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
I have to agree that each actor needs to be used for their uniqueness and strengths. I think that QOS was the only time I watched Craig without looking to the past. But, with the advent of SF, they were trying to make him wear the Connery skin more and it detracted from his abilities.
I am in the minority, but QOS is the only Craig film that let's him be truly Craig. CR tried to use the Goldeneye techniques like the Aston DB5, which pulled me out of the film.
And Craig never looked better than in that opening scene with the Aston. There was no time to analyse or think, because it took you right in. His lines also were unique to his style with the emphasis on believability. Why he changed so radically by SF was beyond me! Yes, it made tonnes of money, but it was too much of an unnecessary apology for the critical failing of QOS. I found the film trying to tick boxes so blatantly.
And for what it is worth, the story of QOS pisses on SF and SP put together. That was original and grounded in a lot of truths about the nature of the CIA!
That's why I firmly believe they have to get these films back on a 3 year (if 2 is not possible) schedule. 4 years changes an actor and everyone around him. If Babs has a problem with that, then I look forward with keen anticipation to the next generation (Greg and Co.) taking over.
We've seen this Bond go from rookie to professional agent in four films, nothing more, nothing less. Any gradations of character feel very natural to me and we never seen this Bond regress back to what he was at the beginning of CR, as he's learned lessons along the way that've made him more responsible and focused in heart and mind.
Let alone the fact that he was a rookie at 38 years old and only then got his 00 licence. Sorry, but that simply didn't work (for me). Reboot nonsense gone awry.
It didn't work cinematically.
I got into special forces at 20. And I had to retire at 40. Or staying and getting a desk job, which wouldn't have worked for me.
As for his age at CR, Bond had a history of service elsewhere, as did the other Bonds (we see Sean, Roger and Pierce in naval uniform) and he simply made the jump to other work as a 00. We don't know why he made the switch, but it's clear he went from commander to 00 possibly for a new perspective on things.
I'd love for Dan's Bond to actually be called "Commander Bond" by someone, but as of yet we've only seen his rank referred to in text.
I personally think he was still best in CR, because the subtleties of the script and the superb Eva Green allowed him to play both intense and smooth. QoS's more sparing script didn't give enough opportunities for that (they were few and far between).
I believe they should have kept a little more intensity in the action sequences in SF. The Komodo sequence didn't work for me at all, given what I expect from a Craig film. It was sloppy. The YOLT office fight is the way to combine intensity with smoothness.
You raise some fine points and it was my falling out of love with the new series. I see the Nolan influence and the cinematography looked technically great, but left me cold. And is it me, but QOS looked like a Bond film more than SF.
I prefer saturated then it seems! Kudos to your technical knowledge.
It's a fascinating film to study, truly. When we get to it in the Bondathon I'll be writing a damn book on that one.
A tribute to the hacking suit that Sean wears in GF after the golf match, naturally.
The themes are all there, really. And with Forster as director and crafter of the vision, it is a clear intention (he's also said so).
Ruined the film. That's the kind of stuff the Austin Powers films made fun of, and then EON does it anyway. That was bloody awful.
Austin Powers kind of stuff, based on the bad Bond film contrivances.
Just let him be Blofeld, with a bunch of villains, I would have bought that.
Awful.
I was waiting for a classic dinner scene once Bond had got to the crater,and was offered champagne before viewing the meteor.
Once Blofeld appeared I presumed we would have a dinner scene,ala DN,OP or TMWTGG.
It just seemed rushed after all that,and wasted a chance for great banter between Craig & Waltz.
How frustrating....do we know anything about the scene ?
I think this is the right link, you can find it in this script
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fivw3sjeiwd9uk/UNT B24_12.1.14_DB.pdf?dl=0
From what I can remember it basically served the same purpose as the torture scene.
I cant access that...so did they sit around a table etc ?
In the other one, they sit around, and Bond plays poker with Blofeld with nuts (actual nuts, Blofeld had a long paraphrasing of metaphors put forward with philosophy composed of his past and anger with Bond. And cuckoo is explained here better.) instead of chips and loses.
Thanks for the info @ClarkDevlin ,I must try and get hold of those drafts.
I would have much preferred a refined but tense dinner discussion building to some sort of emotional blow up. I'm thinking along the lines of Tarantino's Django Unchained scene (also featuring Waltz) mixed in with traditional Bond elements.