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
And that works both ways too-- they cut a lousy two seconds from Licence to Kill to avoid the R rating back in 1989, but if the movie was released today nobody would have thought twice about it.
I think that no Bond movie will ever be rated R-- but only because all movies push the envelope further as time goes on
I agree, I mean first off, it's simply not necessary. All the others have been great without the material suited for an R rating, so it's clearly not a matter of success. Also, a good movie is not determined by the level of inappropriate things thrown in for the public's amusement. Secondly, as you said, it just isn't right. You don't get along 50 years in one film franchise by "mixing it up a little bit" with the ratings just for the sake of it.
Oh no.....is @TouchMyButtons actually @DRESSED_TO_KILL? I've heard of the sneaky members around here who create multiple user-names for themselves. I wouldn't have figured this out on my own, honestly. Do you really think it's him, Brady? I'd be surprised!
It's him for sure. He's posted the same pics of himself from other threads, and he's also posted his famous argument on how 9/11 was an inside Job and how the CIA is responsible for the JFK assassination on both accounts, plus he used the same exact profile picture. It's really sad.
Well if that happen at least we get to see how Bond "please" the girl in bed.
=P~
If you honestly believe 9/11 was an inside job that the CIA had caused then you are very naive and one dimensional ..do some research buddy
@Murdock Just to warn you, by research, he means go on this website full of conspiracy theorists like him.
Yeah I know, I've seen the website he used to post around as @TouchMyButtons. It's rather sickening, but people have their beliefs.
As for R-Rated Bond movies? No thanks. Licence to Kill and Skyfall come pretty close and I love those movies ;).
Someone said in another thread a while back that he would love Bond to kill a henchman/flunky, then say "F*** you" and spit on the body. This is to me the way a 14 year old who is angry at the world thinks. He's so full of anger and hate at how powerless he is and how horrible that his life is that any situation where someone has power over someone else (such as Bond killing someone) has to be done to such an incredible extreme to combat those feelings of worthlessness. But Bond isn't a 14 year old loser. Projecting the feelings of a 14 year old onto Bond doesn't work because that's not his character. It's like when you read some of the lines that young guys think that Bond should use on women - they are thinking from their own point of view instead of Bond's.
Basically it comes down to this - I think that a 14 year old like the one described above (and I don't think that's what all 14 year olds are like) should try to be more like Bond, rather than thinking that Bond should be more like him.
I don't know; in some ways I think aiming for an R rating would better allow a director to show the levels of violence inherit in Bond's world a little more graphically than they have previously been able to, but is that worth the possible trade-off in potential revenue? I'm not at all sure it is.
I agree with you that it would show a much more brutal world of Bond, but a bit more blood, gore, and nudity shouldn't be replaced with the possibility of more at the box office. Once they do this, the films will make nowhere near the amount they make today. They should keep at the successful formula they have now.
But I think Bond movies souldn't be that violent or explicit. Certanly the books are not like that, neither Cubby's picture of the films.
As long as Pesci murders someone with a pen, I'm in.
It could be Frank Vincent.
You probably don't even know the real facts of the date in question. What a joke. Go on infowars and spam it up with your theories. Don't bring them here and make your own thread you created with another account go more off topic than it already has.
I feel the same way about nudity and violence in a Bond film. I think that CR did a great job of making the violence more potent and real without having to show anything that would suit the TV show Dexter better. Seeing Bond all bloody after the stairwell fight was plenty effective, and still is now even though the immediate contrast to previous Bond films (when his hair wouldn't even get mussed) has diminished.
As for Brosnan, as I recall he was strangely angry that they had to keep reshooting his love scene with Elektra because her nipple showed in the shot. He asked why it would have been so bad to have seen it but the obvious counterpoint is how would it have made the scene better?
It wouldn't have been EON, it would have been "the studio" concerned about the rating the film would receive. There's a big difference between seeing a naked nipple and seeing someone wearing a wet tee shirt (at least according to the film ratings boards). At least in North America you couldn't really see anything with Richard's wet shirt.
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11800000/the-world-is-not-enough-denise-richards-11831724-1024-768.jpg