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
The only act I've heard about in that connection was that DC once mentioned that after reading--Casino Royale, I think it was--he tossed it in the rubbish bin. I don't necessarily think he intended disrespect toward Fleming, but many took it that way and as a symbolic rejection of all previous Bond.
Throwing Mathis in the garbage is one thing, but CR? That warrants flogging. Are you sure this is true?
I'm pretty sure it is not true, as I've heard quite the oposite version more than once.
My feeling with Craig is that he really and truly does consider his Bond to be a superior rendition of the character than Connery's was, and that he craves that kind of recognition. Actor ego I think is at play here. As George Roy Hill explained, actors can get insanely jealous of each other.
I don't think the Craig films even actually try to connect with the early films, although I do believe Forster made honest efforts in this regard with QoS (and I'm not talking the oil girl, but other stuff he did), but SF and to a lesser extent CR, seem to attempt "connection" with the older films, only so as to jibe at them or invite contrast with their new "superior " take.
Craig's uneven, unenthusiastic, blase attitude towards women in his films is very telling as well. Perish that he should have appetites similar to the neanderthals Connery and Rog.
Craig only grudgingly acknowledges the brilliance of the early films and the legacy that he inherited. He makes polite noises. Compare with Broz or Rog. They were practially effusive in their recognition of the original classics. Craig's films are full of snipes at the original films, bad homages and very definite attempts at doing things differently across the board. There is a real attempt at separation from what came before, not only from DAD and the worst excesses of the Broz era, but the whole series.
Considering how iconic the original Connery legacy run was, it would be only politic at the very least, to fully acknowledge the accomplishments of what came before, in absolutely unambiguous terms. Polite noises instead is what we get.
I don't even hear him say things like those movies were great but we want to try something very different. He tries to pretend that he's not really changing anything. He won't take ownership. I think thats because he actually wants to give the impression that his films are better, not just a new take. Actor ego.
I don't hear acknowledgement of the Connery era legacy from Craig, at least not in any enthusiastic manner. Again polite noises is what I hear, followed on-screen by radical changes to the series, the most tiresome of which I think are the gratuitous nods (detailed elsewhere) which come at the end of all his films, pretending that nothing has actually changed, when in fact things very much have, and as we've seen, will continue to do so.
Yes Mendes directs the film, but Craig handpicked the guy and they have freely admitted to having numerous discussions during the QoS-SF interval as to what they planned on doing with their film and I'm sure those discussions continue. Craig is very much driving this bus. Sure he has to work around Babs and MGW and even Mendes once he gets directing, but he's pushing as many buttons as he can. These movies reflect his vision as much as anyones.
I think Bale is the best Batman too but I don't think there was anything iconic that preceded anyway. Keaton didn't launch a Batman phenom quite the same way Connery did. And its not really about whose best. I can respect Bond fans who consider any of the 6 to be their favourite and might even put Connery at the bottom. To each his own, but still there is no denying the iconic legacy that is Connery's and Connery's alone. The global Bondmania was fully established and in full roar before even Laz donned the tux. We all know this, even if our favourite Bond film might be DAD or AVTAK or QoS.
I do believe that legacy should be dutifully recognized by all who follow and all should aspire to make films worthy of that legacy, as opposed to attempting supposed superior work.
If others consider the new work "better" so be it. That's fair, but those charged with continuing the legacy need respect the legacy and in very obvious and clear language.
Personally I just don't trust Craig's motives. I think his biases are clearly displayed on the screen. I think we do have a case of actor ego and Connery jealousy. IM very HO of course. :-B ~O)
I'd say mine is Django Unchained. I thought True Grit was quite good too. I thought Cowboys and Aliens was alright, nothing special though and not the best example of Craig's non Bond work. The best thing Craig has done outside of Bond is by far Our Friends In The North imo. That was brilliant.
Speaking of Bond actors doing westerns, I bought a western today with Pierce Brosnan in, and Liam Neeson. I really like both of the actors so I'm looking forward to watching it.
I think "the 2000s" refers to the previous decade. I bought Cowboys and Aliens, but gave it away later. So disappointed. Agree Django Unchained and True Grit were absolutely phenomenal. Those I have kept. The Brosnan western is Ok, but not outstanding. Brosnan does well though, just to let you know I am not a Brosnan hater. That only applies to his Bond. ;)
All the way from 21st to 23rd?
I think it will be highly regarded within the cannon, it will be the GF of it's era and like GF will have some proclaiming it a bench mark and some like with GF ( like me) scratching their head with disbelief to why such a film is regarded universally as one of the greatest.
I look at GF like some fans look at SF wondering why it's held in such high regard, this one is going to enter into that same arena, SF I think will age very well plot holes or not, it's going to define an era.
He may well be.
I've heard this a number of times and I don't get it. Severine's death is just a extension of Silva's mind games with Bond. Silva continues to prod and Bond doesn't yield. Craig's performance is so incredibly subtle. Watch it again, you can see the glimmer of pain beneath the eyes. It didn't need any more than that IMO.
Yeah,sure! I am shivering like a naked maid on Capt. Blackbeard's ship, can't shoot straight at 7 yards,but now when he kills the helpless girl, which I promised to protect I look cold like a stone. That certainly will impress him!
Yes, a less moisturized one.
:))
Very well put. It's been interesting to read the comments here. I was one of those who dared say SF was being massively overhpyed when it came out (a position I still stand by) and was widely attacked by some of the resident thought police on here. But on rewatching the film recently, putting aside what I still regard as a very weak plot, I was able to appreciate the subtext and themes a lot more. I've stated from the start that I could see what Mendes was trying to do, and respected the ambition behind the film, but still maintain it simply isn't nearly as good as it's been made out to be.
As I predicted back in 2012, SF only has one direction to go in and that is down the rankings. My prediction was always that it would end up as a mid-table movie. The only thing I'm surprised about is just how quickly that seems to be happening.
As many others have pointed out, it's not the lack of logic or plot holes themselves that are problematic. It's true that other Bond movies have some ridiculous twists and turns. It's that there are so many of them, and that they really take you out of the film - making it impossible to suspend your disbelief. That's a pretty serious flaw in any film, let alone a fantastical Bond movie. You have to be able to sit there are take the plot twists and turns in your stride. Bond fans and most movie goers are more than willing to do this - it's part of the fun of going to see a Bond movie. But sometimes it just doesn't work. And as NapoleonPlural says, if you're going to play it more serious (as the Craig films have) then you need to treat the audience with a bit more respect. Go back to the Connery and Dalton films perhaps, OHMSS or even parts of FYEO and OP, and see how it's possible to mix fantastical but coherent plotlines, high drama, real tension and humour. I know this is what Mendes is grasping for, but he really needs to do better next time.
Since Cubby's death, EON seems to have succumbed to the widely held popular view that Bond films are just mindless popcorn and that you don't really need a very strong narrative or story to underpin them. To be fair, they've clearly been trying to address this since CR, but QoS and SF were not very successful on this front. I'm really, really hoping Bond 24 sees a return to some proper, tight plotting, with strong and coherent narrative thrust.
Good to see the debate is still alive and well, and long may it continue!
And the villain brought back to Blighty in chains. Mission accomplished. Until everything goes terribly wrong.
Precisely. The main criticisms I always see regarding that scene is 1.) Bond doesn't do anything to stop Severine's death, and 2.) he shows no emotion and jokes about her death with the scotch line. Both I find to be inferior arguments.
In the first instance, Bond doesn't know that Silva is just going to suddenly shoot Severine dead. He knew Silva was maybe a little "off," but he had only just met him and hadn't fully understood his mercurial disposition as someone like M does with their shared history together. Bond obviously found the "shoot the glass" game to be sick and twisted, but I don't quite think he quite expected Silva to just snap and shoot Severine out of nowhere, especially since he was under the impression that they may have been lovers. It is only at this point that Bond fully understands Severine's warning about Silva, and how he is not above making anyone expendable along the way to completing his final mission. As I said, I don't think Bond fully understood Silva's madness at this stage and since he hadn't seen it coming, he couldn't prevent it. He's a hell of an agent, but not Superman.
While I have heard good arguments that support proponents of the first complaint, this second one truly is gob-smacking. I can't believe there are actually people out there (Bond fans included) that think Bond didn't give a care in the world about Severine and thought it in good taste to mock her death by calling it a waste of good scotch. Obviously once one uses their senses and sees the anger and resentment in Bond's face towards Silva and what he has just done it is easy to see that his line was a continuation of their chess game. Just like in the previous scene in the film where Bond and Silva engaged in a chess game of words to try and one-up each other, Bond doesn't want to show Silva that he has been cracked and affected by Severine's death, so he fakes callousness. That constant fight to be on top between Bond and Silva is a main feature of the film, and in spectacular form here. Basically, what @RC7 said in a tidier, much less pleonastic way. Apologies for writing a novel...
I think, as I've said before, the plotting is wayward at times in SF and sometimes it's a real stretch to suspend your disbelief. However, the narrative thrust and the numerous sub-plots are nothing but coherent. Ex-agent wants to destroy the reputation of ex-employer. With MI6 on its arse there's only one man for the job, but has he lost his edge? The narrative never strays too far from this, at any point in the movie. So while I agree the techno-babble and convenient leaps of logic conspire to mar the picture, the narrative thrust is never lost.