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
It is definitely subjective, but I definitely agree. I thought the chemistry with Lea in NTTD was much stronger than the "two good actors" I saw in CR. But while it's of a different type given the nature of the screen relationship, I thought Craig's chemistry with Olga in QOS was the strongest of all.
That is controversial!
What, that Green was miscast? Yeah, I think she is. For one thing she's supposed to be a British Treasury agent, and she clearly ain't! :) But beyond that she's given that sparkling repartee scene on the train and it's been written for a Diana Rigg type, but that's just not her. The later scenes towards the end suit her more, but I can certainly imagine other actors being more suited to the role overall.
Then again, I kind of feel that about the novel's Vesper too. She's just a bit too naive. Bond is depicted as being a younger, seemingly more arrogant and impulsive man than he is in later books too. It makes sense he'd throw in the towel after a particularly bad mission and want to settle down with the first girl he finds. Of course, what happens later is particularly tragic and has that long lasting impact on him, but it's debatable whether the relationship would have panned out if Vesper hadn't have committed suicide.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think the producers really underestimated how much damage NTTD would do to the franchise, especially if they didn't actually intend it to be the last Bond movie.
That's a really good observation about whether he just went for the first girl after his bad mission; yes you may well be right.
Doom and glooming losers don’t have a say.
@Since62 your comment a few pages back painted the picture. I'm enjoying the present and looking forward to what the future brings. The franchise is in quite a strong place is my thinking.
I'd liked to see the scene in FRWL novel where a thick paperback book and a cigarette case saved Bond's life when Red Grant shot him, but I have no idea who can fit this scene if looking at those actors strongly considered for the role.
It's a bit of a cliche now. I suspect it was in Fleming's day too, but the reason why it kind of works (at least for me) is exactly because it's such a silly, implausible idea rendered realistically. Instead of just the cigarette case or the book being in our hero's pocket all along, we actually read Bond's thoughts/him coming up with the plan, the descriptions of him taking these items and slipping them into his pocket etc. Fleming describes the pain Bond feels in his ribs, the fact that he feels the hot lead against his chest. I feel for such an idea to work there'd have to be a similar kind of tension and realism injected into the scene. It'd be unlikely to be a cigarette case nowadays so some sort of alternative object would have to be foreshadowed. It would be cool to see played out onscreen though.
As for who could play it... well, I don't know. Then again I'm of the opinion that anyone supposedly 'strongly considered' for the role at the moment by the press are unlikely to actually get the part.
I would have quite liked if he'd be given a gadget watch to be worn as a knuckle duster - like it turns into a high powered taser or something when he punches someone with it. Just as a nice nod to Fleming's idea that you could use a watch as a knuckle duster (I realise it was supposed to be featured in CR in that way -and can still be glimpsed).
But would it also knuckle Bond's hand too?
It's actually a coincidence as I'm looking for that particular scene in CR, then you've mentioned it here.
About that FRWL scene, yes it would be a bit fun at least, that we thought that Bond was dead because he's shot, but it's wrong, he's saved by something that he puts at his chest.
I had an idea for future Bond gadgets where he has a bunch of modern technological equipment that doubles as low-tech weaponry. His phone has a shiv in it. His earpiece is a small explosive. So a reversal of the usual pattern: the hidden function is extremely old-fashioned.
The earpiece bomb is particularly tidy because he can blow something up with it, and then we're rid of the spy movie-ruining communication gimmick once and for all!
Well yeah, that's why I think it would be good for it to be a specially-designed gadget: to explain how it doesn't break his fingers! :D
I would agree with this take I have similar frustration
Whatever the case, at some point, James Bond will no longer be of major interest.
I think this is an interesting question. Are you asking: when does Bond become culturally insignificant?
Bond's emergence is tied to the boomer generation, so as they go, and if the films stop coming out regularly to draw in new viewers with contemporary films, Bond's popularity is sure to wane.
I'd think the continuation books are not financially viable without an active film series bolstering them.
So yes, 50 years sounds about right.
Yes, that was the implicit point of my question.
I think you're probably right about the books relying on the films for commercial viability.
Not so sure. I think there is enough mileage with Bond to make these films as long as films are still being made.
It's because the essence is about good v evil, which is the basis for most films. As human beings this is fundamentally what we are seeking constantly - reassurance that good defeats evil.
And Bond epitomises that. Sure, there are variants on the theme. Fleming's take was more down-to-earth, gritty, realistic, more espionage, which has managed to stand the test of time right up to the present day. But escapism was also a big part too, and this hasn't changed either (and I doubt it ever will).
Then we have had other variants - more gadgets, more outlandish (YOLT, MR, DAF, DAD), more sci-fi, more comedy, lighter hearted approach, more tongue-in-cheek.
Bond has managed to adapt for half a century. What Fleming wrote back in 1952 is still in some way relevant to 2022. Yes, certain things are now dated - sexism, racism, colonialism. Bond no longer smokes 60 a day, but he still enjoys wearing luxury items or driving fast cars, and this is just as relevant today.
CR and SF are fairly rooted in the world Fleming wrote about, and these are the most successful films in recent times, so whatever jackpot formula Fleming stumbled upon back in 1952, I doubt even he would have realised just how adaptable that would be for the next 100 years (and counting)...
The franchise is virtually forever, and is the example of classic stories being retold all the time and for all time.
I doubt he'll stick around for a third outing.
If the productivity continues to decrease we may get one film per decade, resulting one film per actor.
At some point Barbara and Michael may just throw in the towel...................then turn the franchise over to Purvis and Wade (evil laugh follows).
I think literary Bond is running out of steam pretty desperately, isn't it? Are there any more gaps to fill? And Horowitz was a breath of fresh air, but he's done now with no obvious place to go, and Fleming feels pretty mined out now.