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’d just use the entire short story. The fish as a murder weapon is a great plot device.
I can see that.
Exactly. The editing might be a bit too much in certain scenes, like during the boat chase, but overall QOS is an aesthetically pleasing and intelligent film that, at least for me, is the highlight of 21st Century Bond.
Better than CR?
For me, yes. CR is a good one, but I prefer QOS. I find it a more thoughtful and aesthetically impressive effort. Also, I find Craig much more Bondian in his performance. It's his most stylish moment as the character, much more elegant than the other three.
Completely agree.
I quite like QOS, but yours is a very controversial statement.
Whoa. Where does this information come from? He threw away a complete script, and then when the strike happened he didn't return to it, and wasn't forced to return to it by the producers, all because of the element motif? That sounds farfetched.
The more detailed stuff from what I remember was from a radio interview P&W did a decade ago, but this NYT article hints at it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/movies/09raff.html
Funniest part of the article is this bit:
Of course that was all hogwash and everyone would later admit it was only a barebones script that they had to resort writing dialogue on the set. 8-|
Well, the result is no P&W dialogue and, considering all their other efforts, that's a good thing. No 'little finger' in this one. Yes, the script has its' letdowns, but so do all the other films. And yes, the story is more intelligent than most other films. It leaves a bit for the audience to figuere out themselves. I like that. Except for the anchor, that was a mistake.
I don’t accept Barry Nelson’s version of Bond as being a Bond at all. Whilst the TV play was a ‘version’ of Fleming’s book, they changed the central character completely.
An American spy cannot be Fleming’s James Bond. I’ve seen countless articles saying Nelson was the first actor to be Bond, which I think is nonsense. The British heritage is key to the characters personality and characteristics.
That the oil plot is a distraction, i.e. Yes, Bond finds it out, but the audience has the time to do it with him. What I menat to say is that not everything is spelled out.
I fully agree. He's not even James, but 'Jimmy'. Nice gimmick, btw, for Wade to make that connection in GE.
I agree. Barry Nelson is Bond in name only, just like it is Casino Royale in name only.
Agreed.
I find Barry Nelson to be a GREAT James Bond.
I like the TV play very much. He's not a great James Bond, though. But he is playing a version of the character, even if people don't like it.
Anybody know what Fleming's reaction to it was?
Not really understanding that supposition. I mean, this is a film where Judi Dench helps spell out the themes of the film within the first minute of her appearance, and then we later get things like a whole montage of locals desperately trying to collect every last drop of water from a pipe. The editing may be confusing as hell, but what the film is about is pretty on the nose.
Then Bond and Camille discover (along with us) that in reality, Greene wants to control the water, not the oil. Cut to the locals desperately trying to collect water from the pipe (reinforcing what we just learned) and the whole bit with M saying to Bond "might want to tell her about your theory of there being no oil" over Strawberry's dead body.
The themes about revenge and trust, as well as the themes of earth's finite resources, are very overt, yes.
The trickery is the fakeout that the finite resource important to the plot is water, not oil.
Perhaps, but here it's at the same time the instrument to topple the current government and to extort the new one. It isn't, after all, about the water or the oil, but about powerplay by an organisation set to control governments.
Not to mention that the plot basically comes down to a lease signing in a hotel.
I doubt he ever got to see it.
He turned down selling the rights to LALD because they made a cheap offer. LALD won’t have worked with that limited of a budget. MR on the other hand, might of.
But boy, the fire at city hall and the ensuing chase hurt the film. I'm convinced AVTAK could be a favourite if they had done things differently for those two scenes. Stacey gets a lot of slack, but her worst moments are during these scenes. There is also zero tension during either scene. Glen has delivered some of the series' best action and suspense scenes, but these two are some of the worst. That ridiculous buffoon of a sheriff doesn't help things either. Such a pity, really.
Very controversial. What do you like about his portrayal?
He basically changed the character completely: Nelson played James Bond as an American agent whom some in the program call "Jimmy". In 2004, Nelson said, "At that time, no one had ever heard of James Bond...I was scratching my head wondering how to play it. I hadn't read the book or anything like that because it wasn't well-known”.