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
I didn't realize that there are right and wrong opinions...
With any role there are multiple interpretations. You mention the current incarnation of Poirot yet Peter Ustinov (!) played him in some popular TV movies - popular enough that I believe that 5 or 6 were made. So obviously the public accepted his version of the role. Albert Finney played the character and received an Oscar nomination. Neither of them look like the character as described in the books yet they gave good (and accepted performances).
There will always be different interpretations of Bond (and Sherlock Holmes, and Hamlet...). Some you will like and some you won't. But the great thing is that you are free to like whichever ones that you do...as are other people. Just because someone has different tastes than you doesn't mean that they're wrong.
Seems so simple doesn't it? Yet I'm being told to watch an old Cook and Moore sketch to understand Daniel Craig's deficiencies?
Excellent post as ever @thelordflasheart
I don't understand why people, who have been blessed with "enlightenment", use a discussion forum after all! There is no benefit whatsoever in mere mortals' opinons like ours for them, of course. This must be very frustrating, indeed. I can understand that this causes anger. To avoid more, I'd advise them to let us perish and just leave...
Thanks Lordflashheart for your support! Obviously the new boy knows far more than me? Thats why he has so many posts! :)) I thought this forum was a democratic place for sharing thoughts and views? Silly me hey! Its a dictatorship! Why don't you calm down Jason19, take a few deep breaths and go back to stroking your white persian cat! =))
James Bond is not an action movies? since when? do you think Dr NO - DAF were not action movies? what are they soap opera kind of movies?
So Real Bond fans definitions according to you are:1.JAMES BOND SHOULD BE LIKE CONNERY LAZENBY AND DALTON
2.CONSIDER THEIR BOND MOVIES NOT AN ACTION MOVIES
3.INHABITANT oF ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD,
so i am not real bond fans then? because
I like Connery Lazenby, Dalton AND CRAIG
I am from Indonesia (i don't think we EASTERNERS have control the output and look set to do so)
I think you are generalized things too simple old timer...and a bit racist too for bringing up "non english speaking word"
I think not every OLD GUARD feel the suffer like you did..
I don't know who YOU think you are? But on here we are a community of BOND FANS! From all round the world and you should grow up and respect that before you start bleating out your know all attitude.
I welcome healthy discussion from people all over the world whether they differ to mine or not? If you cannot handle being criticsed here in grown up world isuggest you actually go and create your OWN little forum where you rule? Here however? The good people who are grown up will not stand for your childish offensive comments.
Interesting interpretation...can you please explain the logic that led to such a conclusion?
I'm curious as to which camp I fall into according to your binary definitions of people here. My top three Bond films are CR, then OHMSS, then FRWL. I love the style of FRWL but also love the intense, brutal fight between Bond and Red Grant. OHMSS had great style, great direction and editing, and also some amazingly potent punchups that still pack a whallop today. CR had some great action (although less of a "car chase" than some Connery films) but also some beautiful cinematography and great character moments.
So I appreciate and rate the "atmosphere ambience/ style of the films" yet I don't mind that Craig has blond hair and is an inch shorter than Fleming's Bond. I think it's important to note that I'm also not fussed that Connery had brown eyes, that Lazenby didn't have "cruel eyes and a cruel mouth", and that neither were given a three inch scar down their face. I don't require a car chase or an explosion in a Bond film (although both were present from Dr. No onwards) although if they're well-done I appreciate them.
Also, I don't like Stallone in "anything". I appreciate his performances in the original Rocky, in Cop Land, and in Antz but have caught bits of his movies on TV that I didn't like.
So now that I know that I'm allowed to like only some aspects of Bond films and not others, or some Bond films but not others, and only Bond films but not "action movies" I guess I have some thinking to do and then some choices to make...or it could be that Bond fans don't fit into your personal narrow preconceptions and have minds of their own. Hmm, I wonder which proposal is true..?
Sure, only you and Timmer are 'true Bond fans'.[/quote]
Bye. Ask Timmer for an address where your line of reasoning is quite common, you'll feel much more at home there.
Keep in touch! ;)
Not that it matters what some long dead dinosaur thought anyway ;)
btw, Fleming wrote Bond as 183 cm, 6' even and that was 60 years ago. 6 decades later, when the average height of white males is slightly higher than what it was more than half a century ago, suddenly James Bond has shrunk on screen, and by two whole inches to boot!!
So it's not terribly outrageous to suggest that Craig might be a bit of a James Bond shortie, even based on Fleming's description, never mind the height of the actors that preceded him.
Personally, apart from hair color (Moore had dark blonde hair as well), facially he looks similar to how I picture Fleming's Bond when I read the books (and I started reading them in the early 80s). Cruel mouth and looks like he means business. Sort of a rugged Hoagy Carmichael.
Facially Craig looks a bit like the Bond of the McLusky comics:
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/comics/images/bond_mclusky.jpg
I often remember Vivienne Michel's reaction when she answers the door of the motel, with Horror and Sluggsy already there and scaring the hell out of the girl. She opens and thinks "Oh no, not another thug!" or something like it. That's Bond's face.
did Fleming wrote Bond wearing toupee also?
did Fleming wrote Bond look bored and little bit fatty like in DAF?
http://7olhares.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/ghostposter.jpg
Seriously, IMO he has the "cold eyes" and the "cruel mouth" one associates with the original Bond.
No but he did write him as having a full head of dark hair, which is why Sean adopted a toupee, otherwise we would have had a bald Bond. This is what actors do. They attempt to look the part. Actually he didn't IIRC, but if you don't like Connery's casting, you could always write a letter of complaint to EON, albeit 42 years after the fact.
if he an actors attempt to look the part so why he didn't put thin vertical scar on his right cheek?
Yes he did look bored, and fatty.
I like Connery's casting, why you assume i didn't like him? what i don't like is statement sound like "if an actor want to play Bond, he must have all Connery qualities (styles,attitude,moves) ,other than that the actor is properly miscasting". Every Bond actors admire him, but it doesn't mean they HAVE to copies all Connery approach to the character, if they do that the franchise is all about Connery not Bond.
I never complaint about Connery casting, i am only disagreeing with you, who always complaint Craig doesn't fit physically with Fleming description (shorter, blond) , same like Connery who ALSO didn't fit exactly with the literary character either (NO ONE DOES).
Our friend Jason19's point is well taken. Namely that you can put Bond fans in two camps: those that cherish the traditional Bond-screen persona as presented by Connery, for the first 5 films, (Bondmania etc, before anyone else even had a sniff at the role) or a second group who are more at ease with departures from that original depiction.
In a recent article posted on mi6-hq.com, Bond co-producer Michael G Wilson gives a brief overview of 5 Bonds in USA Today, and I rightly agree that Daniel Craig has brought in a much more rougher and tougher image to Bond which compliments all the past 5 Bond actors. But I fail to agree with Michael's last comment that although there have been many imitators that Bond was the first one that was an anti-hero?
Come on, Michael! Bond had always been a hero until recently. From what we have seen from the times of Sean Connery Bond had never failed to save the World from ghastly organisations and masterminds.
Bond had always come forward to save people's lives. Yes, the Bond character has had his dark side depicted in films but I thought that he had always been in check and that he knew who the good guys were, that is all we needed to know about Bond until now.
When Sean came out to play James Bond, he played the part of a heroic spy. Whilst I do agree that the more recent incarnations of Bond have turned on the heroic nature of the character to bring a more tarnished and greyer scaled characterization of our character, I disagree with the anti-hero depiction towards Bond as a character on this count: Police Forces have an armed unit but they have a responsibility to protect the public. This whole anti-hero debate stems on whether law enforcers should be passive enforcers or not.
The world is not coloured in only two colours (black and white) and Bond has always seen the bigger picture. While I do agree that recent Bond films have shown a more irresponsible Bond this was not how the character was first brought out to be and what he truly stood for. It is a sad day when we hear Bond being called an anti-hero and this is due to the fact that many writers have tried to darken the character and show he lacks judgement and the capacity to distinguish between what is right and what is ethically wrong. The ethics of spying should always be maintained and upheld.
With kind regards,
Neil Mukherjee Esq.
Might help to look at the definition of antihero to get what Wilson's saying. Antihero is generally defined as a protagonist whose character is contrary to that of the archetypal hero, yet typically retains many heroic qualities. Some consider the word's meaning to be sufficiently broad as to additionally encompass an antagonist who, in contrast to the archetypal villain, elicits considerable sympathy or admiration. Antihero isn't somebody who can't distinguish right from wrong, that would include every dolt. Antihero is a character who has both good and bad traits.
Going by this Bond is an antihero for sure. He can be selfish at times, prone to drink and women and earthly joys. He doesn't look for higher spheres and epiphany and some such. And he most certainly isn't a saint, not even a gentleman. The notion of the knight in shining armour would have Bond rolling on the floor with laughter.
Yep, he is also a St. George/dragonslayer, only the modern variant, at the same time depicted as ordinary man. He's not really ordinary, sure, but the story pretends he is. Bond is one of the first characters in thrillers that isn't depicted as just a noble simpleton. He has feelings and like with all of us his feelings aren't all about being good and helpful.
Ethics? Look for that in religion. Spying needs the absence of ethics.
Nonsense, duty has nothing to do with being an antihero or not.