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
What SP continuity problem?
It made SF & possibly QoS lose their Standalone feel.....and all of a sudden, Le Chiffre, Greene & Silva are now SPECTRE agents....NTTD could do a better job, but in future....I don't think Eon would want to attempt such contrived characterization again. It simply tells Eon that Bond films are meant to be Standalone adventures, coz there's more freedom to create new characters without worrying how it affects the previous films.
Yes, I was about to ask the same question. The Craig Bonds have followed a clear direction and retained continuity through the stories and the characters - and also by casting the same actors to play the likes of Felix etc..
I can be even more picky regarding that kiss: I'ts supposed to play out in the hotel room in Matera, but filmed on a soundstage at Pinewood.
:P
This is a bit of a travesty. Even if the series has to reboot after Craig goes - can't we keep Ben? I don't mind loosing Fiennes or Harris. But Whishaw has been the MVP of the recent films....he has revitalised Q.
Dench survived the reboot and so should Whishaw.
I think the argument can definitely be made that SP painted EON into a corner, narratively speaking. It opened some threads that would later require closing:
-has Bond left the service?
-is he still with Maddy?
-Blofeld is alive and Bond's brother
-MI6 is destroyed an heavily compromised
-Blofeld was pulling the strings on Vesper, et al
-etc etc
Now, one could argue (I know I have) that lots of Bond movies have had open-ended endings. Nobody really seriously thought that Bond was leaving the service to marry any of the women he hid away with at the close of the previous movies (Christmas Jones? Is that you?)
But SP played it so seriously and introduced a thread of continuity through all the other Craig films too. So it becomes harder to simply dismiss the events of SP.
For the next actor, shooting standalone missions would definitely simplify things.
Every x months there's this argument popping up inhere. Let's make it clear: SP doesn't mine the standalone status of the previous films. The only thing SP does is expand the background and the landscape in which CR, QoS and SF were set. SP is very clear about that, when Q says "they were all part of one organization, and Blofeld links them all", but being part of one organization doesn't automatically makes them SPECTRE agents. What they did was basically work for them. If you are a landscape designer who's been asked to work on a big project by an architectural studio, you're part of the team but you're not an architect of that studio. That's the point. But let's get a look...
- LeChiffre was a banker who financed the world's terrorist organization, and SPECTRE is arguably the most relevant one. He worked for them, he failed, they killed him.
- Greene was one of the most prominent members of Quantum, a division of the much larger organization, SPECTRE. In the books, Fleming described SPECTRE as an organization made of various top crime syndicates from all around the world - like Mafia etc etc - so Quantum being a SPECTRE subsidiary is perfectly in line with what Fleming envisioned.
- Silva was a freelance terrorist hired by SPECTRE. He even says it in the film: "All to the best bidder". Blofeld used his anger towards M in order to destabilize the MI6 - paving the way to the bigger masterplan called 9 Eyes - giving him the resources to accomplish the mission. The fact Silva had a past with M(ommy) made him the perfect choice for the job since that way also Bond would've been hurt by his actions.
What links all this characters is the ring, since they all obviously had connections with SPECTRE agents wearing it since they all worked for SPECTRE in different ways. The only real SPECTRE agent was Mr. White, since he's a senior member with a past with Blofeld and his termination is discussed in an official SPECTRE meeting. Hopefully those explanations will make u feel better about that continuity issue.
+1. Excellent post, @matt_u
Yeah, i already know about all these...except am not a Bond fan. Let's be honest with ourselves, was the initial plan to make all first 3 of Craig's villians SPECTRE agents?...I don't think so...and part of me can't help but think the continuity thing came to a close.....once Craig told M 'I never left' in QoS. To be honest SF was looking like a standalone film....it was Mendes who brought back the continuity thing in SP. Another Director might have made his own version standalone, just like Mendes didn't pay attention to QoS at first, until he came back and decided to suddenly make Greene a SP agent. Maybe Fukunaga sees something we don't...that's why he's continuing with SP's storyline, while adding his own style. All am saying is, Bond 26 & Beyond should go back to standalone adventures....there's more fun & freedom to create with standalone films....I don't think anyone believed Vesper would still be mentioned in Craig's 5th Bond film....not saying it's bad...but it just gets to show how lengthy the continuity thing has being.
Don’t know about a clear direction. Think the problem with the continuity of the Craig era is despite narrative connections the films are tonally inconsistent and don’t feel similar enough to be part of the same continuity.
+1
Each film has its own director (Mendes twice, obviously) and therefore each film has its own style to support/express the narrative etc., but that doesn't take away from the narrative treads, themes, and the characters (like Mr. White or Felix, Blofeld or Madeleine Swann, the shadow of Vepser) which link the Craig films and Bond's journey from novice Double O agent, who becomes deeply affected (damaged) by the loss of the woman he fell in love with (who also betrayed him), and onwards to his semi-retirement in NTTD.
I think they always had this broadly mapped out, rather than firmly locked down. It could have ended with Bond driving away with Madeleine at the end of SP, but they knew they still had more to tell to truly wrap up Bond's (Craig's) journey.
Personally, I’d love for all 3 to remain - as long as they stay at MI6 for the most part like the older Bond films.
Big +1.
One of the most beautiful things about the Craig era is the fact that each film has his own personal identity, flavor and style. Just like the character of Bond evolves throughout the films. This notion, both from a visual and thematic standpoint, makes Craig's tenure the richer in terms of cinematic experience, in my opinion. Mendes directed two, but aesthetically SF and SP are pretty much different and from a concept standpoint the first stands as a film based on the notion on why Bond is still relevant in the modern world, while the sequel as a gloomy retro celebration, like it or not, of the legacy and the value of tradition inherent in the franchise.
Very much hope so - he's a gem and I could see him having a nice long tenure.
I think if he's does a lot of spying, his missions won't be personal or about his past....maybe that's why we're yet to see Craig in full Naval uniform...maybe NTTD might surprise us, but I have little hope for that...since his movies are not mission-based and don't usually involve the military.
Yeah, thanks to him alone, Silva escaped in SF. And let's not forget all the great gadgets... like... eh, a watch, a car and a signature gun (!)?
Here's hoping for the return of the exploding pens!
And I get why it was done, not purely for the sake of making all of Craig's films tie together, but that it partially makes Blofeld responsible for M's death for giving Silva the means to go after her. If I would have made it neater, I'd acknowledge that Silva was more of a gun for hire than a full fledged member of SPECTRE. Blofeld saw that Silva had a huge grudge against the head of MI6, and decided he could be useful in his wanting to kill M.
The very nature of Silva's character and his operation always had me convinced of what @MakeshiftPython said above, that's for sure. It makes sense in my head that SPECTRE simply set Silva on the right path, rather than him operating on their instruction. Mutual interests and all that. Though I agree, it's probably an unneccessary addition.
Maybe, fingers crossed. Alternatively he is a very busy actor and I wonder if doing a Bond film knocks you out of circulation for a while for not very much in the way of (and perhaps quite repetitive) work- do you have to be available for reshoots/ADR etc? I don't know. There could be reasons why he may not want to do more.
I''d be more than happy to see him back though: he made the 'young nerdy Q' idea play much better and less cliched than it reads on the page.
Contrast that with Naomie Harris, who's actually interested in sticking around for awhile, citing Judi Dench as inspiration.
Give the next fella a clean slate.