007's methods are... unique, to say the very least. He seems to have no patience for spycraft of any kind, and instead, seems to prefer going directly up to a villain while drunk and telling them his real name. He's absolutely a deadly force of nature, and can survive almost any encounter. However, you'd expect the world's greatest spy to be a little less well known. You also have to wonder what the hell MI6 is doing. Why would a secret organization hire a guy who constantly uses his real name in public? Also, I don't know the exact finances of international spies, but it seems like they could hire a dozen highly trained spies and assassins for the price of Bond's alcohol and sports cars alone.
Bond fills the role of "doomed spy" for MI6, allowing them to sneak other spies into the enemy organization.
For those who don't know, the doomed spy was tactic where a person would be recruited as a spy, given false information, and used as a sacrifice to the enemy, sometimes with another spy turning them in. That way, the enemy would get false information, and would be lulled into a false sense of security. It would also give credibility to the real spy.
Every time Bond crashes one of SPECTRE's casinos drunk and tries to seduce the villain's assistant, there's a dozen MI6 agents using the opportunity to slip in unnoticed. Nobody's going to question Jimmy in accounting because he spent a little too much time going over SPECTRE expenses while there's a drunken brit with submachinegun car running wild. It's also far, far simpler to get moles into SPECTRE and other organizations. Consider: every time Bond blows up an enemy base, there's likely at least some survivors. However, all of the records from that base are destroyed, and the heads of their security, science division, etc. are likely dead. That means that instead of having an agent join up and gain credibility over the course of years, MI6 can get an agent directly into SPECTRE with little suspicion.
That's also how Bond constantly manages to survive, even against crazy odds. Yes, he's still insanely skilled as a killer, but he also has MI6 agents backing him up from the shadows. For every goon we see Bond take down, there's another who got garotted in a dark corridor, or who was ordered to go on a wild goose chase far from the base.
However, there's the obvious hole in this-- Bond doesn't die, and MI6 often rescues him.
**MI6 decided to change the doomed spy role, in order to keep Bond alive as a... keep reading on reddit ➡
On raconte que depuis des millénaires cette phrase que Confucius ne cesse de répéter viendrait en réalité d'un personnage nommé James Bond.
The ultimate action movie lead showdown of three time periods. If you arent sure, throw in Xander Cage.
just a silly little thought I had...
Thinking about it....I get that it's his job to kill and he's been trained to do it, but would any sane person act this way?
Kaieteur News – There has been no formal statement emerging from the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) regarding the detention of senior member James Bond. Bond is currently facing......Read More - https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2020/11/26/silence-from-top-pncr-executives-as-james-bond-remain-in-police-custody-over-giveaway-of-peters-hall-lands/
Over the last week I read Ian Flemings first James Bond novel Casino Royale for the first time and later re watched the movie. Here are some thoughts on both, including a comparison of similarities, differences and the over all enjoyment I get out of both of these pieces.
Casino Royale (novel, 1953), written by Ian Fleming [27 short chapters, around 250 pages, depending on edition]
Casino Royale (movie, 2006), directed by Martin Campbell [144 minute runtime]
Before diving into further comparisons, there are two obvious, but also significant differences between the movie and the novel. The first being the time it is set in, both are contemporary to their release date. Meaning the novel is set in the Cold War whereas the movie is set in the 21 century. Because of the resulting differences in international relations historically speaking, you could transfer it (but you don't have to) to the second difference. Flemings novel is a political espionage thriller, whereas Campbells movie re-boot is basically an action movie.
The over all plot of the movie is very similar, nearly identical to its source material.
James Bond, a fresh 00, is set in a high stakes Poker game against Le Chiffre, a desperate (& near bankrupt) banker working for terrorist organizations. Bonds allies are Mathis, Felix Leiter & Vesper Lynd. Bond wins the money, Vesper & him get captured, following the torture, Le Chiffre being interrupted/killed by a member of a mysterious organization. After Bond & Vesper seek a happy life, the latter is confronted with her "real" identity/past & kills herself, leaving Bond emotionally broken & eventually cold.
As said in my first paragraph, Flemings novel isn't an "action" novel. There is an early assassination/botched bomb attempt in the early chapters (similar to the airport sequence) but it's nowhere near as action heavy as the movie, which follows parkour chases, knife fights & bus/plane explosions, stairway fights & the closing crumbling house set piece.
Narratively Bond meets his allies way earlier, in the movie Vesper & Mathis are introduced around an hour in, whereas in the novel already in the first few chapters, Felix Leiter is introduced very late in the movie and only after Bond is struggling in the Poker game. The whole Dimitrious, Ellipse... keep reading on reddit ➡
Taken from AskReddit
The James Bond series focuses on a fictional British Secret Service agent created in 1953 by writer Ian Fleming, who featured him in twelve novels and two short-story collections. Bond's name was appropriated from American ornithologist James Bond. Bond has a number of character traits which run throughout the books, including an enjoyment of cars, a love of food and drink, and an average intake of sixty custom-made cigarettes a day.
So this has become quite the topic the last few days.
What's your take on casting a black actor as James Bond ?
I personally would prefer if we didn't get a black James Bond. Bond is iconic character and we all know how he should look. There are some larger than life characters that we all know how they look. Superman,Bond,Shaft,Batman... For example it's like making a remake of Kojak and casting a non-bald guy who doesn't like lollipops.
Please keep your dicussion civilized and don't use racial slurs.
It's no surprise Martin Campbell was hired back to direct Casino Royale when it was time to restart the franchise with Daniel Craig.
For me Pierce Brosnan is still my favourite Bond and I still enjoy watching his other Bond films they're just not as good as Goldeneye. Denise Richards playing Nuclear Physicist Christmas Jones was a particular highlight of the later films although Bond surfing a tsunami over the melting ice being chased by big phaser beam from space was definitely a low point for the series.
James Bond, as you all know, usually orders his martinis “shaken, not stirred”. However, there is 1 exception to this—in You Only Live Twice, he is offered it “stirred, not shaken”, and oddly replies “perfect”, which is strange because he usually prefers is shaken. Why is this the case?
Well, seeing as how, to my knowledge, martinis are usually stirred, it doesn’t make sense to specify that a martini is stirred—that’s how it’s usually supposed to be in the first place. It only makes sense to specify the drink as “shaken, not stirred”. Thus, normal people would almost never say the phrase “stirred, not shaken” because that’s the default for martinis.
Thus, I propose that when Bond says it, or when someone says it to Bond, it’s a code which lets the other know that they both work for MI6.
In my opinion, Pierce was just great in the role and even though I can't deny that he received considerably more flimsy scripts & extravagant set pieces as the films went on - all 4 of his films are easy to digest, unapologetic fun.
All of the films, each seem to find that sweet spot between being overly campy and deadly serious. Each showcasing some truly great stunts, semi-absorbing plots and a great sense of adventure. Even when the cracks started to visibly appear in Die Another Day, it's pretty clear that Pierce was the glue, holding the film together when it was crumbling under its own weight.
It's a shame how, after the Craig era began, it seems we need to defend each of Brosnans movies (aside from maybe GoldenEye) when it seems to me that his films don't get enough credit for being as entertaining & rewatchable as they are. Brosnan may not be the greatest actor ever but he certainly made a stellar 007 and his fading era will always shine brightly in my eyes!
A common depiction of the tank is the lone killer, a force that strikes from a hilltop, that rains death and destruction down on everything it can see, and then remains there, a continuous and generally ongoing threat.
And, aside from destroying everything within range, that’s pretty much inaccurate, at least when the tanks are used properly.
Which is why I’m going to be ranting about them today.
Since WWI, tanks have been an essential part of combat, offering a protected platform for attacking enemy strongpoints, creating breaks in the enemy line, and exploiting said breaks. They have also always been more limited than other methods of attack, due a number of factors such as massive weight, fuel consumption, and visibility on the battlefield. Historically (but still somewhat relevantly), their mechanical complexity meant that the majority of tanks during WWI broke down en route, while Nazi offensives stalled out due to lack of fuel, exacerbated by Allied air attacks. Plus a tank platoon needs significant support, both logistically and for recovery.
The thing is that a tank is massively powerful from the perspective of an individual. A platoon (3 or 4) of tanks packs more firepower than a company (about 130 soldiers) of infantry, with multiple machine guns, a large cannon, and powerful optics and fire control systems that allow engagements kilometers out. So, it’s easy to paint them as invincible or unique with regards to usage. But that’s not necessarily true. Sure, a tank is basically invincible to machine gun fire (ignoring potential damage to the optics and barrel) and highly resistant to explosive force^1,2 , but mines, missiles, or even Molotovs can be effective at killing tanks, when properly deployed.
What a tank offers is somewhat limited protection, but extremely effective offensive power at range. It can’t necessarily drive through a defensive line, but a company can destroy most fortifications or dug-in positions and spearhead a breach, with proper support.
The Call of Duty games have frequently given the player control of a tank, where they’re basically left to their own devices to fight their way through enemy forces. It’s a player empowering moment that gives a good excuse of moving to another location, but in general those missions are uncoordinated, poorly designed, and encourage the player to drive out into the open and engage everything in sight. Which works because player plot armor.
At a discord room I visit, people often state while Brosnan's movies obviously were box office successes in Britain esp GoldenEye, he isn't as in-grained with Bond as he is in the rest of the world. That in the UK no single actor is ubiquitous with the role.
It does make me wonder because even outside the core Bond community, I notice with Brits I met online and irl including not just casual fans but even people who don't remotely care about 007 or even just spy movies period................... Much of them are aware that not only has there been 007 actors before Brosnan but they seem to know the names of several generations of the character. Enugh that its quite common to hear from random Brits including non-fans state "Oh Connery is the best!" and "I miss the Roger Moore days", etc. Even Milleneals UK people I know who grew up with Brosnan at least are aware of Connery and Moore (including those who never seen the pre-90s movies and openly state either Brosnan or Craig is their fav if only because they are the only ones they are exposed to).
As an American who was born in the 90s I will state before Craig's run Brosnan was not only the BOND for the American mainstream but he's the only one that most Americans even know about (even with the Craig era replacing him). So much that even people who don't know Pierce is the name of the 90s Bond actor like elder men who grew up in the Great Depression and preppy school girls I had as classmates who don't care about action flicks immediately picture Brosnan's image (ot at least his general basic features like dark hair and blue eyes) with Bond. Hell despite Craig being Bond for a whole generation, I met plenty of people born in the 2000s who associate Bond looking like Pierce Brosnan than Craig! Pretty much what I wrote above also applies to Canadian fans from my experience visiting the country to meet relatives and chatting online in gaming message boards and on Steam.
In addition despite the popular belief that Dalton's movies were flopped, they actually made profits worldwide. A hardcore fan told me its a misconception that was created by the fact Dalton's run underperformed in America but not only did it make cash world wide but they actually made around equal gross profits to Roger Moore's last 3 007 movies before he stepped down. That Dalton's movies was certainly popular in the UK during their original run.
I will also point out talking with non-English folks such as people from El Salvador, F... keep reading on reddit ➡
**EDIT: I have reached some compromise.
Two users have convinced me to alter my view to some extent.
u/scarletmonarda changed my view that race changes to iconic European characters can be done in a good way, in the form of changing the context and backstory of the character to justify the race change. For example, Sleeping Beauty can be set in an African kingdom with African characters and unique African cultural elements slightly altering the story. However, it is still in poor taste to simply jarringly race change a character without changing the larger context, such as making Rapunzel a black woman but keeping her within a Bavarian Medieval European environment where her presence makes no sense.
Another user, u/tinyroctopus also convinced me that if the population of a certain European nation is majority in favour of race changes to the folklore created in their country, that it is acceptable and nine of the business of other European countries. In other words, if more than half of British want to change their culture and have Robin Hood and James Bond be black, that is their prerogative and other Europeans have to make peace with it. It is still unacceptable however for the Brits and Americans to race change the cultural products of other countries, like The Witcher, Les Miserables and The Trojan War story.**
Why are there so few original black characters on the level of fame as white characters like Robin Hood, King Arthur, James Bond, William Wallace, etc? Why do we rely so much on race changing characters or historical inaccuracy to have black characters in film and TV?
There are talks of casting a half Zimbabwean black man to play James Bond after Daniel Craig. Of course the Anglophone press is heavily in support of this, despite there being more than enough eligible white Male actors who would be more appropriate and in keeping with the vision of Bond's original white creator. But why are we in this situation? Why is it necessary to fight over which poc gets to break the glass ceiling and "defeat racism" by playing a famous and popular white character? It is still the white man's creation.
Why isn't there a famous spy character who is black and who isnt Bond? Why isnt there a story about a black man in Africa who helps the poor and oppressed against the chieftain class, etc? wouldn't that be a better way to achieve representation?
No longer available
Edit: Only for US users :(
From Russia With Love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn7qLQa6Cx4
You Only Live Twice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHAyU9IzrpQ
Diamonds Are Forever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXrvZuz2JQw
On Her Majesty's Secret Service https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q6XQpaKJNw
Live and Let Die https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwBQUuYNbXo
The Man With the Golden Gun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXHgDmGXHZE
The Spy Who Loved Me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRlLE-tAB3o
For Your Eyes Only https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrmsmAU4AYI
A View to a Kill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOzAcKcdCw
The Living Daylights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnBZycM_wqU
License to Kill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbKLaQEAfPs
Tomorrow Never Dies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0QCNJsHUNY
The World is Not Enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-yYDhvXdI
Edit: Thanks to u/The-Mandalorian for pointing out Never Say Never Again, Sean Connery's (unofficial?) final outing is also free- https://youtu.be/q52pZtzLfmA