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'm actually dumbfounded reading your comment. Do you not think you're going a tad OTT here? How you can get that wound up by something as simple as straightening his cuffs is beyond me. Referring to Craig as a "vain pansy" is pretty ridiculous not to mention insulting.
It takes literally seconds to adjust cuffs; Bond was hardly stopping to take a breather there. Comparing such a simple and non-over the top situation to an Austin Powers film baffles me.
I'm not wound up. I just think that it belongs right in the Moore era and I was hoping that Skyfall would continue in the more Flemingsque tone of CR and QOS. I'm not saying Craig is a vain pansy but portraying Bond in such a way makes the character he is playing seem like one to a small extent. To think that someone would actually think to stop and do something like this considering the circumstances baffles me. I can't believe that people actually think that this is natural given the situation he is in! I thought that Craig's Bond was supposed to be more rough and ready like Connery and the book Bond. Bond considers his presentation important but he wouldn't pause to adjust his apparel right smack bang in the middle of a dangerous situation like this. Moore's and Brosnan's cinematic Bond would but they are far removed from their literary counterpart. Sorry, but to me it just seems kind of absurd.
If Craig wants to cross into Moore territory then fine. I just find it a bit disappointing. I was hoping for more realistic (when I say realistic I'm obviously not referring to Fleming's plots), Flemingsque Bond films for the Craig era. What if the corner of his shirt was hanging out and he tucked it in? Would this be a perfectly natural thing to do too while standing beside a whole in an unbalanced train while the villain gets further away? If Bond had have adjusted his tie or cuff when it was all over, presuming he wasn't shot, then this would be perfectly fine. Well, each to their own I guess.
In terms of the humour, if Bond 24 has more natural humour like the dialogue exchanged between Bond and the nurse in Shrublands in TB for example, then that's perfectly fine. This stuff is funny. I just think that they should leave out the corny one liners for the Craig era.
If this is the kind of silly criticism we are now entertaining, what's next?
"I don't like the way Daniel's Bond tosses keys when he pretends to be a valet in "Casino Royale". A Fleming-esque Bond would show the proper respect to such keys, and at least buy them a drink first before sending them on their way. Utterly abysmal form, EON."
:|
I've mentioned this point before, but it seems appropriate to mention it again. I always got the impression that it was to signify 'this is the Bond you know and love'. The whole opening sequence symbolises 'classic' Bond, the suave, cocksure secret agent who is then emasculated somewhat when 'M' orders the shot. He spends the rest of the movie trying to get his mojo back.
So when you say it gives large insights into his character, I would agree, but there's an editorial reason for it, rather than it being just a throwaway gag.
The criticism of this moment is just plain silly.
I, too, will never understand the cuff adjustment complaint, something that Bond was doing as he walked along after Patrice. Again, they're both on a train, the mission wouldn't have been last with M screaming in the background "Bond. Bond! Did you adjust your cuffs? You could've had him if you did! Who are you trying to impress? Who are you trying to get a laugh out of?"
I thought it was badass and made sense: get yourself more comfortable in the suit again and continue. He didn't jump into the train, strip, and iron out his clothes or anything while making an apple pie. He just adjusted and went.
They all are signed on until Bond 25.
You definitly got a point here, but still it's quite camp. Especially since Bond is bleeding out of his shoulder anyway. Moore and especially Brosnan get slammed for things like that to no end here in this very forum.That all said, it is one of the few moments in the Movie I didn't mind. And like all of them excessively featured in the Trailers.
As the Oldtimers jused to say: "Now you got their attention, Sunny"
Welcome to the bizare World of the SF-Zone!
Just can't help yourself can you? Any chance to have another dig at SF and up you pop. It's all getting rather tiresome now.
Whishaw have said in an interview that he would be thrilled if he would get the opportunity to play Q as long as Desmond Llewelyn!
That would be nice! It'd be great to see him age through the films in the next 30 or 40 years if that happened.
And if *shudders* the Bond-franchise still carries on then or if it has become something more like Sherlock Holmes in terms of mythology.
In response to @Bounine, the view of @RC7 as bolded most mirrors my own thoughts on this subject. And part of exactly why I argue against complaints, on the occasion that they have happened, that we don't have the Bond character full blown when the film starts. I feel the same guy exists when he goes to Shanghai. The rest is about getting his mojo back and the usual support trimmings of Q and Moneypenny as well, while saying goodbye to Dench.
In this context, the definition of the word "camp" is said to derive from the French slang term "se camper", meaning "to pose in an exaggerated fashion". The OED gives 1909 as the first print citation of camp as "ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical". So indeed the moment is a little bit of camp and moments like these are indeed nothing unusual in most Bond films. But my very first thought regarding a complaint was, is this "good" camp, or "bad" camp? And for me, when I think of the utter ridiculousness of a certain Bond straightening his tie out, while underwater, while trying to drive a boat in pursuit of someone (I suppose he's so cool that he used his knees to steer), this SF moment is positively good camp in comparison and situation. It is indeed far more editorial than throwaway per the example I just gave. And keeping in mind that RC7 is one of the bigger critics here regarding Skyfall, his commentary is both fair and insightful.
@Bounine- considering Craig's recent comments that he'd like a bit of these old ironies back as they are indeed part of the usual trimmings, yet realizes that he's no Sir Roger and has his limitations when it comes to this department, it doesn't cause me any real concerns. Otherwise, if I were you, I wouldn't respond to Helm and would run as far away as I could from any support he gives you when it comes to anything Skyfall. What @WillyGalore said more than sufficiently describes the problem we should all avoid.
Seriously though, what large insight into Bond's character do you get from this? As @doubleoego said, it's simply a cinematic Bond moment. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it then that's fair but I don't find it to be anywhere near the realm of camp as you do.
The insight I get is one that reflects a Bond who is over concerned about he way he looks and has vanity issues. I realise of course that this is not actually true because we've seen enough of Craig's Bond to know that this isn't the case and that it's there merely for tradition like the 1960's Aston Martin that is filled with gadgets which is also ridiculous. Would Q branch deem it appropriate and necessary to fill and old car like that around 45 years old with machine guns and an ejector seat sometime between 2006 and 2012 (we all know Bond is a reboot and that he first acquired that car in 2006 during the Casino Royale events. If there was no reboot then it would be fine)? They would put them in a modern car but not that old but very beautiful automobile. What I'm saying is that some homages and a following of tradition is fine but not to the point where one becomes absurd and in terms of the character, inconsistent. If someone was to come in and see a Bond film for the very first time, that being Skyfall, and is not aware of the cinematic or literary Bond's personality or history then I can see them thinking about vanity issues when Bond adjusts his cuff during such a dangerous moment. It would be much more normal and realistic to do it afterwards. Skyfall's a good film (although not up there with Casino Royale) and the only other issue I have with this film is half to three corny quarters of the casino scene but I do feel strongly about and over indulgence in unnecessary traditional moments like the cuff scene and a prehistoric gadget laden Aston Martin. I'm still glad the car was there as Bond has a love for classic cars and I love the DB5 but it shouldn't have gadgets.
As far as Bond 24 goes, if it has some great, natural humour like in Thunderball which I find pretty funny, then no problem. If it has corny one liners (I'm generally referring to the ones that are uttered following an action or thriller type scene) which Craig isn't as good at pulling off (although he's better than Brosnan, which isn't too hard to achieve), then I feel that this would be a mistake. Moore and Connery could do the one liners so wonderfully and naturally that they didn't stick out like a sore thumb. As wonderful as these two Bonds are, Craig can't though and nor could Dalton. Craig admits that he's not as good at the "shtick" so it's good that he's aware of this. On a side note, I love the Moore films. I haven't a problem with anything Moore does as his Bond movies revolve around comedy and exaggeration.
I think the humour they give him his fine for his talents, if he gets moments like
"That last hand, nearly killed" we'll be fine, his delivery recalls Connery somewhat but he has is own style.
Craig is fine with what they've given him, I don't think for one minute that Bond 24 will turn into a joke fest, I actually prefer Skyfall just slightly to CR.
Yeah, and hopefully other recurring characters like Fiennes can stay on board for as long as possible.
"That last hand nearly killed me" line was handled wonderfully. When Craig says "put it all on red" and "the circle of life" though it isn't bad but I don't think it's delivered with real panache either. It sounds, well maybe not awkward, but it's not delivered with the finesse that Connery and Moore could do such lines with.
Perhaps this is selfish on my part but I couldn't care less about a newcomer's opinion of the series. If they like it then they are more than welcome to watch the other films and read the novels and learn their Bond history.
I think that the majority of us are hoping for an old school TB like adventure for Bond 24 so hopefully we won't be disappointed. I think Craig will be fine. He's knows he's not as gifted as Connery and Moore were with the one liners and they won't force it on him the way they did with Brosnan.