I agree. While the use of “We have all the time in the world” (and the over-obvious use of it as a dialogue line - c´mon, who in his right mind would ever say something like that? Especially someone whose life is constantly threatened?) immediately brings back nostalgic melancholy, it also brings back the memory of a movie which at the time was a shock to the system of a moneymaking machine.
And which therefore was considered a failure, a waste of the most emotional story for Bond on an inexperienced actor. Too often it was discussed with people clamoring “oh, if only it had starred Connery”.
With time, of course, it got reappraised by fans and certain journalists. So the film has moved into a weird twilight zone where it is considered the best and a failure. A bit like Timothy Dalton.
By featuring the always beloved John Barry music, the personal storyline and the death role reversal, NTTD was clearly designed to be that Bond film which “got it right”. At least by not giving the main role to a badly advised dressman.
Interestingly, I am pretty sure that EON would not have gone ahead again with that kind of story if Craig had declined to return. Weird that they thought after Connery left: Let’s go for the most emotional story now with an untested bloke.
So, yes - using the music (and the dialogue) was not just an homage, it was a signal to the world: We´re doing it again but the right way. Not like OHMSS. You should remember the good parts about it (the music) but combine your memory of that from now on with this new movie.
On the basis that OHMSS cannot have taken place within the Craig Bubble Universe, I think this is a possible reading.
However, I accept that it’s just another, if perhaps the most egregious, example of the have-cake-eaten-it-cake-still-exists approach of the highwire act they decided upon of callbacks to a past that existed in our World but not his.
I don’t think that the use of OHMSS’s music in NTTD is either an embrace of the film nor a rejection of it. Like the rest of NTTD, it just feels like something that minimal thought was put into. They had a flimsy, at best, romantic relationship between Bond and Madeleine, so instead of actually developing that into something solid enough to actually work on the screen, someone probably just noted that they could use the OHMSS music and that would fill in all of the gaps by itself.
Let homages etc do the heavy lifting because we haven’t created a story/relationships that can. Yep, can see that. Fill in the blanks with them, job done.
April 29 -
I see it as an open love letter to Daniel Craig from both producers and director. The OHMSS is the most iconic of scores for old Bond and as a send off to Craig it demonstrates how important he is perceived by the producers. It also serves as a clunky closure to EONs 007 should no more movies be made.
25 done, Bond dead, our final piece of nostalgia wringing is Barry’s most iconic score.
In that statement, the way I interpreted it, it looks like they use the OHMSS themes because they’ve once used in a romantic movie and the We Have All The Time In The World became popular, so they used it in the Craig and Madeleine romance, I’m imagining the producers saying: “Well, who cares? Not many people remember that song came from OHMSS and not many people have watched that movie either, so we can use it here and introduce it again, it’s a wonderful song, it can create a more dramatic effect”, the producers are expecting it to create a big and deep impact on the audience, especially to those who haven’t watched OHMSS, they will likely to be fooled.
Yes, everytime the people will hear that song they will associate it with NTTD rather than OHMSS, the Bond-Madeleine relationship will be the first who will come to their mind instead of Bond-Tracy relationship.
So was it a rejection of it? Maybe the movie OHMSS itself, NTTD rejected that movie by stealing it’s song, the identity of OHMSS being romantic through the word “We Have All The Time In The World”, and used it in itself. But for me the song was alienated, the estrangement of it in this film, they took that song away from that film in order for it to be reintroduced in this film, so this song will no longer be associated with OHMSS.
They even used the instrumental version of WHATTITW through the last minutes of Craig’s documentary “Being James Bond” while Daniel Craig was speaking about his life while playing Bond and there’s a montage of him there. So I think, the Producers really want to associate that song with Craig and NTTD, or maybe I’m wrong? It’s just me, but that’s how I feel.
SPECTRE was originally going to end with the line, however it was cut. With Craig coming back one last time they obviously decided to go all in with the idea.
OHMSS is one of my favourite films, and don’t feel like NTTD “took away” the song from it. Instead I see it as a consolidation of its ideas, albeit in reverse. The themes were deemed similar and important enough from their point of view to warrant another appearance.
If OHMSS was such a black sheep it would have been ignored completely. The biggest possible tip of the hat to Lazenby could only be what they ultimately did. As soon as we heard the Matera cue we knew what it was, and where it came from. NTTD is referencing, not stealing.
The phrase is initially uttered by Bond in regards to his and Madeleine’s future. But that’s fleeting, and not the film’s main intention. The statement ultimately refers to Madeleine and Mathilde’s life going forward without Bond. Which gives a different context and feeling when you’re watching the end credits.
Embrace or rejection? I don’t know. Lazy and uninspired perhaps.
OHMSS is what it is, and the evolution of its reception over the decades has been fascinating and ultimately quite rewarding. So why NTTD needed to go there, to the extent that it did, is curious and slightly…misguided?
If you know your Bond, then all these references are for you. But if you know your Bond, then your own mind was made up a long time ago about OHMSS. And if you are, for discussion’s sake, one of the majority that go along because, well that’s what you do, then I don’t think you’re leaving NTTD and saying to your buddies, “I need to check out that old one with some other guy from 50 years ago” because there are references dropped all over this movie.
And while the plot twist is similar/familiar, what the heck is pilfering all this from an old one (an old one that has absolutely no connection to the current one) other than a lack of creativity or misguided creativity. Sure this plot twist needs to stand on it’s own, rather than be one long reference to, be fair, a secondary character from just one story in the canon.
I enjoyed NTTD (not as much as at least 2 others from this run) and as I’ve said before, the ends justified the means. But some of the freshness inherent in NTTD (the Swann backstory? That’s a first for a Bond-movie), is still ultimately cut with (too many) bits of back catalogue that the series won’t let itself get away from.
References, rehash, remake, pick the descriptor that you’re ready to put up with…
I don’t know that “embrace” or “reject” is the right word. “Plunder” is probably more accurate.
The whole Madeleine storyline, from SP through NTTD, is a rejection of OHMSS in a sense, because it gives us Madeleine as a bargain basement knock-off of Tracy, who consequently cannot exist. Step right up and see Bond’s greatest but doomed romance with the tragic but plucky daughter of an organized crime figure. It can only end in death, folks.
But that’s fine: Tracy doesn’t need to exist in this timeline and is better off not doing so. For me, Craig’s Bond was never Fleming Bond any more than he was a continuation of Sean Bond or Roger Bond. He’s a new construct, an alternate universe variant. It’s like the new Star Trek movies, operating on the premise of “kewl new adventures starring characters with names you already know, but where absolutely everything else is different.”
I will agree that using Louis’ song can’t possibly be construed as a “tribute” to a story that can’t possibly have happened in the current continuity. Rather it comes off as arrogant and undeservedly cocky, stealing from a film fans regard as one of if not the best, and doing it in a way that says, “That old film doesn’t count any more, so this is the new highpoint of the series.” That’s a call only the fans can make, thanks, and I don’t care if she is the first Bond girl to “earn” a second movie, Madeleine is no Tracy.
Hmm…so maybe I am leaning towards “rejection” after all.
The “angry old man” part of me is a bit miffed that some people will associate this song with a newer film now, but I learned a long time ago that great things from the past – and especially songs – will forever be looted for use in inferior modern projects. I guess I should just be grateful it’s not being used in a Swatch commercial.
I’m okay with more “subtle” uses, like Zimmer’s spin on it in the Matera sequence (even if it does provide an unwelcome reminder that these scores used to sound SO much better once upon a time) and then later when a version of the OHMSS main theme plays as Bond and M chat about duty and the costs of service. But grafting on the full song at the end was a bit much.
Funny, it reminds me of Roger’s story about watching OHMSS with Cubby and a room full of industry insiders, and at the end when Cubby asked another showbiz bigwig “So what do you think of my monster?” the guy answered, “You should have killed him and saved her.”
All these years later, they did flip it around, and they still got it wrong.
The Barry and Armstrong estates should get screenwriting credits on NTTD and the paychecks that come with it. The constant references to OHMSS are the only things that pull their weight in terms of getting the romance of NTTD off the ground. The original work in the film certainly doesn’t lift a finger in that regard. If it weren’t for the OHMSS references, I’m not sure anyone would know what the heck they were actually watching.
While it‘s always nice to criticize, the mere fact that there still is something to criticize after 60 years proves how great EON has been all these years in keeping Bond films alive.
New bosses always do the same: they have to toss out everything and bring in their „better“ ideas, just to justify their taking over as the right choice.
If you look at the current climate in the industry new people would immediately move for building universes, making Bond younger, maybe even American, or have a tiktok challenge to find the new „actor“.
EON should keep it forever and decide never to sell it.
