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
This make Cuaron all the more likely to happen.
Exactly.
It really is the most unintentionally bizarre scenes in all of Bond. I'm wincing just watching it, it's really that bad. "Die, Blofeld, Die" sounds so awful.
I love Daniel as Bond, but his performance was more like Benoit Blanc than Bond at times. Some of his line deliveries were odd to say the least, it's like he was trying to hard to be funny. Which is partly the writing and partly his acting choice, most of these occur in the London scenes.
"happy birthday by the way"
"You can imagine why I've come back to play"
"That's not gooooood"
I blame that on MGW, BB, Purvis and Wade. It seemed to be their main trademark in their pairing. Hopefully, that will change with the new producers.
My personal feelings with NTTD is that there were fresh elements (Nomi, Paloma, Cuba), being dragged down by leftovers from the Mendes movies (Blofeld, Madeleine, etc), so it ends up being kind of a mixed bag for me, and that scene is definitely of part of that. I guess now we don't have to worry about those elements with a clean slate.
Craig's "But then it all went wroooonnngg, didn't it," is on par with Brosnan's worst in TWINE. There's also the bit where he goes "If YOU tell ME." Even though Bond's trying to drum up confidence I think Craig does take it a little too far.
It's not bad but there are some lines that are delivered in an awkward way. A bit like the pain face. Brosnan's obviously trying to act out pain there but it's still funny. The one that jumps out most prominently is the "Huh!" when Renard repeats Elektra's motto. There's also the "knew about my shhhoulder, exactly where to huurrrt me." It's exactly like Craig here, over-dramatically dragging out words, crazy hand gestures and the whole lot.
I'm relatively OK with the rest of the performance.
I respect your opinion but I’ve personally never found any issue with it. As for the pain face - I’ve never been bothered by it. I’d probably be making that same face too if I had to endure what he goes through in these films 😆. If I had to criticize Pierce, it’d probably be for his portrayal’s love of necrophilia - I’m not sure whose idea that was but two films of it is enough thank you very much.
Still for my money, the single most embarrassing moment from any Bond actor is Connery’s “torture” sequence in Thunderball; which was really just him dry humping a table with the footage sped up. Moore grabbing the asscheeks of a sumo wrestler in TMWTGG comes a close second.
Exactly! That's the point of the scene. Despite Blofeld being in prison — he has the power here. Bond needs information from Blofeld on who attacked the Spectre party, information Bond thinks he can only get from Blofeld. Now this is mistaken as Dr. Swann also knows it, but in Bond's ego he doesn't think to ask her!
Agreed,apart from the last line!! and You're forgetting the line "one last screw!" which is delivered like he's back in that restaurant choking scene in 'Mrs Doubtfire'😂
My new irritant for Brossa, which I only copped lately, is that annoying smacking of his lips before he speaks! I can't not notice it now! Anyway, off topic!
I was shocked when they (3 of them) all said they’d be happy to see the Bond of old.
Womanising, bedding multiple women, giving a quip when he’s killed someone and being cool.
I really didn’t expect such comments, I asked about the womanising and having multiple women, and they said, but that’s part of Bond.
They aren’t offended by it.
They did say they enjoyed the big bright clothes and makeup from the 60’s 70’s and 80’s Bond films. So I hope they don’t want a period film for Bond 26, but it was a real eye opener as to how non-fans see Bond.
I must say, your posts have been filled with hope as of late, ... and I like it. Thanks for that. Cheers
Yes, I have been having the same experience, my friend. I'd say, most of the concerns about Bond's role in the world and need for change, were home bred, and somewhat of an insecure panic in reaction to a media driven changing world.
I rather like it and don't find it jarring at all. I love the back and forth between them. The only fault i find with it is that silly contraption that Blofeld arrives in..!
Yeah I genuinely find it baffling. Usually when I don't share the dislike of something I can at least see where it's stemming from, but this scene seems no different from those around it to me.
I’m not surprised to see people clamoring for the return of “Classic Bond.” Maybe it’s just a natural reaction after how dark things skewed during Craig’s tenure or a reaction to much subversive Craig’s era was overall - but I do think it’s time to bring back some of the whimsical fun that made the earlier films so special.
But what do you mean by 'Classic Bond...?' FRWL? YOLT? Both pretty different to each other as OHMSS and DAF are. A return to Brosnan type Bond films..?
For me Casino Royale 06 is 'classic Bond'
CR is a classic - as if Skyfall. But largely I meant a return to Bond films that were fun first and foremost - not dark and nihilistic.
No Bond film is nihilistic.
In your opinion. Personally I found Craig’s era overall to be too depressing and too nihilistic - as evidenced by the decision to kill the character off. That’s not to say they’re “Bad” movies - but I’m just ready for a lighter take and it appears others are as well.
That's not what nihilism means. Nihilism is, broadly, a belief in meaninglessness of life. There are no absolute values or worth. No Bond film is nihilistic because the foundation of the character is fighting for something. Bond's death in "No Time to Die" is the literal opposite of nihilism. He believes in love so much he gives his life for Dr. Swann.
Broadly speaking Nihilism is the belief in the meaningless of life. But you left out that it also means the rejection of inherent truths and values as well as the rejection of conventional Moral behavior. Taking that into account - the character of Bond is the textbook definition of Nihilist; living for the moment - drinking and gambling - frequent casual sex - frequent killing. He’s always been portrayed as such but the Craig era really emphasizes those points in the stories they were trying to tell so much to where it’s marked by it. It’s why Silva, Blofeld, and Saffin are presented as mirror images of Bond - so that the filmmakers can comment on the Nihilistic subtext of the character and how far he could fall without his loyalty to Queen/County. Furthermore when the decision was made to kill off Bond - EON/the filmmakers actively rejected the one inherent truth/value that had defined the series since its inception - that James Bond never dies no matter what the villains put him through. You might disagree with that reading but that lines up with what Nihilism is defined as. So I think it’s a perfectly valid term to describe Craig’s tenure.
Plus I’m not sure if you either ignored what I said earlier or may have missed it in your quest for a “gotcha” moment - but I said that because these films are marked by their Nihilistic tone - doesn’t mean they’re bad movies. It just means I want something lighter in tone. There shouldn’t any controversial or upsetting about that.
Focusing just on the Craig films — the foundational moment of the character is heartbreak because he thought he found something but then it wasn't true, so that sent him spiraling until he realized that isn't the way to live. If anything, the arc of the character textually rejects nihilism.
Even if we extend it to the Fleming novel, the contradiction of the character — he does this dark job but he hates it — is the opposite of nihilism.
I'm not looking for a "gotcha". You made a claim that was based on inaccuracies and misreadings. If you want lighter movies, just say you want lighter movies. That's fine!
Great post!
You just actively admitted that for a vast majority of the Craig era the character embraces Nihilism up until the very end - he’s actively nihilistic before he meets Vesper so her death isn’t the foundation for his nihilistic views - so you proved my point. That fundamentally the character of Bond is a Nihilist and the Craig films really hammered home this point. Largely speaking, I don’t care about the arc of Bond finally rejecting nihilism - I care about the filmmakers ignoring the fact that Bond is supposed to be a mythical archetype - and choosing to put the character through the most Nihilistic of circumstances in the films just to come across as darker and more mature. So when I say Craig’s tenure is dark and nihilistic, it’s very much accurate. Rejecting Bond’s “Invulnerability” in favor of killing him off is an actively “Nihilistic” statement on part of the filmmakers.
Last I checked doing something you hate has nothing to do with the concepts of nihilism. Everyone hates their job but they still do it. Does that make them Nihilists? No because everyone for the most part still accepts conventional moral behavior unlike Nihilists. I’d say the fact that Bond DOES engage in his dark job is pretty exemplary of his Nihilistic outlook on life. He doesn’t like killing - but does it anyways because he’s good at it. The whole point behind the character of Bond is that he’s every bit as bad at the people he’s facing - he just happens to work on the side called “good!” There’s elements of existentialism to him as well, but largely speaking he’s very much Nihilistic - that’s why he has the vices he has.
No you definitely were looking for a “gotcha” moment - if you weren’t you wouldn’t have felt the need to correct me on the use of Nihilism - which was used pretty accurately I’d say. If you want to claim my arguments are inaccurate or misreading then fine - you can keep thinking that. I’ve provided plenty of reason for why I think those films are rather nihilistic - and if you want to keep ignoring my points while saying I’m wrong then feel free - you’re not really doing a great job at proving me wrong.
On a larger note, I’ve noticed a lot of push-back against any attempts to criticize Craig’s tenure by fans of his era - most of which is done with a sort of “smugness” to imply that the people criticizing those films don’t know what they’re talking about. I can understand being annoyed at hearing your favorite films criticized - but the Craig era is 4 years behind us. If some folks are unable to accept that some people had issues with the films then they’re truly lost - as it paints them as people who are unable to accept that other people have differing opinions than they do - and ultimately kind of makes them look like jerks in the end when they have to resort to acting smug to get their point across.
And thank you making me hate saying/typing “Nihilism” now.