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
And to be fair, I'm not sure there's much about NTTD that you couldn't pick up even if you hadn't seen Spectre first. It's pretty obvious that he's left the service and in a relationship with Madeline at the beginning, maybe her ties to Spectre and Blofeld are the only slightly murky things.
Fallout was released only 3 years after Rogue Nation which is where it gets most of the continuity from other than Julia.
The thing about NTTD is that it clearly operates on you already being invested in the Bond/Madeline relationship. If you didn't see Spectre you're out of luck there. There's also the Vesper callback.
It would have been so funny if it was revealed that MI6 ordered the death of all his girlfriends so that he could go back to work.
There you go. Like I said, criticise BB and MGW for their creative decisions if you want (there's much I've disliked myself), but it's silly to claim they haven't changed course nor have the ability to gauge where the series, general audiences and indeed fans are at at any point in time.
Personally, I don't see how any fan can feel that much hate for them, at least not without having the same level of dislike for Cubby and to a lesser extent Saltzman.
Without them we wouldn’t have gotten Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace or Daniel Craig. For what happened after that, whoever was responsible deserves the blame.
3 years is plenty of time to forget, or the person watching may not have seen Rogue Nation at all. My point is that the film is designed to work for people who remember, who have forgotten, or who never saw previous films in the series.
I'd say their track record isn't bad overall. GE and CR are fan favourites. SF is the most financially successful Bond film and amongst general audiences (certainly among people my age anyway) it's a favourite. Critically those films are highly regarded. TND and QOS are nowadays looked back upon increasingly fondly amongst fans, and NTTD, while divisive, has its supporters. And yes, casting Craig was a stroke of genius.
The fact is it's not easy to get every movie right. MGW and BB seem to at least be receptive to criticisms and reflective in how they approach each film. Honestly, for all the hate they get amongst some fans here, there are few others who could do their jobs.
I loved QoS first time I saw it. TND is criminally underrated. I can’t stand TWINE and GE while great, is dreadful at times.
Skyfall might have been successful at the Box Office but I would argue that the ticket sales of the consecutive films suffered because of it and the direction they decided to take with Mendes and whoever the writers were.
those first four have thrilled me and filled me with anticipation for the next film. I have always remained a Bond fan but the thrill like a first kiss or first love is long gone. Since those early years Bond films have been more of a curiosity to me. It's always been a what are they going to do now? For me the series has been uneven and often uninspired. There are a few post Connery films I revisit from time to time. I consider OHMSS and CR the very best, but since TB, the series has never given me the jolt of those first four films. We'll put it down to age.
One reads a lot about attempting to get adults back to the movies. No question the pandemic had and still has a significant impact on movie going elders. For me that is partially responsible, but frankly films have not rung my bell they way they used to. There is very much of a been there, done that aspect to films. For example, as much as I liked the new West Side Story, it hasn't stayed with me like the original. A film that ticks all the boxes is one that I immediately want to see again.
I saw NTTD twice, and while I liked the film, I was neither stirred nor shaken. There was no thrilling and new. It was just another Bond film. Going forward, I realize the filmmakers aren't going to be able to please everyone. I am no longer their demographic. That's okay. Because I don't think sixty years on the franchise can recapture what it once was. As the filmmakers work to reinvent the series, I wonder if they'll be able to thrill a new generation of Bond goers as those of us who where on hand to see the first one?
I would say it helps enhance some of the emotional beats but from a basic narrative point-of-view, you can go in cold and still enjoy it.
What did you find disappointing about YOLT? Was it generally considered a step down from TB?
I can relate to your sentiment, despite being much much younger, but I think you are too defeatist. The right writer/director/actor should be able to tick all your boxes, but it is up to the producers to be convinced or take that leap of faith.
Many new films lack the bombasticism of the old days, where large spacious locations, static macro cinematography and big band orchestras made everything feel more extravagant. Sean Connery was a very grounded and subtle actor for those times when other leading actors were much more emotive.
I feel like a strong director should be able to capture that classic feeling while still remaining contemporary.
I think a large soirée at a castle/mansion, some stealth action, reusing the classic bond theme, a diving/underwater scene, some gambling and a suspenseful unveiling of a masterfully knitted plot that ignores (or only hints at) Bond’s personal canon, with carefully constructed dialogue, I think your juices would be flowing again.
With a diverse cast, not just in terms of ethnicity, but also body shapes, beauty, ages, lots of extras and a well cast protagonist and antagonist..
I think we both would be excited.
I’d skip the villain’s lair, and the cartoony henchman. It worked very well in CR. I would however consider making the fighting a bit more choreographed and bond a bit more cold and ruthless with the gun, i.e less full on shootouts and more cold blooded murders.
It would be interesting with a villain who turns good towards the end to defeat a bigger foe. And Bond fawning over monneypenny for a change, after which she files him for sexual harassment.
It's not very good, I must warn you. It has its merits and there are things to love about it, but the new film surpasses it in almost every way.
I’m not suggesting that OHMSS be the norm, but I think it’s utter BS to suggest the filmmakers aren’t allowed to be as iconoclastic with Bond as Fleming was. If OHMSS is the only time Bond films can have a downer ending, that it can’t just be a rare occasion that happens every 50 years or so, then then you make Bond films creatively boring. I rather the filmmakers take chances with Bond than stick to a formula with zero variation.
Exceptions can be made. As it was with OHMSS, unless there’s folks here that can counter that by claiming they walked out of the cinema with the immediate reaction being “that was a jolly good time!” while the end credits showed an image of the bullet hole on the windshield.
I mean, even if they'd have stuck the Bond theme at the end and rejigged a few things here it might have had a different impact emotionally... I dunno, these things are subjective after all.
I'm so tired of the Bond theme at the end of every film.
I think a cover of We Have All The Time in the World by Billie Eilish would have worked (although impossible to market without spoiling the ending).
Maybe if they'd just stuck with a brief instrumental until the end and then did the Bond theme for the credits? Again, there's something just so solemn and weird about coming out of the cinema to that song.
It was a step down for me. I've never liked the Bond in space business: rockets, satellites, etc. Blofeld seemed silly to me. The film felt cartoonish to me in a way the previous outings had not. The source material was far more interesting.