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
As are mine. Think I had three breaks while watching SP the last time. Three too many for a Bond film.
Having said that, I wouldn't mind Bond films being shorter overall. Around the 2 hr to 2.1 hr mark would be fine for me.
I always liked the 2 hr 10 minute length. Seems half of SP was Scooby Gang/C sequences. Cut out that sub-plot and I wonder how long the film would have been?
Rather unfortunate. It's almost like they did a directional shift half way through this reboot thing after a reassessment.
SF was 5 years ago, and at that point we'd only had two films on continuity. Now we have four.
There's a rule in script writing: never go back. Once Babs and Co. left MP and Q in the dust-- quite successfully, might I add (I didn't miss those characters, and, even in Fleming's world, Boothroyd (the Quartermaster), and 'penny, play very, very, very minimal roles), the films NEVER should have gone back to them. At least not in this era.
I doubt a modern M would have a secretary like MP anyways, sitting in the front foyer, taking notes. M would need a personal assistant, as was the role given to Tanner in QoS, and Villiers in CR.
In a modern, gadget-laden world, we don't need a Q (although I like Ben). Bond shouldn't be given outlandish toys (like exploding watches; cheap deus ex machina devices that we know will save James in a pinch), but, keeping with the Craig era, give him grounded equipment that Bond would believably use in the field.
They never should have gone back to the well, bringing in these minor characters. It seems with the scooby gang came a change of tone, and a confused execution by the time we saw SP.
If Villeneuve is in or out, someone needs to ground Craig's last film. He's not Moore or Brosnan. His best humor is sardonic and dry (as we saw in CR and QoS). He's a ferociously physical, masculine actor (as his reviews for OTHELLO seemed to suggest, and as he has proven time and again in his best performances).
I accepted the shift and change of tone in SF, but didn't appreciate the further descent away from DC's Bond in SP.
In the end, one last DC film. He's a great actor, who has aged. Lets take what he's best at: the aged warrior, the last man standing for Queen and Country, with the flaw of arrogance (bookending this theme from CR, but, seen from the other other side-- he THINKS he's seen everything and he thinks he KNOWS how to respond. It'll be the job of the director, and his writers, to make sure Bond gets knocked off balance. That's when true heroism is revealed, when you realize you may've lost, BUT, you're not going to quit at going for the win anyways (DH did this particularly well: McClane's picking glass out of his feet, telling Powell to find his wife when this is all done (insinuating he knows he can't beat these guys), to tell her that "John was sorry"... and then something clicks in his brain-- "what were you doing up on that roof, Hans?"...-- and with that, dragging his battered and bleeding body, McClane continues on, against all odds).
I'm with you on trying to close his story out with some meaning and yes, tying back to the themes of CR would be a good way to go. Bond should show that he is now a man who fully sees the 'big picture'. The old pro if you will, bringing it all together.
I wouldn't even mind a Dench flashback at a crucial moment although I'm sure many here will throw up at the suggestion.
---
@Birdleson, believe me I get where you're coming from. I'm just thinking of it from a legacy standpoint rather than a personal preference standpoint. I'd much rather have a standalone personally, but only with a recast (clean slate - no baggage).
All we can hope is that EoN has historically come back strong after a mis-fire. Lets keep our fingers crossed, and also have faith that Babs and Co know that SP didn't live up to expectations. I have a feeling that she and her team will want to hit this one out of the park.
I did not miss Q and Moneypenny, and I cringed when Mendes brought them back.
The best M, Q, Moneypenny scenes are in the '60s. OHMSS, I believe.
I like White-as-Blofeld better than the foster brother Blofeld we got.
Having Moneypenny be a fresh-start field agent that reserves herself to a desk after failing a mission is actually quite a horrible way of re-introducing her character.
I preferred Lois Maxwell's back story to the character and relationship with Bond.
I'm not a huge fan of Campbell. Can't stand GE. But CR is a solid entry. It has its weak points. As stated above the Miami airport chase is generic stuff and feels out of place. But apart from that it's better than SP and certainly supeirior to SF. I'm a bit of a QOS fan but would probably have to agree that on balance CR is the best of the lot from Craig. From my perspective Mendes really squandered the opportunity provided by CR and QOS. SF sits with the Brosnan films for me as largely unwatchable.