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
actually that CGI island you speak of was (for the most part) practically built on the Pinewood backlot - they only CGI'd background areas to expand the look for when the actors were in scene... but naturally the big wides were CGI'd.. that didn't bother me much - as the CGI'd choppers looked worse........ but beyond that, the island is based off a real abandoned island off the coast of Japan - though you probably already know that.. but according to Mendes (on the skyfall commentary) they wanted to actually film on that island, but it was too dangerous and not practical enough..
That family dwelling can't be as big as in "Skyfall". I'm quite confident about that. Although, it was a bit of a necessity for "Skyfall", as in there some loose ends had to be tied up. Not only that, I thought it was quite nice to put Fleming's background history about Bond in a Bond film.
I think for me this criticism sounds so similar to the criticism in 1969/1970 about Bond getting married, falling really in love, and then suffering the loss of his wife. Really, back in 1969, uring screenings, high ranking movie bosses were disrespectfully sighing about these events. While it really was Fleming who wrote this.
Same with "Skyfall". It's a unique Bond film, as this is the only Bond film where we can have some proper look at Bond's past, Bond's parents, and Bond's fears as a kid. I loved it. It wasn't done in cheesy way IMO. These difficult events were written skillfully, and for me they worked.
Compared to Batman's past, the past of Bond in SF still is incredibly minor and small. Having said so, I don't think Bond 24 will be that elaborate. But one has to create extensive background history, if one is set to write a complex re-invented character.
You said it. That will most likely be the case. I believe Bond 24 will be about the villain. Hence
When I read the Mail paper, I'm not sure what they write about is the story of the movie for sure. They could also mean EON planned a bluff for the press conference. Like in Skyfall's press conference with "Eve".
Whatever happens, this paper is a puzzle to solve for EON : "if they say he doesn't play Blofeld, don't believe them !". Gee, it sounds like some Internet troll :)
the only thing i do question a bit - is does every villain or plot have to involve some personal stake for Bond?.. granted, there has been personal touches for Bond in almost every film - but it's like they are relying a bit too heavily on the whole "this time it's personal" angle in recent films - it seems more in your face obvious than it used to be........ can't it be enough anymore that this evil person just wants to kill a bunch of people? - but now he's gotta be Bond's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roomate..
By the way, if one reads the article carefully, then it says that the name of
True. One big redeeming factor of SF. The question is if that background story has to be narrated step by step, or if it shouldn´t be simply visible in the character´s face and actions? When Moore interrupted XXX when she started mentioning his marriage, we got all the information needed. Or just watch Michael Mann´s Manhunter, or Collateral, or Miami Vice, there you get more in-depth information about the characters in the first five minutes of the film than you get throughout the whole of SF.
And I think you have a good point, GermanLady. I may change my stance on that. It is to the point, with news coming out and the press conference imminent, that maybe this whole thread should just be viewed as a spoiler and the title to always have that in it ("SPOILERS are here!")
I'll edit it for now, and @JWESTBROOK can do as he likes when he is online next time. I think it'll avoid a mass influx of complaints and upset feelings if we keep the title updated (again, in a subtle way), and it's not going to hurt the people who do visit this thread, because they'll read more into what the update is, anyway.
Take. It. Easy. @Germanlady :-). Merely asking for the title to be changed, because that's the title that gives away too much. It's inevitably to be spoiled by this topic without even opening it or reading the contents of it.
@boldfinger? Read my last comment, in spoiler tags.
And for the rest of the board, whether or not there's any validity to this latest Blofeld rumor (personally, I don't think there is much—how accurate has the Daily Mail been?), the current title of this thread is potentially a major spoiler and should probably be censored. Just my thoughts.
I do not go to the main website page here often now because I know it has news, too. Others may be doing their vigilant best to still avoid spoilers.
I agree with this. It should be established by now that this thread will contain spoilers, and if people don't want to use the tags, then they shouldn't have to.
Thanks for changing the title, Creasy47!
Agreed.
Yeah, I too am sick of the personal angle. They've got the skiing and now the Hans reference so I won't be surprised. I wish that Hans had have just appeared in the film as an elderly man who Bond meets up with followed by a brief discussion regarding Bond's bad skiing style (in the books he lacks style as a skiier).
Damn, I guess I can't even read the articles posted on the left hand side of the mi6 page any longer as they have spoilers too.
Assuming this is true, then I was the one pointing the Oberhausen possibility back when Waltz's cast was made public. Still, this doesn't mean the mission is going to be personal.
EDIT: I think less and less that Waltz got the role Ejiofor was running for.