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
What i hear a lot is they are GREAT action films, but they are not really James Bond films. Not that I agree.
Ive never once heard this.
What I do like about Harris is that she is so very English.
Pamela Salem in NSNA was very close to Maxwell and Bliss was clearly working with the Maxwell model too. It all changed with Sammy IMO.
Therefore Harris' casting wasn't really that radical. The horse was already out of the barn, same as the Leiter horse was long ago let loose.
And again MP, is not very well realized in Fleming's books. She makes very brief appeances. She is not fleshed out.
Maxwell worked the character far more than Fleming ever did.
Even Q is more a movie creation. His age, IMO doesn't matter because Q is a title. Its not the same person from actor to actor, with the possible exception of Peter Burton in DN to Llewellyn,.
I can't remember, was Llewellyn ever referred to as Major Boothroyd?
Sorry, but I just don't believe this unless you've only talked to 5 people. Bond is the longest running film franchise in history, had made 20 films that had been seen by 3 billion people before Craig and is a cultural icon on both sides of the Atlantic. Unless you have a very limited group of friends the odds that none of them liked Bond pre-2006 is small.
DN and FRWL..it was not until GF that he was named Q.
YES! That's it! Thanks @Murdock!
You're welcome. @chrisisall. >:D<
DAD put plenty of bums on seats, OHMSS not so much so I'd be wary of bandying this about as an indicator of success.
But that wasn't your argument. You suggested...
To which people suggested you must have spoken to a very small group, and I'd agree. The 'classic' Bond's, if you will, still hold more weight around the world than the new films. They have cemented their reputation in popular and that cannot be argued. It will still take time for the DC films to be recognised in such a way. I'm sure they will be remembered fondly.
Indeed we can. If I had to choose between taking to the first 20 films to a desert island or the 3 DC's, it's goodbye DC.
3-400,000 per is not pulling in an audience-?? You must give me the name of your bean counter.
I know a few people who prefer the Craig films and I know more people who love the early films, many who prefer them to Craig. I guess it depends who you talk to. The Craig films have certainly brought new fans to the franchise, but I refuse to believe they all dislike the old films. Any youngsters I know who've been brought to Bond via Craig are like kids in a candy store when they discover there are 20 more titles featuring the character.
Skyfall took $1Billion at the US box office thats GE, DAD and TND added together. Theres your bean counter!.
;)
And IMAX tickets at the best part of £20 a pop. That's not even inflation, that's absurd.
Jolly good!
Our collective Bond IQ's are that much further enhanced.
That said she is a total hottie. [I am not sexist her just factual]
Ie if you talked to some 14 year old coming out of SF, and he really liked the movie but wasn't obsessed like us, he would probably be inclined to check out the most recent offerings. Going back for the previous 20 films over 50 years, would be a lot of work. A chore even.
In fact I was talking to some teenagers in the QoS line-up back in 08. These guys had no interest in the older films. They hadn't even seen them. They were worried they would be too low tech. I think their interest might have extended back to the Brozzer era but no further. To them, going back any further, was like watching "old" movies.
I told them, the old movies were way better. They gave me a withering look.
Now, I could see a 14 year-old version of myself in 2012 marching off to cinema with the brat pack to watch SF.
SF probably would have been hooked me into Bond fandom, and I would have immediately sought out every film in the series, and eventually the Fleming books.
But that's me, a hardcore fan. I think we all had roughly the same experience.
Our first exposure hooked us, and we sought out the rest, but anyone else is probably not going to make the effort. There is so much media competing for our time.
I think teenagers in the Broz era probably embraced that era as their own too, and unless they were hardcore and hooked on Bond himself, might not have made big effort to visit the older films.
I have relatives that are 19 and 14. Both have seen the last two Bond films, quite liked them, and will certainly see SP, when it comes out.
Neither has expressed any interest in the older films,and that includes the Broz films. They got too much else gong on, making demands on their eyeballs.
So no, I am not schocked that young people prefer the Craig films. These films are of their era, but the hardcore, those that become initiated into Bondom, I'm sure are still going back and devouring the whole canon asap, and then reading those Fleming novels, which keep getting re-printed.
And something else to consider, when it comes to box-office. TB is still the second hightest grossing Bond film of all time, adjusted for inflation. All these films have made serious cash, including DAD.
Eon switched gears because they suddenly had the rights to CR, and wanted to change things up with a re-boot and a new approach, not because they weren't making money.