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
I know, I know. I have tried don't get me wrong, I want to like it, there's a lot to like and obviously on a technical level it's unbelieveably impressive. It just doesn't have the same energy to it that TSWLM has imo. With that film it really feels like everyone is firing on all cylinders to make something great. With MR to they just seemed to say "lets just do what we did last time" and I think the film suffers for it. It's difficult to describe but it just all feels so safe and sedate and dull. It's probably just me to be fair rather than the film itself, but that's the vibe I get from watching it.
TSWLM is like watching someone own a grand prix, while MR is like watching a practise lap. Might have a faster time but it isn't the same. Probably a crap analogy but you see the point I'm trying to make.
Even though DAD isn't anywhere near as well made I actually prefer it to MR. DAD is stupid but the time always seems to fly by when I'm watching it. It's crap but it never fails to be entertaining.
is it really unwarranted though?
Yeah the constant negativity policing on this thread is really getting tiring now. And to be honest even though I'm a lot more positive about the last film/current direction than him I completely understand why @bondjames feels like that. More than anything else, this era has just been a really long one, so people are bound to start to feel bored of it (I was hoping for a fresh start myself) and with the long gaps between films it makes any disappointments even bigger.
Absolutely. People assume that there can't be a change of tone, or that a change would be too "contrived" just because craig is returning. I refer to for your eyes only, skyfall. Though the craig era has greater continuity, it can still be ignored just as before.
But the greater continuity makes them seem more incompetent when they do choose to ignore it. They commit to it one film then try to sweep it under the rug the next. This wasn't an issue with the old stand alone model because they basically had a fresh start every time, but when they go for a do over right after they tried to convince us that all the films were tied together it makes it seem more like they don't know what they're doing imo.
They already seem incompetent after spectre. I would prefer they have the liberty to take the next film wherever over being hindered by a completest attitude. Changing the actor is not necessary to change tone.
It did. The print was quite scratchy, but the colors were still sharp. The space sequences looked great, too.
I have that sneaky feeling too for the sake of the Craig Bond continuity which they have now placed so much stock in tying the four films together.
To me it doesn't matter if he killed or not, there's a body of evidence it's in his job description to be an assassin. It's like the PPK and the Aston Martin DB5: not to be overused, but I like Bond being Bond and it's a part of him.
All rests on how it's executed, if I can say that.
I was really hoping this thread would get a refresh though. It's long overdue. Same old comments again and again - often without even the slightest hint of a Fleming influence. The continuity on here is getting beyond a joke. Is it really necessary to link every post directly to the previous one ad infinitum? The writing has gone down hill too - arguments full of holes and often barely coherent. Same old Scooby Gang day after day.
Fresh blood is needed. And some news!
I've gone back and forth personally on maintaining the continuity for Bond 25... now that Dan is back for his 5th, and most likely last Bond film - i think it makes sense to keep it going, since they've gone above and beyond - even retconning aspects of SF and QOS to make all his films connect - that throwing that all out the window now seems stupid.. even if Swann doesn't return, Bond's girls never returned in the old films (sans Trench), so her disappearance doesn't really need to be addressed if they continue on.. But I wouldn't put it past them to end on a one off either... IMO, this is what happens when you try to fly by the seat of your pants and give in to impulse like EON did, and like they let their writers and directors do.. while i've enjoyed Craig's run immensely - this giant overarching story idea was botched horribly.
forgive me for being out of the loop here - it's been a while since i've been active on these boards... but this is the first i've heard of this?
since when has it been rumored that EON is going to sell their shares of Bond?
Some rumor a while back I remember reading.
These days, Moonraker is a masterpiece, I'm reading. How did it ever get so?
Fleming might not have liked SPECTRE, but I'm betting he'd have liked Moonraker a lot less. Not least because there was a pretty good book behind that movie that was all but ignored.
Another Moonraker is not what I'd want for Bond 25, to be honest.
It's a pendulum swing. Throughout the series the films have swung from the serious thriller to the fantastical, the camp and the ridiculous. After DAD people were ready for a harder hitting serious thriller a la CR. I'm getting a sense of people tiring of the Craig mould of Bond film - hence the reappraisal of the more 'fun' type of Bond film. Which might go someway to explaining why SP has some Roger Moore esque elements in it.
Same here @Getafix :-). I'm greatly looking forward to the 5th Bond outing of Mr Craig.
Ho ho ho. There's nowt as queer as folk and this site attracts more than a few contrarians. If you think the reappraisal of MR is far fetched, look out for those claiming that DAD is an underappreciated gem in which Brosnan finally hits the dramatic heights.
There's plenty of total bunkum posted on here on a daily basis.
What's obvious though is that people get wound up by radically different things. I agree with you that compared to a lot of the garbage EON has served up over the past 25 years SP is actually a moderately decent entry, but there are those on here who can never overlook or forgive Brofeldgate or the other myriad crimes which SP allegedly commits.
I think we're just gonna have to ride this Marvel Bond era out. Thankfully we're in the home stretch. I doubt there will be any changes with Bond 25
I find the moaning about SPECTRE as baffling as the praise heaped on Moonraker. But I'm an older fan whose first Bond flick was Live and Let Die. I've seen the trends change. I remember Raymond Benson hailing Licence to Kill as "the best Bond film since Thunderball", the Moore era was so frowned upon!
But really, this thread is about which direction to go in. And if we're talking about humour versus realism, I'd say SPECTRE struck the right balance. Stylistically, SPECTRE was pretty much spot-on in its tone. The jokes didn't compromise the danger. It just lacked a meaty story that would elevate it from a middling Bond yarn, to a classic Bond flick.