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
Willard Whyte : “I'll catch it in the john.”
DAF just sees Connery looking largely disinterested throughout the majority of it all, and thinking of his paycheck rather than putting any real effort into Fleming's creation. Two lame entries into the series but DAD takes the vote for this one occasion. There's just more to get involved in over the other.
Lets move on to another scenario. This one about locations, namely locations that haven't been visited in a while.
It has been a while since Bond has come to America. In fact if memory serves Bond hasn't come to America since LTK. He has had a few adventures in the USA. Las Vegas, New York, New Orleans, Los Angeles (though it was France sitting in for it), Kentucky, lastly in Florida! Some great cities are left for our hero to visit and could serve the plot well.
Asia, Bond hasn't been in Asia since SF which is going on near 15 years ago. Bond has visited Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand, China and Korea, though I think it was London filling in. Bond has enjoyed the sights and in some cases shown a side of the area not seen by many.
Would you rather a future Bond adventure travel to USA or Asia?
Please share what location or city you'd like to see him in?
USA, while not making fun of us, like Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz did with DAF and LALD.
Bond could go to Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, South Korea or even Japan...with a secondary location of Australia ;)
Alright lets move on to another subject.
I have been told by many on here that the current trend in action films is to have the hero be personally involved or have a personal threat to the hero in the movie. This has lead to almost every film since LTK having a personal angle as Bond has had his friends, boss, colleagues and former or current lovers in harms way.
Some feel the personal angle has been played out with not much more places for it to go. That the films of yesteryear were fine with Bond attempting a mission with no personal connection. However a look at the films would show a personal angle is present but it's not the over-riding force of the movie or the villains plot.
Would you rather Bond's next mission be personal OR that the mission not have a personal tie?
Films like TWINE, QOS, SF, SP, and NTTD all had a personal stake to the plot. Is this a good thing?
Films like DN, TB, YOTL Bond has a loss within the film which fuels some revenge or at the very least a moment of shock and horror. Think of the dinner scene in DN where he states he wants his first SPECTRE assignment to be a revenge killing for Quarrel.
Which do you prefer?
Same for a personal stakes story - what if Bond initially gets involved for a ‘personal’ reason (I dunno, think if Du Pont and Bond were friends in the GF novel and that was the starting point) but it makes way for something bigger/different by the end of the film? I’d be ok with that too.
We've had missions with personal angles before - even something like Bond taking Scaramanga on has its personal edge to it. You can have personal elements to a story without that story revolving around said elements. There are a few different ways to show character arcs and growth of your protagonist.
So somewhere in between is my cop out answer. Sorry, gang. :)
Or Tomorrow Never Dies could've been more interesting had Elliot Carver felt the grit of losing his wife over Bond, I know he ordered to kill his wife, but it should be ran by jealousy, like Paris died because of Bond.
No problems with villains having personal grit, as long as handled well, and been given a unique and interesting concept.
But I'm done with Bond making it personal, please, enough of it for now, I think it would be a bit fresh to have it on the villains.
Okay lets move on to another subject, lets have some fun with this one. There is an old saying from Mae West.
Lets turn focus to the bad girls of Bond. Specifically lets talk about taking a bad Bond girl on a date.
Would you rather take Fiona Volpe from TB OR Electra King from TWINE on a date?
In one corner a fiery red head who takes no prisoners. She is talented on a motorbike, knows who to shoot skeet. Fiona is dressed to impress, likes to drive a car fast and is known for taking baths in a strangers hotel room. Fiona enjoys dancing and feathered boas.
In the other corner a brunette who is an heiress! Electra is a survivor who will do what it takes to live another day. She is a talented skier, public orator. Electra can charm most that she comes in contact with but don't let your guard down or you may get screwed. She is in touch with her maternal side and is committed to a cause!
Who are you taking out on a date? You can take it from what we know about the characters, their appearance or anywhere else you would like to.
One of the hottest women to grace a Bond film.
Definitely Volpe.