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
I know the answer. It is explained in the article. Just thought it was a bit surreal.
As always, thanks very much for your thoughts on this, @ColonelSun.
I don't mind Bond aging a bit, that's realistic; and I do want him to have some serious dramatic scenes. I understand Mendes wanting to use Craig's talents. I hope the overall tone also lets Bond enjoy life more again - without going too far in that direction. Bond under pressure, as you put it, is a good thing, in my opinion.
Thanks Colonel, as always. Bringing some light into the affair. So it will be interesting to see, where they went lighter (in tone) and where they stuck to the darker one.
Right, um, Purvis and Wade coming back doesn't arouse any reservations for me. So far, for the Craig era they've done a much better job or at least the work they're credited for is on the whole better than during the Brosnan era. It is annoying that principle photography is getting a later start and it's frustrating that a lot of time has been wasted.
As for the script, meh, I'll wait until I see the movie. The script is all everyone was talking about for SF and the film was riddled with so many schoolboy errors when it came to the issues regarding the script. As for more humour, CR imo had the right balance of humour. I think people need to rewatch CR again and they'll find the movie for the most part wasn't dour and grim like QoS was and had a lightness of touch with Craig's Bond, he just wasn't acting like some caddish, pun-spewing, sex-obsessed teenager and I also like to add, reaffirming my belief that CR is still the best of the Craig era and infinitely superior to SF.
Also, what Powell has to say is quite interesting and I hope it's true. The action in SF imo was a joke. The only good action scenes for me where in the PTS, everything else was just subpar.
Anybody seen the tv show Hannibal with Mads Mikkelson? I've just started season 2 of that show and I can tell you that there's a fight in the first season and another fight Hannibal has with Lawrence Fishburn's character in the opening of season 2 that puts every fight secene in the Craig era to shame. 2 guys just going at it.....on a TV show! Mendes needs to deliver on the action, stunts an fight choreography.
Also, Tom ford, size Craig up in the suits you had him wear in QoS!
Apart from the P&W praise I'm in total agreement with you there.
Completely agree with everything.
Just one small correction - costume designer is responsible for the fit of the clothes. Tom Ford, as a manufacturer, just does what he is told to do.
Dear oh dear. The tailoring in SF was horrific. He looked like a bouncer on a Friday night in the West End.
That bloody ear-piece - just get rid of it. Can't stand how it looks and what it implies about the way in which Craig's Bond operates - like he's some drone.
The suits early on in the film were way too shiny as well - horrible shiny light grey. Who thought that a good look?
That is one thing that simply must not return. Bond should be on his own making decisions on his wits not being run by some Whitehall committee.
It was an amusing scene in what I regard as Brosnan's 'best' film. But it's still essentially really crap movie making and I don't want anything that goes back to that era. I just hate the way Bond is constantly under sureveillance by MI6. It's time they made a period Bond movie, set in the 50s/60s, when agents were more autonomous and there was more scope for going under the radar and evading your handlers!
Oh good God no.
Bond is and has always been contemporary. Let him stay that way.
So it is basically a continuation in a nutshell! Well i do not have an issue with that. Just give me a tad more appropiate humour and Quantum? That would make me a happy chappy! :D
I think grey suits Craig fine though. And is it only me or does every Bond has a distinctive, predominant colour of clothes? Blue with Sean Connery, brown with Roger Moore, blue again with Brosnan and I'd say black with Dalton.
Don't get your knickers in a twist! I am only half serious. I am just sick of the modern hi-tech surveillance stuff - feels like it's straight out of some lame TV series. Bond is a fantasy - we don't need earpieces and satellite surveillance to make it 'more real'.
Er???? "Hammer it out" is just a very common phrase in writing.
What do u mean by long ago?
Bond 24 is in pre-production, they are still working on the script (which is always the case on films, even small films), the shoot date has shifted back by 8 weeks or so to allow for the changes they wish to make with the screenplay. That's all pretty standard filmmaking.
Of course he does. It's his priorities that concerns me.
What do you mean?
Oh... That he (again) will tone down the action to make space for more dialogue scenes.
My biggest issue with SF is that it really only has one big action setpiece.
Oh I see.
For me I loved the fact that Skyfall, under Mendes' firm direction, developed such interesting, dynamic and entertaining character interplay. But there was still room for some stand out action scenes - the pre-title seq was terrific, the tower fight all done in one shot was very stylish and gripping, then the Silva island scenes were tense (Silva's intro was superb) and intriguing, the chase through London which inter-cut with M facing the ministers was excellent, and the climax at Skyfall was thunderous, edge of the seat stuff. For me that's plenty of action and suspense - and from the huge box office returns, it shows that the wider audience seemed to like this approach too. So I believe Bond 24 will have as much focus on character as Skyfall, while also delivering some stand out action scenes.
The early Connery Bond films were thrillers first - not full blown action films - and I've personally never viewed Bond as simply action films even though some of the later ones began to rely more and more on outlandish stunts and big set-pieces. Don't get me wrong, I love TB, YOLT, TSWLM, MR for the huge action set-pieces, but I think for the 21st Century and with the brooding Craig in the lead, the focus on character and scaling back the action is the right way to go.
I've been hearing/reading comments like doubleoegos a lot concerning SF.
Bond in a car chase, that ends up in a motorcycle chase on the roof of a bazaar, that ends up in a fistfight on top of a moving train is a big action setpiece. The kind we expect from a Bond-movie.
Two guys fighting in a room or a shootout is not.
Bond movies have always done good at the box office. And I don't really care what the "wider audience" (or Oscar committe) think. I care about what I think. And I think it's all about balance. I'm used to at least 2-3 big action setpieces per movie, but I don't mind if there's only 1 if there are other redeeming factors, like a great story in a tight script that keeps me on the edge of my seat (like the first 80% of FRWL), and isn't filled with plot holes and inconsistencies, like SF.
"Scaling back on the action"? Hmm... During my 30 years of being a Bond fan, I have always filed Bond-movies under "actionmovies." The formula kept me as a Bond fan for all those years.
That is why I can always pop in movies like YOLT, TSWLM, FYEO, TLD etc and watch them over and over again, because there is so much stuff going on - like a joyride.
Unlike TMWTGG, SF and probably a couple of others, which I will probably never watch more than 2-3 times each.
I'm not so sure about this breaking up the formula and replacing action set pieces with long dialogue scenes where the actors can shine. No repeat value for me here.
Hey, it's all a matter of taste.
But Skyfall made over a billion dollars at the box-office, over £100 million in the UK alone making it bigger than the Harry Potter films here. These are HUGE numbers - nearly double those of CR and QOS, which were big hits, and pulled in a notably bigger audience than the more action and stunt filled Brosnan films - not to say the Brosnan films were not hits either.
But the positive critical response and the massive box office takings for Skyfall show, without any doubt, that the wider audience are being drawn to the mature approach towards Bond.
I personally love this approach - for me it better reflects Fleming's books (which I love) - and mirrors the Bond thriller days of DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS.