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 don't really buy this... unless it's some sort of power play for Sony - because they are very desperate at this point for a successful tentpole franchise, that i wouldn't put it past them throwing that kind of stupid money at EON and Craig for 2 more films, and to continue sucking on the Bond teet for a little while longer..
but Sony can't outright pay Daniel anything in terms of Bond... unless the deal is that Sony would pick up his tab (along with half of the production budget once again)
I'm hoping that we can have a well written and directed Bond film for Bond 25. I really like Daniel Craig as Bond, and though I'm in the minority, I actually enjoy Spectre and his performance in it. However, if his heart is not in it, I'd rather he left the role. Better to have a new actor, than an actor who's only there for the money (See, Connery DAF)
And like those that have mentioned the 'homages' and 'nods' to the old films, why do we have to do it in every film now?
Unlike nearly everyone, I also like the DB5 at the end of Spectre. The Bond theme blasting out. And Bond and Madeline drive off. For me it worked. But that was about it. The DB5 has been so over used since CR, and even the return in GE and TND was too much. Let it go!
Over the last few years I've noticed that my appreciation of the films has taken me back to those of the 60's. Simpler stories. Sometimes less gadgets or even stunts. But good solid stories, with decent often unknown actors. Yes, they were often over the top and pushed to boundaries of plausibility. But they were entertaining and fun. I often get the feeling, especially since CR that the Bond films are trying too hard. Luring bigger name actors to play parts that they're not really suited too. Waltz makes an interesting Blofeld and I'd be happy for him to return. But was he really giving his all, or was he merely happy to add Bond film to his list of films?
With Bond 25 I don't want any references to Bonds past, be it emotionally or as a homage. Cut back on the Mi6 stock company and give us a story that can't be questioned over it's problems by a 10 year old. I was watching SF earlier, and continually asked myself questions that frankly ruin the movie. For anyone who has a problem with SP, then SF is equally as bad story wise.
By all means make the story a little out there. But make sure it works first. Then spend lots and lots of time making the script right. At least then we might be onto something.
i think they fell into the trap of trying to be a little too clever with their stories... sometimes a simple straight forward mission is the best way to go.... you can still dive and delve into a character (as Craig likes to do) while not having to mine every last nugget out of his past... I don't personally mind the foster-bro thing in SP, but i can perfectly understand why it's so offputting to a lot of fans - it's shoehorned in, because they needed something - it doesn't feel natural, and comes off as more as "upping the ante" or "pushing to envelope" of unresolved childhood problems that was briefly touched upon in SF...... Bond has survived as a character for 50 years with little to no knowledge of his past or upbringing in the films - and i am not saying that we should never get glimpses or windows looking in, because that can be fascinating.. but having it shoved in to 2 straight films i think was a bit overkill... as much as i enjoyed SP, it felt like SF redux... Mendes shot his load with SF, but when he came back it was like he really didn't know what to do, so he just did SF all over again - but switched the mother/son dynamic that worked in SF, to a father/son/brother one in SP, which fell a bit flat.. and all of this while recycling that same "old vs new" theme that was also a part of SF...... to put it simply, SP feels like a retread instead of a natural progression of the story and character..
i also agree, if Craig's heart isn't truly in it - then i would rather see him go, as much as i love him as Bond.. but we'll see, i truly couldn't see Dan simply going through the motions in order to cash a check like Connery did in DAF, i think he has a little more respect to the role than that... although that is a sacrilegious amount of money to say no to lol... i would slap my dear old mom for that much money - but then gladly pay her off afterward lol.
I'd rather see Dan back than any of the rumoured alternatives and if Sony want to spunk absurd sums chasing a tent pole franchise then that's fine with me.
Although if they end up bankrupting themselves when B25 only takes $650m where does that leave the series going forwards?
but i feel like Bond movies could, and should really stay between a $150 - $200mil p.b. in this day and age - unless we are getting a completely stripped down bare bones thriller, in which case you could probably go even cheaper... but i feel like anything more than $225mil for a p.b, and the studio is playing with fire - because the return will need to be hefty in order to turn profit.
i feel like whatever new studio (or perhaps most recent studio) takes over the distribution/50% p.b. deal, or something similar - that cutting back on on the p.b. will no doubt be one of the main area of concerns.. these companies are in it to maximize profits, and unless they are The Mouse, which has a seemingly endless supply of money - i fully expect Bond 25's p.b. to be smaller than that of SP or possibly even SF.
For a scaled back film to really work, it has to be an intelligent thriller but not overly complex, in order for it to translate nicely into foreign markets and appeal to a wide audience. It's not an easy thing to achieve or shoot for, especially when you've got a franchise that has recently hit the $1bn mark in global gross (money talks).
It's a question of how wide a net one wants to cast, in terms of exposure.
IMHO a guy with a razor, dancing round a tied down police man, singing along to Gerry Rafferty is 1000 times more thrilling, tense, etc than a meaningless explosion in a dessert. Its all about involvement.
We need something like the QOS car chase with not so frenetic editing and camera work.
I thought we were going to get something visceral and memorable but instead it was a gentle jaunt through the city compared to the QOS one.
I watched both parts of Jean-François Richet Mesrine at the weekend as well as Cassell being utterly electrifying I'd forgotten how well paced they both are and the cracking shoot outs and car chases throughout, also great use of Mathieu Almaric.
Richet would be great for Bond, I know he's just directed the Blood father with Mel Gibson in recently but he's certainly got the chops to make an exciting thrilling film.
I think that scene shows why Mendes shouldn't be a filmmaker (along with Logan), let alone a Bond filmmaker. It's a stage play scene. Filmmaking 101: you're suppose to show what happens, not discuss it.
Show us:
White betraying Blofeld (or Blofeld taking issue with him)
White getting poisoned or discover he's being poisoned
Bond discover White has a daughter
Then show the critical piece of info that Blofeld and Hinx are after or the interesting detail that leads to Blofeld's whereabouts or who he really is (if they had made it interesting).
It's basically the heart of the film and it should have been expanded upon and delivered, instead we get the MI6 team subplot and the bloated repeat ending, etc.
QoS did this in an even worse way with the dock scene which was 3 scenes crammed into 1 where they explain the whole movie.
well, thats kind of the problem when you try to connect the events of 3 previous films that barely shared a connection before.. CR and QOS were directly connected, which is why (imo) they flow really well from one to the other - they literally feel like parts 1 and 2 of a bigger overarching story.. SF was it's own thing... but they HAD to find a way to connect it all together....
it all boils down to that they had no real plan in place.. they wanted connected films - but didn't have a plan in place from the beginning - which would've helped.
I've got SPat #23 and SF at #24, although they might be flip-flopping soon.
That's bottom of heap.
But I do like Mendes homages. The DB5 in GF,. carried over to SP too, was whacked, but the rest of them I do actually like, such as the landing on the couch in SP.
The landing did seem familiar when I first saw it, but it didn't click, until someone on here pointed it out.
@haserot Good Mendes critique. My Bond experience with him has probably now turned me off every else he's ever done.
@benny. The original films yes, are the best I think, for the reasons you suggest.
:)) Some might say we are being harsh, and they might be right, but.different tastes....
I have SF at #24 and SP at #23 as well.
SF is a bloody shambles of a film and Mended just failed it.
To my total utter amazement I had one of the greatest ever cinematic experiences when watching Spectre. I can't even believe it's from the same director that gave us that SF mess. I had to view SP 13 times at the cinema I was that hooked.
So now it happens, and that is truly amazing, strange, ironic, destiny that I have one Mendes movie at the Top of my ranking and one at the bottom.
SPECTRE has dethroned GoldenEye after 20 years.
Both movies are opposites in many ways. While SF is dreary, fun-less and humourless and takes itself way too seriously SP is positive, funny, witty, fantastically OTT and full of amazing iconic sequences.
Even Craig's performances vary greatly. SF gives us one of the worst Bond performances ever and SP one of the very best, only TB comes to mind as being even better in that regard.
Afraid we're at opposite ends of the spectrum as its the homages that I hate most about him. Just get on and direct Sammy rather than bothering yourself with all this fanwank and you're a good director. Sadly he's allowed himself to get far too bogged down with the thought 'I'm making a Bond film, I must make it Bondy' than just going out there and making a good film. Certainly with SP you sense he gave more thought to all the meaningless fluff than he did to the script.
However ranking SP last I find as risible as ranking it top quite frankly.
It's never Eon's money. Whatever upfront costs (such as writers for a script) they have are compensated when the studio approves and goes forward with the movie. After that point, it's studio (or studios plural) money.
Albert R. Broccoli tried financing a movie once (The Trials of Oscar Wilde). Never tried that again.
How so opposite us Bond fan can be, you swap them round and that's my opinion, it's good you loved it so much I guess.
I suppose to have 3 Bond films I enjoy I should be grateful, I thought that maybe to have 4 would be nice but I lived through the period from 1995 - 2002 and that was excrutiating at times so I'm sure I'll survive.
Financially, SPECTRE has been a huge success. It had a box office of $880 million, only one other James Bond film earned more.
And yet, Waltz isn’t satisfied – with his own performance, with the result.
‘I cannot claim that I’ve really nailed Blofeld. Overall it held water, was okay. But it wasn’t what I’ve been looking for. I was searching for more inspiration.’
He has been getting this vibe even before shooting started, but by then it was already too late.
‘An actor can only be really good when there are shared possibilities.’
He refuses to be any more specific about it, but it’s clear what he means by that: apparently the chemistry between him and director Sam Mendes didn’t play out the way he would have wished for.
How does one survive a PR spectacle such as James Bond?
First he says ‘I’ve survived worse’ and then he adds ‘There is a tendency to excessiveness. I understand you want to invite as many guests as possible to a premiere. But does it absolutely have to be the Royal Albert Hall? That doesn’t really help the whole cause. In the end it’s a film, and it should remain a film. The next premiere will probably be a national holiday; it almost was this time. I don’t see what’s so bad about the Odeon at Leicester Square for a premier cinema?’
At the end of SPECTRE his Blofeld is still alive – is a sequel with Waltz possible?
‘I don’t know about that, nobody knows. It wasn’t talked about, except in the press. Right now nobody even knows which studio will produce the next and if Daniel will return. All of that is filed under “carry on”‘
I for one was really hoping Waltz would shine as Blofeld. But obviously there were problems from the get go, and I think it really showed at times. I'm assuming this also explains the huge difference in his delivery of certain lines in the trailer vs. the film. I'm really intrigued as to what his vision for the character is, and what Mendes' was.
‘I don’t know about that, nobody knows. It wasn’t talked about, except in the press.'//
This coming from the same person who denied he was playing Blofeld in the first place.
Of course he knows. When you're dealing with an A-list villain in a tentpole franchise, it's probably worked into his contract in some capacity. Stranger things have happened, but, when you get an actor of Waltz's caliber, you most likely don't want him for only one film-- especially as his character is left alive and, mostly, healthy.
Actually we should be glad tastes and opinions can be that different.
I'm not sure I understand, there are only 3 Bond movies you enjoy? Or did you mean CR-QOS-SF?
You certainly like something pre-GE?
Funny, I completely feel the opposite way. SF had me in awe the whole way through the movie on my first viewing, hell even M's death had my emotions at the stake and I admit I did get emotional at that part -- which is extremely difficult to achieve, let alone a Bond film.
Spectre on the other hand didn't give me that sense that I could relate to Bond. That Bond was in any position I could relate to in my life. There was no longing for resurrection anywhere in the film.