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
Thank you, Emma.
The last two have been great as far as I'm concerned. And even ignoring the money it made SF got great reviews, award nominations and had most of us raving at the time. There was such a buzz around it. I know everyone has their opinion and it's all subjective but surely that kind of success is indicative of at least some sort of quality or entertainment value.
I think the long gap has definitely played a part, coupled with how SP went down. I liked it but a lot of people didn't, and instead of a film that acts as a course correction getting people back on side, we've had a long gap giving those who didn't like it nothing but time to dwell on it. People loved Skyfall. Fans loved it. Critics loved it. The public went out in droves to go and see it. If they'd capitalised on that success more and produced a couple of follow ups that were better recieved than SP was, or if Bond 25 was out last year and was better recieved than SP was, then I genuinely don't think we'd be seeing half the negativity we are now.
But at the end of the day that negativity is just the mark left by the latest film (made worse by there being a gap instead of another film to get people back on side), and there have always been good and bad Bond films. I don't think it means that the series as a whole is in any real trouble, that the Craig era as a whole hasn't been good or that EON are complacent.
I left SPECTRE trying to convince myself that I liked it, but in fact felt empty.
I actually preferred Spectre but I definitely think you're in the majority. After Skyfall came out there seemed to be a proper buzz on here, that ending in M's office promised this whole new exciting era. Instead we've just had one divisive follow up.
In the end though I think Bond is fine. I think the current atmosphere on this site is just because the last one wasn't very popular with fans and that reaction has just sort of been left lingering for the last couple of years. But the next one is looking really promising (Danny Boyle can do no wrong). I think Bond 25 will be a much more well recieved film, which should calm things down a bit on here.
+1 Thats exactly how i felt too.
I left Skyfall with a huge grin on my face that stayed there for days.
After Spectre though i was scratching my head for a week... "wtf was that?" i really wanted to like it, i hyped myself for a year in advance, flew to Rome and London for the first time JUST to visit the shooting locations.
I was thinking this MUST be better than Skyfall, or at least AS good, all the same people are involved, how could it not be? I am fairly certain that B25 will be better though. There will be no rehashs this time. I am expecting something completely different.
I don't doubt the last 2 Bond films has it's fans and SF was definitely a huge event but again, EoN always get complacent when they see a bit of success and then drop the ball. Ghost Protocol came out in 2011, Rogue Nation in 2015 and now Fallout in 2018...look at those gaps for the latest 3 MI films alone. The quality and creativity is consistently high despite the gaps and I just can't excuse Bond for his comparative lack and overall uninspired execution. Compare the plane and car chase in SP OR ANY VEHICULAR CHASE In a Bond film to the vehicular chases in Fallout...Bond doesn't come remotely close to being able to compete and there's no reason for this to be happening. I'm obviously only speaking for myself but if EoN dont feel inspired or feel shaken and stirred by Fallout then nothing will and we're left to just talking about how great Bond is because of irate long cinematic legacy. Screw that, it's a case of, what have you done for me lately?
I'm seeing Fallout again tomorrow.
After getting down to the final contenders for CR you'd have to think he's remained on EONs radar. Similar to Moore, Dalton and Brosnan in the past.
Depending in which direction the series goes in with the next actor, it could (and probably would) be tailored to the actors strengths.
I'll take Cavill over many of the so called candidates, Turner, Hardy, Norton, Elba, et al.
I'd still be happy with Hiddleston as Bond or Matthew Goode, but I fear the latter is maybe a little old to debut now.
I'd be surprised if Cavill isn't at least on EON's short list. Time will tell.
So where does it say an actor that’s played a previously established “iconic” role cannot play another? Is it the 11th Commandment that Moses The Lawgiver forgot to deliver, or maybe it’s chiselled in stone somewhere in the hallowed Hollywood hills? You must point me to your source.
You must’ve been been in a right tizz when Chris Evans was cast as Captain America, especially after him having already played the “iconic” Johnny Storm/The Human Torch in The Fantastic Four. I won’t even bother to mention Ben Affleck having played Daredevil before Batman. I’m sure that you’ve got a lame excuse up your sleeve as to why that’s entirely acceptable, though.
I actually enjoyed SP more myself although I think SF is the better movie and I know it has its problems.
People wishing a different direction with Boyle might be disappointed. I think we'll have a more careful Mendes (which I'm happy with) or a more reckless (which I'm worried about).
Bond films are unlike any other franchise in cinema. We're approaching 60 years of the screen Bond, something now other series can match as far as regular basis within the same production team/family. Only six actors have played the role thus far. It's unique.
I'm a huge fan of the Mission Impossible series, and many other series as well. But none of them work like Bond. Bond is an event, he's part of popular culture. You don't here real life villains or events being like something from a Mission Impossible film. But people, cars or situations are often referred to as being like something from a James Bond film.
The imitators come and go, but Bond outlasts all of them.
I used to think Cavill would be the heir apparent after Craig. That he needed only a bit of experience and maturity he then lacked. I was also hoping he'd succeed Craig if he had been that promising so young. That was ten years ago or so. Now he's today's flavour in this thread but that's it.
I suspect if the pool of candidates was good Craig would be done already.
I think the earlier Bond actors were more handsome than Henry Cavill so I don't think he's too handsome for Bond. I think that's a silly comment.
Sean Connery was a classically attractive, rugged chap.
Timothy Dalton:
Same was true of Moore, Lazenby, Brosnan.
The notion Bond isn't meant to be too handsome is seen through the prism of Craig's casting. Henry Cavill is not too handsome for Bond but his acting ability may be too limited for Bond. Anyway, as seen by the popularity of Craig's Bond, I doubt the audience care that much if Bond is Henry Cavill type handsome or previous Bond actor type handsome. The box office results prove that.
People on forums get hung up about the look ("this guy is not handsome enough or tall enough!") because we like a degree of continuity but the average Joe Shmoe film goers couldn't care less. In some respects that is a sad reality but that's the way it is. Craig's casting broke that continuity so there's no reason to think Henry Cavill, a more conventionally handsome man, has a huge advantage over less attractive men up for the role of Bond. I can't see Barbara Broccoli swooning over the likes of Cavill or some other handsome new actor and rushing to give them the part. Could be wrong, of course!
Great actor, good looks, but wrong for Bond imo.
He would make the level of Drama you saw in the Craig films look tame in comparisson.
What can you do about it, though?
As I see it there are two options.
A) Draw some optimism from the hiring of a unique director, with a new raft of department heads and an enthused crew, or...
B) Continue to bitch and moan about something you have zero control over.
If they’d hired Mendes and announced B25 was to be the completion of a trilogy, I could understand the continued frustration. As it is, while I see several issues you and others have raised that I do actually understand, I see no reason, at this juncture, to be quite so down on everything.
Yeah I was firmly in the negative camp (loved the last two but was really hoping for a fresh start rather than another Craig film) but the Boyle announcement has won me round. I don't get why we're talking about how the Bond films need to be better when so far everything is shaping up nicely for the next one. Lets wait and see how 25 turns out before complaining about the current state of things.
He's got the ability to become Bond. Might not be the most fantastic actor, but Bond is Bond, it's not Shakespeare. He's got Bondian qualities, and is the right age as well.
I'd be quite ok if Cavill was picked to be the next James Bond.
Well said, and I believe all of this to be true of Aidan Turner as well.
Yes, it would be a shame to throw away an ok ending in order to chase that "end on a high" mentality. I can't help but think that knowing this is the end for Craig, they will try too hard to drill home the sense finality, and forget to prioritize making a solid Bond flick.