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
Came up with the TSWLM ski jump and (I think) the MR parachute scene - two of the best PTSs of the series.
Wrote all the 80's scripts (wish he would pick up the pen again as, AVTAK apart, they are all better than P&W's output).
Has fulfilled production duties since TSWLM and for almost 25 years done it without Cubby (LTK was really the film where the baton was passed not GE).
Has guided the series through transition after Cubby's death and nearly 20 years after Cubby's passing the series is as strong as ever - despite practically all of Fleming being mined long ago.
If Cubby is Shankly then MGW is Paisley - long may he continue.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Most Bond films display computers as unrealistically high-tech.</b></font>
Yes and No. While I think computers are capable of doing things they do in Bond movies, i think sometimes the movies do a poor job of distinguishing what computers calculate from what the characters calculate (i.e. the train station scene in SF.)
Disagree. All sorts have things have been put into Bond films that were fiction, yet now they are common place such as cameras and phones.......etc.
Here's an interesting article by the way ;-)
http://www.popsci.com/science/gallery/2012-12/sloppiest-sci-fi-movie-science-violations-2012?image=2
I will agree. I think TND's Ericsson phone is a good example. *If* the technology was feasible back in 1997, it's still difficult to imagine it all fitting inside the casing. Also, as mentioned, QOS went a bit overboard with the MI6 tech, just to scale it back for SF. And then there's the Renard hologram...
I suppose so,but then it's always been a mantra of Bond movies to make the technology just a little futuristic. Hardly science fiction, but it's still good fun.
<font color=blue size=7><b>OP lost more money to NSNA than the other way around.</b></font>
@DarthDimi, I know this isn't part of the current debate but I wanted to point out that Bond broke into the security because ELLIPSIS or 35547747 was the password to the security door.
I am not sure they lost money to each other, I remember that I was always going to see both. As a young man I felt blessed by two Bondmovies with still my two favorite Bond perfomers.
Thanks for that, @Murdock. I always suspected from the way things were shown that Bond had to call M and somehow, by sheer magic, received a code. ;-)
That's not what the thesis means. It's not a question of total grosses or profit to budget ratios it's a question of did either take money off the other and I would contend that I tentatively agree with the thesis.
In the build up there would have surely been more curiosity and anticipation at the return of Connery than another Moore film being churned out (as the press certainly perceived around that time with quotes such as 'Starring Roger Moore and his stuntmen as James Bond') so in theory people might well have thought 'let's go and watch Connery after 10 years of Moore.'
However due to NSNA's delays the 'Battle of the Bonds' was something of a damp squib. Mind you it's possible NSNA's relatively poor showing at the box office meant people were a bit Bond fatigued by the end of the year so it is credible that by being first into the cinema OP claimed some money that might have gone NSNA's way had they been releasd simultaneously.
Disagree as I think it purely was about the battle of the Bonds more than anything. And OP still took more revenue at the box office regardless.
Disagree, I think they made each other money because the "Battle of the Bonds" added enthusiasm to an average Bond film sidling in two years after another average Bond film.
Disagree, I think it created more buzz for Bond in general, and since they were released at different times, I couldn't see them negatively impact each other.
<font color=blue size=7><b>George Lazenby's comedic reaction shots were the weakest compared to the other Bonds.</b></font>
Oh, most certainly. The same goes for his quips and one-liners, which made me cringe more than once.