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
Yes, because one kiss from Bond will always cure lesbianism X_X
It still has to be Fiona because she was incredibly competent, given more responsibilities, able to not be swayed by Bond, and stood toe to toe with the main villain, Largo.
Which if you still want to say Pussy, of course that's fine. These are just our personal takes on it. Pussy was strong and independent; I just think Fiona was even more so, the most progressive Bond girl for those times.
'Some men don't like to be driven.'
'No, some men just don't want to be taken for a ride!'
I will though! I will! ;-)
Yes. She's independend, tells men what to do, isn't impressed by masculine behaviour. I think she qualifies as the most progressive.
and fiesty of all the sixties!
Did I mention I really like Fiona Volpe?
Nah. You don't say :))
I can't really agree or disagree with this thesis. A strong case can be made for Pussy, who was certainly not a shrinking violet type herself. People who aren't familiar with Japanese culture and mores miss out on Aki as well in this regard. She is also very forward in her thinking when it came to sleeping with Bond, whereas Kissy is traditional in matters regarding sex.
Easily agree for me on this one! :x
<font color=blue size=7><b>No Bond film was ever so demanding of its Bond actor as CR.</b></font>
Unless, of course, I'm totally missing the point of what 'demanding' we're speaking of.
Demanding in general, @Creasy47, including the physical work, the straight-faced promotion of the film while seeming to swim up the stream, ...
You do realise @DarthDimi you've opened a whole can of worms for @Matt_Helm here ;-)
In terms of this thesis, yes I would have to agree. I hadn't seen this much pressure on an actor taking on the role as much as DC did, certainly not in my lifetime at least. I think TD and PB especially got it pretty easy from the media and the fans.
DC quite simply had to deliver or he would have been thrown to the wolves and EON would have been left scratching their heads as to where to go next.
Of course, the rest is history and DC remained magmanamus throughout.
The negativity was over the top for Craig but I think this all worked in his favour in the end, there really wasn't much hype about Craig being the best Bond ever before CR came out, but on the other hand people were waiting for him to fall down.
If we're talking about more than just a physical sense and including enormous pressure in the face of adversity and public backlash not seen since the days of Lazenby replacing the icon himself, I agree with thesis.
Craig matches up with Lazenby for on screen physicality, so aside from their similar situations in replacing a very popular and accepted actor previously in the role, there are no comparisons that can reasonably be made between the two in a logical sense. Craig is the professional actor here and he had the bigger burden on his back because more was expected of him as such. And if you were alive to remember both, the pressure of today's media with the internet and more news outlets than ever was withering compared to what George faced. Add to that an equally classic and for me a better debut with Casino Royale, the case couldn't be more clear in favor of Craig.
I would certainly agree 100% with this too! The amount of anti-Craig nonsense that was out there was crazy! I was glad to see DC and CR stick it back right up his critics! <:-P
<font color=blue size=7><b>QOS' second half has more consistent storytelling than the first half.</b></font>
I would tend to agree with this thesis if I knew what constitutes the first half and what constitutes the second. If I can assume that from the moment Bond and Camille discover the nature of what Greene is trying to do (if it's a test run to see if QUANTUM's domination of water resources worldwide is viable then I can excuse to a degree the lack of the film's focus on making their intentions more clear) through the powerful ending with Bond, Kabira, Corrine, and M, then yes the second half is clearly better written.
Agree: There certainly is more storytelling compared to the first half as exampled in some of the posts above.
Disagree. Pierce Brosnan and some of his fans get a lot of hate over them after DAD, that also count for Dalton and George Lazenby.
Also i think QOS get more out of Daniel Craig. With Skyfall it whas oke in the movie, exept that i think he did a step back again outside of the movie where he again not be very friendley to media. It look more simalar to Casino Royale. Another proof the 4 year waiting whas to long.