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
I don't think ALL Bond girls should be curvy and have no brains. You have to understand that women watch these movies too, and it would be quite insulting to have all Bond girls be like Mary Goodnight.
That said, I'm perfectly fine with having one "eye candy" Bond girl and one with some character and smarts in the same movie. I agree though that QoS didn't use the girls to their full potential. (Although if you want to see Olga Kurylenko in THAT kind of role, go watch Hitman or Max Payne. Preferably Hitman ;) )
Her body is perfect.
If you like skeletic women...
And in the next film, should the main Bond girl be a fat, bald, paraplegic woman, with one eye missing, a huge scar on her left cheek, and amputated from one arm ? Surely if that fits the story you'll say she's a fantastic Bond girl ?
Print that photo out and ask the first 10 people you meet whether they think she's too thin or not. Unless you live among obese people, all of them will say she's not too thin.
I understand and accept that you sincerely belive Gemma looks too thin on that photo but I also think there is something seriously wrong with your idea of how a healthy body should look like.
I really hope there are.
Caterina was bony and resembled a horse, while Gemma was Sandgate bus stop material.
You need to raise your standards mate.
The only thing missing here is a tramp stamp.
Someone was rejected by a looot of women...
Thanks to the powers of single malt whisky, no.
Agreed. People sometimes confuse small with skinny. You know they're skinny when you can see their ENTIRE spine. There's nothing wrong with this girl.
And by the previous statement, I'm using the earlier Bond women of Rosa Klebb, the Swiss Gatekeeper and Irma Bunt as a basis of comparison.
FIONA, SOLITAIRE, DOMINO, MELINA HAVELOCK, JILL, PAM, LUPE
These women were Knockouts.
I have to say it now and here: I was not impressed with the two girls they have cast for SkyFall. I must say that Babs looked hotter and she's 51...
I prefer my women to have more meat on their bones and at least some boobs...
So I guess Maud Adams is your all time favorite Bond girl? More power to you. but our minds are not in the gutters, we just prefer curvy women...
Agreed completely. I don't understand how anyone can look at that photo and think "skeletal". There are no ribs, breastbone, scapula, or spine sticking out. No super-defined ab muscles. There's still a waist there; she isn't straight up and down. If that's skeletal then I can't even imagine what average looks like. If you see the full length picture of her in that black bikini from behind there's no way that she's skinny much less skeletal.
I also find that Arterton brought loads of personality to her character - one of my favourite Bond Girls in a long time.
PanchitoPistoles said something above which I think is important: "I understand and accept that you sincerely belive Gemma looks too thin on that photo but I also think there is something seriously wrong with your idea of how a healthy body should look like." I agree completely but I think that part of the problem is that the body belongs to Gemma Arterton.
When someone says that actresses are "unsexy, dear (sic) I say repulsive", "skelatic", and "she's a travesty of a Bond girl" those are such over-the-top statements that I believe that the person is coming from a very emotional place where reason and logic may be pushed aside.
Yes, I know that you're very angry that Craig was in swim trunks but that doesn't make Arterton anorexic...
I agree with you @thelordflasheart. I don't think @DC007 cares about Bond girls that are memorable for their role in the film or their depth. He just wants breasts and behind. And apparently he wants a fat Burger King worker to star in Bond 24 if he thinks Gemma is unhealthy. Pish posh. I want Bond girls with a personality and depth, not just a nice body and face. If you disagree, go watch a porno, but here we're all about Bond.
some like big breasts I prefer a B cup who is right who is wrong No one it's all a matter of taste!
I just find it so interesting people can nitpick others personal tastes and claim their opinion is fact. daltoncraig thinks Moore is brilliant Great he want girls from the 60's perfect you prefer the more complex characters great. let let bygones be bygones. this has been my meager attempt to stop the bickering.
Halle Berry was the exemple of the perfect Bond girl, physically... from the neck down I know... She looked fit, she had boobs, she knew how to look sexy when coming out of the water... Please, how can you compare Honey Ryder, or Tatiana or even Domino with Fields ? In the love scene in QOS it seems like if Craig sneezed while kissing her back she would collapse in a thousand piece... Yes as Shark said we need a Bond girl that can withstand the power of Craig has in bed, judging by his physical strenght.... Eva was very petite, as Shark said, I do wonder how she made it through the night with Craig at the end of CR...
I find it appalling the point where the franchise is.,.. We've got this Bond actor, with tons of lingering shot of his muscular body, turning him into a sexual object, which he should never have been, while we've got a gallery of petite Bond girls that all look that they need a good meal... I am very annoyed that Camille didn't look like in the lingerie photos of the actresse... But then again Olga was skeletic in QOS, and the scar on her back was appallling...
And these Bond girls are unsure of their beauty... Fields in the love scene was a farce... she looked just so ashamed and shy of being nude she hide herself underneath a blanket... need to say there wasn't much to hide... Please, Fields was meant to be a homage of the 60's Bond girls... She just missed every mark... she's small, she's very thin, she's shy of showing flesh...
What happened ? Why do the actresses are scared and ashamed of showing some flesh ? Why did they take the role in the first place if they didn't want to fullfill their role of making the male audience salivate ?? More flesh in SF please, to redeem the last 2 films.....
I'm pretty sure Bond sneezing in bed with any would be taken very poorly.
Why can't female audiences enjoy Bond films?
Right, because gallivanting around the Bolivian desert in lingerie is practical.
Her scar was directly related to her backstory - that she was caught in a house fire set by Medrano to cover up his crimes.
I see you completely ignore any characterisation whatsoever. Fields was clearly intended to be young and naive, and felt that everything had to be done by the book. And how is it a bad thing that she "hid herself under a blanket" given that no Bond Girl has every exposed her breasts on camera before?
While Fields was a little more covered up than some of the other actors to play Bond Girls, she was only a little more covered up.
Maybe because women in the 21st Century are more than pieces of meat.
My opinion is that Camille was a farce, and she doesn't fulfill any of the main Bond girl objectives. Obviously the film has to be rewritten drasticly to allow Olga Kurylenko to show her beauty. And the scar was horrible, unneeded and unsexy... Appalling to think they'd do that to the main Bond girl...
And again, if the main Bond girl of the next film was a fat, bald, paraplegic woman, with one eye missing, a huge scar on her left cheek and amputated of one arm, would you say she is a fantastic Bond girl if her character fitted the story ?
Bond girls aren't meant to be overly-complex melodramatic roles... They are supposed to be the sexiest women on earth... So I really hope in SF they will put the women back in the place... Making the male salivate for one part, being sexy - the sexiest on the planet - and just be glamorous. Vesper and Camille were farcical, terrible Bond girls, they missed all the marks of what Bond girls are meant to be.
But, alas, what I heard about Harris and Marlohe at the press conference really frighten me that we will again have over complex, boring dull Bond girls... And by the look she had at the press conference, Harris needs a good meal or 2... She was so unsexy... I don't want another skeletic Fields again...
It was completely necessary. Camille survived the house fire. The scar was a physical reminder of that, and a visual cue for the audience. It connected Camille to her backstory; if she had no scar, it would be difficult to believe her child-like fear at the end of the film.
I'd have to see it before I could pass judgement on it.
Stop explaning the film to me. The scar was appalling, unsexy and unneeded. Bond girls are the sexiest women on earth, not women with horribly unsexy scars.
Now I cannot take you seriously anymore. It is beyond my imagination that a Bond fan would accept such a Bond girl. Your none-arguments are not credible anymore. Just because it 'fits the story' doesn't mean it's good. If we follow your argument, we cannot complain about ANY scene of ANY Bond film, or even ANY scene of ANY movie ever made, since every scene would be acceptable because they fit their plots.
The above comment is sponsored by NOW.
What the hell is wrong with my generation? No pubes, not tits, no arse, no lips and no hips. If I wanted that I date a mole rat.
Right, because a physical blemish clearly decreases a woman's worth. If she is anything less than physical perfection, then she has no worth as a human being.
Didn't we have some militant feminists on back-order or some such?
This is what I mean when I say "stop making comments that suggest you don't understand the film". You know perfectly well that there is a connection between Camille's scars and her entire motivation in the story.
I didn't say that I would accept her - just that I would not judge her until I saw her in the film. Please stop putting words in my mouth
I'd much prefer someone who fits the story rather than someone who has no purpose being there whatsoever.
But is ISN'T needed. The film could well have been rewritten to oust the appalling and unsexy scar. And the entire back story was unneeded. I don't want overly complex, melodramatic and psychodramatic Bond girls in Bond movie. They should be sexy, glamarous, simple (or perhaps a bit developped but not too much) and make the male audience salivate. Anything else is not acceptable in Bond films IMO. Anything else and the Bond girls misses all the marks of what they should be and do.
And I want fun and escapism in Bond films, not a dramatic and overly-dark back story of her family being killed and her house burnt... I want escapism and fun, not boring and horryfing stories... Bond movies are meant to be fun, and Bond girls meant to be sexy. I fear the last 2 films have completly steered away and missed all the marks of what they should do and what the Bond girls should be and do and look like.