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
But you never answered my question: Why do you have that feeling? What has been done over the past three films has, in the main, been generally well received critically and has been very profitable. Why would they chose to deviate from an approach which seems to be working?
Yes, the character James Bond has been largely monotonous. But the movies haven't. There are so many things they can change, without changing who Bond is.
CR was a great reboot and I love what they did, trying to set up the character. Six years and three movies later, I just think it's time to move on, instead of yet another reboot. Pasting from my review here:
"Craig gets almost no opportunity, apart from a few scenes, to be Bond - competent, and resourceful in spite of the odds. Instead he is just incompetent: Silva wants to kill M, but Bond won't let that happen. It does. Bond won't let the agent list fall into enemy hands. It does. Bond won't let the suffering girl die. She does. Bond keeps shooting at the bad guy while he is climbing the latter to stop his escape. He misses every shot." There's more to a (successful) James Bond movie, than the character James Bond. In SF he hits rock bottom and ressurects. My gut feeling tells me that we won't see the same thing happening in Bond 24.
Well, just as a point to sort of counter the whole, he intentionally missed every shot; he said so right in the scene.
Anyway, I don't think we'll see Bond hit bottom again either, but that's not the same as suggesting we won't see a continuation of the more flawed, human Bond in the next film.
I could easily say that you are in reverse disrespecting Skyfall fans and it's superb achievements. The box office does not lie. But you want a Bond who just needs to comb his hair after having his head kicked in and he is fine.
Well Craig himself made the Austin Powers reference saying it has closed the door on that Bond you clearly want. The humour as well as fantasticalness. And too many film characters are copying Bond so Bond needed to step up his game as a franchise.
All the classic Bond has been done to death. Why SF is so good is because it gives the franchise true new perspective. The Nolan Batmans are exactly huge because they went into new territory not seen in the comic book genre. And Bond now needs to measure up in quality for it's respective genre.
I am not implying Batman is like Bond, but standards of same old are not going to cut it.
Craig's Bond is alpha male to the tee. He has all those traditional qualities but with more introspection.
Whether you like it or not I do not see the Craig era veering off the cliff into self-parody.
The Bourne films for a while were seen as better than Bond. Bond was seen as very safe and regurgitating it's past.
Bond is incompetent in SF? You must be dreaming. He clearly demonstrates he knows what he is doing.
And Bond warns Silva at the station that in the next shot he won't miss. the first few shots were warnings. Bond was not expecting a crashing train to be coming for him.
As for Craig getting no opportunity to be Bond? That one is a new standard of ignorant and talking from the b*tt! Who was he playing throughout the film? Miss Moneypenny or some other character?
And he is incredibly resourceful considering Q did not give him convenient gadgets to save his ass.
For me (and many others) Bond movies are a fantasy. Escapist adventures, not social realism. Don't hold it against us.
And exactly where do you see that? What kind of an argument is that? So because most reviews are positive, you can't accept criticism? FYI: I actually do understand why it has gotten great reviews. It's a good movie. I just don't think it's a good Bond-movie. Can you please argue against things I have actually written, instead of presuming what I want or don't want? So he wanted to lose the list, the girl and his boss?
Moore's eyebrow would have Silva running for cover knowing very well he has just been beaten. ;)
Or prompt him to touch his knees again...
He had help before. But he generally always came out on top, beating the odds. Even without an earpiece ;-)
Bond did not lose the list with the hard drive. It was already stolen and he did his best to get it back. You try saving a girl with guns to your head. Only Superman could.
Considering he has a small army of Silva's men at Skyfall, I would humbly say he did his damn best in the odds. M's death was not Bond's fault.
As for the box office, this has ushered in a new fan base for this Bond. My cinema manager told me Bond was as busy in it's fourth week as it was in it's first. In years he has not seen such an interest for Bond. He said it is because people like the new approach and more realistic take.
Bond cannot be a unflawed hero and never was in the books. It is his flaws we love. His womanising as well as attitude is also a flaw of sorts. You just like the easily palatable flaws. But a Bond taking a piss or popping a pill is beyond acceptable to someone like you.
You didn't answer my questions, by the way.
Have we seen the same films? Bond is flawed out his arse.
That depends on your definition of "flawed." Can you give me just two examples from each era?
I did, just that you have difficulty in reading as well as listening unless I agree with everything you say. Try and read what I wrote and the main points are as clear as day.
Bond being mostly unflawed is exactly what sinks the franchise. That is called one dimensional. You say you liked CR, but your opinion makes me think otherwise.
In CR he is deeply flawed and imperfect. If you don't like SF then there is no way I can see how you like CR. Because the Bondisms are more prevalent in SF than CR.
So here again:
You wrote the following: "Show where I disrespected fans? I was talking of the critics"
I asked if critics can't be fans?
You haven't answered that one.
And then you wrote:
"I could easily say that you are in reverse disrespecting Skyfall fans"
I asked:
"And exactly where do you see that?"
You haven't answered that one either.
Likewise you wrote: "The box office does not lie"
I asked: "What kind of an argument is that? So because most reviews are positive, you can't accept criticism?"
It's two different movies, that's why. Fleming's great story arc and highly original story was already largely in place for CR. Not so for SF which relied on other factors like giving Dame Judy Dench a worthy exit (Fleming would never had made M centerpiece) and taking notes from Nolan. For me - CR just had much more depth, a more involving story and better wellrounded characters than SF. And a better score and better action setpieces.
Well, then you and he share something in common; I'm still waiting for you to answer the ones I asked over an hour ago.
Just like you took offence to me using the Austin Powers analogy, I could have easily using your barometer of offence said that how you described SF was insulting considering the scope of work that went into the film. You went as far as to misrepresent the film and make the wrong conclusions of Bond's competence.
The box office for SF is because we have non Bond fans going in droves because they hear the series is finally after ages giving them some tangible and quality films.
SF is not doing great at the box office because it is another run of the mill Bond. It is doing great because it is an excellent film even without the Bond label. This is a high octane thriller in it's own right. As good as anything Nolan has done for Batman.
Critics can obviously be fans and that goes without me needing to answer that. I was talking about professional critics as fans are not in that category. Unless they get paid for their opinions on films?
But the Austin Powers films means that Bond cannot ever go in a direction where it created it's own parodies that made Mike Myers so easily show how ridiculous they were.
The action set pieces for Bond need to be clever and story appropriate. I thought the action in SF satisfied as well as CR. CR was not really an action film but a film of suspense.
To be honest, the music in CR by Arnold was beginning to sound repetitive to his earlier work. The new score was appropriate for the sinister as well as sombre tone of the film. After all, this is the only time M dies and the score had to be different in this film.
You didn't like my first question where I wrote: ... so you asked again. And then I replied: Honestly, what more do you want? An analysis?
I have never held it against anyone that they like SF. Me criticizing the movie, is not the same as criticizing the people that love it. We are all allowed to express our opinion here, and how boring this place would be if we all had to agree. So let's just agree to disagree.
I actually have. Three times now. But the answers didn't satisfy you it seems. Look, when you ask ... there needn't be a full explanation when asking about someones gut feeling. I said my piece. And me being "wrong" is not a fact - that's your opinion. Bond said he missed. He didn't say he missed deliberately.
Agreed. Her smoking had me squirming a bit uncomfortably. A hot looking lady smoking a cigarette like she does always did turn me on. Being a cigar guy though, Onatopp was as good as it gets.
Bond should never be PC but the producers no doubt think differently.
Be fair now guys (and this is from somebody who liked the film), this thread was made specifically for people who were disappointed in the film so people should be able to say why they were disappointed without others jumping on their backs and arguing with them.
Exactly, just as we in the appreciation threads expect the same. If you can't have an adult conversation with others, don't sit and bicker like children. Let them have their say, just as we do.
I would, had they actually done anything like the stuff you've been describing.