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 much prefer the more orthodox fare such as DN-TB, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK and CR.
For me SP is hard to pinpoint. It has some classic scenes (the train fight) which ooze Bond in his classic form, especially as his dinnerdate just before is classic Bond. But it goes Moore-ott as well, with the car chase and the plane chase. Still, there are some more spy-like moments like the infiltrator Bond questions in l'Americain (yes, the mouse). And moreover the pale King. Also I should mention Bond's arrogance and toughness with Mrs. Sciarra.
The falling house was again more Moore territory.
So, all in all, the film delivers what so many (here) were asking for: a lighter toned Bond film. But as so often, people ask the things they don't want at all, for they don't know what they want but they have to complain anyway.
I still find the script jarring. The story doesn't flow that well and the dialogue isn't very good. I'm amazed how both Craig and Lea manage to make useless dialogue work.
This problem has existed for a long time. From TWINE onwards. And yes, I think this is due to P&W. The stories have been hit (CR!) and miss (DAD!!!!) ever since. It seems to me they are fairly good at making the screenplay, and, when they have some good source material, can fleshen out the story. But dialogue isn't their strong suit.
Mendes does, however, seem to like the psychological warfare. Silva does it with 'mommy' M, Blofeld with this 'brother' thing. Bond isn't impressed and doesn't care, but I find it annoying and not very usefull. The film would've been better if Blofeld had been more focussed on his masterplan and less on his 'brother' psychological warfare which clearly does nothing to Bond.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that senses this.
I have nothing more to say other than I greatly enjoyed reading that.
Deep shit also has depth.
DAF novel, in just about all its entirety, MR in just about all its entirety, TSWLM in just about its entirety, YOLT in just about all its entirety, TMWTGG in just about all its entirety.
There are at least 3 movies worth of content there - if not more!
As I stated in another thread yesterday, there was no way that wasn't going to be the case, simply because the last three movies were so heavy in going into Bond, to the point that people were upset about it. It's far easier just to quote my own point than waste time repeating it:
So after a film where Bond falls in and out of love in the biggest way he has since Tracy through a massive betrayal, another where he mourns the woman and internally searches himself for feeling and the third where he becomes a mythical British protector, resurrects himself and faces the loss of his boss while confronting his childhood past, yeah, SP will be a little light in comparison if only because the previous films were so heavy. I still hold that Dan's performance in SP is great, it's just a different kind of great that shows how much his Bond has grown. It just so happens that his previous films are all top 10 performances easily, and so SP inevitably must come last simply because the script wasn't throwing so much at him to back up the matured Bond narrative arc.
SF to me was like a film that Mendes had a clear vision of what he wanted to achieve, it's littered with moments that will go down in Bond history, whereas I doubt many will be talking about anything apart from die hard fans of SP in years to come.
Outside the fanbase (and that is what counts) people will be remembering SF fondly and it will go down as film that the masses really enjoyed, it did things that should never be attempted again and that should have been the digging into Bond's past limit.
SP stinks of Mendes not really knowing what he wanted to do as well as dealing with a script that wasn't what he originally wanted, he'd probably loved to have made the film that him and Logan dreamt up.
I don't think his heart was in the P&W polish as it was of the insistence of BB & MGW that P&W were bought back, I don't think Sam wanted that which is why they got their marching orders after SF, so to go back to them and beg must of been quite humiliating having given the impression he didn't need them anymore.
SPECTRE is just boring at times and the other part frustrating, some of you might well been happy with it or like to defend it's unremarkable air and lack of danger or suspense but even the Moore films that were flippant and OTT had more of a sense of danger than this film, I didn't at one point think Bond was under pressure or barely breaking a sweat.
It was generic and underwhelming after the PTS, the White scene is great but could have been better but 20 minutes of a near 2 and half hour films does not let it off the hook.
This is without addressing scanning a ring to tie all the films together and step brother gate.
I'm sorry I think it's one of the worst films of the series and I agree Craig looks his least committed and at times just going through the motions.
I think what people mean is that doing a full on Fleming adaptation is hard without changing a lot. MR would need a change of Drax, a change of the character's entire background, and a change of the missile in addition to a bunch of other things. There's nothing from that book I'd want to see outside of Bond and M at Blades meeting the film's villain or the finale where Bond races the rocket in his car. I don't care to see Brand, as the woman leaving Bond thing has been done in some way, shape or form already and has lost its power.
I don't care to see the Spangs, so I've not got a lot of excitement about DAF, but out of those I'd like to see YOLT or TMWTGG explored more. YOLT in a semi-faithful or inspired adaptation would be my dream for Bond 25, but in the way CR was able to take that story and let it be that, but giving it room to grow more on its own as well, being part Fleming, part original. TMWTGG just represents Bond going against a person as skilled a killer as him, which I've wanted to see done right forever, it just doesn't necessarily have to be the character of Scaramanga he kills. I'd actually much rather see a villain put a contract out on Bond following a PTS and the film is about Bond facing a small group of killers competing for his head than just one killer.
But we'll never see adaptations anywhere near as faithful as what we have, or even close to the ones that were more inspired by Fleming than written from the books. That's just the age we're in, and the decades that have been placed between us and the books, all the villains that've been used and how the world has changed.
Well the basis of the story is of course Bond beeing send after a formideable enemy who doesn't know him (after messing things up, it's his redemption mission), and uncovering a bigger (Russian) plot while he fails to do his single assignment when he has the chance (because of his interest in the conference). This could be used, as it hasn't been done before. TMWTGG (film) is far more focussed on the paraphernalia then the story itself, which remains untouched.
That could work still with loads of 'terrorists'.
They did it in Casino Royale.
Butterworth was also involved in SF.
I see a lot more that is usable in MR than you do. True, it has been stripped for spare parts in MR, GE, and DAD at least, but it would be nice to see the story done seriously, in the CR-QoS-SF tone. SP is a misstep in tone and I think it won't play as well in the future. And parts like the Dover cliffs (kind of done in DAD) and the alluring nature of the Brand character (although I admit she's far from well-defined) could work, if not with Craig, then with the next Bond.
I see very little left in DAF and find TMWTGG thin to begin with...YOLT is really the prize but like MR a lot would have to be reimagined. THR has at least a PTS left in it.
I have high hopes that with P&W considered for Bond 25 their interest in Fleming and the story and the obvious implication of Blofeld and Bond in a final fight will make them see that it's the perfect time to do a modern day adaptation of YOLT in the fashion they were able to do for CR. I would kill to see the garden of death used, and for a conflict at a castle as the big finale, with the twist being that Bond storms a high compound containing Blofeld with 00 or SAS agents off the books as one last favor from M.
I appreciate the perspective but to me I just wasn't feeling his SP performance. I've seen short films with Craig having to work with less material and as per usual he embodies the role; but I just felt that his performance in SP came off as Craig acting the part and imo didn't do much of a convincing job. That's not to say his performance was terrible, not even close but in a nutshell, Craig to me looked as though he was trying to act like James Bond instead of just being James Bond, which he's more than capable of.
I'm just saying the foundations on which they built the former were more sturdy than the latter. Butterworth wasn't involved, to my knowledge, at the stage I'm talking about.
I think a part of that is down to the fact that his Bond for the first time isn't dragged down by a giant personal issue. I don't think people know how to take Craig as Bond without him facing a massive personal issue or existential crisis, so the unflappable Bond of SP comes off as him not trying simply because the other scripts are so heavy when it comes to challenging the character and sending him to hell and back.
For some it works, others it doesn't. Who knows.
Having just rewatched a few Connery and Moore films recently, one thing I can affirm is that these two knew how to make the most ridiculous of moments credible on screen. It just seemed natural to them. Perhaps it's because they are from that older golden age, I don't know. I can also see someone like Cary Grant being able to pull off the nonsensical stuff as well. These men were unflappable by nature. I just don't see that with many of today's actors. It could be a sign of the times, or it could just be the actor.
Absolutely!
;)
Yes, anything and everything shall be tossed, and he also has a running tendency to say, "Thank you," every time someone does a favor for him and nothing more.
I'd personally love to see Dan get a chance to check a hotel room for bugs out in the field in the way Sean did in all of Young's films, and that George did in OHMSS. I love those quiet little moments, and with Dan's ability to speak with his eyes, he'd really excel in a similar scene.