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 seem to have that feeling about the Brosnan films in general, except for GoldenEye. The quality seems to be there on the screen, at least through TWINE, yet I've come away from these series entries somehow disatisfied. TND was the last Bond film I bothered to go see in a cinema until CR. Craig's films, even QoS, have so far kept me interested enough to pay the price of a ticket & popcorn.
2. I don't like Q, never really did. I am not much into gadgets and never understood why Bond and Q never got along.
3. I thought the screenwriters have missed the boat since Octopussy. This is not to say OP was perfect.
4. I think the majority of people on this site could do a better job in coming up with a screenplay for Bond, but it would be rejected since EON is in business to make a market oriented movie rather than a Bond movie.
5. I would rather have a toned down movie with a good story rather than shoot'em film. If they could do both, fine.
6. I would like to see Bond return to his Naval roots, show up in his RN uniform to the office. I am not sure how Craig could give credibility to this since he is bow-legged. This used to be a reason for rejection in the US military, not sure about the RN.
7. I would like to see the product placement toned down a bit. I understand they need to make money, but please.
4. I think that's a gross exaggeration there. I'm sure we'd all like to think we could sit down and write a screenplay but the reality is we really couldn't.
5. I too would love to see Bond's naval roots explored. Perhaps a future film can show him seconded back to the RN for a mission.
7. Think it's pretty universal that none of us here want to see PP in films, especially Bond, but it won't ever happen. PP has been around for as long as I can remember and the studios are always turn to sponsors to provide the necessary revenue to get their big budget movies produced. That's Hollywood I guess!
Huh? Where did you get this nugget from?
I think there was still a fair amount of pp in SF albeit much more subtle than usual but I was so engrossed in the story that I didn't really notice it or was indeed bothered by it. It was only on the second viewing that I noticed the Heineken bottle! You're right about MR though. That was pp at it's most blatant and most sickening. I'll also throw in the HK hotel suite in DAD into the mix. The way the camera pans across the bed was like a bloody advert for Harrods!
Dream House.
I have no problem with DC, just the way he is being utilized by EON.
He is indeed slightly bow-legged. The problem for me with Craig is that he looks slightly packed into his suits. I hope he loses a bit of the beef in B24, he could still look damn good, just more lithe and less MMA. Then get him in Naval attire, preferably with a decent overcoat.
Then why the need to point out he is bow-legged? It's true that he is slightly, but why bring up seeing him in uniform once again if you are going to use bow legs as a reason for not credibly doing so?
It makes a change from the whole "blonde and blue eyed" argument most likely.
I brought it up because it used to be that one could not join the military if someone was bow-legged, at least in the States.
It is a Bond movie we're talking about. If you can suspend your disbelief over the course of the previous 23 films, I don't think someone who is bow legged in naval uniform should really make a great deal of difference! That is really clutching at straws.
I am sorry I thought this was a Bond site and not Tiger Beat. ;)
That makes two of us @Creasy47. ;)
count me in as well, I like Serra's work.
Being as I am British and therefore didn't get that reference at all - until I Googled it, I'm guessing that's the type of publication you guys on dcinb.com are reading these days ;-)
I've never understood how people bash Serra's work for the film then praise Kirkhope's work for the game. Both are great.
Don't forget me!
1. I like seeing the formula get shaken up. All the Bonds I've seen in theaters have been with DC (starting with CR), and I've honestly enjoyed seeing different aspects of the character explored. Granted, not all of it's from Fleming (e.g., childhood issues), but I like the conflict it brings. Should the films go down the road that a lot of people are proposing (i.e., going back to just being about Bond taking on a bad guy, nothing else), without some EXTREME innovation and creativity on EON's part every single time, I feel that it would get...well, not boring, but maybe less interesting; like they would come dangerously close to fading into the background along with all the other action/thriller movies.
Okay, new Bond movie, awesome action scenes, snappy dialogue, shocking twists and turns, but by the end of it all, the villain dies, Bond's got the girl, and every character has remained mentally/emotionally static throughout. I know some people might like that, but I don't think I would. I think there are ways to feature character depth/development that don't tread over used-up ground, but perhaps that's a train of thought for another thread.
2. I like that the gunbarrel has been done differently for the past few films. I know many feel that it's inclusion between the logos and the PTS is an integral part of a Bond film, and I can certainly understand that sentiment; it's got definite merit. That being said, even the GB is something I enjoy seeing done differently at different times. The following notion is probably even more controversial, but: if I knew the GB would be at its same traditional place for every future movie, I probably wouldn't like the predictability.
I know the opening shot afterward could be as intense/stunning/etc. as the director could manage, but I'd almost rather see that first than feel like the GB was showing up, then stepping out the way to let it through. I've particularly enjoyed the drama/mystery of the past two films' openings; they drew me in and made me want to know what was going on. I've got an idea that could sort of draw a compromise between traditional/nontraditional GB placement, but again, that's probably for another thread.
I like this controversial opinion and agree with you. I'm tired of the DB5 being trotted out, as if we Bond fans are supposed to have a Pavlovian response to it. It should have stayed in the '60s.
Love this one. Of all of Brosnan's films this one pretty much cries out for a downer ending.
Imagine if, after Bond saved Istanbul, Elektra died at the very end. Then Moneypenny, say, called Bond and said, "Well, James, you saved the world again." Bond: "The world is not enough."
Cut to black.
Its plot is probably the best and makes the most sense and is definitely Flemingesque. Maibaum and Wilson did a great job writing a script based on many novel elements including Goldfinger, Live and Let Die, Risico, and For Your Eyes Only. Not only are the fleming elements from text, but also flemingesque in tone.
The humour wasn't overdone and I loved the Naval angle with the Minister Defence and the First Sea Lord. Sheena Easton song is great and even the ending with faux Maggie brings a smile to my face to this day. The PTS was okay, but I guess it was sort of a message to Kevin McClory . I would have preferred a Barry OST.
You must give me the name of your occularist. :))