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
Really? You must give me the name of your occultist.
On the other hand, I haven't had any deal-breaker issue with the Craig Bond films or really any Bond films since I started watching in the mid-70s. Maybe starting with Moore Bond led me to dial into the moments I liked (Bond getting pushed out of a plane at altitude without a chute) and to ignore others (Jaws bringing down the big top). And for the last five, I don't even have any call-outs for that kind of thing.
Especially at this point, I trust the judgment of the producers and look forward to the next mission whenever it arrives.
EON: it's been shown in many ways, in particular with the general audience. Think about the jarring tone in particular with going from Moore to Dalton. It's in someways better that the same creative team behind Moore's later movies, as Dalton's. As new writers and a new director would have made the shift more noticeable, in more ways than one. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't moment for Bond, perhaps the biggest one of all. Simply due to change. Or look at Moore, always signing up at the last minute. If NSNA wasn't released, we probably would have gotten James Brolin as Bond. For me, another reason I wish NSNA was never made. This is an example of the EON behind the scenes people not wanting change. Arguably, out of ego. But it overall did hurt Dalton at the time. The same thing arguably happened with EON with Daniel Craig and their main writers, in the last era. EON didn't want to change. Now they arguably have no choice. The fans probably want a number of changes for Bond's cinematic future.
IFP: They held onto John Gardener for too long. It was shown in the creative side of him. Raymond Benson actually did the right amount. But you could tell when he was a beginning author, and when he wanted out. Then, IFP let the adult Bond sit unfairly, when a new adult novel could have easily fit in (a novelization of Everything or Nothing would be one of my choices). Now, for the fans side of things, for IFP. Since DMC by Faulks, the fans have had mixed feelings about IFP's choices. The "Faulks writing as Fleming" enraged a lot of fans, in particular because Faulks added nothing new, or pushed Bond forward. When Deaver did his own spin on Bond, people felt like it wasn't Bond, particularly Bond's character. When IFP heard this, they stayed in Fleming's timeline. William Boyd and Solo was a true mixed bag for both fans and IFP. It did arguably paid off with the Horowitz beginning, middle, and end Bond trilogy. Next, when IFP announced spin-offs, fans weren't happy. The Kim Sherwood duology (hopefully trilogy) was given mixed opinions (although A Spy Like Me has more positive than negative opinions). A unique experiment for sure. Now, let's see if The Q Mysteries (Quantum of Menace) will work. IFP planned more than one story for these, so it's truly a test of faith. I have always been happy that these spinoffs are in the present day. That's when Fleming wrote his classic stories. Setting Bond and his world in the past isn't a big creative risk taker. As fans have often said, no one can truly write like Fleming. And it's a hard fact that fans have to face.
Would you rather have Brolin instead of Connery?
I think we dodged a bullet.
"We are all individuals!" - "I'm not..."
I can't take Brolin seriously. I think it was all a negotiating ploy from Cubby.
John Gavin is the bullet we dodged. Terrible actor, without the sexual charisma of Lazenby. Gavin would have killed Bond for good.
I do wonder why the fascination with American actors? First Gavin and then Brolin.
As for whether Bond fans are not open to change, I would answer that there is a nuance here. Die hard fans, folks like us are highly protective of the character and have definitive ideas on what we like to see. We then have the general public and those casual fans. These make up most of the Box Office. A film series must deliver to the general public in order to survive and thrive.
A Bond movie used to have a built in expectation from the general audience: there will be pretty women, gadgets, a dastardly villain, exotic locales. The Craig era played with those expectations. Gadgets were dialed way back, the dastardly villain wasn't Larger than Life. This didn't impact the BO in an negative way, though there was a drop off from CR to QOS in terms of Box Office.
Hard core fans I think are opinionated on what makes a Bond film. The current tone of the fans seems to put a higher value of the "serious" tone of the films. However I think tonal shifts should be welcomed and embraced. If the next fella has a similar arc as Craig I am not sure how that plays for both hardcore and general fans alike.
I guess what I am saying is that the resistant to change group may not fully embrace the new guy. Just like when Craig was cast there was much vitriol without a single frame of film being shot never mind shown.
Interesting times ahead.
I always say that if you let the majority of fans run away with creating their own Bond film, you'd ultimately just end up with FRWL or DN again :))
But of course this is just all in my opinion.
I think he's referring to Fleming's desire to kill bond in FRWL, and ending the book as such and being pressured by publishers to continue the character afterwards, so he "retconned his survival" in a way. That's why "killed" was in quotes in the OP I imagine.
And then YOLT kind of being a symbolic end to the character. In my own "headcanon", YOLT kind of is the end of the Bond franchise. I think TMWTGG was really helped in a way when Horowitz wrote With A Mind To Kill.
But yeah, Bond's greatest arch-nemesis really was Fleming at the end of the day. That guy was out to kill him constantly.
Clearly Bond did actually die in FRWL, and the last Fleming novels are him imagining his future in his final seconds. Explains why the books become increasingly more fantastical from DN onwards....
Maybe anyway... ;)
Don't forget that it doesn't make any difference if the James Bond of FRWL survived or died, since we know that both "James Bond" and "007" are just code names assigned to whoever fills the position. As a veteran member of this board, you should have mentioned it. ( >:) )
Don't give Eon any ideas on how to explain away the ending to NTTD. ;)
Nonsense. Bond is clearly living in a simulation and this explains every single inconsistency or plot hole in these films/books. New thread to follow shortly with me outlining this theory in precise detail…
I suppose they did that in YOLT the novel and SF, and somewhat in DN the novel with the change from the Baretta. It's these vulnerabilities that deepen the Bond character and give his story an arc.
Oh interesting! Thanks for this insight!
I'm reading TB right now and M sends him there because he notices that Bond is not in peak condition. Too much alcohol and cigarettes has clouded Bond's performance both mentally and physically. Basically it's a detox assignment.
I find it interesting anyway. It paints a picture that not all 'change' with a series like Bond is ever black and white, and there's also a fundamental conservatism in how the films are made/approached.