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
This is a pithy but, alas, very valid point. Bond needs to start getting away from the 'trends' of popular cinema and start setting a few of it's own* again!
(trends)
http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/james-bond/250532/james-bond-spectre-blofeld-in-the-21st-century
Yes..........a very good, well written article.
.............and yes, the next Bond film, needs a really good script.......but most of all the film needs a heart, a sort of feel, that the audience can connect to.
that is the million dollar question? how do they do that? eon/mendes tried with the brother angle and supposed love story and failed ... sf succeeded because of the audience's connection/investment with judi denche's M ... how do they do this going forward ... is anybody's guess. they might have painted themselves into a corner with sf.
That is true.........all may seem great on a bit of paper.........but no one can envisage how it will all translate into the final film, from an emotional attachment point of view.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3325370/Live-let-buy-Spectre-Bond-villain-s-futuristic-Moroccan-lair-sale-2-8million.html $4million
I tend to agree, but I find it fair to point out in this context that MI5 is the one film that looks as if it is patchworked together mainly from Bond films of the last 10-15 years.
"it is almost strange to see online reaction calling it the “worst Bond in 30 years” or absurdly suggesting that Quantum of Solace’s Jason Bourne-wannabe antics were superior to this classical 007 approach."They read my post, I´m flattered!
But seriously, the article is pretty good and mostly accurate. I only disagree with this: "But therein lies the rub: that very same traditional approach is what jars so violently with Daniel Craig’s 21st century Bond—especially in regards to SPECTRE."
Or better, the formulation shouldn´t sound as if the combination is to blame, when in fact it is the execution that makes it not work. Bond has done much better with seemingly harder to digest ingredients in the past.
He says "and honestly Craig's Bond works better when he has a personal stake in the narrative with the villain....It's kind of his M.O.
This guy is actually cheerleading the Blofeld brother stuff.
To each his own I guess.
Personally, what makes Craig's performance in SP so compelling is that he makes effort to stay miles clear of any personal stake with villain.
Craig's Bond rather gets down to the business of being Bond on mission, unfettered by the growing pains and personal baggage which weighed down his previous 3 performances.
I find his analysis of SP incoherent. Seems to be a fan of the Mendes school of Bond. Maybe even Forster.
Good history lesson though, even if most of us here knew every word of it already.
I don't think Bond ever obsessed about Franz Oberhauser until he saw him years later at that meeting in Rome. He even calls him and refers to him as Ernst Stavro Blofeld the moment Oberhauser says he changed his name! The obsession was all Blofeld's.
There is a tendency these days to presume that audiences will only invest in personal melodrama & therefore to lay it on a little thick. Yes, of course, this is an element that they invest in......but it's not the only element. There is a reason why many members here and many members of the general public still hold many of the older Bond films to be the best of the lot. It's because the storytelling was wonderfully done. The characters had resonance. The actors were superb and incredibly compelling to watch. That level of quality execution is what makes good film......a credible film......and a film that stands the test of time. Those films were not dramas. They were tight thrillers with everything (acting, music, cinematography, story, set design) in superb form.
Perhaps the problem, as it is with most things these days, is that they are shooting for the box office (given how ridiculously expensive these films are to make these days) and therefore they have shoehorn these emotional gimmicks to make the sale with as wide a group of the population as possible. The risk then, is one ends up with something like SP, which stinks of a film trying to be all things to all people (a traditional Bond film, an emotional drama & a tight thriller), and potentially not succeeding very well at anything.
PS: By the way - on my 3rd watch of SP yesterday, I realized where most of the damn money went. Most likely on that explosion of Blofeld's lair in Morocco, that silly car chase, and the somewhat dull plane chase. If that really is where a lot of the money went, then I could have easily done with none of it, and taken a CR style stairfight in exchange.
Agreed. Craig is perfect in the role, this being one of the reasons.
I just got back from my second viewing. I enjoyed the film much more this time, knowing what to expect. There are some great scenes, acting is superb, action scenes are thrilling. Cinematography is stunning. The third act remains the weakest part of the film, and I absolutely loathe the foster brother story. It is un-Bondian, it's completely unnecessary and serves no purpose.
Still, an enjoyable movie, I just hope that Bond's personal story is over and done with.
Ride comes with a few bumps, but I'm ready to go again :D
There does seem to be a poor return on investment with some of the action scenes. And I don't mean monetary return, I mean return in terms of the effect on the audience.
For example, there were £24,000,000 worth of Aston Martins written off in filming the Rome sequence. I appreciate it wouldn't have cost the film makers anywhere near that much because of the deal with the supplier etc, but the point still stands. What a waste. I enjoyed the sequence but for that sort of money it should have been the best car chase in history!
Similarly with the explosion at Blofeld's lair. A lot of time, effort and money went into it, for very little effect-the explosion added nothing to my enjoyment.
There was a similar issue with Skyfall and the tube crash. I remember reading how it had taken them months to build a replica to crash, and then when it happened I just thought-was it really worth it!?
It ain't cheap to film in Rome and London. ;) Look at the endless credits.
Haha this is true. It's not the money spent though, it's what you get for it. Mexico City-SO much time, money and effort has gone into that BUT is was totally amazing! Mind blowingly phenomenal. So worth every penny IMO. But the Rome car chase was poor "value" for money I think.
Still, at least they got a Guiness World Record out of the explosion!
The car and plane chases didn't really have much tension for me but I think they spent a lot of money on those. The lair explosion was great, but for all that money spent, they really should have 'filmed it' better......like from a helicopter looking down, or like someone said on another thread (or maybe this one) by filming it from farther back, so that the scale of it could be more apparent. One day they will use 'drones' for this sort of thing probably to get in close on the action.
The same criticisms about 'return on investment' from a tension standpoint can be applied to QoS too, but in that case it was more a case of not being able to really make it out because of the tense editing. That film was calling out for some wide angle 'establishing shots' of the action in contrast.
I still think the CR crane sequence is the way to film an action sequence. I can never tire of that one .... .just marvelous .... especially when the two of them are climbing up to the crane and the way the camera shoots it from all sorts of angles and from a distance. Almost vertiginous.
I'm wondering which previous Bond film SP's tone most resembles...SF is too easy a comparison because it is so recent. I'm tempted to say YOLT.
Yeah with regards the lair explosion maybe that's what it needed, some different view points, definitely something to give it more kick and effect.
QoS is frustrating for me. The PTS car chase "feels" like it's awesome, I just wish it had been edited so that I could see how awesome it is!
Another slightly frustrating thing for me is the fact that the PTS of the last 2 films has been THE action highlight of both movies as far as action sequences are concerned. Whilst the PTS should be fantastic and gripping, I don't think it should be by far the best action sequence of the movie.
I agree the crane action sequence in CR was superb............and its the scene that all fans like to see again and again, including me.
You've only got to look at the very high viewing count for this sequence on YouTube, to confirm this.
The camera, was set back so you could see the full picture of the action involved, and with some very good editing, which allows the viewer to absorb what is going on.
In contrast the boat chase sequence in QOS was horribly filmed, and edited.
II feel it. I promised to my wife we'd see other movies first and now I'm busy flat hunting.
Am I the only one who loves the song but not the singer? I absolutely love Writing on the Wall. But I think Sam Smith's voice is borderline castrato voice and it lacks... Well it lacks something to give it justice.
I feel the same way. I love the instrumental but Smith is wrong for the song. It's suited to a woman's voice. When he goes into those falsettos I feel almost embarrassed. This version is far superior.