Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
General Public Perceptions of Bond
Over on the "love to hate" thread, there was a bit of a side discussion about the Connery films and who remembers what from the Bond movies. So I thought it would be good to make a thread about the general public/casual fans' perceptions of the series, whether it's which films they remember, what they remember from the films, what they think of the actors or what they think of the films.
Any interesting perceptions or misperceptions encountered over the years?
Any interesting perceptions or misperceptions encountered over the years?
^ 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
For what it's worth I had a conversation with someone recently who swore blind Roger Moore starred in You Only Live Twice. Their reasoning, for themself, was that it's a "Roger Moore type film" and it is.
This I think helps strengthen the idea of 'once you've seen one, you've seen them all'. To the public, Bond is really one large blur.
That is my feeling too. And people have many false perceptions about Bond as well, like that every villain wants to invade the world. Only two ever tried: Stromberg and Drax. Blofeld in YOLT was a gun for hire by the Chinese and if Dr. No mentions world domination (actually Bond does), it remains a vague ideal.
The other misconception that gets batted around in the media is that The world is not enough is Bond's family motto.
Didn't James find out that Sir Thomas Bond, a possible ancestor, used the motto and then adopted it as his own? I suppose if you buy that Thomas Bond was his ancestor then it could be true.
Yes, that's how I remember it. Although I suppose the motto is actually "orbis non-sufficit" and "the word is not enough" is just the translation.
Here's a few I've heard of:
The first Bond film was OHMSS.
The first Bond film was in B/W.
Auric Goldfinger had a...gold finger(!)
In Moonraker Bond goes to the moon (Mariella Frostrup)
GoldenEye had a character with a...golden eye(!)
Sean Connery was the first ever James Bond actor.
Ian Fleming was a gay man.
James Bond dies at The End.
Are all those actors playing the same Bond? What age must he not be by now?
Who's George Lazenby?
I don't understand the end of Skyfall with all the old staff back - was it time travel?!
etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Yes, that's my reading of it too. it seems also that Fleming based this on a real Bond family. I have the newspaper cuttings to prove just that somewhere.
In fairness, I doubt most people have heard of an obscure TV production of Casino Royale. He was the standard-setter at any rate, and not Barry Nelson.
Yes, I know, but it's a very common one, isn't it?
It is quite common. But I'd rather think he was the first actor anyway.
This comes from an article written by Roald Dahl that featured in Playboy in 1967 (entitled "007's Oriental Eyefuls". It really only happens this way in TB and YOLT, the latter of which Dahl himself of course wrote the screenplay for.
So true, BAIN.
Indeed. For some, yes. Extra brownie points for Lazenby, I'm guessing.
I showed off a bit and not only named 6 but also included David Niven.
I'd have done the same (maybe). Did you get the job, then?
No :(
(There were some other questions I couldn't answer. I could name all the Bond actors but not all the members of The Saturdays)
Oh, that's always the way. Better luck next time.
Thanks :)
Well, in DAD too, and to a lesser extend AVTAK. That said in DAD it was triggered by this false perception, just like in YOLT it was a pale copy of TB.
Well, you knew what I meant. Dahl saw it as a hard and fast rule that 3 women were needed - the sacrificial lamb, the villainess and the good girl when it had only really ever featured in one film - TB.
The Playboy interview is very funny. I have the impression that Dahl's tongue was at least partway in his cheek
Yes, I've never read the full thing - only an excerpt.
There had only been four movies, at least.
And I think the general public does remember Lazenby, if only as a punchline. It's also just occurred to me that it's kind of weird that we're sitting talking about "the general public" like they're some kind of mystifying other, when we're "the general public" for a great many things. Yes, I know I started the thread.
Bond, post-Moore, (Dalts and Broz) is somewhat experimental, relative to the Connery and Moore eras.
Craig of course is dutifully hailed as ushering in a new era.
This is my sense of public perception, not my own opinion.......which of course is that the Connery era emphatically trumps and squashes everything that has followed. :D
No, I think Blofeld in YOLT was an agent through which the Red Chinese could operate - much like the modern-day Quantum of the Craig era.