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
I agree with your first point, but I find the idea US audiences are any more discerning than ROW difficult to accept. They still fork out big money for stuff like Transformers and the Furious films. They'll always spend more on US films than international, which is fair enough.
I've said before that SP comes across very cold. To me it has a distinctly European aesthetic. More suppressed. It's in the characters as much as it is in the ambience.
SF was the opposite. All heat and bombast. Bursting with charisma.
Yeah, I can maybe see that. Do you think the emotional thrust (for want of a better phrase) in SF played a big part?
His anger and resentment towards M (and the brilliant way Bardem captured that) along with her quest for survival definitely played a huge part in why the film resonated imho. So if that's what you mean by emotional thrust, then yes.
It didn't hurt that it looked gorgeous.
The SP experience appears to have been miserable for most of the creative principals. Mendes arrived with zero game, Craig injured himself and endured the majority of the shoot in pain, Waltz couldn't get a sighter on Blofeld, the writers conspired to throw their hands in the air and abandon all pretense of quality in the third act.
Most importantly of all, the entire film was at great pains to connect narrative tissue between all of Craig's previous efforts. It was clearly designed to cap his tenure off with a resounding, satisfying conclusion. As we know full well, it didn't.
Yes, it scored heavily at the worldwide box office. But you do not need to be an industry analyst to see that much of that turn-out was built on the goodwill that Skyfall generated. SF resonated with girlfriends, wives, generalist audiences who only interact with the brand in an incidental fashion. If the product appeals, it will be consumed.
I think EON are under no illusions that SP eroded much of that goodwill. Not that it was bad - there are many individual elements to recommend it, not least is the high production sheen we have come to expect and treasure. SP was simply inert - there was nothing for generalist audiences to take away and think "Yes, I'll be on the lookout for the next one."
The error lay in looking backwards. Trying to make sense of what had come before at the expense of telling a gripping story in an exotic world.
Everything we have seen (or not seen) since SP was released points toward a re-evaluation. First, a long period of radio silence. Then, P&W came out and said that B25 will be a departure. Finally, Craig's apparent hesitation.
My opinion, and I base this only on speculation, is that Daniel Craig planned for SP to be a 'get-out' if it proved to be successful. A parachute. When the box office rolled in, everything started off well. He may have known about various problems with distributors or with MGM, etc, and felt like it might be time.
But then the ambiguous reviews began to mount. The on-set experience remained a bitter memory. He knew they'd botched the narrative in SP. The critics certainly knew it. Over time, once the cinema lights dimmed, the fans knew it too.
So DC wondered how he could make things work again, like they did in CR and SF. He, more than most actors, seems to take great, great pride in his contribution to each and every Bond film. "Don't be shit," is his advice to any prospective Bond. It isn't arrogance, its respect and perfectionism.
Then he begins his regular conversations with P&W.
"We need to break away, lads. I'm thinking about another one. But I need to step away from the shit we've created. Help me do that."
In isolation, of course it is tempting to assume that the narrative strand that everyone has been waiting for - the rise of Blofeld - was set up to continue in SP. I'm not so sure. As M intoned with suitable gravity in that film, it's about knowing when not to pull the trigger. Bond faced off against a very personal adversary and won. Yes, you could argue the spectacle was mishandled, or that Waltz wasn't given enough to do, but the fact remains that he is incarcerated and Bond has overcome the itchy trigger finger that hounded him throughout DC's other movies.
Waltz probably deserves another go, and there may even be a contract, but I don't think it'll be triggered. I don't think Swann will be back either. Bond wasn't leaving MI6, he was simply concluding his story in a manner we have seen in almost every Bond film - with a bit of R&R.
I think that the (admittedly scant) evidence we have points to a confident, brassy standalone for Daniel Craig's last mission. He's served his arc and done it well. It's time to sever all the links that are holding him back.
Naturally, the Scoobs will return. They are bedrock, as evidenced by 20 other Bond films.
But Spectre is dead.
Yeah...I wrote that hastily and wanted to do something other than kill her. Have her kidnapped for the duration of the film?
Still they I've a tough job with this film cleaning up the mess from SPECTRE (God I even hate the title).
Perhaps the fact that we have a trend with Craig's films in the general concensus that CR great QOS (which I personally love) bad SF great SP bad that this one will be great too?
Neither am I, but they need to do something against the way the franchise is perceived by younger people. 00Dour is not the way to go, if they want to keep them aboard (and they jolly well should, since not only espionage is a young men's game, but going to the movie theater is as well).
Not your average opinion, I know, but I find Craig in Skyfall to be slightly dull, stiff, disengaged, as if in every scene, his mind (Bond's mind) was somewhere else. The film reflects that. It has plenty of interesting, even fascinating scenes and moments, but it doesn't come together as a satisfying experience. It's Skyfall that feels cold to me, instead of Spectre. Obviously, audiences didn't feel that way or they just didn't evaluate the film in those terms.
Quantum of Solace had a similar reception to Spectre. Would you say it had less passion and grit than Skyfall? I wouldn't, and I'm not particularly crazy about the movie. It's a dark, though energetic and well made film, except for the action scenes.
While I'm cool with the idea of analyzing the reasons behind a film's success or failure, I'm not convinced by this particular line of thinking.
Bond #25 is definately going to be the most standalone Bond film of the Craig-era. But that doesn't mean it can't have a few noteworthy references to Craig's previous four outings.
With QoS, I just remember it suffering in comparison to CR. There were a lot of Bourne rip-off comments, especially since it followed The Bourne Ultimatum which was a massive hit in the prior year. I wouldn't say that the characters in this film would necessarily be expected to resonate with North American audiences either. Again they are more European in flavour imho, particularly Greene.
I'm perhaps not using the right words to explain it and it's not easy to explain really. I think North American audiences need clear motivation for the antagonist's behaviour and it must be simple to understand. Revenge is passionate, and it's easy to relate to. The character must sell it though. Not necessarily flamboyantly, but convincingly. That came across in SF (Bardem nailed it), but it's not there in QoS or SP which are more subtle and opaque when it comes to rationale. Greene was just a cog in QoS and there was nothing else to hold onto (unlike Vesper/Bond in CR).
On a related note, I personally think Craig has been a very inaccessible Bond since CR. In the first film, we really got to know him in character. He had a spark. Since then he's been somewhat closed off as a persona because the scripts haven't permitted him to reveal himself as much.
I don't they were pandering to the U.S. They were trying to cut costs and the U.S. location was relatively close to the Mexico home base for the production.
Fan desire to see "The Blofeld Trilogy" finally done.
The title will be a hallmark to James Bond & a statement on the character as opposed to a location or organization.
Will most likely have a budget at around 200 million.
the film wont revolve solely on Blofeld & Spectre.
Theyll do something that hasnt been done before, the thought of Bond training a new 00 comes to mind.
will be set a few years after SP & the rebuild of MI6 will be part of the plot or mentioned.
Craig will bring his full game this time around on par to CR,
Craigs final scene as James Bond will bring the character full circle.
Of all your predications—not saying the others aren't good too—this I think is the likeliest. We saw them flash forward quite a ways from QOS to SF. I feel very certain we will jump forward a number of years from SP to B25.
Nice way to bring DC full circle.
-Title will be one of the few remaining Fleming titles left.
-Madeleine will not appear.
-The film will be the darkest of Craig's run, and veer away from SP's lighter tone.
-The ending will be FITTING... not happy or sad necessarily.
-Ralph Fiennes, Naoime Harris, Ben Whishaw, and Rory Kinnear all return.
Would that mean closing on the gunbarrel? ;)
They'll want it to swagger.
He just wasn't given any help by Mendes in SP. The arty, ponderous style was anti-swagger which is why it seemed odd in context.
Thats actually not a bad idea. They should end it with him saying bond...James bond then shooting a guy and going into the gunbarrel.
Ooo Im just getting so giddy and excited thinking about how good this film could be.
They better not cock this up.
I'd dig that.