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
It's hard to say on this one, having watched AVTAK just a couple of days ago, I have to admit that I quite like it and it has an interesting crossover of worlds with it being bang in the middle of the 80's, yet Roger Moore and Patrick Macnee being old school stars who were famous in the 60's, it tries to combine youth and nostalgia. I think Rog is fine in the role but I can see it has potential to have been a great start for Dalton.
I think TLD would have been one too many for Moore and it would have distracted majorly unless the script had been geared towards an older Bond on one last mission perhaps.
I think by AVTAK, Roger was showing he was too old for the part. Also, the longer you have an actor in the part, the harder it is to replace him. I think Dalton could have come in around 1983 easily and it may have happened but ironically they kept Roger on because of the Connery NSNA coming out at the same time. Or so they thought, but NSNA ended up being delayed.
There was talk of replacing Roger after 1981, but Connery's return was a worry and they thought a new actor may not be the best insurance policy.
Dalton would have been perfect in 1983 as well not to mention 1981. Cubby did approach him as well but I don't think the previous Moonraker was a turn on for Dalton to want to do the part.
So i don't dare imagining how it would have been like with Moore in TLD, but I'm sure he would have spoiled the film as much, no matter the quality.
As for Felix Leiter in Skyfall, I think It's a good thing that he sits this film out. The strength of the character is that he comes only when necessary. He's not like Moneypenny, M and Q who kind of got to be there. And since these 3 take a lot of screen time in SF, a sub-plot with Leiter would just have made the script too wide to handle. It is also a strength of Skyfall that the story relies on a small number of characters, most of them being related to England.
However, he could have had a small appearance in Shanghai. Since Tanner says the CIA is tracking Patrice, we could have imagine Leiter liaising with Bond at the Hotel to give him some intel on Patrice's flight.
Having just gotten back from my first viewing, I seem to remember a scene near the beginning when they needed to trace some shrapnel and someone said 'I think we still have friends in the CIA' or something to that effect.
They could have maybe had a small cameo
<font color=blue size=7><b>Wishaw's 'Q' is more a computer geek than an inventor/engineer.</b></font>
Might be, but a computer geek might invent things just used online that we don't see so, I don't know if I would agree or not. I'd say, too soon to call
He did have that millennium bug to worry about. ;-)
And I'm a bit sad about that. Wishaw was great but I'd actually like something like an exploding pen ;)
Agree for the time being seeing as it's his first movie. But let's see where he takes the character over the next 2 movies?
Might actually be funny to see Q as a computer geek, reluctant to give 007 bondian gadgets.
Anyone have any info on this being Daniels Last and also the idea of them hiring ....
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4527/how-legit-is-this-article-daily-mail-craig-desperate-to-leave-007-franchise
As it stand now, agree, but he's only been in one movie.
Which resulted in Christmas coming more than once a year.
Bad millenium bug!
<font color=blue size=7><b>A female M aided in introducing Bond to the 90s but had overstayed her welcome by the mid 2000's.</b></font>
That's a pretty subjective question.
I disagree and not just because I like the female M. I don't think the backlash against M was because she was a woman--it was because she was overused. I suspect that M would have still be overused even if he was a man in the 2000's. The scripts wouldn't have changed--just the actor.
nonsense. M's sex makes no difference these days. Yes, in GE it was still a bit of a statement, But Judi could just as well be replaced by another woman. tbh i consider her M with Brosnan a different M then hers with Craig.
I liked her in Brosnans films but she was one of the weak points of CR/QOS imo. I didn't like the whole mum thing she had going on with Bond.
She did redeem herself a bit in SF though. There was less stupid trust issues and more comedy between Bond and M, and
Fully agree with this and the thesis. No got any issues with Judi, and do not mind if M is a man or a woman? Just thin the role should have been recast when DC took over the part.
I can't say she was needed. I seriously doubt anyone would've refused to buy a ticket to see GE if Robert Brown had retained the M role. However, I agree with the second half of the thesis although part of the reason is due to the fact they made the role much bigger in the films as a consequence of her winning an Oscar back in '99.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Considering the shorter theatrical run of movies today, SF can be considered in the top 3 most successful Bond films ever.</b></font>
I even think that this M had an important role in introducing the Craig Era. despite what other fans may say, she established a link / continuation between the first saga and the new approach of the Craig films. Without her, I think we would have lost a lot of the audience for CR.
Did she overstayed in the 2000s, that's a good question. As Craig stepped into the shoes of 007, M became less and less respected by her agent, and QOS even shows us M being scolded by the Defence Minister. The maternal touch was very strong in both CR and QOS, making M not so much the chief of Mi6 than a symbolic mother for Bond. With QOS, I thought she had overstayed, but then came Skyfall.
Skyfall brought the character of M forward, and gave her a logical end. What was going to be an 'overstaying' finally became the logical evolution for this character, being at first the most modern Chief of Mi6 in the franchise, and then slowly becoming a traditional figure of espionage, that's a great evolution, and the tone of Skyfall give more coherence to M's previous maternal attitude toward Bond.
At the end of the day, not only did M aid in introducing a modern Bond, but she did it twice (once with Brosnan and a second time with Craig) and managed to have a great final for her character. She only lived twice (in the Brosnan era, and then reinventing the relationship between M and Bond) and is now leaving when "the job is done".
As for thesis 185 concerning Skyfall's success, I think the box office is not as important as how the film will be recognized. Provided Skyfall's success lasts, by being continually praised by the fans, than Skyfall will not only be a success, but maybe even a classic.
The movie is still in the cinema for the last say three weeks it is far too early to contemplate the label "most succesfull" ever. One sees how the BO rises with each release, who is to say that it will stop here. What if the next 5 movies reach a better BO result than SF what does that say really???
SKYFALL is now the highest grossing Bond film unadjusted. Thus continuing the 17 year streak of outgrossing the previous film.
It is certainly looking so, but still too early to tell at the moment. Quite frankly, though, I'm extremely happy to see Skyfall doing as well as it is. James Bond is still quite relevant, and these numbers are proving just that.