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 looking forward to the last one which was something of a turd, and everybody was so wildly enthousiastic about it beforehand.
What I am saying this time is that there are other movies I really look forward to, but I'll watch Bond23 without getting all exited all before. Been there done that and got dissapointed severly.
I'll make my mind up while seeing Bond23 and not before.
It's probably better to make you mind up afterwards as if you do so whilst seeing it, you may pre-judge the best parts, that could be yet to come.
I am shocked and appalled. How is it possible to be so casual about these things? It's not that I object to product placement - they just have to be the right products. Infact I picture Bond as rather brand obsessed, which is why I don't think he'd be happy with a Beemer.
Because we have lives outside of Bond ;)
i hope so.
Plus, there was no orignal Fleming material left, or least none they were willing to film. So the series was running on fumes so they had to start over. It's funny that Craig is the reboot Bond but in reality, Brosnan was. It's almost like his era is this small bubble, stuck in between the Reboot Era we are in now and the original run, going from Connery to Dalton.
Truth be told the BMWs never were sitting well with me either, I had 007 down as a Mercedes guy. But the BMWs are company cars and SIS hopefully gets a rebate. Today most cars are ugly and most brands belong to the Germans or Asian manufacturers, can't be helped. There is not much of a choice any more.
Fair dues to people who are making these comments, but what defines the screen Bond for you guys? I genuinely don't get why it is that you're fans and what it is that you actually enjoy about the films. If this stuff is totally irrelevant, then why not just watch any other action movie.
Stick Shea LaBeouf in a Dodge Viper with Megan Fox. Whooaa - nice 'Bond movie'. Have Snoop Dogg as the villain may be and set it in LA. Nice. May be he can drink cider and black if Bulmers are willing to cough up for sponsorship.
Where's the connoisseurship gone? If the 'fans' don't give a sh*t about this stuff, no wonder the films are so off the mark.
ok ;)
The Ford is an intentional joke within the film, which he quickly upgrades to an Aston Martin through his poker skills.
I'm sure that Ford ponied up money or provided free cars to the production. Either way (if Eon had to purchase cars or couldn't use product placement money), we'd get a lower budget for the Bond films. Is that what you'd prefer?
Ford owned Aston up until 2007, so it was probably part of the same deal.
As I said, I don't object to product placement, but the products must align with the character.
To throw your own question back at you, is it okay if Toyota provide the car as long as they cough up enough cash? What is the end point of your logic? As long as the sponsors pay enough it's fine for Bond to drive/drink/wear anything?
The end result is 'cameos' by Richard Branson and sh*t films.
My point is, why take exception to Brosnan driving a BMW, and rant on about it all, but not Craig driving a cruddy Ford that mums drive...?
At the end of the day, both drove Astons, so what is your beef exactly?
The BMW was an everyday car you may see anybody driving, like the Ford crud.
Why the upset? Where do you draw the line? Brosnan`s era bought back the DB5 for goodness sake...!
I actually think these car choices bring an element of realism to the films.
He is becoming Bond in the film; he upgrades himself from the Ford to an Aston Martin, starting to turn into the Bond that we know and love.
I didn't mind the Branson cameo because he gave us airplanes for the action sequence. Plus, Virgin caters to a higher-end/more selective crowd, so it fits with Bond. Unlike, say, Smirnoff in TND, which is a low-end vodka.
And all of that was much cleverer than the egregious billboards in MR. I find it hard to see what 7-Up has to do with Moore's Bond by that point.
I'm afraid the occasional explet*ve does slip out. Apologies to the sensitive types.
You seem to be wilfully missing the point. I'm not saying that every vehicle in the film needs to be a supercar. The 2CV chase in the Roger era was a daft but enjoyable moment. I'm talking about the car that Q/MI6 gives to Bond. Any way, if you don't get it, you don't get it.
Not sure about all of these, but I am totally open to non Aston alternatives. Even some of the current Jags aren't that bad. I still consider the current Astons to be some of the best looking cars around though.
Good points in here. The '90s really were a changing of the guard.
The weird thing is that they weren't willing to film any remaining Fleming material. Maybe it was because it was the '90s and they thought the audience wanted retreads of previous plots (which GE, TND, and DAD all were).
I still wish that they'd use a little bit of Fleming in Skyfall, even though they apparently are not.
I think it's fair to say that the films are much bigger than the novels and that a large portion of the people who watch the films will have never read anything by Fleming and may have no desire to after watching the films.
The point of what defines the screen Bond is different to everyone, to me being of a certain age/ what i was introduced to, I can't deny that my favrouite years are between 1973 - 1989 but to a lot of other people this may well be the low point of the series.
Really? You're a total relativist? Interesting.
So there is no such thing as good or bad - it's all totally subjective.
Not much point in a web forum at all then really is there, since everything is all much of a muchness.
Think I'll just go and pop MWTGG in the DVD player for some quality entertainment.
We aren't particularly sensitive, we simply don't allow it on this forum - it's in the T&Cs. Family friendly and all that.
The screen Bond is defined more by his almost know-it-all persona. As others have said the screen Bond isn't the Fleming Bond, and the screen Bond is a man who can do everything to he highest standard, whether it's speaking a foreign language, taking part in sport (ski-ing, surfing, mountaineering etc), driving, using firearms, recognising vinatge wines, seducing women, no one does it better and that's what we love about him.
Craig's Bond is essentially that man, he just adds his own twist as others did before him.
And do the paying public care? Do they want Fleming's Bond to return? Do they know who Ian Fleming is? And is their opinion more important than a few anoracs on a forum who obsess over such matters?
Answers: Yes, No, No, Yes
Yep. I've always felt the same way. That "bubble" of time with Brosnan, with only two connecting entities, Des taking it back to the original series, Dench attaching herself to the current. 4 different directors for Brosnan didn't help and it's telling only one of them ever made another Bond film after or ever WILL make another one.
It's ironic and sad that while they seemed to want to reinvent Bond for a new generation they wound up with nothing but the cliched Bond, the by-the-numbers Bond films that ticked every appropriate box. Martini, shaken not stirred... check. Black tux... check. Gadgets galore... check. Smarmy one liners... check. Fancy car... check. Womanizing... check.
They played it too safe, perhaps out of fear of what almost happened at the end of Dalton's two films. They wanted to do whatever it took to save their franchise. At least that worked out and it's still going.
Apologies for any offence caused. To be honest there is so much of it (swearing) on the forum I'd assumed it was accepted. Having been corrected I am more than happy to desist.
Regarding your post, you seem to have got the wrong end of the proverbial stick. I have to 'fess up to never having read a Bond novel (the thread title might have been a teensie bit of a give away). 'Rediscovering' Flemming's Bond is of no particular interest to me although I am surprised that as mod of a Bond fan site you refer to any one with a more than passing interest in the films and books as an 'anorak' (you appear to be using it in the pejorative sense).
I totally agree with you. You cannot deny that Brozza kept the show on the road. It's just a shame that what equalled commercial success during this period so thoroughly failed to connect with 'critical' success (in my view).