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
The MI-RN bike chase is far more than the QoS sequence on bikes imho. Sure, there's the scene where the BMW twists around on the narrow streets, but I thought it was great how they incorporated humour into that sequence (when Luther and Brandt show up and run into Hunt as well as after the BMW flips). There was no humour in the QoS scene (although it wasn't necessary and I really like that one too). I'd say the way they filmed that MI bike sequence is more evocative of TSWLM's Lotus chase (the wide angle lingering shots allowing the viewer to really take in the setting) than QoS's haphazard frenetics. I absolutely love that scene including the surprise finale!
I completely agree with @Birdleson and your point that MI is still more 'teenage' and that Bond is supposed to be more mature. I think the operative word there is 'supposed' to be. If we're talking about CR or QoS then I even agree that it was.
Regarding the dialogue, I agree as well. Time to step up EON. More TB is exactly what we need. A few of the decision makers (including Craig) need to be locked in a room for a few days and made to watch that film on loop to understand what's been missing. They can watch their SP at the same time as well. Perhaps the comparative torture (and I don't mean the scene in the film) will even give them a new perspective on things. I'm an optimist as you can tell.
I'm a fan of that performance as well and agree the subtle character moments are part of the joy of watching it. One I don't know why I like is when he's in a car talking on a cell phone, ends the conversation and just flips it onto the seat. That just says Bond is getting on with it.
The thing about Craig in QoS is it's about Bond and his journey, it doesn't have the piling on of SF and SP and there's no Dench M to distract from Bond as in SF or the whole brother thing in SP. "I'm motivated by my duty" really rings true.
Agreed. I would say the same about the admittedly style-over-substance U.N.C.L.E. film although that's rather controversial I suppose.
Bond is supposed to be more mature, as was said. The question is, how mature?
Bond has spent most of its life being conscious of its audience size. I'm not sure when Bond was 'aged down,' so to speak, but if I had to make a case I'd argue that it was starting with TB, in the wake of GF's success.
Obviously, GF was the birth of the Bond 'phenomenon.' Part of that was its having a broader appeal than either of the first two entries. That said, EON still seemed to have the mindset, in producing the film (i.e. before its success) of continuing to, for the most part, faithfully adapt Fleming's material, including its adult tone — in GF, we have a murdered naked woman painted in gold, they keep the name Pussy Galore, etc. To do the kind of business GF did, however, an age group beyond adults would most certainly have to had to contribute. I think (any collector's confirm?) that only after 1964 did Bond toys start flooding the market.
As I say, I don't think EON intended this. They didn't say, "Let's go after the kids." GF simply ended up having, of the first three, the most surface-level attractions that younger audiences would've found appealing. Perhaps the entire basis of GF's (and hence Bond's) success actually lies in its mass-appeal.
At any rate, once Cubby and Harry saw GF numbers it would've been foolish (financially) for them to abandoned a new set of customers and go back and do something like DN, which most certainly was intended for adults. In fact I recall some advertisements for DN explicitly stating that it was not suitable for children. This was Terrence Young's mindset even years later—maybe in the late 80s?—when during an interview he commented on the scene in DN where Bond comes home to find Sylvia in his shirt, saying that if they had shot that scene now Sylvia would have been stark naked.
TB proved the mass appeal worked, and YOLT was the last to be produced before the MPAA ratings came into the picture, and for the next decade and a half, it was either PG or R in the U.S., the biggest market, nothing between. By the time LTK was released as PG-13 that rating had not only proven itself commercially viable but also inevitable for Bond, being a rating which became standard for any material with the vaguest hint of adultness. The Brosnan era was largely targeted at the same sort of "teenagers" that the MI films currently still are.
(Keep in mind, I'm not saying the later Connerys are as immature, for lack of a better word, as the Brosnan entries, but I think what maturity they do have is a product of natural 1960s culture and not any specific design on EON's part; whereas I'd say the 'maturity' of DN and FRWL and, even, GF, to a certain extent, was deliberate.)
Credit to EON for pushing CR about as far as they could. Was it enough? I'm not sure. Part of me thinks so, but another curious part wants to see what an R-rated modern Bond would look like — not for any greedy sake of gore or sex itself, but for a story that uses each to show real consequences.
I've often seen the suggestion that the Fleming novels/short stories ought to be adapted as a television series period piece. On one level this is interesting because it points to the larger phenomena of television occupying the void left by film. Where television began out of necessity as a lowest common denominator medium ('the whole family gathered around the set'), film was the medium people 'got away to' in order to see all the stuff they couldn't watch with all other people, only certain other people. But now it's reversed. We've kind of become so isolated in our societal lives that the screens in our pockets provide much the same significant the film screen once did. And film has become the place where everyone goes to be with 'other people' and see the things suitable for all other people to see.
My point is, I'm not sure the idea of adapting Fleming as a television series would be so throughly endorsed if the films were doing their job.
Head and shoulders above all of them.
No it isn't. Simply because it is so full of plot holes that it can't hold a mouth full of water. And, say whatever you want, spy movies,and novels for that matter, are after all about stories making at least some sense (or at least being able to pretend it).This can't be said about SF, even through its tries. Pretending I mean.
Arguably they did switch it up in the 80's (I believe Cubby mentioned that the way they had done things for almost 20 years had run its course with MR), but to lesser financial success with Glen.
The next time they adopted a more 'edgy' take was with CR, but arguably that film wasn't really all that revolutionary, given Bourne had already shown that there was indeed market demand for a more serious take on the spy genre and after Nolan had already shaken up the game with Batman Begins. I'd argue that QoS was more of a risk, in terms of the subtle Anti-American politics in the narrative.
The issue now is are we at another GF moment? Has the outsize success of the two recent Mendes films put EON (and MGM) in a box whereby they will now tone it down further in order to appeal to the global masses (particularly given the increasing % of box office coming from foreign markets, especially with SP)? Will the possible future IPO (or sale) of MGM post-B25 put massive pressure on them to ensure that their 'crown jewel' appeals to as much of the masses as possible? Will this result in an even more disgraceful CGI-fest? These are the questions I'm sure they're wrestling with. The prospect of Yann Demange perhaps suggests they won't succumb to the lowest common denominator. One can only hope.
Still, I think it's inevitable that a more serious take on Bond is less likely. Ultimately the nuance and humour has to be translatable into multiple languages and appeal to as many cultures (and all the various sexes out there these days) as possible. Difficult for Fleming's creation to be pure in a 'PC' & Trump age without facing a backlash.
Agreed. I would say the same about the admittedly style-over-substance U.N.C.L.E. film although that's rather controversial I suppose.
Yes, and also that I enjoyed it more than the last three Craig outings. The same goed for OSS 117: Le Caire, Nis d'espions with Jean Dujardin.
Kick Ass was a great film so I was excited to see what Vaughn would do with Kingsman. Alas we just got mediocrity with one half decent set piece. Shockingly overrated film.
And UNCLE? Just goes to show what a bullet we dodged when Babs said no to Cavill. I'm all for criticising her for SP's mistakes but thank Christ she intervened here otherwise if Campbell had had his way we'd have been stuck with the beefcake Rory Kinnear.
Yes Bond has been disappointing recently but let's not let that cloud our judgement when it comes to giving woeful pretenders to the crown more credit than they deserve.
Cool.
Rather than, "Oh well we needed to change it up," I've always wondered if the post-MR direction of the franchise (and the accompanying loss of cinematic magic) was more about Cubby going, "Right. I'm in my 70s. I'm retiring soon. Love to keep making Bond pictures forever but hey ho. Already been in it longer than I thought. Time to save my money, especially since we're not the only big budget, multi-film series in town anymore. We're not doing MR numbers again. Pitch it as 'Bond coming back to earth' and tell Ken Adam not to spend another dime on a nail."
Yes, I think so too. Where CR pushed it was in its pre-titles and in the casino scenes. The violence there was the sort of raw and consequential stuff we're speaking of. But it gets diluted by the more tonally conventional action fare we're given in the first and final acts.
Tonally, I think what they did with QOS, on the other hand, is exactly what they should have progressed from. Only without editing it to death on the next go. If some of CR's edginess was ruined by its other standardized bits, QOS was diluted by the filmmakers' mucking around with the editing. It can't make an impact if we can't grab an impression of it.
I think each of the alleged final candidates bodes well for that. The ultimate test will be whether EON can manage to make a success of such an edgy film on its own terms, unlike CR/QOS which each had to piggyback off the success of other franchises almost as an excuse.
Indeed. We won't be getting anything like what we've discussed unless all cinema changes again. Not impossible, just quite far off.
I know its shit and I hate it but, even a shit bond film is and will always be better then the competition. Their is no comparison. The production and action seauences cant even be matched by and other series. Mission impossible 5 has 1 bond level action scene. The bike one. But the rest are really not in the same league of intensity.
1. The CIA break in
2. Biocyte break in
3. The whole Vatican sequence.
4. The Burj Kalifa switcheroo
5. The underwater replacing of the identiy cards.
Without those scenes there's not much there. Whereas in the Bond films, mostly every moment is enjoyable.
And it made no sense that Bond would "protect" Swann by putting her in immediate danger.
For me, the plane chase is Exhibit A why Gregg Wilson is not ready to take over the franchise, and consequently why we should trust Babs' generally very good judgment for the foreseeable future.
1. intro kill by Seydoux
2. improvisational jump from hospital window in Moscow (so Bond imho)
3. Burj
4. sandstorm chase (learnt something here, which is what used to happen in Bond films)
5. fight in parking lot in India (again, very Bond)
In RN I liked the following:
1. plane grab (shades of Glen's best)
2. underwater sequence
3. Vienna Opera (love everything about it. Again, so Bond imho)
4. bike and car chase (intense)
In SP I liked the Hinx fight.
In SF I liked the PTS (bloody excellent) & the Wayne Manor burning ending.
I've always felt they added that because the chemistry was lacking elsewhere and they needed to get from A to B in order for her to give a toss about his plight in the torture chair.
Poorly handled character work imho.
The self same Babs who put Gregg Wilson in charge in the first place? And signed off on stepbrothergate? Spectacular judgement.
I always championed him as a potential Bond, and certainly has the perfect look but if thats the best he can do then he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the franchise.
@BMW_with_missiles -- you came to the right place!! Your verbal abuse on Onatopp is amazingly controversial IMHO!
I disagree wholeheartedly, but champion your right to say so!!
Same. Don't get me wrong, the acting was still horrid at times, but I can't imagine trying to sell "Yo mama" or "I think I got the thrust of it" while eyeballing Brosnan's package convincingly.