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
Not wanting to be nitpicking, but can the title be corrected?
After all Barbara's name is Broccoli and not Brocolli :)
Good point. And while we're at it can we correct the baffling 'who will pick up the Bond heir' to something that makes sense like 'who will become the Bond heir'.
Regarding the SP scenario with jealous/vengeful Franz, I don't know what motivated this Kane and Abel like detour, except perhaps the fact that it's been a well used trope throughout movie history, including in Winter Soldier (past friends now enemies), Dallas (Bobbie/JR) etc. etc.
Kincaide says in Skyfall that Bond went down the tunnel after hearing the news of his parents' deaths from him - was a child when he went in and was an adult when coming out.
So therefore, given his parents died when he was 12 and the age at which you are regarded to be an adult is 18, are we to infer he stayed down there 6 years?
Sounds a credible theory given there's nothing to contradict it.
What do you say @Mendes4lyfe?
I call it the 'Kincaide used to leave pot noodles and packets of hob nobs outside the tunnel door' theory.
I think he didn't mean it literally.
I consider it one of three indestructible franchises. (outside the superheroes)
As for BB's successor, it doesn't really matter which company will own the James Bond franchise, it's more a question of the person/people in charge, who will be the creative force behind Bond in 20 years?
Warner/DC is really trying to destroy the Superman and Batman franchise, but even a creative failure like MoS and BvS still makes money. The show will go on.
It's entirely possible, a James Bond movie will one day end up doing considerably less than its predecessor, but that would never put the franchise in jeopardy.
Up to now, not one JB movie failed at the BO. The last 8 movies were even huge successes and critically liked or even celebrated.
You mean just like the SF to SP jump? Both had great returns, with SP making a few hundred million less than SF.
Yes, I agree. I remember pointing out the similarity just after the release of SF on here and was shot down by a certain clique that insisted James Bond did not have a Batcave nor did he have a butler called Alfred in SF, so I was wrong to draw any comparisons to Nolan's Dark Knight. Yes, I know. How can you reason with that kind of logic?
I'll admit that I enjoyed SP far more than I did SF, but I do still feel that the Blofeld via Hannes Oberhauser childhood connection was an unnecessary one, especially as I felt it was a repeat gimmick of Benedict Cumberbatch's Harrison revealing his true identity as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness. I do feel that Eon should be above these current movie trends and create their own. I just hope they don't start drawing their ideas from these dreadful YA sci-fi movies currently doing the rounds. If they do, then we're all in trouble.
PS. @BondJasonBond006, I think it's easy to forget that Star Trek was originally in a 10 year hiatus between the end of the original TV show and first movie, and that it almost didn't happen at all.
//
The way things are shaping up, BvS is losing money on it theatrical run because it was so expensive to make and market. The show is going on, i.e. The Justice League, but this isn't what Warners was expecting.
Wow, that sounds amazing, actually.
Not quite what I mean.
And furthermore, hearing that they considered killing Blofeld in Spectre, and that Skyfall didn't have a gun barrel sequence just because Sam Mendes thought it would clash with his opening shot...I feel the directors have taken a mite too much control in a series that has been more producer's films. Can you imagine John Glen telling Cubby he's gonna drop the gun barrel from The Living Daylights because he has a great helicopter shot over Gibraltar? No way.
But that said, again, I've loved the movies of the Craig era, so I'm not down about the current situation at all. But we may be seeing the current producer team cool a bit on their control of Bond already.
This is a most astute post. Welcome, ProfJoeButcher!
I'm not sure exactly *why* QoS had to be a direct sequel. CR was a complete evolution of the character. Sure, there was a bit of ambiguity about Vesper's motives but I'd rather have ambiguity than the eventual world-creation overkill that burdened SP.
Part of the problem is that MGW and BB gave Craig a lot of power in hiring Mendes, and they didn't bring him in line regarding the character development (it was too early for Bond to be "old"), the reintroduction of Moneypenny (unnecessary and aping Bond's final scene in CR), the lack of the gunbarrel and Bond theme (copying CR? But why?), and the fixation on LALD which led to the weird shifting tone of SP.
They really need to focus on the novels and the script again, like they did with Haggis not long ago. Bring back Haggis, I say.
Don't be obtuse.
ProfJoeButcher is on point and I agree with him. I've loved what Mendes has added to the lore but it's time for fresh blood. There comes a time where auteur aspirations conflict with what people (including me) love about this series and how wanting to shake up the system becomes complacency in a way in trying to copy what other successful franchises/studios have done. If Mendes just wants to be personal all the time, he can do so with his own projects. I'll tell ya, it's an interesting time to be Bond fan at the moment which is why I'm interested in what the future holds.
During his conception. The adventures of Ma and Pa Bond.