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 do wonder how the writers might have handled the hunt scene differently with another Bond. All the gags would be gone. I even think the wading out to the tourist boat would go. Only Moore and maybe Brosnan could get away with that. I do think the idea of a hunt for Bond could be done again with a more serious tone and a sense of danger. Danger from the villains and the wild animals roaming around.
The oldest trick in the business.
Even with the extra weight, Connery still looks strong. It's not the end of the world.
Over the top is a curious way of putting it; do you think Roger was being OTT because he showed a hint of panic? Like in the clown/bomb climax? He’s hardly bursting into tears. I don’t think that was OTT at all; I think that’s just acting, and compared to most other characters Bond is keeping quite cool. I think if we see Bond reacting like he knows he’s in trouble then it heightens the tension. For me Sean’s Bond could have done with a bit of that, he tends to veer towards being an invulnerable superman who knows he can get out of anything with a gadget and a quip.
Aside from the bomb sequence in this movie and the bomb sequence in Spy, I am struggling to recall a time where i felt Moore's Bond was in any real danger. That made the transition to Tim all the more jarring. We had over a decade of a lighter Bond.
People seem to claim that Connery's Bond just walked through things and never emoted. I don't think that is true. While it was subtle and below the surface often coming out in actions rather than words.
I am not saying one is better than the other. They are different portrayals of the same character. Sometimes I am in the mood for a light breezy Moore film over a more dark and dangerous Connery, Dalton or Craig film.
The closest ConneryBond comes to this sequence is maybe the junkanoo? And to be honest I'm not really feeling much desperation from Bond. He even suffers from a gunshot wound which has handily cleared itself up by the next scene. The jungle hunt did have too many gags which puncture its potential, but Bond still gets to show a little fear and panic, especially towards the end. Lazenby then had the icerink sequence, which lots of folks cite as him playing the vulnerability and fear of his predicament fairly well. It's a mild development of Bond's portrayal over the years, drifting in slightly more human elements as time goes along. NSNA shows the contrast, as Connery's Bond has been pickled in time in 1971 and revived in '83 without those additions.
Yeah, that's the point.
In any case, the Bond films had become more stunt-oriented than the earlier movies in the series. They had to give Moore something to do.
But I think Moore got more opportunity to play Bond in more vulnerable situations, and I think the way he played a lot of those scenes gave them the best results. Stuff like the mountain climb in FYEO, the alligator scene in LALD, the bomb scenes in TSWLM and OP, or even something like the python scene in MR.
Speaking of back or at least back on track lets move to another film and dive into the theories behind this.
What is your theory on on Grant's speech to Bond. Bravado or intended?
Our man on his knees, unarmed with a silenced PPK pointed at him. A SPECTRE assassin standing over him and lauding how much more intelligent SPECTRE has been. Bond nervously looking at the gun and watching Grant put on the gloves.
Grant delivers the main thrust of his speech to Bond.
"The first one won't kill you, not the second, not even the third...not until you come over here and you kiss my foot."
If Grant was to make it look like a murder-suicide how would it look if the suicide had at least three bullets in him? Or was this mere bravado from Grant who was getting off on how defeated and fearful Bond looked in that moment? Earlier Grant says that he has freedom to dispose of Bond and the girl in any way he sees fit, so maybe SPECTRE thinks British Intelligence will explain away the situation as a murder-suicide? Mind you they have a note and the film to lend credence to murder-suicide.
Lets hear your theories on this potent line of dialogue and the real intentions of Grant.
Grant has a strong disdain for Bond. He feels Bond is falsely having a great reputation, and he relishes himself in the fact that he has total control. The film and letter are enough for the press, the bodies aren't really necessary, so he can do anything he wants really. As long as Bond doesn't survive...
I suppose it'd just add to the mystery and cause the story to spread even further.