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
Agreed, too. Thankfully, this misses the entire point of the suit discussion: does he look good in the suits? Yes, I don't believe anyone is contesting that. However, are the suits way too tight for a secret agent involved in lots of physical activity? Yes, they are. That's the point I (and several others) have tried to make. His suits are simply unrealistically tight in SP.
I think I like the QoS suits the most. The best of both worlds for the fittings, and the color palettes are not expected, but have very earthy tones, like they were inspired by the periodic table of elements, almost to reflect Bond's put-on metallic, cold demeanor in some scenes (the blues, grays and blacks), or the dusty desert-like environments he finds himself in throughout (the browns). The colors are muted, not too strong, and really make Dan pop, especially his blue eyes. Great work by all involved. Just another reason to appreciate this film.
I'm not a 'suit guy' but in my ignorant opinion Bond's suits looked best to ME in TND & QOS.
Totally agree. SF was a massive step backward IMO, although I did quite enjoy SP. I am not sad to see the back of Mendes.
Nice that EON is generally aiming higher with directors, cinematographers, composers etc but for me Mendes didn't really ever understand Bond. Obviously that sounds absurd given the commercial success and rave reviews for both his films (at least in the UK) but I felt SF missed the mark badly and SP was a good pastiche
Ummm... how hard is it to PAY Campbell to do another-? Or Nolan?
Hell, get Forster again!
I think it stands up well. A shame about some of the pointless action and unnecessary GF homage, but still a lot to like.
QoS has its fair share of problems but it's a cracking Bond film that brings a freshness and a Flemingesque excitement that we havn't seen since then.
I too tried to watch SP yesterday, and couldn't get through it fully. Sad really.
I've had the same issue watching SP as well. Only been able to get through it the one time on Blu-ray, and that took some work.
QoS, on the other hand, is an easy watch. One of the best films in the franchise, for my money anyway.
Which Mendes also surely was referencing in SP when they get picked up by the Rolls?
Yeah, the lack of romance hurts it from what's expected and you're right, I think it's biggest flaw was being a direct followup to CR that was also very different. That being said, even though there are glaring differences between the 2 films, there's an underlying Craig current in both that captures the same essence that for me, was absent in SF and QoS. The funny thing is, CR and QoS actually makes me feel cheerful and I feel a sense of comfort with them that I don't get at all with the last 2 movies.
In a way, QOS was doomed to disappoint, following CR.
That is an interesting comparison. I find CR superior to QOS, but that does not detract me for enjoying QOS on its own, in spite of its flaws.
It doesn't have nothing like my little finger or the shameless product placement, I put CR quite a bit above it but dialogue I think QOS is Craig's best.
I prefer SF to it as well but the problems with QOS, the editing, the length etc make it no. 3 in DC's films for me but it's so much better than generic tick the list Craig Bond.
I get the impression it's all the Brosnan fans that seem to love SP and it's no surprise, it's not as bad as DAD, TWINE or DAD but it shares more with Brozzers era than it does the previous 3 Craig films.
As good as the SP PTS is it's the worst of all Craig's still.
=))
That is very unusual. May I ask why?
I find SP very re-watchable and the 2 and a half hour runtime just flies by.
In fact I find all of Craig's films work well on repeated viewing.
QoS the most!
I'm aware some of you almost slavishly love almost every entry with some exceptions but I'm not one of them.
You could also explain what is so side splittingly funny about your comment, forgive me but I sometimes forget you are older than me with the continuous use of emoticons.
I personally would gladly put them in room 101, I really can't stand them, it just goes to show how dumbed down we've become as a species.
They are plenty of things about how we currently communicate as a species that show how we have degenerated into a lesser form of what we were before. Like how some use every opportunity they can in their speech to complain about the same things (like the 24th film in a series, for instance) time and nauseating time again, or how others can't stand the "slavish" opinions of others that don't match their own to the point that they seem to take it as an offense on their character, responding to further comments with pompous abandon.
Life is futile, progress is unprogressive and meaning is the rusted and faulty mechanism of humanity's scrambling to understand that which has no explanation. But hey, at least we have emoticons! Join hands as our species continues its journey to annihilation!
:)] ;)) :)>- :)) :) :(|) :(( :( ;) :D ;;) >:D< :-/ :x :\"> :P <:-P :-* =(( :-O :O) X( X( :> B-) :-S #:-S #:-S >:) :| /:) =)) O:-) :-B =; I-) 8-| L-) :-& :-$ [-( 8-} (:| =P~ :-?? :-? #-o =D> :-SS @-) :^o :-w :-< >:P :@) 3:-O ~:> ~O) *-:) 8-X >-) :-L [-O< $-) :-\" b-( [-X \:D/ >:/ :-@ ^:)^ :-j :-c ~X( :-h :-t :-t 8-> %-( :o3 X_X :!! \m/ :-q :-bd ^#(^ :bz :ar! :)] ;)) :)>- :)) :) :(|) :(( :( ;) :D ;;) >:D< :-/ :x :\"> :P <:-P :-* =(( :-O :O) X( X( :> B-) :-S #:-S #:-S >:) :| /:) =)) O:-) :-B =; I-) 8-| L-) :-& :-$ [-( 8-} (:| =P~ :-?? :-? #-o =D> :-SS @-) :^o :-w :-< >:P :@) 3:-O ~:> ~O) *-:) 8-X >-) :-L [-O< $-) :-\" b-( [-X \:D/ >:/ :-@ ^:)^ :-j :-c ~X( :-h :-t :-t 8-> %-( :o3 X_X :!! \m/ :-q :-bd ^#(^ :bz :ar! :)] ;)) :)>- :)) :) :(|) :(( :( ;) :D ;;) >:D< :-/ :x :\"> :P <:-P :-* =(( :-O :O) X( X( :> B-) :-S #:-S #:-S >:) :| /:) =)) O:-) :-B =; I-) 8-| L-) :-& :-$ [-( 8-} (:| =P~ :-?? :-? #-o =D> :-SS @-) :^o :-w :-< >:P :@) 3:-O ~:> ~O) *-:) 8-X >-) :-L [-O< $-) :-\" b-( [-X \:D/ >:/ :-@ ^:)^ :-j :-c ~X( :-h :-t :-t 8-> %-( :o3 X_X :!! \m/ :-q :-bd ^#(^ :bz :ar!