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
For Christ's sake. It's an hour and 52 minutes, so I rounded it up. I thank you for focusing on literally the most trivial and unimportant part of my entire post, though.
#-o
Have to agree.
While DN (in particular) and FRWL get better with age GF is getting worse.
Yes the PTS is nigh on perfect, the scene with M is very good and the golf game is class. The Aston chase is solid (although far my favourite chase in the series) but after the laser sequence the film hits a wall and doesn't recover until the final assault on Fort Knox.
Last time I watched it the lull in Kentucky really drags it down with Bond just sitting around and only Frobe injecting any life into proceedings.
God knows I'm critical of Mendes but both his films seem to rattle by in less time than GF despite both clocking in at over 30 mins longer.
Yes it has a lot of Fleming material, iconic moments in spades and set the cinematic Bond template. But beyond that lustre it really doesn't glitter that much.
I'd still have it third best of the Connery's though because there is still plenty to love.
Still, it is a special film due to all the formula elements that it ushered in, and I can appreciate it for that.
I'm glad so many are able to dissect and criticize the best of the Bond canon honestly and with good intent. At times nowadays it feels like more and more, people are scared of having opinions on anything, and that is truly worrying. It's our duty to challenge that, in any way we can, no matter how little.
Also, Bond's "seduction" of Pussy Galore is quite problematic from a modern perspective. Obviously I'm able to accept it as a sign of it's age, but it does make things a bit awkward when introducing people to classic Bond, particularly my feminist girlfriend.
Yes, I did agree with you - until recently. I'm just not getting the sense that EON are in any rush anymore. I think they either are still hanging on for Craig (unlikely given that six months off has turned into nearly 8 months now, still no word) or they have just resigned themselves to a longer wait between actors. Its clear that they need a new direction, so perhaps they're taking time off to refocus and work out what James Bond would look like in this new era.
Perhaps a summer 2019 release is possible. Doubt it though. It would help to avoid clashing with Star Wars episode 9 is all.
I can see what you're saying here, and in the rest of what you said. The movie is very different than the other Connery films, but to my eyes thats because Bond isn't the star of the film, it's Goldfinger. The whole movie is about him and his plan, and I bet he has the most screen time of any villain, and probably gets closer to accomplishing his plan than any other villain. I love the film because I love the character of Goldfinger, and I guess its the only Bond film where Bond id not the character that interests me the most.
That's an interesting perspective, @sirseanisbond, and Goldfinger may in fact be way up there screen time wise for a Bond villain. I wonder if the screen time of each villain has ever been properly calculated and ranked.
I would still argue that at least from the Connery era Red Grant has gotten the closest to a plan coming through, as in Goldfinger he had all the logistics sorted, but there was never a proper gas being sent into the air thanks to Pussy, and scientifically his radioactive plot just doesn't hold up.
Overall surely Orlov comes closest? 007 seconds is miles away compared to Bond pulling the detonator out barely a second before it goes off.
Only CR comes close, if not on par, with early Connery films, IMO. The more time passes, the more I realise how terrific that film is. The one minor problem I have with it is the cheesy dialogue between Bond and Vesper in the hospital recovery scene.
QoS and SF are good and great, respectively, but SP is a letdown. Again, IMO.
It makes sense though, if we're talking about 2019. Star Wars Episode 9 is set to make over 2 billion dollars and soak up over 4 thousand screens, including 3d and IMAX. It would be madness to open against that kind of force, just ask Tarantino.
How can he be a perfect fit, if James Bond is white?
Yes, you're right. Tarantino wasn't truly going for the megabucks with hateful eight, not his most commercial film. However it just goes to show how much sway Disney has that they could force theatres to fit as many showings as possible on as many screens as possible. Some of the politics behind it is very underhanded. If anything, I believe it would hurt a franchise like Bond even more than a smaller production like Hateful Eight.
He cannot.
Oh wait, that was a terrible failure. Better not ruin Bond with pointless gimmicks.
A lot of the formula elements were started either in DN or FRWL. GF added a lot of polish to them.
I agree that the character of Bond is and should remain white; as far as Ghostbusters, the accusation that there is a mass bias against this film because of the female cast is extremely exaggerated. Fans of the original are upset that it does not feature the original cast. If this re-boot had been done with an all male cast of new actors, the negative attitude towards it would have been the same. The charge of sexism, in this case, is contrived.
Correct. Ever since I first heard the words 'female Ghostbusters' my immediate reaction was: 'oh, dear'. Not because I hate to see women in leading roles, but because I knew that the film would become about female empowerment and no longer about catching ghosts.
The moments there were just moments that can be ignored but step brother gate changes the DC era entirely, nothing in the PB era however ridiculous changed the goal post like that.
I'm wondering what my next viewing of SP is going to be like, I've not seen it since early November, I'm waiting for the Blu ray to drop near a fiver (I'm not joking).
I think the film tarnished an era up to that point with some reservations about QOS was going pretty damn good, I loved SF (sue me) and CR is my favourite.
As for GF I have to agree, the PTS is gold, the film seems fine up to the Kentucky then just loses momentum, FRWL is far superior and I prefer TB.
GF and DN are very close, I have my issues with DN, the score is awful bar the JB theme and the songs and I find it drags at times with some great iconic moments but GF shaves it because of Barry, I really don't like Hamilton, one of the worst Bond directors in my view.
1. FRWL
2. TB
3. GF
4. DN
5.YOLT
6. DAF
As for the return of Bond, 2018 at the earliest and while I'm not betting the house on it I think Craig is done but I don't want either Hiddlesstone or Turner.
The role needs to go to someone not so in the public eye. Tom Hughes or James Norton would be fine with me but I still like the idea of Dan Stevens.
Although despite my comment about the Bond whores above if Fassbender did sign on I'd be delighted but he's only established actor I see being able to do it, I just don't buy Hardy as good an actor as he is, Fassy just oozes Bond.
Interesting you say that. On what grounds has it been a failure? The Ghostbusters remake has actually been pretty successful, both financially and critically, despite receiving constant derision prior to it's release. It might not be your cup of tea (it's not mine either), but calling it a "terrible failure" is a bit of a stretch.