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
This maybe be a very controversial opinion around here but I think the lair escape scene in Spectre would have been vastly improved if Bond had required Madeleine to help him escape, rather than come out of the torture sequence killing baddies and escaping on Agent difficulty.
Well, maybe I'd have settled for a 50/50 share of the arse kicking, or maybe I just didn't warm to that particular actress or the maybe it was the way the part was written?
Pam Bouvier has been ranked 7th worst Bond girl ever (Dr Christmas Jones at #1)
I'd be ok with that, if it was done right, if Bond is still a bit under the weather. But Madeleine is only a psychologist, so she should help Bond with her brain rather than by kicking arse. Maybe shoot the odd henchman or brain them with a blunt instrument?
Why? It’s established earlier in the film that she knows how to handle guns, so I see no reason why they couldn’t have had her using a gun to help assist Bond escape.
If I had to rewrite the scene, I’d have BOTH Bond and Madeleine shoot their way out of the complex. Would even give Craig a Lazenby moment where he looks over at her and says to himself “good girl” with a twinkle in his eye.
It is strange that they devote an entire scene earlier to show that she knows her way around handguns and then do absolutely nothing with it.She just goes into Mary Goodknight mode when Bond starts shooting the place up.
I wouldn’t say she stooped to Goodnight levels. It’s not like her bum presses a button that sets of the demolition of MI6.
Oh, what I wouldn't give for that to be a deleted scene.
I still think she wouldn't want to be responsible, directly or indirectly, of his death.
I always felt there was something missing from SP and now I know what it is
I don't think we had to imagine him as Bond before he got cast though, he just had to be capable. And I'd say Fourth Protocol shows it very well, and I'd have liked that version of Pierce in Daylights. I'm glad we got both Dalton and Brosnan in the end, but I can imagine Daylights being more popular with him in the lead and changing the direction of the series. I guess the issue is that he may well have been a two and done lead as well, considering the legal problems.
Just needed a Roger quip!
Unlike Dalton, I think Brosnan would have gladly want to return after the hiatus.
And here’s something controversial: Judi Dench didn’t do much with the part, aside from GE and TND. Yell at Bond, say that he’s the best person they have, and take all the credit for herself. I know that’s a trademark of a Purvis and Wade script, but they can improve with Ralph Fiennes coming back without them. That’s why I like Bond and M’s relationship in TND: she trusts him, gives him the assignment, and is happy to help him, while giving him credit.
I think it's less about whether the actor wanted to return and more about if the studio wanted them :)
As I say, I suspect Brosnan may have been a bigger hit, so they may well have wanted him back. We just had a similar-sized gap between Craig films, after all.
I've always felt there is more than an element of truth in that. The official story goes that Dalton wanted to move on by 1994. Despite what many of us in the fan community think of him (I think he was great, as was his 2 outings BTW) the general public didn't seem to take to him. At least that's what the box office numbers said at the time.
I believe there was more to it than that and he was released from the role to boost and relaunch the series.
There is precedent for telling fibs to protect the actor don't forget. " Yes Timothy Dalton was always our first and only choice circa 1986" as Brosnan drowns his sorrows!
And yes I know the creative team were pressing on with films number 3 and maybe even 4 with TD in the role and he was close with the Broccoli family etc etc but I think at best it was a 'mutual' decision taken for the health of the property spun to show Dalton the respect he deserved.
Some of the high-up folks in MGM/UA have since said that they made it clear they didn't want him back for B17.
Maybe it was indeed mutual and Dalton didn't want to do it either, but I think the key thing is that even if he had wanted to do it, he wouldn't have actually been in it :)
I also wonder why he wouldn't want to do it. It's not like he had a load of pressing important work to do. Playing Rhett Butler? Beautician and the Beast? Considering he has this image of a great thespian of the stage, he doesn't half do a lot of crap :D
So the idea he'd refuse to star in a massive popcorn movie doesn't quite seem to align with his resumé of work..
From Some Kind of Hero
Jeff Kleeman and Alan Ladd Jr both say there how they didn't want to develop a new film with Dalton, and although the Broccolis made the case for him they had to accept the decision.
Yes, MGM / United Artists refused to fund Bond 17 unless Dalton was replaced. Jeff Kleeman, who was the Executive Vice President of Production at the time, told Ajay Chowdhury and Matthew Field in 2015 that "The Dalton Bonds had not performed significantly well at the box office. We were trying to grapple with the fact that the Dalton movies were not the most beloved of Bond films. We were trying to introduce Bond to a new audience. It seemed counterintuitive to what we were trying to accomplish, to continue with Timothy at that point [...] Barbara, Michael and Cubby made the case for Timothy. They did genuinely love him and for good reason. I'm sure they were disappointed we didn't want to make it with Timothy."
Yeah I tend to agree there. Why would Dalton only want to do one? Look at the other rubbish he was doing :D
I do also wonder if Kleeman/Ladd might also be retroactively taking the credit for Brosnan's success by saying they specified no-Dalton, but you'd think they would have said they told Eon to 'get Brosnan' if that were the case.
Ian Fleming-Richard Maibaum, Terence Young, Sean Connery. They defined James Bond forever, and the role models for all of the people who make James Bond materials.
Kingsley Amis-Peter Hunt, George Lazenby. They learned from the best, and it showed. It’s a bit sad that they didn’t get a second Bond adventure.
John Gardener-Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton, Roger Moore, John Glen, Michael G. Wilson. They may have stayed on the series too long. They also made the series too silly. However, they deserve credit for helping keeping the series alive.
Raymond Benson-Judi Dench, Roger Spottiswoode, Pierce Brosnan, Barbara Broccoli, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Sam Mendes. They helped modernize Bond, but their styles and themes could be a bit cringe-worthy at times.
Sebastian Faulks-Lee Tamahori, Marc Forster. They didn’t get or even like James Bond. What were the higher level people thinking of hiring these overdramatic art-house hacks? Thankfully, we got a better follow up because of them.
Jeffery Deaver-Michael Apted, Bruce Feirstein. They gave a more humanized Bond, with feelings and emotion about others. They also gave us some great female villains. I’m personally biased towards them as TWINE was the first Bond movie I watched, and CB was the first Bond novel I read.
William Boyd-Timothy Dalton. Solo could have been TD’s final film. Their portrayals of Bond are very similar. Flawed, but could be seen as aging well for everyone to look at in more ways than one.
Anthony Horowitz-Martin Campbell, Daniel Craig. The true successors to their original people who started the series: Novelists, directors, and actors. They get Ian Fleming and James Bond more than anyone working (and alive). As of now, they have ended on a high note in their time with James Bond.
She’s pretty much useless during the final act though I would love to have seen what you suggested there! 😆
It’s good, but I think it’s bloated and lacks focus. I remember reading a review saying it’s essentially three films in one, and I think that’s bang on. The first film is an action thriller about the bombmaker and the plane. It’s a good introduction to this dangerous and reckless new Bond, with some thrilling action, but a lot of it feels superfluous. I think everything it needs to do (establish this new Bond’s recklessness and set up Le Chieffre’s money troubles) it could do in one set piece. Make the failed attack part of the parkour somehow. Not sure you need the stuff in Miami, despite it being fairly enjoyable. The next film is an adaptation of the novel. That bit is perfect, I wouldn’t change any of that. But I think getting there sooner by trimming down Miami would give us more time there, and put more focus on Bond and Vesper. Finally the last film is Venice. Never liked that bit, and that review summed up why it doesn’t work for me. It suddenly turns into Quantum of Solace. Puts the action first to the point that its grounded twisty spy narrative gets confusing. I think I’d have gone with the book ending myself. It’s already an unconventional Bond film, they could’ve beefed up the car chase if we needed a final setpiece, and the plot is essentially over when Le Chiffre dies. That bit is a character focused epilogue.
Do that and you’d have a much shorter film, but a much better one imo. As it stands, while there’s a lot to admire in CR, I prefer the Mendes movies and NTTD. As well as better succeeding in what they’re trying to do (imo of course), I think they just have more style about them too. Campbell could do an action scene like nobody else, but I don’t think the casino scenes feel as sexy and dangerous as they should, and CR as a whole feels quite “standard 2000s action thriller” at times aesthetically. The later Craig films feel a bit more elegant and Bond to me. And NTTD managed that without sacrificing any of CR’s virility and brutality, showing that it doesn’t have to be one or the other.