond losing Vesper to sad desperation. Just imagine! Then again, I am more than happy with DN, FRWL, GF,... as given.
I don't know. The continuity / order-of-things gatekeeper phenomenon feels more like an Internet thing than something ingrained in film fandom long before its advent, though I could be wrong, of course. Whatever the case, people had very few means of communicating discontent anyway. I don't think too many of Fleming’s avid readers were complaining in those days.
I imagine if CR was adapted first, they would definitely replace SMERSH with SPECTRE, and that would kick off the film series by giving Bond a recurring organization he already has a personal grievance with prior to ever meeting Tracy. The culmination with YOLT would have been even more powerful in the film than it would have in the novel. Assuming they didn’t start deviating from the source like they ultimately did.