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 loved Spectre but this reminds me of something I've often thought: I don't get why BB and MGW seem to get a pass when people don't like a Bond film. Sure they get pitched these ideas by the writers and director but it's not like they have zero creative control. They're often on set, they know what's going on, and I'm sure that they have at least some amount of input in terms of the script.
Like in the posts that have been critical of SP, it's always Mendes and Purvis and Wade (I feel especially sorry for them given that they essentially saved the film) who get shat on. Like in the post @TheWizardOfIce made a few pages back (not singling you out, it's just the most recent example I could think of), it's Purvis Wade and Mendes portrayed as the bad guys while Barbara is all skeptical.
I think that the producers should be held more accountable. Don't get me wrong I can't think of anyone else I'd rather have in charge of the franchise but when mistakes are made it seems like they rarely get any criticism. Like we all blame Tamahori for Die Another Day and fair enough he does seem the source of the films bad ideas but could he really have added the invisible car and tsunami stunt and everything without BB and MGW signing off on it? I don't think so.
That's why I feel sorry for Brosnan too. Yeah maybe he shouldn't have blindly gone along with it but at the end of the day he's just an actor, he shouldn't really be expected to take creative control, and yet he was used as sort of a scapegoat. They messed up badly, so they rebooted and he didn't get a good send off, which I think he deserved. If nothing else I'd argue he deserved it because of the success of his era: despite all his post GE films being seen as mediocre at best, they still continued to do big box office, and you could claim it was just due to the brand but I think that a lot of it was probably to do with Brosnan's popularity and star power. Sure he's not a big box office draw now, but as Bond people loved him. I mean yeah fair enough Bond did a lot for his own career so you could say that (along the ridiculous amount of money he earned) was more than enough of a thank you of what he did for the franchise, but I still feel sorry for him being stuck with DAD as his last performance in the role he loved so much.
How do people miss the blatant symbolism here. It's not just a Bond gets the girl ending. He retired. Madeline makes it clear that she won't be with Bond as long as he's a spy. At the end of the film he refuses to kill Blofeld (finally walking away from killing), throwing his gun away, and walks to Madeline, the one person who has a chance of understanding him, leaving M (and his life as a spy) on the other side of the bridge. He stops by MI6 to get his car back, reiterates that he's gone, then drives off into the sunset to live out his new life.
There are possible story options to bring Craig back but this wasn't just a traditional Bond gets the girl ending.
Irma Bunt was also supposed to show up in Morocco.
@thelivingroyale, I think there is plenty of blame to go around for the end result of SP, including the producers. I don't know how hands-on Babs and MGW are, day-to-day; I mean, they definitely didn't come down hard on Newman's pathetic rehash of a score (fear of contradicting Mendes, perhaps?). On the other hand, I seem to recall hearing that MGW was the one who made Newman add Adele's theme to the casino entrance in SF.
I still believe that Haggis, handed the strong source material of one of the other novels, is the way to go, again. True, there was QoS but that was also a casualty of the writers' strike.
They absolutely should be. In the end, it's been their decision to continue to allow the subpar writing. That doesn't, however, excuse the writers for their lack of production. They're pulling a paycheck, so they should be putting out better work as well.
To an equal degree Craig´s films so far show disregard for continuity or logic.
All that makes it hard to believe that the ending of SP should indeed seriously mean that Bond retires. He´s taking a vacation with Madeline, nothing more.
And Bond is not walking away from killing when he doesn´t kill Blofeld, he´s just being smart. As M pointed out, his license is also a license not to kill. Which Bond also mentioned in SF. And put to use at the end of QoS. And at the end of CR, come to think of it.
It wouldn't be the codename theory at all though. You know how much I despise the codename theory. Essentially what happens, the six agents (maybe less than that, six was an arbitrary number) wouldn't be just fellow MI6 operatives but also agents from whichever country the PTS action takes place (I hadn't decided on it). A joint operation sort of thing that just goes awfully leaving Bond the sole survivor and framed for their deaths by the true villain.
Trevelyan (or whomever; it really isn't important at all that he be Trevelyan; I only suggested it as it would solely be a name that resonates with the fans, but an entirely different character) isn't a 00 agent yet, he's one of MI6's promising younger agents (think Bond in the PTS of CR) who has been given 00 status in order to fill the gap missing due to Bond going on the run; it just so happens that he is assigned 007 by coincidence.
The idea is for an ENTIRELY different Bond film. A one-off shakeup of the series' conventions. Bond is not the sole protagonist; Bond does not hold the 007 codename except for the beginning and end of the film; Bond is branded a traitor; Bond infiltrates the criminal underworld to bring the villain who framed him down, but in the process delves so deep into it that - much moreso than in Licence to Kill - he gets in over his head and needs to be pulled out.
Regardless, this is just one of those things that came to me out of the blue. This movie would never get made and it certainly won't be the next James Bond adventure. But I really, really like the idea for some reason.
Now, back to your usual scheduled programming.
Yes, in other films - and the premise is right out of the first Mission:Impossible film - but never in a Bond film. The closest Bond's ever come to being set up was when MI6 were convinced he shot Haines' bodyguard in QoS, which could've been solved with a quick bit of dialogue such as "Uh I knocked him off the roof yeah but I didn't put a bullet in him".
re: "We have all the time in the world line," Including one draft dated Dec. 1, 2014 -- one week before filming started. It's not like this was an early idea quickly discarded. Irma Bunt was around in a draft dated October, pretty late in the game as well.
Actually, way back in FRWL, if Grant would have gotten away with what he intended, the scene he set with a dead Bond and Tatiana would have painted 007 as a madman double-dealing traitor to the British government and a fraud of all shades. Makes the QoS pickle look like a pillow fight in comparison.
Still, I agree with the others, that rogue stories are way too prevalent in the series already. I don't agree about the trust issues between Bond and M, however. I think Ms of old have faster shoved Bond under the political bus or reigned him in a helluva lot faster for his actions that Judy or Ralph as M have. The Lee M, for instance, would never have stood by Bond the way they have/had when Bond did questionable things with the aim of keeping a leg up on the enemy (embassy shoot up in CR, going off the grid in QoS, the Turkey mission in SF). The previous M's are relatively short fused and more bicker and berate Bond than really honor his counsel, when you look at some of the past films. In fact, in SP (a widely criticized M performance) Mallory trusts Bond so much that he defies every plan M, Q or Tanner have (smart blood), and simply lets Bond do his thing. Now, if that isn't trust, I don't know what is.
There's never been a moment with Judi's M where I thought she didn't trust Craig's Bond, and the moment Mallory and Bond felt each other out in SF, there wasn't a moment where I sensed a break in trust either. There were moments where they were both boggled by Bond's actions or fuming at his secrecy or response to things, but they never outright fail to trust the man, otherwise he'd never be in the employ of the government dealing with top secret dealings in the first place.
Just had to say my piece there. :)
We hope ..we truly hope lol.
Christoph Waltz has said no one has asked him to return.
Personally, I hope not! That's not something I ever say about Waltz, but he was quite forgettable as Blofeld in SP.
However, I have to say, I don't know if Waltz's physicality is good enough for a good fistfight... But, I do still want to have him back to reprise his role as Blofeld. He's the type of actor that plays a role threatening the hell out of you... Even when he was a goodie in Django Unchained, he was threatening as hell.
That was my rather unexpected issue with him as Blofeld in SP: after the likes of 'Inglourious Basterds' and 'Django Unchained,' I thought for sure that he would be just as menacing, but alas, it wasn't meant to be, and it seems he really only brings his A-game when he is working alongside Tarantino.
Agreed. I wasn't particularly thrilled with the casting decision back when it was announced and the performance didn't really do anything to get me to come around to it.