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
Which is what i wanted to say right off so people know what my opinion is and im entitled to it.I dont continually go on and on about it or insult other fans like Thunderfinger does.
And as you haven't been here long, you have no idea as to other member's sense of humour. @Thunderfinger is very tongue in cheek with his comments, and as he is currently receiving our appreciation in another thread, probably best to shut up and not label him as a troll.
He even publicly said so more than once. Problem is some people on this forum seem to think, that it was Craig single-handedly ,who forced the producers to change the direction Bond was going. It is simply the way that the producers are calling the shots when it comes to moviemaking, which is quiet reasonable considering that it is their money that is going over the counter. Apted mentions in his interview that there had been a bunch of things,that weren't allowed for him to do with Bond, arguing that Bond simply wouldn't do some things. After DAD and - probably more important - Bourne they simply had convinced themselves that they had to change direction radically, which brought us a 007,that has less and less to do with Mr. Flemings,let alone Connerys/Youngs creation. I would argue, that it was probably the latter with its sublime dark humor and nonchalance (things very much missing in Mr. Flemings early works), that made the franchise such a long enduring success, but that is not the point here. The point is that it was Brosnan,who saved 007 back in the 90ies, as I am pretty much convinced,that no other actor at this time would have fit the picture most people had of James Bond better and drawn so many females into the cinemas at the same time. My girlfriend,which finds Craig likable, still maintains, that in the entire history of mankind there has never been a single moment in which a woman would have noticed Craig, when Brosnan at its prime had been in the same room. This pretty much mirrors the opinions of just about every woman I knew back then. I never ever heard one bad word about him from a girl, neither then nor later!
I wonder, how much truth that held after CR came out. Who you think the majority of women would choose= CR Craig or GE Brosnan? You might still answer Brosnan, because you have to, but looking back at the events after CR came out, I HIGHLY doubt it.
Having said that, I believe, Brosnan with his model looks and rather frail physique was right for his time, as DC is now.
I wonder, how much truth that held after CR came out. Who you think the majority of women would choose= CR Craig or GE Brosnan? You might still answer Brosnan, because you have to, but looking back at the events after CR came out, I HIGHLY doubt it.
Having said that, I believe, Brosnan with his model looks and rather frail physique was right for his time, as DC is now.
[/quote]
I don't know why,but somehow I had a hunch that is would be you, who is answering me first.
I don't know why,but somehow I had a hunch that is would be you, who is answering me first.[/quote]
Considering that I am pretty invisible these days, its quite a good crystal ball you have got yourself. Congrats.
Doesn't change the facts, WHO is answering, don't you think? There is a good chance, that the likes of you would make such a statement, too.
Oh please, Brosnan's Bond get his balls busted by M and Moneypenny, not to mention three of his four films featured a villainess, one of whom royally kicked his ass.
Thanks.Is Thunderfinger really all that bad? Yes,he is and now back on topic. ;)
I'm not sure you quite understand what you're talking about. I could draw parallels with Vesper utterly ripping the heart out of DC's Bond, but I won't, because I'm assuming you've drawn this conclusion through a lack of respect for Brozzer rather than anything deeper.
If you would draw parallels to PB's emasculated Bond to DC's heart-ripped Bond I think you do not know what you are talking about. As far as I know, Bond would never let a woman put him in his place...like that scene in GoldenEye where M gave him a dressing down and he just sat there with a "point taken" comment. Craig's Bond would have called her a bitch to her face.
LOL, exactly!
Considering that I am pretty invisible these days, its quite a good crystal ball you have got yourself. Congrats.
Doesn't change the facts, WHO is answering, don't you think? There is a good chance, that the likes of you would make such a statement, too. [/quote]
I fail to mention any facts in your statement. You see my point is, that Brosnan didn't need any movie at all to be a big hit with the female half of the population. During my study I was working at a survey institute. We had a ratio of probably 80:20 when it came to gals and guys (obviously these were very good times!).When GE was announced there was a lot of chat about the new Bond movie and I can tell you that while - as usual- none of the girls cared too much for Bond they all cared Very much for Brosnan. Listening to them you could get the feeling that he was God's ultimate gift to women and none of them had ever even seen Remington Steele. All they knew about him where a few photos and trailer snippets, but obviously they didn't need to know more about him. I very much doubt that Craig caused a similar stir even after Casino Royale (considering that about 98% of the talk then was about Craig's body). I very much realize that things are very different with you and your hormones, but I dare to say that you are the exception rather than the rule, no matter what century we are talking about.
But that is only because Craig's Bond has not very much to do with Mr. Fleming's creation!
BUT are you really trying to tell these Bond fans here, that Brosnan Bond was more of Fleming Bond then DC? LOL for that...
..and buddy, say away from my hormones, none of your business, I dare say. Just take it easy and don't get emotional.
What I like about Pierce is his engagement for whales. Good man.
Given the fact,that Fleming himself wanted someone like a young David Niven, Cary Grant and even Roger Moore for the role I would certainly argue,that Fleming would have thought so. Also,when people are honest with themselves there are precious few moments in Craig's tenure that are aching to Flemings Bond ( one that would come to mind is the expression on his face,when he kills the guy in the bathroom in the PTS of CR,which in my opinion mirrors quite well Bonds state of mind towards his profession in the novel before he gets the LeChiffre carpet beater treatment).
I have learned by now, that people are not interested int his sort of debate. No Sir...
Fleming wasn't too keen having Sean Connery playing Bond at the beginning (saying some rather unflattering comments if I recalled). But I think he was won over in the end...
That's my point. Fleming considered Connery too big and muscular, also as not refined enough. It stands to reason,that he wouldn't been very enamored by Craig either.
...And yet he ended up making James Bond Scottish. Had Craig been old enough to be cast as Bond in 1962, maybe Bond would have been from Cheshire. Difficult to say what Fleming would have thought of any of the Bond actors now that he is dead.
Given Flemings love for the financial success the Bond movies brought him this might very well the case. But on the other hand Craig still fails to show this distinctive relaxed suaveness Connery displayed from his very first scene,which somehow makes me doubt it. I guess you are right - we will never know!
We will never know, and your opinon is just that yours.
I think that Fleming would have been laughing all the way to the bank.
Charming........bog off.
Fleming started to write to pay for a certain life-style and at a certain point not unlike Arthur Conan Doyle he got stuck with a character the audience really wanted. He did try to kill off his creation a few times.
Flemings vision of James Bond was really different from what we got in the beginning and he was pleased with it nonetheless.
I think we would have gotten an idea of how Fleming would have appriciated the direction EON went had he seen GF, even if the movie improved on his idea of stealing the gold.
I generally think it was sad that Fleming missed his creation going stellar in cinema, and we missing out on a few more 007 books.
However how Fleming would react is speculation as we never know. Most often the speculation dome by members on fora by accident always mirrors their own opinion. Why would that be?
And I'm terribly off topic. I might create a thread comparing both characters and their world.