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
No. It does however, give us a complete visual of the story Madeline told to Bond while on the train.
I would say so. But maybe not all will agree with me. There is a lot to discuss...
I definitely prefer it to SP but I would rank SF and CR higher.
Yes I'd say it does, but not necessarily in ways you might have thought.
Regards of how I feel about NTTD or Craig's tenure as a whole, I'm really hungry for a new Bond film where he just gets an assignment from M at the beginning and then spends the film executing that mission without any overly personal stuff.
Most of us want that. And we've all been wanting that for years and years. But they're in love with the "humane and personal angle". So, that's that. No more formula, probably. Just reinventions until it's unrecognisable. You see, these days, that's fashionable.
I also fear those days are long gone. Fingers crossed the next era returns to something like that but I won’t be surprised if they don’t.
They are completely alienated on their own conception that this sort of subversion works and will keep working, meanwhile forgetting that if you subvert long and hard enough, there will be no more thing to subvert, and people will forget the original formula, which worked. There's that popular story about the goose with the golden eggs. But then again, there's also the one about the boy who cried wolf and no one listened :(
If they made a low key very well written spy thriller contained within the original 60s formula and organics, with a sense of escapism and exoticism and an actor who resembled Fleming's depiction of Bond, I'd be over the moon. But they'll probably do another rogue/revenge rookie Bond, this time with a non caucasian (oh, they probably will) actor, with all the "family" drama and familiar new clichés. And I say new clichés because they aren't aware they've build a new formula, and that this new formula is already tired and spent.
Exactly my feelings (according to the ranking and mission)
I think it's fine, something like CR is a film which really found a new audience for Bond, and most of us loved it too. We've still got the ones which are like the old ones: they are the old ones and they're not going anywhere.
There's nothing wrong with having your main character involved with the story- look at superhero movies: no-one's complaining that the characters there get too personally involved because that's how those films have always been, and they go down a storm.
What is it that's actually wrong with having the characters involved/caring about/affected by the mission?
That's the one positive takeaway for me - the old films aren't going anywhere, so I'll always have the films I do enjoy, to enjoy.
I never said there's nothing wrong with it, but every fan has their own tastes and I don't want to start having individual eras with each new actor that contain half-baked, interconnected plot points and narrative threads. I'm simple, I like having separate, Bond-saves-the-day missions. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what I grew up with and what Bond is for me and that's what I like.
I can't agree or disagree with the superhero point, as I don't really watch those anymore. Those films are the textbook definition of what I'm not after in film.
Sure, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that (and obviously I love those old films too or I wouldn't be here) but I would have thought that there's something you don't like about the narrative threads etc. in order to have a preference at all? I enjoy both sorts of 007 film. Was it the stuff like mentions of Tracy in films such as LTK that started to put you off? I'm just curious, you don't have to answer if you don't want of course.
Great Post @Univex
Completely agree 👍
None of that bothers me in the slightest - in fact, I actually love those little moments that tie all the old, individual eras together as one character, but it's done in small, lightly recognizable ways, not retroactively tying together previous events and characters that originally had nothing to do with one another (like Le Chiffre and co. being members of SPECTRE).
But it’s become so fashionable now… Even the Wayne family needed to be injected into Joker to give him a “personal” reason to hate Bruce Wayne *YAWN*
They make tons and tons of cash though, so audiences do appear to want to see them too. NTTD had the biggest presale of tickets in this country since Endgame.
I agree that was done clumsily, but I don't dislike them being tied together like that; like the background threat of Blofeld appearing in most of the Connery movies, the FRWL mission being done to take revenge for Dr No etc. I think that stuff is fine.
They're not wrong though. Of course it doesn't lack stakes completely, but don't we find CR more thrilling because it's about Bond in large part? All of the films are about celebrating Bond (much more so than something like Mission Impossible where Ethan Hunt isn't really the focus), so having the films about him make sense. We often talk about how DAF was a missed opportunity to have George back, taking revenge for Tracy etc.
You have the stakes of 'will Bond get out alive' or 'will Bond save the world'- and that is good, but also if you mess that up then it gets a little bit duller. Look at Thunderball, where we never have a countdown and none of the main characters are in danger from the main threat (GF at least had Bond chained to the bomb)- and TB becomes one of the lesser movies because there's not much to care about that's onscreen.
Fleming himself knew this: he made the book progressively more personal as they went on, because folks became more interested in Bond himself.
I would say it definitely does, particularly in regards to Blofeld.
CR
SF
SP
QOS
This is definitely the hope, so I’m quite happy to hear this.
I’d love that! Of course I want it to be successful but I do prefer a slightly less crowded environment when I watch films.
Same here. I’m off work at 3:00 next Friday and might go straight to the theatre to beat the rush hour/evening before the weekend crowd. In this environment, especially now, less is definitely more.