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
Yeah, I feel in the Craig era we've switched from focus on plot (even a simple or weak one) with minor character development, to focus on character development with minor plot. In the old films we would get subtle moments when the human side of Bond would show, but he would largely remain a guarded figure who was just focused on the job at hand. Now it's the inverse. Bond is an open wound, and when the plot of the film does come up, it seems almost accidental. Like someone mentioned it by mistake. I get the same feeling from both Skyfall and SPECTRE, that the nuts and bolts aren't really important. That's just background information compared to the emotional resonance we're supposed to feel. I've no problem with that, but when there's nothing to back it up, what's it really worth?
I very much agree. Plot does appear to be incidental these days. I think they nailed the character elements in SF but failed to achieve that in SP. Others prefer SP due to the familiar elements making a comeback, although I personally think the execution was predictable and botched. Regardless, I think they're tapped out, and need a new approach. I think they recognize that too, based on comments from young Wilson and P&W.
comments from young Wilson and P+W?
I have missed that info.
What drives me mad is that P+W are still allowed to work on Bond. Or are they?
They'll probably view a new apporach to make the mission personal for Bond haha...and include M in the plot :P
You ask a pertinent question though. Only Baz has confirmed P&W. EON have been silent on everything.
Nah, but seriously, I think something will either be released or leaked in the coming month. Even EON aren't this sneaky.
They didn't lose any money, I don't know where you've got that from. On the whole CR was critically lauded, something cemented further as time goes on. I love Brosnan as much as the next man (Who's that? The next man), but let's be real about this.
What I mean is CR and QOS didn't sell more tickets than GE or DAD did. Brosnan in CR would most certainly have sold much more tickets.
Of course none of the Bond films ever lost money. I worded it a bit wrongly.
Skyfall's success will always be linked to the 50th though and not to Craig as such.
Casino Royale will remain his one classic for all times. And rightfully so.
Disagree with this. I'm pretty certain if you flagged up SF with the general public they wouldn't even remember the anniversary. It just worked. And I say that as someone who thinks CR is far and away the best Craig film. There's no getting away from the fact SF did something special and we should celebrate that, not find excuses for why a minority is correct and the rest of the world has been, in some way, hoodwinked.
My thoughts exactly.
I only slightly like Casino Royale.
Brosnan is a not very good actor who, with the right direction, can still turn in a decent performance. As far as I'm concerned his Bond performances were all duds, but I can still see a scenario in which it might have worked.
I always liked the idea of Tarantino directing Brosnan in CR.
Brozza is much more of a Tarantino actor than Craig.
I enjoy Casino Royale, but it's the reputation as a stone cold classic that confounds me. The constant hyperbole gets a little grating after a while.
Casino Royale on the other hand will always stand in a line with GoldenEye, The Spy Who Loved Me and Goldfinger.
Within the genre and specifically the franchise it's a stone cold classic. That's quite simply what it is.
I'd say the same thing about GoldenEye. Simply cannot understand on any level what people see in it.
CR I think is a very decent entry, but I am not quite as sold on it as some people on here. The writing is fairly ropey in places and there are aspects I don't much care for. But overall it's very good. Craig hits it out the park and there's a good supporting cast, nice title song and score and for the most part it looks pretty good.
Overall I think Campbell is rather overrated as a Bond director. Claims that he's the most important director in the series' history are totally overblown.
If it was a film you saw repeatedly during the critical time of your youth you may think differently.
Incidentally, who has said here that he is the most important director of all? I like Campbell but he's not on the same level as Terrence Young.
@bondjames. "Consequential" is a good word for Campbell.
And again, after EON took the unnecessary risk of replacing a sure bet winner of a Bond actor, Campbell came in and delivered.
Just imagine Marc Forster had directed CR. Craig would probably not have survived past two films.
Yes, in the "modern" time, Campbell is by far the most important director.
Of course Terence Young has defined Bond!!
Completely agree!
I don´t consider Campbell the best or flawless, but perhaps Eon should have forced him to take a breather and then make Craig´s 3rd and 4th film. That way, at least it would feel like the same universe.
According to my,admittedly completely unscientific, poll among those who usually don't go and watch Bond movies at the cinema anymore it was because they had heard that M died in it. It's one of the three names everyone who has ever heard of the franchise knows and relates to. In my opinion It's just as simple as that. Of course the queen parachuting with 007 didn't hurt either.