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
I was reading about Spectre, and one thing I didn't realise was that they pushed for the winter stuff to be set in Kitzbühel because it's where Fleming learnt to ski when he was young, and when he stayed there he stayed with a couple who provided therapy for people in a 'negative contest with their siblings'; which obviously is part of the plot of the film. Intentional because they know their Fleming, as you say.
People always say they're terrible, but I never quite work out what the reason is. The plots seem perfectly good to me. They complain about Bond going rogue, as if it's never happened before.
Love it.
See I never knew the fact! But I doubt you would find any other screenwriter like that who’s so enriched in the Fleming books and the man’s life himself. I think they mainly get flack due to their involvement in both TWINE, and DAD. It’s always those two films I see get thrown around a lot when people say they don’t like their work.
I don't know how much P&W were the ones who incorporated the Fleming aspects in SF, but I think John Logan proved with SP that he really didn't get Bond.
But Bond films should follow a formula? They should do the same things or not? I don't know which it is.
Richard Maibaum wasn't a saint either. He was always blaming others for not doing his scripts right. Quite a bit of the problems that he had with others, started with the scripts he often wrote. He had more Fleming to adapt, but he was disgustingly full of himself. But he took breaks between films at times. P & W haven't and that drastically needs to change. I don't like to spread complaints on really anything, but this is one complaint that a lot of people have agreed with me on. On Twitter and other social platforms, these two leaving (or taking a break at least) seems to be the number one thing that people want to have changed for the future. I'm happy they helped out though. However, the number one thing that does need to change in Bond's cinematic future is the writing.
Nothing personal, I just think some fresh writing blood is needed for a new Bond. At least they don't openly criticize others for not doing their work right. Richard Maibaum should be ashamed of himself for that.
If we're moving on, then move on.
They've been unbelievably successful through the years.
I look forward to whatever Purvis and Wade come up with. I like their work on Bond.
Yep, move forward, not backward. Stop having Bond resign, or go on the run, or M's past coming back to haunt them. Their three main trademarks.
Yes, but they need shaking up a bit behind the scenes. The main place that seems to be fixed is the writing department. Take a chance EON!
They will abide.
But if there’s nothing wrong with them I don’t see the desperate need to lose them.
Bond being given a mission is an important part of the James Bond formula; that doesn’t mean I would have a problem with, for example, Bond stumbling into an adventure whilst on holiday, provided it happened just once. If it happened twice in five or six films, though, I would have an issue because it takes something that should be an unusual event for the franchise and overplays it.
Now I can imagine a lightweight adventure series where the protagonist stumbles onto a dastardly plot by chance every story. Yes it stretches belief in chance, but if this is the formula that the series is based on then I know what I’m in for when I turn up to the film, just the same as I am willing to suspend my disbelief in super-powers when I watch a Superman movie (provided they are consistent with Superman’s mythology - I remember lots of complaining about the liberties Superman 2 took with Kryptonian abilities).
Bond going rogue for LtK was a nice change in formula for a film, but the more it happens the sillier it feels when everyone takes it so seriously. It’s the same with Bond falling madly in love and considering quitting SIS - it worked very well in C.R., but the more you keep having these life-changing events, the less special they seem. It’s the Empire Strikes Back ‘I am your father’ secret family revelation - great the first time, but to make this sort of revelation a regular thing cheapens it.
I don’t think he even really ‘goes rogue’ that often anyway. He takes his own initiative sometimes, but that’s kind of the point of Bond: it’s what we like about him- he sees solutions that other people don’t see. That he sees things his bosses can’t is in keeping with his character and his appeal.
Dalton ‘went rogue’ in 100% of his films. We enjoyed it and it wasn’t Purvis & Wade’s fault.
I suppose it falls under the banner of taking his own initiative, which is taken to its extremes in the early Craig films.
What should be far, far worse, imo, is rookie Bond breaking into M’s home in CR.
Exactly: if we’re saying he ‘goes rogue’ in QoS (where he’s literally ‘rogue’ for less than a minute of screen time in the hotel) or SF (where he actually just takes some time off then reports back for duty) then he’s certainly rogue in TLD where he actively disobeys M’s orders. M even has a shout at him and threatens to replace him with 008 (as he did in GF too). As if I’d forget that TLD exists :D
Bond is always proven to be correct in all of these cases, because he’s Bond. It’s his character and his appeal.
In QoS the problem is M tries to micro-manage what he's doing, but she realises that she should have been trusting him more because he's not gone rogue at all. She thinks he's after revenge for Vesper, but is reading him wrong.
Well, no: Bond's decision in the book of TLD was made out of no reason at all other than he'd had an imagined long distance romance with the girl- his decision to disobey his orders is purely sentimental and nothing to do with his duty at all: the movie gives him more of a professional and mission-based reason not to kill her, which I tend to prefer. In the films he generally does everything because he believes it's right for the mission: breaking into M's flat is less irrational than refusing to carry out his orders to kill Trigger.
I love the ending we got for QOS, but that sounds amazing. Probably one of my all time favourite Fleming quotes
In LtK, QoS, DaD, and Spectre, Bond is rogue rather than things suffering ‘mission creep’ and M being annoyed. I honestly don’t remember TLD well enough to say for sure, by I don’t remember M doing anything as drastic to stop Bond as in the previously mentioned four films.