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
Or FRWL? Or TLD? That to me are the kind of spy thrillers with an air of mystery and fear, without becoming too much like Nolan's Batman.
It's not only that. Tonight I saw "Ronin" again. I am a big fan of director John Frankenheimer. THIS is action that Bond #25 needs. Loud engines, close to the ground action, stressed faces! I miss Frankenheimer. Does anyone know someone who could....follow his footsteps?:
Yes, exactly. They are only interested in the character of Bond and not the fact that he's a secret agent who does a job. That's what makes him interesting to begin with - what he does for a living. Let's see more of that!
Yes, this would be great. FRWL is also a great example of plotting. All the characters get some focus and there is always a sense of forward momentum in the story. Hopefully EON has this in mind!
In addition, B25 needs to be fun. Not fun in the sense of a joke and one liner every 5 minutes, but just a joy to watch repeatedly. FRWL has that, OHMSS has that, GF, etc etc
When the end credits roll on B25 I'd love to feel like I want to watch it again immediately. And not just to see if I'd like it better the 2nd or 3rd time around.
There are *so many* continuation novels, Eon would have its pick. Now, of course, it was once said Eon would *never, ever* use one. But Eon opened the door to doing just that with SPECTRE and the torture scene based off Colonel Sun. Kingsley Amis even got a credit (though you had to look hard to find it in the end title crawl).
Wow, we really are on the same wavelength here - B25 should be very rewatchable. I think the heavy drama can sometimes weight the story down, and make certain films a drag on repeat viewings (especially TWINE).
It's the same with Dr No for me. So simple, and yet so engrossing.
Yes, SPECTRE actually reminds me of DAD a little bit. Quite poor CGI, forced dialogue and constant references to Bond iconography.
I also think the only reason Waltz was brought out of the shadows & apprehended in one film is because they were afraid craig might not return.
The ending does have a sense of not being complete but they could end this era if they had to now at least.
Yes, paper thin plots, weak action generally, poor scores, bad jokes.
Is there any difference between 1999-2002 and 2012-2015 in cinematic Bond? I don't know that there is.
I think the Craig era has done a good job of having stories that are heightened by the characters. Too often aspects of the Bond films, whether it's the schemes Bond is working against or his villains can be so overblown and way out of the scope of credibility that they truly become caricatures and lose their weight. The Craig era represents to me the early Connery films before things began to get out of hand (as Sean was worried they were). We're presented with Bond existing in a world that feels real with suspense and thrills thrown in featuring villains that don't feel so far out there to resemble a cartoon. The Connery films tackled the Cold War scare and Russian influence in tandem with the mysterious SPECTRE, just as each Craig film latches on to the concerns of the time in terrorism, ecological espionage/scheming, hacking and surveillance. The characters and the worlds they exist in have a heavy impact on the story, and you see the effect each element has on the other. It's great to have some Bond films that are more out there and don't worry about character as much, if only for the sake of variety, but it's far better for me to have films that actually stay with me in big ways after I watch them, as they make me think about the state of our world that isn't unlike Bond's.
I don't think the Craig era representing an attempt to snatch up Oscars; I think that's a very shortsighted and foolish remark to make. They deserve lashings for daring to treat Bond as more than an infallible superman? I think the films have embraced too much of the fantasy in Bond at times, and have as a consequence lost a bit of that soul that existed as Connery began or that was reinvigorated here and there since, but never terribly consistent. Bond should still have a fantastical draw for audiences in some respects, as he is an icon, but it's nice to also see the films explore things as they are without a sterile overlay placed over it that glorifies so much of what he does. The Craig era has dared to show the reality of Bond's life, of his world, of the consequences and dirty deals that happen in the history of these intelligence services, while also still leaving room for other elements people expect to see in a quote-unquote "Bond film".
I guess I just don't get the umbrage I read. Bond is attracting great talent that really want to use the character to explore relevant themes and challenges with the character like we've seen in the series before (the time capsule nature of the franchise), and in that respect the status quo remains largely static.
Some call the Craig films soulless or dark, which I find amusing as well. People throw around those words like people nowadays do "masterpiece" or "genius" like they're worth scrap, and I don't know how much thinking goes on in their head before they are used.
When I look at the Craig era I feel immense gratitude for EON's daring to explore him in a way that had ripples. They have explored him as a hard man in a hard business, showing all his pains and pleasures as Fleming did, and have offered us a window into his mind and outlook without showing us everything, still keeping him a mystery. He's been treated as a man of the world, but we've also seen more of him at his home base in London than we have in eons. Craig's Bond doesn't feel like a run-of-the-mill man with a gun and licence to wreak havoc. He feels like a proper symbol for Britain and a force of nature that's always on hand when needed, and because we've gotten to see so much of his life in London when he's not off on missions, we get a lucid sense of what he's fighting for.
We know what his idea of home is, as unfixed as it is, and we know the people in his small circle of friends that matter to him and who he fights for. Knowing this puts all his later actions abroad in a far greater perspective. Juxtaposing the exotic or strange imagery of a vibrant nightlife of Shanghai, the frigid frost of Austria or the dusty heat of Morocco with a rougher stone-faced post-imperial Britain that is a shadow of its formed self but still thriving has been wonderful to see, and Bond has been made a champion of his home in a way he hasn't before. The other Bonds never really have a connection to London for me, and in the films the location only serves as a way for Bond to get his mission and get out of dodge to more exotic things abroad. London never feels as much a home for them as it does for Craig's Bond, and I think that's largely because effort has been taken to show Bond's roots in the city and the base from which he gets all the assignments he takes to protect the people around him at that home. When we see him in Shaghai, then, or we see him in Siena, Montenegro, Bolivia, Turkey or Rome, we know what he's fighting for and we know why it matters to him, and the stakes only rise. Like everything in the Craig era, his connections feel fully formed and dimensional.
Some look at this era as a departure from Bond as they know it-though they say in the same breath that they don't want to see the formula run through. I've seen it as a shot of adrenaline in my brain and heart with films that carry great meaning and display truly brilliant characterization and acting as well as a grand use of other prized filmmaking conventions, and it'll be a shame to see it end and something quite possibly inferior take its place.
Having said that Casino Royale shows its still possible to get things right
SP, while not a perfect Bond film - is leaps and bounds better than DAD.... there was more forced iconography in SF than there actually was in SP.. SP had a few moments of dodgey CGI work (same as in QOS and SF) - but none of that is able to subplant the awful CGI tidal wave, and Bond being electrocuted by Sith Force Lightning from Graves... and please, the dialog? nothing in SP can ever be as douche chilling as Halle Berry's performance.... i know it's the vogue thing to do, to really pick apart and slam SP as if it were a garbage pile of a movie - but it's really not, and literally isn't more better/worse than half the films in the series.. take off the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia and you'll see what i mean..
you forgot YOLT in there, which was even bigger and more ridiculous scale than TB... and no they do learn their lesson - if they hadn't, this series would've devolved long ago.. for every YOLT, MR, DAD - we usually get a OHMSS, FYEO, or CR following it..... i wouldn't even put SP in the same category (yet) as those others... while it wasn't the best Bond film, it really didn't push the envelop of absurdity to the point where they had jumped the shark.... we'll see how they handle Bond 25 - that'll put SP into better context..
the problem EON has, is that they are always in constant competition with themselves - in thinking that "we need to make the next one bigger"... the franchise goes through cycles, and they always eventually reach that threshold of "how much further can we actually take this?" before they eventually scale things back.. it happened to Cubby and Harry, then just Cubby, now it's happening to his kids... this is really nothing new..
i think with Bond 25 - whether Craig is back or not, we will probably get a more restrained film (at least in terms of budget) since that was a major problem with the last one.. so that could always mean scaling the set pieces back.... but you never know..
One hopes EON watch their money more and put it towards the production in far more viable ways than in the past, and aren't so quick to let the budget rise as it did in SP for asinine reasons, I must say. I think this faux pas will drive them to make Bond 25 a tighter, more stripped down adventure with action that is still great, but more clever and experimental as opposed to the all out explosions or chases (and car destruction) we witnessed in SP and everywhere in films now. Their slip-up in that regard may mean great things in the final product of Bond 25 as they are forced into a corner and compelled to really "bring it."
i hope so.. but back in the day TWINE wasn't met with the best of pleasantries from critics either, and we ended up getting DAD...... so who really knows? lol..... i do generally believe that they listen to a lot of the fan criticism (whether or not they always act on it is another thing entirely).. but they do listen - the contrast in filming/editing styles between QOS and SF is evidence of that..... so it really all depends on how they themselves view SP and the post release fallout.. what we all feel about the film, and how they feel may be the same, or it could be completely opposite..... personally, i terms of story/script/tone - i don't feel like there needs to be drastic overhauls.. the only thing keeping SP from being great was a tighter script (sans complaints about Newman's score lol).. some stuff in the beginning could've been a little tauter - but half of the 3rd act was a superfluous mess, that really bogged the film down.... that i believe is where their efforts should be focused.. and seeing as how they purged the writing department and want to go with some new blood - i am keeping my fingers crossed that they feel the same way with the final product of SP as we all did - but they obviously would never come right out and say it during filming - they have a movie to sell after all...
but i gotta believe that whoever they sign a new deal with, will want the biggest return on their investment, and the only way to do that is not spend so flippantly (like you alluded to)... IMO, i would like to see budgets on Bond movies never exceed more than $150 - $200mil - that should be plenty... spending nearly $300mil on SP is absurd, especially when you look at a film like Captain America: Civil War was only on a budget of $250mil.... i think the Russo Bros. and company got more out of that $250mil than Mendes and co. did with nearly $300mil on SP... (and yes, i know that officially on boxofficemojo, the PB is listed at $245mil - but i tend to believe the Sony hacks, which showed that the budget was escalating near $300mil, which was causing the studio execs to buck a lot of Mendes' requests)
Let the little guy run wild and he will go totally bullocks. Take it easy. Turner hasn't done a better Bond film yet. And most likely never...
Where can I find a free popcorn? :))
It was all good until the attack post against @Mendes4Lyfe above your post.
Best to ignore and continue discussing the great topic GG started.
Considering what emotional depth we got in CR and QoS, I don´t feel anything between Bond and Madeleine that goes deeper than the skin.
Btw, I seem to have missed your explanation of the obvious meaning behind the shooting scene and death of Severine in SF. Would you like to point me to where that was posted?
I don't think that ending is about Bond giving up on England or MI6, by the way, nor would he view it that way. It simply comes down to the fact that while Bond has done great work in the past to wave the flag for the realm, he seems to want to do something more with his life beyond being a field soldier while he's still able (again, to avoid ending up like White).
As for the SF stuff, it was just a series of arguments I and others had with the same crowd around the time SF was first out in any number of threads across the forums. They thought Bond's "waste of scotch" line was a genuine remark from Bond basically making light of Severine's brutal death, to which I countered that it was clear that Bond used that line to try and hide his anger and emotion from Silva to look like he was unaffected/unmoved by the moment, which Silva had intended to use to stir him. But it's in the past.
hear! hear!