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
Or perhaps......Bond 24 will be a plain, solid James Bond film, without re-mixing beloved characters like James Bond ('Casino Royale'), 'M', 'Q' and Moneypenny ('Skyfall'). But this time around I have a distinct feeling that with that last screen shot, where the new 'M' is handing over the new mission file to 007, could indeed be used for a smooth continuation. A bit like Bond opening the boot in QOS, with Mr White in there.
But now, the continuation takes place directly AFTER the PTS. 'M' is explaining the new mission to 007, in which you saw some beginning events in the PTS. A bit like LALD and TMWTGG: Bond is NOT featured in those PTS's, but they give a first glimpse at what to expect from the villain's plot. I'd say......dedicate the entire PTS to certain events that are unfolding a new revived SPECTRE and a new revived 'secret man' with a 'weird toydog'. And OFF COURSE agent 007 James Bond only returns after the PTS and is not featured in the PTS.
What do you think?
Why not?
I hope Quantum is in it in a good way (meaning: please, for heaven's sake a really GOOD script!) and showing them wreaking havoc or some strange goings on would really peak our interest during the PTS, yes ...
And things have been shaken around pretty much with the DC outings, so why not again?
I think the ending of SF was supposed to be symbolic of a new beginning. Mendes explains it beautifully in his director's commentary: at the start of the movie we see Bond die and Adele sings; 'This is the end.' Then of course at the end we see Bond with the new M getting his next mission and the film closes on the GB. The GB usually start a Bond film but here it closes it as the ending of the film is in fact a new beginning for the series. Its a clever storytelling device and plays towards the idea of decontructing Bond and slowly rebuilding him over the course of the film.
I think the next film (in movie time) will pick up some time after SF, and bond and Mallory will be fairly acquainted but the first real strain on their relationship will be in Bond 24
Ralph's M should be based on Flemings as a guy who disapproves of Bonds womanising (and its about time Dan did some womanising - 2 shags at least in B23 please) and will berate him like a schoolboy but trusts him implicitly and will back him to the hilt.
Bond had two shags in SF.
Well we know somethings about Mallory already. Judi's M was someone who ran on instinct and she fully trusted Bond, regardless of what he was doing and the amount of destruction he caused.
Mallory is much more by-the-book type of guy. He's a slightly stuffy bureaucrat who doesn't seem to be a very sentimental man. It's likely his style will clash heavily with Bond as Mallory is very straight laced and Bond can be a bit of a wild-card. But at the same time Mallory did prove himself under fire with Silva and helped Q and Tanner, so there is a reckless streak in him.
The thing I'm looking most forward to after SF is the development of who exactly Mallory is.
The sequence where he catches Q and Tanner laying the 'trail of breadcrumbs' and approves of Bond's plan was surely to demonstrate that Mallory isn't as by-the-book as he seems.
I'm pretty sure that all the 6 Sam Mendes movies so far start with the narrator or the hero(es) (I make the difference because of Road To Perdition, which starts with the narrator while most would say the hero is the narrator's father (T. Hanks) - in others, narrators are the heroes. In American Beauty there's a 15 second PTS without the hero though, but it's once again his child talking about him).
You don't ditch a theater background so easily :)
Well, so one woud say, why not a PTS about Blofeld's rise into #1 villain, to start a two parter about mostly him ? Here I think the overall problem would be with the marketing, just look at Skyfall poster : it's Bond and nothing else they want !
So why not a M talking about Bond in voice-over - well note they put it in the trailer of Skyfall, but they removed it from the movie. Maybe after some thoughts, someone said, or even Sam Mendes to himself : "In the very first short after the titles, M is talking in what feels like a voice over about Bond... this is turning into a self parody of Sam Mendes.. remove that"
IMO, you can have that PTS without a problem. The interesting twist about it is - for me - that we have something happen (of course) during the PTS, that sets up what the movie will be all about. (How often is the PTS just for show). So during the titles we can thing of ways Bond will react.
Very true.
As long as it's interesting it'll work, Bond or no Bond. Look at the start of CR; the first big action sequence comes after the pre-titles. I know, I know bond is in the pre-titles, but they are a very brisk 3 minutes. I think as long as we get a very interesting 2-3 minute opener, maybe not a big action sequence but something more small-scaled and interesting (ala CR) you can get away with a Bond-less opener. However, when we are introduced to Bond after the titles I think it necessary to have him in a big ballsy statement-piece action sequence.
However, Nolan's Batman films have a great precedent with big action scenes that introduce the baddie before we pickup with Batman in the story and they were both excellent.
PS : Note that SF would have been a great opportunity plot wise to have what you describe : the depiction of Silva's need for revenge against M, which is explained in only three lines of dialog in a corridor in the final movie. You could have a great PTS showing Silva's (or a hidden Silva's) action to blow up MI6, and ending with the reveal Silva has something very personal against M. But no, we got our heavy action PTS scene for heavy use in the marketing (trailers, exclusive excerpts, etc). It even leads up to believe the revenge would be between Bond and M or Eve, but no, it's a "no big deal" issue in the end :)
I would like to see the evil unfold in the PTS without Bond being involved.
IMO the PTS was overused in the trailers etc. When I finally saw it, I was slightly bored, because I had seen it everywhere already.
If the next Bond is a Sam Mendes movie, then the next step for you is to watch all of Sam Mendes movies (you already saw a third of them most probably !) A long PTS scene without the hero or the narrator would be a very big change for Sam Mendes. A PTS so different woud be IMO more "off course" than "of course" :)
There are plenty of directors out there who could make a Bond film that is far from sub par. Two years between each film isn't a short amount of time between Bond films. Personally, I 'd like to see as many Bond films with Craig as possible and a three year gap between movies means less installments with Craig.
Why not just a TSWLM/MR PTS then with some nefarious act and then cut to Bond 'on his last leg' as it were and into a big stunt to get us in the mood before the titles?
For me ever since TSWLM set the bar the PTS has always been as much about screaming 'Bond is Back!!' at the audience as it has the plot.
The audience should go into the opening sequence with a 'wow' factor that gets them up for a new dose of Bond.
I don't think you can get away with say an LALD PTS these days. CR was low key but still hit you between the eyes with a great fight and the lead into the titles.
PS - Agree with you GL about the SF PTS being overused in the trailers but that was because it was the only big stunt laden action sequence in the film. Can't blame the guy who put the trailer together for that.
I don't want Mendes if we have to wait for three years between each film.
You're entirely missed the point.
Take Brosnan's era for example. His middle two films were rushed and everyone blasted them for it after the successful relaunch of GE (DAD is another issue as the film suffered from bad direction). But had the prods taken their time with the material things could have been different, the same goes for the latter Moore entries.
I'd rather have less Craig films that are actually good then loads that are not up to snuff.
I'd sooner wait till 2015/2016 than get another QOS next year.
Haha. I just learned to get over it because I can't control it. I remember waiting for 'GTA IV' to come out. I anticipated it so heavily, and around one month from its release in October, it was delayed a full six months until April. My world was completely crushed. Though, I will say: there is a difference between taking a bit more time to work out kinks and whatnot than there is keeping us in the dark for the next few years. I figured with the success of SF that they would want to get this out much sooner rather than later.
Now people speculate Mendes will return, and say hurray. And yet some of them add "now at least we can hope for a PTS without Bond setting up the events". Ie : a plot-driven movie ! Like in the time of Bonds made by directors for hire ! While Mendes is the kind of director who is mostly interested in characters, for instance using *a lot* of voice-overs in his movies (we almost had one in Skyfall, with the M line "speaks" to herself in the trailer ! )
The incoherency is blatant to me (unless the hypothesis is that the PTS is all about Blofeld like the rest of the movie ! ).