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
That's a little harsh, no? PLenty of film adaptations change element from the source material, be it a novel or comics or whatnot. I'd say your description of Bond fits the literary iteration of the character. If the Ian Fleming Foundation chose to do a continuation novel set in Fleming's time and NOT fulfill those qualities, I could see how that might be a bit weird. But for the films? No, there's no point in being that rigid. The franchise has survived plenty well thus far.
So he's behaving like Bambi and Thumper, basically?
;)
Tough one for me. It's fairly obvious his strength is in his physical...strength. But listen to his voice throughout the film. It rarely changes from how it sounds when he says "good morning...my name's Bond...James Bond".
He is pretty terrible in certain scenes like the bull fight and the first meeting with Draco ("that's quite an inducement").
BUT he is better in a few scenes later on.
I admit that given his lack of acting skills, it was an extremely good performance, but I don't agree with many here who put him up there with Connery, Moore, Dalton or Craig. It was a good performance but likely was just beginner's luck.
Lazenby might have just fallen flat in another Bond movie, but I think the team effort put into OHMSS is probably the best in the whole series.
Brosnan cracking up is brilliant
Whenever I see that scene in the film I always think of that same man laughing his head off and it makes everything better.
My sentiment exactly.
It does not matter if tarantulas are harmless in real life. If the film says their bite is mortal, then their bite is mortal, period.
I don't know if you've read the book but in that Bond doesn't physically appear until over half way in.
But it doesn't, so Bond just comes across as a bit of a wuss.
I'm remember watching somewhere (I think it was a documentary) how the filmmakers were boasting how it was such a "dangerous" feat for the stuntman, and how the tarantulas venom sack was full and so on.
I'm not buying it.
=D>
I'd say it's more of an issue in TB with that shot of the hand and the shark.
He turns up in the last third of that novel.
Regarding FRWL, I do remember that there is A LOT of time setting up SMERSH's scheme, establishing the villains and explaining their backstory before Bond even shows up.
You should! It's a truly unique novel in the series, and Fleming's writing is at its best here. (My opinion anyway...)
So Dr. No sent a not deadly spider to give Bond diarrhea and nausea for a few days. Or he's a lousy scientist and knows zilch about spiders. Professor Dent is also a wuss, just like Bond, as he sweats heavily looking at that thing. The tarantula in DN us a fictitious spider from a fictitious universe. It's an inaccurate depiction of this particular spider. It often happens in fiction. You want a white shark that behaves like a true white shark, you don't have Jaws as a movie. Ah, and Dracula is rigged with inaccuracies of all sorts. Same with Tarzan. Of all the criticism you can make about the movie, this is the most nitpicking I have ever read.
:)) Quite.