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
2) Guess you didn't read the part where I wrote
Why do people want the same thing over and over? Change is good. Bond is a balancing act- Each film is trying to correct its predecessors.
And no I don't miss the OTT Bond. My only qualm with Skyfall is that it didn't feel like a exciting adventure.
There are many things they could change for each Bond movie. They changed a lot going from TMWTGG to TSWLM for example, but the character stayed the same.
I guess some people like what they have turned James Bond in to: A guy who reports to his boss on the radio while on mission, taking instructions about how to deal with a bad guy. And who, when things go south, hides, stops shaving, starts drinking heavily and shoots like a 70 year old!
I don't!
Movie making is all about creativity but creativity should not infuse a change that takes away the persona of the character from how it was conceived.
I basically agree with you. I also enjoy seeing EON playing with the formula every now and then, but like you I feel that 3 films of angsty, sullen Bond is now enough. However, at this moment in time you are not going to find many other takers for this point of view. You'll be dismissed as harking back to DAD or not 'getting' the new era.
Well, arguably when we see him moping around on the beach and looking miserable in the changing rooms at MI6. If not exactly angst ridden elsewhere in the fim, he's hardly exudes positivity.
Yes, but my point was that this is something that now arcs across all 3 films in the DC era. From after Vesper's death, through QoS to the first half of SF we have Bond in a state of self-absorbed, barely repressed anger. For some people this has put a bit of a dampener on proceedings. I know this is going to provoke howls of protest but frankly it reminds me of Bourne, except the story arc is actually less interesting. Bourne was on a journey to uncover his very identity whereas Bond increasingly resembles a self-pitying and emotionally stunted public school boy. Which is perhaps, how Fleming intended him to be seen.
I don't want James Bond to be a loser no more.
Hmm...yeah pretty much ;) Bond was a bit of an outsider in the books. I think he referred to the social climate around him as "alien" at one point though I may be remembering it incorrectly. Even so a large aspect of the literary character was that he was reflective.
I agree. SF was the lightest I'd seen Craig's Bond.
As for being emotionally stunted, I had that feeling from Dalton in TLD. He seemed to be a man who didn't really like his job at all. A man who was just burnted out. I never had that feeling from Craig.
Really? Bond's relationship with Kara in TLD is often cited as one of the most convincing and genuine in the entire series?
Perhaps this is just about whether you prioritise staying true to Fleming's Bond over staying true to the screen Bond that grew out of the literary character.
I think it's a mixture of the two that works best. Craig did it well in SF. While he strictly speaking wasn't experienced enough to be "burnt out" in CR you could tell killing affected him.
Dalton did the Fleming part well too - especially in TLD
I know this is going to be laughed at but there are also moments in DAD where (IMO) Brosnan seems every inch the burnt out fed up agent. I'm thinking of his scene with M in the underground tunnel in particular.
Oh, when he was with Kara he was great. However, I coudn't stand him before that. Maybe if this wasn't Dalton's first picture, I could understand it. However, it's his first film and he's all "If M fires me I'll be better for it." I just hated that line.
Yeah, I think it's good to mix and match. I'm still a fan of DC's Bond overall, but enjoyed his performances in CR and QoS more than SF. I know people on here think I'm just stirring for the hell of it, but right now I really feel like I must have gone to see a totally different film last weekend. I'd been looking forward to it for months and came out of the cinema just feeling SF was a total disappointment. Weak plot, strangely flat pacing and - this was my wife's observation - no one you actually like or care for in the entire film. The friends I've spoken to are not as down on it as we were but they're definitely not raving about it either.
Any way, I've been here before, when GE came out and the press and many fans were claiming it was as good as Connery, I felt I must have been to see a different movie. I do think things change over time and frankly SF's reputation can only go down from it's currently (IMO) overhyped position. Now (as you know) it seems to be the fashion to slate Brozza. I don't mind, but I'd have been happier if people had been saying that stuff when his films came out, rather than years later. In contrast, Dalton's star just keeps on rising as more and more people seem to realise how good he was.
Sf is a good Bond movie
They are both well liked for a reason.
You'd better get used to being in the minority. I have a strong feeling this film will go down as one of the most popular films in the series. Most people I've talked to have really liked it (even those that didnt 'love' it still enjoyed it). True as time passes the hype will fade but there is a lot in it's favour including Richard Deakins and Daniel Craig
No one you liked in the entire film?
I liked Craig's Bond, I liked Ralph Feinnes I liked M and I liked Albert Finney.
But, Kincade - who he was, what he would do, etc. - were totally unbeknownst to me before the showing. Real nice surprise.
Well said and all true. I thought the cast did an outstanding job in their roles. Not one single poor performance unlike the parade of them we got in the nineties and 2002.