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

1155156158160161298

Comments

  • Posts: 131
    matt_u wrote: »
    Daniel Craig When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara and Michael was that I would like to kill off Bond when I finished.

    I just knew it Quod erat demonstrandum
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Did Bond really need a love interest after Vesper? The answer seems to be a hard no. The Casino Royale storyline proves that she was the love of his life, because he never seemed to get over her. Not even in the scene during NTTD at the grave (I don’t think he was sincere in letting go). It was extremely unbelievable that he would go for another long term relationship again (knowing his reputation as we do). Even in Casino he was not predisposed to relationships, as he only had flings with married women. So, how do we go from that to Madeline deal in Spectre and NTTD? Makes no sense to me. It felt forced, contrived, unnatural and goofy.

    Agreed.What doesn’t help is that I don’t get anywhere near the same chemistry between Bond and Madeline that Bond and Vesper did.I think Craig had more chemistry with Ana De Armas in 10 minutes than he had with Seadoux in two movies.

    And again,he just knew Vesper for only a few weeks at best and it was years ago! Get over it dude!

    This comparison between Ana and Lea gets to the nub of the type of Bond Film people do and do not want.

    Those who think Ana had more chemistry must be defining chemistry as pizazz, overt energy, humour and a lightness of touch and in Bond terms full of quips.

    From the moment Lea appears on film there is nuance, atmosphere, subtly, ambiguity and you never know quite know what Lea is thinking, feeling except when she has to be decisive or is reacting to a crisis which is beautifully drawn back into her child hood through the recall of the incident she describes to Bond on the train in Spectre. The point about ambiguity in her playing is not original it was something Daniel said when he was asked two years ago about her qualities.

    The scenes with Ana are fun entertaining counterpoint and a throw back to the type of mid period portrayals of woman in Bond Lite movies. The scenes with Lea are angst ridden loaded with implication and motive and give NTTD a richness of texture and an additional depth which before Daniel we only see fleetingly with Timothy. Pierce wanted to do his "stuff" in "The World is Not Enough" and Judy and Sophie were capable of elements off that but those were island moments within the old formula.

    On the question of knowing Vesper for only a few weeks, relationships can be a lifetime of experiences in a month and offer years of reflection.
    Excellent ... and you've well articulated my own thoughts, above. Thanks


    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Did Bond really need a love interest after Vesper? The answer seems to be a hard no. The Casino Royale storyline proves that she was the love of his life, because he never seemed to get over her. Not even in the scene during NTTD at the grave (I don’t think he was sincere in letting go). It was extremely unbelievable that he would go for another long term relationship again (knowing his reputation as we do). Even in Casino he was not predisposed to relationships, as he only had flings with married women. So, how do we go from that to Madeline deal in Spectre and NTTD? Makes no sense to me. It felt forced, contrived, unnatural and goofy.

    Agreed.What doesn’t help is that I don’t get anywhere near the same chemistry between Bond and Madeline that Bond and Vesper did.I think Craig had more chemistry with Ana De Armas in 10 minutes than he had with Seadoux in two movies.

    And again,he just knew Vesper for only a few weeks at best and it was years ago! Get over it dude!

    This comparison between Ana and Lea gets to the nub of the type of Bond Film people do and do not want.

    Those who think Ana had more chemistry must be defining chemistry as pizazz, overt energy, humour and a lightness of touch and in Bond terms full of quips.

    From the moment Lea appears on film there is nuance, atmosphere, subtly, ambiguity and you never know quite know what Lea is thinking, feeling except when she has to be decisive or is reacting to a crisis which is beautifully drawn back into her child hood through the recall of the incident she describes to Bond on the train in Spectre. The point about ambiguity in her playing is not original it was something Daniel said when he was asked two years ago about her qualities.

    The scenes with Ana are fun entertaining counterpoint and a throw back to the type of mid period portrayals of woman in Bond Lite movies. The scenes with Lea are angst ridden loaded with implication and motive and give NTTD a richness of texture and an additional depth which before Daniel we only see fleetingly with Timothy. Pierce wanted to do his "stuff" in "The World is Not Enough" and Judy and Sophie were capable of elements off that but those were island moments within the old formula.

    On the question of knowing Vesper for only a few weeks, relationships can be a lifetime of experiences in a month and offer years of reflection.


    That's it, well stated!

    And while the Paloma episode is a lot of fun, it's almost from another movie ... a movie that many fans might wish they'd had instead of what we got. Fair play to them, but not for me ....
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    The book implies Bond being knighted wasn’t really part of Boyle’s film.

    It was a fake ending they used as a placeholder in the script in order to avoid the real ending to leak. This script features Bond surviving the missiles and reunite with Swann as they found out he’s been knighted Sir James Bond.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    matt_u wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    That “secret idea” Craig talked about wanting to do for so long had to be either having the daughter or him dying I would imagine.

    Killing off Bond comes down even from CR. Again from the Archives:

    Gregg Wilson There were three core elements from the original Purvis and Wade script that we wanted to keep. Since Bond retires at the end of Spectre we liked the idea of introducing a new 007; she’s competitive with Bond and represents the new guard at MI6. Secondly, the DNA-targeted poison was the core idea fr the threat. And lastly, we wanted a satisfying way for Bond to sacrifice himself at the end.

    Daniel Craig When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara and Michael was that I would like to kill off Bond when I finished.

    Barbara Broccoli We had considered killing Bond in Spectre, but decided against it.


    So guys, if you hate the idea, Daniel is the one to blame. :D

    I can’t believe he wanted that. But there it is. All I can say is: I wish he’d quit after Spectre.

    I'm glad you didn't get your wish.
  • Posts: 2,904
    FoxRox wrote: »
    while I still wouldn’t say I’m a “fan,” it doesn’t bother me once I considered how Fleming basically originally killed Bond too. It’s not as sacrilegious as I first thought.

    Fleming occasionally threatened to bump off Bond but never did--he perpetually brought Bond back from any cliffhangers. And in his final Bond novel, which Fleming repeatedly said would be his absolute last, he left Bond alive and even added a final paragraph with a "life goes on" message.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 12,360
    Revelator wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    while I still wouldn’t say I’m a “fan,” it doesn’t bother me once I considered how Fleming basically originally killed Bond too. It’s not as sacrilegious as I first thought.

    Fleming occasionally threatened to bump off Bond but never did--he perpetually brought Bond back from any cliffhangers. And in his final Bond novel, which Fleming repeatedly said would be his absolute last, he left Bond alive and even added a final paragraph with a "life goes on" message.

    Yeah, but before DN, he might as well have bitten the bullet at the end of FRWL. It was a way out for Fleming. It definitely reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes situation with him being killed but brought back after outcry. The characters "can" die, but obviously not forever as they are too popular.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    matt_u wrote: »
    FROM THE JAMES BOND ARCHIVES NTTD EDITION:

    Michael G. Wilson In March 2017, we started developing a script with Neal Purvis and Robert Wade where Bond continues his relationship with Madeleine Swann. It also featured a toxin that targets people based on their DNA, so it was essentially an untraceable assassin. When Danny Boyle came on board as director in early 2018 he wrote a new treatment with John Hodge. We liked the emotionality of it. Their idea was that Bond had a relationship in the past - not with Madeleine - and he finds out he has a child. The idea of Bond having a child has been mooted before - a daughter was in an early Spectre script. We liked the tone of the Hodge/Boyle treatment, but as it developed it started to veer further and further away from the original story.
    Danny is a fantastic filmaker, but we both realized we wanted to make different movies, so we parted on friendly terms in August 2018.


    So basically Boyle's "gold idea" was that Bond has a daughter from a previous relationship before being 007 and before Vesper.

    The book doesn't say more about Boyle and Hodge's script ?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Nope.
  • Posts: 526
    Minion wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    That “secret idea” Craig talked about wanting to do for so long had to be either having the daughter or him dying I would imagine.

    Killing off Bond comes down even from CR. Again from the Archives:

    Gregg Wilson There were three core elements from the original Purvis and Wade script that we wanted to keep. Since Bond retires at the end of Spectre we liked the idea of introducing a new 007; she’s competitive with Bond and represents the new guard at MI6. Secondly, the DNA-targeted poison was the core idea fr the threat. And lastly, we wanted a satisfying way for Bond to sacrifice himself at the end.

    Daniel Craig When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara and Michael was that I would like to kill off Bond when I finished.

    Barbara Broccoli We had considered killing Bond in Spectre, but decided against it.


    So guys, if you hate the idea, Daniel is the one to blame. :D

    I can’t believe he wanted that. But there it is. All I can say is: I wish he’d quit after Spectre.

    I'm glad you didn't get your wish.

    I’m sure not.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 2,904
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Yeah, but before DN, he might as well have bitten the bullet at the end of FRWL. It was a way out for Fleming. It definitely reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes situation with him being killed but brought back after outcry. The characters "can" die, but obviously not forever as they are too popular.

    There are definitely similarities between the two authors. The difference is that Conan Doyle outright intended to kill off Holmes and he left him dead for several years; Fleming left Bond in a cliff-hanger state, without a confirmation of death, and returned to the character in his next book. During the interim he responded to letters from concerned fans by letting them know Bond had survived. Unlike Holmes, Bond never enjoyed a period of being dead, and as far as we know there wasn't a period when Fleming considered Bond dead.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    Revelator wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    while I still wouldn’t say I’m a “fan,” it doesn’t bother me once I considered how Fleming basically originally killed Bond too. It’s not as sacrilegious as I first thought.

    Fleming occasionally threatened to bump off Bond but never did--he perpetually brought Bond back from any cliffhangers. And in his final Bond novel, which Fleming repeatedly said would be his absolute last, he left Bond alive and even added a final paragraph with a "life goes on" message.

    Thanks for bringing this up @Revelator. This is exactly how the end should have gone. Why do so many (especially now) series and films have to make the main protagonist die? Fleming was a genius, and he understood that he had created something very unique and special...and that destroying it would forgever tarnish it. Bravo to the great Ian Fleming.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    So if I understand correctly, Hodge's script had to include the DNA targeted poison, the new 007 and Bond's death. It's a shame he wasn't allowed to write a totally original script.
  • Posts: 12,360
    Stark wrote: »
    So if I understand correctly, Hodge's script had to include the DNA targeted poison, the new 007 and Bond's death. It's a shame he wasn't allowed to write a totally original script.

    It does seem odd how similar it is if true. I really expected a lot of difference, especially based on casting and location differences we knew about.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 650
    Boyle and Hodge’s villain was supposed to be Russian. I wonder if that’s Valdo (who ended up more of a henchman) or maybe even Safin who I heard in some interviews that perhaps he’s supposed to be Russian? Though it’s never confirmed in the film. His nationality is left ambiguous. But he’s on an island between Russia and Japan. He’s definitely not Japanese. I’m leaning towards him being Russian.

    So it seems like they used quite a bit of Boyle’s stuff. Which seemed to already be similar to what Purvis and Wade were working on (having a child, killing Bond). I wonder what Boyle had in mind that made them cut ties with him.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 735
    Venutius wrote: »
    I will go with that remark that if we are going to make Bond complicated why on earth would you not make the woman complicated (and my words) rather than run throughs. You can pull Camille and Severine into that grouping with Vesper and Madeleine so the way to give woman parity is not by being equally badass but being equally interesting.
    Exactly. Craig's films did that - Vesper, Camille, Severine, Lucia and Madeleine were all interesting characters in their own right, not just surface gloss or functional plot pieces. Even with smaller roles like Severine and Lucia, they put in the effort to give those characters some depth. In doing that, they proved that they don't have to go down the (now cliched in its own right) route of women as 'Bond's equal' in order to give a female character some substance. Ok, they made concessions to the badass Amazon archetype with Nomi and Paloma in NTTD, but I think the conscious decision for Craig's films to have female characters with more depth definitely paid off and made the films better and the stories richer.

    Yes to this ... though the Dalton years had definitely started down that path. But, one of my regrets is that we hadn't had more of the Severine character in SF. The scenes with Bond in the casino are among my favorites in the entire series. And I really hated the way the filmmakers dispatched her with that, "a waste of good scotch" moment.
  • Posts: 372
    There will be no "Bond on a single mission" film anymore, it's time to stop asking for this every other post. The past is gone, the 20th century is gone. We live in a post 9/11, soon hopefully post COVID world now, and Bond as to adress this.

    You can't reflect current times with a light mission full of quips and gadgets that says next to nothing about the current world. All this in fact started to go out post Dalton, when Barbara took over the production of the films.

    Another thing, no writer can write a "totally original script" for Bond. The elements are always discussed beforehand with the producers, before a single scene is put on paper.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 49
    Bond had Survived after Craig

    Given the investment in story would the new Bond be written with all the investment of the last five movies or simply ignore the experiences of Craig Bond.

    If the latter which seems the only way forward otherwise you have Craig Bond II, then whether Craig Bond died or not makes little difference.

    The floating continuity worked in the past because with the exception of Majesties the life experiences were shallow, Craig Bonds experiences were not marks in the sand at low tide they have been chiselled into the rocks for all time.






  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 675
    Stamper wrote: »
    There will be no "Bond on a single mission" film anymore, it's time to stop asking for this every other post. The past is gone, the 20th century is gone. We live in a post 9/11, soon hopefully post COVID world now, and Bond as to adress this.

    You can't reflect current times with a light mission full of quips and gadgets that says next to nothing about the current world. All this in fact started to go out post Dalton, when Barbara took over the production of the films.

    Another thing, no writer can write a "totally original script" for Bond. The elements are always discussed beforehand with the producers, before a single scene is put on paper.

    During the Cold War we had civil rights upheaval, the Vietnam War, economic recession, CIA-instigated chaos in Latin America, several drug epidemics, and the lingering threat of nuclear apocalypse with the USSR. In the 90s we had more abstract threats in the form of non-state terrorism and mass surveillance. Yet, the Bond movies managed to stay upbeat in spite of all of that, sometimes having plots that referenced those real-world issues without fully engaging with them. Bond movies weren't meant to be topical. Even the books weren't.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,459
    matt_u wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    That “secret idea” Craig talked about wanting to do for so long had to be either having the daughter or him dying I would imagine.

    Killing off Bond comes down even from CR. Again from the Archives:

    Gregg Wilson There were three core elements from the original Purvis and Wade script that we wanted to keep. Since Bond retires at the end of Spectre we liked the idea of introducing a new 007; she’s competitive with Bond and represents the new guard at MI6. Secondly, the DNA-targeted poison was the core idea fr the threat. And lastly, we wanted a satisfying way for Bond to sacrifice himself at the end.

    Daniel Craig When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara and Michael was that I would like to kill off Bond when I finished.

    Barbara Broccoli We had considered killing Bond in Spectre, but decided against it.


    So guys, if you hate the idea, Daniel is the one to blame. :D

    They hired him for Casino Royale and had discussions then. This clearly says Barbara and Michael discussed killing Bond off in Spectre. They knew from the beginning of associating with Daniel that they had an actor with the talent to pull that off, with the right script. All 3 of them were in favor of this idea, if they could get the story and the timing right. So no, you can't "blame Daniel" for this alone. If indeed hating NTTD's ending and/or cannot stand Daniel Craig's Bond anyway is what you are inclined to feel, it only happened due to all three of them agreeing on this idea.

    And personally, I'd like to thank all three for waiting for the right moment and the right script to do so. I am glad to have this story in the Bond film set of stories. It is fitting and so very, very well done. I understand some fans will never accept Bond dying, but for others we can accept it. This particular story did give Bond a noble, heroic ending that particular fits Daniel's Jame Bond. I really respect them for waiting for the right script and timing and then following through with this without flinching. The ending has integrity. The whole film is a beautiful, interesting, meaningful Bond film that also has plenty of fun earlier on. A really good balance overall.

    As you all know, James Bond will return. Different actor, different tone, and I hope those who are so unhappy now will enjoy the next run. I think I will, too. So nice to have a fresh start. Daniel left the Bond films in superb shape.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Feyador wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Did Bond really need a love interest after Vesper? The answer seems to be a hard no. The Casino Royale storyline proves that she was the love of his life, because he never seemed to get over her. Not even in the scene during NTTD at the grave (I don’t think he was sincere in letting go). It was extremely unbelievable that he would go for another long term relationship again (knowing his reputation as we do). Even in Casino he was not predisposed to relationships, as he only had flings with married women. So, how do we go from that to Madeline deal in Spectre and NTTD? Makes no sense to me. It felt forced, contrived, unnatural and goofy.

    Agreed.What doesn’t help is that I don’t get anywhere near the same chemistry between Bond and Madeline that Bond and Vesper did.I think Craig had more chemistry with Ana De Armas in 10 minutes than he had with Seadoux in two movies.

    And again,he just knew Vesper for only a few weeks at best and it was years ago! Get over it dude!

    This comparison between Ana and Lea gets to the nub of the type of Bond Film people do and do not want.

    Those who think Ana had more chemistry must be defining chemistry as pizazz, overt energy, humour and a lightness of touch and in Bond terms full of quips.

    From the moment Lea appears on film there is nuance, atmosphere, subtly, ambiguity and you never know quite know what Lea is thinking, feeling except when she has to be decisive or is reacting to a crisis which is beautifully drawn back into her child hood through the recall of the incident she describes to Bond on the train in Spectre. The point about ambiguity in her playing is not original it was something Daniel said when he was asked two years ago about her qualities.

    The scenes with Ana are fun entertaining counterpoint and a throw back to the type of mid period portrayals of woman in Bond Lite movies. The scenes with Lea are angst ridden loaded with implication and motive and give NTTD a richness of texture and an additional depth which before Daniel we only see fleetingly with Timothy. Pierce wanted to do his "stuff" in "The World is Not Enough" and Judy and Sophie were capable of elements off that but those were island moments within the old formula.

    On the question of knowing Vesper for only a few weeks, relationships can be a lifetime of experiences in a month and offer years of reflection.
    Excellent ... and you've well articulated my own thoughts, above. Thanks


    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Did Bond really need a love interest after Vesper? The answer seems to be a hard no. The Casino Royale storyline proves that she was the love of his life, because he never seemed to get over her. Not even in the scene during NTTD at the grave (I don’t think he was sincere in letting go). It was extremely unbelievable that he would go for another long term relationship again (knowing his reputation as we do). Even in Casino he was not predisposed to relationships, as he only had flings with married women. So, how do we go from that to Madeline deal in Spectre and NTTD? Makes no sense to me. It felt forced, contrived, unnatural and goofy.

    Agreed.What doesn’t help is that I don’t get anywhere near the same chemistry between Bond and Madeline that Bond and Vesper did.I think Craig had more chemistry with Ana De Armas in 10 minutes than he had with Seadoux in two movies.

    And again,he just knew Vesper for only a few weeks at best and it was years ago! Get over it dude!

    This comparison between Ana and Lea gets to the nub of the type of Bond Film people do and do not want.

    Those who think Ana had more chemistry must be defining chemistry as pizazz, overt energy, humour and a lightness of touch and in Bond terms full of quips.

    From the moment Lea appears on film there is nuance, atmosphere, subtly, ambiguity and you never know quite know what Lea is thinking, feeling except when she has to be decisive or is reacting to a crisis which is beautifully drawn back into her child hood through the recall of the incident she describes to Bond on the train in Spectre. The point about ambiguity in her playing is not original it was something Daniel said when he was asked two years ago about her qualities.

    The scenes with Ana are fun entertaining counterpoint and a throw back to the type of mid period portrayals of woman in Bond Lite movies. The scenes with Lea are angst ridden loaded with implication and motive and give NTTD a richness of texture and an additional depth which before Daniel we only see fleetingly with Timothy. Pierce wanted to do his "stuff" in "The World is Not Enough" and Judy and Sophie were capable of elements off that but those were island moments within the old formula.

    On the question of knowing Vesper for only a few weeks, relationships can be a lifetime of experiences in a month and offer years of reflection.


    That's it, well stated!

    And while the Paloma episode is a lot of fun, it's almost from another movie ... a movie that many fans might wish they'd had instead of what we got. Fair play to them, but not for me ....

    Yes, I agree with all the comments mentioned in these replies.

    And those who feel "Get over it, dude!" to Bond regarding Vesper simply have a totally different take, slant, and appreciation for Bond movies than I ever have or will have in the future. So they can find their fun when they can, but I enjoy a lot more out of the Bond films than that flippant, crass attitude towards women or relationships in general.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    There will be no "Bond on a single mission" film anymore, it's time to stop asking for this every other post. The past is gone, the 20th century is gone. We live in a post 9/11, soon hopefully post COVID world now, and Bond as to adress this.

    You can't reflect current times with a light mission full of quips and gadgets that says next to nothing about the current world. All this in fact started to go out post Dalton, when Barbara took over the production of the films.

    Another thing, no writer can write a "totally original script" for Bond. The elements are always discussed beforehand with the producers, before a single scene is put on paper.

    During the Cold War we had civil rights upheaval, the Vietnam War, economic recession, CIA-instigated chaos in Latin America, several drug epidemics, and the lingering threat of nuclear apocalypse with the USSR. In the 90s we had more abstract threats in the form of non-state terrorism and mass surveillance. Yet, the Bond movies managed to stay upbeat in spite of all of that, sometimes having plots that referenced those real-world issues without fully engaging with them. Bond movies weren't meant to be topical. Even the books weren't.

    Yes, that's really interesting ...

    Cinematic Bond was born to the world (as was I) in the very month of the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which the world was likely as close to nuclear war as it would ever be (... so far, anyway).

    But, of course, Fleming and, to a lesser extent, cinematic Bond reflected the tensions & anxieties of the Cold War in the '50s & '60s, as the movies would again in the '80s; but you're right, of course, about it being done with a (mostly) light touch.

    Likely it would take a sociologist of a kind to dig into the reasons - but something has changed in popular culture over the last twenty years that made what was likely a fanciful notion immediately post-Brosnan (Bond dying) into a plausible narrative conclusion by the end of the Craig era.
  • Posts: 526
    Revelator wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Yeah, but before DN, he might as well have bitten the bullet at the end of FRWL. It was a way out for Fleming. It definitely reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes situation with him being killed but brought back after outcry. The characters "can" die, but obviously not forever as they are too popular.

    There are definitely similarities between the two authors. The difference is that Conan Doyle outright intended to kill off Holmes and he left him dead for several years; Fleming left Bond in a cliff-hanger state, without a confirmation of death, and returned to the character in his next book. During the interim he responded to letters from concerned fans by letting them know Bond had survived. Unlike Holmes, Bond never enjoyed a period of being dead, and as far as we know there wasn't a period when Fleming considered Bond dead.

    @Revelator Please post more. I thoroughly enjoyed your review, the best I’ve read anywhere. And you’re insight plus perspective on how Fleming treated Bond’s potential demise. You articulate points extremely well.
  • Draco20Draco20 USA
    Posts: 18
    I think that after the shock of the end and after some time the You Tubers, and other disgruntled fans will find an appreciation for NTTD. It is light years better than Quantum and a grade up from SPECTRE. Nothing wrong with Craig wanting to be killed off at the end of his run. Hell one of the reasons Leonard Nimoy signed on for Star Trek II was when he learned that Spock was going to die.
    I have no problem with Bond being killed off along with Leiter and Blofeld. At least Blofeld got a more fitting end than he had in DAF (and FYEO if you count that one) .
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    Stamper wrote: »
    There will be no "Bond on a single mission" film anymore, it's time to stop asking for this every other post. The past is gone, the 20th century is gone. We live in a post 9/11, soon hopefully post COVID world now, and Bond as to address this.
    Why ever not?
    IMO the 1961 Berlin incident, 1962 Cuban missile crisis and 1963 Kennedy assassination freaked people out at the time, just as much as 9/11 did those who were around then...

    Stamper wrote: »
    You can't reflect current times with a light mission full of quips and gadgets that says next to nothing about the current world.
    ...so yes, of course you can (just leave out the "Rog-isms" please)

    Stamper wrote: »
    All this in fact started to go out post Dalton, when Barbara took over the production of the films.
    LOL, you mean with DAD?

    Stamper wrote: »
    Another thing, no writer can write a "totally original script" for Bond. The elements are always discussed beforehand with the producers, before a single scene is put on paper.
    True dat.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    Stark wrote: »
    So if I understand correctly, Hodge's script had to include the DNA targeted poison, the new 007 and Bond's death. It's a shame he wasn't allowed to write a totally original script.

    Those three anchor points were all part of the P&W’s script and they say Boyle produced a whole new treatment once he came in. P&W’s script featured Madeleine as well. Here Gregg is talking after Boyle’s left so at that moment they went back to what was developed before Boyle’s involvement…

    Gregg Wilson: There were three core elements from the original Purvis and Wade script that we wanted to keep. Since Bond retires at the end of Spectre we liked the idea of introducing a new 007; she’s competitive with Bond and represents the new guard at MI6. Secondly, the DNA-targeted poison was the core idea fr the threat. And lastly, we wanted a satisfying way for Bond to sacrifice himself at the end.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Cary Fukunaga We were five months out from start of filming. To say there was a bit of pressure would be an understatement. We made it one piece of a time, with a placeholder for the end of the film.
    Paul Duncan The placeholder ending included Bond swimming through a radioactive underwater Russian city and drilling through concrete to gather pathogens for the villain Valentin Segura. At the end Bond infiltrates Segura’s lair, Solovetsky Monastery in northern Russia, to rescue Madeleine and their daughter.


    image1.jpg
  • Posts: 372
    I've been waiting for Bond to get killed since QOS (I expected he would get it, killed by Mr White at the end), so better late than never!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,617
    Stamper wrote: »
    I've been waiting for Bond to get killed since QOS (I expected he would get it, killed by Mr White at the end), so better late than never!

    Did you really mate? I only ask because I find it interesting, I never thought that Bond would die.

    I was only slightly nervous when Daniel declared it his last film in interviews and then the trailers for NTTD, saying "the 25th film changes everything"
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    I've been waiting for Bond to get killed since QOS (I expected he would get it, killed by Mr White at the end), so better late than never!

    Did you really mate? I only ask because I find it interesting, I never thought that Bond would die.

    I was only slightly nervous when Daniel declared it his last film in interviews and then the trailers for NTTD, saying "the 25th film changes everything"

    Here’s my story. I vaguely remember something around 2019 about Boyle (think that’s his name) the director quitting. Last movie, so that started to make me nervous. I would even start doing Google searches about it pretty regularly. I just thought, “no way will they do it...or will they?” I git on the mi6 forum after the world premiere, knowing if it happened it would leak—and I had decided I wound the watch it if he died. When I read that, wow, what a gut punch. I was gutted. Debated heavily on going to watch it. Finally I did, and it was absolute brutal. BRUTAL. The ending ruined the entire movie for me. I enjoyed it up until the end, but there’s no getting around Bond dying. Don’t plan on ever watching it again, and for me it is the worst Bond film ever made. Such a shame they had to go that unnecessary route. If it had been any other Bond actor, I wouldn’t have cared, but Craig is my all time favorite actor and Bond.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,020
    Pity Forster cut the last scene from QOS - Mr. White would've been dead in 2008 and none of this would've happened. Mr. White is Bond's kid's grandad? That's like having Jason Bourne's dad create Treadstone and Jason only joining up to avenge his pa. Oh, wait...
Sign In or Register to comment.