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
Fair enough, well it seems like you had your answer all along!
Honestly, I’ve only ever seen Babs used as a relatively affectionate moniker. However, she gets way too much grief from men with small tackle. And before anyone with small tackle dives in for a rebuttal, I know she can be criticised.
That is something else. You were implying Blofeld founded Spectre and did all his crimes so he could "eventually lure Bond to his crater base (...)". This is frankly a ridiculous interpretation. The only thing the film implies is that Blofeld's hatred towards Bond made him kill his father and use all available opprtunities to hurt Bond. It never states his greed or ambitions of world domination has anything to do with Bond.
But then again you are making severe judgements of NTTD despite not having seen the film, so why should I take you seriously...?
Fair enough
On reflection, let me try putting it another way, what I am trying to say is that I don't buy the suggested degree of connection to Jung.
I'm agree Directors use all sorts of different visual symbolism to tell the story, but generally without consciously connecting it with the writings of Jung or anyone else.
In this case, I can believe some of the examples sited will have been deliberate, others merely co-incidental, because I just don't think anyone in the Bond organisation is that deeply into philosophy.
Must grind their gears that deep down they know that Barbara Broccoli is a very respected producer, not only for picking up where her father left off— continuing the success and health of the character and franchise— but she also has the balls to cast someone like Craig, shake-up the tropes to keep things in this universe fresh, making the latest era a continuity and then killing off the hero.
She’s quite the lady with intelligence and she has to be as gritty as Bond to navigate the franchise the way she’s done over the past 25 plus years.
And yet...
"Despite the movie's dramatic climax and seemingly definitive sense of finality, No Time To Die still declares that "James Bond will return". Although the signature title card, which bookends the film's end credits, is a regular feature in the Bond series, its presence here is somewhat surprising, given No Time To Die's conclusion."
What’s that from?
You’re distorting reality. Blofeld even hires Silva to destabilize MI6 in the previous film, in order to pave the way to the 9 Eyes Program in the sequel. And besides, how much screen time the family angle gets? A couple of sentences within the second longest film in the franchise history. Really, just move on.
Is there evidence that Blofeld hires Silva for this purpose? Because there is a great deal of evidence in Skyfall to suggest Blofeld has nothing to do with Silvia’s motivation.
I know Blofeld says he’s behind Silva, but I don’t think he says he hires Silva to destabilize MI6 leading up to Nine Eyes. I don’t even really think you can infer that is what Blofeld wanted from Silva at all; it’s just poor retconning/shoehorning, and I say that as a big fan of Spectre.
Otherwise I totally agree with you.
Quite. A gracious, brilliant woman, who should be lauded.
Daniel Craig’s Bond died. The character of James Bond didn’t.
LOL about the small tackle. BB does get slammed more than MGW, even though they are equal partners.
And yes, it's sexist to single her out.
https://screenrant.com/no-time-die-james-bond-return-credits-reason/
Funny thing is that he came up with Brofeld, but NOBODY brings that up.
Except that’s not his master plan at all. It’s as Blofeld said, “You interfered in my world, so I destroyed yours.” If Bond hadn’t been a super spy thwarting SPECTRE schemes, Blofeld wouldn’t pay him any mind. You should pay closer attention when watching movies and clean up your vocabulary too.
👍
Frustratingly I have read and heard many theories like this:
- "This belittles the character of Blofeld because all his evil motivations stem from his personal gripe with Bond".
The film actually never implies this however. It is a common and undeserved misconception.
To me it all makes perfect sense. SP established that Silva worked for SPECTRE in SF. Silva in SF says that he works “for the highest bidder” aka Blofeld. Silva puts the MI6 under attack proving they’re obsolete, paving the way to C’s program and Blofeld will to control everything. That’s clearly part of a bigger scheme. Blofeld is just so diabolical that chooses for the job someone with a past with the “beloved M”.
I mean, maybe, it just feels like you’re throwinga ton of Skyfall in the garbage to make this theory work.
I would have preferred Silva remain entirely independent, but the filmmakers wanted to make Blofeld culpable for M’s death to give Bond a more personal motive for killing Blofeld.
This is why the ending in the bridge works for me because Bond has every personal reason to want to kill Blofeld for but decides not to and instead hands a valuable asset to his government. His last moment of decision for Queen and Country before going off with Madeleine.
Interesting
So you find it quite unreasonable for someone to see the character of James Bond killed on screen, and then moments later see a post script which states that "James Bond will return" and not wonder if that means he did not die after all?
You choose to make the distinction between "James Bond as played by Daniel Craig" and "James Bond the immortal character" and will be unfazed when a complete stranger turns up in Bond 26 as if nothing had happened
Yet somehow you are surprised that others might think Craig-Bond is not dead and could yet appear in Bond 26
I agree with you that the intention of everyone involved in making NTTD is that Craig-Bond will not return
But I'm not at all surprised that others think he might, particularly casual viewers who do not hang on EON's every announcement.
And in the World of James Bond, Never Say Never Again!
I mean, really, it's hard to argue with your point here. Fundamentally, the film says "James Bond is dead", and then "James Bond Will Return". They're diametrically opposed statements to make. I tend to agree with those that liken it to "The king is dead, long live the king", and that James Bond stories will return, but you're not wrong.
Yes.
Nice post, btw ...
What a tremendous film.
When I think of films that are "masterpieces," it's not always films that are great. That might be counterintuitive, but some examples: Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, Star Wars, Rocky, Vertigo, and Blue Velvet. These are all really good films, considered "masterpieces," but they are also seriously flawed in terms of film narrative, imho. NTTD is like that, to me. This will go down as a masterpiece as a Bond film, while also not being considered one of the best. It is daring and sweeping, almost epic.
Also, today I was talking with someone who has yet to see the film, doesn't know too much about it and certainly doesn't know how it ends. I was saying this is Craig's last film, and this person basically said that who knows, after all, Craig might change his mind about that. I said "sure" and had to bite my lip for a moment to avoid laughing. I felt the power of knowledge rushing through my body.