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
I guess we won't know for some time what precipitated Boyle's exit. It doesn't really bother me because we never really knew what he had in mind. They kept it very hush hush apart from some hyperbole, courtesy of Baz.
And Mike Fleming Jr. of Deadline (re: hyperbole)
Second, Boyle directing a Bond movie right now made perfect sense. Spectre was a decent closure for the storyline that started with CR, but Craig was not leaving yet. Boyle doing an off-beat Bond movie without the pressure of having to kickstart a new Bond era would have worked beautifully. Third, Boyle has never done anything like this before. A talented director exploring new territory is always exciting.
Nope. I perfectly agree that a boxoffice gross is not a an ideal reflection of a feeling about a film. Look at Batman v Superman, for example. One of the biggest worldwide openings ever which suffered a dramatic drop after the first week-end. But speaking about SP, my point is that you don't become the second highest grossing movie ever in UK (making more money than Avatar) and the fourth in the history of a 53 years old franchise (considering inflation) just because of the Skyfall boost with a movie regarded as one of the worst Bond ever (if not, the worse) like a lot of die hard fans inhere think. That's the point. Spectre had the same Cinemascore of Casino Royale, far better than the one who had QoS, for example. SP had a worse reception than SF - also because the hype was really crazy - but doesn't mean people hated it. You can't imagine how many people told me: "Yeah, SP is okay/good but it's no Skyfall". Dealing with absolutes with SP is just wrong. Few general moviegoers thinks is one of the best, but also few people think is one of the worst, if not the worst.
Good points and those are the main reasons why I was also intrigued with the idea of a Boyle's Bond. But at the same time I felt like he was somehow out of place and I still don't know if I really like his junkie style. The perspective of a Bond made by a director like Boyle without any creative compromise is exciting, but at the same time extremely risky. But I would love to read the script. Any hacker inhere? XD
In the end SP was about Bond "choosing life" (hello Boyle) so bringing back the woman who pushed him to make this decision makes perfect sense.
Most folks evaluate the films on their own. Looking at opinion measures like IMDb User Ratings and RottenTomatoMeter readings, Spectre does perfectly fine alongside very good Bond films from the past. It's a generally well-liked Bond film that did very well at the box office.
There's no requirement to like any particular Bond film. But some of the hyperbole directed at Spectre recalls On Her Majesty's Secret Service and more recently Quantum of Solace after their release and the failures myths pursued.
+1.
Most of us agree we’d prefer a standalone approach for our Bond films, but I don’t think this should ever be a make or break deal. Continuity itself doesn’t have to be bad. I think we all just have a bit of a sour taste from the way it was handled in SP, and many assume it will be as bad or worse in Bond 25 in that regard. In any case, I just hope they deliver a really strong movie, and people don’t get too hung up if it’s not 100% standalone.
That's not to say that Bond won't survive or succeed after this iteration - just that continuing this self contained continuity driven era for this extended period of time increases the risks.
Having Madeleine back in 25 makes perfect sense from an emotional arc standpoint, but I don't feel the need to see the Spectre organization once again, for example.
Yes, this does sound very over the top. I mean I love Bond as much as the next fan, but good lord. . .
Spot on and it's almost as if the producers are not aware of these risks. They want the advantages that an arc and timeline offer but have failed to have a long term, cohesive plan that this requires. The result is exactly what we have now.
That's great news.
The series has not been the same since he left and I'm so proud of the production realizing the value of what they started at the beginning of Craig's Bond.
Hopefully David Arnold's possible return would signal an actual film score as opposed to the minimalist ding-ding tunes of recent films in modern cinema.
A longer movie run-time will help make up for the fact that we've had to wait a few more years in between and it will help with the quality of the film for character development, in this generation of binge-watching tv viewers.
Yeah, Paul Haggis!
In the past the delineations weren't so clearly defined and contained, and consequently they could seamlessly weave into another era or even change course within an existing one. It's a question of what is permissable and acceptable to a viewer within the confines of the reality they create. When one strictly defines continuity parameters, then the viewer's expectations get more rigidly set. This makes it more difficult to deviate. Much of the criticism of SP (including from me) is on account of their attempt to change the Craig persona slightly towards the 'Bond we all know and love' with the tropes. I'd argue that this didn't work for many partly because of the strict continuity - I expected him to act & behave a certain way on account of his history and he didn't. Such was not the case with Rog, Sean or the others because I approached each film as a standalone in my mind.
Some of us are old enough to remember the pre-Craig era, but there are many viewers who have grown up only with Craig and his continuity. Going back to the type of Bond we had previously will be increasingly difficult imho as a result of what they've done here because those new viewers have expectations based on the contained Craig era, not the Sean, Rog, Tim or Brozz ones. The only other time they did this was with OHMSS (which was similarly self contained), but that was one film & not a 5 film14+ year run.
Batman is a perfect example of what I'm talking about actually. They've had successful eras and poor ones, and have had to 'stop-start' with delays and new approaches in between due to each era being strictly defined. Some viewers like one era, and other like another, but they are all self contained. Such was not the case with Bond prior to Craig, and that permitted more flexibility and regularity on a changeover.
Again, I'm not saying there's a catastrophe on the horizon, but the risks are clearly higher with this approach due to changes in viewer expectations with time, as they were when Nolan handed over the Bat reigns to Snyder.
Or during, even. The audience shows up for the latest mission, as always.
And here should end this conversation, lol. The audience will always show up for the latest mission. That’s all that needs to be said, rather than presupposing that what’s happening now could have a negative impact on the series moving ahead.
In a few more years there will be another actor in the tux. And the audiences will come in droves.
Full stop.
And? What does that have to do with me..,
It’s like this
Me “man I love pizza”
You “I hate pizza and so do 5 top chefs
(What you expect me to say
“Oh man I hate pizza now”
It doesn’t work like that I don’t care if you get quotes from my favorite band yes saying how they hate David Arnold and it still won’t change my opinion
No one demands that you change your opinion. But showing some modesty and respect for people who know more than you regarding certain topics is adviceable...
But all art and media is subjective and down to personal opinion. Professional musicians liking a score doesn’t make it sound better to me, or even make it objectively good. They like it. That’s their opinion. Good for them, but I don’t care.
That's the risk they're facing with Fukunaga of course; some of us will no doubt wonder what could have been with Boyle, should Bond 25 not be as good as we hope it will be. Then again, if it's a great one, nobody will think twice about it. I do hope we'll someday know more about the would-be Boyle film, as it really interest me what his idea was – especially since EON found it worth developing in the first place.
But all art requires knowledge to fully comprehend. I for one have no idea why Citizen Kane is considered one of the best films ever made. There are two ways to treat that: I could say "screw all you movie critics, I know it's bad, I don't care!" Or I could acknowledge that there might be facets to it witch I haven't yet come to understand, and actively search for them with an open mind when I rewatch it. (Just to give one example...) I find this frame of mind more rewarding. It has made me come to appreciate items of art I didn't previously comprehend. A certain humility is good.
Edit:
Bottom line: I happen to be a musician myself, and I do like the Skyfall score. Well, at least parts of it... Not that it gives me any special athourity on the matter, not at all! But neither does slamming it to a tedius degree either...