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
Agreed. Little gem of a moment when Sir James Bond is being lead to the bathroom and all these girls are eyeing him up. Niven is great and in the following bath scene "...ma Daddy likes it hotter!". "I bet he does!"
As well as the casting of Moneypenny ;)
I'm a little blinded by Miss Goodthighs to be honest.
Now we have Q, who at first wasn't into exploding pens, giving exploding watches, MP at her desk, crusty M in his office, a DB5 that has prototype weaponry....
CR was a chance to respect the past whilst doing things with a little freshness. QOS followed the trend (I did like M's office).
And Bond himself was lean and mean.
But by SF, he's trying to fire off one liners like Moore. This continued into SP.
It's almost as if Mendes didn't know how to make his own Bond film, so he just took us back to the past, and by SP, in not a particularly well executed fashion either.
So I suppose my controversial opinion is Sam Mendes destroyed the idea behind the Casino Royal reboot, and creatively stole from the past to patch his two films together (it worked for one film, not the other).
And they did. CASINO ROYALE wasn't a denial or dismissal of the past.
In fact they had a respectful hold of the rich history of the franchise in CR, with the plot points you mention above, not only of the films themselves, but of the source material.
I just find Mendes cut and pasted from the past to cobble his films together, and brought us back too soon, IMHO. What was the point of CR and the fresh (albeit, very Bondian) start it gave us, to wind up in the old office, with the old tropes and characters?
Don't get me wrong, I liked/loved SF very much, but I feel that the ending, back in the old office, handcuffed Mendes for the next film, especially; that he couldn't make a unique film (that also respected the franchise history), but, oh dear me, we have to have M being crusty with Bond (doesn't hold a candle to Bernard Lee dressing 007 down about his damn Beretta), MP at her desk (but, also, oh, dear me, we need to give her a modern touch and get her out in the field as well), Q and his gadgets (no exploding pens, just watches), and so on... CR was fresh because it felt pared down. Apart from the editing of QoS, it continued this trend where Bond didn't have to be bogged down, necessarily, with what came before.
Mendes rushed us back to M and his office, Q, and MP. I'm not a fan of one liners as is, unless it's dry (which DC understands and delivers on best; or of course King Connery: "I don't know, could it be the front doorbell?"; "I'm afraid you caught me with more than my hands up"). When one liners aren't dry, most actors fail in delivering. Unless his name is Roger Moore, of course (the man was unique and special and witty and polished).
By the time SP rolled around, it feels like Mendes had put himself in the corner, scared to make something unique-- which, for all its faults, sounded like something John Logan was going for in his script. When I hear about the Logan script, I'm wondering why they couldn't develop this one more? As @bondjames said, I think, he'd much rather have had M as the SPECTRE mole than what we got in SP the film: "C". I agree. They could have explored that Mallory was pulling strings to get JD's M fired and/or assassinated, as he was working behind the scenes with Blofeld and his organization... Call me out on this one, but infiltrating MI6 doesn't sound far-fetched to me as far as villains plans go...
What we got in SP felt like the filmmakers panicked, and instead of creating something fresh, off the back of CR, QoS (for all its editing faults), and to a degree, SF, we got a cut n paste of Bond's greatest hits (but the slower, dopier clone-version).
I also don't believe Fleming novels and material are eliminated from use over time, especially with the reboot really resetting things.
So I think the filmmakers are still making some bold choices and in execution they work for me.
Oh i so agree with you execept for the fact that apart from me and like 5 other people, its a fact that Skyfall is so much better than QOS.
Well, at least one thing is for sure. People like you don't give them any incentives to hire talented and original people. Good thing about is they can use the safed money to hand Craig higher paychecks.
Would you apply your ethos and expectations to the films Mr. Broccoli produced? People like me grew up on those.
Re: QoS, I'm not calling it better than SF. Right now, just different, but, on the same plain as the first three Craig films.
@RichardTheBruce, I have read your comments and find we are similar in opinions most of the time; I hope that with B25 the filmmakers are bold in execution. And, I will give you this, even with the misfire that I think SP is, it STILL has that je ne sais quoi that another poster was talking about. It still had a voice that makes Bond unique, and for that I am at least grateful (it's not like I didn't recognize SP as an EoN film!)
Bond sneaks into the SPECTRE meeting in Rome, to find that Mallory is among the attendants, reporting about the state of affairs in the MI6.
Completely agree with this, @peter. If CR and QoS proved anything it was that the series could move on from Q, MP and gadgets and still be a bloody good Bond film.
They also played up to Craig's talents in making Bond the 'blunt instrument' out on his own he was written to be.
There were no silly homages or sly winks to the older films and they were all the better for it.
The couple of Moore moments in SP didn't suit Craig's Bond and seemed clumsy and out of place.
You've got a great actor playing James Bond. For christs sake make the most of him.
Always had a soft spot for Fiona Fullerton as well.
I've always been more of a fan of the literary Bond (Fleming) anyway, so will content myself with the books and the films up to and including Dalton until such a time as the writers manage to come up with a script which interests me.
Lol the guy's an author. I think he can cope without Bond for a while.
@The_Donald yup, I think I can cope!
I'm one of those fans you're talking about.
Was so sure Brossa was going to continue in the role after the despicable DAD that i was seriously giving up on the franchise!
Craig was a saviour imho. Love 3 out of his 4 Bond movies, and tolerate SF, so am thrilled/ relieved that he confirmed for a 5th!
Same here. Thought the degeneration was irreversible.
Oh frwl is so perfect. If only they could make a bond film half as good
I don't want any more now but looking back, I wouldn't have minded if they'd kept them that way (part of the film itself, leads into the title sequence) for the whole Craig era. CR is definitely the only time having an alternative gunbarrel has worked well imo, and reusing that concept would have been a lot better than the embarassments we got for QoS and SF. But I just want them to do it properly from now on. Beginning of the film, Binder design or some variation on it, blood that doesn't defy gravity, shimmer/sway side to side, open up on the PTS.
It really is. Connery is just in a different league in that film. I'm tempted to watch DN soon as well just to see the legendary intro scene. Makes you realize how good they once were.