I was thinking the other day, that Bond isn't aware of any potential threat Safin poses to his family via Heracles. He doesn't know Safin has a phial of Heracles virus designed specifically for Madeleine. That's because all the explanations about the poison island are given not to Bond - the main protagonist - but to Madeleine. So, Bond arrives with instructions to get in, get his family out and blow it up with no idea of the real personal peril he's now in. In movies gone by, there would be much better exposition, so Bond becomes fully involved in the climax. At no point did I see this. He's still figuring it all out with 15 minutes to go.
I have this sort of vague impression that pre-CraigBond, the writers would have dealt with this much better than the confrontations we do get. Safin never even explains it during the one-to-one. Usually there would be a tense hand-to-hand fight scene where Safin attempts to infect Bond, and he keeps preventing it. So, the audience knows what'll happen if it breaks, so does Bond, we are instantly gripped. Tension and excitement ! Bond would kill the enemy and avoid the glass smashing; but, given the producers want to kill our James, imagine the impact of Bond having a fight to the death, which he wins, yet Safin still gets to kill Bond, perhaps with his final lunge, or even by rolling OO7 in the spilt juice, something which both Bond and the audience immediately recognise as being fatal to his family. We have euphoria, followed by despair.
Perhaps then I might have had some sympathy for the eventual end - although I still wouldn't like it. As it stands, everything is a mystery to Bond during the attack on the island and we can't engage with what he's attempting to do or why he's attempting to do it until each moment becomes important to him. There's very little suspense. The death of Bond is also pre-empted by his being shot multiple times, so the impact of the phial breaking is diluted. I kind of thought he was doomed anyway. Without the necessary build up, each moment only passes as incidental, not fundamental, to the action at the time. The action becomes far less tense and so is the story; you kill it both ways.
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I got the OPERATION CROSSBOW similarity too. In all honesty that under-rated 1965 war film's infinitely superior. Talking of the blast doors, why should Bond have needed to open them? it's a sorry show the Royal Navy haven't developed missiles that can breach blast doors created in the 1950s. They must have been rusting by now at the very least. Also, why isn't M in prison for making chemical weapons? Instead they leave him in his oak-paneled office drinking scotch. It's a mad film the more I think about it.
I think there's barely enough in the story for Bond to realize he's been infected, but it's just not satisfying in construction. Narratively, this is a very sloppy movie.
Part of the reason I posit the unlikely possibility that there will be one more film is because there is so much shoddy construction to this film. If it turns out Bond survives and this isn't the final chapter, then some of the slop can be fixed in another film. As it stands, this one is clumsy and wanting.
Operation Crossbow is the much better film -- the narrative is sturdy and the themes resonate throughout. It's one of the few WW2 movies to actually show the enemy as more than an army of villains. They're the bad guys, but don't tell them that. And the heroes are frequently as ruthless as the Nazis. SPOILERS: The bit where they liquidate Sophia Loren's character simply because she's a loose end is particularly chilling and hardly qualifies the Allies as noble. The ending is similar. What's remarkable is that Operation: Crossbow is only 116 minutes compared to NTTD's 163 minutes, yet it tells a far more cohesive story and manages to have multiple plotlines, like the V1 rocket development.
I had reservations about NTTD but liked most of it. Some others wholeheartedly love it or hate it. You defended it by implying that those who had problems with it had problems with change itself.
I don’t think anyone wants the same film over and over
Then why'd you ask someone else "do you just want the exact same film time after time…?"
The end isn't entirely change for change's sake, but its novelty is a very large factor. The issue with defending it by acclaiming for being a change or new is that newness and novelty aren't intrisically good or bad.
Indidentally there's nothing wrong with being a dentist. There would be plenty wrong with a Bond film where he decided to become one instead of a spy. Would anyone defend that by saying "I understand that change can be scary for some…do you just want the exact same film time after time…?"
Haha, no, but it does have a spunky German aviatrix whose so fed up with her test pilots dying, she makes herself the next human guinea pig, an action so ballsy and determined you almost start rooting for the Axis. It's the opposite of Bond in suspenders waiting for the bombs to fall. And it's got a genuinely sprawling production without CGI. For special effects, there's Sophia Loren in a tight sweater.
Why kill off the main character of a 70 year old franchise? Who is this appealing to? The fans?
And yes, I'm a massive fan of 6 movies, really like some of the others, and despise the Brosnan reign and a few of Moore's. But looks like NTTD will be joining that unfortunate list too.
I'm also a massive fan of the Fleming novels too, probably more than the films.
According to today's Times, it was Daniel Craig's idea to kill off Bond, going back to CR, on his last movie. The producers were thinking of doing it with Spectre, the piece says, but backed out.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
That’s a shame if true. No Bond actor should be bigger than Bond and be able to wield that kind of power. Craig and CR were a perfect match resulting in cinema gold. In my opinion he never got close again in any of the next four films. I wish he had showed as much enthusiasm for the franchise as say Naomie Harris does during his tenure.
Casino Royale is my favourite film of all time but none of his other four even get into my top five Bond films.
Well, DC was never top of my list of Bond's, but what on earth was he thinking in wanting to kill off Bond? What was his agenda? Unforgivable.
The producers clearly had and have no faith in their product or the franchise any longer. They need to take a good long look at themselves. How many times has James Bond succeeded against the odds when the actor has been replaced - every single time. What made them so scared this time they couldn't envisage a movie without DC and chose to acquiesce to his wishes and kill off the goose that lays the golden egg? Who's in control of Eon, Babs and MGW or Daniel bloody Craig? These comments are awful to read. I daren't pick up a copy of The Times.
Considering Eon kicked the idea into touch once, they must have had no confidence at all to resurrect the idea when luring back an actor who obviously didn't want to be involved in the project from the get-go. Terrible, terrible, terrible. I am almost wanting Amazon to charge in and give these two a swift metaphorical kicking and incentivise them to challenge themselves a bit more.
Cubby's complacency almost brought an end to Bond in the 1980s, now the same inertia has drawn curtains over the franchise. Maybe it's time the whole thing drew to a close and I'm shocked to be writing that.
😪😪😪
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Been telling everyone for ages they don’t care anymore. That’s why you shouldn’t be surprised if they sell it off.
Licence to be killed: Bond's final act was planned 15 years ago
By David Sanderson (London Times, Nov. 6)
It can be revealed that Daniel Craig began plotting what may be the biggest film surprise of the decade 15 years ago.
The outgoing James Bond actor says in a new book that when cast for the 2006 film Casino Royale he told the producers that he "would like to kill off Bond when I finished".
The key players in the world's most successful film franchise are interviewed in the publisher Taschen's forthcoming The James Bond Archives. No Time To Die edition.
They tell how the twist was developed and how it was kept secret. The real script featuring Bond's death had only a limited circulation with fake scripts given to most of the film crew.
The associate producer, Gregg Wilson, said that the "fake" final scene had Bond climbing out of the rubble to discover he was to be knighted. "This is the first time we have had a fake script to keep elements of the story secret," he said.
In the film Bond, after discovering a poison he is impregnated with will kill his lover if he ever touches her, forces open blast doors to ensure British missiles can destroy the villain's lair.
But for the first time in the 25-film franchise, he cannot escape.
The book reveals that the film's producers, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson, had flirted with the idea of killing off Bond at the end of the previous film, Spectre, but "decided against it". They had a script for Spectre featuring a "Bond daughter" but dropped it because the proposed character would have been too old for 007 "to have some repartee" with.
In No Time To Die, Bond's only known daughter makes a first appearance; Mathilde, his six-year-old child with Madeleine Swann, who is played by Léa Seydoux.
Craig's original desire to have Bond killed off when his time was finished indicates the influence he held with Broccoli, who has frequently lavished his performances with praise.
In an interview with the editor of the book, Craig says: "When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara and Michael was that I would like to kill off Bond when I finished."
The book, which had access to the archives of the Bond film production company EON, reveals who had previously been in contention for the role.
In 2005 the producers chose a threestrong shortlist for the "tuxedo screen test".
Craig emerged triumphant over Henry Cavill, who would later gain recognition with the rebooted Superman films, and Sam Worthington, who would later be the lead in Avatar.
Regardless of what you think of the decicion I think you have to admire the size of his stones. He was new as Bond and suggested Bond should die at the end of his run! The man doesn't sufffer from low self esteem.
It also suggests what he thought of the character from the beginning. Not exactly an endorsement. Given that Bond ultimately is killed by his own people after requesting the missile strike, it would seem Craig had always intended for his Bond series to deconstruct the character.
Totally agree with this. The path was set to go down an exciting new journey with Craig after CR, and they detoured and took it down a completely different route instead. Looking back now on his tenure as a whole, this is blatantly obvious to see, and that Craig obviously was one of the people driving these creative decisions.
I hope to God the next actor is like another Dalton. Someone who really gets the Fleming novels, really understands the character Fleming was writing, and pushes hard for the script to go back in that direction again, instead of a direction away from Fleming, with some kind of warped `Fleming re-imagined' retcon crap that focuses on stuff that was barely touched upon in the novels.
I never got the impression Craig was a massive fan on the books like Dalton was, and it shows now in his films. CR was the only one he had no control over.
Watching NTTD a third time I noticed that the smart blood screen just says 'offline'.
We do see a wall of fire which would suggest Bond has been vaporised but he could have fallen through a destroyed silo roof door into water and avoided death.
We know from YOLT he goes to Russia and those ships that were approaching Safin's island were Russian landing craft.
If they want to pick up from the end of NTTD instead of a total reboot then the Russians finding an amnesiac Bond half alive could be a place to start. Bond says in NTTD his Russian is rusty but he thinks he's found the control room. Does an amnesia Bond speak Russian, or enough to make the Russians think he's Russian so they give him medical care and evacuate him?
And of course we know they actually built Russian Gulag sets in Canada for Boyle's film and the Canadian filming authorities are cited in NTTD's credits. Boyle also had a massive rocket built at Pinewood. That first customer delivery that Safin mentions, did it take place, is that why Safin is where he is when he finds Bond and shoots him? Is the huge Boyle rocket a delivery device for a huge cloud of Heracles nanobots to annihilate America?
BTW Heracles, the Roman name for the Greek hero Hercules, was eventually killed by a poison in his bloodstream. Could the Heracles nanobots be killed by more powerful, nanobots, could Q branch invent that?
Well, for this to work, Bond's kid would have to survive too. That puts the kibosh on things imo.
Or would it be another revenge plot, kid gets offed in pre-credits so Bond has another mission on his hands.
Was the franchise sold to Amazon on the basis that they'd have Craig for the next one? Otherwise it's a bit much to have them kill off Bond before handing it over...
Modern storytelling isn't really interested in neatly tying up loose ends. They could just as easily ignore Swann and the daughter in the next movie, at most saying they're blissfully living their lives in Europe, safe from reprisals by anyone interested because Bond is believed dead. That could even be worked into the script -- Bond is recovered, goes on one last mission because everyone thinks he's dead, saves the world one last time, and gets to retire with Swann and daughter under a new identity.
There are all kinds of ways they could go. it's fiction. And from what I can tell, modern audiences aren't all that concerned with the niceties of plot and continuity so long as they're sold on the sentimentality and special effects.
On another note, what car is Swann driving at the end? If it's an Aston Martin, are we to believe it's merely Bond's personal car or is it MI:6 issued with gadgets, and if the latter, why does she have it?
Comments
I was thinking the other day, that Bond isn't aware of any potential threat Safin poses to his family via Heracles. He doesn't know Safin has a phial of Heracles virus designed specifically for Madeleine. That's because all the explanations about the poison island are given not to Bond - the main protagonist - but to Madeleine. So, Bond arrives with instructions to get in, get his family out and blow it up with no idea of the real personal peril he's now in. In movies gone by, there would be much better exposition, so Bond becomes fully involved in the climax. At no point did I see this. He's still figuring it all out with 15 minutes to go.
I have this sort of vague impression that pre-CraigBond, the writers would have dealt with this much better than the confrontations we do get. Safin never even explains it during the one-to-one. Usually there would be a tense hand-to-hand fight scene where Safin attempts to infect Bond, and he keeps preventing it. So, the audience knows what'll happen if it breaks, so does Bond, we are instantly gripped. Tension and excitement ! Bond would kill the enemy and avoid the glass smashing; but, given the producers want to kill our James, imagine the impact of Bond having a fight to the death, which he wins, yet Safin still gets to kill Bond, perhaps with his final lunge, or even by rolling OO7 in the spilt juice, something which both Bond and the audience immediately recognise as being fatal to his family. We have euphoria, followed by despair.
Perhaps then I might have had some sympathy for the eventual end - although I still wouldn't like it. As it stands, everything is a mystery to Bond during the attack on the island and we can't engage with what he's attempting to do or why he's attempting to do it until each moment becomes important to him. There's very little suspense. The death of Bond is also pre-empted by his being shot multiple times, so the impact of the phial breaking is diluted. I kind of thought he was doomed anyway. Without the necessary build up, each moment only passes as incidental, not fundamental, to the action at the time. The action becomes far less tense and so is the story; you kill it both ways.
I got the OPERATION CROSSBOW similarity too. In all honesty that under-rated 1965 war film's infinitely superior. Talking of the blast doors, why should Bond have needed to open them? it's a sorry show the Royal Navy haven't developed missiles that can breach blast doors created in the 1950s. They must have been rusting by now at the very least. Also, why isn't M in prison for making chemical weapons? Instead they leave him in his oak-paneled office drinking scotch. It's a mad film the more I think about it.
I think there's barely enough in the story for Bond to realize he's been infected, but it's just not satisfying in construction. Narratively, this is a very sloppy movie.
Part of the reason I posit the unlikely possibility that there will be one more film is because there is so much shoddy construction to this film. If it turns out Bond survives and this isn't the final chapter, then some of the slop can be fixed in another film. As it stands, this one is clumsy and wanting.
Operation Crossbow is the much better film -- the narrative is sturdy and the themes resonate throughout. It's one of the few WW2 movies to actually show the enemy as more than an army of villains. They're the bad guys, but don't tell them that. And the heroes are frequently as ruthless as the Nazis. SPOILERS: The bit where they liquidate Sophia Loren's character simply because she's a loose end is particularly chilling and hardly qualifies the Allies as noble. The ending is similar. What's remarkable is that Operation: Crossbow is only 116 minutes compared to NTTD's 163 minutes, yet it tells a far more cohesive story and manages to have multiple plotlines, like the V1 rocket development.
Yes. But does it have the Aston Martin DB5 machine gunning its enemies and doing doughnuts. Does it? Does it?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Excellent…I don’t think anyone wants the same film over and over…so something has to change…maybe you’ll prefer the next film and I won’t like it…?
You say that people had reservations about NTTD…so now they either like it or hate it…? 🤔🤷🏻♂️
You think the end is just change for change sake then?
And what’s wrong with being a dentist? 👀☺️
Can you explain why killing Bond off is a dumb thing for the franchise to do?
And you are only a fan of about 6 of the 25 Bond films to date? 😱
I had reservations about NTTD but liked most of it. Some others wholeheartedly love it or hate it. You defended it by implying that those who had problems with it had problems with change itself.
I don’t think anyone wants the same film over and over
Then why'd you ask someone else "do you just want the exact same film time after time…?"
The end isn't entirely change for change's sake, but its novelty is a very large factor. The issue with defending it by acclaiming for being a change or new is that newness and novelty aren't intrisically good or bad.
Indidentally there's nothing wrong with being a dentist. There would be plenty wrong with a Bond film where he decided to become one instead of a spy. Would anyone defend that by saying "I understand that change can be scary for some…do you just want the exact same film time after time…?"
Haha, no, but it does have a spunky German aviatrix whose so fed up with her test pilots dying, she makes herself the next human guinea pig, an action so ballsy and determined you almost start rooting for the Axis. It's the opposite of Bond in suspenders waiting for the bombs to fall. And it's got a genuinely sprawling production without CGI. For special effects, there's Sophia Loren in a tight sweater.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtDHLsB2Ksc&list=PL5EF_1CWsOL7lHGIlfLKqFmIZy6sGXrYI&index=3&ab_channel=WarnerArchive
😂😂👍👍 Best response so far.
Anecdodal evidence perhaps…
The test pilot is called Hanna. Is it Hanna Reitsch perhaps?
Why kill off the main character of a 70 year old franchise? Who is this appealing to? The fans?
And yes, I'm a massive fan of 6 movies, really like some of the others, and despise the Brosnan reign and a few of Moore's. But looks like NTTD will be joining that unfortunate list too.
I'm also a massive fan of the Fleming novels too, probably more than the films.
According to today's Times, it was Daniel Craig's idea to kill off Bond, going back to CR, on his last movie. The producers were thinking of doing it with Spectre, the piece says, but backed out.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It was. According to ‘someone very much in the know’, that I know. It was the one condition he made to come back and do another.
What Daniel Craig is getting his young kids for Christmas... 😫
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That’s a shame if true. No Bond actor should be bigger than Bond and be able to wield that kind of power. Craig and CR were a perfect match resulting in cinema gold. In my opinion he never got close again in any of the next four films. I wish he had showed as much enthusiasm for the franchise as say Naomie Harris does during his tenure.
Casino Royale is my favourite film of all time but none of his other four even get into my top five Bond films.
Well, DC was never top of my list of Bond's, but what on earth was he thinking in wanting to kill off Bond? What was his agenda? Unforgivable.
The producers clearly had and have no faith in their product or the franchise any longer. They need to take a good long look at themselves. How many times has James Bond succeeded against the odds when the actor has been replaced - every single time. What made them so scared this time they couldn't envisage a movie without DC and chose to acquiesce to his wishes and kill off the goose that lays the golden egg? Who's in control of Eon, Babs and MGW or Daniel bloody Craig? These comments are awful to read. I daren't pick up a copy of The Times.
Considering Eon kicked the idea into touch once, they must have had no confidence at all to resurrect the idea when luring back an actor who obviously didn't want to be involved in the project from the get-go. Terrible, terrible, terrible. I am almost wanting Amazon to charge in and give these two a swift metaphorical kicking and incentivise them to challenge themselves a bit more.
Cubby's complacency almost brought an end to Bond in the 1980s, now the same inertia has drawn curtains over the franchise. Maybe it's time the whole thing drew to a close and I'm shocked to be writing that.
😪😪😪
Been telling everyone for ages they don’t care anymore. That’s why you shouldn’t be surprised if they sell it off.
Here's the article:
Licence to be killed: Bond's final act was planned 15 years ago
By David Sanderson (London Times, Nov. 6)
It can be revealed that Daniel Craig began plotting what may be the biggest film surprise of the decade 15 years ago.
The outgoing James Bond actor says in a new book that when cast for the 2006 film Casino Royale he told the producers that he "would like to kill off Bond when I finished".
The key players in the world's most successful film franchise are interviewed in the publisher Taschen's forthcoming The James Bond Archives. No Time To Die edition.
They tell how the twist was developed and how it was kept secret. The real script featuring Bond's death had only a limited circulation with fake scripts given to most of the film crew.
The associate producer, Gregg Wilson, said that the "fake" final scene had Bond climbing out of the rubble to discover he was to be knighted. "This is the first time we have had a fake script to keep elements of the story secret," he said.
In the film Bond, after discovering a poison he is impregnated with will kill his lover if he ever touches her, forces open blast doors to ensure British missiles can destroy the villain's lair.
But for the first time in the 25-film franchise, he cannot escape.
The book reveals that the film's producers, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson, had flirted with the idea of killing off Bond at the end of the previous film, Spectre, but "decided against it". They had a script for Spectre featuring a "Bond daughter" but dropped it because the proposed character would have been too old for 007 "to have some repartee" with.
In No Time To Die, Bond's only known daughter makes a first appearance; Mathilde, his six-year-old child with Madeleine Swann, who is played by Léa Seydoux.
Craig's original desire to have Bond killed off when his time was finished indicates the influence he held with Broccoli, who has frequently lavished his performances with praise.
In an interview with the editor of the book, Craig says: "When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with Barbara and Michael was that I would like to kill off Bond when I finished."
The book, which had access to the archives of the Bond film production company EON, reveals who had previously been in contention for the role.
In 2005 the producers chose a threestrong shortlist for the "tuxedo screen test".
Craig emerged triumphant over Henry Cavill, who would later gain recognition with the rebooted Superman films, and Sam Worthington, who would later be the lead in Avatar.
😲😲😲😲😲
Regardless of what you think of the decicion I think you have to admire the size of his stones. He was new as Bond and suggested Bond should die at the end of his run! The man doesn't sufffer from low self esteem.
It also suggests what he thought of the character from the beginning. Not exactly an endorsement. Given that Bond ultimately is killed by his own people after requesting the missile strike, it would seem Craig had always intended for his Bond series to deconstruct the character.
Totally agree with this. The path was set to go down an exciting new journey with Craig after CR, and they detoured and took it down a completely different route instead. Looking back now on his tenure as a whole, this is blatantly obvious to see, and that Craig obviously was one of the people driving these creative decisions.
I hope to God the next actor is like another Dalton. Someone who really gets the Fleming novels, really understands the character Fleming was writing, and pushes hard for the script to go back in that direction again, instead of a direction away from Fleming, with some kind of warped `Fleming re-imagined' retcon crap that focuses on stuff that was barely touched upon in the novels.
I never got the impression Craig was a massive fan on the books like Dalton was, and it shows now in his films. CR was the only one he had no control over.
Watching NTTD a third time I noticed that the smart blood screen just says 'offline'.
We do see a wall of fire which would suggest Bond has been vaporised but he could have fallen through a destroyed silo roof door into water and avoided death.
We know from YOLT he goes to Russia and those ships that were approaching Safin's island were Russian landing craft.
If they want to pick up from the end of NTTD instead of a total reboot then the Russians finding an amnesiac Bond half alive could be a place to start. Bond says in NTTD his Russian is rusty but he thinks he's found the control room. Does an amnesia Bond speak Russian, or enough to make the Russians think he's Russian so they give him medical care and evacuate him?
And of course we know they actually built Russian Gulag sets in Canada for Boyle's film and the Canadian filming authorities are cited in NTTD's credits. Boyle also had a massive rocket built at Pinewood. That first customer delivery that Safin mentions, did it take place, is that why Safin is where he is when he finds Bond and shoots him? Is the huge Boyle rocket a delivery device for a huge cloud of Heracles nanobots to annihilate America?
BTW Heracles, the Roman name for the Greek hero Hercules, was eventually killed by a poison in his bloodstream. Could the Heracles nanobots be killed by more powerful, nanobots, could Q branch invent that?
Well, for this to work, Bond's kid would have to survive too. That puts the kibosh on things imo.
Or would it be another revenge plot, kid gets offed in pre-credits so Bond has another mission on his hands.
Was the franchise sold to Amazon on the basis that they'd have Craig for the next one? Otherwise it's a bit much to have them kill off Bond before handing it over...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Modern storytelling isn't really interested in neatly tying up loose ends. They could just as easily ignore Swann and the daughter in the next movie, at most saying they're blissfully living their lives in Europe, safe from reprisals by anyone interested because Bond is believed dead. That could even be worked into the script -- Bond is recovered, goes on one last mission because everyone thinks he's dead, saves the world one last time, and gets to retire with Swann and daughter under a new identity.
There are all kinds of ways they could go. it's fiction. And from what I can tell, modern audiences aren't all that concerned with the niceties of plot and continuity so long as they're sold on the sentimentality and special effects.
On another note, what car is Swann driving at the end? If it's an Aston Martin, are we to believe it's merely Bond's personal car or is it MI:6 issued with gadgets, and if the latter, why does she have it?
Isnt it the V8 that Bond leaves at her house?
Please no, not another personal story!