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 speaks for itsself, that you promote YOUR views in more or less harsh words, but at the same time can't live with and belittle those, who speak out for THEIR point of view and I am not even talking of myself. I ceased to expect certain people to stop arguing about everyting I say, because its me, but there are others around, who might count for more in your mind... and even they don't agree with everything you say. So - ridiculing that is hardly a mature way to deal with things. Just saying...maybe pay others more respect then you give me. Saying they are going mental is hardly the right way.
BTW - just for the record - I agreed on the gb.
I agree about the gunbarrel. It's a beautiful motif that signals (or used to) that you're about to be thoroughly entertained. put it back where it belongs!
Next they'll be scrapping the PTS.
For a person who has only just seen Dr. No and GF for the very first time, and never watched any other Connery flick, OHMSS or any of the Moore or Dalton flicks, or read one single page from Fleming, I don't really think you are in a position to state boldly who the character of James Bond is.
Please stop repeating this logic that popularity = quality or just because something is popular, no-one else can express a negative opinion on it.
Am I not allowed to dislike anything popular, ever? I must have missed a memo :)
And I would bet that there are multiple things that you yourself dislike that MOST people like.
It's natural o.O
Welcome to the world of James Bond. Come back and talk to me when you've watched all the films at least more than twice, read a few novels too, then I'd be interested to know more of your opinion on SF.
As it is now, you are coming off slightly offensive with making comparisons to people liking SF to liking Lada Gaga too.
I agree with this to an extent. The DAD homages were terrible, the Aston Martin DB5 in CR was pointless, and the Fields moment in QoS totally unnecessary.
However, the nods in SF worked for me, including the reappearance of the original GF DB5. This was a celebration done properly and tastefully, like it should have been done with DAD.
But here I want the nods to end. I want the next film to be free of its past nods, to be a standalone GF or TSWLM, a film which puts the gunbarrel back at the start, has Bond being briefed by M in his normal office, a little flirtation with Moneypenny, and then sent off on an assignment. A formula Bond film for once, without too much looking back or inward. It would be nice to see Craig in a film like this.
This is what we call 'hitting the nail on the head' where I come from, @jetsetwilly. ;-) Bond is far more complex than what one could possibly distil from a mere few films.
I'm with you on this Benny. After the gunbarrel there is always that white circle, and that could have been used to slowly fade in on Bond just how the scene opened. I could understand what they were going for in CR/QOS, but I just don't agree with Mendes on this one and was surprised he went against tradition. There's something just a little off about Skyfall, it feels like a traditional Bond film yet these little details plus Bond's backstory with M also make it almost feel like a continuation of CR/QOS minus QUANTUM. If that makes any sense.
That's how I feel about it too. It's a top 10 Bond film that does so many things well and mostly makes sense to me and others who like the film. I can't wait to see it again Tuesday evening at home with my son and will enjoy this one for many years to come. But it has it's faults as well and falls short of my top 5 of GF, CR, LTK, FRWL, and TLD.
At this point I see a lot of pointless arguing despite the fact that one of the biggest pieces of Bond iconography in SF was destroyed as a means to do exactly what some people here are hoping for. SF wasn't a perfect movie but one thing that is constantly being concluded is that SF as a movie has secured the future of Bond movies to continue and remain relevant.
Mendes has gone on record stating that, SF is a film that mixes the old with the new and that there are nods and moments that harken back to the days of old. We knew this going into the movie and whether one likes it or not it worked. SF marks the 50 year anniversary of the series, I think some people here need to lighten up because as serious as SF was, it, like every other Bond movie before it doesn't take itself too seriously.
Given that SF marked 50 years, I'd like to give the producers the benefit of the doubt in that, as SF was in preproduction they were also thinking about sewing the seeds for another 50 years, so, naturally, there are going to be obvious connections to the previous movies to some degree in SF but for Bond 24 or more noticeably, the ending of SF ushers in new era of modern Bond movies that can move away from being shackled to old establishments and be given the flexibility to create new iconic structures and to be honest, that already started in CR with, the casting of Craig himself. No other Bond actor since Connery has been given such positive media and critical praise as much as Craig has and to think, hordes of people from all over the world balked at the idea of his casting. But look at it now, look at the respect, accolades, critical acclaim and the financial success Craig has garnered. A man far removed from the look of his predecessors and yet, Bond hasn't seen this sort of success and awareness blitz since the days of TB.
SF ushered in a new take on familiar characters that keep these movies what they are and should be in the form of M,Q and Moneypenny, even a return to the classic yet timeless Westminister-esque London office of Univex. The groundwork has been set and Bond 24 and beyond now, has the freedom to create and explore new grounds and iconography while at the same time respecting it's own history.
I have found that EON has vastly improved upon the formula since QoB with SF, the movie is not perfect but a shedload better in entertainment. WHich has been the one thing I have enjoyed with this franchise since I encountered it.
I am not a great fan of the DC era, but with half of it being fairly good and it having some great ideas I do know that I will live to see another movie and dare I say another Bond actor with a possible different direction.
And unless Barbara asks me to put forward some ideas I shall remain in my fanmode, either enjoying or being annoyed. But at no moment do I have the idea that any of my remaks will influence the franchise at any moment. Untill 007 becomes Black or female I will probably watch and buy the stuff.
Agree completely about the gun barrel. Mendes' reason for not using it as the start makes absolutely no sense. It would have worked perfectly with the opening shot. If only this were the only mistake in the direction and editing though!
Your top five is pretty impeccable. Can't really argue with it too much apart from CR. Glad to see GF in there as well.
You don't honestly believe that's what I said do you?
I was just using Lady Gaga, Harry Potter, The Hunger Games and any number of other things to illustrate that popularity does not necessarily mean quality.
And I don't intend on watching all of the films twice and then reading a bunch of the books. I have other things to do with my time than spend 80+ hours watching films.
What you clearly say is - that gaga, Potter and Hunger isn't quality. Well, for some it is.
Life with it and don't argue around your own wording and meaning. At least have the guts to stand by your word, hoppi.
Tell me where I said it. I referred to the number of people, who said something and pointed out, that it was a minority. So - maybe think or read twice before asking ***questions?
In that case don't start spouting off on here about what is the James Bond definitive character. At least have the knowledge of the entire franchise before making such bold statements.
As its stands at the moment, you sound 100% clueless about what a Bond film is. Your experience runs as far back as GE, and you've admitted to only just watching Dr. NO and GF.
With all due respect @hoppimike if you're serious enough about James Bond that you joined this site then surely you are at least open to seeing the films again and reading "a bunch of books". Many of those books are actually better than their films. I highly recommend them. You will be missing out if you don't and will be at a disadvantage around here. They aren't hard to read and will only take you a few days if that. I say that as someone who is a slow reader.
You are STILL missing my point though.
At best we have agreed it is subjective, which is possibly the case. To some, Harry Potter is good.
I mean hey I never said it was bad, I merely said that popularity does not equal quality. THAT was my point.
Popular things CAN be of good quality, but they can also be of bad quality.
Missing the point is, that you put them into the race as clearly being the height of bad (otherwise you wouldn't have chosen them). Well, in YOUR mind, but certainly and obviously not in many other peoples minds - so just don't put your opinion stamp on stuff and make it general. That's all - there is no missed point. Just say, what YOU dislike and be done. Let everybody else decide for themselves.
100% agree, for most aspects of quality. Some may be more objective than others though... I would imagine. I mean, for example bad acting or a tired storyline are pretty much always seen as negative qualities (for argument's sake) but I suppose someone might argue that to them they are not serious or not very significant.
I don't think my opinion of Harry Potter or Lady Gaga is particularly relevant :)
I'm sorry if using them as examples is an issue, but the key point regarding them is that they are POLARIZING, not that they are bad.
Read yourself, hon. Does this shout bad or polarizing?
Like I said, don't start watering down your own words.
haha fair play. Ultimately though who really cared what my opinion is of those things in this context (a Bond forum)... I kinda assumed no-one else would like them either xD
But if you do it's all cool... no need to take it so personally O.O
She wasn't taking it personally. She didn't say if she liked any of them or not, and that wasn't her point, anyway. You keep changing you own line (these are popular but bad... no, didn't say they're bad just polarizing... actually, assumed no-one else would like them either), but apparently you don't understand her comments on that, or on your take on popular, but bad stuff. ;)
I think hoppimike sounds like a crazy, mixed up kid, not sure what he likes..... ;)
a) a VCR and plenty of empty tapes
b) a TV station kind enough to broadcast almost all the Bond films with 7 day intervals between them
c) plenty of time to spend in front of our TV
Thus, I watched every freshly taped Bond film again and again for a whole week, until I could move on to the next. Being able to quote tens and tens of lines from a film meant I had reached 'that' point where I had acquainted myself with the film enough to proceed to the next. ;-)
Truly, my days as a 12, 13 and 14 years old were pretty much loaded with Bond... :-)
haha, yeah it's a cool series :)
Something very captivating about the style it has! If you cut it it would bleed pure charisma lol
That's also why I loved (some of) the games so much. They felt like a whole different world to CoD and all that stuff. Stylish, sleek and fun to play!
And yet you still haven't seen most of the Bond films yet?
Come now, a 16 year old has two things in life, one of these I shall gladly omit from our sober daytime discussions and one of those involving being wildly into Star Wars, horror, Bond, ... ;-)
I have precisely the same story except in my case the TV station broadcast one Bond film a month, give or take, I (or better, my parents) still own the tapes :D By the time GE was released, when I was 12, I have already seen all the previous ones several times and was fluent in "Bond". I must have started watching them in my mother's and grandfather's lap, I can't believe how lucky I was.