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
Jesus.
Moreover, even within some of the films, they get some scenes down perfectly and don't do so well in other scenes.
Imho, Connery and Moore were the most consistent throughout their long tenures and especially given the material they covered (from deadly serious at the start to humorous in both cases towards the end). Craig is nearly there for me. He is superior to Moore on the serious side (although Moore gets a bum rap on that front because he did demonstrate menace very convincingly in certain pivotal scenes such as the Stromberg kill, the Locque kill, the Lazar interrogation etc.), but his attempt at the 'quip' side of things just doesn't gel as well for me as it did with the two earlier actors, who could deliver the absolute worst lines convincingly and with aplomb.
It's true what you say, @peter, there are no A-List names that can open a movie to big numbers anymore solely based on the star's name alone. Even Cruise (probably the only true big name now) can have the occasional flop. It's rare, I'll admit.
As for putting DCs face on a Bond poster and saying it's guaranteed that you'll make money, well this is obviously true, but now that SPECTE showed that the BO is on a downwards trajectory, I would suggest the peak has already happened with SF under Craig's tenure, and there's little to no chance of repeating those numbers that SF enjoyed.
Personally, I'd rather see a new Bond movie coming out next year rather than wait an additional year for an actor that's probably going to play it as an over-the-hill agent again, pretty much like a repeat of SF. Meaning, I'm not opposed to Craig being replaced with a younger actor. Whether that be Fassbender or Aiden Turner, I'm all for it. Yes, I know it'll still mean not getting Bond 25 until 2018, but if I have to wait that long, it might as well be for a newly refreshed Bond, rather than one with one last trick to pull, that will inevitably fall flat much like DAF, AVTAK and DAD did for their retrospective Bonds.
For, @peter, one thing you forgot to mention in your excellent analysis is that James Bond IS the star attraction that just happens to be currently played by Craig. It's up to Eon to ensure the next actor is as good as, if not better than Craig, in a much better movie.
I don't think it's slyness; DC doesn't have enough self-awareness to be sly. Rather, I think he's a bit unhinged.
You can say that again. What a creepy image. Like something out of Psycho.
They just need the right script, the right director and to keep a lid on the costs. They almost always produce an everlasting winner when they focus on these key attributes. The actor is almost secondary if these items are in sync. I think they've been around long enough to know this as well.
@bondsum, thanks for the reply. Just one thing, if I wasn't clear, my apologies, the height of the star system was the 80s (Sly, Bruce, Arnold- put their face on anything and it was bank)!
I was mentioning '71's star system being very much different than today since, of course SC's face meant success (at least for Bond, not so much for his other (interesting) endeavours in the same era), since he had little competition, especially in the spy genre, AND he was returning to the franchise that made him.
The 80s were the height of the star system (Sly, Bruce, Arnold, Ford,, and, yes, after THE UNTOUCHABLES, our SC became bank again (very much leading into the 90s)).
I felt the same way after my first watch of SP - non plussed. I didn't actively dislike it as with SF but I didn't think it was all that great either. However on a rewatch I enjoyed it a lot more. It's far from being a classic but it's not a dud either, which some on here claim. Lots of nice scenes and some decent dialogue. Probably the best Q performance we've had since LTK.
1. Craig Continues
2. Moving forward with Fassbender (who was born in germany making him the first not british colony born 007)
3. Moving Forward with Hardy
and i would be ok with
4. Moving Forward with Hiddleston
Like I said beyond that... Hemsworth seriously?
Cruise's career is on the serious downswing. His movies do much more abroad than in the US. He's basically become Schwarzenegger. You'll never see him do another Born on the Fourth of July, or even Eyes Wide Shut.
Craig has yet to "cross over" to success in non-Bond films, and maybe he never will. Only Connery seemed to do this successfully, and I for one, look at his Oscar for The Untouchables as, really, a delayed award for how great, how decade- and genre-defining, he was as Bond.
Much as OHMSS pivoted to DAF, and MR pivoted to FYEO, the actor playing Bond himself seems to pivot. Connery to Moore is very different, as is Moore-Dalton, Dalton-Brosnan, and Brosnan-Craig. A Moore to Brosnan move, or a Dalton to Craig move, or a Brosnan to Cavill move, would have felt too similar to what came before. Based upon that history, I expect whoever is the next Bond to be very different from Craig.
I agree with this. There were just no stakes, which made it feel more like a Moore film. I think somebody meaningful to Bond needed to die, either Lucia or Madeleine, in the film. There wasn't a meaningful sacrificial lamb like Vesper, Mathis, or M for the first time in the Craig era.
Why this obsession with death?
This is something Mendes does do well. He is mischievous that way. He sneaks in plenty of these little nods. You really have to know the films to spot them.
He even has Seydoux and Waltz briefly riffing on their famous Inglorious Basterds scene together, when Bond and Swann meet Blofeld in the meteor room.
He talks about having visited her father. The line barely works within the context of the film, but it does work as a nod to Basterds, which is what it is
Lock Up?
You're right. I never realised until recently that the DB5 is in SF or SP so subtly does 'mischievous' old Sam sneak it in. The little rascal.
Mendes I'm sorry nods too much. With the possible exception of Ingenious if it was one ...Swann's father plays pretty heavy in the plot most of everything Mendes played homage was blatantly obviously and tiring IMO.
I want fresh. See Dynamite for freshness or at least fresher content.
SP is just a frustrating film to watch. Things felt rushed and underdeveloped and to be honest, it just wasnt interesting. It was a classic case of, mostly scenes cobbled together to get from a to be with none of the Bond magic and none of the intensity as conveyed in CR and QoS. Everything rang hollow. No danger, no suspense...I can't even.
I am simply unsatisfied. Unsatisfied with the "transition" and "evolution" of Bond as a character that took us from CR to SP; and the horrible story SP presented us with. We deserved better. Craig deserved better.
What's infuriating is SP had talent in front and behind the camera, it had a huge enough budget and it had the time to get things right in preproduction but they squandered the time they had and failed to come up with a worthy script. Honestly, SP didn't do anyone any favours. It was an excersie in how to half arse a project. The film's a waste. It's not the worst in the series but it's definitely the most disappointing and throwing $150 million at Craig to return only highlights how risible the folks in charge are and does nothing to encourage quality course correction which the series is in desperate need of.
Seriously, watching SP, if you can get through it only begs the question, wtf were they thinking?
Again I love SF but why the #$%@ go off the radar when the mission wasn't done??? Weird.
Sarcasm is the lowest from of.....
Obviously the DB5 and even the crater base weren't subtle, but he sure sneaks in a lot of others that require knowledge of the films.
I like the little nods, probably because I can spot most of them, as any seasoned Bond film fan can
Mendes nods have degrees of "obviousness"depending on one's familiarity with the films
I agree with this completely, but, with SF grossing more than $1 billion, I think they will continue to pursue big box office numbers. Unfortunately.
I preferred the nods in SF though, because I found them more integrated and subtle. In SP, the obvious ones just sort of stood out. It didn't help that I had just done a Bondathon before the film's release and so most of the obvious nods were quite apparent and clear as day, which made the film seem derivative even on first watch.
An example of SF's subtle nods is when Bond is running through the tunnel just as Skyfall Manor explodes and nearly kills him. I recently realized that this scene is quite similar to Bond and Holly crawling quickly through the ventilation tunnel in MR just as Moonraker 5 takes off and the fireball threatens to catch up with them.
Oh and the Aston Martin v Jag chase...
I'm sorry I didn't mind the parachute in SP just would've preferred Bond to quip "Good morning" instead of "good evening" ...the former just sounds funnier and easier to say to me. One of the drafts Bond did say "good morning" and I laughed out loud with that one.
Give him more jaded sarcasm, which he excels with (like the interrogation sequence or the museum sequence in SF).