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
The SF type standalone would be nice though, especially if they end it on a high and victorious note. If we are going to have a complete changeover with B26 then a positive and uplifting film in the classic Bond film tradition would be a great stop gap feature to whet appetites for what will come in the future.
I think they thought they were making that with SP, but it was a botched effort.
I agree 100%, for SF it would have been just as effective, if not more so, if they had used the disillusioned, disenchanted angle with Bond feeling abandoned by M and MI-6 rather than the "old" card.
As you say, TV is a completely different landscape now from what it was as recently as 6-7 years ago. With series like Game of Thrones far surpassing much of what makes it to the big screen in terms of writing, performance, and overall quality, no name is too large for television these days.
Hoo boy, you missed some fun a few pages back with peeps insisting Spectre Part 2 is the only way Eon can continue from here. Let's not get on that merry-go-round again.
As you say, they've spent their washed-up Bond round for better or for worse. But there are any number of directions they can go. Simply delivering an "angle-free" standalone adventure as one might have expected in the aftermath of QOS, with a rousing Bondian score to boot, might even be the best way to tie things full-circle for Craig's Bond at this point.
What have they done? I've heard of them, but don't really know any films offhand.
That sounds great!
@Mendes4Lyfe, you're doing that thing again. I know many here don't want to bother pointing it out to avoid coming off a bastard, but I must on principle. Please tell me you see the overwhelming irony in someone like you calling a bunch of people (like me) who judge Dan's return by a series of connected strings of supported and verbal information full of it, when you yourself have believed for a year plus that Turner will be the next Bond simply because some rich people bet on him a little last May?
You talk of logical thought and the importance of paying attention to fact, when you have fallen for the tabloid bullshit more than anyone I've seen post on here and have created a fantasy that exists only in your mind where Turner is the pre-destined Bond to redeem them all. For those of us in the camp that see Dan returning, we have a lot to support our view. In just the past few months Dan has called the Bond job the best one he has ever had and one he would miss if he passed it on to another (always referring to it in the present tense and not past), referred to SP's ending as a "to be continued" one that implies a follow-up, has worked with Barbara on another creative project (as they did in the lead-up to SP) where talk of the next film would only inevitably come up, he's had visits with the big brands behind his Bond including Omega and a clothier that has suited him for the films before in the last few weeks, and he has made no plans in his schedule beyond his shooting in the middle of this year, which he wouldn't choose to do if he was past Bond and onto other career opportunities.
What do you have to support your view that Turner is the next Bond, though? Bookie reports? Right... Yet you hate on Hiddleston as a Bond choice and call his possible casting bullshit when there was at least a report he'd met with EON (it being a fake out doesn't matter), which poor old Turner and his fans don't even have to hold on to. I just find it sometimes amusing and always worrying that you read every bit of news that leads to positive and supported speculation that Dan will return as Bond in #25 as a made-up and impossible conspiracy (despite always loving to call EON sneaky, whatever that means), but you will then take a vague comment from someone like @RC7 that has nothing at all to do with Turner's casting and take it as a delusional confirmation that he will in fact be Bond, having the audacity to tell others they aren't seeing things clearly and need to read between the lines. I know you hate the idea of Dan being Bond, but it looks like you're going to have to get used to him being in the role for just a little bit longer. I know that post-Bond 25 (if you're still around these parts after Dan fails you again) you'll continue the same prophetic reporting that Turner is Bond #7 and the return of Connery, but realize that next time around you should use actual supporting data to make your prediction and not random bookie bets propagated by rich fools with more money than sense. The problem is, there won't be anything pointing to Turner being in the role, but I'm sure that won't stop you anyway.
I'm not calling you a fool here, nor do I intend this to come off as that. But you have to realize when you are wearing rose tinted glasses and being delusional and illogical even in the face of evidence that should set you straight. It's okay to like an actor as you do Turner, but to use every opportunity to plug him like you're his publicist while conveniently calling every report naming Dan as the next Bond full of shit and avoiding paying notice to the mounting factors pointing to his part in #25 just gets exhausting to watch at times. I know you probably avoided reading all this as you may've in the past, but I'm just trying to help you out here in adjusting your perceptions and how you form your arguments in favor of a particular outcome while pointing out how you come off to people when you act as you have. I hope I haven't wasted my time.
LOL! Well done.
Now there's a Tiffany Case.
Agree here even though I like spectre and what it started bring back classic bond
I honestly can't think of a modern Bond that felt as vintage as SP at times. People say they want classic Bond back, but I dunno. They got the vintage style and fashion in SP and a return of some formula. They got a film where Bond wasn't miserable or facing trauma in a gigantic emotional arc (the Bond they know and love) and hated that too. I surmise people don't like watching Dan's Bond having a good (or easy) time.
I do like really like casino royale and think its craigs best bond film for me it goes 1st casino then 2nd spectre 3rd skyfall and last quantum of solace
Except there WAS an attempted emotional arc, draining from the film and hurting its cohesiveness. If spectre lacked the badly conceived emotional aspects, namely brothergate, I would have been much happier. B25 should feature craig's bond in a similar, classical, performance to what we got last time except without the bad personal tropes. Also a bit more substance > spectacle. As much as I like classic bond, I prioritize how well its done over whether its classic or a departure. Spectre, for me, is frustratingly a definite mixed bag.
Leave the darn angst on the death bed (or is that torture chamber) with SP.
Exactly! I love the classic elements in SP, and the return to formula. Its problems arose whenever it tried to do something new and subvert the formula (love story, step-brother, etc.). SP also suffered from an anticlimactic ending. May these issues not continue in B25.
He also makes time for moments of levity and has fun with events, jokes with counterparts in a good way that helps business. Then there's humor from the situations and action.
It plays perfectly fine for me. Sometime in the future they'll return to standalone missions, that's good stuff as well.
@RichardTheBruce, you and I seem to be on the same page with all this kind of thing.
I think the true emotional piece of SP was the relationship between White and Madeleine, and how father and daughter failed to reconnect in time, which I thought was well done. I don't understand people saying that there was another "emotional aspect," however. It's quite clear in the movie itself that after Bond finds out Franz is still alive, he's rather indifferent to that aspect of their relationship. Blofeld made up a big delusion in his head that Bond was a rival, but in turn Bond just didn't care about him whatsoever. All Blofeld's talks are incessant whines to Bond, who wants to take him in simply because he's a loon with too much power; he doesn't care about the past or addresses it. You never seen Bond having a dramatic/emotional moment because of the Blofeld story: he remains restrained and lets that bounce off him in the way you'd expect Bond to. So I don't understand the talk of the film being saddled with an emotional moment that falls flat. Bond laughs in Blofeld's face and mocks him instead of falling to his kness, treating the man as a joke as we do.
I also don't know why it took until SP for people to complain about Dan playing a mischievous, frivolous and oft light Bond; in a sense, the classic Bond after Connery. This is the guy who used another man's vehicle to create a diversion to get at a bunch of tapes in CR, and who later smirked at the same man while seeing him at the bar. He's also the guy who purposely entered a card game to prank a man and steal his classic car so he could then screw his wife. The man who pranks Quantum at an opera in the next film and smirks openly while crashing their party, standing smugly at the bottom of a flight of stairs while his enemies come down to meet him, staring at them with a, "You mad?" look on his face. The man who got into long winded verbal pillow fights with Moneypenny that were laced with flirtation and frivolity in SF. Dan's Bond, though he faces earnest moments, has always been that kind of classical 007 best described as a lovable rogue. So when I watch him in SP cockily waving at an armed guard as he stares mindlessly at him or dryly takes the piss out of his enemies unrelentingly, I don't see a stranger. I see a Bond the way he's always been. A misbehaving, bold smart ass. And I love him.
That's a good point. SP likely would have been much better if they had only teased the existence of Blofeld without ever revealing him.
If he's revealed so quickly compared to the Connery films, it's likely designed to play out over Craig's run. And you may suspect how I feel about "Koo-Koo".
"I'm the father of all your pain"
Could have just said quantum was part of SPECTRE and blofeld is a bad guy he doesn't need to have a personal tie to bond
Imagine if they had done this starting with CR. They hint at a large crime organization but what if a line or two had been dropped in alluding to that organizations mysterious leader; then in Quantum a bit more is revealed, perhaps we hear his voice, then again In Skyfall. Or, make that film a stand alone and return to the larger story in SPECTRE and the big reveal of Blofeld.
That wasn't done and you only get on shot at doing it. If Daniel is returning they're in a tough spot to do it in a satisfying manner.
There was no sense in doing that when they weren't close to getting the rights of SPECTRE and Blofeld back at the time of 2006. They just had to tell the stories they could at the time without them. They went as far with Quantum as they could as a modern SPECTRE, and left it open so they could come back. It was only luck that they got the character and organization back in their toolbox after SF, where they were able to finally finish off the Quantum arc once and for all.
They couldn't have done what you suggest without a crystal ball and immunity from litigation via McClory's camp, however.
That's basically what the film does. If we compared the amount of time the story focuses on tying off Quantum through its absorption by SPECTRE and showing Blofeld being an evil bastard to the time the film discusses the past he had with Bond, the latter would be a minuscule value barely worth mentioning. Bond's childhood is mentioned in a minor capacity and Blofeld talks about his early life for a minute during the torture scene and in a throwaway line in the climax. Everything else in the film focuses on showing SPECTRE's power and the control Blofeld has. The film wasn't about the personal tie-in, the importance was what SPECTRE and Blofeld were doing in the here and now.
I think the movie was far more successful than the last time an arc like this was attempted in the 60s with YOLT, the black sheep of the era. SP isn't perfect, but we get a dimensional Blofeld who has an actual character beyond a scar and a cat (nobody remembers Blofeld for who he is as a character, just what he looked like), which is all Pleasence's interpretation had. In the modern film we didn't have a scene where Bond and Blofeld sluggishly stood two feet away from each other with bored looks on their faces, or endless scenes where Bond is held at gun point while Blofeld just stands there and never actually shoots him. In that way, SP already feels superior, because it simply tried to do something. We can debate the success of the effort all day, but a similar attempt isn't felt with YOLT.
The film begins with some flashbacks from SP. Blofeld grinning at Bond, Bond being tortured, such stuff. Bond slowly wakes up. Slowly, we learn that he has been in custody of Blofeld´s people for some time. He´s heavily drugged, and all that happened in SP was in fact a fever dream. Somehow, Bond realises this, and then slowly, hampered by the drugs, he escapes. Same characters from SP, only this time it´s for real.
Or:
The same flashbacks from SP. Bond wakes up with a scream, soaked in sweat. He realises he´s had a very horrible dream, about his stepbrother being his nemesis and such. He´s confused, because he never had a stepbrother. Later, he´s investigating something and meets Christoph Walz in an office. Without thinking, Bond greets him as "Mr Oberhauser", whereupon Walz replies something like, "My name is Blofeld. What can I do for you?" End of PTS. Again, same characters as in SP, only this time for real.
MGM/SONY/SONY ''FOX'' (Casino Royale)
MGM/Sony/FOX (QOS/SF)
MGM/SONY/Universal/FOX (Spectre)
MGM/Warner/Warner
MGM/FOX/Warner/FOX
If Joy is made by Mgm / Annapurna then it is MGM/Annapurna/FOX movie. It is Fox who released the movie in the cinema and BD/DVD. FOX was out for cinema release of Spectre but then on last moment return for BD/Dvd, who close to be released by Sony if there not have returnd.
Fox is very importent for cinema, bd/dvd releases and responsible for features/doc/promotion.
Skyfall and DAD be overated promoted like Warner and Tdkr.
Fox disapointed too last couple of years with making litle ignore The Netherlands. Night at museum 3 and Spectre not get sleeve. Skip sleeve with Ice age 3D release of Ice Age 5 and Kung fu panda 3 are unforgivable for me. Inspecialy because the lack of extras on the animated releases. Also there canceld sleeves with non animated 3D releases, but the two movies i talk about stil have enoug extra's.
This not always said about Warner. By times to much of Disney follower.
Warner wil be bad choose for overrated promotion and and more and more there going to be disapointed. To much focus on digital/ on the hand of anti buyer and negative. Not big fans of soundtracks. There think we speak French. Not think enough in that case. To dark/trend follower in les positive way. I don't whant Nolan. If there going for something then you have them, but get them. Positive thing about them is that there are loyal to the people there working with. Lower budget and respect to some other people in world, if there understand. Downside is that sometimes things must be to cheap for them, box office or tv numbers are to inportent for them.
Lack of extras and dis respect for the buyer i quite with Disney movies. To much of scale to wrong chooses. Example are releases of Cars 2 and Finding Dory. No sleeves any more, removing sleeves/unprotect sleeves so store can remove them or send them back if there demend them, bad chooses of where to at bonus discs, how long or complete ignore them. Then we stil have high prices, moost expensive and not enough of it. To much of trendfollower, same anti model of warner. I whant marvel go to return to paramount. Iam stil happy xmen is from Fox.
Best thing is to stick with Sony and Fox. Means Mgm/Sony/Fox movie. Of course i can be wrong, but i don't think Bond will be a MGM/Annapurna/FOX movie.