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
Thanks @NicNac. Fully agree.
Hm, when I look back, I find that IMO the best Bond movie by far since TLD is CR. And while my opinion on TLD is not the one of the majority, CR looks definitely like the best recent Bond to a lot of persons, from fans doing ranking here to people giving note on IMDB, etc.. Both have Fleming stories in them, must not be only a coincidence.
Because yes you remember iconic things first, and not really the story. But without the story, then you have attempts at iconic things just for the sake of it. For instance, in SF we've got the DB5 full of gadgets without any attempt at logic and even movie logic (we've been told that Q Branch does not do old gadgets anymore a few scenes before). I don't expect that people will later remember the DB5 in SF. It is so out of the logic of the story, it's just look like a random quote to create the iconic moment with a safety net for anyone involved. Nostalgia to the max. But a Bond movie should not be a museum to visit, they should keep on trying new things.
Also, well, if you do an experiment on the "Brosnan fog" of Bond movies, well, after that anything else will look wonderful I'm afraid :) Even Brosnan himself said he couln't remember in which Bond movie he did this scene or that scene.
Without going too far of topic. I think in Dan's tenure as part of his agreement to come in, is that it would be done with more seriousness and wanted to have a joint input. Hence why mendes calls him, "My Collabarator". I think Brosnan turned up Brioni dressed him, he read his lines delivered and went home. I dont think he ever got to have any creative input, maybe he was not interested or maybe he was not allowed to have in his tenure who knows. I think Connery was similar in his tenure as Dan is now, he made himself heard. I think it makes for better Bond movies when the actor playing Bond is that passionate the franchise and about their artistic credability they make it clear there are things there Bond won't do or say and they will have a say how Bond will look and dress.
Brosnan wanted to have a say and wanted to give his input but he was dismissed, as the producers imo, based on the way Brosnan talks in interviews for the promotions of his Bond movies just didn't take him seriously. He was a pretty boy that looked the part and wasn't a credible enough actor to have a voice behind the scenes. Compare and contrast with Craig. Craig came from a strong theatre background and was/is a character actor. He had to begged to accept the role compared to Brosnan who was practically gagging for it. The talent Craig's involvement has been able to attract is something the Brosnan era never could have dreamed of.
Which is why I find it strange that Dan let certain things slip through the net in SF. A lot of his one liners aren't delivered with conviction, I don't believe in him when he tosses them off, the 'deep water' line in particular. Given the fact that Babs wants to listen to him, I'd find it interesting to know if he was genuinely keen for lines like that to remain in there, or if he contemplated the idea that they were something 'his Bond' wouldn't really say. Perhaps Mendes overruled on that front? He made reference to injecting some of the old irony, which they did do really well in parts of SF, particularly opposite Q, which is why I'm even more baffled that they went down the clunky one liner route. I just don't buy an actor of Dan's calibre delivering the 'deep water' line during such an emotional climax and not stopping to say to Mendes, 'Does this really work?' I feel similarly about the Komodo Dragon scene, I wonder whether he read that in the script and thought, 'hmmm', I don't imagine the DC pre-SF believing in that moment.
However, I do get a sense that he is more keen, as is Mendes, to bring some familiarity back to the franchise. I wonder whether this is simply because he's not getting any younger and the conviction he held for going in a 'different direction' was more appealing in his late thirties, than it is a decade on? We were suggesting the other day that SF and perhaps SP, from the looks of it, have one eye on the future and one on the past, where it could be argued CR and even QoS were largely forward facing. I think this dichotomy is perhaps where we as fans differ in opinion. It seems there are fans who really want and desire a smattering of the familiar, where others want a real change of direction again. This for me is where the discussion is quite interesting.
But the DB5 was indeed important to the plot. It was the only thing Bond could trust that couldn't be tracked. It wasn't something Silva would have had on his radar (so to speak). This why Q was able to leave the breadcrumbs. Thus, the car works on two levels: to propel the plot, but also as a symbol, of a simpler time (Connery's time?) that eventually gets blown up.
The idea of the DB5 being the one from CR is fine. The one from GF, total nonsense.
Plus it's back in SP, so the destructive symbolism seems rather redundant anyhow.
Can't go anywhere without learning something new about Spectre!!
Was it in the teaser? I haven't watched it. If yes, fine. If no, I think I'm just going to leave this community until November.
Pictures were posted showing them shooting it
At risk of being melodramatic, this'll be my last post here. I figured there'd be some safe threads, but I'm sure 99% of people don't care about knowing this stuff before the movie comes out anyhow.
I should have seen stuff like this coming, obviously, being amongst Bond discussions but had naively hoped I could keep the contents of the film a mystery/surprise by being careful about the threads I go into.
Anyway, carry on!
I find that the snobbiest attitude towards Bond these days is "The Bond Theme has been done to death, don't use it anymore". To me it's so weird to think that that I think it's more a kind of rationalization of the alleged Thomas Newman's wish to indeed not use it at all. It's like the Gunbarrel debate, but even more pure: "SF music is the best music because it is far more complex than this Bond theme for kids". Interestingly, CR's does not use it either, except for that most iconic moment at the end. The CR ending is the example of the magic button being hit once again : it "should look" like a parody - iconic line, iconic music, product placement with that phone,.. - it looks like Mendes moviemaking two movies before, but here it works. There's no logical explanation IMO.
I realize now I have not yet read anywhere about who made this strong creative decision not to use the Bond theme in CR except for the end. EON, Arnold, Campbell ? On the other hand, the alleged tension between EON and Thomas Newman was reported quite a lot (hence the fact a few here that are usually "in the know", claimed Newman simply could not come back), and we're supposed to "know" that some Bond theme cues appear hear and there in SF only because EON insisted a lot (like for that GE tank scene). Or was it just Mendes copying the CR trick to keep the Bond theme for that SF DB5 moment ?
I though about all this while watching the new SW trailers : John Williams here seems a key part in the marketing. Contrary to the snobbery hypothesis, I think hardcore SW fans are very, very happy he's back, even if "everybody loves it".
I didn't mean to suggest that it was. The use of the DB5 had two purposes. 1. On one level, it's an old car (perhaps the one that Bond won in the Bahamas) that Silva doesn't know anything about; that's plot; 2. On a symbolic level, represents old Bond (for the movie audience); that's the irony.
As for destructive symbolism, that was its purpose in SF. If used in SP, who knows what it's supposed to represent, if anything at all.
I know as little about SP as I can get away with so very much feel the same you do when ambushed by unrestricted spoiler information but have along the way already seen the reference RC7 refers to. I don't think the DB5 really has absolutely anything to do SP so nothing is spoiled here. I wouldn't use this as a reason to become a mi6community recluse.
Have you not watched the teaser trailer then - that takes an iron will!?
Now I've said this in a couple of other threads, so forgive me if you're reading my message again, but I really miss the days when M sent Bond just on his mission and told him:
"This is not a personal vendetta 007. It's an assignment like any other. And if you can't handle it as such, coldly and objectively, then 008 can replace you."
The melodramatic themes should be put more to the background and interwoven, like in the novels, instead of driving the plot like they do nowadays. That's why SF loses it's appeal IMO. Can't stand going through all that drama again while having 'old irony' stuffed down my throat...
It was intended to be the car from CR, as written by P&W - logical. Mendes wanted it to be the GF DB5, for symbolic reasons - illogical. I get the idea of the symbolism in this film, but frankly there are more subtle ways of doing it. Even the Brosnan films steered clear of making the DB5 the gadget-laden GF model. All that aside, I do have a problem with them using the DB5, period, whichever version.
Our fellow member @JWESTBROOK puts together a good argument for why we need to put this to bed now.
http://beyondjamesbond.kinja.com/james-bond-and-the-aston-martin-db5-are-killing-each-ot-1692365259
What P&W came up with made sense and was a nice touch. Mendes' change sort reminds me of Tamahori's idea of using an invisible car...
Scientist "
James Bond would have lasted just seven minutes into his last movie Skyfall before succumbing to fatal wounds from a uranium shot"
fact is sometimes you got to bend reality to make exciting cinema, after all Cinema was designed as a way to escape monotonous life because its boring. You can nit pick but someone said it best, fans want different things from the films, so want the old pastiche lines, some want to move away from this. Mendes, Babs Mike and DC all have to find a balance to try to keep everyone happy. There are moments which make you cringe but what about the great lines.
Kincade: [after shooting two of Silva's men dead] Welcome to Scotland!
James Bond: I read your obituary of me.
M: And?
James Bond: Appalling.
M: Yeah, I knew you'd hate it. I did call you "an exemplar of British fortitude".
James Bond: That bit was all right.
Raoul Silva: Just look at you, barely held together by your pills and your drink.
James Bond: Don't forget my pathetic love of country.
Not every line or every second will appeal to you, but you need to remember those moments are in there to satisfy fans who expect it, who like their Bond experience different from yours.
Yes, naturally it could work as a personal vehicle, particularly with him having won it in CR, rather than splashing out more cash than he ever would in his lifetime, but Mendes screwed it with SF, as you say the attitude and train of thought is along the lines of the invisible car. I actually have a sneaking suspicion the idea that this is a Q-Branch car rather than a personal vehicle will be alluded to in SP.
I'd love them to bring in the idea of his personal car being his pride and joy. We see him tinkering in his garage, but I feel that ship has sailed this era. Maybe next time.
Would be a nice touch if it was a Bentley the car Fleming had him drive in the novels. As for the DB5 this caused a great debate before on the AJB forum that someone went to the extraordinary lengths of calling Aston Martin and speaking to a lead engineer. They questions was asked;
As the vehicle in Casino Royale was a left hand drive, and the one in Skyfall was a right hand drive, would it have been possible to switch the drivers side?
Aston Martin's engineer responded advising that due to the under the hood layout it would be possible however the cost of doing so would be atleast £150,000 to £200,000. It was concluded that it was unlike the SF DB5 was the same one Bond won in CR.
However someone quite rightly pointed out at the time, the SF vehicle has all the Goldfinger gadgets, so there is every chance the Goldfinger mission if it had taken place in modern times could have been between Casino and Skyfall. Hence Bond won it in Casino, had it shipped to the UK and Q branch kitted it out for Goldfinger.
It's nearly impossible to try to fit the car into the timelines we have in the Bond series without having a laugh and going crazy. If we're really serious about it, we would then have to account for how Bond lost about 5 feet in between GF & SF, became blond, and time-warped from the 60's into 2012 without aging more than 10 yrs. Not to mention the codeword theory cropping up again, because MP existed in GF, but strangely was reintroduced in SF.
Primarily it's there to market the film.
Agreed.
It's just not worth trying to think too much about it and fit it into any hypothetical timelines. It makes no sense and was just put in to get a rise out of people (which it definitely succeeded in doing - positively for some, and negatively for others).
I do find it unfortunate that they keep using the DB5 though. While it's certainly iconic, I I personally would have preferred if Bond's personal car in that storage locker was a rare British racing green Bentley (although that would have created comparisons with Steed) or an E-Type Jag, or something even rarer, like a Triumph or Jensen.
You're right though - it was a marketing move that paid off handsomely.
Thank you very much @RC7! I'm genuinely chuffed. I think the key bit from my article is this ( but I encourage all to read the whole thing if you haven't yet :> )
"Do you see the problem? From 1964 to 1994, a span of forty years and sixteen films, the DB5 only appeared twice, in consecutive outings. From 1995 to 2015, a span of twenty years and seven films, the DB5 has appeared five times. That is a change from being in 12% of films up to 1994 to being in 71% of films from 1994. The car is almost six times more likely to be in a Bond film today than it was twenty years ago."
There is a minor spoiler at the end though: