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
- Give it more money so it doesn't look like a tv movie.
- Cast Dalton as Bond, Tony Hopkins as Trevelyan, Moira Brooker as Miss Moneypenny (Bliss would have two films after LTK, then i'd replace her with Brooker to keep freshening up the MI6 regulars in between Bond re-casting) & Sylvester McCoy as Q. I'm going to steal an idea from @PrinceKamalKhan, and replace Mishkin with Pushkin. Though i'm not sure if I would want Puskin killed, as he was such a jovial character, but I guess killing Pushkin would spur Bond on to take down Trevelyan. I don't care for bringing back actors and casting them in different roles so close together, so I would not have wade in the film. Instead, I would still use Felix. I would still use Stacey Keach as Felix, even after the events of LTK. As for the rest of the cast, i'm not sure. I don't have GE in my timeline, so I haven't given much thought as to how I would recast. Actually, I might cast Madeleine Stowe as Natalya.
- Drop the "sexist misogynist dinosaur" nonsense. Why give people who don't like Bond, more ammo?
- Keep Sera's original A Pleasant Drive In St Petersburg track. I have listened to both many time, and... I prefer the original.
- I don't know when the film would be released. In my dream timeline, GE doesn't exist in any form. After LTK in 1989, I have Dalton make 3 (maybe 4) more films in 1992, 1994, 1996, and maybe 1998. But for arguments sake, let's just assume the film still comes out in 1995.
- 'The Experience Of Love' would be dropped in favour of the Bond theme.
I guess that it it, really. The plot what remain the same, This is off the top of my head. No doubt, now that I am thinking about it, in a few days time, i'll think of something else to change.
You know, those changes might make it watchable.
I simply can’t relate to that comment in the slightest.
I mean it s so bad it s unwatchable for me. I know very well many people love it.
This might make Dalton even more onpopulair and would have sunk the whole franchise. Saint Brosnan saved the franchise after Dalton proved in two films that he did not know what to do against the big blockbusters that did their thing and the Dalton era never really created their own identity. It killed him in the series.
I agree with everything you said, except that I think George had it in spades, but he was lacking in the acting department for obvious reasons, and therefore a bit more stiff on camera (pun intended).
groan
I'd argue that it was Brosnan that never created his own identity. On that front, whether Dalton was a success or not, he still created his own Bond. It was because of the reception of the Dalton films, that the series regressed to a hybrid copy of the Connery/Moore eras, lacking the virile alpha male of Connery, and natural charm (when it was kept in check) and unflappability of Moore. By the time of Brosnan, I don't think there was anything new that could be done with Bond.
Someone else nailed it perfectly when they said "Dalton had everything but an audience, Brosnan had an audience and nothing else".
I agree though that by the time Brosnan took over there wasn't as much new that can be done with it. That's why I cut him and Craig a lot of slack when it comes to how 'original' they are. At the end of the day there's only so many ways you can play it without making the character unrecogniseable, so as time goes on and more actors play Bond there's bound to be overlap between them.
Well it's not like Bond says to M you're right, I'll change from now on. It's up to the audience whether she's right or wrong. It's just then sizing eachother up. She slags him off, he slags her off, they come to a mutual respect and he carries on being the same man he always has. It's a great scene imo and I'd much rather they acknowledge criticisms in this way (by having them in the film and having Bond brush them off/defy them) than neutuer the character. I don't think ignoring those criticisms completely was an option at this point. They had to prove Bond's relevance and GE did that really well.
Exactly, the whole attitude of that movie is that James Bond does't care about your opinion, he's here to stay, just the way he was.
Trevelyan calls him a loyal terrier of her Majesty's, he brushes it off.
Zukovsky makes fun of James Bond the "charming, sophisticated secret agent, shaken not stirred" (possibly Brosnans biggest meta moment) again he completely ignores it.
He is aware of what he is, but he's confident in his skin.
Thats what a lot of peoples idea was of who Bond is, and much of that got lost in the 80's and even earlier. They wanted to make a statement about going back to that.
To this day I get somewhat nauseous when Dench delivers that line (being a huge fan I'm somewhat protective of these sort of generalizing and incorrect quips about Bond), but agree with you that the way they handled it in GE was just right, particularly as the first film of the 90's and after a long break.
In its own way, GE was as consequential as CR in redefining the character for a new era. I believe we are at a similar time now, which is why I continue to be intrigued by their choice of Craig as Bond and how they will approach things for B25 after this break.
What he does say is "point taken," a weak riposte that's almost as bad. I would have been fine with Bond calling M a beancounter and she calling him a thug or something similar. But GE engages in a consistent pattern of Bond-shaming (via M, Trevelyan, Moneypenny, "boys with toys," etc) that is shallow and forced, a desperate attempt to acknowledge and then wave away objections to the character that were never entirely true in the first place. But I suppose this approach worked in some quarters--someone on the feminist site Mary Sue said GE was the best of the series because "it called Bond out on his shit." And what does Bond do after being called out? Quietly acknowledge his failings and then do nothing about them. Not that he should have, but the film shouldn't have knocked him in the first place either.
As a supporter of the Dalton era for almost the full length of time I have been a fan, I think it is a fair and accurate summary of Dalton and Brosnan. Dalton had a clear defined idea for his Bond, he knew what he wanted to do, and went out and did it. He just didn't have the adoration from the public than Brosnan had. While Brosnan had that adoration, he didn't really come off as the driving force of his era. I always felt that he was happy to coast through his films
Bond is broadsided and just meekly sits there like a scolded child, he might as well have agreed. Bond being called sexist, I can deal with. But to call him a misogynist is an out right fallacy. Any fan worth their salt, can destroy any criticism around Bonds supposed misogyny.
Brosnan Bond got bigger films, bigger productions, marketed well and they paid off.
Other than a few Moore era gags during the Tank chase sequence, a lot to like here.
In retrospect, wish the rest of the Brosnan era films had been this well directed.
I think Brosnan’s response is well played. He sits there and shrugs it off. Similar to what Fleming’s Bond would have done given the respect he had for his superiors (though Fleming’s Bond would have been angry that a woman was there in the first place, he would have still shown a reluctant restraint).
If we are talking about Bond being treated like a child or “scolded” I actually think the Craig era is more relevant in that regard.
“Sorry, I’ll shoot the camera first next time”
“Don’t ever break into my house again”
“What the hell are you up to?”
“Then you’ve learned your lesson”
groan
That's practically Shakespearean compared with what's about to come...
The strength of GE is the 006/007 relationship, and the general fall of Russia motif. The rest is pastiche, albeit good pastiche (with Janssen being especially effective--she just gets it).
I'd get a different composer: too many missteps, especially the gunbarrel (talk about strangling the cat) and the car chase. I'd sharpen the dialogue. I'd dial back Boris.
And, perhaps controversially, I'd rather Bond's final words to Alec be: "Yes" instead of "No, for me."
But economically, GE stands alone with TSWLM (and, if I must admit, DAF) as saving the franchise. So I wouldn't change too much about this particular film.
In GE have a new Bond and among a new M and Moneypenny and all that it's probably the worst time to introduce this past association and ask us to buy in.
Not to mention the beginning of the string of betrayal stories that would litter the next 20 years.
was he really that amazing a character....?