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
Yeah, but he doesn't yell like Tarzan ;)
Wear a clown suit, a gorilla suit, and a hawaiian lei necklace, and even demanding a tiger to sit and a snake to hiss off.
Agreed @007HallY ; sorry my post was more directed at Deke.
What was new about GE was all the meta stuff: "sexist misogynist dinosaur," "the women you failed to protect," etc. That felt fresh, to a degree.
But they doubled and tripled down on the meta references too much in subsequent films: "pump her for information," etc.
Feirstein was a less witty version of Mankiewicz.
During the release of NSNA and O I found Connery's effort to be more acceptable than the one that included all the jungle nonsense as well as Q and Bond arriving in a hot air balloon for the climax. I also had a fondness about seeing Felix in the field and being a part of the climax.
Or maybe just someone whose show you haven't heard of. ;))
These days that would not be hard. 5000 channels and nothing to watch but really old spy shows. BTW, who is this John Steed that was mentioned earlier?????????????
Whatever you do steer clear of gangs of London. ;)
My thoughts, exactly.
That’s the spirit.
No offense, but I don't see this. I don't care how good AI is in 10 years, human beings are notoriously wary of new technology. As far as I'm aware, every instance of advanced deaging or recreations of younger actors from scratch thus far has been met with extreme skepticism. The idea that millions of people around the globe will be lining up in cinemas to watch a movie with all AI generated characters, let along scripts or direction in the next 10 years is bonkers if you ask me. Its one thing the technology existing to do it, but it's another for it to be socially accepted enough that the movie won't suffer a backlash from its use. As an example, technically speaking videogames could have gone fully digital and removed the disk drives decades ago, but there's still generations of users who see owning games physically as a valuable and important feature, so companies are forced to keep them or face a major backlash. People would feel shortchanged, and at least for the foreseeable future, a majority of the public would feel shortchanged watching a film with no real actors, especially a Bond movie which is older skewing to begin with. No company at the moment is gonna take a 200 million risk of replacing their actors and hoping people don't notice or care.
Andrew Scott has to be the worst actor that ever was in a Craig's Bond movie, though. I despise his acting when he makes those cartoonish evil faces, he reminds me of a Disney villain.
I'd take Bro-field over Scott!Blofeld anytime.
To be fair, I don't blame any of the actors, since it seems the director was really out to lunch and didn't want to be there beyond filming the worlds biggest explosion. the worst scene is when Madeline randomly decides she doesn't want to be with Bond anymore in London, the dialogue and acting there was atrociously bad.
Look at the scene from Sherlock at 2:00.
He makes these silly faces like he is a villain in an animated movie.
Agreed about the Bond and Madeleine scene in London, that was pretty bad. But you can see that Craig and Seydoux do their best with shoddy material.
I don't know, Hollywood can make Super Mario movies all the time and they will make a lot of money.
I always dream of the suggestion of getting Helen McCrory back from SF to play C. She would have been amazing.
Two points here
1. Super Mario isn't operated by AI, but by human animators.
2. You won't see Marios performance being nominated in the best actor category at the oscars alongside humans anytime soon, sadly.
It's a cartoon and nobody cared. That's the point.
Nobody cared because it isn't AI generated. It was animated by humans just like Toy Story was in 1995, unless you think that's AI too.
They didn't care because they liked the movie. They don't need to watch "real actors".
Maybe in 30 years when gen alpha is grown up, but for now people still very much believe real actors are important for a movie.
The voice didn’t help, but even if Lazenby had nailed the accent, I still think it’d feel a bit jarring having him shagging around as much as he did at at Piz Gloria right after that montage, and right before he proposes. I think they could have done with a line showing he’d reflected on that a bit more. Have him mention that he’s been with a lot of women but none of them compare? Or maybe the shagging around just needed to be played in a less camp away, I dunno, but it doesn’t quite work imo.
Well, it doesn't bother me though, he's doing it mainly for the job, and again, he's not engaged yet, and from how I've watched it, he's not taking it seriously, he could've got an information from Ruby, but she's under of Blofeld's hypnosis, then she went for Nancy, hoping for some information, he wanted to get close to them so he could use an asset inside of Piz Gloria.
And why Bond would tell Tracy? It would've been embarrassing and insulting for Tracy, if he told it to her, then that's where their relationship ends, remember, their relationship was just getting better at that point, a point where he's starting to earn Tracy's trust, then he would tell that to her.
The voice, sure it's dubbed, but it's one of the things why the disguise worked more, because he used a different accent and voice (let's assume he's trained to use that voice to make the disguise more effective), that's why I don't get the question of Blofeld not recognizing Bond? Sure, there's no way he could've recognized Bond, especially that he's using a different voice.
I know he was doing it for intel, but they didn’t have to go down that route. The book didn’t, if I remember right (has been a while since I read it though, could be wrong). Him being undercover felt quite tense in that one, compared to how tongue in cheek it was in the film.
To me it felt a bit like they were worried the audience would reject a film where he wanted to settle down and get married, so they threw some easy shags for him to try and make up for it.
And I didn’t mean he should have told Tracy he was shagging other birds right before he proposed. I just meant that some sort of acknowledgement of his womanising nature, and how none of them meant anything to him like she did, might have helped me forget that fact.
Well, the book did the same, actually Bond called Ruby 'babe' in the book, he'd slept with her too, it's not that tense either, it felt slow and kinda awkward, there's Bond using an invisible (urine?) Ink on a Passport.
I actually liked that Bond found out the hypnosis system himself in the film, with Blofeld hypnotizing Ruby in process while he's actually there, it makes for a more faster pacing, compared to the book where it felt slow with Bond taking time to find things out.
I actually enjoyed the Piz Gloria scenes in the film, that section in the book felt so slow and boring, the beginning of Piz Gloria seemed okay, but once it gets further, it's started to become a bit boring, really.
It's still the same scenario, the acknowledgement of the womanizing part would still made Tracy doubt Bond a bit, especially that she'd suffered that once from her previous husband who's also a womanizer.
The voice thing is silly. It's worse than the Japanese disguise.
Fair enough, I was thinking of him lighting the cig with a cold steady hand as his contact got dragged off for intereogation, when I talked about the tension of him being undercover. But I don’t remember the rest of what you’re on about at all, so I’d have to read it again to judge how it was handled in the book, you seem to remember it a lot better than I do. But in the film, the voice, the kilt, the easy shags. It all felt a bit too camp and tongue in cheek for the story they were trying to tell for me.
I agree the film improves on the book in some ways though. It really bugged me how he never squares off with Blofeld as himself in the book. Having him get captured before he escaped was a great call.