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 dunno; they're movies- I kind of want them to be events and to have moments of import. I don't really judge a Bond movie on where it sits in the series next to 25 other films, I just want to enjoy a two-hour event in the cinema. If OHMSS had been followed by another concept-crutch movie where Bond goes out for revenge for Tracy, I don't think that would have made OHMSS by reflection.
I love the MIs, but the only note to take from them is: 'be really exciting and tense and good'. Which isn't very helpful really! :)
It's a bit unrealistic to expect a standard mission with no personal stakes for the Bond actor to play, though. It's not a coincidence that the no personal stakes missions ended for Bond right around the time of Die Hard.
I just mean some concept that will make the film feel significant in the series regardless of whether the film is actually any good. Comic book events from Marvel and DC have been doing it for decades, sometimes killing a major hero (only to revive him/her a few years later with equal fanfare), sometimes revealing something that will change the way the audience see previous stories (significant character turns out to have been an alien shapeshifter/robot/evil twin for years), resurrecting a previously dead character, etc. Usually something that will grab headlines but might not actually make sense, often something that will need to be undone later (see hero deaths), or something that will simply be quietly forgotten brushed under the carpet because it was considered too stupid by the readers.
You'll often see new writers on the big Marvel titles come up with these shocking, seemingly significant events, and it so often seems to be covering for the fact that they don't think they can compete with the past landmarks without doing something shocking.
But would you like it to happen?
LOL.
Don't get me wrong; I like the Craig Bonds very much. But we've had our five-film Saga Of 007. I wouldn't mind a bit more "fun with Bond" and a bit less "soul of Bond" next time. But a Bond film in which 007 merely functions as the charming problem eliminator, without at least some personal considerations, however fleeting, doesn't seem interesting at all. Think about it; even in many of the older films, there is something for Bond to emotionally process. (For what it's worth, Fleming went there too, almost every time.) A completely detached Bond who merely carries out orders as a one-dimensional character feels cold and redundant.
Oh yeah, totally. Bond naturally becomes emotionally involved to a certain degree in his missions - in Goldfinger the murder of Jill Masterson at the beginning of the film serves to set up something of a personal grudge between Bond and Goldfinger, but that’s a different thing than Goldfinger being someone of deep personal significance from 007’s past.
Simply put, I’m quite tired of seeing Bond deconstructed. I won’t put all the blame on Craig’s era because the trope itself started to creep into the Bond films since at least 1989, but after Craig’s era just constantly reused the same trope, it now feels like beating a dead horse. I don’t think that criticism that’s “illegitimate” at all; in fact I think a lot of people have already stated something similar.
But it would make me very happy if true. The franchise needs that sort of quality now, because the Craig era had it in spades, except in the writing department, which would be the only one that still merit my concern.
Lazenby: 1
Dalton: 2
BOND 7: 3
Brosnan: 4
Craig: 5
Connery: 6
Moore: 7
Also, heightened dramatic stakes require really good writing and directing to pull off effectively, and unfortunately the post-Cold War Bonds have been very uneven in that regard. For every Casino Royale you have a couple Spectres and Die Another Days. Babs and MGW would be better off simply getting the fundamentals right instead of coming up with new deconstructionist experiments for each new movie.
Finding a personal angle will always drive up the stakes, whether it’s James Bond’s boss asking him to find out if a valued member of Blades is cheating at bridge (yes, that’s very personal to Bond, to not let down the man who he holds in the highest regard), or whether M has sent him on a suicide mission against a psychopathic murderer in Francisco Scaramanga.
It’s all personal.
1) Going rogue/being disavowed
2) Family being involved one way or another
3) Someone from Mi6 being a traitor
4) Having to prove himself still relevant
5) …
I’ll leave you to it :)
I think that it's safe to say that Babs and Mickey are soon-to and will eventually retire and give the charge to whoever they trust for the job.
Gregg was quite in the front seat in SP, and then seems to have disappeared a bit from interviews and bts footage from NTTD.
BTW, here’s an interesting quote from him, according to the IMDB.
“Christopher Nolan would be a dream choice for a future Bond director. We would of course be interested to have a discussion with him. We would like to do the same type of movie. It would be a dream to be with Nolan. But we always have an open mind when it comes to directors.”
I’d have to disagree slightly. I could buy the latter example perhaps being more personal, but the example from Moonraker always came across to me as Bond doing a favor for his boss. Nothing really “personal” about it imo.
This would put England in a positive light as a country willing to help other countries, but not knowing the danger that they would face by getting involved, so there's a personal stakes.
So is it directly on Bond? No, Bond was just doing what MI6 had told him to do, he's being professional.
This is Bond doing a favor for his country.
But it became personal in the way that the villain involved something (maybe England), for interfering into his plans, it became personal, from the once not connected.
Now this would make Bond question himself if he would still continue in the mission, to put England to safety (since England was just really out of it, if not for another country asking their help), or continue what he had started, with the villain asking him: "If you withdraw and let me do my plans, your country will be in safety again" kind of thing.
Because this is a free decision for Bond, he could quit the mission (since England was just involved), or just continue.
It's all personal.
Of course Bond is always PERSONALLY involved with a case, otherwise he would not be doing it. What we are lacking are straight forward assignments that Bond used to be given and then solves. Find the missing nuclear war heads, stop missiles from being toppled, find out who is stealing space ships, find out how Gold is being smuggled out of England, find Blofeld and kill him. Most of all...................send him out on the mission and then let him do his job without the office and staff being joined at his hip.
The issue with the latter comment about the office staff is the risk you take with casting recognizable actors. They're not going to cast Ralph Fiennes as M for a three minute briefing and then he's never seen again. Harris, Wishaw etc aren't as recognizable to a moviegoer but still in the category of not being reduced to a glorified cameo.