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
That said, and I know I may be pulling a string here and doing wishful thinking: 1)DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS and DAF are all standalone movies 2)Mendes could have thrown away the idea of a connected story between Bond 24 and 25 merely to have Bond 24 stand on its own.
That's exactly how I think of it. The only truly connected films in the entire franchise and CR and QoS, to have Bond 24 and Bond 25 as two parts of a same story is something that didn't appeal to me and obviously didn't appeal to Mendes either. As much as I like QoS I prefer Bond films to be standalone.
They stand alone to a point, but there are areas where one of the films feed into the next. In FRWL for example, the plot sprung on Bond by SPECTRE is both in an effort to get the Lektor and to get revenge for Dr. No's death at the hands of 007. Hence, the actions set in motion during the previous film motivate a portion of the next film's action. In OHMSS Bond is now more than ever adamant to get at Blofeld, partially motivated by their meeting in the film previous. In that same film Bond looks over memorabilia from his past adventures, showing a clear development of his character through the many dangerous missions he has survived. Add in all the moments that Bond references Tracy or even goes to her grave and how old characters from far back return (or their offspring do like Quarrel Jr.) and the Bond films are everything but stand-alone. The mere fact alone that the films form a franchise makes the idea of truly self-contained adventures impossible. There are some films in the series that are even better appreciated or understood by seeing the previous films that are connected to them. Think YOLT-OHMSS-DAF for example, or CR-QoS-Skyfall. When you have a character like Bond who is constantly under development across what is now going to be 24 films, the movies do and will continue to bleed together at spots. I love it because it shows that Bond doesn't forget his past adventures, the ramifications of they presented, the allies he's had, the things he has survived or the villains/threats he has faced.
Yes, they ignore QoS completely. I am very curious about Mendes' opinion of QoS. It's very strange he says that HE casted Rory Kinnear as Tanner. So I don't think he liked it that much.
The films are self-contained in the way that you don´t have to see others in order to understand one.
That makes us two :D
I noticed and wondered the same thing. Their friendship has been more developed, or at least more apparent, in SF than in any other movie.
There are whiners who may have just been slide-tackled by Mendes though : all those who kept on saying "you need THREE YEARS to do a good movie now", and kept on joking about those wondering why the Bond movie every two years was a thing of the past.
Now we learn the producers may have changed radically their ideas during the summer of 2013 about Bond 24, in order to have Mendes on board : maybe all the work done for a two-movies arc was forgotten then, and maybe the work on single self-contained movie started only at that time. So, maybe we'll have a Bond movie done in two years...
If you want to be afraid, you may fear they converted the two-movies arc in a single movie story in a few weeks during the summer of 2013 just to please Mendes, and that we'll have another movie in which the script will be very weird :)
I agree to a point. However Spectre had their time and they were Connery's nemesis. Quantum without doubt is Craigs! And i would like to see him take them down in his era.
Exactly, were not bitching and moaning about Quantum. God forbid we have some continuity in Bond movies for once. (The Craig films are all linked and reference each other nicely.) Some of us our voicing our concerns. That's not whining. I'd rather see Quantum return instead of shoehorning in SPECTRE or Blofeld.
Then Quantum is named in Quantum of Solace. And that's what I call shoehorning : name an organization so that it "explains" the title of the movie, which comes from Ian Fleming short novel in which "Quantum" is not linked in any way to any organization. Eon did not have the rights of SPECTRE at that time either.
Then, no Quantum at all in Skyfall. And since then Eon finally owns the rights of SPECTRE.
I think that Quantum has existed only because of a legal limbo and a weird title, and will be remembered as such in the future.
That may be true about the legal limbo, but this is non sequitur: Quantum is the organization that sent Vesper to her grave and represent a serious threat to.the West, Mr White is still at large as well as others. For closure they need to be fought again. Or their absence need to be explained at the very least.
I would like it if they finished the tale of this organisation, by whatever name, first it was a big threat and then...................?
I would not mind if Mendes would not return, not a fan of his work and not a fan of his work with 007. Yoo bad he gets a second chance. O:-)
However......as stated here, Mendes is doing his own thing with Bond and I think that means no Quantum sadly. Quantum is very attached with QOS, a film Mendes has gone to great lengths to avoid. I hope they do come back though.
Personally I think you can handle it like this:
I think that SPECTRE and Blofeld will return now that EON have the rights. Therefore SPECTRE will be the new kids in town, and early in the film Mallory will brief Bond telling him that Blofeld is gaining a lot of notoriety around the world and has even killed the head of Quantum and dissolved the organisation. This way we know that Blofeld is one helluva villain for Bond to take on.
This way the Quantum storyline is wrapped up and if another director in the future does want to pick up the thread they would be more than able to.
I am a Mendes sceptic. I am not a fan of SF, but am curious as to what he can achieve with a fresh script without any Purvis and Wade input. I am also interested to see how a director handles making two in a row - it's the first time since 1989 that a director has had the chance to do this.
There was a lot in terms of the ideas and ambition behind SF that I approved of. I just felt the execution, plot and script let it down. Mendes is a capable (if perhaps slightly overhyped director) and I've enjoyed at least a couple of his films.
Better the devil you know, I say. I don't think he's going to deliver exactly what I want, but casting around for another one-off director is a bit like Russian roulette. It will be good for the series to have a bit of stability on the directing front. After Mendes I'd like to see them consider appointing a director on a 2 or 3 movie contract though.
I don't see Bond visiting Vesper's grave. He has come to terms with what happened, but she is not Tracy. He did not marry her and she still betrayed him, even if she was coerced. Frankly, I am keen they don't get into a pattern of having too much cross referencing between films. The odd link here and there is fine and I don't actually mind if Quantum or Spectre or whatever returns. But I like my films to stand alone - to feel like one satisfying installment in their own right.+
But I stand by that Bond 24 is now or never.
Perhaps in Bond 25, but not 24 simply because if Quantum does return I don't want it to be overkill on all the memorabilia to remind us.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/622076
As I said before - don't expect too much. Logan has yet to deliver a script, that is even remotely original let alone logical. What he has delivered so far are the nadirs of two of my favorite franchises (= Bond and Star Trek ), at least storywise. I can see a pattern forming here.
About the ideas and ambition behind SF stuff - well if they aren't executed well they are worth just about nothing. You see one can start writing a novel with the ambition to write the greatest book ever, but if he fails his ambition doesn't redeem him one bit.
She had a brief mention in Goldfinger.
I am trying to remain positive, but admit I share your doubts.
I watched the Last Samari the other day and the plot and script are incredibly generic and clunky. He does have a good turn of phrase though sometimes. Gladiator, although again, very derivative, has some brilliant lines. I agree though, originality and logic are not Logan's strongpoints. I've blamed a lot of what I disliked about the SF plot and script on Purvis and Wade, but I fear that Logan takes a lot of the responsibility. I'm just really hoping that Bond 24 makes basic sense. I don't ask for a lot - just that it doesn't slap you round the face with an illogical plot and bizarre character decisions.