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
And yet it clearly stayed with him more than any of his other adventures up to that point.
The significant point is that there's enough in the books to base the story of the films on.
And a brief look at a videotape with a label with her name on it cannot be called "a significant presence" in a film no matter how you look at it! :))
Well no, that's not what Fleming says: “there had been a drama and a poignancy about that particular adventure that every year drew him back to Royale and its casino and to the small granite cross in the little churchyard that simply said ‘Vesper Lynd. R.I.P.”
He literally says he is drawn back to the town, its casino and her grave. If you think it's unclear whether he'd visit the grave if it wasn't there, then it's equally unclear if he would visit the casino if it wasn't where Vesper's grave is.
And that was (depending on the time gap between Venice and Mr White's villa) only a matter of days or weeks after Vesper's death, so not exactly ridiculous.
It's complicated.
Isn't it hard work for you, always looking for things to contradict?
Revelator was replying to me.
If you can't discuss the subject at hand then please don't bother to reply.
Not without lots of creative work by the screenwriters. The significant point is that Vesper simply didn't have as much of a heavy presence in the books as in the films. She gets two brief references and no significant story time in the post-CR novels, unlike the films.
Her picture is also prominently displayed in the climax of the film and meant to remind the audience of her love affair with Bond and how it's tied into Blofeld being the author of all of Bond's pain. If she doesn't have a significant presence in Spectre, then she's certainly referenced twice and tied into the film's plot.
Her grave comes last in the reasons Bond gives for returning to Royale-les-Eaux, where we see Bond at the casino rather than at her graveside. If Vesper hadn't been buried in the town, Bond would have probably still returned there because of his memories and the town and casino. Bond's reason for returning is rooted in nostalgia (likely prompted by the 10th anniversary of the series), rather than any need to get over unresolved feelings for Vesper.
The significant point is there’s enough there in the books to base the story of the films on. The Craig films are not supposed to be a perfect representation of the novels, not least because most of the novels have already been made into films! They’re adaptations, with story points elaborated upon and built out. He drives an Aston Martin more in the films than he does in the books too.
Doing lots of creative work is not a bad thing.
Yes, that’s not a significant presence. It’s a mention as part of his story: it’s not only her hanging over the whole thing. It’s a label and a quick glimpse of a photo. Likewise in NTTD she’s a starting point for the rest of the story to spring from.
Only if you think lists in dramatic writing are actually done in order of decreasing importance like a shopping list! :D Quite often the last item will be the most important, left until last in order to underline it and give it resonance. I’m not quite sure why he would place the casino as a site of greater personal importance to Bond than the grave of a woman he loved.
If you’re saying it’s for no other reason than being ten years later then I think you’re giving Fleming far less credit as being a good writer than he deserves.
I don’t honestly see the problem with Vesper having some emotional significance for Bond. It’s certainly not contrary to the books, much as you’re trying to play it down.
Given that these accounting things usually happen well in advance of the "official" start of production (B25 for NTTD in May 2015, all of B22 through B24 in 2007!) and that from what I understand they use these companies basically for every expense, hire, contracting work, insurance, union paperwork etc. related to the film, there really seems to be nothing going on except for internal idea sharing and inofficial (meaning unpaid) talks (if that).
Yes the name of the company seems a tricky one but if you look at Barbara Broccoli's appointments (and there are several different entries for her) there's still nothing likely to be B26, or even which has been set up since B25. As you say, usually they do this before the previous one has even released, so it makes me believe her when she says that they haven't started on the next film or casting the next guy yet. After all as you say, those are all billable jobs that you have to pay professional people to do, and they must set these companies up in order to put a budget against them, therefore they're not paying anyone to work on B26 yet. Anything internal would have to be pretty much just with the producers you'd imagine: even Purvis & Wade are freelance I'm sure.
I guess maybe it's a combination of the MGM sale not being complete yet and probably they do want a break: after all NTTD's release dragged on for a year longer than planned.
I personally think MGW will announce after the Oscars - which they seem to have set as the end of NTTD's lifecycle as the "current" Bond film - that he will take a step back from the day-to-day of the productions and they are either still working through how a new leadership looks and works or they don't want to leak that through a filing at company house where he doesn't appear as a Director of the company.
That's a great scene, I love the way Arnold weaves the Vesper theme into the background. I always thought between this moment and Bond throwing the necklace at the end of QOS, it would be the end of the Vesper story
It could have been Bond shopping for a wedding ring for Madeleine when chaos breaks out.
After my first viewing I felt as though Safin wasn't the primary villain of NTTD, he's Madeleine's villain almost as Medrano was to Camille. The actual antagonist is Bond himself and his inability to trust and let go of the past rather than falling into the same toxic cycle over and over again. Safin is just a manifestation of that, dressed up as a Dr. No-esque supervillain.
https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-mark-gatiss-sherlock-interest/
The filmmakers came up with a good scene in and of itself, but I find the whole idea of Bond needing to seek closure is treading old ground.
In fact, if I remember correctly, Fukunaga himself pointed out the villain of the film was deliberately de-emphasized in the film.
Eh. It seems like he is more interested in using Bond to Trojan Horse his own projects into development. If it fits, that can be great, but it can also lead to some disconnect.
From the little stuff of his I’ve seen, I think he is a very „clever“ writer and I don’t necessarily mean that positively. Easter eggs, twists and turns that put a bow on everything , that kind of stuff. Again, that can work, if done really well, but can also be kind of grating. I used to love Sherlock and now see it as a bit too gratuitous in the writing, if that makes sense. The writers think they are fantastically clever and really want to prove it to the viewer.
He was the co-creator so pretty much all of them to some extent, but he also generally wholly wrote one episode a series I think. Bond even gets a bit of a nod at one point when Mycroft (who works at MI6) hints that one of his colleagues prefers to use blunt instruments :)
He's done plenty more besides and he is a good writer, I wouldn't be averse to it.
It's not a surprise that he's a fan either:
If that’s the case (which wouldn’t surprise me), I feel like they did the film a disservice by trying to hype up Safin as the ultimate villain. I get that the needed to capitalize on Rami’s rising star power, but it set the wrong expectations narratively.
No thanks! The writing for Dracula was abysmal. Give me Pervis and Wade over him and Moffatt any day.
Actually, none of the Craig films were "deconstructive satire"s.... Can you please define what that means and how it relates to this era?