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
It comes with being a lover of movies and Bond movie. Bond is time capsule, Every film brings something new and relevant to the time it was made. That's why I love them. Skyfall was not only a celebration of Bond's 50th anniversary but it was an exciting romp. So the DB5 had machine guns, At least they went to good use and killed bad guys. I was so pumped because in GF he had machine guns but they didn't get used well. In Skyfall they could finally be useful. The scene lasted 5 to 10 seconds. It was awesome! Don't tell me it made you cringe, It's Bond's 50th cinematic birthday! Stop taking movies so seriously. At least Skyfall was good. It could have been mediocre like DAD or DAF. Look for the good and not the bad I always say.
Well, again that's not a bad way to go through life, is it? And at least the 50th Anniversary references (if there were very many?) were a lot subtler than the 40th Anniversary ones were in DAD ten years before, though I suppose that wouldn't have been difficult!
I'm the last person to look for continuity. I don't even need to believe, as you say, YOLT happens after DAF, I couldn't give two hoots. They're all standalone for me. Don't get me started on CR taking place before DN etc. What I like about the Craig films is that they've attempted some character continuity, not necessarily canonical continuity. The weirdest bit is 'M' making the knowing gag about the ejector seat. I just found it very, very strange. Don't get me wrong, I grinned when I saw it in the cinema, how couldn't you? But it's exactly because I regard SF highly that I dislike it. It's a blotch on the tapestry for me.
Oh and Please don't use Bond's birthday as an excuse. That for me is an irrelevance. Are we going to have this every 5-10 years now. It's Bond's 60th, let's have an underwater car? It's just marketing bollocks.
Sorry, but the DB5 is the opposite of subtle. As for explaining jokes, M doesn't need to say the line, 'Oh go on then. Eject me'. You could simply have a shot of Bond revealing the red button. That would have been slightly more subtle, or at least more subtle than the bull in a china shop approach we got.
Agree. The use of the DB5 in SF was as bad, if not worse, than several of the references in DAD. A really bad idea. It's almost like breaking the 4th wall - you might as well have had M and Bond wink at the camera.
Yes, that may very well be so, but if you wait until a Bond film comes along that is as flawless as a cut diamond I suspect you will be waiting a very, very long time. No film is perfect and SF is no exception. I for one feel that as a Bond film it got more right than any Bond film apart from the masterpiece that is OHMSS, and I don't say that at all lightly, either.
I suppose the question is - Would you mind more if these instances? I personally would favour originality.
What would be more original in that case? Another DBS with gadgets? Another V12 vanquish?
It depends on the circumstances of B24. I personally thought it was unoriginal to resurrect the DB5 circa '64, period.
Regards SF, I'd have found it more original if he'd modded his personal DB5 (CR) at SF. He seemed to show invention about the Lodge, it wouldn't have been a huge leap to see him cleverly modding his car - perhaps with Kincade in tow. You wouldn't even need to see much, just a wide shot of them tinkering under the bonnet. Anyhow, that's obviously irrelevant as we got what we got.
I guess I'm simply worried that Mendes and Logan will attempt this again in a different guise, and I really don't want that to happen.
May be not...
Ha ha.
The Spy who Drifted.
I agree. That line ruined the final act. Bond having the DB5 stacked away...fine, can live with that. But the 'joke' about the ejector seat is plain moronic and lacks any kind of class or subtlety.
Well, that's not saying much, is it...
Samuel - 'audiences' also flocked to 'Too fast Too Furious', or whatever it was called... food for thought.
It got a great cheer from all of us at the Royal Albert Hall !.
Same here. All 3 occasions I watched it in the cinema, the audience roared with laughter.
I definitely think you're right, we are in the minority. Which is a shame. I could understand if it was a controversial idea that defied expectation and worked, as it is, it's a really weak, throwaway, crowd-pleasing moment. A nod, not to the fans, but the general public who, let's be honest, will eventually grow bored of Bond again and sod off until it's deemed worthy their while to return.
I don't care much for this kind of laziness and it's my primary worry with the Mendes take. I'm sure for a lot of people will argue, it's one line get over it. Which is all well and good, but I think it epitomises a wider potential problem. I've read more than one article where Mendes is falling over himself to declare the brilliance of it's inclusion and the response of the audience. That should not be a barometer by which he judges his achievements.
I hope I'm wrong and B24 will not see anymore of these safety-nets appearing. Originality please Mr. Mendes, not nostalgia.
This has been discussed previously. It was supposed to be the CR DB5, P&W mentioned this. It was Mendes being a smart-arse who changed it to the Connery version. Silly idea after the simple but effective set up in CR.
I think Mendes and the producers are smart enough to know that too many nods and winks do not make a good film.
You're telling me that DAD wasn't full of Oscar-worthy performances? My life has been a lie...