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
Thanks as always @Suivez_ce_parachute. That really clears up quite a few things.
RE: I'm truly shocked at your final spoilered comment re: the possible advertising approach by Sony though. Wow...
What did he say?
It's in the spoilered tag from Suivez.
It's truly amazing re: all the various budget elements in movie productions these days, what with currency exchange, cross-border contracts, cost-sharing, cost-control, contract management etc.
It's no wonder the accountant on a movie production has a large role. Accounting for everything (including cost-sharing/% of gross etc.) must be an absolute nightmare. When you really think about it, $200m to $300m to spend on a 2 to 2.5 hr piece of entertainment is just completely mind-boggling!
There's so much that goes on behind the scenes that we don't have a clue about. Everyone just sees the finished product.
Yeah, I can't read anything in a spoiler tag, which is why I was excited that we were going to quit using them after yesterday.
The point was that Sony were at one point actually considering doing some marketing campaigns for SP without Craig's image, in order to save costs (which could be in the $millions). Of course, I'm sure that idea has since been squashed, as it's not very smart!
@Suivez Thanks for that. It does really seem like Bond is retiring then, and Q allows him to take the DB5 as sort of a going away present.
I'm pretty sick of the DB5 now, I think it's been overused (although it was cool in SF seeing it with all the gadgets again) but I don't mind it getting one last cameo appearance in SP. It's sort of been Craig's personal car throughout his films so him driving off in it when he retires seems fitting, especially if it does turn out to be the last one.
It is a bit dumb though. This pretty much confirms that the SF DB5 was an MI6 model and not the CR one, right? It seemed that way before (different plate, left hand drive, no gadgets, etc) and MI6 rebuilding it pretty much confirms it. But then why would MI6 still be issuing DB5's to their agents? They might be classic cars but they're impractical and out of date for a secret agent. For example, I think the driver who worked on GE said it "handled like a tank" compared to the Ferrari. I assumed that the SF one was an old one from the 60s Bond knew about (which explains why it was being kept in an abandoned lock up), but then why would MI6 rebuild an out of date car?
The SF DB5 can't be the CR one (unless it was heavily modified and changing it from a left hand to a right hand drive would be very expensive and nearly impossible) anyway and MI6 rebuilding it pretty much confirms that it was a different car.
Also, there's even more evidence towards it being a different car to his CR one. It says at the end of SP, when Bond tries to take the DB5, that he's "caught red handed" and then Q gives him the keys. So it wasn't Bond's CR DB5 that got destroyed in SF because this DB5 was, according to the outline, rebuilt by MI6 after the SF one got destroyed. You could say it was Bond's car and he got MI6 to add the gadgets and then rebuild it for him but then why is he "caught red handed"? If it was his car, taking it wouldn't be a big deal.
Since it can't be Bond's personal car (it's clear when he tries to take it at the end that it isn't his), and it can't be an old car Bond knew about (because MI6 rebuilt it) that means that the only explanation is that MI6 are still issuing 50 year old cars to their agents. Which is stupid. It's pointlessly expensive and it gives them a serious disadvantage in a car chase.
But then Bond tries to take it at the end. Taking the MI6 version in SF made sense (the gadgets would help him against Silva) but why nick the MI6 one when he's retiring if he already has his own DB5 (the CR one?). I guess he either wrecked the one he won in CR, or he just really prefers right hand drive.
I suppose it's best not to overthink it and just accept it for what it is but it does irritate me. It just seems lazy to me, that the writers didn't really think about any of this.
I think all the MGM legal stuff that halted production on SF really cheated us because we went from rookie Bond to an older burnt out Bond that ends up settling down with no gap in between. I think we should have got one or two more Craig films in between QoS and SF showing Bond in his prime.
I don't think you said anything that would offend anyone and yeah 2015 is going to be an exciting year. I really think this film is going to be a good one. It seems like everything I've wanted has been added and all my criticisms of SF have been adressed. Can't wait.
A little worrying the reviews of Big Eyes have been mentioning his serious Mugging.
Don't get me wrong he's uttely magnetic in Inglourious Basterds and truly charismatic in Django Unchained so I'm hopeful.
I don't see either of those scenarios being even remotely likely,unless somehow something goes sour.
For any number of reasons, there is no reason Craig couldn't return for another film. I'd say two more is quite likely.
What I do believe is that as long as Craig continues, we will continue to have personal journey drama films, rather than normal Bond-on-mission films.
And I do say normal, because this is how Fleming wrote Bond, and what was served up for 20 films in a row, until the drama era set in, and set in, in a big way.
I actually don't mind Craig as Bond. He's proved he can play the part. IMO he can push on the Connery and Lazenby envelope - note I said push -he will never surpass either of those two great '60s Bonds, but he can at least do the job on screen.
He fights and plays the danger agent way better than any of Dalts, Moore or Broz.
The reason I hate the drama, is because it is utterly contrived nonsense. All of it.
The terminal trust issues with M. There is no precedent in Fleming.
The old dog stuff from SF, was way overblown. This was all new territory. Was our enjoyment of the character enhanced? Maybe for some, I don't know. But I spend the whole film, wanting him to get back to normal, which he finally did.
Which is how I also viewed CR and QoS, wanting the character to normalize and find his actual Bond "mojo."
CR 's Vesper drama was way off the Fleming narrative (presumably to drive the drama). ie Fleming made it clear, that the whole Bond-Vesper love affair was built on a lie. It never had a chance. It's why Vesper finally killed herself. She was owned by Smersh. If she came clean, she's looking at a life-time in the brig, with Bond happily tossing away the key.
"The bitch is dead" line rang true in the book. Not so much in the film.
She was a traitor, and had been for a long time. Bond got over her real fast.
What the story managed to do though, was steel Bond against the machinations of such women going forward. It was a pivotal episode in his life. Ultimately it was not much of a love story.
But with CR-06, Vesper was emminently salvagable. She was a blackmail victim. Once it was all sorted out, everybody loved her, M, Mathis, even Bond.
The movie was a very different treatment of the original story- played for maximum soap opera drama, and then even carried over into another whole film.
So I do believe DC will continue for a 5th personal journey film after SP. I have no reason to believe otherwise. He loves this stuff and so does Babs.
IMO the drama is all completely contrived nonsense. It's not credible. Imagine a real-life blunt instrument-type operative with all these issues. And even if you can, this is not the character that Fleming created.
This DC-era treatment has no resemblance to Fleming. Fleming's Bond was on-mission.
He was only down in the dumps with any meaningful issues, when his wife was blown away -his only true love - even if he did seem to have feelings for some of his other conquests, but ultimately they went away and the job took precedence.
But even in Fleming's YOLT, once Bondsan got to Japan, Tiger and Dikko got him back into shape.
And I am not some Fleming purist. Connery and Young adapted the character to the big-screen, and did an awesome job. They sexed up the Fleming character to some degree and created a screen-Bond rooted in the lit creation.
But the tone of the current drama-Bond adventures, I maintain are pulled right out of thin air.
It may be a tired cliche, but these films are inspired as much by Bourne and Dark Knight, not to mention As The World Turns.
btw, if the SP shooting outline, is to be believed, we've gone from a villain with mommy issues to one with daddy issues, all in the space of two films. Which wouldn't be so awful, as I don't care how deranged the villains are, or what their dramas are - but what grates is that Bond himself has to be dragged into, and connected with the drama too.
I have gone off on a tangent here, but my point is that Craig is heavily invested in this drama-Bond character that he has created. He will milk it, and why not. It makes him rich, unlike his other films.
He's not really big box-office beyond Bond.
So I don't care how SP ends, bank on it, Craig is coming back for more, unless something goes sour.
We will get Bond-on-mission back when Craig leaves - maybe a return to the Brozzer or Dalts era level of personal issues - ie not all encompassing and dominating the narrative.
Also, as others have mentioned a second re-boot would be disastrous. Plus there is no need.
New actor, for B27 I am predicting, can simply inherit DC-Bond's history. Easily done. Cast the new guy at say age 30, so we get prime years out of him.
We are talking movies. The land of make-believe. Craig-Bond's history is easily transferable to new actor, who hopefully can move forward in service of Queen and Country, with exciting, thrilling new Bond adventures, sans excessive personal baggage, hopefully fighting perpetual nemesis Spectre and the man with the cat, that leads it - the guy who used to be called Oberhauser.
As for Madeleine, no need to kill her off. She needs to be exited by beginning of B25, which is easily done.
I do not want some phony modern day attempt at remaking the Tracy story. Bond vs Spectre can carry on quite fine without that history.
Bottomline is Bond will always be trying to kill Blofeld anyway, even without personal revenge motive.
Its his job!
and btw, I do own all three Craig blu-rays and will pick up SP. These movies are not horrible. They are quite watchable, but they are different, and this drama can only continue for so long. It's barely credible as it is.
How much of this soap stuff must a poor 00 agent endure? Eventually they have to let it go, but what I am saying is that it won't be happening, untl the next actor who succeeds, and that I figure will be about B27.
In the meantime, gun gets tossed in river. Bond re-evaluates his life and the meaning of it all, or whatever Mendes-Babs-Craig have in store for the poor guy.
Not the worst thing really to take off with Seydoux for a long interlude, get away from it all, and then come back to drama job, and see what's going on - maybe a love-child from the past, has risen to head new crime syndicate. Call Haggis for that script. He wanted Bond with children.
Imagine what a Logan-Haggis collaboration could produce!
Other possibilities - the mother Bond never new, is alive and is a long-time mole for say a new secret covert group. Big potential for betrayal drama here. Kincade is really his father. Why not?
If I were Bond, I'd milk the Seydoux interlude. Stay away for a long time. Take a Lea break from all the drama. :x
speaking of Malkovich, he's an actor i would love to see as a villain one day - but thats for another thread lol..
Agreed. Keeping Waltz alive at the end of SP suggests they want their options open. I find it interesting that he would mention this in an interview, because he is more or less telling everyone that he doesn't die at the end of SP.
Perhaps this cryptic ending is all a negotiating ploy to get a better deal out of Sony or whoever they talk with for future distribution.
There may be too many things up in the air post-SP from a business standpoint, which is why they may need to end it this way, so they have the ability to go in any direction they choose depending on resolution of those business matters.
in my opinion, it makes sense for FOX to step right in - they already handle home video distribution.... but we'll see... i wouldn't doubt if MGM and Sony reach another deal, seeing as how things have been going well between them thus far.
Also, Bond throwing his gun in the river has smacks of the Dirty Harry film where he ends up throwing his badge in the river as a statement.
It could be that Waltz is trying to debunk all the leaked information circling around media outlets. He went from, "I can't tell you a thing about my character" to, "No [he's not Blofeld], he's much more interesting than that." to now he hopes to return for Bond 25 and these interview questions are prescreened so he's gotten the okay to indulge on such details.
Too much control? Craig has stepped up. He's put himself in a position to be part of a solution rather than just, "going along for the ride" and it has paid of handsomely. I'm all for straight missions but in this day and age where every other movie are doing it as well as tv shows; Bond needs to be more layered and allow for audiences of today to be invested in ways they weren't before. If you want straight missions, go and watch the MI films or better yet pop in your Roger Moore Bond movies. Like it or dont but Craig's involvement has been significant and crucial and has been an asset in helping to move the series forward. The problem I have with some Bond fans is that they are flaky and fickle, lacking in consistency. For years fans harper on about the series becoming stale and stagnant and now it's Bond needs to go back to "normal". What's normal? Shallow and generic fluff? With the path that Craig has help to set which includes the type of money these films can make in an ever increasing competitive arena and with the sort of cast and crew the movies are able to gravitate towards them, the days of the Bond of old are gone and from what SPECTRE sounds like, it maybe the best movie yet in tge series although that remains to obviously be seen but all in all I think Craig has given the Bond movies a renewed recognition and an almost re-branding where the movies offer more than just being a James Bond film.
But can't we just have one - one- moviehero that doesn't have inner demons to deal with? How much character development do we need, or want, from Bond? It is almost becoming ridiculous.
Shallow and generic fluff? I have never heard Bond fans talk about their favorite show in negative terms like that. ;-)
You are overgeneralizing, though. And we all have our favorites. Some like movies like MR, TSWLM and YOLT while others are more into Dr.No and SF.
Regarding "normal": Ok, we got the reboot with CR. I think that most embraced this. I did. It was a fresh take. A new beginning. Then came QoS, which felt more like a continuation of the reboot. And right there I honestly thought they closed the reboot chapter. I felt like Bond was back in the final scene. But guess what? In the next one, SF, it's quickly back to square one and 'getting drunk and can't hit jack shi.., but Mommy is here to help you'
Please... dont let B24 follow the same narrative which presumably is becoming the norm: A bruised and battered James Bond, who's making mistakes, have poor judgement and always on the brink of either cracking or leaving the service.
It's still many of those dusty old Bond-movies that make people fan of James Bond. And yes, there are many Bond-fans, including myself, who expect the next Bond-movie to stay true to the formula. Without exotic locations, action setpieces and attactive women for example aren't we just left with a Joe-six pack version of 'Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy'?
I see what you're saying but compare the number of Craig's films to the number of Bond films there a where Bond is just gallivanting around the world offering comparatively challenging entertainment. I think you can endure.
Well I'm an honest fan and I'm pretty sure others have said harsher things : )
The series isn't above harsh criticism
Perhaps but those movies are there for people to enjoy and should be enough to convey that the series has enough movies to satisfy the tastes of different fans. This Craig era appeals to a select number of fans, I suppose this is their time, however, its also important to know that the movies reflect the times, slapstick and generic disposable fluff isn't part of EoN's business model right now, they're aiming for something more, something deeper. I wold love to have a Bond film like FRWL released in today's cinematic landscape but I know it wouldn't happen.
Those old movies are there for everyone's enjoyment and they're good to watch, speaking as a fan and I'm not saying certain tropes need to be omitted from the movies, of course not; we still have them but I for one am not interested at all in the series going forward reverting back to silly and dumb antics. If I want to see that sort of stuff I know which Bond movies to watch. However, at the same time, I' not looking for the series to be a dreary and depressing character study either. The movies can be entertaining, action packed, beautiful, sexy and all that jazz and still be a layered character study which helps bring characters forward to be understood on a deeper and different perspective all without compromising on entertainment. I think SPECTRE is heading in that direction
I don't want or need to learn any more about him, like I didn't want to learn more about Batman in TDK. Instead I want to see and learn more about the supporting cast. Let them - especially the villain - be multilayered.
Merry Christmas everybody!
I'd like to chime in on this. I agree wtih your comment above. It is possible to have depth and yet be entertaining without being dreary. I think SF did achieve that, warts and all, and from what I see, SP is going to do the same, and in even better ways.
I admit that some of the plot lines in the early script draft were absolutely awful, but they look to have sorted that out now.
I also agree that EON are unlikely, at least in the near term, to go back to generic action style movies without much character depth to them. As I've said elsewhere, EON are now followers, and not trendsetters. They are recalling their own storied history with this franchise, and adding to it, learning from the successful actioners of the day. Therefore, as long as movies like Bourne (soon to return), Marvel/DC, and anything else that's out there continues to succeed at the box office with tortured heroes, EON is likely to follow.
The one movie I can recall from the past 5 years that was very successful while being somewhat of a throwback to older, simpler fare, was MI4. I congratulate Cruise for that effort, and look forward to seeing what he comes up with for MI5. I found MI3 a little too heavy on the drama with the domestic angle, and to me, that appeared forced.
At the end of the day, there are 2 risks with this whole thing:
-The first is that, in order to continue to layer depth to the character, EON goes down some path that is contrived, forced or lazy. The initial script draft linking Blofeld to Bond was an example of this, and thank goodness it was fixed. The "James, I am Your Father" type mistake.
-The second is that they forget how to make a good, espionage driven story without adding the personal angle. That would be a shame. FRWL is such a movie. To me it had oodles of character and is one of the all time greats. It stands up very well next to SF, CR, & QoS without having to go down the tortured Bond route. That is a skill in itself. There is a big difference between a benchmark like FRWL & TWINE for instance, IMO. Both are relatively generic, but one has stood the test of time, and the other, based on lots of surveys on this very site, has not, despite it being liked by some. One has antagonists that are routinely held up as as favourites as an example, and the other does not. My point is, don't necessarily assume that the audience will not embrace a generic actioner. They will (Mi4 proved that). You just have to know how to make one properly. It does not necessarily mean that it has to be 'by the numbers' or 'tick the box'. Focus first on the plot, the acting and the atmosphere. Add depth to the antagonists, and Bond can then remain slightly above it , and going about his job. It can be done, and it's a skill that is being lost with time, sadly. Not just with EON, but with everyone else.
The rest of my post after what you quoted practically agrees with what you're saying here.
Very good and insightful post. Well said.