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
Totally agreed. I hope more blockbusters take similar shape in the next few years to come, Bond included. Leaving the theater opening weekend for the new Top Gun was so refreshing, I had such a feel good excitement as I left.
A 100%. However, does Bond need to be a crowd pleaser? Mission Impossible fills that spot just fine, along with Kingsman et al. I see Bond doing what Bond does best. This time set in the 60s. I will up the ante with my right nut as well. I am that excited and convinced it's what should happen next. The best answer to Craig's dreariness of the last years. Yes, to more lightheartedness, yes to more dry wit and yes to Turner.
I think it was and it wasn't. For me, Skyfall got the balance pretty right: good dramatic bits mixed with good Bondy punch-the-air bits, and you left on a high. Tonally I'd say something like MI Fallout is probably on a par, and everyone loved that too. So you probably could stay at that level and it would work, but I expect they will want to shake it up a bit.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think Mendes just got Bond where Fukunaga didn't.
Because of the scope , budgets, and tentpole status, yes, it needs to be a crown pleaser to continue .
I just didn't feel that with SF. The villain wins, M dies, though the classic ending (that sadly isn't at all utilized come SP) was pretty great. It's just not a fun or escapist installment for me at all, but I always accept I'm in the minority with my feelings regarding that film.
SF and NTTD are shallow dramas. More of those and I will be very disappointed.
And as my last sentence notes, I accept I'm in the minority there and am glad most can love it. I tried, at least, and paid to see it five times in cinemas but I just wasn't seeing what everybody else was and haven't to this day.
Just a little shake-up and something fresh for the next era is all I'm after.
Are you talking about Bond films with that second description? I love em all, but I wouldn't call any of them that; they're mostly just silly fun :)
Anyway, here's a fun bit of baiting from some ad or other that Cavill's done :)
I would put FRWL, GF, CR, QoS in that category.
Well there go his "chances", or whatever was left of it. The guy remains a knob.
See the difference between him and Turner? From 40 seconds on
Fair enough, I certainly wouldn't call Goldfinger 'mysterious' or 'cerebral', probably none of the others either, but you do you :)
I'd say all of those are fairly silly, fun adventure films to be honest. And nothing wrong with that either!
Ha. I'd only classify Spectre as those two qualifications.
DN, yeah, that's a bit more mysterious.
I wish we had more Bond films like that honestly, I love those kind of films.
He knows how it works, thankfully.
Off topic, but it's something I hope we come back to in future Bond films. Not the gadgets, the silliness or the extravaganza, but plots without big mysteries or big plot twists and reveals. We know what's happening, who'se involved, what's at stake, etc.
So, Casino Royale.
If you like. Can't say I really have a preference, both ways have been handled well, I'd say.
Or stop adding traitor characters that are either painfully obvious or spoiled in the marketing. Just a thought.
So you want Bond to be more like Batman?
Obviously we all judge things differently, but I wouldn’t compare any Bond film to the likes of American Beauty.