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
Yeah, let's just make the same shit over and over. I'd rather have original TV that failed, if the creative intention to produce unique content is there. You have to take risks to find gems. Otherwise you're left with a tonne of safe, uninspired programming.
Was it any better 20,30, 40 years ago? With Planet of the Apes TV series, Logan's Run TV series, and even many "original" TV series that were neither original nor good? We often remember the best of the past, not its worse.
As for cinema, I know there will be more rubbish adaptations of Dracula. But there is more chances we adapt the novel right if there are adaptations than none at all.
Shame, well better 3 seasons than just one.
Yup , Hannibal is my favorite series
Oh I hope they don't give us a freakin' cliffhanger but end it properly!
He did say that if the third season is the last , He is comfortable with the way it ends
Yes. I was merely pointing out that the plot device didn't sart with Nolan...likely didn't start in Seven, either. Seems there was a Hawaii Five-O episode in te 70s that used this sort of twist. But you're right: after TDK, there were three big-budget films that used this, and it was quickly cliche. However, all three were in production at roughly the same time...were the screenwriters even aware of the plot twists in the other two films? Probably not.
Amen! I have never came across a Bond movie that went out of its way to be so pretentious and at the same time, filled with so many plot holes. I would complain about the inconsistent misogyny, but I've seen the same in "GOLDFINGER" and Moore's first two films.
The only things about "DIE ANOTHER DAY" that I truly disliked were the bad dialogue, the surfing scene in the beginning and Iceland. But I would still rather watch it than "SKYFALL" or "GOLDFINGER".
Skyfall still baffles me with its positivity by most. Aside from Craig and Bardem, its a struggle to enjoy!
Plus it just looks fantastic. I can still remember my disbelief in the theatre in 2012 that a James Bond film looked fresher, crisper and more dynamic than all the other films that came out that year (which included heavy hitters like Avengers & TDK). The score sounded fresh too because we had a new composer after many years.
I prefer the term, enriching, but I digress. The commentary on duty, sacrifice, matriarchy, imperialism, old/new, technological/classical, age, time and endurance were right up my alley.
I feel people use the word "pretentious" far too erroneously at times, by the way. It's okay if none of these themes did it for some of you, but they are highly visible in the film and open to analysis. SF uses allusions from literature, art and real world society to paint its vision, and for my money, never tries to be anything that it isn't. Each element, from the paintings in the art gallery to the statue on Silva's island recalling Percy Shelley's Ozymandias and crumbling empires like Britain are put to sterling use and reflect the ongoing themes of the movie in their symbolism. Mendes and co. knew what film they were making, and never once put anything onscreen just to impress the masses with how worldly they were. Every shot and object in the camera frame speaks to their vision in some way, shape or form. That's not pretentious, that's art. Some people act like SF was directed by David Lynch or something.
This same effective use of allusion and thematic material is found in SP too, though it's less visible on the surface, which increases the fun of looking for connections as you dig into it. With the way it's been received in some circles, however, I fear people will continue to write it off and miss all the deep and enriching details in contains, as has happened with QoS. And that's a damn shame.
I completely agree with you.
You know, back in the 1960's people were not used to go dramatically off-course from the Bond formula. "OHMSS" is a given proof of that. Though as of today it has become some kind of cult-classic for that reason.
When looking at the locations (snow), "OHMSS" is not so comparable with "SF". But both films are so 'un-Bond-ian' for the timeframe they were produced. They both have a high focus on characterization and drama.
Funny thing is though, that the Craig-era has got two of such 'un-Bond-ian' films: "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale". They both are magnificent.
In this case, yes. It was self-reflective. Silva has MI6, Bond, Q (and everyone else) afraid of everything and anything because of ... mostly mere suggestion. You have to dive into the script (which is brilliant, not shoddy) and find the clues. They're all there. Silva doesn't control MI6 like puppets; they do it to themselves because of what they fear, not because of what is real. Silva is a master manipulator, and this manipulation is so successful that even we, the audience, are feeling its effects. It's a master stroke of screenwriting--in a post 9/11, post WikiLeaks world.
So if OHMSS and SF are my 1 and 2 in the rankings, does that mean that I am not actually a Bond fan (if that makes sense?)
Yes, you can describe the entire villain's plot, and explain how Silva bribed several Metropolitan policemen....and how he got those bombs to create terror in the London Underground. But the very absence of those explanations -which is the very same reason there are plot holes-, gave the character of Silva more gravita. There seemed to be way more at stake 'all of a sudden', which then works much better in the 'character department'.
This is how Sam Mendes always worked by the way. And he has this kind of quality to focus on that. He wants to tell the story with characters....much more than previous Bond directors, who were telling the story a bit more with narration and plot. Many Bond fans therefore dislike Sam Mendes, because they can only see the plot holes (from "SF" and "SP"). But I think it completely worked. By doing so there's also an underlying message/theme in his films. His two Bond films included.
It was great to have Sam Mendes as a Bond director.
Very well said. The visuals, characters, and mixture of old/new Bond help make it one of my favorites. When I first saw it in the theaters it was as highly ranked as #2 in my list, and though it has dropped to 5, I still enjoy it almost as much today. Many are quick to call it overrated and not so great, but I do think in retrospect many will look upon it positively.