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
Everything is either lazy or pretentious.
Offt, God. Sorry, I completely disagree there. They're pretty basic cinematic techniques these days, so they're not really pretentious at all.
And I disagree with you. Goldfinger didn’t feel the need to have the scene of M chastising Bond over a superimposed image of the gold painted Jill Masterson. It was an iconic image that was allowed to work on its own. The concept of Fields covered in oil was already inherently annoying, but the end result comes across as yet another silly, and misguided editing trick from QOS. In fact I would compare the scene of Fields covered in oil, to the scene in Die Another Day where they have Halle Berry emerging from the sea in a homage to Dr. No, but slowed down in its editing, which just comes across as laughably bad. But I digress. It’s just my 2 cents.
Of course not - the story of Goldfinger didn't revolve around a reckless, rookie Bond and involve paranoia and trust issues. QoS, however, does - Bond's conduct was already called into question when he was killing people he wasn't ordered to, so the style of editing is perfectly appropriate to that scene, which is where he both realises the consequences of his actions and finds renewed drive to see the story through, as he says himself. Attention is drawn to Fields' body because it is important. There are many silly 'artistic' touches in QoS that are absolutely deserving of criticism (needlessly cutting to the horse race during the Siena footchase springs to mind), but I genuinely think Forster got that moment spot on.
Yeah I can't be bothered with this discussion. The idea that Mendes looked down on the material is so blatantly invented that it's not worth engaging with- the only proof being offered is that he's good. Which is somehow bad. And the accusation that anyone involved in these movies is lazy, coming from someone sat on their arse typing into a computer, is insulting. Decisions can be misjudged, plans can fail to come together, people can just plain get things wrong, but no one is being lazy- they're all sweating buckets over every single decision and trying their hardest to get these things made. It's such an empty and massively incorrect thing to say.
I think Brofeld was a bad decision too, but they didn't just dash it off on a Friday evening and say 'yeah, fine': such a massive decision would not have been taken lightly, and obviously they believed they could make it work at the time.
Funny how none of the beautifully composed shots and sequences of the 60s are pretentious, isn't it? An abstract graphic of looking though a photo taken of the inside of a gunbarrel at our hero on a stark white backdrop: that's not overly artistic and pretentious at all.
But if something's old, and people have time to get used to them, they don't get held up to the same standards as the newer things.
I’ll budge and say that I think it’s the least offensive editing trick in QOS. I just don’t think editing tricks like that have any place in a Bond film. Majesty’s did a similar thing where Bond is staring out the window of M’s office while the shot of Tracy being dragged away in the snow is imposed in the window, and I don’t like that either. I respect your reasoning for liking it, and what you think it represents, and maybe that was what they intended it. But I still can’t say I respect the idea of taking iconic Bond scenes, copying them, then sugar coating them with editing tricks to try and give some originality. But that’s just me.
Fair enough - can't argue with that at all! :) Though it has nothing to do with what I think it represents. They literally explain it in the dialogue.
That is a good point, I would say OHMSS is full of much more in the way of bad attempts at artiness and other sequences which have dated heavily since. The mile-long Casino sign reflecting in the pool, the echoey-zoomy fight outside Draco's door, all of the horribly sped up fights, weird cutaways to the sunset in the middle of unrelated scenes, cutaways to the Angels as Blofeld mentions them, the nasty flashback/dream sequence on M's window as you mention... there's a lot of it in that film and quite a bit feels a bit cheesy where it's presumably supposed to feel sophisticated.
I agree with you there, I find the editing tricks of Majesty’s to date the film immensely. I put that on Peter Hunt trying to go all “French New Wave” in the film, which back then was new, and kind of revolutionary, but time really hasn’t been kind to those tricks. I like some of the fight scenes though, they aren’t the best of the series, but they aren’t the worse of the series either. I think the Hotel Fight is a great one. I also like the trippy lighting during the hypnosis scene in Ruby’s room.
I understand that the script of SP was a mess, but so was the way the actors were cast and directed by Mendes. Exhibit A: Lea Seydoux. Exhibit B: Christoph Waltz.
I am fascinated that Fukunaga brought them both back.
You forgot the weird zooms in and out of Lazenby's face as he wakes up and stares at the Christmas tree after being knocked on the head by Bunt.
I found this scene very strange.
There's quite a lot of weird stuff in OHMSS, that's for sure. The shot of Bunt jolting out of the bed is creepy enough in its own right!
I do think that by bringing in certain directors who blatantly admit that they are not fans of Bond that the producers are inviting specific criticism. Not sure Mendes should be included in this. I put Skyfall mid ranking at best, but given how much I love all the films bar SP and CR '67 that isn't bad.
And also, that the writers and producers DIDN'T dash out 'Brofield' in five minutes at 2am, and instead thought it through and believed that they could pull it off, is to their eternal detriment. I mean, if they had dashed it off without thinking at least there would be an excuse. To have written it, got it passed by producers, and then by studios, is really unforgivable. Everyone is to blame for that monstrosity.
Anyway, I generally like the weird stuff. OHMSS is my favourite of all. And the problem in QoS, for me, is that they don't linger on the image of Fields covered in oil. I agree that the scene is badly directed in that we don't really feel the impact of the death of Fields. But that's not because it is 'pretentious' or too arty. It's just rushed in their attempt to get the running time down to the bare minimum. The film is way too quick to the point it all feels inconsequential.
Where Bond goes after Craig? Well, it has to be lighter doesn't it? It can't possibly be darker or more serious. To want it to be lighter isn't to disavow Craig's run. It just means that it's time for a change. A bit like at a gig when a band does five fast songs in a row - now it's time for a change of pace.
Good comment. I never knew of those comments from Campbell; I dislike Tamahori's input immensely but if I were in those shoes, as a professional, I think it's poor form to bad mouth anyone who had worked on a previous film, no matter how poor it may have been.
Along the same lines, I hate it when every Bond girl actress gives it the 'my character is different from all the rest' bullshit. It is disrespectful, and also blatantly incorrect, too.
I am not bringing this up to criticise Campbell. It's just to illustrate how much there is not a team behind Bond production these days. Despite their lame attempts to stick all the Craig films together, paradoxically there really doesn't seem to be anything coherent about Craig's tenure behind the scenes.
To answer the Q of the thread, I favour them signing on a 'safe part of hands' sort of actor (Fassbender ideally) to make three quick films (3 in 6 years) before resetting with a riskier choice.
Fair enough, I think my intense dislike of SPECTRE is the reason I criticize Mendes the way I do, but the “pretentiousness” I perceive just comes across as blantant in Mendes’ style of direction on SPECTRE. Perhaps consciously, perhaps subconsciously. That style felt appropriate for Skyfall (and maybe I could’ve been more clear with that point); Skyfall was essentially a “Meta” Bond film, and bringing in Mendes for that worked. The issue I had is I felt was his style takes too much priority over the story in SPECTRE, and by extension, the result is a film that feels so self indulgent in its filmmaking. While outside of the series, Mendes stands far and above the other directors for the quality of his work, inside the confides of the franchise, his work on SPECTRE is just dreadful. I think we can all agree that there are some Bond films that are too stylized for their own good; I watched Thunderball today, and that film oozes with style, and sophistication, which is beautiful to watch on screen, but ultimately didn’t do much because it was a slow, meandering film in parts, with individual elements that just don’t work, and that’s the issue I have with SPECTRE, only on a much larger scale. I know plenty of other Bond fans who think Mendes seems too “excessive” a choice for Bond, and that was certainly the issue with hiring Marc Forester, and Danny Boyle. It’s hard to judge Boyle because we don’t know what he would’ve done with the B25, but Forester’s desire to do “something unique” is what ultimately did him in, and unfortunately the same could be said for Mendes. Whatever impact he did have for the series with Skyfall, was undercut with SPECTRE. As a result, Mendes’ tenure with the franchise can be described as fairly middle in the road. It’s a reason that I’m partly glad Peter Hunt didn’t do an another film. As much as I love OHMSS, he could’ve just as easily fallen into the same issues Mendes did. Terence Young’s tenure with the franchise probably ended at the right moment. 3 films (2 of which I find to be masterpieces of the franchise), and establishing the overall tone of the series cemented his place in the top 3 Bond directors, even if he wasn’t the greatest director on the planet. Hunt’s innovated style of editing, and the fact he made would many could argue to be the best film of the franchise, cements his place in the top 3 Bond directors. Martin Campbell delivered two of the very best Bond films from both the Craig, and Brosnan years, essentially establishing the blueprint for how their tenures should go, and the fact he did that cements his place in the top 3 Bond directors. If SPECTRE had been the critical success that Skyfall was, then I’d be sitting here singing the praises of Mendes’ style, but unfortunately that wasn’t how things happened. Outside the series, yes he’s 10x a better filmmaker than any of the others in this franchise, but inside the series? He pales in comparison to the 3 I mentioned. I’d probably even list John Glen’s tenure above Mendes’ do to the consistency of Glen’s tenure, and the fact he had a solid 5 film run, than only produced one film that could be considered awful. For me, Mendes sits with Lewis Gilbert, and Guy Hamilton, two other directors who are more interested in their style, and not much in substance. My opinion isn’t meant to be forced as fact, these are just my observations, and I try provide as much analysis as I can to back those claims. It’s up to you whether you agree/understand where I’m coming from, but at the same time, and I don’t mean to pass this off as me being right, I know there are plenty of other Bond fans who have those exact same feelings. I agree that everyone played a role in the shortcomings of SPECTRE; it was a bad film, but I don’t think that means we shouldn’t look at the excessive nature of Mendes’ direction on that film.
As far as Campbell’s comments and remarks. I too find it disappointing. Making a film, much less a Bond film is hard work, and I think other creatives shouldn’t ridicule the work of others because they don’t like it/think it sucks. Besides, what Martin Campbell did on Green Lantern is far worse than anything Lee Tamahori did on Die Another Day.
Well thank you! I appreciate the compliment, and I’m glad that I can at least get people to see where I’m coming from, even if they don’t agree.
Well I just found this little backhanded remark. I’m sorry if my opinion offended you so much that you merely dismiss it as coming from “someone sitting around of their arse, typing on a computer”, you don’t know a single thing about me, nor do I of you, so let’s not start hurling insults at each other because of the opinions of a darn film, because that comes across as immature and childish. If you can’t “be bothered” to at least respect where I’m coming from, even while disagreeing, then guess what, that’s your problem, and not mine. This is a public forum, and I’m allowed to voice my criticism’s and share my opinions, just as you’re allowed to do the same. I’ve stated this to you before on the Star Wars thread, and I will state it again; my opinions are my opinions, and nothing more. If you can’t be bothered to continue reading my criticisms, then stop reading them, I’m not forcing you to read them, nor am I forcing you to agree with me. You don’t need to resort to mean spirited remarks just because I’m saying stuff you obviously disagree with. I’ve provided a thorough analysis for why I feel the way I do, and while the others in this thread may have disagreed with me, they can at least respect why I feel the way I do. With you, I’ve been getting the opposite impression, and now your little “insult” confirms that. If you’re too self centered in your thinking to not even try and understand where I’m coming from, then I’m not going to sit here and continue having this discussion with you, and I’m certainly not going to resort to insulting you for your own views.
Picking on one sentence or phrase appearing in that which someone else wrote, when their overall idea remains clear, is a matter of taking things rather personally -- on a fan website ! -- or looking to pick on things. Just how old are most of the folks writing here ? These films have been around since 1962, and the books since 1953, but many commenters talk about so-and-so being the Bond of record as they grew up...It appears there remains a great deal of growing up yet to be done. Just because you're online does not give license to behave foolishly. Try this, perhaps: Pretend you're speaking in person, in front of a knowledgeable audience. You're expected to stay on point, and not devolve to insults and name-calling.
I agree that we should all try and be a bit more respectful towards one another. Perhaps I took that remark too personally, but I also don’t appreciate not having my opinions respected, and dismissed as rubbish in a manner like that. I’m perfectly fine with people disagreeing with me, in fact I wholeheartedly welcome disagreements (we’re not Communists after all), but I at least ask for my own opinions to be respected, and not dismissed in a way that could be interpreted as rude.
You're welcome here by me @007ClassicBondFan.
Thank you @FatherValentine, I appreciate that very much!
So -- I now will take the topic of this particular page VERRRY literally -- Where does Bond go from here ? We've all be discussing tone, style, actor and so on, but perhaps we missed the question ?
"Where" as in location ! I have enjoyed over the years the comments from knowledgeable folks who've pointed out the wonderful aspects of certain locations where Bond -- in the films, at least -- has not visited. Canada, anyone ? Australia ?
In written form, Fleming had Bond visit the Seychelles Islands. I understand it is a gooooorgeous place, and that during the Cold War agents from both sides maintained a presence there. When I read about it, it seemed that the agents were scamming their employers, in a sense, so as to manage to get for themselves some "duty" in a lovely, extraordinary place.
Perhaps Communist was the wrong word (it’s been forever since I took my Political Ideologies class in College) but anyhow, in the spirit of the thread...
I’d like a return to the Classic Bond formula. Skyfall brilliantly started to bring that back (within the confides on the era it inhabits), and for all my gripes about SPECTRE, it at least proves that the producers are ready to return to the Classic Bond formula, and they’ve had enough distance from the Brosnan/Austin Powers films to feel they can take a crack at it again. Canada sounds like an interesting idea for a location, the mountain like atmosphere would make for some interesting action set pieces I feel, all while adding a natural, Mother Nature type of beauty to the film!
Perhaps it is, then again you never know, they could do some interesting in Canada. Maybe it’s just me being selfish, but seeing as how I live maybe 2-3 hours away from the border, I’m saying Canada so I could sneak onto the set and watch them film :))
Maybe.
Difficult to say, but I wouldn't count on it.