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
Craig could go from Purity to winter filming of Bond 25 but would he want six more months of filming on top of the five he's just done with Purity? Craig was knackered after SPECTRE so I can't imagine he'd want double the work load. Five months on Purity and six/seven months on Bond 25. That's a huge amount of filming.
I'm thinking Craig won't be back or if B Broccoli believes he is the only man for the role they might delay until 2019. But then Craig is a year older and may feel there's little point returning. It's still 50:50 how this is all going to pan out. So basically we haven't a clue. :D
Mendes isn't really to blame though. As much as I agree with you in not liking the route he took the character in straight after QoS, EoN are the one's who messed this up for allowing Mendes to go in the direction he ended up taking the movies in. I'm been saying for long enough now that EoN need to start doing a better job of their responsibilities as producers and put an end to these silly creative decisions they've been freely allowing.
I think Mendes deserves a lot of the blame.
You must be very young if you believe a single year means that much in terms of aging.
Mendes certainly deserves a lot of the criticism for the creative decisions he has taken. He had a great opportunity to get things on track after the initial reboot concept (CR/QoS) of the late 00's. I have not been all that happy with what he's done with it, including his choices for the Scooby crew.
Having said that, @doubleoego is also correct that the producers need to have a more cohesive vision for the character and the arc they want to take, and that includes having some consistency with director choices & concept.
I don't really have a problem with focusing on 'character' per se. SF benefited from it and was a successful and memorable film on account of it. I just believe that some of the actor, plot and character choices have boxed EON in.
Therefore, they are in the same position now that they were in with Brosnan after DAD. Either shift direction and dump Craig, or stick with Craig and continue on a path that is less than savoury for a great many viewers & fans (but certainly not all).
I had @germanlady practically threatening to kill me for daring to suggest SF was riddled with yawning plot holes and just wasn't as good as the hype said it was.
Now everyone is jumping on the 'Mendes' is crap bandwagon.
I might start defending him!
Irony is that I preferred SP to SF. Having said that I still thing Mendes has made consistently poor decisions. He squandered what was achieved with the reboot and took us back to Austin Powers territory. It's like he didn't understand what an opportunity he had.
And before anyone chips in, for those who hate SP (I'm not one of them) all the warning signs were there with Skyfail
I also thought Skyfall was overhyped and full of plot holes. However I still hold it to be a great Bond film - Goldfinger was long held up to be the 'gold standard' of the Bond films - but that has plot holes galore. In fact all 24 James Bond films have plot holes. Go watch them all again, carefully, and you'll see what I mean.
As long as it doesn't stretch the bounds of credibility (CGI surf everyone), & doesn't feature cringe worthy performances and line delivery (TWINE imho) I'm quite forgiving. Heck, I even like DAF these days.
My criticism of the latest entry is that it's tonally unbalanced. Moreover, I just find it quite dull (not just in the colours, but also in the performances and characterizations). I hope B25 is anything but that.
Absolutely. And Goldfinger has the biggest plot hole in any film I've seen. He tells his plan to a bunch of gangsters who he then gasses. WHY?! That whole scene is purely to explain the plot to the audience - in the film's context it makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, I rank Goldfinger at somewhere like 7th or 8th out of all the Bonds.
"Wrap gifts from the film, "Kings": A nice beanie from production, a bottle of Halle Berry's favorite champagne, and a bottle of Bollinger R.D. with a nice personal thank you written from Daniel Craig. #picturewrap #kings #halleberry #danielcraig #champagne"
Indeed, it was an eight week shoot. Which either means DC's part is small as he mentioned at the New Yorker Festival, or he packed a lot of scenes into a short amount of time.
When we are still engaged despite this, then that's all that matters.
Speaking as someone who has written scripts, the more complicated the script, the more plot holes happen. You simply cannot avoid it. You can only make certain things believable to where even when you question it, you can still half-heartedly believe it because it's a movie and it doesn't take away from the experience.
The fun of that scene is that Goldfinger has such a giant ego he just loves showing off how clever he thinks he is - he loves having an audience, and when they mock him, he coolly gasses them - at least he knows the gas will work on the big job. So it's not really a plot hole, but you're right, it is ultimately there as an exposition scene, be it a well written, playfully performed and beautifully staged scene.
Absolutely, the scene in and of itself is brilliant and that's why it works. Fleming and Young always maintained that you move the story on so quickly that no one notices the idiosyncracies on the way. Young always said he was okay if people started pondering plot holes on the way home, but if he'd done his job right you're not doing it in the cinema - because you're so caught up in the way the story is unfolding!
All I've seen is that production will begin in 2017 and take place over the course over the year.
One way or another things are moving. Trust me on that.
Fassbender the new favourite, he's my #1 choice.
Not true.
He's also an executive producer. If that's a meaningful title (as opposed to a vanity-type credit), you'd think he'd be around for most of the filming.
That said, I don't know if it's a meaningful title or not.
Executive producing in the States can be completely hands off. If you're a writer you may also get an exec credit, same goes for if you're a financier, or a department head. It's a little more involved in the UK (although sometimes not much). That's not to say Craig won't push to make executive decisions, but, as with a lot of execs, it could just be a vanity credit, bumping up the pay packet.
Can we take this to mean you've heard something recently @RC7? Or am I reading too much into it? I know you work in the industry so thought it was worth asking.
I totally agree with @ColonelSun about the validity of that scene. Also, all Bond villains love telling people their evil plan and then killing them. Since time immemorial.
Good point about Young believing you need to move the plot along quickly. I personally think he failed to do this with TB, which is why it's the least successful of his three films.
Mendes's films are yawn inducingly overlong. He does bloat better than anyone. SF is a snore fest for me. I also found SP a bit of a snore fest the first time I saw it, but it grew on me a little the second time. Overall though not a fan of the Mendes approach.
SF is a stupid person's idea of what a clever Bond movie should be like.