› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…754755756757758760»

Comments

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited July 4 Posts: 662
    NoTimeToLive wrote: »
    It's really cool that you know how I felt watching the movie better than I did.
    Thankyou
    NoTimeToLive wrote: »
    Except, you don't. At no point while watching Spectre I felt any stakes. Neither the villain or his organization ever felt dangerous at all to me, even less so after all the "author of all your pain", "daddy loved you more", "look at these beautiful pictures of people from your past - except Mathis for some reason - which I hang on the wall because that's the most evil stuff I will do" stuff.

    At no point I expected any specific characters to be killed, but I kept expecting something to happen. Yet the film kept toying with interesting ideas (Spectre being some kind of Big Brother, Bond falling in love, Bond and Blofeld's shared past, Quantum becoming Spectre) but it never commited to them and ultimately fell flat.
    We are in agreement then, the lack of stakes was due to the villain not having a decent grand scheme, not because of the lack of an ally or love interest character being killed off.
    NoTimeToLive wrote: »
    It's quite telling that SP defenders can only defend it by attacking the people who disliked the movie, that proves it is a movie with few redeeming qualities.
    I'm not a "SP defender", someone can disagree with your view without holding the complete opposite one.

  • FrankXavierFrankXavier
    Posts: 722
    007HallY wrote: »
    The sacrificial lamb in Bond isn’t new by any means. All of Connery’s films from GF onwards had secondary Bond girls written specifically to die at some point! Throw in allies to that category as well and it’s a pretty standard Bond movie trope. Craig’s films emphasised the fact that women especially could die because of Bond which gave the death of Fields, Solonge, and Severine a weight to them, and I think that’s a legitimate decision. I do agree by SP the supporting women/leads tend to live, and that feels equally conscious (obviously you don’t want to repeat yourself, and to some extent it’s a subversion of expectations).

    For me, it gives the idea that Bond’s profession is full of death. Whether it’s through players consciously getting involved (ie. M, Mathis, and Leiter) or those who cross paths with Bond due to circumstance (Solonge or Severine). I think it gives the stories a weight personally. I think certainly when you kill off M (a character in Bond who doesn’t usually die) or even Felix that sense is felt. For what it’s worth that’s a sense I got in many of Fleming’s novels with Bond’s reflections on death.
    I don't object to seeing death in a Bond adventure because it is supposed to be a dangerous situation, but killing an M or a Tracy or a Vesper should be a once in a while thing and not something you do all the time for the best impact, I think most of us can agree on that. Otherwise every Bond entry we'd have to guess someone from MI6 is gonna bite the dust, which seems a bit absurd.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,698
    In the new era, everyone will be safe for a while. They have to establish this new Bond, so killing off anyone from the Mi6 family seems far-fetched (unless it’s a C type baddie).

    And I’d guess the historic go-to sacrificial lamb, a Bond woman, will be seen less and less at the altar. After Severine, it’s not as chic, nor appetizing to do away with a woman character.

    That leaves an ally of Bond to take-on this duty. I’d say any Mathis-like characters will have to watch their backs from here on out.
  • Colonel_VenusColonel_Venus
    Posts: 596
    I just watched 28 Years Later, and let me just say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson's voice was perfect in it. Everyone worried about his voice should watch this movie!
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,550
    FrankXavier wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The sacrificial lamb in Bond isn’t new by any means. All of Connery’s films from GF onwards had secondary Bond girls written specifically to die at some point! Throw in allies to that category as well and it’s a pretty standard Bond movie trope. Craig’s films emphasised the fact that women especially could die because of Bond which gave the death of Fields, Solonge, and Severine a weight to them, and I think that’s a legitimate decision. I do agree by SP the supporting women/leads tend to live, and that feels equally conscious (obviously you don’t want to repeat yourself, and to some extent it’s a subversion of expectations).

    For me, it gives the idea that Bond’s profession is full of death. Whether it’s through players consciously getting involved (ie. M, Mathis, and Leiter) or those who cross paths with Bond due to circumstance (Solonge or Severine). I think it gives the stories a weight personally. I think certainly when you kill off M (a character in Bond who doesn’t usually die) or even Felix that sense is felt. For what it’s worth that’s a sense I got in many of Fleming’s novels with Bond’s reflections on death.
    I don't object to seeing death in a Bond adventure because it is supposed to be a dangerous situation, but killing an M or a Tracy or a Vesper should be a once in a while thing and not something you do all the time for the best impact, I think most of us can agree on that. Otherwise every Bond entry we'd have to guess someone from MI6 is gonna bite the dust, which seems a bit absurd.

    Sure. The love of Bond’s life or long running characters dying shouldn’t always be a thing. But there is a lot of death in Bond, and to some extent you’re always wondering which of Bond’s allies or even love interest is going to make it in each film.
    peter wrote: »
    In the new era, everyone will be safe for a while. They have to establish this new Bond, so killing off anyone from the Mi6 family seems far-fetched (unless it’s a C type baddie).

    And I’d guess the historic go-to sacrificial lamb, a Bond woman, will be seen less and less at the altar. After Severine, it’s not as chic, nor appetizing to do away with a woman character.

    That leaves an ally of Bond to take-on this duty. I’d say any Mathis-like characters will have to watch their backs from here on out.

    I suppose to do something different with even that expectation you could have a Bond ally meet a gruesome fate that completely changes them, but doesn’t kill them. I’m thinking of Mathis in one of Raymond Benson’s novels being tortured to make him go blind. Or of course Felix Leiter getting mauled by sharks. Could be quite interesting and show how dangerous Bond’s world is.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,457
    I guess you could open with it in a way: the old M gets assassinated so a new M decides to invent/reactivate the Double 0 section.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited 12:49am Posts: 6,905
    mtm wrote: »
    I guess you could open with it in a way: the old M gets assassinated so a new M decides to invent/reactivate the Double 0 section.

    Love it. How original. Nicely done :) A twist on our expectations, right from the get go.
  • ArapahoeBondFanArapahoeBondFan Colorado
    Posts: 129
    Colonel_Venus wrote: »
    I just watched 28 Years Later, and let me just say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson's voice was perfect in it. Everyone worried about his voice should watch this movie!

    My biggest concern. You have convinced me to watch it.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,905
    Colonel_Venus wrote: »
    I just watched 28 Years Later, and let me just say that Aaron Taylor-Johnson's voice was perfect in it. Everyone worried about his voice should watch this movie!

    Cool, now if only he could stop being a ridiculous pony haired buffoon...
Sign In or Register to comment.