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
That’s interesting to hear. I haven’t read that yet.
We also have to keep in mind that these are stories told for entertainment. Not organisational documents or reportage. So as much as I would be interested in it - and yes at this point I am always reminded that that’s more Le Carre than Fleming - M‘s role in the books and films is as much defined by the necessities of the plot and pacing as it is by any real-life Chief of MI6.
Okay pardon my passion on this one, and with respect
So I'm not disagreeing just wanted to repeat this meme.
LOL. Talk about good underused actors in Bond films!
I’d much rather have suspense, witty dialogue, mystery, ingenious plot with twists and turns, (real) drama, and elegant, atmospheric moments of bond being bond.
The action should have more stealth, be more gritty, and realistic.
CR, DN, FRWL more like.
I think it'll be interesting not only seeing how much action is in Bond 26 but what kind of action. One of the issues I have with the last two Craig films is that it didn't always feel like Bond was genuinely in danger. The car chase during SP is an example (Craig's performance is purposely very lighthearted and it seems like Bond is meant to be a bit detached, albeit comically, from what's going on around him which doesn't help). Doesn't help that Craig's Bond seemed to become superhuman at points, and there was a more conscious attempt at stylised camerawork/choreography (ie. the long take during the staircase fight in NTTD) which didn't feel in-keeping with many of the fight scenes from CR, SF and to a lesser extent QOS (although there are shades of that problem in that latter film, just in a different manner).
Not saying all the action sequences in Bond have to necessarily be realistic by any means. But it does have to have that sense of danger and tension.
Might have been because of the lacklustre plot.
I like what they were trying to go for in CR with many of the fight scenes. The staircase fight is an example and feels genuinely real, like Bond is actually a) in danger and b) getting hurt. I don't get that sense so much with the sinking house at the end. I'm sure the next Bond film could successfully convey those things in the context of a larger, perhaps more fantastical action sequence/set piece.
Bond getting hurt and not defying physics makes for much more believable cinema.
I feel the last three films have made the producers believe third rate drama and and big action is enough to make a good film, while having relied on the nostalgia and cultural prominence of the franchise for their success. I’d rather flip the script and have good drama and less full on action.
The last three films felt like a bit of Brosnan Era Bond films really, with big action and
(a bit cheap) drama sprinkled around here and there.
I think the 60's films (with the exception of YOLT) really captured like what you say, less on big action, more on drama.
I want something with spying, drama, still retaining the Bondian tone, with real stakes plot and great action (should be climactic), it should come all in balance, like in FRWL or OHMSS.
I think the Producers were trying to recapture those things worked in OHMSS to NTTD, but still failed, just because the former balanced all of the elements well and had been put in the right place, right timing, with the latter, it's too lazily put all over the place, just for the satisfactory instead of quality.
Yeah I was annoyed at the sinking house even watching the film in the cinema: I was too interested in the actual plot but this big, fairly dull, very standard Bond set-piece was getting in the way of the story.
Are they, financially? And do we want Bond to just be the same as M:I?
I want some action, but I don’t need a ton of it.
I get it's not easy adapting the novel for a modern film. Vesper's death needed to be more dramatic than in the novel, and it's understandable it takes place in the context of an action set piece. But yeah I feel the same, I never really got along with that sequence.
It's fine though. CR is still a film I enjoy watching and the specific moment of Vesper drowning always tugs on the heartstrings well enough. I suppose it's a small (and again, very subjective) price to pay.
Well choreographed and filmed I suppose, but neither really excite me or leave me cheering.
I thought the action in NTTD was great, it just ended too abruptly, which is ridiculous when you think it's the longest Bond film I'm history
Yeah, now I know it's there it doesn't rankle- it was just the first time really where I was so caught up in the interpersonal drama between Bond and Vesper, and it felt fresh and new for watching a Bond film to actually feel emotionally involved in the story, and then this Brosnan-style action scene lumbers along and just obstructs the film. There does need to be a situation where Vesper drowns, and it's a Bond film so a bit of action is understandable, but after the great action scenes of earlier in the film it feels like they lost confidence a bit at this point and thought the audience would demand a big action finale where I'm not sure we did.
As MI has been mentioned, if you look at Mission Impossible Rogue Nation I think it's quite striking that they had this big action finale planned but just realised that the most satisfying thing was just to trap the baddie in a glass box. The big set piece went out of the window and they did what the story wanted- in CR I think they tried to override the story and do what they thought the audience would demand, and it feels awkward.
I must admit I think the airport bit is great, however. And, most importantly for an action scene, it has real repercussions and drives the story of the rest of the film (I think the waterskiing scene in LTK doesn't get enough love for that, actually- one action scene which sets up so many bits of plot for later in the film).
I think it's interesting that even in fan-made ideas for film adaptations of CR I'd seen before this, the idea that Bond must be involved in the event which loses Le Chiffre his money was always there- it's just makes sense.
And I would still stand by my opinion that Vesper's death was more impactful in the book given the almost unpredictable twist, and the time that Bond and Vesper had together whereas in the film they've just spent a little time being with together.
It was set up perfectly in the book. Bond had decided to ask her to marry him if I remember right. Was it on the day she died, I can't remember? It's been a couple of years since I read it.