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

1289290292294295298

Comments

  • edited October 2022 Posts: 3,913
    007HallY wrote: »

    And then he suddenly has an army of balaclava-wearing henchmen on his island, plus a farm and a factory (whatever the hell that is supposed to be). Again, I've said this before, but I think the henchmen in the finale should have been other soldiers from a different country or from some other criminal organization that Safin manipulated - maybe SPECTRE remnants - into working towards his aims (protecting him, killing Bond). They even could have done a whole thing about parasitic plants that latch onto a host plant and get all their resources through that until it dies and then carries on.

    I love the idea of Safin's men being SPECTRE remnants. To be fair I guess Primo is when you think about it, but he's just a lone wolf of sorts. It would have been interesting if the film had specifically said that Safin had made a deal or something with the remaining SPECTRE agents not to hurt them or their family with the nanobots if they helped him. Like they're being held hostage almost. It would have given this idea that Safin is a man slowly morphing from a man out for revenge into this maniacal villain, one who has created this little 'kingdom' for himself (so not unlike Blofeld with his Garden of Death in YOLT). It might have made him a bit more tragic if anything too, seeing what revenge can do to a man.

    Interesting. Could be new headcanon, that Primo brought all those guys over. Don't they say in the film that he is also taking the island back from SPECTRE after Blofeld/White had originally taken it from his family? So Ash recruiting Primo is not just their already large organization gaining one guy with a funky eye, it's them basically picking the remains of at least a part of SPECTRE off of the trash heap.
    (On the other hand, if Primo is the key to such a large part of the organization, why wasn't he in the DNA database and died in Cuba?
    On the other, other hand, maybe he really is the most senior person who didn't die there. As main henchmen, he would possibly be the department head for faceless brutes and everyone above him died.
    On the third hand [this is getting dumb] why didn't he strike out on his own, if he controlled the goon army? Maybe he didn't have the money?)

    I always assumed Primo was a lone wolf, a sort of 'gun for hire' type. Hence why his DNA wasn't in the SPECTRE database.

    Honestly, it would have been nice if they'd incorporated the idea of Safin essentially 'taking over' the remaining SPECTRE goons. I know it's a convoluted movie anyway (sometimes needlessly so) but such a plot point could have been interesting and added that extra layer to the film.

    QBranch wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Apologies if this is the wrong thread
    Has it ever been confirmed if Heracles was initially a virus? Rather than it being Nanobots?
    (From issue #65 of MI6 Confidential):

    The concept for what Heracles actually was changed during the design phase, but throughout, Fukunaga's main direction was the Heracles weapon should be absolutely creepy. "It started off as a toxin. And then it became a sort of nanobot that delivered the toxin. And then it became that the nanobot itself was the killer."

    More details, design talk and nanobot concept art can be seen in the magazine.

    I do wonder if the film suffers from a bit of overthinking in regards to the Heracles plot. I get the sense that much of the concept (ie. the idea of the nanobots being 'passed' from person to person) was influenced by the fact that Bond's death was planned early on, and Fukunaga needed a way of accomplishing this which felt dramatic and logical.

    I mean, a nanobot that delivers a toxin that's programmed by one's specific DNA is perfectly sufficient. Fantastical perhaps, but it's perfectly clear and can be visually conveyed. There's just a bit too much exposition in the film we got I feel with all this 'it can be passed down' and 'it's eternal' nonsense. The consequences of the weapon is conveyed well enough during the Cuba sequence.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,134
    And even then, they had Obruchev spell out that 'only Spectre are dying' in case some viewers couldn't work it out.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 3,913
    Venutius wrote: »
    And even then, they had Obruchev spell out that 'only Spectre are dying' in case some viewers couldn't work it out.

    Yes, and the fact that it's clearly ADR'd tells me the producers thought a good chunk of viewers wouldn't be able to keep up with everything. I sympathise somewhat - I had to take a moment and think about the plot on my first watch because there's so much going on. Not necessarily during that particular sequence though, haha.

    Like I said, I think much of this comes from overthinking and a bit too much exposition which has a tendency to either bore or confuse some viewers. Even just a more elegant way of explaining the nanobots would have helped. I dunno, Safin could have had a little speech about how the seeds of some sort of poisonous flower (doesn't need to be real) attaches itself from animal to animal before killing a very specific prey, much like Heracles. Just something like that could have cut down on the amount of pure exposition that grinds the pace a bit.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,210
    They did an admirable job with the ADR. Obviously the script was being rewritten on the fly during production (after Boyle abruptly left), and it could have been a lot more confusing otherwise.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,936
    I think if NTTD was a standalone Bond film like SF once was, it would have focused better on its somewhat sci-fi elements. But the fact that they were trying to connect it to Craig's Bond previous films, didn't help its linear feel.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I think if NTTD was a standalone Bond film like SF once was, it would have focused better on its somewhat sci-fi elements. But the fact that they were trying to connect it to Craig's Bond previous films, didn't help its linear feel.

    Completely agree mate. There was so many loose threads to tie up, it felt they didn't have enough time to focus on the newer elements
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    Seen it thrice now. First time I was disappointed, the second time I thought it was okay though not great and the third time, a few days ago, I thought it was rather underwhelming.

    The good: the pts, Léa, the cinematography, title sequence & title song, Ana, Cuba scene, Magnussen, the portret of Robert Brown, French dialogue, and some really lovely cars: Astons, Maserati and Lancia.

    The bad: the plot, killing off staple characters either too unceremoniously (Felix, Blofeld) or too sentimentally (Bond), some terrible outfits for Bond, Bond crawling and begging, the ending, the use of OHMSS music and the mundane Zimmer score.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited October 2022 Posts: 1,936
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I think if NTTD was a standalone Bond film like SF once was, it would have focused better on its somewhat sci-fi elements. But the fact that they were trying to connect it to Craig's Bond previous films, didn't help its linear feel.

    Completely agree mate. There was so many loose threads to tie up, it felt they didn't have enough time to focus on the newer elements

    Yeah. Sometimes I imagine how good the film would have been if Safin was a fresh villain and there was no Madeleine or Blofeld or anything or anyone from Craig's previous Bond films. Then have Bond focus solely on Safin with lots of thrills. Maybe just bring back Wright's Felix.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Seen it thrice now. First time I was disappointed, the second time I thought it was okay though not great and the third time, a few days ago, I thought it was rather underwhelming.

    The good: the pts, Léa, the cinematography, title sequence & title song, Ana, Cuba scene, Magnussen, the portret of Robert Brown, French dialogue, and some really lovely cars: Astons, Maserati and Lancia.

    The bad: the plot, killing off staple characters either too unceremoniously (Felix, Blofeld) or too sentimentally (Bond), some terrible outfits for Bond, Bond crawling and begging, the ending, the use of OHMSS music and the mundane Zimmer score.

    Yeah. I agree with most. But I like Zimmer's score and I'm not that crazy about Eilish's title song. But I can understand its dirge-like style.

    Mod edit: please avoid double posting.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited October 2022 Posts: 3,785
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Seen it thrice now. First time I was disappointed, the second time I thought it was okay though not great and the third time, a few days ago, I thought it was rather underwhelming.

    The good: the pts, Léa, the cinematography, title sequence & title song, Ana, Cuba scene, Magnussen, the portret of Robert Brown, French dialogue, and some really lovely cars: Astons, Maserati and Lancia.

    The bad: the plot, killing off staple characters either too unceremoniously (Felix, Blofeld) or too sentimentally (Bond), some terrible outfits for Bond, Bond crawling and begging, the ending, the use of OHMSS music and the mundane Zimmer score.

    Yeah. I agree with most. But I like Zimmer's score and I'm not that crazy about Eilish's title song. But I can understand its dirge-like style.

    Agreed on the good except Lèa, I think, I know that she's a good actress, but she's just not the one I could see Bond settling down with, she had limited facial expressions and reactions, she's stiff, the way she played the character in SPECTRE was still the same in NTTD, and there's really no spark or warmth between her and Craig/Bond, I just don't feel the love/romance, their banter, I just don't feel it, it's not there.

    Also, for the Good, maybe I would also add Lashana Lynch (yes, and her character, Nomi).
    I thought she's good, I really liked her banter with Bond, she might been sidelined in the middle act of the film, but her banter with Bond still keeping her up, she had a good chemistry with Craig/Bond too.

    And when it comes to the bad, I would also add the child angle (like involving the child in the dangerous scenes, Madeleine's denying of " she's not yours", and the sudden happening of it felt contrived).

    But agreed about the rest.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,936
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Seen it thrice now. First time I was disappointed, the second time I thought it was okay though not great and the third time, a few days ago, I thought it was rather underwhelming.

    The good: the pts, Léa, the cinematography, title sequence & title song, Ana, Cuba scene, Magnussen, the portret of Robert Brown, French dialogue, and some really lovely cars: Astons, Maserati and Lancia.

    The bad: the plot, killing off staple characters either too unceremoniously (Felix, Blofeld) or too sentimentally (Bond), some terrible outfits for Bond, Bond crawling and begging, the ending, the use of OHMSS music and the mundane Zimmer score.

    Yeah. I agree with most. But I like Zimmer's score and I'm not that crazy about Eilish's title song. But I can understand its dirge-like style.

    Agreed on the good except Lèa, I think, I know that she's a good actress, but she's just not the one I could see Bond settling down with, she had limited facial expressions and reactions, she's stiff, the way she played the character in SPECTRE was still the same in NTTD, and there's really no spark or warmth between her and Craig/Bond, I just don't feel the love/romance, their banter, I just don't feel it, it's not there.

    Also, for the Good, maybe I would also add Lashana Lynch (yes, and her character, Nomi).
    I thought she's good, I really liked her banter with Bond, she might been sidelined in the middle act of the film, but her banter with Bond still keeping her up, she had a good chemistry with Craig/Bond too.

    And when it comes to the bad, I would also add the child angle (like involving the child in the dangerous scenes, Madeleine's denying of " she's not yours", and the sudden happening of it felt contrived).

    But agreed about the rest.

    Yeah. I think Seydoux isn't bad. But for some reason, she just doesn't have chemistry with Craig. Chemistry is an innate thing. It can't be forced.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 1
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Apologies if this is the wrong thread
    Has it ever been confirmed if Heracles was initially a virus? Rather than it being Nanobots?

    It's a nanobots, there's no indication in the film that it's a virus (which in my opinion would have been much better).

    I think he's asking if in the storywriting process, if Heracles was a virus before it was nanobots; not in the film itself.

    Unfortunately I have no insight on the matter.

    Yeah that's exactly what I meant mate, thank you.

    I was curious to see if during production, perhaps even during the filming, was Heracles ever a virus? The plot seemed more suited and grounded in a virus rather than nanobots but it was decided to change it given the real world pandemic

    If I might contribute (and I’m a few sips into a tumbler of Johnnie Walker, so please pardon any unclarities…), I hope I can snag your post to tap into this discussion point, because it’s a fascinating one that’s been discussed a good deal since the film’s production. Apologies, too, if this is getting off topic at all!

    COVID intertwining with NTTD’s Heracles plot has got to be one of the strangest “life imitating art” moments in recent history. Granted filmmakers (Bond’s included) have fudged the truth in the past, so it seems very fair to be skeptical of Fukunaga’s statement that editing was locked before the pandemic emerged in full force (setting aside later reshoots/edits for production placement updates here). That said, I think the “COVID sensitivities => edit to feature nanobots” theory is based in an outlook that originated in, and is confined to, the period of post-production, starting from when the pandemic really kicked off (especially Spring 2020).

    I think we need to go back further, to when the film was in early pre-production, and the filmmakers were trying to generate a story in the first place. I’ll cite this article from January 2017 [https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond-25-neal-purvis-robert-wade-interview], where P&W discuss the difficulty of building a plot where the Bond villains seem to have manifested in real life. (Their take, don’t shoot the messenger, and all that.) The Western concern with Russian activity at that time, combined with reports of Boyle’s story as a modern day Cold War plot, and our leftover Russian villain in the final product, IMO is sufficient basis to shift our focus. Just to remind folks, as we know Bond films “rip from the headlines,” these were the pre-production headlines (late 2018 in particular - to spare you a click, it’s the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury): https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43315636.amp

    I’m at risk of rambling, so to cut to the chase - I would argue it’s not an amazing coincidence that the Heracles plot developed just before COVID. Rather, it seems Heracles was just a high-tech twist on a pressing global threat (the kind that P&W love to tap in to) from 2017-18 times, namely, Russian baddies spreading an invisible, microscopic killer on UK home soil. (Safin passing the perfume to Madeline is the most explicit instance of this.) Even Safin’s facial disfigurement from poisoning has been read as being inspired by the real-life poisoning of Ukrainian president Yushchenko [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17570-skin-growths-saved-poisoned-ukrainian-president/]. I first read that from a fellow MI6 poster, so apologies to that gent that I don’t recall who it was - @CraterGuns , at least, has mentioned it. Even that high-tech twist was first considered for TWINE, if I’m not mistaken, not to mention its featuring in the gaming world in Everything or Nothing.

    There’s a great book on this topic I would recommend, appropriately titled From Russia with Blood, available too on Kindle if you’re an audio listener like me [https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Blood-Kremlins-Ruthless-Assassination/dp/0316417238]. Essentially, to make sense of the COVID coincidence, I would emphasize the “high-tech Russian aerosol killer on UK soil” angle prevalent during the screenwriting process, rather than the “global virus that threatens to kill millions” aspect that appeared later on…strange though that coincidence well and truly is! Hopefully haven’t come off as hectoring or one of those “well AKSHUALLY” type here, as I deeply enjoy reading folks’ posts and probing into the myriad production mysteries of this film! 🙂
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,210
    I don't know when picture was locked on NTTD and when the prints were struck, but it seems to me that they didn't have enough time leading up to an April 2020 release to do reshoots (not to mention Craig's general unavailability).

    My guess is that the nanobots were added long before Covid to distinguish the virus plot from OHMSS, not to change anything Covid-related.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Good post @Smirnoff_Purple. "Russians with Toxins" certainly seems like a likely jumping off point for the plot we got.

    Is there a chance that they thought the weapon being fully organic would paint M in an even worse light than this film already does?
    Breaking the Biological Weapons Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention (and getting caught doing it) is about as big a no-no in international relations as there is, short of starting a war. [As a sidenote: At the time of the Skripal poisonings in Britain, Novichok, which is a chemical and not a biological weapon, was not on the list of substances banned through the Chemical Weapons Convention].
    So maybe they thought nanobots sounded more controllable then a poison, or a virus or a "toxin" and it would feel more acceptable for M to have a Black Lab create something like this, rather than a classical Bio-Weapon.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,936
    I just realized that the reason it's tough to wait for Bond 26, is because of how somewhat harrowing it was to wait for NTTD. More like one hasn't fully recovered from the wait for NTTD and is immediately plunged into the wait for Bond 26.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    I just realized that the reason it's tough to wait for Bond 26, is because of how somewhat harrowing it was to wait for NTTD. More like one hasn't fully recovered from the wait for NTTD and is immediately plunged into the wait for Bond 26.

    M doesn't mind a little waiting on the side, she'd just prefer if it wasn't six years.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,936
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I just realized that the reason it's tough to wait for Bond 26, is because of how somewhat harrowing it was to wait for NTTD. More like one hasn't fully recovered from the wait for NTTD and is immediately plunged into the wait for Bond 26.

    M doesn't mind a little waiting on the side, she'd just prefer if it wasn't six years.

    Nice :D
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,134
    They can take their time, I’m very patient. What’s that Barbara? Maybe ten years in time for the 70th anniversary? If you feel that is necessary. ;)

    In all seriousness, in spite of NTTD taking 6 years to come out, I think it makes sense to give some distance between Bond tenures. I think part of what helped Craig be easily accepted besides just being good in the part is that four years had passed after DAD. So it’s not like it was just a sudden replacement of Brosnan. And of course Brosnan benefited from the six year gap after LTK.

    Would Dalton have been easily more welcomed, especially in the US if his tenure started in 1989, four years after Sir Rog? Part of the consensus at the time was that he was thought to play the part too seriously and wasn’t as fun. Perhaps it was too quick and dramatic of a shift from Sir Rog’s lighter tenure to Dalton’s darker and contemplative Bond.

    Sir Rog even had his own growing pains with LALD coming out only a year and a half after DAF. It wasn’t until TSWLM that his tenure was truly solidified and he secured a new generation of fandom.

    I know many fans are unreasonably impatient, but I think by 2025 once Bond 26 rolls out, we’ll be even more eager to see that film than if it were coming out in 2023. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2022 Posts: 3,785
    They can take their time, I’m very patient. What’s that Barbara? Maybe ten years in time for the 70th anniversary? If you feel that is necessary. ;)

    In all seriousness, in spite of NTTD taking 6 years to come out, I think it makes sense to give some distance between Bond tenures. I think part of what helped Craig be easily accepted besides just being good in the part is that four years had passed after DAD. So it’s not like it was just a sudden replacement of Brosnan. And of course Brosnan benefited from the six year gap after LTK.

    Would Dalton have been easily more welcomed, especially in the US if his tenure started in 1989, four years after Sir Rog? Part of the consensus at the time was that he was thought to play the part too seriously and wasn’t as fun. Perhaps it was too quick and dramatic of a shift from Sir Rog’s lighter tenure to Dalton’s darker and contemplative Bond.

    Sir Rog even had his own growing pains with LALD coming out only a year and a half after DAF. It wasn’t until TSWLM that his tenure was truly solidified and he secured a new generation of fandom.

    I know many fans are unreasonably impatient, but I think by 2025 once Bond 26 rolls out, we’ll be even more eager to see that film than if it were coming out in 2023. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

    I think so.

    I'm also thinking about OHMSS, of course people couldn't still get over from Connery and all of that had put a pressure on Lazenby, if OHMSS was released in 1971 instead, would the people easily accepted it?
    Would the people easily accepted Lazenby? Would Lazenby still get pressured?

    Because I think part of it, why people wasn't that fond of OHMSS by the time it came out, was because it's too sudden quick of change, just two years right after Connery left the role, and even the tone of the film that's different from the previous ones,and all of that put a pressure on Lazenby, because the Connery magic was still not gone yet in people's minds at the time.

    Like what you've said, a sudden quick of change.

    It makes sense because it's the term of moving on, people could easily get over with what happened in the tenure of the last actor, and could easily accept the new one.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,936
    They can take their time, I’m very patient. What’s that Barbara? Maybe ten years in time for the 70th anniversary? If you feel that is necessary. ;)

    In all seriousness, in spite of NTTD taking 6 years to come out, I think it makes sense to give some distance between Bond tenures. I think part of what helped Craig be easily accepted besides just being good in the part is that four years had passed after DAD. So it’s not like it was just a sudden replacement of Brosnan. And of course Brosnan benefited from the six year gap after LTK.

    Would Dalton have been easily more welcomed, especially in the US if his tenure started in 1989, four years after Sir Rog? Part of the consensus at the time was that he was thought to play the part too seriously and wasn’t as fun. Perhaps it was too quick and dramatic of a shift from Sir Rog’s lighter tenure to Dalton’s darker and contemplative Bond.

    Sir Rog even had his own growing pains with LALD coming out only a year and a half after DAF. It wasn’t until TSWLM that his tenure was truly solidified and he secured a new generation of fandom.

    I know many fans are unreasonably impatient, but I think by 2025 once Bond 26 rolls out, we’ll be even more eager to see that film than if it were coming out in 2023. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

    Yeah. There's truth in this.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,534
    Sometimes it seems like for some Bond fans, the only content is whatever the brand new Bond film is. “Harrowing wait”, then you can be a Bond fan for 3 hours, then onto the next “harrowing wait”. We have so much content to enjoy, it really feels like one is never waiting at all. Reread the novels, watch the old films, create something. It isn’t just about the next new Bond film.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,134
    Yes, I definitely think a gap between an old and new Bond works in the new guy's favour. Like MI6HQ said, Dalton's reception would probably have been better given enough of a space between him and Sir Rog. I'm not sure that Lazenby ever stood a chance of following Connery, though, tbh.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    @MakeshiftPython that's a very good point mate

    The only thing that is different this time is they are following "the death of Bond". It'll be interesting to see how that impacts the marketing and promotion of Bond 26, it's like the elephant in the room
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,134
    I think it’s easy to ignore Bond’s death because that was Craig’s iteration. It’s time to start anew.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,534
    I think it’s easy to ignore Bond’s death because that was Craig’s iteration. It’s time to start anew.

    Yeah, everything about Craig's run (good and bad) will exist only in his films.

    The *only* thing I could see being referenced post-Craig is Vesper, but she's important to the character at large, not just Craig.

    They never mentioned her before, of course, but they could in the future just like they could reference Bond having been married in the future.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,134
    I tend to think all the Bonds had Vesper as part of their backstory, and that Craig was simply the first to depict that. Though I think we can safely assume Craig never met Tracy.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,534
    I tend to think all the Bonds had Vesper as part of their backstory, and that Craig was simply the first to depict that. Though I think we can safely assume Craig never met Tracy.

    Exactly.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2022 Posts: 24,109
    I tend to think all the Bonds had Vesper as part of their backstory, and that Craig was simply the first to depict that. Though I think we can safely assume Craig never met Tracy.

    I like the idea. It makes perfect sense to me.
    I often wonder what would've happened if Fleming hadn't sold the rights to CR when he did, and if that book had been in the hands of EON from day 1. How tempting would it have been for Cubby and Harry to proceed in the order of publication? (Not much, I take it, considering the fact that they wanted to start with TB.) But just imagine... the opening paragraph of the book, only adapted with Connery in his early '30s... A young Connery Bond losing Vesper to sad desperation. Just imagine! Then again, I am more than happy with DN, FRWL, GF,... as given.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,534
    I've always wanted to ask someone who was watching these films in the cinemas as they were coming out... I wonder if it was strange that they effectively skipped OHMSS and went straight to YOLT from TB with Connery? I imagine 90% of moviegoers didn't care at all about the order of the novels, but surely there were some Bond novel aficionados back then that must have been thinking... why?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    I've always wanted to ask someone who was watching these films in the cinemas as they were coming out... I wonder if it was strange that they effectively skipped OHMSS and went straight to YOLT from TB with Connery? I imagine 90% of moviegoers didn't care at all about the order of the novels, but surely there were some Bond novel aficionados back then that must have been thinking... why?

    I don't know. The continuity / order-of-things gatekeeper phenomenon feels more like an Internet thing than something ingrained in film fandom long before its advent, though I could be wrong, of course. Whatever the case, people had very few means of communicating discontent anyway. I don't think too many of Fleming’s avid readers were complaining in those days.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,134
    If they went in publication order it certainly would have changed the trajectory of the franchise in a way we’d take for granted. The only reason we have Q as a regular character is because DR. NO was successful and the producers wanted to replicate that success by inserting a scene with Boothroyd handing Bond’s suitcase, despite never appearing in any other Bond novel. So if CR was as successful, what elements would have carried over onto the rest of the series? Would Mathis have more of a presence?

    I imagine if CR was adapted first, they would definitely replace SMERSH with SPECTRE, and that would kick off the film series by giving Bond a recurring organization he already has a personal grievance with prior to ever meeting Tracy. The culmination with YOLT would have been even more powerful in the film than it would have in the novel. Assuming they didn’t start deviating from the source like they ultimately did.
Sign In or Register to comment.