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
Well, and we can't be pissed off? I mean, no matter what will happen, if either Craig returns or another actor takes over; the 007 writers clearly have manoeuvered themselves in a ghastly difficult position. Better to piss them off, so they get the message. Just....just read the forum, and you know what I mean.
I'm not in favour of asking them to resign, but hell they could use some fresh creative perspective from one of the Bond fans here.
Yes, that was rather embarrassing.
Regarding Craig and Mendes having creating differences, that I can believe. I've always said that the press conference in December of 2014 announcing the title seemed very strange to me. I picked up a tense vibe there, particularly from Craig. He came strolling out at the end and seemed a little disengaged from everyone else. It was nothing that was said or not said mind you - just a feeling I got. It was at that point that I felt he was done with the franchise (this predated wrist slash by 11 months).
I asked a question a few pages back about whether anyone had read any comments or objections by Craig specifically to anything in SP but didn't get a response. We know that Fiennes objected to being the mole in an early draft (from the leaks?), but don't have any information on what co-producer Craig objected to from what I am aware. All we know is that he wanted to commit suicide rather than play Bond again for some reason.
SP was received mixed to negative, but not enough so that they felt the need to abandon it just yet.
1) Bond back at MI6, Blofeld dead and all that personal stuff behind him but realising he'll never have a normal life ala MR. If they go down that route I suppose they could just continue on from there (with a new actor) but I'd rather the events of his films were never directly referenced and they still go back to a looser continuity.
2) Bond's refusal to walk away being his downfall and he goes out in a blaze of glory against Blofeld.
I like the idea of the Craig era covering the whole career of this version of Bond so I'd actually prefer him to be killed off in that way to any other option. I don't think Fleming would have been opposed to the idea if he'd lived longer, he'd toyed with it before after all, and it's not like Bond would be dead forever. They could just do a soft reboot with a new actor/new continuity and carry on as normal. Although there is something tragic about the first one. I'm imagining something along the lines of the SF ending but instead of with pleasure, it's Bond just wearily confining himself to being a spy.
Or y'know. Leave SP as the end. Craig's Bond finally walks away from killing and drives off into the sunset in the DB5. And that's it. Then we get a soft reboot with a new actor, sparing us a boring revenge film or a tacked on unnecessary Bond comes back film that makes his character development in SP pointless.
I certainly am in favour of asking them to resign. I realise that P&W weren't to blame for the turd Logan left them to polish (not that they polished it very well) but why would anyone think they are the people to salvage the Craig era given they have had more than a hand in bringing us to where we are now?
Keeping them on is just fiddling while Rome burns whereas what's really needed is a thorough cleansing of the Augean stables.
We criticize a lot of the other players (and laud Fiennes), but as co-producer Craig certainly had input into the process and I'm just curious to know if (at all) he put his foot down regarding some of the rubbish they came up with on that film.
Good point. If Fiennes putting his foot down was enough to shelve a script idea then surely the same would've been true if Dan had done the same?
The fact that stepbrothergate got filmed means Craig must've been complicit and that alone should result in him being removed from any production decisions forthwith. If he's not happy with that then fine; let him go.
Indeed. The 'arc' was completed in QOS. But then they suddenly tried to tell us in extremely unconvincing terms that the whole thing was actually one big arc. If they had done it well with Blofeld explaining it all in detail over dinner then it might have been ok but I'm afraid merely 'Quantum, Greene, Silva it was all me James' was just lamentable.
No, the arc was completed in Casino Royale.
At first I was quite excited about the return of Blofeld and SPECTRE. But I think they overused it too much. They should have re-introduced Blofeld in a slower, more dignified way.
Well true. QOS should've just been business as usual despite the loose thread of Mr White.
But at least QOS carrying on the arc was logical and made a bit of sense and compared to the hamfisted botch job we got in SP it was positively Shakespearean.
Which is what makes the current predicament so dire. Either drop everything and have a random standalone mission bolted onto the end of the Craig era, or continue trying to find a story to tell without undermining 3 films worth of baggage. Vesper seems like a distant memory now.
I remember reading Devil May Care, and M says something like "this is the most dangerous villain we've come across James", and it's just left there to be supposed. And it's the same with Spectre. As you rightly point out, "it was all me" isn't enough. The viewer has no emotion invested in hating the villain. You just don't care.
What was the Mission Impossible film where the villain shoots Tom Cruise's wife/lover at the start? Then the main movie is a flashback. Wow, that's a way to set up a villain.
Mi3
Absolutely.
Both options are far from ideal.
You either get a standalone which would seem somewhat incongrouous given how they've decided that continuity is everything in the Craig era and the audience walks out scratching their heads thinking 'I wonder what happened to Blofeld?'
Or you go down the hackneyed route of killing Maddy and Blofeld escaping.
As you say correctly (and it's not often you get things spot on) a dire predicament (although not so dire Turner is any sort of solution).
The arc was finished with CASINO ROYALE.
The arc was finished with QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
The arc was finished with SKYFALL.
The arc was finished with SPECTRE.
So I'm seeing a pattern.
I agree on all but Spectre. CR and QoS basically had the same ending: this is the Bond we know, we've just seen him become the man from the other films. Then in SF he starts off in his prime but straight away becomes a shadow of his former self, spends the whole film getting back to where he was until at the end we again get another "classic Bond is back" ending.
SP had a different arc entirely. It wasn't about Bond becoming 007 (CR, QoS) or rebecoming 007 (SF), it was about him giving it up.
Bond 25 with Craig: 'Raiders of the Lost Arc'.
Spot on again. You're on a roll. Just don't mention Turner and you could be on for a hat trick.
She is a distant memory, certainly for general audiences.
It would be as if Marvel today brought up a plot point involving Jeff Bridges' character (admittedly a villain rather than a sympathetic character) from the first Iron Man movie.