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
He also couldn't bring himself to shoot Scaramanga in the back of the head when he's riding in the car in TMWTGG. That book and GF are always the examples I go to whenever people make out that Fleming's Bond was this remorseless cold blooded killer.
I don't have an issue with Bond being labelled an assassin, because he is. But he's not just an assassin. I think the issue is when he's made out to be just an assassin and nothing more, like in SP when he says "I kill people" for his job description. I mean yeah, he does, but that's not all he does. He's more than just a killing machine.
I understand why they placed so much emphasis on him as an assassin in the film because it fit the themes/parallels they were going for, but it does do the character a bit of a disservice imo.
In this sort of environment it would be helpful if MGM were on firmer footing. Hopefully someone decides to take them out, so we won't have to endure years of them plotting their IPO (that takes time and will add further uncertainty to the mix).
Cold Blooded Killer/Assassin in Agent 47 from Hitman. Not Bond. Not the literary one, at least. But, the cinematic Bond has shown elements as such, particularly when killing Professor Dent.
Thank you.. No one dissed Craig’s Bond.
Craig has never changed his personality for his job ever, nor put on a disguise (unless you count SP in Mexico). I would love for Craig to do something like that, where he is forced to do some social engineering.
Well said. I'd read this discussion than Gustav's spam posts telling us all to stop being so negative and to cease (justifiably) slagging off Sam Mendes without bringing any meaningful points to the party.
http://www.eonline.com/news/891759/blake-lively-is-unrecognizable-while-filming-new-movie-the-rhythm-section-in-ireland
Thinking about it though, as well as labelling him as an assassin, SP also portrays him as one. He's sent to kill Sciarra with no context and obliges. When Blofeld asks why he tracked him down, he specifically says it was to kill him (rather than stop his plans). And then his whole world seems to be one full of assassins: Sciarra, White, Hinx. I think there's a danger of reading too much into this sort of thing but I think this was probably a conscious decision, to show Bond as an assassin in a world of assassination to make him sparing Blofeld and walking away at the end have more of an impact. I've read interviews with Craig where he labels him as an assassin so I think that's just how he/Mendes see the character.
Personally I see him as much more than that but I was cool with it because I thought it worked really well for Bond's character arc in SP. But I do think for the next one I think a shift back to Bond being more of a spy would be nice.
Nobody here really knows what's going to happen. Thus, at the moment, Bond is a piece on a chessboard.
Remember the predictions about how major announcements (B25 director, distributor, etc.) would come out on Global James Bond day? The only actual announcement that day was a 10 percent discount on James Bond T-shirts.
Nobody here predicted (much claimed inside knowledge of) the MGM-Annapurna deal. But the deal got announced, nevertheless.
Nobody here predicted (much claimed knowledge of) that Disney might seek to buy a big chunk of Fox. Apparently the talks have broken off for now. But as recently as a week ago, body knew there had been such talks.
I've seen declarations that the Wilson-Broccoli family would NEVER sell. Star Wars fans used to say the same thing about George Lucas. $4 billion ($2 billion in cash, $2 billion in Disney stock) changed his mind.
The only safe thing to say it may be a wild ride.
I agree that it was probably conscious on the film maker's part, because it was too obvious and repetitive for it not to be. I've not read the interviews where Craig labels Bond an assassin but I've certainly read the one where he calls him a misogynist. Sometimes I wonder whether he actually likes the character's less palatable traits in the way we do.
I definitely agree that it's time to get back to some serious spy work with the next one.
--
Direct to consumer streaming is the big thing these days. As I understand it, Disney is going to get into it aggressively in the next few years, and will also pull all of its content from Netflix by 2019. This is why the rumours of Amazon bidding for Bond distribution (in what shape or form I'm not sure as it could only relate to streaming as opposed to the theatrical run) are interesting to me.
Well, I'll disagree with that, too. Meaning of course he's not solely an assassin, but I don't see him presented that way in the Craig Bond films. (I also don't think anyone proposed Bond is ONLY an assassin.)
2006: he's not sent out by his government to kill anyone. Not even Le Chiffre.
2008: he's not sent out to kill anyone. (And if he was ever on a personal vendetta, he doesn't kill Yusef.)
2012: he's not sent out to kill anyone.
2015: he's not sent to kill anyone--if the For Your Eyes Only disclaimer is invoked. The deceased Dench M gives the instruction, but she's not in the chief's position or able to give an actual order to her agent. So on that criteria even killing Signor Sciarra doesn't "count". But yes, of course he acts as an assassin. And he does go to Blofeld to assassinate him, as noted, whether or not he's on orders.
Bond films.
Bond being called an assassin in the films isn't over-represented. And it's not all Purvis and Wade--Wilson and Maibaum were in on it.
Bond novels.
So I'd say the assassin element is important but not so frequently used, even in recent history. In SPECTRE it's an element of the story that informs the actions of Madeleine and Bond, love it or loathe it. I don't expect it every mission, they should mix it up. To be predisposed to object to this part of the Bond character doesn't bode well for enjoying BOND 25 and following films.
2006: Dryden and possibly Fisher.
2012: Patrice ('Terminate him for Ronson'. And Bond's 'With pleasure' response is hardly someone wrestling with the moral quandaries of killing).
Somewhat tentative. Not ordered to by his government and doesn't even take the shot anyway.
Fair enough.
Quoting a particular character's perception (who is effectively a member of the public and has nothing to do with MI6) of what his job entails does not necessarily tally with his actual job description.
Fair enough. Pretty cut and dried.
Merely a factual reference to General Pushkin's killing and not a description of Bond's job. And Pushkin isn't even dead.
See Octopussy reference above.
See Octopussy reference above.
See Octopussy reference above.
Being called an assassin and actually being one are two different things. The scriptwriters are putting words in character's mouths to illustrate how they (the character) perceive Bond's job but that is not necessarily the same as stating that they (the scriptwriter's) agree with that perception.
So out of 20 films before the Craig era there is only Roger's 'I only kill on the specific orders of my government' and TLD's assassination mission (hardly a surprise as it is based on one of only two times in the books Bond is specifically sent to kill).
Testing something is not the same as using it in anger. The people who tested nuclear bombs in the middle of the desert are not regarded as genocidal maniacs which they would be had they tested them in cities.
No one is disputing that Bond may have to kill in the course of an assignment but that may be for numerous reasons as the particular situation and dictates and evolves. Not the same as being told explicitly to kill.
Key word might. We have conceded that Bond does have assassination as part of his duties but the rarity it happens in Fleming shows that it is not a big part.
See Octopussy reference above. Molony is just brainstorming and doesn't really have a clue about Bond's duties above the man in the street's perception of what spies do.
I'd broadly agree and say the assassin element was there in the background but never really used that much (Dalton's gritty debut the glaring exception) as it's not very British to assassinate someone and these are family films so they wanted to show Bond acting in self defence more. I didn't have a problem with the way they portrayed Bond in the first 3 films of the Craig era but in SP the way everyone kept chipping in calling him an assassin started to grate somewhat.
With SPECTRE, he's following the orders of a superior who's dead and doesn't actually have the authority to make such an order. :-)
Bond is an investigator, a detective. His license to kill makes him more dangerous to opponents, but I don´t recall any mention in the novels beside Bond´s first two kills (which could easily qualify as a means to evaluate him regarding suitability for the 00 section) where Bond is directly ordered to kill someone.
Well John Le Carré thought Bond shouldn't be considered as a spy but as an 'international gangster'!
He got Carré'd away.
"But now he would attack the arm that held the whip and the gun. The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy, and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."
Casino Royale
Isn't he directly ordered to kill Scaramanga, and also Blofeld and Irma Bunt (but by Tiger Tanaka, so is that indirectly)?
He's also ordered to kill the sniper in The Living Daylights, unless his orders were to "protect" the man on the street which could also be seen as indirect I suppose.