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
Hey, at least we'd be guaranteed a Bond movie every two years.
I doubt it, he's got lots of Marvel films to make!
Along with Marvel, he is also starting some Star Wars projects, both film and Disney +.
On the other hand: Bond and Marvel now compete in the same space. They're both global tent-pole franchises that straddle the blockbuster/quality film divide.
(Whether that's a category that continues to exist post-COVID is a different debate.)
And Feige, whether you like him or not, delivers product. Marvel has consistently turned out solid movies and sold a lot of tickets under his watch. Insofar as EON decided to go for an overarching/interconnected narrative during the Craig era, I think Feige has done a better job of that piece. EON's approach was much more ad-hoc, whereas Marvel has clearly sat down and created a master plan of the narrative elements they want each film to introduce.
Anyway, I digress.
That was basically the point I was making. Whether you like Marvel movies or not, Feige has orchestrated a series of prolific releases that have been generally well-regarded by fans and critics. I wouldn't be completely thrilled if he was behind the Bond franchise, but like you said - he delivers product. I'd be tempted to have someone like him take the wheel because at least we'd get consistent releases.
There are some huge differences between Marvel and Bond, though, as one is obviously centered around a single character. Marvel is more closely aligned with the Star Wars universe, where the branching off is also creating multiple characters and storylines.
I may be wrong on this point, but it also seems that Marvel's source material has allowed it to have a plan. The films and characters are intertwined and work very well.
Bond can't compete on that scale and probably shouldn't. I do agree in essence that EON had a mistake by taking a page from Marvel and making DC's era a single arc--but doing so after three movies. They retrofitted it, and it doesn't quite work.
Sure, there is MGM (and I don't really get the role and level of input they have) but I would assume Disney gives a lot more input into Marvel Studios, than the external input Eon get. I could be wrong of course.
I think the aimless nature of the Craig era is mostly down to the regaining of the SPECTRE and Blofeld properties in 2012, and perhaps feeling pressured to shoehorn them into what they were already establishing with Quantum, etc.
Thanks for sharing as had not seen this before! :-bd Have to ask as i do not know? Is Barbara Broccoli ok? She looks to me like she has gone very thin in the face?
I think she's just lost some weight.
Possibly, but it could have been handled much more organically, with a more measured, mysterious introduction of Blofeld, possibly done over more than one film. Quantum could have been revealed to be a branch, or upstart rival, of SPECTRE.
I've always thought that a opening to the third film would have been that worldwide all of the known members of QUANTUM have been killed, eliminated by someone; this would have lead to SPECTRE.
Absolutley, 100% agree; I think I've even voiced this near exact thought more than once on these boards. This more measured route to revealing/introducing SPECTRE would have been much more effective.
Agreed. I wish they had just done a less in-your-face approach to Quantum being a part of SPECTRE; rather than having all the main villains from previous films be individual arms of the Octopus, they should have just had Quantum be one of the "arms", and they were operating however they pleased up until that point. They could have used the other "arms" as nods to other villainous goings-on in the Bond universe (maybe one of the arms could have alluded to Drax, Shatterhand, Zorin, etc).
Yes, especially since the arc is unnecessary. Really, we had two sets of tandem films (CR/QoS and SP/NTTD) bridged by SF. The first set is young, reckless Bond. The second set is older, more grizzled Bond. The two sets mirror each other in many ways: Bond is haunted by his love for a woman while dealing with a secret, sinister organization. All the while, SF acts to lead us from one to the other.
Overall, I have thoroughly enjoyed the DC era, but to connect all five films was a bit of a mistake.
Honestly, I don't mind the general thought that they are connected. Two things that bother me:
1. The unnecessary brother angle, which NTTD might make even more infuriating by ignoring it altogether. I don't know how they could do it, but I would prefer it if they somehow gave us a reason for the connection to be there in the first place. I think others here are more of the opinion that it should never be brought up again.
2. Pulling SF into all of this. You rightly said that there are clear connections between CR, QoS and SP (the Mr. White Trilogy, if you will) that will be extended in NTTD. SF is basically a completely different thing apart from the personnel situation at MI6 (M, Q and Moneypenny). Silva is retconned as having a SPECTRE connection, but there is no indication of that in SF itself. Silva is such an incredible villain with such personal and psychotic motives, that his being a subsidiary of SPECTRE diminishes him, even though it is good Bond tradition to have every villain, no matter how independent they are, have some connection to SMERSH/SPECTRE.
That movie to me is this weird little gem inside this bigger arc that doesn't fit into the rest of it at all. It is all about aging and heritage and being obsolete and last stands and somehow it is the middle point of a five-movie arc? I prefer to think of it as it's own thing that kind of stands to the side of the rest of the Craig era. Especially, when they now seem to rehash some of the "old Bond" points with the last film of the actor's run, as they should.
Yeah. That's it. And the aging and being obsolete thing would have even suited NTTD more, since he's coming back after leaving service. And maybe SF and SP should have continued to show him as the extremely aggressive 007 he was in CR & QoS, even if he introduced himself as Bond in CR's final scene.
I think no matter what the plot of NTTD is or how it's handled, one thing that's certain is, it's going to be a return to CR & QoS' type of action....like right in our faces, which is what we expect from Craig's Bond. So that's already a positive sign for NTTD. NTTD could still be the perfect culmination of Craig's Bond, maybe that's why it has such a lengthy runtime.
It happened. 1954.
The only clue, connecting SF and SP (which is kind of interesting), is Silva's use of sugar skulls in his computer messages to M.
SPECTRE is a natural connection and later reveal. It wouldn't serve the focus of the Skyfall story, also understanding the rights weren't available at the time.
And the skulls are quite a visual connection as pointed out.
After a pause Blofeld would reply, “ No.....he was brilliant, but too, impulsive; SPECTRE values discipline”.
This is all that had to be mentioned of these characters; it would have loosely tied them to Blofeld without becoming convoluted. Mention them then move on.
It took over a month, but finally, the third book arrived yesterday. Many thanks to @marketto007 @mtm @Torgeirtrap @MattiaDeVarti007 Well done guys.
Love it!
A very in depth article from production sound mixer Simon Hayes about the Norwegian leg of the shoot.