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
Well, you are right, of course :) But I would argue that Woo has a cinematic language of his own, and one that makes use of both artifices. But I dislike the use of them in general and they were a trend back then, in the early 2000s, more thanks to the Matrix than to John Woo, I think. And colour filters. For years movies were greenish, blueish, yellowish. Oh, how I hated that. IMO, the speed ramping in DAD made it feel and look so cheap. One of its many crimes.
Oh I absolutely hated that sped up style editing in DAD too. Felt more suited to a Fast and Furious movie, and has absolutely no place being in a James Bond film. Thankfully CR ditched all that nonsense!
The "Guy" from a few pages back?!!? Thanks. OK, almost never ran. Regardless, I felt there was an unevenness in the Craig films that did not exist in the early films. I just hope EON ups their game the next time around and does not get anywhere close to the foster brothers debacle of Craig's era.
But when you say that you feel 'unevenness didn't exist in the early films' I assume you mean that in the same way that 'Connery's Bond never ran'! :)
Personally I hope EON can manage to keep to the high standard that the better Craig films set.
Yeah Skyfall isn’t naturalistic at all. I wouldn’t say any Bond film is. If anything I think they seem more stylized now in some ways, because they tend to skip most of the mundane kitchen sink sort of stuff the old films used to do.
Not sure who you’re arguing with because nobody in the last few pages has said said they don’t do anything differently. They said they’re not less stylish, because they’re not.
Nobody in the last few pages has said a more old school Bond film wouldn’t work either. I think certain ways they’ve modernised the character and the world around him are here to stay. But that’s just them reflecting the time they were set, nothing to do with the style of the stories. Most of us have hoping for Bond on a mission and less emotional baggage.
Glad to see that I'm not the only one who sees TB as flat. I'm kind of happy that Terence Young (or Kevin McClory) didn't come back after TB. EON should look past Craig's films in general as the series does need some new creative blood.
Ironically, Lois Maxwell wanted Moneypenny killed off in AVTAK. But, you're right about both characters, plus M. Same with one of them turning evil. Save that for an Alec Trevelyan comeback.
Now they've killed Felix Leiter and James Bond, they can kill anyone and just bring them back. Great, isn't it?
You're right. Plus I forgot about Leiter. Let's throw in Blofeld and the many other villains that EON (and IFP) have killed over the years! They can probably all be written to come back for this next era.
Yeah, but it's boring.
Does anyone complain when the Joker gets brought back in a Batman film, despite having died 30 years ago? All produced by Michael Uslan, as you pointed out. I don't really see the problem.
But Dench's M is never going to come back.
Charismatic, Delicate and Charming. (Connery, Moore and Brosnan)
And
Cold, Serious and Brute. (Dalton and Craig)
For the Bond girls, i'd go by the lines of Anya, Kara and Natalya.
I don't mind having Q and Moneypenny on the field, but i'd rather something like Q in TB, YOLT, TSWLM and others and Moneypenny in DAF.
For the villain, i'd be inspired from Sanchez, and for the henchman, Mr. Hinx.
I don't know, because I don't watch sci-fi comic book movies.
But I do know, whenever I talk about the daftness of having alternate universes in James Bond films, someone on here pops up and goes "BUT LOOK AT BATMAN!!!! . . . ."
It's worse than boring, it's taken a lot of fun out of a great film franchise for me.
Is you real name Jimmy Tompkins?
Because it's a good point, yes ;)
God I hope not.
The last two films haven't had any female deaths, which is progression no doubt, but I hope they don't kill any more of the "regulars", personally I think NTTD went too far in my mind.
Kill off a new ally rather than kill off a regular so early into the next Bond's era
Yes, nice choices. 100% agree.
The Craig films are a great example of how uneven the series finally became. Though Craig himself had a wonderful interpretation of Bond, the universe he inhabited was all over the place sometimes from scene to scene and even film to film. They need to find a new path and up their game to introduce us to a new Bond.
I agree. The problem with the Craig era is nothing to do with Craig himself, but the rather convoluted way in which his era connects from beginning to end. If EON insists on doing something similar for Bond #7, I’d at least hope that era will be a bit more planned accordingly than Craig’s was.
‘All over the place’ in what way? I don’t know what you mean.
I think you're right about M messing up; that felt like an error, I'm not sure we should lose faith in one of our heroes like that. But I don't see that as proof that the Craig films were all bad and all over the place.
It's five years after the end of SP, which takes place very shortly after the end of SF (when Mallory became M), yet Bond accuses him of developing the weapon for almost a decade.
It's minor things like that which make me feel that the script needed an extra bit of polishing, and it's one thing I hope they pay extra attention to in the next run.
As I said in the controversial opinions about Bond movies, it seems that Judi Dench’s M made a lot of mistakes. It was hard to sympathize with her considering her many errors (namely in her personality). We need to move on from M being seen as a paternal figure, if EON is going to have her past coming back to haunt (then).
Completely agree on this mate
If the Craig era has a problem, it's perhaps that it started so strong with Casino it was always going to be tough to top it. I personally loved what they did and think it was the most consistent era since the 60's
Same here. I know I’m guilty of criticizing Bond movies, but it is a tough love situation. I’ll always be a fan, and EON (or even IFP) would really have to mess up to change my mind about Bond.
They learned the wrong lessons from Casino Royale. They should have adapted more books.
But, yeah, the Craig era is OK.
I mind that less than Mallory messing up for some reason: one of the many things I liked about the Craig films was that it made it possible for Bond to make mistakes and yet still remain our hero and recognisably 007, which was a hard thing to pull off. That Mansfield M was guilty of errors of judgement too I didn't mind, but Mallory's was a pretty major error of judgement and developing what was in effect a secret biological weapon is over the line into illegality.