OK I'm not sure if anyone has watched the 1st season of Tom Clancy Jack Ryan. Season 3 is now on Amazon Prime in the UK and I hadn't watched this series.
So I've binged watched the 1st season and I'm now into the 2nd season.
Basically in the very 1st episode of season 1, two young boys are playing the the back yard of their house in Syria maybe. I assume Israeli fighters fly above then turn around and come into a bombing run. Similar to the NTTD ending they drop bombs and its obvious both kids are dead, exactly the same sort of footage as NTTD.
Then the episode skips forward to modern day and guess what not only does one boy survive but both do and they both end up as the main protagonists.
Flashbacks show that they both have some injuries burns etc. I'm really enjoying this series whislt stuck in recovering from hospital ****.
Not sure they will go down the road of Bond surviving NTTD, but hey it's the movies, maybe specialist plastic surgery at Shrublands is a way to introduce the new Bond.
Anyway if you haven't watched this series check it out, I've really enjoyed it.
There is plainly enough cinematic wiggle room to bring back Craig's Bond if they want. They've done this sort of thing lately in everything from Sherlock to Indiana Jones to The Dark Knight Rises (depending on how you interpret the ending). The likelihood of their doing it is incredibly remote, but it wasn't done like showing Gus Fring in Breaking Bad, where there's no chance of his survival.
Well . . . to my eyes, you don't really see their lips kiss. It's certainly very strongly implied, much as intercourse is very strongly implied by body language and such in R-rated films, but we don't actually see the literal moment. But to each their own.
What's particularly funny -- outside of the fact this wasn't even the first interracial kiss on TV -- is that in an earlier episode, Kirk very clearly kisses Barbara Luna, whose background includes Filipino, Spanish, and Portuguese, and a few weeks after Plato's Stepchildren, very clearly France Nuyen, whose father was either Chinese or Vietnamese. Not a peep about the interracial implications. Of course, in the United States, "interracial" is frequently defined as Black and White, as though other races don't really exist or are of lesser concern regarding such things.
I agree. It would be easy to show the roof he is on falling in as the wall of flames races towards him, and while he appears to be immolated from our POV, he actually drops through and down into a body of water and he is carried away by the current from the collapsing building, into some other chamber, maybe the submarine pen and he is discovered by whomever was on those approaching ships. If Bond can get shot and fall from a high bridge in Turkey, get carried away by the river and survive, he can survive the poison garden missile attack.
The problem is I just don't think there is any appetite from the producers to have Bond surviving it and the same Bond (albeit a different actor) carrying on in the next film with continuation. They were happy with and sanctioned his demise.
I think I would like to see it completely ignored and just start afresh (not a reboot) and/or perhaps a tongue in cheek line in the PTS (a la the OHMSS "other fellow" line) where either Bond says or someone else says to him "You only live twice.."
You forget the scene was intentionally made to be unambigous - Bond dies. They didn't write themselves into a corner and decided they had to make it look like he dies in the end. The movie was made that way so that Bond would/could die. I wouldn't be surprised if Craig had in his NTTD a stipulation that Bond can't be "resurected" from NTTD. It would cheapen or even destroyed NTTD if it's retconned so that he actually survived.
Is it me or I'm not really that against of Bond's death? Look, I'm not a fan of the Craig Era as a whole and NTTD is one of my least favorite Bond films in the series, but I think that NTTD ending felt to me like beating a dead horse sort of thing, to me there are a lot more bigger problems in the film than having Bond die alone, even if he didn't die, the film would've still be as mediocre (or dare I say it, bad) as what we've got really.
To be honest, I'd rather have Bond die than him to be with Madeleine (whom he had no chemistry to begin with) and be a family man forever, yes, this is just Craig's iteration of Bond, but he's still a general representation of the character, hence why many people were also reacting to his death like that, because he's still James Bond.
I just watched NTTD last night for the first time in a while, right to the end credits and noticed something which I don’t think anyone else has mentioned before.
The Bond guitar chord gets played when the NTTD title card comes up which seems to signal the end of the orchestration.
The next frame has the title “James Bond will return”. Has anyone noticed that you can hear a rumble during this frame? It sounds like the rumble of an explosion blast in the distance.
Unless my DVD is faulty, it’s an odd sound to play during this frame. Is it a subtle hint that it could be Bond waking up from surviving the explosion?
Yesterday I finished watching all 5 Daniel Craig movies in the following order, and it helped me love it even more (me being a previous hater of the movie).
Day 1-Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace
Day 2- Skyfall & Spectre
Day 3- No Time To Die
This is mostly about NTTD, but the prequels have so much in-depth story that you need to consider to understand it, and although I do have some gripes about certain events, the events that happened, happened. I'm not one to complain about whether or not a perfect way of doing something should have occurred in a movie to satisfy my wants. I am simply there to see a story play out. Not fulfill my mind script.
It's all about exposition.
I'm going to provide some background from each movie that helped me to understand Bond's final decision in NTTD.
In CR, we see a man who will do everything it takes to finish the mission. Even at the expense of killing those whom he is supposed to keep alive. Later, we see his unawareness of her betrayal, because of the way he falls in love with her. Many consider it a weakness, but it is human to feel love and nurture from a woman. Although it is part of Vesper's fault the reason she takes the money, Bond should have been "on top of things", meaning doing it himself, and not allowing anything to come between him and his mission.
Quick note: moving forward to NTTD, when Bond is at Vesper's grave, he writes "Forgive ME" on the paper before igniting it. Not, "I forgive you." He had already forgiven her, I believe, but he felt guilty that he couldn't see past her or her dilemma, therefore not being able to save her left a bad taste. He wasn't in his five senses to see her "tell", her future betrayal. That scene was done so well, because seconds later, he is led to believe it is all happening again, that Madeleine has betrayed him. What does Bond do later? Without a second thought, he's onto her, thinking there is no way it will happen twice. He shuts himself off, separating her from him. EXPOSITION
In Quantum, Bond is still fresh off the death and betrayal of the woman he once loved. It is an exceptional movie and no one will convince me otherwise. The plotline that water is the most valuable resource is fine with me. Why should we be surprised to know that utility conglomerates want to control its use? They'd control the air we breathe if we let them. Bond simply needs a mission to get his mind on something else, and this movie was a prime Bond storyline. He needed something to help him move on, but he is still human. Like a few of us who break up with our girl, promise we'll never think of her again, then go back and stalk her Instagram. He still wants revenge because of the perfect image of her he has in his mind. He can't quite let her go, even though he says he won't think about her, so he finds out where the guy is to kill him.
Quick note: In this movie, he meets Camille, a woman with nothing but revenge on her mind, just like Bond has for Vesper's previous boyfriend. This is different for him, all the other kills were strictly business, but this one was personal. Which I understand why they never went past the final kiss; she had no motive to fall in love, she just killed a guy, I think I'd want to go home and think about my actions. (Maybe call her after a few weeks) That being said, the way he later goes to Blofeld and wants to kill him opens old wounds like he had in Quantum; he wanted revenge for hurting the woman he loved, in this case, Madeleine. Which is why I don't feel like it's out of place for Bond to want death for Blofeld. EXPOSITION
Skyfall was my introduction to Craig's Bond, it's been my personal favorite, and I haven't fallen off that train since, even though he did (pun intended). Here we see Bond take his work home, literally. It is kind of a Goldeneye plot, a previous 00 turned bad. He is a seasoned agent and knows exactly what to do. Doesn't kill unless he has to. Looks out for his brothers in arms (i.e., Ronson, Moneypenny, Kincaide). For 3 months he was out of active service. He had an easy out. Perhaps could have made a life playing poker to survive. But he cannot allow the organization, the people he grew fond of, to be in danger. Now we see a Bond who lives and fights for Queen and Country, an "exemplar of British fortitude". This allows me to see that Bond sees the bigger picture, he can make a distinction between what England needs doing, and what he wants, and always chooses his country when he is needed.
This is why I can understand his decision to die in NTTD. He can see the distinction between what he wanted, which is going back to live happily ever after with his family and continuing to live with a target on his back, and die, which meant keeping his family, his country, and the world safe. Of course he had to die saving the world, that's still hard for many to accept, and it was hard for me to, but I find myself understanding that decision better, thanks to his decisions in the previous movies. (more on this later) EXPOSITION
Spectre was my least favorite, but undeniably a great movie, and even the plot was believable. Here we see Bond pondering a life out of service, a life where we can enjoy the fruits of his labor, in this case, the fruits of Mr. White's labor if you know what I mean. Just like in Skyfall, a mission is what he needs, and while things get personal, he puts the mission at hand first.
In this story, I find that many don't want to accept the "silly" story that Blofeld grew up with Bond, but if you think about the EXPOSITION, it means that if it wasn't Blofeld, but another kid in the same situation, where his dad loved Bond more than him, he would hold resentment and hate for that kid who stole his father's love. Don't you think he would have tried to make Bond's life a living hell? Well, that kid WAS Blofeld, he decided he was going to do just that, make Bond's life hell.
Imagine him knowing the kid who his father loved more than him was going to become a 00. With all the bad deeds Ernst had been making up until that point, he had enough power to do some damage, and he knew exactly how. "How can I make this guy suffer? I know, put him in front of a beautiful woman who will betray him and cause heartbreak like he's never seen! Ha ha" (rubbing palms together) "Ooh, I'll kill every girl he ever sleeps with to cause more trauma, who's got some oil?" "How about killing M, that would send him over the edge!" EXPOSITION
Although NTTD is one of the most controversial Bond movies, it fits Craig's Bond perfectly. Because of the previous movies' explanations and the background of other characters, we cannot allow Bond to simply do another mission without being emotional, he has made too many personal decisions then not to do them in this movie. Certain choices have consequences, and this Bond does not allow us to surpass the consequences to those choices.
We needed a villain like Safin in this movie because we needed Bond to remind us that even though we may be jerks and live a life full of regrets, what we do in our last breaths matters more than anything we've ever done. He gave Bond a reason he could never see his family again. And for us to have left the theater seeing Bond alive and well, with his family or isolated for years until they find a solution for his nanobot infection would not have shown us the main theme of the movie, which I think Bond finally realizes at the end.
Selflessness. Self-sacrifice. Love.
The one thing that Bond finally had was the one thing he needed to sacrifice his life for.
Imagine him being isolated and Madeleine had to come to see him through a glass window. Bond would probably see Mathilde grow up each visit, and he'd never be able to hug her. To teach her things, to be that father figure, that fatherly love. Madeleine would not be able to see another man because Bond wants to be in their lives, and he would probably hunt that guy down later if he found out. MI6 would be bending over backwards researching for a cure instead of continuing their missions and more important stuff. Bond may not have realized all this at the moment, but he did know that things would be a lot easier for everybody if he died along with the infection.
(For any Norm fans, the infection didn't beat Bond, when Bond dies the nanobots die with him, so it was more like a draw.)
Looking back, I've fallen in love with these movies more because of NTTD. Even this movie has some meaning for me now, something I didn't see before. I know I haven't delved too much into the plotholes and certain scenes or whatever, or that Daniel and the producers decided to kill Bond to get out of the game permanently, but this arc reminds me of what movies should be doing with their characters, providing the background and the settings, along with reasons why they would make these decisions. EXPOSITION.
Sometimes I don't remember the day-to-day activities that seem boring, but I do remember the things that shaped my life, the things that matter, the overall story of the person that I am today. Some consider these plotlines to be boring, lazy writing, but they're consistent with the character, in my eyes.
I want a character arc to do that, to give me the boring stuff, but also highlight the reasons why that character would decide to do that instead of this, and how other people play into their decisions.
This was a great arc, and probably why he is my favorite Bond, because as a young man (24M), yes I want to be entertained, but I also want the characters to breathe their own life, to help me understand them, to go on through life enjoying their hard work but paying for their bad mistakes.
Isn't that what life is? "But we don't want Bond to be like in real life, he should fit our world of escapism."
I can see why you would want that, but starting with CR, this Bond is a more realistic version, so I'm ok with a realistic ending.
After seeing the movies back to back, Daniel Craig's Bond got easier for me to understand and ultimately accept.
All I needed was EXPOS--
You know.
"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain…" - The Dark Knight, 2008
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
edited November 15
I enter this thread feeling very self concious. Not at the writing of NTTD, or the other franchises I will reference, but at the fact while I have been off the forum for a while, the world has turned to phrases like 'woke' 'haters' and 'true fans.' Seems we live in such a PC world these days, any form of objection at something changing is frowned upon...
NTTD is a film hampered by a self awareness of modern audience sensebilities. Bond has a family?! That was a red flag immediatley. Bond is off the grid and out of the loop (again) but this time the world has moved on without him. M does not have the same attachment to Bond that his predacessor M-Mansfield had. The whole plot is full of retreads of ideas used elsewhere. The woman with a vendetta, an enemy retconned into the back story, a main villan playing second fiddle and a thug with an ability borrowed from elsewhere. (S.H.I.E.L.D and Thunderbirds 2015 both used the bionic eye gag, as did the Game Rogue Agent.)
Perhaps the biggest mistake was introducing a new baddie in Saffin on top of Blofeld, who was on top of Spectre which in turn was on top of the Quantum characters. So much repitition and reuse, its painful to watch such blatent recycling. Revisiting Vesper in another tag on to CR-06 and QoS is a repeat of SP's most blatent mistakes, and introducing a new 007 ‐ one who should tick all the PC / PR boxes Nomi, played by the Excellent Lashana Lynch. There is a lot to like about this character and the way she is played, but it feels like appeasement of the 'Bond should be a woman / Bond should be black' brigade.
As Mr Craig said himself - why not an original female MI6 character in their own right? Nomi is a contender. Putting her alongside Bond and making her the 'new 007' was a step too far though, undermining that premise by making her 'the competition.'
I have always loved Naomi Harris as an actress (we are arround the same age) and Ben Wishaw is excellent in everything I have seen him in. Both build on MPenny and Q2 being Bond's friends as well as colleagues, and snippits of their own lives are welcome. The fact Q2 is dating a potential male suitor as a side reference IS a pice of PC that works. No flags, no over the top gestures, just real life as it should be in Bonds World. These touches work.
But - the things that really unravel the film are traditional 007 aspects watered down. We are used to Blofeld agrandising in his Volcano or Oil Rig layers, threatening the most powerful countries. Here in his 'Beep chair' from classic Star Trek, he is a Hanibal Lechter copy, and even an actor of Christopher Waltz's caliber can't save these scenes.
The film's biggest failing by far though, is Rami Malek as Saffin. I have yet to see his other work, but I was seriously underwhelmed by character and performance here, as Bond is dependant on the strength and character of his enemies. Saffin lacks the originality of Goldfinger, the ego or dry wit of Drax, the sheer Siren presence of Electra and is flat and an unassuming also ran compared to all the Blofelds! The character is boring, pedestrian and lacks any energy, charisma or ingenuity. Even when he wibbles about his 'garden of death' my shoulders slumped at such a feeble use of a final remaining Fleming Easter Egg.
All this leads to a film ending that is shocking, but only for a second. The sad fact is with Craig's input in the writing room, SP and NTTD create the two parter CR-06 and QoS failed to do, in the worst possible way. Its Bond's endgame, a way of ensuring this version of the character is dead and buried. Or burnt and shattered in a more literal sense.
This trait mirrors what Sir Pat Stewart has done in Star Trek. - 'Picard' is a terrible series as it went completely off track from what Trek is about. It became a 'woe is Jean Luc Picard' routine, and Bond has now gone down the same road.
I have been a Bond fan since I was a boy, watching the Sir Roger and Sir Sean films with my Grandad. Those films were exciting, captivating, and dare I say it forbidden, in Bond's attitudes and behaviours. It was part of the character's charm and appeal...
When the only part of a Bond film that feels fresh, new and exciting is the unexpected cameo of the (real) HMS Dragon, you know something special, original and even a little bit forbidden, has been lost.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I noticed something else regarding the "death" of Bond at the end of this film.
Bond actually seemingly gets blown up 3 times in this film. The first is at Vesper's grave where he first becomes disorientated and momentarily loses his hearing. The second happens again at the staircase in Safin's base when all the grenades are thrown down the stairwell.
Bond being caught in the explosion at the end is therefore actually the third time he gets blown up. One could therefore argue that as he had survived the previous two explosions, there is no reason why he can't survive the third.
Several cultures in the world treat the number 3 or having 3 attempts at something as being lucky. In German there is an idiom which states "alle gute Dinge sind drei" which would be translated into English as "all good things come in threes".
English also has a similar kind of idiom which is "third time's a charm". However this idiom could mean that on the third attempt of Bond being caught in an explosion, Bond actually dies 🤣
Thanks @Thunderbird 2 a very nice assessment which chimes with many of my own thoughts.
Without wanting to damage the line of this thread, I consider Craig's era to be a case of diminishing returns: CR is the best and the others follow in order, getting progressively more laboured and illogical as they go. I had not considered the 'piggy backing' of villain on villain and agree that this is a fundamental flaw in the entire 5-film canon. I think I wrote on another thread that Blofeld should have been the major villain in NTTD, given the Garden of Death setting for the climax. I also saw no reason to feature a new OO7, and the reasons for doing so do feel ultra-PC based rather than story-based. There is something wholly and dissatisfyingly grim about NTTD, from its icy beginnings, through its utterly bonkers and complicated sci-fi plot, to its character's confused psychological relationships, to its explosive terminal climax - even the photography looks grimy.
The end of the movie [the end of OO7 ?] tells me, a few years on, that we will not see another Bond film until at least 2030. Dust has to settle. Established expectations need to be thoroughly curbed. A new Bond found. A new story arc or arcs to be constructed. A new manner of presenting Bond - be it retro, ultra-modern, a pastiche, imitation, etc etc. I am not convinced the current Eon set up is interested in Bond right now, or in anything right now. Of course, I will welcome being wrong about this, but I simply cannot see it. The production team wrote themselves into an extremely tight corner which will take a lot of effort to extricate themselves from. Albeit a likely jest when he said it, Daniel Craig, with his name proudly in the production listings, has got his wish - at least temporarily - to kill James Bond off. The actor doesn't want to come back, but I have this feeling neither does Eon. Not right now and not for some time.
I’d disagree there: for me Craig’s films got a huge shot in the arm with Skyfall after the very weak QoS, so I don’t think they diminished in order.
Also the idea to show us his replacement after he’s left the service is just natural; I don’t know why anyone writing that story wouldn’t put a new 007 in. The trouble is she gets almost nothing to do in the plot, and for some reason they don’t let her win any of her little skirmishes with Bond: he comes out on top every time they tangle, which just feels a bit wrong and gives no stakes to their relationship.
I agree that they got progressively worse after the sublime CR, although Skyfall did have some very good parts. I still can’t bring myself to watch NTTD in its entirety. If I put it on it’s just to watch the Jamaica scenes.
I agree about the replacement 007. There was a lot of hype before the film's release about a new, female, black 007, and after I watched the film I realised that the Nomi character could have been removed completely and it would not have made much difference to the the plot.
I'm with you on this point. I watched the film twice in the cinema and have bought the Blu-ray but cannot bring myself to watch it all the way through, knowing how it ends. Normally when leaving the cinema after watching a good film, I have a bit of a spring in my step, but after I watched No Time To Die the first time, I walked out with a feeling of misery (depression's probably too strong a word) because I couldn't believe that the filmmakers had taken it upon themselves to actually kill Bond.
I agree about the replacement 007. There was a lot of hype before the film's release about a new, female, black 007, and after I watched the film I realised that the Nomi character could have been removed completely and it would not have made much difference to the the plot.
Yes, it's true- she doesn't change the direction of the plot in any scene. She kills Waldo, sure, but Bond could have done that and nothing would change. And I think it's a real shame: I think she's actually genuinely pretty cool and would have been great as a sparring partner to Bond, but unlike in other films where say Anya or Holly gets to get the better of Bond once or twice before they start working together, she never gets a single victory so there's no back-and-forth between them. It's so strange. Even their first meeting in Jamaica, where she's supposed to warn him off, actually does the reverse and convinces Bond to get involved, so she fails right from the start. That scene where she gets frustrated that Bond won't tell her what his new 00 number is just sort of shows how he's under her skin and he's not bothered by her at all, which is kind of uninteresting dramatically- our hero should have a challenge, and she doesn't pose one.
And they could have added in some victories for her: if she'd been the one to pick Bond out of the sea after the fishing boat sinks, maybe she could have turned up earlier in Norway and saved his life in the forest some one of the baddies, something like that. But they give her nothing, and really she should have at least have had a subplot where she retrieves one of the robot eyes or found some erroneous evidence for not trusting Bond or something.
I still think that a retired Bond meeting his replacement is a solid idea and is just a natural direction for the story to go, and actually works as a nice bookend to CR where it's Bond who is the new 007 ("The odds will betray you, And I will replace you" goes the song), and maybe he could have seen something of the young, impetuous Bond of CR in her even, and mentored her a bit. But they never actually figure out a story reason as to why she's there, to the extent that they don't even give her much to do in the plot. A big misstep. She actually feels a bit like a hangover from a previous draft of the script where she had something to do.
That's what I meant by: I also saw no reason to feature a new OO7, and the reasons for doing so do feel ultra-PC based rather than story-based.
She serves no purpose to the story. I don’t care one way or the other what her OO number is, her gender or ethnicity, but she ought to be relevant to the story and she just isn't. I could say the same thing about Blofeld. The more I think on NTTD, the less and less I like it, and I wasn't overjoyed from the get-go.
That's what I meant by: I also saw no reason to feature a new OO7, and the reasons for doing so do feel ultra-PC based rather than story-based.
No I don't like that; you're only saying that because she's a black woman, and I don't think there's any reason to think that they put her there for 'PC reasons'. The only reason Tanner is in it is because he was in the previous films, he has no story reason to be there either, and in fact as small a part as she does play, she has more to do than Tanner, but no-one's saying that about him.
The idea of a new 007 is a decent and natural one, and making her as different as possible to Bond makes sense too- they just needed to work her into the story more. But that doesn't mean she's just there for diversity's sake; I don't think that's a good way to look at things. If you can say the same thing about Blofeld as you say, then that doesn't point to it being anything about her gender or ethnicity but more likely a story-writing problem.
its too bad Nomi gave back the 007 number to Bond as they left for Safins headquarters.
if only she'd kept the number, they could at least give us a new 007 film to keep us occupied while we wait another halfdecade for the next James Bond film.
He's dead; and this was the right decision - rounding off Craig's circle which began with 'Casino Royale' - What's the alternative? "Bond watched the fiery arcs transcribing his fate across the sky... but wait! Over there in the water; it couldn't be - it was! Blofeld's old Batho-sub!" And we have to pretend the next Actor is the same guy, unaccountably younger... Better to finish Craig's stories and leave the decks clear for the reboot.
I came up with the idea (based on the rumours there will be two Bonds in one film) that the next film could be set in the present time but has flashbacks to Bond's earlier life either at university and/or during his time in the navy and the storyline is woven together in both the past and current times. Personally I would prefer just one actor playing the part in both timelines making him look younger/ older to fit the timeline.
I think this could solve the often unfilled request by many fans to set a Bond film in the past without having to fully commit to it. I reckon if they did a film set entirely in the past and it didn't end up being successful, they wouldn't be able to repeat the idea for a second film (somehow like what happened with OHMSS). If they also have the story set in the present time as well as the past, it would also honour Broccoli's wish of keeping Bond current. I can't remember where I got this from but I believe Broccoli was dead set against Maibaum's idea of making a young Bond in the late 80s after Moore retired from the role.
this is an interesting idea, with lots of potential. lots of different possible potentials
if Bond26 is a "once upon a time" story that Madeleine tells Mathilde, it is a work of fiction within the CraigBond universe. that might bug some people who think about it too much, as if its trivialising future Bond stories. but it reminds me of John Pearson's Bond biography, in which Flemings 14 books were a work of fiction within the slightly-more-realistic PearsonBond's universe.
it also allows them to tell a different type of BondStory, less realistic, hopefully less grim'n'gritty, hopefully less entangled in the mundane interpersonal relations of James Bond. as a bedtime story it would even be best suited towards the more fantastic type Bond films, the ones I like. I recently argued The Spy Who Loved Me follows an almost fairy tale narrative logic, and in the 60s a writer named Anne Boyd wrote a whole book arguing all of FlemingBond was a 20th century update of St George and he Dragon, and an example of Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey monomyth. if thats the type of James Bond story that would be told to a child, by coincidence thats the type of James Bond story I want to see!
but the possibilities are better than that. If future James Bond films are stories being told by someone about a character named James Bond, then they do not have to be the same type of story film after film. Every character who wanted to tell a James Bond story would tell it different, as they each have their own unique subjective perspective and would see the adventures of James Bond differently. If M told a story one film it would be from his point of view, Q would have another angle, and so on.
Really not that different from what we had with the first twenty films, where the tone changed with each actor and with each director. Except this range of story styles is now explicitly accounted for within the narrative, and explicitly sets the CraigBond arc in another, more boring level of reality!
Comments
Good point about M, Moneypenny and Q having too much screen time. They should just be in the first 15 minutes, if that.
I see. That puts the dampers on Bond surviving and coming back after cosmetic surgery.
OK I'm not sure if anyone has watched the 1st season of Tom Clancy Jack Ryan. Season 3 is now on Amazon Prime in the UK and I hadn't watched this series.
So I've binged watched the 1st season and I'm now into the 2nd season.
Basically in the very 1st episode of season 1, two young boys are playing the the back yard of their house in Syria maybe. I assume Israeli fighters fly above then turn around and come into a bombing run. Similar to the NTTD ending they drop bombs and its obvious both kids are dead, exactly the same sort of footage as NTTD.
Then the episode skips forward to modern day and guess what not only does one boy survive but both do and they both end up as the main protagonists.
Flashbacks show that they both have some injuries burns etc. I'm really enjoying this series whislt stuck in recovering from hospital ****.
Not sure they will go down the road of Bond surviving NTTD, but hey it's the movies, maybe specialist plastic surgery at Shrublands is a way to introduce the new Bond.
Anyway if you haven't watched this series check it out, I've really enjoyed it.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
There is plainly enough cinematic wiggle room to bring back Craig's Bond if they want. They've done this sort of thing lately in everything from Sherlock to Indiana Jones to The Dark Knight Rises (depending on how you interpret the ending). The likelihood of their doing it is incredibly remote, but it wasn't done like showing Gus Fring in Breaking Bad, where there's no chance of his survival.
Well . . . to my eyes, you don't really see their lips kiss. It's certainly very strongly implied, much as intercourse is very strongly implied by body language and such in R-rated films, but we don't actually see the literal moment. But to each their own.
What's particularly funny -- outside of the fact this wasn't even the first interracial kiss on TV -- is that in an earlier episode, Kirk very clearly kisses Barbara Luna, whose background includes Filipino, Spanish, and Portuguese, and a few weeks after Plato's Stepchildren, very clearly France Nuyen, whose father was either Chinese or Vietnamese. Not a peep about the interracial implications. Of course, in the United States, "interracial" is frequently defined as Black and White, as though other races don't really exist or are of lesser concern regarding such things.
Good points.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I agree. It would be easy to show the roof he is on falling in as the wall of flames races towards him, and while he appears to be immolated from our POV, he actually drops through and down into a body of water and he is carried away by the current from the collapsing building, into some other chamber, maybe the submarine pen and he is discovered by whomever was on those approaching ships. If Bond can get shot and fall from a high bridge in Turkey, get carried away by the river and survive, he can survive the poison garden missile attack.
The problem is I just don't think there is any appetite from the producers to have Bond surviving it and the same Bond (albeit a different actor) carrying on in the next film with continuation. They were happy with and sanctioned his demise.
I think I would like to see it completely ignored and just start afresh (not a reboot) and/or perhaps a tongue in cheek line in the PTS (a la the OHMSS "other fellow" line) where either Bond says or someone else says to him "You only live twice.."
You forget the scene was intentionally made to be unambigous - Bond dies. They didn't write themselves into a corner and decided they had to make it look like he dies in the end. The movie was made that way so that Bond would/could die. I wouldn't be surprised if Craig had in his NTTD a stipulation that Bond can't be "resurected" from NTTD. It would cheapen or even destroyed NTTD if it's retconned so that he actually survived.
Agree with this
Is it me or I'm not really that against of Bond's death? Look, I'm not a fan of the Craig Era as a whole and NTTD is one of my least favorite Bond films in the series, but I think that NTTD ending felt to me like beating a dead horse sort of thing, to me there are a lot more bigger problems in the film than having Bond die alone, even if he didn't die, the film would've still be as mediocre (or dare I say it, bad) as what we've got really.
To be honest, I'd rather have Bond die than him to be with Madeleine (whom he had no chemistry to begin with) and be a family man forever, yes, this is just Craig's iteration of Bond, but he's still a general representation of the character, hence why many people were also reacting to his death like that, because he's still James Bond.
I just watched NTTD last night for the first time in a while, right to the end credits and noticed something which I don’t think anyone else has mentioned before.
The Bond guitar chord gets played when the NTTD title card comes up which seems to signal the end of the orchestration.
The next frame has the title “James Bond will return”. Has anyone noticed that you can hear a rumble during this frame? It sounds like the rumble of an explosion blast in the distance.
Unless my DVD is faulty, it’s an odd sound to play during this frame. Is it a subtle hint that it could be Bond waking up from surviving the explosion?
I am titling this comment "EXPOSITION".
Yesterday I finished watching all 5 Daniel Craig movies in the following order, and it helped me love it even more (me being a previous hater of the movie).
Day 1-Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace
Day 2- Skyfall & Spectre
Day 3- No Time To Die
This is mostly about NTTD, but the prequels have so much in-depth story that you need to consider to understand it, and although I do have some gripes about certain events, the events that happened, happened. I'm not one to complain about whether or not a perfect way of doing something should have occurred in a movie to satisfy my wants. I am simply there to see a story play out. Not fulfill my mind script.
It's all about exposition.
I'm going to provide some background from each movie that helped me to understand Bond's final decision in NTTD.
In CR, we see a man who will do everything it takes to finish the mission. Even at the expense of killing those whom he is supposed to keep alive. Later, we see his unawareness of her betrayal, because of the way he falls in love with her. Many consider it a weakness, but it is human to feel love and nurture from a woman. Although it is part of Vesper's fault the reason she takes the money, Bond should have been "on top of things", meaning doing it himself, and not allowing anything to come between him and his mission.
Quick note: moving forward to NTTD, when Bond is at Vesper's grave, he writes "Forgive ME" on the paper before igniting it. Not, "I forgive you." He had already forgiven her, I believe, but he felt guilty that he couldn't see past her or her dilemma, therefore not being able to save her left a bad taste. He wasn't in his five senses to see her "tell", her future betrayal. That scene was done so well, because seconds later, he is led to believe it is all happening again, that Madeleine has betrayed him. What does Bond do later? Without a second thought, he's onto her, thinking there is no way it will happen twice. He shuts himself off, separating her from him. EXPOSITION
In Quantum, Bond is still fresh off the death and betrayal of the woman he once loved. It is an exceptional movie and no one will convince me otherwise. The plotline that water is the most valuable resource is fine with me. Why should we be surprised to know that utility conglomerates want to control its use? They'd control the air we breathe if we let them. Bond simply needs a mission to get his mind on something else, and this movie was a prime Bond storyline. He needed something to help him move on, but he is still human. Like a few of us who break up with our girl, promise we'll never think of her again, then go back and stalk her Instagram. He still wants revenge because of the perfect image of her he has in his mind. He can't quite let her go, even though he says he won't think about her, so he finds out where the guy is to kill him.
Quick note: In this movie, he meets Camille, a woman with nothing but revenge on her mind, just like Bond has for Vesper's previous boyfriend. This is different for him, all the other kills were strictly business, but this one was personal. Which I understand why they never went past the final kiss; she had no motive to fall in love, she just killed a guy, I think I'd want to go home and think about my actions. (Maybe call her after a few weeks) That being said, the way he later goes to Blofeld and wants to kill him opens old wounds like he had in Quantum; he wanted revenge for hurting the woman he loved, in this case, Madeleine. Which is why I don't feel like it's out of place for Bond to want death for Blofeld. EXPOSITION
Skyfall was my introduction to Craig's Bond, it's been my personal favorite, and I haven't fallen off that train since, even though he did (pun intended). Here we see Bond take his work home, literally. It is kind of a Goldeneye plot, a previous 00 turned bad. He is a seasoned agent and knows exactly what to do. Doesn't kill unless he has to. Looks out for his brothers in arms (i.e., Ronson, Moneypenny, Kincaide). For 3 months he was out of active service. He had an easy out. Perhaps could have made a life playing poker to survive. But he cannot allow the organization, the people he grew fond of, to be in danger. Now we see a Bond who lives and fights for Queen and Country, an "exemplar of British fortitude". This allows me to see that Bond sees the bigger picture, he can make a distinction between what England needs doing, and what he wants, and always chooses his country when he is needed.
This is why I can understand his decision to die in NTTD. He can see the distinction between what he wanted, which is going back to live happily ever after with his family and continuing to live with a target on his back, and die, which meant keeping his family, his country, and the world safe. Of course he had to die saving the world, that's still hard for many to accept, and it was hard for me to, but I find myself understanding that decision better, thanks to his decisions in the previous movies. (more on this later) EXPOSITION
Spectre was my least favorite, but undeniably a great movie, and even the plot was believable. Here we see Bond pondering a life out of service, a life where we can enjoy the fruits of his labor, in this case, the fruits of Mr. White's labor if you know what I mean. Just like in Skyfall, a mission is what he needs, and while things get personal, he puts the mission at hand first.
In this story, I find that many don't want to accept the "silly" story that Blofeld grew up with Bond, but if you think about the EXPOSITION, it means that if it wasn't Blofeld, but another kid in the same situation, where his dad loved Bond more than him, he would hold resentment and hate for that kid who stole his father's love. Don't you think he would have tried to make Bond's life a living hell? Well, that kid WAS Blofeld, he decided he was going to do just that, make Bond's life hell.
Imagine him knowing the kid who his father loved more than him was going to become a 00. With all the bad deeds Ernst had been making up until that point, he had enough power to do some damage, and he knew exactly how. "How can I make this guy suffer? I know, put him in front of a beautiful woman who will betray him and cause heartbreak like he's never seen! Ha ha" (rubbing palms together) "Ooh, I'll kill every girl he ever sleeps with to cause more trauma, who's got some oil?" "How about killing M, that would send him over the edge!" EXPOSITION
Although NTTD is one of the most controversial Bond movies, it fits Craig's Bond perfectly. Because of the previous movies' explanations and the background of other characters, we cannot allow Bond to simply do another mission without being emotional, he has made too many personal decisions then not to do them in this movie. Certain choices have consequences, and this Bond does not allow us to surpass the consequences to those choices.
We needed a villain like Safin in this movie because we needed Bond to remind us that even though we may be jerks and live a life full of regrets, what we do in our last breaths matters more than anything we've ever done. He gave Bond a reason he could never see his family again. And for us to have left the theater seeing Bond alive and well, with his family or isolated for years until they find a solution for his nanobot infection would not have shown us the main theme of the movie, which I think Bond finally realizes at the end.
Selflessness. Self-sacrifice. Love.
The one thing that Bond finally had was the one thing he needed to sacrifice his life for.
Imagine him being isolated and Madeleine had to come to see him through a glass window. Bond would probably see Mathilde grow up each visit, and he'd never be able to hug her. To teach her things, to be that father figure, that fatherly love. Madeleine would not be able to see another man because Bond wants to be in their lives, and he would probably hunt that guy down later if he found out. MI6 would be bending over backwards researching for a cure instead of continuing their missions and more important stuff. Bond may not have realized all this at the moment, but he did know that things would be a lot easier for everybody if he died along with the infection.
(For any Norm fans, the infection didn't beat Bond, when Bond dies the nanobots die with him, so it was more like a draw.)
Looking back, I've fallen in love with these movies more because of NTTD. Even this movie has some meaning for me now, something I didn't see before. I know I haven't delved too much into the plotholes and certain scenes or whatever, or that Daniel and the producers decided to kill Bond to get out of the game permanently, but this arc reminds me of what movies should be doing with their characters, providing the background and the settings, along with reasons why they would make these decisions. EXPOSITION.
Sometimes I don't remember the day-to-day activities that seem boring, but I do remember the things that shaped my life, the things that matter, the overall story of the person that I am today. Some consider these plotlines to be boring, lazy writing, but they're consistent with the character, in my eyes.
I want a character arc to do that, to give me the boring stuff, but also highlight the reasons why that character would decide to do that instead of this, and how other people play into their decisions.
This was a great arc, and probably why he is my favorite Bond, because as a young man (24M), yes I want to be entertained, but I also want the characters to breathe their own life, to help me understand them, to go on through life enjoying their hard work but paying for their bad mistakes.
Isn't that what life is? "But we don't want Bond to be like in real life, he should fit our world of escapism."
I can see why you would want that, but starting with CR, this Bond is a more realistic version, so I'm ok with a realistic ending.
After seeing the movies back to back, Daniel Craig's Bond got easier for me to understand and ultimately accept.
All I needed was EXPOS--
You know.
"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain…" - The Dark Knight, 2008
Thanks for that @Chico
I enter this thread feeling very self concious. Not at the writing of NTTD, or the other franchises I will reference, but at the fact while I have been off the forum for a while, the world has turned to phrases like 'woke' 'haters' and 'true fans.' Seems we live in such a PC world these days, any form of objection at something changing is frowned upon...
NTTD is a film hampered by a self awareness of modern audience sensebilities. Bond has a family?! That was a red flag immediatley. Bond is off the grid and out of the loop (again) but this time the world has moved on without him. M does not have the same attachment to Bond that his predacessor M-Mansfield had. The whole plot is full of retreads of ideas used elsewhere. The woman with a vendetta, an enemy retconned into the back story, a main villan playing second fiddle and a thug with an ability borrowed from elsewhere. (S.H.I.E.L.D and Thunderbirds 2015 both used the bionic eye gag, as did the Game Rogue Agent.)
Perhaps the biggest mistake was introducing a new baddie in Saffin on top of Blofeld, who was on top of Spectre which in turn was on top of the Quantum characters. So much repitition and reuse, its painful to watch such blatent recycling. Revisiting Vesper in another tag on to CR-06 and QoS is a repeat of SP's most blatent mistakes, and introducing a new 007 ‐ one who should tick all the PC / PR boxes Nomi, played by the Excellent Lashana Lynch. There is a lot to like about this character and the way she is played, but it feels like appeasement of the 'Bond should be a woman / Bond should be black' brigade.
As Mr Craig said himself - why not an original female MI6 character in their own right? Nomi is a contender. Putting her alongside Bond and making her the 'new 007' was a step too far though, undermining that premise by making her 'the competition.'
I have always loved Naomi Harris as an actress (we are arround the same age) and Ben Wishaw is excellent in everything I have seen him in. Both build on MPenny and Q2 being Bond's friends as well as colleagues, and snippits of their own lives are welcome. The fact Q2 is dating a potential male suitor as a side reference IS a pice of PC that works. No flags, no over the top gestures, just real life as it should be in Bonds World. These touches work.
But - the things that really unravel the film are traditional 007 aspects watered down. We are used to Blofeld agrandising in his Volcano or Oil Rig layers, threatening the most powerful countries. Here in his 'Beep chair' from classic Star Trek, he is a Hanibal Lechter copy, and even an actor of Christopher Waltz's caliber can't save these scenes.
The film's biggest failing by far though, is Rami Malek as Saffin. I have yet to see his other work, but I was seriously underwhelmed by character and performance here, as Bond is dependant on the strength and character of his enemies. Saffin lacks the originality of Goldfinger, the ego or dry wit of Drax, the sheer Siren presence of Electra and is flat and an unassuming also ran compared to all the Blofelds! The character is boring, pedestrian and lacks any energy, charisma or ingenuity. Even when he wibbles about his 'garden of death' my shoulders slumped at such a feeble use of a final remaining Fleming Easter Egg.
All this leads to a film ending that is shocking, but only for a second. The sad fact is with Craig's input in the writing room, SP and NTTD create the two parter CR-06 and QoS failed to do, in the worst possible way. Its Bond's endgame, a way of ensuring this version of the character is dead and buried. Or burnt and shattered in a more literal sense.
This trait mirrors what Sir Pat Stewart has done in Star Trek. - 'Picard' is a terrible series as it went completely off track from what Trek is about. It became a 'woe is Jean Luc Picard' routine, and Bond has now gone down the same road.
I have been a Bond fan since I was a boy, watching the Sir Roger and Sir Sean films with my Grandad. Those films were exciting, captivating, and dare I say it forbidden, in Bond's attitudes and behaviours. It was part of the character's charm and appeal...
When the only part of a Bond film that feels fresh, new and exciting is the unexpected cameo of the (real) HMS Dragon, you know something special, original and even a little bit forbidden, has been lost.
I noticed something else regarding the "death" of Bond at the end of this film.
Bond actually seemingly gets blown up 3 times in this film. The first is at Vesper's grave where he first becomes disorientated and momentarily loses his hearing. The second happens again at the staircase in Safin's base when all the grenades are thrown down the stairwell.
Bond being caught in the explosion at the end is therefore actually the third time he gets blown up. One could therefore argue that as he had survived the previous two explosions, there is no reason why he can't survive the third.
Several cultures in the world treat the number 3 or having 3 attempts at something as being lucky. In German there is an idiom which states "alle gute Dinge sind drei" which would be translated into English as "all good things come in threes".
English also has a similar kind of idiom which is "third time's a charm". However this idiom could mean that on the third attempt of Bond being caught in an explosion, Bond actually dies 🤣
Thanks @Thunderbird 2 a very nice assessment which chimes with many of my own thoughts.
Without wanting to damage the line of this thread, I consider Craig's era to be a case of diminishing returns: CR is the best and the others follow in order, getting progressively more laboured and illogical as they go. I had not considered the 'piggy backing' of villain on villain and agree that this is a fundamental flaw in the entire 5-film canon. I think I wrote on another thread that Blofeld should have been the major villain in NTTD, given the Garden of Death setting for the climax. I also saw no reason to feature a new OO7, and the reasons for doing so do feel ultra-PC based rather than story-based. There is something wholly and dissatisfyingly grim about NTTD, from its icy beginnings, through its utterly bonkers and complicated sci-fi plot, to its character's confused psychological relationships, to its explosive terminal climax - even the photography looks grimy.
The end of the movie [the end of OO7 ?] tells me, a few years on, that we will not see another Bond film until at least 2030. Dust has to settle. Established expectations need to be thoroughly curbed. A new Bond found. A new story arc or arcs to be constructed. A new manner of presenting Bond - be it retro, ultra-modern, a pastiche, imitation, etc etc. I am not convinced the current Eon set up is interested in Bond right now, or in anything right now. Of course, I will welcome being wrong about this, but I simply cannot see it. The production team wrote themselves into an extremely tight corner which will take a lot of effort to extricate themselves from. Albeit a likely jest when he said it, Daniel Craig, with his name proudly in the production listings, has got his wish - at least temporarily - to kill James Bond off. The actor doesn't want to come back, but I have this feeling neither does Eon. Not right now and not for some time.
I’d disagree there: for me Craig’s films got a huge shot in the arm with Skyfall after the very weak QoS, so I don’t think they diminished in order.
Also the idea to show us his replacement after he’s left the service is just natural; I don’t know why anyone writing that story wouldn’t put a new 007 in. The trouble is she gets almost nothing to do in the plot, and for some reason they don’t let her win any of her little skirmishes with Bond: he comes out on top every time they tangle, which just feels a bit wrong and gives no stakes to their relationship.
I agree that they got progressively worse after the sublime CR, although Skyfall did have some very good parts. I still can’t bring myself to watch NTTD in its entirety. If I put it on it’s just to watch the Jamaica scenes.
I agree about the replacement 007. There was a lot of hype before the film's release about a new, female, black 007, and after I watched the film I realised that the Nomi character could have been removed completely and it would not have made much difference to the the plot.
I'm with you on this point. I watched the film twice in the cinema and have bought the Blu-ray but cannot bring myself to watch it all the way through, knowing how it ends. Normally when leaving the cinema after watching a good film, I have a bit of a spring in my step, but after I watched No Time To Die the first time, I walked out with a feeling of misery (depression's probably too strong a word) because I couldn't believe that the filmmakers had taken it upon themselves to actually kill Bond.
I agree about the replacement 007. There was a lot of hype before the film's release about a new, female, black 007, and after I watched the film I realised that the Nomi character could have been removed completely and it would not have made much difference to the the plot.
Yes, it's true- she doesn't change the direction of the plot in any scene. She kills Waldo, sure, but Bond could have done that and nothing would change. And I think it's a real shame: I think she's actually genuinely pretty cool and would have been great as a sparring partner to Bond, but unlike in other films where say Anya or Holly gets to get the better of Bond once or twice before they start working together, she never gets a single victory so there's no back-and-forth between them. It's so strange. Even their first meeting in Jamaica, where she's supposed to warn him off, actually does the reverse and convinces Bond to get involved, so she fails right from the start. That scene where she gets frustrated that Bond won't tell her what his new 00 number is just sort of shows how he's under her skin and he's not bothered by her at all, which is kind of uninteresting dramatically- our hero should have a challenge, and she doesn't pose one.
And they could have added in some victories for her: if she'd been the one to pick Bond out of the sea after the fishing boat sinks, maybe she could have turned up earlier in Norway and saved his life in the forest some one of the baddies, something like that. But they give her nothing, and really she should have at least have had a subplot where she retrieves one of the robot eyes or found some erroneous evidence for not trusting Bond or something.
I still think that a retired Bond meeting his replacement is a solid idea and is just a natural direction for the story to go, and actually works as a nice bookend to CR where it's Bond who is the new 007 ("The odds will betray you, And I will replace you" goes the song), and maybe he could have seen something of the young, impetuous Bond of CR in her even, and mentored her a bit. But they never actually figure out a story reason as to why she's there, to the extent that they don't even give her much to do in the plot. A big misstep. She actually feels a bit like a hangover from a previous draft of the script where she had something to do.
That's what I meant by: I also saw no reason to feature a new OO7, and the reasons for doing so do feel ultra-PC based rather than story-based.
She serves no purpose to the story. I don’t care one way or the other what her OO number is, her gender or ethnicity, but she ought to be relevant to the story and she just isn't. I could say the same thing about Blofeld. The more I think on NTTD, the less and less I like it, and I wasn't overjoyed from the get-go.
That's what I meant by: I also saw no reason to feature a new OO7, and the reasons for doing so do feel ultra-PC based rather than story-based.
No I don't like that; you're only saying that because she's a black woman, and I don't think there's any reason to think that they put her there for 'PC reasons'. The only reason Tanner is in it is because he was in the previous films, he has no story reason to be there either, and in fact as small a part as she does play, she has more to do than Tanner, but no-one's saying that about him.
The idea of a new 007 is a decent and natural one, and making her as different as possible to Bond makes sense too- they just needed to work her into the story more. But that doesn't mean she's just there for diversity's sake; I don't think that's a good way to look at things. If you can say the same thing about Blofeld as you say, then that doesn't point to it being anything about her gender or ethnicity but more likely a story-writing problem.
its too bad Nomi gave back the 007 number to Bond as they left for Safins headquarters.
if only she'd kept the number, they could at least give us a new 007 film to keep us occupied while we wait another halfdecade for the next James Bond film.
Well, as I said in the other thread, she is playing an MI6 agent in the upcoming Day of the Jackal TV show- you can imagine she's 007 if that helps! 😁
He's dead; and this was the right decision - rounding off Craig's circle which began with 'Casino Royale' - What's the alternative? "Bond watched the fiery arcs transcribing his fate across the sky... but wait! Over there in the water; it couldn't be - it was! Blofeld's old Batho-sub!" And we have to pretend the next Actor is the same guy, unaccountably younger... Better to finish Craig's stories and leave the decks clear for the reboot.
The clue is in Madeline's final words to Mathilde... 'I'm going to tell you about a man, his name was James Bond.'
We're looking at an origin story. I hope it's a period piece, seeing all the interesting SBS stuff he would have gotten up to in the Second World War.
I can but hope!
Nice point @JohnnyFlan006 and it might work - dressed it up with a sliver of a flashback to the final line...
ah, you never know...
I came up with the idea (based on the rumours there will be two Bonds in one film) that the next film could be set in the present time but has flashbacks to Bond's earlier life either at university and/or during his time in the navy and the storyline is woven together in both the past and current times. Personally I would prefer just one actor playing the part in both timelines making him look younger/ older to fit the timeline.
I think this could solve the often unfilled request by many fans to set a Bond film in the past without having to fully commit to it. I reckon if they did a film set entirely in the past and it didn't end up being successful, they wouldn't be able to repeat the idea for a second film (somehow like what happened with OHMSS). If they also have the story set in the present time as well as the past, it would also honour Broccoli's wish of keeping Bond current. I can't remember where I got this from but I believe Broccoli was dead set against Maibaum's idea of making a young Bond in the late 80s after Moore retired from the role.
@JohnnyFlan006 said:
The clue is in Madeline's final words to Mathilde... 'I'm going to tell you about a man, his name was James Bond.'
We're looking at an origin story. I hope it's a period piece, seeing all the interesting SBS stuff he would have gotten up to in the Second World War.
I can but hope!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
this is an interesting idea, with lots of potential. lots of different possible potentials
if Bond26 is a "once upon a time" story that Madeleine tells Mathilde, it is a work of fiction within the CraigBond universe. that might bug some people who think about it too much, as if its trivialising future Bond stories. but it reminds me of John Pearson's Bond biography, in which Flemings 14 books were a work of fiction within the slightly-more-realistic PearsonBond's universe.
it also allows them to tell a different type of BondStory, less realistic, hopefully less grim'n'gritty, hopefully less entangled in the mundane interpersonal relations of James Bond. as a bedtime story it would even be best suited towards the more fantastic type Bond films, the ones I like. I recently argued The Spy Who Loved Me follows an almost fairy tale narrative logic, and in the 60s a writer named Anne Boyd wrote a whole book arguing all of FlemingBond was a 20th century update of St George and he Dragon, and an example of Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey monomyth. if thats the type of James Bond story that would be told to a child, by coincidence thats the type of James Bond story I want to see!
but the possibilities are better than that. If future James Bond films are stories being told by someone about a character named James Bond, then they do not have to be the same type of story film after film. Every character who wanted to tell a James Bond story would tell it different, as they each have their own unique subjective perspective and would see the adventures of James Bond differently. If M told a story one film it would be from his point of view, Q would have another angle, and so on.
Really not that different from what we had with the first twenty films, where the tone changed with each actor and with each director. Except this range of story styles is now explicitly accounted for within the narrative, and explicitly sets the CraigBond arc in another, more boring level of reality!