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
But I'm obviously biased.
Please explain what you mean by stating... 'But I'm obviously biased.`
SF however is better than all three of those for me...
This is a site for Bond fans... duh
By a country mile.
I sometimes wonder why people rate the Craig films so highly. It seems much of that legacy is just build on CR.
Not just that but because it's a Bond film some people will rate it better by default no matter how terrible.
I think the problem Craig's era has had, and I know many will disagree, they all just feel so similar. Bond having an emotional attachment, Bond going rogue...yawn. Those aspects can work well when used now and again, but used for four films in a row...it's too much.
This type of thing is why the 60's and 70's Bond films(with a couple of exceptions) are still the golden years, especially when watched in the order of release. We get films that shift tonally a lot. Didn't like the low key spying of FRWL? Here's GF. Didn't like the excess of YOLT? Here's OHMSS. Didn't like Space Lasers in MR? Here's FYEO(I know that was 1981 but you get my meaning).
Exactly!!!!
Although the Cubby produced films faithfully adhered to the formula, each film felt completely different. You can randomly pick any 2 films from 62-89 for a Bond double feature movie night and get variety. LALD and TB for instance.
Plus, I always felt one of the reason’s Craig’s movies were great was also because they all feel and look really different. Each movie has a different yet unique look and feel and to me the difference is far more evident than for example Moore’s tenure and Brosnan’s tenure. I would put Craig’s one in the vein of Connery’s one, speaking of different feel and look.
I couldn't agree less. You honestly think that SF and SP are as significantly different than TMWTGG and TSWLM? Or MR and FYEO?
Agreed. The MI films are certainly entertaining and have great action and stunts, but they offer little else and are certainly not very interesting.
To me they're like a Chinese meal. After finishing you soon want something else.
As a Bond fan obviously I'm more interested in 007, but as far as I'm concerned none of the M.I series can hold a candle to Craig's first 3 Bond films.
Not all of them ;)
But, a damsel that doesn't acknowledge being one and acts like a big shot like Madeleine Swann, that is the worst kind. That's why she's my least favourite Bond girl.
That said, while I love the idea of a femme fatale Bond girl, we really haven't had a very decent one.
+2
As with nearly everything, for me it's a matter of how it's done, and how the characterization fits into the narrative and the flow of the film. If it all comes together in a holistic fashion (and I can appreciate that this is from my perspective), then I'm perfectly fine with a meeker companion vs. a strong willed type. So I suppose I really don't have a preference.
I will say though that I'm not a fan of whiners. Daft I can deal with, but clingy whiners are annoying to me.
And we all know who the main protagonist of whining and clinging is don't we ?
Yes.
First, SF and SP have a really different look and feel. The first is all silhouettes defined by an artistic yet expressionist use of colorful light, while the second is defined by a more gritty and dark panoramic feel that plays with the palette contrasts of light and darkness, sand and snow, sun and rain. Second, even if they're both Mendes work to me it's pretty clear that they represent a kind of ying and yang of a bigger vision. SF is a dark and crepuscular piece of filmmaking while SP is a more vintage and classical flamboyant adventure. If SF was about a struggle to keep alive a tradition, SP was about celebrating that tradition. Plus, the differences between CR and QoS, or QoS and SF are even more obvious and gigantic. For the life of me I can't say the same about the titles you mentioned. Probably because the formal aspects of filmaking regarding EoN Bond movies were pretty standardize at that time - even if differences in budget can be seen on screen - and also because there where no themes at all...
There is a lot of difference between TMWTGG and TSWLM. One is more noirish, quirky and old fashioned and the other is extravagant, lavish and modern to the extreme.
FYEO has themes of revenge (Blofeld, Melina, Columbo) and competition (Columbo/Kristatos and Bond/Gogol).
Agreed. Of course there where differences, but for me taking every possible aspect in consideration not as much as in the Craig's tenure. Just look at QoS and SF... or at Craig's portrayal, which sees a constant and clear evolution throughout the four movies. Can't say the same about Moore or the others. Plus, those differences you mention are more related to genre and external influences than rather technical, without taking the different autorish stamp in consideration, something absent in the Moore's tenure (which is not a critique, just a consideration).
I think you present this a bit simplistic. 60's ok, but was there really that much variety during the 70s, early 80s or 90s? I beg to differ. Bond has always changed it's tone depending on outside influences, trends and what the public wanted at the time. But it has usually happened over time. Craig has only made four films. The fact that they are tonaly quite similar is not unique.
It is all very subjective anyway. One could easily argue Casino/Quantum and Skyfall are very different. In the first we have a rookie Bond slowly finding his feet as a professional agent. In the next we have an old, experienced agent some claim to be washed out and who has to prove his abilities and relevance. That seems quite different to me...
The Craig films are as different in their attempt at exploring Bond's character as lets say the 70s films were at not exploring anything at all.
BTW, out of all Craig’s tenure the movie that gave to the audience more elements reprised from the typical Bond formula that a lot of fans are missing so bad is also the Craig most hated one within the fan base (at least here). How ironic.
Actually, regardless of what you think of SF @Roadphill, Craig owes his reputation and longevity at least as much to it. It was both a critical and popular success, overrated as it may be. Not his GF, but in many ways his TSWLM.
I'm glad I'm not the only one finding the Tom Cruise promotional vehicle with Ethan Sue insufferable.
I do believe there are deliberate differences between TSWLM and MR though, and they are very apparent on a back to back viewing. Not only tonally, but also performance wise. Gilbert had the same overall conceptual premise, but presented it differently in subtle ways. FYEO was the start of the older '80s' Moore interpretation which carried over to AVTAK. A seasoned vet.
Regarding SP, I think it's important not to take the wrong message from the criticisms leveled (correctly imho) at that film. It's not that EON did formula that was the problem - rather it was that they botched it. The current management over there has no clue how to do it properly (they haven't done it well since GE imho, when Cubby still had oversight) and their lead actor hasn't got a clue either. They rely on the wrong elements like amateurs - almost like they think they're better than it (or us). It's like when my sisters used to play cops and robbers with me when we were kids. They didn't know what they were doing and it impacted the fun. Ultimately you've got to really believe from within imho. Otherwise don't touch it.
PS: Tom Cruise and Co. (discussed earlier here) know precisely how to deliver formula in interesting ways, and that's why quite a few Bond fans (obviously not all) appreciate what they've been able to achieve over there with the last few films. That doesn't mean we're lesser Bond fans - just that we're different kind of Bond fans - the type that enjoy formula delivered well, with precision and with a focus on the right aspects. Other Bond fans appreciate other elements of Bond films, and that's fine. Ultimately either works for me, as long as it's done well.
To quote Alan Partridge, STOP GETTING BOND WRONG!