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
Excellent post, sir! If you've ever seen the movie "Blue Thunder" there's a moment when a bad guy kills 'JAFO' after he escapes from them by running him over with his vehicle. As the car supposedly killed the young man, the actor driving it suddenly looked as if he had a rush of emotions- horror, accomplishment, suppression, forced calm.... it was astonishing. Most scenes like that either have the actor being stone cold or gleefully evil.
Very cool, informative post here. Thanks!
Thanks sharing mate
The more I read interviews with Cary, the more it seems the ending was set in stone before he was even considered. I wonder if that was a sticking point for most directors they supposedly interviewed between 2016-18?
I'm no director/writer, but I can imagine how tough it would be to have to work backwards from an ending that isn't yours and has never been done before
The "never been done before" part is a challenge, but in a way, every previous Bond director (well, before the Craig era) has been told: He has to survive, the bad guy has to die, Bond will foil their plot, get the girl and here are a dozen chatchphrases, callbacks and traditions you have to build in there, here are our product partners and please top everything that has been done in the previous films. It's not like Bond has ever been even close to a freewheeling auteur-director-driven series. For the first 20 films it was almost the exact opposite.
I remember the Russian missile silo rumor...is that why Safin's island felt like that kind of repurposed set? Also the Cuban street.
I don't think it would be because of the stupid idea of killing off James Bond. I think he'd have known they were going with all that nonsense before he signed up, so I'd be very surprised if the ludicrous idea of Bond's death was what made Boyle leave.
It was the death of DouDou.
That's exactly what I read in a scholarly essay written by EoN titled: Ten Points In How To Tick-Off Bond Fans
According to the official podcast, there was a group meeting of principals [Craig; the producers and ???] in "early 2017" to discuss and ultimately confirm the idea of killing Bond.
Craig definitely didn't want to come back after Spectre, according to Wilson, though it's not stated outright that it was his idea to kill Bond or that it was a precondition for returning for then untitled B25.
It was obviously because of the plot.
The big "gold" Boyle idea was that Bond had a relationship in the past - not with Madeleine - and he finds out he has a child but as the script work developed from the original treatment it started to veer further and further away from the original story.
To me it's pretty clear that Boyle wanted a more standalone story - both tonally and plot wise - instead of a last chapter wrapping up an entire era.
EDIT: The notion that Bond finds out he has a child from an old relationship with some random woman we never knew about is just stupid IMO.
The fact that the big relationship that gets all the reveals in NTTD rolling is with a woman we previously know is what saves those decision for me I think. If they had just sprung a completely unknown woman on us and Bond has a kid with her and they are so deeply in love that he'd rather die than endanger her, I think I would have joined those that hate the ending. That would have been too hacky. And even with Madeleine it is pretty thin, when we think about how much time the two actually spend together, but Lea Seydoux makes it just work, for me.
I also did hear that Craig and Boyle banged heads a few times.
However, the straw that broke the camel’s back seemed to be Boyle’s refusal of script doctors (as an indie filmmaker he’s likely not had to work too often with these doctors, but; on every single big budget film you’ve seen in the past 20 years(+), uncredited script doctors fingerprints are all over those films (in fact, the real money for A-list writers is script doctoring… they get hired for a couple to three weeks work (like Scott Burns on NTTD), and walk away with millions in their bank account).
Someone like Tarantino has been an uncredited script doctor on dozens of films…
Well, Mark Tildesley was already busy buuilduing sets for Boyle's Bond movie. When Fukunaga came on board, he thought, he will be replaced by another designer, but Fukunaga told him, that he liked his work sob far, and that he wanted Tildsley to stay. So I assume, that Fukunaga relied on sets already being built, when he was hired. Think about it, origoinally shooting was o begin in December 2918, until Boyle walked out. Then they first pushed shooting starting in February 2019, then Mrch 2019, and then April 2019. Would also like to know, if they used anything from the Boyle/Hodge script. Boyle said, EON could have used it, as they had paid him and Hodge for it, thus having "bought" the script, which then was EON's.
That's right, more likely Bond would have dozens of children from passed relationships and one night stands over the 50+ years since Dr No...
I give you the new 00 section!
No Time to Cry???
No Crime to Try
"This might be my second favorite Craig film."
My reaction upon my second viewing last night:
"I still prefer CR and QOS but this is a great movie."
POST OF THE DAY, LOL!!!
I'm not sure how common/uncommon it is, but I know this is how Chris Nolan operates as well.
I have a Bond project floating around my head and I'm essentially starting from the ending I want as well. Hint: Someone dies, but it's not Bond this time. ;)
There are after all more enough Bond films for all of us to choose from to enjoy. And the next one will be different, too. One person thinks this is NOT what Bond is about or would ever do, or dislike the psychology probing of Bond in a story, or dislikes the campiness in that Bond's tenure or think it is not true to Fleming or think it's just too many nods to Fleming to matter ... we judge according to our own perceptions that are mostly set. Just human nature. I wish more folks on the forum would give others breathing room and not get upset or determined to make our points the most valid ones in a discussion. We like what we like, what fits for us. That varies with each new Bond actor and each new script. That's fine with me.