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
Bond is bigger than any actor. Actors become legends by playing 007, not the other way around. Well,exept Connery that is, there it is a case of vice versa. I'm also not aware of any of Craigs non Bonds overperforming at the box office.
Ok,I see.
I know people here don't mean it, but each time I read "such plot development will NEVER be in a Bond movie", I basically read that Sam Mendes cannot do anything special. Hey, he just did a billion dollar movie with no story :)
You're obviously correct. That's not my point.
My point is that despite producer/director mistakes in QoS and plot holes in SF, it is Daniel Craig who holds this era together.
I'll contend that he has been more effective in this 3 movie arc than Connery was during his first 3, because there were far less mistakes made during that early 4 movie arc in the 60's than are being made now. Connery had a superb team around him on all first 4 Bond movies and a clear vision driving the character by Cubby/Harry.
Craig's era has had a more uneven start (the team was very good in CR, a bit off in QoS and a new take in SF that met with broad appeal by the public). Despite the misteps, it's Craig that's the glue.
Your box office point actually proves my point. He is most successful in his James Bond portrayal. He owns it. They will have trouble replacing him.
With a good direction and a great actor who can be imposing. I am sure he can be... but I find it unlikely opposing such actors.
And the character's name is Denbigh.
Or... there was two Aston Martins. Easy.
=))
I believe it's the same one from CR.
the weorld is in crisis and the only way to save it is to add gadegts to an old Aston Martin the bean counters would shut up and say ok I am sure.
As someone who works in the EDM music industry there are three names who are rumoured to sing the theme Emily Sandie, Sam Smith and Adele. I believe its more than likely Adele will return having postponed her album until next year.
Isn't it the Craig era that is supposed the realistic one? You know - not gadget driven,sans tongue in cheek style. It is as always and everywhere in life: you can't have your cake and eat it too, but those SF supporters are certainly trying.
Bond is fiction not real life, it's utterly ridiculous and always should be, you can't precious over this, even the grounded ones wouldn't happen in real life as someone said a secret agent going round using his real name is far fetched nonsense.
I'm sorry before anyone take offense, I've been a Bond fan for over 35 years but not under any illusions that these films are hardcore gritty realism.
Not true. She has a daughter, Angelica, 22, who as of 2012 is studying writing at NYU.
Outrageousness.
;)
"Realistic" Bonds can be interpreted in many ways; it doesn't have to mean literally ripped from our world. The fact that Bond isn't the one-dimensional superman he was in some previous films, the fact that MI6 isn't untouchable, the fact that even good and beloved characters can die and that our hero can't save everyone, ... all of these things make a film more realistic already. Meanwhile it's okay to create a parallel universe in which some aspects of life are romanticised or simplified to fit the escapist tone of the film. As long as the story obeys its own internal logic, we're good.
Why do people often call Nolan's Batman films "realistic"? Not because everything that takes place in these films happens in real life too, but rather because characters are faced with more dilemmas and contradiction, because actions have far-reaching consequences which the story won't simply ignore, because we are asked much less to suspend our disbelief concerning Batman's gadgets than before, etcetera. But if you really want to be the one with the adverse opinion, you can of course focus on one stupid detail, enlarge it and then make the case that these films are totally unrealistic and whatnot. That's usually the role little children play: they don't understand that even when the hero dies, a film can still have a happy end, that even when the laws of physics are sporadically defied, a film can still be more realistic because much more nuance and causality is built in.
Also, SF can hardly be called 'gadget driven'. That one brief moment where the DB5 pulls a goldfinger surely isn't enough to make the film "gadget driven". It's neither a plot point nor a game changer. This is like saying that because of Linda Hamilton's nipples being visible during her love making scene with Michael Biehn, The Terminator is a porn film.
People need to roll with it. Even a film as serious as SF is allowed a few wink-winks to the fans. LTK went further still. That film is about as serious and brutal as they come, yet Q brings explosive toothpaste in the mix, and that's before he dresses up as a local and talks in a broomstick. And as for continuity, bringing continuity issues to a Bond related debate means you lose before you've begun. The weakest arguments are usually the continuity ones. We know by now that more than half of the Bond films suffer from continuity issues. We know by now that if continuity is what you seek, you might as well never watch a Bond film apart from perhaps the first five. Generally beloved films like OHMSS, TLD and CR have some serious continuity issues in that respect. Are we going to call them out on those or are we going to watch them as intended? If you must insist on explaining where the DB5 got its makeover from since the gamble session with Dimitrios - and you're unhealthily obsessive about these things if you do - then accept the fact that some tech geek at MI6 fixed it for Bond and let it go. Seriously, you have no business watching Bond films if you are so exhaustingly strict about these things. Before CR, James Bond healed from cuts and bruises almost from one scene to the next. He could be drugged or knocked out but before CR it never took him much time to recover; he'd wake up and operate at full capacity almost immediately. James Bond could receive instructions from M in London, take the first plane to another country and almost immediately find M and his entire MI6 crew fully equipped and stationed in some local HQ. If any of those things bother you, stay away from the Bond films. They must be an intellectual torment to you; in fact, I'd hate to be your psychiatrist.
Lastly, the same people who complain about SF being a dire, unpleasant, bleak movie, now attack it on the basis of its little nudge to Goldfinger. Wow. And not even in a SF thread but in a Spectre related thread, barely a day since the press conference! Talk about obsession...
Let's not even discuss Ethan Hunt locked up at Guantanamo or Bruce Wayne committed...
:))
I don't understand it either. Man, with such unprecedented success for the Bond films with Craig in it, I'm not even thinking about a replacement for Craig. He can do 3 more if you ask me. Like Connery and Moore.
So following your reasoning they actually can do whatever they want because it's Bond anyway.
Why don't you just say so? This would make almost any kind of arguing and debating the movies obsolete, and so many people here claiming how sophisticated Mendes' approach is could use their time for something else.(again - it's exactly this attitude that angers me. If people just said:" hey, it's story is trash but,but it's beautifully filmed and very stylish so I like it" I would still shake my head, but I would accept it!)
I said exactly the same thing today. It's not Spectre, but SPECTRE.
The funny thing is, I didn't notice much of the song before the conference, but hearing it with this excellent Bond montage, with this sheer fanboy enthusiasm and emotion of what was coming up next, it suddenly hit me, and yes it is amazing.
It's weird because it's a slower, more moving song, yet seeing Craig with the montage was just infinitely badass.