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
Renner in Bourne and Affleck as Bat failed because they were very poorly executed. Renner is no Damon and anyone with half a brain should have realized that. He's really more of an ensemble guy. He can't carry an action film.
Affleck is a bit overrated as an actor imho. He seems to be better behind the scenes. Having said that he also followed Nolan and Bale, which meant he was doomed from the get-go.
I still believe that the relaunch of the DC Universe got severely hindered by the great "Dark Knight"-trilogy. Christopher Nolan set the bar so high. A bit like Sam Mendes 1st Bond film and Martin Campbell's 2nd Bond film. Reviews almost immediately compared Zack Snyder with Christopher Nolan...and all other aspects of the film. "It lacked the Nolan vibe", was commonly heard/read in reviews. So having said that the criticism wasn't mild, and then "Man Of Steel" and "Batman vs. Superman" were even reboots of what came before them.
I also remember that, like it or not, Jeremy Renner got compared easily with Matt Damon in reviews. Then it doesn't matter if they are the same character or not, if you use the "Bourne"-title so loud and clear, then you obviously want to milk out that franchise a bit more..... And it didn't work. Personally, I liked "The Bourne Legacy" a lot, but I think the film got hindered by that very legacy of Matt Damon as Bourne. Then Matt Damon returns one more time, in a movie that's as good as its predecessors, but by then we know that the Bourne-franchise simply misses too many elements to become a long-term franchise, in which well-known aspects of the franchise are interchanged with originality.
Having said that, I sincerely have my worries about option C). To me, I think it would be a sign of very good scriptwriting if option A) turns out to be a very good Bond film, whereas option C) to me seems quite an easy escape creatively, regardless of the quality of such a film. I think what makes Bond eventually big......is the quality of the films being a bit more standalone than other cinematic universes. And I think the best way for that....is writing a very good story period....for Daniel Craig. And to go the standalone-route a bit more nuanced, with a SF-type or GF-type of film....instead of rebooting the whole damn thing.
I don't want another new cinematic universe for Bond. I want to continue it.....with less references to Bond's past but with good scriptwriting that stays focused on the mission. It can be done!
The quality of Nolan's work was definitely going to be missed when Snyder, a glorified cinematographer, got the job, but you wrap all of the DC universe on Batman. All of that had nothing to do with Ben, which you seemed to be making a comparison to. He's one of the only reasons folks have any interest in what DC are doing, where if they wait out long enough they'll get more Batman films from his universe.
Bond is Bond. It has a 50+ year consistent history & heritage. The choices aren't just Craig era vs. Brosnan era only. There is all that came before too. Bond is bigger than Craig or Brosnan and can easily survive option C), as long as EON invests completely.
Some say the Craig era is built up too much or given too much credit, but I think the same is true for Bourne then. Interesting films, at times, sure. But not my definition of game-changing that will constantly be remembered. The formula they were working from was stale in just five year's time, and they couldn't replicate it even when given years to do something interesting.
Nolan's influence will be argued not to be anything by some, as this forum is full of people who don't like him, but at the very least he deserves credit for helping to present one of the only good villains in modern filmmaking and influencing so much of what came immediately after through just one movie in 2008. That's revolutionary, on the grand scale.
By getting on board the concept of a 'universe' and linked stories EON have made a rod for their own backs. It's fine for the Dark Knight trilogy or Bourne trilogy but those sets of films were self contained narratives. The problem stems with trying to carry on a story that has finished, such as with Bourne. Legacy was a lame film anyway but smacked of desperation (and wasn't helped that Renner is about as charismatic a leading man as Rory Kinnear) and Jason Bourne really had no reason to exist because the story had been concluded.
The big mistake of the Craig era was making QOS a sequel. That was like putting out to sea with no binoculars and not enough lifeboats. But even then they seemed to have got away with it. The Vesper arc had been completed and SF was business as usual. But of course once you cross the line and set the conditions for disaster with QOS don't be surprised when you hit an iceberg with SP and go down with all hands.
And here we all are dying of hypothermia in the middle of the Atlantic.
Bond transcended the actor 44 years ago when Moore made LALD a global success. Bond is the story. Not the actor.
That's the difference.
Eh?
True, although you tend to forget one thing. For the Bond franchise it was equally difficult to sell the '2nd actor playing the lead role. George Lazenby wasn't accepted by the big audiences and people didn't buy Bond without Connery in the late 1960's. So inevitably the Bond franchise did have its own precarious moment when Bond didn't transcend the actor...yet.
Makes me very curious though what will happen when Cruise leaves the role in M:I :-). Because the 2nd actor playing the leading role in that franchise....will have the weight of the world on his shoulders.
I think I explained it quite well.
That's a shame. They're great films but I'd hate being forced to watch all of them in a row every single time I was in the mood for one of them. Sometimes it's great just to pop in GF or YOLT and unwind.
I'm ready for all the possibilities, but it makes sense to keep Craig and not ignore what just happened in SPECTRE. And I'd prefer the same cast return as M, Moneypenny, and Q with the next Bond actor. Maybe two.
Me, I can watch the new films in any order similar to the first 20. They stand on their own perfectly fine, and how the last film "fits" with Craig's first is also good for me. And it's easy to see the same Bond character through all the films, both timelines, all actors. Meaning it's Bond, the Casino Royale story establishes the character, so every Bond from Connery to Craig has that built in whether or not it was shown with them on screen.
If you leave out OHMSS, that is.
I wouldn't say it's a shame, they are just strengthened when experienced together, and it's always a great excuse to watch them over again. Watching Dr. No and having Bond's murder of the villain being the thing that drives the plot of From Russia with Love has more immediate power when you're watched the first movie ahead of it to get that fresh context. In much the same token it's thrilling to watch how Bond increasingly sets off Blofeld and SPECTRE's associates from Thunderball to Diamonds Are Forever with his antics, a feeling you can't get if you randomly pop one in. Their connectivity is a greater strength for the experience than not, for me.
That isn't even that script's biggest act of logic gymnastics, but you're right.
If we don't watch them all 24 (26) in a row, we're all gonna DIE :-D!
Just kidding....
You are a better man than I, @Creasy47. But I'm also the type of person that doesn't watch my favorite films all the time; I like to savor them, and watching the 60s films or Craig films in a marathon every year or so is a great way to revisit them without staling their impact.
I don't want to turn into poor @Birdleson. ;)
I'm the same way with a lot of my favorite films. It's only the Bond series that I'm terrible at "savoring" and watch any chance I get. Though to be fair, I've only seen one or two of them in the last six months. Starting up a Bondathon once I get this upgraded TV.
I also cant do that 'Bond comments while you watch' thread as i cant be stopping every other scene to write about it!.Too distracting!
I agree it's been quite some time, since he made something good, but that term doesn't do him any justice. Watchmen to me is one of, maybe the, movie of the century. Also, 300 was quite groundbreaking as well. And I'm even not a comic fan very much.
Snyder is fine to okay when he's adapting something, but when it comes to storytelling I find he lacks immensely. I used to enjoy him, but the respect wanes and wanes. So many of his directorial decisions are down to what is "cool" instead of what has utility, and that's why I feel he's largely a style over substance director, and when he does have substance it's with the finesse and subtlety of a bazooka. The Christ imagery in Man of Steel being an example of it.
Watchmen the film of the century? Now I think I've heard it all.
(Keep it under 10 000 words)
One of the best adaptations of any genius comic book.
No, that's I am Legend, right?
That was really, really stupid.
Obviously you haven't. Otherwise you might realize it yourself.
In fact it's the multi layered storytelling in watchmen that makes it such a fantastic, almost humbling experience.
It's fine, and I enjoy it. But film of the century? A pretty bizarre and hilarious comment to make when we're not even two decades in and better films by more talented people have been made.
Most of the glory of Watchmen I give to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Snyder did fine, and in fact changed some things that work better than in the book, but the original source will always be the most rich and interesting, as it must be.
@Mendes4Lyfe, I assume this is another moment where you're trying to be both cheeky and clever? I think you're going to need a bit more practice yet, mate. A lot more. You're not going to stop folks like me from making you and Turner the butt of a lot more jokes with sorry attempts like that. ;)
You'd be better off trying to "retort" me with a film I've actually given high kudos to, rather than I Am Legend. I love the movie and think it has a lot to offer and teach, but I don't think any film at this point is worthy of being called the film of the anything, and certainly not century. I think we've got a few too many pseudo-Eberts around here.
It's alright, sure. And had the rich tapestry of Moore and Gibbons to pull from. I'd give the film more points if it was original, but I would expect Snyder to at least make a serviceable film from such an ample source of storytelling as the comic.
But I don't intend to turn this into another dick measuring contest, especially over something like Watchmen which is a hill I'm indifferent about dying on.