MovieChat Forums > MovieReporter > Replies
MovieReporter's Replies
PrimeMinisterX, I certainly will. Thanks so much!
millsey72, yes this narrative makes a lot of sense.
For Your Eyes Only acknowledges an older, more mature Bond and should/would have worked really well as Moore’s exit. But with the pressure of Connery’s return, you can understand why they wanted Moore back - he was ageing but bankable and laid claim to the highest grossing film in the series with the relatively recent Moonraker. After Octopussy came out on top, they probably thought to scare off any more competition for good so rolled him out for one more with AVTAK.
FYEO should have been his last one. But, from a business angle, you can get why he was kept on for the next two.
Drooch, yes - there’s some strong irony there. Some of them behind http://www.craignotbond.com must be feeling that they’ve been proved right, albeit in a unexpected way!
And yes, he was a great Bond with two of the greatest films in the series. His ascension to co-producer and alleged decision to kill off Bond is, IMHO, a disappointing move in the series’ history and a very disappointing closure to his otherwise thrilling era.
WhereIsRent, as we’ve discussed, that’s the way to go. I did want Craig back for one more but, now, Spectre is how it should have ended.
MovieChatUser497, with you all the way on the last point.
As for the film itself, I enjoyed it (well, until the end lol) but didn’t think it was as good as most of Craig’s other Bonds. There’s a lack of memorable scenes (the one exception being the SPECTRE sequence with Paloma), Safin was an unremarkable villain and the much-anticipated rivalry between the 007s (which had bags of potential) was just played out rather passively.
It’s been hailed as “magnificent” and has been receiving rave reviews but, at the moment, I can’t help but feel that it’s been overrated.
Yes, I forgot that Craig initially wasn’t coming back after Spectre. So that was pretty much served up as his exit!
Somewhat regretfully now, I hoped he would come back for at least one more. At the time, leaving after Spectre just seemed a bit premature. Now, I wish he didn’t! :-(
Oh well. I’ll gladly take Spectre’s ending as the closure to the Craig era which, as you point out, it was actually intended to be!
Once again, with you all the way here.
And, yes, little (or rather no) thought was given to the possibility that, after some time, Q could deal with the DNA problem in some way. Okay, Bond didn't much have time to think about that but I don't really buy that he accepts it's all over there and then. That's not the Bond we saw from Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. And, alternative timeline/universe as it may be, it wasn't Daniel Craig's Bond either.
I wonder if we will get an interview with Boyle at some point. It would be good to get an idea of went on behind-the-scenes and what the "real" ending to NTTD should have been.
I’m pleased you like it. :-)
“It's a shame because I really like the movie, but the ending left a sour taste in my mouth when it finished”.
WhereIsRent, that was/is me too - 100%.
As I suggest with my ending, I’d take not seeing Bond in person at the end of the movie or even some ambiguity - is he really dead or is he still alive? But for them just to explicitly kill him off in front of us, unexpected and brave as it is, just doesn’t work for me.
What you said is what it comes down to. That sense of movie myth and magic. He will be back, I’m sure. Is it ever going to be the same again? That, I’m less confident about. And, if that is the case, I think that’s sad. All for the sake of a decision to do “something different”.
And you’re also right about NTTD’s ending not fitting with the rest of the movie, let alone Craig’s other films.
If they really thought hard and took more care, I’m sure they could have packaged an ending that could have been bittersweet, poignant but true to the spirit of Bond and what we’ve seen in the Craig era. Instead, they went for abruptly going all out the other way and it’s a jarring shift.
I suppose, in the big picture, Bond will go on and us disapprovers will accept that this is just the way the producers (or rather Daniel Craig) decided to wrap up this era of the series. For me, it’ll always be a very disappointing way to end the five Craig films and a disappointing move in the history of the franchise.
WhereIsRent, I'm with you - the ending is, something different yes, but personally a big disappointment.
Here's one idea I have:
Bond realises that he can't see Madeline and Mathilde again, as shown in the movie. He's devastated and, seemingly, is killed. We and the characters truly believe him dead. The "To James" scene stays in. To the audience, it really does feel like James Bond is dead after all. Later on, Nomi is reinstated as 007. As the film draws to a close, she pays tribute to Bond's grave. As she prepares to drive away, she's buzzed by M. Time to report in, something's come up. She gets ready to go. Then, another message. "Good luck, 007. JB". It's from Bond. She smiles. He's still out there after all. Nomi drives away, the Bond theme kicks in and the film (and the Craig era) ends...
Something along those lines is what I would have liked. You have the suggestion of Bond's death and the pathos of him being torn from Madeline and his daughter. But, he goes on. He escapes, he endures. He's James Bond. It's a premise which brings closure to Daniel Craig's era but still ends on an "up". Much more true to the spirit of Bond whilst keeping the finality of Craig's era in the air.
FFNogoodnik, yes he was. He shouldn't have been killed off though :-)
They should have gone with something else. This is the title of one of the least popular Columbo episodes - surprised they didn’t pick up on that!
Both fantastic and, looking back, such good memories of seeing them when they came out. Special times in the Bond series.
I’ll always enjoy and appreciate them for sure but, now that this story is over, I can’t help but feel something has been taken from them. Particularly Skyfall. I mean the concept of that is of a weathered, seemingly past-his-prime Bond stepping out from the shadows and getting back on top. This is really only the beginning of his adventures. It was a high-point for the franchise which screamed “Bond may be 50 years old but it’s back, better than ever and here to stay”. Now, thanks to NTTD, it turns out that Craig’s 007 is really heading to his doom after the events of Skyfall, and the series faces an uncertain time ahead.
cyguration, I should have cottoned on to the implications of Boyle leaving. To the best of my knowledge, that’s the first on a Bond film. Now, in retrospect, it’s obvious that this was what the dispute over “creative differences” was over.
I thought it was a shame, in the first instance, that Sam Mendes didn’t return to make a trilogy. I guess his absence, together with Craig’s increased behind-the-scenes clout, goes some way to explain how this one jars so much with the others. Most obvious for me was the insertion of the OHMSS soundtrack. For me, it was so out of place and such a departure. Odd choice to say the least.
Yes, I was certainly hyped till then. Afterwards, it was another story lol.
I’ve always appreciated Dalton as Bond. Once the disappointment of NTTD settles, I fancy revisiting an era of Bond that managed to do serious without spoiling the fun.
Interesting to hear your thoughts, cyguration.
“After learning about the spoilers I, too, felt a jarring discomfort in the pit of my stomach”.
That describes exactly how I felt after seeing the film! A deep-rooted disappointment.
“Well, it's true, it's all fiction and it is just a movie, but it's also part of a historical fictional legacy attached to a world renown character that people look to as a quintessential hero no matter the circumstances”.
Totally agree. I had to talk myself round by reaffirming to myself that at the end of the day it is just a movie. But I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here - a character that people look to for resilience and endurance. And the audience aren’t fools. They know Bond’s not Superman or immortal. Of course, he’s going to die one day - be it on a mission, as an old man or other means. Do we need to see him die unceremoniously on screen though? No. We have been going to see Bond for virtually 60 years now because he always comes through with charm, wit and grit in the most inescapable of situations. And it’s all done in style.
Now, that legacy feels like it’s been trampled on.
You can’t help but wonder what Cubby Broccoli would have made of it. Connery had defined the character and netted 5 smash-hits but, when he was unhappy and wanted out, he was shown the door. Lazenby came in, fooled around, didn’t want to stay and was let go. Cubby and Harry Saltzman said that the star himself isn’t bigger than Bond and it was that understanding of the appeal of the character that has driven the franchise to this day, helping it to outlive beyond the definitive incarnation of Sean Connery. If the story of Craig demanding 007’s fate IS true, then Barbara Broccoli seems to have done the opposite.
Plus, you have Danny Boyle’s departure as director (a series first) and Craig’s co-producer credit…Things certainly appear to have been shaken and stirred!
That’s how I feel about it. A bold choice? Yes. The right choice? No.