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
Much like Goldfinger.
I don't want a lighter Craig Bond. That felt forced in SP. Give him a final heavier Bond to close out the character in style (the novel YOLT's ending suits him). Let the next Bond be lighter.
Agreed on that. I'm absolutely sick of personal revenge stories. It's like they feel that they can't inject character development into Bond unless it's a personal revenge story.
They're some shortsighted people on the Bond team unfortunately.
Now, regarding the lighter tone that didn't work with Craig... The problem wasn't the lighter tone. It was the story that was written with confusion that didn't work. The Mexican PTS, a light tone itself, was the greatest short Bond movie I've seen in ten years.
Yep. Didn't Mendes even have the cheek to say he was responsible for casting RK as Tanner? Furthermore, going back to the boat Thames action, I'd take the boat chase in TWINE, complete with under water tie straightenening over what we got in SP. Seriously, EoN just need to find someone who can direct a thriller and great action as well as someone who can write a fascinating script. Like you said, everything Mendes tried to address in SF, Campbell did better in GE; and tge less said about SP the better. I pray that Mendes doesn't come back and that he takes Newman with him. Good riddance.
For inspiration, you could just as well have checked out the Who could/ should be Bond thread.
Hear hear. The man's admittedly still early on in his tenure as M, but I love what he does on-screen, and everything I hear from him off-screen seems wise. I'm really glad he was able to prevail over the "M as traitor" subplot, and hope EON continue to listen to him in the future . . .
Two excellent posts chaps.
Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?
He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.
To be honest, while I am glad it wasn't M, I think that an established character being the traitor would have resonated more than C (Andrew Scott is a brilliant actor and I liked his scenes with M, "now we know what C stands for" is one of my favourite lines of the film, but everything about him screamed bad guy and as soon as they showed the attack on South Africa after they opposed Nine Eyes it was obvious).
I'm one of the few who liked the idea of Tanner being the traitor. Obviously it's a big departure from Fleming but Kinnear's Tanner has hardly been the embodiment of that character anyway (nothing about him screams veteran or Bond's friend, essentially the only two things we learn about him in the novels). Plus, with how it seemed to be written, I think it fit what we've seen his character. He wasn't an evil character, he just sold out because with all the change going on he felt expendable (and he is, really, all he does is hang around with M and spout exposition) and when he was found out he felt guilty and killed himself rather than face what he'd done (and he's established as fairly cowardly or at least an every man pen pusher type in SF when he hides during the courtroom shoot out, so it would have fit). Basically I think it would have done wonders for an otherwise dull, pointless character.
I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.
If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?
Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?
In the novels, Tanner is Bond's best friend in the service. Really the only thing we hear about Bond's social life, such as it is, is that he'll occasionally go golfing with Tanner and share war stories, or Tanner will warn him when M's in a bad mood or something.
In the films, Tanner's now basically a office drone and Moneypenny's the one visiting Bond after hours, the one who's handy with a weapon, and the one who's the bridge between Bond and M.
It's disappointing, I guess, that Tanner's now a somewhat wasted character, but then Moneypenny's got heaps more potential.
Obviously my Tanner tolerance levels are well known but perhaps this wouldn't have been so bad, if only because C is so blatantly the villain.
Have Scott play things exactly the same so that we all think he's the villain and then at the end Tanner is revealed as the mole.
You could either have a scene where C tells him that they need to streamline and cut away some of the flab, clearly meaning Tanner is for the chop but better still, if Rory has the acting chops to deliver it (which, personally, I doubt), during the scene where Tanner reveals himself he does the 'It was me, it's always been me' speech (minus 'the author of all your pain' stuff).
'I've been leaking info to SPECTRE for years. It was me who told them about Ronson, me who helped Silva with the bomb and to escape, me who fed them the Nine Eyes info and smart blood files. Why do you think I stood by when M was about to be killed by Silva? When you're you're just blend into the background you're invisible.
And it was me that recruited Vesper James.'
Finally it would all make sense as to why we've had this bland nonentity of a character hanging round for so many films.
Although I resent letting Rory go out in such a blaze of glory to be honest.
Absolutely. Like a great player stepping up to be player manager, I think he would instantly have the respect of the dressing room.
I'd say the same about the bankers office scene. That's probably Brosnan's finest hour as Bond, imo. Pretty much perfectly captures his take on the character in just a couple of minutes (basically Roger Moore but with a harder edge, lots of quips but underneath the surface is this brooding vulnerable assassin), Bond actually uses his wits to escape instead of just shooting or punching his way out, and the music is just perfect (I wish they'd use the Bond theme like that now). And Brosnan just comes across as so suave and sophisticated and enigmatic. I love it when he pushes the banker up and starts to count as well. The way he spits out "two" really makes you think he's prepared to blow the guys brains out. It's a great scene. Mysterious, full of danger and tension, it's a proper spy scene, and it ends with a great stunt/Bond moment. It'd make a fantastic PTS on it's own but then we get the boat chase too. I think it gets a lot of unfair criticism to be honest. Top ten for me, been one of my favourites since release. I always thought that this was a step back in the right direction after TND.
I do realise that I've gone off on a long off topic rant but hey, we don't have any news (this thread is mostly used for discussing Spectre) so I don't see the harm in injecting some TWINE love into proceedings while we wait.
Never!!! *shuttering at your sarcasm*
Even my least favorite is still Bond. X_X
SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.
The music is by Hoyt Curtin. He did the Jonny Quest scores in the 1960s.
- Martín Campbell
- Steven Soderbergh
- Ron Howard
- Christopher Nolan
- Paul Haggis (as director)
- Guy Ritchie
- Denis Villeneuve
- Paul Greengrass
- Anthony & Joe Russo
- Jon Favreau
- Kathryn Bigelow
- Matthew Vaughn
- Alfonso Cuarón
One of those most likely will be the new Bond director. And today Guy Ritchie came out on top:
http://ewn.co.za/2016/09/18/Guy-Ritchie-in-talks-to-direct-Bond-movie
Obviously it's all rumours at this stage, but I do think Guy has a serious shot. I personally loved "The Man From UNCLE" as a Goldfinger-esque throwback to stylistic fun and pretty good action-driven, stunt-driven spy films. Not the Brosnan-style of films, but really a 'midas touch of Guy Hamilton' so to say.
Now I know many people don't like the idea of Guy Ritchie helming a Bond film. His recent films weren't that succesful. But perhaps because of the lack of success Ritchie is being considered. So one doesn't have to high expectations beforehand. I actually love the idea. Also, like Daniel Craig, Guy is pretty much a down-to-earth guy. It could interest Craig to do a 5th and final film with the man.
There are other logical considerations to this story. "The Man From UNCLE" was a Warner Brothers production, just like "Sherlock Holmes". And it could very well be that by bringing Ritchie onboard, also Warner will become the next Bond distributor. Then there's Daniel Pemberton as movie score composer, who might very well join the all British bandwagon.
Any forummembers in here who love the idea of Guy Ritchie directing?
by the way, is it October 7th yet!...and if not, why and who is responsible...