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
Kill the attitude, mate. Consider that your opinion might not be truth.
I'm not hugely interested in having a conversation with someone who speaks like that, but fine.
I don't think she's exactly in love with him either. She's met him once before at this point and run out on him, and correctly perceived that Bond has only turned up to get what he wants from Draco.
But because they're writing her as a woman who needs to be dominated, and 'to make love to her enough to love him' (ha!) she's not exactly a terribly complex portrait of a real woman. She's just been written as a silly hysterical female in this scene. Diana Rigg does an awful lot of work to make Tracy function as a character.
...riding a horse with her! :D
That you think the montage is about Bond proving his feelings to her shows that you haven't even understood it: he doesn't have feeling for her at this point. That's literally spelt out straight after the montage. The idea is he only starts to fall in love with her when she comes to rescue him.
Just because something is an improvement on a flaw it doesn't make it good. It just makes it better than 'bad'.
The montage fills in an empty gap in the writing, it's just cinematic pollyfilla when they should be writing character development. I think it's bad. Rocky has a montage when he's training because there's no dramatic value in watching someone get fitter, a relationship growing is exactly what films are about. Hell, most Bond films manage a vaguely convincing development of the relationship between Bond and his love interest. To dump such a key part of that in the film which is supposed to be about him actually finding real love borders on criminal.
Why don't you consider that a possibility instead of 'losing your patience'? If you just come here to get angry when you see opinions you haven't considered before instead of actually thinking about them, what's the point?
Yeah the frustrating part is they do actually start to improve on the novel: turning Scaramanga from a rather low rent hoodlum into the classiest and greatest assassin in the world who charges a million a shot of his golden bullets? That's great stuff. And Bond getting a bullet with his name on it in the mail? Gorgeous little hook. But then they throw it all away and just staple another, totally unrelated plot onto it.
The Bond-brainwashed stuff is all a bit Man From UNCLE for my tastes so I'm glad that hasn't popped up in a film. I don't think audiences would have been hugely interested in a film where Bond doesn't know he's Bond: half the appeal is of the character himself and the way he acts.
It's quite funny how a page ago it was all about how everything Maibaum did was great, and now we're nominating two of his as the worst! :D
Two points to consider here: (1) Since Maibaum wrote about half of the Bond films it's only appropriate that half of the ones we're currently considering are his. (2) Tom Mankiewicz co-wrote THREE Bond films with Maibaum. Two of those three are represented here. Sorry Tom, but I'm just going to blame you for the bad stuff. Maibaum still reigns as the sultan of scripts IMHO.
Physician, heal thyself.
The character's prior meeting shows they were attracted to each other, and the next scene between them sets the stage for a deeper relationship to develop. Tracy's perception couldn't have been correct, since Bond does not let her go after he gets the information about Blofeld.
There's nothing hysterical in the scene. Tracy utters a strongly worded comment and leaves the table to nurse her hurt feelings elsewhere. There are no hysterics and no tears until she's by herself. Your interpretation of the scene is sillier than anything Tracy does.
You don't seem to understand the difference between having feelings for someone and being in love with someone. The movie quite obviously shows that Bond has strong feelings for Tracy, not only in the montage but in the limo ride afterward, when the two are staring into each other's eyes (and oblivious to Draco sitting between them). Without the film building up Bond's feelings for Tracy in its first third, his falling in love in the final third would make no sense and would seem sudden.
They already had. The montage is there to show that Bond is taking up Tracy's emotional challenge and is willing to prove he has genuine feelings for her and is willing to commit to a relationship. It's a montage because there's no dramatic value in watching every minute of their dates--we've already seen them meet and get to know each other. You're attacking a structurally valid scene and asking for dramatically superfluous scenes that no else requires.
Hunt, Maibaum, and Raven put considerable care into adapting the love story and making its growth more organic and convincing than in the book. And I think most contemporary audiences and critics would consider the results successful and convincing.
Most Bond films have done the exact opposite. There was hardly anything resembling love in the romantic relationships in the films preceding or succeeding OHMSS. What made that film unique was that sleeping with the Bond girl was quickly got out of the way to focus on the emotional stages that came afterward.
I have not only considered that, I have refuted it several times.
The brainwashed Bond plot is only in the first couple of chapters and is there to set up the assassination attempt on M. Afterward Fleming skips directly to Bond being fully recovered.
Maibaum can't take full credit for the badness of either of those films. It was Mankiewicz who write the final script of DAF, and with TMWTGG Maibaum had to do a rush-job rewriting Mankiewicz's drafts.
I like all four of these screenplays. I wish I could take an easy route and say CR 67, but of these four, I will pick DAF.
but if i am being honest, i would have to say that YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is the worst adaptation out of the two..
MR, while a poor adaptation still had some trace cross over elements that you could connect back to the original Fleming novel... where as YOLT, the only connections back to the novel are the very basic superficial ones - character names, setting, and title.. oh, except for Bond becoming Japanese - i guess that was the one thing they wanted to bring in from the novel :O)
..i mean one could argue that it's not even an adaptation in the purest sense of the word, because the entire story itself was changed from this very deeply personal and melancholy revenge plot, to one that involved capturing space capsules and preventing WW3 between Russia and US.. it's really it's own brand new thing..
So, it's MR, hands down.
I guess you still have memories of the opening chapters with Bond's return to London! Personally, I find it hard to be particularly critical of a novel that has never had the necessary proofreading by its author, which probably pushes me to be too forgiving, but I really like this adventure. Between the opening chapters that could be a great pre-title sequence and the character of Scaramanga, there are many things to be fond of in this novel. Its linearity always mingling with Fleming's sense of detail, the Caribbean setting, are all things that make it excellent, in my opinion.
On the other hand, there is MR, and I like MR as a film, but as an adaptation of my favourite Fleming novel it obviously falls flat.
I'm not the one who kicked off with all of the 'obtuse' guff. Speak civilly or not at all please. I'll ignore your attempts to insult and rile me from now on.
Yeah it's a fair point (although bear in mind there's still a million up for grabs!), Bond is certainly intrigued by her and it's not exactly out of character for him to have his head turned by an attractive woman.
8-| Yes if there are hysterics, she's being written as hysterical.
Don't blame me for it feeling sudden, blame the writing. This isn't a deep film, the characters feelings change with a montage.
I think they very much wouldn't. Can you think of any modern films which have had to resort to something like this instead of convincingly developing the characters? At the beginning of it they barely know each other and Tracy is angry and wary to even see Bond again, by the end of it they've picked out a ring!
:D That's not nuanced stuff.
Nope, they're not fully fledged romantic relationships but they do at least plot a path between 'meeting' - 'getting to know' - and 'falling for'. Apart from the ones where Roger just kisses a girl seconds after meeting her!
:D
I don't think you have, it's just anger and insults and attempts to be patronising. Why not drop the aggression and have a conversation?
I know, that's why my comment refers to the first couple of chapters.
Ah I see. Shame he couldn't save them! Still, they have amongst the best little bits of sparkling dialogue in all of the films.
And of course dropping Fleming's original idea of having Bond and Blofeld as brothers ;)
I like the summary of MR and YOLT there.
It's YOLT for me. It's the dumbest script in the Bond series, by quite some margin.
The pre-titles makes no sense (who is the audience for Bond's fake death?), Bond's picture is put in the newspaper just as he's sent running around again, Tiger, Aki, and Blofeld all seem to be watching the movie they're in on little monitors, Helga sacrifices a perfectly good plane to try to kill Bond in the dumbest way possible, Blofeld simply chooses to not kill Bond, Bond becomes Japanese for no reason whatsoever, Aki has to pick up Bond escaping from Osato twice and in identical fashion, it would obviously be smarter to steal space capsules from only one side if you want to start a war, Bond only found the volcano because they fired at him....
God, you can just go on and on with this incredibly idiotic movie.
Moonraker with 7 votes!
Diamonds are Forever with 2 votes
You Only Live Twice with 5 votes
The Man with the Golden Gun with 4 votes
Our next category will be for best original story, screenplay. These are films where the producers either weren't able to use Fleming's material or had to invent an entirely new story! The Nominees are...
Christopher Wood for The Spy Who Loved Me
John Logan, Robert Wade and Neal Purvis for Skyfall
Michael France, Bruce Feirstein and Jeffery Caine for Goldeneye
Paul Haggis, Robert Wade and Neal Purvis for Quantum of Solace
Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson for Licence to Kill
I'll have to mention that Goldeneye may be the worst of this bunch. Aside from depending heavily on coincidence, the dialogue is atrocious. M, 006, and Natalya all talk in overwritten speeches that are a meta comment on the series. It hardly counts as dialogue.
I really like the story of this one, even though I don't like the film that much, oddly enough! :) It's really rare that the one big action sequence in the middle of it (Bond interrupting the deal and waterskiing behind the plane etc.) has such big plot implications for the whole movie: from here on Bond has the cash to set himself up as a big player, insinuates himself into Sachez's operation and even manages to spread dissent, later accusing Krest of the robbery himself. It's unusual for an action scene not to just be a throwaway to keep the audience amused or just to link scenes together: this one is actually pivotal. Plus the whole plot of Bond actually getting close to the villain and becoming a trusted ally is weirdly never really seen before or since, even though you'd think a spy would go undercover quite often!
:)
Whether it's an original screenplay is debatable of course: it obviously takes elements from LALD and Hildebrand, and the main story is a loose adaptation of Fleming's TMWGG. I think if TLD was considered an adapted screenplay then this would have to be too!
:D
The other four are totally original, I don't think LTK is.
Quite right. It's probably the most Fleming-dependent film between OHMSS and CR.
I like GE and I'm not saying you're wrong to pick it, but did that need proving? I'd say LALD or TMWTGG or GR or TB or MR or LTK or many if not most of them proved that!
:)
Simple yet effective, it may be Bond at his most human since OHMSS: he has loved ones; he relies on his own resources because Q's gadgets and his own haste fail him and has to use his smarts to outdo a band of ultraviolent criminals that have a whole country at their service; he has to face the wrath of an unsympatethic M out to get him (who knows, maybe he plans to have Bond court-martialed. M's behaviour here is the reason why I think Lee and Brown's Ms are not the same person)... I just love how these factors combine.
Yeah, the series is generally pretty light on Cold War stuff.
I think it's another issue with Goldeneye, actually. It feels like it was written by people who are not particularly familiar with Bond per se, but have a firm grasp of the popular image of what James Bond is supposed to be.
Not the character, but the film franchise. It's widely known that GoldenEye was the first Bond film to be made after the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, and that Bond's relevance with audiences in the new climate was uncertain (things addressed in the film itself as @ProfJoeButcher points out, although I can't see where it relies on coincidence unless he's referring to the PTS, which I think is a misinterpretation).
I would say the source material and many of the early films, fundamental to the establishment of the character, lean pretty heavily on an antagonistic Russia.
Yes, is Octopussy the first time he even goes to the other side of the Iron Curtain? And it takes until AVTAK for him to actually visit Russia I think..?
And I will second that.
I believe a Pepper was also suggested! LOL! I like Klebbie for the worst! I shall use it for the next "worst" category!
I'd suggest 'double-taking pigeon', but that might be a bit too long...
Indeed, it's widely known because it's a fact :D
The ones I mentioned really don't at all though, and the films kept going despite that. I don't think anyone thought LTK finished off the Bond series because there was no mention of Russia in it! :)
It was a fun soundbite at the time and added a bit of manufactured PR jeopardy to the film's opening to make audiences curious, but in reality there was no huge surprise that Bond could keep going without the Cold War because he never actually directly battled the other side in any of his movies, and quite a few of them didn't have any mention of the cold war at all.
Goldfinger and Thunderball were massive hits which defined the whole series, I think you'd be hard pressed to say they leaned heavily on an antagonistic Russia. There's a vague mention of Goldfinger himself being sponsored by the Chinese, but it's pretty blink and miss it and he's mostly just out for himself.
Spy Who Loved Me is another massive, series-defining hit, and that does indeed have Russia, in the form of Anya, playing a pretty big part. So remove the Russian element and you get... Moonraker. Which also did pretty well
:)