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
agreed - but i want Arnold back - or at least someone who knows how to deliver a Bond / John Barry-esq sound... scores for Bond films shouldn't sound like every other action film out there.
yes, unequivocally... he gets the Bond sound - i posted an interview on these boards from back when he was scoring CR, and you just get the sense that:
A.) He really loves Bond, and loves scoring the films - his enthusiasm isn't fake
B.) He gets the Bond sound, and gets what sets scoring Bond films apart from any other film.
no more reboots... they can continue on, business as usual - with only minimal passing references to the previous films if necessary - just like they did with all the other actors..
i know the term "soft reboot" is in vogue nowadays - but IMO, any time i hear 'Reboot' - regardless of what it's prefaced with, i immeadiately hear "start over - hit the rest button." ... and i don't want that - continue on just like they did from Sean to Laz - Sean to Rog - Rog to Tim - then Tim to Pierce.. Ralph Fiennes stays on as M, Ben Wishaw as Q, Naomi as Moneypenny and Rory as Tanner... no need to change any of them.
NO to reboots of any kind.
That's not true, Tracy's grave says 1943-1969.
They can just ignore it.
How are they going to deal with the MI6 building not actually destroyed? Maybe keep the double o's disguised under Universal Exports in another building? Keep the cool old office.
I still ponder how they will handle Tracy Bond at some point. That's a significant event in Bond's life.
But remember these are the same people that just ignored the timetable of Dench's M and poor Sir Miles altogether.
Dalton really was the last actor to play the Bond closest to Fleming's Bond universe.
I wouldn't mind one MI6 member sticking around for transition's sake (take your pick, although I'd strongly prefer if you didn't say Harris) but I think it's time for new beginnings and new imaginings, all with a 'mission' only focus, and without recreating Bond's wheel.
I also think it gets overused. A few years ago, on U.S. cable television, there was a revival of the show Dallas, with the original cast, clearly older and clearly set many years later than the original. In other words, a continuation of the original. Yet it was constantly described as a "reboot."
Rebooting with Craig and linking the movies together.
An experiment that failed miserably.
Therefore I expect them to do stand-alone movies only from now on.
I wish they would but I'm not sure that's how BB thinks.
Nonsense. This series has survived so long because they have constantly reinvented themselves in order to keep things fresh and energized. They must do this. Bond must evolve with the times or die.
GE pts?
The mobile phones in Casino Royale also clearly establish that the film takes place over the summer of 2006.
The invitation to Dominic Greene's party in Quantum of Solace also sets the date for that event as August 23, 2008.
DN thru DAF are all loosely connected together..
DN --> who gets referenced in FRWL by Kronsteen --> in GF, Bond brings up Jamaica to Felix, a call back to DN --> TB, Spectre, again, bringing back the same evil organization from DN and FRWL - this time we see the inner workings. --> YOLT, Spectre again, this time Blofeld is revealed. --> in OHMSS, Bond goes through his draw and pulls out Honey's Knife, Grant's strangle watch, and the rebreather from TB --> DAF, Bond gets revenge on Blofeld for killing Tracy in the PTS.....
they might not have connected them together with time or dates - but in terms of the story, you bet your arse they are linked together..
and as others have mentioned, Tracy is referenced on 4 separate occasions (TSWLM, FYEO, LTK and TWINE)..
what i think you mean, is this notion of an overarching story over the course of multiple films... which i can agree with, to a certain degree.. before SP, the overarching story really was only between CR and QOS - which was expected, but even then, the films had different villains, plots, that it does stand alone to a degree... SF was standalone... where SP retconned SF, so now, everything was supposed to be connected from the start..
did they need to reboot with CR? Not really, but they did - and it worked... where i feel they slipped up was the retconing in SP - thats where things get murky (at least for me).
Only the plots must evolve; Bond and his aesthetic universe must and do remain largely the same, because Bond is timeless and unique, and that is what attracts viewers. If Bond himself and his world tack with the times, Bond becomes nothing more than another cardboard Hollywood hero. The continuity is more important than the change.
"The Great Martian War: Apocalypse Now" - Where London is invaded by the Martians from Mars after Bond discovered an ancient space helmet while returning to the ruined Skyfall Lodge in Scotland.
"The Death Collector" - Where Bond faces the new enemy and the new terrorist organisation called SIM (Sinister Intelligence Myth)
"The Monster" - Where Bond faces the resurrected enemy Silva (from Skyfall) and his new monster called The Grinder.
3 Bond films will be perfect for that for EON :)]
In all seriousness, I've seen these posted before. He had been trolling CBn with "The Great Martian War" stuff for a while before I left. Seems it's MI6's turn now.
Except, when Michael G. Wilson proclaims during a press conference that Quantum starts "literally 10 minutes after" Casino ended.
There's no ambiguity there. The time reference in Wilson's comment was explicit. But, if you're going to say that, that in effect is asking for greater scrutiny of this sort of thing. Don't say it if you're not prepared to follow through.
Honestly, if they had done Quantum the way it is and Wilson and the Eon publicity machine never said anything this was the first "direct sequel," "takes place literally 10 minutes after," etc, there's not much of an issue.
The franchise may be irreparably harmed by the lengthening gaps between films (or not), it may end up being watered down to a point where none of us enjoy it anymore if an entity like Disney gets their hooks into it (or not), but it's nonsense to suggest that the next Bond will be the last when they are making money hand-over-fist with these films.
Depends on how successful the next Bond is, how ambitious the filmmakers are in making the film a success, and how ambitious they are in continuing the Bonds as a film series as opposed to an occasional new movie every 4-5 years. If the next actor isn't a hit with audiences and the films flop it could very well be the last. At this point everything is so up in the air anything is possible.
On the optimistic side, it's nothing the producers haven't dealt with and triumphed over before- GoldenEye, and Casino Royale. Let's just trust they won't let anyone come in and eff the whole thing up, and we'll continue to get more movies on at least a 3 year cycle.