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 was watching it again the other week and I may do a more thorough exploration of this (I'd thought of mocking up a poster but don't have the time at the minute) - All of this is theoretically impossible bollocks, but basically, I feel like it would have been a viable Roger entry - with a few tweaks here and there. Perhaps the Koreans are in fact the Khmer Rouge or maybe even the Russians. The plot itself is something straight out of the Roger era, I can see it sitting before TSWLM and MR as a Gilbert trilogy of sorts. It would have been incredibly difficult to pull off the plethora of action scenes (Rog back-projected on a surfboard may be a tad too far) you'd imagine that would have been scaled down in 1974-5, but in terms of it's globe-trotting ambitions and theatrical plot it just seems to me like a film that was made 30 years too late. Jean Tournier lensing Roger in Iceland and London would have been beautiful.
@TheWizardOfIce: this is handsdown the best post I've read here in weeks. I am astonished to learn from your writing exactly how much Flemingness Babs and MGM carry in them. I do agree on all accounts. It also demonstrates IMO that a lot of the antiBans criticism floating on this forum is unjustified.
Sir, I sincerely thank you for this post. I was a joy reading it and it feels good agreeing with it.
Sir, I sincerely thank you for this post. I was a joy reading it and it feels good agreeing with it.
***
@DarthDimi: "antiBans" - you mean antiBabs? Or am I just missing the right lingo as I am just waking up?
Why is it unjustified? Is she above criticism?
Okay, when you don't have an effective argument you just accuse people of sexism. Typical.
It's the coin of our sorry realm. And this from a guy who thinks Babs is doing a very good job.
That was said with tongue firmly in cheek, in case you hadn't noticed. Barb's doing a great job, Cubby would be very proud of her.
The former is an unremarkable fact (many Bond films recycle elements from earlier installments) and the latter is an opinion I do not share.
Craig's bond looks nothing like the description of Ian Fleming's Bond or any of the other bonds ( well in honesty with the exception of Dalton and perhaps Brosnan in appearence wise especially with the comma hair and perhaps Connery though without the scottish accent)
* Bond isnt blue eyed or blonde
* Bond under any circumstances DRINKS Heinkien Beer or any other beers (in the novels he will only drink beer if its offered to him by a highly respectable charater and the beer has to be an exotic imported beer- Craigs bond is guilty of drinking Heinkien Beer (though in all fairness- even Tanner was drinking Henikein ON THE JOB!!!)
* Bond smokes cigarettes- Connery, Brosnan (in Die Another day) and Dalton (LTK)
The Craig 'inappropriate as Bond' as been discussed to death by now, but you can appreciate any frustrations. Yes, there was the issue with hair color, even eyes, and the physique was something we hadn't quite seen before, but the initial furore died down eventually, as enough people recognized he's simply a very good Bond, but I was one of those who had initial skepticism about the actor, but we've all seen now after two or three releases, what he can bring to the screen as Flemings iconic character, so those (minor) inconsistencies we first saw, can eventually be overlooked
"GOLDFINGER" sucked and is still my least favorite Bond movie.
You make a fair and reasonable point about the explosion itself at MI6, which was just a step away from the old low-budget film practice of using stock footage. Other than having it out for M personally, Silva's motive, methods, and goals beyond killing her were different enough from Elektra's that it didn't bother me. I don't mind at all if you disagree. I recently watched TWINE again for the first time in a long while & I liked it a lot and can see why there are ardent fans for Brosnan #3.
*TLD and LTK do not feel like Bond films at all. I like LTK but it doesn't feel like a Bond film.
*Roger Moore is one of the better Bonds. Some consider him 'cheesy' but I really don't get that off him.
*QoS is undoubtedly one of the worst, it's an extra to Casino Royale which sways and becomes horrific.
*OHMSS was a disaster. Lazenby was a awful Bond and the film itself felt stiff and just wrong.
Thank you for saying this. That's one point @002 has wrong, then.
Are you for real, man? He doesn't look like Fleming's description, he drinks a beer because the producers needed product placement, and he doesn't smoke again because of a production decision? Forget that his portrayal has all the personality and character of Fleming's? It's insignificant physical things that make him not at all like Fleming, and it doesn't matter at all how Craig portrays him?
I have a few rebuttal points of my own as well.
Point 1- He thinks Brozzer is a great Bond, so consider that. Which is fine, it's his opinion and he can have that. His stance towards Craig based on his prior statements in other threads is not unlike those of the DCINB crew as well. Complain about blond hair (Moore's was light brown, it's not like there isn't a precedent here so it shows what hypocrites they are to begin with because it interferes with their views) is always the first beef. Height and Golem ears usually follow next. Let's keep it honest in here- if they told Brosnan to drink Heineken, he couldn't do it fast enough which is the story of his tenure. I also don't recall Bond drinking Mojitos either! He proved to be the ultimate kiss ass when it came to playing Bond. "Anything you say boss, to hell with me putting my own stamp on the role or fighting hard for that, the paycheck and opportunities for other films are what counts, I'm an A lister now baby!". Most people I know who are actors would tell you on a strictly professional level that Craig could out act Brosnan as Bond in his sleep.
Point 2- Heineken IS technically an import unless you live in Holland or in a country with a manufacturing facility, and that includes Turkey, plus it's priced that way too here in the United States.
Point 3- Cigarettes? Brosnan never smoked one in a Bond film, I guess he missed that one in his rush to bury Craig. He smokes cigars in DAD but then he is an avid cigar aficionado in real life so it makes sense. We saw the same with Moore in his first two films, and it was the same circumstance, he had given up cigarettes by then but did still enjoy a good cigar. Craig is a ex-smoker, and made it clear when he signed on that he was not going to start again for the sake of the role. And he rightfully shouldn't be forced to damage his health for the sake of Fleming authenticity, that's just plain wrong and inconsiderate to whatever actor who is playing Bond. Connery, Dalton, and Lazenby were cigarette smokers to begin with so no harm done. But should that be a really be a hiring criteria?
- he looks his best here. Reasonably commanding and authoratitve.
- he's a lot less smarmy than he is in TND and seems to act like a serious agent.
- he's more comfortable than he was in GE
For his hammy performance in some scenes there's others in which I think he's effective like the PTS, the first meeting with Electra at the building site of the pipeline, the casino, killing Davidov etc.