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
The very same,Clark,the very same......................................meh, *spits*.
I thought you meant Triple X ;)
Oh no...she has the body to take your mind off things....yum yum.
You know i didn't think Talisa Soto as Lupe was that bad....
I liked her acting in the Casino and in the scene where Dalton sneaked onboard the Wavekrest. And to be fair she did have some iffy dialogue to deliver. I doubt even Eva Green could have sold "I love James SO much!"
Indeed...Bach bounces off Sir Roger (not literally ) quite well,she has good dialogue to use.
Lupe was just Sanchez' moll basically,a good actress would have been wasted playing her.
"How do I live? How do I breathe? When you're not here I'm suffocating. I wanna feel love."
Those lyrics make me a little sick but I don't think its a terrible song.
I like the notion of an intimate love ballad from Bond's perspective. Having said that those lines are definitely out of place, but I can live with that.
Are you implying someone else doesn't have the body? Well I guess that depends on what you're after. :)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder afterall, eh? ;)
Well its definitely not in that 'chicken-necked' wench.
Talking of personal elements, TND would have strongly benefitted of abandoning entirely the back history between Paris Carver and Bond (did they even give her a maiden name?), or on the contrary developing it and making their relation far more important.
She was a waste of time for sure,and didn't contribute anything to the plot.
The Brosnan era truly battled with doing this well. Even in GoldenEye the reveal gives way to Trevelyan acting more like a classic villain in the third act, with extortion being the goal as if he were another Spectre number.
I think it has nothing to do with freshness and expectation anymore: in fact a personal angle in any kind of action movie, whether it's a "conventional one or a superhero movie or a medieval fantasy or what have you, IS now expected. My bet is that it won't change when Craig leaves, not unless and until it changes elsewhere.
Spot on.
Die Hard changed the genre's expectations--all action movies are now personal--and the endless parade of Liam Neeson movies have cemented it.
That said with M3 they established Hunts wife and such and in the consequent movies she does show her face a few times and you know she is still special in his mind. The continuity of the MI movies is there whereas it was mostly absent form the EON series. It is showing how they tried to solve it and just manage to twist it in the wrong direction. I would not be surprised to see another family member popping up in the next movie.
I've only seen MI 1 and 3, but there were personal elements in both. Heck compare the movies to the original series and the personal element has been increased tenfold. The source material was about a team going on dispassionate missions, manipulating villains who were pretty much taking center stage, now it's a Tom Cruise centered franchise.
Beside, even if we'd said for argument sake that MI is all about the mission and no personal drama, it's one franchise among many. It's not the be all and end all of popular cinema.
I used it as a counterexample because it is in the same genre with a lot of similarities to Bond, and is a series that has grown its viewer base and reputation among fans (including many Bond fans) and the general public (as evidenced by the increasing global box office) without putting the personal element front and centre (even if it may be there in the background).
This is a Babs driven desire and Craig was hired to fulfill it. It's not a necessity however. MI shows that there are other ways forward which can succeed today, with a solid and loyal global following (box office is remarkably stable in all markets across all 3 last films with positive bias). That would have been unheard of in this genre outside of Bond a decade ago. I'm grateful that they are there to fill a void.
Paris Carver should have been central to the plot. Unfortunately she was poorly written and miscast. Basically she has this history with Bond so he could bed her faster.
I will be very careful as I haven't seen them all (frankly I always felt it was a Cruise glorification franchise more than anything else), but you admit yourself that the personal element is there albeit not central. How much more central was it in the Craig movies? Only in SP with Blofeld knowing him from childhood did it take absurd proportions. Otherwise it was pretty contained.
And I will say it again: it's not particular to Bond, it's common across board and has been for decades now. Your counterexample is at best an exception that confirms the rule... And is not so much an exception to begin with.
In terms of the market in general, while Marvel does take time to tell backstory, personal angst is not central to the narrative of those films. They are essentially comic book adaptations and have a lot of humour and lighter moments throughout - generally nothing like the 3 Nolan Batman films or the DC output (prior to Justice League and Aquaman). There are exceptions of course, like the Thor films.
It's a matter of overall tone in my view. Twisting the backstory and motivation of Bond's nemesis to fit into an overall market isn't something I'd have advised.
This is because Cruise does not come across as an introspective actor, or character. Craig does.
We can debate whether this has worked or not, and that will be in the eye of the beholder and based on personal preferences and tastes. I personally think it's been a very spotty tenure, on account of poor writing, and in the case of the last film, in the case of atrocious acting.
The highs have been quite elevated, but the lows have been very disappointing and polarizing for me. I think that's inevitable with the approach they've taken. I can't fault them for playing around with the concept and pushing the envelope, but since it's all interconnected, it's as good as its weakest link - and in this case that link is pretty bad indeed, at least imho.
Well I have no intention to see the other MI movies, just for the sake of comparing them to Craig Bond films. I have no interest in the MI franchise. In any case the personal angle is a recurring trend in action movies of all sorts since at least 1988 and MI has not escaped it completely according to your own words. One can deplore this, but Craig Bond tenure is in essence no different regarding this than pretty much most of what has been done since 1988. We haven't had a completely "impersonal" Bond mission since TLD.