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
This is an interesting point. I personally think that pandering to fans is a bad idea.
I actually think some of Johnson’s choices were very brave. There were a few that got lost in translation and were executed poorly.
However, there is a trend emerging in Hollywood where big franchises are going to edgy, young, indie directors. Each franchise is hoping to find their ‘Christopher Nolan’. Remember, when he got the Batman gig he was an exciting up-and-comer from indie cinema.
I was always surprised that Eon were chasing veteran/stalwart auteurs like Danny Boyle. Whilst they have huge name cache, they are difficult to control and have their own definitive style.
Personally, my taste is more in line with younger edgier talent (perhaps because I’m only 28). I want something a little different and more inventive.
I didn't mean pandering. I just hear the phrase "send Craig out on a high" a lot, and assume that means not taking a huge risk on something like brothergate. Instead of pandering, I'm talking about making a good movie which Bond fans will like. I wouldn't call CR Pandering, would you?
Johnson's choices were brave but they didn't work and that's the point. The desire to "go out on a high" sort of rules out any of these big, risky choices which could turn people off, or be to devisive. But that doesn't just mean more pandering like we got with SF and SP. You can still tell a solid story, without any leap of faith decisions.
Especially Bond fans. XD
The most divided fanbase on earth.
Two come to mind. :))
You both make fair points, but the proof is in the pudding.
We won't know if Fukunaga was a brave or foolish choice until the film comes out.
If he pushes the boundaries and it comes off, as some seem to think Mendes was able to do with SF, then won't everyone be cheering?
And if he fails, as some think Johnson did with Star Wars, then we'll be hearing what idiots EON are all over again.
I personally thought SF was the ambitious but poorly executed failure, and that Last Jedi actually injected some much needed freshness into a flagging franchise, so I anticipate not being amongst the majority view when B25 comes out.
I think it's perfectly fine to have reservations even though Cary Fukunaga is a director many of us are excited about. I remember being excited about Sam Mendes back when he was announced, but I never particularly enjoyed either SF or SP that much.
Where do you hear that phrase a lot? I think I only heard DC say it once.
Besides, they obviously make every movie in the hope of it being a high point in the series. That’s the general idea and one way of attempting that is taking risks.
Make of this what you will...https://www.indiewire.com/2018/09/daniel-craig-bond-25-finale-cary-fukunaga-1202005592/
I quite like Peter Morgan's draft 'Once upon a spy.' That eventually became SF. Sounds like it could've been a gripping spy thriller. Nothing altogether wrong with SF as is.
I wonder if Craig will get his FRWL send off. As with any Bond news in press or on the net, I always take it with a large grain of salt until it's confirmed.
But I also am willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, till proven guilty.
When the press and certain Bond fans went after Craig before CR, I thought (like many) let's wait and see. He wont make a second...let's wait and see. The gap between his second and third...third and fourth...fourth and fifth has been too long. Let's wait and see. I even gave Lee Tamahori a chance before I saw DAD. Of course I'm no Saint, and I do like all fans get disgruntled by certain things. Put the gun barrel at the start of the film for heavens sake. But I have no control over the overall product. And am just happy we can still enjoy a new Bond film when they come around. I know I will with Bond 25, and Bond 26 whoever is playing Bond.
Killing Bond would be such an easy novelty gesture - I hope they don't go down that route.
It would be great if it was just an awesome, thrilling film. It could end on a farewell note for Craig but the ultimate homage would be to still leave things open ended.
They’re not mutually exclusive.
Agreed,none of the other Bond's had a special send-off.
It's about the character not the actor.
(It wouldn't surprise me if he came back in 2022 for his 6th film on the Anniversary either.If B26 is released late in 2022 then he still gets his 2 and a half years prep if he ignores any other projects.)
I think Johnson was a great choice for The Last Jedi, but I agree with your statement. I think hiring Trevorrow for Jurassic World, for example, was a mistake. I know the film was a huge box office success, but I think that's due to the dinosaurs, not to his directing skills.
I implied Craig's "go out on a high" line as in "SPECTRE was not so well received, I want to go out with a Bond movie which is as appreciated as Casino Royale or Skyfall".
I disagree. Bond fandom is one of the very few fandoms I have little to no complains. Of course with 24 (plus the unofficial ones) movies to pick from, we all have our personal favourites and least favourites.
Star Wars probably has the most divided fanbase of all; some people like all the movies, some only like OT, some like OT and prequels but dislike the sequels, some like OT and sequels but dislike the prequels.
The films that play into this sentiment are often miscalculated and flawed. Look at both DAD and SP, they are very reliant on the formula and the tropes of the series.
There is much more acclaim to the films that are more irreverent and play with the formula. Think of films such as CR or SF. Both terrific Bond films that don’t reinvent the wheel, but certainly have their own identity.
I think too much backward-looking, self- congratulatory moves are to be discouraged. Remember the series carved a path in the 60s for being new, edgy and cool. The series should maintain that sentiment and develop the series to that edict. Opposed to constantly harking back to the era of their greatest successes. The sense of ‘newness’ was most present in Cr and it is what they film did so well.
Make Bond 25 a sexy, cool, elegant, violent spy film for today. I genuinely feel Fukunaga has the energy and spirit to do it (especially when compared to the somewhat stale Boyle)
Same here. Craig has come to love being Bond. He could so easily have walked away in 2015 but he couldn't do it. I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed for another as well. Obv that depends on where B25 leaves him at the end of the film, but I always thought he had 6 films in him. MGW said from the start they wanted him for 7.
Despite what some are speculating, I think EON have their eye on the legacy, and they will attempt to fit Craig into that somewhere once it's all said and done. So no deaths and no closure. I think we're in for a fine film and, based on the hiring of first Boyle and now Fukunaga, a gritty one with some visual flourish and style too.
There’s a lot of discussion around that EoN are going to be influenced this time by the “creative success” of MI Fallout.
Every silver lining has a cloud. :(
Fukunaga and Johnson are different directors answering to different producers.
I agree to an extent. However, this Kind of "newness" IMO makes only sense if it is given space to breathe, i.e. the new stuff has to settle too. If every film is overly "new", we would lose an important value the series format offers. The trick is how to settle Things. I for one would probably, instead of rather disliking it, adore SF if it wouldn´t so often fall back on blunt reminders that we´re in a Bond film, and instead feature a Bond character Building on what was established in CR and QoS.
I wouldn´t insist that the "newness" was the key factor for CR´s success. Marketing was a key factor more than anything.
Frankly, I'm increasingly of the mind that it is a far more important film for the franchise than CR.
The problem with SF is that it cannot readily be duplicated. There is no template that can be reused, as with the prior entries. Given it relied so heavily on emotions, it's the sort of thing that can only be done once in a while. It's a real pity that the film makers didn't realize that. CR is similar to a degree. These are essentially one offs.
What? XD
There's nothing to complain if a fanbase is super divided. The point is that Bond fans are not toxic and childish like SW fans. That's the big difference. But you'll never find a fanbase with so many different opinions regarding a specific franchise like our beloved 007. Here everybody has a favorite actor, a favorite era, a favorite director, even a favorite producer, EVEN a favorite novel. Everybody has a personal unique poll that differs from all the others. But more importantly, almost everybody has different opinions about how to make a "good" Bond movie. Some people hate Craig and love Moore. Some love Brosnan and dislike Dalton. Some love Moore but thinks Casino Royale is the best one. Some people consider Die Another Day the worst Bond. Others a pretty enjoyable one. Some people considers Skyfall fresh, others just nostalgia. Some people love Goldfinger. Others don't because Goldfinger is the reason why the following Bond movies were so camp. I could go on forever (and a day).
You will never find a SW fan who thinks The Empire Strikes Back is the worst SW film. Or someone who thinks The Phantom Menace is a better movie than Revenge of the Sith. Here everything is possible. From considering Octopussy the best Bond to ranking the second highest grossing of the series as the worst. But again: a divided fanbase doesn't mean a toxic one.
:D
You're right about Skyfall and its importance. But I also think every Craig film has been really important for the character and the legacy in its own way.
Following his being shot, when we see him enjoying death in his self imposed exile, his hair is buzzed and he’s unshaven; he’s shed his previous skin.
This would have illustrated burnout rather than age and not painted him into the corner of being too old .
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/8965591/Will-Craig-be-the-longest-serving-Bond.html
The telegraph thought he might do 8.
Except for Dalton.
Yeah, sorry, I actually misunderstood your message. Bond fans not being toxic and childish (unlike other fandoms I'm part of) is what I meant. But you're right, being divided and toxic are two different things.
There are a few trying to use terms like 'snowflake', 'SJW' or express misogyny or disdain to figures like Barbara Broccoli. But these individuals are very few and have clearly been influenced by the storm caused by The Last Jedi.
Things went a bit crazy last month when Boyle left, but we were all guilty of hyperbole then. However, Eon redeemed themselves by hiring Fukunaga and the mood now is v positive.
The only big thing Bond fandom really falls out over is the whole 'black Bond' debate. But that's a topic for another day.
I have never understood the 'age' situation in SF,thats my main gripe with that film.
As you say 'burnout' and injury,seem the obvious symptoms,his age isn't even mentioned in SP so what was the point ?!