Official account for Wolfram Books. #ThePowerofHavingYouNear is now available in Paperback and Kindle.
Joined December 2023
- Tweets2.3K
- Following123
- Followers246
- Likes3.4K
Wolfram Books retweeted
From illicit dealings and questionable business practices to a conspiracy with international consequences, #TheWorldIsNotEnough explores the darker side of corporate power.
brosnansbond.blogspot.com/20…
Wolfram Books retweeted
Agent under fire! Bond dodges a hail of bullets from Russian soldiers as he makes a daring escape from the St. Petersburg Military Archives in #GoldenEye.
From illicit dealings and questionable business practices to a conspiracy with international consequences, #TheWorldIsNotEnough explores the darker side of corporate power.
brosnansbond.blogspot.com/20…
Valentin Zukovsky tries his best to be a legitimate businessman, but he has a hard time adapting to post-Soviet capitalism.
Read more about the legacy of Pierce Brosnan's 007 in 'The Bond of The Millennium'.
millenniumbond007.wixsite.co…
#MillenniumBond #TheWorldIsNotEnough
The #TomorrowNeverDies teaser trailer followed the formula of #GoldenEye, with Pierce Brosnan briefly addressing the public: “Bond... you know the rest.”
'A View To A Thrill' overviews the #BondTrailers.
Paperback and Kindle: amzn.to/2LJObws
While investigating Carver’s printing press, Bond discovers that Wai Lin is much more than a Chinese journalist.
Read more about the legacy of Pierce Brosnan's 007 in 'The Bond of The Millennium'.
millenniumbond007.wixsite.co…
#MillenniumBond #TomorrowNeverDies
Wolfram Books retweeted
⚪️⚪️🔴
#JamesBond
One does not simply kill James Bond.
No Time to Die falters because it treats Bond's death as a final and definitive end.
The film certainly has its strengths. The action is often handsomely staged, Daniel Craig commits fully to the physical demands, performing many of his own stunts, and there is something deeply human in a man choosing to stand and face annihilation rather than endanger those he loves while saving the world. Good men and women have done precisely that throughout history when no other path remained open to them.
To the warriors of antiquity, a death earned whilst advancing to stop the enemy was considered a noble one.
In attempting to strip James Bond of myth and render him a diminished figure of loss, they inadvertently ensured that the ancient Spartan maxim still holds: with the shield or upon it. Heroic myths and legends are made of such sacrifice.
So why, then, do I object to James Bond’s death in No Time to Die?
Because the decision to extinguish Bond himself, rather than allow the character to absorb the blow and continue, reveals a failure to understand what the figure has always represented.
First, one must understand of what Daniel Craig’s Bond was actually a product, and why he was not the quintessential James Bond.
In many respects, this was the Bond of the War on Terror. From Casino Royale onwards, the series shed much of its earlier charm and entered a world of personal trauma, contested institutions, terrorist threats, and enemies who operate as much through networks and ideology as through conventional state power. It reflected a real-world mood of prolonged uncertainty, of vigilance without clear victory, of the sense that ordinary life had been interrupted by something darker. Much of the popular entertainment of the period followed the same path: heroes broken, institutions questioned, endings weighted with loss. The symptoms of the age shaped the work, and Craig's portrayal bore that weight with scarcely a trace of hope and no real catharsis.
That is not Ian Fleming's James Bond; that is the Bond of the era.
So, who, then, is Ian Fleming's James Bond?
Matt Damon was wrong when he described Bond as "an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who beds women, swills martinis, and kills without consequence, and therefore repulsive." He was quite wrong.
A man who orders the vodka martini, possesses hedonistic appetites, completes the mission, and who stands between the free world and its destroyers is neither anachronistic nor repulsive. He is necessary.
What Damon missed is what the character consistently offers in return: the hope that the villains of the world shall not prevail; that the free world's tomorrow need not be a ruin controlled by tyrants; and that somewhere, someone competent and determined will stand in the way of those who would tear the world apart and tread it underfoot. Those who despise the figure often fixate upon the surface vices and miss the larger purpose. Hope is not a soft consolation; it is the practical conviction that the next morning is still worth having, and that life is still worth living.
When that hope is fulfilled, what usually follows is happiness.
The real James Bond must return because he gives us hope. That is why I object to the character's death, and why the decision to make Bond's death the final word remains the decisive error of Craig's tenure: it deprives us of hope and replaces it with loss.
Ian Fleming put it plainly: "Hope makes a good breakfast. Eat plenty of it."
The original twenty films provide that breakfast far more readily than Daniel Craig's reboot series, which offers instead a fatal narrative of a tragic hero.
Kill the hero who embodies hope, and you ruin the very breakfast Fleming recommended.
Let us hope James Bond returns soon; he has been absent for far too long.
Our breakfast is long overdue.
Tonight's Bond film is Never Say Never Again.
#JamesBond #IanFleming #DanielCraig #NoTimetoDie #NeverSayNeverAgain #SeanConnery
Wolfram Books retweeted
They rebooted Bond to correct a problem that didn't exist. In doing so, they rather thoroughly created a problem that now needs a reboot.
Rebooting wasn't their finest hour.
What is now needed is a return to form.
Wolfram Books retweeted
One does not simply kill James Bond.
No Time to Die falters because it treats Bond's death as a final and definitive end.
The film certainly has its strengths. The action is often handsomely staged, Daniel Craig commits fully to the physical demands, performing many of his own stunts, and there is something deeply human in a man choosing to stand and face annihilation rather than endanger those he loves while saving the world. Good men and women have done precisely that throughout history when no other path remained open to them.
To the warriors of antiquity, a death earned whilst advancing to stop the enemy was considered a noble one.
In attempting to strip James Bond of myth and render him a diminished figure of loss, they inadvertently ensured that the ancient Spartan maxim still holds: with the shield or upon it. Heroic myths and legends are made of such sacrifice.
So why, then, do I object to James Bond’s death in No Time to Die?
Because the decision to extinguish Bond himself, rather than allow the character to absorb the blow and continue, reveals a failure to understand what the figure has always represented.
First, one must understand of what Daniel Craig’s Bond was actually a product, and why he was not the quintessential James Bond.
In many respects, this was the Bond of the War on Terror. From Casino Royale onwards, the series shed much of its earlier charm and entered a world of personal trauma, contested institutions, terrorist threats, and enemies who operate as much through networks and ideology as through conventional state power. It reflected a real-world mood of prolonged uncertainty, of vigilance without clear victory, of the sense that ordinary life had been interrupted by something darker. Much of the popular entertainment of the period followed the same path: heroes broken, institutions questioned, endings weighted with loss. The symptoms of the age shaped the work, and Craig's portrayal bore that weight with scarcely a trace of hope and no real catharsis.
That is not Ian Fleming's James Bond; that is the Bond of the era.
So, who, then, is Ian Fleming's James Bond?
Matt Damon was wrong when he described Bond as "an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who beds women, swills martinis, and kills without consequence, and therefore repulsive." He was quite wrong.
A man who orders the vodka martini, possesses hedonistic appetites, completes the mission, and who stands between the free world and its destroyers is neither anachronistic nor repulsive. He is necessary.
What Damon missed is what the character consistently offers in return: the hope that the villains of the world shall not prevail; that the free world's tomorrow need not be a ruin controlled by tyrants; and that somewhere, someone competent and determined will stand in the way of those who would tear the world apart and tread it underfoot. Those who despise the figure often fixate upon the surface vices and miss the larger purpose. Hope is not a soft consolation; it is the practical conviction that the next morning is still worth having, and that life is still worth living.
When that hope is fulfilled, what usually follows is happiness.
The real James Bond must return because he gives us hope. That is why I object to the character's death, and why the decision to make Bond's death the final word remains the decisive error of Craig's tenure: it deprives us of hope and replaces it with loss.
Ian Fleming put it plainly: "Hope makes a good breakfast. Eat plenty of it."
The original twenty films provide that breakfast far more readily than Daniel Craig's reboot series, which offers instead a fatal narrative of a tragic hero.
Kill the hero who embodies hope, and you ruin the very breakfast Fleming recommended.
Let us hope James Bond returns soon; he has been absent for far too long.
Our breakfast is long overdue.
Tonight's Bond film is Never Say Never Again.
#JamesBond #IanFleming #DanielCraig #NoTimetoDie #NeverSayNeverAgain #SeanConnery
Tonight's film is the final entry in Daniel Craig's James Bond reboot cycle. I've long wanted to point out this contrast.
GoldenEye opened with the fall of the other side's gods. Lenin's statue toppled, the hammer and sickle shattered, the whole apparatus of Soviet iconography broken and sunk. The Soviets had been the heavies from the first day of Bond, SMERSH, the Lubyanka, the machinery of fear in Moscow. Bond existed, in part, to rub their noses in the dirt and prove that the West still held. The Soviet Union collapsed, and the GoldenEye titles marked the victory. The British agent and the free world had outlasted the system that wanted him and his way of life dead. The enemy's symbols went down; Britain's stood.
No Time to Die's title sequence?
Britannia falls and breaks. Her shield drops. The British emblem is shown in ruin at the start, and the designer has said why: it is not Britain's finest hour.
I do not see it that way.
Where GoldenEye celebrated the destruction of the adversary's order, this one advertises the dissolution of our own. The villain, Lyutsifer Safin, succeeds where SMERSH failed. He finishes the British hero. The titles place the crumbling of the national symbol of Britannia as the necessary prelude.
Is it revenge for that earlier GoldenEye sequence? In effect, that is what it achieves.
The irony is that both title sequences were made by Daniel Kleinman.
It is a mirror image: Soviet icons destroyed then, British icons destroyed now.
It is foreshadowing the end.
Bond does not walk away; he stands under the missile bombardment at the end. Visually, that is the revenge of the side that lost the Cold War, served up as high art and melancholy.
Fleming wrote Bond to win, not to die after Britannia had been shown falling to pieces in a title sequence. He gave the public a British secret agent who did his duty, enjoyed the pleasures of life, and always came through.
Ruthless, self-indulgent, a wonderful character. Not a hero in the sentimental sense, but a man who gets on with it. Loyalty to the Service, to Queen and country, are his few perceptible virtues.
The novel You Only Live Twice has him look death in the face and survive. That is the point. To have him stand under a missile barrage and simply take it is antithetical to who Bond is.
This is the precise opposite of what Fleming wrote. He did not open his books with the ruin of the symbols under which Bond served. He opened them with the certainty that a British secret agent, however battered or broken, would still climb Everest, still beat the world at its own games, still rub the villain's nose in the dirt. The Soviets understood what Fleming was doing. Izvestia called the books rubbish and pornography. Fleming was delighted. They feared the idea of a free man who wins.
Fleming's books are not for people who need their national icons dismantled before the story starts. James Bond is not a vehicle for self-loathing like Jason Bourne. He is the reminder that the old virtues and values of the West still count. Kill him and show Britannia in pieces, and you have made a film of the opposition's book.
You've made the Soviet book Avakoum Zakhov Versus 007 into film.
The Daniel Craig films are competent, often stylish, and occasionally rather good. They are not Ian Fleming. They are the contemporary preference for institutional self-doubt and the dismantling of one's own icons, rendered with expensive melancholy.
No Time to Die makes one wish we had a fifth Pierce Brosnan film instead.
I do not hate it. The stunts and the action are all good, and Daniel Craig did do a lot of his own stunts, so kudos to him for having guts, but this film is why I do not enjoy his run the same way I enjoy the original twenty films.
The original films one can watch again and again. With Craig's, one needs more time before viewing it once more.
What a fall from Sir Roger Moore parachuting under a Union Jack.
#JamesBond #NoTimeToDie #DanielCraig #IanFleming
Wolfram Books retweeted
Pierce Brosnan says the call offering him Mamma Mia came while he sat with his mom and the undertaker after his stepfather died, and his character turned out to have his stepfather's last name
"My stepfather's name was Carmichael, Bill Carmichael"
"I was out there and my agent called me and said, you've got a job with Meryl Streep."
"And then in came Sam Carmichael."
"Oh, you've still got my bagpipes."
He had just told his mom they needed a piper to send his stepdad off. Two days later he's in a London theater watching a man named Carmichael ask about his bagpipes. I would have walked out of that show shaking.
Xenia can’t conceal her fascination with Bond’s counterattack against Trevelyan’s train.
Read more about the legacy of Pierce Brosnan's 007 in 'The Bond of The Millennium'.
millenniumbond007.wixsite.co…
#MillenniumBond #GoldenEye
The good thing is that they use a photo of the right Bond for their article.
"(Callum) Turner looks like he might have been grown in a lab to play Bond"
What?! 😂 He's got a head like a size 15 shoe box. Temu Matt Smith.
hollywoodreporter.com/movies…
Read James Fleming's book Bond Beyond The Iron Curtain. You'll understand what leds us to this. This gentleman of discernment couldn't have explained it better. It's not some sort of "bold" move, it's utter disrespect for Bond and everything he stands on.
Tonight's film is the final entry in Daniel Craig's James Bond reboot cycle. I've long wanted to point out this contrast.
GoldenEye opened with the fall of the other side's gods. Lenin's statue toppled, the hammer and sickle shattered, the whole apparatus of Soviet iconography broken and sunk. The Soviets had been the heavies from the first day of Bond, SMERSH, the Lubyanka, the machinery of fear in Moscow. Bond existed, in part, to rub their noses in the dirt and prove that the West still held. The Soviet Union collapsed, and the GoldenEye titles marked the victory. The British agent and the free world had outlasted the system that wanted him and his way of life dead. The enemy's symbols went down; Britain's stood.
No Time to Die's title sequence?
Britannia falls and breaks. Her shield drops. The British emblem is shown in ruin at the start, and the designer has said why: it is not Britain's finest hour.
I do not see it that way.
Where GoldenEye celebrated the destruction of the adversary's order, this one advertises the dissolution of our own. The villain, Lyutsifer Safin, succeeds where SMERSH failed. He finishes the British hero. The titles place the crumbling of the national symbol of Britannia as the necessary prelude.
Is it revenge for that earlier GoldenEye sequence? In effect, that is what it achieves.
The irony is that both title sequences were made by Daniel Kleinman.
It is a mirror image: Soviet icons destroyed then, British icons destroyed now.
It is foreshadowing the end.
Bond does not walk away; he stands under the missile bombardment at the end. Visually, that is the revenge of the side that lost the Cold War, served up as high art and melancholy.
Fleming wrote Bond to win, not to die after Britannia had been shown falling to pieces in a title sequence. He gave the public a British secret agent who did his duty, enjoyed the pleasures of life, and always came through.
Ruthless, self-indulgent, a wonderful character. Not a hero in the sentimental sense, but a man who gets on with it. Loyalty to the Service, to Queen and country, are his few perceptible virtues.
The novel You Only Live Twice has him look death in the face and survive. That is the point. To have him stand under a missile barrage and simply take it is antithetical to who Bond is.
This is the precise opposite of what Fleming wrote. He did not open his books with the ruin of the symbols under which Bond served. He opened them with the certainty that a British secret agent, however battered or broken, would still climb Everest, still beat the world at its own games, still rub the villain's nose in the dirt. The Soviets understood what Fleming was doing. Izvestia called the books rubbish and pornography. Fleming was delighted. They feared the idea of a free man who wins.
Fleming's books are not for people who need their national icons dismantled before the story starts. James Bond is not a vehicle for self-loathing like Jason Bourne. He is the reminder that the old virtues and values of the West still count. Kill him and show Britannia in pieces, and you have made a film of the opposition's book.
You've made the Soviet book Avakoum Zakhov Versus 007 into film.
The Daniel Craig films are competent, often stylish, and occasionally rather good. They are not Ian Fleming. They are the contemporary preference for institutional self-doubt and the dismantling of one's own icons, rendered with expensive melancholy.
No Time to Die makes one wish we had a fifth Pierce Brosnan film instead.
I do not hate it. The stunts and the action are all good, and Daniel Craig did do a lot of his own stunts, so kudos to him for having guts, but this film is why I do not enjoy his run the same way I enjoy the original twenty films.
The original films one can watch again and again. With Craig's, one needs more time before viewing it once more.
What a fall from Sir Roger Moore parachuting under a Union Jack.
#JamesBond #NoTimeToDie #DanielCraig #IanFleming
Whether charming a beautiful woman or confronting danger in New Orleans, Bond delivers his introductory line with confidence.
Read more about the legacy of Pierce Brosnan's 007 in 'The Bond of The Millennium'.
millenniumbond007.wixsite.co…
#MillenniumBond #007EverythingorNothing
You have to promote a Bond film, but you can’t use any Bond indicia. The advantage? Sean Connery stars in your film, titled #NeverSayNeverAgain. What do you do?
'A View To A Thrill' overviews the #BondTrailers.
Paperback and Kindle: amzn.to/2LJObws