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
No 20/20 hindsight needed to see that brothergate was a shit idea I'm afraid. Not even Peter Sutcliffe-blind-in-one-eye-and-with-50%-vision-in-the-other hindsight required. You could actually go to a sanatorium and find someone who was born blind, deaf and dumb who only communicates through touch and smell and ask them before shooting 'Is this script all over the shop and is brothergate a pile of bollocks?' and they would have tapped out on their little keyboard 'Yes blatantly. It's as plain as a Bulgarian pin up.'
You only wish that Ralph Fiennes had been script editor as he seems to be only person on set who had the faintest clue what he was doing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I certainly wouldn't be against Ralph taking the directors chair for B25.
Nah, it's not. It's a good movie, but it's far far away from being the best James Bond film. If you doubt, ask yourself one question: if this would have been the very first James Bond movie would it have started a franchise reaching over several decades featuring a hero, that is (was) universally regarded as the epitome of suave masculinity?
Well said. In fact it probably would have spawned a franchise that only lasted 4 films ending with the step brother story arc that was SP.
But which is a better film (CASINO ROYALE or any other) is different than which could kick off a never ending franchise. DR. NO in 1962 did. DR. NO in 2006, not likely. CASINO ROYALE in 2006, probably not, as good as it is. CASINO ROYALE in 1962, maybe, but it can't be proven.
If someone like that, boasting style,Raffinesse and joy de vivre, hadn't existed before - most certainly!
Nice one :))
I, too, believe CR is among the best Bond movies and one of the best movies ever. I don't care about its influence on people and their ideas abous masculinity.
I don't think that's implausible. Though if they announce Mendes as the director for B25 then I will wish Craig had left altogether. Still, with money and all actors having a hard time letting the role go, I wouldn't be surprised to hear Craig say in four years, "I thought I was done, I really did, but they came to me with a great idea and I couldn't pass it up, one more time."
But it would be a mistake, they need new, young blood. Not that EON wouldn't do it. Craig era had plenty of TIME to get things right and deliver a series on par with CR, but they didn't. Not that I'm in the camp that there's going to be some monumental shake up for B26 and they will suddenly start delivering. That's wishful thinking with the those in control not going anywhere.
I may never agree with you again, but what you have said here is 100% correct
This. Obviously my comment was subjective since not everyone will agree what the “best” Bond film is. I love both DN and CR, even though they are different Bond films, but prefer CR.
Pretty much agreed. For its flaws the Craig era is still second to Connery’s IMO. I have expressed many times I still like SP despite my problems with it. Still, Mendes returning seems like a meh idea.
Can you illuminate me as to where the buck does stop then if not with them?
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/866716/James-Bond-25-Elon-Musk-space-rocket-Daniel-Craig-Moonraker-Roger-Moore
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/4687427/daniel-craigs-new-james-bond-film-to-feature-massive-spaceship-designed-by-billionaire-science-guru-elon-musk/
We Bond fans know which sources are trustworthy. And definitely these trash-papers are not among them.
Still, the idea kind of...interests me. And to be honest I think it is not a very bad idea. It was one of the reasons I earlier created a topic about "Realistic Story Ideas". And I am wondering if it would be a nice idea...IF it was re-imagined in a more serious Craig-style kind of way .Sci-Fi is rapidly becoming Science-Fact anyway. So why not?
And I totally agree.
@Gustav_Graves, I'm honestly open to this possibility, Bond in space.
Even in the YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE ethos where MOONRAKER is remade in 2019 then again in 2029 or 2039.
Ah right having read it again I think you're correct. It was just with the general anti negativity theme of his post I got it into my head he was trying to defend them. But absolutely - I agree too. The shoddily written buck does indeed stop with them.
Agreed. Craig and CR will be a tough act to follow.
It's really unclear to me why Babs and MGW (1) didn't nix Stepbrothergate (2) didn't see the lack of chemistry between Craig and Seydoux in the casting process and (3) didn't complain about the reused score in the pretitles, for God's sake! Even on the rare occasion when Barry would reuse a track it was around 2/3 of the way through the film.
My guess? They ceded too much creative control to Craig and Mendes, which is why I'd prefer that that duo be split up for Bond 25.
i think they put a little too much faith / control into the hands of Mendes and Logan - seeing as how Mendes did helm the highest grossing Bond film in the history of the franchise, and Logan wrote it... i think they left them to their own devices for a little too long, and it resulted in an "average" entry IMO (some love it, some detest it - i feel like it's literally at best and worst, an average entry).....
in terms of lack of chemistry (i think a lot of people on this subject just parrot what others say without knowing what it truly means lol).. i think they worked fine on screen together - i just think for what the story called for their relationship to be by the end of the film, there just wasn't enough time of them together on screen, to make it feel natural - thats a pacing / writing issue, not a chemistry issue...
in terms of the score.. who knows - again, the director usually has final say over those things.. the producers might have had their reservations, but they weren't about to second guess the guy who was just nominated for his work on SF.. i think we all thought he come up with something better.. and at times, (ie 'Donna Lucia') he hit it out of the park, on others he just got lazy - no other way to say it IMO...
bottom line - they weren't conned into anything, it's not like the wool was pulled over their eyes.. they knew what was going on... filmmaking is tricky - there are very little 'sure fire things' .. what might seem like a genius idea during production, might fall flat or not go over at all with audiences - and then you're left holding your piece in your hand - if you catch my analogy... i've never done anything as major as a Bond movie lol - not even close.. but the process is the same, and all you can do is trust that your script makes enough sense, and you do the best you can.. sometimes it works in spades, sometimes, it can explode in your face.... but like i said, the only thing i am really blaming EON for, is not holding back more on the build up and reveal of SPECTRE/Blofeld, and the foster brother crap..
Yeah.
If any one from EON does ever check out these pages they will no doubt be having a good chuckle.
They've just had two of the most commercially successful entries in the series and every other post on here is saying how wrong they got it.
True, but they must at least be wary of the fact SP's critical reception was average at best.
Indeed. A fan forum is worlds apart from the average viewer.
I don't know why Spectre is thought of as being this big disaster. Its biggest flaw is ugly, but it's one that has little bearing on the rest of the film. The rest is good.
Die Another Day and Moonraker were also commercial successes as well... 2 of the highest for their times to boot... just because a film makes a lot of money, doesn't necessarily mean it's good or great (just look at the Transformers franchise)....
just because it made money - doesn't mean it wasn't without it's problems...
bottom line, even if the movie was a financial success, you can't rest on your laurels -
because it was far from being a critical smash hit like SF or CR were (the critical response to SP was more on par with QOS)... it's a very divisive film among your fan base.. there are elements of it that the vast majority of your base don't care for... and despite it making a lot of money at the BO, it still fell short of expectations from the studios and producers..
personally.. i love SF, and i like SP.. both films have their problems.. but with SF, I can accept a little more of nonsensical aspects of it, because it was tighter story / script, and it felt on point... SP still hit the dartboard IMO, it just wasn't close to a bullseye.. there are aspects of the movie that i felt were really well done, and that i would love to see be mainstays of the franchise moving forward (cinematography, art direction, and even the directing itself, from a visual stand point) - but there are elements like the Blofeld angle and the lazy score that are really offputting... just because SP made $880mil world wide, doesn't excuse the Blofeld foster brother stuff IMO... Blofeld's modus operandi should be more than being a jealous brat.
Also, some films just seem to get better over time.
OP is a good example for me. In fact, all the John Glen films.
Conversely, SF and SP are in immaculate condition on my shelf.
This is total and utter nonsense, that just gets repeated on here day after day without challenge. SP was rapturously reviewed in the UK and as I understand it in most markets outside the US. This is reflected in the fact that in many places SP did as well as SF. Only the US BO basically prevented it from being as big a smash as SF.
The fact a few fans on this site take a violent disliking to Brofeld (a sentiment I fully understand) does not mean the film was a critical failure.
I entirely agree SP was not as well reviewed (anywhere) as SF, but you're comparing to one of the most critically acclaimed entries in the series. SP was very, very successful. Both critically and at the BO.
Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.
Looking at the current ratings on IMDB (6.8) and Rotten Tomatoes (63%) I would't say that is very successful. Not bad, but not great either. But the ratings have been higher at a earlier stage.