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
For me it's a case of they've made their bed and should lie in it. I was quite happy with Spectre being the end of the Craig era and getting something old school, adventurous and straight forward. But now Craig is back I think they have to commit to it. Go all out with the drama/character study angle, and I think it's the perfect opportunity for a YOLT adaptation. I think they should make it the darkest and most personal Bond film yet, finish the Craig era with a film that doubles down on what's defined it, and then go for a change in direction to a more straightforward 1962-2002 esque movie (I know there are outliers there) with the next guy.
I really don't see the point in a change in direction with Craig. The worst thing they could do imo is bring him back and not follow on from SP at all and go for a complete change in tone and direction. Otherwise what's the point? I wanted a fun Bond on a mission film too but surely we can wait a few years for that and have it as the fresh start to a new era, instead of tacking it on to the end of four tightly knit personal movies. It'd feel so jarring if they went down that road with Craig now imo, and it'd be feel like such a waste since they've already set up YOLT and they likely won't have that opportunity again for a very very long time if they don't take it now.
So I'd love a TSWLM esque movie too but my attitude towards it is save it for the next actor. I know that's ages away (at the rate they make them now what are we looking at? 2023 at the earliest?) but there are films out there filling that gap in the market in the mean time. For now I think EON should finish what they started with Craig and commit to what they set up with SP. Then when Bond 25 is done they can start thinking about a change in direction to something more back to basics.
OK, @CASINOROYALE I'll bite LOL, even though this is better suited for the SF appreciation thread.
I thought SF worked on many different levels.
1, Theme. SF is the first and only Bond film to present deeper themes. After fifty years and 22 films, we finally had a Bond film with serious depth. I liked that a lot. And we’re talking about many different themes, too: young vs aging / new vs old fashioned / physical vs cerebral (see #5) / clear vs opaque / self vs shadow (duality). And it all worked so well.
2. Acting.DC and JB were tremendous in this film. The break-in scene at M’s house, the meeting in M’s makeshift office, the meeting with Q, the shaving scene, Bond and Silva, even Silva’s look of exasperation when Bond shoots up the frozen pond and falls in…all superbly acted scenes. Top notch.
3. Direction. Not a single shot in this film is superfluous or out of place. It is a master craftsman (Mendes) in top form. Notice how Mendes uses symmetry throughout: perpendicular angles, setups, and framing of the actors. The shot behind M, looking out the office window in the rain; the tracking shot of Bond in the pool; the shot where Bond raises his glass in the casino. It looks clean. The contrasts between London and Shanghai are striking (the new/old fashioned thing).
4. Music. The theme song is classic. Plus, I have always loved Newman's scores, and this one does not disappoint. There are gorgeous tracks in here.
5. Alas, the plot. Many have bemoaned SF as boring or full of plot holes. I disagree on both counts. SF’s pacing reminds me a lot of TB, another film in my Top 5. And the plot holes are simply not there, because the script and set up is “hole proof” if there is such a thing. Because of Silva’s ability to just “point and click,” to instill fear (enough to get people to abandon an entire island), he has the ability to do anything…even get newbie Q and movie audiences to think he set up everything. Well, he didn’t. The joke’s on us and Q (who’s not such a “clever boy” after all). Problem is, Silva has a dilemma: to show how smart he is but also making a killing personal (which requires him to run around, his knees killing him). Being out “in the field” is not where Silva wants to be…and yet that is where he finds himself, in London and, even worse, at Skyfall. Silva’s critical character flaw, to stubbornly try to kill M, in person, after showing MI6 how “brilliant” he is, leads to his doom. With a knife, of all things.
It is a truly magnificent film.
We don't know if he's dead though man.
Not really, because there was no connection between Stromberg and Drax.
I get idea Roger Deakins will then a directer like Michael Apted.
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/10-tips-from-master-cinematographer-roger-deakins/
Thicked brother. Time bomb. Captain Hook at a clock to the crodile eat something that belongs to him, so he knows when he is around. The rat player is behind bars, so he cant play his tune any more. One of his other flutes not possible any more to repeare. But he has a storage of flutes and in 2019 wil be out of print.
Time to change..
Big quistion..
@BondJames For me that's a separate thing. I am still critical of both Broccoli and Wilson. And I still have this plan to write a decent open letter to the producers. Because fans like us deserve a bit more clarity from them. Especially in the light of all those separate EON-productions they are producing, the recent news about Apple and Amazon and because of Neal Purvis' and Robert Wade's rather lacklustre comments on writing a new Bond film (which as of today I still don't understand, and still agitates me a bit). Let's not forget that Bond is common cultural good. Everyone in here, in my personal opinion, 'owns' Bond in a way. And especially we as fans should be given a bit more credit for that.....by the producers perhaps.
So about the fans? Obviously there are differences between each and every Bond fan. There are fans who prefer a more joyful, cheesy, funny Bond film. Less drama, less thematical and narrative depth, and more fun, well executed action and a return to a more typical Bond formula. Then there are the fans who think vice versa. And there are the fans who think there could be a combo between fun/action and drama/depth.
But there certainly is a huge difference between the criticism that Bond fans have in 2017 AD and back in the 1960's or 1970's. In this social media era people have become more outspoken and critical. They don't take opinions from journalists and critics for granted anymore. In many ways that's a positive development. It shows how beautiful freedom and democracy can be. It it gives us more and especially different insights.
There is a big problem however. Society becomes pretty much disorganized like this. The rise of social media and with it the emancipated, slightly more self-centered civilian on the internet, creates a certain disintegration of social cohesion. That is especially the case when people can't see each other in real life and when there isn't a proper filter or more active 'debate leader'. In such an environment facts are much easier replaced by emotions and personal opinions.
Having said that, I do think discussions in here can get tense sometimes. Which is perfectly normal. But it also creates a bit more 'negativity in advance', even when no story has been written nor a director has been hired. We tend to....worry too soon if I may say. And those worries are usually not even based on facts. That's what worries me a bit. Especially in such a 'disorganized', 1000+ pages rich topic like this. Because that criticism stays in our mindset. And once real facts are confirming a few of those personal opinions, atmosphere in here gets even harsher. Not to mention the fact that being more and more or own critic throws at least a bit of the fun and anticipation away about the production of a new Bond film. And that especially gets facilitated more when cyber crime like the SonyLeaks happen. For me, all positive fun is gone then, criticism becomes even more self-destructive and doesn't really 'help' anymore.
Don't get me wrong....I am part in this as well. But I do think that sometimes we should put a step back a bit when it comes to news and our subsequent worries. No director has been hired yet. No story is known to us. So everything we post about that is pure guesswork. I only worry then, when it becomes visible that a certain director or story doesn't result in a good film.
However, when news is being released that EON Productions is pursuing other time consuming film projects, when Purvis and Wade openly doubt their own creativity now 'the Bond villains become reality', and when zillionaire CEO's from Apple and Amazon are openly interested in Bond, then....then I think there's reason to worry. Because that's based on pure facts. That news happens before a production as well, and not after, thus making criticism about that a bit more sense.
By the way I tremendously appreciate your critical assesments in here. Makes me also realize that I am wrong on many occasions.
I'm hoping that part of what he might bring to the table is some tighter plotting and narrative coherence, which has been sorely lacking in some of the Craig entries. He seems to be a director who is very focused on telling a story and not just presenting a series of moody scenes stitched together by limp action, a la Mendes.
Hear hear! @Getafix? You made my day with that remark :-)!
Christoph Waltz is a great actor, but if he's back, it's GAME OVER. Not even Denis Villeneuve could possibly make a great Bond 25 featuring Blofeld.
I think that's a huge exaggeration. IF Blofeld is written in a better way, like I did here https://www.docdroid.net/q503afj/story-treatment-james-bond-007-in-murder-on-wheels-final-2docx.pdf , cutting off the knowledge of each other's existence, Bond vs. Blofeld, then it could very well work again. Then you could very well have a Blofeld that's working in uttermost secrecy again. It all depends on writing.
So again, to me it doesn't depend on the man/actor playing him. It solely depends on the writing. Another example why I am still cautious about Purvis' and Wade's involvement with Bond #25
//Here is another article from 2010 which talks about the delay they had then (post-QoS). Note Babs comment on Calley. Interesting, and potentially on account of the Dalton scenario.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fate-james-bond-hangs-balance-25939//
As noted above, Barbara Broccoli had no use for John Calley, who was the one pushing for a change in casting Bond in the 1990s. (She specifically referred to him as an "a******")
Official announcements sometimes paper over real differences. Albert R. Broccoli denied in a 1987 U.S. television interview that Pierce Brosnan had been signed (when he was). As far as Dalton is concerned, he may have actually decided to exit on his own, but there was definitely a conflict. And Calley's main leverage, as a studio executive, was financing the movie.
Why?
I agree about your comments about there being too much negativity on here. But why worry? I like Eon's other projects - B. Broccoli is an astute producer. Apple and Amazon will never distribute a Bond film. Forced into a corner creatively often has great results.
94.
The year Bond died.
Well, first of all: I think it's a given fact that those other film projects by itself are time-consuming as well. I'm not naive here. Every minute, hour or day working on the set of "The Rhythm Section" -and make no mistake, Ms Broccoli can be found there- could be spent on a set of "Bond #25", or on some proper brainstorming on how Bond #25 should look like. I want a fully engaged producer, who this time around follows the writing process more intensely. Like in the old days when Michael Wilson himself actually co-wrote.
So yes, I have sincere worries about EON's side projects. And I am actually stunned that no film journalist is asking Barbara such more.....detailed questions. Like: "How much work is it to spend your time on other film projects like "The Rhythm Section"?"
Regarding the movie distributors, well really dear fans?? We all know this rule: No movie distributor, no Bond film. No movie distributor, no Bond director. Except for the writing-/pre-production process.... And since the recent news -from a bit more trusted media outlets- talks about Amazon and Apple joining the bidding race, one should worry that, as of today, we still don't know who's going to distribute Bond #25 internationally.
Money eventually always is the decisive factor. Both Amazon and Apple are more powerful than movie companies like Warner Bros, Universal or 20th Century Fox (except powerhouse Disney off course....but even they have plans to diversify their business with a new online streaming service). It's a matter of ziillions vs. billions here. So yes, it worries me.
Yeah Bond died in 1994. It's not like straight after that it had a successful relaunch, reaching levels of popularity it hadn't seen in almost twenty years, paving the way for a critically acclaimed reboot that they then built off to end up with a billion dollar blockbuster that was the highest grossing film of all time in the UK.
I think people look back at Cubby's era with rose tinted glasses. The Brosnan and Craig films are flawed. But Cubby made mistakes too. We'd had Bond grabbing a sumo wrestlers arse and fighting alongside karate schoolgirls, Blofeld in drag, Jaws falling in love, a double taking pigeon, tarzan yell, Blofeld being dropped down a chinmey, the slide whistle, but yeah everyone knows that was all brilliant stuff and the real James Bond died when Goldeneye came out (that really good film that had a pop culture impact the series hadn't seen since TSWLM, that was when Bond died).
I'd rule out the chimney fall, though. That was good. What wasn't good was the humour in that scene, which didn't sit well with Bond's grieving over Tracy's grave a few minutes ago, especially that delicatessen comment as if Blofeld was talking to a child. The comic book wrote better lines for that scene.
Producers who only produce films about one character in one genre, and only do this every three or four years, may start branching out in their spare time. They want and need to tell other stories.
If anything, different projects will provide different experiences, making a producer stronger for the effort.
Really nothing to worry about here.
We already had one Moriarty in Spectre - we didn't need two...