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
Actually no they didn’t do it; had the dossier handed to Bond identified Dr. No, then it would have been done and would have been a good way to end Craig’s tenure. ;)
Not a problem.
They did ignore Bond having previously met Blofeld in OHMSS. But this Brofeld nonsense is a bigger hurdle to overcome.
I don't go to MI films for the dialogue. I agree it was horrid in the second.
I too have never understood the Bourne love from back a decade or so ago. Some good action, but what a boring character and too much of the inner workings of his betrayers.
I still recall a co-worker mentioning before I saw the first film how stupid he though the scene was where Bourne and a foe fall over a railing and he still is able to shoot another enemy point blank as he falls.
I'd prefer it if Bond 25 was a stand alone film, with no reference to Spectre or Vesper. It's been almost five years. The general audience has moved on, similarly how we all move don between QOS and SF.
Leave the slapdash continuity out of Craig's final film.
I really don't care for the continuity that seemed shoehorned into the Craig era. I preferred the subtle references in the earlier films: Sylvia in FRWL, the mention of the attache case in GF, etc.
Otherwise I far more enjoy the Bonds as stand alone films.
I think there’s a conflation of ideas going on re. this thread. It’s possible to have a B25 that ‘ends’ Craig’s tenure, but is not directly related to the previous films.
I agree. I think this is because the last three M:I films, in particular, manufacture the story: action scenes are designed, a “loose” story around them. So if you’re a film lover, whether of pulp, or high art, this will show through and through as paper-thin. And it will bore you.
I call these films roller coasters. No doubt they are fun once. But two and three rides later and we have major diminished returns. By the time you get home, it’s impossible to discern one from the other!...
M:I is a Disney ride and nothing more (except for the third one!)
Yeah I pretty much agree. Outside of the first one, I very rarely return to the others. Im never really in the mood for them. I enjoy them, but they have never given me that return value that Bond has.
It’s a matter of experience. You’ve watched every film from A thru Z. So a live action Looney Tunes cartoon will only hold your attention for so long. Usually when I see these films a second time, I’m lights out asleep.
(It’s also in the hips)
Back on the Bond topic, I think it's time for the Craig era version of Anya Amasova / Wai Lin type of Bond girl.
Oh, not saying anything negative about the craft, but these films, to me, lack any genuine storytelling. It’s well documented that they design the setpieces, and then write a story around that.
It truly is the movie version of a roller coaster. And that’s why they’re empty: ride one, no matter the new “twist”, you’ve ridden them all.
IMHO after three (I despised two, but did like one), I’ve ridden the ride before. The last one WAS a great and dizzying ride. But once I got home, it started to meld with the last three rides.
Quite. Sure, the set-pieces are the first things that are brain-stormed but I don't find the plotting as vanilla others posting here seem to. The variety of directors and styles ensure that alone. They're cracking action adventures, and exactly the kind of thing that I go to the cinema for.
But, alas, this is not a Mission thread so I digress.
It’s fine @CraigMooreOHMSS — many people on this forum also like the M:I films. And it naturally (or to some, unnaturally) enters the conversation vs Bond.
Whether M:I improvise each script, or plan out the details, is a moot point: you like these films, and good for you, man! I’m a guy who is very in between on them—I usually enjoy one viewing and dislike other viewings (except for three! I can re-watch that one many times over since, personally, I find depth in this one— and I say that knowing I am in a minority! To me the third is the best, and it went downhill from their into comfortable mediocrity. And, again, I know that’s not a popular opinion).
And you’re right, there are different aesthetic visions, but the same is true for Bond: Cambpell is different than Forster is different than Mendes is different than Fukunaga.
And action is to one’s taste. But, yes M:I has pushed the action boundaries, successfully. And it needs to, to get box office. I’m not sure that Bond needs to break the action “sound barrier” anymore to get the box office. To be inventive and present (free run, rooftop chases, hand to hand with Slate, or a train fight and silhouette scrap with Patrice didn’t break the mold. But, it was all done well an emotionally fit the fabric of the story; it didn’t have to be a circus show to make us watch).
I can't stand Bourne. I used to enjoy the first one. it didn't date well. I don't think I watched the second one through. Skipped three. Watched Renner's one and wanted to shoot myself. Skipped the last Damon film...
But I do love the BBC series Bodyguard!!
What I don't like about Bourne is Matt Damon's comments towards Bond. He said that every situation has to be too serious. Also, let's not forget the one thing that Bond has in his lowest moments better than Bourne's best moments: charm and personality. Also, Bond has survived without without Sean Connery. Bourne has barely survived without Matt Damon. Score one for 007!
That's correct. This is where Margot Robbie returns as Harley Quinn. There had been an "untitled DC Comics" movie in the Feb. 14, 2020 slot. So now, DC responds to the Bond 25 news (presumably) by moving up the movie one week and disclosing what it is.
Agreed, @MaxCasino . Damon, an actor I usually like, got very elitist and snotty in his Bourne vs Bond interviews.
Bond will always have more character, more reasons to come back and watch another adventure. Bourne only really lasted three films.
I think the next Bourne re-boot will be as a very good series on television..
At least this thread seems to have moved on from the Bond getting killed off rumor.
This is only good news as far as I’m concerned. Having recently watched it, it’s a bloody good film.
Of course EON have in the past claimed the next film will be more in the style of FRWL, but I hope they follow it through.
Well defined characters, with good acting. Little things like Bond and Tania messing around aboard the train. Bonds disdain at being conned by the train conductor.
Bond being something of a snob. A meal of some kind, with branded goods if need be. A game against the villain that Bond wins. There are so many little facets that we slowly lose along the way. I know the world has changed a lot, but I think the Terence Young directed films are some of the series best and gave Bond character traits that could easily be incorporated into Bond 25.
I’m very hopeful.
I hope I missed it somewhere as that's just what we need !!