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
Another excerpt:
Suddenly, a floating animated text appeared in front of Bond. "LOADING...", it said. Hologram tech from one of Q's gadgets? Nikolai Diavolo's fancy business presentation to his fellow conspirators, perhaps? Bond awaited completely motionless, as if frozen in time. After a minute or two, the loading animation, with its shifting gray dots and silhouettes of naked women, had started to get to him. Sure, Bond had always had a thing for the opposite sex, but such glimpses of beauty became a form of torture when they were so abstract and repetitive. Suddenly, things took a turn for the worse. "DISC READ ERROR." Bond had ceased to exist, and along him, all traces of the reality he had ever known. No Q, no M, no Moneypenny. No Serena St. Germaine, and certainly no Nikolai Diavolo. There was only a quiet, overwhelming nothingness. And it would stay that way, until the player succeeded at cleaning the disc and getting the console to read it properly. But would it ever happen?
Without a doubt, this was Bond's toughest assignment yet.
I'm not sure that's controversial or an opinion!
Same for Bond Girls, one could deep fake Elizabeth Hurley or Sela Ward as Christmas Jones (TWINE) for example or any matured actress for Stacey Sutton (AVTAK).
"Daddy, why does he have that big gun? Isn't it supposed to be the small one?"
"He has more than one gun."
Since given the events of NTTD?
Just asking.....I'm interested to know.
In the case of the 1962-'02 stretch of films, it's clearly meant to be the same Bond, or at least different iterations of James Bond. Not only is Tracy referenced very specifically in different actor's tenures, but certain gadgets are too.
Craig's run is very consciously a reboot, and again it seems to just be a different iteration of James Bond. I know this because this Bond seems to have exactly the same backstory of his parents dying at the age of 11 as Brosnan's Bond had.
At no point do any of the official films hint at any sort of codename. Judi Dench's M doesn't imply that she knew a different Bond, and in fact is arguably a slightly different character in the Craig era than she is in the Brosnan era.
So no, I think it's nonsense, and a bizarre attempt to apply concrete rationality to something fictional. In actuality the mental gymnastics needed to justify this silly idea is more effort than just watching the films and accepting that a character like Bond has many different versions over an array of films/media.
Michael G Wilson has claimed since the 90s that he views all the actors being different Bonds rather than the same exact person, but all still based on Fleming’s creation. That actually makes perfect sense to me. Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton having married a Tracy doesn’t mean they’re the same person but rather because they’re based on the character from the novels who was married. Craig explicitly deviated from that, obviously, which puts his run in a more unique bubble.
So, conceivably, the next Bond doesn’t have to be a continuation of any previous actor, but can still be based on Fleming’s work. Meaning this new Bond will have already had his Vesper, his Tracy, already killed Blofeld. But all done in a more modern era. That’s all assuming that’s the approach they would want to take.
Also, Denise Richards is perfectly fine.
Agree. Sequencing of pictures is more important than any individual one. Which is why I love CR and QoS so much. The feel fuller somehow. Many modern films and series limit themselves.
But it goes to show how well done certain old films were to achieve a full feel despite scarcity of shots.
Die Another Day was also similar to this, great cinematography with bombastic action scenes, but it's most fully done on CGIs.
Unlike the other Bond films where the cinematography was naturally done, no computer effects, and therefore didn't looked fake.
That's the thing why I really liked the cinematography of some of the classic Bond films (OHMSS, in particular), because they could create a great cinematography without cheating on it using computer generated graphics.
100%.
Perhaps controversial, speaking of TWINE:
The entire sequence in the tower with the torture chair leading up to Bond diving into the water is the best stretch of the Brosnan era.
Love all the stuff between Bond, Elektra, Zukovsky and (briefly) M.
I agree. I’m a bit biased, as TWINE was the first Bond movie I saw. It did foreshadow some twists, turns, themes and storylines that the series did start using.
I agree. I think Campbell talked in one of the documentaries about kinetic action in GoldenEye and Casino Royale. One stage setting leads directly into the other, one action leads directly into another, dialogue leads into the next scene, cut on action etc. Work with momentum. The guy gets it.
In both, I find a stark lack of planning/forethought. Movie barely drags itself along, so does Spectre. You can see the filmmakers searching for ideas or a story right there on screen as it's happening. Craig's couldn't give a damn attitude doesn't help me.
Here's a controversial opinion: Craig's influence ruined SF, SP, and NTTD. Just how I feel.
I’d include QOS as well. He picked Marc Forster, who didn’t care for Bond and it shows, writer’s strike or not. They wrote scenes, and either was a good writer. They admit now, but that was a sign DC wasn’t the greatest creative person in Bond. Meanwhile, PB’s saying that Paris Carver should be a past lover was a great idea. EON should have let PB have more creative control.
I still admire P&W's modern interpretation of CR. They are far from bad. If they could do that for every Fleming story I'd be over the moon.
Here’s a controversial opinion from me: P & W had the best idea for QOS. More action, less art house. But with a human approach. I know I criticize them a lot but I’m thankful that they have been a part of the series. They have good IDEAS more often than not.
Mendes’s films have very little variation in angles and framing during conversations and totally miss the opportunity to amplify the actor performances. I would expect more from cinematic cinematographers, it felt very TV to me. (It worked in M’s apartment but otherwise it was dull). My gripes with the plot though cannot be attributed to him.
Daniel seems to have been very hands on in CR and QoS, especially writing in the second one. I am not sure how much creative involvement he had beyond recruiting for the later films.
Well he somehow ended up with a producer credit, so he must have convinced someone he was contributing more than an actor's salary. And if he was only responsible for some recruitment, I'm not a fan of the results of Mendes, Hoytema, Newman, CJF, and Zimmer and wasn't excited about the Boyle fiasco before it was a fiasco.
Hey, it's his opinion. ;)