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
You’ve pushed the goalposts way off the original playing field.
The only thing you’ve clearly stated is you really don’t like the Craig Era.
Beyond that, you kinda sound like you’re trying to get other converts to hop on a Craig-Era-Sucks train, and this train hasn’t exactly left the station for you…
Enjoy the films to come, and those made pre 2006. All good.
That's exactly what I'm advocating for.
So then just say that, rather than bringing us on this big epically nonsensical adventure that started off with critiques of the lack of humour and sophistication and ended with the "locations not being used properly".
Your misuse of the word 'style' seems to have been a big part of the problem here.
Complete rubbish. I've given you loads of examples which are all about the style and cinematic quality. How is a very tense and impressionistic sequence of Bond stalking a man through a dark maze of reflective glass less stylish than Pierce Brosnan crossing a road? How is a black and white sequence of his second kill intercut with a flashback to the vicious fight of his first, culminating in the first gunbarrel sequence played out in the middle of a scene for the first time and leading into the most stylish and coherent semi-surrealistic title sequence in years, less dripping in style and panache than... Pierce Brosnan crossing a road...?! How is that black and white, noirish sequence, full of dutch angles and tricks with time and place, 'matter of fact'? Just nonsense.
The only previous time I can think of a Bond film playing with the form of a film in that way is probably the slightly surreal cutaways to sunlight through trees, or the flashback to Tracy getting kidnapped overlaid onto M's window in OHMSS. Maybe the horse's arse flashback in Moonraker, but that's about it.
'Intentionality' is not what you think it is, and doesn't apply here.
You don't seem to know what you're arguing for, and it's tiring the rest of us out.
That’s me applauding in the back row. Well said @mtm … that was quite an experience, reading through these comments…
On one side there was a lot of genuine dialogue and common sense via @CraigMooreOHMSS and yourself (and anyone else who chimed in), then the frustrating non-replies, chaotic and seemingly arbitrary posts from Mendes…
+1 I saw what you did there. LOL.
I think "realistic and grounded" is being misinterpreted as "this Bond has a character arc", but if there's quotes from the filmmakers about keeping the overall film realistic then I'd love to read them as I haven't seen them before.
And even at that, I'd still be calling bull on it. After all, I distinctly remember Tamahori talking about the grittiness of DAD at some stage, too.
When he brought up those scene transitions from LaLD (a guilty pleasure of mine, albeit one with a lot of cringe) I knew just what he meant. I love Skyfall, I think it’s lots of fun and is very stylish, but it isn’t in the same style.
THANK YOU =D>
"Different style" equals "no style" to our dear @Mendes4Lyfe.
So we can make more stories like the classic films right?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! That wouldn't work! [-( ~X(
It's not exactly the same style (I'm not sure any other Bond film is?) but it's still filled full of style. I'd argue way more, in fact.
You ask me for examples and just ignore me when I give you them. It's not really worth engaging with this any more.
I think there's an interesting conversation (or thread perhaps) to be had on the artistic flourishes and stylistic experiments in Bond films. Funnily enough, since my last post I remember that DAD actually had a couple- a Clash song playing over part of the action, the 'speed ramping' editing tricks: they're pretty minor in the grand scheme of things but it's sort of playing with filmmaking style which I can't think that the series had really done since OHMSS, or the aforementioned horse's arse. Maybe the slightly odd slo-mo bits in TND? The series rarely steps outside of the matter-of-fact, linear storytelling method until CR really.
What are you banging on about now? We've asked you to be a bit more cohesive, but it seems like you're unable to do that.
That would be a very interesting thread.
I think people might be confusing style with some nice looking cinematography, but I can assure you, in comparison to most other bond films skyfall is not "stylish".
Another example that comes to mind is how Bond unplugs the camera he's sitting on in TSWLM and the Bond Theme stops playing.
Yeah, "Die Another Day" plays with the form of a Bond film in some pretty novel ways for the franchise. It doesn't always work but I admire the desire to push.
Doubling down instead of improving yourself, are we? Shame.
Yes, I suppose the time jump after the PTS, conveying that through the opening titles themselves (something which CR returned to in part, then Skyfall after that I guess) was a bit of boldness. GE had done that as well of course (depicting the downfall of the Soviet Union after Bond and Alec's mission), but DAD takes it a step further by actually showing us what has been happening to Bond.
Which would be absolutely fine if that was what he was actually saying! :))
I also have no problem with the speed ramping either, to be honest. It was a very early noughties thing but it's not something I ever had an issue with, and DAD uses it quite appropriately for the most part I think.
BANG ON
And I think this is what Craig fans mean when they say the old way of making bond films won't work in the modern day, they mean stylized bond films won't work, which is a premise I find hard to accept given the highest grossing films lately have been Barbie and Top Gun, two of the most stylized blockbuster films in years.
Yes it's never upset me. It is mildly pointless, and is dated now of course, but I don't mind old films looking dated. I feel like the slo-mo in TND is possibly a touch more egregious as it seems to be trying to lend a couple of moments more weight, and comes off feeling a touch more cheesy as a result. And I remember feeling that at the time it came out too!
It also doesn't help that slo-mo as a technique wasn't quite right yet, either. Slo-mo these days is so far advanced compared to slowing down the lower frame rate footage of previous decades. I think we have The Matrix to thank for that in part, thanks to its pioneering use of it. When I see slo-mo from other 90s films I get a weird feeling of watching daytime TV with all the messy motion blur.
Yeah old Bond films are in no way stylized as much as Barbie. Obviously you don't think Bond should be similar to Barbie but as one of only two examples I don't think you're succeeding at making your point.
Woah, @Univex - you're dismissing John Woo's entire catalogue there, which is a crime in itself! ;)
But (at least in my personal opinion) Skyfall is the single most theatrical Bond film ever! Examples: the opening shot, the fight in Shanghai, the dialogue between Bond and Silva before the crash of the tube.