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
Yeah it makes him strangely cold and detached from the viewer, as if you're watching him from outside rather than being let in. Which is weird because it's not as if the audience is always privy to exactly what his plan is in subsequent films, but I feel it more in DN. I don't quite know what it is which produces that feeling, maybe it is that he's ahead of everyone else like you say so we're not given a chance to sympathise with him much.
As for the dragon, I believe it was some sort of artillery vehicle painted up. Sure it's cheesy looking, but within the story itself, wasn't it meant to reinforce rumors? No interloper was expected to get close enough to see what it really was.
I think it’s exactly that. He’s always one step ahead in a way he isn’t in any other film.
I think it’s the fact that Quarrel seems genuinely afraid of it/believes it could be a dragon even when he sees it himself (incidentally another odd thing about the film is how afraid and superstitious Quarrel is compared to the novel. In the book he gets a dark premonition/quietly takes out life insurance, but it doesn’t seem like he even believes in the dragon from what I remember).
Again, we all have our favourite Bond films, and each movie can have different approaches to the Bond style (no other Bond film is quite like DN, same to how no other Bond film is fully like OHMSS or DAF etc). I think for a lot of people DN isn’t necessarily the height of Bond, nor what they even associate Bondian escapism with. And that’s fine. It’d be depressing if the series peaked in a particular film and never matched up to that (it would be for me at least).
I find Bond's weird lack of guilt over getting Quarrel killed, and his random pointless murdering of guards to be a bit hard to connect with.
Dr. No is a classic IMO.
I like Craig's Bond but the last ones are too long. I'd rather watch Dr. No twice.
I guess YOLT is what modern audiences expect from a Bond movie but it was a pastiche. A greatest hit movie and you need hits to make a compilation album.
Yeah, I saw the repeated use of the same actors as being quick casting at a cheap cost, and not tradition, 😂.
If you want to see a bomb delivered to the target location, and for Bond to be there too, watch the previous film. This is Thunderball, not Goldfinger 2!
Crazy? I don't think so. We like what we like. No apology necessary.
You probably won't want to watch Kingsman: The Secret Service. Lots of pointless murder in that one.
That would mean View To A Kill, DAF and Moonraker ranked better. To each their own.
Bond fandom.
It’s a fair point, I did doubt myself about that as soon as I posted it! Regardless I don’t feel much threat from them at that point. And I kind of want GF2! :D
OP does its best to cut back to the circus bomb all the time. I understand why: the countdown provides tension. By the same token, the monster loses its teeth a bit, at least for me, by becoming more and more synonymous with a funny circus tool.
GE did it very well, IMO. We are shown what the GoldenEye can do, but then we're told there's another one. We won't see that one until the end of the film. So we understand the threat, which is then doubled because we have no idea where the second one is; it might, for all we know, be pointed at us right now.
It is indeed! I do like a Bond-on-the-bomb climax! :D
So my memory of the ending of TB is hazy: if the bombs are safely under the sea does that mean Spectre are bluffing? How long is left on the clock at the end of the film?
Apparently one bomb would be transferred to a wreck off 'Fowley Point', which may or may not be the wreck where the end battle is. The countdown is kind of forgotten earlier on. I don't think there's any bluff, just that the whole scheme is foiled earlier than anyone expected, before Largo can get the bombs in position.
Bond has four days in total to foil the plan. I considered gathering all the dates mentioned in the film to try and gauge how long is left on the clock. As mentioned, the countdown is kind of put aside. I'd say it's mere hours. All I found was that the date on the Derval siblings photo in Bond's dossier is set four months after the date that Blofeld wants his diamond ransom...
Yeah, pretty much.
But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.
I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?
When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.
Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?
That said I’ve noticed it’s TND that seems to get a bit more attention nowadays. It may be a recent-ish thing and the whole ‘fake news’ storyline having some relevance in the recent past… that and it’s genuinely an enjoyable film.
Maybe because you like Craig.
It’s probably more to do with specific fans/our personal preferences and how that’s reflected in our opinions, but the conversation about DN was kinda interesting. I suspect for a lot of Bond fans (probably even regardless of age within a certain number) they grew up with the idea that Connery was the best Bond, and that his early tenure was near perfect, including his debut. If they’re older one of those films may even be the first Bond movie they saw and there’s that nostalgia/connection to it, as well as seemingly that idea that the magic of those films was never matched in later instalments.
A lot of Bond fans here may have watched one of the Brosnan or Craig films as their first Bond film though. I always say a lot of younger people grew up with Craig as their Bond, and this is the image they have of the character rather than Connery. They may not quite have that same connection to the earlier films, and may gravitate to, say, some of the Moore or perhaps Dalton films over the Connery ones. They may even be more willing to criticise elements of the earlier films other fans might be more defensive about. I suppose it’s a bit tricky to gauge as we don’t know everyone’s age here and it won’t be that straightforward, but I can see there might be an element of that idea here.
But I still think it’s a good thing there’s a bunch of different opinions out there with Bond. It’d be boring if we all thought DN was a flawless film and no other Bond film matched it.
In my top ten, fifty percent goes to the films of the 60s.
Forty percent goes to Craig.
One to a film from the 80s.
Try answering that again, Deke. Yes, I like Craig.
But it's obvious that I admire the films from the 60s, and one from the 80s.
I was asking if this showed a generational divide, especially considering I was born and grew up in the Moore era.
Your answer was, as usual, puzzling.
Your tastes seem very consistent. Craig=Connery+Dalton+Lazenby.
Thanks, Deke.
My question is, does this show a generation divide?
Someone stated that the posts made criticizing Dr No and TB revealed a generational divide. I'm not exactly sure what that means.
So taking my own top ten, I was asking, as a person who was born and who grew up during the Moore (and Dalton era), does this show a generational divide? And if so, how?
This is an example of how it works.
Ah right, thanks. I must admit I like a bit of a countdown when there's bombs involved, I think you kind of need that. If they're not even in the right place for the climax... I dunno, bit odd. I feel like most writers would look at that and say you're throwing away potential tension.
That's good, I've always enjoyed that one. Probably my favourite of his, and I do think the media mogul plot is a genuinely good and original idea.
Okay... I grew up watching the Connery films on VHS, but my first theatrical films, were Moore's.
But not one Moore in my top ten.
Only one Dalton.
No Brozz.
And in my middle-age, where you'd think my tastes were long ago established by my "generational influences", I have found a strong liking for the Craig films-- although he is far away from being my first taste of who James Bond is (that would be Connery via VHS, and then Moore via theatrical, and VHS)...
I think, yes, some people may experience a generational divide, but I don't think all can be simply painted with such a broad brush...(?). Or maybe I'm completely wrong on this.
I just feel that tastes are fluid and can change over time. Some may be influenced by the era they grew up in, where others aren't so binary and rigid in choices....
I agree that TB remains a bit vague regarding the urgency of Bond's actions. However, since GF and YOLF both rely on a climactic countdown (and the next couple of films have them too), I welcome a movie that doesn't show us a ticking clock every few seconds.