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
Agreed. Hard to believe that they fudged it so badly, making the films serialised but only after (!!!!!) they had already made three of them. Yes, if it had been this way from the beginning of Craig's era then fine. But to do it retrospectively is a bad move - possibly compounded by NTTD.
What I don't get is why they would want to make SP more relevant. They could just have left it. Bond doesn't explicitly state he is retiring at the end. When Q says he 'thought he had left', he could have meant on leave or something. Nobody would have cared. And nobody apart from sad obsessives like us would have remembered all the rubbish from SP anyway. Now they are going to dredge it all back up again.
I dont care for it much either but weirdly enjoy that it is in keeping with the Bond tradition of appropriating trends in film. I also worry that because villain reveals are popular now that Dr. No may make an appearance in NTTD. Hopefully they got that out of the way with Spectre though.
Yeah, all true....looks that way. But we Bond fans hope for the best this time, considering Bond's lengthy Absence & Bond's Redeeming history of making the upcoming film, better than the previous one.
Remember that 'finishing the story line' and 'tying up loose ends' was the big motivation for Craig to come back on board. We don't know how Purvis and Wade started that very first draft, if they were going for a standalone or if they planned a sequel from the beginning. What we do know is that BB chased Craig for a few years, asking him to return. And Craig came back because he felt there were aspects of the character and of the ongoing story line that he hadn't explored yet, and he also had ideas about where Bond would go next. Craig seemed to like the challenge to continue a story that didn't exactly need continuing, and to grab familiar characters (Madeleine, Blofeld) and then do a complete 180 turn with their motivations. Blofeld is no longer torturing Bond from the shadows, but is in custody and Bond somehow needs him. Madeleine isn't your typical Bond girl that we never see again once the credits roll, instead she betrayed Bond in some way.
Again, we do not know this, but I personally doubt Craig would've returned if BB and MGW pitched him a standalone adventure, totally removed from the previous film.
And to be honest, I doubt the marketeers and studio heads were very happy when they heard the news: how to market a continuation from a film not many people liked? That's a hard task, because you need to re-familiarise the public with characters they didn't care about or downright hated. Marketing Skyfall was much easier: they (figuratively) said: "Look, we know you hated QOS, so that's why this next film is a complete standalone. Quantum is gone, we're moving in a new direction."
As for the creatives, they might might've done it because of the challenge: Mendes put a bow on Bond with SP's ending, and instead of moving on, they decide to unwrap the bow, totally change what Mendes set up (no happy sunset, Bond leaving has implications for MI6, Blofeld locked up has implications for the Spectre organisation), and then try to wrap a different bow around it, since this is definitely the closing chapter. That's extremely difficult.
Yes, moving on and starting fresh is way easier and might be an easy option to market, to write and even for us fans to accept. But they chose the difficult road, which might turn out good as well. But if they crash, they'll crash really spectacularly. That's the danger.
I don't think he is Dr No. Blofeld and SP return makes sense as Blofeld has been played by many actors before, why is Dr No so important? Just because he was the first Villian of the series or a member of SP, it's hard to believe.
Yeah, I sincerely hope he isn't. I think the way Joseph Wiseman played him, made Dr. No iconic & important. More reason for EON to keep it that way. Coz up till date, they still haven't found another Telly Savalas as Blofeld....who knows Waltz might get it right in NTTD. But it's still a risk, rebooting classic Villains....as it's evidently a delicate process.
Besides, it's definitely not a good idea for EON to celebrate now a character played by a Canadian actor in yellowface in 1962.
The great thing about the “continuity” within the Craig era is that every film has its own identity, flavor and distinctive look - even when the new film is a direct sequel set minutes after the end of the previous one - and this approach makes every film stand as a proper fulfilled adventure, without annoying cliffhangers or heavy ties plot wise (like in the comic book franchises realm).
NTTD is conceived as the culmination of 15 years of stories based upon the concept of “deconstructing Bond”. We’ve seen the character evolving through the films, we’ve seen famous characters being re-interpreted, we’ve seen different approaches being brought to the table dealing with a pop icon and its heritage. NTTD following this path is just the most natural thing to do, like it or not. Personally, I’m glad they’re doing this. Back in 2015 my first desire was for Craig to come back for another one in order to explore even more the mythology established in SP, so I could not been more excited.
Not trying to cause problems but I would have Dr No as my iconic villain out of that lot. I understand he is not the most famous though.
Yeah, sure. the only slight problem is, am sure if many of us including EON were told that Craig's last Bond film will connect with his first film, we would have vehemently doubted that. Let's imagine we saw Silva's photo as early as CR or Blofeld's Voice talking to Le Chiffre. Like for example, in SHERLOCK HOLMES we are introduced to a lurking Professor Moriarty & in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, we heard the names of Davy Jones & Bootstrap....so when these Characters surfaced in future installments, nothing seemed contrived about it.
But we're still Bond fans who really love the character even if we see flaws. I prefer Standalone Bond films, but if it must be serialized, it would be much better, if we start hearing names of future characters or events in the present film.....just like how we might see Madeleine's train story from SP in NTTD.
And I think we can all agree that apart from CR's ending, all of Craig's films ended with a touch of conclusion....it's just so happens that the closed chapters keep getting extended. But at the end of the day we're huge Bond fans, and must live with the flaws....I even watched DAD yesterday
:D
Consider the moment in SF when Q makes the exploding pen quip. Ok, it's quite funny I suppose. But it would have been even funnier, and far less smug, if they had included a moment later in the film where Bond could have done with an exploding pen - such as when he's in the tube tunnel and can't get through the door with the train coming; "You know what I could do with now Q? An exploding pen." - that sort of thing.
I think that by giving all the power over to the director, there is far too much emphasis on a single vision that never used to be the case when Broccoli and Saltzman would come up with ideas for set pieces etc. I genuinely don't believe for one second that Forster or Mendes are fans of James Bond, or have any appreciation of the history or what fans might like.
I say all this knowing that evolution is inevitable and necessary, and that you don't need die hard fans of the franchise directing to make good films (and might even be counter productive). I am just giving my thoughts.
I still have hopes for NTTD of course, and everyone involved in production is making the right noises, but personally I don't really like where it seems they are taking it and for the first time ever I am not looking forward to seeing what its like.
Casino Royale and Skyfall are both standalone films, in that anyone can pick up Casino Royale or Skyfall and watch it with no previous information; you don't need any other films to enjoy them fully, which is not true of Quantum or Spectre, which are quasi sequels to Casino Royale and Skyfall respectively.
Jaws has sequels too, but I think most would argue Jaws is a standalone film.
Thanks, I didn't know any of this before now.
Alright... you argued Skyfall is not that standalone, and I'm arguing that it is standalone. There's no need for sarcasm.
Universal is just distributing NTTD internationally, correct? Assumably NTTD will still play in North America in AMC Theatres, as distributed by United Artists.
I thought it was obvious I was referring to it being in retrospect, thanks to Silva being retconned as a Spectre agent and the Skyfall story being directly linked to Spectre's. Hence why I said "in retrospect". My sarcastic comment was in response to what was read as a smart-ass response. I don't require dictionary definitions. Thanks.
None of the Craig films are truly standalone films. Everything that happens in one is a consequence of what happened in a previous one. Such is the effect of focusing (rightly or wrongly, depending on your taste) on continuity.
Correct
I didn’t mean for it to come out as smart assed so I apologize if it did. By your own logic CR must be a standalone film as nothing came before it in the Craig era. I’d still say Skyfall is a stand-alone film; I don’t think anything that comes *after* a film does anything to a films standalone status.
No worries. Casino Royale obviously has the distinction of being the first film in a rebooted timeline, so it doesn't really qualify to be used as an example against my argument, which relies (in comparison with yours) on a film being completely narratively separate from the films surrounding it, therefore standing on its own. Skyfall was that when it was released, but Spectre retrospectively changed that.
I appreciate the difference in viewpoint on the meaning of the word "standalone" in this context, though.
And who knows?....maybe Camille might have returned. And maybe YKMN might have served as Craig's Bond '007' theme, returning in QoS, SF, SP & NTTD. All these didn't happen, coz EON never knew they were going to serialize Craig's Era....that's just the thing & we must accept it, why?....coz it's still our man BOND.
That’s fair. I suppose then I take issue with your definition of standalone then, so maybe we can agree to disagree on what we view as standalone.
Conceded! And apologies for the sarcasm.
Maybe not one Bond Theme for the entire Craig era, but maybe callbacks to YKMN in the scores for all the Craig Bond films, is more what @GadgetMan meant?
I agree, I wish Mathis had lived. His death didn't seem to mean much to the story.