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
Yes it is! We’ll done on your detective work. It’s nice to see a continuation novel (Carte Blanche by Jeffery Deaver) get recognized as well.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if that is how they break the Gordian knot I described above. With it no longer being enough for Moneypenny to just be M's assistant/secretary who Bond flirts with, there isn't enough distinction between Tanner and Moneypenny anyway. Reduce M to just giving out the orders. I can go along with that. These are highly confidential missions of the utmost importance to national security. They should have M's stamp of approval and not some middle manager handing them out by the dozen. But leave M out of the actual mission for a few films at least. It's a bit like the going rogue thing. If you do that more often then you don't do it, it kind of loses it's lustre.
So then either Moneypenny or Tanner (or Q, he has traditionally done that) would be Bond's main point of contact. In an actual capacity, not a phonecall while getting something from the fridge in the middle of the night. I seem to recall that some of the books have an initial briefing by M and then Bond goes to Tanner who gives him the background and some more details.
Dang, that’s a great point. I might have to do an entire re-read and re-watch under the banner of „Does James Bond actually work for MI6 and what is M‘s job title?“
I mean, MI6 wasn’t actually publicly acknowledged to exist at all until the 90s or something ridiculous like that, right?
"The French have a saying, "It's the fate of glass to break." Well, maybe it's the fate of spies to just disappear. But with any luck, we leave something behind. In the meantime, I'm sure C will keep you all busy. Thank you all."
That's him handing over to C and leaving: so closing the 00s means getting rid of M.
But then in NTTD he creates this proactive nanobot weapon, which sounds like it's outside of the purview of the 00s...? Or does it? Maybe it's the future of assassination?
Not bad.
Thanks for agreeing. And it's just because I've browsed the Screenmusing caps for other purposes on this board, not binge-watching NTTD. But that girl is amazing. How a young child can play that role so perfectly, and be so lovable to everyone(?) that watches her is incredible.
I should add that Coline Defaud, who plays young Madeleine, is also great and also looks like she could be the younger version of Léa Seydoux. While Léa Seydoux, and just to keep this uncontroversial, is also among the three best actresses playing a "Bond girl" herself. Her performance in NTTD is impeccable, and at least on par with Eva Green in CR. Let's leave out Judi Dench from this comparison, she's in another class.
You’re welcome. My quote was from Mathilde. As for Judi Dench, I found her M overrated because of the writing. It was very hard for me to care about her in Skyfall, because of her actions. I include this criticism from her PB films as well.
I’d like to see what everyone says about this.
Haven't played the game so can't comment. I think any game adaptation of a classic Bond by Connery would have come off as lesser than its source material.
My controversial opinion or rather prediction: I think the continuity between Bond movies (re)started with Craig might stay with the new actor. I've been binge watching the Dragon Riders series with my six years old son and it struck me that even a children cartoon does not really do full standalone episodes now. So I think having a continuity a franchise is something that is now an established trend in fiction.
Personally I thought it was awesome, playing as Connery’s Bond in a 60’s era-style 007 universe.
Of course they inserted elements of other entries, and made some stuff too. But it was all in the same spirit, loved every second of it.
I agree. It was a rare time when a twist character actually worked. Also, here’s one: Kincade is the only classic ally from DC’s films that was original. I hope future Bond origin stories have the right to use him.
I can see their point that YOLT was already the over-the-top source material so would be ripe for a game, but I kind of thought the point was to take FRWL and push it more into being a YOLT-style big Bond adventure, so the game would be adding more in the way of new stuff.
It still annoys me that they never did one with Roger. His crazier films could have made great modern video games, and if he'd been up for it (and I think he may have been) he'd have been just as good playing Bond in the early 2000s as he was years before.
1. Escape from the holding area.
2. Stop the satellite.
3. Rescue Tiffany
4. Defeat or stop Blofeld from escaping.
Each level from a film could have been an objective layered structure system from each film rather than the cheap COD knockoff we got
Haven't played the Bond games in a long time, but when I did FRWL was the one I liked the least. I actually agree, it'd make more sense to adapt YOLT as much of that film's script is about moving from set piece to set piece.
Then again I personally think the Bond games work better when an original story is created (so for me the best were Nightfire, Agent Under Fire, and Everything or Nothing).
Apparently, RM was going to voice Bond in Agent Under Fire, with John Cleese as Q. Legal rights stopped that. A missed opportunity.
I agree and great ideas.
1) No Time To Die is an awful, awful film. No, I am not a fan of Bond’s ultimate fate, but I feel his demise is merely a byproduct of a larger narrative problem that I’ll get to in point 2. By and large, I think NTTD is the culmination of a spreading cancer in the Craig era - the influence of creatives with television backgrounds. The director and one of the writers are products of the golden age of subscription television, where prestige movies and episodic series blur the once clear lines that existed between these two art forms. For example, consider the Madeleine Swan flashback PTS - in my mind this could’ve easily been the opening to episode 7 of some Norwegian crime series. Compared to the grand tradition of Bond PTS hijinks, even the loopy ones like tossing Blofeld into a chimney, it doesn’t hit on any level for me. Yes, the PTS picks up with a more traditional sequence, but the damage has already been done. Elsewhere, NTTD suffers from the same meandering, committee-driven storytelling that infects so much entertainment media of our time. Performances all round are rather joyless, the final act’s excellent set design is ruined by incredibly poor scripting and direction. What should have been a thrilling assault - think Piz Gloria - is stilted and leaden. Overall, NTTD is not only a very poor Bond movie on its own, it is a harbinger of things to come. The old days of technically competent CINEMA directors working within a strict formula set down by the producer (John Glen-Cubby Broccoli 1981-1989) are long gone.
2) The Craig era started perfectly, but perfection has its cost. If you are going to drape a dramatic, interconnected narrative over his movies then don’t blow your load seven times on the first instalment. Casino Royale is superb, possibly the second best Bond film after OHMSS. But look what he goes through - he gets his first, hardens into a cold agent, meets his equal, falls in love, is betrayed by her, is broken hearted by her. If this arc was played out over maybe 2-3 movies, we’d be talking about Craig as the undisputed king of the Bond canon. As it is we had a curiously empty QoS, an old before his time Bond in SF and by the time SP came around, Craig - and his character - was well and truly a spent force. Still, CR will forever stand as a modern high water mark, possibly the last for this fan if current trends continue. Here’s hoping for a lean, mean espionage adventure next time round but I’m not holding my breath.
Sure it’s not as perfect as CR, but the Bond of QOS certainly exists in the same universe as its predecessor. Have you given it a good rewatch recently?
I actually quite like QoS as Craig films go. Possibly the second best. Just seems like a step down in all areas after the gut punch of CR.
I don’t think the writers strike helped as there is clearly a good film in there somewhere that wasn’t allowed to breathe. A little more savour faire would’ve been great!
LTR is an example of a lean, mean Bond film cementing the bona fides of the actor (FRWL for Connery, TMWTGG for Moore, QoS for Craig. Brosnan didn’t get one.)
For those who think TMWTGG isn’t lean or mean at all, forget about the kazoo or the chases. Most of the movie is tight as hell and Moore was an actual badass.
Even though it is flawed on so many levels, and it will never match the true greats of the series, I smiled the entire time. At the end of the day, I went to bed thinking about invisible Aston Martins, ice palaces and Halle B. coming out of the sea, instead of death or close relatives getting divorced.
So job well done, DAD. In return I’ll be a lot more forgiving towards it when I do a reranking.
That said, it doesn’t come close to MR.
For a website that posts a lot of biased opinions, this article has some great points about one of my favorite Bond movies.
John Terry isn’t exactly Orson Welles but he’s fine I think and Norman Burton I actually quite like.
The only one I never really warmed to was Cec Linder.