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
I'm not really sure which is my favrouite DC film, might be time to give QOS another look!
Keep us posted if you do.
You have to realize when speaking of a films presence, and overall popularity, you have to put aside the Bond fan mentality, Book series, etc to gather an accurate account of the consensus of the viewers and general fans.
Skyfall is slowly falling in popularity.
Even I'm not a fan of the new gritty/grunge Bond films, lacking wit and gadgets.
BUT, I think this next Bond film will set the new tone after establishing the story in Skyfall. I bet the next Bond film will great change the lowering popularity of Skyfall with a fresh story. Then people will love to go back and see where it all started with M, Q, Moneypenny etc.
So, I say hold tight. No worries.
I don't mean to come across as rude, but I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I'm here in the States, too, and the consensus I tend to hear is CR>SF>QOS.
I suspect his study sample is, shall we say, limited.
Craig rather should be singing the praises of Connery and those who pioneered this great series, not acting like 50 years after the fact, he can suddenly do it all so much better. Am I overreacting. No I don't think I am.
The Craig film series has taken pains to distance itself from the great films of the classic era. (no opening gunbarrel, minimal barely traceable use of the JB music theme during the film, little jibes scattered here and there...).
The new series only grudgingly pays lip service through cheesy homages (GF car suddenly brought back to life, along with the long lost JB music Theme, not coincidentally dusted off for trumpeting during this segment. God forbid it taint the "dramatic masterpiece" that surrounds this interlude).
I engage the Craig films for what they are - an alternative take on the Bond character and its film presentation but I do think there is a subtext to these films which screams....at long last Bond is being done correctly. Yawn.
Whoa!! Copies of the B24 script have already leaked.
Anyway, Whedon IMO would make a superb Bond writer-director. He loves the series. He homaged it regularly in Buffy and Angel. The Whedon approach would not attempt a superior approach, it would be an oh so respectful, celebratory approach- both homaging and complementing the 20 film canon that preceded.
He would expand on the legacy and revel in it.
It would be wonderful thing, rivaling even his brilliant take on Marvel's The Avengers, and there would be Bond girls galore, the most imaginative villains, colourful creative plotting, smart dialogue...so good.
Yes, there is this, but I think there may be other more diabolical motives >:) afoot too.
The fact you've questioned yourself suggests, yes, you are overreacting. What have you seen to make such a wild assumption? If anything I'd say Craig is overly sincere and reverent in his approach. He knows what has gone before, respects it, and attempts to deliver something fresh. If you don't like Craig, fine, but don't start hammering the guy based on a sum-total of no evidence.
Craig may have a grudging respect for what came before but it does seem that he thinks he can do it better than Sean...more than just fresh,actually better. That's the vibe I pick up.
And I do find it somewhat disconcerting...there seems to be a lack of humility....ie how many times have we seen in all sort of other walks of life, when one picks up the mantle from greatness that has preceded...that the successor dutifully sings the praises of the brilliance that preceded...and humbly states aspirations of only hoping to reasonably approximate or do homage to the legacy inherited..maybe add their own humble contributions, and hope to be worthy of the responsiblities now born by their shoulders etc.
So I have got to say: Love this thread
With all due respect, it seems like you're talking out of your backside. If you can show me 'evidence', rather than 'vibes', on Craig being this apparent egotist, then I can at least consider your argument. As it stands most of it seems to be fabrication on your part. I've never seen any posturing from Craig and given his conversations with Mendes about their favourite Bond films of the past, I don't see where your vitriol is derived from.
What would benefit Craig IMHO of course, and maybe coming from backside too, you never know,would be for Craig to do a Bond film film with Whedon or possibly Christopher Nolan or even Tarantino. --ie directors whose approach would be to do something worthy of the original Connery films. All three of these directors are serious fans of the original classics. They would be aspiring to do something that might compare favourably ( albeit with their own unique stamps all over the finished product) but not something superior. That is my opinion.
In the Craig films, not so much CR, but the last two, I do see attempts to distance and separate from the original films.
The two brazen GF homages, oil girl and resurrected DB5, are so OTT as to be almost insulting to the originals.
What would be more desirable to us diehard fans of the classics would be films made in the spirit of the originals. I am not seeing that in the last two efforts, not in the broadstrokes anyway.
Craig IMO is trying to do something very different. I don't have to like it and I don't, so there...harrumph. [-(
That said, as I've said many times, I can enjoy the Craig films for what they are, darker alternative takes on Bond filmmaking, but they are not what I want.
I do think the Craig films would be better if they actually had just gone all in, and didn't try to reference the previous films - ie lose the selfconscious, half-hearted attempts at token continuity and go whole hog on dark and drama Bond.
They might come up with something very different and very good, in its own different way.
I can see where he's coming from. From what I've seen people over here don't revile QoS as the British seem to.
Good job you're not writing a thesis on it. I think I'll agree to disagree, but thanks anyway.
Bond is about real spy tactics, espionage, grit and realism, not stupid gadgets, ridiculous storylines and Roger Moore having sex with everything that moves.
So I'm split about Skyfall. Good film, but maybe it's the first step in taking the Bond films in a direction that they should never be taken again.
I'm not sure that's true is it? There are many larger than life Bond films that banked a packet at the B.O. Plus, why are you using QoS as an example, when SF banked almost twice its gross?
For some people, including a good deal of the general public, Bond is defined as, women, cars, gadgets, stunts, villains etc. Roger left an indelible mark, some people would rather forget it, but you can't ignore the fact he provided a definitive cinematic version of James Bond.
Well.... yes I can.
Aside from Spy and to an extent FYEO, Moore's films are the most derided in the series, and there's no denying he was far too old. His acting abilities were summed up in one word - 'eyebrows'. In any case the 'definitive cinematic version of James Bond' was definitely Connery, no question.
Not really. LTK may have flopped, but that was due to poor marketing and releasing it against other action films with much bigger explosions, and plus the Bond films were at their least popular in the eighties. Moonraker was the highest grossing film of the series until 1995 because loads of Star Wars fans went to see it, and pretty much everyone hates Moonraker (except me, ironically).
Because the producers couldn't tell the future. They didn't know when they were making Skyfall that Skyfall would become incredibly successful.
To me, the darkest of Craig's films have swung to the polar opposite of the lightest of Moore's films. And in that light, SF is Craig's MR.
True, you can. But you'd only be kidding yourself. I said that Moore provided 'a' definitive cinematic version of James Bond, not 'the' definitive. Roger Moore's Bond films have done a tremendous amount to define and ultimately cement the legacy of the franchise.
Clutching at straws here. Even DAD trumped the more 'realistic' TWINE. All that aside, I hate the 'gritty realism' argument. No Bond films are, or should be, real. I'm suspicious of people who bring up this argument. What've you been doing for the last 40 years? Waiting for a faithful Fleming while basking in the light of contrarianism?
I don't understand this comment. Are you implying they knew how QoS would do?
That's right, originality is what's lacking in many films. I've always said that when DC is not trying to pay homage or emulate Sean Connery and makes Bond his own as he did in CR and QoS, what we get is a quality film which attracts many fans along with those wanting to just watch James Bond. It not only adds variety and avoids the predictable formula but it also keeps the series surviving. If it wasn't for CR or QoS, SF may have never been made as DAD was simply a money-machine flick.
Are you implying Craig is channeling Connery in SF?
Let's continue : Am I the only one to think Craig's performance in Layer Cake (who some said did a lot to get him on the producers' radar) somehow shows him handling the deadly/serious/irony/fun spectrum of the Bond role actually more than in any Bond movie ? In the Bond role, I sometimes feel he's having some weight on his shoulders. I think if he had been the first Bond, he would have been a bit more light... And with Skyfall, the weight is even more present, the funny lines seemed forced indeed, but in Layer Cake the same Craig would have delivered them well IMO. If Bond 24 continues more in that direction, Skyfall may be known later as the beginning of the Madame Tussaud period ?
Oh, btw, In Layer Cake, Bond and Q are looking at something sexier than some boats :)
PS : Note that, as a French, I'm not much influenced by the accents the English actors have in their various roles. So in Layer Cake, I'm probably not hearing the same as you hear. Accents are something foreigners never get. If an English viewer hear a French actor using an accent from Marseilles, for instance, I don't know what he'll think, but I'm sure it will not sound as easy-going as it immediately sounds to a French ear. I definitely hear Craig does not sound at all the same in Skyfall and in Layer Cake, but it has not a great impact on the performance for me.
What i don't understand is why you find it a bad thing Craig wants to up the ante a bit when it comes to Connery. We all want our sports stars to win the gold medal, so why shouldn't Craig try to surpass Connery? I mean, personally I don't believe that's what he's trying to do, I think he's trying to do his best to put every last effort he has in him to make his Bond work, but even if he did, what's wrong with it?
Mendes is a huge Bond fan, so why wouldn't he be up for the job? If you ask me the chances you'd get a good Bondfilm out of Tarantino would be nil. Yes, he's a huge fan. But he's also a huge fan of OTT films (and made some himself). Too many homages? Perhaps, but Tarantino would probably do as many as there are in DAD. I found that Mendes did them right: invisible to those who are new to the films, and nice nods for those who'd seen them all. They're all usefull in the films.
You say they want to throw all the old stuff out? why is M in a classic office then? I just don't buy it. Exploding pen is out but he still gets the handpalmreading gun? Perhaps then they're not saying LTK is better then GE, but perhaps they're saying 'out with the gadgets. nah, just kidding'.
But, you know, I like the more spythriller, darker feel to these movies. And to answer the question that started this thread: I think SF's wow-effect has worked off by now. I've always loved QoS, but I think SF is better. As is CR. I think all three are very good films.
This is the method that will serve the best interest of the producers, lead actor DC, potential new Bond fans, mpvie critics, and add a little variety for Bond fans especially now after 50 years. The credibility of Bond films can stand on its own two feet instead of relying on marketing and sponsorships too much. DC is a very talented actor as we all know, when he makes Bond his own he gets out of Connery's shadow and leads on instead of wasting time trying to emulate. It's important to use DC's drama talent to bring them into a story. Vesper, Camille, Quantum provided stories that one could get into and open doors for both fans and non-fans alike.
I'm not sure we watched the same film, if I'm being quite honest. DC's performance in SF was as good as it gets. If you don't like his little quips, that's fair enough, most aren't delivered with the brevity and panache of a Moore or Connery. But to suggest his actual performance is anything less than brilliant completely baffles me. So, as for using his talent to open doors for both fans and non-fans alike, I'd say SF scores relatively highly. You don't gross $1bn at the B.O. without decent word of mouth.
Transformers.