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
Glad to hear someone else shares my opinion of Brossa! I was never convinced he was right for the role, even when he was lined up for TLD! (And here in Ireland, they were delighted with his casting with this "Born to be Bond!" nonsense!)
When I saw GE first time, I said, "Yep, I was dead right!" He just plays a part and was extremely stiff and wooden, plus there is that smugness he brought to it, which really grates! It didn't get any better in the next few films, I was elated to hear he wasn't returning, and Craig was a phenomenal Bond! Agree also, the next Bond is going to have to be something special to fill his shoes!
I always thought they were maraschino cherries.
Nope!
I believe you're right there!
I think you're right, if only because both Craig and Dalton eras felt like they were making intentional strides away from that pre-conceived notion of what "cinematic Bond" is.
If cinematic Bond means someone with a tuxedo or a suit all the time, yes, Craig and Dalton tried to be different. We could argue that they were not very successful in breaking that image.
Craig went full retro after QoS.
Have to say, I thought it was pretty evident that Craig was playing Bond differently in SF than he had in CR and QOS. He's far more terse and reined in, speaks in a bit of a guarded monotone that doesn't give much away, he's got a poker face going on a lot of the time and he carries himself differently - 'the walk' isn't there, for an obvious example. I can see the events of intervening years having led the Bond of QOS to become the Bond of SF, but not in just the intervening four years between the films, tbh. There's three films missing between QOS and SF, man. ;)
Yup! Can’t convince me otherwise.
That’s a large part yes, but I feel as if Brosnan had a better concept on how to balance the serious/emotional aspects of the character with the flippant/humourous traits we’ve come to know and love; and he did this without sacrificing one for the other. That’s not an insult against Dalton and Craig (I’m sure to some they’re just as if not more engaging), but Brosnan’s Bond had this fantasy/wish fulfillment aspect to his character that Connery and Moore had; and that just makes him more fun for me to watch personally.
It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?
Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.
But Craig wore a tuxedo in both CR and QoS, before going “full retro”. I’m not understanding… you said “If cinematic Bond means someone with a tuxedo or a suit all the time, yes, Craig and Dalton tried to be different…”
Yet Craig wore a lot of suits in both films?
So did Dalton?
Both wore tuxes as well?
I’m missing something…
No, that's not what it means necessarily. That's merely an element.
But yes, the attempts had hits and misses. The misses were mainly narrative in the case of Craig's era, for me. However, you can't deny it was an era of trying new things and I do admire that. Some subjective missteps come with the territory, and the films ultimately were still hugely successful - so while you could make a case for it, you'd need a whopper closing statement to sell it to a jury.
To be honest I’ve always thought the opening of SF is actually really cinematic. One of the most cinematic shots of the series in fact. But to each their own.
I certainly had the same feeling - the death on its own terms didn't really effect me all that much as I still couldn't buy into Bond and Swann's relationship. However there still was that lingering feeling afterwards of a parting of the ways, as you say. Just goes to show that the concept of Bond dying is powerful, regardless of the circumstances that bring us there.
Think you missed the point of the PTS. It’s stylistic, certainly, not theatrical. And it’s obvious Bond hears a noise- pulls his gun out, sensing danger. He moves forward, sees one dead agent lying in a pool of his blood, no idea if the big bad is still there, until he finds Ronsan bleeding out.
I don’t think he’s going to barge into a room without knowing if there’s an enemy still lurking (if he did, that would be the fantastical approach, 😂)….
I also took Bond's entrance in SF as trying not to get killed.
For me it’s pure cinema. It’s a wonderfully composed shot akin to something like the final shots of The Searchers or The Third Man (which are also very stylistic in not dissimilar ways, and revolve heavily around the characters’ movements). Regardless of that though, I’ve never found anything theatrical or out of place about it. It’s just a great shot that accentuates a moment in the film. It’s certainly not theatrical.
Perhaps he hasn't seen Bond 23 either.
When Bond enters the room, three people have been shot. The noise Bond heard before that was actually a door closing (Patrice leaving). There isn't much context here but it seems like Bond, Ronson, and two other agents were guarding the laptop and Patrice surprised them. It still doesn't explain Bond's overly-dramatic intro, sauntering down a corridor and mugging for the camera when three people have been shot, only drawing his pistol when he hears a door.
Craig wasn't "mugging for the camera".
That saying quite literally means striking a funny face to attract attention or when being photographed.
Although you may not like the scene, you don't have to be hyperbolic about it, 😂 (theatrical, posing, mugging...)
You quite simply didn't like it. Fair. And I don't think Bond was a part of the crew protecting the laptop.
And Bond didn't know anyone had been shot until he went deeper into the flat...
Again though to each their own. I certainly complain about/don’t like certain things in Bond films others wouldn’t think about normally or outright don’t see, so I can relate 😂
Starting a scene as late as you can (and the second part of that is, to leave early, in most cases (wanting the audience to want more is a good thing)), is a great call and is a technique used in films, not theatre (circling back to the point that the PTS of SF is *very* cinematic, and not "theatrical" in the least).
And we all have scenes we don't like, but most don't have to be hyperbolic. I just don't like anything to do with the TWINE PTS; I find it overlong, in somplaces the humor is juvenile, and although there's a lot going on, I find myself bored with it. Those are my opinions, and I don't need to jack my opinion up with any exaggerations or demean the PTS (as I know it does work for others), by adding things to it that just aren't there... It's just my opinion, and that's all. I don't need to convince myself , or others, that this is a universal truth. It's a sequence of scenes that I don't connect with, period.
If slide_99 despises the PTS , that's all fair and good. He just doesn't need to jack-up his opinions by coloring the PTS with things that aren't there, or exaggerating what was there. I'm assuming he did the bare minimum, though, and actually watched this film, so at least a discussion can actually be had, 😂....
I still remember going to see it opening night, the rumour was the gunbarrel was back at the start. I was disappointed initially then it started with that fantastic opening shot, all was forgiven. There was something cool, iconic and almost ominous about Bond walking towards camera
For most, it started on the right foot, and rolled from there.
Next to GF, TMWTGG, MR, and GE for sure, one of my favorite pre-title sequences. I like Bond working with a partner. Also, having MI6 talking to him, reminds me of the video games, when they do the same thing.
Wow, TLD?!! I didn’t see that one coming, 😂!!
It still remains my favourite. I just loved/love it. It really felt like we had a genuine changing of the guards… but I also think the NTTD was unique and original and brave in playing with different genres (horror, romance, character, action)…