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
Interesting find @Pierce2Daniel, only issue is that she's 22 years old.
So I presume he is here in London with Babs and Michael ?
I mostly agree, but need to address two points:
1. I didn't see Bond in CR as a "seething ball of rage." Not at all. After the staircase fight, we see a man trying hard to get a grip. As he stares in the mirror, he's not angry; he's terrified--of his own life, of what he can do to others under a license to kill, over what this profession means. Early on, Bond is arrogant; but the staircase incident changes him: he becomes vulnerable. I'd argue that it's in QoS that we see that rage.
2. CR is not a head and shoulders performance over SF. In some ways, SF is DC's best Bond. I think he is far more confident in SF and his comic timing is better (in the art museum, on the subway train, with Kincaid).
We'll be left behind in the dust if this happens and erosion will take over and that's the end of that. Bond must evolve, must change along with the times (within reason) or the series won't last. The so-called Golden Age of Bond (basically the 60s) was half a century ago. A series like MI is already 23 years old (compared to Bond's 57) and it's better than ever. Can we say the same about Bond's tenure around 1985? No, it was fading fast at that point, with the best days behind.
1985 was 34 years ago! Since then we've had 10 films. The MCU is going on 11 years old and will have 23 films completed soon. Bond cannot rely on the past to survive in the future. It's folly to believe otherwise.
Just to touch on the MCU thing a bit, I think its important to highlight Kevin Feige's dexterity here and vision as a PRODUCER. He's had the unparalledlled task of crafting not only a cinematic universe but turning B,C and even Z list characters into A-list household names that are not only critically acclaimed but BO juggernauts. Here's where things get interesting, Feige also had balls to attract unconventional talent; the biggest being RDJ's casting who was still a wild card and a liability up until his casting considering his at the time recent criminal standing. Look what happened. The game forever changed. Then there's the writing and director talent...talent that were essentially known for far from special movies and in some cases flops BUT with the guiding hand of a PRODUCER who has a vision and a talent pool full of potential, the results were always going to see towards success and that's what's happened.
Feige executed outside the box thinking and till this day hasn't gotten complacent with how influential and how dominant the Marvel Studios brand is. Juggling all these franchises is far from easy, especially when they're successful. It's easy to stick with what generated that success but at the same time for growth and freshness sometimes change in creative talent is needed and a good producer knows when. EoN have made some brave decisions but not fully committed and stepped out of their comfort zone. I'm hoping with CJF brought on as director it'll open the gates for more bold creative decisions and for EoN to take a stronger stand as the Bond gatekeepers.
Absolutely true. Well said.
Marvel didn’t change the film industry! It changed the comic book genre. Disney tried to copy this universe building and have had to admit they need to slow the hell down because they are firing duds. Universal tried to revive a monster universe. They were DOA.
What Marvel is doing is unique, but to compare the comic book genre (with their abundance of stories), with the James Bond franchise is comparing apples to oranges!
Bond is fine— they have a history of bouncing back and, since film is a visual medium, getting someone on board like CF is damn exciting. Where does this doom
N gloom come from? And why does it spread so easily?
Jeez.... I suppose the old phrase misery loves company is alive and well.
And as I mentioned previously: you all may think EoN are a bunch of fools, but they’re over at HQ preparing the next James Bond film as I write this.
What are you all doing today?
+1
It's much more interesting to be cynical than content. What some may see as paranoia for the sake of it, other see as interesting speculation (whether it's warranted or not).
I am enjoying your comments
And the sun never set on the British Empire either.
Until it did.
Largely because a single member will bend over, go elbow deep up his backside and extract an idea of an imaginary delay of some sort. With this baseless concern they sit at their keyboard and post either what they see as their unique insight into what they really believe or simply enjoy the disruption a totally fabricated concern will inevitably cause as some other members eat it up as koi do fish food at feeding time.
Don't Feed the Squirrels
@talos7 who are the squirrels?
Would you not agree however that a lot of that has to do with Eva Green as the counterweight? I personally found their scenes together on the train, in the casino and during the shower encounter to be highlights of the film. These were well written, well acted and very Bondian while still affording insights into Bond's character and his personality flaws. Her strengths as an actress were a perfect foil for him (she tends to bring out the best in most actors I've noticed). While I personally was not impressed with the writing of the romantic scenes post-Le Chiffre's death (a bit heavy handed in comparison to the manner in which the similar romantic interludes were handled in OHMSS), I can't deny that her casting, looks and performance were instrumental in selling the romance to the audience & even to me (although, ironically, far more so in the earlier scenes before they actually get to it).
Regarding Lea Seydoux and her Madeleine Swann: you've already acknowledged that the character was poorly conceived and written in SP. I wouldn't go so far as to say she was just a 'shag' but like you I recognize that the film maker's intentions for the romance weren't properly realized in that film. We were informed by Blofeld that she's the only one who could understand him as the daughter of an assassin, Smith's song suggests more than just a fling, and members themselves have speculated that she was more than just another Bond girl. As we've recently discussed, some saw the intention at the end of SP being for the two of them to leave in the Aston and live happily ever after. So I'd say the symmetry you propose for B25 was already achieved at the end of the previous film, and that extends to Bond not assassinating his chief tormentor (which to an extent harkens back to resolution of Dench M's continuing criticism of him being trigger happy in earlier films).
Part of the beauty of the Green/Craig dynamic was the freshness of it. We see their characters meet for the first time and enjoy the thrill of them getting to know one another. The immediate physical attraction between the characters is plainly apparent in the writing and acting, as is the mental undressing that takes place over the course of the film through sharp, almost caustic exchanges which betray their true feelings. I'd argue that this can't really be achieved in B25, because Ms. Swann and her feelings for Bond are already explicitly known to us and the audience, despite the ham-fisted handling of it.
So while I hope the film makers can achieve their goal of continuing this 'arc', I am not enthused about Ms. Swann serving any more than a cursory element to the B25 story. What I hope for instead is a new appealing female character who Craig can spar with (perhaps not romantically) in B25, whether that be this rumoured female agent or potentially a villain. I think that would be something new and fresh for him, and yet allow for some acting range and new character insights to be displayed. Freshness is the primary promise of Mr. Fukunaga's appointment as director and that is what I personally hope to see in 2020. Surprise me.
Fortunately, both you and I have as much chance of being surprised at this point because we really don't know much about this film at all, which is a good thing in my view.
I will take it one step further, perhaps controversially - I don't see a seething ball of rage in QoS either. I see a determined man looking for answers and motivated by his duty.
SF is my favourite Craig Bond film at the moment by some measure, but I think his perfomance in CR was better.
You make some good points. Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel, famously wrote 'Only the Paranoid Survive', which was recommended reading for me during my consulting days. I don't believe the producers are complacent, but their way of doing things is different from the past. It will be different again once the leadership torch is passed on to the next generation, or once the operation is sold if there is no successor. In the end the Bond brand is bulletproof and so I think there will always be a market for it, but one can't expect it to have the cultural resonance it had in the 60's. That has come and long gone. All we can realistically expect now are a stream of continued financially successful films. Are they going to be SF level hits? Probably not, and that can't be expected, but I'm sure they'll make money. They always do.
The Marvel comparison isn't a great one in my opinion, and not because it's comic based. Rather, because they have a series of characters with which to make films. Any one character only releases a solo film ever 2 or 3 years, which is what I would expect Bond to do going forward once the corporate shenanigans are sorted out (which I expect will happen post-B25).
You could be well be right on both counts, Aces. On the second point, I believe that Craig had the right intent and possibly even the right execution.
The difference between Craig's performance in CR and the SF-SP double is affected by direction, IMO.
Campbell facilitates Craig's firecracker energy. He combines wide, panoramic scale with an eye that tracks Bond's wrecking-ball movement. For me, Mendes stifles Craig's inner light and tends to render him nothing more than a stationary prop in his set pieces.
I am not immune to SF's charms. I adore some sections of that film. By the time SP came around, however, Craig has all but lost his momentum. Sadly, he is inert, unrecognisable from the dynamic force of the first film.
Craig gets a lot of flak these days, but I apportion much of the blame for his apparent 'dip' in form to Mendes.
Agreed. Well said.
Indeed @bondjames , Eva Green is an asset in everything she appears in. In a Bond context, she is the perfect heroine. She combines the usual much-admired traits with piercing intelligence , vulnerability and class. Let's not forget, also, that she saves Bond thrice over the course of the film.
Yes, we can absolutely agree that Lea Seydoux was poorly conceived in SP, but I still think she's a capable actress and the character of Swann herself is intriguing. I don't think her character is a lost cause, and her re-introduction in B25 would not only make sense to a general public who will remember her when she appears, but it would also introduce a new dynamic to a Bond film. That is, dispensing with the usual 'foreplay' and exploring themes of protection and consolidation. Though the chemistry tended to fizzle more than spark in SP, I think that was part of a wider malaise, mostly fermenting in the writing and direction departments.
For better or worse, Craig's tenure has raised personal and professional themes that have bled from movie to movie. I'd prefer the next set to exhibit more of the self-contained adventure of the John Glen period, but until then we must conclude Craig's arc with something that doesn't jump the shark, but still gets the heart pumping.
Craig is at his best when he's in love; that's my conclusion, anyway. Maybe the new director can make something fresh from the Madeleine Swann situation. If that doesn't happen, I won't be overly disappointed, but I will be hoping that we can all see Craig at his scintillating best.
While I have more concerns about Seydoux than you do, I have read that she is a decent actress. Perhaps you're right and the lack of chemistry that some of us experienced onscreen was momentary and symptomatic of a point in time. Nearly five years will have passed by the time B25 hits the screen anyway, and actors change like the rest of us. Maybe there are more layers that they can explore in interesting ways, now that they've had time to work on this script.
As long as the film hits other notes that are important to me (score, atmosphere, locations, action, other supporting cast, dialogue, villain etc. etc.) I suppose I can accept it. After all, I wasn't too keen on the character of Julia from the MI films, but her inclusion in the last film didn't impact my enjoyment of that film at all because the other elements I desire were there in adequate quantities.
I guess we shall know in a month what is in store for us.
Absolutely agree that DC should get his chance to show his acting chops and play a complex Bond with a wide range of emotion. CR is my favorite and the reason is, I've said it before, because his love affair with Vesper really grounds his character and allows us to connect with him, maybe even identify with this otherwise rather uberhuman. We know this feeling of being swept away, troubled by our feelings. We've been there before one way or the other.
But I disagree that there's a chance to rectify the Swan Bond romantic relationship in B25. Besides the bad establishment of their affection in Spectre, Madeleine is way too similar to him, from her looks to her character - rather cold and distant. Bond needs a balance, a "warm", witty, intelligent, accessible woman, who can bring him out of his shell - just like Vesper. Vesper is super sharp, witty, and a hopeless romantic, who would do anything for her love, cheat, die ... The physical attraction between Bond and her can be seen without any spoken word. Madeleine is just not that character and trying to turn her into one would be just weird. I'm afraid Lea would also be miscast for such a role. She is gorgeous and a great actress but does not exuberate warmth. This has nothing to do with her acting capabilities. But there's a reason why not every actor can play every single role.
Besides, Bond is a troubled man. Having him believably disappear into marital bliss - it would take more than one movie to have him evolve into that kind of character. It would be a cheap choice and a boring one, quite frankly. I would hate to see that happen.
All good points. Agree that Seydoux is somewhat chillier than Green.
But I also feel there’s potential for smouldering emotion, as per Blue is the Warmest Colour. I think Madeleine Swan was under-written in SP and the film suffered for it.
As for your point on marital bliss, i can assure you I’m not talking about kids and dishpan hands!
I’m thinking more the uber-relaxed, loose Bond on the Venice-bound yacht in CR. After all the dramatics of the first three films in this new era, some good, some bad, I’d love to see Craig’s troubled Bond end this way.