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
Agreed! I think the first few minutes of TLD and GE are identical. Down to the black-coloured military clothings of Dalton & Brosnan's Bond. Then both Bonds in a tux early on in the films. Brosnan's full hair and comma like Dalton's...maybe because GE have traces of the 80s, even if it was the 90s.i think it was from TND that Brosnan's era felt full 90s, probably because it was 1997, compared to 1995, which is early 90s.
Insofar as every Bond’s introduction is distinct (with the exception of Lazenby’s) and gives you an idea of who their Bond is, I think it’s a great one. But then again I think all Bonds have great introductions (again, except for Lazenby, but that’s just my personal opinion).
Actually in my opinion, Moore's introduction in LALD is even more worse, I don't count TSWLM, as it's his Third film, not his debut.
Moore’s introduction is a bit odd in isolation, but at the time I think it was the correct decision. It parallels the broad structure of DN (so that’s to say beginning the film without Bond then showing him doing something in his daily life before being called onto the mission) but it plays to Moore’s comedic abilities. So in essence it felt ‘Bondian’ while also making Moore’s Bond distinct. It’s not dissimilar to what they did with Brosnan’s reveal in this one, at least in spirit.
We’ve obviously discussed this but I think Lazenby’s introduction is all wrong and never sat right with me. I don’t think it adequately makes Lazenby’s Bond stand out and there’s way too many little nods to Connery which I think was detrimental for him at the time.
Yeah and I absolutely love it. I think its main "flaw" and missed opportunity is external to it. It's not building upon its strengths and success during the whole Brosnan tenure.
Isn't it what the movie implies though? Maybe it's just my head canon playing tricks on me, but I always imagined that Trevelyan himself didn't experience Stalin's actions directly.
Yes, I too think that's what's implied in the film itself. I'd have to recheck the John Gardner GoldenEye film novelisation to see if there's any more detail there, not that it would particularly be canon as Gardner may have added it himself. I know Gardner did add more of a backstory for General Ourumov involving being trapped in a burning tank, so it's certainly possible.
Serra is just a wrong choice.
Natalya never worked IMO. Bond saved her once or twice and she is complaining all the time.
Yep I have to agree with that mate. I can only imagine what David Arnold would have done with Goldeneye
Otherwise, the movie is pretty perfect and one of my favourites of the series. Minor missed opportunities, in my opinion, include the use of the BMW Z3 and not bringing back General Pushkin.
Isn't it implied (by Bond at least) that Travelyan is basically going to kill Ourumov once he gets what he wants from him anyway? From what I remember it comes across as if Travelyan hasn't revealed that he's a Lienz Cossack to him before Bond blurts it out. Anyway, I always read it as he was using Ourumov, and as Bond said was going to betray him.
She didn't work IMO. She tries not to be a damsel in distress but it's not realistic at all. She IS a damsel in distress. He saved her life she is ungrateful.
I think she's just an ordinary person (albeit a government computer programmer) caught up in an extraordinary situation. You can't expect her to act like a professional like Bond who is used to it all already.
Precisely. She's perfectly judged and the performance is of equal quality.
She became another meta character complaining about Bond.
It was fairly mild in this film though and more of an attempt to add some drama into the proceedings. I think it's fairly innocuous and not something that the film keeps coming back to.
1. She didn't trusted him.
2. Bond's always bringing her in trouble and danger, she's one of the very few Bond Girls who felt real to confront Bond's nature of work, she didn't enjoyed it, for some, it's some sort of adventure, not for Natalya, it just showed that Bond's work isn't enjoyable or fun adventure, it's dangerous, if you're caught in Bond's world, you wouldn't liked it either, it's the same with Stacey Sutton shouting and screaming, she's caught in the danger, and her situation and the way she reacted to it just showed how dangerous was Bond's world, Natalya is Stacey Sutton 2.0 without the screaming, I don't see any comparison to Kara, she's not a pawn, nor she's not gullible or at the hands of the villains (Kara was Koskov's girlfriend), and Kara enjoyed being in Bond's world, she'd enjoyed being involved in a fight in the Afghanistan, she enjoyed the danger of Bond's world and looked at it as fun adventure, Natalya wasn't, for me, Natalya is what Stacey Sutton should've been.
You may have a reason here, but what Natalya was saying, her perspective was, it doesn't need to be violent, maybe Trevelyan could be penalized but not in the form of killing him, Natalya may be a Pacifist, she hates violence and killing.
That's why Madeleine Swann kinda evoked this later on in SPECTRE with her questioning Bond's job, she knows about Blofeld being Bond's step brother, she knows that Blofeld was the big villain, but why she's still questioning his line of work? Look at the ending, he's in the midst of killing Blofeld, but instead, he had left Blofeld to the hands of authorities to arrest him.
That's what Natalya was saying, she's questioning Bond's coldness to kill an old friend and his feelings about it, like what does he feel? Doesn't he feel anything about killing an old friend without a remorse, it's a matter of morality and consciousness.
Although it's an out of character for Natalya, because Madeleine questioning Bond about it was reasonable as she's a psychiatrist, but Natalya was a computer programmer, how did she had an idea to ask Bond such a question? Seemed out of character for her.
People try to kill her. Bond is a stranger who saves her.
She doesn't act like a normal person. She acts like a bond girl tired of being a bond girl.
Again, it's why I think she's such an interesting character. She comes into her own throughout the film. She also has a nice parallel with Bond in the sense that like Bond/Travelyan having a past which involves betrayal, her and Boris have that too (and I suspect during the beach moment her immediate thought is she would rather him be brought to justice than killing him, which maybe informs what she says to Bond. That or it's the trauma of witnessing all her friends being killed. Perhaps that Boris parallel could have been highlighted a bit more, but it works as it is).
Wow! If I'm correct, this is your longest post. It seems Natalya really piqued your interest. So more Natalya and more longer posts from you =D>
His mantra is a little less conversation. ;)
Oh, true. The laconic one :)
Natalya is the one who had been involved in Bond's mission:
She's an innocent programmer, and the one who had been a mastermind of her troubles was Trevelyan, who's connected to Bond, even Ourumov, the people who attacked Severnaya are all connected to Bond, because they've had a confrontation with Bond beforehand, in the PTS, and the mission wasn't finished yet, Bond failed to kill Ourumov, and messed up the mission more when they've (fake) killed Trevelyan in front of him, and Bond just made his escape, and this is Bond, just cleaning his own mess from a failed mission, he's not done yet, now Natalya, she's the one who had got involved in Bond's unfinished mission, she's just happened to work in Severnaya and because she's one of the survivors of the destruction of the Satellite and could be used as an asset, so Bond made an afterthought to involve her in his mission, but he could've made an option not to involve her, but Ourumov and the villains were out to kill Natalya because she's the witness to what happened in the Severnaya Satellite, Natalya's involvement was optional for Bond, because he could've finished the mission without Natalya, although she's a big help in disabling Goldeneye, but really, her involvement was more of Bond's decision to protect her.
I don't actually see a problem in Natalya, actually she's less complicated (and questionable) than Vesper.
I prefer non-action Bond girls, personally.
I think Bond girls that are outsiders to the world of espionage work better. And they are more Flemingesque.