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
It still looks alien to me to see Bond being the passenger, let alone getting on a bus
That part I was actually fine with. I am quite fond of passenger Bond. Makes him feel more elusive.
- focus on Bond as a spy, not an assassin
- Embed him with the baddies (more intrigue from MI6 wondering whose side he is on)
- Make him young
- Amplify his heroic attributes more (so we can root for him vs the villain - the audience is jaded with distrust of their institutions)
- remember he works for the UK government and is not a world policeman; think how to reflect that in the scope of his missions
- Plots to be driven by a really good villain (Spectre?) and suitably horrific plans in each movie - what are we scared of and why would they gain from it?
- Make each film stand alone, but with an overarching plan across say 5 movies for Bond to uncover who is behind it all and stop them
- Q builds something special on-the-fly to do a specific task; with a more steam-punk approach to the gadgets (we all have better tech than Q-branch in our own homes now!)
To be fair, Bond got on a bus earlier in the same film.
He realized that way really sucked and figured it was better to actually ENTER the bus later in the film.
Bring back the taxis/staff chauffeurs. Dr.No/FRWL/LALD/TND/QoS made bond more fancy.
(It's the foot chase after Mitchell in QOS. If that rings a bell.)
I like the idea of Bond being available for a variety of missions. Maybe one he's not keen on that ends up being a big deal.
Getting in with the bad guys worked well in LTK.
Not sure how young Bond should be, but I am tired of the world weary Bond ready to resign.
Along with amplifying Bond's heroic qualities, I would like to see a lot more British pride shown and spoken of in the films. How about a Nobody Does It Better attitude? It's okay to toot one's own horn. Americans are great at it.
Agree about a good villain. But the villain doesn't always need to have a plan for world destruction.
Yes, stand alone films. The problem with an overarching plan it is links the films. I'd like to see independent villains not linked to Spectre or Quantum or whatever's next.
And yes, Q building something on the fly. I've always thought Q coming up with something that Bond needed was a bit too convenient. It would have been fun to see Bond pull out a gadget and say, "What the hell do I need this for?" And then throw it away. But Q on scene rigging up something would be a good bit.
I've been with the series since the beginning. Where it goes next needs to be fun. Not silly like so much of the RM years, but fun in the sense that Bond is not burdened as in the case of DC. Of course what I am really wanting is another Connery.
That film has so much cutting its insane
There were loads of great stunts in that scene. You can see them if you watch it on slow-mo.
Where did you get that from?
Please call it Transworld Consortium. ;)
"Marc, there's only ten frames of the bus driver's reaction, shouldn't we include a few more so the audience can discern it?"
"No, damn it. Cut it down to six frames. The film doesn't feel enough like a bullet yet."
I feel sorry for the actor who played that bus driver. Probably told everyone he knew that he was in a Bond film and he’s not even in the film for a full second.
Well that establishing shot of the bus really makes it work.
Yes, this exactly.
Hmmm, I'm not sure I'd go with that thinking. Nobody ever sets out to make a bad film or make bad choices. But these things still manifest themselves.
I like the film and I'm a fan of the cinematography, but the editing is definitely a negative, aside from a couple of nicely done sequences.
Yeah it really works in Supremacy, but not so here.
Not what I expected.
See, I think QOS is a genuinely great film, only very slightly down from CR and whole leagues above the rest of Dan's run, and I've never seen anything wrong with the editing - never found it confusing or hard to follow. At least, I don't think I have - I've seen it so many times, I can't remember if it was all there from the start or if it slotted in over two or three viewings and there was a time where I struggled to keep up. I'm still spotting new things in it, though - a few months back someone on here pointed out that when Bond throws the motor oil at Greene, it hits him right on his gammy foot! I'd never spotted that. ;)
It’s the same bloke, but working under two different directors who have their own agendas, as well as working under different work environments. It’s not like Pearson simply used the same exact magic he had with Bourne and applied it to Bond like a copy and paste.
The biggest difference is pacing. Whatever one can say about the editing in BOURNE, no one can accuse it of feeling too rushed for its own good. It feels exactly what it needs to be.
What generally irks me about the editing is the strange creative decisions. For instance, there's simply no need in the context of a Bond film to cut to random shots of a horse race between what is supposed to be an otherwise tense and interesting interrogation scene (it's what I'd call first year film school bulls*it personally).