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
That's not to say Bliss was a disaster in the part, in that she simply wasn't utilized enough or given enough of an opportunity to show what she could do. I often found the Moneypenny of the late 1980s rather mundane and devoid of any vigor or interest, and just didn't feel right in the part, but realize there were big shoes to fill after the departure of Maxwell. Her few seconds appearance in License to Kill where she contacts Q Branch is hardly worth of inclusion, such is the short manner of time the character is on screen
Samantha Bond was an improvement, but nowhere near the standard of the aforementioned Maxwell. What they did with her towards the end with the virtual reality game that R stumbles in on was almost an embarrassment to the integrity of the whole character that Maxwell has built to great effect, but what's done is done. All this talk would seem better suited to the (overlong) 'Controversial Opinions of Bond' thread, located somewhere else on these pages, but merely following on from some recent responses
Agreed. I understand why people would find Samantha Bond to be annoying, but it really wasn't her fault. In GoldenEye they wanted to address the "Bond is an anarchism" complaint by taking it head-on, so they had Moneypenny talk about "sexual harassment" and later M gave that speech about being a "sexist misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war." After the film addressed that, they could move on, having acknowledged all of the negative things people say about James Bond--the series now one-upped their detractors by addressing those issues within the film itself.
Easily one of the biggest goofs in the Bond series. I recall hearing that in the work-print of GE you actually see the bullet hitting Trevellyn's head. Not sure how he could've faked that.
But then only seconds later he uses the same gun to kill one of his men. Was that soldier supposed to be in on it too. That'd be a little suspicious of Ourumov.
One blank in the chamber and the rest real bullets. As Scaramanga said, he only needed one. In this case a Blank.
I guess that makes sense. But at the same time what if Ourumov had been forced to use his first shot to defend himself. Their plan would've been ruined. I understand the Bond films require suspension of disbelief but it seems to me that their plan was needlessly risky and complicated. Haphazardstuff pointed out how GE's PTS made no sense in his review series (great series btw). If you haven't' seen them you should check out his website.
I've got 2 questions for the thread.
1)Why does Thunderball, at times, have such a dirty and grainy look to it (especially in the London scenes)? Visually it's not nearly as polished as GF before it or YOLT after it. I remember someone saying that it was Terrence Young's style but both DN and FRWL look considerably cleaner than TB and on a much lower budget.
2)Did we ever get a full-fledged answer as to why the series played a games of musical chairs when it came to casting Felix Leiter for so many years? I know that Jack Lord refused to reprise his role in GF unless he got equal pay and billing with Connery (a absurd demand if you ask me) but why then didn't Cec Linder return for Thunderball only a year later? The gap between films was so short, it would've more sense to simply have Linder return rather than go thru the trouble of recasting. And I know this idea won't be popular but I think it was never more obvious to have an actor reprise the role than John Terry in LTK. It would've made much more sense as audiences had just seen the man with Timothy Dalton's Bond only 2 years prior. Instead they dig up an old looking David Hedison who I doubt casual fans remembered from 16 years earlier. Granted Terry made arguably the most forgettable Felix in the series but man did Felix sure age between 1987 and 1989.
That's not possible. Blanks don't have enough power to push back the pin in an automatic. I know because, when I was in the army, when our sargent used blanks during exercises, he had to put a "blank plug" on the barrel of his submachine gun in order to fire bursts. If Orumov had used a revolver, then yes, he could have put one blank and four or five real rounds. But with an automatic, it's impossible, unless the soldier was also in on the deception.
If you want to see what happens when you use blanks in an automatic weapon without a blank plug, look no further than the episode of "The New Avengers" where London was put to sleep. One of the mooks used a M-16, but curiously, each time he had fired a round, he put the lever back to chamber another.
For Thunderball, Rick Van Nutter was cast as Cubby met him at a party and thought he looked exactly like Fleming's Bond. The plan was for him to return but when nothing came of this by On Her Majesty's Secret Service the idea was dropped.
As for Licence To Kill, Cubby wanted a Leiter that would resonate with audiences and show history. He thought this person was David Hedison, having played him 16 years before - and a very good choice too, I might add.
I also wonder why they didn't use Leiter in GoldenEye and TND and went with Jack Wade instead (whom I liked).
That's a good explanation. That would mean that the events of LTK had taken place in the GoldenEye timeline and that Brosnan's Bond was the same character as Dalton's Bond and that GE was not a reboot. The problem is that it was suggested that Dalton's Bond was the same character as the first three (there is a Tracy reference in LTK) which would mean that Brosnan's Bond was the same character as Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton, and Brosnan was too young to the same character.
Agreed. Hedison gave a great performance, sans being pretty upbeat at the end.
I've been recommended his videos a few times but I just find them so dull, I can never get through them.
Bliss for me was the worst MP by a mile. Compare Lois in DN, Samantha in GE or Naomi in SF to Bliss in TLD. She just doesn't live up to the others. "Maybe you can come and listen to my Barry Manilow collection", brilliant bit of flirting there. There was just no spark at all between her and Dalton. Even when Bond was given some dodgy lines, she always seemed to have good chemistry with Brosnan.
Bliss is one of the only flaws in Daltons films imo.
Personally i think Rick Van Nutter was the best Leiter of the lot,with Hedison close behind.
Have to agree with this. HH is too monotone. And his biased hatred of Brosnan just pisses me off. It's fine if he doesn't like him as Bond but to flat out blame him for the failure of his films (Which none of them were). I'll stick with Calvin and his reviews.
It's a Bond movie. Anything is possible in his universe. (Space Stations, Hollow volcano forts, laser guns, Gene Therapy magic plastic surgery...ect.)
Yeah I like Calvin. Can be a bit cheesey but he's funny and even when I disagree with him (like with the Dalton films, they're my favourites while he doesn't seem to think much of them), he still manages to entertain me.