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
I never called SF clever. I called it "intelligent." There is a big difference between the two.
To @bondjames point about the DB5. I should have been clearer: the destruction of the car didn't mean Bond and "old ways" had been defeated; just that it suggested a cynical view of the past, of sentimental value (remember Mallory's line about sentimenality). the car's destruction represented one (dramatic) piece of an ongoing battle. I'll admit: seeing that car getting blown to bits tugged at me.
I agree with @patb: Mendes & co took a lot of what worked in SF (the issue of technology, duality, Bond's psyche) and went too far with it. But I am not going to let SP affect my enjoyment of SF any more than Temple of Doom affect my enjoyment of ROTLA.
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, against the dying of the light.
I know DC’s Bond loves a bit of poetry. Not a bad leaping off point for B25 actually. Please don’t have someone read it out though in the middle of the film - that would be really sh*t.
Waltz was kind of telling the truth though; whoever that was he was playing in SP sure wasn't the Blofeld we know and recognise.
In all seriousness I think EoN should dispense with their ever-growing unnecessary secrecy when it comes to certain aspects of their future Bond films. Trying to keep Blofeld a secret in a film called SP was beyond daft and pointless...and I still can't get over how Brofeld made it through the scrpt's QC. How did they genuinely believe that nonsense was a good idea? Urgh!
What does this dribble have to do with B25?
Damn good point. It seems SP spent too much time shrouding itself in secrecy and setting out to break Guinness World Records and earn Oscars, more so than it was attempting to craft a solid script to work off of.
What does this dribble have to do with B25?
Fantastic poster. Shouldn't that read - finally a mission.
That's the official teaser trailer for B25, so it goes here!
What the F is going on all of a sudden with all this "Old Bond" nonsense again?
This is the shared universe that was mentioned before? Wow, that is brave.
ONE LAST MISSION: PART I
Kind of in the Rambo: First Blood Part 2 ethos.
JIMBOMISSION: FIRST BLOND
But in this film it’s centered around J. W. Pepper, who is not only Blofelds American brother, but also Bonds step brother. He is also undercover in the american police force.
Really?
I always thought it was G. W. Bush
Yeah. For me, the destruction of the car is in line with the fact Bond gets a mere gun and a radio from Q, the fact MI6 HQ gets blown up and they have to move to another place, the fact Q still has spots, the fact the villains are stated to be in the shadows, the fact the world "is not more transparent now, it's more opaque." Through all these things the film is saying the world has changed, and I think it aims to analyze or shine a light on what Bond is about in its essence, beyond all those secondary, transient, "sentimental" things. The explosion of the car is a way of getting a rise out of the audience (and Bond), but I think it's also meant to imply Bond the character and Bond the franchise can't expect to rely too much on it in the future. "Old dog, new tricks."
I definitely don't see it as a mere fan service moment.
@TripAces What I was trying to say about the office at the end is that to me, it goes against the "anti-sentimentality" theme of the film. If anything, it would've made more sense for the briefing scene to have taken place in the bunker or in an entirely new, different government building, not unlike Spectre's. Bond still being Bond, but in a "brave new world."
I think that's what the movie is trying to convey. Having said all that, it seems to me Skyfall's deconstruction of Bond was perhaps ill-advised, at least in certain respects. The gadgets, the car, are all secondary things. We can have and in fact we've had films without gadgets and without cars before, but that doesn't mean they are not a big part of Bond. There is no need to "shed that skin." That skin is part of Bond, as Spectre demonstrates. Furthermore, both of Skyfall's predecessors, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, had little in the way of gadgets, and nothing too extravagant in terms of cars, unlike say, The Spy Who Loved Me, so Skyfall's "anti-gadget" statement seems a tad... unnecessary.
I admit I could be off-base here so I'd welcome any responses to these thoughts, whether here or in a more appropriate thread.
Very well said. Agree on everything.
Then we have the gadgets in the car (which surprised me, because I thought this was Bond's personal car rather than office equipment up to this film), which cause trouble for Silva's crew and lead to it being destroyed (would they have bothered to destroy it if it had not been used as an offensive weapon I wonder?). So I don't see the destruction of the DB5 in SF as being symbolic of the end of something. Just a car which Bond (and the audience) have a connection to being destroyed. Not only a 'fan service' moment as I said earlier, but also an 'emotional' moment for both Bond and the audience. Sure, the car returned in SP, but since it was a 'company car' (as evidenced by the machinery) that wasn't really unexpected. After all, this isn't the first time a Bond car has been 'put back together' (e.g. FYEO Lotus, albeit with a new paint job).
I believe the old look office in SF is very symbolic and a direct and obvious contrast to the excessive tech at the start of the film which despite all its fanciness resulted in Bond getting shot. It's deliberate to once again play into the old ways (and old agents) are best theme of the film, while also signifying the obvious connection with the older Bond films. So it serves two purposes.
Anyway, that's how I see it but it's interesting that we can both have quite different perceptions of these things. That's the sign of an interesting film in my opinion.
EDIT: Sorry for going off topic.