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
<font color=blue size=7><b>SF's story goes where a fifth Brosnan film could have gone.</b></font>
I really do not know, this is a thesis that is more about wishfull thinking than anything that would ever have happened. imho.
Skyfall is very much a Craig-film and i think that Brosnan would have been a bit to awkward in it. Albeit some part's would have worked (like the Casino-scene)
There is one even if you are in denial about what happens in TWINE.
However This thesis would always split into the Brosnan & Craig camps.
I would have hoped that a 5th Brosnan outing would have been more grounded, had he done SF the fans would still be terrible angry about the illogical choice of a head of MI6 going off all alone with an unarmed 007. :D
With DC it works.
Mr Spock would comment on it. ;)
And what am I supposed to be in denial about? Bond doesn't have the same relationship with M in TWINE that he has with her in CR/QoS/SF. She's deliberately more matriarchal to Bond in these films.
I believe the important thing missing from this is that Cubbys autobiography was finished by someone else Donald Zec as mentioned by Rog in his book.
<font color=blue size=7><b>The literary Bond (by Fleming) is more vulnerable and fragile than the cinematic Bond.</b></font>
With the exception of Lazenby and maybe Craig.
Disagree whole heartedly
No No No! Disagree! Craig's Bond needs to deal with Quantum! Not Spectre!
Agree. He strikes me as having to much respect for the part and Fleming.
Part 1 agree
Part 2 Disagree
Agree. This would have been more credible than Brosnan doing CR!
Having not read one i am not sure? But from what i know and have heard? He is a far more tortured soul in the books?
Agree. Although there's been the odd exception, he's much more cold blooded in the films than he ever was in the books.
Totally agree!
But he is more vulnerable in the CR (novel) and in OHMSS (novel) then in the cinematic counterpart!
<font color=blue size=7><b>By putting the Bond franchise on hold after LTK, the studios avoided 007 fatigue among audiences.</b></font>
Agree
How much i would have loved to see Dalton in one or two more films, i think that the hiatus were a good thing for the franchise. It builded up a well needed anticipation for an upcoming film which later on saved the franchise.
Partially agree. While a gap was probably needed, I don't think it necessarily needed to be at that exact time. I would've liked to see one or two more films before any kind of hiatus.
Disagree. While the six-year gap was indeed great for GoldenEye's reception among critics, fans, and the general public, it could just have easily been the end of the franchise, as was suspected at the time. It was a profoundly risky move, albeit one that paid off.