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
Exactly.
I didn't know that. Good to hear that some things remain sacred!
Definitely,they surely must go down this approach for BOND26.
Yeah I agree. Make Craig the first Bond to have an actual ending, then go the TLD/GE route for the next one. It's different and continuity wise doesn't add up at all but it's Bond being Bond and that's all you need to know. No origins, no explanation.
I will mentally see it as a continuation of the original 5 Bonds,in other words the next film after DAD.
Wouldn't say best intro ever for a Bond, but TLD is a great blueprint to follow if you need to introduce a new Bond in subtle ways through little actions and words. The first bit of that film is a real feat.
If the next Bond does manage to salvage something from the plot/timeline then that well help. But it could work the other way and SP gets the blame for the next one being poor.
I get angry just thinking about it. What were they thinking of?
Issues, mate. Let it go.
Generally speaking, fans know the characters and the material very well and they know waht works and what does not work.
Imagine before SP, if we had an online poll regarding if Blofeld should have been Bond's stepbrother. How many of us would have said, "yeah, great idea". The idea stinks. It should never have been an idea and, if it got that far, whoever had the idea should have kept it to themselves
When you have people in control who understand the fictional world they are working in and understand what fans want (and respect) you get stuff like Star Trek 2, TSWLM, Terminator 2 etc,
when you have people in control who dont understand, you get SP.
one last thought, (sorry in rant mode) after the failure of ST 5, they brought Meyer back to work his magic. Rather than go down the artistic route of not wanting to repeat the same thing (like second album syndrome), he knew what fans wanted and delivered again (exciting adventure, bad guy chewing the scenary with over acting, human themes, nice one liners etc)
Mendes brought us the most successful Bond movie ever and then (I think due to ego) decided to go down a different route as if the audience like to experiment.
Coke found that , once you have a winning recipe, you dont change it. They had the gumption to know they had made a mistake and revert back. I really really hope the new director knows what the fans want.
I don't think fans are great reference to go on. So many want the Craig films to be like the others, when they aren't that because they don't work in that way; it feels disingenuous. I've read enough laughable story proposals on here over the years such that I've softened on the comparative genius of P&W (who I don't hate anyway) in response to their "ideas."
As for Mendes, he was damned no matter what he did. If he remade SF like so many directors have retread the likes of GF or TSWLM, it would be viewed as a hack effort with no originality, but if he took what worked in the first and spun it into something new and different feeling (and the films do carry very different moods at times), he'd also have to suffer criticism for the film not being as good as SF (which was over ballooned and hyped) in whatever way you could imagine. It's never easy for a director to come back for more than one film, as that invites comparison. But you won't see me jumping on Mendes for it, as I largely enjoy his work despite having some issues with his approach at times. On the whole he brought together very rich and cinematic Bond films that conveyed a very impressive scope and world with great texture and life, as well as a bit of the bizarre that makes Bond exciting from the very days Fleming wrote his books. He also knew the character of Bond and not just the spectacle or world, which other directors in the past didn't.
I have been amused and slightly concerned by the fact that Mendes was ridden around like the golden boy of the franchise during SF's release, lauded as one of the best Bond directors ever, and those same folks turned on him the minute they didn't like some decisions he made on the next film. Much like the people who praised SP and counted it as a top 5 Bond film when it was out, then called it one of the worst in the bottom rung months later. Feeble minds, no? I guess for some hype is like poison that clouds their minds, but how can something manipulate your noggin that severely? One is bemused by it all.
If you look at Greengrass for example with Bourne 2 and 3. Bourne 2 was massive and he did a great job of continueing the success of 1. Did he change the tone of 3? Try something different? No, he knew what the audience wanted and kept a winning formula.
I think it coud be that Mendes sees himself as an "artist" rather than someone who ultimatly needs to produce an end product that makes money. I'm not suggested he remade SF but you can have a very different plot etc but at least have the same tone and character traits that people embraced within SF. (some emotional depth, very dry, sarcastic humour, a little World weary, patriotic)
It was a very different Bond we saw in SP compared to SF within what was meant to be the same time line. Imagine doing that with Kirk or Bourne? Why would you do that? I know that different actors obviously interpret the role differently but with the same actor and director, I just dont understand the decision to make such a different style of movie (other than artistic ego)
Everything was in place for a great new adventure with a proven team and it all went horribly wrong.
I agree that changing tone with a direct continuation story wasn't a wise move (imho at least). The entire era has been tainted as a result, & it just doesn't hold together for me now. It hasn't impacted the prior entries for me because I view those through the prism of the time when I first watched them.
I have deep concerns about how I will view a future connected entry though, especially if the tone changes again (irrespective of whether it's a tone I like or one I dislike).
You've got a real bee in your bonnet about Dan, haven't you?
I'm sure he does feel responsible for the flaws of SP, hence his insistence on 'going out on a high'.
Within the "straight " scenes (the Mr White scene for example) , he is great, back in SF mode.
I'm not a cheerleader or an apologist for him though. I thought his performance in SP was overall inauthentic and subpar. I don't think I'm alone in that assessment even if it's a minority view. I realize you feel differently based on your comments elsewhere and that's perfectly fine. The comments prior to mine focused on tonal variations, and I explained my thinking on that in my earlier post. That doesn't mean I have anything against the man personally, so your comments are off base and ill judged. I believe he has boxed himself in with a connected story.
It's all fine and good to go on about the director being the problem. He gave us one of the most acclaimed and successful Bond films of the last 20 years with SF, and my issues with SP are as much to do with the performances as it is to do with the direction. In fact, I think Mendes did a pretty good job with what he was given as a script.
I don't think it's a bad idea they tried it, it's just a pity it doesn't work.
Obviously, the biggest issues are with the script, as you can read on so many pages here. Blofeld's relation to Bond shouldn't have been so personal, it doesn't fit in with the whole idea of Bond: an anonymous hero who takes out the biggest advisaries. The connection takes away part of his annonimmity, which takes away part of the 'unseen force for good' myth. As with Mad Max, his past should be shrouded in the mists of time.
I don't mind P&W returning (that much) as the imput of others hasn't helped that much in the past, but I hope they'll return to this very important part of Bond himself. Make Blofeld say it was all bonkers manipulation of his advisary because he thought it was the only way he could hurt him and we're fine.
SP will be more appreciated in time, as it has some very Bondian moment that could end up as beeing classic, and after all, we all forgive FYEO it's giddy moments and laude it for beeing a far more 'serious' Moore entry, one of his best. Nopw SP has some amazing competition, so I don't think anyone will put it high on the 'best of Craig Bod's list', but over all it'll be more appreciated.
DC has other strenths but he is not a warm character and was never meant to be when cast for the gritty reboot. So it was unfair to burden him with witty, knowing "wink to the audience" one liners that he never signed up for. (he can do humour but its grumpy, sarcastic, terse humour: "not exactly Christmas")
"I don't think it's a bad idea they tried it, it's just a pity it doesn't work."
The fact that it didn't work may be an indicator that it was a bad idea.
I think partly this is because 'his Bond' has been with us since formation. They've created the direct continuity timeline from inception and therefore his performance in a film is more than just an interpretation for the particular film (as it was with his predecessors) which allows for more flexibility and variation in tone from film to film. Rather, he's a specific character going through a journey, and that could be another reason why the change in approach fell woefully flat for me.
Clint said it best:
Perhaps, and so: lessons learned, but there was only one way to find out and that was to do it.. ;-)
My biggest concern is how to move forward from here. If he had just left after SP then one could understand the tonal variation. His character had continued the journey towards the lighter, more glib cinematic cipher we all know and love. Most Bond actors (Dalton being the exception) ended on a lighter note, and Dalton never intended for LTK to be his last when he made it.
Now that he's coming back, if they decide to go gritty again to accommodate his strengths, it will throw the tone off once more.
Despite my dislike for the film, I've always thought SP was a perfect 'open ended' close to his journey (not Blofeld's, but that wasn't the point).