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
But Cubby and the previous Bond actors were at some point was also interested in the emotional/dramatic story, but also combining it with great action, that's why we have OHMSS, FYEO and LTK, even TSWLM and TLD also have some bits of drama played into the story.
And Barbara before Craig arrived had been creating action set pieces, look at the Brosnan Era, but I would argue, they lacked substance and suddenly veered into Generic Action Territory without any beef to the story.
Now she tried something different with Craig, more focused on storytelling, drama and character study, but in doing so much that, she had forgotten the action set pieces.
They hadn't strike the balance of combining great action and drama since???
It needs balance, it's been missing started from the Brosnan Era (lack of emotions, pure action), to the Craig Era (lack of action, pure emotions).
We need both, drama and action.
It's still the biggest failure of them all, for all the complaints in the Craig Era regarding action, I do find it better than the CGI parasurfing tsunami wave in DAD, I mean in almost half of DAD action.
Maybe even better than those action scenes in TWINE (which, probably with the exception of the PTS boat chase, is I consider a bit anemic in execution).
The Bond box office shows repeat viewership, even during a pandemic (in fact, the new Mission films only opportunity to beat Bond at the box office is now (NTTD opened in November of a pandemic, M:I opens clear of any of that)….
Action doesn't work without emotion and drama though. The FYEO ski chase is superb, but there are no stakes to it whatsoever so it has no particular tension, and is less exciting as a result. Bond is just being randomly chased for no reason. It's a great bit of spectacle, but that's it (I'll give you the ski jump bit has a bit of nice tension, but it's entirely arbitrary to the movie). Compare to the ski chase in OHMSS, which is arguably a little less impressive in terms of stunt work and spectacle, but much more involving and exciting because it has tension: Bond has to get away- his life and the fate of the world depends on it and he has only this chance, and he's totally on his own. It's thrilling heart-in-mouth stuff.
I love the FYEO ski chase, but in a film give me the OHMSS one and all of the drama and tension around it every time. That's what Broccoli and Wilson understand.
As for John Wick knocking the Bonds off their perch with better action scenes; I'm struggling with that idea. I don't find shoot-outs to be all that inventive and I couldn't name you any of them. There was one with a horse...?
I'm a bit fed up of coming on a Bond fan forum and being told the Bond films I enjoy are rubbish. Does no-one else like the bloody things? Can't we share a bit of enthusiasm for the things we like for a change?
I do. All of them!
@mtm you nailed it. And you absolutely understand when action works, and why. There has to be the emotional spine, or else, as you say, it’s spectacle… And I relate with your frustration. I’ve wanted to ask Mendes if he even likes the films. Seems he has an ideal image of them, but does he actually enjoy them?
It’s amazing for 60 years of films and not a single one of these films have lost money at the box office. Even the low grossers like TMWTGG and LTK made money.
Bond escaping Piz Gloria is essential to his mission, as you said "his life and the world depends on it". He's totally alone, outnumbered and this is his only chance. That is tension thats derived FROM THE SITUATION that bond finds himself in. That's completely different from the Craig films which seem to think that making bond and blofeld brothers will increase the dramatic stakes and making bond a permanent loose cannon who is out in search of his own "solace" will make him more engaging. We want Roger Moore to rush his way into the big tent dressed as a clown and diffuse the bomb not because he stares wistfully across a moor and says "sometimes the old ways are the best", we want him to do it because we understand the physical reality and stakes at hand. What he thinks about in his alone time is completely irrelevant. As long as the stakes are relevant and intertwined with the plot and Bond's ultimate goal, that's what matters.
I love that Octopussy scene, but I’ve not heard many fans clamour for Bond dressing up as a clown again.
You’ve interpreted the Craig films as you want to see them and good luck with that. But don’t pretend that millions of fans around the world agree with you. Box office results were high and consistent, especially in the Broz and Craig era. And, with the Craig Era, they improved on the films made before it— most would say in terms of quality and box office gross…
That’s just the way it is, whether you liked Craig or not.
But again, don’t pretend that you speak for tens of millions of fans who want a return to “classic Bond” (whatever that means in your eyes…). Most just wanna see a James Bond film. If they like it, they’ll go back again and accompany friends who haven’t seen it yet.
If they don’t like it, they’ll not return and get on with their lives.
The six MI films have taken in approximately $3.5 Billion to date.
The last six Bond films (DAD included) have taken in approximately $4.3 Billion to date.
In the Craig era, Skyfall is the box office champion with $1.1 Billion.
Typically Bond films have higher production costs than MI which impact profit.
Some opinions:
The opposite of not loving a Bond film is not hating it.
Preferring the classics is not symptomatic of being old, out of touch, resistant to change, and clinging to one's childhood security blanket.
New and modern doesn't necessarily make a film better or worse.
Other franchises are not doing Bond better than Bond. Certain elements are as good or better, but not the whole package.
That one is close to a work doesn't necessarily equate to being the most objective. What came after the third Star Wars, case in point.
I don't assume I speak for others. Too much responsibility. However, I know others share some of my opinions as I share some opinions of others.
Lecturing is not discussion.
What Mike and Babs are thinking and doing, I don't have a clue. Nor do I think anyone else has.
When word finally does come out about the next Bond, if I should absolutely hate everything I hear, I will still see it and every film after while I live. One is either a Bond fan or they are not.
Yeah, good points. While I don't think the Craig era always quite nailed the tension with regards to action sequences (SP's Italian car chase and the plane chase in Switzerland being a major examples for me, and arguably these are the more fantastical/superficially 'Bondian' sequences) I do think the four films had some genuinely engaging and well done stuff. Personally, I think the staircase fight in CR ranks on a par with the train fight from FRWL. Of course there's the Madagascar chase too (which I find more typically Bondian with Bond being the underdog/having to chase this experienced parkour jumper), the Matera scenes etc.
The above opinions are, I think, where most Bond fans land… You’ve never said you speak for others, and it’s safe to say, again, most members here don’t either. A few though, have repeated that “we want…” and “many Bond fans want…”, and state things as facts, and not opinions.
Does anyone think that those who love the classics are old or out of touch? I certainly hope not.
And I’m one who didn’t like the Brosnan era (with a softening for the first two thirds of TND and bits and pieces of GE), but I went to every film, and I’ll do so again, because, well because, as a fan, I have to see what trouble Bond gets into now… if I walk out disappointed… 🤷♂️ life will go on…
https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/james-bond-at-70-cold-war-return-comment/
Look: If Man From UNCLE and The King’s Man hadn’t flopped, I’d say go for it. But as much as (some) Bond fans want to see it, and I’d be interested to watch an effort myself, I’ve got serious doubts about a general audience.
I saw Austin Powers not too long ago and it's just a lame attempt to parody Will Ferrel's Mustafa character where he is shot and mangled up pretty badly but yet still alive.
We know Bond can die and is human. They just ruined the character's mystique of why he never dies and why the villain never just shoots him instead of just going on about their evil plans. This is one advantage Bond has over other franchises and they completely ruined it .
Craig wanted to follow Hugh Jackman's advice about killing off a character and guess what Hugh Jackman is Wolverine again in Deadpool 3.
What “mystique”? That he typically had dumb luck? Even Bond knows luck is only so fleeting.
Bond is different though. He's a man who often makes mistakes, hell he even knowingly walks into traps, and has to use his wits on the fly to get out of life threatening situations. There's a general sense that he could die at any moment, that his fate is uncertain, at least when these films/stories work to their fullest potential.
So certainly, Bond's mortality is part of his appeal.
No. Something like the Miami airport scene is what the film hinges upon. The attack on Skyfall is what the film is all leading to. The staircase fight is a huge moment in Bond & Vesper's relationship and a massive turning point in her realising just what he is. The sinking house (much as I'm not a huge fan) is the point at which the film and Bond & Vesper's relationship reaches boiling point.
My point was that the sequence in OHMSS is what most Bond films don't do. The Craigs are the actual exception to that.
Yep. That's the Bond character and dumb luck is why so many people enjoy it. But Bond doesn't care because he knows he will die anytime. That thrill of escaping with just pure luck is what Bond is all about. The producers just quit being inventive about it.
Turns out he was right. His death worked for me: I'm not going to speak for everyone else and what they enjoy.
But no they say he will return. Bond is not that sci fi nor he is a religious leader able to comeback from the dead.
If I lived ten lives over, I'd have never have made this connection... And, although you've said this before, I still don't make this connection!
Sometimes we really do see things that aren't there...
Or, they wanted to do something different by putting Bond in a situation where his luck has finally ran out and we see how Bond reacts to his impeding doom. I really liked how it was done and give a lot of props to Eon for giving it a shot. This is a franchise that spans 70 years, I think seeing Bond put in a situation he can’t escape for once is a perfectly valid approach at this point.
Bond a fictional character, not a documentation of a real life person. There’s nothing “sci-fi” about seeing a new iteration of Bond. We’ve already seen Bond rebooted once in 2006.
You’re not the first person to claim this was some “sci-fi” conceit. Where the hell is that coming from?
No Bonds luck didn't run out. He chose to kill himself rather than infect his daughter and the love of his life with here it comes sci fi nanobots. What is Safin was bluffing? Bond didn't try to escape. He just stood there taking Safins word for it.
That nanobot subplot is way too sci fi for Bond especially Craig's Bond.