It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Want Fleming? 62- 69, and a good bit in 87 & 89 IMO. The rest is what you take from it. As in, OPINIONS. :)>-
If ever or ever a Wiz there was,
TheWizardOfIce is one because
Because because because,
Because of the grandiose posts he does...
We're off to flip the Wizard,
The wonderful wizard of Bondzzzzz
LOL man, it's all good, all the time. :))
=))
But what was he supposed to do? Fall to the ground and cry? And then yell at Silva like this?
That would have been the Flemigesque thing to do, wouldn't it? Instead he uses his anger to take down the guards. What a shame...
I am not saying that he could have saved her, even if I find this coming around from shaking nervous wreck to wolverine very unbelievable . But Bond (doesn't matter if novel or movie ) would have -at the very least -expressed his deep disgust. You see especially the one from the novels is (apart from being able to take quite some beating )actually soft as a marshmallow and would have been shocked beyond believe about that behaviour (especially towards a woman) and never ever would have made such a tasteless remark. I still think Fleming would be puking.
I don't think the problem so much lies with the way the scene plays out. Dan does a very good job with displaying the bubbling rage that I think novel Bond definitely would have displayed when backed into such a corner.
The real problem is that Craig's acting and Severine's somewhat tragic and vulgar end are undermined by the fact that the scene or the events are never referenced again. The scene between Silva, Bond and M immediately afterwards would have been appropriate to mention Severine's demise in the context of Bond's behaviour. A throwaway line or two would even have sufficed. Instead, it's completely forgotten. That's the issue, for me.
Talking about forced arguments.
1.Gala - basically sexually assaulting her in the sea.
I don't remember Moonraker very good, but I am quite sure he didn't screw her. So I am not quite sure what you mean.
2.Tiffany - shagging someone who was raped as a teenager.
That's exactly my point. If I remember correctly he approaches her very slowly, eager not to hurt or shy her away. He even gets engaged with her! Do I need to say more?
3.Tania - shagging a girl who was being forced into it by her paymasters.
He doesn't know that. To him she's a girl that has fallen in love with his "movie star looks" and he admits to Kerim loving her.
4.Viv - shagging a girl who is probably suffering PTSD after nearly being raped.
Pardon? The girl sing sinking in the man's arms,who has just saved her from a threat is a theme as old as storytelling itself.
5.Tracy - shagging a girl who is suicidal.
And of course he falls in love with her. He even marries her! Notice a trend?
Also, about DAD ( and again I'm talking roughly about its first half). Well, what Bond is doing is just where I see the place of 00 agents. Infiltrating and eliminating a threat or annoyance for the UK. Many of the tasks we see Bond doing especially in the various PTSes are actually handled by the able guys of the SAS and SBS. Not so approaching the target on a "social" level, infiltrating and finally killing it.
So I fail to see the "absolutely unfleming " argument here. Also compared to some other PTS (like TND for instance) I see DADs almost a low key.
I agree. We remember Roger Moore for the cheesy and comedical element he gave to Bond. But he HAD his moments where he was really emotionally shocked by the actions of the villain.
When Max Zorin kills the mayor of San Fransisco, he truly looked shocked: "I am thrilled of admiration!" he clearly said, but doing so in such a shocked way. The same goes during the entire chase to neutralize the atomic bomb at US Base Feldstadt in "Octopussy". To Orlov he basically screams out of anger: "You can't risk a full-scale nuclear war! What happens when the US retaliates!". Orlov still smiling like every Bond villain. That bit of acting gave the last Moore-Bond films a sense of seriousness. I think every real-life spy would act like that.
Or what about George Lazenby's struggling when Blofeld's henchmen grab him violently to lock him up. It adds more to the weakness of the Bond-character. Craig at times is a bit too cold-blooded, too Batman cold-blooded, which at times make him slightly unrealistic.
Let me be clear, I loved Silva, and he really did nothing wrong. That Tell-game scene is a highlight in the Bond franchise. It gave me the chills in the cinema, thinking "My God, the crazy Bond villains are back. And how!" STILL, I expected a bit more compassion and empathy from Bond's side.
A line like this after Silva was so cold-bloodedly killed by Silva could easily make Bond slightly more realistic: "God....Silva. They've almost beaten my balls off a couple of years ago. But I didn't change into you. You...you're sicker than I am at times!"
LOL!
Agree generally with the discussion here. There was 'something off' about his reaction. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it didn't quite work in this scene. That's why we're discussing it here. It did not emotionally resonate with some viewers and seemed odd.
Rewatching that link of the showdown above reminded me of how chilling that entire duel was though. Superb work by Mendes. Silva is definitely a throwback to the great villains. Gives me memories of the Bond/Scaramanga showdown in TMWTGG.
It's very Fleming in tone. :)
It's a magnificent scene. Together with the torture scene from CR, a true highlight of the series. I wouldn't be surprised that in 20 years from now these scenes get the same "evergreen status" as "No Mr Bond, I expect you to die!" from GF, Rosa Klebb having her kicks in FRWL and Xenia strangling the poor Canadian admiral from GE.
That's part of it's charm & why it resonates so much with viewers, despite plot failings.
Fully agreed.
But that explains why some live the Dalton films ..some Moore ..and some DAD even. DAD was my ex wives first Bond film and she liked it ...but she alsoliked CR so just depends.
Then I read the books.
Now my favourites are Connery & Dalton. I tolerate the silly in DAF, and others. So no, at least in MY case, I don't tend to gravitate to the period or film I first saw. But that just may be me.
:-??
Brilliant.
The guy who is berating others for not comprehending Fleming openly admits he doesnt know what hes talking about! For your passing information, to quote Bond's resignation letter, (dont worry Matt_Helm I dont expect you to get that OHMSS reference. It takes a reasonable knowledge of Fleming which you have just stated that you lack) Bond and Gala are swimming in the sea whereuopn Bond dives under the water and then launches himself from below on an unsuspecting Gala like Jaws (the shark, not the dentally challenged killer) and kisses her against her will. Thats sexual assault my pedigree chum. Well it is in the civilised world.
Simply put - Bond wont turn down a bit if it is offered but hes not a rapist. Severine offered it on a plate, Tiffany didnt. Had Tiffany been gagging for it when Bond first meets her in her lingerie and had said 'Please save me from those beastly Spang brothers - I'llk do anything Mr Franks' I dont think the literary Bond's strong ethics would have prevented him from slipping her one. The fact that they got engaged is utterly irrelevant. How do you know he wouldnt have wound up marrying Severine if she hadnt had her face blown off?
I'll concede that at the time Bond doesnt know she is doing it under duress. However the paragaon of ethical virtue you seem to be claiming Fleming's Bond is doesnt seem to have much problem with being sent out to pimp for England and certainly doesnt suffer much in the way of a moral quandary when he's faced with Tania wearing stockings, choker and nothing else.
I appreciate from your statement above re MR that you arent too conversant with Fleming so allow me to outline precisely what happens in the story. Viv is just an ordinary girl who has nothing to do with the world of espionage or violence that Bond inhabits. She is attacked by two odious thugs and is on the verge of being raped when Bond walks in and kills the two bad guys. Then what does Mr Ethics do next? Thats right folks - bollocks to calling a social worker or a psychologist to discuss Viv's trauma - he just shags a vulnerable girl who is probably in a state of shock. Hard to imagine the first item in the police handbook on how to deal with victims of sexual assault being 'take the victim to a spare cabin and give her a good seeing to'.
See Tiffany above. Yes he marries her. But he shags her a whole lot earlier. Had she died the day after they went to bed at the start of the book I presume you would have been appalled at Bond's ethics at once again getting a vulnerable woman to give up the goods? And had Severine survived long enough for Bond to marry her the fact he shagged an ex-child prostitute early doors wouldnt matter any more?
For the record, although I agree with Gustav Graves and Dr Gorner that the scene is a good one and the duelling pistols/William Tell act with Severine is quite Flemingesque, I do feel the fate of Severine is rather clumsily handled. After setting her up very nicely in the casino scene I fear Mendes realised they had backed themselves in a bit of a corner with her as he really wanted M to be the focus of the story and Severine at that point became excess baggage for the plot. Hence they rather hastily get rid of her without really thinking it through properly.
And indeed if Bond has the measure of the goons then why not do it before Severine is killed? Although of course maybe he has calculated that he needs Silva to have discharged his weapon already? In any event this is where SF goes of the tracks a bit with its logic - although lets be fair we are nowhere near to DAD levels of awfulness.
As for the 'waste of good scotch line'? I can take it or leave it. And at the end of the day Bond has known Severine for what? Not even 24 hours? Just because he shagged her doesnt necessarily mean he should be mourning her does it?
Care to back pedal any further?
From an inital position of 'DAD is better than CR and SF' (not to mention GE and TND), you are now limiting yourself to the first half and mostly the PTS, no doubt to avoid risking charges of enjoying the invisble car, 'Yo Momma' and the parasurfing? Presumably by tomorrow you will be just down to the gunbarrel (which would actually make more sense than a lot of your other arguments - a GB with a CGI bullet is still better than no GB Mr Mendes. And one with the classic design rather than this god awful one we now seem to be stuck with I might add) in an attempt to extricate yourself from your increasingly ludicrous position.
So now it appears you are basing your entire case that DAD is the third best film since 1995 on the fact that Bond sneaks about a bit like Andy McNab in the PTS? Feeble? Just a tad.
I dont think anyone ever said that DAD was completely bereft of any good moments or any link to Fleming, and yes the PTS is not too bad (although not sure how Flemingian having Bond hanging ten is - but I'll let that go as it is the best stuntwork in the film) although I'm hardly shooting my wad over it either. An over choreographed Vic Armstrong chase and 'saved by the bell' is hardly Rick Sylvester going off the edge of the Asgard now is it? But if, as you seem to be trying to say, Fleming is your criteria for what makes Bond then how can you rate DAD above CR solely for this given that the second half of CR is practically the book as written?
Your argument doesnt even stand up to the most basic logic.
Bond 'infiltrating and eliminating a threat or annoyance for the UK' in the PTS of DAD should be lauded and means its completely Flemingesque apparently. But I guess that Fisher and Dryden cant be as big a threat or annoyance for the UK as Moon then because Bond does exactly the same thing in the CR PTS but apparently he doesnt do it in a sufficiently Flemingesque way for you to rate it.
So if we subtract the 'infiltrating and eliminating a threat or annoyance for the UK' PTS from both films what are we left with? On one side a film that is the closest direct adaptation of a Fleming novel since OHMSS and on the other a pile of crap with only the most superficial links to Fleming.
If you dont like Fleming and prefer CGI action fests with cardboard characters and horrendous dialogue then why not just admit it rather than attempt to contort the flimsiest arguments into justification. You'd gain a whole lot more respect (well not. But you take my point).
Thank you! In fact I can't believe why that line gets so much attention. There is practically nthing more Flemingesque than playing brave in face of the enimy. It happens basically in every book.
DAD first.
From the very first moment I posted my ranking there had been some short reasoning right next to it and that's how it read:
"strictly for its first half. Up until to Bond gets introduced to the "Vanish" this
Is quite sound 007 style to me"
I am guessing you didn't notice it because you were to busy ecstatically clapping your shoulders congratulating yourself for your superior intellect and taste ( somehow reminds me of the English national football team, which travels to each and every tournament as a self declared favourite just to become humiliated shortly afterwards by just whatever team they meet first on the pitch.)
About Fisher and Dryden. If you had not only thought about it within your obviously narrow means,but applied rationale as well you might come to the conclusion, that probably MI6 would have liked to interrogate at least Dryden,just to get a picture of how much damage he has done.
Btw, if you had used just a bit of intellect while reading CR you might have wondered if Flemings criteria to become a 00 weren't a bit arbitrary. You get an elite agent just by killing two people in the line of duty. A bit chicken and egg,don't you think? You have to kill to become promoted to kill. Sounds like a job advertisement in search for a psychopath, especially if you take into consideration CR's PTS. M sends Bond just to investigate, then he snuffs his targets ( in case of Dryden without ANY need ) and gets promoted for it. Really?
About me not remembering much of MR. Well apart from CR,LALD and FRWL (which I reread in the "finally someone is doing Flemings genius justice" craze after CR came out )I have read my Bond novels between age 10 and 12 and apart from the just mentioned exceptions never got back .Why you ask?
Well, because Fleming is a quite mediocre thriller writer, much more aching to the likes of Sax Romer and John Buchan ( which is exactly why HIS Bond would have shown deepest disgust after the killing of Severigne).He excels when it comes to travelogue (there is 2nd to none),but his story development and especially the way he lets get Bond go after his business are quite ridiculous. Just rereading the three novels I just mentioned confirmed to me how much of a moron bond is in the novels). But as long as it might be a ago, even then I got the thrust of Flemings work, which is so much more white knight than blunt instrument. Stone cold killer? You must be kidding me. He is much closer to a marshmallow then a stone. If you want to see guys handle their job professionally,clever and tough minded I would recommend to you the works of Donald Hamilton and Len Deighton (also I suspect you might be better off with the works of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor)
I won't go into your other arguments, which strike me as even more clutching for straws than those I just dwelled upon, but let me recommend you again to improve greatly on your comprehension level. Just reading alone doesn't make the cut. Any second grader can read words but this doesn't mean he understands the sentence.
Oh yes,just one more thing. Bond had a problem with pimping for England. He thinks about it all the time while flying to Istanbul.
It actually takes skill to pull off the camp crazy ness. A reason I have a growing appreciation for the Hamilton era films.
Must be going soft in my old age!
My point exactly. That's why we (as Bond fans) owe so much debt to Maibaum (for the screen adaptions) and Young (for insisting on real class).They realised from the start how to work with this absurdity. That's why we got so much more womanising and humour in the films ( = willing and barely dressed beauties, who he just got to know, waiting for him at his place, "sergeant, keep an eye on him" about the dead chauffeur and and). They also were wise enough to counterweight this approach every then and when (Dents killing being a prime example. This scene doesn't even exist in the novel.)
This blend,coupled with Barry's one of a kind sound made the Bonds such an inimitable success (and the Lord knows many have tried).
If they merely had taken the novels and adapted them en detail,completely true to Fleming ( something so many naive souls have called for) the films and especially the novels would long have been forgotten.
2-Goldeneye
3-Skyfall
4-Quantum of Solace
5-Tomorrow Never Dies
6-The world is not enough
7-Die Another Day
The last two nights I have been at work so didnt mind trying to wrestle with your inanity but I'm really not going to do it on my own time - especially as you seem to be spiralling ever further off the sanity piste so I'll be brief tonight as you are clearly beyond reason.
Even with my 'narrow means' I can discern that I am beaten by a superior intellect but I'd be grateful if you could furnish me with how you arrive at the conclusion that 'probably MI6 would have liked to interrogate at least Dryden' or 'M sends Bond just to investigate, then he snuffs his targets'? Where does it mention this in the script?
Dryden himself admits that if M was sure he was dodgy she would've sent a double o to take him out. So M has no interest in interrogating Dryden and Bond is just obeying orders in putting him down. But obviously your higher consciousness can read things not in the script so that they can support your tenuous theories.
As for the rest of your incoherent drivel that is like reading one of Balje's posts after he has spent all day in an Amsterdam coffeeshop; I really cant be bothered to go through it pointing out the inconsistencies and chasms in logic.
I will just wonder, given your clear contempt above for Fleming's writing and the universe he created, why you are even here?
Anyway I am quite happy to continue existing in my stunted state of retardation if joining you on your cloud of enlightenment and mental superiority means I rate DAD above CR. That fact will be on your headstone, not mine old son.
I'd still be interested (well amused) to hear how you can justify DAD being a better film than CR but as I've asked you to do this already and you've just flatly ignored me I dont hold out any hope.
I'm a little surprised that you cant recall more about MR though? You read it when you were 12? Surely your powers of recollection can extend to remembering a book you read less than a year ago? Maybe you should get yourself checked for Alzheimers? It might explain a fair bit.
Is it necessary to insult other members that have nothing to do with this tedius, rather pointless quarrel of yours? :-?? And was that analogy so fundamental to your point that you couldn't leave it out in a post that was supposed to be 'brief'? 'Superior intellect'... Yeah...
Thanks for the graph @Gustav_Graves. So i'm a remarkable poster? It's like being in the Groovy Gang, i'm going to wear that like a badge of honour. :D