Was OHMSS actually forgotten?

[MrKiddWint]

@secretagentfan

I do see many qualities in NTTD despite thinking that the ending, while working within the frame the whole movie prepares, serves the wrong purpose.

Serious question: “other than working within the frame the whole movie prepares,” what purpose can a cinematic formal element be expected to fulfill?

@David_M

(in particular, the sequence with Bond alone in the woods against multiple armed assailants was well done, and the final ascent up the staircase

I thought the forest sequence was the best in the film. The staircase sequence felt too much like a video game (and I say this as someone who doesn’t play video games), so it was not effective for me.

@David_M

If nothing else, as exits go I think most of us can agree that dying at the end of NTTD is still better than living at the end of SP.

I am in the “not most of us category” here. Craig Bond driving off links him up with Connery Bond on a cruise ship and Lazenby Bond mourning on the road. Moore Bond and Brosnan Bond say goodbye mid-romantic/sexual action, so their farewells are more routine.

NTTD is obviously directed toward a “James Bond will die” conclusion, so that while the most definite finale, it also feels as routine as Bond laying atop whatever Bond girl co-starred in that particular movie.

[David_M]

@MrKiddWint

I am in the “not most of us category” here. Craig Bond driving off links him up with Connery Bond on a cruise ship and Lazenby Bond mourning on the road. Moore Bond and Brosnan Bond say goodbye mid-romantic/sexual action, so their farewells are more routine.

Well, to be clear, my preference would have been to end the Craig era “alive at the end of SF.”

[MrKiddWint]

@David_M

my preference would have been to end the Craig era “alive at the end of SF.”

That would have been as unique an ending as NTTD: Bond standing in M’s office, and declaring his readiness to serve.

[David_M]

And fulfilling the promise of the Craig era as a “prequel” to the others.

Except then we’d have to have sorted out how Bond could go from a broken down, technically-unfit-for-service wreck in SF to a virile 32-year-old in DN. But hey, details, details.

But having already ended his first two entries with the gunbarrel at the wrong end of the film, it would have been fitting to have his third end with, “Here I am, what’s the assignment?”

[ChrissBond007]

I am honestly quite suprised there are so many fans that like NTTD. Of course every opinion is subjective, and again, I’m actually envious of people who are able to enjoy it and gladly add it to their collection. I’m only happy for these people and I respect everyone’s opinion. But the movie breaks so many (to me at at least) crucial rules for a Bond movie. And not everything that goes out of the ordinary and takes creative risks (as OHMSS did at the time) does necessarily equal good.

Bond dying is one of the many problems I have with it. I am always reminded of that scene from GE where Trevelyan mocks Bond how ‘‘empty’’ is memorial service would be. And that’s exactly what we got in NTTD. Four people at the office having a drink and then ‘‘back to work’’ followed by that awkward driving off scene with Madeline saying ‘‘Bond, James Bond’’ with the insert of WHATTITW to give it that extra emotional punch by reminding us of the most heartbreaking film in the series. It just feels wrong, it just feels like a bunch of empty references to me and it only reminds me of how empty Bond’s world truly is when you remove the character with all of his charm. Not to mention the way in which Bond dies, just standing there, essentially giving up because the plot demands it with the nanobots etc. after having that over-the-top cringeworthy speech by Safin. It also makes zero sense that Bond goes back while Nomi escapes with Bond’s family. In the context of the film, Bond should leave with his family and it should be Nomi as a 00 agent who should be capable of finishing the job. It certainly doesn’t get an emotional response by me other than dissapointment.

But again, it’s one of the many problems I have with it. The way in which the movie tries to make Bond more likeable as a sympathetic family man. I don’t know, but it just feels like I’m watching a movie about Craig’s dramatic acting talents rather than Bond, he feels out of character here for most of the movie at least to me. The way in which the movie tries to be as inoffensive as possible (especially during the interactions between Safin and Madeline which feel unnatural and toned down). The uninteresting characters (Blofeld, Safin, Madeline and I’m not even much of a fan of Wright’s Leiter either). The whole personal angle and trust issues between M and Bond for what feels like the 100th time at this point. The empty references to previous Bond eras. The fact that Safin’s endgame is just irrelevant to the story (just like with Silva and Blofeld/Oberhauser it’s only about the personal connections). Or just the fact seeing Bond with a child, nothing against the wonderful child actress of course who did an amazing job. But this just takes Bond too far down to earth. For me Bond should always be an adult escapist fantasy, even when it does sometimes touches more down to earth elements such as marriage (like OHMSS and CR do).

Even the best part of the movie, the Cuba sequence, I don’t even think is that great. It feels a bit staged, with them casually drinking the cocktails in between. As if they’re saying ‘‘this is for those fans who are shouting for more fun’’ before going back to the personal drama. Although I do admit that the ‘‘eye-opening experience’’ line was probably my favorite part of the movie and really gets a great laugh out of me. I do think it’s a good sequence overall, and I wish we could’ve gotten an entire movie in that style.

For me personally, NTTD managed to kill my excitement for the series going forward because I don’t know at this point if they can get back to the kind of movies I like. Just the fun escapist thrillers, with the occasional deeper stories and twists. With a character we all secretly wish we were more like, instead of having him be more like us. But if they do go back to that, maybe I can look back at NTTD as an interesting experiment that just didn’t work for me instead of that dead end it feels like now. So yes, I’m defenitely in the camp that would’ve preferred the ending of SP with Bond and Madeline driving off into the sunset (even if that film had it’s own fair share of problems as an ending of an era), but I was ok with it then as the ending of the Craig era.

Is all of this ironic considering OHMSS is my favorite film? Not really in my opinion. OHMSS is very much a traditional fun Bond film that manages to have that perfect balance of taking the character down to earth while still maintaining the essential qualities of the series. Lazenby’s Bond is pretty much just Connery’s Bond until he proposes to Tracy, and that contrast is what makes this film so fascinating. But Bond never feels out of character here, as he does in NTTD for me. The brilliant thing about OHMSS to me is that it is as fun as any Bond film, a film that really celebrates the 60’s Bond classics…until it is all shattered in the final minutes with a shocking cold ending. And to me this is far more impactful than the melodramatic soap opera feel of NTTD and the larger Craig era to an extent, where everything is told with a lot of words, while OHMSS manages to be a whole lot more impactful in a far more subtle way. The Craig era positions Bond as a character to be pitied, the character that has to be put out his misery and it keeps hitting us on the head with it. While OHMSS doesn’t waste any words on this, but manages to show the harsh reality of Bond’s existence with a cold ironic twist at the end.

And finally. OHMSS came out during a time where people could only imagine Sean Connery as James Bond, a time where you would go see a film in the cinemas once and maybe again after a few years during re-runs in the cinema, a time where not every frame of a movie was already analyzed all over the internet on the first day of release. OHMSS didn’t really have a fair chance to get the appreciation until years later. Whereas NTTD has already been watched and rewatched over and over again by fans and analyzed by fans all over the internet. So no, I don’t think you can really compare the situations other than that both movies took some creative risks.

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

Serious question: “other than working within the frame the whole movie prepares,” what purpose can a cinematic formal element be expected to fulfill?

What I meant to say: the ending of NTTD is doing what every scene is striving for. Because the purpose of the film was CraigBond sacrifices himself for his family and dies.

But for me that was a purpose which is wrong for a Bond film.

[David_M]

@ChrissBond007

Bond dying is one of the many problems I have with it. I am always reminded of that scene from GE where Trevelyan mocks Bond how ‘‘empty’’ is memorial service would be. And that’s exactly what we got in NTTD.

Well, this of course is the part of Bond’s world we don’t like to dwell on; the fact that for all the good he might do and all the times he might save the world, it’s all done anonymously and when he dies there will be no parades or monuments. But I guess you’re saying there’s also no emotional payoff, which yes, just goes to prove WHY we never go there.

@ChrissBond007

It just feels wrong, it just feels like a bunch of empty references to me and it only reminds me of how empty Bond’s world truly is when you remove the character with all of his charm.

For me, the “charm” of the character had already been missing for a long time, but I get your point: Bond is arguably the only interesting character in his entire world (which is what makes the idea of a “Bond Cinematic Universe” ridiculous) so with him gone, we’re left with zilch. And even though I personally consider Craig’s Bond virtually charm-free, I will admit that as he’s the only character portrayed as competent and effective, whatever Earth he lives on is now very much living on borrowed time. It may not even last until Madeleine uses up all the gasoline in the Aston Martin.

@ChrissBond007

Not to mention the way in which Bond dies, just standing there, essentially giving up because the plot demands it with the nanobots etc. after having that over-the-top cringeworthy speech by Safin.

Don’t forget he’s already been shot multiple times and is bleeding profusely. The real miracle is that he made it up the stairs again and then managed to climb a ladder. By all rights he should have been dead long before the missiles arrived, so the “stand there and face fate” moment is at least a step up from dropping dead before his radio goodbyes, etc. In theory, anyway.

@ChrissBond007

It certainly doesn’t get an emotional response by me other than dissapointment.

Well, there’s my “meh.” So that’s two.

I agree with your complaints overall, but I guess by the time of NTTD, I’d already lowered the bar pretty far. I was used to “Bond films” that were twisted into family dramas, personal vendettas, etc instead of sticking to formula. I was used to the wallowing in self-pity and angst. I was used to ham-handed, grafted on sentiment and “hey, watch me ACT” scenery chewing. I was used to massive plot holes. But given all that, NTTD moves more smoothly for me than the 3 films before it, with cinematography that for once does not look like it’s been filtered through a fish tank full of urine, a few genuinely attractive locations, an Adamsesque setpiece on Safin’s island, stunts I can actually follow, Ana DeArmas and the Cuba sequence. Even Madeleine is rehabilitated from “bottom 3 Bond girls” to “meh” with her second appearance.

I agree the “family drama” thing is out of place in a normal Bond film but I also agree with SAF that it’s there because the goal from the beginning was to tell “the Last James Bond Story.” Those of us who grew up on “Bonanza” and the like knew that as soon as Bond married Tracy, she was dead meat, even if we hadn’t read the book. Likewise as soon as Bond knows he has a kid, and makes her breakfast, there can be only one fate in store for him. At that point, we have to accept we are not going to get a Bond film, but a Craig film.

Is it wrong to take up a slot in the Bond filmology with an entry that’s entirely motivated by the desire to satisfy the star’s interests? Sure, but the writing was on the wall there long before NTTD. As exercises in self-indulgence and blatant award-seeking go, it’s at least got more going for it than some of the other recent entries. Which is to say, I’m grading on a curve.

[MrKiddWint]

@secretagentfan

the ending of NTTD is doing what every scene is striving for.

Definitely. A viewer can always be sure that Bond will triumph. In NTTD, there is the sense from the beginning that this triumph will come with a side order of death.

@secretagentfan

But for me that was a purpose which is wrong for a Bond film.

Understood. The purpose of a Bond film is Bond’s success, which comes with ancillary consequences, but they are secondary. Here Bond’s death is foreordained (the only way to make the conclusion of NTTD different from the preceding 24 endings), and raised to the level of a co-purpose.

Thanks for expanding on your thoughts.

[secretagentfan]

You‘re always welcome.

I must add that I would have accepted (not enjoyed!) Bond‘s death if it really would have been the end of the whole series.

Capping it with JAMES BOND WILL RETURN, however, only reveals „Daniel wanted it, he wouldn’t have come back otherwise, and although we or our children want to earn more with this franchise we just gave in.“

Or, maybe even worse: „We don’t want to do more, really, but you gullible ticket buyers will like this film more when we leave you with this lie.“

[MrKiddWint]

@secretagentfan

Capping it with JAMES BOND WILL RETURN, however, only reveals „Daniel wanted it

It also reveals that while the way an iteration of James Bond can cease to exist has expanded to include death, James Bond will return as he always has before.

This discussion has caused me to realize that Tracy’s death in OHMSS is just as foreordained as Bond’s death in NTTD. Bond cannot be married, or even in a committed/semi-committed relationship. Miss Case’s proposal of a union based on mercenary considerations is probably the most fruitful path with Bond.

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

It also reveals that while the way an iteration of James Bond can cease to exist has expanded to include death, James Bond will return as he always has before.

Indeed. And if a new actor had appeared in a new film only two or three years later, beginning the next cycle, it would have put Bond‘s death in perspective. It’s the ongoing uncertainty which bothers me and gives undue weight to the ending of NTTD.

On the other hand, the promise to reappear IMO precludes Bond‘s death or at least undermines such a fate because it can never mean anything then, only be a cheap trick.

[MrKiddWint]

@secretagentfan

gives undue weight to the ending of NTTD

Exactly. NTTD looms large since it is the most recent Bond, and there is nothing to discuss regarding Bond 26, beyond the fact that there is nothing to discuss about Bond 26.

@secretagentfan

the promise to reappear IMO precludes Bond‘s death or at least undermines such a fate because it can never mean anything then, only be a cheap trick.

How to end a Bond film is tricky business, especially when it is an actor’s final appearance. Our hero gets a fond Bon(d) Voyage! in DAF, and SP sends him off into the dawn/back into the past, but most Bond movies end inconclusively–yes Bond will be back, and probably in this iteration, unless the actor decides not to come back, or EON decides to fire him, or …

[ChrissBond007]

@David_M

For me, the “charm” of the character had already been missing for a long time, but I get your point: Bond is arguably the only interesting character in his entire world (which is what makes the idea of a “Bond Cinematic Universe” ridiculous) so with him gone, we’re left with zilch. And even though I personally consider Craig’s Bond virtually charm-free, I will admit that as he’s the only character portrayed as competent and effective, whatever Earth he lives on is now very much living on borrowed time. It may not even last until Madeleine uses up all the gasoline in the Aston Martin.

Exactly. The entire premise of the Bond series is build around one single character, it’s a classic one-man show. As Fleming once put it, a romantic affair of one man against the world. All the other characters, as colourful and interesting as they have been throughout the years, are ultimately there to play off against the main character. For me, the only thing the ending of NTTD does is just reveal the emptiness of Bond’s world. Which is why they should never go there.

@David_M

Don’t forget he’s already been shot multiple times and is bleeding profusely. The real miracle is that he made it up the stairs again and then managed to climb a ladder. By all rights he should have been dead long before the missiles arrived, so the “stand there and face fate” moment is at least a step up from dropping dead before his radio goodbyes, etc. In theory, anyway.

Honestly, I would’ve actually preferred if Bond just collapsed earlier and the screen cut to black. At least it would have had that ‘‘shock’’ value to it. Maybe in sort of a FRWL novel style, leaving it ambigious. With perhaps a nice way to go to the next actor, who starts off in the hospital (like the DN novel) or maybe with a lost memory (like the TMWTGG novel) leaving it ambigious whether we’re still watching the same Bond or not (just imagine the fan theories that would come out of it ). At least it would have kept some excitement going forward rather than the, as mentioned before, hollow closing scenes with the cheap references, with no emotional payoff as you said.

@David_M

I agree with your complaints overall, but I guess by the time of NTTD, I’d already lowered the bar pretty far. I was used to “Bond films” that were twisted into family dramas, personal vendettas, etc instead of sticking to formula. I was used to the wallowing in self-pity and angst. I was used to ham-handed, grafted on sentiment and “hey, watch me ACT” scenery chewing. I was used to massive plot holes. But given all that, NTTD moves more smoothly for me than the 3 films before it, with cinematography that for once does not look like it’s been filtered through a fish tank full of urine, a few genuinely attractive locations, an Adamsesque setpiece on Safin’s island, stunts I can actually follow, Ana DeArmas and the Cuba sequence. Even Madeleine is rehabilitated from “bottom 3 Bond girls” to “meh” with her second appearance.

Fair enough. It’s all a matter of perspective (one of my favorite quotes from the entire Craig era). If you are able to look past all those issues I mentioned and enjoy things such as the cinamatography and the action I guess you can have a great time for sure. I have tried to do exactly that with this film, but I find myself unable to do so. I find it much easier with SF and SP, which for all their similar problems, still don’t take it that far. And I guess there was still some (naive) optimism in me back when those Sam Mendes movies came out that the series could still revert back to more fun escapism, and NTTD really shattered those expectations for me.

@David_M

I agree the “family drama” thing is out of place in a normal Bond film but I also agree with SAF that it’s there because the goal from the beginning was to tell “the Last James Bond Story.” Those of us who grew up on “Bonanza” and the like knew that as soon as Bond married Tracy, she was dead meat, even if we hadn’t read the book. Likewise as soon as Bond knows he has a kid, and makes her breakfast, there can be only one fate in store for him. At that point, we have to accept we are not going to get a Bond film, but a Craig film.

But that’s the thing. It’s not the last Bond story, at least that’s not what film promises us because ‘‘James Bond will return’’. If it would have been the last story in the series, I might have been more accepting of it. Perhaps I would’ve actually liked it if it was done in the way I described above, just have the screen cut to black when Bond collapses. Yes, new actor new timeline. But we’re supposed to believe we’re talking about the same character. There is nothing meaningful about it, nothing truly emotional other than it being an actor’s goodbye, because the guy will be back anyway in some alternate universe. It’s not like we’re talking about a film series like Star Wars where it’s all part of a bigger story, and everything that happens is permament. Is this now going to be just a part of the Bond formula going forward? This is a key difference between NTTD and OHMSS. With Tracy it did have an impact. And they could’ve given it a far bigger impact if they actually continued that storyline with the orginally planned sequel (or like the novels did it).

@David_M

Is it wrong to take up a slot in the Bond filmology with an entry that’s entirely motivated by the desire to satisfy the star’s interests? Sure, but the writing was on the wall there long before NTTD. As exercises in self-indulgence and blatant award-seeking go, it’s at least got more going for it than some of the other recent entries. Which is to say, I’m grading on a curve.

I guess that bothers me about the film as well. The general rule has always been that no actor is above the character, and NTTD essentially broke that rule. But I’m trying to not let that influence the way I look at NTTD as a film with it’s own merits. But unfortunately it’s just not my cup of tea.

[David_M]

@ChrissBond007

This is a key difference between NTTD and OHMSS. With Tracy it did have an impact. And they could’ve given it a far bigger impact if they actually continued that storyline with the orginally planned sequel (or like the novels did it).

This is a great point (and a way to bring the thread back to OHMSS! Yay!).

Tracy’s death has meaning and importance because it keeps coming up, albeit it small ways, in other films. It is part of at least two and probably 3 post-Lazenby Bonds’ pasts and arguably the ONLY on-screen event in the life of what I call “Classic Bond” (before the Craig reinvention/universe shift) to really have any lasting impact.

In contrast, Bond’s death in NTTD by its nature must be a dead-end, with no ability to impact anything going forward. Moore can visit Tracy’s grave and get touchy when Anya brings her up, Dalton can get a sad look when Della throws him the garter, but the next Bond actor cannot sit around musing about “that time I died on Safin’s island.” However well or poorly it worked for each of us as viewers, the only way forward is to leave it behind, and never speak of it on screen again. It served the star, but it left nothing useful for the series. Except maybe for making it impossible to justify trying to get Craig back in harness yet again.

[stromberg]

We never saw a corpse.

[MrKiddWint]

@ChrissBond007

With Tracy it did have an impact.

Does it? As you note,

@ChrissBond007

The entire premise of the Bond series is build around one single character, it’s a classic one-man show.

One-man shows do not include wives or significant others. Tracy is unique in that she combines the Sacrificial-Bond-Girl with the Bond-Girl-Bond-is-with-at-the-End into one character.

@stromberg

We never saw a corpse.

I read a theory once that the post-Reichenbach Falls Holmes was a figment of Watson’s imagination, since pre-Falls Holmes never split an infinitive, and post-Falls he does so twice.

[ChrissBond007]

@David_M

Tracy’s death has meaning and importance because it keeps coming up, albeit it small ways, in other films. It is part of at least two and probably 3 post-Lazenby Bonds’ pasts and arguably the ONLY on-screen event in the life of what I call “Classic Bond” (before the Craig reinvention/universe shift) to really have any lasting impact.

In contrast, Bond’s death in NTTD by its nature must be a dead-end, with no ability to impact anything going forward. Moore can visit Tracy’s grave and get touchy when Anya brings her up, Dalton can get a sad look when Della throws him the garter, but the next Bond actor cannot sit around musing about “that time I died on Safin’s island.” However well or poorly it worked for each of us as viewers, the only way forward is to leave it behind, and never speak of it on screen again. It served the star, but it left nothing useful for the series. Except maybe for making it impossible to justify trying to get Craig back in harness yet again.

Exactly. Tracy’s story in OHMSS serves as the only significant event from a past Bond movie in the ‘‘classic era’’. And like I said, there was potential to do much more with the story for at least a great sequel. It has meaning. But as it is, it serves as sort of a backstory of Moore’s, Dalton’s and (very much hinted at least in GE and TWINE) Brosnan’s Bond. The impact of Vesper’s story during the Craig era is similar.

NTTD’s ending, which should by all means have far greater meaning, serves no purpose beyond being Craig’s goodbye and does nothing for the series going forward. Bond perishing is one of those things I’ve always wondered about what it would be like long before NTTD, and I’ve always come to the same conclusion: It’s inconsequential in-universe thus pointless.

@MrKiddWint

One-man shows do not include wives or significant others.

Indeed it does not, and if it just ended there with Bond and Tracy driving into the sunset or continued slightly beyond that seeing Bond with his kids, that would’ve been the end of the one-man show and thus the series as a whole. So the ending we got was destined if the series was to continue. That’s also why Fleming ended the romance right there in the novel version of OHMSS and didn’t go beyond that. Or how Bond lost his memory and left instead of settling down with Kissy in the YOLT novel. Bond is not meant to go beyond that.

Similarly if OHMSS would’ve ended with Bond dying instead of Tracy it wouldn’t have worked either. Because this film series (and book series) is about Bond. Thus the one-man show would’ve ended there. And all that’s left is M, Q and Moneypenny along with Bond’s new family in Tracy and Draco, maybe Felix as well. Though Blofeld and Bunt would still be around, so maybe it wouldn’t feel as empty of an ending and might have made for an interesting Blofeld vs Felix spinoff movie

[Tiin007]

@secretagentfan

And if a new actor had appeared in a new film only two or three years later, beginning the next cycle, it would have put Bond‘s death in perspective. It’s the ongoing uncertainty which bothers me and gives undue weight to the ending of NTTD.

Oddly enough, this is (one of many reasons) why I am okay with it – because if there is EVER a time to take an extended break, it is now, so as to allow for a cleaner and fuller break between eras (unlike, say, the two year gap between Moore and Dalton, which was mostly business as usual, despite TLD being a top five entry for me). Heck, the four year gap after QoS bothered me much more than this current (much longer) gap because it felt like we had just begun a bold new era and then the future of the series (in an immediate sense) was uncertain – and Craig’s age was only going up. But now, with the finality of the NTTD ending, I am actually somewhat okay with an extended break, so long as the tenure of the next guy proceeds mostly uninterrupted.

[David_M]

I agree the extended break adds a bit of gravitas to an “ending” that we all know will be undone anyway. And if ever there were a time to slow down, take stock and plan the next step carefully, this is it. Things are looking pretty dicey for the industry right now, honestly.

I hope they’ll use this time to put together a real game plan for once. For example, they need to decide whether it’s more important to pursue another “extended arc” or whether they prefer to keep enjoying the luxury of taking huge breaks between installments. Because if it takes them another 15-20 years to complete another “saga,” I’m not sure I’ll bother to get involved, and even less sure I’d make it to the end.

[secretagentfan]

However, when EON and Craig planned and shot NTTD there was no pandemic or seismic change in the industry or a complete world politics in mirror universe absurdity in sight.

NTTD was designed without all that, and it is rather obvious that Craig just wanted to do what he said after CR, EON bowing down to him or having him fulfill their secret dream.

Now, the film will always carry additional baggage because of the uncertainty whether there will be a new Bond era at all. And yes, I don’t think it is a given anymore, with the Amazon/EON-impasse, the industry going full steam ahead with AI and the whole world rapidly turning to insanity as a sensible problem solving idea.

And even if Amazon will force a new Bond product onto the market, sweeping EON away with some new made up law of superiority (silly? Have you seen the news lately?), the Bond films will never be the same again.