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
Nice.
Having said that though those elements didn't make me hate Skyfall (I really enjoyed it - perhaps not as much as others though) and it certainly won't make me hate SPECTRE (the trailers so far have looked great).
I'll buy Trigger Mortis no matter if it is a good book or not, but based on the early reviews it sounds like it is the best of the continuation novels. Horrowitz's personal feelings about Bond certainly won't keep me from purchasing a new Bond book.
Anyway, the writer's line 'I suspect that Fleming would piss magma at the thought of Idris Elba playing Bond' was brilliant.
I think he would have pissed magma but not for any racist views but because he wrote the character with a very particular social background in mind. It's not just about how good the character looks in a suit - black or white.
Regardless, I pre-ordered a few weeks ago and have no intention of cancelling. I hope it's as good as the advance reviews claim!
agreed - people can be way too stuffy about things they like or love... but such is the world of fandom.
i respect Mr Horowitz's opinion on SF, even though we are probably miles apart in it's assessment - it's his opinion, and he's entitled to it.... in a situation like this, i think a lot of people (on both sides) need to learn a simple little word called Tolerance. lol..
where he does leave me miffed is the whole "self doubt" thing.. i would have to hear him explain that in better detail, because Fleming's Bond tend to doubt himself (and sometimes his job) a lot, but he soldiered on.. Dalton said it best in an old on set interview from TLD "Bond is not a superman, he's a very beaten and weathered man." (or something along those lines) - so for Horowitz to say all Bond needs to do is more or less 'drink,kill,win'.... it makes me wonder if he truly understands who the character is?
thats my only concern/complaint..
The self doubt thing doesn't transform well into the movies as has Skyfall shown do blatantly. It simply isn't made for the big screen version of a Bond movie.
The big flaw of Skyfall is exactly that, it tries to show deep character development with Bond, full of self-doubt and angst. You can't have a melodramatic Bond it just doesn't work.
I'm pretty sure he meant it like that and not for the existing novels of Fleming.
This is 2015 not 1962. The threats of the world today take all sorts of sinister obscure guises and interesting heroes worth watching are the one who persevere and persist against all sorts of crazy odds. If the protagonists succeeds then that's great and hallmarks the triumph. If the protagonist fails the least we can expect is to see the trials, the struggles and the embracing of taking on the challenge in order to do succeed and win.
Many people here over the years have expressed how they'd love to see a Bond movie end like the novel version of FRWL where Bond seemingly dies. Now, it's a huge problem if Bond isn't swagger-dickering around where his biggest challenge is, if he can prevent spilling his martini while simultaneously unleashing his "patronas" charm from his magic stick and sending his adversary to a dirt nap.
I don't think Bond has become weak at all. I think humanising him to the degree in which he has been conveyed in the Craig era is a welcome departure from the unflappable superman he ended up becoming. Ironically enough, it's this more humanised take on the character where we see him putting his duty above all else in his life and seeing him never giving up and striving to achieve his aims and objectives where we see an almost terminator/superman character shine through but it's done in a credible way. It's actually inspiring to see when done right.
SF is ridiculously flawed but if one can't see where, why and how Bond's state of mind has affected him physically as well as emotionally then I don't know what to say. However, I will point out that the instant he realised his country was in trouble he didn't hesitate to haul himself back to where he needed to be; working. That's no sign of weakness at all. Furthermore, Bond knew he wasn't ready physically irrespective of what M's reading out his results were. However, he still wanted and intended to get back to work which he did. These are qualities that make for an interesting character to watch and be captivated by. Internal conflicts, defying one's own physical limitations to pull through and get the job done.
I'm all for critical assessments but they have to at least be reasonable and make sense.
"And then there’s Bond himself, who is curiously not quite Bond. He’s still a sexist and a xenophobe, although the narrator no longer endorses this chauvinism. But this Bond is uncharacteristically cultured: he has a habit of literary allusion that suggests a sudden personality change, and when he notes a young woman’s resemblance to Jean Seberg, the implied vision of Bond taking time out from double-O duties to catch a screening of Otto Preminger’s Saint Joan, the only film she’d made in 1957, when the book is set, is almost unbearably funny. Even weirder, this Bond has qualms about killing – not the after-the-fact ruefulness on show at the beginning of Goldfinger, but a genuine respect for human life that intercedes in acts of violence. As revolting as Fleming’s hero is, I prefer the Bond who squirts Oddjob out of a plane window like toothpaste to this merciful, interior-monologuing shadow. Horowitz certainly comes closer than most to solving the Bond conundrum, but Trigger Mortis is in many ways inferior to the Alex Riders as Fleming fan service. The insoluble problem with Bond, in the end, is Bond."
All this sounds good to me. :)
This article cracked me up:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2015/09/breaking-bond-ceiling-won-t-solve-british-cinema-s-race-problems
Not a fan of Bond, Ditum? LOL.
You can get hints and measures of character without having to do all this navel-gazing; Dalton managed it quite nicely up front in TLD, and I think the tiny quiet desperation of Connery's 'we'll double it' in FRWL shows this is no superman here. You don't need the extreme they've gone to with the reboot era, PLUS it is ham-handed treatment, which is the real problem. Maybe they need to spell it out for the lowest common denominator, but if that's the case, why aren't they just keeping it all lowbrow, so you don't have the expectation of something serious and then have that undermined by incompetent execution?
respectfully disagree... ticket sales - critic reviews - and box office revenue i think has proved that wrong... all three Craig films have been box office successes, and 2 out of 3 have been critical successes - with QOS, the problem was the lack of a coherent story and direction (in terms of editing and camera work) more than anything else - never once did i hear about Craig, or his portrayal of Bond as being the issue (in any of the films).... if this style of Bond wasn't translating with the public, then SF would've fallen flat on it's face... the 50th Anniversary hype might get butts in the seats for the first week or two, but if a film doesn't have legs beyond that, then it falls big time - SF hung around for almost 4 months.
i dont mind them visiting Bond's past in these films - as long as they don't take up residence ;)
Anyway, I suppose we should all get back to talking about the literary Bond... :)
I think there's an exaggerated overreaction towards Bond's character building and I think it may have been jarring first some because it was the first time in 50 years we were seeing some of Bond's backstory, which may or may not tarnish tge mystery of what's unknown about Bond. The good news is, at least it's not Bond himself pushing his own backstory to the forefront. He'd rather ignore or simply just not talk about his past.
SP like SF delves into Bond's past again but how much and how deep we don't know yet and I'm hoping it's not a lot but so far overall, I think the character exploration and building has been good so far.
The fact of the matter being that cinema Bond has had virtually nothing to do with the books since 'Thunderball'.
Connery's first four were pretty faithful interpretations with the novels being adapted with a pace and élan suitable for the early '60s.
Since then eon have skilfully adjusted a super hero franchise to feed the changing appetite of cinema goers. This is all well and good but it doesn't at all represent Fleming's creation and claims that Craig's Bond is closer to Fleming or that Dalton did it better or that Brosnan would have been Ian's 007 if the studio had let him etc..etc... are all complete and utter balderdash.
If you want to know what Fleming's Bond is like. Read his books, it's that simple. Amongst many other things, he's a character deeply rooted in the '50s who is dealing with the post war world, the decline of the British empire and all that was relevant at that time.
That is why Anthony Horowitz has chosen to set his novel after his favourite Fleming, 'Goldfinger'. A very smart move that probably motivated him hugely and hopefully he's produced his best work. I'll give you my verdict on that next week.
In the run up to this great event he was asked by the Mail about Elba playing Bond in a movie and he gave a perfectly elegant and respectful response.
He perceives Elba as 'street' because of his performance in the excellent 'Wire' and the thoroughly awful 'Luther'. Not surprising as it's completely normal to judge actors by their previous roles.
Horowitz and I are about the same age and when I think of Bond movies there is only early Connery. I discovered 007 mainly through the novels and I respond with that vision in mind and within that context, Elba playing Bond is about as sensible as having Benedict Cumberbatch playing Shaft. Doubtless Benedict could stagger around Harlem with Isaac Hayes playing in the background but he would be about as relevant to Ernst Tidyman's original creation as chalk is to cheese.
That said, within the eon context, Elba doubtless could play Bond. Indeed, we could even have a female Bond. They could both be perfect twists in an ever changing franchise.
All of this has absolutely nothing to do with racism. The very suggestion is ridiculous and Elba probably knows it. It's to do with one man's vision of Fleming's Bond, not eon's hero.
Since then he's apologised, I've no idea why, other than the you have to apologise for everything these days. The tabloid media have got hold of it and spun it to Armageddon (beware The Witch Of Wapping is back) but I have a simple message for the movie fans.
Enjoy your eon Bond, I am sure he is great fun and post Craig will doubtless be played by many different actors and maybe Idris Elba and Benedict Cumberbatch could be two of them but don't get confused, they won't have anything to do with Fleming's creation.
And,in the highly unlikely event that Fleming's Bond ever hit's the screen again, Sam Riley or Michael Fassbender would be great choices. Maybe they could play Bond in a film version of TriggerMortis?
Fabulous!
Agreed. Well put.
The only thing I will add is that the cinematic Bond has never entirely been Fleming's Bond. Not necessarily because of Connery's portrayal but because of the script.