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
He was?? Wow. I’m an idiot. Never saw him as being a total loser (ever).
Yes I agree. Suppose it just depends on what they meant.
I don't remember Bond being an incompetent one in Skyfall, if anything, he's an effective agent in that film, he's not even the reason why M died, remember he fought a bad guy in the frozen lake, and took time before he got to the chapel and it's too late, sure Silva did what he's meant to do, but Bond still tried to do something and he killed Silva.
Yes, he fails his mission.
At least he's a good lover in Goldfinger ;)
Good lover? He literally raped a lesbian in the barn, slap a woman's rear, and never really cared when Tilly died.
Bond still succeeded in Skyfall because he killed Silva, that's the main objective.
Well, It worked.
But that's not a good lover.
That’s right @DEKE_RIVERS , the knife in the back did work….
A very good lover. He saved the world with his sexual power.;)
Well, with the caveat that he keep M alive too. Then there’s that whole situation with the list of agents….Like I said, everyone fails in some way in that film, never quite getting exactly what they want. It’s pretty cool actually.
Anyway, getting back to GF I think maybe another missed opportunity is not utilising the gangsters to their fullest potential. Obviously the story was rewritten and Goldfinger was always going to have to kill them at some point, but maybe we could have gotten a bit more out of them than an expository meeting.
I think you're misinterpreting lover here, what Bond did in Goldfinger was not for love, it's more sexual.
So, he's not a good lover, let alone the lover.
Felix Leiter for me is the real hero of that film.
The gangsters were a casualty of the new scheme...see what I did there? LOL! It might have been interesting if they helped GF a bit more or we saw them for a bit longer. I must say the stereotype of what a gangster was hasn't aged well with the times. LOL!
I don't understand the critique of Bond and his doing nothing. He does manage to stay alive and stay close to the action. He pleaded for his life on the laser table and showed some sense to provoke Goldfinger enough to get him to reveal the whole plan and the fact of the dirty bomb!
But Bond is a secret agent, it showed his incompetence.
He's always held captive for most of the third act, does nothing, showed his ignorance on how to diffuse a bomb, he's just there to show his arrogance like slapping a woman's arse, turn a lesbian into straight in that barn, and led the Masterson sisters to their demises.
That's not the sign of a being a good agent, such a let down from the Bond of FRWL and DN, where he comes off as smart, calculating, and being more of a spy, while still being in action.
Heck, he might even had no idea about the information regarding Goldfinger's meetings with the other gangsters, because he was imprisoned in an underground cell, unlike the book, where Bond collected all of the information he'd learned in Goldfinger's meeting while acting as his secretary, while sending it secretly to CIA.
That part for me is what makes the book GF, better than the film, Bond did more in the book.
That's the thing with Hamilton, he never understood Bond, as much as his contributions were iconic (to which I acknowledge), but he always played Bond in a negative light and far from how he should be, Hamilton just don't understand Bond.
Also, another missed opportunity here is the absence of the Du Pont character, but again, might be understandable since he appeared in Casino Royale (something that's still not adapted at the time).
But his role in the story, I've felt was really important to the setup of the plot.
I mean, it’s certainly not an Indiana Jones in Raiders thing where one can argue he’s inconsequential to the outcome of the film. Not that that even matters if true.
Maybe not Felix but the other CIA agents disguised in surrounding the area, and whether Bond's message have gotten to Felix or not, at least he did something, he proved his skills as a spy, it's a tense moment, he did undercover and gathered information, that's the most important of it.
I can't remember what Bond does in the third act, kill Oddjob? Have Goldfinger sucked out of the plane? But I looked at those as mainly caused by luck, well, the man always survived by luck.
I get of Bond not being three steps ahead, although he showed some bits in FRWL, but at least have him do something useful and have him to be a bit cooperative instead of just having him always captured.
And to have Bond being highlighted here as the best is simply not true, cool and suave, yes, but it's not the best Bond portrayal.
I haven't watched Indiana Jones, so I couldn't comment on that.
I think by the Raiders comparison I just meant it doesn’t matter if one is enjoying the film.
I mean, the CIA were never going to intervene without getting the message. In the film they even misread the situation entirely and likely would have left Bond to it if Galore hadn’t stepped in.
Like I said, Bond’s not a character who often thinks three steps ahead. He usually goes head first into a situation and has to quickly work his way out with what’s around him. There’s even times in the series when he makes mistakes or stuff doesn’t quite go to plan. Luck and gadgets often are a great deal of what gets him out. Like I said it keeps a good deal of tension when you know Bond’s plan has basically failed.
I've edited my comment above, I get the Bond is not usually a three steps ahead, although like what I've said, it showed some bits in FRWL and maybe in DN, but what I do want to see him doing in that film is to at least be a useful asset, not became passive.
That's it, Felix Leiter and the CIA suddenly became the hero in the film, and you have suddenly Pussy Galore too being a heroine too who saved the day, not even Bond helped to foil Goldfinger's plans in the end, that's Felix Leiter and Pussy Galore (whom instead of helping Bond, decided to side on with Felix instead, because you know, what would she expects?).
In the book, I'll still stand that maybe like what I've said the CIA were probably disguised there and to see Bond working his way to them is really a realistic scene in the book with full of tension, I just liked the scene where Bond used his spy skills to gather information, be an undercover, and to cooperate with CIA, help them, while one may not sure if it would be successful or not, but still, there's Bond's presence throughout, you know that he's doing something.
I have no problem seeing Bond failed, in fact the Craig Era did this very well, particularly in Skyfall, probably in Die Another Day too where he failed in finishing his mission in North Korea.
But to have the villain turned him into a hostage all the time is just a wrong move, let alone putting him inside a cell where he's just there, doing nothing.
He's not the worst Felix, actually there are two more worse: Norman Burton (DAF) and John Terry (TLD).
I don’t think Bond’s completely passive. Him not getting the note out is more a subversion and Galore’s part in the finale a sort of twist. But he does try to get out of things. He even blags his way out of not getting killed, and without him Galore presumably wouldn’t have gone to the CIA.
But honestly, it might just be a matter of personal preference. I actually like that we see Bond legitimately alone. That and I’ve always found Bond’s ability to think three steps ahead in DN a bit counterintuitive.
Maybe I'm too indulgent because I love TB, but I think it follows the formula that made the previous movies work, for one, and it's also very faithful to the source material. It's only in YOLT that they start seriously diverging from the original novel to do their own thing, and that they go very far using sci-fi. But even though I'm not a fan of YOLT, it's very iconic, so maybe I'm too harsh on it. DAF might be the first true missed opportunity: they could have done a straight vengeance story, as long as they had Connery as Bond I suspect the audiences would have accepted it.
Sure, the CIA may not accept the note, but the thing is, is there anything that Bond could do at the time? Yes.
Yes, he blagged his way to avoid getting killed by simply selling out MI6, but does it went to a better effect? No, it makes things worst, because he's held captive and hostage for most of the time, it's not a help, more like a dumb decision from Bond, he did two mistakes: Selling out and betraying MI6, and he lets himself got captured.
Of course, he turned Pussy Galore into a straight gal in that barn, using his magic instrument, much more worse move than how Bond tricked Solitaire with a stack of fake, identical tarot cards in LALD, a not so wise move to turn a villain into good side, more like again, a contrived fantasy.
No problem with Galore subversion in the finale, but what I just want is to have Bond do something, the thing is Bond just showed there being helpless, at least even in the bomb detonation scene have him detonate it, not wait for a deux ex machina to comes out of nowhere and have it done for him (for such a Secret Agent/00 agent, Naval Commander like Bond, he should've known it).
Sure, it's a matter of personal preference, but I just prefer what I've read in the book, than how it turned out in the film, for me, it's not a good Bond portrayal, more like a betrayal to the character, I'm not saying he should be a superhero or what, but at least for a secret agent, have him do something helpful.
Bond being three step ahead in DN is not counterintuitive for me though, he studied such things and he began to figured things out, and that's how he made his move, at least from my understanding, but again, it's a matter of preference.
Again, a matter of personal preference, but for me, one of the missed opportunities.
Why? a sequel was a bad idea and they had Connery after all.
Anyway, a straight vengeance story didn't work 20 years later.
For me personally it’s about how I feel when watching a film. When I see Bond captive in GF’s third act, his attempts to escape or get the word out failing etc. I feel a good deal of tension. Same for when Bond is unsure how to diffuse the bomb before the CIA step in. There’s a genuine edge of your seat suspense there that I don’t think the previous Bond films had quite nailed to the same extent.
That’s why I compared it to DN. Bond being a step ahead in almost every situation during the first two acts nullifies some of that tension - that lingering sense that you’re not wholly sure whether Bond’s going to come out alive. I think it’s that feeling that the writers prioritised when adapting GF.
I guess a nitpick I may have, and I'm not sure it's a missed opportunity even, but I'd like for there to have been a slightly more convincing reason for Goldfinger not to laser through him on the table. I don't know if I entirely buy it, although I guess it does pay off when Felix spies Bond being given mojitos on the veranda.
Think they were having Mint Julips (so basically a mojito with bourbon). Not that that matters either, haha. Delicious though.
To be honest, considering the source material they had to work with I think they did a great job at getting Bond out of the laser situation. Not sure if the world was crying out to see Goldfinger randomly take Bond on as his assistant for no apparent reason.