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
Exactly. I've always hated films that rely on hacking to explain everything - such lazy plotting. I also hope that this was the last gasp of Purvis and Wade and not something that Logan came up with.
It wasn't even new back then I don't think. And it also sucked in GE. Seeing Alan Cummings frozen to death was the best part of the movie.
I can't think of any movies before the 90s that used hacking specifically as a plot device.
Hang on. Just found this. Look what movie is in the list.
http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/antivirusantispyware/tp/The-Best-Hacker-Movies.02.htm.
It seems hacking was in its peak in the mid 90s/early 2000s.
i love Craig and his run as Bond thus far.... but no one actor is above the role itself - not even Connery.... Craig is great, but he is not the be all or end all of James Bond, and the success of his films have given the franchise a renewed longevity...
the most i would wait between films is 3 years - thats plenty of time... no more 5 or 6 year gaps please... once was enough.
They should have the plot and script for the next movie pretty much ready as the current one starts filming. And they should be looking to get directors on two or three film contracts.
there are varying reasons why it takes longer to make the films these days..
- production crews were smaller back then... my god, just look at the end credits to DN compared to SF
- filming could be handled more on set then on location.. travel and logistics is always a hassle, especially when filming in different countries... thats why anything that can be done on a closed set, is..
- today, you are dealing with varying schedules of your actors/actresses, as well as your crew... EON would've preferred that Bond 24 be out this year, but they were willing to wait until Mendes' schedule opened up - because that is the guy they wanted.... hell, Bond 23 could've been out in 2011 or 2010 if it weren't for MGM lol..
bottom line is, the industry itself is a helluva lot bigger than it was back in the day - even back in the 90s... you got a lot more fingers in the preverbal pie (studio execs, producers, actors, directors, assistants, agents and etc.), and when your dealing with a franchise such as 007, it's going to take some time...
well thats the problem you run into when you got too many cooks in the kitchen lol.
The Man With the Golden Gun was a perfectly excellent Bond film, and it only took a year-and-a-half to make, and get to theatres.
Mind you its a pretty straightforward Bond-on-mission film, but so what, it's great fun to watch, with all the colourful Bond elements in place.
Maybe it lacks deep thematic underpinnings,although it does have its own macbre dark vibe which helps distinguish its place in the canon.
It does lack a big finish with lots of extras, but still it features a big set-piece, an exotic lair and a tense mano-a-mano Bond-Scaramanga showdown.
Maybe less emphasis on waiting on guys like Mendes, and whatever it is that he needs to do with a Bond film to make it worth his while, and more emphasis on just getting good entertaining Bond films made with the people that are available, ie a team of inspired professionals that can crank quality movies out every couple of years.
This could happen in a post-Craig era where there is less emphasis on each film being a dramatic masterpiece, and with a younger hungrier actor whose happy to play Bond as a Connery/Moore style action hero, and who might be content to defer being a great thespian until his post-Bond 40s.
In the meantime, I guess we just enjoy the Craig/Mendes epic drama-Bond era for what it is, but I really do hope we can get back to Bond adventure basics in the future, with a young (early 30s) Bond, sans emotional issues, happy to fight outlandish supervillains and their fiendish organizations with Bond style, vigour, and deadly charm.
Love live Bond!
back. spends the whole decade fighting the blofeld family.
During the Moore years, the formula was entrenched. Nothing felt new. So on and so on.
Clearly, all begins with a compelling story, many of which are not that. A decision will need to be made as to whether or not character is more important than big action sequences. CR succeeds because of character.
Producers must continually be faced with the question of "What haven't we seen?"
EON has been thru all this before....
Hopefully EON will have the next Bond already lined up and in their sights before Craig's last outing. And no, I don't think they should leave Bond alone for very long once his tenure is up. They need to bring out the next Bond quickly and stop these needlessly protracted periods of non-activity that are not used in the slightest to work on scripts or outlines. Full steam ahead is what I say for Bond 26 and 27.
I wouldn't balk if he got the job.
Exactly. ;)
If we're 50 years on and SF was the most successful Bond film at the box office, why stop here? Imagine what can be done in another 50 years. There's no sense in stopping now.
I agree with @bondsum though- after Dan's run, just get on with the job and release the next film asap.
Craig already looks like he's pushing 60 at times in Skyfall so I think Bond 24 should be his last film. He'll be 51 in 2019. And he'll look 65.
Don't get me wrong, I like a "veteran Bond" look but within reason.
I also agree with @Birdleson that I don't like the long breaks. I like a regular release schedule. But that's just the impatient fanboy in me.
Craig already looks like he's pushing 60 at times in Skyfall so I think Bond 24 should be his last film. He'll be 51 in 2019. And he'll look 65.
Dear god I hope I look that good when I'm 60.
Oh no, not the codename theory again..
We should never see James Bond die (for real) in a Bond movie. Even if it's the last one.
I never heard of the that codename theory before because I'm new on this forum, but I never viewed 'James Bond' as a codename, nor as six different men who all happen to be named 'James Bond'.
Besides Kincade knew James Bond as James Bond and he couldn't have known otherwise. You could argue that they subsituted his real name with that just for secrecy purposes but James Bond isn't about far-fetched hoo-ha like that.
Come to think of it, back when Goldeneye came out, was there a controversy about M being played by a woman, or wasn't it an issue back then?
I think people are living in dream land if they think we can go back to the rate these films came out in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
I even think every 2 years is something you might see happen again but wouldn't guarantee it will happen consecutively, maybe the next Bond might get their 1st and 2nd entry in that time space but after that we'll probably get bigger gaps.
It's just not the same as it used to be, Craig is far more physically involved in these films than any other actor before and I just don't think the budgets can be maintained every 2 years like they are now, people need to remember we live in a very different world and EON don't have the financial clout of the likes of Marvel.
The only way you'd see smaller gaps between entries if the franchise was bought by the likes of Disney but do we really want something like that happening?
Bond was here before DC
He'll be around after Dc