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 wonder what Bond film Bond has the littlest screen time in.
And yet a huge expensive explosion only recorded with a single camera was more justified.
In total number of minutes on screen or relative to the overall running time?
If the latter, then I wouldn't be surprised if it was a Mendes film, as he spends so much time with the Scooby Gang back at Mi6 rather than with Scooby.
As for the Machiavellian nature of Bond, meh. Every Bond actor has shown the darkness of the character, how he unleashes himself on innocents like women in the Connery, Lazenby and Moore eras when he doesn't get the answers he wants, or the coldness of some moments in Dalton's run (the hotel scene with the woman in TLD) or Brosnan's tenure (shooting Elektra, Kaufman, etc) and of course, the brutality of Craig's Bond in its many forms. Bond by his very nature is a character who plays the game of the enemy for every step, and does things at times that most wouldn't be able to, but I think he still remains a good and sympathetic man in every incarnation.
Fleming's Bond in the source is a very sympathetic character. He's a man of tragedy who is constantly put through the ringer, and by the time he loses Tracy and that death leads into the darkness he experiences in YOLT, it's impossible not to feel for him. He's a man who does work he knows needs to be done, but gets no enjoyment out of it, and every opportunity he takes to help those he sees as wounded and helpless often doesn't end well for them.
I don't think we've learned too much about Bond in Craig's era, either. We know as much about him as we do of Fleming's Bond in some ways, like his heritage, his parents and where he grew up. Obviously the films take it farther than Fleming by necessity, but even in SF where we confront Bond's past with him, in the end we learn very little that we couldn't already imagine on our own. People say they despise the personal angles of SF and how it ruins Bond's mystery, but that mystery is still very much there. All SF did was give us brief little looks at Bond's youth to give us a greater picture of how he may have become the steel cage he is today, without answering those questions. We know that when his parents died, he hid in the compartment of Skyfall to properly mourn, we know he hates the place (probably because it makes him think of his orphan nature) and we get to see him use his father's gun. That's essentially the whole of it; everything else we see addressed about his past (who his parents were, his Scottish blood, his home) we already knew about as fans. Those brief little above only serve to give us a slight idea of what may drive Bond and get audiences thinking without ever laying out his history. What he did after his parents died (after Hannes died), his school days, what drove him to enter the Royal service, then why he strove to be a 00 are all still hidden from us, and
Fleming in many ways gave us more background on Bond than Dan's tenure has, not even addressing Pearson's biography. Because Fleming's Bond was on the book page, we hear all the character's ruminations on what he sees, and can get inside his head to get a better sense of him through the third person narration. In the films, however, we don't have that, so it's far easier for Bond to remain mysterious to audiences because we lack that window into his soul/mind.
Bond as an enigma is still very much in play, then, and I think Dan's tenure gets us wondering about what drives Bond and how he came to be who he is in a way that's been unmatched since Connery's era, because those films present the image of a very complex, animalistic and mysterious man who begs questions asked of his motives and character. Craig and Connery both give us grand portrayals because they use mannerisms, shifts of the eye and a swagger or certain demeanor to convey what words couldn't in their performances, and that's what makes them the most interesting to watch in my mind. I'm always asking myself questions about what Bond is thinking and feeling when I watch the Connery and Craig movies, and that speaks to the character's inherent mystery and how their performances elevate the character to that position of intrigue in our eyes. The more we think we know about the man, the less we actually do.
Such is the majesty of James Bond.
I 100% agree - very well written and it's exactly the same for me and the reason why Connery and Craig are my favrourite actors in the role, And also why CR and SF are my favourite Craig movies: CR tells us how he became a 00 and what caused him to be so hard and ruthless in many ways (Vesper's death), SF tells us where he came from and shows in contrast to Silva - kinda his dark mirror - what keeps Bond on the "good" side. I appreciate it a lot and for me, this worked very well.
That's why I would love to see the final tragic loss in Bonds life ("Tracy", likely modernized as Madeleine) portrayed by Craig - he totally delivers it. It would bookend it quite well I think and suit Craig better than the attempt for using the "old mold" that Spectre was (to me). From there on adventures "back to the formula" seem better to me.
Next to a set with the scope of the volcano, or Liparus it's peanuts. It's costly because it's a location shoot. I don't have a problem with the explosion, in principal, because they're at least doing it for real.
The problem I do have is that it's part of a digital composite where they've painted in the crater/base elements. For that reason I imagine most people think it's all CGI. That's the unforgivable part for me, not necessarily the idea of doing a huge bloody explosion. They absolutely should be doing it for real.
What Mendes was allowed to do equates with a mother and father giving their son all their credit cards to use to purchase anything and everything they want in a toy store, and that kind of activity should have been reigned in.
The explosion isn't a marvel or anything remotely special, like a for-real stunt would be. Anybody can rig things to go boom boom, but it takes real talent and execution to choreograph and pull off a sequence of action.
I think it's an awesome shot, personally. It's indulgent, which is intrinsic to Bond.
It's marred by the fact it's a composite.
As for cost, it's minimal in context and largely besides the point, because the film's flaws do not stem from spunking the budget, they are far more fundamental than that. They're certainly not fixed by throwing cash around.
When SP is one of the most expensive films of all time, and so little of that expense is visible on screen, that is a big problem.
That's a different discussion entirely and probably quite an interesting one, but holding up the explosion in the desert as the scapegoat is sort of missing the point.
It's an example of reckless spending when the budget was already overflowing, so I don't see how that's missing the point.
The point is, it's a planning issue. Cost isn't lost along the way, unless you're reworking scenes dramatically in terms of scale and execution. They didn't just decide to blow up money, it will have been a line in the budget from the get go. If we're going to dig them out for mismanaging money (which is more to the point) I'd look more closely at the car chase and snow chase.
The cash they spent on the car chase does not translate to the screen, especially considering neither car is even remotely damaged. Likewise, the snow chase will have cost a wedge, but it simply isn't planned in a way that delivers bang for your buck. This stems further back into the development process. In the grand scheme of things the explosion is only guilty, for me, of being a wasted opportunity, rather than wasted money.
I struggle to think of decently directed action films these days. Bond used to set the standard but seems to now just ape other inferior films.
Mendes totally lacks the imagination to create good action, and seems unwilling to bring in collaborators who could have helped.
;)
Yes!
This. Great choreography and directing.
No one even threw a baby. 7/10.
I respectfully disagree. THAT'S exactly the point. Why spend money for something you'll barely see. Yes I don't mind the shot in and of itself but knowing they spent all that money for that is ridiculous. You didn't need the world's largest film explosion to get the same shot.
I must admit that, while the action is consequent and very well choreographed, neither the video game style nor the emotional frailty providing a major part of the protagonists motivation appeals to me much.