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
In any case, I have been checking the main titles from "Rogue Nation":
http://www.artofthetitle.com/title/mission-impossible-rogue-nation/
And by jolly, did they disappoint me. Yes, I know it's "Mission: Impossible". But this is the cinematic "Mission: Impossible". I actually really liked the "Ghost Protocol" titles. Some decent work was invested in this really cool 'road trip' of which the scenes were perfectly interconnected with the actual fuse:
I am curious how Daniel Kleinman would do the titles.
I think the above poster nailed it right on the head. They can only go with the personal drama so long before it becomes tired. The ending of SP tells me EON is still deciding what the next film will entail, nothing is %100.
Me too. Damon and Greengrass really know how to construct a spy thriller. Supremacy and Ultimatum were phenomenal and it saddens me that I'm yet to see anything equally as badass or gripping as Bourne being interrogated at Naples airport or even Bourne letting the CIA know he can see them when tgeyre fussing ariund trying to trace his location. There's no rocket science, cute tricks or pretentious bs when it comes to Bourne; just a focus on a thrilling and gripping story and great action set in the world of espionage.
I don't know what MI will do, they seem to have found something with the last 2 and it's paid off and it works for them. The team dynamic with crazy stunts and out if this world gadgetry seems to satisfy a lot of people. Bond on the other hand, sometimes I don't know what EoN are thinking. I did enjoy SP but I was expecting a bit more and some parts did underwhelm me but I think EoN really need to scale back a bit on a few things and then simultaneously up the ante on others. I think Bourne next year is going to sh*t on every spy movie released this year.
I would really like them to scale it back with the spectacle myself, and give Bourne a run in the 'dark thriller' dept. CR proves they can do it if they want to. Keep it simple. Focus on the thriller elements and the story. They have a superb leading actor and they should use him to his fullest, and not be so hung up on the Bond tropes/legacy. That's my view.
I think here you are talking quite a lot of bullshit. I don't say it often, but it's really the bullshittiest kind of shit I've heard in a long time from you. And don't get me wrong. I have the greatest respect for your objectivity on the forum. But at times, it's not the actual choice of words that bothers me, but more the actual contents.
One thing that EON Productions and especially co-producer Daniel Craig and the three director's Campbell/Forster/Mendes DID do right, was actually slowly re-introducing the, what you call in a rather negative way, the "Bond tropes/legacy". Over a course of four films we got a tremendous quadrilogy in which we saw James Bond develop from an -indeed- Jason Bourne-esque blunt instrument in the James Bond we all know, we all care for. To say that the creative minds behind these four Bond films were "hung up in this Bond homage world" is actually completely pissing on the entire 53-year old Bond legacy.
And sorry guys, WTF do we expect from Bond now!? I personally think we have been expecting so much from Bond that it actually "hurts" the franchise. Not because the creative minds make good or bad decisions, but simply because WE fans at times stop being fans. We have become a bunch of fingerpointing and comparison-sickness suffering whiners. I remember a couple of months ago that some forummembers in here actually wanted a return to the "Good old Bond of the old". And now you @BondJames actually want the "Return to the simplicity of a stripped down, Jason Bourne-esque Bond".
Having said that, NOTHING is good anymore for a Bond film. NOTHING actually works anymore. And if some of those creative minds behind the Bond franchise actually listeng to 'all those lone narcist voices in the desert of social media', and all their disagreements, then THAT'S when you get a bad Bond film.
For me personally I greatly cherish the Craig-Quadrilogy. And a worthy unique quadrilogy it is man! James Bond is a true character now, with an incredible amount of (personal) history under his belt. THAT'S what EON Productions was thinking! It is NOT Jason Bourne, the guy who stayed everytime the same blunt, negative-looking rogue agent. It is NOT Ethan Hunt, who loves the action, but who can not shed one believable. credible tear. It is agent 007, James Bond, the guy who lost quite a lot of people close to him. Whose story captivated me entirely over a course of four films. Now can the man, finally have a bit more...fun again in his '4th' film "SPECTRE"? It's James Bond for God sake.
Over the course of 53 years and 24 films we have seen cold war-esque spy thrillers from the franchise, more cheesy comedic action films, intense Mendes-esque drama and God knows how damn logical it is to have so much variation in this franchise, both in tone and style.
A Bond fan embraces that variation, doesn't slam each film, slightly different than its predecessors, with negative criticism that one could have already seen practised entirely during one of those predecessing films. I said it many times before, the fact that the Bond franchise is 53 years old, always makes it prone to much more comparisons and criticism. But against EACH negative amount of criticism, which can certainly be used for future improvement, there should be some positive criticism as well.....some stuff that we should maintain.
Sorry @BondJames, it's off course your opinion. But I do think at times your negativity becomes annoying. Because it isn't that objective either anymore...
Yes, I do want a return to a 'dark, stripped down thriller'. That really is my preference. I think it suits Daniel Craig the actor more (as proven to me in CR/QoS/SF and even TGWTDT- not necessarily Bourne) and I would like him to do one more like that before he leaves the role. That is where/when I find him as an actor to be most effective.
The one thing you'll never see me do here is shit on your opinion or call it 'bullshit' or say that you are being too negative or positive. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. Every other member is entitled to theirs. There's no need for name calling or abuse. It's not going to make me agree with you and it's not going to make members of this forum and the public at large who disagree change their minds and agree with you either.
All it is at the end of the day, is someone's opinion and a discussion of various opinions, hopefully in a civil, and not abusive fashion, due to disagreements in this area.
The thing is...you use your negativity 'at will' really. In the case of "SPECTRE" you basically say that Craig's grittier personae suited him better in "SKYFALL". But when we solely talk about "SKYFALL" you use other comments/criticism to enhance the flaws of that film. Perhaps you would even say something like this "What worked so well in SP was the humour, and the Bond producers should have applied that aspect a bit earlier on. Perhaps already in "SKYFALL" "
And that's exactly the thing that annoys me a bit sometimes. Obviously you have your own opinion. And we live in a free world @BondJames. And if there's one thing for which I admire you, than it's your neat vocabulary you use in hear. Hell, even I can learn from that. But it times, I think your criticism may sound objective, but instead it falters in having too much subjective content, that at times you use at will.
If you are really such an...objective person, then you make a list of pro's and con's for every film we're discussing about in here...
It's not my style. I make my opinions known (everything I say here is an opinion in case anyone doesn't know that...... I think most do).
Maybe you actually want me to agree with you? Is that it? Well I may on some items, but not others.
I don't understand what you're talking about my language and method of communication. That's what I do and that's how I do it. I'm not criticizing your communication am I?
Sigh......I am at a total loss here. I've obviously ticked you and another member off, and that was not my plan at all. I'm just on the forum expressing myself, very personally.
Don't stop being who you are. We might not always agree but it would be boring here if we all agreed on everything.
As M said. Don't make it personal and we'll all get along just fine.
It's not a personal thing @bondjames. Trust me for that please. And I don't ask you to change your opinion. Let's agree to disagree then ok?
Anyway, for you, I apologize in advance for having a go at TWINE. I know it may piss you off but hopefully you know it's in jest.
Haha no worries. I wasn't singling you out in particular. You're more fair with your opinion's on TWINE and Brosnan's run in general and I respect that.
think the producers themselves have often fallen victim to the idea that someone else might outdo Bond. Bond is unique and the best way to remain on top is to never forget what makes Bond, Bond. Cruise can do a lot of cool stuff, but he's not Bond.
Don't think like that, it's not good for you. :)
:)>-
Well.....perhaps you're right. But lately I prefer staying home. It makes me tired spending time with my friends and possible love interests. I prefer staying home all the time. No worries and disappointments happening in this forum...I thought :-).
I agree. Outside of London's briefing let's have 1 or 2 locations at tge most so we can be fully immersed in the atmosphere of the film and allow the director and score composer to really create an identity instead of flip flopping around and a lack of consistency. One of the things that I disliked about SP was that things were over just as thy were getting interesting and it felt like the movie just rushed through to get to the next transition all too rather quickly. Like you rightfully said, CR is a perfect example of how to get things done right. The camera really needs to linger and allow for the audience to absorb and appreciate everything captured within the frame. As for the story it needs to be tight, focused and concentrate on telling a gripping tale and thriller first and foremost without crippling under the weight of box ticking, historical tropes. Again, as you said CR handled this marvelously.
Yeah, John Wick was an amazing film and a surprise hit last year. The level of creativity and overall slickness of playing with action dynamics really put so many action films to shame and I can't wait to see what the 2nd film delivers but gain, this film just goes to show how full of excess and a lack of innovative imagination most action films employ. Bond should be the forefront of innovation when it comes to exciting action scenarios and I think EoN really need to hire a director with the dynamic talent for exciting visuals, innobative and visceral action, snappy and engaging dialogue and a real sense of drama that highlight the gravity of how serious the sakes are. These next w years are going to really put things into perspective and films like Bourne and John Wick 2 will or at least should force EoN to wake the hell up and pay attention.
Here here. We're all Bond fans and we're still in the first few weeks of the cinematic release of the first Bond film in three years...and we're all bickering.
SP may not have gone in the direction that some wanted, or for others far enough, but mixed reviews or not I wouldn't say it was a poor enough film to warrant such despondency.
Criticising EON for Bond falling behind the likes of MI and Bourne is all too familiar to me from the 80s when people felt it fell under the shadow of Indiana Jones, or in the 70s when spy films were said to be out of vogue and even Lazenby wanted to jump ship.
Shock & awe.
That´s pretty f***ing simple. I pay a lot of my hard-earned cash to see a bloody good film, so I expect a bloody good film.
SP would work marvellously if it weren´t directed in such a tedious manner that makes you drop out of the film at some points. As was sufficiently noticed, there are lot´s of elements that could justify SP as a damn good Bond film. But one major element of the good Bond films was good storytelling that doesn´t give you the space to ponder about all those logic-defying elements.
I couldn´t agree more with you. And I have the tragic feeling that for SP they did that too much.
First of all, how do you know it´s a quadrilogy? I dare say it would have been well worth it (also with Bond´s character development in mind) to show some of Bond´s adventures in between QoS and SF. It makes no sense whatsoever that M just risked her job to defend Bond in front of the CIA in QoS, and then next thing so grossly misjudge him at the beginning of SF. "It was the possibility of losing you or the certainty of losing that harddisc." How much less trusting Bond´s capability could M be? Why this complete turnaround? There are clearly some important pieces missing. So don´t tell me anything about worthy quadrilogy.
You youself are not shy when it comes to criticising things you don´t like, so does that mean you´re not a Bond fan?
Yes, that comes with making such a long franchise. No two ways about it. Those who are in charge are very well aware of that. That doesn´t mean having a long-lasting franchise is a free ticket to produce unexciting things.
There are a lot of fantastic elements in SP, most of all Craig´s Bond! But the fact that some of the main reasons for me why I became a Bond film fan in the first place are booted out in SP so drastically came to me as a real shock. It was a shock exactly because I am a huge fan of certain things I came to associate with all the Bond films (at least prior to SF). I´m talking basically about colours (the bloody colour filtering. Even before the entrance to Blofeld´s lair, when the sun shines brightly upon the obviously very rich lawn in front of the Rolls Royce, the grass isn´t remotely shining, and that is just one tiny example), lighting, music (not saying Arnold was perfect, but this? Really?), and storytelling (it should be so that I don´t get the idea of pondering about unlogic things, else I mustn´t use unlogic things in the film).
With all due respect @Gustav, you are not exactly the definition of objectivity either.