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
Actually, there have been critics of the reboot. Why did they need to reboot? I know that they wanted to jump on the Batman Begins reboot wagon. But all they needed was another OHMSS/FYEO/TLD course correction.
The next Bond will have a clean slate; overwhelming audience will go with that .
There's been personal baggage in every film since 1989.
It was the best way to tell the Casino Royale story that defines the character.
Very unexpected. And they delivered.
Bond versus Mobsters would be that.
I was honestly shocked that A) that scene was in at all & B) I only read one complaint about it among several reviews. The “modern audiences” typically will make a fuss about this kind of thing. The Batman was impressive on many levels, one of them being it made a movie feel sexy again finally. Sex appeal is sorely lacking thanks to some people. Would love to see things like this return to Bond as it is so part of his character.
Yes in the movies Bond does enjoy killing sometimes (in the novel I'm not certain he ever does) partially to soften the violence, distantiate ourselves with it, if that makes sense. And even then I think at least some one liners are not said with any sadism or malice, but to distantiate himself from the brutality of action. Overall I tend to think it works better and it's more impactful when he considers it a necessary evil and when he kills someone dispassionately. When he said he would enjoy killing Scaramanga, it shows what he thinks of Scaramanga, his enjoyment would come from getting rid of an evil man he finds morally repellent, it's not the killing that is in itself a source of pleasure. Bond is not a sadist. Unlike Scaramanga, I might add, who fetishises both murder and the tool he uses for murder.
Edit: and at least during the Craig era, Bond’s drinking is seen as both glamorous and part of his hedonistic lifestyle AND potentially harmful. They don't shy away from Bond’s destructive and alcoholic tendencies. So things are not mutually exclusive: something can be both seen as sexy or hedonistic yet harmful.
I saw a fun tweet earlier where someone said "You couldn't make a movie like The Batman today" :D
If you were shocked that no-one complained, maybe this view that everyone else in the world is offended by everything 'these days' which several media outlets push is actually not true? Culture wars sell papers just as well as Mr Carver's real wars do after all.
If you're not offended, and I'm not offended, and no-one else here is offended; maybe don't worry about it.
To be fair I think the morals in TMWTGG script are all over the shop. It's only film where MI6 and the British are the aggressors- Scaramanga is a bad chap make no mistake, but there's actually no reason for MI6 to send their best assassin after him other than he possesses (and quite legitimately at that!) what they want.
And then they appear to allow the oil companies pay them off to keep it a big secret after the end of the film! At least, Bond's Lotus still appears to be running on petrol in the next film :D
As for the cinematic relevance, I'd say Batman has held that title over Bond, well Nolans did anyway, just because of how superheroes have taken the conversation in terms of cinematic franchises.
True, TMWTGG is not exactly consistent in any way. But I think there was at least an attempt to depict Scaramanga as a sadistic and fetischist killer.
I feel it's a pretty tough argument to claim that Batman doesn't have a big cinematic impact.
Precisely. Let's also not forget how the franchises most successful entry was heavily inspired by The Dark Knight.
Exactly. Have him enjoying his work, free of emotional baggage.
I'd be quite happy if the next movie was called 'James Bond of the Secret Service' and they embraced the pulp element, whilst keeping this quote in mind, (from Dr No)...
“The license to kill for the Secret Service, the double-o prefix, was a great honor. It had been earned hardly. It brought Bond the only assignments he enjoyed, the dangerous ones.”
Agreed. again as much as I liked the Nolan trilogy I felt because Chris's wife was on set the sexuality of the women was sorely lacking (its the one reason I don't want him to direct Bond)
I do wonder if EON had the balls to bring back an older actor to follow the trend of
Again I think many on here would prefer a third Dalton or a 5th Brosnan over 95% of the people rumored or mentioned on this board.
I agreed with this at the time, because I assumed the reboot would just create a new floating timeline, so it seemed pointless to me. But instead they used it to set up a complete story with a beginning middle and end. That made it worth it for me. I still agree they didn’t need to do it, but I’m glad they did, even though the arc wasn’t always handled brilliantly.