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 did find it curious that he criticised the films for doing the same things to the character which he did, he even criticised them for killing him off, and then basically did the same thing. I do actually like his books and I think he's a very good writer, but I couldn't understand where he was coming from there.
Perhaps it's best to read that in context to what we were talking about at the time :)
Not much more I can say really. Horowitz can have his opinions, but I just don't understand what's fundamentally different about some of the struggles Bond goes through in Fleming's novels and in SF. I certainly don't see why 'it's not Bond'. As I said, even in his own novels Bond has doubts and is put in situations where he's arguably 'weak' (one such instance is a villain pontificating about throwing acid in his face while Bond is tied up. Bond is incredibly scared in the moment, and even though the 'acid' is only water meant to frighten him, he goes through some sort of anti-placebo effect where he's screaming and under the belief his eyes are being dissolved. It's actually an embarrassing moment for Bond in the context of the book. Whatever one thinks of the idea is Bond any more 'weak' in SF?)
The reason why I'm saying I don't think he liked the film and is trying to rationalise it is also because of things like this:
Well, then why watch any film? Why watch a typical Bond film if you know he's always going to save the day, for example? The same reason we watch any fictional film - because we're invested in the story/drama and want to see everything unfold no matter what the ending. Fair enough if it's just not something he likes about the film (and that's not an unreasonable thing to think. He could have said 'for me, I think James Bond always saves the day and in this film the villain wins'. He could have said why he found it anti-climactic. That's fair enough. I personally would have reasons to disagree and why I think it's a great story decision, but I can understand the logic. He's not doing that though. He's framing this decision as a matter of objectively bad storytelling, which I can't see a fully objective reason to agree with).
That's actually the only bit of what he said that I can understand with the way he's said it. I know people who would actually say this as well. Again, I have reasons why I think it's a great story decision and why I got a lot out of it dramatically, but if it makes him angry and it impacts his enjoyment of the film, then what can I say?
I suppose in WAMTK it's ambiguous. But yeah, he really doesn't seem to enjoy the later Craig films and I feel his reasoning is a bit odd at times...
This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.
You're right it's ambiguous, but in a way I'm not sure that's a get out. You're introducing the idea that your hero is about to die in your reader's head -they didn't bring it up themselves(!)- and then deciding not to tell them if he's getting out of it or not, and you've even told them beforehand this is the last 007 you're going to write (not dissimilar from the publicity which told us NTTD was Craig's last film) - he might think making it ambiguous makes it different but I don't think it does really. It's effectively 'the final Bond book', set after the Flemings, and he's left in a no-win situation at the end where he's about to be killed. You're basically killing him off in all but name.
Which I don't mind at all, but just don't complain if someone else does it! :)
Not really. Bond makes decisions in both the books and the films which have consequences for him, and for all intents and purposes don't fully work out as planned. It's not any different in SF. I'd argue it's very good writing - we get the pay off for the mention of Skyfall in the word association scene, Bond takes charge of the situation fully by going off grid and manipulating things on his own terms, it brings to light that idea of 'the old ways are best' by Bond returning to his home, and Bond going there is even the catalyst for definitive character moments - Mallory going along with Bond's plan, Bond shooting on target again with his dad's rifle.
I can see your point. I suppose just trying to see it in Horroiwtz's mind it's less a definitive death than a metaphorical one in that way. Perhaps it's why he did it. He can 'kill off' his Bond/bookmark his era of books but he can't 'kill' the literary character definitively.
But as I said I get what you're saying. I don't disagree either. For me WAMTK doesn't quite feel like a Bond novel in some strange way. In many ways I get more Le Carre off of it with the Soviet Union setting, the grey Cold War feel, and that ending.
Claiming this is bad writing is just willful ignorance on your part, I'm afraid.
Yeah I can see that, I quite enjoyed it for that. Bond books rarely feel like spy novels as they're mostly adventure stories about a guy battling giant squid and the like(!), so it's quite nice to have a more spy-flavoured one for a change, and the downbeat ending suits that.
It's like the 'Fleming killed Bond in FRWL' argument I've seen on here. Or 'Bond was a dad in YOLT'. He wasn't.
If the reader chooses to believe in their mind, that Bond was shot dead at the end of WAMTK, that's up to the reader. But to say Horrowitz killed him off is like saying any book or movie or TV show that ends with the hero in peril with no obvious way of escape is 'killing them off'.
It's more about how those criticisms are conveyed for me. We all have our subjective opinions about certain films, and to some extent there's always going to be an element where we as individual viewers find something enjoyable while others don't. Personally, I think there's lots about DAD which works, and lots that doesn't. I'm sure on the specifics of what I like/don't there are people here who would agree and many who don't. I can only convey to people why I got enjoyment out of some elements of the film and others less so, and why I think certain things work etc.
In the case of Horowitz and SF he's said certain things 'are not Bond' and has implied that some of the story decisions in the film comes down to bad writing, which is a pretty big claim and drifts into the realm of trying to convey why his opinion is to some extent more objectively true. My issue is I believe he's contradicted himself based on his own work and what he's previously said.
To some extent we all tend to try and rationalise our opinions as being objectively true and try to convince others of them. In the case of this forum some of us (and yes, I myself have and will likely continue to fall into this) rationalise why certain ideas we don't like 'are not Bond' or are in some way antithetical to the spirit of the character/franchise. Unfortunately I've found often there are counter arguments proposed by others which not only reveal where I've contradicted myself in terms of my arguments, but where I can't reasonably say something is always a case of bad writing, or 'not Bond' or whatever. In fact I'd say sometimes trying to cement these opinions through that guise of fact tends to become an exercise in mental gymnastics. It doesn't even make us fully understand why we don't like certain things in these films. That's why I said Horowitz seemed like he was trying to rationalise his dislike of SF. Bond is weak in the film and unsure of himself so it's not Bond. If he said that on these forums he'd have others posters saying 'what about x example in this where Bond is unsure of himself'.
To be honest I can definitely understand someone reading that and getting the sense that Bond is seconds from being shot and that's how his story in Fleming's world ends. There won't be a follow up so we likely won't see him return in Horrowitz's world. He doesn't kill him off strictly speaking, no, but he's really putting Bond's death in the reader's mind and it's a conscious way of ending this incarnation of Bond's story. It's very purposeful in that way, and I can see why him criticising NTTD would raise a few eyebrows just in the way he's done this (although as I said I think there are differences, albeit they're more grey than black and white here).
Strictly speaking was Bond not (or at least going to be) a dad as well in YOLT? Again, that's more grey than black and white here in relation to NTTD, and even when the differences are acknowledged it can elicit different opinions on how true it is to Fleming spiritually. I agree about FRWL incidentally.
Oh, no, It's bad writing (IMO), a crazy plan that doesn't work is just a stupid plan. "Stupid people doing stupid things..."
The plan has to work even if it does by luck.
There are many other examples. Bond’s plans to get his message to Leiter in GF utterly failing in the film is one. Bond falls into it constantly in the novels too - he gets recognised as a result of going undercover as Scaramanga’s assistant in TMWTGG, his impulsive decision to snoop around GF’s house nearly leads to him being found out and his cover for this certainly makes the villain more suspicious of him etc.
In SF him going off grid and using M to lure Silva is a gamble, but a calculated one. He himself defeats the villain. It’s very much in the precedent of Bond stories. Even if it were ‘stupid people doing stupid things’ that’s not synonymous with bad writing.
Unless the theme of the movie is that the British are stupid but they are still British, I think it is bad writing.
That's fine, that's your opinion based on how you see the film. For the many reasons I just gave and I'm sure others will expand on I don't agree, can't see it myself, and would say it's good writing.
Have you seen Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? It ends on a similar cliffhanger, and when you do a cliffhanger which isn't intended to be resolved in that fashion... Yes, it is a certain choice where you're not showing them being killed, but the point of that to me is to kind of preserve them in a positive sense in the audience's minds: there's literally a freeze frame kind of doing that. You don't actually see them being killed and they're kind of going out in a blaze of glory, but ultimately you know they are.
It's up to the reader to decide to some extent, but it was the writer who put him in the position where he's about to be killed and it was also his choice not to save him, and as HallY says, like Butch Cassidy, it is the end.
Its possible he may even have not been allowed by IFP to kill him, and this might have been his solution. If you don't want him to die though, yes, you get the choice.
I don't quite get your point about YOLT. He fathers a child.
I guess in a way, the SF house thing is possibly one for the 'out of character for Bond' things, as it shows a level of forward planning which Bond rarely displays! Not great forward planning of course as we see he didn't bother to call ahead to see if there were any guns left, but even so: more than he usually does. Having a plan as much as a day ahead is unusual for him though.
Even the Sanchez thing is less of a plan, more of a thought, as you say. The usual Bond thing where he chucks himself into a situation and has so much self-belief that he assumes he'll be able to come up with something and shoot his way out when he needs to.
I think that's a bit unrealistic, but then again 2026 is still 5 years since the last film was released. :!!
Not really a response that contradicts my view of willful ignorance. Actually enforces it, really.
Tell me, what exactly was Bond's crazy plan in going to Scotland?
Watch the movie.
No, you tell me. I can't tell good writing from bad so I need you to explain.
I'm being polite, watch the movie.
Not really interested in your politeness, though it is always appreciated. More interested in you backing up the things you say about a movie that you evidently need to rewatch again.
I agree, I believe it is 2028, but it could be Summer/earlier in the year.
❤️
This would be tremendous! He is an excellent director and British. What more could you ask for?