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
Bond fan logic:
"Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace aren't true Bond, man. Where's the one-liners, the gadgets? Where's Q, where's Moneypenny? You can't just throw the Bond formula out the window like that! Do EON have any respect for what Bond used to mean in this modern age?! Cubby is rolling in his grave."
[After SF and SP]
"God, these movies rely too much on the Bond formula now. The Craig era used to be so interesting because it didn't worry about any of this stuff. It was just Bond and his wits, no gadget laden cars, no one-liners. It was something new, something fresh. Now they're like all the rest. Cubby would be rolling in his grave."
My favorite are the people that moaned and groaned about the placement of the gun barrel in the Craig era like incessant children (as if it wasn't there at all), then still complained when they got it back at the start of the film.
I think the ones like me that really haven't taken to the chase really see it as a missed chance an intense chase at various speeds through the streets of Rome. The film had two and half hours to explain everything. Why slow down a car chase to do it?
Just my opinion.
But are they the same people?
I get that, and wouldn't have minded seeing something like that, since the film had been quiet on action since the PTS, I was just defending the sequence for what it is.
Mendes and co. had probably blown so much money at that point in the production that they had no choice but to pursue a less action packed sequence. Had to save all that money for the stupid explosion instead of something truly exemplary.
Mine too... :((
...and I appreciate that. I don't hate the sequence. It's different.
OMG. you need to watch Casino Royale.
It is like something David Lynch could have done, had he been out of puberty by 1967.
Shame there is no like button. Anyway, some people msy ssy that I contratict myself, but I like LTK more thsn TLD. But they could hsve done more. Strip him from all of his gadfets.
It's not my intentipn contratict mysrlf. I guess, I mean to say is done well both traditional and untraditionl films could be good, if you, lije me, love all things Bond. LTK, for me was good because it tried to be more Fleming. I know Mismi Vice was populsr at tahat tome. , but I find more Fleming on LTK , than Mismi Vice.
Drunkard.
LOL, okay so for the record, I like DAD ... for the most part. But I understand what they were going for -- kind of a tip of the hat to the previous 40 years. So there was the DAF satellite. The FRWL colleague who helps Bond. I liked that the first two thirds had Bond without gadgets again (more like the 60s). I didn't have a problem with the car because in 2002 it was no more outrageous than YOLW with a spaceship that could launch, land and relaunch ... and, oh yes, swallow other ships. The mirror/camera technology was there -- just not taken to such an extreme before. (I remember people in the theater laughing during TSWLM when it looked like Bond got on a motorcycle that went across the water. This was before jet skis were really popular).
I detested the CGI in the parasailing sequence. It should have been cut. Really, truly terrible. But I liked the final sequence with the jet that was falling apart.
I don't think of DAD as experimental as much as the filmmakers trying to do an homage. Did we need such a thing? No. I'd rather have a great movie. So while DAD is no CR, I did have a lot of fun watching it.
But ... the mix was somehow not right and there are things I really hated about the movie which makes it the least rewatchable one in the Craig era: The title sequence (Octopus? Why? The organization is called SPECTRE and not TENTACLE) - the worst 007 title sequence for me; I hated and still hate the title song; the whole foster-brother thing; the mi6 building showdown; way too easy escape after the (good!) torture sequence; helicoptergate crash
There was so much great stuff - I read somewhere that they had to rush the movie into the cinemas and to me it's the only plausible explaination. Many things should just be cut from the movie and it works a whole lot better! I have no problem with Nine-eyes thing, I liked the Henchman, car chase, general chemistry between the main cast. But I would cut most of the Blofeld scenes and leave him more in "the shadows" and skip the foster-brother thing or at least don't make it Blofeld's main motivation.
Somebody else here wrote: It would habe been essy to fix the movie and greatly improve it and I totall agree. Remove most of the mentioned items and I think the really, really good ones would shine a lot more and the movie would rank higher - among Bond fans and also a regular audience. Too bad!
For this evening: There will be something mentioned about Bond for sure - after one year I am absolutely positive that we will know if DC is considering another one or not. But we won't hear something about release dates and such since this completely is within the MGM/EoN ballpark.