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
@Creasy47, Ralph is doing your future "Roger Deakins is the cinematographer of Bond 25" face.
I wasn't happy with how M and MP were portrayed in SP, either, but at the same time, he only received one film to work with thus far; you aren't willing to give it another go and see how he does? I'm not ready to count him out just yet, I think he has potential to be a great M, if they can reel it in and not make him Bond's sidekick from here on out.
thats when the movie picks up for me.... Bardem is one of my favorite villains for the same exact reason you hate him - his camp.. both him and Christopher Walken made being a Bond villain look deliciously fun, and just because he camped it up doesn't make it bad - because thats what the character called for - arrogance, manipulative, unhinged, dellusional - like a cat toying with a mouse before he eats it.
He has potential certainly (as evidenced by SF) so he should stay around if Craig does another one. But if he is thinking of quitting now he probably won't stay for another tenure anyway, so...
The article makes it seem as if Fiennes is unsure of whether or not they'll want him back if Craig doesn't return, not that he wouldn't want to. He may be anticipating a reboot or them taking it in a completely different direction if they have to recast for 'Bond 25.'
Ooooooh ohhhhh OK. Sensible.
but i am all for keeping people around for as long as they are willing to be kept around for - so personally, i would like Fiennes as M for a very long time - regardless if they give him plenty to do, or go back to Lee/Brown days and just have him hand Bond a mission to start off the film, then he collects his check and f's off - i dont care... he is fine actor, whether he is only in a Bond movie for 5 minutes or 30.... the same goes for Wishaw, Harris and Kinnear..... no one is above being replaceable - but i really like them, and hope they stick around.
i think what they need to get past between Bond and M (whether it was Dench or Fiennes) is this notion they need to be at odds with one another - or that Bond always has be dressed down by M... it's the trust BS that they just need to get beyond.... I don't mind M putting Bond in his place every now and then - Lee did it with Sean, Laz, and Rog.. but in the end, there was a sense of "i still trust you to make the right decision." .... in Craig's run, his Bond is being treated like a loose cannon that has zero self control, that constantly has to re-earn M's trust by the end of the films.
Sadly, they went back to square one with SP, but even then, it wasn't really trust but just that M needed to cover his own a$$ due to C's poking around, and he knew Bond wasn't going to play ball.
agreed about SF...
in SP, yes you are right - but he also grounds Bond indefinitely because he doesn't trust him, because he knows Bond went out of his jurisdiction for a reason, but wasn't going to tell him, because Bond didn't trust him either...... i am just growing tired of the trust issues - either that M has with Bond, or Bond with M.. i think it's really been too prevalent in Craig's films, and i sincerely hope if he comes back for Bond 25, that it's something that gets dropped... it's just like the whole MI6 mole / good guy is really a bad guy angle that we had from TWINE thru to CR.
For example, I know that in an earlier draft, Fiennes was supposed to be the traitor. The opening office scene, with the harsh exchange between Bond and M, and Bond not telling him why he was in Mexico City, almost seems like it was created at a time when Fiennes was intended to be the baddie. It just feels a little harsh in the film.
Greg Wislons comments lead me to believe Craig might not return. Also Barbara & Micheal have been quiet lately,
I quite enjoyed SF upto the point they leave Silva's Island. For me, that's the point it all begins to fall apart - I.e. When the choppers appear hovering over the island.
Silva's entrance itself is excellent IMO. And I don't think Bardem is the problem with the rest of the film. I think it's some pretty lazy plotting and IMO some not great direction.
With regards to Fiennes I think he could be really good but agree he needs to just be in an authority figure type role and stop the trust issues and all this tedious nonsense of having the whole team out in the field all the time.
Funnily enough this all started in the Dalton period. Going rogue, licence revoked, disobeying M, M grounding Bond, Q out in the field while 'on holiday'.
I've always been a bit unsure about my feelings towards LTK and he more time that passes the more I feel it opened the floodgates to some thing I don't like.
I would argue that The Living Daylights is the last straight forward film. Ok, there's the death of Saunders, but I don't believe that spurs Bond on anymore more than one more reason to stop Whittaker & Pushkin. I don't feel as though revenge comes into it.
I like Fiennes as M, and would be pleased for him to stay, but the Craig story arc and era has put the filmmakers in such a spot that it might not seem feasible to have, say, Hiddleson, Turner, etc step in and inhabit Craig's Bond world. Easier to switch Bonds and keep the other regulars when each film was a stand alone adventure, and M, Q, and Moneypenny only appeared once or twice per film.
You mean the estimated breakdown by journalists you keep on refering to which actually are a lot of rough guesswork, or actual breakdowns that were leaked in the Sony leaks ? I prefer the second ones, sorry :)
It was worth it just for that pic of Ralph Fiennes on hard drugs.
Yup :(