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
Pretty much how I'm feeling. The longer this drags out the more it becomes too late. As much as I love Craig, I feel with him returning in B25, they'll only try to continue down the road Mendes started.
At this point I'm thinking it's too late to try and continue where SP left off. By 2019, or even 2018 the general public won't really care how SP ended, what happened with Madeline/Blofeld, etc. They'll remember SP was generally viewed as an inferior follow up to SF.
A soft re-boot I feel is probably what will happen if the producers really want to continue Bond as an on-going franchise. Otherwise they're just trying to milk something that was popular in 2006 and 2012.
I think the Craig era will exist as an 'alternate timeline' scenario. A re-imagining of sorts. Even Blofeld has been re-imagined, and is significant in the Craig era for killing Vesper, M and others, while he is significant in the old timeline for other reasons.
So if they want, they can just jump back to the old timeline and bring Blofeld back a few films down the road without specifically referencing why he's significant. It's a given to the audience, no matter which timeline one is familiar with.
I feel like if they were to jump back to the old timeline, they wouldn't bring Blofeld for those movies. The Blofeld of the original timeline was last seen as a pathetic bald man with a neck brace and in a wheelchair (a reference to either OHMSS or DAF) who was dropped down a chimney after messing with Bond one too many times, unless they were to retcon that pre-credits sequence somehow (or better yet just retcon DAF and give a proper sequel to OHMSS), it'd be hard to see how they would continue from that.
In television, being an executive producer is supposed to be the primary producer. It's also one reason they're called "show runners."
In movies, executive producer is a secondary title. Hence, in SPECTRE, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are the leads, Callum McDougall (as executive producer) is secondary. As noted above, in films, a star's agent, a writer, and all sorts of others can get an executive producer title on a film.
Having said that, in television, there's "producer inflation" where a lot of people get the executive producer title even if they're not doing that much. (i.e. Stan Lee got an "executive producer" credit on the Daredevil show on Netflix and he certainly wasn't do any heavy lifting.)
In movies, there also has been "producer inflation" with the producer title. That's why the Producers Guild fought to get the "producer's mark" ("p.g.a." for Producers Guild of America; it's in small letters with periods to avoid confusion with the Professional Golfers Association, or PGA) to indicate who the real producers are.
I'm not wholly convinced that Bond was meant to be 'washed up' in Skyfall. He was an agent doing his job during the PTS, but when MP shot him and he was left for dead he lost some faith in his boss and career. So when he came back, unshaven, out of shape he was feeling disenchanted. With due respect does anyone really consider any Bond films to be 'clever'?
For you Skyfall is a snore fest, for me it's 150 minutes flying by. A terrific Bond film. Dunno about it being clever though. Just as well otherwise I'd be 'stupid yes?
Thats what the comics are for this time around
You're not reading too much into it.
And you're just going to leave it at that, huh? Ok.
You do have a point there
So nothing specific on when purity starts and ends
Absolutely not. Mendes is one of the best. Sure he has some flaws, but who didn t ?
This! These attempts to add emotion and depth to Bond are tired and clichéd. They started even before Mendes; "I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me." I have no food left in my stomach. I've thrown it up.
Cruise has shown with MI that one can take it back to basics (after an unwelcome emotional detour in MI3) and succeed. I for one hope that EON chooses to do the same.
True. It wouldn't be so bad if we weren't constantly beaten over the head with it. Emotion every so often is fine, and more impactful, like OHMSS. If we are fed a constant diet of it, however, it gets old and feels like they are trying too hard to make the story seem meaningful. I watch a Bond movie to be entertained, not to be left with "something to think about". I have no desire to waste my time pondering the emotions of someone fictional. Perhaps EON can get all of this emotional bull out of their system with this psychological drama and not have to use Bond as their Guinea Pig.
Don't get me wrong, I love a movie that makes me think or has me pondering emotions of particular characters, but that's probably one of the last reasons why I've enjoyed this series for the last two decades. As you said, bits of drama and emotion are fine, but when the entire film seems to be driven by it, it's way too much. OHMSS handled this balance perfectly.
Personally I find more character depth from Roger Moore's Bond in Octopussy and AVTAK than in any of these later melodramatic attempts at character development. Subtlety is often more, IMO.