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
Yeah. I agree. There isn't an entirely bad Bond song. Just some better than others. Surprisingly, with time, I have come to really like AWTD. I think it's a slight rip-off of YKMN, especially the opening few seconds. I have never hated DAD, it's a nice song...just not Bondian enough for Bond. Its few seconds are quite Bondian and haunting, though. But yeah, Kleinman knows how to sync music and visuals. Albeit coming from commercials/music videos, it helps him understand music and visuals a lot.
Have to say I really liked the titles sequence for QoS. Think it gave Danny Kleinman a run for his money, and I much prefer them to SF titles!
You are hilarious.
I know we are debating taste here, but that's a bit strong IMO. "Unenthusiastic vocal" is the opposite from where I'm at. Sure, it's no hard rock or metal, but YKMN is a pretty good, solid rock song in my book. And what exactly is cheesy about it?
Musical taste and how different people hear things may be just about the most subjective thing going, but I am genuinely interested on how these two remarks can tally up??? If cheesy and unenthusiastic is an offence committed by YKMN, then surely that automatically consigns AWTD to being inferior???
AWTD, like QoS, grew on me over time, but of the Craig era films, YKMN is the only one that actually gets me amped up for the film - the others, except for NTTD, are good-to-average, but given the tone of the film as a whole, the PTS, etc, YKMN just nailed it. I nearly always skip the opening titles. I always watch the CR one.
Interesting. For me, the tone of NTTD matches precisely where Bond/the song is in the film, unlike, say WOTW.
Yesssh! Goldfrapp are really, really good. I'm listening to Pilots right now :)
Failed at both.
None of the Craig films have good endings. Skyfall's nationalistic rambling possibly the worst whilst CR is easily the most disappointing.
QOS has the best, just because it was a relief it had ended.
It wasn't a good day at work.
No
Not even the best ending of the Craig-Bond era
CR has a great ending, it was just the previous recuperation and recovery, followed by Venice bits which went on too long after Le Chiffre had met his demise
QoS has a decent ending, villains get their just desserts
SF breaks James Bond rule #2 - James Bond does not fail in his mission (but at least he doesn't die)
SP has a equivocal ending
NTTD breaks James Bond rule #1- James Bond does not die
I'm one of the idiots who loves the film, and the ending.
I should really be banished...
So a tremendous and unexpected display of respect and love for the character. Well done by the producers and I'm very grateful.
Fleming's Bond never died. He was tortured, beaten, shot, poisoned, manipulated but never outright killed.
This is because killing him kills the 1950s vision of Britain Fleming had in mind. It couldn't, and mustn't, ever die, no matter what.
Fleming died, and mortality was was on his mind as he approached death. He toyed with Bond's final death in the novels, rather than considering it impossible. NTTD was masterfully set up to honor the character's WWII origins, and timeless concepts of duty and sacrifice as with Valentine Fleming and many others. It continues hope for British values rather than extinguishing them for all time.
When Bond returns on screen in 2027 or so things won't have changed. Once again, he never left.
https://deadline.com/2025/06/danny-boyle-regret-walking-away-directing-james-bond-1236434301/
"as actor Daniel Craig had negotiated that finale as part of his contract."
If that's true, I wonder why it was so important to him, that the cinematic James Bond had to die?
Fleming died but Bond endured. Not his Bond, thankfully, but the cinematic Bond.
Interesting.
Obviously for nefarious reasons. He so clearly hated this role he played for 15 years that he really wanted to stick it to the fans. Specifically the fans who would never get over the idea that their hero could die on screen.
(I’ve never heard of an actor putting in their contract that the character that s/he was playing must die. More realistically, this conclusion was a collective effort. The death of James Bond had to work for all creatives, from the financiers (MGM), to the producers and the distributors (as they had to market and sell the product). I’ve repeated this over and over like a broken record, so might as well try this another time (the definition of madness, I know, but this IS how the film industry works. The shooting script has to be greenlit by all producers, from financiers to distributors. If they didn’t think killing Bond was a good idea, and that they couldn’t sell such a film to the worldwide market, they wouldn’t do it …)).
I don't think I am 100% anti Bond's death. I can recognise that it is realistically a part of the character is that he will always continue but there are ways that they could have done it to have more impact.
For example, I have a lot of logical qualms with Safin, his plans, the missile, and all of that. Beyond just that, there's the feeling that Bond's death is pointless; the plan had been already foiled, there are no lives saved (beyond a recently introduced family) and there's no struggle from Bond to try and stay alive.
Not impossible, just unacceptable
Fleming created James Bond, so he has the right to kill him off if he likes... but he chose not to, so who is anyone else to go against his decision?
Of course, Conan Doyle did kill off Sherlock Holmes in 1893, and later recanted in 1903, due to public demand, but still his decision to make.
Monumental vanity or selfishness?
Was it in order to be considered an avant-guarde disrupter and iconoclast, and shock the audience by going against the established conventions?
Or did he want to kill off the character for the "infamy" of being the first to do so, and to prevent being pestered about returning?
On the other hand, perhaps it's just another symptom of "Game of Thrones" syndrome, for want of a better phrase, the current fashion, in both movies and television, to insist on killing off an established character from an earlier edition in a later edition. It's not a new trick, but in recent times it has been overused to the point where it has become a predictable cliche, rather than a surprise twist.
My sentiments exactly @Reflsin2bourbons I'm not a fan of Bond dying. But then again, since this is a film Bond dies, they should have gone all out to make it dark and unique. Also like you said, those logical qualms are way too much. Plus, too many jokes in NTTD...and a lot of them aren't funny.
Bond's death should be felt more than Tracy & M's death. But sadly, it isn't so for me. Sometimes I try to see the emotions fans say they feel in NTTD. It just isn't there for me, not because I don't have feelings, but the film didn't convince me.
Also, on the plane towards Safin's island, Bond and Q are joking. Isn't Bond supposed to be pensive and reflective, because his family are in the hands of a thought-to-be dangerous man? There are still jokes in Safin's island. I don't know, it seems they thought more about Bond's death, without paying full attention to the script. The spirit of the opening Norway scene & the Matera sequence should have stayed on throughout the film.