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 know the Berlin Wall was still standing when LTK was released, but the Eastern Block was on its last leg. And it was not a one year hiatus. It lasted until 1995. It's like the world of Bond was falling apart.
It might have been mere perception, but it was definitely in the public perception and it was something that they needed to address. And they did.
Yes, of course that's a good point about the waning Soviet influence and hold over their Eastern Bloc empire at that time. As I said in my post above the writing was on the wall for the Soviet system and Communism in general in the Soviet Union abd its Eastern Bloc satellite states for anyone who wanted to see it and weren't living in some sort of Cloud Cuckoo Land of Denial.
Going beyond Miami, to your broader statement that Bond films set in the US "have major issues", it depends on whether that is coincidental, or if you think the setting related directly to, and was a contributing cause of the "major issues." In addition to the South Florida settings discussed above, GF used Kentucky -- the location of Fort Knox and a bunch of gold therein -- and a brief airport setting commencing the climax. DAF used Las Vegas and the surrounding desert. LALD used locations set in Louisiana, and in New York. Did those films' settings damage the films ? I think not. Did the films have problems ? I'll just say problems, and avoid the lack of question of what constitutes a "major issue." After all, is the relative dullness of some of the Kentucky scenes a "major issue" ? Bond's assault of Pussy Galore is a major issue, but the setting is not the problem. (Bond winning Pussy over, and Pussy admitting she found Bond attractive, could have been handled much better, even for a film made in the early 1960s. Their fighting and one-ups on each other were fine, but it turned toward sexual assault and it was so unecessary !)
The Bond films "turn to the silly stuff " started before Roger Moore's films, particularly so in DAF, the last film before Moore started, but it was a fun film at the time, Connery was back, even if for just one more (at the time) film, and he was much more engaged, entertained and entertaining than in YOLT, and it paid off. The Willard Whyte storyline actually was quite timely, then, since he was inspired by the reclusive and, by then, notoriously weird Howard Hughes. Still, the special effects for the targets of the satellite beam attacks in DAF, for one thing, were AWFUL, but they were not location-related. As for the increased silliness, it really only amplified an aspect present in all the films. As Roger Moore noted at least once, these films were entertainments, so wink at yourself and the audience and enjoy it. Problems in LALD, likewise, exist, but not due to locations. Therefore, I'll figure that your comments about films set in the US having major issues to be a matter of coincidence, and not a statement that those issues resulted from the locations.
Noting that these films were mostly well-funded actioneers with style, we are not reviewing Citizen Kane here ! Don't pretty much most of the Bond films have "major issues" ? Depends on the definition, so I'll switch the question to -- don't most of them have problems ? Most of them have England as a setting. Do you want to say that most of the films with English settings have "major issues", or "problems" ? You could, but it is a distraction, at best. It makes it seem the settings have something to do with those problems, whereas I think not.
I know I've written an awful lot about a very brief statement you made. That can be an issue with brief statements -- such as texts and social media. They're so brief -- cryptic, even -- that intended meanings get lost. Some fool gets their undies in a twist over some slant they take on a brief statement, and off they go with unbridled, perhaps unwarranted critical comments that go on much longer than the one they comment upon. So...please excuse me while I go change my clothes, they're sweaty due to over-exertion on silliness, and parts are twisted.
That's exactly why I quite like the idea of him using a Nokia, to be fair. He doesn't really need a top of the range phone. But then again, I didn't mind him driving a BMW in the 90s for the same reason. It seemed more like a car a spy would drive (well in TND, at least).
Smartphones and now smartwatches are a general problem for Bond. Eventhough we know he uses his gadgets, they can't be too powerful and they have to be unique. They can't just bang a Geiger counter app on an AppleWatch or tell him in Skyfall "Don't worry we'll just track your phone." (Yes, I know a bad guy can take away his phone) it has to be something special. A cursory look shows that Bond had had Sony smartphones at least in the last two films, but I can't recall him doing anything other than telephoning with them, right. Strangely enough, in CR he has a SatNav on his "dumb" Sony phone, but hasn't used anything like it since, as far as I know.
Does his phone work as a tracker for his business card in QoS? I know what you mean though: it’s hard to add a feature to a smartphone and make it seem like a new and sexy spy gadget rather than just an app. Also, as you say, a phone is the first thing any baddie would take away!
I hope there’s a proper, inventive gadget in NTTD: Craig hasn’t really had one. Something that just explodes doesn’t quite grab the imagination.
There are heaps of gadgets in NTTD, but yes, most of them explode. :))
You have a couple of gadget guns (my personal favourites), a classic tracking bug that looks like a little cylindrical tap filter with an aerial, and a few other electronic goodies - one that interests me in particular, as I don't know its function.
He does track it on his phone though, doesn’t he?
I prefer the card to be a gadget, I know tracing the call would make more sense but it’s less fun, and I don’t think it’s shown exactly how it happens onscreen.
DAD, for all its faults (and there are loads)... its never boring. I cant at least say I am not bored by it.
TWINE, on the other hand, is boring. I am not sure I can say that about another Bond film.
Sorry Pierce 😅
Don't worry. He's laughing all the way to the bank. ;)
Pretty much where I’m at.
Of course, I rank TND second last behind DAD because I also find that dull.
+1. DAD is less soap-operaish than TWINE and in the first half features some Cold War-type espionage with North Korea standing in for the former Soviet Union.
My controversial opinion:
Despite my love for TLD and OP I do think that Lewis Gilbert generally did a better job with the second halves of his Bond films than John Glen did with the second halves of his Bond films.
I'm very fond of the late Michael Apted's work, and count myself as a TWINE fan - it was, after all, my very first Bond film - but his direction of action left quite a bit to be desired. My biggest gripe with TWINE is that a lot of the action "moves slowly." I mean even that fireball in the nuclear test site "chases" Bond at a snail's pace.
Did he direct those parts though? I feel like the parahawk bit in particular would be Vic Armstrong.
One of my favourite bits in it is the terrible editing which makes it look like Brosnan is watching his own stuntman!