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
Bourne? You mean 'Legacy', or the 8 year old 'Supremacy'?
;)
Doubt it. The new Bourne movie comes out next year and MI5 comes out in 2017. We won't see Bond until 2018. The good news is hopefully the new Bourne film will remind Bond how to tell a cohesive and engaging action thriller.
^:)^
I'm glad you think so. SP is definitely a fun and entertaining ride and I enjoyed it but I also found its flaws prevented it from being a great film and lacking in truly being a fleshed out fully satisfying thriller.
I has spoken! :x
Bond sure is. It's nothing new and we had all of this in the 80s with Indiana Jones doing so much better at the box office and Bond fans even then saying EON should have let Spielberg in.
If anything, although not a spy franchise like Bourne and MI, the Bond series probably had more to worry about in the competition from Indiana Jones back in the day.
However, MI & Bourne are definite 'spy thriller' competition for Bond these days. Sure, Damon's Bournes were many years ago, but they have a reputation of being tightly woven and delivered thrillers, with breath taking action sequences and scripts that showcase the intelligence of the protagonist. MI is doing the same over the past two, but in more of a team setting.
I agree that these two franchises in particular will keep Bond / EON on their toes going forward. Even if they don't come close to the global commercial success of Bond, they have critical respect in circles, and that counts for something, otherwise we'd still be on the DAD route (Bourne never came close to Bond globally but definitely influenced them for CR/QoS). If anything else, they will ensure EON gets a competent action director next time (it's been a while).
To be honest, I'd rather EON take inspiration from Bourne rather than DC/Marvel.
As a spy thriller it most probably should but as a cinematic experience it's clear the latter influence has prevailed for the last two Bonds and remains to be seen which influence will prevail for Bond 25. Will they go for where the money is or will MGW bring it back down to earth again.
Definitely chalk me up as someone who was pleased with the Bourne influence on Bond though. When watching Bourne Identity at the cinema it made me realise just how much I'd missed spy films set in Europe with a gritty cold war feel and realistic and brutal fight sequences and tightly edited action sequences rather than the flabby efforts from Vic Armstrong.
We just needed the right actor too and then a couple of years after DAD there was film shown on UK TV at Christmas called 'Mother' starring Daniel Craig. It was a domestic drama rather than a Bond audition piece but there was a scene in which he trashed a conservatory in a fit of anger and I thought we need a British Bond like him with a hint of aggressive assurance and masculinity that Connery had rather than continue with the metrosexual Brosnan model.
The fact that Craig out of all people ended up being Bond and in a film which took its lead from Bourne of course made me rather delighted!
I don't think the pacing of CR worked quite well compared to the recently released Bourne Supremacy but EON went with a decent attempt at Bourne brevity in QOS which whilst some people think is a disaster I find to be a very novel, stylish and brave Bond film.
I agree. I think Bourne more than anything else put the nail in the Brosnan style of Bond.
True. I agree, but I still rate CR as the superior effort (over QoS) because it felt more Bondian (glamour, visuals, dialogue and pace) while still having elements of Bourne brutality in the action sequencing. I agree that QoS is very brave, and is definitely underappreciated, but the pace was perhaps too brisk for a traditional (and perhaps older) Bond audience. It's a grower though.
Oh yes CR has the benefit of the Fleming material and also an almost noir feel. I liked little touches such as the slow cross fade from once scene (Vesper sipping the cocktail in her name) to another (back to the card table) very old school cinema.
CR is still the anchor point of the Craig films like FRWL is for Connery.
The oddest thing about the pace of QOS is the initial scene with Dominic Greene at the docks with Camille and then Medrano actually being ridiculously long compared to every other scene in the film. I do rather recall thinking 'get on with it'.
AHEM. It wasn't just Brosnan. GohDam you guys love to pin it on him. *
*See DAF - AVTAK
Early Connery- deadly serious.
Later Connery- Flint time.
Lazenby- mostly deadly serious.
Moore- Mainly Flint.
Dalton- mostly deadly serious.
Brosnan- a safe & generally palatable mix of deadly serious & Flint.
Craig- Deadly serious (with a hint of levity in SP).
I rate LTK right up there with QOS too. Neither were immediate top of the list films but they seem to be slow burners which reward on repeat viewings and climb my rankings whilst others fell in and then out of favour.
I accept most of the criticisms of QOS but as someone who's suffered the death of their partner I actually think it deserves some kudos in providing a Bond film which deals with bereavement, sorrow, hurt and revenge in the subtle fashion it does with two lead characters who are pretty joyless throughout with their understandable loss of mojo.
I love that Bond and Camille win the day as it were but are still completely non-exuberant and deflated about it. "I don't think the dead care about vengeance", "...now what?". From my own personal experiences this resonates quite a lot.
It's a film which exposes us to the hardships of life too with the poverty we see in Haiti and Bolivia. Bond films are often about glamour but here we have the other extreme and with the additional poignancy that the Quantum organisation is responsible for this suffering be it the regime changes or withholding the water supply.
I hope the reappraisal long continues!
I knew even on first watch that it was an intriguing and solid film (because they kept the tone serious) and with some interesting (and almost mature for Bond) plot points around realpolitik, geopolitics & real world themes, like poverty as you note.
My disappointment rested mainly with the action scene editing like most, but certainly not with DC. I thought he was magnificent, and I even liked Almaric.
The Bourne Supremacy influence was very clear to me.......especially in how they made us see things from Bond's perspective.....so we only know as much as he knows and learn as he learns.......like when he first meets Camille in the little Ford and has to wing it about Slate. That scene confused the hell out of me in the theatre, including his interaction with the guy following them on the bike...... all of that is very Bourne like.
I actually think that in time I will rate QoS higher than SP, once the initial glow of that film wears off. QoS has benefited from SP for me, just like others are seeing SF in a new light post-SP.
Me too. It's not the most fun Bond, but the most timely IMO. And poignant.
I think QOS is better than the harsh critics of it give. The hotel ending let's it down for me. But Foster showed on World War Z that he is more than able to direct big action. A case of just bad timing with the writers strike and budget. The over the water zoom in shot in the PTS I'd one of my favourites. I love the shadow shots of Bonds eyes and the gear shift in to the action. Very OHMSS Lazenby intro worked very well.
There are some awesome moments in QoS, but the problem for me lies in that the bulk of the action scenes are uneventful and at times arbitrary. They punctuate a rather flat narrative. I also think it gets cut too much slack because of the writer's strike, which is a fallacy. It's a myth projected by those who love it. Forster said himself, “The good thing is that Paul and I and Daniel all worked on the script before the strike happened and got it where we were pretty happy with” then Zetumer came in post strike to rework some scenes. This isn't taking into account Forster had already chucked out a script on his appointment. Taking all that into consideration it is one of the most underwhelming follow ups in series' history. It doesn't have the joie de vivre to paper over the cracks. As I said, some fantastic moments, but nowhere near the revisionist masterpiece for me.
Why did we have to have the Aston Martin with an ejector seat like GF?
Why does Blofeld have to have the scar from YOLT?
I wish that Mendes had taken these characters, and the series, in a bold new direction, instead of merely nodding to the past.
Those who do not know the past doom the future.
My brother in bond! =D>