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
In some ways the series has not captured the magic of Goldeneye since 95
Don't you mean subtlety is often Moore?
*cue eyebrow raise*
Yes!
Imagine how I was feeling back in 2002 after DAD!
Last enjoyable Bond movie I'd seen at the cinema was TLD 15 years previously!
By the time CR came along, which went someway towards redeeming the series for me, it was getting on for 20 years!
I've made a point of saying that that Craig has to be photographed carefully; for the most part Campbell knows how to shoot him. He's never looked better than he does in the sequence set in M's apartment. Bring Martin Campbell back for 25!
The cinematography is one thing the filmmakers truly have been doing right in recent years. All four of Craig's films have boasted impressive cinematography, and if I may share a controversial opinion of my own: I prefer CR, QOS, and SF visually to SP. People go on about the editing of QOS—okay, okay—but just pause for a second and look at what a marvelously framed and colored film it is! Skyfall takes top honors for me, but Quantum runs a close second (with Casino Royale naturally a none too shabby third).
Seriously, you didn't find LTK and GE enjoyable Bond films!?
Don't get me started on GE. Most disappointing cinematic Bond experience prior to SF.
After GE I was expecting cr*p, and thats exactly what EON served up in regular dollops for the next decade. So while utterly underwhelmed by the proceeding Brosnan outings I cannot say I was disappointed - they merely lived up to what I was expecting.
SF was disappointing for different reasons. I'd felt that with CR and QOS that EON had finally wised up and that Babs had hit her stride. Then SF came along and it felt like watching a director's extended cut of Austin Powers, just with all the jokes taken out.
It is interesting how we feel on watching a Bond for the first time - expectations has a lot to do with it. I mean I rank Moonraker very low but enjoyed it on first watch - I could take it on its own terms.
Seen every Bond since TWINE in the cinema:
TWINE - really enjoyed first viewing - first Bond in the cinema as an impressionable 13 year old
DAD - worst first experience of a Bond film I've ever had - to the point where my enthusiasm for Bond would wane over the intervening years until CR came
CR - Best first Bond experience ever!
QoS - Very disappointing first experience - where was the characterisation?
SF - Slighlty underwhelming first experience, overhyped, Berenice is a main Bond girl ... nope she's dead ...
SP - Really enjoyed this on first viewing and made me want to watch all the other Bonds again.
I suppose. I'm just tired of the 'I know something you don't know but I can't tell you, but I can tell you that I know it' thing. What's the point other than teasing?
I'd rather not have Bond be a robot. This isn't Westworld.
Before 2014 they had only produced one film outside the Bond brand since the early 60’s. It’s great to see Broccoli using her vast clout to get other films off the ground – in fact, I’m surprised it’s taken her this long. She’s more of the most famous and revered film producers working, especially in the UK.
I think she has some grander ambitions though, possibly towards the Oscars. Especially with, ‘Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool’. Annette Bening is considered massively overdue, and I imagine this film is totally geared towards getting her an Oscar. She missed out this year with ‘20th Century Women’, which was considered a large snub from the Academy.
I’d put money on ‘Film Stars’ winning her the Oscar – if they campaign it correctly. In turn it will allow Barbara to be seen in a different light.
I also find it curious, that Eon are investing so heavily in female directors. We’ve seen this with Corinna McFarlane and, now with Christina Choe.
I’d put money on a female director tackling the next film (the only credible director rumour we have had thus far is Susanne Bier)
Here are some interesting names that could deliver Bond 25:
Kathryn Bigelow
Ava DuVernay
Patty Jenkins
Andrea Arnold
Lynne Ramsay
Sam Taylor-Johnson
Lexi Alexander
I agree that the slide down the slippery slope we find ourselves near to the bottom of began with Dalton and LTK. It's one of the reasons I've always felt unsure about LTK. The 'going rogue' and personal revenge element never sat that well with me. Having said that LTK seems a solid conventional entry with hindsight, compared to what has come since.
Alas, don't go for P&W. They've been rehashing their storylines ever since 1999. There are actual writers out there who can deliver a Bond story on point with a script that's utmost satisfactory to any Bond fan. Try the Bond comics to see what I'm referring to.
I think we need more than an action director. Young and Gilbert weren't action directors per se. The drama and thriller aspects are as important if not more so.
Plus, martinis, tuxedos, seductive girls and guns.
I agree. And a weak area for the Glen films IMO.
To some extent, I view SF similar to FRWL (before anyone has a go, I know they are different). There's something very unique & atypical about these two entries in the canon. They rely more on suspense over action & big sets. The entire China sequence (my favourite from the film) is just dripping with old school suspense & style.
EDIT: As another example, there is far less action in GE than TND, and yet the former film is seen as superior in most people's eyes. So I think the trick is to have a decent blend of thriller style suspense moments combined with a few effective (rather than trite and predictable) set piece action sequences. The balance is the trick. Eye candy (whether it be location or babes) is another critical component.
I'd be open to Susanne Bier. I'm a believer in giving someone a chance to step up, and she has proven with The Night Manager that she can hit the right notes in the character dept.
I was using it to illustrate that the balance between action and low key suspense (as well as old school glamour vs. a modern flavour) is perhaps more important in a Bond film than other franchises.
CR (less but seen as superior by most) vs. QoS, SF (less, but seen as superior by most) vs. SP, or GE (less, but seen as superior by most) vs. TND, etc. etc.
I think one of Bond's critical success factors as a franchise is suspense. I was so happy they didn't try to 'out-Cruise' Tom (nobody can imho) with SF, because they would have failed. They tried with SP, and failed miserably imho.
How much action and "drama" was there in those first 3 films, the golden age of cinematic Bond? The answer - very little, and yet few would describe them as boring because they are tight, engaging thrill rides. Yes, I understand that audiences have evolved, but is giving people exactly what they expect to see really the stated goal of a creative industry? Perhaps from a monetary point of view, by in my opinion the films which resonate are those which surprise as well as satisfy.
The Craig era has attempted to modernize Bond to such an extent that he is no longer recognizable. The films have become bloated and indulgent, and the remedy needs this time needs to come from looking back rather than trying to safeguard against the future. The whole of the western world is waking up and realizing that it kinda got carried away there for a second. The timing is ripe for Bond to declare that normal service has resumed.