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
While they gave me the worst of all Bond movies (SF) they also gave me the best of them all (SP).
They bookend my ranking even!
In retrospect I can take SF as it is because there is SP now.
But if I could turn back time and prevent Mendes getting the gig, I would.
Sure, it's not a guarantee Craig Bond No 3 and 4 would have been better but I'd take the chance.
In my humble opinion even QOS would have been a smashing success in 2012 as it was mainly the hype, the 50th Anniversary nostalgia and the perfect storm that was the marketing campaign that made SF hit a billion.
RE: SP and the script etc. I think it was just hubris. They seemed to get ahead of themselves after the success of SF and lost sight of what made that film successful critically. This can be gleaned even from the video logs that preceded the film's release.
Not in the slightest. In fact I'll be surprised if we ever get a commentary for SP. They're hardly going to want to be sitting there saying 'I remember originally this scene was a lot worse but then we sacked Logan' or 'Do you remember when you first read this bit Sam and you threatened to walk? Lol'
There's no one involved in the making of the film who wants any more about what happened behind the scenes coming out than has already been leaked.
We'll have to wait 20 years for a decent SP commentary.
It certainly impacted my enjoyment of the film, and I can attest being one of about only 4 people in the auditorium on one viewing. And at that point the film hadn't even been out a month. Certainly it made a lot of money, but then again ticket prices are extremely expensive now.
I felt Eon was really just coasting on the success of SF and assuming whatever rubbish Logan would come up with would be fine.
Very similar occurrences happened during the production of DAD. Yet two alternate commentaries were recorded and subsequently released. I guess EoN are more coy these days.
The Bond franchise has survived this long because of that.
I just wish they would get on with making the films more often, because then those who don't like a particular film all that much don't have so long to wait for another one which they may prefer.That was always the good thing about the 2 yr cycle.
If they want to take longer than that, then they'd better hit it out of the park with 'most of the fans' in my view, because they have less room for error (i.e. they cannot deliver an entry which polarizes the fanbase).
Well said! There is nothing worse than a long wait up leading to an inferior Bond film. Sadly this trend started with the masterpiece Die Another Day and even worse, it continues to this day.
At this point there is no excuse for Eon to not deliver 100 % each and every time. I didn't really loathe SP, though. With just a bit tighter editing, complete removal of the Bond/Blofeld past link nonsense, and a score that doesn't make me appreciate Eric Serra or Michel Legrand, I might feel SP was classic Bond.
For me that trend started with TWINE. I was utterly disappointed by it after the fantastic GE and similarly spectacular TND.
TWINE and SF are the only two Bond movies that were highly disappointing me at the cinema.
But I guess DAD and QOS also belong into that category.
But was the Moore/Dalton era really that better thinking of it?
I prefer the Moore/Dalton era by a mile actually. For one, Cubby would often address elements fans didn't respond well to and correct that with the next film. For instance, bringing Bond back to his Fleming roots in FYEO after MR.
Then there was John Barry, who IMO never effed up a Bond film with his score. Even some tracks that one could argue sound tired, I say still were appropriate for Bond and it's specific film.
Also there was always the continued assurance that the next entry would be out in only 2 years and would probably be superior if the current film didn't quite measure up.
I actually remember being slightly disappointed with TND, after GE myself. But by my second viewing I was pretty much sold on it as a fun filed TSWLM/MR type entry.
To me Spectre was way better than Skyfall.
Crazy talk.
I think in each case they were trying to please everybody, play it too straight, people say "where is the humour?" Play it light and people say its too much, people say bring back Q, Moneypenny, and then its "They have too much screentime", they get the rights to Blofeld and Spectre, but how do they bring them in an unexpected manner? So they end up looking like they're trying to be too clever!
After so many movies, it must be a nightmare trying to present the usual ingredients in an original way and please everyone!
Adele being the most popular female singer of this decade had a lot to do with the success of Skyfall the movie.
It was the perfect marketing storm, I have never seen a better one for any film.
If QOS or SP had been in SFs place with Adele's song and celebrating the 50th it would have been as successful as Skyfall.
Everything fell into place perfectly.
Many of my working colleagues told me how good Skyfall is back then and they hadn't even seen the movie!
The hype around it was unparalleled and people believed SF was the best Bond since GF and even didn't have to see it.
Personally I view Skyfall as the Emperor's new clothes. Everybody raved about it how great it was, so nobody really dared to say otherwise, especially since the critics made it "official" it was so good.
Skyfall being a movie that polarising on all Bond forums (I know) proves that it is not beyond criticism.
Casino Royale will remain the sole Craig movie that will generally be viewed upon as the very best on forums and with the general public.
Hmm, never thought of it that way before. Does make sense though. I think people went to see Skyall more as a big event than a film. Were more people going to see the film, or the "trimmings"?
How's it 'not that crazy'. The guy said, 'SF was mainly popular because of Adele'. That's just patently untrue. SF was popular because loads of people liked it and saw fit to see it multiple times. There's no denying there was a perfect marketing storm that acted as a catalyst, but to distill it down to ill conceived sound bites is just silly.
Look, I'm not even a massive SF fan. I like it, but I wasn't falling over myself with praise. What pisses me off is people like yourself who skew the narrative to suit their own agenda. It was a fucking massive hit and people loved it. We as Bond fans are duty bound to keep the stories straight when it comes to the franchise we all supposedly love so much. You can hate the film all you want, but there's no twisting history.
I don't know. SP isn't fine wine but more like coffee. First taste well that's ok but about after thirty minutes or so it's a bitter swallow.
I'm intrigued as to your source for this statement?
I'm not aware anyone was sacked halfway through or that the director threatened to walk.
Everyone (in terms of EON, the studio and Tamahori) seemed happy enough with it until Bourne and 9/11 made them realise what a trite piece of dreck it really was.
I think it's undeniable that SF got lucky with the Olympics, Adele and the 50th. Give these bonuses to SP and it would have hit the billion too.
However what is also undeniable is that there was no buzz with SP like there was with SF. Whether that was solely down to the above external factors is debatable but people at work, on the bus, in the pub simply weren't talking about SP like they were SF.
Better Emperor's new clothes than Emperor's shockingly tailored clothes as we got with SP.
ok, that's brilliant, had to laugh out loud or LOL how the young would say... you are shockingly witty as usual!
I agree. At least where I am, SF was that year's TDK. Everyone was talking about it and it was the must see film of the year - even more so than the Hobbit. It may have had the Olympics to start it off, but it finished very strongly due to excellent word of mouth and several repeat viewings by 'new to Bond' fans. I heard none of that 'water cooler' talk with SP, and in fact many who were raving about SF didn't even see it.
I know it doesn't count for the whole world. But SPECTRE was 2015's TDK in Germany/Switzerland/Austria where it sold more tickets than bloody Star Wars and/or Minions for instance.
So depending from where you write, you'll have a different perception of how things went down.
I agree that it's not what it once was, but the North American market is still a major factor in EON's marketing calculus, and I believe that they will make adjustments on account of SP grossing so much less compared to SF (although it grossed pretty much what other Bond films do normally). For what was essentially a continuation story, the drop off in box office was quite substantial.
Where I am, 'wrist slasher' and 'Sam Smith' were major negatives before the film was released. I recall people writing off the film as s#!^ based on Craig's remarks (I realize that they misunderstood the comments).
SF was something different I remember my Mum who usually gets dragged along to watch Bond said she really enjoyed it and it wasn't what she normally expected from a Bond film.
It had something and no SP wouldn't have been the billion dollar grosser like it, or got the reaction it received. SF just appealed to people who wouldn't have normally been that excited by Bond and SP was back to cookie cutter time which might not have been so bad but Sam had to have his cake and eat it, traditional entry but still with the personal element, this film is not going to age well mark my words, it's a jarring mess with a godawful third act.
SF also felt like a DC film still just like CR & QOS. SP to me felt for the first time like Craig was grafted onto something that just didn't suit his Bond, hence the huge jumps in character from SF to SP despite the fact they are clearly not that far apart.