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
Comments
I don’t know. There’s something inherently British about the ridiculousness of Bond films though. There’s often a sense that it’s not fully taking itself fully seriously, and yet at the same time is well crafted entertainment that stands up on its own. That’s the only way I can describe it anyway. Maybe it’s something to do with our sense of humour/irony (a lot of the commonwealth countries seem to have similar types of humour).
I didn’t know about Bond’s death prior to watching NTTD, but I was discussing this with a friend a while back who said they worked it out during the film when it was revealed Bond had a child. Makes sense I guess - like, James Bond isn’t going to ride off into the sunset with his family, neither will they die. The only options are he has to separate himself from them and it becomes cannon that Bond has a family he can’t see (for some reason) or Craig’s Bond dies and none of this matters for the next Bond.
I also didn't know that Bond was going to die. (I avoided the forum for weeks.)
But I started piecing it together when Q started talking about how the nanobots target families. And then the daughter shows up, and I was like, yeah, that's going to happen.
I'm guessing they didn't lean into that so much as they rather got their fingers burned in the previous film with having Blofeld be Bond's stepbrother pulling the strings from behind the scenes all along - the author of all his pain. It all sounds rather silly when compared to previous Bond films prior to the Craig era. No doubt they felt this was too similar to what had went before in terms of motivation. What they came up with instead was rather muddled and it's not clear exactly what Safin's plan is for the nanobots more widely after the initial objective of wiping out all of Spectre. There is the mumbo jumbo Safin goes over to Bond which points to a God complex but it's all rather vague in terms of motivation. For a film which took so long to come out you'd think they'd have had enough time to get all the creases in the script fully ironed out but it seems not.
Malek is not nearly as good an actor as Waltz is, but Malek ironically nailed the weirdness of his character much better than Waltz did in SP. Waltz did better in NTTD in his one scene. And NTTD generally has the best set of villains and henchmen since at least CR.
I'm actually watching it at the moment, and I'm warming to it a bit. It's a very decent film. Everyone is excellent in it.
I agree, and also feel that the portrayal of Safin would have benefitted from Malek using something closer to his own voice; the ambiguous accent was distracting and unnecessary.
Yes, the creepy old man voice was a strange choice. It sounded quite disembodied but maybe that was the intention? It also made some of the dialogue quite hard to make out sometimes, which isn't really ideal.
For all of his potential miscasting, I rather liked that Robert Carlyle aimed for an authentic Bosnian (was it?) accent for Renard: it was a new accent for a villain.
And yeah, his motivation at the end of the film losses me somewhat. It doesn’t help we’re not entirely given the specifics of the ‘buyers’. Feels like if they were going all the way with the idea of Safin having gone mad/wanting to destroy the world he should have been the one to release the nanobots.
To be fair I kinda found it interesting that Safin was seemingly this 45 year old with the body (and soul) of an old, cynical man. It plays into his physical ailments/what Spectre did to him.
It did feel quite realistic without any gadgetry at hand in the vehicle. I think that was what they were going for there. Bond in an ordinary family car with his family on board and only his wits and his skill as a driver to assist him.
Yes. That location needed something peculiar for Bond to do. The trailers really told us to expect something big from that sequence and it didn't live up to the hype. You can't imagine the previous Bond directors not doing something unique with Bond in that sequence.
Yeah definitely. The Aston chase had the machine gun doughnut, which was a great idea.
And I loved the shot of the Land Rovers and bikes all doing huge jumps down that hillside, that looks amazing. I'd have liked to have seen more big crazy 4x4 action like that in the chase.
I don't know what would have been the big stunt though. Maybe Bond is cornered, sees a sort of outcrop at a higher level leading to the forest which is inaccessible, but spots his chance and somehow uses one of the Land Rovers to scrabble his car over to get up to it and away from all of them (smashing the other car on the way of course).
Yeah, cool idea...or maybe deforestation happening with workers in the forest, trees falling, fire present, then Bond has to do something unique with the situation as they drive through the deforestation process.
It wouldn't have been a remake as the original film barely recognized the novel.
Very cool. Also the elevated curved road needed something to happen on it...a car flying off it, a helicopter appearing, something, anything...
I thought NTTD was a very interesting adaptation. They did a nice job of taking the ideas and making it cinematic, which, let's be honest, the novel is not.
It *would* have been interesting to see a depressed Bond sent on an impossible mission by M, but when they did DAF as they did, they tossed away OHMSS and closed off that journey for Bond. So maybe I blame Mankiewicz.