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
Ah! Yes! Gilbert! He sure knew how to create Bond magic on screen with shallow scripts. I'm guessing he knew the scripts weren't that good, so he knew he had to exhibit style and make it all look grand on screen and it worked.
I would say Hamilton deserves that credit too. GF is an all-time classic, and I know DAF is considered one of the weaker entries, but LALD and TMWTGG are my 2 favourite Moore films. His performances in both these films is fairly hard and badass, almost like the Fleming Bond, and he would never be this tough again.
I liked how Hamilton incorporated hotel room scenes in all his 4 movies, which felt very Fleming to me, and is always a great nostalgic flashback trip into the 60's and 70's lifestyle when these scenes are on.
Yes, I agree. Hamilton was also great. And true about his hotel room scenes that feels like the books. My guess is, if Hamilton directed SP, he would have brought that zany-quirky style of his to Bond and his step-brother thing. I really enjoyed what he did with the two Blofelds trying to confuse Bond in DAF.
@stag ... I'm with you on this!
For all my personal hangups on the issue, I respect the thematics behind the move.
The producers have to ignore what happened in NTTD if they want the character to carry on? Otherwise we'd be watching the adventures of another agent who has been assigned the 007 number and not a James Bond film?
Are these genuine questions or are they rhetorical?
I feel like this franchise regularly ignores what came in films before.
Granted, nothing quite so dramatic has happened in films before; basically, this answer to your first question is “yes”, and the second is “N/A”.
In that five year arc, I don't see any traces of him being in the Royal Navy, it's only in NTTD which they've made a reference on it.
And for me, it just don't make sense, to somehow call him Commander, I mean yes, he's James Bond, but we're not shown to this iteration of Bond being in the Navy, given he had the beginning and it's a reboot a self contained timeline from the other Bonds, his five film arc just all about him going rogue and being on his missions as a 00.
It worked for the classic Bonds, because:
1. You know they're the same person in one floating timeline.
2. Their backgrounds wasn't shown, they're hinted at some scenes but the background of the classic Bond was vague, so him serving in the military was quite a possibility, given it's not shown.
3. You really see that they're working on some mission with relation to the Royal Navy (TSWLM, TND) for example.
But in the Craig Era, it's hard to buy it because we're shown to his background in Casino Royale as him still young and gaining his 00 status, an origin story, and we're shown to his development in five films, yet there are no indication of him serving in the Royal Navy, it didn't helped that some of his missions were not connected to the Navy (The Quantum Organization, battling a rogue agent like Silva, fixing his personal issues with SPECTRE and Brofeld, and again another personal with Safin and Madeleine). There's no hint of him being a Commander.
That's the hardest thing when you're going to do an origin story, make sure that all of the characteristics that the character have should remain intact.
His Commander status was somewhat missed in these films.
With Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, you would believe it's true, because their backgrounds remained vague, but with Craig given his full detailed history, there's no implications of this.
And him suddenly calling himself a Commander, his connection to the Navy (in NTTD), like I suddenly asked myself "where these things came from", it's only shown in NTTD, and no history given to it and that it's very hard to believe.
I wished we've shown to Craig's Bond being in the Military at some point, given that he's going to have an origin story and it's a reboot, an isolate timeline from the other Bonds.
And that's why No Time to Die is the only Bond film I actually don't like. I have a fondness for all the rest, but killing him off like that was the single most stupid, redundant, ridiculous creative decision the franchise has ever made. I'd rather have a hundred Tarzan yells or a thousand JW Peppers, than see the killing off of one of the greatest movie heroes just for 'dramatic' effect.. . which was instantly negated when we were told over the credits that he's not dead after all.
What a load of ridiculous twaddle.
I would've liked it way more had Bond survived and escaped in the final moments and we get to see him enjoy Felix's cigar as he makes his way back to his family and the island is destroyed in the distance.
That's how I feel about it. Nicely put, @SomethingThatAteHim. I didn't want Bond dead, far from it, but it doesn't send me into a frenzy either. The "Bond is back" line is also a sort of comforting message, at least for me. It tells me that while this Bond has died, James Bond the character will return. And if they kill him only once, then NTTD will also be "the one in which Bond dies" for me, just like DAD is "the one in which Bond surfs on Playstation water". ;-) It'll also silence the anti-Bond people (they exist!) who have spent the last six decades complaining that James Bond is indestructible.
But yeah, I can understand that it is a big step, too big for some fans, acceptable for others (like me), and even long overdue for some.
There's so many scenes in the past where Bond could have died and it's more believable and natural, here it's contrived and not organic, and I don't buy it.
And I don't think this film deserved it, I'm not even that sold on his relationship with Madeleine, and him dying for that was something I'm not buying into.
It's a missed opportunity, they've dropped the ball in this one.
Yes, I know. Craig's Bond was a different Bond. He was a special case.
Exactly. This Bond will not mysteriously wake up from the dead. James Bond is an abstraction of a successful spy film formula. We've had various iterations, and now also a minor few incarnations. With 60 years and 25 (27?) films under his belt, I think it's fine that "this" Bond and "that" Bond are not the same guy.
Yes. The deaths lost their weight, because Cary didn't direct it well, like the tragedy they wanted it to be. It's funny that immediately after Eilish's dirge-like song, David Dencik shows up with the jokes, making the lab attack lose weight too. At the moment, I really struggle to watch that scene.
So do I.