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
Yes, its only on this basis that I can see the logic behind killing off Bond. It would be difficult having another actor pop up in the next one considerably younger than Craig, but with the rest of the cast intact.
Looking back between DAF and LALD, although Moore looks younger than Connery (even though he wasn't), its not a big leap.
Between AVTAK and TLD, this has probably been the biggest jump between 2 actors, but there was no continuation storyline/universe, and there was nothing too jarring about a younger Dalton stepping in and the film going in a slightly different direction. It didn't feel odd. We got the same M and Q, but a new Moneypenny.
Between Dalton and Brosnan we got a new M, but Dalton and Brozza pretty much looked the same age, so again no big leap.
Between Brosnan and Craig we knew this was a hard reboot, so again there was no leap of faith there either, other than the same M, which I think everyone was ok to overlook.
One final thing - had Craig stepped down after SP and a new actor had stepped in, this could probably have justified keeping the old Scooby gang intact while a new actor assumes the role.
The transition between actors prior to Craig were much easier and seamless because there wasn’t much of an overarching story between films. Even the SPECTRE adventures were stand-alone. With Craig that all changed because we not only got a reboot from CR but then that was followed up by a direct sequel, setting a precedent for continuity between films. Even though SKYFALL was stand-alone at the time, it actually acknowledged the six year gap after CR/QOS by showing Bond as a veteran. And then SPECTRE ends with Craig Bond retiring at age 44, just a year prior to mandatory retirement age per Fleming. Then we get NO TIME TO DIE with a five year post-retirement Craig Bond.
It’s been a unique ride, whether one enjoyed it or not.
I love CR but not because Q is missing. I love CR despite Q is missing. Yes, it can work without Q but saying Q is a waste of time? I hardly disagree.
Q is often a highlight of each film and Wishaw was definitely a highlight for me, especially in SF and SP. Unfortunately, they didn't give him the same amount of funny material to work with in NTTD. I'm a bit sad that he won't return but I'm sure they will find another fitting actor.
And I would detour from the "Craig mold" of James Bond. At least people like me would have a Lazenby moment where they pretend "it's just like the last guy" and at least me, being a huge fan of the Craig tenure, would have a hard time accepting it while a totally new interpretation would work better (for me - all just imho).
Watching 007 do his thing... his thing being what? Blowing stuff up and doing car chases? These are great Bond staples, but you cannot fill two hours of screen time with just that and not bore most viewers. A good film has balance between the key ingredients, and if these happen to include more than 5-6 minutes each of M, Moneypenny, Q, and Leiter, and if their interplay with Bond is done well, so much the better. They need not have major plot lines in each film, but in a mission-centric set-up these regulars provide a frame of reference that helps tie the films together and flesh out Bond's personality. IMO giving Bond a family is taking things too far, but the other extreme of having him function in a vacuum is not perfect either. Q may have been in the films largely for comic relief, but he has had, and can have, a substantive role as a tech specialist on occasion. Desmond Llewellyn's Q had a bigger-than-usual role in LTK, which I think worked very well.
:))
I hope the next Star Wars gets rid of all the spaceships and Force crap too... It's tired.
;)
It would be refreshing for one film, and set up a bad dynamic for any subsequent ones.
Horses for courses, but an even darker and colder Bond, especially using QoS as the baseline, does not sound appealing. I'd be hard pressed to decide what would be a more off-putting Bond film extreme, hammering on soap opera, or clowning around, or a relentlessly bleak series of the cold and brutal solitary exploits of an alcoholic psychopath. A good film IMO would not veer too far into any of these.
My brother died over the weekend and it's great to just escape into the world of Bond with like minded people
I plan to write my own review some point, although I think I want to see it once more on the big screen
Sorry to hear that. Glad to hear Bond is a bit of comfort.
The ending puts me off any attempts at continuing the series. I don't care what Eon does. The subversion is only going to get worse, particularly now that Amazon is involved.
There was no reason whatsoever to kill off Craig's Bond. It nullifies his entire tenure and in my mind renders it non-canon. Now we have two Bond series, like Star Trek and Abrams-Trek? What was the point? I can't help but feel, with this movie, that Bond canon is Connery through Brosnan and the Craig era is some kind of experiment that's been rendered irrelevant due to this latest movie.
Eon was clearly just winging it after CR, and the heavy reliance on retcons proves it. The insistence on strictly-connecting these five movies only made it worse. Nothing in the Craig era from SF on makes any sense, it's all reliant on emotionalism and imagery without any kind of coherent or logical narrative. "There's no 'there' there." The Craig series is ultimately about nothing. He becomes 007, sort of, in a couple scenes maybe, then dies. Killed by the British Naval warship The Dragon, the symbol of evil in Fleming's novels. Mind blown! I love subverting things just for the hell of it. This is exactly what I wanted from a Bond movie. /s
Whatever. At first reading about NTTD pissed me off, now I'm just more annoyed by it and consider as a big joke.
We get it. You've been repeating yourself ad nauseam for several weeks now. Give it a rest, will you?
Are you allowed to repeat yourself if you like the film?
There's repeating and there's Repeating. At some point, people should move on, no matter where they stand. At some point, endless repetition becomes spam. That's where we step in.
That is what bothers me as well, as a matter of principle... NTTD dissenters are constantly reminded of how wrong/unwelcome they are; but there is no right or wrong in liking or disliking a film, and so long as they refrain from personal attacks, people should be able to vent their reactions. It will not go on forever.
No no, this is an unfortunate confirmation bias that seems to be going around. It really does work both ways. Lovers can be just as annoying as haters when it comes to endless repetition. There's nothing wrong with speaking against the movie, but please raise a new point every now and then. So far, we've had:
- Fleming
- BO results
- Craig
- You just don't kill James Bond
in some shape or form. After twenty or so duplicate posts from the same members, we ask them to move on. Same rules for the lovers, by the way.
I loathed the last two installments and wouldn't have found it overly fair to feel unwelcome for having such thoughts, which of course I did at times from some. BUT, at the same time, I'm sure those who loved the last two grew tired of my negativity, of me repeating the same points and aspects I didn't care for, over and over again over a matter of years, ad infinitum, while we awaited the next installment. This film has only been out for a month now. If you wish to repeat constant negativity and your dislike of the film - opinions that aren't at all personal attacks on others - that's fine, just don't be surprised when others grow tired of it.
Eventually, I'm sure we'll branch out into "hate" and "appreciation" threads for NTTD, which should help matters tremendously.
If people are genuinely reposting then fair enough, but I haven't seen any of that. Not saying it doesn't happen, you know best after all.
But all I have seen is people arguing their points, and the same arguments come up from both sides. There is only so much to say about the film, after all. How many times have we seen people post that they wish Paloma was in it more, for example?
Maybe it is confirmation bias, but I have often seen quite a lot of vitriol against those who don't like aspects of Daniel Craig's tenure, on multiple different threads. Dare to suggest he falls short of total acting brilliance at all times and people start to accuse you of being part of CraigNotBond, or of being conservative, or of not understanding what they were trying to do with his films etc. Many of us have had that reaction on here.
Anyway, I am not trying to argue. You monitor the threads more closely than me, so I bow to your better judgement. Thanks for clarifying.
LeChiffre - Dead
Vesper- Dead
Mathis - Dead
M - Dead
Mr White - Dead
Felix - Dead
Bond - Dead
Villiers got out while the getting was good.
Log off. Treat yourself to a hand shandy.
The only things I didn't like are Safin (who could be any villain) and his plot (don't understand one bit of it), and the fact that the movie is too long. I can understand that you want to make a great PTS as long as possible, but it dragged. Just like the moments before the attack with the Land Rovers in Norway. And Vesper being only 23 in CR? hmmm... ;)
An emotional ride with a great soundtrack, apart from the title track. And the gun barrel doesn't have blood, so what? I was also very pleased with Waltz, his interaction with Bond is short but tense. NTTD has also some of the best cinematography I've seen in a modern film.
All in all, it'll be very hard to top Craig's era, and I hope that they will keep Bond in the cinemas.
While I don't 100% agree (I'm still interested in seeing where the series will go), I can't say I'm optimistic about the future films. After SP and NTTD, I really don't have much faith that we'll go back to normal Bond films (I understand many like this new introspective direction for Bond, but it's gotten old for me).
Skyfall I think is about as far as they should have gone, and Bond films with such personal plots should be few and far between imo. Following it up with the (imo) abysmal Spectre, and flawed NTTD (I really enjoyed the first half, but the latter half, and especially the ending really don't work for me) makes me wonder if we'll ever get back to stand alone mission-focused films again. I really hope that a lot of the subversion in the Craig era was due to Craig himself and the creative control he was alotted.
It's weird to say, but, while I love Craig as Bond, I'm incredibly happy he's gone.