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 understand your frustrations, but how can Sean be blamed for not acknowledging OHMSS? I assume you're referring to the screw up that is DAF, in which case I'd blame the writers and producers, not Sean himself. Besides, by doing that film he was at least able to help the Scottish education system. That's honestly about the only good thing about it, and it's not even related to the actual film.
It's also about no retrospective on what he thought of OHMSS or reaching out to GL whose career was going nowhere. Sure, GL made a fool of himself but SC was more focused on getting his way all the time.
First of all, I make no concrete observations on how anyone acted at a time in their life when I or nobody else here was on the set of DAF and don't fully know what Sean did and didn't act like. Secondly, his opinion on OHMSS wouldn't have mattered a toss; the filmmakers would have made the same campy and horribly disconnected film regardless of what he thought of it. Thirdly, why should Sean reach out to George? He had his bloody chance, a six or seven picture deal in the basket after OHMSS, in fact, but he screwed it up all on his own. Sean owed him absolutely nothing, especially since without him George might not have had the role in the first place.
If I were George I'd despise that agent. Granted, Lazenby didn't really have the experience needed to understand the acting world as he simply wasn't familiar with the movie business that early in his career, so I could maybe understand him following the word of his agent more than his own feelings, whatever they may have been. Still, it's very unfortunate as he could have been even better given time to grow into the role.
As for Dan, his commitment to these films and Bond as a character is one of the reasons why he's one of my favorites to take on the role. He gives it everything he has and does as much as he can, even when told to reign it in. As Mendes put it in the Skyfall commentary, when you have a lead actor that really goes for it and does as many stunts as possible and is as hands-on with other areas like the script, costume design and more, they raise the game of everyone else around them to do just as much and to give it their all. I love Dan for that; a rare gem.
Any way, we certainly have a very good actor in the lead role. It would be nice if they upped the production rate a bit after B24. I'd like to see him do two more, and I think that really requires 2 year production timelines - with the next two coming out in 2017 and 2019. He'll really be getting on by then, but I think he's good enough to deserve it.
Shame they didn't keep the ageing Bond storyline from SF until his last movie and just gave him a full on mature Bond in his prime adventure for B23.
As for DC being more invested in the character/putting more into the role, I think Connery was very much involved. He cared deeply and wanted to make it as a serious actor. It's not totally by chance that his early films are such classics and that he is so good in them!
But things have changed since then. EON are much more open to DC having an input. Back in the day Harry and Cubby were (I think) a lot more controlling, and actors had much less say/power than they tend to have today.
In the other two he has more to play in terms of humour and seriousness.
I think my problem is that I don't really feel that interested in the main political thread of the film. It's trying to compete with Bond's emotional torment and random action.
Definitely not near the bottom for me. Mid table I think.
It was alright, but can't say I was enthralled by it. Its just a bit...boring.
Weird how QoS and SF both have such blatant references to GF. And Mendes still thinks he was being really clever...
I noticed how similar Mathis's death was to M's (Bond cradling him before he dies). M's has more impact though.
He cradles Vesper too, but she's already expired by then. Definitely a morbid theme there.
It's cool that Mendes is director but not cool that he has too much fanboy plans to recycle tried things.
THE ICE HOUSE - PART 1
SAT 07JUN 9PM
DRAMA CHANNEL
PART 2 - 10.10PM
PART 3 - 11.20PM
Repeated from 2AM on the Sunday.
Dramatisation of Minette Walters' novel. The discovery of a body in the grounds of a stately manor leads to revelations about one of the house's three female residents, whose husband disappeared in unexplained circumstances. Starring Kitty Aldridge, Frances Barber, Daniel Craig and Penny Downie.
Also :
ARCHANGEL
WED 09JUL 9PM
DRAMA CHANNEL
Daniel Craig stars in a fast-moving espionage thriller from the mind of Robert Harris. A historian battles dark forces across Russia to uncover the final secret of Stalin.
Archangel is good, but nothing special, apart from the topic itsself, which is interesting.
You beat me to it Barryt007! Just saw it advertised tonight! Looks really good so will definately give it a viewing.
...what did I just read...
Interesting thoughts, but ... no.
After DAD I would have been quite happy for them to do this, but not now.
Your thoughts resemble some off my worst nightmares concerning the Bond franchise. Young folks( you know those who actually go to the cinema )are already quite disconnected to Bond (seeing him as an old fart),preferring Mission impossible and Bourne instead by a large margin (at least according to a young fellow living in my house, with whom I was standing in line at the supermarket recently).
This M waiting at the other side for 007 thing would certainly not improve things (and make me puke big way). Simply terrible!!
So the confessions of one "young fellow" counts more than the fact that Skyfall is the most succesfull film in the franchise? Yeah, young folks are already quite disconnected to Bond. My ass! Skyfall recruited many new Bond fans, from all age groups. And Skyfall's triumph at the BO should probably indicate that young folks (you know those who actually go to the cinema) were feeling quite okay with the film, shouldn't it?
I must ask you, dear @Matt_Helm, will you one day enlighten us with posts that actually make sense, or do you intend to continue spouting out this hatefull, irrational nonsense?
Now that's an interesting theory…. ;)
Yes, I know he is not really worth responding to, but I just can't help myself sometimes... When his comments are not only provocative but also completely devoid off any logic or rational, it's too tempting not to point it out. But hopefully it will be a very long time until next irresistible temptation...
First about that most successful argument thrown regularly. The main reason why SF (and coincidentally Avengers, Iron Man 3 and, and,and) are setting constantly new revenue records is - of course - the Chinese market. When the powers to be in China decided to allow their people to watch western movies ( after judicious applying of the censors scissor ) they gave Hollywood an extra half a billion audience as present, which of course sets new records in revenue. It's just as simple as that.
Secondly, stand Tom Cruise dressed cool hoody style, Matt Damon in green bomber jacket and gray stubbled Craig (preferably in SFs evaluation shooting scene ) next to each other. Who do you think young people can relate better to? Again,just as simple as that!
It will get worse again when the time nears, but who cares really? Let him...its the dog peeing at the tree. What does the tree care?