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
What you say is true, EON have shaped the character, but that doesn't mean to say he is now void of the traits and characteristics that Fleming embodied him with. If you speak to many fans I hazard they'd actually say DC has channelled facets and idiosyncrasies untapped by his predecessors, all the while adding another layer to the cinematic veneer. I find it slightly disingenuous of you to pull out the shaven-haired brute in the too-tight suit argument. I could easily pull out the flare wearing Toff, the dead-eyed Aussie model, or the scowling, slick-haired, northerner. Craig brought way more than that.
These characterisations are something that will continue to happen. Yes, the melodrama that has been creeping into the narrative over the years is not particularly encouraging, but like everything before, it will pass.
I also think it's a stretch to say they've lost sight of what Bond is; that is largely impossible, because Bond is very different things to very different people. As Horowitz astutely put it in his Le Carre face off, Bond is an 'icon', Smiley is a 'character'. That is the balancing act you have to maintain with Bond. The pendulum swings. When it goes too far it always comes back.
Personally they've done a much better job than most give them credit.
They've broadened the appeal.
And that's really my point. They have broadened or widened the appeal by transforming him into a much less compelling character, losing many of the defining traits.
Some enjoy that. Some don't.
And, of course - broad appeal, means higher ticket sales. Eon is in it for the bucks. That's their main focus. And in that respect, they're very successful. They'll milk that cash cow in whatever way they need to get the biggest returns.
I personally agree with your comments here, although it's just a feeling which we both share. There's no real evidence for this except some anecdotal stuff due to off the cuff remarks he has made about Bond. The actor's sensibilities and values no doubt shape the character.
Do you mean the initial cinematic incarnation, or the Fleming model?
Well both. Don't get me wrong - I don't hate the cinematic Bond.
I just dislike what it has become.
Others will feel differently, of course - and that's fine.
I'm a Bond enthusiast and I love the novels. They're great escapist fun and Fleming is unique - a fine, idiosyncratic thriller writer.
I love the initial cinematic model (especially the first two movies). It was modelled on the Fleming character. As closely as they could at the time. Terence Young and Connery added some nice touches - playing up the wit, the panther-like movement, ramping up the womanising, encyclopaedic knowledge, etc.
This added to (and even enhanced) the character, adding to the literary incarnation to bring Bond alive on screen.
As we all know, GF onwards, the cinematic Bond began to take on a life on of its own.
Sometimes great. Sometimes not so great.
To be honest, I can allow myself to enjoy it all. Even Rog in a yellow jumpsuit flying off a mountain with the union jack parachute. It's fun. Despite the fact, that at that point, the character doesn't have anything do to with the literary 'James Bond'.
However, I feel that the core of the character lies in the Fleming books.
For me, the movies hit the high points when they stay closer to Fleming. DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS, CR...
All timeless classics.
Today, Cinema and TV is capable of really ambitious creative statements. The art form has matured. There is great talent behind and in front of the screen and EoN can afford to hire the best.
Their short-term approach is a little frustrating. And hiring writers that can't get the basics right, that doesn't help.
Decades fly by. I've only really enjoyed two Bond films in the last 22 years.
If you're going to deviate that much with the character, then at least put a smile on my face.
(Though now we've been there with the character, I'd rather they didn't do it again)
And CR - a fresh start, suggesting that we would finally get back to Fleming.
Also, at that point, we hadn't had a Fleming adaptation in a while - and it felt exciting. It was a great opportunity to reimagine the series and freshen it up while revisiting, and getting closer, to the Bond character after so long.
They kept most of it in place. The relationship with Vesper. Le Chiffre. Felix Leiter. The CIA bank-rolling Bond's last gamble. The lame CGI building collapse in the final act. Oh wait... On the whole, the general style and plot was there.
And it had Eva Green. To be honest, they could have set in space. If Eva Green was in it, I would have loved it all the same.
Anyway, apologies all. I'm conscious that I've hijacked this thread and taken it way off topic.
It's supposed to be about 'Bond 25 news'.
Not 'Pushee's feelings on cinematic Bond and his personal ramblings on what he believes to be the best approach for the future direction of the franchise'!
I don't have any Bond 25 news.
So I'm going back to the shadows!
is this not the "EVA GREEN FREAKING ROCKS AND IS HOT AS HELL AND BLOODY CASINO ROYALE COULD HAVE BEEN SET ON Qo'noS AND STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT"??
oh...
*silently leaves the room....*
Nowadays this magic is being slowly lost. The series seem to not have any future insight, no more guarantees; there's no passion to deliver. And people are slowly starting to care less. I hope some big changes are coming up.
Exactly. I feel the filmmakers are still coasting on the billion dollar/Oscar winning success of SkyFall with the attitude that they'll do another film at some point. No need to rush or up the game since SPECTRE another 3 year entry was an Oscar winning success as well.
We really don't have anything substantial on B25. Nothing whatsoever, and the longer the wait, the more likely audiences and fans are going to find other interests. Once again excitement will have to be drummed up for a new Bond to introduce the character to newer audiences. Such is the case with pretty much every film in the series now. This got old as far back as DAD.
I feel similarly but for me I enjoyed QoS and SP. GE was a low point for me, only reinforced by how awful the proceeding three films were.
=))
I feel the exact same way you hit the nail on the head excitement and promise
Agree here as well some good stuff guys keep it up =D> ;) B-) =P~
I met him in August.
No unfortunately he still keeps banging on my door asking me to be Bond.
After Judi Dench mentioned she nearly ran him over Barbara Broccoli said that she should have done so that she could do the job for them - don't think Spottiswoode will be back somehow. Also it was Vic Armstrong who directed the action in TND.