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
Except that the problem with that is that she was risking the lifes of EVERYONE ELSE IN THE BUILDING as well as her own.In fact several people were killed during Silvas attack and probably everybody would have been killed had Bond not turned up.M should have called a halt to the enquiry, and ordered a full security alert/lockdown.
It was a major MAJOR screw up on her part and another reason that i was actually glad she died in the end.
I suppose she was prepared to take that risk, plus she didn't know Silva was as near as he was.
Fully agreed. I think some people are clouded by the notion of Box Office, Oscar winning directors/actors etc. CR was genuinely innovative and refreshed the franchise. SF tried to be innovative and then covered it's arse by including stuff like the GF DB5, rather than the cleverly reworked personal one introduced in CR.
We're also talking about the general impact the movies had with the general movie audience, the people who one can call "the silent majority". Among those people I think there's enough proof to say that SF had a bigger impact than CR.
And that has not much to do with how "game changing" CR was: it was a game changer. Creatively, cinematically, and it was especially a game changer among Bond fans. But among general movie audiences, among the "silent majority" SF resonated more I think.
Now we generally talk very dismissive about the box office succes. But one can not deny that part of the success is linked to how much audiences liked the film. It's not just a marketing calculation. Personal taste is very subjective, but I think that's part of its (box office) succes.
It resonated more because of the simple fact that QoS to all extents and purposes didn't. It was a zeitgeist movie. I don't think anyone would deny these things. CR was burdened with a Bond 'destined to fail', SF was afforded the appreciation Craig had already garnered. Mendes added the Oscar stardust. The Olympics provided the worldwide catalyst. Bardem added the heavyweight enigma. All the marketable elements were in place. SF did wonders and I hope they go ahead and take advantage of this with SP. But when it comes down to the movie, irrespective of external factors, CR has not been topped in this era, yet, and that will become more apparent as time goes by.
I dodn't think so. "SF" had some slight references to "QOS" and "CR". And especially the serious tone was present in SF as well. But on the whole SF felt way more "stand alone". Also story-wise it distanced itself more from its two predecessors. Similar to how GF distanced itself from its two predecessors DN and FRWL.
Again this is just your personal opinion and your wishful thinking because you have more time for CR but SF is what the silent majority will look to.
The general public will likely waiting for more of SF, I doubt they'd remember the events of CR, SF has set out the stall for the series now, it's just your dislike that wants to deny this.
I'm not even suggesting it's the best Bond film ever and I love it with no misgivings or not acknowledging it's flaws. I'm aware it's plot has some sizable holes but I thought the dialogue was the strongest of the Craig era and Bardem made the most memorable (not my favourite, that's still Mads) of the Craig era.
I agree with this completely, and I am a big fan of SF. I just don't think it should be seen as a redefining film. Just a popular one that benefited from CR's redefinition of Bond. The fact that QoS was a bit of a disappointment to some of the general public after CR actually helped SF imo, as did all the buzz etc. for the Olympics.
Yes, that's true that SF feels a little more standalone now (although one has to see if SP ties anything in or not). It does have at present a similar feeling to GF in that it appears standalone of sorts, but I don't think it's a redefining piece (and keep in mind I like it very much as a movie. I've said before that it has great dialogue and characters etc. but I don't think it will be looked back on as being as impactful as GF was for instance......just contemporary and popular with the public without being overblown like DAD. I'll put it in the same league with GE, in terms of its resonance over time with the general public - if not in the same league in terms of box office).
Outwitting computers. Who doesn't hate their computers at work constantly needing babysitting & telling us what to do...
Re-affirming that people matter more than technology. See above.
Killing a main character. There's a reason Star Trek II is remembered.
These reasons gave it good word of mouth, as well as other points @RC7 made.
Liking a Bond movie even though it's poorly structured or written is something we all do here & there. You like SF- I like TMWTGG.
:))
I don't even dislike SF. Similar to @bondjames I have actively commended it: you'll find many a thread where I've sung it's praises. I can see both sides of the coin. I've no agenda. I'm discussing negative elements,
I note you also made a comment recently about those 'in the industry' and those who aren't. As if that qualified their opinion. For the record I'm in the industry and I've filmed at Pinewood numerous times, but I don't hold my opinion above those who aren't and in all honesty a lot of armchair fans have equally valid opinions and at times better instincts.
Ha ha...for a moment, I thought you were referring to him pulling Vesper out of the water in Venice. It took me a moment to realize you were talking about the bathing suit. BTW, he didn't "come out of the water" in that scene. He stood up in it. ;-)
And well, find me anyone here who prefer SF's Patrice fall to SF trailer's Patrice fall :)
As far as I remember, Bond told Q to tell Tanner to tell M that Silva escaped ;) She was aware. Having said that I don't share the same criticism of the decisions made as AstonLotus.
Whole heartedly agree.... CR really flipped the script (as they say) and not only changed the way Bond films were made, but also the way they were perceived by the audience - and they accomplished it within the first 3 minutes, immediately you knew what you were in for from now on, and it was something very different from recent years - and quite possibly something we haven't seen for 40 years..... SF built it's success off the ground work already laid down by CR..
Agreed with this as well... as times changes, so do people and their sensibilities... Craig and his Bond + Bond films are perfect for this time and place, just like how every Bond who came before him were perfect fits for their time... 10 - 15 - 20 years from now, moods and attitudes will probably change and people will probably want something a bit different.... but until then, they'll ride this wave (not a CGI one lol) as long as they draw, and as long as the films are still well received..
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/a-few-things-best-to-forget-about-the-first-3-007-films/
Kinda like GW Bush continuing with reading My Pet Goat, while knowing the nation is "under attack?" ;)
People in very high positions of power have very difficult decisions to make. This is why M has agents; she new it would be best that everyone keep calm and carry on, and let her capable agents pursue and contain the threat.
In any case, SF just doesn't quite work for me as a James Bond film, in fact I find it the most overrated Bond movie of them all. It's style & cinematography are amongst the very best (though not a patch on OHMSS or QoS) in the series - but for me, in terms of rating, it sits somewhere around 10th place...
I think SF is the only Bond movie ever rated "the most overrated movie of all time" by a journalist in the mainstream media. And, well, currently, a majority of thousands of users of IMDB agree with a one-star rating for it. So I don't think it is a "small fan circles" only.
I think SF's place in the Bond franchise will depend a lot of SPECTRE in the end. I think DAD is perceived to be a low-low also because CR was so good. And the other way around. People didn't expect CR.
it should be the most overrated Bond, as for Mendes he is somewhat overrated for me as well. Just not a big fan of his work.
Ha! Ha! Ha! The same '' capable agents '' who shoot their own comrades and not the target then forget to actually shoot again therefore hitting the target, the same '' capable agents '' who allowed a hard drive with vitally important info to be stolen, the same '' capable agents '' who allowed an unarmed prisoner to overcome them while they themselves are heavily armed, the same '' capable agents '' who plug the computer of a dangerous computer hacker into their main network without checking if its safe to do so (etc).