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
Yes. Especially since Bond is in his mid to 30s in Moonraker.
I posted this earlier today but it was deleted.
I ask also: what book has Bond's highest body count? Hard to say I think he blow up some places and kills multiple people so how do one measure that? Come on now
I mean he sends Drax and his whole crew to their death in MR.
However it could indeed be MR that @SirJames had in mind, as maybe Bond did take out a diver during underwater fighting in TB, while MR destruction of the sub occupants is considered an indirect kill.
I await Sir James verdict being too lazy right now, to flip through the TB underwater battle scenes. :)
re OHMSS, I could swear Bond took out at least one of Blofeld's pursuers in the escape from Piz Gloria, towards the end of the run, as he's exhausted and nearing the finish.
The problem is that the few times Fleming chooses to be precise, he contradicts himself. Bond is only 17 when he signs up for the service during the war but he buys his first Bentley in 1933
Yup! That's the one. Bond has an underwater fight with one of the SPECTRE frogmen when he's casing the Disco Volante but the frogman is killed by a barracuda. He later manages to shoot another SPECTRE frogman and rip off his mask during the climactic underwater battle but the frogman swims for the surface and presumably survives.
That is a useful piece of Bond trivia: CR and TB being the only two Fleming novels minus a confirmed kill by the featured double-0 agent.
How so and for whom? The war ended in 1945. There would have been no Japanese Diplomatic personnel in the US after Dec of 1941. The killing in Stockholm was after that. So We have two people killed long after the war was over.
Yes, must be a troll b/c all the points here are 100% wrong. Craig is the most human of all the Bonds we've had and the best incarnation of what Fleming intended.
Yes, Perdogg must be a troll because he obviously cares about the films and knows his stuff.
What a site!
Not sure I can stretch to that.
Shame I seem to have missed this first time round as I was on holiday. I would love to have refuted Perdogg's increasingly tedious and ill thought out rants against the Craig era (in addition to his even more tedious overuse of the word 'Manichean' - we get it you can read a dictionary) but its just too overwhelming as theres far too much material to know where to start.
It's all on page one and two of this thread, Wiz.
I don't even know where to start with this post...
How exactly does MR flesh out the Bond character? I like Moore a lot, but he plays a complete caricature in that film and there is no hint of Bond being anything but a cardboard cutout in the film zipping from one action scene or locale top the next.
I wouldn't want to be James Bond. He is a conflicted killer who has nice things on the outside but is still in a morally decisive profession. Craig is James Bond perhaps even more than Moore or Brosnan ever were. Craig isn't a rabbit sleeping with whatever moves, but more in key with Fleming's bastard womanizer who is morally questionable, but clearly good and just so charming.
I'm overall optimistic and can't wait to see what they do with B24.
Craig is a very good Bond doubtless, best since Dalton, although that really isn't saying much, but in recent years things have got progressively out of hand with regards to more elaborate stunts, "Bond becoming more super-human or indestructable", and ridiculous set pieces that makes Moore's Saint Marks Square sequence in 1979, seem acceptable in comparison. Not only that, but there is constant talk of having a colored Bond at a future point in time, and maybe even having a female Bond of all things
While we accept the latter is doomed to faliure, I can actually see the other occuring sooner or later. It's nothing racist of course, it's just that 99.9 per cent of people would never wish for such a thing, and I hope it never sees the light of day, but fearful sometimes this may actually occur. Add to that, there is talk also of having an american Bond, and sincerely hope commonsense prevails and they stick with how Bond should always be - portrayed by a British actor
Craig can't go on forever. Will be a pity when he steps down, as he's done hitherto, a very good job of things, but I fear they could be looking at some kid to replace him, in that bringing in someone that was Lazenbys age in '69 to take over. Craig was a good debutant at 38 years of age in 2006 and don't think they should be looking for anyone younger
We've moved on a great deal from the 'sensible' days of Bond when 007 would simply have a few gadgets at his disposal or use his greater cunning to overcome obstacles, whereas today it's all bangs and crashes and elaborate action 'Bourne' type sequences, getting progressively more absurd with each passing release. Maybe I'm more in favor of how Bond used to be, and simply don't recognize all that occurs now, but do have doubts about the future of the series sometimes
Please. Those days are done.
Besides, Bond has a history of escalation.
This is just escalation in the 21st Century.
I miss the old days.
Just of an age when I appreciated when Bond was sensible. No thrills, just got on with the job and it was a very decent strory with it. I think Bond today caters for the popcorn and soda army. Just sit back in your seat, and it doesn't matter how ridiculous it appears. All about age perspective I guess. Goodnight
Are you Perdogg in disguise?
The Craig era really is awful isn't it? Pissing all over the legacy of the previous 40 odd years of small scale dramatic films with its 'elaborate stunts' and 'ridiculous set pieces'. I too yearn for the days of YOLT and TSWLM when Bond films were altogether more cerebral and bereft of any such frivolous annoyances.
I'm also rather intrigued as to who it is doing all this 'constant talk' of black/female/gay/insert-your-own-minority-du-jour Bond as I haven't heard anything emanating from EON. Are you confusing the wittering of idiot fanboys on forums such as this and the gutter press with people who actually have any input into the direction the films should take?
So apparently the Craig era is 'ridiculous' but a guy with a deadly hat trying to rob Fort Knox, jetpacks, hollowed out volcanoes, laser weapons in space, cars that turn into submarines, pitched space battles, more laser weapons in space and invisible cars are from a more 'sensible' era are they?
Do the double take pigeon, Blofeld in drag and the slide whistle from TMWTGG also originate from this halcyon 'sensible' era when Bond films were intellectual indie movies for the arty crowd rather than the current 'soda and popcorn' blockbuster dross for the masses?
I have to take my hat off to you - to have one post more ridiculous and bereft of logic than one of Perdogg's might be seen as unfortunate. To have two seems like insanity.
First let me say that I'm a "Fu Fan", too. (Just finished reading #6, The Bride of Fu-Manchu. Great stuff.)
Perdogg should consider this... There is more "character development" for Bond in, oh, any random twenty minutes' worth of Craig as 007 (in any of his three films to date) than Rohmer provides for his hero Commissioner Sir Denis Nayland-Smith over the course of six bloody novels!
Nayland-Smith is a patriot, a decisive man of action, wise in the ways of the Orient and North Africa, who values honor, with the capacity to respect his enemies while at the same time relentlessly striving to track them down and stop them. He smokes a pipe incessantly, paces furiously while thinking, and has a habit of absent-mindedly tugging on his earlobe.
THAT IS IT. NO OTHER CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER OVER THE SPAN OF SIX BOOKS (SO FAR).
BTW... I am personally optimistic about the direction of the Bond Film franchise.
Casino Royale: Newly promoted 00 who is naive, arrogant and reckless. He thought eliminating one bomb maker is significant, and beating Le Chiffre in a card game is a walk in the park . Add the fact that sore loser Bond tried to murder Le Chiffre with a dinner knife. He realized how complicated and dangerous spying is when Le Chiffre pounded his balls. Add the fact that he was betrayed by Vesper, a woman to whom he was willing to commit; the point we see the mistrustful Bond.
QoS: Bond is vengeful, hurt and murder-happy, which is pretty logical considering what happened with Vesper in CR. He showed restraint when he didn't shoot Yussef, the honeypot, in the end so that he could be questioned. I guess. in the end of the movie, we saw a glimpse of Bond capable of judging dispassionately who is a far cry from that one in CR.
Skyfall: I think we see a more mature Bond. In Shanghai, instead of letting Patrice just fall down, he held in a blackmailing way and asked him: "who are you working for?" Patrice decided to commit suicide so that he didn't have to answer Bond's question. It was M screwing up: she didn't trust Bond's ability while 007 was fighting on the train in Turkey. in the opening sequence, Bond showed professionalism when he abandoned the plan to give the shot agent first aid on M's order.
I just wonder with all the talk about how wonderful the last few films have been, I ask the question would films like this be succesful without the Bond name and the history of outlandish plots that have laid the groundwork for 50 years?
One thing that immediately turned me off during The Bourne Identity back in 2002 was how they ignored what is humanly possible in favour of near-super heroics. Then, BAM! Five months later I got to see it all again in DAD. Yes, the invisible car bugs the Hell out of me, but Jinx taking a backwards 200ft dive into unknown water depth? Bond swimming in ice-cold water for minutes and
not suffering hydrothermia when emerging? Beaten/poisoned for months but a shave & a haircut makes it all better again? These things make the invisible car simple to swallow IMO.
Then BAM! We get more in CR, even MORE in SF.
I miss the days when Bond could feel a bullet graze in his ankle, making him limp a little....
Did you miss the bits where BAM! Bond gets his face smashed in in the stairwell fight? Or BAM! Gets his bollocks pulped and spends weeks in hospital? Or BAM! Gets his arm sliced by Slate? Or BAM! Gets shot in SF?
(Although I'll give you the bridge fall which is, if not impossible, then highly improbable to survive).
Craig bleeds more than all the other Bonds put together in CR alone (and yes I'm including Sean's nasty nick on the ankle there).
And for your passing information:
1. The word you are presumably flailing for is hypothermia.
2. Graves diamond mine takes advantage of Iceland's geothermal springs so Bond actually emerges in water that is as warm as a jacuzzi. 1 minute in ice cold water does not give you hypothermia.
I might have to give it to you on that one, then.
Good point. This is certainly the key criteria I look for in a Bond film.
Only about 20 seconds alas and its not fun. I suppose the key question is where the geothermal water blends into the cold water. Obviously where he goes in must be cold given he cuts through 6 inches of ice. I have to say its a tad risky because if he cant find his way into the warm water after a minute he will indeed die.
The whole thing is a bit suspect as if he can swim into the hot water stream so easily why does it only emerge inside the dome. Why doesnt it mix with the cold water and melt the ice lake?
But hey this is DAD. Accurate depiction of fluid dynamics is pretty low down my list of gripes.