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
So I'll be watching this one quite a bit for the rest of my earthly existence.
However I do think with the broader audience, CR and SF are likely to resonate more as time marches on.
Both were very impactful films when released
I had a text from my uncle, yesterday, saying he thought SP was the best in the series. He's just a casual film goer. My wife thought it was more enjoyable than SF, as did my best mate. This means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but I refuse to believe only hardcore Bond fans enjoyed it. If anything I'd say the hardcore are the most scathing.
'You were nothing to me but you kept getting in my way; then you became a distraction and now Mr. Bond I'm afraid you've become a threat. Over these years, without even trying, I became the author of all your pain and now I shall put you out of my misery.'
Or something like that ;)
Yea I am also getting the impression that SP is not viewed as favorably as SF, and I would say that it is due to the amount of hype it suffered, just like how QoS suffered from CR being a great film. Hence I will expect Bond 25 to perform worse in its box office than SP or SF, but be looked upon in future as favorably as CR or SF.
However, it is still my belief that SP will be appreciated more if Bond 25 does well, as SP is essentially "Part 1" in a many-part ESB trilogy (at least thats what I hope), and trilogies having a relatively "bland" start is more easily forgivable, in a sense.
Like @Birdleson, I hope I have an improved perception of the aesthetics at least when I see it in high definition on the small screen with the other Craig films. The ret"con" story will never improve for me on its own.
I personally hope they just let this sleeping dog lie to be honest and revisit Blofeld down the road in a more impressive manner with a new actor.
Way off topic but the Roman crucifixion crosses were probably X shaped and closer to the ground.
The typical crosses we see are artists renditions years after the fact.
The crucifixion I my belief is very real and very literal.
Anyhoo . what were we talking about?
Yes I do agree that a good film should make a good film standing on its own, which is why the first criteria I feel that Bond 25 should have is to have a standalone plot while beautifully weaving in the ESB plotline from SP, which could be achieved imo by SP's second in command being the main antagonist of Bond 25, and ESB as a not-so-major sub-plot.
However, SP borrows so much from previous DC films (plot lines, characters, even the soundtrack) that one cannot help but to view it together with previous DC films to gain a better understanding and appreciation of the film. This is personally something I dont like, as regular movie-goers who didnt watch previous DC films would view this as bland, but it changes how we view the DC franchise, no matter we like it or not. I believe that many movie-goers have SF in mind (most likely not others I agree) when they watch SP (hence suffering from hype as they compared it to SF).
But yea u do have a point. Most general movie-goers wouldn't probably care how Bond 25 links to SP. I would guess that they would go "Oh a new Bond film! I remember the last one! It was bad.". So they would remember SP in a sense, but wont care much about the details.
EDIT: Also to add on a bit, if (GOD FORBID) Bond 25 is worse than SP, then the general movie goer would probably go "Hm compared to this, the last one was better", hence viewing SP in a better light. However, I'm no average movie-goer, so I may be dead wrong =P
SP is beautiful imo, especially with the scene of Bond running down the bridge at night. I believe that high definition wouldn't disappoint =)
About having a new actor for Blofeld though, I am on the fence for this. On one hand I believe that Waltz has much more untapped potential (as seen in his other films) that could make Bond 25 much more exciting, but on the other I feel that I'm bored by his portrayal of ESB, and some change with a new actor would be welcome. It would be hard to logically link the storyline if a new actor comes on board though...having plastic surgery in prison? =P
I was watching CR the other day and the film is handled so well that I got so mad and angry at how EoN have become somewhat lackadaisical with their whole production process in telling a complete and compelling story since then. There's a huge opportunity for Bond 25 to truly be a great film but EoN have to want it. QoS and SP relied heavily on the goodwill of their respective preceding movies. EoN, it's time to get to work.
Then revisit SPECTRE the organization & Blofeld in a reimagined fashion with a new Bond actor and a new Blofeld actor down the road. Let SP just be seen as a SPECTRE foundation story for the Craig period. They didn't really delve into the organization much anyway, so they can go in several directions in the future depending on what they want to do.
I imagine it depends on how many more Craig wishes to do. If it's one more then they may wrap it all up for Bond 25 or otherwise if Craig will be around for Bond 26 I could see Waltz's Blofeld (escaping?) being just a subplot in the next film with a new villain taking center stage.
Skyfall stole a couple of things from the last series of Spooks so maybe Bond 25 will reference Bugs with the imprisoned arch enemy still influencing criminal events outside.
The childhood connection with Blofeld should never have been established but it nevertheless has happened and as irksome as it may be I still wouldn't want the casting of Waltz thrown away just so we can put our heads in the sand and pretend all this never happened.
True Bond finished for me in 1989 anyway, I just treat the new stuff as a bonus but nothing to get too worked up over. Take it or leave it.
It just occured to me that the ending of SP has many similarities to that of CR, where a villain is captured by Bond...and we all know how that ended for them. =p
Having Blofeld killed in the first ten minutes of Bond 25 might be a viable option (like Hobbit did for Samug or Avengers did for Von Strucker). I normally dislike such plot developments, but in this case it might be the best. Thenn SP's second in command would go on revenge etc etc
Yea i also hope for SPECTRE to be reinvented down the road (they could very well learn a few things from SP), but i believe that dropping the storyline entirely would be a bit too adrupt. However thats what they did to SF after QoS so it might work quite well. I would appreciate a few references to SP though, for us Bond fans =p
On the other hand, there was definitely more of a buzz at Spectres end titles at my first showing, and people were chatting to each other about it in a good way. I certainly came away on a more positive high than SF, and my other 6 viewings of SP haven't changed that opinion.
I would like to see Bond 25 as a standalone film, but definitely with Craig in the lead.
(And I agree with doubleoego, Alfonso Cuaron to Direct, and I would like Paul Haggis back on writing duties)
Pretty much the opposite to my experience. I remember a lot of laughs and audience interaction in SF but not as many in SP.
In QOS Forster gave us a fast & furious bit of action & Bond character development.
In SF Mendes gave us an art-house directed pretty Bond film.
In SP Mendes gave us a Bond film.
Sometime simple & unpretentious is the way to go IMO.
;)
Remember Brosnan's era? During those days, everyone thought the man was second to Connery, right? That's what people think about Craig now. And forget about Brosnan! He is now considered the antithesis of Craig and therefore one of the lesser Bonds.
So when the next actor steps up - presuming that his films are well received - people will point to Craig's era and say how 'dreadfully dull they were, with so much angst in them' and he will go to the bottom, as will his films, just like Brosnan's have now. Or at least, QOS, SF and SP will, I'm not sure about CR.
The hyperbole in this thread is ludicrous. Try and be sensible people and dont let the Oberhauser/Blofeld brother bullshit (which I also detest myself) blind you from the fact that about 80% of SP is a very very solid entry. To compare it with DAD really does not reflect well on your critical abilities.
Thats more like it. Some common sense spoken finally.
I am not a child so therefore have no interest in Harry Potter but you are bang on the money here. Based on the stunning action scenes in Children Of Men has been my choice for a while now. The guy can tell a good dramatic story but also has a flair for action that Mendes doesnt. And there is already clearly some sort of connection between him and EON if you check out the end credits of QOS so hopefully this might be a genuinely realistic proposition.
You mean the same China that has Furious 7 and Transformers in its top 5 highest grossing films of all time and India where every film has an inane song and dance sequence every 5 minutes?
Excuse me if I dont give the slightest f**k what the average person in either of these countries thinks. Theyve got their culture of chop socky and Bollywood ruling the box office which is fine if you like that sort of thing but their opinion of how to make a western action thriller is of little account as sparrow's tears in my book.
Annoyingly of course the studio will think otherwise as they crave box office in these places like Amy Winehouse trying to get hold of some crack so it wouldnt surprise me if they depressingly try and tailor B25 to appeal to these markets even more.
In time, it could definitely be seen as Craig's DAD, or MR, and I think that is more likely if he steps down from the role.
If he's back for one more, then, like QoS, SP may receive a reassessment by those who have written it off imho.
So I think expectations were too high (creatively) for SP. I think they were a victim of their own success in a way.
I was thinking just that the other day. If SP followed QoS, it would have been viewed more positively imho.
No other Bond film delivers the unique atmosphere SP does, for me that's justification enough. While it may not make glaring strides into brand new areas it's harsh to single it out given most Bond films don't do that either. You can't reinvent the wheel every time. I also don't believe it does any backtracking, it was very obvious to me that SF seeded what was to come in SP. The greatest leap in tone is from QoS to SF.
I agree @RC7 wholeheartedly. I guess backtrack wasn't necessarily what I meant, just that for me personally from CR I expected his era to go along a route that was more in step with that film. Absolutely SF seeded what was to come in Spectre. At the same time Spectre is a very different type of Bond film to Skyfall.
No way. Look at all the critical aggregate sites out there. Brosnan's 4 films average out at barely 60% on Rottentomatoes, while Craig's are over 79%. That's a massive difference. In a few year's time that is not going to change much, if at all. Hell, Brosnan's have actually gone down even more the last few years. GE used to be 82, now it's 77. For Craig, QoS has gone up from 62 to 65. Not much, but it's something. The same thing will happen with SP, IMO. It will go up some.
Craig will be looked at a fantastic Bond no matter what happens with the next actor, mark my words.