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
Well it is self destructive behavior that eases stress, much like drinking. Smoking fits Craig's Bond, though I have to admit that it's a bit taboo now a days. You don't see many people smoking anymore in anything south of an R rating. I just think it would add a little more realism. I know a lot of people that were in the service who are very fit and they smoke. A lot of them even say they picked it up in the service. Though Bond just starting smoking in his 4th outing is a little bit late, I wouldn't mind seeing it.
I think Bond is aware that its bad for you - hes not an idiot. However he doesnt live by normal rules. His life could end tomorrow so he really does not give a solitary f**k about drinking too much, smoking too much, sleeping around, driving fast - thats the very essence of the character FFS!
Well sorry to disappoint you but if you want to go down the Fleming route Bond smokes like a chimney - you cant have it both ways.
Not only that, but would smoking really be the worst risk that Bond took? In the whole grand scheme of what he does smoking is the least of his worries.
I think we're going at this from opposite ends. You're taking it literally. You're probably the same person that says "bring back Blofeld!" I disagree. I think they need to use the books as inspiration, but don't rehash the same stuff. Yes, Bond should have substance abuse, but smoking isn't a great way to show it. Have Bond take painkillers, and wash them down with Highland Park. That, to me, says more about a character than a burning piece of tar.
You were suggesting opening Bond 24 with, "a fag in his gob saying 'Bond, James Bond'?"
Bond always exudes style, but that just seems disgustingly ugly.
Again, in the grand scheme of all things Bond, smoking would be the least of his worries.
I still don't understand the people who say "No smoking, because it's just so bad for you," yet they've absolutely no problem with how much Bond drinks.
"I still don't understand the people who say "No smoking, because it's just so bad for you," yet they've absolutely no problem with how much Bond drinks."
Yeah, it's crazy. Smoking doesn't alter the state of your mind. I saw that film, 'Flight' with Denzel Washington. Smoking seems like much less of the two evils in this movie.
I've also heard that Brosnan wanted to be the exact Bond that Craig is right now, but that's not what they were going for at the time. I'm sure he's very frustrated.
I'm wondering how much that was when backlash started coming in for later installments and how much of that was genuine. Nothing about Craig's Bond seems translatable to Brosnan to me. Either way, I'm sure thats where some of the bitterness comes from.
I think there's some revisionist history going on there with Brosnan. He was given loads of character issues to deal with in each one of his films. This whole idea of him not giving a three-dimensional, fleshed out performance because...well, it's always someone else's fault. Yet his Bond had Alec's betrayal and a new M to deal with in GE, Paris' death in TND, the whole of TWINE, and the first half of DAD. And he didn't get a chance to portray a Bond with more depth? Oh please. At least use an excuse that's believable, Pierce.
Can you imagine what Craig or Dalton could have done with all the emotional meat that Brosnan was given in his films?
Even before I got to your final line I was thinking of Craig/Dalton playing out the Trevelyan story line in my mind. I feel with the proper build up that would be one of the most personal Bond movies in the series. I don't like rehashes, but I hope they get to work something in along those lines in one of Craig's movies.
It's great to make Bond more 3 dimensional as long as the story isn't some personal revenge story again.
I want to see Bond go into the traditional office near the beginning and be briefed on his assignment just like the old days.
Yeah, I mentioned in another thread how a good actor like Dalton or Craig can take a simple, one or two word line and infuse it with more meaning and insight into the character than a lesser actor can do with a whole speech. I do like Brosnan but he always gave the most standard, obvious line readings in his films. He certainly wasn't one to use his dialogue to full advantage. I mean, it's not like the directors or producers saw him giving a good performance and building a three dimensional character and told him to stop. Or then went back and re-shot his scenes while instructing him to be worse! Sorry, Pierce, but the fault lies with you.
to quote Obi Wan Kenobi..
"Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"
If Brosnan was really that bent out of shape with what he was given, why did he not speak up at all and voice his displeasure?.. He could've made suggestions, offered constructive criticisms, and i dont think the producers would've shrugged him off at all - i think they would've tried to make it work to the best of their ability... But alas, Pierce just went along with it... so him complaining after the fact is just sour grapes... he refuses to take responsibility for his role in the failings of all of his films, but instead places blame on everyone else - like he was god's gift to the franchise, and everyone else ruined it for him.
but no amount of acting could've saved this scene, i am sorry..
Please dont presume to be able to speak for me. I am not one of those people.
Just because you have a personal downer on smoking and consider it dangerous to your health and uncool does not mean Bond should not do it. Fleming knew it was killing him of course but did it stop him?
'I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them'. This was Flemings philosophy and is Bonds as well. When I was an impressionable teenager (forgive the assumption that you are in that age bracket - its just your rather knee jerk anti smoking reaction and somewhat illogical argument suggests it) I also thought 'smoking is awful, Bond shouldnt smoke.' Now that I am older and wiser I can of course appreciate that even Bond has flaws, and it is indeed these flaws that make him more interesting.
This is fair comment. Brozza might have had some emotional meat to get his teeth into but the lines and direction he had werent up to much. Could Craig have done better with unpolished P&W lines and Tamahori directing him?
I must confess, somehow I can't see Craig tolerating dialogue like this (bear in mind that this is meant to examine Bond's more "human side").
"I always wonder how I'd feel if I ever saw you again"
(SLAP)
"Now I know....was it something I said?"
"How about the words "I'll be right back""
"Something came up"
"Something always came up"
Dalton likewise, although he had a few slightly iffy/cliche lines of his own.
"Look we...we have laws in this country too"
"Do you have a law against what they did to Leiter?" (something about the line and Dalton's delivery doesn't feel right for me)
"He's had enough...run a tab" (oh hello 80s tough-guy)
I don't get it either. If you're going to say he shouldn't smoke because it's bad for him then why are the same people ok with him drinking tons, sleeping around, etc.
And all those cool stunts fights, car chases and shootoouts? He could get hurt, it's bad for him.
So for Bond 24 let's have a non smoking, non drinking Bond who doesn't have sex and who's taken a desk job because killing, smoking and being an action hero are bad for you!
probably becouse smoking isn't considered 'cool' anymore whilst sleeping around and drinking excessively (and beeing able to hold your drinks!) somehow still is. Smoking is something to vent stress for middle aged desk-managers who failed to make the grade. It's hardly good enough to shed the adrenalin from fighting and beeing in constant danger.
Another good reason for Craig's Bond not to smoke is the simple fact that Craig quit years ago, and he himself is afraid of becoming addicted again if he has to smoke on film.
The moost intresting part of Everthing or Nothing. Whas linked to Fleming admit he bored material from Kevin McClory and his family warn him for that but he ignore it. Whas a big suprise that part of that documentry. Totaly change the sututation of the war between Kevin McClory and Fleming.
On the older forums i read discussions about Yolt and TMWTGG have elements of this.
It can be very intresting, a idea what can have been from Blofeld/Specter mixed up with 'World we living in''/Tomorrow Never Dies. I think there get a bit more out of the closet so the speak about that Quantum's real goal, but mirrors in skyfall maintitle be very nice.
I don't think there going in to Bond past with this, i think there let him fall and then rise. Find his soul back. Back to earth only wil not make Bond 24 better, this is what i think Skyfall made very clear, only based on one view.
But James Bond also be fun and entertainment. But i think there should consider 16+ / R-rating for the third catogorie like Thrillers (Sometimes mix up with catogorie 1 Violence or catogorie 2 sex/naked people ). With Casino Royale there made a big mistake not giving that rank who i think it should get of the violence (Catogorie 1). I think there should look very good how OHMSS, TMND and QOS doing this if there whant keep the 12/PG13 rank.
This ^
It's supposedly 'family entertainment'
But maybe Craigs amazing acting skills are also being overplayed, I've seen him in rubbish films such as Tomb Raider, Dream House and Cowboys and Aliens and he gave some pretty poor performances in those films.
The films Brozzer starred in suited him pretty well, likewise the current films play to Craig's strengths.
So we've had depressed and past it Bond now in SF (taken from the later Fleming novels). What's next? The Bond who enjoys the finer things in life, taking lots of cold showers, enjoying nice meals?
I actually like Bond best when he goes undercover against the villain. This was done nicely by Fleming in DAF, GF, OHMSS and TMWTGG. I'd love to see the undercover Mark Hazard role appear in Bond 24 from TMWTGG. I know this has been touched upon in LTK, but to use it now, in full context of TMWTGG would be a good move, I think.
That's a great observation regarding the premise of this thread. Well put.
If you think about it, most of the Bond films starting in 1989 have had "emotional meat" on the bone. Dalton did his turn gnawing on the bone quite a bit of justice, and Brosnan's first 3 films 1995-1999 all had this element to it as you've mentioned. Now since 2006, we see the beginnings of Bond and how Vesper affected him going forward all the way through QOS. SF moves us back towards the normal Bond and rather than giving us a new M, Q, and Moneypenny cold, it explores those relationships and things in Bond's childhood that motivates him into what he is today. The people who are complaining about Bond being made "too human" shouldn't be complaining if they are Brosnan fans, because if you are that is a hypocritical and self serving stance.
Whether Brosnan was better than Craig or Dalton in chewing the bone is a subject for debate. His biggest fans will defend him. I sure don't hate the guy and enjoy his first two Bond films as well as others he has done, but as an actor he lacks the skills and depth of both Craig and Dalton and in this aspect is closer to Lazenby's level of acting than the other Bonds, who seemed to know exactly what they wanted the character to be when they had the role and made it happen.
I partly agree with you. I agree that those Craig films you mention are not great, but I don't think he was poor in them, just not great either - which surely has more to do with the films themselves than the actor. His best work is in better movies. An actor can rarely shine in a mediocre or poor film. It can also be difficult to fully separate the quality of actor's work and the quality of movie (or one's perception of them, rather).
I recently watched Eat Pray Love and would have given up on it early on if it hadn't been on my to-watch list... the reason in that case being Javier Bardem, who was ok in it, but not great or anything, and I don't blame him for it. The film was just bad, that's all. A fabulous actor, but it's not like he could save it. He did it after Biutiful. (Now there's a great movie.) I remember watching an interview with him where he mentioned that when the role was offered to him he was, like, "Yes, I'll go to Bali with Julia!" making it clear he needed to get away from Biutiful somehow. Good thinking, no matter that Eat Pray Love was not, in the end, worthy. He needed to recover from Biutiful, and working was a good option - couldn't be anything too stressful, though. I was happy to hear he then had such a great time with the next one - Skyfall, in which he was again as wonderful as the movie itself - in other words very - IMO, obviously. Anyway, my point is that an actor - even a great one - won't save a poor film. I think I've seen 4 or 5 Brosnan films other than the Bonds, and I wasn't particularly impressed, but I also don't remember him being particularly bad. But the films weren't memorable, either. Maybe I haven't seen his best work. (Any recommendations?) But it is all, of course, a matter of opinion. I don't dislike Brosnan, I'm just neutral (Bond or otherwise). And I very much like Craig (Bond or otherwise).
I feel Moore is just wayyy too hard on himself, I don't like his Bond a lot but its not as bad as he makes it out to be.
I never got all the pierce hate also.
I think every single Bond is perfect for its time.