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 agree and interestingly enough you've just described what makes Damon's Bourne movies so great.
Fully disagree here. A good actor convinces in every kind of portrayal of Bond..........starting off as an agressive, lone, blunt instrument and ending into a more self-assured, funny, suave Bond. Craig can really do it all. Unless many of the previous Bond actors. And yes, for them the adage "Every actor should play to their strengths" counts. Not for Craig IMO. He convinces in every Bond film if you ask me. And I seriously mean that.
Frankly, I find it a bit...disrespectful to say that an actor can only play one type of Bond. Daniel Craig has shown us all various character traits of the person....slowly developing from a blunt rogue instrument into the 'Bond' we all know. The problem IMO really is the public. They are not opening up their minds for this unique development of the character.
You think so?
I love "Skyfall" too, and at least during the PTS, at the very end of the film (when Bond enters 'M's new office) and during certain humorous scenes ("Health and Safety, carry on!" & "Ooowh come on and eject me! See if I care!"), we already got prepared for a Bond whose emotions are in better check and who occasionally is very funny.
People say that Craig's Bond in "SF" was too suddenly made "old". But I always found that notion a bit exaggerated. Bond in "SF" was way more a victim of 'M's stupid decisions. And how would you feel if you're left dead in Turkey and if your 'company' doesn't do a proper check on Bond's body? And combined with that many bullet fragments in your chest, you certainly aren't a fit spy anymore. I always saw the period between the end of the PTS when Bond was shot and the return of Bond in M's house.....as a period of only a few months...perhaps 5 or 6 months. Not 3 or 4 years. So never forget, during the PTS, which is set 4 years after the events of "QOS", Bond is already a more experienced spy.
SF was better liked, because it had more emotion, more soul. But people were used to that from DC. Suddenly all that is missing for the sake of giving them the lighter version of the films as well as the character. That must have been ??? for many.
IMO, had they done both - the fun left where it is, but with more depth along the line.
Plus Bond still bleeding - we would have had another billion plus movie.
As it is, DC has proven, he can do lighter Bond and has perfect timing again with the fun. Maybe with the next, they can do what I suggested. Have it both.
But in all honesty......SF mainly had more "soul" because of the intercation between 'M' and Silva. The film was much more about them than about Bond. Bond in SF was way more the 'logical instrument of the circumstances' in this film.
IMO SP has way more 'soul' as compared to, let's say, DAD, GE and TND. And SP is much more about Bond himself as compared to SF.
The odd thing really is: People don't like 'Bond' anymore. At least not the.....'Bond' we Bond fans are used to. In CR and SF people liked the emotional characters. But to say that SP u-turns on this is IMO a sheer exaggeration. It shows how much the public got used to the darker and more emotional drama, and less interested in the humor and playfulness of the character. "Rogue Nation" and other "M:I"-films are now walking away with this, because those films really don't have that 'darker emotion'.
Therefore I think Bond 25 should not necessarily become a more 'deeper' film. On the contrary, I think the public needs to get used to our 'typical Bond' a bit more. And we have to 'drag' that fun and playfulness again even more fiercefully from those "Mission: Impossible" films.
I stand by my view that when an actor plays to his relative strengths, that is when magic happens.
In the opinion of some members of the public and some members here, that was CR & QoS for DC.
Do you now? Well that's unfortunate. I am not being disrespectful at all. Just pointing out an opinion which I stand by. Again, my comment didn't suggest that one actor can play one type of Bond. Suggesting that implies a lack of understanding of the nuance in my statement. Again, to repeat it, my view is that when an actor plays to his relative strength, that is when magic happens. Otherwise, you just get a good performance. Nothing to write home about.
I disagree. The public have accepted the film. It is making tons of money. They are not ecstatic about it for the most part, and that is due to the film making and the performance within the film. That is not the public's fault. We can't put the blame for this on them.
Precisely right. As I said elsewhere, we needed one more transition film (at least I did) before going to this kind of Bond performance, especially in a film that is a direct follow on from SF. It's interesting to note that those who invested in SF and the performances are less praising for the most part of SP, and vice versa. One needs to almost detach from SF to enjoy SP fully as a standalone, but they link everything together plot wise, making such detachment more difficult.
I agree again. This was a film making decision that didn't quite pay off for some fans and some audiences. The break was too jarring for many (including myself). The film lacked 'soul' as you said. That is a key ingredient to stir passions. SF had it in spades, no matter what one may think of it, which is why it was so passionately defended on these forums by many members. Whatever one may think of it, they executed their chosen direction in that film very well. It delivered what it set out to do perfectly (even if what it set out to do was not liked by some or even many). I noted that in the SP rank thread. SF did what it set out to do better than SP did imho.
I don't think so. The public will accept anything that is well executed. It can be lighter, or it can be darker. It just needs to be done well. That's why the last two MI's have critical acclaim as well as being relatively popular. They were executed well. The tropes were done in inventive fashion and with style. The call backs to Bond and other spy films were subtle and not in your face. Execution is everything.
That's certainly true, but the comments that started this discussion were focused on CR & QoS, which certainly have 'soul' and are still Bond films through and through, one ranked extremely high by a lot of members here, myself included.
SP was just what the doctor ordered.
Couldn't agree more. After SF, SP was exactly what the doctor ordered, and I honestly didn't think Mendes would be able to deliver a film such as that.
What about: SP, SF and CR are all magnificent :-D!?!? And perhaps in hindsight, QOS is quite good too :-D?
CR was a massive relief after Brosnan but not quite as good as some people make out (Campbell's rather plodding direction may be the culprit).
QOS was the first Bond movie I actually really enjoyed in the cinema since TLD.
SF is jam packed full of great ideas that somehow fail to coalesce into a descent movie. 4 out of 10.
SP, a highly derivative and largely unoriginal nostalgia fest that somehow just works. 8 out of 10.
Totally agree. I thought we'd get another doom and gloom drama fest.
You know what? Back in 1971 I actually think critics welcomed DAF with open arms! But here we are...45 years later :-).
Its just that the stories required he be saddled with baggage and issues and stuff that I personally could do without, so that detracted from appreciation for his work...but when let loose in SP minus the encumbrances....I think he nailed Bond better than anyone has since Connery. In fact I don't think any of Rog Dalts or Broz even come close.
I think SP is a trumph of Bond over Mendes.
Good job Dan!! Bond is back!
Well sadly that's not gonna happen! :))
If he came back and did another movie, and it was just a standalone that wasn't connected to the other 4, it'd be kinda strange, and I think there is virtually no chance of a 6th from him.
So that mean's they'd have to connect his 5th one to SPECTRE and the rest. How do you really do that? Go the OHMSS route and have blofeld or one of his henchmen kill of Madeline after the wedding, sending bond on a LTK type revenge story? That would kinda piss me off as we finally get to see bond settle down with "the only one who could have understood him" so killing her off when he's retired and happy, especially after his attempt to do that in CR would just be kinda wrong.
I guess if you could spin the story of Blofeld being broken out of prison and them needing bond's help to track him down again or something, it could work, but I seriously doubt they'll get Waltz back, so how do you even do that?
Overall, I was happy with most of the humour in Spectre though. I would have preferred though for Spectre that it had been more serious. It would be good if Craig/Bond made a serious mistake at the beginning of Bond 25 and M explained to him that he's become too relaxed and complacent and we then see a more serious portrayal of the character again like in Craig's first three films. I don't think Craig should have phoned Moneypenny during that chase scene. Also, Mendes shouldn't have gone forward with Spectre until a better script had been composed.
The stuff in London at the end should have been omitted and instead Bond should have spent more time at the villain's lair.
That part with the photos of previous people from Bond's past in those different rooms was so cheesy.
Agreed, that was one of the few things that bothered me.
That was awful, truly poor. Not sure who's idea it was, but whomever let that make it into the final cut should be fired.
Yes. This is what bothered me the most.
And the lack of socks, now that it has been pointed out. Ad infinitum.