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
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that Bond is realistic? What do you mean by "factual"??
Nothing to do with reality? Why do you think SF is the biggest Bond film since the 60's heyday? It is exactly because of the more realistic stamp. I felt I finally got a film that is not just a Bond movie but a serious piece of modern film making. It did not need mindless action to conceal it's inadequacies like some Bond films of the 90's did.
The campy Bond cannot exist in today's world. Humour is important but not when you can set your watch to it and predict when it is going to come. And DAD was the final nail in the coffin as showing that abused humour can be the destruction of the franchise not what makes it.
I enjoy campy Bond but truly feel it worked best in the 70's. In 2012 Austin Powers should they do another film can do it better now.
From the sounds of things, it's less about things like "lack of plot" than it is concerning some people closed minds.
Sincerely thanks @jasonbourne You just underlined something here for me. When I watched SF, I knew some traditional fans of the campy Bond are going to hate it. If Moonraker is a favourite then SF is going to cause outrage.
I loved SF because it was as much a controversy in terms of style as was LTK at the time. Though it has done financially way, way better than LTK. But promotion was super!
Also the Bond producers know that traditionalist fans are in some cases going to pan the film, so they broadened the films appeal to a non-Bond fan audience. My cinema was packed four weeks into release.
I watched CR yesterday and actually think SF is far more gritty and dirty. It is a dark film with far less sheen than CR had. I was actually surprised in the positive sense of how they exceeded my expectation for Bond.
SF is my favourite Bond since LTK. And I do enjoy CR too. I loved SF because it took me out of Bond comfort zone a lot. The style was like no other Bond film before. Cinematically, Mendes speaks a different language to Campbell.
Just for production values alone, one would imagine.
I am sure he would in terms of film making and production values. SF is an excellent movie. I could easily say SF is far superior in terms of film making than Goldfinger too.
I mean it is incredibly intelligent and free from any bad luggage.
But as Bond actors. I think both Craig and Dalton are so different and excellent representations of their respective eras. They both have added impressive shadings to the character and are so rewatchable as what you see on the surface goes way deeper over repeat viewings. Both actors understand character motivation and are brilliant Bonds.
But I loved SF the most out of the last 7 films since LTK. It is one I shall return to a lot when it comes out and have not been as excited in years.
I think he prefers TLD overall for balance. But as a fan, I personally like his full boil Bond in LTK. It shows that under the veneer of a nice tuxedo is a brutal and dirty man who enjoys watching his enemies die in front of him. And a Bond who despite a woman's beauty is willing to put a knife to her throat. Not that it is a nice thing but the Bond of the books is slightly twisted and no poster boy of PC.
One day another actor will take over from Craig, and I will defend Craig as much as Dalton even if the fickle world says to hate him. I stick to my guns through thick and thin.
Dalton being diplomatic, probably would say that.
I have to say that both the trailers for LTK and SF are poor representations. But in the cinema I could not fault SF on one thing which is exactly how I felt about LTK.
Of course I preferred some scenes than others in both films, but they gave me something totally new and unexpected. I am not looking forward to the next Bond actor as EON are known for sometimes changing direction for the worse.
I think my tolerance of a Bond actor with perfect hair at all times has evaporated after SF especially. Craig has none of the vanity but all the strengths of the true Bond.
And one of my friends who is old enough to remember Goldfinger in 1964 told me that SF is his favourite since LTK. With bond, I love nothing more than bold approach and true pioneering without looking back to the past so obviously.
How can you verify an opinion?
Did I hear something about stating an opinion as though it was a fact? Is not that what we all do when we say that one film is better than another? There is nothing realistic about Skyfall. Skyfall is mindless action with a very weak plot. Yes, there are some great action scenes, but the plot is very weak. Most of the Bond movies are better than this. Possibly Skyfall is better than Die another day, but just possibly. Neither of the two films are excellent in the way that Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Goldeneye are. Those three films are the best since For your eyes only.
Skyfall IS better than Licence to kill, but that does not say a lot, as LTK was just an orgie of violence. tI lacked the charm of Connery and Moores Bond.
Might help not to state an opinion as though it were fact.
Some, like yourself, certainly are; others are simply saying it's the film they enjoy the most, which is a little different than saying is is definitely "the best".
Every time I watch one of Dalton's movies, I like it better than the last time. Lots of great moments supplied mainly by the man himself. And the violence in LTK, while intense at times, is by no means an 'orgy'. That would imply a non-stop or supremely gratuitous nature to it, and such was not the case, again, IMO.
Yes -- as I wrote earlier, some certainly do take this tack -- but I don't think everyone here does.