I have no burning desire to get anymore of a jump on the plot/scenes of the film. I am happy to find out from my seat in the cinema in April....but it is fun to speculate based on what little scraps of info that trickle out. What also makes it difficult is even when there is a bit of info that appears credible, we are seeing it out of context (like much of the scenes in Jamaica and Cuba/Jamaica). Here's something else to keep in mind as a possibility: it has been previously theorized that the frozen lake scene in Norway could be a flashback. To add to that further, Fukunaga likes to use flashbacks and the shuffling of timelines and did so in his adaptation of Jane Eyre and the first season of True Detective. So what we believe to be in real time could be a flashback. For example, the events that led Bond and Madeleine to part ways or Madeleine could die in the PTS but appear in flashbacks.....we just don't know and Fukunaga might shake things up a bit that way.
You are right. The frozen lake is most likely Madeleine in the 90s retelling her monologue on the morocco train. Less likely, it's the part where the scientist gets kidnapped and the girl is the scientist's daughter. I mean a real scientist. I don't seen any reason for a bond villain to kidnap a psychologist. Is his evil plan to put everyone on the spectrum? :007)
What if Madeline is the kidnapped scientist? She has a doctorate and it's been five years since the last film.
Yeah I’d say that’s plausible. Makes sense that Leiter would seek out Bond knowing his past with Madeleine. I’d also add that Madeleine will be either outright evil or morally ambiguous. The lesson Bond supposedly learned at the end of CR was that he couldn’t trust anyone. That type of Twist could bring it full circle.
We actually know relatively little about Madeline Swann, and what we do know, is contradictory.
For instance, a psychologist is someone who holds a Ph.D. in psychology, at least in the U.S. Their training ordinarily doesn't involve medical school, yet her biography states she's has medical training from Oxford. Medical training is usually reserved for a psychiatrist, or someone who holds an M.D. with additional training in psychiatry. Though both can be scientists, the former tends to be involved in theory and counseling while the later tends to approach patients medically, including with the use of pharmaceuticals. Writers frequently mix these two fields up or use them interchangeably, to the chagrin of actual psychologists and psychiatrists.
Of course, there's nothing to prevent a Ph.D. from getting medical training -- indeed, many M.D.s also earn Ph.D.s and vice versa. Perhaps the standards are different in Europe. And it's certainly possible for Swann to have continued her training the five years since Spectre to include medical training of some sort.
But I offer this, too, because modern film writing tends to want to boil things down to an almost absurd minimalist level. The fewer characters, the fewer story arcs, the fewer lines to be divided up among them, and the fewer actors to have to pay. This is touted as economy. Having Swann do double duty in this regard would doubtless be attracted to a contemporary film writer, just as it seemed having Blofeld be Bond's foster brother seemed an attractive idea to provide economical unity to the Craig movies, even though it's among the stupidest ideas in terms of story-telling that the series has ever offered.
I certainly could be wrong. But if Madeline is no longer with Bond at the beginning of the film, and if she has scenes throughout the film (assuming they aren't flashbacks or moments where Bond is haunted by his memory), it would seem to make the writer's task harder to write scenes for her and an additional scientist Bond is looking for.
a psychologist is someone who holds a Ph.D. in psychology
Isn't that Doctorate? Which isn't a research-focused degree. Or even just Masters?
She's also not based in the U.S. when we see her practicing. Perhaps she was also able to do some sort of bridging course somewhere that recognised her learning from medical degree and experience which allowed her to register as a psychologist.
Or, it's just a film and the writers don't really care to make the psychologist/psychiatrist distinction, and we should just chill the F out. Also, I don't see anything contradictory about her character.
Psychologists and psychiatrists are 2 very different occupations, and don’t compare one to the other in front of either! Psychologists roles change around the world, for example in some European countries they can diagnose certain conditions, and some can prescribe medications. Basic training is a 3 year degree course, and many go on to complete a ph.D’s.
A psychiatrist (pretty much world wide) train for 5 years minimum to become a regular medical
doctor, with experience in all areas of medicine through training, working in hospitals etc., and at about 7 years of Regular medical practice opt to take further training in psychiatry. It is a highly specialised role and is not comparable to psychologist in terms of training, scope of knowledge and scope of practice. They often work side by side as they often compliment each other, rather than cross over.
I though Madeline was a Psychiatrist from her bio.
I always said the Norway thing would be first. 8-) There isn't much time for there to be a PTS before the Ice lake. In Spectre, just walking through the streets of Mexico accounted for 11 scenes. Scene 15K looks to be the culmination of the chapter of scenes, like the whole lodge setting takes place from sc.1 to 15.
The problem I have always had with a Norway PTS is, where is Bond? It is true that Skyfall's PTS goes up to scene 18, when Bond is shot off the bridge. It makes more sense to me that there is the PTS, then the titles, and then there is a Norwegian dream sequence for Madeleine, and then she wakes up.
Some ballpark timestamps with the proposed 0.75 minute per scene average:
Hakadal, Norway - 15K - 11:15
Port Antonio - 78 - 58:30
Cuba - 108H - 1:21:00
London - Bond pulls up in the Vantage - 139A - 1:44:15
London Horse Brigade - 152 - 1:54:00
London: Bond, M, Tanner on the riverfront - 155 - 1:56:15
My 2nd Point. There is a significant scene gap between Hakadal and Port Antonio. Its totally Italy.
You are right that the Italy scenes could fit in that 47 minute gap, but where is Felix Leiter? If, as the synopsis suggests, Bond is in Jamaica and Leiter brings him out of retirement, which DC confirmed to Prince Charles, then why is there a clapperboard for scene 37 in Italy (https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/19146/nttd-the-clapperboard-thread#latest), which would be 26 minutes into the film, and there is no sign of Leiter?
BTW scene 15K could be the start of the Norway sequence, not the end where Malek's stuntman double stands over the girl in the frozen lake with a broken mask.
I always said the Norway thing would be first. 8-) There isn't much time for there to be a PTS before the Ice lake. In Spectre, just walking through the streets of Mexico accounted for 11 scenes. Scene 15K looks to be the culmination of the chapter of scenes, like the whole lodge setting takes place from sc.1 to 15.
The problem I have always had with a Norway PTS is, where is Bond? It is true that Skyfall's PTS goes up to scene 18, when Bond is shot off the bridge. It makes more sense to me that there is the PTS, then the titles, and then there is a Norwegian dream sequence for Madeleine, and then she wakes up.
Some ballpark timestamps with the proposed 0.75 minute per scene average:
Hakadal, Norway - 15K - 11:15
Port Antonio - 78 - 58:30
Cuba - 108H - 1:21:00
London - Bond pulls up in the Vantage - 139A - 1:44:15
London Horse Brigade - 152 - 1:54:00
London: Bond, M, Tanner on the riverfront - 155 - 1:56:15
My 2nd Point. There is a significant scene gap between Hakadal and Port Antonio. Its totally Italy.
You are right that the Italy scenes could fit in that 47 minute gap, but where is Felix Leiter? If, as the synopsis suggests, Bond is in Jamaica and Leiter brings him out of retirement, which DC confirmed to Prince Charles, then why is there a clapperboard for scene 37 in Italy (https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/19146/nttd-the-clapperboard-thread#latest), which would be 26 minutes into the film, and there is no sign of Leiter?
Because there will still be a five year gap between them.
Because there will still be a five year gap between them.
I just don't think we're going to get a non-linear Bond film. I saw Purvis & Wade interviewed once where they said they try to make the films more complicated and EON makes them make it simple. Goldeneye is the only film that has an explicit time jump and it is kept simple, the PTS is 9 years earlier than the main story. NTTD would need to have a radically different structure to any previous Bond film. Is Madeleine going to narrate this? Is Bond only going to be seen in flashback? Is the Norway flashback the start of Madeleine talking about her life up to the point where she became a widow? It's just too commercially risky for a $200 million plus movie IMHO.
Because there will still be a five year gap between them.
I just don't think we're going to get a non-linear Bond film. I saw Purvis & Wade interviewed once where they said they try to make the films more complicated and EON makes them make it simple. Goldeneye is the only film that has an explicit time jump and it is kept simple, the PTS is 9 years earlier than the main story. NTTD would need to have a radically different structure to any previous Bond film. Is Madeleine going to narrate this? Is Bond only going to be seen in flashback? Is the Norway flashback the start of Madeleine talking about her life up to the point where she became a widow? It's just too commercially risky for a $200 million plus movie IMHO.
Some very interesting concepts there Someone. Could easily see a narration like that but not sure I would like it and would be very risky. The Vantage in Norway being set some years earlier could have been a possibility but aren't the pursuing Range Rovers new?
Some very interesting concepts there Someone. Could easily see a narration like that but not sure I would like it and would be very risky. The Vantage in Norway being set some years earlier could have been a possibility but aren't the pursuing Range Rovers new?
The Norway car chase with Range Rovers is set in a different season, hence, the lack of snow, compared to the frozen lake Norway filming. And I'd add, they are probably separated by years, hence the flashback/dream theory. The Vantage isn't earlier, we see it in the Whitehall scenes when Bond arrives to meet M.
I still think two films being filmed at the same time (setting aside the hated The Rhythm Section theory) is a better explanation for why Bond is in Jamaica 54 minutes into the film, based on clapperboard 78, and yet 20 minutes earlier he was in Italy with Madeleine (and from the latest Matera clapperboard, numbered 37, he is in Italy 26 minutes into the film), when we're told he starts in Jamaica and is recruited by Leiter for a mission.
Quantum was 1h 47mins. You could film two 1h 45 minute films in 42 weeks, 10 months. A normal Bond film shoot is 7 months. To accommodate DC, the scheduling could be organised to squeeze his filming all in one space, or chop it up across those 10 months so he isn't so exhausted.
Psychologists and psychiatrists are 2 very different occupations, and don’t compare one to the other in front of either! Psychologists roles change around the world, for example in some European countries they can diagnose certain conditions, and some can prescribe medications. Basic training is a 3 year degree course, and many go on to complete a ph.D’s.
A psychiatrist (pretty much world wide) train for 5 years minimum to become a regular medical
doctor, with experience in all areas of medicine through training, working in hospitals etc., and at about 7 years of Regular medical practice opt to take further training in psychiatry. It is a highly specialised role and is not comparable to psychologist in terms of training, scope of knowledge and scope of practice. They often work side by side as they often compliment each other, rather than cross over.
I though Madeline was a Psychiatrist from her bio.
I know the distinction. I'm saying the writers either don't know, don't care, or they've thought about it and it makes sense in their own logic.
a psychologist is someone who holds a Ph.D. in psychology
Isn't that Doctorate? Which isn't a research-focused degree. Or even just Masters?
She's also not based in the U.S. when we see her practicing. Perhaps she was also able to do some sort of bridging course somewhere that recognised her learning from medical degree and experience which allowed her to register as a psychologist.
Or, it's just a film and the writers don't really care to make the psychologist/psychiatrist distinction, and we should just chill the F out. Also, I don't see anything contradictory about her character.
A Ph.D. isthe research doctorate -- it's the degree that scholars seek. These are the people who come up with theories and do research, and much of their schooling is in quantitative and qualitative methods. In fact, the term "doctor" was lifted from the scholars when western physicians decided to professionalize so they were no longer known to bleed and amputate as standard medical procedure.
An M.D. is a practioner's doctorate, which is why it's called a medical practice. However, in medicine, it's common to find M.D.'s doing research, too, especially at university hospitals because universities are research centers. Many M.D.s, though, also earn Ph.D.s so they have the scholarly base to augment the practice one.
In Europe, things can be organized differently. For instance, in the U.S., a Juris Doctor, or a degree to practice law, ordinarily does not confer the title "Doctor." (For example, a practicing attorney is not referred to as "Doctor" in a courtroom.) That's generally reserved for the scholarly degree, the Ll.d., which requires more schooling. But in Europe, many practicing attorneys are referred to as "Doctor."
In terms of years of schooling, a J.D. is closer to a master's degree. After a four-year bachelors, a J.D. usually requires three more years, while a master's requires two. A Ph.D. is often three to five years beyond that. An M.D. is often four years of schooling beyond the bachelors plus residency.
I don't understand your point about "chill the F out." Is anyone getting upset? If the terms psychologist/psychiatrist are being used interchangeably but they're not, it may be a mistake that allows for her certainly to be the scientist in question. Regardless, she could be a scientist with a Ph.D. or an M.D.
This gives a general overview on the differences. It was written by an M.D., so it tilts in that direction. Because Swann is referred to as "Doctor," she would not have only a master's.
a psychologist is someone who holds a Ph.D. in psychology
Isn't that Doctorate? Which isn't a research-focused degree. Or even just Masters?
She's also not based in the U.S. when we see her practicing. Perhaps she was also able to do some sort of bridging course somewhere that recognised her learning from medical degree and experience which allowed her to register as a psychologist.
Or, it's just a film and the writers don't really care to make the psychologist/psychiatrist distinction, and we should just chill the F out. Also, I don't see anything contradictory about her character.
A Ph.D. isthe research doctorate -- it's the degree that scholars seek. These are the people who come up with theories and do research, and much of their schooling is in quantitative and qualitative methods. In fact, the term "doctor" was lifted from the scholars when western physicians decided to professionalize so they were no longer known to bleed and amputate as standard medical procedure.
An M.D. is a practioner's doctorate, which is why it's called a medical practice. However, in medicine, it's common to find M.D.'s doing research, too, especially at university hospitals because universities are research centers. Many M.D.s, though, also earn Ph.D.s so they have the scholarly base to augment the practice one.
In Europe, things can be organized differently. For instance, in the U.S., a Juris Doctor, or a degree to practice law, ordinarily does not confer the title "Doctor." (For example, a practicing attorney is not referred to as "Doctor" in a courtroom.) That's generally reserved for the scholarly degree, the Ll.d., which requires more schooling. But in Europe, many practicing attorneys are referred to as "Doctor."
In terms of years of schooling, a J.D. is closer to a master's degree. After a four-year bachelors, a J.D. usually requires three more years, while a master's requires two. A Ph.D. is often three to five years beyond that. An M.D. is often four years of schooling beyond the bachelors plus residency.
I don't understand your point about "chill the F out." Is anyone getting upset? If the terms psychologist/psychiatrist are being used interchangeably but they're not, it may be a mistake that allows for her certainly to be the scientist in question. Regardless, she could be a scientist with a Ph.D. or an M.D.
No. PhDs and Doctorates are different. PhDs are research degrees. Doctorates are professional degrees - essentially a longer version of a Masters. You can get a doctorate in psychological and you can get a PhD in psychology. A PhD won't qualify you to practice psychology. A Doctorate (or Masters) will. Both degrees give you the "Dr." title but they do mean different things. I know this stuff because I am a psychologist, i've completed a Masters and could have extended it to a Doctorate, and i've also completed a PhD.
Again, either the writers don't care to make the distinction between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Or, she's completed a medical degree and jumped across to complete a degree in psychology or vice-versa.
Perhaps this is a difference in where we are? In Australia and the US, I think it's organised in this way.
Isn't that Doctorate? Which isn't a research-focused degree. Or even just Masters?
She's also not based in the U.S. when we see her practicing. Perhaps she was also able to do some sort of bridging course somewhere that recognised her learning from medical degree and experience which allowed her to register as a psychologist.
Or, it's just a film and the writers don't really care to make the psychologist/psychiatrist distinction, and we should just chill the F out. Also, I don't see anything contradictory about her character.
A Ph.D. isthe research doctorate -- it's the degree that scholars seek. These are the people who come up with theories and do research, and much of their schooling is in quantitative and qualitative methods. In fact, the term "doctor" was lifted from the scholars when western physicians decided to professionalize so they were no longer known to bleed and amputate as standard medical procedure.
An M.D. is a practioner's doctorate, which is why it's called a medical practice. However, in medicine, it's common to find M.D.'s doing research, too, especially at university hospitals because universities are research centers. Many M.D.s, though, also earn Ph.D.s so they have the scholarly base to augment the practice one.
In Europe, things can be organized differently. For instance, in the U.S., a Juris Doctor, or a degree to practice law, ordinarily does not confer the title "Doctor." (For example, a practicing attorney is not referred to as "Doctor" in a courtroom.) That's generally reserved for the scholarly degree, the Ll.d., which requires more schooling. But in Europe, many practicing attorneys are referred to as "Doctor."
In terms of years of schooling, a J.D. is closer to a master's degree. After a four-year bachelors, a J.D. usually requires three more years, while a master's requires two. A Ph.D. is often three to five years beyond that. An M.D. is often four years of schooling beyond the bachelors plus residency.
I don't understand your point about "chill the F out." Is anyone getting upset? If the terms psychologist/psychiatrist are being used interchangeably but they're not, it may be a mistake that allows for her certainly to be the scientist in question. Regardless, she could be a scientist with a Ph.D. or an M.D.
No. PhDs and Doctorates are different. PhDs are research degrees. Doctorates are professional degrees - essentially a longer version of a Masters. You can get a doctorate in psychological and you can get a PhD in psychology. A PhD won't qualify you to practice psychology. A Doctorate (or Masters) will. Both degrees give you the "Dr." title but they do mean different things. I know this stuff because I am a psychologist, i've completed a Masters and could have extended it to a Doctorate, and i've also completed a PhD.
Again, either the writers don't care to make the distinction between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Or, she's completed a medical degree and jumped across to complete a degree in psychology or vice-versa.
Perhaps this is a difference in where we are? In Australia and the US, I think it's organised in this way.
It may well be organized differently in Australia than the U.S. because almost nothing you're saying is true here, starting with the very definition of a Ph.D. A doctorate here indicates an educational rank -- the highest that can be obtained in a discipline -- and a Ph.D. is just one form. An M.D. is another. To practice psychology in a professional setting, a person would literally have to have a graduate degree in psychology -- that's usually a Ph.D., though it could be a Psy.D. or even a master's. However, someone with only a master's in the U.S. would never have the title "doctor." To practice psychiatry, the person would have to have an M.D. with the appropriate additional training. There's a clear distinction in the U.S. between psychology and psychiatry as fields.
It definitely differs across the globe. My wife is a Psychiatrist, trained and practiced in the UK for a few years before we emigrated to NZ. When we were looking at where to emigrate too, Australia and New Zealand would take the Royal College of psychiatry standing as-is, however the US didn’t recognise the UK qualification, and although they would except the medical training, she would have had to have re-qualified as an American Psychiatrist, doing the years of study and exams. She works Alongside many psychologists here, trained all over the world and they all have ‘different’ hoops to jump through to get recognised to practice here. Some of these psychologists are academic doctors, But many are not...
A Ph.D. isthe research doctorate -- it's the degree that scholars seek. These are the people who come up with theories and do research, and much of their schooling is in quantitative and qualitative methods. In fact, the term "doctor" was lifted from the scholars when western physicians decided to professionalize so they were no longer known to bleed and amputate as standard medical procedure.
An M.D. is a practioner's doctorate, which is why it's called a medical practice. However, in medicine, it's common to find M.D.'s doing research, too, especially at university hospitals because universities are research centers. Many M.D.s, though, also earn Ph.D.s so they have the scholarly base to augment the practice one.
In Europe, things can be organized differently. For instance, in the U.S., a Juris Doctor, or a degree to practice law, ordinarily does not confer the title "Doctor." (For example, a practicing attorney is not referred to as "Doctor" in a courtroom.) That's generally reserved for the scholarly degree, the Ll.d., which requires more schooling. But in Europe, many practicing attorneys are referred to as "Doctor."
In terms of years of schooling, a J.D. is closer to a master's degree. After a four-year bachelors, a J.D. usually requires three more years, while a master's requires two. A Ph.D. is often three to five years beyond that. An M.D. is often four years of schooling beyond the bachelors plus residency.
I don't understand your point about "chill the F out." Is anyone getting upset? If the terms psychologist/psychiatrist are being used interchangeably but they're not, it may be a mistake that allows for her certainly to be the scientist in question. Regardless, she could be a scientist with a Ph.D. or an M.D.
No. PhDs and Doctorates are different. PhDs are research degrees. Doctorates are professional degrees - essentially a longer version of a Masters. You can get a doctorate in psychological and you can get a PhD in psychology. A PhD won't qualify you to practice psychology. A Doctorate (or Masters) will. Both degrees give you the "Dr." title but they do mean different things. I know this stuff because I am a psychologist, i've completed a Masters and could have extended it to a Doctorate, and i've also completed a PhD.
Again, either the writers don't care to make the distinction between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Or, she's completed a medical degree and jumped across to complete a degree in psychology or vice-versa.
Perhaps this is a difference in where we are? In Australia and the US, I think it's organised in this way.
It may well be organized differently in Australia than the U.S. because almost nothing you're saying is true here, starting with the very definition of a Ph.D. A doctorate here indicates an educational rank -- the highest that can be obtained in a discipline -- and a Ph.D. is just one form. An M.D. is another. To practice psychology in a professional setting, a person would literally have to have a graduate degree in psychology -- that's usually a Ph.D., though it could be a Psy.D. or even a master's. However, someone with only a master's in the U.S. would never have the title "doctor." To practice psychiatry, the person would have to have an M.D. with the appropriate additional training. There's a clear distinction in the U.S. between psychology and psychiatry as fields.
Thanks for the detailed explanations about the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists. Some may already know all that, but not me, so it helps.
And I had always thought a PhD was a doctorate, the two terms are synonymous in Canada. But that's nothing to do with medicine, different kind of Doctor.
I have assumed ever since plot rumours began that Swann could be the missing scientist. Such a plot would explain how she can be in the movie, and all these other leading ladies.
So for those who remember SPECTRE better than I do, what appeared to be the the nature of that clinic where Bond first meets her? I thought it was a research facility, and yes they take patients, because the patients are the subject of the research.
What was Swann's exact job there? Was she paid simply to cure the patients, or was she studying their cases to learn something new?
Freud had his clinic in Austria, I think, and Jung in Switzerland. Swann having a clinic in the Alps is reminiscent of those guys.
It definitely differs across the globe. My wife is a Psychiatrist, trained and practiced in the UK for a few years before we emigrated to NZ. When we were looking at where to emigrate too, Australia and New Zealand would take the Royal College of psychiatry standing as-is, however the US didn’t recognise the UK qualification, and although they would except the medical training, she would have had to have re-qualified as an American Psychiatrist, doing the years of study and exams. She works Alongside many psychologists here, trained all over the world and they all have ‘different’ hoops to jump through to get recognised to practice here. Some of these psychologists are academic doctors, But many are not...
No. PhDs and Doctorates are different. PhDs are research degrees. Doctorates are professional degrees - essentially a longer version of a Masters. You can get a doctorate in psychological and you can get a PhD in psychology. A PhD won't qualify you to practice psychology. A Doctorate (or Masters) will. Both degrees give you the "Dr." title but they do mean different things. I know this stuff because I am a psychologist, i've completed a Masters and could have extended it to a Doctorate, and i've also completed a PhD.
Again, either the writers don't care to make the distinction between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Or, she's completed a medical degree and jumped across to complete a degree in psychology or vice-versa.
Perhaps this is a difference in where we are? In Australia and the US, I think it's organised in this way.
It may well be organized differently in Australia than the U.S. because almost nothing you're saying is true here, starting with the very definition of a Ph.D. A doctorate here indicates an educational rank -- the highest that can be obtained in a discipline -- and a Ph.D. is just one form. An M.D. is another. To practice psychology in a professional setting, a person would literally have to have a graduate degree in psychology -- that's usually a Ph.D., though it could be a Psy.D. or even a master's. However, someone with only a master's in the U.S. would never have the title "doctor." To practice psychiatry, the person would have to have an M.D. with the appropriate additional training. There's a clear distinction in the U.S. between psychology and psychiatry as fields.
The differences in terminology and how they're used could well explain away the "inconsistencies" in her biography -- and make it entirely possible for her to be the scientist in question.
I just don't think we're going to get a non-linear Bond film. I saw Purvis & Wade interviewed once where they said they try to make the films more complicated and EON makes them make it simple. Goldeneye is the only film that has an explicit time jump and it is kept simple, the PTS is 9 years earlier than the main story.
We don't know when the "first two kills" happened either. In Fleming's version, they were a full decade before the events of Casino Royale.
But that's ambiguous, a normal viewer would assume those kills happened shortly before the balance of the film unless for some reason they chose to overanalyse.
(and unlike Goldeneye, no matter how much time has passed, those kills did not happen before two previous films, because this is an allnew timeline)
NTTD would need to have a radically different structure to any previous Bond film. Is Madeleine going to narrate this? Is Bond only going to be seen in flashback? Is the Norway flashback the start of Madeleine talking about her life up to the point where she became a widow? It's just too commercially risky for a $200 million plus movie IMHO.
That's getting a bit Vivienne Michelle, so yes authentic Fleming precedent. Maybe Madeleine is telling all this to her psychiatrist? I'd like to see this film.
But I agree our James Bond filmmakers are never going to tell a story structured like that, and as discussed in the past, they don't even have more conventional flashbacks, it all happens in linear time.
Thanks for the detailed explanations about the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists. Some may already know all that, but not me, so it helps.
And I had always thought a PhD was a doctorate, the two terms are synonymous in Canada. But that's nothing to do with medicine, different kind of Doctor.
I have assumed ever since plot rumours began that Swann could be the missing scientist. Such a plot would explain how she can be in the movie, and all these other leading ladies.
So for those who remember SPECTRE better than I do, what appeared to be the the nature of that clinic where Bond first meets her? I thought it was a research facility, and yes they take patients, because the patients are the subject of the research.
What was Swann's exact job there? Was she paid simply to cure the patients, or was she studying their cases to learn something new?
Freud had his clinic in Austria, I think, and Jung in Switzerland. Swann having a clinic in the Alps is reminiscent of those guys.
We don't really see enough of the clinic to know -- certainly far less than what we see of Piz Gloria, which it obviously emulates -- but there's no reason to believe it couldn't house laboratories. It's built into the side of a mountain, which is the sort of thing one might do with laboratories doing cutting-edge scientific research. But a clinic certainly could also exist merely for the treatment of patients in a remote setting.
We know very little about Swann. It's a contemporary film, so characterizations in this regard are vague and shallow, merely to service the plot. She has the title Doctor, but she could be serving in any capacity.
But let's assume that she and Bond break up. She returns to her duties at the clinic, where she is engaged in some sort of DNA research. Perhaps it can alter a person's identity. Blofeld, meanwhile, has escaped. He is on the run, but no one can find him, and since Bond has retired, he doesn't care. But then Blofeld infiltrates the clinic somehow, forcing its staff, including Swann, to help him undergo genetic treatments to alter his identity. He becomes the Malek character. But the treatment is ongoing, so he flees and takes Swann with him. Felix contacts Bond for help in chasing Blofeld down. At first, Bond is reluctant, but when he learns that Swann is Blofeld's prisoner, he joins in the hunt. This gives the personal angle that modern movies slavishly include.
Or maybe Blofeld is a separate character that Malek merely works for or vice versa. Either way, the rest could be done.
Craig was again asked at Tiff if this was his last Bond film and he said "oh I think so yeah"
I hadn't realised Craig would be at TIFF, but so he is, promoting Knives Out, which also stars Ana de Armas.
I usually stay well away from that event, as it completely messes up traffic in the downtown core and I don't care about all those celebrities.
But now I know I missed seeing James Bond in the flesh I'm questioning my priorities in life!
This story says Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris will be filming in Matera. Oddly it also says Ana de Armas, who was previously believed to be a character who only appears in the Cuba scenes, will be in Matera; so make of that what you will.
Comments
You are right. The frozen lake is most likely Madeleine in the 90s retelling her monologue on the morocco train. Less likely, it's the part where the scientist gets kidnapped and the girl is the scientist's daughter. I mean a real scientist. I don't seen any reason for a bond villain to kidnap a psychologist. Is his evil plan to put everyone on the spectrum? :007)
"Bond...Tell me about your childhood. Let your feelings out!"
"Sorry old bean, I have No Time to Cry"
For instance, a psychologist is someone who holds a Ph.D. in psychology, at least in the U.S. Their training ordinarily doesn't involve medical school, yet her biography states she's has medical training from Oxford. Medical training is usually reserved for a psychiatrist, or someone who holds an M.D. with additional training in psychiatry. Though both can be scientists, the former tends to be involved in theory and counseling while the later tends to approach patients medically, including with the use of pharmaceuticals. Writers frequently mix these two fields up or use them interchangeably, to the chagrin of actual psychologists and psychiatrists.
Of course, there's nothing to prevent a Ph.D. from getting medical training -- indeed, many M.D.s also earn Ph.D.s and vice versa. Perhaps the standards are different in Europe. And it's certainly possible for Swann to have continued her training the five years since Spectre to include medical training of some sort.
But I offer this, too, because modern film writing tends to want to boil things down to an almost absurd minimalist level. The fewer characters, the fewer story arcs, the fewer lines to be divided up among them, and the fewer actors to have to pay. This is touted as economy. Having Swann do double duty in this regard would doubtless be attracted to a contemporary film writer, just as it seemed having Blofeld be Bond's foster brother seemed an attractive idea to provide economical unity to the Craig movies, even though it's among the stupidest ideas in terms of story-telling that the series has ever offered.
I certainly could be wrong. But if Madeline is no longer with Bond at the beginning of the film, and if she has scenes throughout the film (assuming they aren't flashbacks or moments where Bond is haunted by his memory), it would seem to make the writer's task harder to write scenes for her and an additional scientist Bond is looking for.
Just a thought.
Isn't that Doctorate? Which isn't a research-focused degree. Or even just Masters?
She's also not based in the U.S. when we see her practicing. Perhaps she was also able to do some sort of bridging course somewhere that recognised her learning from medical degree and experience which allowed her to register as a psychologist.
Or, it's just a film and the writers don't really care to make the psychologist/psychiatrist distinction, and we should just chill the F out. Also, I don't see anything contradictory about her character.
A psychiatrist (pretty much world wide) train for 5 years minimum to become a regular medical
doctor, with experience in all areas of medicine through training, working in hospitals etc., and at about 7 years of Regular medical practice opt to take further training in psychiatry. It is a highly specialised role and is not comparable to psychologist in terms of training, scope of knowledge and scope of practice. They often work side by side as they often compliment each other, rather than cross over.
I though Madeline was a Psychiatrist from her bio.
You are right that the Italy scenes could fit in that 47 minute gap, but where is Felix Leiter? If, as the synopsis suggests, Bond is in Jamaica and Leiter brings him out of retirement, which DC confirmed to Prince Charles, then why is there a clapperboard for scene 37 in Italy (https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/19146/nttd-the-clapperboard-thread#latest), which would be 26 minutes into the film, and there is no sign of Leiter?
BTW scene 15K could be the start of the Norway sequence, not the end where Malek's stuntman double stands over the girl in the frozen lake with a broken mask.
Because there will still be a five year gap between them.
I just don't think we're going to get a non-linear Bond film. I saw Purvis & Wade interviewed once where they said they try to make the films more complicated and EON makes them make it simple. Goldeneye is the only film that has an explicit time jump and it is kept simple, the PTS is 9 years earlier than the main story. NTTD would need to have a radically different structure to any previous Bond film. Is Madeleine going to narrate this? Is Bond only going to be seen in flashback? Is the Norway flashback the start of Madeleine talking about her life up to the point where she became a widow? It's just too commercially risky for a $200 million plus movie IMHO.
Some very interesting concepts there Someone. Could easily see a narration like that but not sure I would like it and would be very risky. The Vantage in Norway being set some years earlier could have been a possibility but aren't the pursuing Range Rovers new?
The Norway car chase with Range Rovers is set in a different season, hence, the lack of snow, compared to the frozen lake Norway filming. And I'd add, they are probably separated by years, hence the flashback/dream theory. The Vantage isn't earlier, we see it in the Whitehall scenes when Bond arrives to meet M.
I still think two films being filmed at the same time (setting aside the hated The Rhythm Section theory) is a better explanation for why Bond is in Jamaica 54 minutes into the film, based on clapperboard 78, and yet 20 minutes earlier he was in Italy with Madeleine (and from the latest Matera clapperboard, numbered 37, he is in Italy 26 minutes into the film), when we're told he starts in Jamaica and is recruited by Leiter for a mission.
Quantum was 1h 47mins. You could film two 1h 45 minute films in 42 weeks, 10 months. A normal Bond film shoot is 7 months. To accommodate DC, the scheduling could be organised to squeeze his filming all in one space, or chop it up across those 10 months so he isn't so exhausted.
I know the distinction. I'm saying the writers either don't know, don't care, or they've thought about it and it makes sense in their own logic.
http://www.sassilive.it/cultura-e-spettacoli/cinema-cultura-e-spettacoli/film-no-time-to-die-con-james-bond-a-matera-foto-e-video-riprese-su-jump-set-allestito-su-gradoni-duomo-per-salto-centauro-su-moto-in-piazza-duomo/
Bond on the Box - Website | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | LetterBoxd | YouTube
-Mr Arlington Beech
An M.D. is a practioner's doctorate, which is why it's called a medical practice. However, in medicine, it's common to find M.D.'s doing research, too, especially at university hospitals because universities are research centers. Many M.D.s, though, also earn Ph.D.s so they have the scholarly base to augment the practice one.
In Europe, things can be organized differently. For instance, in the U.S., a Juris Doctor, or a degree to practice law, ordinarily does not confer the title "Doctor." (For example, a practicing attorney is not referred to as "Doctor" in a courtroom.) That's generally reserved for the scholarly degree, the Ll.d., which requires more schooling. But in Europe, many practicing attorneys are referred to as "Doctor."
In terms of years of schooling, a J.D. is closer to a master's degree. After a four-year bachelors, a J.D. usually requires three more years, while a master's requires two. A Ph.D. is often three to five years beyond that. An M.D. is often four years of schooling beyond the bachelors plus residency.
I don't understand your point about "chill the F out." Is anyone getting upset? If the terms psychologist/psychiatrist are being used interchangeably but they're not, it may be a mistake that allows for her certainly to be the scientist in question. Regardless, she could be a scientist with a Ph.D. or an M.D.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-truisms-wellness/201601/psychiatrist-vs-psychologist
This article offers a (very) brief history of how "doctor" went from being synonymous with teacher or scholar and instead with physician.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-history-of-doctor
No. PhDs and Doctorates are different. PhDs are research degrees. Doctorates are professional degrees - essentially a longer version of a Masters. You can get a doctorate in psychological and you can get a PhD in psychology. A PhD won't qualify you to practice psychology. A Doctorate (or Masters) will. Both degrees give you the "Dr." title but they do mean different things. I know this stuff because I am a psychologist, i've completed a Masters and could have extended it to a Doctorate, and i've also completed a PhD.
Again, either the writers don't care to make the distinction between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Or, she's completed a medical degree and jumped across to complete a degree in psychology or vice-versa.
Perhaps this is a difference in where we are? In Australia and the US, I think it's organised in this way.
And I had always thought a PhD was a doctorate, the two terms are synonymous in Canada. But that's nothing to do with medicine, different kind of Doctor.
I have assumed ever since plot rumours began that Swann could be the missing scientist. Such a plot would explain how she can be in the movie, and all these other leading ladies.
So for those who remember SPECTRE better than I do, what appeared to be the the nature of that clinic where Bond first meets her? I thought it was a research facility, and yes they take patients, because the patients are the subject of the research.
What was Swann's exact job there? Was she paid simply to cure the patients, or was she studying their cases to learn something new?
Freud had his clinic in Austria, I think, and Jung in Switzerland. Swann having a clinic in the Alps is reminiscent of those guys.
then the title we've gotten is just a typo, like Tomorrow Never Lies/Dies !
But that's ambiguous, a normal viewer would assume those kills happened shortly before the balance of the film unless for some reason they chose to overanalyse.
(and unlike Goldeneye, no matter how much time has passed, those kills did not happen before two previous films, because this is an allnew timeline)
That's getting a bit Vivienne Michelle, so yes authentic Fleming precedent. Maybe Madeleine is telling all this to her psychiatrist? I'd like to see this film.
But I agree our James Bond filmmakers are never going to tell a story structured like that, and as discussed in the past, they don't even have more conventional flashbacks, it all happens in linear time.
We know very little about Swann. It's a contemporary film, so characterizations in this regard are vague and shallow, merely to service the plot. She has the title Doctor, but she could be serving in any capacity.
But let's assume that she and Bond break up. She returns to her duties at the clinic, where she is engaged in some sort of DNA research. Perhaps it can alter a person's identity. Blofeld, meanwhile, has escaped. He is on the run, but no one can find him, and since Bond has retired, he doesn't care. But then Blofeld infiltrates the clinic somehow, forcing its staff, including Swann, to help him undergo genetic treatments to alter his identity. He becomes the Malek character. But the treatment is ongoing, so he flees and takes Swann with him. Felix contacts Bond for help in chasing Blofeld down. At first, Bond is reluctant, but when he learns that Swann is Blofeld's prisoner, he joins in the hunt. This gives the personal angle that modern movies slavishly include.
Or maybe Blofeld is a separate character that Malek merely works for or vice versa. Either way, the rest could be done.
Please god let it be so. Looking forward to a good final outing but enough now, really #newballsplease
I usually stay well away from that event, as it completely messes up traffic in the downtown core and I don't care about all those celebrities.
But now I know I missed seeing James Bond in the flesh I'm questioning my priorities in life!
http://www.sassilive.it/cultura-e-spettacoli/cinema-cultura-e-spettacoli/daniel-craig-e-sbarcato-a-bari-palese-tutti-a-caccia-di-james-bond-sul-set-a-matera-con-ralph-fiennes-naomie-harris-rami-malek-lea-seydoux-e-ana-de-armas/
This story says Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris will be filming in Matera. Oddly it also says Ana de Armas, who was previously believed to be a character who only appears in the Cuba scenes, will be in Matera; so make of that what you will.
Puglia airport has posted this picture of DC's arrival.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B2LysXWo13b/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
(Like Jamaica)
https://deadline.com/2019/09/tom-hanks-eddie-murphy-jennifer-lopez-daniel-craig-among-stars-flooding-tiff-with-dueling-premieres-saturday-toronto-1202728868/