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
Definitely this! I want to see Bond 26 back to the old regular format, stand-alone films, no story-arcs, not rebooting, just a regular film with a good plot where bond saves the day and here’s hoping to a proper gunbarrel again 😂.
Was I patronizing anyone? I was merely trying to explain that a "chemistry between Bond and ..." can mean different things to different people. I--and that's just me--simply feel that a middle-aged man with tons of scars, some of which aren't physical, doesn't have to drop on his knees and profess his undying commitment to a woman if he truly loves her. Love can exist in silence without celebrating it the way romcom Hollywould has taught us. At the end of QOS, a clear statement is made: it may look like love, but that doesn't mean it is.
Madeleine hardly smiling at Bond is a personality trait, not a damnation of their relationship. She doesn't strike me as the smiling type anyway, what with all those traumatic experiences in her young life. Also, yes, in two movies they have spent more screentime arguing and mistrusting each other because, honestly, we would have grown tired pretty fast of scene after scene after scene of people holding hands and kissing and sharing poems under a tree in the park, at least in a Bond film. A friend of mine told me in 2006, after seeing CR for the first time, that it was a good film but he could have done without "all the romantic stuff at the end". I guess the Bonds aren't meant for hardcore romance, though, admittedly, some pull it off quite well, like OHMSS. Then again, Rhett and Scarlett spend more of GWTW bickering than kissing, and theirs is generally considered one of the most epic movie romances ever. Same with Rick and Ilsa in Casablanca, a romance so magnificent that most of the film feels like mourning the loss of it. So I guess that "a one-minute sequence before hell breaks loose in Matera" is going to have to cut it since I sincerely doubt many of us would have appreciated a full act of the film devoted to Bond and Madeleine enjoying life with nothing to threaten it. (Also, let's play fair: their togetherness scenes before the train arrived lasted a lot longer than just one minute.)
A romance, in my humble opinion, at least--and I'm certainly not trying to patronize anyone--doesn't always have to be shown with all the typical sparks, joys and laughs to be believable. Will a romance survive tragedy? What if two people get separated over an issue of mistrust? How has it affected their lives? How quickly can the old flame be rekindled when they see each other again? There are more interesting aspects to a romance in my opinion than the obvious happy ones.
I have stated before that as an introvert and, in fact, from personal experience, I find it easy to appreciate the connection these two have established since l'Américain. Again, I'm not trying to patronize; I'm just saying what I, personally, feel whenever I watch SP and also when I was watching NTTD. And that allows me to disagree with anyone who, as a general statement, posits that Bond and Madeleine have no chemistry between them. In fact, I think this is one of the easiest things to agree to disagree over, simply because it depends so much on what we, as viewers, take away from what we're seeing.
I do agree that "chemistry is not found in words alone", but I also doubt that it is automatically established through lengthy scenes of lovemaking, kissing and cosy fireplace conversations. (Star Wars Episode II, anyone?) And once again I submit to you that it ultimately boils down to personal impressions. Some will walk away from NTTD feeling that Bond and Madeleine are a colder pair than Bond and Tiffany Case, while others will see it as one of the romantic highlights of the series. But however you slice it, it is a very subjective thing, and that's just what I was trying to explain, without patronizing anyone. But I nevertheless apologize if I came off that way, @Zekidk.
She is already on record as saying the next Bond will be a reboot.
This is an issue I have with the Craig era as well. They piggy back on all the connections during the Cubby era when theres not suppose to be an connections to that era in the Craig era because its a new timeline where those connections dont exist.
Well, that dreadful retconning seems to be the bread and butter of the Fast & Furious series these days, and no, I don't like it.
I too would prefer the next Bond film to start with Bond getting a mission from M, pass through Moneypenny's office for some giggles and then Q's for some gadgets and get on with it. I'm all for a soft reboot but it would be too soon after the Craig era to restart another "cycle" of Bond Begins, The Dark Spy and then Bond Ends. And that's not a damnation of the Craig era at all, because I love it to death--pun intended. And because I love it so much, I want it to maintain its originality and uniqueness in the series a little while longer, without another similar run overwriting it to obsoletion. But a reboot (whatever that means) doesn't have to imply that everything done in the Craig Bonds will just be lazily repeated in the next guy's era.
There is still room for dramatic punches to be thrown; in fact, I firmly believe there is some really good stuff left unused in Fleming's books. But to try to work in the amnesia angle immediately after this film isn't my idea of doing it well. I've never been a fan of amnesia plots anyway. They often feel forced, artificial, medically inaccurate and over too soon and too easily. Also, I want to bury the Craig era with dignity; a retcon telling us that--FOOLED YOU!--this Bond isn't dead, would be like defecating on the dramatic completion of this Bond's arc and everything leading up to it.
@bondywondy
You sent an email to EON with story suggestions? How cute is that! Except that you're neither the first nor the last to do that and whoever is at the receiving end will have deleted your mail after reading the first three words. Don't hold your hopes up that that person, who isn't BB or MGW by the way, has given you more than 2 seconds of his attention. Besides, as soon as EON decides to take advice from entitled fans, this film series (which some people for some reason are eager to call a "franchise", which means something else, but I digress) will go down the toilet faster than yesterday's meal. Trust me, they will have gone through this exercise more often than you have. These people know their Fleming inside-out; they have been witness to or involved in the making of these films since the '60s. They have heard the talks, had the conversations, done the thinking, ... If and when they're ready to go for the amnesia plot, they'll squeeze it in. But right now, they're celebrating the release of NTTD, which is obviously turning out a successful one (or at least as successful as can be in these times) and they have said that all the planning may resume sometime next year. Maybe... because these people aren't going to have themselves flogged into another production just because some entitled fans crave product and believe they can do things better. In fact, they'll be laughing hard whenever the press takes some idiot's blog's seriously and posts about the next Bond being a lady. They'll be laughing when the press takes another fan's desires for where the story should go next seriously. They must be laughing a lot, I can imagine. At least I'm happy for Cubby that he never had to suffer the idiocies of social media and the eagerness of entitled fans to "contribute" -- you should see the smirk on my face -- to the legacy that he built.
I guess we're on the same page then, @4EverBonded! :-) I even liked what they had going on in SP. But yes, it reaches deeper still in NTTD.
Thank you so much for reading.
Interviews for Spectre said they wanted Madeleine to be soulful and I think they hit it out of the park with Lea though she was served better in NTTD. Madeleine is soulful, somber, mature, and incredibly sincere with the limited words she uses. Bond is older and damaged and the tender, quieter love suits him. He had awesome chemistry with Paloma, but I disagree with the comments that she should have been the female lead. It doesn't suit what Craig's Bond wants at this time in his life.
Also, Vesper and Bond did get a "young love" style montage, but that served the storyline and needed to be given to secure the shock of Vesper dying and that she was playing him the entire time. Madeleine gets an overarching thread in two films. It's her actions that show how she feels. While it could have been definitely better handled and written, she offers her love so innocently in Spectre after he had done little to earn it, then tries to leave so she wouldn't be the one to change him. She never betrayed him the way Vesper did. She handles his rejection with complete grace, bears/loves/raises his child for five years, never stops loving him, forgives him for his mistrust with little explanation offered, and then takes him back. This is why Bond didn't want to live without her in the end. She genuinely offered him everything and more that he thought he was getting with Vesper at the time. I think Lea plays the scene in Norway when he's confessing how he feels beautifully. She is not a typical Bond girl - flashy, flirtatious, etc. She was never intended to be one. Not another Bond girl would have made the choices she made. Bond's words are very telling. He says he doesn't regret a moment of his life that led him to Madeleine. That includes Vesper's death too. All of that led him to Madeleine.
Take a bow. What a lovely post.
You're very kind.
There is much to Madeleine that just gets overlooked. Two lines hit me in the gut in the film. After Bond accuses her of betraying him, won't listen to her at all, and pushes her onto a train, she desperately asks "how will I know you're okay." And then after he tells her he learned she didn't betray him, she says she understands that's who he is. After five years of heartbreak, she said that. I think she's wonderful.
Craig wanted to go out a hero, not an amnesiac, so presumably that is why his Bond died. (This also appears to be why Boyle left the project.)
Now if Craig had one more Bond in him, they could have retained the amnesia cliffhanger.
The problem is that if Craig Bond were not dead (he is), when he regains his memory he will remember the child.
Fleming knew that they only way Bond could go on is if he didn't *know* about the child.
I’m off to see NTTD this afternoon. Just listening to “We have all the Time in the World” by Louis Armstrong – which I did a-lot on Friday – has already made me teary eyed.
Anyway, they say an occasional cry is good for the soul.
Yes, that song hits quite differently when attached to this film.
This Bond is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If he hadn't been visibly vaporised he'd be pushing up the daisies due to his bullet wounds! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! He is an ex-Bond!
The film clearly showed DC getting peppered with missile strikes all around him, and the island being decimated. There is no 'the missile blew him out to sea' scenario. He is gone. Finished. Snuffed it. Popped his clogs. Croaked.
The only scenario for even the most talented of screenwriters is to take something that SOME people didn't like, and make a mockery of it for EVERYONE by undoing it. And saying that, the Bond films very much do not have the most talented of screenwriters so long as Purvis and Wade are still on board. (They get a bit TOO much grief, mind you, but I don't think anyone puts them in Hollywood's upper echelons).
I am not a fan of the ending, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you shouldn't just accept the obvious and move on from it.
There will be another Bond. There will be plenty more Bond films. They won't reference NTTD, and nor will they need to. James Bond will return, and if your feelings towards NTTD haven't softened by then, you still have 20-odd other films you can still enjoy. And by not referencing NTTD, it also leaves the door open for a (long in the future) return of Leiter, Blofeld, and Spectre. By extending NTTD's timeline in to future films with a 'he didn't really die' story, Bond films will also have to acknowledge the death of these, and I for one would rather have future films do Spectre better justice than the last two films have, and a return in some form for 007's greatest friend and foe, not just cast them off because the ending of ONE film did not sit right with some people.
Post of the day! But @bondywondy never responds to any comment. There's no discussion. He's just here to repeat his disgruntlement over the ending. He should feel right at home in the YouTube comment section.
Exactly so ... and it's really the thematically-consistent emotional richness and degree of psychological complexity that separate the Craig films from the first twenty in the series.
Forever to be controversial within the fandom, to be sure ...
Take a bow from me too, @BlondeBond. Very good points and well written.
Same here, except I haven't and won't ever watch NTTD. But just knowing its ending has left me cold for the franchise. Casino Royale, which used to be one of my favorites, was on last night and I couldn't bare to watch it. It just made me feel sick. I don't care if the ending was "right for the plot" as some claim. They shouldn't have written that plot to begin with. And I don't see how they can come back from this without a massive retcon.
TDKR is quite a mess, with Nolan being about as much out of inspiration as Mendes was for parts of Spectre. But even if Bruce Wayne/Batman ultimately survives the events, it's obvious that the films that were shot after the trilogy aren't retcons, they're part of different continuities. And TDKR being quite messy doesn't prevent me from loving BB and TDK or from having hope for the next film. Because it's not some retcon.
But when two people are in love they will usually do almost anything to be with each other. At the end of SP (after the Morocco-scenes), they just leave each other, so it’s safe to assume, there’s no real emotional attachment there. Then he saves her from Blofeld, drives off into the sunset, takes her to Matera, and then they leave each other again…for five years. Bond even says to her when putting her on the train that ”you will never see me again.” That’s not something a person in love would say to a woman he has strong feelings for, is it? Fast-forward five years to the scene in the cabin where he then says ”I have always loved you” moments after hooking up with her again and just before knowing there’s a child. Oh really, you have always loved her, but not once in five years you wanted to find out anything about her? Show, don't tell, man!
The train-scene when Bond and Vesper first meet in CR? Now, that’s chemistry! They were helped by a better script, though.
I responded to a few. 😊 The Sun quoted an insider saying Bond can survive or they reboot.
It's 50:50?
We're not Eon so we can't say with 100 percent certainty what will happen. That's all I'm saying. 😉
1. Ending is going to alienate more fans than people think.
2. Madeleine Swan was tedious, lacked energy, and was a stale character. She brought the movie down. Paloma and Nomi were great.
3. Spectre and NTTD should not have been made.
4. Some fans will look at this as the end of Bond, and move on from the franchise because they believe he is dead. Period. So they’re done.
5. In the reboot to come, please no: Spectre, Blofeld, Dr. No, etc. Let’s come up with some original villains and a FRESH story. This Bond is not connected to any continuity and does his own thing. Follow the tone of Casino and QOS. But the villains, and so on, 60 years is enough.
I would like to now see more unused Fleming -
1. the gangsters in DAF. In fact much of this book still hasn't been used.
2. the card game at Blades from MR
3. Viv Michel being held captive at a motel by gangsters who are about to rape her, only for Bond to rescue her.
4. The opening to TMWTGG, and the rest of this novel properly adapted.
There is enough material there to last around 4 movies, at least. A new actors entire reign.
In regards to 3, how did these fans come to terms with Casino Royale? There we have a Bond who becomes a 00 in 2006, (we clearly see the date on the surveillance discs in the Bahamas). He couldn’t have been the same Bond galavanting with sexy KGB agents or blowing up chemical factories in the USSR… he’d have been just a kid. Therefore, the next Bond is no different than Craig’s start, regardless if Craig’s Bond dies, goes to clown college or travels through time and gets stuck in the Wild West.
Ah yes, The Sun, that well known bastion of truth and journalistic integrity.
https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/ten-shameful-moments-from-the-suns-past/