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
Ok? Well, I'm sorry if I offended you I guess...
I get what you mean. I do think FYEO fumbles the character stuff somewhat, but the Dalton films have that feel to them.
Yes, but films had just become much more elaborate between 1977 to 1995. Remember that this was the era of the True Lies and Die Hard 3.
Thanks for the timeline! I always forget that the MGM purchase of UA didn’t happen until post FYEO.
Oh gotcha! I don’t remember where I saw that info but nonetheless happy to be corrected!
Yes but TND was more expensive and it shows.
This is why I think TND is really Dalton's ideal third film and not GoldenEye.
Yeah, I Know but it is the third film that one could expect if you see the actor's previous ones.
Going from the Bond 17 script from 1990 that's the sort of direction they likely would have gone in. In fact I think the villain in that one is pretty much an early version of Elliot Carver, and much of its story went into TND eventually.
It's interesting to see the Bond films slowly edging towards that, from Roger being a bit serious in FYEO, to Dalton's Bond making a fairly serious mistake in LTK by jeopardising Pam's Heller deal, to Brosnan's Bond having a few moments of drama, right up to Bond becoming more of a human character by CR.
I was watching DAD last night (don't ask!) and thinking, the first half or so with the torture, and Bond going after Zao with the help of the Chinese is all quite a good spy plot which is given quite a light treatment in the film- I was actually imagining Craig in that portion of the film and I thought it would work pretty well with a more dramatic, serious touch.
Die Another Day has so much promise. I wish they had explored the relationship between General Moon and Bond, but alas they never went anywhere near it.
The image I always come back to when thinking about it is Brosnan with his outlandish fake beard and noticeable amount of weight on him (for a man who's been imprisoned for a year anyway). It's almost as if the film is trying to get this dramatic plot detail out of the way so it can move on. There's something quite silly about how it comes across. I know there's always that fantastical element to Bond with him being essentially indestructible - or at least able to do things no real man could - but SF has Craig genuinely unshaven, and lit/made up in certain scenes to look gaunt. It at least gives us a sense that what's happened to Bond has damaged him physically, and it makes him getting back on form more impactful. I'm sure DAD could have done that.
DAD's got a lot of cool ideas. Even the gene therapy stuff is so weird and twisted I'd be up for seeing it done in a different way (perhaps not with a Korean man being turned into a white British billionaire though). I can imagine it being great if they'd gone into it with a slightly more serious tone.
Most Bond movies (as well as books and video games) generally have cool ideas, at least.
Yes indeed, SF does feel more real. I don't think it helps that DAD is so clearly shot with a sort of Home Countries version of North Korea and places like Hong Kong being very obviously on a sound stage.
The stuff with Bond going underground and making contact with and doing a deal with a Chinese agent could feel really dangerous and risky, and it struck me that Bond wanting vengeance on Zao and going after him all feels a bit underheated. I genuinely wouldn't mind a more dramatic and slightly less stagey take on it. (Some really weird direction too: why do Bond and Graves start out so visibly angry with each other in that swordfight?)
Agreed, they're not meant to be too realistic. But the audience has to go along with the story. For me personally, Brosnan's fake beard and appearance takes me out of the film. I don't believe the film is showing me a character who's been imprisoned and tortured for a year. I do, however, believe that Bond has been badly injured and is run down in SF because he looks tired and unshaven and the film is committed to showing the audience his issues, even if he's muscular.
I've always found their interaction just before the sword fight a bit weird when you know the story. Graves (or indeed Moon) knows full well who Bond is, and Bond has no idea who Graves is (he might think he's connected to all this in some way, but at this point he's just a lead he has to follow). For some reason Toby Stephens seems sincerely confused when he asks Bond if they've met before and then flips between smarmy and angry, and Brosnan for some reason seems to be constantly glaring as if he's about to strangle the guy. He even says his 'Bond, James Bond' line in a bitter way. It'd make sense if Bond knew Graves was Moon, or that he was directly connected to him being betrayed, but that's not the case. Surely Bond would be more relaxed, trying to read this guy in his usual charming/confident way (or at least putting up that front), and Graves would the one on edge?
But yeah, really weird scene. Everything about it just seems off, but not in an effective way.
But the sword fight itself almost makes up for it.
The sword fight itself is cool and the choreography looks like what you'd get in old Hollywood Swashbuckler films. It's a bit ridiculous with Bond and Graves running around the entire building and on the verge of killing each other but it's Bond so I can accept some silliness.
On top of that, I’ll join @echo and @mtm in a little posse that doesn’t really “feel” the 007 theme. I love everything Barry had done and I consider him a musical master/genius….but I’m afraid I just am cold to this one piece of music…
Or just not have him with his top off.
They could have but then that's leaning into the kind of method acting and real physical commitment to the role that the likes of Robert De Niro brought to Raging Bull. It's not really the way Bond films are made though, at least traditionally.
Yea, and how is that shirt that raggedy? It's like it's made from several layers. I was also thinking (and sorry to turn this into a DAD thread but it's something to talk about, isn't it :) ) that he's locked up for months in Korea and can't get away, then as soon as he's imprisoned on a British boat he's escaped within ten minutes :D
Which would appear to show something about the difference in British efficiency to Korean!
Well, he did make it through the Madonna song. ;)
Why does everything have to be political?
LOL.....
With the Amazon/MGM set to present at CinemaCon on April 1, 2025, there’s been a lot of speculation about what they might unveil. Given the current status of the deal, could we realistically see Amazon announce a Bond release date at that time?
Here's the context:
While it’s not impossible, an announcement in April 2025 would be highly aggressive and suggest that Amazon has already made significant behind-the-scenes progress, possibly with a script, director, and casting already in place. More likely, Amazon will tease "Bond Returns in 2027" but hold off on a firm date until later in the year or early 2026. If they do announce a date, it will likely be tentative and dependent on behind-the-scenes progress.
Do you think it’s feasible for Amazon to announce a concrete Bond release date at CinemaCon this April, or is that just too soon given where the JV stands?