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
One-liners are enough for me.
But I think self-parody could work for haters. I mean, less juvenile than the Moore era. Something like The man from UNCLE.
That is, indeed, one of the best Bondian moments in CR. Bond's improv skills were already hinted at when he went after Mollaka. I regret that such epic moments became fewer and fewer as the Craig era went on.
I think that's one of the all time best Bond moments, yeah. As you say, it's funny but it's also a character moment too - it tells us a lot about him, which is often how the best jokes work. The way he just swans into the security suite, it's perfect.
This is the moment I always think of when folks say that Craig just copied Dalton: if Dalton had moments like this then I think he'd have been more successful, but there's not as much swagger there. Maybe something like ramming the harbour with the boat in LTK is surprisingly similar in content with regards Bond's plan to create a distraction so he can infiltrate, but it doesn't come off as well for me (unusually it's a case of a Bond film reusing an idea but in a smaller scale!). The shot with the keys is probably the, er, key: it's kind of like Craig turning to the audience to take the applause.
Yes that's great. I always think that's the key difference between Ethan Hunt and James Bond: Hunt plans ahead whereas Bond launches himself headfirst into a situation and wings it every time.
Yes, it was his inner Connery that sold tickets.
I think lots of thought went into writing these early moments, while in later instalments they tended to just go for bigger, more eye-catching stunts. Smaller and smarter works better in the films (though I'm guessing big spectacle is better for trailers).
I like the bit in Licence to Kill where Bond cackles away to himself as he gleefully throws money out of the plane he's just commandeered; he's having fun, but it's pretty bleak humour as it's money people are killing for, yet Bond doesn't care - he's never tempted by it, in fact he's treating it with contempt; later he uses the remainder to buy his way into Sanchez's inner circle, because for Bond it's just a tool he uses to get his revenge. I think that's an important character trait: Bond enjoys the finer things, but when it comes down to it they're not that important to him. Particularly in LTK I think Bond is presented as a man with no eye on the future beyond killing his target, he simply has no exit strategy out of the whole he's dug for himself with MI6, or getting out once he's killed Sanchez. I think the influence of Yojimbo on the script is well-known, but it works well for Bond's character in this situation.
I would say that that element of quick thinking, brutishness and dare I say recklessness was a constant throughout the Craig era, and they were remarkably consistent about it. Something like the PTS of SF skews more towards the heightened reality of the classic films, but him commandeering a digger to completely tear up the train feels very similar to Bond hijacking the bulldozer during that parkour chase in CR. Even when he sneaks onto the boat to go to Silva’s island he doesn’t stealthily infiltrate the island (there wouldn’t be much point anyway) but instead just swaggers onto the deck and purposely gets himself captured. Hell, even his master plan to lure Silva to Skyfall comes from a very off the cuff decision and is pretty simplistic when you think about it.
It’s something all the Bonds have to some extent, that element of just scraping by quick thinking, although the Craig films leaned a bit more into just how consequential Bond’s decisions can actually be amongst the swagger and humorous moments (similar to LTK). But it’s there. On my last re-read of Fleming’s DAF I was actually quite surprised just how reckless Bond becomes once he gets to Vegas, and just how much trouble he creates for himself. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples in Fleming. So it’s very much part of the character’s DNA.
I think you're right yes, although I guess it could be seen as Bond perhaps not valuing this stuff all that highly, in terms that he's so used to the high life that an Aston Martin here or there is fairly disposable to him - and that's the root of the long-running Q joke I guess. And I guess that's part of the aspirational audience appeal of Bond: not only is he really used to all this expensive stuff, but he's so comfortable with it that where you or I would be worried about getting a scuff on our £5000 shoes if we had them, Bond wears them running through a building site- he doesn't even care. Most of us can only dream of being that comfortable with the extreme luxuries he enjoys.
Specifically with the money I'd guess he takes pleasure in spending Sanchez's own money to bring him down, and also I daresay he wouldn't want the money for himself anyway as it's dirty, and Bond has never been motivated by taking things for himself. I do think that seaplane scene of LTK is one of the best-written set-pieces in any Bond film as it's one of the few action scenes in one which has real ramifications: if you take it away the whole film falls apart. Bond needs the money to set himself up and get into Sanchez's world, but he also uses the theft to later set up and frame Krest for stealing from Sanchez, and thus ingratiate himself even closer to Sanchez. It's really neat plotting and gives us a great action scene too. If you take away the Aston ice chase from TLD then, well, nothing really: Bond and Kara get to Vienna just the same.
Yeah that's a good point; it's Bond's character all over- he doesn't worry about the future and just lives for today. I guess it's the 'I will not waste my time trying to prolong it' Fleming thing coming in there.
I always think it's weird that MGW says they based it on Yojimbo when Fleming's TMWTGG was right there! :D
An interesting article about the upcoming 'Red One' from Amazon/MGM Studios.
The first half is about The Rock but the second half of the article is about the issues Amazon MGM are having from a production standpoint, and that none of the current Amazon MGM Executives are used to, experienced, or able to handle big budget productions (Red One is $250m).
Its interesting from a Bond perspective is that these MGM execs will be likely leading Bond 26 along with EoN. Certainly gives the impression that EoN (as very seasoned producers) will have the upper hand.
Thank you for the article. A book about the behind the scenes of this will be interesting someday.
I think it also perhaps suggests that there may be more going on behind the scenes perhaps holding up the next Bond than we may know about, and that anyone from Eon can talk about publicly. I have no insider knowledge but I'm always hesitant to blame 'Babs' being lazy, as this is big business and we don't know for sure what's going on behind the doors.
That is, indeed, sad. CR has one terrific moment after another. Even the much revered SF doesn't come close, IMO.
Thanks for sharing the article mate. In my opinion, I think something behind the scenes is holding up Bond 26, no idea what that is but there must be a reason for it not even being on the horizon.
CR's great though (although the dialogue is very ropey on rewatches). I prefer SF personally and think it's in many ways a much more satisfying, Bondian film. But to each their own.
I think SF has some cracking and nicely witty gags in there too; it all feels much more sophisticated than the 90s films.
Everyone's different. We all enjoy different Bond movies. Hopefully that day will come where you'll enjoy it more though (that's certainly happened with me and Bond movies I didn't previously rate highly. It's great when it happens).
I do wonder why there's a level of controversy around SF on these forums though (at least from what I've seen personally). As I've said many times outside of these forums it's generally one of the most highly regarded Bond films, and certainly gets positive notes from people I know. Compared to CR (which is, in the best way possibly and by design, consciously a sort of 'anti-Bond' Bond film) I'd say it features much more of that Bondian atmosphere/spirit, and for diehard Fleming fans it's got plenty on that side. Personally, I don't think the Craig era would have survived without it. Perhaps it's more a vocal minority who don't rate it as highly/would rather have something more lighthearted (SF can be a dark film certainly). I don't know...
Plot holes are standard for Bond films. As you said if you're enjoying it then it's fine. The early films featured far greater ones that I even I noticed when I was young (ie. why does Bouvar feel the need to dress up as his own widow and attend his own funeral in TB? What purpose does this actually serve? And why does Bond fake his death in YOLT? It gives him no benefit. Stuff like that is more head scratching than the contrivances in SF in my opinion).
MR is definitely one I've grown to like more and more too. TSWLM for me is the one that had a second life in my eyes. When I was younger I thought it was just a silly Roger Moore film. Now it's easily in my top 5 Bond films.
I feel that way about Tomorrow Never Dies. I question what that film does wrong to deserve the hate it gets.
Yes it puzzles me too: I think it feels much more like a trad Bond film in spirit in lots of places. I loved it immediately it in the cinema: it just clicks and feels like the best of Bond.
As I say, it always seems to rate as one of the very best Bonds up with GF, TSWLM, CR and OHMSS when fan surveys take place, so I think it is a vocal minority, yes.
I guess the YOLT death is given lip service with M saying something like 'you've got space to operate now your enemies think you're dead' - it's nonsense and not related to anything like you said, but at least they have a go at fitting it in! The Bouvar thing is a puzzle I think which does sort of occur while you're watching it, which is a bit fatal. Likewise- why use a jetpack when you can just run down the stairs! :D
In recent years, it’s the only Craig movie to have considerably moved up in my estimation.
The last time I watched it, I found myself asking why it was that disliked it so much initially.
It’s definitely in the top 10 for me now but I will always prefer CR from Craig’s run.
@meshypushy, that's why I ended up seeing it five times in theaters, trying to convince myself I was just missing something and it would click eventually. It never did sadly.
I'm glad it's had a more positive reappraisal for some of you though!
This might be thinking about it a bit too deeply, but I don't think it's as much about the question of Bond's relevancy (which of course was a question viewers would have had after the Cold War/in the run up to GE and is significant to that film) but more about the idea of a changing and increasingly modern world, and how the old guard (Bond and M) can even navigate and survive within it. I think more so than CR and QOS there really was a sense of that at the time in the UK - I remember for instance in the run to the London Olympics there being a lot of cynicism towards how much it would cost/whether it would be worthwhile, austerity, genuine questions about whether the UK would even be together before the Scottish Referendum two years later, and of course more broadly there's stuff like WikiLeaks, the increasing advancement of technology etc.
I certainly don't remember there being issues of James Bond's relevancy as a character/franchise (although QOS was very disappointing for many) but I'd say in terms of where the UK was at at the time it's the closest contextually to when Fleming was writing the novels - that sort of post empire, post war period where Britain was still suffering from the effects of WW2 and its role as an imperial power was declining. So I think SF definitely touched on something at the time, and how it handled it struck a chord - ie. showing a character like Bond overcoming his issues, a character like M making consequential mistakes during her tenure etc.
I find Skyfall very easy to rewatch, Casino Royale is always a bit harder for me for some reason, despite me thinking its the better film.