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
The issue for me with the Craig era more than anything, is the never-ending personal angle. This is why his tenure as Bond will never get my full appreciation, as we've yet to see just a "good 'ol" Bond mission. It's very tiresome, IMO.
Every one since has had a personal angle, or has Bond 'going rogue'. When he first went rogue in LTK, it was a breath of fresh air. Now, it seems he's always asking Q to help him 'disappear'.
I think Bond stand-alone missions might only be of interest to us seasoned aficionados still thinking back to the classic Connery/Moore era.
Yeah, that's just Bond to me. The simplicity of the early films is what makes them so powerful and enthralling some 50 years on. They're snappy, kitsch popcorn entertainment. I'm somewhat aghast nowadays when a new Bond film is announced and we're discussing which Oscar winning, or indie director will get the job. It seems we have lost a sense of what Bond really is in the DNA sense. It's been so long...
You mean Die Another Day?
Okay, just joking.
I wouldn't have agreed with you two weeks ago, but you're absolutely right now. Stuff is starting to come to light and whether we find it good or bad, at least there's a general aim to the discussion from those who make the effort to provide decent conversation.
MI6’s pound shop provocateur.
Perhaps they should make a film entirely about the Scooby Gang.
CR didn't offend the vast majority of Bond fans – nor the critics.
So you've said before. Although I know I shouldn't, I will bite this time: what's the evidence you have for saying such a thing? There are way more Bond fans worldwide, than on this forum-- but taking this forum as a small sample size, there are some damn sophisticated people that read and contribute here, so what's your evidence? And what changes should/would be made that would piss off the fan base, lol?
Lol . Yes and bond will die in the pts, Madeline will join MP on a mission and later they both will settled down as lesbian couple.
SF was significantly more successful but it also was much more polarizing. Therein lies the dilemma they have now. They've brought many more people along for the ride who they have to please. Not just us geeks.
1. A Bond movie with Bond only having a supporting role
2. A Bond movie without any villains
3. A Bond movie made up of 4-6 independent short films, each about a small mission
Neither of those are likely to happen.
So what you're really saying is that you don't want an elevated Bond movie, you want a Bond movie that isn't a Bond movie?
A direct adaptation of Fleming's TSWLM might come close to what you want. Bond only drops by much later in the story, the villains are, at best, two thugs sent by someone we don't even get to see and you can tell the love stories of Viv, her dealings with the owners of the motel, Bond's pursuit of Blofeld and of course the actual events of the book.
EDIT: Your three points feel like what Jon Peters had ordered from Kevin Smith's Superman Lives script, according to Smith himself:
1) Supes won't fly.
2) He won't be wearing the costume.
3) He has to fight a giant ******** spider at the end of the movie.
;-)
SF is not controversial or polarizing outside of the fandom. In fact I would say the general public slightly prefers SF, in Britain anyway, because it has more of a classic flair, and includes the MI6 regulars. I think CR is a little bit low-scale for the general punters liking.
But I think for fans, Casino is the solid favourite - rightfully.
A Bond film where he is a supporting character isn't a Bond film. That's a film which happen to have Bond in it. Major difference.
I think so too. The fluke BO results of SF notwithstanding, I'm confident that in the end, CR will remain many fans' favourite Craig Bond. It's also the one that I find consistently popping up in the number 1 spot in people's lists.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/
Yes it's more intense but Brosnan was doing it from TWINE onwards.
I don't necessarily think they'll jetison the idea entirely with the next Bond, probably not so integral to the plot but it will be there still.
I think the days of A to B travelogues where Bond is just used as a device to get you from one scene to another with no real insight into the character are long gone.
I don't think you'll find any subsequent actor taking on the part not wanting to dig into Bond's psyche and show what makes him tick.
DC's Bond has shown this and the next actor will want their chance to show their Bond isn't just some cool guy by the name of James Bond who goes on missions.
The element of the fanbase that want this back again I'm afraid are likely to be disappointed. I could be wrong but the way that things have moved on I don't see the kind of Bond that Connery or Moore played ever happening again.