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
The Bregenz Opera House from QOS has a number on its roof.
That, my friends, is the speed of light in a vacuum, whose behaviour is described by quantum physics. Collectively, all types of light form the electromagnetic spectrum. The word spectrum was chosen by Newton after the Latin word for ghost, spectrum, which literally translates as spectre.
I have been keeping my mouth for years. But NTTD liberated me from that prison.
@DarthDimi the truth is revealed
Cuckoo
The most stupid thing in all of the most stupid things happened in the history of the James Bond Franchise, going superlative here!
I won't have that. Max the Parrott is worse
Yes, it's bad, imagine Bond and Melina getting their lead (about the ATAC machine) from a parrot? It's contrived.
But it's not as bad as Bond and Blofeld being relatives, like why? Why it needs to happen? It's not fun, it's not entertaining!
Well, Blofeld and Bond aren't actual relatives. A foster brother is not a blood relative.
But the idea that they spent a lot of time together in their youth is a stupid idea, that should never have gotten past the idea stage. It's weak writing, that longtime fans would likely not except.
Is there anyone who's okay with this storyline?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure those plots are more believable, more realistic and help ground the story in the real world but I couldn't give a monkeys about that. As far as I'm concerned Bonds world and ours are only tangentially linked. Bond doesn't have to obey traffic laws, he literally has a license to kill, and he can seduce a woman knowing that he doesn't the fate of the world may hang in the balance. He is effectively a law unto himself, and the villains he faces are similarly disconnected from our reality whether it be through extreme affluence, megalomania, ideology or a combination of all three. Secondly I think finales to Bond films have taken a turn for the worse ever since this irritating adherence to "realism" took hold. For me there's no better way to end a 007 cinema spectacle than having Bond disable some element of the enemies apparatus that it causes s**t to hit the fan until the villains men and Bond allies battle it out in a large scale brawl, while Bond weaves through the chaos to achieve his objective. I'm fed up of Bond being by himself, jogging through a cavernous building occasionally picking of the odd guard or ducking behind a pillar. It's just not that engaging. I want legions of men in boiler suits comically leaping out of explosions and lifelessly flopping off gangways, crater guns and impregnable metal shutters, ticking clocks and all those little things which used to be standard to a Bond adventure but disappeared.
I was listening to a podcast a while ago in which someone said that in many ways the franchise peaked with Moonraker. At the time that seemed like a strange thing to say, but the more I think about it, the more it starts to make sense. The evolution from Dr No right through the connery and early Moore films finally came to full maturation in Spy and MR, and after that they couldn't really take it further, and that's why the idea of realism began to take more focus. But, I still think that if they want to prove that bond still has his mojo in 2026 then they should really go for broke, just like Cubby did with LALD and Spy and GE, and deliver the old-fashioned spectacle that many fans are crying out for. Make a Bond film that takes place in his luxurious, vibrant somewhat ridiculous world and not in our mundane tedious one. If EON have any life left in them they have to prove they can still makes Bond movies the old school way, deliver the old school escapism, and I promise you, when that bond theme kicks into full gear again the audience will go absolutely bananas.
What makes it even more embarrassing is that it had a big name director, prominent actors, and Connery's insistence on being able to provide his own input and approve certain elements of the film. I guess they couldn't expect much when they included Mr. Bean in the cast lol.
To promote the film, Connery gave interviews where he dismissed the Roger Moore Era as Bond for being too silly and corny. And he called on fans to choose the true Bond film by supporting NSNA in theaters over Octopussy.
What's really scary is that McClory said he wanted to release a third version of the film in the early 90's and make a few changes. One thing he wanted to do was have SPECTRE set up their evil HQ inside the Statue of Liberty!
Did he actually said that? Because of what I knew and what I've read in some articles with those interviews of Connery, that he praised Roger Moore, and at one point Connery did told that Moore's Bond is what Bond should be, I think Connery would never said that to a close friend of his, he and Moore are both close friends, there's even a talk at the time that Connery would've liked to invite Moore to have a cameo in NSNA, but it didn't happened.
But if there's one thing I remember was he detested the Dalton Era (and Dalton's Bond), because Connery though that Dalton underestimated the role, and didn't took it seriously, he'd also said that Dalton's Bond lacked the charm, suave and charisma that's needed for the role.
" I'm afraid we've lost our electronic surveillance ship, the St. Georges...
My God, Jack. How deep is the water there? - Not deep enough, I'm afraid."
The Brits did not need the ATAC. It's not like the Lektor in FRWL, since that was a Soviet machine that the Brits wanted. They only needed to keep the Soviets away from the ATAC. If the St. Georges had sunk into the Mariana Trench, they could have been relaxed about that. So ultimately, Bond's decision to destroy the ATAC, in a moment where General Gogol has the upper hand, was perfectly reasonable. Not a stupid scene at all...once one has digested the fact that Max the Parrot was the one who directed Bond to St. Cyril's in the first place.
FYEO ended with Bond successfully completing his mission, as always. I can't remember what exactly the Chief of Staff or Defence Minister told him in the 2nd briefing - when it was requested that he not muck it up again lol - but wasn't Bond tasked with retrieving the ATAC or doing anything possible to make sure it didn't fall into Russian hands? (If that happened, it was feared that the Soviets could instruct Royal Navy submarines to destroy their own cities).
Any means possible would mean destroying it, if necessary. Wouldn't it be better to destroy the ATAC instead of allowing your enemy to acquire it? Sure, you also lose the computer but that's preferable to having it in the possession of another party. I can't recall if it was implied that the only working unit was on the St. Georges (I'm gonna have to watch FYEO and pay closer attention to this scene!), but it's possible the Royal Navy has more that one ATAC unit? Or they could build another one?
Whatever the case, scuttling or destroying your own military's guns/ships/equipment to deny their use to your enemy is standard practice in the field. Particularly in the Navy. Bond didn't do anything "stupid" when he tossed the ATAC over the side of the mountain, and even Gen. Golgol knew that. He would have done the same thing, surely, if the situation was reversed. What other option did 007 have at that point? It would have been gross misconduct for him not to toss it away and destroy it lol. That certainly would have mucked it up ha ha.
"We're sending the fleet to China."
Good luck. ;))
Yeah, no idea about Connery dismissing Moore either (although I do know he had a habit of saying things to the effect of 'oh, it's just a different take on the character' or 'there's a different appetite nowadays' when talking about Moore's Bond). I think the only Bond he had high praise for in the role was actually Craig.
I know, I know. ;-) It's just rather funny that they went there.
True. Which is why I am glad that the Bonds usually stay away from real-life politics.
It probably very much helped selling the Bond franchise in Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union, but I also wonder to what extent it contributed to making the public in Western nations underestimate the threat potential that there is still in Russia.
NSNA lacks that je ne sais quoi...something that OP had, at least in all the egg/Sotheby scenes.
That's my rant & I'm sticking to it.
:))
If Dalton lacked the charm, suave and charisma needed to play Bond, then what does it say about Daniel Craig?? Lol.
I haven't heard many people say that they didn't like DC as Bond. In fact, most people rank him with Connery as the best to ever play 007 - but looking back on his tenure now, it sure wasn't very fun lol. I think Craig nailed the fabled "blunt instrument" aspect that Fleming gave the character. But, like Dalton before him, he took it all too seriously. And he easily had to have the fewest lines of any actor who played Bond (minus Lazenby, maybe)! He was a man of action, I guess. Not words.
A short clip about Sean's view of Roger Moore portrayal
Great stuff here about Roger and his meeting with Guy Hamilton before LALD!
I recall an interview around 1988 where he praised Dalton. Perhaps LTK changed his opinion of Tim?