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
That scene is where they should have left Swann out of the whole fight, and let them slug it out where Bond eventually out wits Hinx instead of out fighting him.
But I agree on the course of action the series should take. Since we're waiting so long for the film, it may as well be good, lol.
I can't see how it makes sense to go gritty and dark with a new approach on B25 with him in tow and then refresh again for B26. That runs the risk of potentially resembling the jumbled continuity (and tonal) mess that was the Roger Moore transition to Dalton for two before a long break and Brosnan. Or even the Connery to Laz to Connery to Moore switch. I don't want that kind of messy transition again just to benefit one actor's legacy.
Fair, but then again Bond actors have traditionally been given it their way in their final films. Honestly, the least jarring transition was from Connery in DAF to Moore in LALD, IMO.
So in that case, bring Craig back and just do a straight wrap up of the SP story (continuing tone and style). Then reset tonally for B26, giving the new man an opportunity to shine (as he should if he is to carry it forward without break for another 4-5 films).
To me, Casino Royale and On Her Majesty's Secret Service at least are Bond masterpieces.
A masterpiece, now that's Casablanca, for example. Or Citizen Kane. Films that are globally celebrated and bowed down to. Other than Goldfinger, I never heard or seen anyone giving a Bond film that treatment, which, over 50 years after its release, is still dropping jaws among critics and the casual audience (those two matter the most, more than the fans, so to speak).
I think FRWL should be hailed as a classic in the same league as casablanca
Another film on a par with CR and I think I'd have to agree with you there.
I'd be happy with that.
But given we have had someone die being the climax of two out of four of Craig's films I'd have B25 be just a classic 'stop the villains scheme' film with gadgets and all that bollocks and with Madeline surviving. Blofeld would barely feature and the main villain would be a Largo type SPECTRE number 2.
The end of the film would be as Hunt intended with Bond and Maddy driving off into the sunset.
Then B26 would have Maddy being killed off in the PTS and be a very dark character driven piece with Bond's breakdown and depression and the ominous tone of the novel realised on screen and only one or two big action set pieces as a sop to the audience who expect these things. The end of the Craig era sees a broken Bond heading off towards Vladivostok. With a well written script (i.e. not by P&W) and the right director Dan might even blag himself an Oscar nomination as he bows out.
I came across this interview of Brosnan in 2004 (he had not yet announced his departure).
I know that it is not full but during the 10 min of interview, nothing on Bond whereas at that time, all the rumors spoke of the next 007. I fear that the interview of colbert on tuesday, gives the Same result result ie nothing on Bond
Italy is an extremely photogenic country and Eon can go back there as much as they like, as far as I'm concerned.
Anytime a Bond movie goes to Italy, the resulting scenes are often the highlight of the film. Take a look at QoS, SP, MR, TSWLM, FYEO, and of course CR and FRWL. The results speak for themselves.
Are you really advocating for this thing being dragged out over two more films? One is more than enough for me at most. I also think we're getting ahead of ourselves with thoughts of Oscar noms for a Bond role. It's very unlikely.
You have every right to dislike SP but you're slightly rewriting history by claiming it got a tepid critical reception. Most of the reviews I read (admitedly mainly from the UK) were glowing.
Here's a sample of the critically "tepid" reaction SP got:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/spectre-20151104
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/james-bond-spectre/review/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/21/spectre-review-james-bond-is-back-stylish-camp-and-sexily-pro-snowden
That be a great idea as well.
I don't mind this being dragged out in 2 films. More Craig the better imo.
Sorry.
Well I'd sooner see it done well over two films than shambolically cobbled together into one.
If they're going to do an adaptation of YOLT they need to set it up properly which they haven't done with SP. This way they could use B25 to dig themselves out of the SP hole and then go full tilt into a decent version of YOLT for B26. What I don't want to see is Blofeld escape, Maddy die and Bond be depressed before being sent off to Japan all in the first half hour of B25.
I didn't say an Oscar nom was likely. But with the right script and director YOLT certainly has the heft to give a Bond actor a chance at a nomination. But of course given the rank mismanagement and reliance on P&W the odds of it happening are infintessimal.
For every positive UK review there's a US one slating it. The UK reviewers seemingly blinded by patriotic Bondian fervour were oblivious to its flaws whereas the yanks saw straight through it.
This doesn't square with P&W's musings about new threats and what not though, which suggests they are turning the page on things.
So what?
Does that change the fact that the UK reviews were actually wildly positive?
Yes we know the US market and critics sometimes respond differently. LTK went down well in the UK and Europe but tanked in the US.
The fact American critics may not have liked SP doesnt negate the fact it was very well received elsewhere and did highly respectabLe box office.
I'm just stating a fact, while qualifying what I'm saying by acknowledging It was UK critics who went mad for SP. @bondjames might want to do the same and acknowldege that while there may have been a tepid critical response in the US , the US is not a proxy for the entire globe.
They control the narrative and the loudspeaker. Production costs are measured in US$ and with exchange rates being volatile, revenue and net profit conversion into US $ will be quite important for a future studio, who only takes a small piece of the pie (With EON & MGM retaining the bulk based on Sony data). All of the studios vying for the distribution job are US based and retain a higher % of the pie in US theatres (according to what I've read) due to arrangement with theatre chains.
US critical reception and opinion does matter disproportionately even today.
LTK? Widely regarded as a flop, despite its global positive grosses.
Oh, and btw, we are all aware that UK critics went mad for SP. You're not stating anything that we don't know. When have they not gone mad for a Craig Bond film? That's not the point and is irrelevant. It's a home grown entity. There was a coordinated marketing approach taken with SF (positive reviews for two weeks prior to US release) which worked brilliantly to create positive market buzz and it backfired with SP. I even called attention to it 'before' SP's release anywhere as a possible risk on the box office thread that was active at the time (e.g. stating that the US word of mouth would be critical to keeping the momentum built in the UK going, as had happened with SF). I also mentioned a few weeks back that with the fall in the UK £ since Brexit, UK gross will likely be less relevant going forward.
One film was more than enough for me. Three total would be unbearable.
I just think that's a defeatist, unambitious attitude. One I fear EON may share or be lazy about. Here's an idea, they own the rights to Fleming... Get a writing team to adapt one of his books and another team to write an original script. Whichever one is better, make it. CR isn't even top 5 book for me, so yes they could make another just as good, if not better. If some writers pull off something original that's miraculously good, great. Now you're still bound by EON and CO's taste and judgement when it comes to knowing what a good script actually is (or when it's finished or where it is in the process), so that's a problem. But I maintain someone can match, if not surpass CR. But it will be in the writing first. CR is my favorite JB film, but being hyper critical, it's not a perfect film, there's still room for improvement. I want a team dedicated to the source material, understanding a great, finished script, and hiring suitable directors for the material. You do that you may actually get a series of great pictures, not a one off and then fumbling about to marginal or varying degrees of success.
The rest of it was fairly run of the mill, except for the parkour sequence which was a real thrill & the ball whacker where Craig shined.
Listen, I'm all for it, but I'm just going by their track record. If you want to call that defeatist then so be it. There's no question that the writing needs to improve. I'd be shocked (but happy) if we got a script, cast, score and performance from Craig that matched CR, that's all.