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 disagree, I love every single part of the Italian peninsula, I'd take any of them over every single other place in the universe. To each his own of course, but personally I just adore Italy and San Marino so much...
Having said that, that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the rest of the world and to be fair Hong Kong does sound really interesting. Plus, the Peninsula looks like a gorgeous hotel. So tough competition for sure.
Would you rather drive the Moon buggy from DAF OR fly the Jet Pack of TB?
This gadget isn't a toy. It has arms, tires that are able to climb rocky terrain. This is a one person vehicle that can out maneuver Ford cars. It is also able to drive without someone inside it.
OR
This is something that no well dressed man should be without one. The jet pack allows for man to fly. It might toast your backside, but won't you look cool flying over the chateaus of France.
Which unique vehicle are you choosing to use?
It’s got its issues, and isn’t exactly quick. But the jet pack has a 30 second flight time.
And I’m not so good with heights anymore.
I love the bloopers and continuity errors of the older films. Those are like little gems and are almost like Easter Eggs. I know some call it sloppy or somehow degrade the film, I look at it in a different way.
I watched Calvin Dyson give a pulse check on the series and I was struck how we have a blank canvas ahead. Well not us but EON has a chance to reset and go in a variety of directions.
One thing that the Craig films introduced was a strong link between the films. With QOS being a direct, literally, follow up to CR. Then with SP we got all the films retconned together and NTTD brought it all to an end.
Previously the series had a very loose continuity. Connery's first few films seemed to try to have some connection. By OHMSS all hope of continuity was gone with a different actor playing the role, though it was the same character. By the time we got to Dalton the only connective DNA seemed to be Bond's marriage to Tracy.
Would you rather the producers have strong continuity in the films OR return to a more loose continuity?
Strong continuity seems to be the ruler of the day, with Marvel really being the kings and queens of this. It would allow for the actor playing Bond to have an arc and to explore the character in greater detail.
Loose continuity would allow casual fans to understand the film without having to have seen the other films. It would allow for a re-casting of the character (Bond himself, or any of the Mi6 gang).
I don’t necessarily want an overarching enemy or returning villains like SPECTRE in the next era. But insofar as continuity is concerned I’d be fine if, say, in Bond 27 we got a little reference from M about Bond being back from leave from ‘the - mission’ of the previous film or whatever just to get a sense of how much time has passed. Perhaps Bond’s experiences from the previous film impacts his decisions (even subtly) in the subsequent film? Or maybe some minor characters could crop up in different films like General Gogol or the Minister of Defence did in the Moore era. Or Zukofsky or Wade in the Brosnan era.
Generally yes, I’d like there to be a sense of continuity within the new actor’s era, but you can have a tight continuity and standalone adventures like the Connery and Craig films. Personally, I’d prefer to have those stand alone adventures without an overarching villain.
But that doesn't mean that new viewers can't understand the film: if you watch Mission Impossible Fallout, even though it deals with a returning villain and Ethan's estranged wife from a couple of films earlier, the whole setup is explained within the film itself and it assumes no prior knowledge. It's perfectly possible to have continuing story elements and still be completely accessible.
And this.
And this!
I'd be more than happy if these formed the basic guidelines for the new guy's run. On balance, I'm in the 'give Blofeld and Spectre a rest this time round' camp.
I liked the balance of the early Connery films where Dr. No was mentioned in FRWL. Where Leiter and Bond talked shop in GF. Where M mentioned previous missions not seen on screen.
I thought it was a stretch that Bond who met and fell in love with Vesper in 2006 would carry a torch and feelings for her well into 2020. I think it should have been confined to fewer films.
I echo someone who said if going with an over-arching storyline they must plan it out and avoid doing it on the fly.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the way they kept milking Vesper. I thought Spectre, seemed like it was putting a bow on to it, but no, they found a way to dredge it back up.
In terms of assuring that Bond is still the same guy, I would say, give it some continuity, just to debunk the codename theory nonsense, but if it means to be interconnected to one another like the Craig Era, I'd rather have not (I'm tired of it).
But still, it depends, if there are characters in the next Bond actor's debut that are worthy of reappearance for future Bond films maybe, but given of what happened to the Craig Era, I think the Producers would've liked to separate the next Bond actor's tenure from Craig's run, so the loose continuity is a strong possibilty.
Yeah I think that's fine. I think baddies could maybe crossover, in that they have known each other or something like that, something a little complex that, say, your Carver uses a bit of the technology from the Tiger helicopter your Trevelyan stole in the previous film (only something a little more interesting and story-based, perhaps! Maybe a situation is created by a villain in one film which, though they're defeated, leaves the world and MI6 in a precarious state which the next baddie takes advantage of). But I'd agree that one enemy being behind everything -which is very Bond to be fair- is perhaps a little played out at this point.
Yeah I think 'course corrections' is important. I don't want the whole thing planned out and then stuck to because that's just not how these things get made- put all of your effort into the one in front of you and let the rest work itself out.