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'm fine with most everything you listed that is prominant of Craig's Bond era...
however, 2 things i have gotten tired of is.. 1. Rogue Bond, and 2. Team MI6...
every plot in DC's run seems to always have some personal hook or angle to it, and this usually leads to Bond going out on his own or disregarding orders.. but i also can't think of the last time we got a Bond movie where he went on a mission that didn't have some personal stake involved.. maybe the The Living Daylights?
I get the fact that films and characters cant be written exactly the same as they once were - and i have no problem with giving M, Q, Tanner and Moneypenny more meat to chew on as characters.. but the appeal of Bond is 1 man, on his own, getting the job done against insurmountable odds.. Having the MI6 B Squad constantly helping him at all times, or jetting around to help in the field is getting old hat... M, Q and Moneypenny should never be out in the field.. M is the MI6 and needs to stay home.. Q is just the armorer, he has no business being a field agent - and neither does Moneypenny, who is literally just a secretary.. granted, they fleshed her out and gave an agent backstory - but still.. her job is to assist M, not jet around the world to be at Bond's side to help.
I’m referring to the process - the same ingredients mixed into a different cocktail - the ingredients are different, but the process is the same. If people are not fans of the ingredients, fair enough, but what they are doing and have been doing shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
That's not really a, ahem, correct correction in a general sense.
It's true of a great deal of Bond films from all eras. The same things mixed up, given a new shine, altered in terms of tone and/or style. And yes, it's true of the Craig era too.
EXACTLY. That's exactly what these producers and writers don't seem to understand nowadays. It's the lone wolf that's the appeal of the piece. Not the team. One man against all odds, against the world. The device on his hear and the bureaucratic team on his aid is utter nonsense and I'm sick and tired of it. It's the only element of the Craig era that bugged me all the way. Even if it all started with Brosnan and his M-mommy going after him all over the world. And that mirone scene in TND's pre titles opened a very dangerous and ruinous precedent, however cool it was.
For Bond26, please return to the one man non personal mission please. Escapism and style and danger is what most fans want. Want to make it serious? There are a helluva other options to do it. But don't go the M:I route, that's just poor.
I miss feeling Bond only had himself to rely on, on far places of the world. I loved that he ditched his earpiece in the Macau casino scene. I, for one, was getting tired of the gimmick. But then again, he had the bloody micro radio, didn't he?
I couldn't agree more @Univex
Probably why i'm such a huge fan of CR and QoS in the Craig era. No gadgets, no 'scooby gang' just Craig relying on his wits, with some decent allies to help out (Mathis and Leiter) along the way.
Not impressed with the direction NTTD seems to be going for according to the trailer. SP part 2 is not a thrilling prospect.
I hope i'm wrong of course.
I hope you're wrong too, old boy ;)
But I get your worries. That earpiece in the Safin scene and both Bond and 007 in commando gear worries me in the sense that this will be another team driven mission and not the good old days in which Bond trained for weeks to swim amongst barracudas to enter alone in a Garden of Death to kill a man.
Well I guess that really depends on your conception of what Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 is all about. Listen, I hate this kind or reasoning, but there is no way a hardcore fan of the novels and earlier films likes Bond teaming up with Q, Moneypenny and the lot on the field. This constant surveillance on our man Bond, this constant doubt of his capabilities and responsibilities just doesn't sit right with the original cannon. But hey, I'm not doubting you are a Bond fan, not at all. I just don't know what kind of Bond fan you are. If a Fleming fan, a film fan,..., I don't know. But it does create divergence between opinions around here. So it's all good.
Regarding Spectre, when the threat is addressed in London that does lend itself to a team effort. Doesn't have to be liked. Doesn't have to happen every time. And of course since 1965 there are past examples to draw on for Q, M, and even Moneypenny being in the field.
In general, not to any one person: I've been around a while. Speaking in absolutes about how a Bond fan thinks or should think or must think is a non-starter.
And yes, I think outright hatred for Spectre feeds this maneuvering to suggest required thought.
On a very basic generic level I agree with you. Bond girls, gadgets, action - yes. That sums up all Bond films.
But Bond going rogue, Team MI6 centre stage in the action, supporting Bond's every move, personal family backstories and secrets, personal missions, Blofeld being Bond's lost brother, pointless continuous story arcs rather than a standalone mission - sorry but this is modern Bond, not traditional Bond from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
Everyone has different views of how Bond 'should be' but none of them are right or wrong. And who is suggesting 'required thought?'
Doesn't have to happen every time - yet this has been increasingly happening since Babs took over the reign, throughout all the Brosnan films, and even moreso with the Craig films. The only exception is CR, and this is because for once it was based on a Fleming novel, which restricted this silly trend somewhat.
And no one is saying what a Bond fan should think. This thread is about concerns and niggles. If you don't want to read the concerns, then maybe skip this thread.
There are plenty of other threads championing the new movie, heralding the trailer as the best thing ever.
And of course there is love and hatred and in between. Expected and accepted.
You’re missing the point. They’re using familiar tropes within the era. If you don’t like those elements, that’s fine, but there was an implication a while back (not from yourself) that this era felt like it was ‘the same elements shaken into a different cocktail’, that is a staple across the series, they’re just using different ingredients. To single out this era in particular seems a little disingenuous.
Well, Ian Fleming’s James Bond is the Bond of the novels. Everything beyond that is an interpretation. That’s why I have no issue seeing the two as separate. The films have to evolve. It’s just progress. If I want Fleming I will read a novel. There’s nothing better.
@Birdleson what you mean not as funny as what?
That's true. There really is nothing better.
She is so overt in the way she talks to Bond, I doubt that will be banter as much as it will be foreshadowing.
I personally believe the similar scene in Skyfall, were Bond is reunited with Eve for the first time (I'm the one who should say sorry), that one is more natural, better written and underscores the sexual tension between the two of them. Also it still keeps a respect level between them as colleagues and as equals. It showcases a lot more wit in my book
I'm beginning to think it was either a mistake to show that dialogue scene between Nomi and Bond or it is going to play as misdirect. Because it's been somewhat of a shame that we've had such an incredible trailer released, and yet a lot of people are drawn to the Nomi scene. Or as a misdirect because she might not even be a key component in the film who knows
@Jordo007 see and no one notices this I've seen this show before.
Also curious as to why she is with madeline before Blofelds interrogation.
She's probably on the case officially before Bond gets involved.
Especially considering they indulged in that before Craig’s run. I find the whole criticism of MI6 being overused to be blown out of proportion. They have more scenes in Craig’s run, but they’re not really out on the field as much as complained to the point it’s an M:I rip off.
+1
Then better go down the route of dependable, stock character for the MI6 posse, instead of having big name actors.
You know I wonder if Nomi and Madeleine are both in the scene where Blofeld says it will be the death of him. We just don't see Nomi.
Honest opinion - this was a film I was concerned about having been let down by Spectre and everything I have heard going on since then hasn't inspired much confidence in the way it is going.
Having seen the trailer my concerns have only increased. Watching it you can play Daniel Craig era bingo:
Suspicion that Bond might be dead - check
Bond not in active service/retired/disappeared - check
Bond being considered as out of date, out of touch, the world has moved on etc - check
Secrets and back-stories between Bond, Madeleine, Blofeld - check
I agree with the earlier comments on here that there is far too much of this Bond going rogue, Bond settling old scores, personal angle stuff with Moneypenny and Q running around him.
I yearn for a clean slate. Exciting pre-title sequence. Bond in London, receives a mission from M. Heads off to some exotic far flung location. Gradually unearths a masterplan or plot headed by a diabolical charismatic villain. Villain isn't a relative of Bond, or a traitor, or someone with a grudge. Just a psychopath or criminal genius who is thwarted by Bond's skills. Bond saves the world from ruin. The end.
I'm now worried that this is going to be another big let down. The only parts of the trailer that remotely interest me are the return of Waltz as an incarcerated Blofeld and Remi Malek's decent looking villain.
I suppose it is early days and it could turn out to be a good entry but this doesn't excite me at all. Another irritation is how long it has been since Spectre. If you are doing a sequel - which the presence of Madeleine and Blofeld suggests it is - then you don't wait 4.5 years to get it out - it needs to be done in 2-3 years maximum. Save the 4-5 year gaps between films for the relaunch with a new actor e.g. 1989-1995 and 2002-2006.
Even the locations they are going to use just don't do it for me. Italian hill town - done to death in the Craig era in CR and QofS. Remote icy location - done to death. London - done to death. I miss the days of Rio, Tokyo, Cairo, San Francisco. Hopefully the Jamaica scenes will be decent.
I don't relish a changing of the guard with a new actor playing 007 as I think stability in actors is important but I'm starting to look forward to a fresh start and hopefully ditch all this nonsense. Other than the second half of Casino Royale we can pretty much go all the way back to TND or TWINE for the last time Bond had a traditional mission and was sent out to do it free from going rogue or having a personal angle.
Ding ding ding! Had they been better utilized then I don’t think we’d be complaining too much.
But I do find it amusing many are overlooking how often Desmond Lewellyn Q was out on the field a bunch of times, particularly during the 80s.