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
Brosnan did give good performances in other roles but I disagree that he can do anything as an actor. His strength is actually playing slippery morally dubious characters, which is why I think Tarantino wanted to keep him for his CR. he wanted to do a totally sleazy Bond with Brosnan as a corrupted and morally compromised man. At least that's what I reckon he saw in him.
:)) I'm sorry, the torrential flood of illogic here is forcing me to lose interest in this particular debate. 8->
Not sure I get your point at all then. Does Brosnan bear any responsibility for his performances and his films or not?
But yes, it would have had to have been stripped back.
<font color=blue size=7><b>The jump from novice agent in CR/QOS to old-timer agent in SF came at least one film too soon.</b></font>
I just thought "ok obviously some time has passed and he's a more experienced agent". Lets enjoy the film.
One exception: Connery in YOLT.
Agreed. It was too soon a leap. SF could still have had Bond having "lost a step," but more due to "enjoying death" than to age (the reference to the warship painting, etc.). Plus, there was already enough of the aging theme in the film with M and her impending retirement.
Agreed, and regardless of the intrinsic qualities of the movie. My (sort of) explanation: an lot of Bond from the previous continuity happened in between.
Have to say i disagree. I didn't see Bond as an old timer of an agent in Skyfall? I saw someone still haunted about adapting to the role he has chosen for himself. Now i am curious to see where he goes in the next film? Personally i think he will still make mistakes especially after the loss of M? But either way i am highly looking forward to Bond 24! :-bd
I would've preferred at least one more standard 'Bond gets mission, Bond saves the world, Bond shags girl' Bond film before The Seventh Seal facing up to your mortality vibe of SF. Without doubt it should've been DC's last film and it almost feels like the new actor could've taken over the mantle Doctor Who style in the final scenes on the rooftop and in M's office to prepare us for his tenure.
As it is we have had 3 films of rebooting and only now are we ready to get back to business as usual but with DC's reign likely to come to an end after B25 they seem to have wasted far too much of his tenure setting things up.
And what will happen after DC goes? Will we have another reboot or just carry on and pretend nothing has changed as we used to do? Do audiences these days expect you to address the ageing thing rather than just accepting the jump from Rog to Tim as they did in the past?
Personally I would love DC's last film to end with the Vladivostok cliffhanger from YOLT and the PTS of the next film to be Bond's assassination attempt on M. But I accept this is rather wishful thinking on my part and pretty unlikely to happen.
In the end his sense of purpose is revived and he can return to his "pre-death" self; that includes his re-honed physical skills
That's my wish too.
It's probably a little jolting to watch QoS and SF back to back. It really does make one think that Bond must have had plenty of missions in between. If we think of QoS as a continuation of the events of CR then we've really only had two different Bond stories in the past eight years. Will we ever learn what happened in those crucial intermediate years?
The series has obviously faced a lot of criticism for keeping Moore in the role for too long so perhaps they wanted to bring the age factor out in the open this time? After all, it wasn't so much the fact that Moore was 57 in AVTAK that bothered me but rather that they were pretending or somehow hoping that we wouldn't notice it. Craig did noticeably age in four years.
Most likely that didn't have anything to do with it though. Mendes wanted a film about Bond resurrecting himself and so we go from rookie Bond to old man Bond in one film. It's kind of irritating but it certainly isn't a deal breaker for me.
In a way, SF mirrored CR, so in the end I don´t have too much of a problem with what they did, seeking out extremes and balancing out the film with silly nonsense (meant in a positve way).
In CR, the viewer could easily go, "wtf, why is he so old when he´s supposed to be new to the game", after all Fleming´s Bond was probably in his early 30s when he joined the 00 section, and movie-goers became accustomed to heros being in their 20s in their origin films.
In SF it´s the other way round, there are hints at Bond being old and done, yet at the same time he is built up for the future.
In CR Bond is said to be new in his field, yet the dramatical content of the film picks up where the Brosnan films left, making Bond´s first romance as a 00 Agent his most severe one.
In SF there is talk of Bond having an unresolved childhood trauma, yet Bond shows no sign of that in anything he does.
It seems to me that the producers always try to find some kind of polarity, be it being a rookie, or ageing, or personal trauma, and then they try to balance the film by going into opposite directions, e.g. CR: rookie vs dramatical continuation, SF: most untraditional Bond film to date vs constant mention of old values.
I like that as a continuation of the traditional mix of hard-boiled and wtf moments.
It's a little thin but for me that's in reference to Bond walking out and not being able to respond to his family home in the word association game. We learn why from Kincade later.
I'm intrigued to see the direction Bond 24 will take though. I assume we will get a back-to-basics Bond at his resurrected best.
But will M truly back him? The last scene in SF suggests maybe but realistically Bond did little to win him over last time (good intentions yes, but effectively kidnapping his boss and being unable to save her life!) There's no reason for the new M to be ''sentimental'' of him either like his predecessor.
In regards to age, I imagine it won't focus on Bond's stamina or fitness this time around but we'll still get the natural age related mockery between Bond and Q, which should be entertaining.
That was one of my main gripes with SF. It sets up all the context but IMO never uses it an interesting way. But any way, it's not the themes of SF that bother me, so much as the fact we lost those 4 years to MGM's internal issues and there is a feeling that there's almost a 'missing' Craig Bond movie between QoS and SF. And now he looks too old to 'go back' and make that movie.
True, but he reminds me of the MoD from FYEO (I think it was, when M was on leave), so there would be a feeling of familiarity ;-).
Looking at the afore-mentioned gaps in logic, I think they can go anywhere anytime. I admit that sometimes it seriously bothers me that SF completely ignores the two previous films, but the more I think about it, the more I come to terms with it. As long as they stick with that kind of silliness ;-).
Just my thoughts, the MGM disaster cost at least one year. And for what? It's still the same uninspired, unoriginal studio, only now it's more of a garage op. And of course some guys made a nice profit on the action while others lost their jobs. And MGM is still just Bond and the catalogue.
I have nothing to add.
Craig himself has aged a lot since CR, I guess with these longer pauses between the movies that is inevitable.
Bond isn't necesserily 'old' in SF, but his methods are. This is part of an ongoing discussion in the intelligence community on the use of HumInt and SigInt, or, in laymans terms, do we just use technology or do we need humans infiltrating as well. That discussion is clearly part of it when Q and Bond discuss their methods. So 'old'is meant not as age, but as ussed methods. Even more so when M has to defend herself to the committee.
So, SF does what all Bond films do: tell a 'regular' story about this character named Bond, and then connect it to real world events and discussions, permanently disrupting any form of subsequency logic.
This means they can go any way they want with Bond 24. thankfully.
Well he isn't Graves, now is he? ;-)