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
That's what I said in another thread: even the Dragon Riders is serialised, and that's a cartoon series for children. I don't think we'll see standalone Bond movies until the whole industry goes this way.
And indeed, whenever Tracy got a nod in TSWLM or FYEO or LTK, my little fan senses got hugely excited and loved it- I can't be the only one? Did people get annoyed when that stuff popped up because they wanted no continuity? Because I always got the impression fans loved those links between films.
Indeed. Not saying I always liked what was serialised in the Craig era (similar to how I’m not a fan of what they did with Jaws returning in MR - another thing that wouldn’t make as much sense narratively if you hadn’t seen TSWLM) but there is a precedent for writing Bond films in this way, and it makes sense that the next actor’s tenure will have recurring narrative threads. They’ve never been truly episodic as films in this sense.
I loved it, but to those people who were not a fan of OHMSS, probably they don't liked it and don't mind it.
Although for me, it's not enough though, not satisfying, I'm still craving for a revenge sequel.
I have no problem with continuity, but to interlink it all like all of the villains from the previous era, all why all of the missions needs to be connected to Bond's personal life?
True, like someone said here before, it makes his world a bit smaller, like the filmmakers wanted us to see that the reason why England is always in danger was because of Bond and his personal connections, like he compromised England because of his connections with the villains?
So, for me, the Craig Era failed in this, in a narrative sense, it's more outlandish than Bond going to space or everything happened in Die Another Day, because Bond puts not just England, but the whole world in danger because of his step brother whose jealous of him and other of his personal problems.
This is where Bond almost carried the world on his back.
Look at the destruction of the old MI6 building in SPECTRE, it's happened because of Bond, connected to his personal life.
All of what happened was connected to Bond's personal life, it's very outlandish to me.
Actually, I consider this to be just "Bond just in disguise (hence why he's dubbed)".
Actually he did recognized him, that's why he told him "Merry Christmas, 007" and crashed his glasses.
So, I think it needs to happen, because Bond's in disguise and he's voice was dubbed.
I do liked when Bond's in disguise something that we haven't seen in the Craig Era.
Reading You Only Live Twice and I really laughed at Blofeld's reaction when he saw Bond (in a Japanese disguise) "You're tall for a Japanese" then it's Irma Bunt who'd recognized him.
Actually Blofeld's changing faces creates a lot more continuity error, like why Savalas' Blofeld had no scars? Then suddenly he had hair in Diamonds Are Forever, and the guy who played Dikko Henderson was Blofeld (Charles Grey)?
Then suddenly in FYEO, he had no hair again.
I suppose it's hinted Blofeld had plastic surgery when he got his ear lobes removed in OHMSS so perhaps got his scar covered up then. And I guess you could say the same for DAF. Basically what happens with Blofeld in the novels.
Granted, that doesn't explain why he's bald again in FYEO, but I'd also argue that's not really the point. At risk of going on a bit of a tangent, the Bond films have a tendency to reinvent - or as of late outright reboot - itself when a new actor takes the role, but they're not outright episodic either, and things such as this have been known to be carried over. I guess the point of making Blofeld that bald headed villain with a cat in FYEO was because that was the most culturally identifiable/popular version of the character, and they wanted the character to be recognisable as Blofeld without having to use the actual name. A childish f you to Kevin McClory perhaps, but using that distinct, culturally identifiable feature of the character was also there with the inclusion of Blofeld's scar in SP.
It is odd because Bond is chasing Blofeld in the film: Blofeld is 'something of a must' with him. Which we assume is because of all the previous times we've seen them do battle, and indeed meet- it has become personal for him. So it's weirdly a case of the filmmakers wanting us to remember what happened in the films with the 'other fella', and yet forget the last one as well. It's all a bit strange.
It shows their attitude to continuity in general, really: it's there when they want it and to be ignored if not convenient. Which is probably a healthy attitude overall, but there is a limit probably.
Again, I think it's part of the twofold nature of the Bond films and their continuity. Each new actor's tenure is distinctly different and yet much like Bond's Walther PPK, the gun barrel or the theme etc. the narrative threads from those first films were carried over as well. So for me, in the context of seeing Lazenby's Bond for the first time and knowing what I know about the previous films, I can sort of go with/understand the idea that Bond is hunting down Blofeld.
I think it'd be the same going forward. I don't want strict continuity across the whole series, but within each actor's tenure.
Am I the only one who thinks that some people have too much time on their hands and not enough facts?
Heck even in the first film I would argue Sylvia trench is a strong character who doesn’t die at the end so that disproves this article already
Was just going to post that article as I also found it, goes along with much of the discussion had here. Though I don’t like it, it definitely feels like a foregone conclusion Bond won’t be a player anymore.
Just like I wanted someone in Top Gun Maverick to say "If Luke Skywalker could do it so can we".
Just another indicator that as the culture changes so does Bond. Seems like the younger generation has less interest in sex and feels so should Bond. Men's aspirations have changed. Not my cup of tea because i grew up in the fifties and sixties.
Putting aside the actual cultural changes, I disagree with the notion Bond or any other character has to adhere to what’s “popular” at any time.
That is an interesting point about "Blofeld is something of a 'must.'"
Minus the original Bond-undergoes-plastic surgery idea (resurrected in DAF), I am guessing that Hunt found the Bond infiltrating Piz Gloria--as a gay man no less--too juicy to pass up just for save continuity.
And I'd argue Hunt was right.
Agreed. And I still think that a character with a limited life span has the right to smoke.
Which is also a complete reversal of Fleming’s book, since Bond was writing in his resignation because he thought searching for Blofeld was a waste of time.
It’s about more than just the one article though. Clearly this is the attitude of plenty of people now - more neutrality or negativity around sex. Especially male heterosexuality has come under question and been seen negatively a lot more recently I think. And it’s a lot more likely than not the producers will terminate this iconic element of Bond to get the most young audiences on board as possible. My ultimate hope is society is just going through a transitional phase of being hyper wary of the bad things that can come with / from certain subjects, and someday hopefully things can be more fun and easygoing again in real life and entertainment.
Huh? Where are you getting all of this?
I’m speaking on my own experience around many other younger people, having recently gone to college for five years. I noticed that this is a very low priority among lots of them, and some even disgusted / apprehensive about it, which honestly surprised me. I think a lot of the common feeling is they “don’t have time” for it / relationships, at least I personally have been told that by some classmates.