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
A proper sendoff would be Craig's Bond flying off with that jet pack while saying "Never Say Never Again".
If they would ever start to use "old" gadgets again, half the Bondfandom would complain "TEH IDEAZ"...
As long as it´s presented well I don´t mind it. James Bond in the novels likes odtimers, so that fits. What I cannot stand is the seeming necessity to have the DB5 in the films, and when I read that it´s Bond because he drives the DB5. In GF it wasn´t his car, in TB it wasn´t his car, then he drove compeltely different cars for decades without losing any of his mojo. Only in GE was it suddenly his personal car. But in GE it was also all of a sudden very Bond to have surreal action scenes with stunts defying the laws of physics.
I wouldn´t want to have recycled gadgets too much. Already as a kid I found it lame that in OHMSS we see Grant´s watch. Granted, as an adult I understand better the meaning of that scene, but as a kid my only thoughts were, ´they´re trying to be as cool as the old films.´ Logically it would of course make sense for Bond to recycle his gadgets, but gadgets always were the coolest when they gave the impression of being a fresh invention.
But anyhow, @JamesCraig, what is it with the ´TEH´? It´s supposed to be ´the´, right? Who writes it this way? I feel so teribly unkulturny.
I know, I just pretended to troll. It's kind of like lulz. Bad Engrish. ;-)
I think there's nothing wrong with that. I know I'm not saying anything new here, but every work of art or fiction starts to live its own life after being released for public consumption, and it's perfectly fine for consumers to have an impression that doesn't necessarily coincide with creator's intentions. That's quite common, especially with more complex art forms. I don't see Bond novels and films as huge works of art, but they are complex enough to be interpreted in various ways.
I don't care about gadgets at all, and I wouldn't mind an action-lite Bond movie, but gadgets and action scenes were ingredients of Bond films since the beginning. If someone thinks that gadgets and action scenes are a must, I think it's not accurate to say they don't understand what Bond is about.
So, unless a person says something outlandish like 'Bond should fight against zombies and vampires', it's better to say 'I disagree with your view on Bond' than 'You don't understand Bond'.
For example, I don't like a lot of things Sam Mendes did with the series. I think he has taken it in the soap opera direction to a degree, and that appears to be continuing in NTTD, but he is an artist and I can appreciate his desire to do something different.
Yeah, my post was overly succinct but ultimately that's what I meant (you worded it way better than me). Nothing wrong with having a different opinion, it just bugs me when people say, for example, "Bond is meant to be a cold assassin who just shags every girl he can find" when Fleming clearly wrote the character in a different way.
Of course other elements such as action scenes fall into a "your mileage may vary" category. Nothing wrong with wanting Bond, for example, to be an action movie à la Mission: Impossible - but there's a difference in saying "this is my opinion and this is what I wish more than anything from a Bond film" (which is legit) and "this is what Bond should be like".
Unfortunately I read some pretty bad "Bond should go to Mars" and "Bond is just a codename" posts.
Okay, so a director like Lewis Gilbert, who directed some of the most successful Bond movies, doesn't understand Bond, because YOLT, TSWLM and MR have almost nothing to do with Fleming's novels?
I highlighted the drama bit because that was exactly my point in response to the original post that said that Bond should be filed under "action" and not "drama" which I think makes the film series seem a lot more narrow than it is. Bond has always had some drama, some comedy, and plenty of fantasy.
I get that many people are tired of the personal drama of the Craig films but it does the series a disservice if we lump into under one genre. It wasn't meant to be derogatory towards other films of the action genre in particular.
From Russia With Love is more plot-driven than action-driven, for example. It has much more in common with Alfred Hitchcock than it does with Commando. That's all I was trying to say.
I'd disagree that Bond is the original action film but I digress. That's for the general film thread.
That's an oversimplification, considering the book likely didn't stop with Gilbert when it comes to those films' concepts. But yes, I would say those are examples of extravagant "movie Bond" rather than "Fleming's Bond". It's not always a bad thing, of course; Spy is still a cracking adventure flick - but it wouldn't be the one I'd reach for if I was introducing someone to the series who wanted to get a real grasp on the essence of the character. I'd go with the first two Connery flicks, OHMSS, TLD, or CR for that.
IMO getting the character is more important than lifting story and dialogue straight from the novels (as much as I like when they do it). I think TSWLM and MR are still very fun movies and I always enjoy them. I'd also say they mostly got Bond right.
Also, I don't know whether Gilbert understood Bond or not. Maybe he understood Fleming's Bond but simply didn't care about adapting it into the screen and, as I said, whether it's for the best or the worst, well, that's subjective. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.
Agreed.
Weird to imagine that there might be different people who enjoy different things. Nah, that's impossible.
Also, I don't think comparing the gunbarrel, a 10-second-scene which appeared at the beginning of every Bond film since Dr No and the DB5, an element which is almost a character itself in the movie and never was Bond's only car, is really fair.
No, there are. But folks being so vehement about these small things is a bit funny! :)
Are you saying one is more important than the other? I’m not really getting the comparison. I think most folk would look at either and say ‘James Bond’.
The thing is, if Fukunaga for some reason were to remove the gunbarrel from NTTD and make a Bond movie without the gunbarrel, I'd be very pissed for sure but at the end of the day that wouldn't really change how I view the film itself. Heck, I'd may just edit the movie myself, include the gunbarrel at the beginning and that it's it.
Seeing the DB5 in every movie, on the other hand, might be repetitive. Having a new car in every movie creates some variety. I love that we had the Lotus in TSWLM, for instance. It also creates some kind of hpye around the movie before I get to see it. What will Bond drive this time? An Aston Martin? A Rolls Royce? A Jaguar? Who knows? :D
It's just my opinion, of course. I'm not saying this thought is right or wrong, just stating how I feel about both and why I think that some users are fed up with the DB5.
You’re even asking them to repeat the way they used to do it, with him having different cars because ‘that’s the way it used to be’ with the Lotus in the 70s etc. (Let’s ignore he had the DB5 for two consecutive films in the 60s ;) ) You’re asking for the same thing to continue i.e repetition! :D
You argued that Bond movies wouldn't be Fleming if they were in the "action"-section. I disagree. Someone mentioned the FRWL movie as a perfect example of Fleming, but they still inserted several action setpieces that have nothing to do with the novel. Why? Because the Bond-movies primarily rhyme with action. Of course there will always be drama. We will never see a two hour action movie with only set pieces.
Also, I don't agree that the Bond character is important, if that is what you are saying. He is not. In the first 20 movies Bond has been more or less the same. The producers were very careful not to embrace Bond's past, familyrelations, shortcomings etc. It has always been about the supporting cast, getting especially the villains and henchmen right. IMO.
Well, in the case of TSWLM you can't complain, that the film does not have anything to do with Fleming's novel. Flemin allwed Cubby and Harry only to use the title, but not the plot of the novel. But, yes, one could say, Gilbert made three almost identical movies or with a similar plot line.
You've more than made your point that you feel Bond should exist within very specific parameters, but I guarantee you that had Bond stuck with the DAD formula post Jason Bourne, EON would have been absolutely been buried. They have always - always - throughout their entire history adapted 007 to the current trend, and that is precisely why they have remained a cultural icon for five-decades. Personal angles aside, it is readily apparent from the NTTD trailer that EON has once again drawn from what is popular and injected the film with more color and levity, while honoring Daniel's legacy and interpretation of the character.
If you're not open to these changing times, that's absolutely fine. Maybe the next Bond will be more your cup of tea. In the meantime, you're welcome to stick with the John Glen and Brosnan years and I bet you'll be more than satiated.
You've clearly missed the point. Twice lately have I been arguing this exact point:
Yes, the DAD formula, I guess. Disliked by most Bond fans. Like me. No... I just want more fun, bigger setpieces and more - or better - gadgets, like I said earlier. Lewis Gilbert for a new generation.
I can't believe I had to explain this when it should be really obvious.
Also no, I wasn't saying that the Bond character is important (I believe it but that was not the point of my conversation, but you keep pinballing out of it). I was just criticising the fact that some believe they understand Bond better than Ian Fleming which is, by definition, ridiculous since Fleming is the man who created him. Whether his version of the character is the best one is another matter, one which I don't really care to argue about since it would all fall into the realm of subjectivity.
@mtm I'm afraid I'm lost and I don't get what your point is.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/releaseinfo
IMDB haven't mentioned Japan yet.
SF and SP was released a month after it's UK premiere. Don't know why it gets so late to release in other Asian countries because here in India it release within a week.
The Japanese posters confirms it will be released on 10 April 2020.
Could be but bond film's here has always been released within a week here, to avoid spoilers or leak they should release it within a week or two in other countries as well . Although it won't matter much because it's releasing on 3rd April here(I'll be watching on 5th April on Sunday with friends) but I may have to avoid this site for a few days in that time to avoid spoilers :D
Thanks for that. Good that it is releasing early.