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 agree. I just take Spectre's success as a given.
Waiting on a @smitty smack-down.
No smack down cause I really, really, really hope you all are right.
The rights to Spider-Man has'nt been fully bought back by Marvel. Marvel and Sony have a deal where theyre co-owners qhere Spider-Man can appear with any of the charactets owned by Marvel studios and vice versa. The role has already been recast and will be played by Tom Holland who has already filmed his scenes for the new Captain America movie. What's interesting is, Garfield was fired from the role shortly after TASM2 because he allegedly accused Sony and the producers of interfering and ruining TASM2 before the deal Marvel and Sony have together fell into place.
Those are very good points.
Not having a MP and Q around in the first two Craig movies was a big mistake and the reboot nonsense was not very well thought out.
Now we only have a "proper" Bond movie with Craig's third and his fourth is almost a decade after his first. A mess really.
So you'd say CR isn't a 'proper' Bond movie?
Also, I think after the screen time the MI6 characters are reputed to have in SP, we likely will have seen quite a lot of them to accept them with a new Bond, if that is the case, going forward.
CR is not a proper Bond movie in sense of having no gun-barrel opening, not having a Q or MP and for some unknown reason a black and white opening.
Still, it is one of the very best, thanks to Martin Campbell whom we all owe a great deal because I strongly believe he made the movie work on its whole.
QOS is not even "not a proper" Bond movie, it is no Bond movie at all and bad as well.
All imho of course.
Totally agree. It showed that you can mix things up and yet retain the style and tone that makes it unmistakably Bond.
I think CR redefined what a Bond movie could be. The B+W opening and gunbarrel have very strong narrative weight behind them, they aren't done simply for style. It's B+W before he becomes a 'technicolour' 00 operative. Had you not realised that? Re. Q and MP, they aren't missed in the slightest.
There is no need for re-defining.
As for the b+w sequence, I never bought that argument, CR does not take place before Dr. No or they should have made it a period piece of the late 50's.
I agree that Q and MP are not missed in CR. But they should have been in it anyway it could and would have worked as well.
I was opposed to the reboot thing from the beginning and the way things played out over three movies I'm more than ever convinced they should have handled it very differently.
The gun-barrel mess over three movies is just bloody awful and a real shame. It may be a minor thing in a 2 hour movie but it is probably the most iconic thing in the franchise and they short of destroyed it.
There's no argument to buy. The B+W to colour transition signifies agent to 00-agent. That's just a fact.
As for re-defining, it's important if you want to evolve. They need to take risks when appropriate and they did if with CR, successfully. I don't think that can be argued really, unless you hate CR, which some people do.
Evolving is a good thing. Throwing out iconic signs that defined Bond before is not evolving but abandoning. That's how I see it, but of course I respect your opinion.
I find the b+w PTS stupid, no matter the facts behind it.
I will write a letter to JJ Abrams and complain why the first sequence of Star Trek 2009 was not in black and white so we could understand that this was meant to show the transition from Cadet to Captain
:))
What makes it stupid, though? I can understand if you don't like it visually, but I fail to see how it's stupid.
I have no problem with reboot, some aspects could have been handled differently but I think CR's PTS is one of the best and most individual and Craig intro is the best since Connery's in DN.
I think the B&W choice is going to make it one of the most iconic moments of the series.
Ok, that was wrong wording, I'm sorry. I should have said wrong instead of stupid.
It was a creative choice from ? the director or producers, so I respect that. But I don't like it, and I find that PTS the worst of all Bond movies, even the one in Dr. No is better :)) if I'm allowed to make fun about it:)
I feel CR could have been my favourite Bond movie (No1 instead of No4) with some changes like proper gun-barrel, side-characters, new M and some of the iconic Bond moments that are missing. In a field of near perfect Bond movies (there's 6 imo) such seemingly minor things can make a big difference.
For me it felt like a throwback to one of cinematic Bond's signature moments (the Dent killing in DN) and I found it refreshing because it was gritty (in the toilet, including the best DC gunbarrel to date imho) and done on a shoestring budget (which was also a throwback to the old films......before TSWLM started the craze for bigger and badder pretitle stunts).
I'm a stickler for the gunbarrel myself, but it made sense in CR, as opposed to QoS and SF. I don't think the absence of MP, Q, or a new M is relevant, though, neither do I feel it diminishes the overall product. I fail to see how their inclusion would elevate the movie. OHMSS dispenses with a lot of the action tropes and trims the irony that was starting to permeate the series and, of course, has Bond fall in love. However, it's still a classic imo. The collective canon lurches from grounded to fantastical and everything in between, yet the few stand out movies remain those that don't necessarily incorporate every associated trope. CR is a stand out imo and the definitive film of the Craig era.
You have a point, if they had included those things in QOS and SF I may not even talk about CR now. But as it is the whole thing bugs me every time I watch CR to SF.
CR is the definite film of the Craig era, of course, you're absolutely right.
As I said it is my favourite Bond movie after GE TLD and OHMSS and my very few complaints about it can be seen as nitpicking I see that.
Moneypenny and Q were absent from Casino Royale, the first novel, so there is the reason for that.
I stand corrected. Still, if Cubby had made CR does anyone think he would have abandoned Maxwell and Llewelyn?
But I get the point, doesn't apply for QOS though!
QoS is a straight continuation of the CR story though. The bookend. So it makes sense here too, and in a way, so does the lack of gunbarrel until the end (since it is arguably after the Vesper story is completed that Bond is Bond so to speak....).
It is only with SF that there is a legitimate argument about the gunbarrel, but then Mendes wanted his opening shot (which is excellent imho.....so I forgive him...it was kind of a reimagined gunbarrel). I personally think he wanted to 'top' the toilet entry in CR in terms of creativity.....sort of compete with Campbell. Hence the DB5 insertion as well. In both cases, it was done better in CR imho.
Hey, you are destroying all my arguments :))
QOS wasn't an episode airing one week after CR but there was a two year gap.
I know it was a sequel (of sorts).
My point is I never liked the reboot thing, it was done inconsequently, old M, actor too old (IMO of course).
I despise the gun-barrel not being where it belongs.
It was a direct sequel, hence White being in the Aston.
I'm not an imbecile like the new Q :))
Of course I know the PTS is a direct continuation.
But the main story that follows could very well be a stand-alone movie.
The whole film is punctuated with allusions to Vesper and CR itself, with Mathis and Leiter returning once again. It all builds to Bond finding his 'Quantum of Solace'. Yes, the water plot is unconnected, but that's the point, the emotional thrust of the movie is directly tied to CR. It's undoubtably the only film in the canon, thus far, to function as a true sequel.