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 wondering if EON is cooking something up with Nolan for a 3 film Bond arc at Warners. There has to be something in the air with all the Craig replacement rumors which EON (quick to address other Bond matters in the press) has made no attempt to stop. Nolan likely wants a new trilogy and would love to get his stamp on Bond. He's all kinds of wrong for Bond, but EON will be gaga to get him.
I'm in two minds about Mendes returning. On the one hand I thought that overall, he did a great job with SF so I'm pretty happy to see him return (so long as he learns from the very few mistakes he did make and ups his game with the fight scenes) but on the other hand, it meant we're getting SPECTRE a year later than we would've done. He's good but not irreplaceable and I'd have sacrificed his involvement if it meant we had Bond 24 in 2014. But then the script for SPECTRE was a disaster less than a year ago (the Logan stuff that leaked was awful, the Purvis and Wade draft is great though and saved the film) so without the extra time afforded by waiting for Mendes, would they have been able to get it to a decent standard in time? I dunno but Mendes is back now, what's done is done.
I think you're pretty deluded saying SP could bomb and lead to Craig being axed. I think it very well could be Craig's last but that'll be their own choice, the film will be a success. I'm not expecting it to be anywhere near as successful as Skyfall (they have a much bigger budget and will likely make a significant amount less money) but I think it'll still do well, it's one of the most anticipated films of 2015. Certainly won't flop. Is the opening date that competitive? I know there's some competition in late December (Star Wars, Hateful Eight), but blockbuster films make most of their money in the first few weeks anyway don't they? I think it'll do fine.
I'd like it, I thought he did a good job with Batman (and his Batman was clearly pretty Bond inspired), he got me interested in the character when I never had been before (since then I've watched the Burton and Schmaucher films, wasn't a big fan of any of them, and then played the first three Arkham games, loved Asylum but City and Origins have made me lose faith in the series so I probably won't play Knight for a while) they're the only comic book movies I really care about. A separate self contained Bond trilogy written and directed by Nolan after Craig leaves would be great imo, he's a fan and I'd like to see what he could do.
The bone doctor or whatever he's called. I thought he looked familiar and was going to mention this in my initial thoughts post.
I'm not a fan of Nolan's writing. It feels too overblown and pretentious at times. People don't speak like normal people. It feels fabricated. He might be a fan but that doesn't necessarily mean he's right for it. I like his directing and visual style, but I just wouldn't want him to write them. Aside from Batman Begins, I really didn't care for the other films in the Dark Knight trilogy. And he always uses Hans Zimmer who's music to me is boring, bland and uninspired. If people had problems with Mendes, Nolan is like Mendes multiplied. I don't think Nolan is right for Bond. but that's just what I think.
The complaints people had about it lagging between action were baseless in my opinion. I was not once pulled out of the film; two hours flew by.
And surprisingly, the ending of the film was not
Skyfall looked extremely staged compared to the London scenes in RN.
The only issue I had was how frequent members of the IMF and MI6 were so willing to discuss matters of national security literally on park benches.. in front of the MI6 building.. what?
But other than that ( a few minor gripes ) I loved the film. Following the rotten tomatoes scale of things, It rests easily above a 95% for me. Great film, exactly what I expected and more!
I found this interesting, especially your comment about the real streets of London. I don't think that's something many films and shows capture (perhaps it's the same with New York, LA, etc, I just don't realise because I've never lived there).
I'm reminded me of the last season 24 which, despite being an American series, did a much better job of capturing London than some English shows imo (eg- Sherlock, which is still a brilliant show btw, not slagging it off, just using it as an example). Because despite the f***ed up geography (eg- Jack getting from "somewhere in east london (iirc)" to Ealing in about ten minutes) and the occasional minor nitpick like the wrong word being used, it felt real. It felt like the London I grew up in instead of the London American tourists see. Yeah there were the usual skyline shots of the gherkin, etc, but the series covered a wide variety of locations. Yeah they had Wembley and the House Of Commons but they served a story purpose, it never felt like sight seeing, and we also saw east end markets, council estates, etc. Something a review pointed out that has stuck with me is that the opening shot of one episode was of a mosque. No story reason, it was just there, as it is in real life. That's something I can't remember ever seeing in a British drama (don't think the tardis has ever landed outside a mosque :P ). In fact they did a great job of showing London as a cultural melting pot. Rather than having every character as either a Benedict Cumberbatch or Danny Dyer type, they had characters of all sorts of different races and creeds. Thought it was really well done, especially considering it was an American show.
To be fair, it probably wasn't as detailed and in-depth as 24, but the Brit scenes in RN sort of ignored the major landmarks using them as background. Even in the background they aren't heavily featured. There's a conversation in front of the MI6 building, and the majority of the structure is out of frame. Just enough to give you the idea of where they are.
And for all the kerfuffle around them actually getting into government buildings while filming, they don't brag about it on screen. It's not super obvious.. some may see that as pointless for them to go through the effort, but it feels real and that is what is important, set or not.
The ending is particularly great because the characters get completely away from any recognizable parts of London (to an outsider), and at one point the group of characters (to try and avoid too may details) get separated, as you would imagine they would in a real situation.
Whatever they ended up doing to change the ending paid off. I loved it.
Yes. Don't be misinformed by me, they definitely used landmarks to help register the location in the film. Rebecca Ferguson walks over the very spot we know Spectre scenes were filmed. But for the most part, they establish where we are and don't make a big fuss about it. I liked that. It's from the characters perspective.. the film treats the buildings as buildings.. just like a person who sees it daily would.
Because in all honesty, 2015 is "The Year Of The Spy". Let's enjoy all this spy stuff.
$ 039,201,657: "Taken 3" (current global gross: $325,771,424)
$ 036,206,331: "Kingsman The Secret Service" (current global gross: $406,737,128)
$ 005,028,702: "The Gunman" (current global gross: $015,569,265)
$ 147,187,040: "Furious 7" (current global gross: $1,512,966,527)
$ 029,085,719: "Spy" (current global gross: $232,449,000)
$ 056,000,000: "Mission: Impossible 5 - Rogue Nation" (current global gross: $121,000,000)
Having analized these figures a bit, I especially think "Kingsman" did very very good work at the box office, given the fact that it's an original movie, not a sequel. "Furious 7", well we know why that films grossed that amount.
Still, I find a $56 Million opening weekend a bit....soft for "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation". I was expecting around $65 Million to be honest. And it could have been done. Obviously, it will have good holdover in the upcoming weeks, but I think it would have helped if the publicity/promotion machine for the 5th "M:I"-film kicked off earlier. Let's say, late 2014.
Now the awareness for the film was created relatively late, around March with a first trailer. Whereas "SPECTRE" already did the same, by also premiering their first trailer in March. Obviously the premiere date change shook and stirred the publicity machine a bit....in a negative way.
Let's hope it will outgross "Ghost Protocol" in China! Go Tom ;-)!
As someone looking forward to MI:RN I too wonder whether some of us Bond fans perhaps are so protective and even nit picky about our beloved 007 franchise that we worry an extra amount whether the next Bond (SP this year) will measure up to other similar films, like MI, Kingsman, UNCLE, et? I wonder will it score a high critical consensus? Will it bring together fans of Bond or divide them? Stuff like that.
Personally, everything about SP looks as great as I could hope for; cast, story, locations and of course the trailers. Some will disagree. But it seems to me like there is an undercurrent (even amongst the critics) that since these other spy films have been so well received this year that SP might seem like a disappointment given that it will probably have more expectations than most of these films, not to mention 53 years and 23 films of heritage behind that make it scrutinized more than usual and not be as appreciated as perhaps it should - if it truly turns out great? Obviously, no one knows yet.
I suppose what I am saying is, does SP have to be extra great, just to be great. If that makes any sense.
I haven't seen MI yet but I am a fan ..just more protective of my Bond.
That does make sense, but when you look at the the general praise of Skyfall, a film with many flaws but that "feels" good as a fan, I am not worried about the initial reactions to Spectre. I think people will be so overwhelmed with what it is trying to do, they wont judge what it actually is until a few weeks later, like with Skyfall. And with Skyfall that wasn't just hardcore fans drooling, everybody did. I just hope Spectre is good enough to never be questioned as "over-rated."
Let me tell you one thing. As of late October everyone will have forgotten the previous spy films ;-). Because "SPECTRE" will all stun us.
I firmly believe that "SPECTRE" will crush previous Bond film ratings -"Casino Royale", "Skyfall"- on IMDB, Rottentomatoes and Metacritic. Why I say that? I still believe the two trailers from SP were pure utter 'porn' for us Bond fans, but for other movie-go-ers too.
I can see "SPECTRE" settle down with an incredible 8.4 rating on IMDB ("CR": 8.0, "SF": 7.8), an astonishing 96% on RT ("CR": 95%, "SF": 92%) and a wonderful 8.3 on Metacritic ("CR": 8.1, "SF": 8.1). Mark my words :-).
This time in 2012 I'm pretty sure we had Bond already gracing the covers of 3 or more film magazines. So far I've only seen 1.
Off topic, but I also noticed this!! In 2012 Bond was already everywhere during summer!
I guess the Olympics 2012 were more important for Bond than anyone thinks.
That is, well, not entirely true. Most big articles (Empire) came out around late September, early October.
No. I distinctly remember there being more than 2 magazines with Bond on the front cover prior to September 2012.
Same, with at least one or two being special magazines solely dedicated to the history of Bond and nothing else. I picked up as many as I could find, including one that was terribly overpriced at a grocery store. I couldn't help it, I had Bond fever.
EDIT: Just noticed this isn't the SP thread, even though it's been discussed here so much, so let's try and keep it on topic!
Now I am aware of the fact that the Bond-franchise has a way more staunch fanbase core as opposed to "Mission: Impossible". So I think it's only logical the "M:I"-franchise gets scrutinized with the same critical 'fan-eye's.
Having said that, I think the opening weekend of "Rogue Nation" ($ 56 Million) is OK at best, but nothing incredible. It couldn't even top the "Mission: Impossible II" opening weekend of $ 58 Million. And then we haven't even corrected these opening weekends to today's inflation.
Still, this box office discussion is besides the quality of the film. I haven't seen it yet, but the critics reviews are very very good.
This is all that really matters. That people are enjoying the film. When the dust settles, who really cares about opening weekends, script issues, scheduling problems etc etc, if it's a film that goes down well and is as rewatchable as the rest of the M:I canon, it's done it's job for me. It'll be the same with SP. If the film does it's job in being a great Bond movie, I won't care in the slightest if it doesn't best SF's Box Office records.