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 just don't see how they could pull that scene off convincingly on film yo be honest...
Don't forget that Mexico mission is a personal favour to Dench-M though, so it kind of is like the Blades thing! :)
Why? Odd response.
Why is that? CR 2006 was well crafted from 1953 page to modern screen.
The M Briefing stands out in my mind as one of my least favourite parts of Spectre.
How? Mallory does is give Bond a suspension, but that’s mild considering Bond’s unsanctioned actions in Mexico. He still trusts Bond, but doesn’t like being kept in the dark as his employer. It’s only once he hears the recording of Bond by C that he realizes that not only is Bond onto something big but that he needs to get his MI6 crew to cover up Bond’s activities so that he’s not compromised.
Indeed. Like his predecessor, M feels the need to keep Bond's movements in check with the smart blood technology (like the tracking device implanted in Bond's wrist in CR). Problem is, M then shows total dismay at the idea of C tracking his agents. WTF. Just another example of the script simply not being in place. So much of SP was simply not thought through enough.
I still love that line, though. I don't know if it's the line or Q's delivery of it. And then there's Tanner's reaction and Bond's stern (eff off) look that quickly forces the smile off his face. It's a good moment.
Yes, and primarily how Skyfall should be taken: a series of good moments. :P
Woops you're talking about Spectre. Eh, it applies to both.
Yes that my thought too when I heard that podcast where Mendes says that the third act of Spectre 'fell apart' while he was making it: that seems to be the sort of problem that McQuarrie actually thrives on.
Kinda flabbergasted by this statement....
No disrespect to McQ, but the true auteur of the Mission franchise is Tom Cruise. He's the guy who drives all the sequences and his gamely approach to the action is what makes the series work. Without him hanging off the side of a plane or dangling off a helicopter and then flying the helicopter, you simply don't have a movie.
McQ is there just to string it together the action beats which he does with the vaguest inclination of a plot. I've seen Rogue Nation and Fallout numerous ties, however, I cannot tell you the plots of those films. The action is what's important. Even the character work in both McQ's Mission films is pretty abysmal. He isn't even trying to flesh out the characters (aside from Rebecca Ferguson but the fact that Ethan Hunt is such a cypher after 6 films is unforgivable).
Say what you want about Mendes, but he put character first. Perhaps to the detriment of the action. But Bond always felt like a real character in his grasp. He was actually trying to do something with Bond. Now he was more successful in some (SF) than he was in others (SP). But he didn't see Craig as an action mannequin to fling off buildings.
Anyway, I was curious what people thought of Craig's tuxedo look in SF? It may well be my favourite when staked up with the others....I think the cut of the QOS tuxedo but the bowtie is dodgy. I think the white tuxedo could have perfect, but I can't put my finger on why it doesn't work. Maybe because Daniel feels modern as Bond and the white tuxedo feels like it belongs to the old days of 007. Maybe it's Daniel's hair. Who knows.
No don't be silly; those are stunts, not films. The hanging-off-the-side-of-a-plane (whilst undeniably great) was dealt with before the title even came up, it wasn't the movie. If you look at the opera sequence in Rogue Nation and tell me it was all Cruise's work then I'm not sure you're following what movies are or how they're made. That same movie has a finale infinitely more satisfying than pretty much any action movie in the last 20 years too, and that wasn't Cruise doing that.
Look at Rogue Nation and tell me you don't think it's structurally superior to the same year's Spectre, really?
1. Bullitt
2. The 7-Ups
3. To Live and Die in LA
and...
4. Jack Reacher
I don't know which one is to be credited for #4 (McQuarrie or Cruise) but it is off the hook.
+1
It's ironic that Bond fans that gripe about how Bond always goes rogue looks to the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films and say "now THAT'S how you do it right!"
Rogue Nation is how you do it right, then there’s SPECTRE
That's right on the money.
If SPECTRE is what we get because of SKYFALL, then it's worth it.
I never gripe about Bond going rogue, I don't have a problem with it.
The things the MIs get right is to have beautifully made action scenes which contain real tension and have been set up by the plot; and they have movies with a pretty perfect structure which brings the excitement, laughs etc. in exactly the right places and at exactly the right pace. They're like beautifully-tuned and balanced machines.
I think that's debatable: I'd say they're both terrific.