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
Its about as dark as a deputy dawg cartoon.
Bond is still doing fantastic stuff in Skyfall, I agree, but I didn't find him to be portrayed as the invincible character he seemed to be in Moonraker.
Shot twice fell from a moving train of a bridge into a river and lives to tell the tale, I would call that OTT invincable. ANd apperently he recovered not in a hospital as that would put him on the radar for he authorities, that all sounds perfectly plausible.
Well, having both been shot and having dealt with people who have been shot a couple of times my breaking point might be different than others, I'll grant you that.
Improbable, I'll grant you; not impossible. Look at the folks who bungie jump and have something go wrong, but survive.
It's weird what the human body can take on occasion.
What you dislike about LTK is exactly what makes it a series standout. Dark and violent.
In fact, LTK was ahead of it's time and a return to Fleming.
Moonraker was a creation of the Star Wars craze and an excuse to get a younger audience. It was Bond for children. As an adult it is not that interesting. Villains like Jaws are laughable now.
My favourite part of Moonraker are the scenes in M's office. Those are always good with Bernard Lee.
Unfortunately that is a recipe for stagnation. To dismiss Fleming is like dismissing Tolkien. The author is the creator of Bond and Connery is just one interpretation.
Look at the other franchises and why they do so well. When they copied the 1978 Superman template for the 2006 film, they cast a similar actor to Christopher Reeve. Fans went but there was not enough there to drag a new audience in and that was reflected in the box office. It was a good film but not outstanding for the astronomical budget it got.
But it was obvious that the Batman franchise was many steps ahead by breaking with what we were familiar with. Some Bond fans want path of least resistance when it comes to the character and that is not what Bond was ever about.
Thanks!
Likewise, Connery did bring some of Fleming's character to the screen; shooting a man in cold blood when he is clearly at one's mercy is indeed something Fleming's Bond might do. He also added some new elements to the character, bringing a light-heartedness to the character that really wasn't in the books. The way Hollywood Bond quips, for example, is more Connery than Bond.
Of course, after all, it's based on Ian Fleming's character. So, he should carry the outlines the author created for him. But, the character's persona differs a way too much than Connery's portrayal of the character.
back to the original point about Brosnan coming back, obvioulsy no actor will ever return to the role as far as i can see but I woulddn't have a problem with an older actor being cast in the role, what would be wrong with the character of Bond being a bit older, coming towards the end of his career? The films have to keep evolving so maybe one day they will go down this road.
You said it, the early films were Bulldog Drummond. And yet you praise Nolan for being true to the source.
If the early films were not true nods to Fleming, then how are they accurate to the source? Batman works best when he is closer to the source. And he becomes worst when he mocks the source. Bond went through many films mocking it's roots and crashed and burned. Frank Miller said the same thing and he was the man responsible for representing the true way Batman should have always been.
I like the early films for what they are, but they are nothing more than the start but not the be all possibility for the franchise. And the approach began to water down by Connery's fourth.
Well, I have nothing against the respectful author nor Craig himself. But, the James Bond franchise I hold dear to me is because of Sean Connery. OK, let's talk about Casino Royale 1967, can you really want to see that film? It's rubbish. Because it was an insult to the character created by Ian Fleming (outlines) and Terence Young (persona) (I'm talking about the films), just like today's Jason Bourne is an insult to the character Robert Ludlum created in his trilogy (as I consider Erik Van Lustbadder's books are non-canonical). The Fleming books are not the reason I became a huge fan of Bond, it was Connery's Bulldog Drummond style performance that made me the fan I am today, and gave me the desire to be Bond someday. I agree Pierce Brosnan's (my 2nd favourite Bond) last film was totally an insult to the franchise and probably is the worst Bond film to date, but before that, Bond was BOND. With the arrival of Casino Royale 2006, the series has been transformed to a scumbag and rubbish Jason Bourne clone, the trash that was created by Tony Gilroy, not the one penned by Robert Ludlum in his trilogy. So, I really think that Bond should go back to its origins. Bring back the gadgets, bring back the Connery material, bring back the supervillains who want to take over the world with deadly motivations, using deadly mcguffins. That's what makes Bond BOND.
In the end, who am I to tell you otherwise? I can appreciate your angle and your taste as obviously any of us have to like the actor playing the character.
There are three categories of fans these days Original, post Cubby Broccoli produced and the reboot. You are original which is great.
By the way, I find Brosnan nothing like Connery considering he was aiming at him for his portrayal. Connery just looks far tougher than Brosnan. Connery has that kicked in by life experience face.
CR 1967 is rubbish for sure.