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
...I know what "painted themselves into a corner" means. What I was asking for clarification on was why you thought that they had painted themselves into a corner.
is that really a cow? :-O :)) fantastic I love it :-bd
I like tying similarities between the actors, it gives them connection. I love Craig's getup that hearkens back to Moore's outfit in LALD. Do I want homages, winks, and references left and right? Absolutely not.
I think Mendes understands that though. He's just staying true to the character, not shamelessly referencing Bond films of the past (ahem - QOS oil covered Fields, several moments in DAD). Some of the latter's references are tolerable, because it was the 40th anniversary, but I think SF handled them much more slickly and with more sophistication.
tl;dr - Some of these "nods" aren't necessarily nods but simply extensions of the cinematic character of James Bond.
My apologies, I misunderstood. Anyway, What I mean is you can't go on making films in the mould of Casino Royale ad infinitum. The formula doesn't work like it did with Goldfinger. That film probably did more for bond than Fleming ever did.
I like your ideas for the poster design @timmer. All of the poster campaigns for the Craig films have been well below par when compared to posters of old.
Personally I do like the sixties posters. But one of my all time favourites is this one...
Bond in the centre of the gun barrel, with snippets of action and women surrounding him.
But a retro 60's / 70's look would also work. It should be very busy, without being cluttered. Fingers crossed on that one.
They painted themselves out of a corner with CR. QoS forced them back into one. Which is a shame. They lost their balls.
CR forced them after the 100 minute mark...
Couldn't get a steak for dinner? I love a cold meat platter.
Producer Michael G. Wilson and actress Stephanie Sigman (Estrella) photographed today in Mexico City. Production on SPECTRE has moved to the city to shoot the film’s opening sequence featuring the Day of the Dead festival. This is the fourth time a Bond adventure has filmed in the country.
Not to take this even further off track, but how so? CR reinvigorated the series.
I just want to say I'm happy to see Michael G. Wilson looking good, out and about again. :)
And I just thought of Salma Hayak, because they are now in Mexico. I bet she wishes (and many of her fans wish) that she were part of this film.
It definitely warms the cockles. Great to see him back in the field, so to speak.
Really, "EON lost their balls"?? What is thát supposed to mean.
They kick started a new and interesting trajectory with CR, which QoS did it's best to follow, but the critics weren't enamoured. Rather than stick with it, they retained elements but covered their arses by immediately bringing in tropes and homages that acted as a comfort blanket/safety net.
most of the issues appear in the last half an hour.
Bond and Vesper's relationship changes dramatically after he wakes up from his injuries. up until then Vesper isn't much more than a run-of-the-mill bond girl. Okay, bond comforted her in the shower, but that's about it apart from flirting and the usual back and forth. All of a sudden they're in deep, passionate love with each other just to keep pace with the book. It's so abrupt. And some of the dialogue... 'I have no armour left', so corny and melodramatic. I thought this was serious bond.
Then there's vespers death. Just getting to her death is so tedious and eat's up about twenty minutes of screen time, even though the actual plot (the poker game) is all wrapped up. why do we need another huge action set piece here, it's just ridiculous and nothing like the book. Gutless move, especially when OHMSS stuck to it's guns and is heralded for it's sad ending.
But that's not the biggest reason that Casino Royale is let down by it's ending.
3:-O
Stop baiting members into an argument @Scamp It will not be tolerated.
Final warning concerning this.
Thanks for your response. I definitely see a lot of your points. I actually don't mind a lot of the dialogue and I think the evolution of the relationship works well. I believe they're in love from the moment they set eyes on each other aboard the train, it swells from there. Regard her death, I'd take a close adaptation, but I don't think what we got was too different. The emotion between Craig and Green is incomparable across the series, it trumps the OHMSS scene for me. I think OHMSS and CR are easily two of the best in the canon.
I love EON. Thanks for your concern, though.
The mission being over, so he could give in to his feelings for her ? Perhaps even think of a normal life away from the service .
Again, such an overreaction. I honestly don't know where to start. For me, at least in style, SF feels like a continuation of CR. At least both films take the time for the characters. Both films let the characters evolve, and had believable drama and plentiful background.
For me Sam Mendes, who said on many occasions that seeing CR was one of the reasons he would like to try and direct a Bond film, retained the CR-vibe, that Marc Forster so bluntly threw away.
It's not Mendes, but Forster who could have retained the same kind of style that Campbell initiated. But no, it had to be a continuation, while at the same time Forster wanted to make the film grittier, more vengeful. Yes, I heard Forster saying many times that Bond must have become vengeful after CR. True, but only to a certain extend! It doesn't need to become a forced attempt of making the film grittier, by overhauling EVERY aspect of filmmaking. It was Forster, not Mendes, who could have made such a great movie after CR, by focusing himself on the story and plot in greater detail. He, as a director, should have let the story breathe out the grittyness and vengeful mood, not every other aspect like the editing, the cinematography and the scoring!
A director is responsible for that. And until today I still don't buy it that it was entirely a flawed production, because of this so called "writer's strike". It was Forster who had to act by then! Halting the production, delaying it for one year, and re-do the screenplay, or otherwise step down, which directors with a good set of creative brains do!
All this bullocks and nonsense about bringing in "flawed homages, tropes and references" still doesn't make SF 10 times worse as compared to QOS. Yes, SF is perhaps not as good as CR. But by JOLLY, I am glad that at least Mendes retained the style of CR in "Skyfall"! And moreover, references don't destroy films. Flawed productions destroy films. And although QOS is by far a flawed production, it comes closest to a more troubled production.
And even if you fully disagree with me, which you will off course, then for God sake stop implying that a turtle-neck leads to the downfall of creativity. You will obviously say "I have never said that" and "You are reading not good enough". Well, I don't give a shit then, because you are implying it anyway (imply = Indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference).
Glad we can agree on something, OHMSS all the way!
I agree with this. A lot if it evokes the novel without translating it specifically.
I like the idea that a turtle-neck is the downfall of creativity, it sounds very Chris Morris, but no, that's not what was implied. What I suggested was that it was symptomatic of a wider creative process. If you don't 'give a shit' don't bother commenting mate, I'm looking for discussion.
I do give some shit. And I think my "shit" makes perfect sense really. A good discussion? I always love it. You know that. And many of your recent answers in here provoked discussion. At least from my side.
Just.......I think you're not hitting the nails at all when you're saying "EON lost their balls" or "EON covered their arses by immediately bringing in tropes and homages". It's just a big pile of populist, un-nunaced, untrue shit really. You make it sound that "SPECTRE" is heading towards another typical disappointing Mendes-film. I find it too early to say such nonsense at this stage really. That's my part of the discussion.
That would be great compromise for SP. Do a busy a poster and some other minimalist type posters, but bottom line, I guess it all comes down to how they want to sell the film, as that is the poster's job.
Personally I love the busy posters, as items to enjoy in their own right.
@scamp I don't think you are giving @rc7 his due re the DB5.
I am not bothered at all, by it at this point. I have surrendered. And it was only the way it was introduced in SF, that I took exception too, as I explained in an earlier post.
But please, allow that it's return is not everyone's cup of tea.
The car is not by any mean vital to the series.
It made its initial impact in exactly two films, GF and TB and then it disappeared for 30 years.
It was reintroduced in a big way with the GE relaunch, clearly to give Broz Bond a link with the classic era.
We saw it one more time in the Broz era, again as Bond's personal car, and now three times in the Craig era, again as Bond's personal car, but don't forget it WAS GONE for 30 years, and it could easily go again.
It's not vital.
The Aston Martin make though is associated with Bond in a broader sense.
We have seen various models over the years and the brand has become a staple from DAD forward and into the Craig era, but even it might step aside for a bit again.
But the DB5 GF model I think will probaby disappear post Mendes and Craig. Just my guess.
Apparently it's indestructible, but it could still be written out, even if it can't be blown to bits. ;)