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
Hopefully not, right now 2028 seems the most likely year.
It's a very interesting analysis for sure, but I fear you put more thought in it than the filmmakers did. IMO them shagging each other at the end was a step too far; had they just parted their ways it would have made it resonate better (again, IMO).
Tend to agree. if they'd wanted to play up the 'I'll kill you after' angle then have it come up during the climax; and when he comes to Atlantis to rescue her there's your opportunity to show Anya being confused that Bond would come to save her when he knows she'll kill him- but none of that is there. I think it would make it a bit stronger, but regardless the filmmakers don't seem very interested in it, as you say.
Yeah I can kind of imagine a nice moment where Anya sees Bond and says something like "why would you come for me when you know I will kill you?", something explodes, the whole base rocks and water showers on them, and Bond juts out his jaw, grabs her hand and says "Come on, you can kill me later" :D
Brilliant. Such a simple change, and that would elevate TSWLM from a good movie to a great one.
You have all the time in the world.
Anyway, as to how Bond 26 could tackle questions of Bond's heroism - I'd say Bond is a flawed character whose vices are double edged swords for himself and others. The Brosnan and particularly the Craig films did a great job of leaning into that with things like Bond being responsible for the deaths of certain women, showing us his heavy drinking at points in his career. But ultimately it comes down to Bond doing heroic and selfless things, defeating the villain, saving the day etc. Just keep that general approach and I think they should be fine.
However honourable or cynical Mattels intentions, it hard to argue that the message of "what was I made for" and the use of the toys to reflect the respective genders place was something that resonated massively with general audiences. They call it metamodernism I think, and I bring up this example because a lot of the time people will say "oh you could never do THAT in a Bond film anymore" when it comes to some of the cheesier stuff, like the eyebrow arching, slightly silly one liners, directing action scenes with a comedic bent etc. But I think you could absolutely still do that stuff, if it's handled corrected and presented as the superficial outward appearance of Bond's life, exotic, thrilling etc. Just as Barbie land appears idyllic on the surface. You could have your cake and eat it essentially, and have the silliness in a modern context that still works dramatic and doesn't devolve into self-parody.
It depends on exactly what they do with Bond in this instance I suppose. I think all that outward stuff like the outlandishness, humour and self awareness is always there to some extent with these films. It was certainly there in Craig's last three quite overtly I'd say (by SF we get great moments like Bond adjusting his cuffs after leaping onto a train, and the double joke of 'he's keen to get home'/'health and safety, carry on', which I can definitely imagine in a Moore or Brosnan film). I don't think there's quite that sense that Bond can't do those things nowadays, and in effect the last few films have 'had their cake and eaten in two' in the way you described. So I'm not sure exactly what this metamodernism would look like or how it would all differ to what Bond has done in the past.
I think that self-parody cannot be ruled out if it is done well.
One of my favourite is quite subtle: in the PTS when Bond and Eve are chasing the Audi, they pass a line of police motorbikes who all fire their engines up and give chase as the car passes. It's not exactly overt and maybe not intentional, but it seems such a pleasingly cheesy nod to the way Bond chases of old were shot that I can't imagine they weren't having a little fun doing that.
It's a very old school moment. Hell, go back far enough to silent comedy films and you have similar moments where police are passed by Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin speeding or doing something odd and they give chase in that elaborate way.
I get what you mean. It's moment/gag the audience register, silly as it is, but it all feels natural and in tone for the film. It's one of the things I think SF does exceptionally well, and all Bond movies do to some extent. It's a film that has that element of heightened reality to it - Bond can hijack a digger on a train, leap and adjust his cuffs after etc. but it doesn't feel jarring or out of universe. It's all just part of that Bondian experience. I wouldn't want to lose that Bondian vibe for something too cartoonish or self aware like Kingsman or other franchises that, honestly, aren't quite as good as Bond in my opinion.
I agree, but I tend to think the groanworthiness of it was sort of the reason for it. Kind of like it was embracing those old naff gags of Bond films and proudly going for it without irony or being ashamed of it. I kind of loved how rubbish it was! :)
Replacing the story. That says it all.
That’s why I felt QOS was a misstep in many ways. CR made a great debut film, but it wasn’t sustainable as a formula for multiple films. Having a five film run with only the tone of CR/QOS would have made Craig’s run feel too monotonous. That’s why SF was such a hit as it embraced those old tropes with absolute pride, it felt refreshing after the glum QOS.
I think they literally said it at the time, didn't they? That they'd bring in more of the Bond tropes as the films went on. For all the talk of them 'not having enough of a plan' which people always complain about, that is something they said they intended to do from the start and carried out.
of the Moore and Brosnan eras. Please keep getting Bond right please in the vein of the Craig era.
I think that's what the series needs. It be a breath of fresh air.
I think there'll be something fresh about the new Bond. But it won't just be a simple case of 'doing what Moore or Brosnan did' either.
I'm half expecting to read a headline that says EON are being taken to court for some breach of contract and the hole were in will only get deeper if that happens.