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
Of those three, she is the only one I care for.
If that is representative of "the best attire since the 60s", I am not impressed ;))
For sure, but I got to say, one of the few highlights of SP is his Morocco outfit.
I think so too. My wife hasn't watched FYEO, but I tried to make her watch OHMSS. She quickly got bored and lost interest.
That was probably on purpose (she wasn't going to be not-bored, probably had something else on her mind the whole time). Timing is everything....
I don't think so. Or else I get unlucky for every single Bond movie I try to watch with her. CR is the only one she ever felt a genuine interest to.
I have the same experience showing OHMSS to friends (of all sexes). It seems like a film which appeals to fans, not so much the general public. Having read the book and seen it many times, makes me appreciate it more I feel.
I think it's due to some misconceptions from the general public: Bond should not fall in love (a friend of mine said the same thing about CR), Sean Connery is not in it so it can't be good, etc.
Talking of the general public, I will say it again: it is their indulgence towards Connery that made DAF far more popular than it deserves.
Same with my wife. Whenever I put one of the old movies on she doesn't really want to know. But she loved CR and did get into the Craig era because of it. She didn't really like SP but I'm sure she'll still come to see Bond 25 with me the day it's released (having said that I think she knows really that she doesn't have any choice given how tragic I am when it comes to Bond and the amount of crap I've sat through with her xD ). Probably no coincidence that two of the few girls on here are fans solely because of Craig as well. I think he's definitely the Bond that appeals most to women.
Admittedly I haven't even tried it yet with my wife (known her for 2 years and we've managed to see as many films together anyway). So perhaps you're right, and indeed it would explain a lot about DAF.
One of my former colleagues (nasty, stupid snake who used to clash with me on everything, professional or not), said that Craig was not an appealing Bond because of his looks. Not handsome enough, etc. I said that CR and SF proved him wrong and that Craig tends to be underestimated in the charm department by men. I only have personal experience to back it up of course and it is not exactly representative, but I think he has a good female fanbase.
But was CR designed to appeal to women? I don't think Fleming had that in mind, considering the way Bond dives into his relationships in other novels. The guy really tries. The film is merely an update to the modern day situation and doesn't differ that much from Fleming's narrative. If anything, in the film he's more of a masochinist then in the book (courting the wife of a terrorism-organiser).
And I'm not convinced SF had those intentions either. It's more P&W paying homage to Judi Dench's M.
For me that's just good storytelling, as Fleming did himself as well. The films did depart from that path, making Bond's involvement more superficial and making Bond films into charicatures. But at the same time such emotional involvement isn't unique to the action/spy genre. Take Mad Max, a film that starts with the very emotion the rest of the film floats on. It's the involvement that makes the whole film work. Same goes for CR and SF. The only real difference I see with previous Bonds is the acting talent, which is on par with the nineteen sixties level. I'd say OHMSS i.e. takes far more time to show their love then CR does.
My point is just that these particular scenes and moments sprinkled throughout CR and SF, as well as the strong female characters in both films (Dench and Green are both co-leads in a way, at least imho) help both films to appeal to women. CR can very easily be appreciated from both Bond's and Vesper's perspective. Similarly SF from Bond's and from M's. I don't think the same applies to SP. Seydoux was poorly written, and she failed to resonate in the same manner. Therefore there is an element missing that was there in the more critically successful Craig entries. I know QoS is loved by some members here, but in the general public sphere it is mainly forgotten, so it too didn't resonate on that level - I'd go so far as to say it's the most male centric Craig film.
I agree that the acting is critical, and both Green and Dench nail it.
Well QoS (I'm one of it's fans) mainly deals with Bond sticking to his sense of duty, the story therefore didn't leave much room for any romantic interest. Allthough however little it may be, Fields did have the 'do you know how angry I am with myself' scene to give her personality more depth. In the five-second film QoS is, that's already quite a lot for a character who'se usefullness is very limited.
I agree on the Seydoux part and blame the script and direction for it, SP was all over the place storytelling wise. It's a pity because she has the talent. I loved the 'l Americain' scene. It just didn't fit the film.
But basically all I'm saying is that I don't believe the films were taylored more for a female audience, I believe it just so happens qualitatively and storywise they are far more convincing then many of their predecessors. Someone here claimed it was Brosnan who was molded to appeal more to the ladies, because of his looks. But Brosnan didn't have the acting talent nor the ladies to pull off an engaging relationship. Take Tery Hatchett as an example: she was supposed to give emotional depth to Bonds investigation of Carver. It didn't work because there was no chemistry between them and they couldn't sell it. Perhaps the last film where Bond had at least a bit of Chemistry and thus more depth to save the lady was in Octopussy. Now I'm no fan of Maud (mannequin) Adams, but ROger does sell his engagement to the audience (which shows how great an actor he really was!).
Long story short, if you ask me it's got mainly to do with the quality of the people involved rather then an effort to engage a certain audience.
I just find that they are trying with each film to make the female characters more three dimensional, thereby making them potentially more appealing to women as relatable characters.
Now they certainly gave women more capabilities and responsibilities during the Gilbert Moore and Glen eras in comparison to the past, but they were still written and acted in a manner which appealed to men. It's in the tone as well as the presentation. They were male fantasy capable women.
In the Craig films they have subtly tried to allow the dramatic aspects to take centre stage in a more serious fashion - more authentically if you will. It's not so much about the romance as it is about the depth of the characterizations themselves and the premise. As an example, Dench's M didn't have a romance angle, but her character is a strong and relateable one for women. I don't think Camille has the same resonance with women because her perspective is still more male oriented (action girl and revenge seeking).
I suspect Paris Carver was written the way she was so Bond could bed her faster.
It's the humanity to the central characters that elevate this film, although I do understand if some find it melodramatic. Similarly Alec Trevelyan felt like human, tangible character in GoldenEye which made him memorable as a villain. I feel like they tried exactly this with Brofeld as well but it didn't work. This is why I'm curious to see where they're going with the villain in B25 -- will they go back to a more conventional, but still striking villain perhaps like Le Chiffre? I just hope nothing like Greene, he was forgettable.
This only highlights my issues with the Mendes films. They both have a sort of "family angle", which I really don't care for at all. Oh, how I miss the straightforward mission films…
I agree. Too often these attempts at “character depth” reek of cheap soap opera writing.