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
Though we so easily we forget that no other Bond has had to deal with this one factor like DC has, the internet. Connery for one is quite a miserable fellow and can be quite cantankerous in reality and Roger RIP love the guy but if he had to contend with this element, even Dalton or Brosnan I imagine wouldn't have fared much better.
Let's face is there another role in the history of cinema that gets as much attention as Bond, it's unique entirely as numerous people have played the role. So factor that in that there is an expectation of the next guy, everyone and his dog whether they are Bond fans will have their say.
OK everyone since Lazenby has had that, as Sean was an unknown quantity nothing to compare to accept Fleming's written word but not really a visual aspect to compete with. Connery has remained the benchmark that all that have followed are measured by.
Then we add the fact that Daniel has been the very first bonafide internet Bond, Brosnan was in the role when the internet was around but nowhere in the intense presence it is now. Craig had to endure an internet campaign wanting him removed and then ever since he's dealt with far more intrusions than any other actor in the role, as the internet allows you nowhere to hide.
So we'll see if Turner, Cavill or whoever gets the role next will handle these factor as well as the weight of taking on the most significant film character in cinematic history, these guys haven't got a clue what is coming.
So before we start kicking DC and some people's posts on here are about as subtle as a sledgehammer when it comes to their contempt for the man. Also, numerous threads are getting infected by the next guy opinion and certain member can't but help but keep going on about certain possibilities in every thread. I sometimes wonder if Cavill's or Turner's publicity agents are on MI6 in various guises.
We'll see if they can stay cool and calm under pressure, deal with the intrusion that will most definitely come their way. Some of you are so wrapped up in getting rid of DC to the point that some want Bond 25 to fail, so they can say I told you so. Someone is almost screaming it in his posts with no real disguise to their objective.
Totally forgetting that the horse they are backing has no real form or experience of what is coming. Previous supposed possibility Idris Elba was recently interviewed in UK publication the Radio Times. He was most guarded about his private life not unlike DC is when interviewed. I could see a situation where Elba would have possibly lost it with a role like Bond to deal with and as for Turner and Cavill they haven't got a clue about what would be coming their way.
We'll see if the next Bond doesn't have a melt down or doesn't say something unsavoury when they are in the spotlight.
It's going to be an interesting time watching the next actor in the role, although I think some of your idealized wishes about the next candidate are going to get blown out of the water when a newbie steps into the role.
There is no comparison, doesn't matter if you are De Niro, Pacino or whoever only the actors that have played the role know how it feels and I would argue DC has had more pressure than any of them, the next guy is likely to be the same or worse.
Huh. That made a lot of sense.
Cue the firing squad. You better run, @Shardlake!
All joking aside, this is an interesting post making many valid points. I applaud your logic and reason. I think we've all seen the negativity swirl about DC recently, and it seems to spread to a contained few (they say the same things over and over-- they don't even vary the way they express themselves!; their cohorts chime in with "agreed" and "great point" even though they've heard these same words, spoken by the same person, many times over); what you've done here is state some cold truths about the role (and it's special status), and how DC is the first one to encounter the wrath of the internet.
Over all, DC's done a great job-- on set and off. If he's not your cup of tea, then so be it. However, I think it was @RC7 who pointed out that some of these haters obviously don't understand DC's sarcastic humour (and I would add, or choose not to so they can keep up "controversy")...
Thanks for the post @Shardlake .
Shardlake's perspective is far more interesting since, although he has a dislike that matches anyone re: SP, he doesn't weigh the future of the next film, nor the continuation of the franchise, on one misfire; his optimism for the next film is palpable yet realistic -- he loves this franchise, the Golden Era and three out of four DC films. He's not doom and gloom but seems to understand the big picture: this series has gone through ebbs and flows, highs and lows, and always responds with a correction.
From my understanding, Shardlake didn't like the PB era, but is not disrespectful of it, nor the producers (like some are today-- because of one or two films they don't like). It just wasn't his "thing", but never led him to the ledge, so to speak...
This is quite an admirable stance and a respectful one. And it shows a perspective that's mature and "big picture"-- one film does not a franchise make.
We could all learn from @Shardlake's last post, if only to stop the theatrics of negativity.
As a side note: one of my favourite words is hyperbole. Baz and Deadline were not writing hyperbole...
Hyperbole is a statement of exaggeration to make a point, like: I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
What Baz and DL were reporting were snippets that leaked to them and they reported (but not before @ColonelSun).
I agree with @DrClatterhand's point on the previous page about levity. I'd like to see more of that but not to the point that it overwhelms or becomes silly. It's a question of balance for me, and the way it's injected and written impacts how I experience it. A slightly less serious tone overall would be nice.
I'd like to see some snappier dialogue with a bit of nuanced innuendo, which I really enjoyed in the earlier films (something like the exchange between Kerim and Bond about how Tanya was taking advantage of him. Another example is the famous scene between Bond and Tanya in bed).
I'd like to see Bond challenge a villain or subordinate verbally and psychologically. Think of the Dent, Taro or Marguerite exchanges in DN. I always love watching those.
I'd also prefer just one or two locations (outside of London) at most and a more immersive experience in each one. Something where we can experience it like a local. Japan in YOLT comes to mind. I'd like some architectural landmarks or festivals being shown as well.
I want to learn something cultural in a Bond film. Even if it's just one little snippet of information, I'll be happy. Like the sake temperature comment in YOLT, the fish with red wine comment in FRWL or the Sherry scene in DAF. I love those little moments and learned from them as a kid.
I'd like to see less obvious CGI in the films going forward. I've not been happy with the way the computer effects have become more apparent since QoS, which is where I first noticed it after DAD (CR was seamless, but that was only one film).
Regarding MP & Q, I'm neither here nor there. I don't think they're essential, but if they're to remain, then keep them in the office.
I'd of course prefer standalone films and would like more plot driven narratives.
I personally think Bond works best as a sort of cipher, and perhaps they can reveal little snippets here and there about his past if the need arises (like the Tracy references in FYEO, TSWLM & LTK), but I don't want it delved into or to become a major element going forward. Leave it to the imagination why he is the way he is. It worked well in the past after all, but the actor of course needs to embody and to sell it.
Give me one or two major action set pieces in each film. That's it. I don't need anything more. The rest can be 'quality' dialogue driven. However, I insist that the action be riveting, non linear and class leading (something that when done, stands as the best in class for that sort of thing). I'd like the film to have a standout stunt (like the Eiffel Tower or dam jumps) for instance.
I'm big on casting. I tend to prefer European actors in Bond films for some reason, but it's not a requirement (I liked everyone in TMWTGG for instance). I just would like the films to retain a little bit of that snobbish air which the best ones have. I want them to feel distinct and different from run of the mill action fare. I'm not sure if that's just in the casting though. I think it's also in the sets. GE for instance feels more like a Bond film to me than DAD and I think a lot of that comes down to the cast being a bit Euro. I guess I'm not too keen on American actors in major roles. Supporting roles are fine, or comic relief like JW.
I'd like more snooping around style scenes. Bond undercover or Bond investigating something quietly and in the shadows.
I'm neither here nor there on the big shootout finale. I think that's played out from the earlier films but perhaps if there's one finale like that in the new actor's tenure I'd be ok with it. Not consecutively though. I think they have to shake up the finales a bit so that they don't come across too predictable or obvious - some of the older films feel that way on repeat viewing (big showdown at lair etc.).
I'd like a charismatic foreign contact who helps Bond (like Saunders or Kerim). I wouldn't have a problem if this individual becomes a recurring character or even has their own streaming show on EPIX or something (expanded universe and so on). What I'm saying is I'd prefer if they not die.
I wouldn't mind a female M again, or another recurring female character at HQ outside of MP.
I want to see more night scenes. I think they work well in this genre and convey a sense of mystery.
More than anything though, I want a Bond actor for #OO7 who embodies the icon. Someone who looks like he belongs without the need for any back story.
That's about it for my thoughts as of now, but I may add if something else comes to mind.
And you align with, what ten? Fifteen? Twenty? That's the issue with negative feedback-- it circulates amongst a few who feed each other. The Vocal Minority.
"what a lot of members have been saying" applies "many", lol--
However, in reality to this site, there are many more people. They outweigh the 10 or 15 negative peeps you and others can prescribe to as the health of James Bond, and his future.
Just saying.
@bondjames, those are, give or take, my wishes as well. Well done.
Anyway, what I posted above is my latest thinking on what I'd like to see in a post-Craig era as per the thread question.
---
@Univex, thank you sir. I look forward to reading yours and every other member's thoughts on the subject in the future.
My original statement, on this this thread is this:
So I guess my point is, use hyperbole in the correct manner, and don't insinuate that your POV is of many on this site, but of some...
Regarding insinuations that my POV is that of many on this site: I didn't realize I was insinuating anything. That suggests something bad or unpleasant, which was not my intention. You've used that term in relation to me in the past as I recall. I was merely stating that I share the opinion of a lot of members on this site regarding what they want to see in a post-Craig world, which is the subject of this thread. I can't say all, I can't say most. Could I say many? Hmm, maybe. I don't know. Did I mispeak? Perhaps. You seem to think so and maybe I did because I'm not sure. I certainly didn't have any malicious intent when I made the statement, at least not to the extent of what I'm sensing directed at me from you at this moment.
Re: hyperbole, you actually were stating that what Baz was doing was hyperbole ... a very incorrect definition on your part.
Hmmm... maybe you misspoke, @bondjames ... my good night to you (from a beef-head), lol
In one thread I honestly didn't understand the question from bondjames (since it made no sense to the bond 25 thread); in this thread I was speaking about the clarity of shardlake's comments.
PS: the lack of news is making us all slightly mad. And arguing about silly things. I just got worried cause I appreciate your views more than most. Cheers guys.
PPS: I did like your reply regarding Shardlake's clarity. Very well said.
Sometimes I wonder if you misunderstand my posts or the full context of what I'm saying. If it's a problem just ignore me, as I'd rather not have to engage in this back and forth with you any more. I've not had this sort of issue with other members here that I can remember, and truth be told, it's a bit overwhelming for me.
You're entitled to your views and opinions. I will not question them even if I disagree. I'd appreciate the same courtesy and I think most members would as well. I think everyone here should be allowed to express themselves without fear of being called out in a negative manner, either individually or in unison (as far as I'm aware, everyone is expressing their own ideas in this forum). We're never all going to agree anyway.
--
@Univex, thanks again. I appreciate it. Have a good night lads.
But I will lay beside my beef-head lady who... accepts me... for... who.. I am...
A beef-head :(
;)
Goodnight.
PS: no more 18 year old Speyside single malt Macallan for you tonight ;)
but I never drink scotch, even when I do drink...
This is an interesting and important point, @bondjames – and one I feel strongly about. One of the main things that attracts me to the Bond films is the fact that they feel very European. It's not something I find easy to put my finger on, but locations and casting play a big part of course. FRWL as an example, has the Istanbul setting, the travel through Europe with the Orient Express – and the Venice finale. Another example – TB, takes place (mostly) outside Europe, in Bahamas. If you look at the cast though, it's trademark Bond Euro heavy. Rik Van Nutter was American of course, Lois Maxwell Canadian and Guy Doleman New Zealand-born, but the latter two were regularly playing in British productions (Doleman was brilliant in the recurring role as Colonel Ross in the Harry Palmer films in the 60's).
In contrast, I've never been to crazy about the sequences and films where Bond is in the US; LALD, AVTAK (of course), and LTK. Every time Bond is placed in US locations you see in other Hollywood productions, it's like Bond loses some of that uniqueness that separates the franchise from the other big Hollywood productions. I'd argue Bond should always be heavy on that Old World-feel, and that's why I'm equally intrigued and nervous about Fukunaga directing. I know it's silly to be skeptical about a non-European directing, but that's just the way I feel.
I hope, no matter what happens with the franchise after Craig and in the future, that Bond remains a very European affair.
Was just kidding. Even so, I did choose you a very fine beverage ;) Only the best.
I just look at my top 5 to see that.
1. OHMSS
2. CR
3. FRWL
4. SWLM
5. SF
The DC era has taken full advantage of this whatever else we can criticize it for.
Yes, I agree with this completely. Keep it in the old continent, please.
I like LALD a lot though and think it works well for some reason despite the large American cast and setting. I think that's because there's somewhat of an overt contrast between Roger Moore's essential Englishness (which is so pronounced for me in that film) set against the locational backdrop and the villains. They call attention to it and emphasize it as well ("White man in Harlem". "Good thinking Bond"). There's an element of the exotic due to how it's filmed. It's also very much in his attire and the virginal Solitaire also plays into that somewhat. It's very much an 'Englishman in New York' feel. Moreover, the film has a high benign bizarre quotient which offsets any familiarity which may come from the location. Such is not the case with LTK, AVTAK or DAD.
Don't know if 'Old World-feel' is the correct term to use, but I couldn't think of another way to put it. Bond being pictured in various places in Italy among those old buildings and streets for example, only enhances that feel.
LALD works mainly because of that 'Englishman in New York' feel you mention – and the contrast to the American characters. That's an important factor, IMO. Even so, the film really settles for me when Bond arrives in San Monique – with the more exotic locations. The supernatural elements are interesting too.
Definitely. It's very unique for a Bond film but comes together beautifully. Geoffrey Holder in particular gave me the chills as a kid.
The old world feel has been very present in the Craig era, and made it better for it. I hope they don't lose that at any point.
European casting is key. Your points on TB are spot on. It's on my top 3, because of that. FRWL being number one for the same reason. OHMSS's there as well.
Well said. I feel like the Craig era slowly leads back to the classic formula, with each film incorporating or re-introducing classic elements. However, with entries so far spaced apart, the general audience might not notice or appreciate the intention.
I agree that the 1962-2002 films had more variety in tone. There may be some similarities in narrative structure, but even 2 random films from the same director feel completely different.
GF and LALD, OP and LTK.