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
You are having a debate with yourself.
Plenty don't like QOS either
I don't care about BO or Oscars, and I also have certain issues with the recent trajectory, but it could be so much worse. My criticism has context. To think we'd be better off with Disney or the like is, if you'll excuse my language, fucking stupid.
Craig is only an actor and cannot be blamed for a movie being either great or bad. If he gives his best, goal accomplished in any case.
Then you answered my question. Part of it.
Also listen to this music piece from Gregg Wilson, Michael Wilson's son and associate producer on the Bond films. Simply astonishing:
Box office is important because it means more Bond films. It's all a business as I'm sure you know.
Yeah sure, I obviously hit a nerve as well with that comment.
Why am I not allowed to see the 70's as the weakest decade in Hollywood???
And the far more important question that not one has answered yet, if not the 70's then which decade is less good or best rank the decades from say 50's to 00's to get a perspective on where the 70's stand in general consensus on this forum.
But I get the bigger picture.
I like Brosnan, I like DAD, I'm critical of Craig, I'm overly critical of Skyfall, and I'm very critical of how EON (BB + MGW) have acted since 2006.
That's not a good combination to make any friends in forums like this, I'm fully aware of this.
Nevertheless those are my opinions and sometimes I state them bold and simple.
But I believe most of the time I give valid arguments and reasons.
Opinion is fine..you are getting this reaction from people as you are coming across as boorish, and aggressive...inventing things people supposedly say. Like whatever you like...no need to be an ass about it though
..and I did answer..which decade is "less good" than the 70s?"..all of them
Your opinion isn't the problem, your tone and attitude is
Makes it look like you're just posting opinions to get a rise out of people, or trolling.
Personally I think Babs and MGW have done a better job since 2004. I agree about Purvis and Wade though. To be fair they did try and get rid of them but then it turned out they had problems with Logan (not all that surprising given he is pretty weak on plot and story as well).
I didn't know they wanted to give them the boot. The writing seems to be the weakest link in the franchise since TND.
The Godfather
The Godfather 2
Dirty Harry
Chinatown
The Taking of Pelham 123
The Exorcist
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Jaws
Star Wars
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Apocalypse Now
One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest
Dog Day Afternoon
The Conversation
The Wickerman
Get Carter
All The Presidents Men
I'm sure I could go on and others could add more, yeah it looks like a terrible decade for films, we are entitled to our opinions but his on cinema won't be taken seriously by me after such asinine comments.
Please tell me those films above aren't some of the greatest and most influential motion pictures of all time?
I love Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Skyfall is deeply Flawed but It has grown on me and sits around 14 in ranking after my last viewing I don't think it will ever be top 10 for me. As For Quantum there are a few things I would change about it but not as much as others because I love the film. I have tried to hate it as it's the in thing to do but sorry I love the film. As for Spectre based on everything I read this could be a low top 10 for me possibly 7 or 8. I will give a full and thorough review in November.
Are the issues with craig era in general I have well of course
The lack of great Craig as Bond video games for one
and of course that like Brosnan we might only get 4 from him in a perfect world I would want him for 5-7 films. I also wish WB swopped in 2008 and bought MGM and a huge price because well then we would of had a bond film in 2010 and then one in 2012.
To sum it all up This could be the finale Craig film this might not to be fair there was a time in 2009 I honestly believed Quantum was the final Craig Bond Film and possibly the final bond film ever. in a perfect world Craig will be back for 2 more and one of those 2 will use one more short story title.
I got it, I was wrong to boldly say the 70's is the worst decade of Hollywood.
It is my least favourite decade for movies, that's that.
I did explain why earlier, that explanation should have been in my original post. That's my mistake entirely.
@Shardlake
Very nice list (did you post it into the "favourite movies of the 70's thread" already?
I 200% agree. I find it inexplicable that they are still working for EON. The plots and writing have been the Achilles heal of the series for years.
Purvis and Wade were actualy sacked after SF but when Mendes rejoined for SP they were rehired.
We all have our favourites..I get that.
Do you have a favourite decade?
But if Spectre is his last, what do you people think about the supporting cast??
Should Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kinnear, Ben Whisaw, Neomie Harris stay around and welcome the new Bond actor or should they all get the boot for a completely new era?
the 70s. the greatest decade in cinema...
I think we can add to that list -
Annie Hall
Manhattan
The Deer Hunter
Barry Lyndon
Superman:TheMovie
Days Of Heaven
Rocky
Taxi Driver
The French Connection
Network
Alien
Patton
The Last Picture Show
oh and Airport' 75...only kidding!
That was what I was thinking as well. Does Wishaw see this as a long term gig that will keep him ticking over while he does other more serious stuff on the side? It is a nice gig to have tbh. He is never likely to be a leading man himself and has a promising career as a character actor ahead of him. A permanent job as Q is quite desirable for an actor in his position.
I like to think EON has the main supporting cast on long term multi-film contracts.
Idris Elba with Naomi Harris? ;)
That's simply not true. If you look at early editions of Leonard Maltin's review book, he cites Shatner in the first TREK movie as giving one of the worst lead performances ever in a film of that magnitude. The guy could not use acting talent or star charisma to get folks to go along with the movie over its many uneven patches - yet that is pretty much what a star is there for. You can argue that there's not much an actor can do when the director leaves in 90 second stretches where the camera is just showing the weird stuff outside the ship, but in the portions dealing with people, the movie is often a big emotional zero, and that falls on Shatner's shoulders (something Harlan Ellison pointed out in his review of the same film as well.) A good example of how a performer can help a film along is in lots of Connery pics where his presence simply compensates for any number of failings in cast and production value around him, like OUTLAND and WRONG IS RIGHT, and even to a degree DR NO, which has some pretty flat scenes that he energizes (and a few he overplays, I give you that.)
With Craig, you have a actor-turned-star (god knows how) who all of a sudden thinks he can write during QUANTUM. I don't think Forster got adequate support from the producers on QUANTUM during prep or shooting (if they had really laid it all out for him, I think he would have just said 'I can't work that way'), and that just left the incredibly brief post period to make it into his movie, for which he only partly succeeded.
If the producers were doing their job on QUANTUM, then no one would have been surprised when Haggis turned in the crazy 'Vesper's kid' crap -- in fact, he'd not have been allowed to BEGIN writing if that was his big idea and they had their heads on straight. The fact that QUANTUM is the only reboot-era film I can rewatch speaks magnitudes about Forster managing to do some -- only some -- things very well.
Wise really did not understand TREK at all, and with Roddenberry and Livingston he had two guys with totally different attitudes about it rewriting each other all the way through, a terrible way to make a movie. I still love parts of it, but I feel bad as that film was the biggest missed opportunity in so many ways.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/67/star-trek#latest
Both of you don't like Craig and that's fine. To each his own.
But I actually think Forster did many things well ...just not to many fans taste.
They were trying to think outside the box... no the kid idea didn't work ..although possibly inspired by Fleming's YOLT ..who knows.
2. As @RC7 stated: forget contracts or contractual obligations. DC can come back ir leave on his own. Michael Wilson put that issue to bed: his contract is wide open.
3. DC is always a walking talking contradiction. One moment he says he wants out of playing Bond and the next he is saying how much he loves it. It has been this way for nine years.
4. I would bet on DC being back for Bond 25. And I'd say it is 50-50 for Mendes to do another.
Y'know if they'd cloned Maibaum before he went in the ground, by now they'd probably have a grownup who was smart enough to write a bunch of decent Bond movies.
That's the deal with the first postmodern Bond movie: villain wants better motivation, so he clones excellent dead writer then waits on his plans till the guy is able to instill compelling drama in his conceits and actions.
Better save that for the FLINT reboot, I guess.