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
whilst i agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion anyone who makes the following comment in there post does not deserve the right and does not deserve to review any film
"but I'll easily torrent it off pirate bay perhaps"
The real answer to the first statement is that she had a 7 picture deal. The whole reboot/timeline thing will drive you crazy if you try to overly rationalize it all. Obviously EON wasn't going to pay her out and get a new M for a new era, and obviously Bain is right in that they were pleased with her performances as best as the scripts she got would allow.
Statement #2, I'm as much of a traditionalist as anyone after 44 years. But this "because she's a lady" sounds like someone is blaming Barb and her feminism for M's expanded role, which really you find only in TWINE and her last 3 roles. I'll go back to point #1 here, it's a matter of dollars and sense as we Americans would say. She's getting paid big money and they wanted her on screen earning it.
Here's the real question regarding Fiennes and his new M. Like Dench, he isn't doing this on the cheap. So judging by what's already come, does anyone really expect the role of M will not continue to be a larger part of the movie than it was during Lee and Brown's time? The answer for me is that I would not expect M returning to the Fleming template. They're not spending a small fortune for Fiennes to be a bit player like Harris and Whishaw's roles. He's going to be in quite a few scenes. And if it's well written, like Dench's roles in GE and SF were, does it really, truly matter? Or is it OK because M is a male again?
I thought this was a place for disappointed SF viewers, why are people discussing Brosnan? That era short of Dench has very little to do with SF or the Craig era in general, and thank you for that. I don't think I could have taken one more Brosnan film after DAD. This era has been rays of sunshine at dawn following the pitch black of the all night storm from 1999 to 2002. All I need now is the gunbarrel at the beginning and a babe in the end, and all is completely well. I choose not to be a pessimist and think that the SF ending was anything less than a signal that normalcy will mostly return, the more I analyze the last 3 films the more I see that EON has recognized this and built towards it. You have to throw some twists in to keep things fresh. I think Cubby would have recognized that as well.
I hope we do get this. SF was great but it still felt like they were trying to finish off the reboot, I am hoping for a normal Bond film for Bond 24.
I agree. That the Bond character still didn't feel quite complete is one of two issues I had with this film. No babe in the end was the other. Bond was gone a few months and they played it like he was rusty as in years. I didn't like the insinuation that he was getting old and losing his touch. Especially in context with the leeway they gave Sir Roger. He goes from a rookie to this? This will be a major turnoff for me if this continues. I just want Craig now to be all the Bond everyone else was allowed to be and carry the ball forward, and by the end it appeared that this is what we'll be getting. So I can't see another reason to delay the full normalcy any longer with the Dench era over.
Z, being a pessimist doesn't quite suit you ;)
Just keeping it real ;-)
If you have read my review, you would notice that I am quite optimistic regarding Bond 24. The last scene in SF gives me a lot of hope. So does ditching Purvis and Wade. Instead we get one screenwriter -the same guy who pinned two of my favorite movies, 'Gladiator' and 'The Last Samurai'. So I am very optimistic.
I think Dench always got a lot of screen time because of pre-release reports. Because the villains and girls in the Brosnan era were so drear, often you'd get people praising Dench as M, singling her out, so the producers would think, 'Hey, lets give them more of her in the future...' especially as they've always struggled to find new villains for Bond to come up against in the new era of movies.
Hence we get increasingly M-centric movies.
As for the timeline, there isn't one. Not now. My boss went to see the film this week, and liked it despite the projector breaking down twice (the bulb went). When I said I wasn't crazy about it, mentioning the plot holes such as Bond getting shot and falling hundreds of feet and surviving, no mention of the wound, she exclaimed: 'He's Bond though - he's indestructible!' I then went on to mention that Craig is surely meant to be a more realistic Bond - but felt I was making a rather pedantic point, as if giving an imdb review at a cocktail party. It reminded me of a flatmate of mine, intelligent and earning more than me, would come home a bit wasted and drunk and reveal how she'd found herself giving a blow job to the company director... Anyway, she had DAD in her DVD collection and said she loved it. 'The best bit? When the ice melts and he goes parasurfing!' When I had to say that was the worst bit in the entire Bond series, she said 'Yeah, but it's so out there it's what Bond would do!'
And there you have it. That's how many folk see Bond. If you featured an Aston Martin DB5, and it doesn't have any gadgets like an ejector seat or guns, they would think it odd, after all, that's what his car has, surely? They just don't see it the way others do, they are reading the film in an entirely different way.
But the reason everyone fell in love with the films in the first place was because Bond became this indestructible creature who could run, jump, shoot, ski, surf, drive, fly and parachute better than anyone else. He is a funny, charming womaniser who knows everything about sherry, caviar, exotic fish and butterflies.
There is nothing Bond can't pilot, sail or drive when need be and that's why we love him, because he is so ridiculously clever and adaptable.
So why shouldn't Bond fall 100 feet and survive? He can do everything else we can't do, so that's a piece of cake.
I want my Bond to be that bit more amazing than any other man, it's why I watched them in the first place. And any amount of nit picking over SF's plot won't change that desire.
I've enjoyed these bulding Bond journey stories far more than anything else is the franchise (with the exception of a brief interlude late 90's with Dalton). Yes, they even beat the 60's classics with Connery.
Although nothing will ever beat the novels...... ;)
I don't know about anyone else. But I don't really want Bond to be fighting with armies to stop Blofeld type villains anymore. I want to see the Bond of the Books, Flemings vision. Craig's Bond is now Built. I'm excited to see what he does next, and maybe we can have a movie where Bond and Felix team up. ;)
I prefer the films to the books anyway.
The way I see it, Each actor should have a different theme to their Bond. If they go inconsistent halfway through their tenure then It starts to fade. Brosnan's films were always inconsistent. First it was a serious then not so serious then extremely serious to extremely outrageous. They don't necessarily have to follow the books, but the established Bond in his tenure should always be consistent. so for me, I'd like the rest of Craig's movies to have that gritty edge.
I do think there is a difference between Bond's ability to survive no matter the odds against him and showing him going through a fall that in reality would have killed him. I think the line has been crossed in SF. They did a similar thing at the start of GE with the awful plane stunt (one of the many reasons I can't stand GE). I find it odd on a Bond forum that it's necessary to make this point. Bond cannot fly, he cannot see through walls, he cannot lift large objects using psychic powers - this is the stuff of X-men, where it works well and is part of a different world. Bond is mortal man. If he is shot, falls a 100m in a river and is then dragged downstream and sinks to the bottom of a river, he dies. And yet in SF he doesn't. It is a major mistake by EON and a huge departure from previous films where (with the exception of GE) where the realms of plausibility were stretched, but never compeltely exceeded. I think Mendes also lazily bought this theory that Bond is a superhero and can survive anything - once the character becomes this terminator type person we lose any sense of danger for him. Already DC's Bond had this rather dull terminator air about him. Now he really is indestructable. They should drop a truck om him next time or nuke him or something and then show him getting up and popping his cuffs.
Come to think of it. He increasingly resembles Jaws.
DN and FRWL fairly serious, Goldfinger and Thunderball were sort of a middle ground, YOLT was light hearted fun, DAF was stupid.
LALD and TMWTGG, TSWLM was a middle ground, MR was really OTT, FYEO was serious, OP was a middle ground, AVTAK was sort of a mix I suppose.
TLD was serious with some light hearted moments, LTK had light hearted moments too but it was much more violent and gritty.
GE was a middle ground, TND was fun, TWINE was serious with bits of comedy, DAD was really OTT.
CR was serious with a little bit of comedy, QOS was more serious with just one or two funny lines, SF was a middle ground.
CR rebooted the series in a serious manner, they got rid of all the nonsense, stupid jokes, unnecessary kiddy gadgets and the usual cliched villain. CR brought Bond back down to Earth and I loved it. We saw Bond bleed, we saw him get tortured, we saw him get his heart broke, we saw him mature and overcome obstacles of mistrust, anger and inexperience in his work. It was a movie with emotion, passion, great a action when necessary and over all a fantastically written script . Daniel in CR was to the point and made Bond a menacing, brute force hitman but at the same time he instilled a sense of warmth within his personality that made him.likeable.
After seeing CR I finally thought to myself, "Dear God EON finally did it, they made the perfect Bond, a bond movie that could both appease the Bond Fleming Fans and the Bond Cinema fans. Again after seeing CR I assumed the bond franchise was finally heading into a new direction that would be gritty, darker and overall more serious. But after seeing Skyfail all of my expectations of that have completely disappeared. I feel as if skyfail was a script written for Pierce Brosnan, rather than Daniel Craig. I also feel like EON felt rushed and introduced the classic characters like Q, Moneypenny and the new M in too quickly/sloppfully just for the pure reason of the anniversary , rather than taking the time to incorporate them into a well-crafted story that truly could have introduced them in a more original fashion.
I feel like the reboot era of Craig is slowly turning the clocks back and is entering into a route already taken with Brosnan. It amazes me how so many people on here praise skyfail? seriously how?
I could go on and on but its pointless, anyways I'm going to cook some stew.
Well let's see, everyone has different tastes than you, everyone didn't see what you saw. everyone can like whatever they want even if you hated it. I guess it boils down to that people aren't the same as you.
In other words....you want a cartoon character. Why not just watch a Hana Barbera cartoon.?
No, Bond films have always been the way I describe..always!
Why don't you rent out some John Le Carre adaptations and wallow in misery.
Your describing a cartoon. A facsimile of a character doing unbelievable things. James Bond as Wil E Coyote..
Your describing the most cartoonish Bond of all. One reviewer in 1979 actually said "WHERE was James Bond in MR?"
There were people questioning the cartoon elements even back then..
If you're going to watch a Craig Bond film, watch Dalton instead.