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
1. Solange: we all know what was going on there; he needed intel
2. Fields: He needed to keep her occupied and feeling important so as not to report back to MI6. But her trench coat always left me wondering if sex was her idea first...and Bond turned the tables on her.
3. Moneypenny. OF COURSE he slept with her in Macau. He needed to. As with Fields, he turned the tables and got her on his side.
4. Severine: This one is controversial, but again: he needed to make her feel safe and secure so she would trust him.
5. Lucia: As with Solange, sex can prove useful in getting intel.
Actually, perhaps that was regret mixed with a bit of frustration when he said "No. For one!!!"
I certainly know I was a bit upset in the theatre!
Agreed. If Bond was flirting it just came off as a tad clumsy with that awkward grin he gives but to be honest I dint think either of them were flirting. He just happened to be talking to a decent-looking enough woman and she was just being hospitable.
I'm not convinced he slept with Moneypenny and I'm also not convinced he slept with Lucia either....unless they kept most of their clothes on and Bond shifted the front and seat connect of her panties to the side and slipped in.
Again: yes, it wasn't flirting. People are overlooking my initial post that notes that I wasn't remotely on topic and was merely making an observational comment that popped up into my head, nothing more.
Otherwise we wouldn't have that scene in Macao
But I love that moment. It perfectly sums up his character - or at least up to that point in the film. He wants to get the job done as efficiently and quickly as possible. Furthermore, it shows the audience that Bond isn't needy, nor desperate, to bang a chick he just met and risk jeopardizing the mission. Bond's unwavering determination to "finish the job" is what makes CR so great.
https://www.redbulletin.com/int/en/culture/james-bond-through-the-eyes-of-daniel-craig
@noSolaceleft, I gave you exactly what you requested, in depth, above, giving countless moments from just one Fleming novel (and one from Live & Let Die) that connect to Craig's Bond, and actually had to hold back because I don't have all the time in the world to invest in replies to your very meek retorts. You didn't bother giving your own quotes in "retaliation," so please expunge with your condescending attempts at appearing superior. If you don't want to read my arguments, well backed up by Fleming, don't, but don't pretend they aren't there exactly as you wanted them. I knew I was wasting my time compiling them, as you don't seem interested in being argued against or questioned in a way that could make you concede points, best seem by how you go into attack mode on the dime. Do you really think that's how ideas are shared?
Now you're being hilarious, and resorting to the same personal attacks everyone on here falls to when they know they have nothing of actual substance to say. I've given you pages of arguments with over a dozen quotes (with the correct chapters so you could find them on your own) and explanations to back up my views, whereas you barely reply with anything beyond more barbs. You thought that one big mark against Dan being like Fleming's Bond is that he dressed drab in a Madagascar slum, where he's undercover. Reading your post I was literally laughing out loud, so from my end it's actually much harder for me to take you seriously, especially when your gut reaction is to insult people when you can't think of anything else to say.
As you will find on here, some Bond fans like the books exclusively, the novels exclusively or both. I don't see the point of disparaging a member for how they have found Bond, or what they pursue to enjoy the character. I latched onto the films before the books, though I've read some in the past, and that's where much of my writing has gone because my time since I got the books had been filled with university work and employment that didn't allow me to steadily focus on the novels. I only wanted to read them when I had the free time to focus all my energy on them and read them in order, which I'm now doing in a thread on this very forum because my schedule is the most free it's been for a long, long time. I clearly have the interest in reading them, and I'm doing long reviews on them to fully analyze them. That is what should count, me showing passion for a character that I'm apparently not a fan of in your eyes.
I don't think reading the novels is what makes you a fan or not, it's what you like out of the Bond catalogue. I agree that it's a great thing to read the Fleming books, and of great value to understand the character, but I wouldn't tell someone they weren't a fan because they hadn't read everything Fleming ever wrote. And that's really the big difference between you and I: whereas you resort to cheap arguments and even cheaper insults, I actually choose to argue points. If you want to spend your time here insulting people I fear it'll be a short lived experience, as you're not a well liked person (trust that I have this on good authority) and you decrease your value every day, especially as a debater.
You seem to imply that I know nothing of Bond, yet you, even with your so-called experience of reading the novels, have massive blind spots in your own perception of Bond's character that I've seen over time. It's one thing to read a book, but another to understand it, and I think in that area you could do with a refresher on the material so that you could come up with far more sturdy arguments than Dan being too fit or him wearing a silly shirt. Pointing out other people's lapses don't rub away your own, mind.
As for my views on the films, what I see is what I see, and I don't think I'm talking out my ass when I do reviews of them or give impressions. There's a lot of work that goes into the movies, and much of what I write is based off of the intent of the filmmakers, and some of what I perceive. The whole point of art is to see what the material inspires or gives off to you. You seem to have an issue with how people enjoy themselves, telling me I see what isn't there or that I should find another genre outside of Bond to yack about, just because I see different things than you. Like a child, your view of the world is shockingly myopic and naive and if I didn't know any better I'd say you were barely a teenager by how you act 95% of the time.
You bring up the same old Camille defense, to which I say that I have seen things in the films that would make your head spin. It doesn't make you a fool for not seeing certain things (again, I don't go for personal attacks as you seem to love to), nor would I say you were a dullard and not a fan for missing certain details.
You're one of those members that increases in number by day (unfortunately), who takes things so seriously and only seems to be here to throw insults at people who stand to debate them. And you wonder why members like myself don't like you, and don't respect your opinions. Maybe you would see yourself and your flaws more clearly, if you were an outsider looking in on how you communicate with people here. Back when this forum valued true debate and had a bit more integrity on who it kept around, your days would've been limited. Only because of the shifting culture of the internet and this forum that welcomes the drama queen negativity of a select group have you been allowed to exist as a member here, and that's a damn shame.
I would hope you'd learn your lesson and grow up a little, but I unfortunately know from many failed attempts to share ideas with you that you aren't interested in actually having substantial and reasoned discussions with people beyond calling them fools or implying that they aren't worthy of being considered fans of something they are passionate about. I've had enough of your childish behavior, and your constant insults to paint a bogus picture of me when you never actually try to understand who I am and where I come from. In another world we could've actually talked about what we loved about Bond, and it's a damn shame you set a bar so low for yourself when you have it in you to be better in speaking with others and conveying your opinions the right way.
Except MP then provides one of the great lines in the film, "It's called life, James." There's so much subtext in that.
A subtext that says " let's get rid of Fleming". No one had ever to tell James Bond, be it in the novels or the movies, to get a life. Actually, just the opposite is true!
You are both very good at reading things in the Bond films that most of us would completely miss. In that sense, you have both given us some highly enjoyable posts already, and I mean that unironically. In fact, I'd love to see the discussion continue but please without the squabble. Since you both closely examine things and decipher or interpret what isn't literally stated, you are both right and wrong at the same time. Learn from, rather than compete with one another's views.
Furthermore, @noSolaceleft, I'm sure that Brady shall read the Fleming novels one day and when he does, he'll be man enough to correct his own views and statements where necessary. :) That's how grown-ups do things, ergo that's how you, Brady and I do things. :)
So please proceed, gentlemen, but without the slippery slope threat of banter turning into bickering turning into more ugliness, ...
Thank you. :)
Who doesn't? But in all modesty, he is making it easy.
P.S.: I notice you failed to list up more of those great flirting moments of Craig in CR, which somehow surprises me, since you stated there were quite a few of them.
Re; Flirting. Always though Bond was very flirty in CR.
With Vesper on numerous occasions - the train, the hotel room when they dress, at the bar, at the meal etc.
With the receptionist when he feels 'compelled' to find old whatisname.
With Solange on the beach, in the Aston Martin etc
Even with M in her apartment he tries a bit of subtle flirting.
@DarthDimi, I don't think you'll see any bickering or ugliness on my side. I was just pointing out the sad truth that Mr. Thinks He Knows it All is one of the reasons why this forum has collapsed upon itself in major areas of discussion, where the childish and misinformed run rampant while many of the reasoned posters left long ago or barely post here anymore because they got sick of dealing with children where adults are supposed to be. And I do see why, since it's not the least bit stimulating when so many members nurse their soft egos and resort to petty ad hominems when someone points out their lapses or dares to argue a different opinion.
I've tried to debate here, and all I get back are personal barbs and little to no responses about the actual points I was making. That tells me the poster replying has nothing of substance to add, and knows they're full of it, but you can be the judge of that as you're no dullard either. I don't think there's much to learn from there, don't you agree?
Maybe I didn't express myself clear enough so let me explain you my point again. All those things your list as Fleming traits have either been present with any of the actors
or simply part of the script. Before they even started making the movie there was already the script leaked of CR's script (interestingly, it didn't hurt the success of the movie. Might lead to the assumption that SP's financial decline was not a result of the leak.) and all those things you list already written down there. I know because I downloaded the PDF the first day I heard it was available. As I recall the URL had a name like Latino news or something similar like that.
Things like 'he orders a martini, looks Le Chiffre straight in the eye etc." would have been the stage direction no matter if Brosnan, Craig or Benny Hill had taken place on that poker table in Montenegro, simply because that's just how it takes place in the novel. Mind you, I am completely aware that also all his completely unbondian behavior and displayed attitude in the movies it's also stage direction out of the scripts, but those things I listed show that many of the things he does in his films completely fly in the face of Flemings idea of his James Bond. That's all there is. Actually, my point is that I just don't happen to buy the theory that he nails Fleming better than his predecessors. Come to think of it, when Brosnan touches Electras face on the screen where the tear is running down her cheek is this a more Fleming Bond moment then anything in all of Craig's four movies combined. Flemings Bond just is this way, he can't help about it. That's what makes all those Solange moments in SF so disconcerting (and even disgusting).
About all those parts of the books you cite. They are only feeding YOUR perceptions (obviously), but don't disarm my arguments in the least. Bond being exhausted, on the brink of complete loss or whatever, was quite a part of the early movies.
But again the keyword in my original post were lines or quotes right of the books or from Fleming himself that are MIRRORED in his take of Bond exclusively and disarm my point of being particularly unfleming in his take. A "and so it follows" moment if you will.And you didn't give me one.
That's all there is to it.
And again let me repeat. You seem to believe in a kind of suppressive fire of words in your replies, but you don't do yourself a favor with it. Actually, in real life it's most often the aimed shot that ends the fight.
You see, when I look at your posts the sheer word count of them discourages me, which leads me to just skim them, which generally is not my modus operandi.
I completely agree with you. It's a common misconception now, that Craig is somehow true to Fleming where the other actors are not. I mean, is a "lust for women" really something you can only attribute to the Craig Bond? Seems like every Bond portrayal has that.
I can honestly say I wasn't surprised. Just because he's James Bond it no longer means women go into autopilot and become spellbound. There was no real set up for her to want to stay. Despite his invitation for a drink, the atmosphere of his apartment was uninviting, dreary and Bond's whole disposition lacked any sort of worthwhile engagement. Outside of CR, I don't think Craig pulls off charm all that well in his last 3 Bond outings; at least I don't buy it so easily. Had it been Connery, Lazenby, Moore and to a lesser extent possibly Brosnan then I would have been more surprised but these guys know how to really sell it, especially Connery who was the master at treating them mean but keeping them keen.
One actually could say it's a trademark of the franchise.
Of course a lot of those traits have been seen before in the series (it's 50 years long, for crying out loud), you won't find anything in the books that hasn't in some way appeared in a Bond performance before. That's a ridiculously illogical defense that in no way discounts the way that Daniel has been able to act like Fleming's Bond in many moments.
You can take elements of the past, like the danger of the Connery films or the vulnerability of Lazenby, and see those elements lifted in a future performance, as I think Dan has managed. My points connecting him to Fleming aren't just him acting like him, it's him giving off the feeling of Fleming's Bond in how human and fallible the movies have made him, which we haven't seen much of across the series for most of the run.
Fleming's Bond has lust, he is human, he makes mistakes, etc, you're going to see those traits expressed somewhere in the series 40 years before Dan got his turn because those elements make a convincing character. It helps that after the very uninspired and cartoonish appeal of the Brosnan era, a return and expansion of Fleming-esque elements in Bond via Craig have come off so well. We can look at how past Bonds tried to bring out Fleming, like aspects of Dalton, and see how things have improved in the literary character's translation to the big screen since its inception.
I wasn't arguing that Dan has exclusively brought out Fleming's Bond where none of the others have (duh), as that's an imbecilic argument to make that shows one is misinformed about where the series has been. Every performance inevitably has something of Fleming in it-it has to, it's his character-but it becomes important to compare how each performer is able to realize those elements the best and in what quantity. For me, as I've expressed, Dan has achieved a high quality and quantity of Fleming's Bond, whereas others have fallen short or barely tried at all.
How that point gets lost in your head, I've no idea. I very much assumed you were skimming my posts, since you have absorbed so little of them, but I guess it becomes easier to complain about a post's length than to actually argue the points encased inside them.
However, as I said to noSolace, his pure and literary interpretation of the character could not be, I'm guessing, be shared and accepted, celebrated and bought, in today's modern, global, cinema universe.
To people like you and I, we agree that DC has taken the Fleming character, and updated it to fit our times. He has made his characterization into a global phenomenon, not seen since SC (in the days that barely saw the franchise compete against other forces, unlike this modern era;
People who want a change, who want DC gone, should be careful what they wish for: at no other time, in Bond's history, have there been so many other elements competing for the public's attention-- from M:I films, to TMFU reboot, to KM, to SW, to Marvel, to all the spin-offs...- and Craig's Bond has competed well...
Craig's Bond is in a crowded market place, even more than the Brozzer era; all of DC's films, from the Outlier-- SF-- to the other three and their flaws-- killed the competition. He and his films remain competitive...)
There is nothing to apologize for-- DC is a superior actor, executing in a superior manner.
If the last four films starred a Timothy Dalton in his prime (and I do like Dalton-- not my fave, but I respect what he was doing), the franchise would sink.
Brosnan Bond, respect to his fans, couldn't survive this crowded marketplace. The amalagam people celebrate would be a yawn to the international audience of today.
For whatever reason DC did connect.
In a crowded marketplace, like no other time in the history of cinema, DC is the goose that lays the golden egg; this is a fact, whether @noSolaceleft agrees, or not...