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
I'm growing tired of the constant whimpering about Bond and anything or anyone affiliated with it, when showing nothing but admiration for other franchises. We get it, you hated the last few Bond films, demonstrating so by comparing Bond to Scooby Doo and Home Alone, probably the laziest criticism I've seen on these boards. It's supersedes anything labelled as hyperbole. Why, because MI6 has employees that occasionally set one foot outside their offices? Because the vague idea of someone setting up booby traps appears in *gasps* more than one film? Spread the joy somewhere else. After all, it is an appreciation thread.
You think I'm hating on Bond? Interesting. You think EoN give the fans what they want? Hmm again very interesting. You think Bond is aping and doing a better job than the competition? Ooooh I say, now that's very VERY interesting. Hey, look I'm glad you love the movies as they are; I'm genuinely happy for you but seeing as we're dipping in and out of Bond's history and knowing what the movies are capable of, unfortunately I have loftier expectations especially considering the talent employed as of late.
Damon and Greengrass have a stellar track record and for now they have my trust. QoS, SF and SP all had excellent trailers but the films themselves resulted in something, for the sake of politeness, I'll go with;...different. I've seen the final products and I've identified the elements and cast my judgements. The new Bourne film has earned my trust and hope and if the film turns out garbage, which I doubt, I'll express so.
Well, if we got more scenes like that consistently then SP, I'm sure would have been better recieved
Yeah, think its EoN and Mendes that have figuratively lost the plot as of late. Scooby frikkin' doo indeed. When Bond has to consult and actively rely upon his battalion of supporting sidekicks in real time o figure stuff out instead of being the man on a mission, using his wits, his ingenuity, his cunning it's now become a 2 hour live action Hanna Barbera episode with Bond, M, Tanner Q and Moneypenny in place of Fred, Shaggy, Daphnei, Scooby and velma; one can cross assign the characters as they wish.
You're absolutely right. This is an appreciation thread. I'll save my criticisms for the appropriate threads.
"This is not a 007 adventure that feels the need to keep the action plate spinning. Casino Royale was sometimes fearful of its central card game motif so threaded in constant physical peril and stairwell skirmishes. The action beats in Spectre are all pinned to the story. As in Skyfall, the stunts inform the narrative rather than pause it. Gravity is the action motif here – the gravity of Bond sliding down a crumbling Mexican wall onto an abandoned sofa, the gravity of a fiercely realised fist fight aboard an out of control helicopter, the gravity of what goes up must come down, the gravity of a wingless plane chasing a fleet of jeeps down an Austrian mountain on nothing but momentum, the gravity of a playful parachute descent in Rome and the gravity of a last act jump off an exploding building.
From Pale Kings to pain authors, Spectre is a breathless triumph that breathes, thrills, romances and glows with a sinister, retro pride. It is Mendes’ Kubrickian opera of baroque quirks, wit and deliberately strange imagery."
Loving this review @tanaka123, thanks!
Do I love MI and Bourne? Of course I do, but when I watch a Bond film, especially one of Dan's, there's something powerful I experience that I don't feel during any of the others. MI is an action spectacle and I look forward each release to see how Tom is going to up his own ante and discover how the gadgetry of Hunt's tool belt will develop and inform the reactions of he and his team. We haven't had a Damon Bourne film for years, so to see him back and in what seems to be an interesting story excites me. The films convey a great sense of kinetic energy and heart-pounding impact through their dance-like choreography and visceral car chases. They're both consistent, solid releases. But what these films lack in comparison to Bond, to me, is the deep and intimate involvement of my heart.
When I watch Craig's Bond films, I feel the character's journey in my bones. I share his tears, his anger, his desperation. I follow him heart and soul as he goes on his mission, as if I'm inside his head and partly involved with a stake in his actions. While I like Hunt and Bourne, I don't ever feel my heart jump when they're in danger the way I do for Bond. I don't weep when they suffer a loss or failure like I do with Bond. I don't giddily jump in my seat as the music kicks up and the new film begins like I do with Bond.
If MI 6 is Tom's swan song and he ends his run as Hunt, I'll enjoy it and move on-in fact, I'd rather that happened before it all grows stale. In the same token, if the next Bourne film is Damon's last and the series moves away from Jason for good, again, I'll be excited to see how it's wrapped up and put to rest.
With Dan's Bond, however, I feel much different. When I think about the end of his run, I feel an immense sadness, like I'm losing an old friend. For a while now I've had in my head the image playing in constant loop of myself sitting in a theater, watching the final seconds of his era play out on the screen. My hand is clasped over my mouth, a smile tearing across my face, and tears are spilling out of my eyes uncontrollably. The moment feels so real it's scary.
The truth is, I've invested so much love, time and energy into Dan's run that it's almost become a part of me. He's made Bond a character of true dimension that you could study to the level of Charles Foster Kane. He feels like a living breathing man, all through Dan's A-class performance and commitment to everything that role is. He brought the character and franchise back from the dead, made it more interesting than it's ever been, and did what Dalton experimented with before him: respecting the character and his literary history as a man of great depth and complexity, along with all his human complications and flaws.
So, when people beat dead horses around here and constantly inform all of us day in and day out about how piss poor SP was to them, like it's part of their quota, I laugh. I'm amused by the manner in which they operate, existing only on negativity and immature cruelty towards this franchise and its heads-while still calling themselves fans-while the supporters of Dan and this film, like me, smile and share in our love for the era and its movies. We run on positive energies, and we don't get our jollies off going to Bourne or MI threads to throw dirt in everyone's face. It's because we realize that appreciation threads are for APPRECIATION, and not respecting that just makes you a twat. We also don't shout through our keyboards at Greengrass or Tom and McQuarrie, telling them to step their game up, nor do we stoop so low as to condescend them or cuss them out. We don't belittle the franchise that's given us so much, and we're able to love all these films for what they are, despite each of their flaws, realizing that they're part of every film, no matter the genre or creators involved.
Why this all comes so easy to us and not to those Negative Nancies, I haven't a clue. It's turning out to be one of life's greatest mysteries, a true brain-teaser: Why be a pompous cesspit of negativity and disrespect when you could, oh I don't know, actually devote your energies to something positive and fulfilling? Wouldn't that be something?
In conclusion, Hunt may have the action, the orchestral music, the clever gadgets and heists, and Bourne may hold dominion over hyper-choreographed fisticuffs and cranium stimulating car chases and camerawork. But the one thing they don't have is all of my heart, the most important element of all. Bond is the one who owns that, and he always will.
We need to show some appreciation & respect for EON, Barbara & Micheal.
Although a few bumps along the way the Craig era is a masterpiece & his films have brought me a lot of joy.
As Q would say doubleoego, you must be joking!
I don't even know where to begin with how to respond to your last post. The "Scooby Doo" reference is one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen! Bond movies have always relied on some or all members of MI6 for Bond's support. Second, once again, while QOS borrows a few elements from the Bourne movies, it does not rip them off. Bond is not a broken man going after MI6, so that comparison is moot. And frankly, you're not the only one that I'm getting tired of when that constantly think QOS is a Bourne rip off. It is not aside from the jerky editing which unfortunately did come from a member of the Bourne movie production team. But that's the only similarity aside.
And finally, Bond movies have not been setting the trends for a long time. Bond has been influenced by other movies going all the way back to Moonraker, if not earlier. I think you forgot that there was a little movie back in the late 70s called Star Wars (the original) that greatly influenced the plot and style of Moonraker. That you think that only the recent Bond movies ape other movies is so off-base it's not even funny!
Bond in general was setting trends and leading the pack but now it's unashamedly and blatantly doing a copy and paste job and ripping off certain elements and styles of what others are doing; and now Bond comfortably takes the role of an overhyped disciple that these days is looking like a one trick pony in a cheap trick circus. Bond needs to go back to being Alpha in all things. People can bang on about how it has legacy, how it did this and that back in the day but guess what? This is 2016 and not 1964 and it's sad that the last truly great Bond film was released 10 years ago.
I'm a diehard Bond fan and people here that enjoy the latest batch of movies, ggggrrrreeeaaat! Good for them; they're lucky but I will not let MY fandom and my love for Bond and higher expectations blind me from what I know and believe these movies have now become; unsatisfying, mildly disappointing and far from great films. EoN need to wake their arses up and get it together.
Please could you give examples of Bond setting trends and leading the pack? Bond has always picked up on pre-existing zeitgeist, the aforementioned obsession with space travel in Moonraker, the obsession with Orientalism in You Only Live Twice, the obsession with gritty detective type films in Licence to Kill, the obsession with generic 90's action with most if not all of Brosnan's films. The list goes on.
I just saw SP for the third time tonight, and as far as I'm concerned, EON need to keep on doing what they're doing. Forgive me if I find your advice to be textbook lunacy, @doubleoego.
We can go on and on about how Bond fails to set trends or do new and interesting things, but many fail to understand the very basics of creative enterprises: You get inspired by what other stuff is out there!
People can go on and on about what they think Bond is ripping off to their exaggerated, happy content, but let's just take a moment to note that, as @A_Kristatos has said, Bond has been influenced in major ways in the past, not just now. Whether its Star Wars and MR or North By Northwest and FRWL, Bond films have taken inspiration from other greats in their respective eras, like all films do, tonally, stylistically, editorially, etc.
Directors formulate their style with an amalgam of their favorite visionaries, just as DPs, editors, actors and the whole lot do. That inspiration then extends to the films themselves. It's bogus then, to call someone or a product something that rips other things off when it's not what they're doing. Conventions can be used ad infinitum and in a myriad of ways across all genres without being the same; the respective creators involved in each lend a unique and fresh take on it in the end.
I for one think the recent Bond films have set a helluva lot of great trends that I'd like to see continued more out there. In Dan's era we've seen popcorn films with depth and intellect, featuring allusions to literature, poetry, art, history, psychology, politics and more. These elements haven't just been tossed in for the fun of it; they have a great bearing on the plot and story, often in a very enriching and symbolic manner. These aren't films you pop in, unplug your brain during and then go to bed after. You are immersed in them, get taken in by them and you want to discuss them with anyone that will listen. That's certainly been my experience, just as it has for countless others.
And of course, the new Bond films have created trends that go beyond impacting other properties in the current age. They've also set great new trends and expectations inside the franchise itself. CR, QoS, SF and SP have given us a Bond missing since Dalton left the role, and before him, since Sean finished his initial run. They've now created the expectation that each Bond film should carry a richness of character and story in it that shows Bond struggling physically and emotionally with what he's being faced with, like the human being he is, delivered with smartness and style.
We see Bond at his most human and complicated in Dan's era. In CR we watch him battle his heart and mind as he tries to decide where to take his life, ending with the decision being made out of his hands and steeling him from true love and openness as Vesper dies right before his eyes. In QoS we don't find that he's just gotten over it like he has in other eras. We actually see him beat by beat travel through the grieving process, realizing along the way the futile nature of revenge and the importance of trust and dependability in your allies. In SF we get a phoenix like Bond, raising himself up from the ashes after taking a fall. Mendes and co. cleverly interweave symbolic allusions to pieces of art and the world commenting on endurance, age, imperialism and more to enrich and deepen Bond's dilemmas and existential battles as he continues to fight against a changing technological world that threatens to flush out his traditionalist sensibilities. In SP the themes are ghosts and fractured relationships as Bond's past struggles gain a new perspective when viewed through SPECTRE's lens. This Bond is more stable and honed than ever, but he still falls pray to the demons and losses of his past, namely those of his parents, as he bears witness to the troubling parental relationships of Blofeld and his father and Madeleine and hers, proving that the dead truly are alive in the mind as they continue to haunt us long after they leave the earth.
Forgive me, but I don't get any of this kind of depth, complexity and attention to character and thematic detail in any of the blockbusters out there that people say Bond rips off this side of Batman, and certainly nowhere in the espionage genre of action films. In fact, it's almost a insult to call the Craig era movies spy films, because when you truly open your eyes and let them in, you see that they are about so much more. Much like Fleming's books, we find escapist action and thrills, all built intimately around one man's battle to survive as he ruminates and reflects on the nature of life and love, good and evil, and so much more.
I've said my piece on this.
I'm not the slightest bit worried about Bourne. I finally have the Bond that I wanted all the way back when Craig was announced. It's taken a couple of films, and a fair bit of disappointment, but we got there eventually. If Craig decides to come back for another Bond, I don't see why EON should be looking over their shoulder.
As for Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne, neither of those series are likely to be massively successful beyond the Tom Cruise and Matt Damon, so one day they'll be gone.
Plus Mission Impossible fans were often heard criticising the fact that the movies aren't true to the team ethic of the TV series and concentrate too much on one character. It's hard to win isn't it?
I don't see any palpable growth when not adapting a Fleming novel. If the same mediocre writers are serving as the foundation it doesn't matter how many Butterworths, Logans or any such directors that come in, if the foundation is shit it could be a shack, mud hut, the sistine chapel or Buckingham Palace, that shit's coming down one way or another.
If people are happy with the way the movies are, wonderful and more power to you but unfortunately I'm not. It's just the way it is. That's not to say I'm completely devoid of getting any enjoyment though. I've said my piece on the matter countless times, much to the annoyance of others, without a doubt I'm sure but personally, I think EoN do need to wake up, they do need to start thinking more creatively and cut down on a lot of their waste; creatively, logistically and financially and for them to strive to consistently do a better job overall and overseeing these movies with better care. Coasting off the success of past glories clearly is tricky business and where it can work, it has to be done strategically otherwise one ends up playing themselves out like what Mendes seems fond of doing. In any case, you've just made CR? Beautiful now forget about it and get me another Bond film. You grossed a billion dollars with SF? Wonderful, now forget about it and get me another Bond film. Work up an appetite, prepare some good food, eat, enjoy and be well; as opposed to snacking greedily anywhere, anyhow and then wonder why you have a bit of a stomach ache.
People can feel free to agree or disagree either way is absolutely fine. This is just my position on the matter and I hope Bond 25 can bring me the same satisfaction others have been able to get with the Bond films as of late.
Out.
And SPECTRE isn't a Sixties Bond. So please excuse me if I don't freak out over a change in the way Blofeld & his connection to Bond are presented. ;)
I couldn't agree more (maybe for different reasons) but this statement is spot on!
In my opinion Spectre is a direct result from SF and QOS.
EON took the wrong path with QOS trying to be something else that was very popular at that time. With SF they tried again to be something else, melodrama and soap opera. The result can be debated, it's no secret I didn't like it.
After that there was only one possible direction. To go back to the formula that worked so well for decades with various Bond actors.
I don't think it is a coincidence that Spectre is so similar to GoldenEye in many ways.
Of course if one loved that style, and a great many did, then Spectre was loved as well by them, and it was and is. Ticket sales records have fallen in many important markets. I know, in the end only the revenue and profit counts, but even by that standard Spectre can only be regarded as a great success.
But now, more than ever, EON stands at a crossroads with their franchise.
Of course, the way Bond evolves, depends greatly on the next actors name. If it is still Daniel Craig, there won't be too much of a change in direction. It would not make much sense. We will get something like FYEO probably. Still fun, still action oriented but more down to earth again, a better QOS maybe.
But if there is a new start, EON has to do what you said above! It is absolutely elementary!
There are enough capable directors out there that could deliver something like FRWL that works today.
I'm not sure how realistic this is. It seems BB and MGW may be a bit too routine-blinded by now and maybe it would be time to let someone else take the helm.
JJ Abrams perhaps? (no worries...JOKE!) :))
It sure is a difficult task and I don't want to be in BB's and MGW's shoes to be honest. I criticised them a lot in the past, and I believe my criticism was justified, but I admit, they have a difficult job to do and would I do it better?
Great to hear.
Give me 2 years and a budget of 195 nay 180 million dollars and I'll make the best damn Bond film in decades.
After 10 yrs, I'm ready for a new Bond actor and a new direction personally, but a part of me also wants DC back to end his time as Bond on a high note, critically and personally - because I think he deserves it after all he has given Bond. Unfortunately, I feel that for him to be able to do that properly, they will have to go back to a darker Bond film to permit him more acting opportunity. Another part of me prefers they leave that option (stripped down, dark thriller with depth) for a new Bond actor so he can demonstrate his worth to the global audience and kick his tenure off on a high note.
Catch 22.
In the end, I think my loyalty is to the franchise and its continued success rather than one actor.
I'm rabid all right, and I bite...
:-j
Like I said, it has some good moments. It's getting excessively knocked, sure. The lead star was injured and that may have impacted action scenes (I'm sure it did).
Unlike some here I don't think Bond is on the ropes. I'm very confident that B25 is going to be exceptional no matter what direction they go in and no matter which actor is in the role. I would prefer a new start, because I think it will reset the clock again (all actors have delivered superb first time outings imho) but if they decide to continue from SP, I won't mind. Mendes is gone now so there is less risk of any tangents.
That's harsh I know, but it looks that way.
The same people who argued endlessly about the success of SF and how that is proof for its high quality now have difficulties understanding the success of Spectre, their main argument has now gone bust. Bad luck.
I always accepted SF's success and was able to understand it, even if I didn't like the movie. Some people should try to do the same with Spectre. Because Spectre, as Skyfall hit all the right buttons with the majority of people.
Otherwise the box office for SP would look much different.
People should start to accept, that a Craig-Bond can be like Bond movies of the past and be highly successful, because it was, once again proven by the record sales Spectre is currently generating on home media.
What is still open to question is how it will be remembered. What is its overall legacy within the Bond universe? Only time can answer that question.
DAD, as you've noted before, was the most successful film in some markets during the Brosnan era.
Will SP be seen as a DAD, or as an MR, or as a TB? That question can only be answered with time and I believe that is the legacy that some are questioning, and not its box office standing which is irrefutable.
You have a point. The similarities between the Brosnan and Craig era are staggering.
I think the case of GE and CR doesn't need explanation.
TND might be better viewed than QOS, but both were to some degree a bit of a disappointment.
TWINE and SF are somewhat similar, I'd go so far to say SF is a remake of TWINE or a blatant rip-off. Both (in my opinion) are the least good of both actors. SF of course differs greatly to TWINE box office wise.
Spectre may indeed be viewed upon less favorably in the future. But it will never be Craig's DAF, AVTAK or DAD.
But it may be Craig's MR or YOLT.
True, I was tempted to list TB as well.
Then again, TB is my #2 Bond film, so anything supposedly of that calibre is few and far between for me.
Like SP.
B-)