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
ok, kidding. DAD then. The swordfight I like. It would've been a very, very short film though.
Ok, seriously, no. I don't think any of the films should've been cut shorter. Some could've used a bit more time. I like TB's pace, and for the times those underwater sequences were extremely impressive. The tension of those bombs not beeing found and underway to their target is quite exhillerating.
thinking about it, if any film could've used a bit more pace and cut here and there it's DAF.
I like it as it is to be honest, maybe the whole Shrublands sequence goes on a little too long? But overall I am happy with it. So would disagree with this thesis.
<font color=blue size=7><b>DAF, as it was made, would have been the wrong film to introduce a new actor in the role of Bond.</b></font>
Disagree. It should have been Roger's first Bond film. He even said so. ;)
As for the thesis, I don't think I agree. If they were going for a change of tone, then DAF did it for better or for worse and introducing a new actor in the role would have made sense.
Once again though, I think Sean Connery pulled off DAF and his performance is certainly better than his YOLT performance.
Nothing against Sir Roger, who I think could have done a good job with the film, but I would disagree with thesis. I remember the times from 1969 forward very well. People were extremely happy when Lazenby announced he wouldn't be returning and the public demand for Connery's return was overwhelming and immediate. UA and David Picker heard the outcry loud and clear and obviously agreed, from there history tells us the rest of the story.
I remember that after Sir Sean said "never again", it just wasn't a big deal going forward. I don't know if that was an indictment or not on the film, or Sean's lackluster performance, maybe a bit of both, but I can definitely say that most everyone including my family was resigned to change.
Agreed. It was totally meant as a "last hurrah" for Connery and works best that way. I can't see it working as well with either Roger Moore or John Gavin(who was signed to play the role prior to Connery's return).
Agree with the thesis partly. GL should have been given the part as he had just lost his wife. The way it looked was that he was over his grief after the PTS!
<font color=blue size=7><b>Mendes would be wise to turn Bond 24 into something other than SF² if he wants to repeat SF's success.</b></font>
Agreed. To outdo himself, He has do something very opposite from Skyfall. A non personal adventure for Bond. Bond with some light humor and charm, a women for the ending and so on. We need more of a Casino Royale 2 with no emotional baggage.
How Skyfall was so successful is beyond me. It was good ... but it was so spoon fed that I feel a bit hesitant about the next one. At the very least, I'll go with low expectations and be pleasantly surprised. A turnaround from Skyfall where I went expecting something grand with a story and script to match CR and was let down.
Agree absolutely! I would like to see him deal with Quantum from the word go. In fact it could begin with the file that Mallory handed him right at the end of Skyfall?
Very much agree. As @Murdock says, we now need a business as usual adventure without personal issues, so hopefully Moneypenny stays at her desk while they're at it or at least isn't doing any more field work as far as being in the action. I hate Mendes' musing that she could do that. We need classic Bond with all the trimmings meaning no more messing with the gun barrel placement and the Bond girl in the end. With it supposedly being a two part sequel, I shudder to think how it could go wrong as it seems the idea is too convenient as far as excuses to keep tinkering with the formula. I can't even begin to think what they are planning this far out, and am tired of them making me look like a monkey guessing so it's not worth serious consideration. I only know that I like my cliches and am increasingly resentful of not getting them. The cliches I mentioned are part of what makes a Bond film like no other.
As it was I think DAF would have been a very poor film to introduce a new actor.
It basically coasts on having Connery back and to be honest he is pretty poor in it as he is in NSNA, basically both comeback performances are lacking for me.
Agree. Not my favorite film and it does drag for me.
#247: Agree DAF should not have had a new actor for Bond.
#248: Agree, but I am not too concerned about Mendes. However, I DO want similarity in quality cinematography (Deakins!), a smoldering Bond girl (one who lives this time), a great not-too-subtle villain, and a memorable theme song. But other than that, break it wide open and I hope bring in Quantum, too. And NOT start the film with Bond leaving M's office, last shot of Skyfall.
They messed up the clothing continuity between CR and QOS, so I hope if this is the case they have at least learned a lesson b-(
With the death of Dench's M, the blowing up of the ancesteral home and far worse the destruction of the old DB5 there is no possibility of a SF2. And anyway, Mendes is a huge Bond fan and he's shown us he knows how to tell a Bond-story. So I have no doubt he'll come up with a good old Bond adventure, no SF2 intended.
<font color=blue size=7><b>DAF could have kept the exact same script had Roger Moore starred in it as Bond.</b></font>
Not exactly. The references to Bond's "holiday" and the "we do function in your absence, Commander" comment during the briefing scene with M and Sir Donald Munger seem to be references to Connery's one-picture absence. As written, I could see the PTS (which serves as a re-introduction for Connery's Bond) easily serving to introduce audiences to a new Bond actor. However, I'd miss Connery doing the great dialogue with Jill St. John in the "Peter Franks" meets blond/brunette/redhead Tiffany scene(my favorite Bond meets Bond girl scene).