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
Don't worry. I know people get irritated by me sometimes. Ehh, many times. "Upsettingly positive" describes it very well...
Who knows but still I think that maybe I came off too many assumptions or too stuburon so still I feel like maybe I took things too far
I can only this @Szonana: This is a forum. We don't see each other. People would react so differently to one another if we saw each other....via Skype or Facebook. I don't have many Bond-fans as friends, so it's one of the reasons I once started this topic:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10087/care-to-discuss-via-facebook-or-skype#latest
But not many seem to be interested in that :-).
I'll go to the original thread and give my answer.
Definitely have to put in how both female roles in the film were pulled off. None of them felt like they'd been poorly written and respect Ritchie for that greatly. If this was done in the 60's both those roles would have been done very differently and am glad this film managed to do and do well the idea of a badass female main villain. Really hope they do a sequel.
I noticed a nice little nod to Thunderball in there (at least I think it was).
One other "Thunderball" reference. Solo's hotel suit in Rome has got nr. 304. Same number as James Bond got for his hotelroom in "Thunderball" ;-)
I guess you are right, people sometimes react differently when they talk in person.
Forums make us react differently and maybe we feel more freed being kind of anonymus.
But still i always try to be as nice and respectful as i can including forums but sometimes writen messages can get misunderstood.
http://www.maxallancollins.com/blog/2015/08/18/cry-u-n-c-l-e/
@Gustav, you don't have to excuse yourself for beeing who you are. As long as you're friendly to others, you're free to state any opniion about Bond or other films as you please, and others are free to think differently, or find you overly positive. But that's fine, nobody has to read your posts if they don't want to, this place isn't a popuarity contest, as many long-standing members can attest to.
@Szonana, for you as well. Things may not always come over as you intended, but please, don't let that stop you, just enjoy the forums!
Just a question for you...and everyone else. Did anyone in here actually.....SEE the old TV-Series? I mean the wonderful charisma -or 'lack of charisma' that some people think is the cae- that Kuryakin and Solo had, reminded me a lot of the old TV-Series.
I haven't watched the TV series but I watched all the extended episode films and feel they pulled off the chemistry perfectly especially considering they're doing an origin story about how they met.
Exactly. Isn't there supposed to be some believable lack of chemistry at the start, BECAUSE they are constantly 'fighting' each other and aren't buddies just yet ;-)? Well, even in those circumstances I found them charismatic...
TWWW series (they had to leave THE out of the title for the movie, why, were they going to be in competition with FIGHT CLUB?) was hit&miss, but the ones I liked best decades back STILL play just fine, like the search for President Grant's horse with Frank Silvera as a Mexican bandit, and the Pernell Roberts one with all the dynamite and that great piece of music they use throughout it, which I've been humming while driving off&on since 1978. And the sci-fi ones, like Loveless making paintings that you could enter and live in, were pretty innovative too.
I haven't been in a movie theater in a year or so, and except for one of his movies from 10 years back that had Mark Strong kill some people in an impressive way near the end I haven't gotten all the way through ANY Ritichie movie, but I may just see UNCLE this week because I'm really intrigued to see just how unsuccessful it is. I've been trying to watch old UNCLEs on TV a lot in the last year or so, and haven't made it through a whole episode, though when I was 5 I loved it (even had a jigsaw puzzle of it, I think Solo down in the sewer), probably because I looked a LOT like Vaughan as a kid (could kill with my then-chin.) But except for the charm of guest stars like George Sanders and Victor Buono, haven't had a lot of joy revisting it, so makes me wonder just what to expect with the movie (though the one music cue I've heard sounds really good.)
I can't comment specifically on UNCLE, as I've yet to see it, but you touch on a really good point that is symptomatic of modern Hollywood. They're obsessed with 'origin'. I get the impression FF tries a similar thing and to an extent Mendes has mentioned the word 'origin' in relation to SPECTRE. Origin doesn't equal 'character' and I actually find it tedious having to map out and specify why and how a character becomes the person they do. There are cleverer ways to deliver exposition than merely charting it chronologically. I can see the Han 'Solo' (no pun intended) film falling into a similar trap.
Fleming knew how to just tease about this stuff, like the FROM A VIEW TO A KILL recollection of Bond losing his pocketbook and virginity simultaneously. But you don't get pedantic about it.
As much as I'd like to blame producers for dumbing down scripts and having them rewritten into too-easily-digestible mush, it is really the paying audience that keeps this stuff alive & flourishing, because it seems way too often (probably since the 89 BATMAN) that the masses are easy marks for a certain size and style of marketing campaign, regardless of the quality of the blockbuster.
Couldn't agree more. The finale in EP:III exemplifies it - The Anakin/Obi-Wan fight was the stuff of Legend. Something that gestated in the minds of millions of fans over several decades. You cannot possibly visualise a sequence that betters that of the collective imagination, so why bother?
I can tell you this @Boldfinger: I will buy this film on bluray, with a beautiful steelbook casing. I'm going to make a "2015 year of the spy" collection, and this one suits in there perfectly. I liked the film :-).
. May I ask what exactly your definition of cinema and its purpose is?
I agree with the failures you mention above, @Trevanian, but for some reason I've been having visions of origin stories that work great. Dashiell Hammett wrote a number of stories where the reader over the course of the action slowly gets a bigger picture, until in the end he knows what it all was about. That is how origin stories should be. Milking well-known myths, e.g. the Kobayashi Maru Test, is as timid as again and again bringing back the AM to Bond - a gross display of lack of confidence.
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/guy-ritchie-says-brad-pitt-was-his-choice-for-older-solo/
I think BATMAN BEGINS was a great origins story too, considering you're retelling something that stretches credibility to begin with so you're going into battle with the arrow already partly inside your head.
Definition and purpose of cinema? That's kinda broad. What kind of cinema?
If anyone doesn't know - you're supposed to do a three years acting degree at a drama school. It is very expensive, though. Roger Moore went to the most famous acting school - RADA.
I know George Lazenby never did acting before OHMSS and I guess that fact was used against him but Cavill is no different in the sense he's never had any formal pro acting training. It's not the way actors are meant to be. You're supposed to learn your craft, not just get it by sheer luck cos a casting director goes to your school.
I'm amazed by this.
Is it any wonder some think Cavill is a wooden, poor actor? No surprise given his total lack of acting training!
It's pretty common for many people who don't have any formal training or secured a degree in the craft to go on and establish careers in acting.
Three years training. Cavill has had zero years training. Most actors are supposed to train. With respect, i think you are wrong to assume actors just get roles without any training. It's very hard to secure employment on tv/in theatre and in films without recognized acting qualifications. Not impossible but very very hard. Casting directors/agents want people with acting degrees - it is a sign they have learned their craft.
I'm not saying a three year course is right or wrong - it sure is outrageously expensive! - but you're supposed to train to some level. Cavill has had none and I don't see why that should make him an automatic candidate for James Bond. And yes, I know Lazenby didn't have any formal training but that was then and this is now! I can't imagine Eon wanting to hire some guy with zero acting training so I have no idea why Cavill was second in the list behind Craig.
I dunno, I'd rather have the next Bond actor with some level of formal training. A few months, a six months course, some course to hone his craft. I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation. Anyway, it's no surprise Cavil is so wooden with some of his delivery. Some training wold have helped, Henry!
Cavill was cast in his first film role because he came from a rich boarding school, Stowe. The casting director came to his school (can't imagine he'd come to the local comp! :D ) and liked Cavill's look.
Fees per term - Stowe School
Boarding £11,100
Not cheap! Had Cavill's family not been wealthy Cavill may not have become an actor. It would be harder to secure big roles without some financial help from family.
My point is as much to do with credibility as anything else. Sean Connery was a competent actor by the time he was cast as James Bond. Did Connery need years of training? No. But Cavill might have benefited from some. I feel his lack of training shows whereas Connery was the finished article by the time he played Bond in Dr. No.