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
Has this definitely been suggested? All I took from bits I've read are 'potential crash' and 'set building' - of which there are no specific details such as 'villains lair', the only time that's been mentioned, that I've seen, is just by fans on here.
Danny Craig is, like us ánd previous Bond actors like Sir Moore, quite a nerdy Bond fan too :-P. It's funny, the guys who've been 007, actually start behaving like the iconic spy :-P. Same goes for directors. Terence Young himself was an admirer of the franchise, and he always wanted to indulge in Bond-esque luxury. I remember Luciana Paluzzi (Fiona Volpe) saying that she felt so...ehm....400% woman on set. Wunderful little behind-the-scenes tidbits are these >:D<
Bringing Quantum back would be the worst thing they possibly could do. I trust Mendes is more intelligent than that, so I have no worries.
If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?
there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.
Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.
I just want standalone films, with standalone villains. Decent stories with a beginning, middle and a kick ass denouement. No f*cking about with returning villains or story strands. Fresh, interesting, exciting and most importantly 'individual'. The gaps between these films are going to be at least 3 years from here, if not more. I want to sit down and enjoy a two hour romp that is set up and resolved in that period of time. No Blofeld, no Quantum, no copying, rehashing or blatant tributes harking back to yesteryear. It's that simple for me.
Oh, and you can add 'memorable villain' to that list. No one who looks like he's a school teacher or government official. These are Bond films.
I think the fans who are blinded by nostalgia goggles are exactly the ones who want Quantum to return. I say let's move forward, instead of connecting Bond 24 to a movie most of the audience wants to forget (QOS).
It's not that it isn't cool enough, it's that it isn't cool at all.
Yup! Why not explore this omnipresent organisation further, now that it's here. Leave an eventual reboot to one of Craigs successors. There is plenty of time for it. After all,we all do hope that there are still Bond movies in the far far future,don't we?
How? The only reason I want Quantum back was because they had left that story arch open ended. You know? Like how OHMSS had left a story open ended and DAF just pretended it never happened. I don't want that to happen. At least Craig's films have been trying to have solid continuity. Either finish them in b24 or have Bond completely wipe them out in b25. It would be nice to have Bond catch the man ultimately responsible for Vesper's suicide. Mr. White. So much potential ultimately wasted because a minority of people didn't like QOS. Big whoop.
I don't think Mendes gives two hoots about CR and QoS, hence zero continuity in SF. I expect this to continue. Bond found his Quantum of Solace - story arc completed. Happy for them to give us fresh ideas.
There were several references to both CR and QoS. And to be fair, you can't really be sure what Mendes thinks.
References, but no continuity. Like I said, the Vesper story arc is closed. Unless they're all out of original ideas there's no reason to feature Quantum again.
I'd rather see them again than SPECTRE or Blofeld.
Wow, that's basically a rant against Ian Fleming's storytelling. The novel trilogy TB/OHMSS/YOLT in my opinion has never been executed correctly. And all you say now is that you prefer 100% standalone films? I think by saying this, you are limiting yourself, and the franchise, to Brosnan/Moore-esque standalone films again.
And in all honesty, I don't understand your remark. "Skyfall" is most certainly a standalone film, with only some minor references to Bond's love past ("I know when a girl is afraid"). From my point of view, you seem greatly unhappy after three Daniel Craig Bond outings. Why is...that. Tell me....:-).
^This! :)
He said that because that's what the people from the press wanted to hear.
How do you know? Are you Michael Wilson?
In the first decade or so of Bond movies, the stories were not completely standalone, neither were the villains, minus GF. Blofeld and/or SPECTRE were ever present. The potential problem with standalone villains is that they end up being the villains of the week. With a recurring, resilient threat, you add an extra layer of menace.
Not to mention SMERSH, who was the threat Bond faced in three of the first Bond novels.
How on earth is that a rant against Ian Fleming's storytelling? This has got nothing to do with Fleming. The fact the Blofeld trilogy wasn't committed to the screen with the reverence it deserved is irrelevant. The novels remain unchanged, untainted and the genius of Fleming endures.
Note I didn't say SF wasn't a standalone, it's exactly the kind of approach I'm advocating. A self contained story that is resolved within its time frame. If anything this is exactly the blueprint they should continue with IMO.
Why do you think QoS is so divisive? Because of the weight of expectation that came with it, not in terms of spectacle, but story. Everyone had a different opinion on the route it should take in dealing with the fallout from CR. Even now we have people who are unhappy because they perceive an element of 'unfinished business'. They don't need to risk going down this route again.
In my opinion the continuity that Bond should deliver is in the character of 'Bond' himself. A sense of development from film to film, but with each film delivering new, exciting challenges, unrelated to those which have gone before.
After all, that is the lifeblood of Bond and I believe that's why it survived. I think it's probably a blessing that McClory forced EON's hand as SPECTRE would've eventually been the downfall of the cinematic franchise.
There was a recurring threat for the first 9 years of the franchise. I don't see how you can say standalone villains become 'villains of the week' when the main villain of every film from 1973 has appeared in their singular film. Like I said above, continuing with SPECTRE would have been the death knell.
Amazing travel you had! Lucky you!
In the era of Marvel, continuity is the new buzzword. Bond should be the exact opposite. Two hours of standalone fun every couple of years.
By jolly, your black-and-white approach.......not my cup of tea....
Bond films can have continuity and be fun. You say it like it's a bad thing.