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
Oh, @Mendes4Lyfe , the death of Felix's wife is called, THE INCITING INCIDENT.
It's the event that kick-starts the hero's journey.
So, yes, please do keep this all in mind, 😂 😂 😂...
Heh! True, although that’s often just ‘contemplative’ in the Brosnan physical vocabulary: that’s him pondering something, could be emotional as here, or just considering his next move (see also looking for Gupta’s safe in TND or after offering the banker the deal in TWINE).
Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense. I can at least see how it came about.
The Brosnan acting vocabulary is surprisingly complex. Some say there are 100 variations of the pain face alone (much like the 1,000 variations of the legendary Roger Moore 'oofs', although some speculate there is only one...). It is not for us mere mortals to understand.
But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.
Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot. As was said it's not really the pattern as SP doesn't really involve that. You're talking about very broad character conflicts/resolutions in the case of QOS and SF, all of which are motivated by what we see onscreen (and I know that's something you've said you prioritise when it comes to any sort of conflict to do with Bond's character).
Have you heard the phrase 'rise like a phoenix' recently and decided to use it here? Genuinely asking mate. I get random ideas stuck in my head too and post them on here (as I suspect you do too) and you've used it twice.
What are you talking about @Mendes4Lyfe ?
You are moving goal lines again.
You claimed that Felix’s death should have been at the end of Act II.
I stupidly chimed in to say it’s not big enough to be PLOT POINT II/end of ACT II twist. Felix’s death is the perfectly placed mid-point twist.
Whether you think the following scenes afterwards are artificial, are moot. Bond finds out more about Heracles. He wants in to see Blofeld. His story/investigation moves forward with Moneypenny, then Q where they discover that Heracles is no longer just targeting Spectre agents, but the Bad Wolf has opened up its potential to be used against anyone…
You don’t always have to be “right” Mendes. Most of the time you’re on another planet when it comes to filmmaking and writing. Other things, like whether you like a film or not, is just your opinion, but you seem to need validation of your opinions.
Why can’t you just be content with what you like, and what you don’t like? There’s no right or wrong there. But when you start bringing up screenplay structure/anatomy, unfortunately there are objective rules, and most people, not named QT, follow the anatomy as close as they can when they write scripts. That’s what makes this type of storytelling so tough in some ways, and unique when compared to plays, novels, novellas or short stories.
Yeah I agree that there are limits to how “depressed” Bond is in both QOS and SF; I wouldn’t want a Bond film where he’s bummed out for a majority of the film and at least both movies avoid that. I’d still say that out all the Bonds, Craig’s version is still perhaps the most “melancholic” purely because of what fate has dealt him. It felt somewhat relieving watching his death scene because he finally found inner peace after all the turmoil of those five films, and he goes out on his own terms. I can understand why some may not like this direction (especially if they prefer a more lighthearted affair) but I don’t find it any less valid than any of the other Bonds.
I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.
I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.
Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.
Like the early conflict between Bond and M in GF, OHMSS, TMWTGG, even MR at one point, and countless other Bond movies too. But as we hear so often on here, because it’s in some Craig films it’s somehow worse.
Maybe the discourse shouldn’t be steered by one person so much.
They actually, in my opinion, rather throw away the conflict between Bond and M in LTK, where something could really have been made of it. In retrospect I think that film misses quite a few opportunities.
They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷♂️.
My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)
You forgot the small backhanded remarks between Bond and M in GE. That time M told Bond she’d left him in North Korea if she had her way in DAD. Oh and that one time M revoked Bond’s licence to kill to prevent him from disobeying orders.
Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.
Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.
I'd love to see a film with a story/villain's scheme like TSWLM using some of the grittiness of action from CR-SF, and perhaps some of the fatalism of NTTD. TSWLM is already a great film for me with plenty of character stakes, but I'd be so interested in seeing how that mixture of fantasy and darkness in a new Bond movie. Plus, you can't go wrong with Bond trying to thwart a villain taking over the world.
Yeah I have some reservations when it comes to NTTD, but every time I see someone say this or that shouldn’t have happened, it shows how interlinked the story is, how everything has a cause and effect and how well it works. The only really redundant element I’d say is Nomi, and even then the film loses something if you remove her.
M helped create a weapon of mass destruction!!
Methinks that @Mendes4Lyfe may actually have not understood the story in NTTD. I’m not being facetious, but with this last response, it’s clear to me, that perhaps Mendes just missed a lot of the plot.
I mean, Bond’s discovered that M’s behind Heracles, and it was Heracles that was supposed to be used to kill Bond at the Spectre party. He HAS TO go back to Mi6!!. He has to confront M. And, this propels his journey forward…
It’s not too complex a plot point at all, but seems to have been lost.
There’s nothing at all wrong with this storyline.
What I'm saying is if your justification for Felix dying in the middle of the story is that it gives a reason for Bond to return to MI6, then Bond wouldn't need a reason to return back if he wasn't artificially beefing with M to begin with. He's a spy, taking orders from M is his job. He could just hand a dossier to Bond and say "retrieve this, 007".
That kind of describes Goldeneye in some ways (or at least how I view Goldeneye); it’s a dark movie in terms of it’s atmosphere and the grittier elements of the Dalton years bleed into it. It doesn’t quite have the fatalism of NTTD but its themes about the past, the themes of betrayal and the uncertainty of what lies ahead in a post Cold War world (from the perspective of Bond/MI6) add a similar depth imo.
But yeah, anything like what you’ve described would be perfect. I think everyone tends to overthink these things because we’re all fans who obsess over this character we know/love. EON has yet to deliver a disaster on the levels of “Joker 2” and that puts a lot into perspective. Forgive my French, but there are a lot of Film Studios that, for lack of a better word, fuck up. Thankfully EON has enough power/weight behind their company to have a final say in their product. That’s the reason this series has lasted over 60 years.
I’m a little tired of your misunderstanding of the storyline to be leading so much of this conversation so I’m wary to engage, but what do you mean ‘artificially’? There’s so much reason given for the conflict between the characters in this film.
If you look at the argument between Bond and M in Goldfinger, that seems way more artificial for me. Bond is supposedly taking Jill’s death too personally, but it’s all forgotten in a matter of moments, it’s not really convincing at all. Just thrown in to make the scene a bit more spicy, but it’s not a story.
And no, he’s not a spy taking orders from M in NTTD. Have you actually seen it?!
True, hadn't thought of that. But yes, it's all there.
So essentially you don't like the concepts of this film, and by extension the last few Craig Bond films? It's personal preference and even if it's thought out it's just not your thing even if it a Bond movie? Hence why you see it as artificial?
Either that or you've not understood or seen the film. I think it's just a case of a badly written post though, but it's a bit hard understanding what you mean. My interpretation was it's just not a film you see as being 'Bond' as it deviates ever so slightly from those tropes.
Fair enough! If it's not to your preference that's fine, but I'm not seeing any tangible reason for these films being awful on a basic story/plot level beyond personal opinion (including mind incidentally, even if I don't see NTTD as awful and as much as I have issues with that film).
Yeah, they make mistakes but at least have some sense of what they're doing and try to be true to the character/franchise. It says a lot.
And yes, it's not unlike GE which is a film I really like and rate highly. Not to say we'll get another GE (every Bond film is unique) but I'd love if they went into it with a similar thought process.
It's the continuation of NTTD that Bond fans (no, not regular viewers) need. No, not want, or come to love based on their individual enjoyment and a commitment to true and good storytelling on the part of those making it, but what they need.
Nothing could go wrong.
Maybe we can have Lady Gaga in it for the purpose of having a promotional tie-in album. Nothing could go wrong at all; it certainly won’t push Amazon even further towards bankruptcy!
Well said.
Tonally I thought NTTD was pretty amazing. Are there things I would change? Yes, I wish they'd spent more time explaining the dice game. Yes, I'd take some of the camp out like the Spectre symbol on the ceiling of the dance floor.
But it was always unexpected, how they swung from horror to romance to intrigue to joy, and back again. There is a style to the directing that I enjoy.
What does "even if it a Bond movie" mean?
It's artificial because it's finding a solution to a problem that Bond films don't have to begin with. M is Bond's boss, he gives him orders, there doesn't need to be another justification or reason getting him there. If your defense is "well, you just don't like the concepts of this film, its personal preference" fine, but you can say the same about any Bond film, or any film in general, so I'm not sure what point your proving with that.
Well said, and why I love the film. Fukunaga’s a very talented storyteller, both as a writer and a director.
NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.
I think for the next era there should the sort of real-world nature that surrounds the character. Smaller and more realistic stakes. The espionage game, sabotage, terrorism, something like that.
@Mendes4Lyfe , it’s been explained to you: M isn’t his boss in NTTD!
It’s clear you missed the simplest of plot beats, or, you didn’t see the film. It’s obvious your problems with the film stem from one, or the other.
Perhaps you should actually watch the film you so hate, before hating on it?
Or if you have seen it, it’s clear from today, you missed just about every beat to the plot there is!!
To be fair there are a lot of Bond films that feel surreal, almost “dream like.” I think YOLT and Moonraker are definitely such films, and despite the grounded storytelling, I don’t think NTTD is that far off from those films in terms of tone/style.
Well, it’s simply that I get the sense you don’t like the way they told this particular Bond film/adventure. It’s not a failing of the script or even story itself.
Why does Bond have to disobey his order to shoot Kara in TLD? It’s an artificial solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in other Bond films as he usually just gets given his job by M and does it. In this one his decision impacts the plot/leads to him being able to disobey M and continue his mission effectively alone. Why does Bond have to be the best man at Leiter’s wedding in LTK? It’s an artificial solution to a problem that doesn’t usually exist in Bond films and leads more directly into Bond helping apprehend Sanchez, discovering Leiter’s mauled body and committing to revenge. Why does Travelyan have to assist Bond during the PTS of GE? It’s an artificial solution to a problem etc etc etc.
Can you at least sort of see what I’m getting at here?