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
hm, wow, you prefer QoS to CR? That really does put you in a minority hehe, but that's fine!
What is your opinion of GoldenEye?
I totally adore QoS as I'm sure you know. I just love the style. I actually think QoS is more beautiful HOWEVER that's probably just because I prefer the artistic STYLE of QoS. It's more bright and summery and that's just how I like it =D
Skyfall is much darker and that's just not my bag, baby!
B-)
@Chrisisall Isn't your favorite Bond Timothy Dalton ? What's the deal here
As here, Dalton as favorite Bond, but Pierce Brosnan is my fifth favorite. Only Lazenby comes below, and that's not so much as being a bad Bond, but he never got the opportunity to show what he could do and only gave us the one release. If he had stayed on after '69, and done a couple more films, he may well be in third place now for example, but it's all if's and but's..
#1 Timothy Dalton
#2 Sean Connery
#3 Daniel Craig
#4 Roger Moore
#5 Pierce Brosnan
#6 George Lazenby
#1 Timothy Dalton
#2 Sean Connery
#3 Pierce Brosnan
#4,5 Roger Moore/Daniel Craig
#6 George Lazenby[/quote]
I thought QoS was an amazing film, just not quite as good as CR. I liked the subtleties in it. I didn't find Skyfall very subtle at all O.O
It was like they kept using a sledgehammer where a much lighter touch would have worked much better in my opinion! But yeah, just my view ^^
Sat down last night to watch it but god was I disappointed. I really can't understand the great reviews from critics,cinema goers and bond fans.
I love bond. The books and the movies. I can watch bond all day and since sky have given us the 007 channel I find myself watching parts of the movies all day.
It is not a Daniel craig problem I have as I loved Casino Royale and even though QOS was short and pretty uneventful I still find it fairly entertaining (great start) and easy to watch.
A young Q was really stupid imo, not only was he young but he was a cocky confident geek? Is there such a thing as a cocky confident geek?
I liked the idea of bond off on his own after being shot off the train. I thought we might have a bit of a licence to kill theme happening, However this 'bond off on his own' idea was soooo short lived.
Maybe its just me but this is the worst in the best movie franchise this planet has seen.
Welcome!
The difference is that when I watch Moonraker it brings back great memories of being a kid. I was born in 1976 and Moonraker seemed to be on all the time when I was a kid. So it will always have a special place in my heart. As do all the Moore bonds, even though the Connery ones are far superior, maybe with the exception of Live and let die which is definitely in my top 5 bonds.
I really struggled with Skyfall and was close to turning it off after an hour but stuck with it due to my bond madness!!
How is a younger Q stupid? And where was he ever cocky?
Nostalgia is what the bond franchise is all about my friend thats why its still here.
I thought the young Q was cocky from the offset by comparing bond to an old worn out battleship that had its day. When exactly EVER was bond young???
Nostalgia is what the bond franchise is all about my friend thats why its still here.
That's not entirely true but I see what you're trying to say. That being said, one doesn't have to be blinded by it.
I thought the young Q was cocky from the offset by comparing bond to an old worn out battleship that had its day. When exactly EVER was bond young???
I saw it as Q making a genuine observation of what Bond was studying and used it as a device to discretely start their conversation which turned into banter. Had Q continued to subliminally put Bond down or at least regard him to be irrelevant I'd agree but this wasn't the case.
Touché!
I would always take a tried and tested ship over an unused one any day of the week.
Anybody remember the titanic?!?
That said Quantum has some good scenes like the Tosca stuff but doesn't gel together as well and frankly isn't as entertaining. I've come to see the positives of Quantum over the last couple of years but compared to the other two it falls flat (IMO). Maybe I should watch all three in one sitting to revise or confirm my views.
This is the kind of thing I resort to saying, so I don't seem too down on QoS. But I was thinking the other day, is it actually that good, or is it just surrounded by mediocrity to such an extent that we mistake it for brilliance?
In reality, what does it do? The Tennyson scene, as a series comparison, has a thematic resonance. The combination of cross-editing and score work together brilliantly. What is the Tosca scene, other than a bit of art-farty nonsense? I know I'm sounding harsh but I think we (myself included) have started to kid ourselves this scene is actually a lot better than it is.
I agree. The Tosca sequence kind of works in terms of a bit of show-offy film-making but (IMO) doesn't really get the emotions going in the way M's Tennyson speech does. Since buying the Blu Ray I've watched that scene several times. Fantastic sequence!
Actually maybe I should substitute the Tosca scene for the final showdown with Jusef. Craig's superb in that and the scene is a real highlight in the film - but even then its perhaps a little too late.
Using the original cast members from the 60s would be a bit problematic, though. :D
Q is not the same character, and not supposed to be in any way. He even gets referred to as "the new Q" by M. Why not have a younger guy play it? If he's new in the job, and his work is more to do with computers than, eeh, exploding pens and the like, then doesn't it make more sense he's younger than Bond instead of older? Why have another older guy playing the role? Also, since Q hadn't yet appeared in the Craig films they couldn't just have an old chap as Q all of a sudden who was somehow known to Bond. On the other hand, introducing a 60-year old computer wizard as MI6's new recruit somehow would seem odd, don't you think?
I'd find it boring if it was all "nostalgia", and I suspect a lot of other people would as well. I wasn't desperate to have Q back - I didn't miss him in the previous 2 films - but I'm happy to have him back, too, and pleased he's not another old chap this time. - No disrespect to previous Qs, but it's better to have a different kind of Q. Keeps it fresher and more interesting. I was happy to have Judi as M, and now that there's new M, I'm also interested in seeing how that character will be like in future films.
I understand if you dislike young Q or disliked female M, and so on. I was just trying to say why change is understandable, and indeed necessary and why some enjoy it.
If they didn't tweak and change things, the franchise would have died long ago. Nostalgia has its place, but having ONLY nostalgia, rinse and repeat and all that... wouldn't work for long.
Well said.
First off I have no problem with M being a women, I think Dench is fantastic in her role, almost motherly towards bond at times.
My problem is the young Q. Bond has respect for authority. He respects all the characters of authority throughout all books/movies whether they be good or a villian. For bond to respect a teenager in the world he lives in is impossible imo.
I take your point that this is a new world with high tech gadgetry so maybe the only bond that can be made for the big screen in this day and age is in fact not bond at all?
I know we have heard this said many times before but this time I think it is true.
Why did the reboot of bond in Casino Royale have to be set now anyway? I always thought they would have been wiser to set it in the same era as the Connery bonds.
And he truly does do this, most of all Craig's Bond. He had to get to know M, Mallory, Q, Vesper, Mathis, Felix, all of his core allies before he let trust and respect grow between them.
I must say I disagree.
A young Q works because only a young Q can stand the otherwise inevitable comparison to Desmond Llewelyn. Whishaw looks young, though he is 32, but I fail to see how that could keep Bond from respecting him. Bond's bedded, and respected, women that are younger (like Vesper). Also, he does make the point first of this Q being a bit young. The exciting part is that Q earns Bond's respect, which puts them on a far more interesting basis, IMO, for future films. I suppose this actor might furthermore survive this Bond. Give him his number of films to become seasoned. If they still make Bond films in 20 years, we'll be happy to have the familiar faces of Whishaw (and Fiennes?) around I reckon.
Also, putting this 'reboot' (the term is debatable) in modern times makes all the sense in the world. The big appeal of the Bond movies for most people has always been the fact that they evolved with us, that the five-minutes-into-future remained exactly that. Like my parents were captivated by Bond in the 60s, dreaming they were (with) that guy in modern 60s, so was I in the 'modern' 80s, so are my pupils in the modern world of today. Anyone who wants to see Bond in the cold war should watch FRWL. Meanwhile, new generations of fans gladly accept the Bond of the new ages.