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
Like all of us here I am very curious what Daniel Craig will (most likely) tell about his Bond future in this upcoming interview. In terms of timing I am sure he will have made his mind up by now if he will make one more movie in 2017/2018 or not - preproduction will likely start full steam next year and they need to know where they are going.
What bugged me the most in SP is that it had really great elements (PTS, Mr.White Scenes, Q-Scenes) and just (IMHO) screwed it up so badly ... mostly in the 3rd act. Like many said within this thread or forum is that it did not require much to make SP a better film. Reason for this post is that I also read here (and elsewhere), fans of the Craig-Era (I am one of them) don't want some elements from the "old formula" defined by Connery in the 60s to come back. But I don't think that's true. As much as I liked CR (and it is #3 on my 007 Top 5) I definitely appreciated they brought back Moneypenny and especially Q and the way they did - in a modernized or "New Formula"-adjusted way that worked with Craig very well.
That is why I greatly appreciate SF (even it's quite experimental in many ways) while I am a bit unhappy with Spectre: SF just worked and I find it highly rewatchable. The elements they brought back just work - while they did not in SP. In SP on the one hand they went back to the old formula too much.
One example: When Bond adjusts his cufflinks in the PTS of SF, that is just perfect - the way we (I think all) like James Bond to be. This whole thing worked for me being something from the "old formula" but still fitting the new one. While this scene worked so wonderful, the couch-scene from SP just did not. It was too much in my opinion and felt ... not right.
Same with the half-brother thing: They tried too hard to re-play something from SF (more background story to Bond) but it was just too much. I appreciated the background information added from Fleming elements about Hannes Oberhauser - but making Blofeld his evil half-brother is just too much. Same with the example above it is just "too much of the new formula" - they tried "too hard".
I definitely want one more Craig movie to be made - but I would, like many, want to get rid of these "over the hill" elements and play them down a bit again - without losing them completely. The Q scenes for example worked well in SP as well as the little gag with the FIAT driver in Rome. I like the extended Bond/Moneypenny relationship as much as the new M: All is well in this area. But the nemesis must be refined and definitley need a script in quality of CR.
I do hope for at least one more Craig 007 Film (I am not sure how long we will be able to keep up doing them so physically demanding like he defined the role) with Fleming novel elements from OHMSS (I would definitely use Madeleine as a new Tracy), Moonraker (Gala Brand as well as the "Hideaway Basis") and less but more explored locations like they did in movies like DN, TB and other early ones. QoS had such great places they went to - but some of them are wasted somehow. I generally like QoS btw - I just purely hate the editing plus find the showdown a bit weak - but I like it (much) better than SP actually.
Surely that's a good thing if it forces EON to be bold and reprove to the world why Bond is best a la CR and Goldeneye.
Absolutely.
But that's so passé - we need the series taking forward not backward.
https://youtu.be/Qd4jGdHYTH8?t=16m25s
Problem is every time a four year wait occurs- EON once again has to PROVE Bond is still relevant in this day and age- and show audiences what a James Bond film apparently is. Hence more tacky references: dialogue referencing Bond or MI6 being out of date, and worst of all, an obviously undecided approach on where and how to take the series leading to very mixed up films.
Exactly,they try to hard...they cram too much in,in their determination to show Bond is back.
If it wasn't the standard 2 year gap then things would be much easier and not forced.
As Bond would then say,as in QOS : " I never left....."
It also briefly appeared in Time to get out and Trip Fields.
=)) :))
Exactly what I have been saying,Count....totally agree,there is no reason not to revert to this...
The problem is, unless the entire team is consistent there's no benefit to be had from this approach. What you’re talking about is a serial model, where you have a creative team under the stewardship of Showrunner, plotting the course in tandem with production. Bond works more successfully in an episodic framework. The disadvantage is that, depending on the team you assemble, the finished product is going to vary (as we've seen) across films, but I don't think we're ever going to go back to a situation where a journeyman churns out 3, 4, or 5 in a row.
The key is to bring in a writing team who can maintain some level of consistency and hire directors who are happy to work within a pre-defined (although loose enough) framework. EON are constantly tossing about ideas re. Where to take the series next, but given their relative size it makes sense to channel all focus into the film they’re making when they’re in production. They all had an idea of where Bond might go post CR, but it’s not something you need to set in stone way before time. Ideas change, they stagnate, and teams lose focus. When I get writer’s block, I toy with Bond treatments that go back and forth with a partner. The ideas immediately post-SP are wildly different from those we’d cook up now. Spending years developing is one of the hardest processes – especially when you have something as malleable as Bond to play with. The process has to keep moving and evolving.
The reason I think SP didn’t satisfy some is because it was in many ways shackled by what came before. Some people enjoy the threads of continuity, but I do wonder if that is merely down to an OCD type need for order and symmetry more than it is a satisfying story. If they had freed themselves of the past, figuratively and literally, I believe the story might’ve moved into more fertile territory.
That’s why, for me, it’s always important for them to feel they can do anything going forward, without having to adhere to any pre-written rules or arcs they may have implemented. It should be a blank canvas, with a strong leader at the helm to keep the crew in check.
HAHA! The first time I read that I thought you said "Adele ad", then I watched the video expecting to see Adele pop up.
'It is always quite grumpy characters, so I wouldn’t mind having a bit of a laugh and maybe a bit of romance to spread it about a bit.'
Idris' comments comes after he claimed the possibility of him stepping into Daniel Craig's Bond shoes was the 'wildest rumour in the world'.
Asked about the never ending speculation, Idris admitted: 'If I'm really honest, man, I think I'm too old for that, I can't be running around in cars and ladies and martinis – who wants to do that? It sounds terrible!' he laughed.
Idris added that it will be people power that secures him the coveted part if it does happen.
'If it were to happen, it would be the will of a nation, because there's not been talks of me in the studios about any of that. But everywhere I go, people want that to happen,' he added.
Idris has been batting away the rumours for years, admitting in 2015 that he blamed his pal and current Bond Daniel for starting the speculation.
'Daniel Craig actually set the rumour off,' he said at the time.
'About four years ago he said "Idris Elba would be a great Bond", and then it started to creep. I blame Daniel.'