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
Aye, I thought that was a neat twist on the "classic" Bond approach.
My sister who generally saw the Bond franchise as nothing more than entertaining said the grit of SF was so fresh and she loved what they did with the film. This underlines your point that SF is as good for non-Bond fans as Bond fans.
SF was a goodbye to the weaknesses of the old series and a hello to the strengths.
EON know that depending on Bond fans only as an audience is not the surest way of the franchise surviving. They have to bring in those who just want to see a strong film rather than just to see a Bond film.
Hrmff, says that guy who said that Skyfail is the best since the 1960s... How on earth should one "back up" personal preference? It is a matter of taste.
No it is not just taste. Over the last few days I have gone into great detail why I think SF is a high echelon film. And if I criticise a Bond film, then I make sure I give good reasons from my point of view.
By the way -- I say "enthusiasts" as opposed to "fans" with purpose. I see enthusiasts as people who enjoy something (James Bond, Star Trek, comic books, whatever), but don't get so invested in it they begin to hold it against other people because they don't share the common interest. Fans really can be quite fanatical, and, I think, often can be a detriment to a franchise, so poo-pooing anything that doesn't fit their view of what is being done that they often drive casual consumers away from a franchise.
Just means you're looking for something different than other viewers. A lot of people who did not enjoy the Nolan Batman films often said they missed the very stylized Gotham City of the Burton films.
Different tastes for different people.
Some Bond fans just want formula and no change. Dalton said in a 2002 interview that everyone has a different opinion on Bond. Even people involved in the production did not see eye to eye. And Dalton rightly said that when you play Bond, you cannot be all things to all men. This is where the Brosnan era went wrong. You cannot truly move forward being shackled to the ankles with the past.
Some Bond fans want every actor to just be a carbon copy of an earlier Bond with just his look being the only difference.
I will say this, but after SF, those who see it as their first Bond film and like it are going to be in for a shock when they see some of the earlier films.
And I will say this for Dalton. His Bond was perfectly in line with the Cold War era.
As for Craig, his Bond is perfectly in line for the political climate we have today. Craig like Dalton both give intelligent and contextual interpretations for their respective times.
I could be wrong but I get the feeling that, unlike Dalton's era (LTK especially), the people behind the scenes in Craig's films pretty much all accepted the direction they wanted to go in. Most of the problems in QoS were more to do with external factors.
If one's only exposure to the movie Bond has been Craig, and one liked what he was doing, then yes, I think it might be very challenging to go back to earlier Bond films and enjoy them for what they are. Of those films, however, I'd imagine the Dalton ones would be among those that might be well received (along with From Russia With Love).
It does seem like the people associated with the franchise right now seem to be supportive of what's being done at the moment.
You are absolutely right. Dalton wanted to go even harder but was told his limits.
Craig's era was everyone being on the same page and having the advantage that modern cinema was also heading in that direction anyway.
Dalton was stuck in an era where the baggage of his predecessor was still firmly in the mind of John Glen. The bar scene in LTK as in the fight, was a Moore style fight which is clearly Glen's preference.
I totally agree. Dalton may not have been appreciated in his era because Moore was seen as the Bond blueprint for so long. Even Connery's Bond was sidelined for a long time during the height of Moore's popularity. I rarely saw Connery on tv as Bond. They would mostly show Roger Moore ones.
And I must say that when I first watched Connery I compared him to Moore. Initially I was luke warm to Connery being so used to Moore.
But with the arrival of Craig, Dalton as well as early Connery are highly compatible. They are psychologically timeless Bonds.
The more I read about the development of the script the more it confirms my initial suspicions that Purvis and Wade were heavily involved in its writing. With the exception of a couple of scenes, the writing is generic and forgettable. As others have noted, the action is also very formulaic - it could have been plucked from any second rate action flick - and lacks any of the panache, wit or style that used to make Bond films distinctive.
So I respect your opinion but from a personal perspective I have to say I disagree with your verdict. I found the SF plot and script overall confused and rather lazy and reminiscent of the Brosnan era.
But of course you did.
Very true. The books can be adapted to any era. Man's nature never changes just the technology does. Fleming shows the brutality of the world and why Bond is a by product of that world.
Hi @Getafix Thanks for making the effort to state your case. I totally welcome it.
I would sooner have a SF with the plot weaknesses than another TWINE. Though Craig's Bond is very steely, I can look past the scenarios and apply the rules of suspension of disbelief.
I liked the fact that Craig did not alter his serious approach in making this film. As for him not passing his evaluation by the doctor, Bond is a rebel and rarely listens to advice he is given. Bond is a man that has incredible self-belief even when those around him think he is past it.
I can only imagine he is a man that pulls on his reserves despite being hampered by any limitation. In LTK he is hampered by personal loss and loss of MI6 status. But he still pulls through despite the incredible odds.
I also think they cut down on the action in SF to accomodate what he has been through. SF was more about the changing world of MI6 and how they were out of step with modern threats. In past Bond, MI6 were shown as being able to overcome anything. Not in SF. They took severe damage to their reputation and were on the defensive.
In the end part, he uses traps to overcome the villains men. It is evident to me that he knows he cannot do it without that. But we see his intelligence. His escape from the lake is no more unbelievable than him escaping from the divers in LTK with a harpoon attached to the plane.
I actually think SF was less about the action. It was dramatically cut down compared to TWINE or past Bond films.
I appreciate that Bond has reserves of skill and strength and determination, but in a narrative sense there is no transition between busted flush Bond at the start of the film and super-Bond at the end. There is no 'journey' that explains or explores his 'rebirth'. Or at least that was how I felt. As is customary with Purvis and Wade, character development is perfunctory and there are massive narrative non sequiturs (reminiscent of Bond's miraculous recovery from months of torture at the start of DAD).
A big difference between the absurd (but highly entertaining) waterski escape sequence in LTK and Bond's escape from the lake in SF is that LTK shows us how he escapes (however far fetched the explanation might be).
A frozen lake is a classic (cliched?) film scenario. The danger is not just the thin ice, but the risk of getting stuck under the ice and getting back out of the water without it cracking further. If a director is going to use these familiar scenarios then they have to appreciate that audiences will already be thinking ahead from the moment Bond goes under the water - how will he escape this one? But, as at the start of the film, there is no explanation. This is not something I can accept 'because it's a Bond film' and because Bond just always survives, no explanation needed (as some people have suggested) - it is just lazy film making.
Not really sure what your point is. Is this intended to be patronising or a wind up, or both, perhaps? I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make these kinds of posts in this thread.
Bond fails his assessments, but in the field when he faces real situations his ability becomes second nature. Many able people fail exams. Bond is nervous shooting at the whiskey glass, and misses, but the need to escape his captors sees the adrenalin kick in and the old Bond returns.
Escaping from the ice? So if they had spent one second showing Bonds head bob out of the loch and him gaping for air, that would appease these endless worries everyone has about how he escapes? I'm sure Mendes could have done that, but we accepted that when he sent the flare (was it?) to the surface to break the ice, we can assume he was capable of swimming 20 feet to the surface without It being shown.
And finally the fact he fell 100 feet into water and survived? Can I ask someone to say without reservation, quite categorically that no one would survive such a fall, and I mean no one, then ok that was a poor price of plotting.
Though I appreciate your point of view @Getafix I saw no need to look for weaknesses as the character of Bond was so well played. I also was more impressed with the film making and how Mendes really took Bond into a totally realistic look.
I think his strength is forced out by when he meets Silva and that he has no choice but to deal with it. Bond is an a do or die predicament. He has no time to think about maybe I will take on Silva when I am 100%.
I also think the story leaves it to your imagination what happens in between so that the film can stack up to repeat viewings. In other words, I think Mendes did not want you to see everything spelled out so easily. But Silva's skill and inside knowledge is what made him get away with so much. That was obvious to me. If he could hack MI6, then he could infiltrate as well.
Also Silva to me understood how an organisation like MI6 infiltrates. He was using their knowledge against them. No different how the Russians or Americans have agents embedded in the ranks of their enemies.
Like when he is disguised as a London policeman. He knows most people do not question obvious symbols of authority and Silva in essence is an ex-MI6 man who has evolved into a supreme terrorist. He is an ex-00 and they are the most highly specialised who can adapt to many environments as well as situations.
I cannot imagine a director like Mendes going into shooting with a weak script. In fact I think the film would have been three and a half hours long had he wanted to show the very things you said are missing.
I think we may get a director's cut version once it leaves cinemas. To accomodate all the so called plot holes would have meant splitting this film into two parts. That is my understanding.
I think SF was incredibly ambitious and taking huge risk for a possibility of little reward from the traditional fans. Because what one Bond fan likes the other will equally resent.
But at the very least, we have true depth throughout the film without throwing it out for a few laughs. That was what I was afraid of before seeing the film and I am happy that my fears were not realised.
But any way, the plot holes and non sequiturs are just a symptom of a wider problem, which is that it's actually quite dull and derivative. We get a familiar and well worn story about the fallen hero making his predictable (if under-explored) come back, and some fairly unimaginative and poorly developed stuff about a nemesis who mirrors Bond and a boss who messes up and falls from grace. And a workaday score by Newman just gives the film a pervasive flatness and lack of tension.
Like I said at the start, this is a film that fails by it's own standards, not because it isn't a 'proper' Bond. I found it poorly written, weakly plotted, sometimes strangely edited and generally disappointing. I can't say that I am hugely surprised. As some people commented when Mendes got the gig, it wasn't like his career had been an unrivalled success since American Beauty. This film echoes Road to Perdition to me - amazing cast and everything in its favour, but ultimately something lacking.
It is strange that American Beauty feels like a so much 'larger', expansive, intelligent and joyous film (despite the disturbing ending) than SF, which despite its budget and stellar cast just collapses under its own weight.
Sorry you felt that way; I simply saw that post as being intellectually lazy. It states how you feel and what your assumptions are quite well, but doesn't, I think, offer up much in the way of foundational support why anyone else ought to consider what you feel are weaknesses.
EDIT: So what I really did a poor job of stating is simply I don't personally find such posts particularly useful. Just part of my shortcomings.
Isn't the human brain a strange thing that two people can see one film so differently. Also @Getafix you mention so many people you know who hated the film, yet I have only one friend (who called it a four letter word starting with s), and everyone else loved it unreservedly. And I have spoken to a couple of dozen friends and family who saw it. Remarkable.
And yet, here is the thing. W are probably both right.
Hi @Getafix I knew when I was at the cinema that some fans will not take warmly to SF. It is a huge leap of faith by the producers.
I think Silva knowing how MI6 operate would not have sent Bond to kill him but capture him for questioning. He is the head of his organisation and they would want to find out how he did it all.
I think Silva had men buried in MI6 way before as part of his revenge on M. So I assume he was not expecting to be captured but knowing that MI6 would be on to him eventually, prepared for any eventuality.
I think the music was different in the same way the score for LTK was a departure. It underuses the Bond triumphalism style because both are stories about loss rather than the status quo. I could not imagine them using a LALD style score.
As for David Arnold, I think he did his best in TND. Afterwards he was repeating a lot and no question that John Barry was the only man who could score Bond best.
But I cannot alter how you feel about the film @Getafix The film was a good representation of Craig's Bond and that is all I can ask for. And the film did not mock itself or the story. It started out hard and ended hard.
After the torture of sitting through DAD, it is hard for me to objectively dislike SF. But over the years more and more people will come forward with their dislikes of the film. Some think Craig killed their James Bond, whilst those like me thinks Bond is reborn.
I really think it is an arthouse Bond film in the sense that it does not lead you by the hand or give you much respite from the bleakness of it's reality. And the villain is nasty and truly unsettling when you think about it. I did not find him likeable and you sensed MI6 had a strong adversary who was one step ahead all the time.
It is a very intellectualised Bond film. Those who like Bond as fun and games with a happy ending are in for a tough ride. No Halle and Pierce counting their diamonds on an exotic island. Thank goodness that is over!