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
Not at all, I am expressing a concern, there is no doubt after Brosnan the franchise has to get their choice of Bond and direction right as it had lost its way. There is no doubt that Dan's first 3 films recaptured a global audience and Bond has never been so successful. To then reinvent Bond for Spectre as Sam Mendes said "Bond is rebooted at the end of Spectre" is a massive risk. Because the global audience bought in to a more serious, believable gritty Bond.
Precisely. People are acting like the whole legacy is crumbling around us. The DC era is its own entity and has taken liberties which do not impact on the original source, they simply play with it. There is nothing to say they won't revert back to the Fleming Blofeld in the future, it's inevitable.
People are blowing it way out of proportion to satisfy a negative narrative. The whole thing is ambiguous. You can put a positive or negative spin on it. I'd rather positive.
I don't believe it's a revolution, though. It's an evolution across four films. The next will no doubt be different again, dependent on circumstances. I refuse to believe the film would have done any better/worse by having DC mope around.
As so many have said ready, just an old fashioned mission.
Is John Glen still alive? Bring him back, I say!
*choke* *snif*
:P
I think only Moore went back to a little grittier post MR, and that was because he had a long run.
This suggests that if DC stays, the lighter, more carefree tone will stay too. If it's a new Bond actor, then they really have unlimited options, which is why that would be my preference going forward. I am in the mood for something new with someone new personally. Although DC has been great, he is the 2nd actor in a row who seems to have peaked with his first film (in terms of its perceived quality among the masses), imho.
And then they lock hands and skip off in unison for some ice cream! End film, end series, James Bond will NOT return because he's too busy with his brother.
And the critics would have called it a bold new character-driven Bond as you've never seen him!
Where's the strong Bond girl?
@RC7 - sorry I didn't respond earlier as I've been offline, but to your question about ESB concocting a decade+ long plan, I was meaning that if he had this grudge since they were teenagers then his revenge would be decades in the making. Or you could also look at it if he was behind the scheme in CR, then his plan would be nearly a decade in the making, assuming amount of time that passes story wise from CR and Sp matches the real time between films (correct me if I'm wrong) - it's semantics really and besides the point. I'm speaking high level: from what I saw in Spectre the crux of ESB's evil plans from the Quantum organization through Spectre was driven by a need to make Bond suffer for invading his childhood nest. Perhaps he had other motives, but that's what I got from the movie. I'm open to other readings/interpretations though.
No worries. I get your point, what I was getting at is that it appears to me his connection with Bond stems from the events of CR onwards. If he'd had such a beef with Bond he'd surely have offed him along with his father. It was Bond's reappearance in his world that seemed to have irked him, rather than any longstanding hatred.
May be I misunderstood but I didn't get the impression that Blofeld's been doing everything he has in order to get Bond. Doesn't Blofeld just say that Bond keeps on getting in his way, and therefore the people around Bond keep on dieing.
Blofeld does say that the path he's gone down in life is partly because of Bond but he hasn't built up his evil empire purely in order to take on Bond. They are two men who have a shares past who have gone down different paths.
It's a tired old cliche and not very well done, but it doesn't annoy me too much. I found the SF plot even weaker - just GE reheated in the microwave, and it tasted awful the first time.
But it wasn't to be. Alas.
That's why we have a script writing problem here and this needs to be corrected going forward. Misunderstanding his motivations or the extent of his motivations doesn't add to the discussion or enjoyment of the film, it detracts from it.
That's not necessary and they should do a better job next time imho.
I agree. It's a bodge job, like SF. We hear Mendes and Craig apparently asking for rewrites to make sure everything's sorted and to "get it right" and then the end result is a mess.
I have to say though, I thought the SP plot was a work of art compared to SF.
But yes, I've been saying for years the writing on Bond has got to improve. It's p*ss poor frankly.
There must be talented people queuing up to write for Bond. How does EON nearly always seem to settle on mediocrity these days?
The same goes for production design and music. Production design has got better with Gassner (a lot better to be fair) but still lack the originality and flair of Ken Adam. No need to mention the gaping whole left by John Barry.
Apart from that, I really don't see massive improvement over the 90's (DAD is the exception as a parody). The same kind of cliches are slowly coming back in to it.
In my opinion, only in CR did everything mesh perfectly for this generation, including the music (incorporation of title track into score like the past etc. etc.) & the dialogue.
Totally agree about the CR soundtrack. Best Bond music since Barry. Arnold did good work there, including the title track and working it into the score.
I see what you mean. Their lives could be two different parallel paths. Its just all a bit coincidental don't you think? When he says "it was me all along James, I am the architect of all your pain", he seems to suggest he's been playing this cat and mouse game with Bond the whole time. By having ESB behind everything in the past 3 films it takes a bit of the weight out of those individual stories. Couldn't he have explained how/why he was behind it all? (maybe too much exposition for audiences I suppose) But if the writers are going to make that leap, and it's a massive leap I feel you've got to put a little more meat into backstory so you really feel like he is a major evil threat who is capable of orchestrating all of this behind the scenes. Not just, "hey he's the mastermind behind it all just because we're telling you he is and he's ESB." Maybe we'll get more details in Bond25...
I think giving more detail would have been a mistake. That becomes a black hole of continuity and trying to explain the inexplicable. I agree That the brothers thing wasn't needed but having gone down that route best to keep it simple.
Absolutely.