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
GE is massively overated IMO on here.
It's influence on me as a young Bond fan is undeniable. To hell with those who say its crap.
If people can be nostalgic about the objectively fairly poor AVTAK (which I watched last night in honour of Roger), I can be nostalgic about GE.
The model work is dated, but on the whole it's a film that is made with a lot of love and energy. That's what you get with Campbell. CR and GE share the same DNA in that sense. They never feel directionless.
Agree with all of this, gentlemen.
The real takeaway is how alive the film feels. That's what we need back now, IMO.
First, I despise that "frequent flier" line referenced in the thread title! It's obviously overdubbed and completely unneeded. It stinks like Bruce Feirstein's writing in TND.
Second, I wish the film had found some time to explore the relationship between Trevelyan and Onatopp. I assume she's just a gun for hire, but they're both very different people and I would have liked to see how they relate to each other. They barely speak in the film. NSNA does this a lot better, with Largo and Fatima Blush.
I like that line. It reminds me of a time when the series didn't take itself too seriously, but it wasn't too campy either.
interesting.
Funny, regardless of liking or disliking it, GE always felt to me like a distinct break with the past. The point where continuity ends and a completely new era begins. So much is different from the pre 1989 era in tone and detail. And the loss of Maibaum is acutely felt. The introduction of a new Bond upside down in a toilet is just something I feel Cubby would never have allowed had he been fully in control. And the fake 'stunt' with the plane. It's completely out of keeping with everything Bond stands for in terms of action. Ditto the tank chase with Bond smashing his way through St Petersburg - again just not something pre 1989 Bond would ever have done.
To be fair the 'break' is already becoming evident with LTK, but with hindsight that film has so much more in common with the first 25 years of the series than what came after.
Despite being a reboot, the Craig era has more in common with pre 1989 Bond than the Brosnan era. Tonally GE feels like a radical change IMO.
I think the tank chase was intended to rival the Harrier jet sequence.
I know a lot happened in between but think how much different the character is in GE and even LTK, let alone DN.
Bond is more an international playboy action superhero in GE. Cravat, bouffant hair, hairdresser's car. Gone is the Walther and in is a tank and machine guns blazing. He can even fly and defy the laws of physics. It's a completely different character.
Brosnan's Bond is about as dangerous as a National Trust cream tea.
Actually I find more similarrities between Brosnan and Craigs era. The M arc, dodgy cgi, same dialogue (some of M's lines almost word for word), lack of consistent direction. i think it's partly down to lack of Maibaum
No way near as bad as Craig in CR smashing through walls and leaping from girder to girder.
Yes, it's evident with LTK for me too. That was the first film made after the 25th anniversary entry (TLD), and it certainly looked like they wanted to go in a new direction. I even recently watched some interviews commenting on that fact. Nevertheless, now it seems more similar to the earlier entries, most likely due to it having the same cast and director.
In terms of character perhaps (on account of Craig being a far superior actor for James Bond). Not in terms of tone or execution in my view. The Craig era has been quite different in this regard. Very personal. Sure, that all started with GE, but they've taken it to whole new levels now.
I agree. The consistency is gone and the writing has been all over the place in both tenures.
I agree that there are a lot of similarities between the Brosnan and Craig era. Poor writing and sketchy direction. But as you point out the character as portrayed by Craig feels closer to Connery, Dalton and perhaps even Laz.
GE tried to blend that firsthand mission aspect with the more carefree & less intense Bond of the past. I think it succeeded but recognize that there were some cliched elements. I think these were deliberately inserted to recall earlier films on account of the long break & don't have a problem with it (just like I don't mind it in TFA for similar reasons).
They tried to blend the personal with the carefree in SP as well, but I thought it was poorly handled, and actually think that Brosnan is much better in this kind of environment than Craig, who almost subliminally calls out for an intense & personal story (like Dalton).
one thing I have noticed is M says the line "what did you expect, an apology?" In both eras. Once in DAD (with Bond in the tunnel) and again in SF (Bond confronting her in her flat).
I'd say this was true up until SP, where I think Craig feels more like a Connery/Moore/Brosnan hybrid.
The same thing happened in SP with a new M, and I see no signs of it stopping. Can't be that hard to return to a straight-forward mission, hasn't Bond more than proved himself by now?