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
They turned Bond into a soap opera again, a badly written TV drama with this garbage (following on from soap drama TWINE). Bond can't simply be fighting an evil villain anymore. It has to be personal..... 8-|
Fleming will be turning in his grave.
This statement is more than a little disingenuous.
It's Fleming who created Bond's back story as an orphan who lost his parents in a skiing accident in his childhood.
If losing your parents as a child isn't a trauma I don't know what is.
I think the idea to explore this territory in SF was legitimate (if risky).
Where am I stating otherwise? I'm merely saying that it was unnecessary and poorly executed, IMO.
Fleming "never wrote about it", because he simply didn't know.
Carl Jungs theories, really only gained traction in Mainstream psychology after the Bond books were written. 50's Society had almost no clue about these topics and how childhoods shape personality.
Fleming also never wrote about cyber warfare, and mass surveillance, should we not use those topics? He also believed that smoking 60 cigarettes a Day was perfectly fine and healthy, and only found out at the end of his life, like everybody else around the early 60's, that it was not.
To modernize Fleming you have to look at what is a current topic and then adapt a "what would Fleming do?" mindset.
Fleming was deeply curious and loved reading up on any kind of subject, for his books as much as for himself. I think he would have dived deep into psychology.
And as Getafix has said, it's "risky", as is introducing any kind of new Element to Bond, but with SF it was done in a very subtle and respectful way and paid off imho.
My understanding of the dynamic between Mike and Babs is that during Brosnan era it was Mike who was creatively taking the lead while Babs supported and contributed, then with Craig’s tenure it was Babs who was given the creative lead while Mike would still support and contribute (CR being a reboot, QOS being a direct sequel, Blofeld being a foster brother of Bond, etc). It’s sort of similar to how Cubby and Harry switched creative roles for every other film only in this case between Mike and Babs each one took creative control of an actor’s tenure.
Scuttlebutt is that when Craig’s tenure ends so will Wilson as a producing partner so he could finally retire. That leaves the spot open for his son Gregg to ascend, and supposedly he’ll be the one taking the creative lead for the next era of Bond with his aunt as his partner, being there for support and contributing much like how she and her brother supported each together.
Again, just rumors, but it makes a lot of sense that the Brosnan era was mainly Mike’s show while Craig’s has been Babs’ show.
Craig definitely feels like Bab's show. If it is true that Wilson came up with the idea of Blofeld being Bond's brother, I'm a bit surprised. This is the man who has witnessed every actor portraying Bond, throughout all the changes with each actor, and probably knows the books better than anyone. How he thought this Brofeld was a good idea beats me. No one in their right mind thinks it is, even the Mendes fans, and the SP fans.
Let's hope Gregg has more clue when he steps in.
I agree. It's legitimate, just poorly executed. The mother hen M figure doesn't help matters either, going places that again was never hinted at in the novels. The closest we can get to this hen-pecked idea is Fleming's own relationship with his dominant mother, where he apparently used to call her M.
But this is taking massive liberties with the character, IMO. If all the Fleming novels were exhausted to death, then there is nowhere left to go but start inventing this crap, but while several novels, scenes and short stories still remain untapped, I don't see the point of inventing far inferior BS like this.
Many of my views and first impressions are unchanged:
Dalton was an excellent Bond I championed since August 1986 and I was sad when he stepped down/was pushed out, continued to hold that view and never wavered in the years of Brosnan love, up till now in light of the people who have rediscovered and praised him in light of Craig's portrayal.
Brosnan wasn't the ideal replacement although he was universally hailed by about everyone else and I was one of the seemingly lone voices who didn't share that. I was relieved when he didn't get the part in '86, paving the way for a Bond I found fascinating.
Craig seemed like a bold and interesting choice in '05 when names like Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman were bandied about and the majority were sneering and starting websites against Craig before a frame of footage was shot. Bond can't be blond, too short, not classically handsome, etc. It all now seems strange.
CR was an instant classic and QoS a worthy follow-up. SF seemed to have ingredients that should've made it the classic others claim but just doesn't click and feels overrated to me.
The fun of being a fan is being able to discover new things that could enhance appreciation. I'd like nothing more than to review SF or one of the Brosnans and come away with a better feeling, but until that happens, I will continue to share views I currently hold.
And there is nothing wrong with that. We all have different tastes and opinions about the films. And i'm sure we all had instances where a Bond film dramatically dropped or climbed in our estimation.
I wish i could fully enjoy all the films, but it doesn't always work.
At the end of the days it's all just personal opinions.
With the Brozza era I resigned myself to the fact that the bond films became a bit naff, and was never going to return to Fleming, but I find the Craig era far more disappointing because of the hope it gave me after CR.
With that film I really felt we had turned a corner, that Babs realised we needed to go back to the books like her father before her, yet it sadly led me up a false garden path. QoS title had me rejoicing again, using another Fleming title, and there was still a fair few nods to Fleming in that film too, which gave me hope for the next one.
But then Mendes came along and turned the whole thing on its head. We went back to square one again - TWINE soap opera crap, with the novels tossed aside, and brutal, bloody violent Bond gone. Instead we get family angst and `original' personal backstories.
My feelings exactly. CR and QOS very good. Then everything they'd done to set a fresh new direction just got chucked and we were back in Brosnan territory all over again. Oh well.
A good Bond film is a rarity these days. Its 3:1 miss to hit ratio at best from my perspective at least.
Same here. In the good ole days, it seemed like the pattern would be a good one every other film, but back then the films were coming out every other year. Now we have to wait an average of 4-5 years for a new one and it makes a disappointment that much worse. At least we have outlets like this we can vent, or more preferably, celebrate.
Don't worry, they usually get it right with the first film for each new actor. So all we gotta do is wait a couple more years ;)
Meanwhile, lets try to enjoy what we do have. And what we do have is not shabby at all. Not on DAD levels, anyway. Go watch DAD's trailer on youtube and you'll immediately appreciate SP more. And you'll get excited for NTTD. Then, we'll wait until 2025 and we'll have a Bond centric approach again.
Tonight's Oscars ceremony reminds us that Skyfall has the most Oscar nominations and Oscar wins of any Bond film. SF also ranks third, among all Bond films, in Box Office, adjusted for inflation. It has earned a 92% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.
These are facts the contrarians and Mendes haters don't like to address.
I really enjoy Skyfall, though lately I’ve found the end of it get a little on the boring side. Box office and Oscar’s are no guarantee of quality, but the RT score is pretty telling.
It's an interesting discussion with no real right answer.
"While Skyfall‘s $1 billion worldwide box office take is impressive and the first ever Bond film to breach that barrier, it is a poor measure of success. When the figures are adjusted for inflation, Skyfall is in third place domestically, behind Thunderball and Goldfinger, although globally it is just ahead of Thunderball thanks to expanding markets such as China.
In terms of audience size, Skyfall is well behind Thunderball and Goldfinger in the US, which is the only market we can measure the audience with any degree of accuracy.
But in terms of Return On Investment there is one film that has never been beaten. Dr No launched the James Bond series with an incredible 5857% ROI. Compare that with Skyfall‘s 455% ROI, which looks like a failure in comparison."
It just depends on how you look at it, I suppose.
Link:
https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm
Fingers crossed.
In the US domestic box office adjusted for inflation it's TB at #1, GF #2, and SF #3. However, for the worldwide box office, adjusted for inflation for 2019, it's listed as such:
I have no issue addressing that at all. RT loved The Last Jedi and gave that a similar rating, which I think is a horrific film. The critics do sometimes get it wrong, as do the Oscars (frequently). I don't see the Oscars as a stamp of approval, neither RT either.
Tellingly, SF scores higher than OHMSS on RT, and did better at the BO too, yet most Bond fans know which is the better film. Are you telling me we all need to like SF more now instead?
I certainly rank SF higher. If OHMSS had an actual actor playing James Bond, I'd probably have it shot to #1. As it is, I have OHMSS ranked at #4, and SF ranked at #3.
Good for you. Many fans would disagree that SF is better than OHMSS, but my point was more on RT being a sure stamp of approval, when you look at films like The Last Jedi.
That's not surprising, as Bond fans are the only group that actually rates OHMSS highly. Once you step out of that group, there isn't really all that much fondness for it.
TLJ got good reviews from critics because they were judging it purely as a film, they were not judging it as Star Wars fans. On that criteria, it is a good film. They weren't judging it based on expectations concerning canon and perceptions of how their childhood characters would be written.
I don't think it is a good film purely on that basis either (casino scene, character Rose, etc.)
But this isn't the thread to discuss Star Wars, so we should probably cut it right here like a blowtorch through butter.
Sometimes the Academy gets it right, sometimes they don't. Furthermore, this year being an exception to that, you don't even stand a chance when your film isn't in English or if you've made a horror film. So hardly anything to go by if you don't consider the whole spectrum of movie-making anyway.
Box office I really don't care about. It only says what the majority of people like to watch. Most people like McDonalds' too you know. Considering Transformers and Fast and Furious and that sort of stuff are highly profitable, I can't say that it means anything, quality-wise.