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
@Venutius, honestly, with how much I've seen people butcher language in text form through mass abbreviation and acronyms, I'd be alright with those mutations of those words...because at least they'd still be words.
One of my favorite things is people abbreviating a word in a text that leaves out only three or four letters to do so, which makes one wonder why the person didn't just take the time to type the entire word. Something about it unsettles me...maybe it's my writing background. Gotta be...
Even worse: drop the vowels, keep the rest. "Txt mssgs" like that get on my nerves.
But whatever the accepted meaning of "anti-hero", I doubt Bond can be put in any heroic box. Hero, anti-hero, superhero, ... In my opinion, Bond is neither.
In the world of the modern movie franchise (apologies if that word offends anyone!) Bond is a very unusual character. Virtually all modern franchises stem from comic book characters, MCU, DCU, even Star Wars wars was essentially a kids story (even though George Lucas based the good guys on the Vietcong, something I don't think the Yanks ever cottoned on to :)). So the stories stem from from characters aimed at children. Fleming's books were adult novels, James Bond is, essentially, an upper class, womanising, killer (a better looking version of Boris Johnson, if you can stomach such a thought, I think I'm going to heave). The fact that the films are still so popular is a great testament to the producers and, it has to be said, Daniel Craig who made the character relevant to a 21st century audience and made him human and someone we care about.
@DarthDimi, I'm that guy that still texts in paragraphs, because I use full sentences and don't abbreviate anything, which causes those I'm trying to communicate with to complain about it. Can't help it, and I'm not bringing myself down a level to text like some others do.
It's part of why you couldn't pay me to have a Twitter account. You can't say anything remotely intelligent or salient in 140 characters.
I couldn't be tortured into setting up fb, Twitter, Instagram accounts. When it comes to those things, I am like Bond in retirement: no.
@DarthDimi, it's part of why I can count my friends on one hand in my day to day life. I refuse to have social media, but that's how people my age commonly communicate, so I just end up falling out with everyone because I'm not signing up for a self-absorbed, gossip site just to keep up with a few people who don't care to call me and hear my voice.
Well, I suppose this forum is a sort of social medium too, but here at least people are committed to typing out full sentences and interacting with others instead of just dropping opinions left and right.
And I too prefer a few good friends rather than a gazillion "followers". Also, I really don't care what others are having for lunch right now, how good old Lassie is looking or why Karen and her friends are sipping cocktails at the swimming pool.
All my social energy is being invested in this forum because I care about our little community. We talk, we discuss; we don't "like" or "follow" here. And we certainly don't install anti-social features such as "ignore" or "block" buttons because we're older than 12.
And to bring it all back on topic, I'm sure that several of the popular social media have seen wild and crazy comments being pooped on the digital canvas in the wake of NTTD's release. Here at least we discuss the film in a civilised manner.
TBH, Bond is not an anti-hero. Never has been.
At one time anti-hero meant a hero with qualities of a villain.
OO7 shooting Professor Dent when he had no bullets for example.
But tge argument could be made that Dent tried to kill him first...and in his sleep no less. Dent was only unarmed because he unloaded bullets into what he thought was Bond and when the jig was up, he still attempted to try and kill Bond only to realise he ran out bullets. Dent deserved what he got and he got it from a licensed hitman.
That part is understood.
Still, Bond gunning down Dent in cold blood is not in line with the traditional hero. That's why it's called out as evidence of an anti-hero.
“I don’t think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He’s got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway.” [Fleming, Playboy interview]
And certainly later manifestations of a rogue agent motivated by revenge and/or personal demons in LTK or QOS indicate definite aspects of the anti-hero ....
Like I said earlier, this wasn’t what you’d ever see Gary Cooper or Cary Grant do in their movies. Bond movies were very shocking in the 60s and was part of why they were such a phenomenon. Audiences never saw anything like Bond.
In fact, the scene was originally supposed to show Bond unloading his gun til it was empty on Dent, but the censors deemed it too violent so that’s why it was edited down to just two shots. It was supposed to show Bond had a very ruthless sense of irony.
My favourite part of TMWTGG is at the end when Bond is struggling to kill Scaramanga despite everything he had done up until that point. It's only when Scaramanga tries to surprise him again with a gun does Bond finally kill him.
EDIT: The novel.
Hero or anti-hero? If I may use the detested (by some around here, anyway) Marvel Comics of the 1960s as an example: the Hulk and Namor the Sub-Mariner were both considered anti-heroes in this pantheon. Both often went up against the U.S. Army or more conventional "heroes" like the Fantastic Four and the Avengers -- but both had motivations that the audience understood and could sympathize with. Namor, for example, was the Prince of undersea Atlantis, and often found himself fighting against various forces from the surface world. They weren't exactly heroes but certainly weren't out & out villains -- therefore, they were considered anti-heroes. Most of Marvel's lead characters were considered "flawed heroes" -- Spider-Man was constantly needing to bring home a paycheck to support his ailing Aunt May, and this led him to take some less-than-completely heroic positions, thus, the "flawed hero" designation. Using these parameters to measure our own story-line, I'd consider Bond a flawed hero from the same mold as many of Marvel's more popular characters.
That point made, you may now go back to judging Marvel as the enemy if you truly must.
Yep, Marvel character.
NTTDs US weekend box-office will be <1m....so it's a really slow crawl to 160m now.
A broad demographic of patrons as well. From younger couples, families with teenaged children and seniors.
After three weeks on release here in Australia, I was not expecting this attendance level.
Refreshing to see after almost 60 years in the cinema, James Bond can still put bums on seats. Nobody does it better.
This really does amaze me so much — despite everything, the film was a rip-roaring success. Truly nothing can stop Bond, not changing global politics or film preferences or a freaking pandemic!
But PVOD is essentially pure profit for the studio. Box Office matters but it’s not necessarily the most profitable part of a film’s lifespan. Theater grosses fulfill two essential functions: 1. Generating hype 2. Paying out or determining back end points.
For MGM, the theatrical release of NTTD has done its job. NTTD’s theater run proves the continued popularity and viability of the franchise, and maintains the basic pay and money-making structure of studio filmmaking.