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
But... so some are willing to consider that in CR, between the phone call to M and the visit to Mr White, 2 years have passed. It means the build-up to the name is Bond, James Bond is thrown out of the window, that all took place off screen and that the audience is clueless about what happened in these two years. And Silva being adopted by M as a child is too "silly" to be discussed really ? :)
Well feel free to offer another explanation that covers all the facts.
'Once you have rule out the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' - Sherlock Holmes.
That's right. Crazy how time flies by, and before that, we'll have ourselves a hefty set of rumors - a good portion that are true.
Come on Fleming title
Probably the last thing I'm bothered about, personally.
Same here. It's way down on my list of wants or worries.
Yes, and it is by no means impossible that it was a simple continuity error that lead to the ticket's reading 2008 instead of 2006. A simple oversight would explain the contradiction nicely.
'James Bond = Jesus Christ' has never really rung true for me.
However, in SF there are definite Christ-like metaphors on show. The biggest of course being Bond's 'resurrection'. But this is just as much a commentary on the Bond legacy and it's enduring appeal than anything approaching religious symbolism.
The Jesus metaphors don't really fit with Bond at all really. They are much better suited to the Superhero comic-characters like Batman, Superman etc. Bond is a narcissistic, arrogant, sexist killer. I don't think he's going to heaven anytime soon.
But there are undeniable Christian undertones to SF. However, there is a lot of others things happening in the film so it's really up to the viewer to take away what they want from the film.
In other news here's a nice Sam Mendes video where he dedicates his award to Roger Moore.
Also another video of Rebecca Hall (actress and Mendes's girlfriend) talking about her Bond girl prospects:
I never thought she had the right kind of beauty. Great actress, but no Bond girl material.
That explanation doesn't cover the facts within the narrative world of the films which has QOS set in 08.
It's easy to assume an oversight on the part of the filmmakers but I'm talking about a continuity that fits the facts of established in the films and the only logical hypothesis is for the gap to be between M's call and Bond going to White's villa.
The missing waistcoat is a whole different ballpark of contrived explanations. Perhaps after he had manhandled White into the boot he felt a bit hot so took it off? Or maybe he had got some of White's blood on it?
Why must everything be handled with "a continuity that the fits the facts...established in the films?" What are we to make of the janitor who was sweeping the air, or Goldfinger disappearing from his automobile, or the car flipping sides in the space of an alley, or the sudden appearance of men with microphones and cameras in Saida's dressing room, or the password spelling "Vesper" without Bond typing in those keys? Simple errors on the part of the film are as valid an explanation as anything else. If this pursuit is merely a joking one, then, sure, have fun thinking up ridiculous explanations for everything (as I'm sure you're capable of), but why bother trying to think up an in-universe reason for every single bit of ridiculousness in the films?
I do hope so, because February will be here before we know it. That would be something great to look forward to.
Are there many people who like the fact that Mendes is back and don't mind that we have to wait almost two more years or would some or many have preferred another distinguished director, meaning we only had to have waited one more year for Bond 24?
As for my pick of director, right now I feel it's the right choice to have one return at last and Mendes is great.
When was QOS announced?
If you want Bond 25 in 2017, you'd need to hear by Summer 2015.
With Mendes returning I would hope that he keeps the classical office that the new M was in at the end of SF and I liked what he did with most of this film with the exception of the Moneypenny backstory. The only thing that has me feeling less excited is the fact that he might have the secretary back in the field again. Even if it's done well, it will hinder my enjoyment of the film.
He made these theatre commitments as the production of Skyfall ended and always said he wouldn't go straight into another film. Now he knows EON will likely want him back again, or at least ask, he may be doing things differently.