NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

16465676970298

Comments

  • Posts: 526
    Yup.

    Got tickets to Wednesday 7pm IMAX. I’m beyond stoked.

    Awesome! Hope you enjoy! I watched Spectre on IMAX. We only have one IMAX relatively close- 1 hr 30 min away. First showing sold out. For Wed.
  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    Posts: 73
    bondywondy wrote: »
    There is only one James Bond therefore it is impossible for Bond to have died in NTTD.
    No. There has been two different James Bonds in the EON series. One played by Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan and another played by Daniel Craig. In Bond 26 we will get our third incarnation of the character.

  • EinoRistoSiniahoEinoRistoSiniaho Oulu, Finland
    edited October 2021 Posts: 73
    Blofeld was not the focus of this film (even though evil plot, birthday party, head of Spectre, yes, yes) - and any more of him would have been distracting and we would have ended up with a 3 hr film. I was pleased with the way this story handled him and killed him off pretty quickly. Give him a menacing enough intro, having Madeleine leave in a high state of stress, Bond and him one on one, and that very unexpected death after Bond saying "Die, Blofeld, Die" (which I keep reading members say IS from Fleming). Then he is tossed aside, done. I like that.
    I agree. I think we got just the right amount of Blofeld in this one - and in my opinion Waltz's characterization was a lot better than in SP. I remember him lamenting in interviews after SP that he never really nailed the character in SP but in NTTD to me he truly was Blofeld instead of Brofeld.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    I haven't seen it yet and, sadly, have no idea when I will be able to, as I am stuck in Covid lockdown level 3 here in NZ (James Bond where are you when I need you?)

    However I just wanted to make a comment to those who want to attribute any lack of chemistry between Craig and Seydoux to the15 year difference in their ages

    I have to ask - what kind of warped PC planet are you living on?

    Hugh Jackman is married to a woman 13 years older than him, are you saying they can't possibly be in love or have any chemistry?

    Jason Momoa and Lisa Bonet are a couple, but he is 11 years younger than her (shock, horror!)

    Michael Caine is 14 years older than his wife (surely there can't be any chemistry there?)

    Elton John is 15 years older than his partner, now husband (OMG, what can they possibly have in common with that age difference?)

    Mary Tyler Moore was 18 years older than her husband for 34 years (incredible!)

    Keith Richards is 13 years older than his wife (what can she possibly see in him?)

    These are celebrities, of course, but in fact there are thousands of ordinary couples around the world sharing an ordinary every day level of sexual chemistry with each other despite an apparently relationship crippling age difference

    (Rant over)

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Who’s been saying that?

    Also, good to see you Seve!!
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    Thanks, I just wish I was in a better position to talk about the actual movie lol!
  • Posts: 2,400
    I appreciate and like that the Craig era gives us Bond's complete story. Just now, I want to talk a little about Blofeld in NTTD.

    Blofeld was not the focus of this film (even though evil plot, birthday party, head of Spectre, yes, yes) - and any more of him would have been distracting and we would have ended up with a 3 hr film. I was pleased with the way this story handled him and killed him off pretty quickly. Give him a menacing enough intro, having Madeleine leave in a high state of stress, Bond and him one on one, and that very unexpected death after Bond saying "Die, Blofeld, Die" (which I keep reading members say IS from Fleming). Then he is tossed aside, done. I like that.

    Shoot me now, but I did not want him to be a huge part of this movie. NTTD is a long film, but it moves along very well, does not lag. If the story were to spend more time on Blofeld himself, it would have taken away from the main thrust of this entire film. Which is, in my opinion, is Bond's personal life, his soul, as well as the end of his career. So yes that means saving the world (naturally) from this new techno biochemical weapon AND resolving his relationship with Madeleine; to give himself some happiness in his life of always living in the shadows.

    I am glad we did NOT get more time with Blofeld ... or MI6 office in turmoil ... or longer drawn out scenes in the poisonous garden.

    I would have like a bit more with Felix, for sure. And I would have cut some of the evil scientist's scenes in order to give us that.

    But my quibble with this film are very slight. I think it does a good job telling this particular, personal, final story of this particular James Bond. It is gut wrenching, and sad, and truly tragic. But also noble and heroic, and therefore fitting for James Bond.

    It was something I was consciously thinking about in both the SPECTRE party/massacre sequence and in Blofeld's one-and-dead appearance but forgot to remark on until now. The way this movie just shoves SPECTRE and Blofeld aside so it can focus on Bond is one of the most inspired decisions behind it.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,665
    I appreciate and like that the Craig era gives us Bond's complete story. Just now, I want to talk a little about Blofeld in NTTD.

    Blofeld was not the focus of this film (even though evil plot, birthday party, head of Spectre, yes, yes) - and any more of him would have been distracting and we would have ended up with a 3 hr film. I was pleased with the way this story handled him and killed him off pretty quickly. Give him a menacing enough intro, having Madeleine leave in a high state of stress, Bond and him one on one, and that very unexpected death after Bond saying "Die, Blofeld, Die" (which I keep reading members say IS from Fleming). Then he is tossed aside, done. I like that.

    Shoot me now, but I did not want him to be a huge part of this movie. NTTD is a long film, but it moves along very well, does not lag. If the story were to spend more time on Blofeld himself, it would have taken away from the main thrust of this entire film. Which is, in my opinion, is Bond's personal life, his soul, as well as the end of his career. So yes that means saving the world (naturally) from this new techno biochemical weapon AND resolving his relationship with Madeleine; to give himself some happiness in his life of always living in the shadows.

    I am glad we did NOT get more time with Blofeld ... or MI6 office in turmoil ... or longer drawn out scenes in the poisonous garden.

    I would have like a bit more with Felix, for sure. And I would have cut some of the evil scientist's scenes in order to give us that.

    But my quibble with this film are very slight. I think it does a good job telling this particular, personal, final story of this particular James Bond. It is gut wrenching, and sad, and truly tragic. But also noble and heroic, and therefore fitting for James Bond.

    It was something I was consciously thinking about in both the SPECTRE party/massacre sequence and in Blofeld's one-and-dead appearance but forgot to remark on until now. The way this movie just shoves SPECTRE and Blofeld aside so it can focus on Bond is one of the most inspired decisions behind it.

    Yet at the same time, we actually got a better version of the organization than I think we've had. We see them accomplish a couple of plots successfully, they inspire some fear in Bond, we get the great Godfather line, "Blofeld sends his regards!" A creepy calling card, an absolutely bizarre birthday party. And Bond and Blofeld goading the hell out of each other. I think they shone brightly and then burned out fast and it was terrific.
  • Posts: 2,400
    I appreciate and like that the Craig era gives us Bond's complete story. Just now, I want to talk a little about Blofeld in NTTD.

    Blofeld was not the focus of this film (even though evil plot, birthday party, head of Spectre, yes, yes) - and any more of him would have been distracting and we would have ended up with a 3 hr film. I was pleased with the way this story handled him and killed him off pretty quickly. Give him a menacing enough intro, having Madeleine leave in a high state of stress, Bond and him one on one, and that very unexpected death after Bond saying "Die, Blofeld, Die" (which I keep reading members say IS from Fleming). Then he is tossed aside, done. I like that.

    Shoot me now, but I did not want him to be a huge part of this movie. NTTD is a long film, but it moves along very well, does not lag. If the story were to spend more time on Blofeld himself, it would have taken away from the main thrust of this entire film. Which is, in my opinion, is Bond's personal life, his soul, as well as the end of his career. So yes that means saving the world (naturally) from this new techno biochemical weapon AND resolving his relationship with Madeleine; to give himself some happiness in his life of always living in the shadows.

    I am glad we did NOT get more time with Blofeld ... or MI6 office in turmoil ... or longer drawn out scenes in the poisonous garden.

    I would have like a bit more with Felix, for sure. And I would have cut some of the evil scientist's scenes in order to give us that.

    But my quibble with this film are very slight. I think it does a good job telling this particular, personal, final story of this particular James Bond. It is gut wrenching, and sad, and truly tragic. But also noble and heroic, and therefore fitting for James Bond.

    It was something I was consciously thinking about in both the SPECTRE party/massacre sequence and in Blofeld's one-and-dead appearance but forgot to remark on until now. The way this movie just shoves SPECTRE and Blofeld aside so it can focus on Bond is one of the most inspired decisions behind it.

    Yet at the same time, we actually got a better version of the organization than I think we've had. We see them accomplish a couple of plots successfully, they inspire some fear in Bond, we get the great Godfather line, "Blofeld sends his regards!" A creepy calling card, an absolutely bizarre birthday party. And Bond and Blofeld goading the hell out of each other. I think they shone brightly and then burned out fast and it was terrific.

    Absolutely, but it's also why I feel NTTD isn't exactly a "hard" sequel to SPECTRE, they did the absolute minimum they had to do in order to close those plot threads and get out of the hole Mendes left them in, allowing NTTD to largely stand on its own. At least I felt that way. I'd at least say it's not nearly as much of a sequel as Quantum was to Casino Royale.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Zekidk wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    You can have Bond survive in Bond 26 and he decides not to see Madeleine and Mathilde ever again.
    A sane person would go "Well, okay I can't touch them, but that doesn't mean that I can't be in the room with them and be part of their lives."

    Yeah… sure…
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,665
    I appreciate and like that the Craig era gives us Bond's complete story. Just now, I want to talk a little about Blofeld in NTTD.

    Blofeld was not the focus of this film (even though evil plot, birthday party, head of Spectre, yes, yes) - and any more of him would have been distracting and we would have ended up with a 3 hr film. I was pleased with the way this story handled him and killed him off pretty quickly. Give him a menacing enough intro, having Madeleine leave in a high state of stress, Bond and him one on one, and that very unexpected death after Bond saying "Die, Blofeld, Die" (which I keep reading members say IS from Fleming). Then he is tossed aside, done. I like that.

    Shoot me now, but I did not want him to be a huge part of this movie. NTTD is a long film, but it moves along very well, does not lag. If the story were to spend more time on Blofeld himself, it would have taken away from the main thrust of this entire film. Which is, in my opinion, is Bond's personal life, his soul, as well as the end of his career. So yes that means saving the world (naturally) from this new techno biochemical weapon AND resolving his relationship with Madeleine; to give himself some happiness in his life of always living in the shadows.

    I am glad we did NOT get more time with Blofeld ... or MI6 office in turmoil ... or longer drawn out scenes in the poisonous garden.

    I would have like a bit more with Felix, for sure. And I would have cut some of the evil scientist's scenes in order to give us that.

    But my quibble with this film are very slight. I think it does a good job telling this particular, personal, final story of this particular James Bond. It is gut wrenching, and sad, and truly tragic. But also noble and heroic, and therefore fitting for James Bond.

    It was something I was consciously thinking about in both the SPECTRE party/massacre sequence and in Blofeld's one-and-dead appearance but forgot to remark on until now. The way this movie just shoves SPECTRE and Blofeld aside so it can focus on Bond is one of the most inspired decisions behind it.

    Yet at the same time, we actually got a better version of the organization than I think we've had. We see them accomplish a couple of plots successfully, they inspire some fear in Bond, we get the great Godfather line, "Blofeld sends his regards!" A creepy calling card, an absolutely bizarre birthday party. And Bond and Blofeld goading the hell out of each other. I think they shone brightly and then burned out fast and it was terrific.

    Absolutely, but it's also why I feel NTTD isn't exactly a "hard" sequel to SPECTRE, they did the absolute minimum they had to do in order to close those plot threads and get out of the hole Mendes left them in, allowing NTTD to largely stand on its own. At least I felt that way. I'd at least say it's not nearly as much of a sequel as Quantum was to Casino Royale.

    I'm sure we have clear motivations for this disagreement ;) , but I don't think Mendes left them in any kind of hole. Whether one likes the movie or not, Spectre gave Bond a happy ending if Craig was to finish, and left the pieces in place for the "Blofeld escapes and kills Madeleine and Bond goes back into action" many expected. And those same pieces were there for the partial reversal in expectations we got with NTTD.

    But I do agree that it's slightly less than a sequel than QOS was. Partly because I think there's more thematic overlap with that and CR06, in my view because Quantum of Solace finds a way to make the events of Casino Royale actually mean something. NTTD is more like a serialized sequel.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 295
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    James Bond will return.

    .... which is Eon telling you James Bond is not dead. He's not dead. The text doesn't say

    A rebooted James Bond will return.
    Casino Royale was a reboot, and at the end of Die Another Day, it said James Bond will return.

    Also, Craig's Bond is in no way connected to any other. He's his own universe. It's been pretty clear that's the case since before Casino was even released. And again, even if Craig's Bond didn't die, they'd still reboot it, because to carry on his narrative with a different, younger actor, would make no sense.

    And killing Bond makes sense? Lol

    Tell that to all the fans that feel betrayed by that decision!

    Oh well I tried. I can't convince you lot you are all wrong. Wait and see... in three years time Bondywondy will be proven right and you can say "sorry, Bondywondy, you were right all along."
    😎 😉

    It actually does make sense. You (and others) may not like it, but this separate continuity allows them to kill Bond without and real impact to future films. What wouldn't make sense is to carry on this iteration of Bond who has been aging in-story over the past 3 films.

    I respectfully and profoundly disagree that it makes sense. Not wishing to bore you or others too long but here are reasons why it makes no sense and is therefore wrong.

    1 - 'Morality'
    Barbara Broccoli and MG Wilson didn't create James Bond. They were bequeathed the character due to bloodline. Ian Fleming created James Bond and Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman created/developed the cinematic version. From the most basic moral standpoint you can easily argue B and MG have no unilateral moral right to kill off Bond. They inherited the character so it is morally incumbent upon them to preserve Bond, not kill him off to appease an actor in his final film portraying James Bond.

    2 - 'Divisive'
    Killing James Bond creates a huge and potential forever rift in the fanbase. Many fans will never forgive or understand why Eon killed off Bond. I'm not going to guess what percentage of the fanbase hate the death of James Bond but it exists and will continue to exist. This is Eon's fault. There was zero reason to create this division in the fanbase. It serves no purpose at all. It doesn't bring the Bond fans closer together so it was nonsensical of Eon to allow the division to happen.

    3 - 'Disrespectful'
    Killing Bond is completely disrespectful to all the fans that have loyally supported the franchise since 1962. If Eon Productions can't see that or can see that but couldn't care less, that doesn't say much about them, does it? Nope.

    4 - 'Continuity nightmare'
    Killing off Bond destroys any semblance of linear continuity in the franchise. If Bond is dead in NTTD but alive in Bond 26 it's inherently nonsensical. Sure, fans can argue "it's just a reboot, deal with it!" but that doesn't negate nor justify the fact Bond died in Bond 25. You kill off Bond but he's still alive. Nonsensical.

    5 - 'Arrogance'
    It is the height of arrogance for Eon to kill off Bond, expect fans to be emotionally affected by his death, but then expect them to forget his death (or put it to one side) and form a long queue to see Bond 26. It's arrogant presumption to expect fans to accept his death then sheepishly accept he's alive again.

    6 - 'Meaningless death'
    The death of Bond is meaningless because we all know Bond isn't dead. People can argue and say "but Bond is dead, the next Bond isn't Craig's Bond!" but imho that view is nonsensical. The next Bond will be a 00, be referred to as James Bond, get orders from M, go on missions. He's still James Bond in character and job so his death in the previous film is meaningless. Death has meaning because it's loss. The person never comes back but Bond is coming back in Bond 26 so it's a lossless death. Nonsensical.

    All these reasons give me hope Bond isn't dead. The death of James Bond is a deliberate cliffhanger? It's possible. We'll have to wait and see.
  • Spot on, bondywondy.
  • Posts: 295
    😉
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Honestly... those points can be argued and flipped the other way too... though the only thing I will touch on is the division in the fanbase as from some of the responses in this thread some people are doing that to themselves rather than just having an opinion on the movie itself being divisive.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good post.

    Beside the fact that it doesn’t make any sense to me. Stating that this is a meaningless death is just wrong, totally wrong, since Bond’s death is extremely meaningful to Craig’s Bond journey. It’s a self contained arc. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    matt_u wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good post.

    Beside the fact that it doesn’t make any sense to me. Stating that this is a meaningless death is just wrong, totally wrong, since Bond’s death is extremely meaningful to Craig’s Bond journey. It’s a self contained arc. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

    It's also meaningful for a whole host of other reasons but it's been stated here ad nauseum (by you too my friend) and I'm getting a little tired.

    I'm sad bond died and that Craig's bond is a tragic hero. It would be lovely for him to end on a happy note but thematically for what he's been through it makes sense.

    I want to touch on some of the comments re blofeld and the strangling. The more I've thought about it, the more I'm happy with how off kilter it is. I think it's meant to be. In that moment bond snaps. A moment where he is truly out of control of his emotions. Why? Well blofeld in this iteration had a hand in all his tragedy. So the more I think about it, the more that whole scene is quite chilling.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    00Heaven wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good post.

    Beside the fact that it doesn’t make any sense to me. Stating that this is a meaningless death is just wrong, totally wrong, since Bond’s death is extremely meaningful to Craig’s Bond journey. It’s a self contained arc. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

    It's also meaningful for a whole host of other reasons but it's been stated here ad nauseum (by you too my friend) and I'm getting a little tired.

    I'm sad bond died and that Craig's bond is a tragic hero. It would be lovely for him to end on a happy note but thematically for what he's been through it makes sense.

    I want to touch on some of the comments re blofeld and the strangling. The more I've thought about it, the more I'm happy with how off kilter it is. I think it's meant to be. In that moment bond snaps. A moment where he is truly out of control of his emotions. Why? Well blofeld in this iteration had a hand in all his tragedy. So the more I think about it, the more that whole scene is quite chilling.

    Yes Bond has all the reasons in the world to lose control in that moment. Blofeld basically just told him that the fallout of all the happy life he was planning to live with the woman he loved was based on a lie… and Blofeld was responsible for that. He did so much damage to Bond in the end. This may be the most diabolical incarnation of Blofeld of the entire franchise, but still…
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 4,378
    I watched NTTD twice so far and go again tonight. Bond's death is hard to get over it the first day but it is fitting for Craig's emotional journey. I enjoyed the movie more the second time (already liked it the first time) and I don't see the slightest problem with starting a new Bond arc with another actor. I never thought the movies all belong to the same James Bond. Every actor was very different and I for example never felt that Connery's and Moore's journeys showed the same story arc. Different approaches to show us different (almost unconnected) adventures which work for itself. Most of us want more missions on its own, a new start is a good thing to reach that.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    If Daniel won’t get an Oscar nomination I will be extremely pissed.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 7,500
    Well, who was it that first came up with the idea of Bond strangling Blofeld? Hm... I can't remember...

    Oh yes, it was that guy called Ian! What a patzer! No clue about Bond, that’s for sure! Why are the modern films discarding Fleming? ;))
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Here's food for thought that's been knocking around in my head and I don't know if anyone else noticed it.

    Did anyone notice how manipulative Madeleine is with Bond? Throughout she comes across as manipulative. Here's a man forever driven by his job but can be punished by his sentiment. In the end, ultimately he is punished by it.
  • Posts: 7,500
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Here's food for thought that's been knocking around in my head and I don't know if anyone else noticed it.

    Did anyone notice how manipulative Madeleine is with Bond? Throughout she comes across as manipulative. Here's a man forever driven by his job but can be punished by his sentiment. In the end, ultimately he is punished by it.

    Manipulative? No, I didn't see that at all. He dumps her, so she respectfully lets him go and raises his child. That is the opposite of manipulation.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    matt_u wrote: »
    If Daniel won’t get an Oscar nomination I will be extremely pissed.

    I'm glad more and more people are coming out of the taboo to say this. Let me add to that and say I agree.

    He's quite spell binding in this. I commented to a friend that this was a better performance than this performance in knives out. He immerses you in what turmoil his bond is going through and despite some of the faults of the writing still pulls it off.

    I doubt the academy will break that taboo though. I'm just glad some fans are recognising it has outside shot potential and are proud of it too.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,760
    The film is so divisive, I change my mind about it every day.

    I deleted my own ranking in the ranking thread, because I wasn’t sure anymore. After like half an hour (!).

    Hopefully a second viewing will bring more clarity.
  • BelinusBelinus Scotland
    Posts: 48
    I would have thought that Madeleine should have tried to be a bit more manipulative if anything (not sure that’s the correct word for what I mean). She left Bond alone as he wished when it’s possible she would have wanted the family life with him and her daughter
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 207
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    The film is so divisive, I change my mind about it every day.

    I deleted my own ranking in the ranking thread, because I wasn’t sure anymore. After like half an hour (!).

    Hopefully a second viewing will bring more clarity.

    This is where I'm at. I can't decide if it's top tier or bottom tier. It's going to need more viewings. I don't know if I'll ever place it in the middle.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    jobo wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Here's food for thought that's been knocking around in my head and I don't know if anyone else noticed it.

    Did anyone notice how manipulative Madeleine is with Bond? Throughout she comes across as manipulative. Here's a man forever driven by his job but can be punished by his sentiment. In the end, ultimately he is punished by it.

    Manipulative? No, I didn't see that at all. He dumps her, so she respectfully lets him go and raises his child. That is the opposite of manipulation.

    I'm mobile at the mo so being lazy so not explaining it well. It wasn't specifically that overarching theme and admittedly it may take another viewing. Perhaps it may be that manipulative is too harsh a word... maybe it is more that she knew and understood him very well, too well, in terms of his drivers and behaviour. Re: killing blofeld and lying to him over his daughter.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited October 2021 Posts: 573
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, who was it that first came up with the idea of Bond strangling Blofeld? Hm... I can't remember...

    Oh yes, it was that guy called Ian! What a patzer! No clue about Bond, that’s for sure! Why are the modern films discarding Fleming? ;))

    Don't. You'll start the circular stuff off again!! ;)

    My takeaway from this is what a pleasure. Where fans can argue it is/isn't Fleming convincingly I have to start thinking that we're all right. Not a bad thing at all but an observation where I don't think anyone will 'win' the debate. The fact we have passionate fans like this where we can talk our favourite subject is great.

    Anyway, time to get my backside in gear and get some stuff done!

    Edit: apologies for the double post. Mobile and all that.
  • Posts: 7,500
    00Heaven wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Here's food for thought that's been knocking around in my head and I don't know if anyone else noticed it.

    Did anyone notice how manipulative Madeleine is with Bond? Throughout she comes across as manipulative. Here's a man forever driven by his job but can be punished by his sentiment. In the end, ultimately he is punished by it.

    Manipulative? No, I didn't see that at all. He dumps her, so she respectfully lets him go and raises his child. That is the opposite of manipulation.

    I'm mobile at the mo so being lazy so not explaining it well. It wasn't specifically that overarching theme and admittedly it may take another viewing. Perhaps it may be that manipulative is too harsh a word... maybe it is more that she knew and understood him very well, too well, in terms of his drivers and behaviour. Re: killing blofeld and lying to him over his daughter.

    Killing Blofeld was an accident, not manipulation. It's Bond who grabs hold of her hand after she refuses the initial handshake. Again, the opposite of manipulation.

    Lying about the child is quite understandable. What do you do when the father returns after five years having initially dumped you and your child? It is very understandable why she would be protective. One can even interpret it as an attempt to protect Bond: She knows she and the child is in danger, and she doesn't want to give him a further incentive to protect them and risk his life for them. Again, the opposite of manipulation.
Sign In or Register to comment.