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 think they understand that adaptation process. They made four films from the Craig era that still recognisably had aspects of Fleming but weren’t strict adaptations.
The good thing about the idea of M getting Bond to do something as a personal favour is that it doesn’t need to be an assassination or bridge game. Just something that may potentially make Bond conflicted or test him in some way.
Conflict is drama. Obstacles are conflict. Keep going @007HallY !
Thanks @mtm — good fun. And I never believed that silly glove story from SF. Glad they went through it (never logistically made sense to me).
Now, promo stills are often taken when the cast aren't shooting, so it's probable that Craig slipped his favourite mittens on between takes because they looked nice for the photograph (or maybe he was just chilly that night).
Lol
Simon Cowell as M?
;))
The Bond Factor!
Or
Bond's Got Talent!
🤪
Yeah it’s always been nonsense, and as talos and Craig say, if it happened at all it would clearly have been the jellyfish scene if anything, but the rumours always say it’s the Komodo scene, which it just clearly wouldn’t. I do though like how they point out that the ‘fat hands’ part of the story is based on a misunderstanding of how VFX work.
The bit about the lighting of the faces in the QoS skydive was new to me though, that seems bonkers.
Because its gonna be Guy Ritchie
Give it a rest with the Nolan fascination.
A million shards of glass
That haunt me from my past
We were a pair
But I saw you there
Too much to bear
This is the end
Hold your breath and count to ten
Feel the Earth move and then
Another blinger with the slick trigger finger for Her Majesty
Arm yourself because no one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
Yeah. I heard Uwe Boll is directing the next Bond film anyway.
If they ever remake Live and Let Die, I nominate Wanda Sykes as Mrs. Bell.
Yeah that's a great point mate, I love that scene in SF. I wish he'd been more like that in SP and NTTD
Yeah
Skip the 26th to go to the 27th ? How...odd.
I believe if you put "I think" before some of your statements this forum would be a better place. As it is, you write things like "We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue" which makes it sound like you are an expert fixing a problem rather than just another fan giving their opinion on a message board, and that will bring out the worst in peter, and I'll end up angry at the both of you. So please, just add "I think" before giving your opinion, even if you think it is obvious that it is just your opinion.
Okay, that rant out of the way...
Comedy. I like dry wit, but I think it is a hard sell globally. American audiences as a whole often don't get the English dry sense of humour, which is the kind of humour I'd like to see in the films. We saw some of that in the Craig era, but by the end I felt we were drifting back to bad pun territory. I think it is something the producers are struggling with, and I would worry about bringing humour to the fore. I felt Paloma worked because she was a breath of fresh air in the rather heavy drama, but too much of that would be equally as bad as overdoing the heavy drama, imo. I think humour in a drama is like adding salt to a meal - a little goes a long way, too much and you've ruined it.
I would like snappy dialogue in there, noir films like The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High) are favourites, and they are pretty dark enlivened by the witty dialogue, but it is tricky to pull-off.
I mention "the menu" because it is zany and very heightened, but in a very mannered way. The last 2 bond films are dragged down because what should have been heightened stories are forced into a realistic framework, such as the nine eyes scheme and the subplot between M and C. To my eyes the realistic framework is the thing that's holding them back, because it seems like they are telling stories that would work better without it, just as die another day would have worked better if they had stuck to the tone in the first half, and not got lost with invisible cars and diamond satellites. I think "the menu" proves that, on a very small scale at least, you can do heightened reality and snappy dialogue without losing tension or devolving into broad roger moore era silliness.
This is just my opinion.
One aspect of this, which I don’t think the Bond movies have ever gotten right, is how to add humour consistently and in a way that is not jarring. It has often felt to me, since the mid-Connery years that the writers just insert one liners because they think that is what the public wants, instead of considering the extent to which they work within the context of the overall movie.
One example where I think where humour works quite well, in terms of its consistency and fit with the overall ‘feel’ is ‘Slow Horses’. I appreciate that the style of humour may not be to everyone’s taste but there are often quite dark moments, accompanied by a very sarcastic comment / one liner (or fart) but to me, it feels consistent and as a viewer, I don’t feel like the humour is taking me out of the world that I am part of when watching.
I am a fan of ‘The Menu’ also but I suspect it would be challenging to come up with some form of dark comedy that would do the global box office numbers expected of Bond.
I would think it could be a very interesting direction (dark comedy, as opposed to camp silliness) to go in, if well executed.
My hope, not for Bond 26, but down the line, maybe 27 or 28 is that we can get an actual bond film that goes straight for the humour in the same unapologetic way as did TSWLM back in the day, and that perhaps Edgar Wright could direct that film.
People say its impossible, and audiences won't accept it, but they made a sequel to top gun almost 40 years later and it was just as cheesy and optimistic as the original and people lapped it up.
I think there’s always an element of black humour to Bond. One of the reasons those one liners exist is to add a touch of gallows humour, something that allows both Bond as a character and the audience to separate themselves from the tangible grizzliness of what’s happened, while keeping the film a product of heightened reality.
It’s there as well in things like how villains often die in ironic ways (there are times when, for example, a weapon or skill they have is used against them and is part of what allows Bond to kill them), or the often outlandish traps villains put Bond in with the idea he’ll die. Heck, take the William Tell idea on Silva’s island in SF, which is one of the darker moments of the series. A part of what makes it work is the undercurrent of black comedy - the twisted and ironic idea of making Bond - a character who can’t shoot straight at this time - shoot a glass off someone’s head with an antique gun, the jaunty French music playing in the background, Silva looking so eager about the whole thing and even making double entendres throughout.
Obviously the tone of a film or a particular scene or film can skew darker or more humorous dependent on the story, but ultimately part of Bond is that black humour (and arguably quite a British form of it too). So it’ll always be there. So going back to Mylod as a potential director I think his experience on a film like The Menu might mean he’d be more suited to understanding and being able to convey that element of irony/humour that makes the Bond films work. Doesn’t necessarily mean the film itself will be more humorous or darker necessarily.