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
Well, I'm glad that many people liked it but once again, many people like Lady Gaga and Harry Potter but that doesn't necessarily mean they're actually any good.
On another note, I just saw Dr. No and it was pretty cool I enjoyed it! Entertaining from start to finish :)
L-) I'm proud to say I was one of the few who said, from the start, Fiennes was the new M.
A total non-argument. Of course they would react like that, the general audience are only interested in the their own self-satisfaction. Giving them some nostalgic hits is always going to put a smile on their face. But we, as Bond fans, have the interest of the franchise at heart. The gaps between films and the age of the franchise suggest the anniversary's will come thick and fast. I really want them to knock the homage nonsense on the head. However timeless and beautiful the DB5 is, it's the past. They managed fine without it from TB - GE. The only decent inclusion being CR. It's symptomatic of modern pop-culture, combined with the risk-averse nature of business during a recession. Everyone wants guaranteed success, and what better way to do that than look to what was successful in the past and do it again. The problem is, you create nothing for the future, it's alright in the here and now, but 20 years down the line it's an unsustainable model. We need new icons. Simple as that.
Plus - IF you really care so much for the franchise, then it must come to your mind, that for that, it NEEDS to appeal to the general public - but here you sound as if you couldn't care less as long as you have it your way. Maybe there is no future the way you want them to do it. To me, you people here often sound like its fine for every other film or franchise to please the general audience, but the holy grale that is Bond, needs to - first and foremost - please the diehard Bondfans.
So - as I see it - your post is more about self satisfaction (which in your mind seems a bad thing) then about a sensible future for the films.
SF didn't follow through the logic of the DB5 in CR. It was a clear homage to GF.
No, I don't want it to be a pastiche of old films. Quite clearly I don't, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered typing the response I did.
I think you're just arguing for the sake of it. You make no decent points. Of course it needs to appeal to make money, but does that mean you can't be original? You make it out like Bond relies on blatant self-reference. It never used to, so why now? Batman was rebooted in a way that had no connection with any previous iteration, that was a huge success.
This isn't self-satisfaction, this is a logical point of discussion concerning the longevity, and preservation of something we all love. It's simple, we've had our 60's love-in and we all enjoyed it. Now, let's knock the nostalgia on the head and push on into the 21st century. It's not difficult.
Also, I think most will agree, that they managed to be a tad nostalgic PLUS bringing it a step further - following the last two - into the 21 century. I believe, this is what most enjoyed so much.
But to give you one thing - the DB wasn't a case of logic, since it was destroyed in CR.
I must have missed the bit where it was destroyed in CR. P&W included it in SF 'as' the one from CR. That would have been 'logical', instead Mendes went with a crowd-pleading nod to GF. Some thought it was good, others didn't. These are the sloppy nods that I personally could live without. I'm not denying some people love it, that's their prerogative. But don't tell me it's logical.
The franchise doesn't need nods. We can't keep nodding like the bloody nodding dog everytime an anniversary appears. I just desperately want them to create something new and exciting. Get Bond in a new car, establish some new beats, like featuring his apartment. No one's denying SF tried to blend the old and new, but hopefully they'll use it as a springboard to launch into a new era. Not one full of old-school cliches.
The last time it really felt in place was in the Connery films. Since GE it's just been used as a cheap nostalgia grab.
And I don't buy the "it's Bonds car!" argument either. It wasn't Bonds car for 30 years so how come it suddenly has to make an appearence ever other film?
It was Connerys car and it's had it's time now. I agree with Getafix, Samuel001, RC7 and anyone else who said this: look to the future.
But then why bother when you're not going to use it in the next film and then kill it off in the third after a cameo? Seems a bit of a waste of time to me. Of course, Rog's Bond had new icons, such as a Lotus and Jaws.
The great thing about the 60s films is of course they're not always nodding back to the previous one (though you could argue that YOLT is a big budget version of Dr No in some ways). I mean, you see the Aston DB5 briefly in Q's lab in DAF, but that's it. So when we say, hey, let's have it like the 60s, that's one criteria.
Given how subtle most of the nods to the past were in SF - especially compared to DAD - the DB5 was the one "big" nod. Given how iconic it is I have no problem with it. Had it been seen as Bond's main car in the last three films it would seem out of place - too old, too low tech, and as M said not at all "inconspicuous". But for how it was used I thought it fine.
And seeing how it was destroyed I think that the filmmakers are indeed leaning towards "new icons" in the future. But time will tell.
So true. :)
Who said the audience were stupid? I looked back but couldn't see?
Anyhow, I think it's fair to say, some people love it, others don't really care for it.
I actually didn't like the fact it got destroyed. I always felt like the film had a cap on its own excitement levels. Its motto should be "Get excited... but not TOO excited!" lol
Q had lame gadgets, the villain was kinda odd and attempting to turn Bond gay, M dies, Bond is shot and performs badly, the DB5 is blown up, most of the film is in the dark and/or the rain, the MI6 building is partly blown up so they end up in a bunker, and so on. This is what I mean by Skyfall feeling like a constant "downer". In comparison, I found CR, QoS and I think all of the Brosnan Bonds (certainly GE and DAD) very bright and felt more confident of themselves, if that makes sense.
Just the vibe I got that's all.
We as Bondfans have the interest of the franchise at heart???- Really? Rarely I read such an example of overstatement of self importance on this board.
We as fans have an interest that goes beyond the interest of the average viewer, I guess 90% or more of the viewing audience went to see a 007 movie because of the entertainment value the franchise has offered so far. And indeed the touches like the DB5 are a recognisable part of the franchise that has been around for 50 years. However it is unsure how long it will be around in the future.
This movie has created an audience for the next movie, how is that for creating succes for the future. And do not forget that this franchise has been around for all that time siply by recognising its past and even acknowledging it. Only fools forget the mistakes made in the past and will apply them again and again.
It was hardly "constant" in SF. There was one "fanboy" shot of the DB5, one nice shot of the "62" wine and the "50 years" logo at the end. I thought that aspect of it was fairly restrained. If you want a film with constant references look at DAD. They brought back Q and MP because audiences were eager to see them.
=D> That's it Bain, well said. You had to expect this for the 50th anniversary for sure, it was made clear even during filming that nostalgia would be evident. It did everything people like the M.I.A DC used to complain about, we finally got Moneypenny and Q back (and I'd say it was a great improvement over what we had as you knew), a male M back in his old office giving Bond a new assignment, a sense of Bondian humor dreadfully lacking especially in DAD and QOS (although DAD is unintentionally very funny in the level of pathetic it falls to), and all while managing to be far more restrained in comparison to the heavy handed approach of DAD. We even mostly got a polished and more recognizable Bond who had been missing from 1999 until today. No more teenaged melodrama, no corpse kissing or touching, bad CGI, lame leading ladies, reckless killing machines learning on the job, just a man who knows what he likes and how to do his job.
He was hardly "attempting to turn Bond gay." :P The scene wasn't about seduction.
It was a fab scene tho, for lots of reasons - and it was also lots of fun. :D You found that as part of the downer vibe you got? Oh...
I didn't get the "downer" vibe from Skyfall at all, I was smiling most of the time... including long time afterwards... every single time... :) But if you found it a downer, ok then, we saw it very differently.
You didn't find Quantum of Solace more vibrant though, with its variety of bright settings around the world, daytime car chases, Bond "in his prime", etc?
I just found CR and QoS brighter movies. It's definitely a personal preference thing though and completely 100% subjective :)
Well if you don't have the interest of the franchise at heart, that's up to you. I'll still be there when the SF lovers have disappeared to pastures new in 10 years. If that's self importance, so be it. Sue me.
That's a hilarious suggestion by Mike but I guess like he's said, he doesn't really know very much. After 50 years of films plus the novels that predate the series by 8 years, I think most of know Bond isn't that way, nor is he ever going to be. The scene and what happens is purely psychological warfare, Silva is trying to unnerve and test Bond to see just how ready he is and how he can manipulate him. Bond recognizes this and plays along with it and the minute Silva sees this, that tact is quickly abandoned. What Silva's sexual preferences may be are of little relevance. That whole scene before they go outside is fantastic and unique regardless.
I also didn't get an excessively downer vibe from the movie, but I can understand that sentiment especially in the end when Bond cries realizing that M is dying in his arms. Despite their issues, he didn't want to see this happen and did all he could to prevent it, but it was her refusal to follow his orders and lie low that caused that to happen. It's a very easy premise to follow regarding M, she had been making bad on screen decisions since 1999 and even before if she set Silva up with the Chinese before that as the storyline indicates. Some may not like how Dench was written out and a new M introduced, but this is what we got. I had a very big smile on my face at the end, Bond was someone I fully again recognized and was greeted in what will I think be the customary fashion by Eve Moneypenny, with hopefully some flirting Lois would have approved of this time, as he went into see his new M in surroundings us old time fans can appreciate and be comfortable with.
Me too, after 44 years if I haven't gone anywhere yet you know I'm not. As I always say, "Bond Until Death". :)
No I didn't. I do like it tho, a lot, actually, despite various issues I have with it. And I love CR.
But yes, of course it's all completely subjective. :)
But did that interpretation of the scene have anything to do with lack of decades of Bond knowledge? ;) I've seen some people bring Bond's sexual tastes and potential experiences into the conversation regarding that scene, and make some silly comments as a result, but hoppimike didn't comment on Bond as far as I could tell, he just commented on what he felt Silva was attempting to do.
I completely agree with the rest of what you're saying.
So, in your opinion "SF lovers" are lesser folks who are not actual Bond fans? Um-hum...
Everyone who is sexually harassed is, of course, uncomfortable. Usually only women get sexually harassed in movies, and most people don't bat an eyelid. When it's done to a man it's a big deal. ;)
That is SO not the problem here o.O
The problem is that it's completely out of character for James Bond both as a character and as a movie series.
WHAT is out of character? *completely confused* Bond seemed very much himself to me.
There is no reason to think Silva is gay if that's what you mean.