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
See, I'd say Silva's Island is pretty much fantastical, but I'm not convinced Piz Gloria is. I love both, mind you.
What makes a fantastical lair?
I don't know, I'm being confused.
I mean Silva's island was just an abandoned island, it's not as bombastic as said, Stromberg's lair, meanwhile Piz Gloria, it's very fantastical (mountaintop clinic), even the design alone.
Because for me, what makes a fantastical lair are those that's unrealistic and exaggerated, and I think Silva's hideout island was very much grounded, and Piz Gloria (even the concept alone) was far off from reality.
All things being relative, I'd say fantastical is anything stretching considerably away from the realm of plausibility. It's not so much the thing as the context in which it exists. And something can be more or less fantastical. Like I said, there's not one clear cut.
So a whole island for one man and his crew, like a necropolis or a ghost town, I'd say it's fantastical, especially in the way he acquired it. The place looks surreal, nightmarish even. Piz Gloria is far more grounded to Blofeld's previous lair. In the end, it's a private ski resort turned lab in a remote part of Switzerland. It's grand, it's outlandish, but otherwise not fantastical. It remains in the realm of plausibility.
That said, I'm all about the fantastical lairs. Its partly what got me into Bond in the first place.
The series has had 6 different actors play the role. In the first 20 films the continuity was hit and miss. Actors had different M's and Mi6 staff. The character rarely referred or brought up previous missions. Even the biggest villain of the series was played by three different actors in three different movies.
Then in the last 5 films we had one actor play Bond, same supporting cast. Villain returned for 2 films. We had the love of the first movie referenced through out the remaining films. We had a Bond who earned the 00 and watched him develop and grow as a field agent. Yes some of the events were ret-conned to make sense but the character was allowed to grow and develop,
So Mi6 community would you rather a Bond where each film is almost a stand alone adventure OR each Bond film leads and builds to a character arc?
Do we appreciate continuity in the series or long for the days when Bond did his mission with nary a mention of previous assignments?
So, if it's standalone, we're just going to enjoy those films without overthinking.
And after the interconnected series in the Craig Era, a standalone series would've been refreshing.
Edit: I do experienced it in this thread: https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/18721/bonds-final-mission-avtak-or#latest
- Dr. No is mentioned in From Russia With Love.
- Bond packing Honey's belt, Grant's watch and the underwater breather in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
- Tereza is referenced lots of times in the following outings: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Licence To Kill, The World is Not Enough.
- The gadget storage scene in Die Another Day.
And that's what makes the problem a bit though: sure, it's made to show that Bond is the same guy, but like what was talked in the other thread, it gives us a lot of conclusions, for example, how come that Bond doesn't get old, that in every new Bond film, he goes back to being young again? Some even having a theory that those Bond actors got regenerated a la Dr. Who (Timelord) 😅.
It's stretching out the credibility.
See this: https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/18721/bonds-final-mission-avtak-or#latest
With standalone films, there's no need to make up for conclusions like that, about the timeline and etc.
Yep, absolutely. I want an arc. Ian Fleming thought it was a good idea too.
They do have to make sure everything is explained within each film though: it should always be accessible to someone who hasn't seen the last one and won't see the next. Mission Impossible Fallout does that rather brilliantly: it includes the baddie from the previous film and Ethan's wife from three films previously, but both are explained to the audience before they appear in the story.
Although funnily enough the first few 007 films had rather large amounts of continuity which the series didn't return to until relatively recently. He sees the same woman in the first two, Dr No is mentioned in the next film, Spectre want revenge on Bond; he drives the same car, carries the same gadgets from one film to another... other Bonds like Roger or Pierce had nowhere near the same level of continuity, and I think it's a bit of a shame.
As i said on the "Last Mission: AVTAK?" thread, i see the classic Bond era as two continuities:
One goes from Connery->Lazenby->Moore, then the franchise gets a soft-reboot and we have the other one, which is Dalton->Brosnan.
It's ok to have continuity regarding major events in our hero's life (say referring to Tracy's death and the like), but every Bond movie should also be acceptable as a stand-alone film and should NEVER end in a cliffhanger or be designated as Episode 1 so people have to come back just to see how it ends. That's a thing you can do in free-TV series, but I find it fatal in feature movies.
If there is a certain amount of continuity I hope that it well thought out and not retconned to force a plot element
So I vote for standalone.