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
I still watch DVDs on my pc....I got a Director's Cut of The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, brand new, for 99 cents. Plus heaps of other good deals on Ebay, like a boxed set of the first 7 SAW movies for ten bucks, first 7 Seasons of Suits for pennies as well....we don't feel the need to replace or buy EVERYTHING in 4K....
Why are you talking about "B25"? The film has a name. What is your deal here?
Maybe because the actual title No Time To Die has no meaning at all without the proper punctuation mark: No! Time To Die.
And all these years I thought no Bond movie could piss me off more than Moonraker....
Haters gonna hate....
One hater has been debating the film without actually having seen it. Another one struggles with the title--too many syllables to commit to memory? A curious lot, I must say. 😉
As for MR: epic film. Terrible Bond film, but a magnificent piece of work in every regard.
Maybe it’s best if you just step away from NTTD for a long while. Go put on TND or something. It’s not worth dwelling on a film you don’t like.
TWINE is my least favorite, but I haven’t watched it in almost a decade now. I’ve seen it enough times, I’ve exhausted all of the opinions I have on it.
I actually LIKE NTTD, but even I am starting to feel it’s time to move on from that. I got the 4K disc, but I’ll probably not watch it start to finish until sometime later because it’s still fresh in my head. I’ve only revisited these title threads out of pure habit at this point.
Bring on BOND 26!!
At least it ended the rubbish from its predecessor....I'm so thankful for that. New Bond gets to start afresh. If it wasted your time, stick to which ever other Bond floats your boat and avoid the Craig films, simple as that.
Yeah, well, in a "good, bad, ugly" sort of way, MR is the ugly Bond film in the sense that it doesn't quite belong, but it's not bad. I think it's a fun film full of technical marvels. But what on earth (or in space) is 007 doing in it? Chasing the dragon? Sure, they were going after SW money. I'm glad they weren't going after ET money in '83. ;-)
I'm pretty sure that's Forever and a Day you're thinking of. ;)
He really liked it. I think the fun scenes with Paloma, the witty banter with Nomi and Q overshadowed the dark themes and dare I say death of Bond. We were kind of joking that Heracles being a fictitious poison, the writers could easily figure a way to cure Bond for future installments......in spite of the fact he was blown to smithereens.
My Dad certainly enjoyed NTTD more than SPECTRE .
However, I'd say his number one favorite Bond movie remains GOLDFINGER.
No. Let me explain it to you.
For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.
When Bond fell in love with Vesper, he believed he had resolved these conflicts within himself. That is why he resigns from MI6 and is happy (seemingly). This is also why Vesper's betrayal was so significant and left such an impression.
He ended up re-living that betrayal with Madeleine.
But all of it resolves itself with the presence of Mathilde. Bond makes the only decision he can make: sacrificing himself for the future happiness of both Madeleine and Mathilde. Mathilde will grow up thinking of her father as a hero, not the "murderer" that Madeleine resisted knowing her father to be.
And I'm just scratching the surface.
Great post! 👏
Jesus. I do hope the next screen Bond leaves all that behind.
Whether it was planned ahead is not the important thing as long as it makes sense. NTTD does tie up the themes they started to explore in CR very well, and deliberately so.
Does that really matter?
That was my thoughts exactly when I read that post.
Hey, I love 1987, but it ain't coming back.
Let's hope the 2021 Bond ain't coming back either. I'd settle for the Bond of 2005 right now.
All of that, however, is very much rooted in Fleming. DC read the books extensively and worked with BB and MGW on getting back to Fleming, but with little winks and nods to the previous films. It wasn't perfect, as we all can pretty much agree that the foster brother angle didn't work at all. But everything else across these five films was brilliant.
Once again, well put, @TripAces. I'm not saying that's how the films should be, but I, for one, appreciate the effort very much.
I'd say they got it spot on with CR, which seems to be the modern day GF template for the next Bond. This combined accurate Fleming adaptation with modern day Bond films.
SF had its decent moments, but had its weaknesses too, as did all the other films in Craig's tenure, and I found them drifting further away from Fleming after CR. To say everything was brilliant across all his films, and they were deep rooted in Fleming is a stretch, IMO.
I'd say TLD, LTK and CR were perfect examples of films deep rooted in Fleming (excluding the 60's classics).
I liked the Fleming nods in the Craig films, from the proper martini recipe to the Hildebrand reference, and all the others. But I think they'd have shown even more respect for the literary Bond if they hadn't took major liberties with the lives of Mathis, Felix and Bond. (I wouldn't include M as we haven't seen Fleming's M since the Dalton years. Though I hoped Mallory would fill that void).
It seems on here, every time time someone disagrees with something, the 'it's not Fleming' card is played, (I'm guilty myself). Or if someone wants to praise an aspect, then it's 'this is very Fleming'.
The thing is, I've read a couple of autobiographies by actual hitmen, and they are not the kind of people who suffer from "existential crises" or are subject to "Jungian conflict".
Professional killers either make no distinction between violence towards another human being and painting a book shelf, or believe that some ideal or cause they support is more important than human life. Either way they are not conflicted, because if they were they would soon be dead.
Bond presumably falls into the latter category.
However I acknowledge that Fleming's James Bond is not a typical assassin either. Fleming is like any of us trying to put himself in the place of a person for whom killing strangers is part of a chosen profession and understand how they might feel about things, but not really getting it.
The year before he became James Bond, Daniel Craig played another professional assassin in "Munich" and had this to say about his character in that film
“Steve is a character, who, on face value, seems to be very strong and very in control of his destiny. Like all the guys, he believes in this job because he believes in Israel. He believes some action has to be taken because of this terrible act at Munich. Steve is someone who has always dealt with life like a bull in a china shop. He just dives in headfirst and deals with the consequences later. Steve is very gung ho, but as the movie goes on, he suffers because of the terrible acts that they commit. That’s what interested me so much about doing the film. Steve is a flawed character, and he doesn’t expect to feel the emotional turmoil he starts feeling.”
However in the same article, the reporter said that they had spoken with the real life "Steve" and other members of that assassination team and none of them acknowledged feeling any conflict or remorse about the killings they had undertaken.
Now I'm not judging them, just pointing out the difference between what actors and writers (or you and I) might imagine such people feel about what they do and what they actually feel.
I really dislike this whole Shakespearian tragedy angle.
Fate, karma... bah humbug to that!
I prefer to think that "while there's life, there's hope" and that James Bond does too