Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
When bond forgets to be bond...
What scenes in the bond movie's do you feel the film has gone off on a tangent and forgotten its bond movie momentarily.
Just watching FYEO the scene with bond and the countess from manchester at her apartment, for a short period felt like i was watching crossroads (crossroads was a cheap badly acted english soap set in a motel). Its a terrible scene, was quite relieved when the countess death scene kicked in on the beach and reminded me i was watching bond.
Just watching FYEO the scene with bond and the countess from manchester at her apartment, for a short period felt like i was watching crossroads (crossroads was a cheap badly acted english soap set in a motel). Its a terrible scene, was quite relieved when the countess death scene kicked in on the beach and reminded me i was watching bond.
^ 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
Never liked the airport scene in CR the action was ok though did not feel like bond to me and never felt the sequence sat well with the rest of the movie.
The airport scene is also a perfect example of this. IMO, most of CR is guilty of forgetting its roots.
Not forgetting. CR was ignoring most of its roots, because Bond can't just start at MI6 and be the man we knew for 20 films prior.
Plus, Dimi's right. The movie is faithful to its source material.
I trust you when it comes to that. I explained myself wrong. It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films, while retracting its original roots.
And this was the film's purpose. Some people seem to forget this.
Some people just don't like it. I don't mind the reboot myself, but I think they should've introduced Q and Moneypenny in CR, even if Q is just giving Bond his gun to keep the realism.
Yes, Q and Moneypenny should have been in the film, but we can look at it this way: the Q Branch hadn't been established yet and Moneypenny hadn't been hired. It's not the official explanation, but at least it is one.
When Bond isn't being Bond and just being a cover version, now let me think...
1995-2002
I really think this whole reboot idea was a mistake. I'm glad that it's over now. I think that Q, Moneypenny and the gunbarrel (in the beginning) must be part of every Bond film (shame on you also, LALD).
I agree about this and all the drama in TWINE. Another mistake. IMO they should have made TND 2 instead of the TWINE we know today.
Once again must have all the elements to convince me it's Bond, I just think for these people it's just about cliches and if they haven't got them they can't recognise it as Bond. CR was the first time in decades that Bond was a proper fully realised character not some device to get from A to B.
Oh no, I fully disagree there. The GE Bond, for me, is the previously established Bond, only slightly modernized. The screenplays went sour after GE, IMO at least, but I have no objection to the Bond(s), including the DAD Bond.
I disagree. The reboot, firstly, can be argued as not being a reboot, but let's not get into semantics. ;-) Anyway, this reboot certainly refreshed the series in place where it was needed after DAD. Audiences liked it. The fact that this film maintains a strong rating on many list, for example imdb where it scores best of all the Bonds, demonstrates this. Furthermore, I love Q, MP and the GB as well but I will say this: I'd rather have no Q or MP than a poor Q/MP. With Q we dived into virtual reality in DAD and MP was dropped in there as well. That's what I call a poor Q/MP. Not having them, keeps us longing for their return, which is a positive emotion. Having them abused, is the opposite. We don't want that. So, if they return, I prefer it under the condition that they get a few good moments. Bringing them back just for the sake of it, is not good enough IMO.
As for the GB, I love the way it was set up in CR. QoS however, indeed made a huge mistake I think by not opening up with the GB.
Whenever anything gets too much continuity, it needs to stop, take steps back and then proceed forward again. I enjoy reboots because I want to see how things could have ended up differently. No timeline is "dead" to me. They could, at any time (they will never do so), choose to pick another actor and switch back to the 62-02 Bond a few years down the road.
The trouble is with reboots now, is that they're overused. Thanks to the success of films like CR and Batman Begins, hollywood has fallen in love with reboots. Everything is getting rebooted these days. Robin Hood, Superman, Spiderman, Batman again, Pink Panther, Star Trek, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Tomb Raider, Daredevil, and worst of all, now the Ninja Turtles are being rebooted as god damn aliens!!! (which reminds me, f*ck you Micheal Bay, stop ruining my childhood!!!)
Don't forget 'Get Smart', as much as I'd like to. Star Trek was quite good though.
Personally I don't mind the reboot, CR and QOS have set up Bond's 'rebirth' and for me it feels like the series can continue with a kind of fresh start instead of constantly having to refer to past films.
Agreed 100%
Could you argument why?
He is the very opposite of Bond. Unconvincing, camp, and all his films are walking jokes, like a comedy show. All the essence of a serious James Bond as Fleming wrote are gone, replaced with eyebrow raises, ridiculous stupid moments that Bond would never do (TMWTGG school girls scene), and I have the hardest time trying to sit through the garbage because it all feels like a sin against Sean's work in his first 4 and Fleming himself. Roger's Bond is the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the trashing of a beloved fictional character. I like my Bond serious, cold, calculating, and ruthless like it is intended for the character, and Moore shats on that in his films. I will always watch his films the least and Sean's and Dan's the most, that much is certain. I just don't feel like having to go to a confession and let my sins be known every time I watch a Moore Bond film, and I am not a religious man at all.
Well, firstly i never noticed you were a Moore hater. But also good to see you like Craig.
And briefly back in 1979 ;)
I completely agree and RM was my Bond, SWLM on the big screen in 1977 was my first Bond experience but as I've got older Moore's films are the ones that make me groan the most (I've tried to erase PB's).
Moore might well say he took the element from Fleming's idea that Bond was a man who didn't actually like killing but he makes so light of it in most of his films I don't believe him one bit, he played Bond like some millionaire playboy with no concern for public property and just looks like he's having a whale of a time so no he's nothing like the literary Bond and is responsible for the whole cheesy interpretation that Joe public find it so hard to separate the character
But if you like Moore or not, he was the best they had at the time (Dalton was too young, Connery was too fat, Lasenby has quit), and his films did well and kept the series going. I like Moore's Bond. He did something different. If all the Bonds were serious, cold and ruthless, it would get boring. I think it's good that there's different versions of Bond, because that keeps the series going for a long time.