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
Just because it has some of Fleming's CR in it...and Bond bleeds, bleeds...ha ha...that's the funniest criteria I've heard so far for what Bond is supposed to be.
SP script is much better than "plot hole galore" rehash of TWINE script Skyfall. Way better. Just because it has the Oberhauser/Blofeld twist people get worked up over it, that's one sentence in the whole film, while SF thinks people are that stupid to buy all the plot holes that pile up like garbage in Italy.
MP, Q, and gunbarrels, and humour were practically non existant in the novels or at least non consequential. Bond is bigger than all that fluff. Bond is about the character and what the charcter does in certain situations. Finish. Audiences have decided they like what bond does so he keeps doing it. MP and Q were better in QOS- non existant- then their shit dialogue and direction and scooby do gang shit in spectre.
Cinematic Bond is what we got from 1962 to 2002. Isn't that obvious, that literary Bond is something different.
As for Fiennes, Whishaw, they got much better dialogue and character development in SP than in SF. Q was shown as an imbecile in SF, so badly written, poor Desmond certainly turned in his grave.
Not quite. My favorite Bond films all are either very similar to the novels, or the dalton films( which do have a novel feel to them) I guess that may be differant to you. But for me, bond makes the film. I guess for some, bond plus the side fluff makes the film. If so I just dont understand, like when i put on an iron man film, i dont really care to see rhodey or pepper potts, because they are side characters, im watching it for iron man and his personality. Same with bond. Craig gives a good performance in his first two films so he doesnt need side characters to make the movie " a real bond film". If anything they are more real.
And I uses to think that way. When is was 10 I was like" where is MP where is q. Where are the gadgets?"
But over several years, me reading the books, and me watching the series in order several times over. I have fallen in love with these films in a differant light. I like the character of bond now, the character fleming wrote and Especially because: I like qos and -the autrocious directing and dialogue in spectre pisses me off so, I have come to the conclusion, the series was better without the side stuff.
Thats the dream... oh well maybe one day
An emphatic +1 to both of these!
Yes, because Bond films have to be watched for their realism. Not fantasy.
Might as well we make a documentary about it and call it the film of the year. And they'll stay dreams. They haven't done it for over 50 years, what's going to change that now?
Expect that with another production team who are strict Bond purists. And that's shy of 30 years from now.
I don't disagree they are different beasts, that is clear. But it's also clear that the "better" films embody the essence of Fleming, if not the content. I say this as a champion of films like MR, which I find pure escapist brilliance, but I couldn't genuinely argue the case for films like YOLT, MR and DAD against films such as FRWL, OHMSS or CR. It's prudent to find a balance, films like TSWLM and GE walk that line I feel. Any film that captures the spirit of Fleming is going to be superior to one that doesn't. It's that simple for me.
And being a Bond fan for forty years (first film: THUNDERBALL; 4 years old watching it on TV with my Dad-- unforgettable (a man dressed as a woman? The music? The fight? The jet-pack?)), I didn't miss MP or Q in Craig's first two. Not at all.
Bringing them back has thrown an anchor around their neck, and not in a good way (all very talented actors, but they don't get hired for one scene/film). I hope that B25 sees a director brave enough to tailor their importance and stick them where they belong: in the background.
Personally, if I didn't see Q or MP again, I'd be fine. I don't think a gadget-master works in today's time anyways, since we're already living in a gadget-heavy world-- I can keep surveillance on my house while I'm at work using my smart phone, or I can open my car door with palm prints.
Bond doesn't need gadgets to be Bond.
But he does need "realistic" equipment to go into the field.
There's a difference.
I don't want ejector seats or guns popping out from trunks. I want to see ingenuity and equipment that feels of this world, but not something that any old Tom, Dick or Harry could own. Equipment that a paid assassin would use (exploding watches and ejector seats are deux ex machina devices, and lazy to the story-- Bond will never be in any danger if he has these toys, therefore tension's sucked right out of the film). Imagine if DC Bond had an exploding watch in CR? Then we probably wouldn't have got to the ball-busting scene where we see his true character shine.
Bring DC Bond back where he started-- arrogant (but now on the other side of the ledger; he's not "green" like in CR, but world weary, nothing surprises him as he's seen everything. This will be his hubris and achilles); down to earth, intuitive, ferocious (not ignoring his age, and not playing on it as a weakness, but he's like the warrior lion), masculine, dangerous, impulsive, tough and an unstoppable force (even if he's "losing"), relentless, and, yes, a man that bleeds again.
Then re-boot with an entirely new cast.
Oh, and heavy, heavy, heavy doses of Fleming...
To be honest when we got that terrific sign off with Craig and Fiennes was like the ending of CR with that great moment with DC & JC and Bond finally saying the words.
It acted as a cliffhanger for me to the possibility of where we were going next, SF was similar because it was saying to me anyway, that Bond has new boss and he was all set for a new mission and all the personal baggage had been dealt with.
I looked at SF as ending to personal element as what happened with digging into Bond's past should have been it.
I agree that the Fleming strong entries are my favourite's with the exception of SWLM, all four of the first Connery's while getting gradually more epic still retain a sense of Fleming.
Although my preferred entries tend to be the ones that are strong in his influence, OHMSS being the best example as the book is literally on the screen. Yes CR does add it's own element but the 2nd half of it is the book updated apart from the sign off.
QOS & SF I get a sense of Fleming in Craig's portrayal but I can't see it at all in SP. It does tend to be the PB fans that so embrace this films, Jason is clearly not much of a fan of this era and only thinks SP is so good because it's like Brozzers films, he's admitted it.
I think it's clear why I dislike it so as it feels and looks like something Brozzer would have looked at home in, as SF being a rip off TWINE, I don't see it to be honest I see more of TWINE all over the place feel in SP.
Wanting the personal element and somewhat gritty feel but also wanting to embrace the OTT.
Craig's DAD is SP, I don't mean it has anything visually ludicrous as the invisible car or the CGI wave or a climax that makes MR look quite down to earth and gritty. SP's invisible car is that depth charge as Mendes called it and stupid way they linked the DC era together.
Now if SP had been loaded with top drawer action sequences I might have been able to have more fun with it but barring the PTS ( and I don't like that CGI explosion) the rest of the action is casual and threatless.
Now when I heard they were staging an epic car chase and closing down parts of Rome to film that culminated on the Tiber I was excited.
I figure Bond isn't going to go all F&TF its got more class than that, it's more likely to reference the great pre CGI car chases like Bullitt, French Connection or the last really great one Ronin.
So you can imagine my surprise and disappointment when we just got 2 expensive sports cars taking a casual drive as if Bond and Hinx were taking in the sights. Mendes then for good measure chucks some Rog style air bag gag in there.
So despite there being most likely more laughable elements in the series that some will point out like the double taking pigeon etc. I'm saying SP as a whole is the direst thing in the series because it not only does the ESB thing and reminds many of the Austin Powers films the one thing the DC era had done so well to reclaim Bond back from this nonsense.
The awful cobbled together way they attempted to stitch this era together. The squandered opportunity to deliver a set piece to compete with the Parkour sequence of CR for thrills and one the most uneventful car chase sequence in cinematic history.
That's not even getting into the copy and paste score, the awful theme tune and that terrible last sequence with DC looking very creepy in his driving gloves.
Yeah the stars did well and truly align for me on this one to deliver the biggest disappointment in my whole time being a Bond fan and for that it's no. 24 now in my rankings.
Yeah I said due to the way it has left such a brown stain on this era, an era of Bond I was really enjoying despite some few misteps, the way I vehmently dislike this film, I couldn't care less about TND - DAD they were nothing for me to get truly worked up about they were what they were. I'd resigned to the fact that this wasn't my Bond and the next one that came along might be more to my taste.
So my reason was I invested in this Bond and his films and I felt like I was rewarded with SPECTRE so yes it is my direst moment of Bond period.
Thank God there are some people who cherish what's important rather than 'side fluff' (excellent description @JamesBondKenya) such as MP, Q and hilarious gags like falling onto sofas.
The side fluff can be fun no question but you have to roll your eyes in disbelief when some people seem to mistake this as actually being the character.
No wonder @BondJasonBond006 rates SP so highly with the scooby team getting about an hour of screentime.
The next film should be 90% MP and Q with Bond just flitting in and out occasionally. The title?
SideFluff
Why? Well, there are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to exceptionally good characterizations, superior visuals, tense action sequences & very confident execution. I realize that it isn't an action heavy film, but what they have is quite dramatic & exciting. As an example, I think that moment when Bond winks at M and shoots the fire extinguisher before walking out into the open like a boss firing his PPK is one of the coolest Craig moments of all. Similarly, I love his wry smile when he realizes that his PPK is indeed signature coded in the S Class in Shanghai just prior to turning his steely glance towards Patrice (as he kills the guard inside the tower). I can see his mind turning as he recalls his humorous meeting with Q in the museum. It's the many little moments like that which make the film for me. Both of those sequences also have loads of atmosphere, suspense and tension. There is nothing in SP that comes even close to that for me (yes, including the much touted Hinx fight and Spectre board meeting).
I don't agree that the films have to embrace the books. I like many of the Bond films that are not book based, most notably TSWLM. I also like the films that are influenced by the books. For me, it all comes down to them making a suspenseful, tense, visually stylish film with great dialogue, an atmospheric score, engaged actors and lots of beauty and glamour. Those are the key ingredients for a great Bond film imho.
Agreed.
Yeah I think once Roger Moore broke the mold, the idea of there being a "proper" approach to Bond tonally went out the window. I like Fleming's Bond but I also love some of the OTT Bond films. They can be as dark and gritty or popcorny and lighthearted as they like imo, so long as the important stuff is there (the stuff that carries over no matter what: the style, the girls, the theme song, the gunbarrel, the exotic locations, and certain aspects of Bond's character) and it's a good film in its own right.
I do have my personal preferences when it comes to some of the other stuff (I like a bit of humour/self awareness and at least a couple of gadgets for example) but these little things aren't absoloutely necessary to make a great Bond film. OHMSS is in my top five and that's pretty much gadget free.
You've nailed it for me there as well and you and I have similar feelings on SPECTRE, SF did and still does give me that feeling. Mendes said all he needed to definitively say with that film, one of the best mixtures of the Fleming Bond and the cinematic for me and thrilling to boot.
On paper that all sounds great but the execution of it all, for me was all wrong.
Yes, those elements were in prior films, but that's not the essence of Bond.
If it were, CR wouldn't have been such a critical slam dunk, despite not having such fare.
If it were, any number of the numerous pretenders over the years could readily make a Bond film. Any punk from film school could make a Bond film. They can't.
What makes a good Bond action sequence is something new, fresh & iconic. Something we've not seen before. Something which gives us an insight into the character while still being cool. Something where he uses his intelligence while thwarting and beating an enemy. Where was the intelligence in any of the action sequences in SP? Bond almost got Madeleine killed with his idiotic recklessness with the plane and didn't do anything in the Hinx fight which we haven't seen him do countless times before in previous films.
In CR he shows his smarts during the parkour sequence, using his brains to keep up with the faster Mollaka. Even the busting through drywall moment showed smarts, because he knew it was possible. Same goes for ramming the bike into the guardrail to catch the train in SF's PTS. etc. etc.
I like the homages. They're really unavoidable at this late date, it's good the filmmakers control them and serve them up as part of the film formula. Not the essence, but a celebration of the past. I also like the return of Moneypenny and Q, surely that was planned all along, it wasn't a surprise to me or some late decision by the filmmakers. They're making Bond films.
The plane sequence circuited through some unique activity. I've been around, and it entertained me. Of course it and the film can't be for everyone.
There is little if any intelligence or inventiveness in the SP action sequences. Some here conveniently forget the two Moore train fights when lauding the Hinx fight, only making comparisons to Connery's classic FRWL encounter. Well, in my view apart from the intensity there is far more in common with the TSWLM sequence in SP than anything else. Bottom line: it brought nothing new to the table, which is something one cannot say about the CR encounters. The same goes for nearly everything in that film. Overly predictable without surprising in any way to me. It's precisely how I felt during most of the action in TWINE, and especially the 'linear' ski and caviar sequences.
I certainly hope they get back to being inventive and unpredictable with the next one. They can throw in the tropes if they want, but they have to ensure that there's more to the sequence than throwbacks.
I like both and I don't see them in the absolute terms you're expressing here.
Brother is not the most annoying thing about SP to me. Not by a long shot.
Bond had built its reputation on real stunts and tried to maintain the standards they themselves had set over many years. So it's sad that the Bonds should be ridiculed for terrible CGI during DAD (the parasurfing sequence of course). It is depressing and as much as you want to say 'One minute here, this is the series that saw a man ski off a mountain or fall out of an aeroplane without a parachute', it is sadly too late. The laughter at Bond escaping the tidal waves, his hair blowing ever so gently in the wind, is still echoing after all these years.
A few years ago an outdoor concert featured Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder and Elton John. They were all ridiculed by young people on social media for their 'terrible' singing voices.
Three men who, it could be argued wrote the soundtrack to 20th century popular music, being dismissed by the X Factor generation because at 70 plus years old their voices had lost much if its lustre (all great rock and soul singers in their day).
This felt a little like that. CGI was being done well in 2002, but Bond was being laughed off the screen for doing it badly, yet Bond had effectively invented the modern action movie.
Blimey, don't I go on?
I have detected an element of 'old school' dismissal from some younger viewers when it comes to Bond. That it's a relic of a bygone era.
Like so many things with a great history, Bond films have the added pressure of keeping current while respecting and living up to their iconic past. It's not an easy thing to do by any means.
As far as Bond being past his shelf life for the younger or modern audience, that's a longtime concept. Growing up with Bond in the 70s and 80s, Mad Magazine voiced a funny ethos that matched a lot of film reviews--to me a lot of them seemed to be written in advance of seeing the latest film. So the Bond actor was too old, there had already been too many actors in the Bond role (3?), overuse of gadgets, overuse of product placement, no character development, most everything recycled, nothing new under the sun, things were done better in films past. The latest Bond film as a target was part of the mix. I think that will always be true, even more intense with social media advances. Adding crusades that Bond should be another gender, another race, another sexual orientation.
On the other hand, considering box office of $1.1B and $880M for the last two I'd say Bond is doing okay even with the younger set. And with Craig, they're going to Bond school.
Regarding Bond becoming obsolete: the trick is to reinvent every now and then. Refresh the concept. They did that in the 70's, in the 90's and again in the 00's. It worked on all occasions. I also believe they have to keep him within a certain age parameter.