51

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

I would say that the drinking issue was actually touched upon in the Brosnan films to an extent, especially the first two.
IMO, from what I have read here and there in interviews with Brosnan, if he had had his way, his Bond would have been a darker character. Regarding Waller-Bridge, everyone is entitled to their opinion and can have at it,  but when it goes into a "Craig Not Bond- like" flights of what feels like deep seated enmity supported by phantom interview quotes, for me anyway, that just makes me a little uncomfortable (but that's social media for ya'). ajb007/crap

52

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Number24 wrote:

In my opinion Fleming's Bond is heavy drinker, no doubt. He's probably a problem drinker, but I don't consider him an alcoholic.

One detail about Fleming that often gets glossed over, probably because of all the cigarettes, is that he himself was alcoholic. I suspect he knew that Bond was, too.

As Gala Brand noted, the Bond of the novels is a deeply flawed man.

The Bond of the films, for all the dark touches to suggest a troubled inner life, is pure fantasy.

53

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Interesting. Off the top of my head I can only think of two moments where the filmic Bond is shown to be an alcoholic in a way that actually affects his character; when Bond is drinking vodka in the hotel room in TND, and when Bond is drunk on the plane in QoS. On both occasions, Bond is clearly struggling to cope with the demands of his task and drinking because of this, in a similar way to how Fleming has Bond drink in order to get over the psychological stress of killing the assassin at the start of the literary version of Goldfinger.

But I don't think the films, certainly, make a regular thing out of Bond being an alcoholic or a problem drinker; as others have noted, it affects the fantasy/glamour element of the character.

54

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

No,Bond was an alcoholic. Part of it was the times--people drank more in the Sixties, the era of the three-martini lunch and a pitcher of cocktails in the evening.

But Bond's level of drinking was staggering. The best that can be said is that he was a functioning alcoholic.

https://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/ … story.html

55

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

In my Family Bond would be considered a light weight  ajb007/wink  I'm the black sheep
as I only drink socially

“God has given you one face, and you make yourself another"

56

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Bond wasn’t an alcoholic.  Alcoholics cannot function without drinking from sun up to sunset.  They can’t function to the level Bond does and they constantly crave drink, it dominates their thoughts and world. Bond is capable of not drinking for periods at a time without the need for it.  That’s not an alcoholic.  Bond is just a very heavy drinker.

..................http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/darkcrown_1969/Asp9mmSIG-1-2.jpg...............

57

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

This thread would drive Bond to drink...

58

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Royale-les-Eaux wrote:

This thread would drive Bond to drink...

I’ll drink to that.

..................http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/darkcrown_1969/Asp9mmSIG-1-2.jpg...............

59

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Asp9mm wrote:

Bond wasn’t an alcoholic.  Alcoholics cannot function without drinking from sun up to sunset.  They can’t function to the level Bond does and they constantly crave drink, it dominates their thoughts and world. Bond is capable of not drinking for periods at a time without the need for it.  That’s not an alcoholic.  Bond is just a very heavy drinker.

I’m sorry to have coopted this thread, but again I’m referring to Fleming’s Bond. I’m a recovering alcoholic, sober for a long time now, and I drank as hard as Bond for decades without thinking about my next drink every moment, was successful by most measures and suffered few consequences that might have slowed me down. But it’s a progressive disease (or if you prefer, disorder), as Fleming himself experienced. Call Bond whatever you want, a hard drinker, a problem drinker, pre-alcoholic, but his preoccupation with drink outstrips even the excesses of his era.

60

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Gala Brand wrote:
SeanIsTheOnlyOne wrote:


Connery's portrayal is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's works, which makes him the best Bond ever to me (I guess many people share this opinion).

This is simply untrue. Connery's Bond was physically and emotionally invulnerable.

Fleming's Bond, on the other hand, was frequently injured physically and emotionally. He's rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case, betrayed by Vesper and then when he meets the love of his life, she's murdered.

He's injured at the end of Live and Let Die, hospitalized at the end of The Man with The Golden Gun, injured and suffering from amnesia at the end of You only Live Twice, and dead at the end of From Russia with Love.

In the books, Bond is a nicotine addict, an alcoholic, a drug abuser, and frequently depressed.

Connery's Bond is an interesting character but he's not Fleming's Bond.


I'm afraid you didn't get my point. It is the second time it occurs (the first time was not with you) and I start to wonder if I'm not the one to blame eventually. Perhaps I'm not clear enough or my words are not the right ones to express my point of view. I apologize for it.

To me, Sean Connery IS James Bond, and not only because he turns out to be the most charismatic and classy actor of the six who officially played the part. I put him just before Dalton who's a wonderful Bond - far better than Craig - tougher than Sean but with less charm. 
The main reason I think he portrays the character so well is because when I see him, I believe it.

The various examples you take from some novels show Bond is human and knows what failure is. But is Connery responsible for the fact the situations he's involved in feature a man succeeding more often than he fails or gets injured ? I don't think so. It mainly depends on the screenwriters.
If you pay attention, there are some rare moments when Bond's weaknesses are showed, and Connery's very convincing. In the first four films, he's not "physically invulnerable": he barely stands in his cell after his torture session in Dr No's repair, Red Grant almost kills him on the Orient-Express (look at his hands just after the fight), in Fort Knox, Oddjob hits him with such a power he can hardly breathe and get up, and Largo dominates him on the Disco Volante (he owes his life to Domino).

"Emotionally invulnerable" as well ? I disagree. In GF, he's traumatized by Jill's death to the extent M points out his obsession with vengeance. In TB, when he reveals Derval's death to Domino, her sadness makes him quite upset and he hides his emotion behind sunglasses.

Concerning the fact Bond is a nicotine addict and an alcoholic, I think it's difficult to show it in the movies as suggestively as it is described in the novels, and it's even more true for the drug abuser and the frequently depressed aspects. Nevertheless, his propensity to smoke, his huge knowledge of wine and spirits (claret, champagne, brandy, saké, sherry...) and his addiction to dry martini leave no room for doubt: Sean's Bond is more than a heavy smoker and drinker.

When I say his portrayal of Bond is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's work, it is not supposed to be taken word for word. Of course there are differences between the novels and the movies but I just mean Connery doesn't changes the nature of the original character. When I think of the literary version of Bond, he couldn't be more credible to me, for many reasons. The fact Fleming himself was so impressed by his performance in Dr No he decided to give his heroe Scottish roots in the 1963 OHMSS novel proves it. If the creator felt betrayed by Connery's work, he wouldn't have done it.

61

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

SeanIsTheOnlyOne wrote:
Gala Brand wrote:
SeanIsTheOnlyOne wrote:


Connery's portrayal is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's works, which makes him the best Bond ever to me (I guess many people share this opinion).

This is simply untrue. Connery's Bond was physically and emotionally invulnerable.

Fleming's Bond, on the other hand, was frequently injured physically and emotionally. He's rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case, betrayed by Vesper and then when he meets the love of his life, she's murdered.

He's injured at the end of Live and Let Die, hospitalized at the end of The Man with The Golden Gun, injured and suffering from amnesia at the end of You only Live Twice, and dead at the end of From Russia with Love.

In the books, Bond is a nicotine addict, an alcoholic, a drug abuser, and frequently depressed.

Connery's Bond is an interesting character but he's not Fleming's Bond.


I'm afraid you didn't get my point. It is the second time it occurs (the first time was not with you) and I start to wonder if I'm not the one to blame eventually. Perhaps I'm not clear enough or my words are not the right ones to express my point of view. I apologize for it.

To me, Sean Connery IS James Bond, and not only because he turns out to be the most charismatic and classy actor of the six who officially played the part. I put him just before Dalton who's a wonderful Bond - far better than Craig - tougher than Sean but with less charm. 
The main reason I think he portrays the character so well is because when I see him, I believe it.

The various examples you take from some novels show Bond is human and knows what failure is. But is Connery responsible for the fact the situations he's involved in feature a man succeeding more often than he fails or gets injured ? I don't think so. It mainly depends on the screenwriters.
If you pay attention, there are some rare moments when Bond's weaknesses are showed, and Connery's very convincing. In the first four films, he's not "physically invulnerable": he barely stands in his cell after his torture session in Dr No's repair, Red Grant almost kills him on the Orient-Express (look at his hands just after the fight), in Fort Knox, Oddjob hits him with such a power he can hardly breathe and get up, and Largo dominates him on the Disco Volante (he owes his life to Domino).

"Emotionally invulnerable" as well ? I disagree. In GF, he's traumatized by Jill's death to the extent M points out his obsession with vengeance. In TB, when he reveals Derval's death to Domino, her sadness makes him quite upset and he hides his emotion behind sunglasses.

Concerning the fact Bond is a nicotine addict and an alcoholic, I think it's difficult to show it in the movies as suggestively as it is described in the novels, and it's even more true for the drug abuser and the frequently depressed aspects. Nevertheless, his propensity to smoke, his huge knowledge of wine and spirits (claret, champagne, brandy, saké, sherry...) and his addiction to dry martini leave no room for doubt: Sean's Bond is more than a heavy smoker and drinker.

When I say his portrayal of Bond is nothing else than faithful to Fleming's work, it is not supposed to be taken word for word. Of course there are differences between the novels and the movies but I just mean Connery doesn't changes the nature of the original character. When I think of the literary version of Bond, he couldn't be more credible to me, for many reasons. The fact Fleming himself was so impressed by his performance in Dr No he decided to give his heroe Scottish roots in the 1963 OHMSS novel proves it. If the creator felt betrayed by Connery's work, he wouldn't have done it.

You're entitled to your opinions.

62

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Fleming initially wasn't happy with the choice of Connery (who was hired because he was cheap).

"In an interview with Melvin Bragg to be shown on the South Bank Show on Wednesday, Sir Sean says he had little time for the secret agent’s creator.

He says: “I never got introduced to Fleming until I was well into the movie but I know he was not happy with me as the choice.

“What was it he called me, or told somebody? That I was an over-developed stunt man. He never said it to me. When I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob."

Fleming came around after the movies--and Connery--proved popular and that meant he could sell more books.

63

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Gala Brand wrote:

Fleming initially wasn't happy with the choice of Connery (who was hired because he was cheap).

"In an interview with Melvin Bragg to be shown on the South Bank Show on Wednesday, Sir Sean says he had little time for the secret agent’s creator.

He says: “I never got introduced to Fleming until I was well into the movie but I know he was not happy with me as the choice.

“What was it he called me, or told somebody? That I was an over-developed stunt man. He never said it to me. When I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob."

Fleming came around after the movies--and Connery--proved popular and that meant he could sell more books.


Once again, you are mixing everything !

Everyone knows Sean has never been a fan of Bond. He played the character with detachment but also with professionalism from DN to TB. He only read three novels by Fleming (TB, initially supposed to be the first movie of the series, LALD and FRWL) whereas Dalton, for instance, read all of his work.

For his part, Fleming wasn't thrilled by the choice of Connery. He wanted Cary Grant or David Niven but they were too old/expensive for Broccoli & Saltzman. Sean was not famous at that time and his 1953 Mister Universe title didn't help at all to convince the author who was mainly afraid EON would make Bond some kind of Playboy with such a guy.

Nevertheless, after the release of the movie, Fleming, not only relieved, but impressed by Connery's performance, decided to give Scottish roots to the character as a tribute.

I'm not entitled to my opinions, I'm just trying to explain my point of view using some facts. Everyone has the right to consider Fleming's work and the Bond franchise any way he likes. After all, "it's all a matter of perspective", isn't it ?

Last edited by SeanIsTheOnlyOne (15th Sep 2020 09:32)

64

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

A lot of replies to my thread here, thanks for that, some interesting stuff however, very derailed from my 5 initial fears/hopes lol

1 - Lald, 2 - Ltk, 3 - Avtak, 4 - Op, 5 - Dn, 6 - Fyeo, 7 - Tswlm, 8 - Daf, 9 - Sf, 10 - Ohmss, 11 - Yolt, 12 - Ge, 13 - Tld, 14 - Mr, 15 - Gf, 16 - Tb, 17 - Tmwtgg, 18 - Sp, 19 - Tnd, 20 - Dad, 21 - Twine, 22 - Frwl, 23 - Cr, 24 - Qos

1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby

65

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

"Nevertheless, after the release of the movie, Fleming, not only relieved, but impressed by Connery's performance, decided to give Scottish roots to the character as a tribute."

This is debatable to some extent. It ought to be remembered that Fleming's grandfather was Scottish. He could just have been paying tribute to his own family heritage, rather than Connery's performance...

66

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

SpectreOfDefeat wrote:

"Nevertheless, after the release of the movie, Fleming, not only relieved, but impressed by Connery's performance, decided to give Scottish roots to the character as a tribute."

This is debatable to some extent. It ought to be remembered that Fleming's grandfather was Scottish. He could just have been paying tribute to his own family heritage, rather than Connery's performance...


Perhaps, perhaps not. The timing lets me think Connery's performance was one of the elements which encouraged Fleming to make this choice.

67

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Jarvio wrote:

A lot of replies to my thread here, thanks for that, some interesting stuff however, very derailed from my 5 initial fears/hopes lol

Perhaps rename the thread 'Fleming's 3 Fears, 2 hopes' ajb007/biggrin As you say interesting discussion nonetheless, it's fascinating how threads evolve and expand. All makes for a lively debate.

"Any of the opposition around..?"

68

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Fear 1-3 is all but confirmed.

69

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

I think some of the concerns about Nomi replacing Bond are valid. In the past, Bond has exchanged witty rivalry with strong female characters before- see Pam Bouvier in Licence to Kill, Natalya in GoldenEye, Wai Lin in Tomorrow Never Dies and Jinx in Die Another Day. If something similar happens with Nomi, that's fine. For example, even though the aforementioned Pam, Natalya, Wai Lin and Jinx were all pitched as Bond's dramatic equal, and were all capable of challenging and bantering with him on occasion, it was 007 who actually always took the key role at the climax, killing the villain and sabotaging their evil plans. The problems will emerge, I think, if Nomi genuinely does upstage Bond's traditional central place in the narrative, which would be disappointing.

70

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

From subtle hints in the trailers, I am 80% sure she is 007 at this point. What remains to be seen is if she stays that way till the credits roll and onward to Nomi 1. Every franchise except Bond has stooped to this, it would not be surprising to me anyway.

71

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

It's possible Nomi will be a spin-off of James Bond, I guess.

72

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Number24 wrote:

It's possible Nomi will be a spin-off of James Bond, I guess.

This would not surprise me. She's not B26, but I wouldn't be surprised if as a stop-gap in between NTTD/B26 they did a Nomi film within the Craig continuity that's sort of a "prequel" of NTTD. Smaller budget, smaller scope. Might even be able to get it out by 2022.

Only if the film and character are received well, though.

73

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

Shatterfang wrote:

Fear 1-3 is all but confirmed.

2 looks like it could be the case, maybe at the start of the movie, but 1 and 3 and far from “confirmed”.

74

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

2 is in a trailer, isn’t it?
3 if not by name, by much else.
1 is a franchise killer unless you’re rebooting in 26.
You can have any gender 007, you can have any race James Bond I’m fine with any of that, but the character James Bond being 007 is the dna of the whole piece, from the first word of Casino Royale to the last line of the NTTD script - and the reason everything works. You can have retirement, going rogue breaks, you can have spin offs, etc etc etc but you can’t escape yourself without starting over completely and then you’re just another summer blockbuster with no source material, no legacy and without 60 years of generation to generation good will.

I can see DC dying, can see a Bourne or Sopranos style ending for NTTD that is shocking, well done and decisive for D.C. era, but a permanent reset with Nomi or any other character (I’d definitely watch a Nomi spin off, in the same way I’d have watched a Camille spin off...and the supporting cast in this iteration deserve more screen time because they’re great). That would be...brave.

75

Re: 3 fears, 2 hopes

I certainly wouldn’t welcome a spin-off or fundamental changes in regards to JB = 007.

I am a fan of James Bond, not of a supporting character. One of the rare occasions a spin-off worked was Fast & Furious, bc the characters are interchangeable. Not so with Bond, every movie is about him.

Plus: With the state the franchise is in, I‘d rather they focused to get that to the top again (i.e. releasing in a more than casually-appearing frequency, sticking to the formula,...).

Get one thing right before starting the next.

The name is Walker by the way.

IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed ajb007/smile