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
Ordinarily it takes a commanding officer three tries to do so.
I'll jump in and tell you what I know. The Russian military suffers from the same problem as their political system, a small cabel of white males who are corrupt, power-hungry and very wealthy. Because Russia has adopted a defensive position because of the ever-increasing presence of NATO, their weapon systems became more and more limited. The dedicated Russian military person is as dedicated and as intelligent as their Western/NATO counterpart. His weapons toolbox is just very limited but never underestimate their creativity and resolve.
I know that we in the West like to portray them as stumbling buffoons and inferior to the USA/British soldier. However the Russian military personnel I've interacted with are very informed and quite capable.
It was set relatively shortly after the fall of USSR so possible that uniform changes were not completed. Wasn't the Russian army in a poor state at that time?
An amusing thought which is nice for a change.
So, was GE accurate? not in the least. the truth is many of these soldiers were hard-drinking, hard-fighting rough guys who wouldn't have missed Bond if he'd been running half way up the other mountain.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Michael G. Wilson has a talent for writing clever Bond scripts.</b></font>
Though it is difficult to pinpoint his contribution to the films. Afterall Richard Maibaum was still actively in involved in all of those scripts as well, and he is the true bard of the Bond screenplays.
I thought his idea for QOS with the water angle was a bit uninspired, so I'm not sure how he would fare today as a screenwriter. I prefer having someone like Logan involved, who is a screenwriter first and foremost. So talented? Hard to say, but important for contributing to the series? Certainly.
Agree! It is a shame he did not contribute more, but then again being a producer is more than enough!
The claim was most realistic. So it does not have to be truly realistic. Just not as unrealistic as other times.
I think the water angle was one of the strongest points of QOS.
It felt forced into the storyline. There was this interesting buildup to the mystery of Quantum that started at the end of CR and continued to Tosca, but then midway through QOS, the narrative seems to detour into this other story arc. It was topical I suppose, but just seemed to be a bit randomly thrown in. I think Wilson was trying to give QOS it's own unique storyline to allow it stand alone, but I still feel QOS would have been better as just a direct continuation of CR; made as a 2 part series (or a 3 part! And have had Martin Campbell directed all 3)
But then Quantum would have spent the whole movie running away from Bond. The water scheme was underdeveloped but they needed one for the villain to make the organisation a menace.
Hence why the Brosnan films were so shitty.
<font color=blue size=7><b>An imperfect Bond is more appealing than a superman-Bond.</b></font>
In some of the films though, Bond is almost dogmatically 'perfect'. Does he ever not succeed in what he sets out to do in e.g. TSWLM or MR? He knows the right answers, had the best hunches, says the cleverest things, lashes out at thugs when the moment couldn't have been better, ...
Seeing a more vulnerable Bond, a more 'human' Bond, like the Dalton or Craig Bond, amps up the tension. I'm more invested in the character. So I prefer an imperfect Bond for sure!
I agree whole heartedly if given the choice? But I have to say I do love all the movies.
We want to be able to relate to our heroes, and in today's world, particularly post-911, a flawed hero is more credible. Our sense of invincibility no longer exists.....we are not so confident of our rosy future, and a flawed hero reflects that. Moreover, people always root for the underdog, and so I'm in agreement with @Ludivico that the villain must come across as superior in some way to Bond, whether it be in wealth, intellect, education, status etc. etc. It's the classic David and Goliath scenario.
Of course, Bond must still prevail, but not so easily. There must be some loss, some sacrifice, some distress........but not too much now. It must still be fun. We must still be happy when we walk out of the theatre, not depressed.
I know some fans find the Craig Bond a little too dreary for their liking, and long for lighter fare of old, including a more infallible and unflappable hero. While I can relate, I don't agree. I think they've got the balance just right in the 3 Craig films, and I hope they continue with this mix.
The man is wounded, but committed to Queen and Country. He is dutiful and skilled, and he's lucky...but he makes mistakes like we all do, and sometimes that results in tragedy (some have argued that he failed 'M' in SF by taking her to the ranch). He's the hero for the complex times we live in.....there's no black or white any more. Just grey. Even Marvel is in on it these days
I agree @pachazo. It's all about the actor and how they sell/deliver it. Not easy to do in today's world....probably more difficult than before, but a skilled actor could do it probably.