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
Agree. Well said.
Craig's yolt. Haha.
Tonight I'll finally see NTTD in the original language. After this fourth view, I'll update my ranking. I still don't know where to put this thing.
Maybe something like this though:
1. Connery
2. Craig
3. Dalton
4. Moore
5. Lazenby
6. Brosnan
It feels a bit wrong putting Moore so far down though given how much fun I find him.
I guess you could say you think of him as 'least best'! :D
That’s fair! Brosnan is actually the only one I don’t think was really right for the part (and even then I don’t totally dislike him)
Yeah I watched DAD the other day and I was a lot less impressed with him than I've been previously.
What was that bit exactly? I've only seen it the once but this moment sort of sounds familiar to me.
I don't recall it either but perhaps James was mocking him? He seemed to have so little respect for Safin. He only hesitated with him because Safin was holding his child hostage, other than that he seemed to think he was a pathetic "angry little man". It really suited the character rather than diminished him.
Safin was a pathetic little bugger and Malek sold it so well.
The little twitch and sigh he does right before he explains his plans to James as if James just doesn't get it or respect/fear him like he wants.
Yes I agree with most of this. The performances in Dr. No and DAF are miles apart. All I will say though is Connery had natural swagger and macho charisma. He had the full package. He looked like he could batter someone one minute, and be charming the next. He could also do the comedy one-liners with ease. And still manage to pull of Fleming's character too.
With Craig it felt like he had to really act to create these traits, whereas with Connery it came effortlessly. He was naturally self-assured, both onscreen and off screen. I know with Craig he often comes across awkward in real life when being interviewed. Nothing wrong with this, BTW. He's an actor after all.
But with Connery he had the whole package, and it was with him constantly. He exuded the sex appeal and swagger in real life to an overwhelming degree (so we've been told by those who have ever been in a room with the guy).
Of course. Those are the real-life logistics of what happened in the writing room. I suppose I'm just having a wee bit of fun connecting my own dots within the story.
No, otherwise he'd give her a slap.... ;)
1) I still feel that the producers original intentions with Daniel Craig was to "reboot" the series, show Bond's origins and how he came to be the Bond character we all came to know and love. I feel this was still the case in SF and SP, they introduced a new M who was more reminiscent of a younger 'Bernard Lee' type of M, they recreated M's office to be the same as seen in Dr.No+ and introduced Blofeld, explained how he got the scar were all familiar with in the earlier films.
I feel that the natural progression would have been to carry on with a new bond, who could come in, established with the characters and surroundings introduced; M, Q, Moneypenny, Blofeld etc confirming that Bond is still the same character, albeit played by a different actor. I thought the whole point of the earlier DC films were for this reason, establishing the Bond we all knew.
Until they had the 'great' idea of killing him off as they got on so well with DC, he was made a producer, obviously had some input and felt that they needed to bid farewell to him in a special way. All of a sudden I keep hearing "mini series" and "brought an end to the craig-era" as though it was always the plan. I don't buy it and it felt rushed.
It's a shame that this great super-villain 'Blofeld' caught in SP and then killed in prison in a rather weak way in NTTD, it just feels a real shame. The potential that the next Bond actor could have come in with a really strong established back-story which surely was the whole intention in order to understand Bond more. Killing him off makes this harder to achieve next time.
2) Seen as the intention was to kill Bond in this film, I feel it would have been better if Blofeld, Bond's arch-enemy was the brains behind the operation. I still like Safin's character but perhaps Safin could have been working alongside Blofeld's plan. Safin could have been responsible some how for breaking Blofeld out of prison leaving a great fight scene with Safin but ultimately finding Blofeld at the secret garden for a MASSIVE psychological / physical ending which would have left Blofeld infecting Bond etc etc etc - same ending.
I feel it would have fit more with what they were working towards and a much more suitable ending between Bloefeld & Bond would have been more interesting for Bond fans rather than just this new Safin character who was just an average Bond baddy killing him off.
@Creasy47 The camera was pointed towards Mathilde. Then it cut to Bond and then Safin was saying "I want the world to evolve. Yet you want it to stay the same.", the camera was still staying at Bond as Safin said that line, Bond can be seen exactly mouthing what Safin was saying. I've seen it twice now and it was so much more noticeable and distracting the second time around. Awkward.
Had it been Blofeld (like in the original novel), it would have carried far more significance, even in the Craig era. There is now history between the 2 characters, even in this Craig Bond world.
We still could have had `Die Blofeld, die!' only at the end of the film, when Bond finally finishes him off. The motives behind Safin are just not fleshed out enough, and again this perverse trait to ignore Fleming and go down a different route that doesn't improve on the original material (if anything weakens it) is pointless, and another missed opportunity. And then keep it ambiguous to Bond's death afterwards, did he escape, didn't he? Still have the obituary in London, still have the final scene with Madeline and the daughter in the Aston.
I reckon most fans would have preferred that ending, instead of what we got.
That's rich. I wonder what the reasoning for that is.
Something they must've missed out on during editing IMO.
I'll look for that next time; I honestly still don't know what you're referring to because I didn't notice that either time I saw NTTD.
About that…😬
(Some were theorizing that there’s no blood in the gun barrel and Bond fades to white because he’s the one who gets shot)
Appreciate this post. Very true about Mitchum. He jumped aboard moving trains and road cross country looking for work, and immersing himself in that lifestyle before making it to California.
Bond looked nothing like a hobo in NTTD.
Saw the film today for the second time and it didn't have quite the impact as before.
Some audience members outright left before the ending and everyone looked disappointed. I have this hunch had NTTD been made, say in 2017, or 2018 they may have cheered. Maybe LOGAN and LAST JEDI were made too long ago now for Bond to have the same impact at the climax?
Still I rank this one pretty high and loved Daniel Craig.
I saw Mad Max Fury Road in 3D and it looked crap. Really murky. Avatar on the other hand looked fantastic. No way would I watch NTTD like that.