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
Plus, Daniel's films are so very well done there is no need to redo them from a quality standpoint either They really sit well as a special part of the film canon.
I'm with you. Loved the film and found the last act truly emotional and powerful.
Same here. NTTD is a monumental achievement and an impressive last chapter in the Daniel Craig saga. It’s the most revolutionary Bond film ever but at the same time it feels already like a classic. Kudos to Fukunaga. Today I’ll see it for the third time.
I concur. We're all going to die - except for fictional characters, who are essentially either immortal (Fleming's Bond would be 100 by now) or resurrectable, so what's the worry? I loved the Jack London quote, by the way. It's how I live my own life, although I don't go around blowing things up.
turns out to be the father of Madleine's child. I am rather afraid, based on the last scene, that they will be heading for a dead end in ideas straight from soap operas to continue the story of the child as she becomes adult ...
After watching the movie again, I am convinced that if you:
- throw Madleine away with her child, props like a peeled apple and the teddy bear from the movie
- make Paloma the Bond girl instead
- keep Felix
- let Blofeld escape from the prison
- do not show M, Q and Moneypenny together as if they were the only people in MI6
- develop action scenes to give the music a chance to expand to completed pieces of music
- try to use the John Barry's "007" but do not reuse other pieces of music that were composed to illustrate a different plot (I don't like that in SP as well)
- try to add more Ken Adam style decorations
- show how Bond escapes with Paloma from the silo but keep MI6's belief that Bond did not survive
that would be a great Bond movie!
Glad to hear you loved it colonelsun!
Got my second viewing this Friday afternoon coming. Can't wait. It will be a film I see 3 or 4 times I think.
On subject of Bond fans having seen all the movies in the cinema. My dad saw Dr no in the cinema, midnight showing with some friends way back when he was a young man in the 60s. He hated it. Fell asleep. Though he did partake in the ogling of one certain bond girl ;).
He went to see NTTD with me. He is in very poor health, a lot older now. He likes what Craig has done because he feels like it made Bond more relatable. He bleeds. He aches. He's not indestructible.
He came out loving the movie saying it was one of his favourites of Craig. He thought the three hours flew by. I've remarked this before but the ultimate subversion for me being a woman is that I'm glad I saw this with my dad. It isn't a father/son movie.... it felt like a father/daughter movie. It'll annoy so many people but I don't give a damn.
Good dads often do not get the chance to show their feelings but will do anything especially for their daughters and their families.
And that made me come out and want to hug my dad a little harder. And I'm OK with that.
Is it really the purpose of Bond movies to show such feelings? Did you miss them in previous movies?
Great post!
What’s the problem? NTTD is designed to be the most unique entry ever. This feelings fit this entry. They don’t fit the previous.
As for feelings and movies. It depends on my mood. I for one think they had to shake up the formula. My dad not being a bond fan I feel is an example of that. But if I didn't want this then I can put on some of the classics and still feel.... the difference is I'm feeling happiness and I'm still entertained. I'm not sure movies should make you feel absolutely nothing. I'm not sure what the point of that would truly be.
Two foods for thought as well I suppose...
I wonder if a lot of the reaction here is due to the fear of the unknown for the future of Bond. I wonder if some, not all, will reflect on this differently when the series has settled in the future.
Secondly, given my post above, I noticed Craig attended the premiere with his daughter and not his wife. Yes, I know they usually walk out after the usual PA spiel but at the time it did make me think...
Thanks @ProfJoeButcher, I appreciate that response and it summarises your feelings in a very considered and fair way.I understand where you are coming from. It just goes to show how things can easily get out of hand on here!
In NTTD the final lines features Bond’s girlfriend and White’s daughter saying to Bond’s daughter: “His name was Bond, James Bond.
Talking about full circle.
There's lots of stuff like this in it that I noticed. It deserves a thread entirely of its own.
I see the problem in that any new movie should do not interfere with both Fleming's books and the previous movies, I think. If this is not to be the case, then with each new actor should there be a reset of the formula (of the movies)? So why there are references to earlier films used? Reset means reset.
We can all see that the reset didn't really happen with Craig's Bond. So where did the idea for NTTD come from?
Just signed in only to respond to this. I know exactly, what you mean. I'm in a bad mood since 3 days now after watching the film. Once you've seen it, it sticks with you. For gods sake i'm a 51 year old man and i feel kind of traumatized. No movie in the world should do this to me. I'm sad, frustrated and angry at the same time. This character and the love for the movies accompanied my life for over 40 years now. But as of now i don't want to see a Bond movie ever again. Believe me, it's rubbish to feel this way.
The set design, lighting, cinematography in general... loved that side of the film.
Yes, the bit where Bond enters the Spectre party in Cuba.. As he walks through MGW is staring right at him in the left side of the shot.
Completely understand the disappointment from those who have seen it, who hold in their opinion what they think the ideal formula ought to be. My general and gentle counter argument to that would be that Daniel Craig's era has been inclined about breaking the formula. Be it "Bond begins", Bond bleeds, an attempt to emulate the Bourne style with QoS, killing off M, making Blofeld an adoptive brother, etc, etc. The ending, in my mind, with all things considered about it, fit this particular era, this particular batch of storylines.
Daniel Craig was the soft reset, it wasn't meant to fit in with the (very very very loose) continuity of the other 5. Any references to those films of bygone years were purely for nostalgic nods to the fans, not a sense that this was the "same" James bond. Hell. I've been more disappointed at times in the past when it was meant to be the same and the total tonal shift that created - Diamonds are forever following OHMSS for example: "I'll drown a Blofeld clone in mud for killing my wife on our wedding day (in one of the darkest stories), then next time we meet I'll kill his other clone by kicking his cat, whilst having a perfectly rational conversation with a man so so evil he later dresses in drag and says with all seriousness 'prepare my bathosub'... And oh, he now has a different face... and so do I!!! (in one of the campest stories of the series) "... I mean?!? These were meant to be the exact same people. As was Pierce Brosnan kite surfing a tsunami, Roger Moore floating round in space and Timothy Dalton igniting Sanchez. It was unfeasible when you remove your Bond Head. Casino Royale to NTTD was an attempt to be somewhat feasible, in its own little bubble which, as all bubbles do, had to form and burst.
Because the Daniel Craig era, at least in hindsight (and whilst definitely cobbled together as they went along) at least has its own story and attempt at continuity going with it. The good thing for me about killing him off, is the next bond won't have all this baggage. He can go back to being the blunt instrument without the ghost of Vesper hanging over him. He can go back to being solitary without having to fear for his daughter. We can go back to a time where the worlds greatest super villains arent people who have a jealousy of bond or his love interest . Each film could be standalone. Or alternatively, they could do similar again - but different. Or better. But the key thing is , it will be without all the baggage of this batch of five films where they purposely, it would seem, tried to keep doing something different. And so by default, kept putting a noose around the neck with too much weight to keep carrying over. Now, that weight is gone and it all starts anew. A new actor would merely be emulating Daniel Craig I feel, be bound by all these controversial story beats, had they stepped into his specific continuity line. It would be unavoidable. Unfeasible. In killing him off, they now don't have to worry about that. Everyone now knows that whomever comes in, it'll be another alternate take on the James Bond character
For those who haven't seen it, but have been spoiled, I understand your apprehension. If someone told me up front what was going to happen - as much as I suspected it might (and for me, the title sequence with its fallen symbol of Britain confirmed my suspicions) - it would perhaps have soured my expectation. But I went into the film having recently rewatched the 24 others. And you see the shift between the old and the new. You see how Daniel Craig was intended to be its own batch in the general continuity which, when considered, couldn't be continuity anyways... the series has always subconsciously asked for a suspension of disbelief to believe it was, stretching from 60s to 00s. Now we have a little box set of 5, telling their own story . Starting it. And for once - ending it.
Did they need to kill him off (a question Fleming himself had difficulty over)? Well no. They didn't need to make any of the choices they have over the last 15 years. But the ones they have fit together (sometimes forcibly) and this was the ending these stories, when reviewed outside the bias mind of a die hard bond fan (of which, I am), had to lead to. Whether it's execution throughout was ideal, or not. So I would say, don't let the spoilers turn you away from seeing it. Could it be depressing for you? It could sure, of course it could when the character means so much. But whilst I felt a bit of melancholy - after sleeping on it particular, I see why they done this. I see it makes sense in order to ensure that , with a new face, a new timeline: "James Bond will return".
And if you don't watch it, I feel you're genuinely missing out on some of the best in the series for the sake of Daniel Craig's ending. As much as I've talked about the main controversial plot point I really don't want to go into detail about the film itself as there is so much in there, especially the action scenes, that words alone cannot do credit. You simply have to see it. From the much hyped car chase scenes highlighted in all the trailers, to Cuba, to the very creepy beginning and very controversial ending. There is a lot of enjoyment to have (even if you want to try and come up with a scenario to ignore the finality of it all. Fleming did, after all, when he toyed with the idea of finishing Bond once and for all).
This isn't your father's James Bond no. Just as this won't be the next generations James Bond. Thats kind of how this series has survived. And why Bond himself in this particular film has not. Other interpretations of the character have, and will. And we will all continue to have our varied and strong opinions of each and every actor, each and every movie. Some will passionately defend NTTD as much as some will stare on in disbelief when others say they don't rate FRWL, or think DAD is misunderstood. That's the nature of this series. There's something for everyone, even if every one can't provide the something all are looking for. And now this era is finalised and the series moves on afresh, because it must. And whatever that afresh may be, it will be tremendously exciting to see how it will pan out.
But on second watch, on Friday in my home town cinema, it completely clicked. You need to see the movie with the ending in mind to understand the structure, and the heroes journey. That way it makes sense, and i wasn't even sad at the end. It's easily the most profound ending to a Bond film ever (which obviously isn't saying much really), and it's uplifting in a way. I definitly felt much better about it this time.
If he can't live with what he treasures most (and he knows that life from Jamaica), he rather goes out in a blaze of glory, as he always knew he would (and secretly strived for in Flemings writing). It's an exclamation mark of an ending to his Bond and very fitting to Craigs tenure in my opinion. But since this is uncharted territory, it's natural that it will divide and piss off a lot of people... for a while at least.
I'm not bothered by the dying part anymore because i see it more as a metaphor, James Bond has fullfilled his purpose and completed his journey. You couldn't have him drive off into the sunset with Madeline once more, if you prefer that ending you can watch Spectre and pretend that NTTD never happened.
Absolutely cracking post. Spot on.
Hardly rambling! Terrific post.