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
However, if we're talking about the last 2 MI, then I think SF takes MI-GP (because I liked the dark aspects of the SF plot more) but I prefer MI-RN & MI-GP to SP personally.
Has nothing to do with London. If that was true I would have had the same gripes about MI:RN which ended in London and was probably in London more than SP.
I didn't read the Sony leaks and I liked the ending so not that either. My complaint is that nothing is fully developed in SP... not the character development nor the the action which always ended too abruptly save maybe the PTS.
Oh and I liked the "second" storyline with C. Not sure how that is second since C is carrying out Blofeld's plan.
There is also a slap dash feeling to the finale (last 3rd) that sort of suggests they'd run out of ideas and were trying to find any way to just wrap it up. Strange. I don't know if that is how they ended up writing the script to wrap it up or what.....but something just doesn't gel for me either. If I go to see it in the theatre one last time (possibly) I'm actually dreading this last part.....having to sit through it.....I've never felt that way about a Bond film before except for TWINE.
I say they need to get Haggis back.
Thank you. And @GG I really don't mean any disrespect.
I truly feel if SP had not had what I feel are weaknesses in script and storytelling that more American critics and more of the American audience would have bought into SP.
Now as negative and as angry as I am at SP I still like and enjoyed the film.
Got major cognitive dissonance going on with now lol.
SP is like my son. He makes me so mad sometimes but I love him ...and he's just too cute for me to stay angry.
P&W are more like my ex wife.
As just one example, look at the whole set-up for the underwater scene in Rogue Nation. The story created a highly contrived plot point (and that's an understatement), to set-up and justify the existence of that entire action scene. Still, it was an awesome scene and, unlike the weak "action" scenes in Skyfall, at least Rogue Nation bothered to set it up at all (even if in a highly contrived manner).
The tube explosion / falling train scene in Skyfall, by contrast, was not justified in the plot in the slightest. It was just stuck in there in a way that made zero story sense!
Still, it's all so darn inconsistent. Rotten Tomatoes critics rate Spectre in the low 60s because it ripped off its own franchise and because of its plot contrivances. Rogue Nation, on the other hand, is rated in the 90s (!) despite its own plot contrivances (every bit the match to those in SP, no doubt) and despite ripping off someone else's franchise (Bond)!
Meanwhile, most critics completely ignored the absolute craters in the plot of Skyfall -- that were far worse than anything in Rogue Nation or Sprectre. None of it makes any sense!
b-(
Sorry friend, if I'm reading too much into this particular Bond, well that's my prerogative I'm afraid...
:D
The Sony leaks of memos and scripts makes it rather too easier to latch onto that criticism though. SP isn't perfect - what Bond is? - but I don't think anyone criticising the film for the script deserves any praise for being criticially insightful.
I didn't look at any of the scripts and can only judge what I saw on the screen and I didn't see an atrociously poorly made Bond film by any means. I would say the film looses a little momentum for the finale in London but again I'll make that comment based on what I saw and not citing a page from the script or the whole Sony leaks back story.
I knew Sam Mendes had something big in mind for Spectre and it surapssed my expectations but i have to admit Mi5 became a theart to me for Bond.
I went twice to see Rouge nation, i never felt that way before for a Mission Impossible flick, I vaguely remember liking MI3 and i was bored to death with Ghost Protocol so this one really took me by surprise big time.
I went to MI5 prepared to bash it afterwards, but for my surprise i enjoyed it inmensivley and doubted for a few moments on how Bond could Top the air plane scene but then i remebred we are talking about where everything is big, glamourous and they inevented style in the espionage world.
In resume i prefer Bond in general but i loved Rouge Nation as well.
Questions like these could be....selffulling prophecies.
Why would they be self-fulfilling?
Questions are used to simply get to the truth...nothing ever dangerous in that
;)
This won't happen, The producers always learn from the past and listen to what audiences want.
They know to keep Bond fresh of they had a mistep they fix it next film and is alive with no problem.
I think Bond will be here forever and many generations to come will have their own Bond acttor
In 20 years people will be disscusing 8 official Bond actors instead of 6 and will be asking who will be the 9th Bond.
Nope.
Not seen this. Does look good. Think I'll rent it from Amazon tonight. Thanks for the recommendation
That said, I think Bond needs the competition in a really big way because for some reason the series seems to become apathetic when there's no one around to offer it competition. With SP being heavily criticised I can assure you the next Bond film is going to really challenge or surpass expectations set by CR and SF. Mission Impossible comes out in 2017 and Bond's biggest competition Bourne comes out next year and EoN would be foolish to ignore SP's criticisms and not learn from their mistakes as well as to not observe how the real competition operate and perform.
I think EoN havn't been taking MI all that seriously and I think after the collective success of GP and RN they better start doing so. Also, I've been saying this for years and even more so since Damon and Greengrass signed on to return but Bourne is the only spy series that serves to offer any real competition to Bond and is the one series that forces Bond to step up and this new Bourne movie will do the same again.
Guys like Greengrass and even Campbell aren't of the calibre of Mendes but they know their craft when it comes to these movies and they pack a devastating punch without complicating themselves with pretensions and overreaching themes. SF was good but overrated and misguided in some respects and although SP was entertaining, again there were somethings that felt forced and just weren't as organic as they should have been and the script even felt fractured while watching the movie but it's saving grace was the fact that it was an entertaining movie and Craig elevated his character to phenomenal levels of Connery awesomeness.
However, EON need to move forward and get away from the silly personal angles and to direct themselves away from herding Bond into a corner. There needs to be conviction in the story and stakes, which is where SF shone very well moreso than SP did but irrespective of what the stakes are, it has to be organic enough for audiences to be invested and to not give us half baked ideas or concepts that require further exploration.
I think after 50 odd years Bond can survive with or without competition but to be relieved well and for us as fans to walk away overjoyed and wanting more, Bond clearly needs the competition to be kept on its toes and with the next MI and Bourne movies coming out over the next 2 years EoN need to use this time to get their affairs in order and pay close attention to their competition and to what's going on in the world in order to move forward and really deliver something special to tear through the competition. Time to start spending the money properly and take real risks on talent behind the camera. New director and new writers especially!
Regarding the budget I expressed some thoughts a shirt time ago in the BO office thread. The budget and the allocation of money for production needs to be re-adressed.
When the producers are focused on making good movies things usually turn out great but I think it usually stems as a response from competition to not necessarily outdo what other movies are doing but to compete with a well though out effort and to be inspired to take things more seriously and handle the production process with care. I feel that SP tried to mainly outdo SF as priority number one instead of focusing on making an excellent movie first and foremost. The goodwill of SF and trying to replicate some of the components took centre stage instead of trying to convey a great story that really involves audiences.
Sam Smith singing the theme was predictable and not even a casting coup. I personally liked WoTw but it's nowhere near as great as YKMN and SF and I think it missed the mark to get the masses ready in a good way for the movie. It tried to replicate what happened 3 years ago but that didn't happen not even close.
When Bond doesnt try to rely too much on its own history and is compelled to just be a great movie it excels and I think a healthy dose of competition from the likes of Bourne facilitates this.