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 true about the conflicted mirror gazing - something obviously cribbed from Bourne. I thought the physique thing was just to get people talking - when that photo was released of him in the swim trunks it did serve as excellent marketing.
Here's my theory on that.
I think he 'beefed up' due to his relatively short height and somewhat slim build previously (if one recalls his introduction as Bond in 2005 on the boat - he looked quite wimpy next to the Royal Marines). When he built up I guess they decided to use it for marketing and it paid off.
Additionally, perhaps there are certain elements of Fleming Bond's machismo that are not so suitable to showcase in today's PC era - so maybe they thought this would be an alternative way to show virility these days without offending. On a related note, I remember Bab's alleged comment about Hugh Jackman being 'too fey' for Bond. So the plumber look may be a conscious decision.
So chavs and cartoon exploding heads are the way forward are they cretin?
Ask any studio would they like to take over the rights to Bond or Kingsman and see how many opt for this 'action packed and excellent' rubbish.
Although the guy does inadvertently make one slightly troubling point. Mexico are paying 14m to be 'portrayed positively'. Is this true?
I can live with product placement up to a point but a line has been crossed if apropos of nothing Bond pipes up saying 'What a lovely country with no poverty, crime or drug problem. I really can't understand why anyone would try to climb over the border in their thousands to leave this idyllic paradise.'
What he wants is Austin Powers.
Well, for me, if a Bond movie on the paper looks like an Austin Powers movie but on the screen looks like something totally different, then you've hit the magic button that created this franchise. No one can really explain why the end product is so different. There's Over-the-top, and then there's Bond Over-the-top. Even in SF they brought back the physical difformity for the bad guy, no more Dominic Greene.
I'd argue that Amalric did not need makeup or deformity, and that he had Elvis as an odd/bizarre sidekick to make up to his lack of scars but I understand what you mean. That said, this article says it wants Bond movies to be dumb and nonsensical spectacles.
I'd agree with that assessment on Greene - sometimes the banality of evil is all that is needed. Less is more.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/article1542467.ece
Apologies for those without Times membership
Does it really?
I agree the article is a bit scatter-gun, and some of it is definitely wrong-headed and contradictory (wants more gadgets and frivolity, but also thinks Bond needs to engage with more 'real world' threats), but it does also express what I think is a fairly widespread view that some special ingredient has just been missing for some time. For me that comment about 'deftness of touch' really does kind of some it up.
As @Suivez_ce_parachute says, there is something about that special blend of fantastical over the topness, combined with a relatively straight depiction of the lead character, that creates Bond magic. I think Mendes is very much aware of that, and was clearly and obviously trying to capture that in SF. I don't have a problem with what he was trying to do at all - I just feel it didn't work as well as it could have - the film lacked the 'deftness of touch'. Chucking in the GF DB5 was just clunky and crude.
I'm surprised though that some fans are so obsessed with pushing the 'serious' and 'realistic' elements of Bond. Skyfall, which so many people on here loved, is surely the most fantastical and OTT Bond movie since DAD. It seems to me the Craig era has actually been most successful when it's played things relatively straight and kept the OTT and campy stuff to a minimum. But I'm entirely open to them trying to bring back the old fantastical magic (which is what I think they tried to do with SF).
Lucky that I bought the print edition then! :)
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/james-bond-should-have-died-within-7-minutes-of-skyfall-medical-experts-conclude-10162108.html#
Sort of underlines what I've said about the SF PTS since the film came out.
And before someone says all Bond movies are total nonsense and I shouldn't take them so seriously, I don't remember a group of doctors going out of their way to highlight the implausibility of a Bond movie before.
That's the gist of it, as far as I understood it. But it is very contradictory, so who knows. In any case, he complains a heck of a lot against the lack of gadgets (which by the way I do not consider at all essential to Bond, more of a twisted road the franchise took) and seem to find Craig too rough and not elegant enough. Which I think is a way of saying: not dandy enough. But Bond is not and should not be a dandy. Comparing Craig's Bond to a plumber is a cheap jab at the actor and reminiscent of the complains he received when he was originally cast.
I know people idolise the Fleming Bond, but even he sought diversion is luxury and the passing consolation of the worlds finest pleasures. EON took that a step further in Dr No and made Bond himself suave and a super spy as well. Still not sure where DC's Bond sits on the sliding scale.
Yes, I suppose in the Dalton and Craig eras we perhaps lost a bit of the suavity - there is the danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water in the more realistic takes on the Bond character. The blue collar hero does not tally well with James Bond, gentleman spy.
But Craig enjoyed fine food and drinks far more in any of his movies than Brosnan ever did. Or maybe any Bond since Connery. Except maybe Dalton in TLD. Frankly I'm happily surprised of how much of this aspect of Fleming Bond we've been having. Not perfect, but I'm happy it has re appeared.
And I am a bit of a Fleming purist myself and I am all for a James Bond who is no longer a superspy. I don't think he was in the very early Connery either, not in DN or FRWL. Competent yes, skilled absolutely, the best at what he does even, but that does not make him a superspy. He should not be infallible, should not be a know it all and he should not be some kind of invincible, gadget-clad fop.
I agree with this totally - i can't really believe Craig's Bond could actually have the guile or finesse to successfully seduce a fabulous and unavailable woman or be convincing with knowledge of art, food or wine the way I could with the older Bonds of RM, TD or PB - jury is out for me with SC.
Craig's Bond is too much a hard man who's a shade too crude and direct. A sledgehammer to crack a nut relying on his machismo wearing the token suit (not very well IMHO)- it was uncomfortable watching him practically rape Severine in the shower with no by or leave preamble unless the chat in the casino was actually the come on from her?
Mix in the angst and bloodied aspect of the deeper characterisation and baggage of a hidden past history and it's all very contradictory and sending off all kinds of ideas and signals.
I don't dislike Craig's Bond and am really excited to see SP but just want to see him play it straight with a bit more thinking as a top spy as well as the rippling of muscles, gnashing of teeth and pouring of bloodied wounds.
Perhaps it could, but the series was never about much involvement with real world events. Hence the massive use of SPECTRE, Blofeld, and Blofeld-like villains.
Eon has taken a variety of routes since Babs and Michael are at the helm. The only danger would be a huge financial flop.
Fleming´s Bond is a physical miracle. I don´t recall where exactly, but Fleming describes Bond as being very tall, but weighing comparably very little, and he does 100 push-ups a day. Which means he must be very lean and wiry, getting his strength more out off stamina and toughness than out off huge muscles.