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
Oh yeah, that's another thing I don't like the sound of - Penny back in the field. What a load of tosh.
Really? Have you read my previous post? For me it had everything I wanted for a.Bond film. What kind of Bond film you're looking for then? Less dark, less multi-layered, more...straight-in-your-face action and humour? For me that's kinda boring. I loved the Brosnan movies as a kid, but I barely rematch them.
Aah, the fatherly voice from @doubleoego speaks. You do realize you sound like an irritated father no? Let the poor guy speak for himself. I'm pretty damn aware of the fact that at least in this forum there's like 50 to 60% who doesn't like "Skyfall". How.......representative of the mass audience. But that doesn't mean I want to start a rant against this guy. I'm always curious for people's arguments, and then re-assess them with my own arguments. And I re-assess my own arguments. Nice discussions evolve that way. You might try it yourself :-).
One of the things that annoyed me anout SF is that it's a film that thinks it's dead clever when really it isn't. They take the piss out of GE and basically say "we're so much better and more intelligent than the Brosnan films" with the exploding pen line when in reality, storywise, SF was just as dumb as GE. It just took itself more seriously and made itself look stupider as a result.
And I think TWINE is pretty smart and multi layered. GE has some interesting character moments too.
I think story-wise GE and SF have something in common. But, as you already mentioned @thelivingroyale, I think SF indeed did it better. While you say that the movie "thinks it's dead clever when really it isn't", I really say it is clever. For me it's a multi-layered espionage thriller, with plentiful political references, in-depth written speeches (for example for "M").
Most importantly, I find the characters in "Skyfall" more complex, more insightful, written with a sense of continuity. That starts with how Silva was written. Yes, in plain sight he might look like a copy of Alec Trevelyan. But acting skills, charisma, looks & the exact moment of introduction of the character in the film are important too. For me, Alec....didn't really work as a villain. He's...too cute.....too British......and the whole "from-ally-at-the-start-to-villain-later" didn't really work. Especially compared to Silva. Silva was introduced in a more sinister way, like a Blofeld-esque computer psychopath, pushing buttons in some kind of lair. Worked way better if you asked me.
And it's not only that, I think "Skyfall" felt and looked more darker and sinister than "GoldenEye". With "GoldenEye" I can't help feeling that the producers didn't want to risk, shake and blend the Bond-formula too much. Like it was some kind of "perfect compromise" between Moore and Connery. "Skyfall" is way more...stand-alone if you ask me. For me it's not just a nice Bond film. It's also a very good film, regardless of the Bond/007 tag.
Again, this is my opinion. I'm not here to "burn" one Bond film against another, like you say @thelivingroyale. I'm just giving my opinion with my own set of arguments :-).
Based on the rumours the fans was SPECTRE, Quantum, Pay off of the list of agents from SkyFall, intruiging Bond girl, new Jaws-like henchman, villain that's equal to Bond, plot twists, action, humour..... etc. etc. I am not really sure if all of it can be put in a 2 hour movie without it being a mess..
I agree @dragonsky. Therefore I always try to be suggestive with my remarks, looking forward, with a positive demeanor. Criticising is good off course. It keeps people sharp. But there's only a maximum amount of criticism that people will pick up. That's why I prefer to start topics like "How to improve the next Bond when the previous Bond film was already exquisit" instead of topics like "Skyfall is overrated" or "QOS is overrated".
I'm quite certain the fans are very important for the Bond producers, but so are actual financial results. "Cubby" himself once stated that he didn't care so much for an Oscar (allthough I think he would be thrilled to see what his daughter and stepson did with CR and SF). It was the cash, as a direct result of entertaining the audiences in the best possible way, that mattered for "Cubby", and for the new producers.
Having said that, both "Casino Royale" and "Quantum Of Solace", and especially "Skyfall", did unprecedented jobs at the box office. Such overwhelmingly big financial gains we perhaps only saw in the 1960's. So it's safe to say that for instance the last Bond movie is loved by a lot of people.
In the end I trust the producers. There are only rare cases were certain casting choices didn't work out or where the Bond film wasn't reviewed as good as we hoped for. An example is Denise Richards in TWINE. It was not Denise's most flattering acting gig. But then a next Bond movie will be produced...and a next one....and a next one :-).
Both "Skyfall" and "DAD" did it. But I can't help feeling that with DAD these classical references were too much. In SF the references were more...mildly executed I think.
They just don't need references, full stop. They should take the key tropes of the franchise, the ones that need to exist to make it a Bond movie, and then innovate. What I'd like from B24 is for it to feature elements, whether that be in the editing, music, production design, whatever, that take me by surprise. I want to feel like I'm clearly 'in' a Bond movie (GB could help there), but that the rules have been tweaked just enough, so that it feels fresh. I don't want any nostalgia. With the finished script they should comb it for any overt or even nuanced nods to the franchise and ask themselves, 'Do we need this, what does it give us?'. I imagine the honest answer would be, 'No. It gives us nothing'. Then replace it with something interesting, inventive, new. SF doesn't go overboard in anywhere near the same way as DAD and those elements they do reference, the LTK gun, the Radio (homer), The Komodo's etc. are quite subtle, but the question is, why? It doesn't add anything. The LTK gun has a frankly irrelevant pay-off, the Radio is quintessential deus ex machina and the Komodos would not be missed in the slightest. Don't get me started on the DB5.
I just want us all to look forward to B24. ....and not turn into forum bar fight lol
I honestly didn't know it is considered necessary to read your posts to form an opinion about Bond movies. These guys just dare to have their own thoughts and ideas just based on their taste not on critics,imdb or whatever, Imagine that. You should give this approach a try sometime!
I think you are overreacting. And not just a bit. Because first of all, if there's something completely 100% right about the current Craig-era, then it is the revitalised spirit of the franchise. It has been completely rebooted, a complete new timeline has been created, and it was a risky move.
On top of that, you don't come up with any alternative examples on how you would have done it. How you would have recreated a scene between the new "Q" and 007. It's just a bit too easy to criticise, if you want no references at all for the sake of surprising you and innovation for all. Because if there are Bond films that were innovative, then I'd say the Craig-films truly fit that argument.
Also, it's not fair to....turn these nuanced references into arguments that are uttered quite black-and-white. I think these tiny references really mattered. These references were part of the actual plot. Remember, "Q" had to come back at one point in a Bond film. How would you have introduced him then? For me a tiny, yes, very very tiny reference to the old CAN actually work then. A line like "Exploding pen's? Well, we don't do that anymore no?" is a perfect example of that. It's like a goodbye to the old and perhaps a 'hello' to a new "Q". A "Q" that most likely will not use these references anymore after SF.
Another example: Silva using the line from 007 about his homer device, "It's called a radio!", and mocking Bond with that reference when he is about to explode the whole damn tube.
THAT'S what I call well-thought, smart and innovative use of tiny, almost forgettable, references. Something you will not find in "Die Another Day". Sam Mendes, John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade (and also the producers and Craig) learned from that mistake I think.
On top of that, we're talking about a 52 year old franchise. That fact itself at times makes it hard to be 100% completely innovative and ignore the past. Look what they're doing now?!? Casting a henchman that "will be as iconic as Oddjob". That's not bad. People love that! And so did audiences who saw that henchman being eaten by a Komodo Dragon. Pure utter "Bond", though done in a nuanced and innovative way. And trust me "Hinx" will be an example of that too.
Hence why I think you are overreacting.
@Gustav_Graves, take some of your own advice and read posts properly. My last post is merely my opinion on what I would personally like to see in B24 and as it's Mendes and co. returning, I am using SF as a yardstick. I don't need to be told how SF works, I've seen it plenty of times. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Q scene as it was never mentioned at all in my post. Save the throwaway quip, which I find amusing, it's a fresh take and I liked it a lot.
You're talking here about a back reference in the film, I don't understand why this is clever. It's something that happens in any film, book, tv show, but never really this glaringly clunky. But if that's your idea of clever then so be it.
Anyhow, lets leave the SF chat here. I was stating my thoughts on what I want from B24 in relation to what has gone before, I could do without the endless lectures on the merits of SF.
I brought up the Q scene, because usually these reference are made when there is a Q scene. You cannot just criticism these references if you don't see them in the context of such a scene. And if you read my post carefully, certain references can actually indicate that we don't see them in Bond 24 :-). So we're both happy then.
Cool. Well we shall agree to disagree on that front. Oh, and on the innovation front - I agree with you completely that the Craig films hit the brief. My only worry with SF was that they were at risk of straying into cliché. I don't really want to dredge this up again, but the DB5 and it's gadgets serve the point. It's unnecessary fan-service, Mendes sitting back on his haunches and letting nostalgia do the work for him. Now, I know some love it, some don't see it as a problem, I get that and it's not a big deal to me, but adequately displays my point and I'd be really keen for them not to stray down this road. The 'iconic' henchman casting reeks of this train of thought. We shall wait and see, count me massively optimistic, I always am, but it's these little things that plant the seed of doubt - the fear that they could undo the great work that was started by CR.
Ah @RC7, don't worry. Just out of curiosity. How does your TOP 10 of "Best Bond Films" look like?
Anyway, also have some trust in the producers. Man, we have been spoiled little kids for the past 8 years. Craig's films are critically acclaimed, received Oscar nominations, and financially they are even more successful than the already successful Brosnan films.
I'd love to do screenplay brainstorm sessions with Barbara, Sam, Daniel, Michael, John, Neal and Robert. But the fact is....it's not my job. What I can do perhaps is using my fantasy and come up with workable suggestions on how the Bond film should be like when I wasn't so satisfied previous time. Therefore I admire it even more if you do the same @RC7. Don't ask what they should do for you, but what you would do instead (a variation on an old speech from a very famous Bond fan, JFK ;-)).
Having said this, I am convinced "Hinx" won't be a cheesy Chewbacca-esquema henchman that only kids want to hug. No, we off course get an "iconic henchman" within the boundaries of Craig's style of Bond films. I expect a more Donald Grant-esque sicko, who is as psychotic as Silva, but uses more physical violence to confront 007 with the limits of his own fitness. And a henchman who is actually willing to cut of a little finger from one of Bond's friends, added with some nuanced gore a la "henchman falls into pulverizer" or "guy shows his mutilated jaw". Bond once shot a nail in Gettler's eye. Let's now switch roles a bit.
So that's the "iconic henchman" we will get. Mark my words.
The fact I said, 'count me massively optimistic', should tell you that I trust the producers. I rely on people joining the dots - it saves me typing out enormous posts just to clarify every single detail that has lead to such a thought.
As a paid Screenwriter I won't be sharing any of my better Bond ideas online I'm afraid.
Given her physique, I think she'll be more of a Volpe type - maybe coordinating the henchman's activities.
She appears, to me at least, to be quite athletic and energetic compared to Marlohe, who appeared more demure and sultry, so it would be a shame to not use her athleticism.
Of course, my opinion may be skewed by MI4, which is the only time I've seen her on film.
Hoping she is going to be a Fiona Volpe type of character? However, if that is the case? What about the other leading lady who we are told is going to be British and plays a British female leading role?
That's what I hope her to be. A Fiona Volpe-esque Bond bitch :-).
As for Rose Byrne, I've always been a fan and would like to see her in a Bond film some day, though I've never considered her a likely possibility. Then again, I wouldn't have imagined Lea Seydoux would be appearing in the next film either, so I'd be happy to be surprised and find Byrne cast as well. She'd make a fine Gala Brand I think, and we know how persistently Purvis and Wade have tried to work Gala into their scripts.