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
That doesn't sound optimistic to me. You must hate the franchise. ;)
Have a
:cookie:
then
LOL
I miss them too :cry:
I think that's all. Completely off topic, but there are quite a few emojis if need one.
http://www.gq.com/story/fix-the-franchise-james-bond
That guy has lost me by:
"SPECTRE was easily the worst of Craig’s four 007 movies"
Sorry, yes of course, you are right!
I usually delete all memory of that cruel joke of a score.
I wish I could forget but it was just so offensively bland. Not even Mathis's pills could help me forget haha.
"With pleasure M. With pleasure"
Perfect time to have cast a new man. In fact, they could have theoretically done it after every Craig film, because they all have endings which suggest either new beginnings or endings.
cut it at the end of QOS and I agree, THAT was a perfect ending!
Skyfall's ending is a sad joke for me. That throwback to classic Moore era MP office felt like a webisode accidentally making it to the final cut of the film.
But then everything after Silva appears is a joke anyway.
:lol:
I also agree on the retro office fit being a bit clichéd. Dench's office was far more contemporary. I never liked that sort of thing (forced retrofit), even when it was done at the end of Revenge of the Sith. I certainly disliked it immensely at the end of Rogue One.
Interesting write-up on where B25 could go. Not sure I agree with all of it, but nonetheless interesting.
Posted up above. I agree with bits and pieces of it, for sure, but not all of it, like you said.
Looks like that devilish purple guy needs some fixing.
Totally agree on the forced retrofitting.
Like most of the SP dissenters, they like SF in comparison despite that film doing so many of the things they hated in the last one.
At the very least it makes sense for a traditionalist like Mallory to have such an office, connecting the space to who he is as a man.
I remember this forum's pages being packed with folks who wanted few things more than a traditional office back, way before SF was an idea in people's heads. I guess it's the same thing that happened with SP's gun barrel. They get it back at the beginning after wanting it for so long, then still don't like it anyway.
For me they're not the same thing. The gun barrel is timeless and iconic, where M's office is time specific. The former is a necessary component, the latter isn't.
Naturally the offices move with the times, but as I said, the office also must reflect the man or woman who rules it. It makes no sense for a man as stripped back and old fashioned as Mallory to have a hyper-modern office, and his surroundings in SF and SP reflect that. Like Bond he's a bit of a man out of time, preferring the sturdy and time tested wood to glass and steel. He also offers a nice counter-point to Dench's M who, despite being quite old fashioned in some ways herself, had a very modern set of offices to combine with the very modern ideal of a woman in power.
I think the scripts of both films did a good job of drawing this line between Mallory and Dench's M, and used the visual life of the movies, not only in how he dressed (double-breasted suits aren't very modern either) but also in how he customized his office to look. Being a military man like a long line of Bond bosses dating back to Lee's M, these aren't people who have a habit of preferring to live modern. They're taught discipline and how to survive on little in the service and their surroundings connect back to those now lost ideals of life.
Don't kill Bond off but maybe a full stop on this era then reset with a new actor and do the whole SPECTRE thing properly this time instead of the ham fisted rubbish we got with Bond 24.
I really want to see DC get a chance to go out on a high, no more Mendes and if we must have P&W find someone to polish the script who hasn't got their own agenda involved, stick to the character and no more copying other franchises and ruining iconic moments of the series.
Not to get political, but when I think of a Bond villain I think of an egotistical, compensating man who purports to be better and more capable than he really is, often with material fetishes and pursuing schemes to get rich and/or powerful. Trump is the bumbling Auric Goldfinger, and he even has a better gold plane than that bastard ever had. I think that's what Wade was getting at, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was comparing the guy to Goldfinger in his head, knowing their love for the film.
If I'd want political lecture from someone, I'd go and watch political debates.
If Purvis and Wade are "lost" (as if that's something new) with how to write a "Bond film" in a "world where Trump is president", then what's stopping them from declining the offer to pen a new Bond film? Adapt or go home.
I wonder if Maibaum would've been fried at the stake for saying something similar at this time, or during Nixon's day?