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 understood you agreed with me on the casting.
And for the record I don't think the characters are badly written.
And that's fine. You two carry on.
Personally, i think they need to introduce a droid in the new installment, maybe they can borrow BB8! :)
Edit down the MI6 team scenes
Totally redo the Alps action sequence so it's the BEST part of the movie
Drop the Blofeld family connection and/or keep Waltz as Oberhauser working for unseen Blofeld
Make Bond/Swann escape from Blofeld/Oberhauser lair more involved/plausible
Redo London ending on scale of RN. Less can be more, suspenseful instead of overblown, forced and hokey. Bond going after C (who maybe now aided by Hinx, but not Oberhauser/Blofeld).
What's scary is that MGW's son was in charge of the Alps sequence. And it was lame!
I'll take Babs' decisions any day over his.
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. One of MGW's sons was in charge of the 007 Legends debacle (quite possibly the same one).
I dread to think where we will be in 20 years when Babs and MGW have handed over the reins.
Well given by comparison Babs was in charge of producing the LTK tanker chase I'd say YES I'd take any of her decisions over his.
Remy Julienne reported they prepared the stunts with some tanker models, and discovered in the very last weeks they would have to shoot the movie with other different models. Kudos to them for being able to deal with that :)
@Ludivico, could you please point out the Fleming novels you're referring to other than CR and OHMSS? From what I've read, and I've read all of them, Fleming was pretty much the "hero gets the girl"-kind of writer. Quite straightforward. Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, Thunderball, Moonraker and Dr. NO, just to name a few, all end with Bond and the girl getting it on. Not so much bitter-sweet as far as I can recall.
Actually those bloody "bitter-sweet" endings do not support the escapism that can be found in the novels and older movies. An exception every now and then keeps things fresh, like with CR. However along with other pretentious tendencies mentioned in this thread, for some reason Bond can't have a happy end any more.
The Bond movies nowadays have lost their soul IMHO. They are no more "the spy story to end all spy stories", but arty and pretentious drama's that are more akin to soap opera's instead of thrilling, escapist adventures.
Well in CR, MR (suggest you re-read it and check its Fleming's version not Christopher Wood's) FRWL, OHMSS and YOLT Bond most certainly does not get the girl so it's far from a rarity.
Take your point about the Mendes pretentiousness though.
My point is that the current movies are trying so hard to be different from the old ones, that they try to avoid quintessential things like getting the girl or having a good old villain with an evil plan, and come up with the personal relations to Bond instead.
With it's flaws, I was happy the the tone in SPECTRE started to change and James does run off with Madeleine. Unfortunately from this point, I can only see Blofeld escaping and killing Madeleine, making things again personal.
Too bad EON has passed on the opportunity to have SPECTRE as an organisation that's out there as a believable threat to the world, instead of just Bond's personal life.
Didn't they do it already? My hypothesis about Bond's child is that Fleming was planning to end Bond's career, and maybe life even. He is no longer an ageless man the moment he brings a child to the world. Or he just wanted to show how Bond's life could truly be bitter and marked with lost: his wife first, then his identity, then finally his child, which he would know nothing about, not even his existence. He is by the end of YOLT a truly lost man, where everything has been stripped away from him.
And it's completely off topic I know.
A very interesting hypothesis. I can see how that may be the case. When you say they have already explored his child from YOLT, where and when was this? I've obviously missed it.
The whole Nine Eyes plot is so tacked on. The attack to get the South Africans in literally happens in the background! Bond doesn't try to stop it; he's not even aware of it.
YOLT 'a happy and funny ending'? Are you actually mental? Christ I know we get some inane comments on these boards but I congratulate you Sir; not even two weeks into January and you have the award for 'Most Ludicrous Comment 2016' sewn up. The only way you can be beaten is if someone comes out and says 'DAD is the best Bond of all time'! And people who think that live in Broadmoor and aren't allowed access to the Internet so I think you've got it in the bag.
Bond ending up not knowing who he is and obliviously on his way to Vladivostok happy in the knowledge that the Russians wouldn't harm a simple fisherman from Fukuoka is possibly an even bleaker ending than CR and OHMSS.
Presumably when you feel like a proper belly laugh you shove Threads in the DVD player?
Following on from your lack of knowledge of MR you now compound it with this ridiculous comment? I'd suggest just sticking to discussing the films as your knowledge of Fleming can only be described as scant!
Come on Wiz, please don't get like this over someone else's opinion.
Compared to you my own knowledge of Fleming is definitely scant, but I believe he would be referring to Bond and Kissy's gentle, seemingly happy existence. 'Funny' probably due to the sex toys stuff and Bond finding the book. You could argue it was funny and happy, but equally sad because Kissy was trying to keep Bond to herself and clearly failing.
The fact that the chief villain knows Bond from his childhood is not a good plot point. The Blofeld character deviates pointlessly from Fleming.
I don't disagree, but it happened. I feel no real need to labour over it. There are positives I can embrace about the character and performance.
Is it? I would presume DC will do one, at a push two films. After that I believe they'll rest Spectre and when they do bring them back there will be no childhood connection. DC's missions have been very personal to his incarnation of the character. I believe it will be a plot point of his era alone.
Agreed the stuff with the frog sweating and the pillow book is funny.
But don't confuse a funny incident in a tragic story as a funny and, indeed, happy ending.
Our hero the urbane, suave gentleman spy reduced to a shambling amnesiac who after losing his wife ends up believing he's a Japanese peasant who naively goes and puts himself in the hands of the Russians doesn't strike me as funny or happy in the slightest.
Even for Kissy it's a tragic ending as her idyllic life is shattered by the discovery of the word Vladivostok and because she loves Taro San she knows she has to let him go despite being left up the duff.
-Don't call it Spectre.
-Keep the opening scenes the same- have Bond tracking Sciarra, and he links him to an underground organization that's possibly a reorganized Quantum.
-Keep the Rome scene as-is, except Bond does not get a good look at the leader's face.
-During the investigation, the name Franz Oberhauser comes up. Bond recognizes the name, and he wonders if Oberhauser faked his death. It'd been decades since he'd last seen him. Now with a personal tie to the case, he tries to track Oberhauser down.
-Following the meteor scene, where Oberhauser reveals himself to have been the leader at the Rome meeting, he invites Bond and Madeline to dinner. At dinner Oberhauser mentions events from Bond's childhood. Then, (casually would be best), he reveals that he's NOT actually Oberhauser. Oberhauser is indeed dead, and he took his identity knowing it was the best way to lure Bond to him. He took Bond's personal ties and manipulated them to his advantage.
-THEN he reveals that his real name is Ernst Stavro Blofeld. (DUN DUN DUN.) He was the mastermind behind Quantum, which was really just a branch of his umbrella organization, SPECTRE.
-Bond 25 will now be called "Spectre".
(Of course, there's other tweaks I would make, such as the unconvincing "love" story and the ridiculous escape from Blofeld's lair, but I think resolving the stupid Bond-Blofeld connection would strengthen the movie a lot, not to mention it was a twist that almost EVERYONE saw coming. Having the presence of Spectre be a complete surprise would have greatly improved the viewer's experience, to me at least.)