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
Most people on the street, anywhere in the world, probably don't think in these terms, my man...
They go to see NTTD or Wick or M:I or Maverick, or Batman...coz they LIKE these films... Some of these audiences cross over because these groups of people enjoy a certain GENRE of film...
I seriously doubt the filmmakers behind M:I and JOHN WICK have been looking at Craig’s films and thinking “wow, they’re not delivering classic Bond adventures, let’s take advantage of that and show those Bond filmmakers how it’s REALLY done!”
This is in spite of the fact that both have heavily borrowed aspects from Craig films more than fans are willing to admit. Hell, JOHN WICK’s entire visual aesthetic is based off of SKYFALL’s neon driven Shanghai sequence “hey, let’s do what they did there and do MORE of that!”
And you know what? That’s great! It shows that Craig’s films have had an impact on cinema. Bond fans say they want Bond films to be the one setting trends rather than follow them. Well, here you go!
Exactly if you asked them what classic bond was they probably wouldn't know what you where talking about that era isn't coming back either
Only one of those was any good though, and it ran out of steam in the last series or so.
Yes @zb007 … Sit some of these modern audiences in front of Dr No and they wouldn’t know what to do. They’d be on their phone inside of three minutes.
That argument that Mendes made really was kinda plucked out of thin air.
I’ll actually provide a slight pushback to this statement in saying that I’ve shown friends both Dr. No, and From Russia With Love and they’ve enjoyed them throughly. Though for the most part, the modern audience doesn’t have the knack for films like that anymore. One friend told me he doesn’t watch movies made before 2000, it was sort of cringe worthy.
Are you saying that making a bond film like TSWLM but updated for the 2020's would be a huge flop today?
As far as I can see, that's exactly what the audience is looking for - some fun no holds barred escapism.
What makes you think they don’t want another CR or SF?
It was also very much a twist on them rather than replicating the format; plus the budget was clearly a lot lower.
I thought they were good fun though.
John Wick is a four film series that tells an interconnected story which ends
MOD EDIT: Please spoiler tag such things in the future.
But you’re 💯 % that sounds an awful lot like the Craig Era of Bond films vs the Classic Era (and what is the Classic Era now? Just Connery? Connery/Laz/Moore? Connery/Laz/Moore/Dalton?)….
😂 😂 😂
I also, admittedly, can’t stand the leading man, so combined with the spectacle that they are— that give me short term memory loss— I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how hard I tried in the past, I’m just not a fan and wouldn’t want Bond going in their direction.
Bond is a great cinematic character that actors play, whereas M:I is Tom Cruise doing awesome stunts. In my opinion, Ethan Hunt hasn’t existed since the first film.
And number 3 is my favourite (realizing that it seems to be the least of the series, what does that say about me, 😂?).
No matter how flawed Spectre is, I’d still watch it over any M:I film… that’s not me being hyperbolic, it’s just the plain, boring truth.
Oh I definitely don’t fault their technical wizardry, there’s no arguing that point. The talent behind the cameras is the best in the biz.
But where they all jumble up to me is in the narratives. They are visually exciting, but I actually think they fail in the storytelling. I literally jumble the films after the third one. And that makes sense in some ways as they seem to construct a “story” around the set pieces they’ve decided to shoot.
Considering that Number 3, to me, actually has a script, a story, characters with clear motivations, no wonder it’s my favourite.
After this is what I remember about the films following the third one:
Climbing the tower in Dubai, a sandstorm and the original Blomkvist as a villain and a fight in a parking garage— I think?
An underwater sequence where Cruise claimed to hold his breath for 15 weeks (I kid), Henry Cavill and a bathroom fight scene, Angela Basset and Alec Baldwin, a BMW chase, breaking into something in Moscow, Paula Patton fighting Madeleine Swann… there are other scenes that flash thru my head, but I honestly wouldn’t be able to tell you if these scenes happened in films four five or six— or however many they’re up to.
Once again, I should have emphasized the talent behind the camera to make the spectacle work, are the best of the best, but the stories, as much as I can call them that, are either so meaningless, my brain shuts down, or I’m an idiot (and I wouldn’t get in a fight with the latter, but im quite sure the actual stories come quite secondary to the visual set pieces…).
The stories aren't deep, but neither are they in Bond. But here they work, where in something like Spectre the story just sort of falls apart. He knows how to construct these things perfectly.
Something I love about Ghost Protocol was that I was watching the Blu Ray the other day and there's a deleted scene where the characters all describe a plot which is actually very different to that of the finished film! They had the big set pieces all mapped out but the script was unfinished, and left it until the studio shoot later in the process to work out precisely how they all joined up, because the indoors bits are basically where the exposition happens. And I don't think it shows in the finished film at all, and to do that on the fly shows some serious experience about how a story locks together.