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
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
New York
Washington, DC
Detroit
Chicago
Houston
Atlanta
HURRY UP, SCREENINGS TOMORROW
http://www.gofobo.com/index.php/main/national_campaign/KINGSMANIGN
It delivers big time on the entertainment and I don't think any soy movie made me feel this good since CR.
Seriously, EoN need not waste time on trying to coax Nolan into the director's chair. They need to get Vaughan. The set pieces, the action although stylised, sped-up and at times gimmicky is executed wonderfully. And that Church fight.....bloody...hell...the church fight was pure glorious anarchy. One of the things that really surprised me about this film was the amount of violence and gore. I appreciate it immensely and delighted we got it but it was just a please my surprise that I wasn't expecting. Also, there's a sky diving sequence that shits all over the rubbish that QoS gave us. I'm expecting big things from EoN for SPECTRE.
Definitely swing this again when it's officially released.
It's unrealistic and unfair that you are now expecting even more from "SPECTRE" because of "Kingsman" I think. Bond is Bond. Kingsman is Kingsman. The first is in any case more realistic. The latter is really using umbrella's as deadly weapons, is using Matrix-esque, Lee Tamahori-esque slow-mo effects, with a perfect twist of gangsta "Snatch" and suave "Bond". And for me that's not Bond.
Let Kingsman be Kingsman. And let Bond be Bond. Both franchises (and trust me, Kingsman will become a big comic book franchise) are succesful in their own ways.
Compared to...idk let's say GOTG (as fun comic book movie) and Mission Impossible (as spy/action movie) how would you rate this movie ? Better than them or ?
Say what you want about EON though they might threaten other films with law suits but they don't go around promoting their films by slagging off other franchises.
Both Mr Vaughn and Mr Millar have been doing just that with their promotion duties for this film. Millar for instance said at the premiere that he used to want to be Bond but what is Bond doing now? Crying in the shower?
Now I don't about you but Bond has been in the shower twice in the 3 Craig entries and the first was with Vesper comforting her while she was crying and not Bond and of course the controversial seduction sequence of SF with Severine and I'm pretty sure he wasn't crying.
So Millar not only do you slag a series of films that will be around long after your comic adaptation have been forgotten about you also don't even get your facts straight.
Vaughn it seems is just bitter about being pushed aside for directing CR and claims he gave them the idea for using Daniel Craig and was told that they didn't trust him with a big budget after only directing Layer Cake. Vaughn is seems is bad as QT claiming this, I wonder what BB & MGW would say, I'd say he's pretty much guaranteed his chances of ever making a Bond film, serious or tongue in cheek now.
Damon and Greengrass slagging off Bond to promote the sequels. Yes comments like MORE BADASS THAN BOND do really turn me off, also that comment was from Alex Zane who actually was the person who did the commentary at the Spectre press conference.
I'm looking forward to Spectre showing up this outdated OTT nonsense big time come November.
I don't think anyone involved in this film would deny that (in fact I posted some stuff from Empire a few pages back where Vaugh talked about how Bond massively influenced the film) which is why so many comparisons are being made and why there are so many Bond references in the film.
I don't think with Kingsman they're trying to better the Bond films (it did annoy me with Bourne when Damon and Greengrass kept going on about how much better Bourne was), it's a really violent OTT throwback to the old Bonds. It's a love letter to the Roger Moore Bond films, not a film made out of spite.
Millar might not like the Daniel Craig films but he's entitled to his opinion and I don't see why that would make you write off this film. He doesn't like the new Bond films, so what? Doesn't mean this film will be bad. In fact pretty much all the reviews so far are saying it's really good so I'd give it a chance. The Bourne films are pretty good too.
SPECTRE might end up being better but I don't think it'll "show up" Kingsman at all. Kingsman will be very good, SPECTRE will be very good.
And you slag off this film for being unrealistic and OTT (which is sort of the point of the film, you may as well slag off Star Wars or Avengers or something for being unrealistic and OTT) but SPECTRE isn't exactly grounded in reality. I've read the script (couldn't help myself, don't judge me) and they seem to have abandoned the whole gritty realistic approach now. While it's not batshit insane like MR or DAD, it's pretty OTT. A real epic old fashioned Bond adventure. Gadgets, supervillians, massive henchmen, etc. They've really gone all out to finally give Craig his "classic" Bond film and I can't wait.
Kingsman will be an enjoyable movie in which proves to be an interesting year of spy movies. It will as I understand entertain an audience with his own audacity, and as always there will be people that will consider any 007 movie Superior.
For me the Bourne movies offered a brilliant outing in a different franchise and while the shaky cam was nauseating its editing and action scenes where bloody brilliant and showed that it could be done in an original way that did not lean heavy on the 007 franchise. Au contraire it was the 007 franchise that tried to copy with a disastrous result a different Bondmovie with an unfinished feel and a series of edited to death actionscenes that often made no sense whatsoever. It failed to really copy what worked so brilliantly with the Bourne franchise. They were a breath of fresh air indeed.
I really am looking forward to Kingsman.
Come onnn, just see it as a huge compliment :-). Let them do that. In the end "Kingsman" IS not a Bond film. It shakes up parts of it to create something new...something that is indeed more bad-ass but because of that also NOT Bond.
Moreover, as I mentioned before......for lovers of spy movies 2015 will be a wunderful, quite unique year. We're kicking off with "Taken 3", then there's "Blackhat", next is this original take on spy movies combined with "comic book flair", then "Mission: Impossible 5" and "The Man From U.N.C.L.E.". But they're all leading to the last and most exciting "spy station": "SPECTRE".
Perfect :-D!
The same has been said to me about Avatar, the amount of people who look shocked when I say I've not seen it, I don't want to see it, I'd rather catch up on some films I haven't seen that are worth my time. I've not seen so many films from days gone by I'd rather those than Cameron's Smurfphahontas and Vaughn's OTT Spy flick.
I'm pretty confident that Spectre will likely be the only spy film I will be bothered about seeing this year, The Man from U.N.C.L.E or Mission Impossible don't also interest me.
Spectre & The Force Awakens, maybe Jurassic World in the summer.
I'm so over watching most hollywood franchises they end up disappointing me. I look forward to Bond and can't help but be excited by TFA but it ends there as I've over comic book films as well.
SaintMark I'm no doubt you will enjoy it, you seem so unhappy with the current Bond films. I've no doubt it will give you that dose of the more lighthearted entries you prefer, so some Bond fans will be well pleased with this but I'm so not interested. I know some have tried to say it's more than early Bond ramped up to the max but that is what I see it is with a few more OTT spy series thrown in and as I said Jackson hamming it up for the camera as the villain is one sight I can live without.
That's my last word on this film I have no desire to see it, I'm butting out now as I don't want to be accused of being the Getafix (won't shut up about something I dislike) of the Kingsman thread, hope you all enjoy it though.
I don't see it as a compliment. Heck the trailer says Bond movies have been too serious. What a slap in the face. I've read some articles with Vaughn claiming that "Kingsmen will be putting the Fun that Bond hasn't had in years." Please, Skyfall was great fun. Bond isn't missing a damn thing.
Come on, Matthew Vaughn is also a great salesman. But he is so so wrong on a few things. If people didn't like the "seriousness" from the previous Bond film, and from Christopher Nolan's grittier Batman-entries, then they would have flopped at the box office.
"Kingsman" still needs to prove itself. And obviously Matthew Vaughn brings in every comparison with the Bond films.
But Vaughn forgets ONE vital element that Bond never will have, and that Bond even didn't have during the Moore-era. And that is his own approach, his re-invention of, the way he mixes "gangsta" with "British Bond-esque suaveness". I know that Roger Moore mocked Q a couple of times in Q-Branch, actually making funny remarks about that "deadly umbrella".
But that's as far as a Bond film can go really! Actually USING the umbrella, is a different thing. It creates a complete different kind of fight scene, that isn't Bond-esque anymore. Really, Bond fighting a bunch of hooligans? I saw that scene, I saw the slowmo-effects, the Matrix-esque approach of that fight scene. But that's NOT Bond anymore. That's Kingsman.
Moreover, Matthew Vaughn forgets the Ian Fleming novels. Kingsman is a COMIC book franchise, basically using the popularity that Marvel and DC Comics have created. Wunderful worlds indeed. But even in the most comical Moore-film that kind of comical, ridiculous element was executed with more flair and suaveness. And it only showed in really 2 or 3 out of 24 Bond films (The ridiculous "Moonraker" and the equally ridiculous "Die Another Day"). And even then Roger Moore didn't use weapons in a gangsta kind of way. Ian Fleming did not mean Bond to be a Kingsman. Roger Moore didn't portray Bond like a Kingsman. Bond is.....Bond.
Again, Matthew Vaugh needs to sell this movie. And desperately needs to compare his film with Bond so he can immediately use the things that he didn't like about Bond as a unique selling point for his own film. It's really a damn smart marketing thing to do. Similar to what Steven Spielberg did with Indiana Jones. The problem with this however, is that you won't get asked that quickly anymore by the Bond producers to direct a Bond film.
The only people really criticising the film at all on here haven't actually seen it whereas everyone on here who has seen it (as well as the majority of critics) says it's brilliant. I'm confident that this will be a great film and you'll be doing yourself no favours if you write it off solely because one trailer claimed it was more badass than Bond.
@doubleoego Thanks, I think I will too :) Really can't wait to see it.
I know Bond is Bond. Campy Gangsta Bond parody is what Kingsmen is. Gangsta Bond parody. I've watched all the trailers and nothing I've seen appeals to me except for Colin Firth (Bond being too serious comment aside.)
Bond will always be the king. That's not the argument I was making. If you slag off Bond in your movie advertising then you don't get my money. simple.
I do agree it's a bit rude. But I do think that Matthew Vaughn in his interviews commenting on Kingsman was actually quite mild about Bond. He did go "all the way" in his criticism about the Nolan films.
If you refer to the tongue-in-cheek Bond references in Kingsman, then I also think it was quite mild.
One last thing though........even here in the Bond forums there has been quite a bit of criticism about the Daniel Craig films really. So to say that Matthew Vaughn is the first with that, is weird. Perhaps at times we should be indeed a bit more protective about our beloved Bond franchise....and not criticise our Bond films to death. Have a bit of trust in the Bond producers. They are working for YOU, not for themselves :-).
And if you really like Kingsman more than one of the three more serious Daniel Craig Bond pictures.......then you are simply more of a newborn Kingsman-fan....and certainly less of a fan of Ian Fleming's James Bond 007. It takes gut to openly admit that, I know, but try it ;-)! Be a man.....a real Kingsman.
PS: I am 500% nerdy Bond geek fan autist ;-).
As for Kingsman, I don't mind Bond spoofs or parodies but I don't respect when they claim to be better than Bond. Austin Powers never claimed to be putting the fun back in Bond that it lacked. It just coexisted with Bond and never acknowledged it's existence even though the references were obvious.
I'm a 500% Bond geek, fan, lover nerd guy. :P
1.
This is the extent of "Bond-shading" in the film, btw. The rest is, like I've said before, way more pastiche, and does not try and mock Bond, if anything it's more inspired by it and makes its own thing out of it. @gustav_graves is right, it is definitely a mix of both the "street" and "elite" which is one of the core themes in the film. And once again, it's NOT a spoof or a parody, it's more inspired by Bond.
And the trailers really undersold the movie. Just saying. I know a few people who wrote off the film based on the trailers like you did @Murdock, I convinced them to go see it, they did and they loved it and were calling it one of if not the best so far this year.
2.
Welcome to the 2010s movie marketing world - where for new kids on the block franchises like Kingsman (which they are planning sequels for already, Vaughn mentioned in a couple interviews) it's all about shading your "big brother" rivals. Like all the other YA adaptations after Hunger Games such as Divergent, Maze Runner all proclaiming to be "better than Hunger Games" in their advertising. It's a marketing move. With quite a few people, it's working, so they'll carry on doing this. Let that get past yourself and just enjoy the film as it is, regardless of what the advertising says.
Also here's a nice review: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/01/28/review-kingsman-the-secret-service-is-best-007-homage-since-austin-powers/2/
And a couple of other quotes from Vaughn:
I was right eh @antovolk ;-). About marketing. And how Kingsman could be better compared with Indy Jones as being a vehicle to do something with Bond that you couldn't do if you were really directing Bond :-).
It's not being less of a fan of Fleming's Bond. Please don't speak on behalf of others you clearly know nothing about. Ironic really as you're doing what you've highlighted MY to have done. Furthermore, kingsman is definitely more entertaining than at lest one of Craig's Bond movies simply because it's a better made and more enjoyable movie. I'm not unreasonable in my approach to life to favour a movie if it's technically inferior and less enjoyable just because it's based on my favourite character. I don't subscribe to blind partisan and bias.
Can't you see/read the positive parts of my comment? What's wrong with being a new-born Kingsman fan?
Thank you, coggins. :)