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
Sure, I talked about all of it. I also said I was generally confident in EON to do things well, though I could see why others were more concerned. And I would have brought up Asian stereotypes in Rogue One as an example, absolutely. But "you said that you couldn't imagine Nomi being humiliated by Bond in NTTD because of diversity and all that" is well-poisoning and inaccurate.
Sure? But you're advocating contrivance for appearance's sake. YOLT would have been better off without the wedding scene anyway! I understand that LALD has no nice Black people except for the nice Black people that are in it, but I'm not sure why the film should have a third and possibly fourth funeral procession involving nice or neutral people.
I suspect that if all of LALD were set in Harlem, you'd have had more of what you get in YOLT. I see that difference. But YOLT has more "show the country for the sake of it" than LALD does, and I generally wouldn't want too much of that in any movie for any location. (I don't care for YOLT)
Your actual phrasing was: "Or put it this way: if instead of Nomi, the new 00 was a guy called Norman, and he acted like a jerkoff in the trailer, nobody would have any doubt that Bond can humiliate the living daylights out of him in the film. With Nomi, that's extremely unlikely." In direct reply to a post about 'the concept of "woke agenda"'.
I don't know if you think I'm trying to improve the movie by adding bits: I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad, simply whether the film creates a bit of a racist atmosphere around the black community.
I don't find YOLT to be contrived in the way it manages not to portray an entire culture as bad.
Well it's obviously fine to not like some qualities of YOLT, but I'm not sure that's massively connected to whether LALD is a bit racist or not and you brought up YOLT in the debate in the first place. I think it's choices LALD chooses to make rather than things it decides to leave out which gives that impression, as I've already explained. I think 007HallY put it well in his post above. Look, either you see it or you don't, we're going around in circles now.
Including a quote from what I was replying to is more well-poisoning, well done. But I stand by my quote absolutely. It is reasonable to expect that Norman would fair game to a greater extent than Nomi would on the basis of other films. Again, The Guardian anticipated the same thing. (Edit: notice my quote doesn't refer to Nomi's or "Norman's" race. It's wasn't the point)
I definitely do not think you are trying to improve movies, no. Adding unneeded scenes doesn't improve movies, generally. Had they added such scenes, we could be debating how offensive those were, in retrospect! ;-)
I guess fundamentally we disagree that it's racist to have a sinister funeral scene without showing a neutral/noble funeral scene. Or beneficial on any level. That's okay.
In any case, if anything in LALD gets me a little squirmy, it's the faux Haiti stuff!
This sounds good to me, and if it makes the movie better, great!
It's what the conversation was about. You were talking about "blandly noble or hypercompetent women and PoC". You decided what was unlikely to happen with Nomi, you got it wrong.
I don't know what you're talking about now. I never suggested adding any scenes. I said what the scene wasn't.
This is strawmanning now, so I think it's time to wrap it up.
I also stand by my full quote you edited:
And
Of course nothing in that thread is really relevant to this.
1. Bach is rather wooden as Anya.
2. I think TMWTGG is underrated, but maybe not the most.
3. I've never been a FYEO fan, but it dominates AVTAK.
4. LALD should've aged quickly soon after 1973. I'm surprised by the love it gets from a lot of fans today.
5. Can't say whether that scene is the most consequential or no.
6. Dalton isn't overly physically convincing, but he comes off with a toughness and aggressiveness that helps his case and that Moore didn't display. Besides that, many of Moore's physical scenes seemed slow and overly choreographed.
7. Dalton didn't have star power, no. What he did have was the air of a convincing Fleming-influenced Bond.
8. I could take TLD as a template, although I do like some of the over-the-top films too.
9. The Miami sequence is fine as is. If any Craig era action scene needed trimmed it was the video game-like infiltration of Saffin's base in NTTD.
10. Lazenby is just fine and the screenplay, direction and actors surrounding him help make it all great.
11. The Piz Gloria escape is far and away the best snow action sequence in a Bond film and among the best action scenes, but don't know it was the tip top.
12. Agree, GE was important but it is overrated. I've just never seen the greatness others do.
13. I've never understood why so many think Brosnan deserved another film and the belief it would've necessarily been the fitting end to his tenure they think it would be. It would've likely been along the lines of DAD.
14. I'd need to have examples of said elements the Brosnan era tackled first and better to weigh in.
15. Possibly, although LTK may nip it.
16. Agree. With TND, I thought Arnold recaptured the Barry feel, but his admission he put everything into that score in case he'd never get another shot made the others rather disappointing to me as they never recaptured TND's freshness with a few exceptions, especially in CR/QoS.
17. I like Gray, especially when he seems more serious, not sure why.
18. DAF is witty and enjoyable, but sometimes at the expense of action and suspense. I rather like the sharp wit of TB, which doesn't lose those qualities by making humor the bigger focus.
19. OP is the better and more entertaining movie. NSNA is a disappointment with some entertaining sequences, but I can't imagine it being influential as it repeats so much from TB and the Eon series.
20. I don't see how 1995-2002 was a peak of any kind. It seems more like a placeholder, one that tries to introduce new things and take minor chances while clinging to the formula, while the Craig era took the real chances, was more memorable and will age better.
It is so influential that sometimes it seems like a parody of future films.
I wouldn’t say weak link. Not the best acting from a Bond girl, but I think it works for the character’s more by the book manner, so I can forgive the stilted line readings at points. I think the story is effective enough to keep me engaged with the character.
With MR/OHMSS being embraced, TMWTGG is the most underrated
I think TMWTGG is one of the weaker Bond films, but it has its moments. I wouldn’t call it underrated though.
FYEO is Moore’s weakest, not AVTAK
I’d agree actually.
LALD hasn’t aged well
In many ways yes. Apart from the racial depictions just discussed, it’s like most of Guy Hamilton’s Bond films in the sense that I think it comes off as less cinematic than other Bond films.
QoS’s deleted final scene is the most consequential in the series
I think it involved White dying? I don’t know…
Dalton wasn’t any more physically convincing than Roger
I’d actually argue Moore was a more convincing fighter in his early films than many make him out to be. I don’t think he had Connery, Craig, or even Lazenby’s physicality, but I find him convincing in the dressing room fight in TMWTGG. Or the rooftop one in TSWLM.
Dalton was fine. Like Moore I don’t think he was the most physical Bond actor, but he was younger and could jump/run around for a lot of sequences, which was obviously a contrast to Moore’s later tenure.
Dalton is a great actor but lacks star power
I agree.
TLD is the ideal template for James Bond films
I don’t know about ideal template… I like the film, but it has its flaws. I don’t think any of the villains stand out overly well, especially when you compare them to the multiple villains in FRWL (in fact I’d argue TLD takes some of its story aspects from FRWL). But I wouldn’t be disappointed if certain ideas in it were revisited for a later Bond film.
The Miami Airport sequence in CR should’ve been trimmed or removed
Story wise, it’s what makes Le Chiffre turn to gambling in order to get the money he’s lost back. So no. It’s one of the most important bits of the story.
OHMSS is great because of Lazenby, not despite him
I would disagree.
The Piz Gloria ski escape remains the best action sequence
I don’t know about best, but I’d say one of the best.
GE is important, and I still like it, but overrated
Depends on what you mean by overrated. I think it’s one of the best Bond films. It has its flaws I suppose (every film does).
Brosnan was a popular Bond who deserved five films
I don’t think a fifth Brosnan film would have been better than CR. So I disagree.
The Brosnan era tackled certain Craig era elements first and better
I wouldn’t say better, but a lot of TWINE is in SF.
NTTD is the best final film for a Bond actor
I prefer LTK, but it’s definitely one of the better ones!
Despite good work on CR/QoS, Arnold never topped his TND score
I have no opinion on that.
Charles Gray had the best demeanour for Blofeld
I think he’s fitting for DAF, but I prefer Savalas.
DAF has the wittiest script in the series
It’s very witty, yes. I guess I’d agree.
OP is the better movie but NSNA is entertaining and influential
I don’t enjoy NSNA much. I don’t know about influential either (if we’re going by what film did what first, you may as well argue CR ‘67 influenced NTTD, but I don’t think that’s the case in practice).
Bond will always be popular, but 1995-2002 was the modern peak
For me I’d say no (objectively Craig’s films were more financially/critically successful). But we’re all different. If someone prefers that era, that’s what they prefer.
I'm curious what they mean by some of that too: the NSNA being influential is an odd one. I guess Max Largo would seem to have influenced Max Zorin a fair bit, beyond that I'm not sure.
I think AVTAK could possibly have taken some more pointers even, I wouldn't have minded if it had actually addressed Bond's age and retirement as NSNA did (not that it dwelled on it). But then maybe that would have been two Bonds in a row being a bit too similar.
I have ten more to chew on:
Vehicle gadgets are more exciting than field gadgets
Jack Wade is better than most Felix Leiters
Films should now embrace continuation content more strongly
The films require some degree of camp/silliness
Horror elements are their most effective in MR
Few Bond girls match Kara Milovy and her chemistry with Dalton
Sean Connery will always be the standard
Despite other issues, QoS is the most stylish/dynamic Craig film
Lighter films are not detrimental and grow the franchise more
The low key, detective elements of DN should be used more often
I agree about the vehicle gadgets typically being better than field gadgets. They tend to be more realistic.
Jack Wade feels more Texan than the others. That is one of the best reasons.
I fully agree with EON using more things from the continuation material. They own those rights to other continuation novels. They should use it more often now. Some of it has aged better than Fleming's material that has been used.
I agree about a bit of camp and silliness. Just don't overdo it as much as the Guy Hamilton/Tom Mankiewicz movies. Not so much a cynical approach.
LALD also uses horror elements very well, but MR does have some truly horror moments.
QOS is almost too art-house for me, I blame Marc Forster for that. He still did as well as he could, given the circumstances. I think that this was the first and arguably worst time that EON let DC have too much creative control. Marc Forster wasn't a Bond fan and it shows.
I agree the lighter films help balance of what's a typically dark character.
DN is often overlooked in this respect. It's one of the few movies that proves that Bond is truly a spy, not an action hero.
A few of my own.
While I won't change any Bond film as it is. I do wish I didn't know that Anthony Hopkins was basically cast as Elliot Carver. He honestly would have been perfect casting.
Judi Dench was spoiled by EON as much as Daniel Craig. Her death in SF was more of a tribute to her career, than M's itself. It's hard to be sympathetic with a character like M, when we've seen a lot of her bad choices over the years.
If Ralph Fiennes wins the Oscar, EON is going to fight to keep him around. Expect M to continue a bigger role if that happens. Hopefully, he will be written to be more neutral, with less of the trust issues, and not accidentally creating villains.
I think GE also draws inspiration from it, mainly Xenia from Fatima, and of course the laser watch.
And a new and more bureaucratic M.
They're often more dynamic just because of the nature of them (usually being used in some sort of battle situation, in fast motion of course!), but I don't know if they're always more exciting, and it depends what you're excited by. I enjoy the cleverness of some of the ones he carries, I enjoy the wit of them.
Jack Wade is better than most Felix Leiters
Than a great deal of them, yeah. He's more charismatic, and even in their brief scene together in TND I buy that Bond has become fond of him, if not exactly good mates.
Films should now embrace continuation content more strongly
Nah, no point. There's nothing in them they can't write better themselves, and I don't think there are any killer ideas in them which demand to be filmed.
The films require some degree of camp/silliness
yeah.
Horror elements are their most effective in MR
Maybe, it's possible.
Few Bond girls match Kara Milovy and her chemistry with Dalton
She's right up there.
Sean Connery will always be the standard
I don't know about always; I think new actors will be judging themselves against Craig.
Despite other issues, QoS is the most stylish/dynamic Craig film
Not most stylish, most dynamic maybe. But, y'know, it's short! :)
Lighter films are not detrimental and grow the franchise more
Yeah sure.
The low key, detective elements of DN should be used more often
I'n not desperate about that. I like big thrilling Bond adventures.
Do they own it? I'm not sure, I think they'd have to pay the writers and IFP.
No I don't see that.
Fiennes is already a very valued, veteran screen actor, an Oscar won't suddenly make everyone realise that. I think it's possible they'll keep him on as a new version of M, but I don't think the Oscar would change that.
Depends I think. I don't really have an opinion here.
Jack Wade is better than most Felix Leiters
I'd agree. But then again I think a lot of the cinematic Leiters haven't been spectacular. I think Wright, Hedison, and Lord are great though.
Films should now embrace continuation content more strongly
The continuation novels I presume this means? I don't think there's any need. I think they've shown they can come up with interesting stuff that's original and still even has a link with Fleming.
The films require some degree of camp/silliness
Absolutely. Bond is escapism at the end of the day and it should have its absurdities. How exactly it's done is another thing.
Horror elements are their most effective in MR
MR actually has some scary moments. Connie getting mauled by dogs and the scientists being poisoned are the main examples. I'd personally say NTTD does the horror elements better though.
Few Bond girls match Kara Milovy and her chemistry with Dalton
I'm really not a big fan of Kara and I wouldn't say her and Dalton's Bond had particularly amazing chemistry. It's fine I guess.
Sean Connery will always be the standard
I actually feel quite strongly that there will never be a definitive cinematic Bond. Connery was a great Bond, but had his share of more underwhelming performances.
Despite other issues, QoS is the most stylish/dynamic Craig film
I'd disagree personally.
Lighter films are not detrimental and grow the franchise more
They're not detrimental, no. And the films all have their share of humour and outlandishness, even if they skew lighter or darker. I don't think a lighter tone of film inherently grows the franchise though. It depends on the film.
The low key, detective elements of DN should be used more often
Yes, I'd like to see Bond doing more 'detective' stuff. Stuff like snooping, maybe looking over his hotel room. As long as it works for the film and gives us some good moments, I'd be up for it anyway.
And for the bonus statements:
Well, to be fair he wasn't officially cast but was heavily considered. He ultimately turned it down because Judi Dench let slip the script wasn't finished.
I've always said I think Pryce was best for Carver. I feel something would have been lost with Hopkins in the role, namely that idea that ruthless billionaires like Carver can have outwardly benign appearances. I also like the idea that he's a bit of a dweeb. It gives his need for power something much more maniacal and sinister.
I would disagree. I think M and Bond's relationship was pretty adequately explored in the first three Craig films and I think there were plenty of moments I felt sympathetic towards her M.
I doubt Fiennes will continue as M, but it's not impossible either. I don't think the Oscar will have anything to do with it though.
Hi! :-h
It'll then be followed by a portion of fans who 're-evaluate' Craig's era and say it's by far the best era of Bond. Even Brosnan and Dalton got that.
But I think whatever way Craig is just another Bond ;) Same as all of them were when their tenures ended technically (even if Lazenby and Moore initially had the hurdle of being compared to Connery, often unfavourably). I hope that the next Bond film/actor are successful though and immediately own that role. I suspect it will happen.
But the one that next actor has to work hard to make seem like just another Bond. At the moment he casts a long shadow and is Bond for an awful lot of people.
Nah, not really. Just a vocal minority.
1. Maybe, but I dislike both. Gadgets do have the potential to be cool, but they undermine both Bond's and the villain's cleverness. The villain in the sense that they didn't search Bond, and Bond in the sense that he'd be hopeless but for a specifically designed and complicated device. Field gadgets, with one specific purpose, are always worse on this front as they're like Chekhov's scalpel. What I would prefer would be Bond using his surroundings, as done in the PTS of TWINE and in the early Craig era, or using a gadget in an unexpected way.
2. Most Felix Leiters are a bit dead. Casey, Wright, and Hedison are the only exceptions. Wade isn't great: he's a bit of a caricature in a way that reminds me of Benson's literary Felix: not especially smart but gutsy. It works, but doesn't replicate the strong Bond-Leiter relationship in the Fleming novels.
3. Eh. I'd love for adaptations of some novels: Colonel Sun, Nobody Lives Forever, High Time to Kill and Trigger Mortis stand as candidates from each major continuation author, but ultimately EON will (probably rightly) never see the point in paying the estate of an author to use their work and then pay writers to adapt it, when could just pay those same writers to right a story. If a Bond TV series did happen though, that'd probably be a prime place for taking continuation novels.
4. Camp, not really, humour and levity, certainly. I don't want to come out of a Bond film thinking "that was enjoyably silly!" but I do want to walk out of one thinking that the tone was well balanced. That can mean varying amounts for varying stories: TSLWM and LTK both feel quite balanced, with differing amounts of levity. I do think Bond films need a bit of ridiculousness to them as well, but more in a "reality is stranger than fiction" way, and less in a "let me watch the circus" kind of way.
5. No opinion on a better film. But the only time MR seems scary is the scene with Corinne. I think TSWLM did a better job of making Jaws scarier.
6. Agree. I can buy Bond feels protective of her and d'Abo brings an innocence that helps sell that end. And Bond's caring nature throughout the film helps sell the other end. Probably the best romance outside the Big 2 (Tracy and Vesper).
7. Yes. That's the result of Connery being first, and also the most iconic. James Bond as a franchise first became big in the 60s and Connery was the face of that. But I don't think he's the best.
9. Did Moonraker grow the franchise more than Skyfall? The context of the film means more than its tone.
10. I find the Dr. No film unenjoyable, partly because they stripped the funnest part of the novel and turned the climax to a damp squib, and also because of Sean Connery's Bond. I don't really remember much about the film. But I do think a more investigative mission (like either the Moonraker or Thunderball novels) is in order.
12. I mean I believe Dench's contract was up and she didn't want to renew for any more. The options were to have her die or resign. And resigning wouldn't make sense without a reason: so some of the drama had to focus around M. And once the drama is around her, why not have her die? It'd be more dramatic for the story and such. I do believe that they wanted to care of Dench's M though because of positive relationships. They didn't want to just discard her.
13. No comment on the Oscars scenario or the future. But I very much dislike how Craig's Bond was always at odds with Fiennes's M. Especially in Spectre, where the silly justification of Dench sending a posthumous video was just incredibly ridiculous. Why not have Fiennes give him an off the book job? I said it when I reviewed Spectre, but did Dench's M seriously have a whole catalogue of videos that she recorded daily in case she died early? Would she keep a future successor out of the loop?
I mean, okay, but I'm sure a not insubstantial amount of "ordinary" viewers would say Benedict cumberbatch was the definitive Sherlock Holmes, or Kenneth Branagh was the best portrayal of Hercule Poirot there ever was. I'm not sure exactly what that proves, if anything? There's only been 2 Bond's in the past 35 years, a lot of people nowadays have probably never even seen a Roger Moore or Sean Connery Bond film. If we're talking about the people who've never seen the other movies then sure, Craig would have to win by default I guess.
I don't disagree with you here :) all I'm saying is he's Bond for a lot of people, even if it's what they've always known. For a good chunk who have actually seen those Moore or Connery films he's still their favourite (believe it or not some people like Craig's Bond films and actually don't enjoy the earlier ones as much).
It's like I said, I think the next actor has a better chance of being accepted immediately than Moore or Lazenby did. But they'll find their footing eventually, and there's every chance they'll be even better than Craig or even Connery by at least some people's measures (and I hope that's the case!)
What are you basing that on? The millions of cinema tickets sold over 15 years, the billions in revenue? Don't make the mistake of mistaking your opinion for that of everyone else.
To a huge amount of people ranging from teenagers to folk in their 30s, he is James Bond. They're not so interested in watching old films, might watch a Brosnan, but that's about it. The vocal minority are very much the ones who keep banging on about how bad he was, he was an immensely popular Bond; to some, the only Bond.
I just don't think the general audience is as loyal to one guy in the role as certain ardent Craig supporters like to think. Poll a random selection of people in the early 80's who their favourite Bond is and I imagine Moore gets a good chunk of the votes. Do the same thing, this time in the late 90's and I'd imagine Roger has been hopscotched by Brosnan, and then again in the 2010's and I imagine both have been hopscotched by Craig. Do a similar poll in 10 years time (assuming we have a new Bond by then) and I imagine the results will look very different again. If you want to make the case that a lot of people have never seen another actor play Bond, okay, but that won't be the case forever.
Well, every one of the actors is someone’s favourite Bond. That won’t change. Not all viewers have only watched one Bond actor’s films either. I’m sure plenty will still say Craig’s their favourite, as many still say the same about Connery or Moore.
I personally hope it’s not a case that any single actor is considered by a majority as ‘the best Bond’ forever. But this implication that any actor’s popularity is a fad and dependent on them simply being in the role I find cynical. And not quite true either. They all have their longevity and memorability in the role.