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
And even if Craig had read Fleming and used his influence in the film, doesn't mean it has to be a word for word interpretation...who's interpretation are we using? And plus there's other factors like the bean counters and producers/director who have more say on the direction.
Plain and simply, I just disagree with you man.
If anything it simply sums up the feelings of many that we wish he'd up the ante and give us the 007 we all KNOW he can be!
And also, no one wants him to ditch the 'hard-nosed', gritty style of Bond - he incorporates that so well - but this idea that 'his' version of Bond and the classic, snappy, ironic Bond are mutually exclusive is nonsense.
He showed glimpses of his potential in CR and SF, now it's time to pull out all the stops and give us Daniel Craig's DEFINITIVE James Bond in B24.
Come on Dan, we know you have it in you :-bd
I don't think he ever said as such. He said he couldn't start that way, as they were beginning from scratch with a Bond just getting his number. They were working towards the classic Bond.
As has been said before, the fact that he mixed up the dates of Fleming's building of Goldeneye says nothing about having read the novels. I myself have read them countless times (reading YOLT for the umptieth time now) but I know little about Fleming and his life. Only those things that I happen to stumble upon because of other persuits, such as operation Mincemeat he designed. I do however have a strong idea of what Bond ought to be like on the silver screen.
Above I read you and @Timmer think Craig is full of himself while referencing to Fleming, using Fleming to promote his take. I don't see any difference to that and the way Dalton did it. Of course he does it, for he bases his Bond on Fleming's! Now you may or may not like his take, but saying he abuses Fleming to promote his own version is ludicrous and makes no sense! If you can find any other way he'd be able to tell the world he tries to recreate Fleming's Bond on the silver screen without actually referring to Fleming's Bond, please give me a call. If you can do that, you're probably also capable of solving all the world's misteries and getting us both rich at the same time.
edit: some glitch removed, i hope.
to less frivolous matters, @commandeross, the concern I have with Craig referencing Fleming as inspiration for his take, really is simply that I don't see it.
I could see what Dalts was trying to do, and he did spell out in plain English, that he had read all of Fleming's books.
Other than possibly Broz, I think Dalts might be the only Bond-actor that has declared to have read all of the Fleming novels.
Just as with this message board, it becomes very clear who has read all of Fleming, as they will easily reference the books, or simply state at some point, that they have indeed read all the books.
In SF, Mendes and Craig, were trying to reference YOLT, as parallel to Bond's beachbumming, dive-bar boozing and slumming.
Sorry, don't see it. Fleming only put Bond in a bad place because his arch enemy had blown his wife away, and even then he wasn't a basket case, he just wasn't any good at his job, hence the diplomatic dispatch to Japan where Tiger and Dikko brought him back to normal.
Craig and Mendes created a completely different scenario.
Using YOLT to justify it, is a huge stretch IMO. And I'm not even saying they have to justify it.
It's their film. Such melodrama is their call. But take ownership of such a tangent, as opposed to acting like Fleming drew up their blueprint.
Meanwhile Babs is the Fleming authority with this bunch. She has read the books. That is plain to see and unambiguous. Same with MGW.
Other directors when referencing Fleming take actual Fleming scenarios and bring them to life on the screen. There is no mistaking the sourcing. Those of us that have read the books, can see it plain as day.
Not so with the dive-bar extended beach bum detour.
I also didn't like Broz being locked away in a Korean prison camp for 14 months. That was even more grievous IMO, but at least Tamahori and Broz didn't try to pass it off as some Fleming derived scenario.
They just went ahead and did it and took ownership.
The SF scenario described here, is also not one that I enjoyed.
As a Bond fan, I groan, but I can at least allow, that this is what these filmmakers wanted to do.
You have to concede artistic license at some point, even if you don't like the art, but to try to pass it off as some Fleming derived scenario - sorry, I'm blowing the whistle on that one. Not buying.
@foreverbonded Sorry for snapping at you. I spent much of the day chasing down money owed. Makes me crabby. I might have even uttered an F-bomb or two.
Again, this was artistic license on the part of Craig filmmakers here. Like it or lump, it was their call and it has become clear in the Craig-era that DC has big say in story direction.
CR did not have to be done as origins story. Fleming didn't do it that way. We met Bond as fully formed 00 agent, on the brink of yes, a lifechanging adventure but not a rookie in the ways of the 00 agent.
CR06 was a new Craig-era spin. And I don't like it, and that's my prerogative.
Yes, Craig said he had to start that way. Well if I'm hiring that job in 2005, I find someone that didn't have to start that way, and we get a better film IMO.
I know you get it @ross, but this notion from Craig-apologizers that critique of his approach is always personal is nonsense.
Even Craig himself would probably acknowledge that his approach is open to critique, even if he's good with it.
I'll give Craig his due, when I think he's on and critique when I don't like what he's serving or saying.