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 can't quite reconcile Bond being a father. I didn't buy it for a second when Swann said it wasn't his. The scene in the kitchen with breakfast is cringey to me. The screenwriters seemed to not really know what to do with the child. She asks to leave Saffin and he lets her wander off. After supposedly wanting the child so much. To me it was a part of the botched ending of this film.
One only hopes we don't go down this road again with Bond.
I really agree.
There's no wrong with the idea, the execution is what made the ball dropped for me.
And I bet that Fleming could've done that idea better, it was not mentioned in TMWTGG, and I doubt he would've gone down that route since he had written Bond as an escape from his marriage with Ann Rothermere and their upcoming child, but let's say that if he had lived longer and considered doing that for Bond, I think he would've done it better than the writers did in NTTD, especially given the ending of YOLT with Kissy Suzuki.
As for NTTD, apart from the whole ‘she’s not yours’ thing, I actually thought it had some nice moments of Bond’s fatherhood. I actually quite like the scene where Bond makes her breakfast (I think it’s the fact that he peels her an apple with his pocket knife - which is very much something Bond would do I think, being a bit clueless about how to look after a child but clearly trying here).
Yes I think, from memory, it was basically because of the James Bond Jr. cartoon series: the rights to offspring of or younger family members of 007 had been licensed to the makers of that show at that time. Gardner wasn't allowed to use the son either.
Strange, because Bond would have to be older than we've usually seen him in the novels- odd not to use that in some way.
Yeah he is just more professional.
I guess yes and no; I suppose he does come up with new settings, but often most of his ideas just feel like tame situations from action TV movies.
I remember laughing when, first reading Zero Minus Ten, he describes a main character being apparently killed, but in his leaden pose he added in something like 'his car disappeared out of sight behind a van for a moment' which stuck out a mile from all of the other non-descriptive words he'd put in, so it wasn't exactly a shock when the death turned out to have been fake! :D
Yeah I enjoyed it. I don't really follow the idea that they 'didn't know what to do' with the child: she's an effective part of the story. What else did folks want her to do?
That’s crazy that this very specific (and yet at the same time very broad) creative decision could be licensed out like that.
I suppose Benson’s Bond in general has a weird agelessness to him. In the novels I can understand that as his tenure is a soft reboot of sorts from the Gardner era, and it helps underline that if Bond is depicted in his prime. It’s strange in BFTP though as there’s an element that it’s a non-canonical Bond story. He may as well have explored an older Bond.
Yes, there’s a lack of subtlety in his writing. It’s what botches quite interesting ideas in his books. In theory I think HTTK should actually be a great Bond novel. The idea of Bond having a rival who beats him at things like golf is an interesting one, but for some bizarre reason Benson opts for them to be schoolboy rivals and seems to turn Bond into a petty teenager whenever he’s around this particular character. Then you’ve got this super secretive, shadowy organisation who are meant to rival SPECTRE, but at the same time almost every character in the book seems to know about them (to the point MI6 have a pretty comprehensive file on them which is of course used as the main way of delivering exposition about them, which is a bit lazy). They also seem bizarrely incompetent with pretty much the entire third act occurring because of traitors within their operation and individuals who don’t know what they’re doing. From what I remember it gets to the point where Bond doesn’t actually do anything to directly impact the plot by the middle of the book. Again, it’s an interesting idea in theory - namely the Union being this unstable coalition of gangsters out for their own interests - but the book itself tries hard to make them SPECTRE 2.0.
Also anything sexual in his Bond novels tend to be very weirdly written for some reason. Again, the ending to BFTP comes to mind…
The child actress who played her did a great job. But yeah, I thought it was fine overall.
Well I guess if you were paying MGM/Eon to make James Bond Jr. you'd want to be sure they're not letting any other licensees do anything vaguely similar.
Saffin makes this big deal of taking the child. He seems intent on making Bond pay or at least antagonizing Bond by having the child with him.
The girl is present for their first meeting. Then we have tension when Saffin takes her around the garden of death.
Then later she says she wants to go and Saffin drops her and lets her wander away. It was like the scriptwriters were stuck. They didn't want Saffin to have the girl when he fought Bond cause that would mean the girl would die with Bond. Instead they just let Saffin drop her.
I don't get it. Oh they wanted to humanize Bond? They had already done that in the Craig films. No need for a child to be a part of this, in my opinion.
Even the ending of the film "I'm going to tell you about a man named Bond, James Bond." Such a clunky thing. Why wouldn't she say "I am going to tell you about your father."The writers wanted to be too cute and have it be the Bond James Bond.
I have only watched NTTD twice and I am now reminded why I found the movie to be such a tough watch. I have watched SP more than NTTD! LOL!
Honestly I find this a puzzling question as I think the film makes it self evident. You may as well ask why they have Bond fall in love with Vesper in CR: it just is the story.
After all these years Bond is given another chance at a normal life with a family all of his own, but it's something he can never have. It's the whole film.
If you remove the child, and the new, pure sense of love Bond is feeling for the very time by the end ("you've made the most beautiful thing I've ever seen") then the tragedy of him missing the new life he almost had -and the power of his sacrifice- is much lessened. You lose so much.
Sure: it's a movie. There's always going to be some artifice there for the sake of poetry; why have Bond say 'we have all the time in world' at the end of OHMSS? Bit naff isn't it, considering how often that phrase has popped up in the movie so far. Or is it actually just a recurring motif.
These are Bond films, where every woman is inexplicably beautiful and every hotel has the bridal suite overlooking the most incredible view available, where every other film ends with Bond shagging the love interest and being discovered by M in a compromising situation- we can deal with a bit of artifice surely.
I think the child was there to strengthen the Madeleine and Bond love story, you know, like pushing the buttons further or something like that, we all know that as someone said on Facebook, the Craig Era, particularly NTTD, is going to be the 'be all end' for the Bond series, it's the same film where he's killed off, and the latter is as blurry as Bond having a child in terms of intention or motivation in terms of narrative, why have them with child? Why Bond is killed off when in many times, Bond could always find a way to escape? And that's what I'm telling many times, the Producers were trying hard to spoon-feed us this relationship which personally, I don't buy in the first time and to go further and giving them a child is more Insulting to me, like what I've said, I have no problem with them exploring the aspect of Bond having a child (Fleming did that once in YOLT), but here in NTTD, it just sucks big time, because how could I buy that Bond family aspect if I don't buy Bond and Madeleine's relationship in the first place?
Yes, I agree the problem regarding Safin's intention with the child, I don't understand it either, like he kidnapped her then suddenly he had let her go? Yes, I don't understand it either, but again, I also don't understand his motivations in general, the character was undercooked and not that written well, I even don't get his obsession with Madeleine either 😅, all I've got from him was his revenge against SPECTRE which was understandable, but the rest of his motivations? I don't get it.
I think the reason why Madeleine didn't said it's her father in the end is because to avoid Mathilde being personally involved with Bond's previous life, Mathilde was not familiar with the man she had been with from Norway to Safin's lair, she had no idea who was he, and there's Madeleine telling her about him, but if she were to reveal Mathilde that it's her father, Mathilde could be potentially involved with Bond's affairs due to knowing her father more, and it could possibly led her to the danger that her father faced (she could possibly go to MI6 just of knowing her father more in the future, who knows?), unlike that if Madeleine hadn't revealed to her that it's her real father, she wouldn't get entangled with the previous affairs of her father due to her curiosity of knowing him more, at least that's my reading of that line and scene.
Anyway, why did Madeleine steal Bond's car? ;;)
No doubt Bond left the car to her in his will. ;)
When did he update his will? ;)
Same thought, if he had any time for it. 😅 I don't think it's in his mind at the time, if that's the case, he had predicted his own death so he could prepare his will.
There is of course an answer here. Hear me out…
My second answer: she probably just took it. Bond seems to have a bunch of Aston Martins lying around London in storage units anyway.
I think under British law if someone dies without a will (and no partner) the deceased’s estate goes to the children. So I guess it makes sense.
I’ll refer to my first answer though…
To be fair I think MI6 only did that in SF because Bond is unmarried and has no surviving family (M even says it’s standard procedure under those circumstances). Whereas it’s a different situation in NTTD.
Then why have the villain be so gleeful and focused on Mathilde only to have her discarded by him during the climax? Why? Because they had painted themselves into a corner. They could have had Saffin take her to the sub, or she could have stayed with him. But then how was Bond going to fight his way up the tower with a small child. So instead Saffin just decides to let her go. Makes no sense but they had no other choice. This is my problem with the child, or with having the child in the climax of the film. It detracts and doesn't add to the story.
The "Bond James Bond" bit isn't anywhere near Bond saying "We have all the time in the world." Bond had just said All the time in the world to Tracy before her death. It was an ironic line given that they really didn't have all the time in the world. It made sense from a story perspective.
Madeleine saying it makes no sense. My Mom doesn't say to me "I want to tell you about a man Elliot, James Elliot". Yes my Dad was named James. LOL! She would say "I want to tell you about your father." To have Madeleine say his name instead of family relation it implies she doesn't want the child to know him as her dad. I don't even think Madeleine hear Bond say his name in this manner. Certainly don't recall him saying it to her when they met at the clinic. The line makes no sense except for allowing the writers to get a cheap reaction or emotion. Not sure what the point of it was.
I'd say you're overthinking things way too much. Not sure why they wouldn't have Madeline say that line. If anything it gives the idea that Bond will be remembered through these stories (iconic way of introducing himself and all) that Madeline tells to Mathilde. It's pretty simple.
I don't disagree that Safin's motives/what he's doing becomes a bit muddled by the third act. I'd say it's more in terms of the 'invisible God' stuff. Seems like he was more interested in having Madeline for himself (obviously it's a choice he's made in his own twisted mind and it's a one sided obsession). I'm not a huge fan of Mathilde in the story at all personally, but it's a choice that's somewhat grown on me. It works in the context of the film.
So is it just the Safin bit which is your issue with the child? It seems a pretty minor thing in comparison with the rest of the function she plays in the story.
Personally I have no trouble with Safin's attitude: it shows that although he thinks he has an attachment to Madeline and Mathilde, that he thinks he wants a family of his own and saving Madeline's life somehow means he's been in genuine love with her for years as he's shown to us previously; he's actually a psychopath and, unlike Bond whose love is true and will do anything for them, he will actually just drop them at the first sign of inconvenience.
Personally I think that adds to the story: it's a character moment. Yes it helps the plot too, but no one is acting out of character and it actually shows us something about him, and allows us to compare him to Bond too.
Just like saying 'Bond James Bond' makes sense from a story perspective. What Bond would probably say had his wife just been shot through the head with her blood gushing all over his lap would be "Oh god no, oh no, no please no" etc. - but you're right, from a story perspective it works better to give us a bit of artifice and poetry.
007HallY's spoiler tag above applies pretty well here.
Apart from the script requiring Mathilde to be on Safin's island for that reason, didn't Safin take her to ensure Madeleine's compliance? Then, once they were actually on the island, that was less important to him - he'd got Madeleine where he wanted her and didn't need Mathilde any more, hence bargaining with Bond for him to take Mathilde and leave.
There were rumours that when Safin let Mathilde go and she was walking away, he'd originally pointed a gun at her back and pondered whether to kill her or not. It'd explain him telling her to just walk away if it was to set up the potential killing. Apparently, EON or Fukunaga felt that was a bit too much so they cut it - but didn't replace it with anything and that's why, without it, the walk away scene can seem a bit underwhelming and 'is that all?' Anyone know if was ever confirmed that Safin pointed a gun at Mathilde or if it was just a yarn like the claims that alternative endings had been filmed?
The pointing of a gun at the child might have earned the film a higher film rating. It sounds a bit much for a Bond film. I certainly understand the reasons behind having a child in a story as a way to deepen the relationship between Bond and Madeleine. I don't think the screenwriters knew what to do with her when she ended up on the island. I think having the child off the island makes it harder for the audience to believe that Bond wouldn't have tried to live instead of meekly accepting death.
I do enjoy the discussion of family within the series and certainly NTTD is one that introduces it in a big way that involves Bond gaining a family.
Does anyone think the Bond-M dynamic had implications of Father-Son or Mom-Son tones to it? Seems that was leaned into for SF? Are there other films that this Bond-M relationship is played with some family themes or vibes?
Silva refers to M as 'mommy' or 'mother' during at least three points in SF, so it's not subtle (it's also somewhat in his warped mind, but of course M has always been something of a surrogate paternal figure for Bond, especially in the novels).
If you really wanted to think about it (which is a big if) Silva and Bond are almost brother figures in that weird context. They're both parallel images of each other - they were both M's best agents at one point, they both suffer due to M's decisions while working under her, and they both 'die' and go off grid afterwards. The only difference is that Bond returns in the name of duty, while Silva becomes obsessed with revenge and anarchism. It's almost Prodigal Son type stuff in its own way (in the sense that both Bond and Silva are both 'sinners' but it's Bond's decision to return that redeems him and makes him the hero).
I always like M sticking up for Bond in TB. First in the briefing room "If double o-7 saw Duval at Shrublands and he was dead, that's enough for me to indicate enquiries." Then later when the Home Secretary rips into M he stands up for Bond again. To me the Bernard Lee and Connery dynamic had some of that father-son tone to it. A shame we didn't get Connery in OHMSS as I think that would have been interesting and more depth than with Lazenby.