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
I suppose the decision to kill off Bond was a good decision at the time. But in hindsight it's going to cause some interesting things to occur with the next fella. One wonders if Barbara will give that much artistic control to an actor or whether she will retain more creative control?
I suppose rushing to use SPECTRE again after all those years was a smart decision, but in hindsight some saner heads should have pumped the brakes on that one. Might have made more sense to plot out a few films to plan out the storyline. Instead we got a bloated mess of a film that tried to jam everything into the one film instead of teasing it out over a few films.
No matter my appreciation for SP, I think you've made some excellent points here, @thedove. SPECTRE returning was always a good idea in my book. Technically, we hadn't seen SPECTRE since '71 -- and it wasn't even called by its name then. (Let's pretend NSNA doesn't count.) So after several decades, a return of that sinister group made perfect sense to me. BUT... a long-term vision would've been wise too.
I'm not sure a big plan was needed, though. Just introduce SPECTRE as Bond's "new" nemesis and have them show up occasionally, like they did in the '60s. And puh-lease... don't . make . Blofeld . Bond's . foster . brother! They barely got away with that in my forgiving opinion, and not at all in most other people's opinion. Now, that was a bad decision!
And sure, with those three 'real' actresses hired, means it's possible for them to hire experienced actresses with affordable paychecks, I still can't fandom with Cubby's decision to reject Catherine Deneuve in favor of Barbara Bach, despite of the former allowing to reduce her salary, and now, the consequence is to see Bach in the role with her robotic (obvious) line deliveries, mannequin movements, limited facial expressions, and ridiculous (obviously phoney) Russian accent. The same for other Bond Girls who were dubbed (by the same voice actress), and turned in a stiff performance.
Again, practical at the time, now, one could see the consequences of their decisions.
By the end of the 80s it was already too late.
I still think they were right to do that to be honest. I don't see the point in deferring pleasure; it's not like they got the rights to CR and then sat on that for years- they made it straight away and it was great. As far as they knew they only had one film with Craig left, so ending it on a climax with bringing in Spectre and Blofeld seems pretty fair to me. You've got other people saying they shouldn't have had a story arc at all and some saying they should have strung it out longer, so who can you please. Yes, Spectre could have been handled better as a film, but there's a few examples of those in series.
Exactly! I think most people’s thoughts in this thread will go to things like plot decisions or casting choices they don’t like. It depends on what one means by a bad decision with hindsight, but Fleming’s decision there had a knock on effect for himself and others which lasted decades afterwards.