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
Depends on how it's done ultimately. The villain's 'gang' could be framed as a cult where brainwashed individuals believe their leader has supernatural powers. Or the threat (similar to DN's dragon) could be such an unknown but desturctuve entity MI6 get spooked by some sort of attack/event, hence why Bond is sent in.
B18, the film with the BMW backseat, has Bond cradling a dead loved one btw.
You capture an audience by showing them something they haven't seen, at least for a while. That's what makes it refreshing.
If Bond 26 features a downbeat Bond on an island again it will feel like yesterday's news. They need to change pace and give us a upbeat, all-in-a-days-work Bond, like he was in his cinematic heyday. It's what the audience has been clambering for ever since they watched him be incinerated in the last movie.
Bit puzzled by that to be honest. I'd say something like NTTD or, I dunno, CR, is much more through Bond's eyes than TSWLM or the like (as much as any of them are through his eyes: really I'm not sure he's supposed to be the audience surrogate).
Soz, it's not very clear. It's a personal observation of any modern film and the way they're made. Casino Royale is an immersive experience!
Personally, I think if Bond 26 had a scene like the opening of SP where we see him strutting along the rooftop to the Bond theme and going about his job in that confident manner, I'd be very happy. Not my favourite Bond film by any means, but something about that opening is so effortless and suave. Just pure Bond.
Same for Bond returning to London, getting the Aston Martin, and driving up to MI6 and marching into the building in a suit in NTTD. It's such a cool, stylish scene I can forgive I noticed on my last viewing that he parked on the double yellow lines! And the nagging idea in the back of my mind that London ULEZ laws would give him a hell of a fine most likely. Bondian fantasy and all that, haha. I do love how humorous and even arrogant Bond acts on his MI6 return though, particularly when he spars with Nomi and the 'oh, does that bother you' line. Reminded me of how Roger Moore played Bond in his earlier films on my last viewing actually. It definitely jars with this idea that Craig's Bond is miserable throughout his last two. I just don't see it frankly.
I love that. Giving the Craig Bond points for wearing a suit. Perhaps he should get points for holding the martini glass the right way up as well.
It's one of those elaborate but Bondian transitions, and I love how smooth it is from him in his more casual clothes in the garage, to getting into the Aston, to exiting in a suit and sunglasses. For me anyway it's really cool. Reminds me of Peter Hunt's old quick editing tricks in the first few films to patch together scenes (although it's obviously very deliberate and pre-planned in this instance).
Like I said, I really don't see Craig's Bond as some miserable, introverted version of this character in his last two, nor do I see his films that way. I find him much more humorous and confident than in CR/QOS, and from my last viewing of NTTD in particular I actually got a surprising amount of pace to the editing. A very unusual Bond movie no doubt, but I really think it was approached as being a Bond movie - from how the lead character acts, to how he's presented, to what he faces. Personally, I hope the next Bond can approach this role with as much confidence and humour as Craig got the opportunity to display in his last three.
Maybe you should take in the entire conversation and not just reach for criticisms.
Does he die?
@Mendes4Lyfe
You persist in telling us what "the" audience wants, yet many opinions here strongly differ from yours, and they come from people who are just as much part of "the" audience. Some of your statements border on arrogance. Like those of us all, your prophetic talents are not particularly convincing either. Recall the days before NTTD was released. Pretty much all the things you "knew" were or weren't going to happen, didn't or did. Even today, you continue feeding us future release dates that, according to you, would make perfect sense; and when they are missed, you complain about that too. Yet no one here knows anything about what's going on between EON and Amazon, or inside Barbara Broccoli's head, at least not in the sense that solid predictions about the future path of the Bonds can be made. So please, quit this annoying habit of trying to be the audience's spokesperson or the Oracle of the Bond films.
Apart from @mtm's perfect counterexamples, I'd like to add that Fleming's Bond isolated himself after certain dramatic events, drank a lot, and had an internal, contemplative voice. The idea that he was just a joie-de-vivre does Fleming's creation a great disservice.
You also appear to forget that the cinematic Bond has always mourned lost ones in some way. Quarrel's death may not have moved Bond to tears, but he wasn't going to let it remain unavenged. He was visibly moved by Jill's death and quit his fight with Goldfinger's thugs after the beheading of her sister. There is, of course, the obvious case of OHMSS. And so on. Craig held more people in his arms, that's true. Even Mathis died in Bond's arms, but not before Bond tossed his corpse into a dumpster. Personally, I like those moments. They are brief but strong. They don't make Bond weaker; they add to his humanity.
But what do I know? I'm not a part of "the audience".
Oh, wait, I guess I am.
Different things happen in each film. You picked out specific examples which you claimed didn't happen in B18. You were wrong.
Does it really all narrow down to this? So yes, the 25th film in a 60-year-old film series does something bold with our beloved hero. And we all need to suffer through endless strings of meaningless arguments just because you don't like that ending?
Bond dies in one film. It sucks when it happens. It's also fresh, poetic, justifiable in the Craig era, and possibly very much in keeping with what Fleming may have eventually chosen to do himself if McClory hadn't catalyzed his early departure from this world. I don't like his death either, but I have no trouble accepting it, nor does it make NTTD a lesser film in my opinion.
But, like Bond travelling to space, getting married, and driving an invisible car, it's also happened exactly once. There is no indication that future Bonds will be killed off each time. Just this once. If you don't like it, then here's the solution: 25 - 1 = 24. Twenty-four perfectly deathless films as far as Bond is concerned. Enjoy. Quit obsessing over a film that raises your blood pressure. You can't change the ending. And despite your attempts at making us all vomit over NTTD, the film has strong fans in this community. I don't expect you to like the film even if I like it myself, and that works the other way around too.
I think the track would have worked more, if the film felt like CR or SF and went fully for darkness, even if CR & SF balanced darkness and light properly. In a nutshell, my problem with NTTD is, it didn't balance darkness and light properly. Plus, we didn't get the great villain we were promised with all the hype.
But hey! It is what it is, it's the official 25th Bond film and it's come to stay.
Yes. Cool jokes in SF, yet M's death hits really hard. Newman's Mother feels celestial. It almost felt like prior to SF, Mendes had directed many Bond films.
It really is. It also has a sort of military - patriotism, yet Bondian feel about it.
I proposed some time ago that Bond die in each succeeding film. Do it enough times and it will become shocking when he survives in one, many films from now. "Omigosh ! They killed Kenny ! I mean, Bond !" So many advantages - could have him set up traps for the villain that are inescapable, even if deadly to himself. Could have so many actors perform the role. So many styles, tones, period films set in 40s/50s/60s/etc or the present. Lots of humor and gadgets or none ! It will be LIBERATING.
Are you commenting on my post, the one immediately preceding yours, wherein I suggested Bond die in each film for a while ? If so, I encourage you to take it in the spirit in which I posted it. These are entertainments, these films, and I am trying to be entertaining, too. It is in jest.