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
Probably. It has very little respect amongst most Bond fans and was definitely better received by the general public who have much lower standards.
Up until the current era, I think that's pretty much a no-brainer. Craig's films thus far are full of character driven performances, especially his. Only those who dislike Craig would deny that, as there's no real facts I can see that should make anyone feel otherwise.
I definitely feel part of George's demise was in listening to Ronan O'Reilly, but also that he must share in some of the blame as well.
Hard to say. It could have been a case of not finding an actor at the time the producers could envision as Q. I'm not saying a new Q or Moneypenny could not have worked right from the onset, but the first two films focused so heavily on Bond and M's interpersonal story and Bond's growth as a person and agent that their screen time would have been very minimal, especially in CR. QOS would have been a better place to do it given the short run time. Ultimately, I don't think either CR or QOS overly suffered for it, it just made both a little different and that freshness of approach is something I've been able to appreciate.
Disagree. Purely because it's about Bond's beginnings as a double o.
My thoughts exactly, even after the tasteless DAD, the series didn't need to be rebooted.
As for thesis #199, cobblers. Whether Bond was a recruit or a veteran agent, Q still could have been worked into the film. In CR, Q could have been the character that injected the tracker into Bond.
And the reboot *was* necessary because CR was Bond's first mission and it shows him learning how to be an agent.
No, Skyfall demonstrates there was good reason to leave Q and Moneypenny out of the reboot. If they had been in CR and QoS they would hve been destracting and out of place. Skyfall gives them a backstory and a personality on which Bond24 can thrive.
Thesis #199 - some have mentioned there was never any reason for a re-boot of Bond in 2006 - I'm with that 100 per cent. Just unnecessary for me, I never liked what they did after Brosnan with regard to new direction
I'm not sure how to answer this, as if not for the damn re-boot, Moneypenny and Q should of course have been included for both releases of QOS and CR, but as we were starting from scratch, so to speak, it does make a certain amount of sense for them to appear in this years release, in that we were never introduced to them before. Bit of a dilemma on this one, so I can't quite provide an answer, but leaning towards No, on this issue, in that I don't agree with thesis
<font color=blue size=7><b>James Bond is the epitome of cool, of masculine superiority and of the right kind of justice.</b></font>
Love you, James! ^:)^
Agreed.
But James T. Kirk comes to a close second. ;)
cool?: yes, except when he hits woman, that's not cool at all.
masculine superiority?: over other men, yes but not if refer to "gender or racial superiority".
right kind of justice?: not really, killing untrial people is not my definition of justice... but he's indeed the right-wing kind of justice!
But is he the greatest fiction character of all time? Yes, considerably.
It could be justice only "when the structures fail you, and the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're... shackles letting the bad guy get ahead."
ISn't it in 'For Your Eyes Only' that Bond considers this, but goes after whatsisname in the US from Canada for 'he used the law of the jungle on defenseless people, so the law of the jungle should be upon him too'or something to that extend?
Agree big time! The thesis states it perfectly! :-bd
@Ytterbium, so you basically disagree with something you agree with. ;-)
It's fine if you want to view it only as say Connery in the early 1960s, or the Dalton era, or one or two of the Craig releases, but what about the rest of the time ? I see the question as each Bond actor's tenure, rather than James Bond as a whole. Maybe I did wrong, but I'm staying with it
Watch Connery in Diamonds are Forever (for example), and then ask yourself the question
Sorry Dimitri, but for thesis #200, can't agree with that
I thought of my favorite Bonds and answered. I thought of Dan's Bond instantly with this debate.
Is it possible to get this thread back in action?
I may not have contributed greatly to it, but there has been far too much trolling, and mindless threads from certain quarters.
What happended to a good debate, or a topic we could really sink our teeth into?
(And apologies if already debated issues come up again.)
<font color=blue size=7><b>Elliot Carver is "slightly more contemporary and plausible than usual". [Roger Ebert]</b></font>
Hmmm- Contemporary I get-- but by plausible does he mean 'realistic'? If so I'd disagree. OO6 & Sanchez, just off the top of my head were far more realistic.
If anything it seems Carver was over the top like some of Moore's villains.
I will agree though that his use of the media was very contemporary
Plausible? Nope. Sanchez, Le Chiffre and plenty more were all more plausible than a Rupert Murdoch type trying to start WW3.
I do like TND but the whole film is pretty implausible and ridiculous. But just like YOLT and TSWLM, it's also tons of fun, so I can forgive it for being stupid.