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

1127128130132133298

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    diamonds-are-forever-bond-and-tiffany.jpg

    This image would be ideal for the Bond CapCon.

    Just in Case.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,527
    Tiffany is a fascinating case, as the only Bond woman who dumps James Bond?

    EDIT: Horowitz may have had Pussy dump him as well, but I can't remember.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    When Tiffany opens her legs Bond says “Case opened”
  • Posts: 320
    This is one of the most passionate 'hated the end of NTTD' YouTubers. It's a bit sweary at times so if you don't wanna hear naughty words don't watch it. I think he makes some valid points and they are explained in a logical way although at times his emotion does get the better of him!



  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Is he homeless?
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    slide_99 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    But what subversion?

    The way every single Craig movie spends its runtime deconstructing Craig's Bond and then reconstructing him for the final scene only, promising audiences a proper Bond movie next time out. It worked with CR, but they repeated it for another 3 movies, and now with NTTD they've completed the deconstruction of Craig's Bond by blowing him up.

    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."
    The subversion is less about gun barrels and martinis and more about altering Bond as a character: making him Blofeld’s foster brother, a family man, a father and, ultimately, a tragic figure. Bond had his issues in pre-Craig films, but the only time he was ever tragic before was for a minute or so at the end of OHMSS. This is like filling a cake with baked beans and insisting it is still a cake because it has icing on top.

    Yeah, this. The Craig era has all the trappings of Bond, all the superificial stuff that Mendes was obsessed with (Goldfinger Aston Martin since he had a toy one as a kid), but in my opinion there's a big, empty hole in the center of the Craig era, and that's Craig's Bond himself. It's partially his own fault but it's more due to the producers not having a clear idea of what to do with his character after CR.

    I have been mulling over NTTD and was wondering did Craig get bigger than the character in the end?

    Wasn't it Cubby who said "No actor is bigger than James Bond.." ? It seems Craig managed it. He seemed to be allowed a lot more input and control than any of the other Bond actors.

    I've mostly loved Craig's era but after NTTD I just wondered if it was the case of him overshadowing the character...?

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    To be fair EON never promised a traditional film. That was just wishful thinking on fans
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    Is it really Craig being bigger than the character though? He's just given a new actor the best chance they could ever get to hit the ground running by killing off his era which has garnered critical acclaim. There will be no going back. There's no wishy washy timeline shenanigans. There will even be less comparisons or wishing for it back. You could even argue that the Craig era, despite what people feel about it on the whole, that he'll always be remembered as "The 'simp' Bond and the Bond that dies at the end."

    The floor is wide open for the next actor. In a way it's the most unselfish thing they could have done, just IMO, of course.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Is it really Craig being bigger than the character though? He's just given a new actor the best chance they could ever get to hit the ground running by killing off his era which has garnered critical acclaim. There will be no going back. There's no wishy washy timeline shenanigans. There will even be less comparisons or wishing for it back. You could even argue that the Craig era, despite what people feel about it on the whole, that he'll always be remembered as "The 'simp' Bond and the Bond that dies at the end."

    The floor is wide open for the next actor. In a way it's the most unselfish thing they could have done, just IMO, of course.

    Yes, a new actor can certainly start with a clean slate so to speak.

    They will still have some big shoes to fill regardless, as Craig has been a formidable James Bond.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."
    I disagree with your statement. Craig really was Bond. You just can't get over the fact that one iteration of Bond can die and now you're trying to retroactively reason your way out of the conundrum. The logic is nevertheless simple: everything that has a beginning has an end. CR was the first "Bond Begins" ever shown on film, and NTTD is the first "Bond Ends" ever shown on film. I cannot see what CNB and their low-IQ output have to do with this. Those morons couldn't even type full sentences. It was all, "Craig isn't Bond cuz he ugly." Hm... Are you sure you want to lower your standards that dramatically, @slide_99?

    Perhaps the problem with Craig-Bond is that he was never "Middle" Bond
    He was "Beginning" Bond in CR

    But after that he was never "Bond who enjoys his work, trusts his superiors (and has superiors who trust him and make correct decisions, so he doesn't feel the need to go rogue) and carries out his mission"

    The Bond of DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT... LALD, TSWLM, FYEO

    Where is that Bond in Craig's era?

    He jumped straight to a version of "End" Bond, disillusioned, betrayed, doubting, reluctant, wanting to get out of the business Bond, for three movies out of five. IMO that Bond should have only been around for one movie out of five

    It suggests to me that those running the show don't identify with the character as written or as portrayed in most of the movies in the series. They actually believe those who say "Trad-Bond" is no-longer relevant and have sought to change who Bond is as a result.

    James Bond was born out of the 1950's mindset and is a man of the establishment, Craig-Bond is a product of the current environment, where no-one trusts the establishment anymore.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    @Seve ... Pretty sure James Bond was quite distrustful of the establishment and who good guys and bad guys were by the end of the first novel in Casino Royale. Or what about the beginning of the novel Goldfinger-- melancholic and having an internal crisis about murdering a man the night before?....
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I am happy with different takes on Bond as long it it does not veer into high Moore camp area or worse (Austin P). One thing I really appreciate about Craig's era is it taking on different aspects of Bond personally. That had not been done in depth before. The stories just seemed to fit this Bond and the overarching story line of beginning 00 agent to final finish is very satisfying to me. If the series goes back too much in the manner of a "traditional" Bond from the movies, I will be slightly disappointed.

    The Craig era raised the stakes it terms of grit and realism. I'd like the series do go in a different direction now, yes. But getting the balance will be tricky. I am hoping they (EON, writers, whoever the new director will be) will find a rather fresh way to give us Bond. Even when ticking the boxes or harkening back to the novels at times. I don't have answers, but just saying that is what I want.

    Oh, and do I want a connection between the next Bond's movies? Any sort of ongoing story arc? That is something to think about. Do we ever want them directly connected again? Well, I think I do. Just in some ways. It keeps it more interesting for me.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Seve wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."
    I disagree with your statement. Craig really was Bond. You just can't get over the fact that one iteration of Bond can die and now you're trying to retroactively reason your way out of the conundrum. The logic is nevertheless simple: everything that has a beginning has an end. CR was the first "Bond Begins" ever shown on film, and NTTD is the first "Bond Ends" ever shown on film. I cannot see what CNB and their low-IQ output have to do with this. Those morons couldn't even type full sentences. It was all, "Craig isn't Bond cuz he ugly." Hm... Are you sure you want to lower your standards that dramatically, @slide_99?
    James Bond was born out of the 1950's mindset and is a man of the establishment, Craig-Bond is a product of the current environment, where no-one trusts the establishment anymore.

    Bingo.

    This is Gen-X Bond rather than Greatest Generation Bond.

    Which mean our next Bond will be a Millennial Bond.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Craig gave us the first Bond of the “new world” post 9/11 and the last Bond of the “old world” pre COVID 19. Thinking about the plot of NTTD it’s all even more effective and memorable.
  • Posts: 1,394
    @AstonLotus if you don't like Daniel's Bond (except for CR) and did not much enjoy the other films, it is understandable you would not like NTTD. Those who just don't like his portrayal overall would not find much to like in NTTD except for the action perhaps, and Ana. But at least you went to see it, so that's appreciated. The next Bond actor and tone of film needs to be different, so here's hoping it's one you will really get into.

    Fair enough.I don’t completely dislike the film though as I said before,there is a lot to enjoy in the film but like most of the Craig efforts,it leaves me cold.It’s better than QOS though that’s not saying much.

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    peter wrote: »
    @Seve ... Pretty sure James Bond was quite distrustful of the establishment and who good guys and bad guys were by the end of the first novel in Casino Royale. Or what about the beginning of the novel Goldfinger-- melancholic and having an internal crisis about murdering a man the night before?....

    Sure he has doubts, but he doesn't impulsively act on them every time he has one

    Craig-Bond always does, or rather, to be fair, perhaps it's just that his version of the character is written into more extreme positions with regard to those doubts

    Fleming never has M say "take the #@$% shot!"

    Either way the Producers (and Craig himself) shoulder the responsibility

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,115
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Is it really Craig being bigger than the character though? He's just given a new actor the best chance they could ever get to hit the ground running by killing off his era which has garnered critical acclaim. There will be no going back. There's no wishy washy timeline shenanigans. There will even be less comparisons or wishing for it back. You could even argue that the Craig era, despite what people feel about it on the whole, that he'll always be remembered as "The 'simp' Bond and the Bond that dies at the end."

    The floor is wide open for the next actor. In a way it's the most unselfish thing they could have done, just IMO, of course.

    Yes, a new actor can certainly start with a clean slate so to speak.

    They will still have some big shoes to fill regardless, as Craig has been a formidable James Bond.

    I love the Craig era and Vesper in particular, but I also love the idea of a clean slate at this point. Basically, it would be as if Tracy were a major plot point in OHMSS, DAF, TMWTGG, *and* TSWLM--frankly, the Bond-Vesper storyline has been exhausted and a reboot is welcome.

    Besides, everyone knows Bond's true love is Vijay.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    Seve wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Seve ... Pretty sure James Bond was quite distrustful of the establishment and who good guys and bad guys were by the end of the first novel in Casino Royale. Or what about the beginning of the novel Goldfinger-- melancholic and having an internal crisis about murdering a man the night before?....

    Sure he has doubts, but he doesn't impulsively act on them every time he has one

    Craig-Bond always does, or rather, to be fair, perhaps it's just that his version of the character is written into more extreme positions with regard to those doubts

    Fleming never has M say "take the #@$% shot!"

    Either way the Producers (and Craig himself) shoulder the responsibility

    I’m sorry @Seve … In the novel TMWTGG, M knows he’s sending Bond on a suicide mission; although he doesn’t say for Scaramanga to take the bloody shot, he knows that’s exactly the situation he’s sending Bond into.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    peter wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Seve ... Pretty sure James Bond was quite distrustful of the establishment and who good guys and bad guys were by the end of the first novel in Casino Royale. Or what about the beginning of the novel Goldfinger-- melancholic and having an internal crisis about murdering a man the night before?....

    Sure he has doubts, but he doesn't impulsively act on them every time he has one

    Craig-Bond always does, or rather, to be fair, perhaps it's just that his version of the character is written into more extreme positions with regard to those doubts

    Fleming never has M say "take the #@$% shot!"

    Either way the Producers (and Craig himself) shoulder the responsibility

    I’m sorry @Seve … In the novel TMWTGG, M knows he’s sending Bond on a suicide mission; although he doesn’t say for Scaramanga to take the bloody shot, he knows that’s exactly the situation he’s sending Bond into.

    Yes, but that's after 11 novels, and at a time when the author was tired of the character and feeling his own mortality

    By comparison, it's as if Craig-Bond went straight from CR the novel to TMWTGG the novel, with no stops in-between
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    But @Seve … as I mentioned above: Bond was doubtful and had existential issues from the very first novel…
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    peter wrote: »
    But @Seve … as I mentioned above: Bond was doubtful and had existential issues from the very first novel…

    But, as I mentioned, he doesn't act on them like an impulsive teenager

    The novels LALD, MR, DAF, FRWL, DN, GF, TB are missions carried out without excessive angst on Bond's part and with mutual trust between Bond and his employers

    Whereas Craig-Bond couldn't give us that even once in five attempts
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 2021 Posts: 9,102
    How does Craig act like an impulsive teenager @Seve ??

    I’ve got a 20 year old, an 18 year old and an almost 17 year old. And I don’t see a lot of Craig in them, nor vice/versa… But please, I’m curious, how does Craig behave like an impulsive teenager?
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."

    Trust me, you are investing way more intellectual energy in this analysis than the CNB idiots from way back when. They wouldn't have been capable of producing a fair statement. It was all about dragging Craig's face through MS Paint and then poking fun at the abomination thus "created". Saying that they are now proven right implies that they ever had a point in the first place. And believe me, that was not the case.

    That said, I also disagree with your statement. Craig really was Bond. You just can't get over the fact that one iteration of Bond can die and now you're trying to retroactively reason your way out of the conundrum. The logic is nevertheless simple: everything that has a beginning has an end. CR was the first "Bond Begins" ever shown on film, and NTTD is the first "Bond Ends" ever shown on film. I cannot see what CNB and their low-IQ output have to do with this. Those morons couldn't even type full sentences. It was all, "Craig isn't Bond cuz he ugly." Hm... Are you sure you want to lower your standards that dramatically, @slide_99?

    Fully agree on DarthDimi. Spot on.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,261

    It’s funny they lasted for 15 years, but I guess it became a place of sanctuary for the Craig haters after CR was a hit. I used to visit their forums along with @jetsetwilly because it was fun to try to debate the merits, at least with those that were sensible enough to agree to disagree (and there weren’t many)..

    Them were the days. At least they'll be happy now Craig's run has finally come to an end. Their nightmare is over....

    :))

    But did they not also demand to bring back Brosnan? He'd be the oldest active Bond in the franchise history by now.
    And are we really going down the road, that NTTD is a bad movie. because Bond has only sex with one woman? Seriously? Good old Sir Roger Moore laid four young women in AVTAK who could have been his daughters (at least), and came over as a hornly old man. Apparently they thought, they could compensate Moore looking 60+ in this movie-
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    slide_99 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    But what subversion?

    The way every single Craig movie spends its runtime deconstructing Craig's Bond and then reconstructing him for the final scene only, promising audiences a proper Bond movie next time out. It worked with CR, but they repeated it for another 3 movies, and now with NTTD they've completed the deconstruction of Craig's Bond by blowing him up.

    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."
    The subversion is less about gun barrels and martinis and more about altering Bond as a character: making him Blofeld’s foster brother, a family man, a father and, ultimately, a tragic figure. Bond had his issues in pre-Craig films, but the only time he was ever tragic before was for a minute or so at the end of OHMSS. This is like filling a cake with baked beans and insisting it is still a cake because it has icing on top.

    Yeah, this. The Craig era has all the trappings of Bond, all the superificial stuff that Mendes was obsessed with (Goldfinger Aston Martin since he had a toy one as a kid), but in my opinion there's a big, empty hole in the center of the Craig era, and that's Craig's Bond himself. It's partially his own fault but it's more due to the producers not having a clear idea of what to do with his character after CR.

    I think they had a really good clue. This is a Bond dealing with existential angst, based on choice or lack thereof. And it is a Bond attempting to refine himself, constantly: Carl Jung's theory of "individuation," based on ideas of alchemy, as presented by Paracelsus. Let's not forget, Jung was interested in Paracelsus...and Ian Fleming asked Jung to translate his lecture on Paracelsus into English. There is no doubt that Fleming was very much interested in the writings of Jung and the ways in which they related to/from Paracelsus.

    Any discussion of Craig's version of Bond and that character's status as myth and as hero starts right there: with Jung and Paracelsus.

    This is the most sophisticated set of Bond films in the franchise's history, by far. There is a lot to unpack.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    TripAces wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    But what subversion?

    The way every single Craig movie spends its runtime deconstructing Craig's Bond and then reconstructing him for the final scene only, promising audiences a proper Bond movie next time out. It worked with CR, but they repeated it for another 3 movies, and now with NTTD they've completed the deconstruction of Craig's Bond by blowing him up.

    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."
    The subversion is less about gun barrels and martinis and more about altering Bond as a character: making him Blofeld’s foster brother, a family man, a father and, ultimately, a tragic figure. Bond had his issues in pre-Craig films, but the only time he was ever tragic before was for a minute or so at the end of OHMSS. This is like filling a cake with baked beans and insisting it is still a cake because it has icing on top.

    Yeah, this. The Craig era has all the trappings of Bond, all the superificial stuff that Mendes was obsessed with (Goldfinger Aston Martin since he had a toy one as a kid), but in my opinion there's a big, empty hole in the center of the Craig era, and that's Craig's Bond himself. It's partially his own fault but it's more due to the producers not having a clear idea of what to do with his character after CR.

    I think they had a really good clue. This is a Bond dealing with existential angst, based on choice or lack thereof. And it is a Bond attempting to refine himself, constantly: Carl Jung's theory of "individuation," based on ideas of alchemy, as presented by Paracelsus. Let's not forget, Jung was interested in Paracelsus...and Ian Fleming asked Jung to translate his lecture on Paracelsus into English. There is no doubt that Fleming was very much interested in the writings of Jung and the ways in which they related to/from Paracelsus.

    Any discussion of Craig's version of Bond and that character's status as myth and as hero starts right there: with Jung and Paracelsus.

    This is the most sophisticated set of Bond films in the franchise's history, by far. There is a lot to unpack.

    Very interesting @TripAces …. And I like this idea of Craig-Bond attempting “to refine himself, constantly”…. I always though of this, but never put words to it. That description is wonderful. Thanks for the insightful post….
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    TripAces wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    But what subversion?

    The way every single Craig movie spends its runtime deconstructing Craig's Bond and then reconstructing him for the final scene only, promising audiences a proper Bond movie next time out. It worked with CR, but they repeated it for another 3 movies, and now with NTTD they've completed the deconstruction of Craig's Bond by blowing him up.

    In a way, the CraigNotBond trolls from way back in 2006- people I hated back then- have been proven right because of NTTD. Craig wasn't really Bond, he was the guy who tried to be Bond and then died. NTTD's ending renders the whole point of the CR reboot pointless. It started off by stating, "This is how Bond became Bond," but now it's, "Here's why this particular version of Bond is tragic and has to sacrifice himself for family."
    The subversion is less about gun barrels and martinis and more about altering Bond as a character: making him Blofeld’s foster brother, a family man, a father and, ultimately, a tragic figure. Bond had his issues in pre-Craig films, but the only time he was ever tragic before was for a minute or so at the end of OHMSS. This is like filling a cake with baked beans and insisting it is still a cake because it has icing on top.

    Yeah, this. The Craig era has all the trappings of Bond, all the superificial stuff that Mendes was obsessed with (Goldfinger Aston Martin since he had a toy one as a kid), but in my opinion there's a big, empty hole in the center of the Craig era, and that's Craig's Bond himself. It's partially his own fault but it's more due to the producers not having a clear idea of what to do with his character after CR.

    I think they had a really good clue. This is a Bond dealing with existential angst, based on choice or lack thereof. And it is a Bond attempting to refine himself, constantly: Carl Jung's theory of "individuation," based on ideas of alchemy, as presented by Paracelsus. Let's not forget, Jung was interested in Paracelsus...and Ian Fleming asked Jung to translate his lecture on Paracelsus into English. There is no doubt that Fleming was very much interested in the writings of Jung and the ways in which they related to/from Paracelsus.

    Any discussion of Craig's version of Bond and that character's status as myth and as hero starts right there: with Jung and Paracelsus.

    This is the most sophisticated set of Bond films in the franchise's history, by far. There is a lot to unpack.

    Yes, this is very interesting information... is there something specific that can be read that has more on this?
  • SirHilaryBrayOBESirHilaryBrayOBE Chez Hilly, Portsmouth
    Posts: 66
    First reaction: deflation, disappointed and faintly annoyed.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    peter wrote: »
    How does Craig act like an impulsive teenager @Seve ??

    I’ve got a 20 year old, an 18 year old and an almost 17 year old. And I don’t see a lot of Craig in them, nor vice/versa… But please, I’m curious, how does Craig behave like an impulsive teenager?

    Lol, sorry, I'm just imagining what it would be like if someone did have three Craig-Bond like sons!

    Dad - "You didn't come home last night, where were you?"
    17 year old - "Sorry Dad, that's classified information"
    Dad - "And what the hell did you do to your mother's car?"
    18 year old - "Sorry Dad, I was being chased by some henchmen, but I'm sure those bullet marks will buff out"
    Dad - "And who's legs are those sticking out of the trash can?"
    20 year old - "Umm... I'm not sure, some French guy I think"

    Perhaps that was an excessive exaggeration on my part?

    IMO, he's too emotional, and teenagers are often overly emotional when things don't go their way

    But clearly you have done a good job of parenting if you have managed to avoid all that
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 357
    Yes, this is very interesting information... is there something specific that can be read that has more on this?

    Here's one interpretation

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-inner-life-of-james-bond/309457/

    "Was James Bond—neck-snapper, escape artist, serial shagger—the last repudiation of his creator’s cultural pedigree? Take that, fancy books; take that, whiskered shrinks. I, Ian Fleming, give you a hero almost without psychology: a bleak circuit of appetites, sensations, and prejudices, driven by a mechanical imperative called “duty.” In Jungian-alchemical terms, 007 is like lead, the metal associated with the dark god Saturn, lying coldly at the bottom of the crucible and refusing transformation. Boil him, slash him, poison him, flog him with a carpet beater and shoot his woman—Bond will not be altered."

    "Fleming’s novels, too, skirt the droning vacuum of Bond’s inner life. Is he human at all? From time to time he slumps, depressively—as, for example, in the opening pages of Thunderball: “Again Bond dabbed with the bloodstained styptic pencil at the cut on his chin and despised the face that stared sullenly back at him from the mirror above the washbasin. Stupid, ignorant bastard!” But this discontent is due to the fact that he has a hangover, he is between missions (traditionally a dangerous moment for Bond), and he has cut himself shaving. An immediate and physical ennui, in other words. He’ll be all right in a minute."

    original.jpg


Sign In or Register to comment.