It’s the way I took it, portray Bond’s less attractive aspects, but in a way the narrative, and the other characters, know. Bond is the devil you know and, to paraphrase Sherlock, he may be on the side of the angels, but don’t assume he’s one of them.
Yeah I’m all good with that. I don’t have any issue with the film expecting us to find Bond’s attitude wrong: he is a cold bastard, as M put it. He’s our hero but part of the pleasure should always be that we like him despite him being quite a massive dick. As someone on another forum pointed out: we still ove him despite “A woman?” in Moonraker: not because of it!
EDIT: Sod it: I don’t understand the quote system on this bloody forum. Hopefully you can figure out which bits are me and which are you.
As I remember, there is a scene in Sherlock where Mycroft (who works for the British security services) refers to how they like to employ his brother and mentions that one of his colleagues prefers to employ ‘blunt instruments’; playfully suggesting Sherlock and Bond live in the same universe.
Unfortunately there’s a scene in one of the early episodes where they refer to ‘Bond Air’: a code for Flight number 007 which is part of a Government plan, which suggests Bond is fictional for them too.
I think PWB makes very sensible comments here and gets the character as she would with the Killing Eve characters who are certainly more morally ambiguous than Bond.
I think the film treating female characters properly has nothing to do with Bond not fucking them etc… or being cold/cruel - its all just to do with making the women characters in their own right, they can be as sexual as men - i think the stuff that ppl complain about are the girls being slapped on the ass, saying two words and sent on their way while the men talk about important things - that stuff belongs with Connery/Moore and is really the only modernising ive seen in that respect and thats fine with me
Yes, clearly Gatiss was in two minds whether Bond was real or fictional (though I could argue A Scandal in Belgravia only needs Sherlock and Mycroft to know of Bond, so he could be a real person with a rep known by those also in the employ of SIS)
I was thinking that, but that would kind of need Watson to react in a ‘what are you talking about?’ kind of manner… (although I can’t remember the episode clearly so I’m not sure if he was even present!)
I did like the idea of them sharing the same universe though, as they both live in a sort of fantasy world where Britain is important and diabolical masterminds are all over the shop: tonally they fit together well.
In the early days, the officially run blog of Watson referenced the Bond movies - with John even telling Sherlock they needed to do a Bond movie night, as Sherlock clearly hadn’t seen all (or any?) of the films.
Genetic warfare, does it have anything to do with SPECTRE getting into that. Does Rami Malek’s character work SPECTRE at all. Even IF they don’t show Blofeld’s face at all.
I’d also venture that a script writer trying to make a Garden of Death relevant today might come up with genetic experimentation as way to present a new and deadlier garden for our times.
Of course I’d guess the experiments don’t stop with the garden; the mind boggles at the enhancements that could be thought up for a henchman, or a even a lover!
Skyfall is the biggest one in think of (just in regards to how wrong the statements in that are) It was two films ago, and not exactly a lesser seen entry in the series.
Thunderball, For Your Eyes Only, Licence To Kill and Skyfall immediately leapt to mind. Any others that make this article comedicaly wrong?