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 think that's the important thing: the actor doesn't decide how a scene is played- the director does. No one should blame Hedison for that.
Funny thing is he's actually had it worse than Bond did at the end of OHMSS, but silly old Jimmy was moping about crying at that point whereas Felix is having a great time. Maybe we should have been watching him instead all this time? :D
Berating LtK for being contemporaneous is berating Moonraker for being like Star Wars, or Skyfall for being like The Dark Knight (i could go on).
Fact is agent 007's greatest enemy is, was and forever shall be the box-office. LTK is and was no different save for one crucial regard: It's Bond.
Nobody does it better.
I'm sorry for you that you cannot find any joy in a Bond film that has an excellent story, has superb action and has our 007 cleverly infiltrating the villain's organisation to make his opponent suspicious of his own crew. Not to mention the several Fleming elements used here.
Yep, couldn't agree more!
Okay, time to move on. Another fantasy one!
Would you prefer the same actor portrays Blofeld all the films, or that the films featuring Blofeld are released in the chronological order of the books?
This is one to ponder. You can keep the films as is in terms of continuity. But you get to have the same actor play Blofeld. So YOTL, OHMSS and DAF all keep Blofeld but now played by the same actor, you decide who that is.
OR
We get the films in the order of the books, TB, OHMSS, YOLT. In this case DAF would get a different villain. Bond would be played by Connery in TB and OHMSS and Lazenby would take over for YOLT.
This nearly happened, as OHMSS was set to go after GF until McClory came forward to offer up TB. Then EON considered OHMSS as the follow up to TB but it was felt to be too similar in story beats and so they went with YOLT.
Which would have rather happen? Be creative and think about it and give us your answer.
A better literary character.
And if Bond can change, why not Blofeld?
So I don't know. Neither possibility fixes the matter.
Have different actor with obvious dubbing per film.
At the same time, I don't really need th films to follow Fleming's story line. I think films are all together completely different beasts. Wht makes sense in the books, doesn't per se work in films. take the opening of TMWTGG (book). It wouldn't translate very well to film at all.
SO, can't really choose, as both are not quite necessary.
Yeah, I’d agree more or less with this. Even the different Blofelds in the early films are quite different from one another, and having those changing actors play the character arguably adds something.
I suppose if I had to go with one of the two options, it’d be the second one. It simply means the Blofeld films are released in the order of Fleming, not that we necessarily get a faithful YOLT adaptation (I love the book incidentally and think parts of it have been adapted well in Craig’s era, but I don’t think it’d make a great film in itself, at least not without significant changes).
Fleming's stories, prose and narrative are usually awful. I'd take the character, pay whatever royalty his estate wants and leave it there.
If such burns, go and read the books.
I think Fleming's prose is pretty great, as is his creativity for stories. Plotting's very hit or miss (but honestly, that's the same for the films). I certainly don't agree with you, but to each their own.
Such an opinion is tantamount to heresy!
But seriously, I don't see any validity in your criticisms. The stories do a great job of treading the line between fiction and reality. The prose is fine, descriptive but not flowery and does a good job of immersing the reader. As for the narrative, quality varies, but for the most part they do the job (and surpass it cases as well).
It's no coincidence that the better Bond films are more "Fleming-esque" and their pitfalls rarely lie with any issue in the material.
Would you rather LALD start with a proper introduction for Moore's Bond OR Pierce's first appearance not occur in a toilet stall?
Roger Moore took over the role and the decision was made to not make a big thing of this. The feeling that the audience hadn't warmed to George in OHMSS because the film kept hitting the audience over the head with "same Bond as Connery". This meant Roger never received a true showcase first appearance of Bond. He doesn't even appear in the PTS. Our first glimpse of him is in bed with the talented agent from Italy. Many decry this and wish Roger had a signature scene to introduce him to the audience.
In GE we see a hidden figure rushing a dam, jumping from an impossible high height and doing a bungee jump. The figure is seen with eyes only as he lasers the hatch. Next we fully see him in the toilet punching out a Russian guard. Not exactly a cool introduction to the new fella. There were deleted scenes where we see Bond taking out the guardhouse. One wonders if we could have introduced Pierce in a cooler way.
Which one would you rather we fix?