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
Note the Bourne references in this 2005 New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/15/movies/MoviesFeatures/15bond.html
"For both Ms. Broccoli and Sony, executives said, the model was Jason Bourne, the character Matt Damon successfully incarnated in two gritty spy movies for Universal Pictures, "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy.""
After QOS was a let down, and considering all the hype for this one, I'm sort of worried about it too. Still, I like most of what I've seen so far, the only things I don't like the sound of is M being used more again and Q being younger.
If that's true they failed immensely. The characters are complete opposites.
Exactly. CR is nothing like Bourne and the only thing Bourne influenced in QOS is the shaky cam and the editing for the action scenes. The characters are very, very different.
CR/QOS Bond is a rookie who is tough but makes mistakes and is still learning to be classic Bond. Bourne is an expert assassin, far from a rookie.
I would never agree the character was Bourne like Craig presented Bond more like IF's character than Moore or Brozzer could ever but QOS looked like a Bourne films too often, it didn't suit it and sequences like the roof top chase & the boat chase were shot far too fast and just disorientated more than entertain, look EON knew they'd made a mistake and so did Craig, it's just some Bond fans want to ignore this as they feel acknowledging their love has been influenced by the new kid on the block is too much.
Haha wrong thread bud :)
Wow, what the hell happened there? :/ Point still stands anyway haha. Apologies!
Brutal and breathless, Quantum Of Solace delivers tender emotions along with frenetic action. Not as good as franchise reboot Casino Royale, but still an impressive entry to the Bond canon.
QoS ain't perfect. I don't like the editing either but it is hardly a poor film. It made tons of cash, is critically lauded and has been a solid entry in the series. They won't blow it with SF. I feel like it will be a good balance, a well rounded fun film.
Well said. People make absurd criticisms of QoS around here. If nothing else, it is a huge improvement on all those awful Brosnan films. For that, at least, we should be grateful. I no longer worry that EON will completely blow it. With DC as Bond and Mendes directing that would be pretty difficult.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
I know a lot of casual Bond fans who were so dissapointed by QOS and definitley thought it was the worst one of the lot, I know one guy who took the DVD back to the shop because it thought it was so bad, so maybe the expectations for Skyfall aren't that high in the general public anyway?
But one persons rubbish is another's treasure, I like TMWTGG and LTK and other fans think these are complete Sh**e, so nothing is definitive!
<url>http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_commentary/skyfall_teaser_campaign.html</url>;
If you haven't visited this site, the author provides a collection of very detailed analyses of the Fleming novels. Makes for an interesting read.
This is the concluding paragraph:
"Thus the 007 film series, six years since its reboot in 2006. Status: it's muddled in its own uneasiness with itself. Moreover, since the founding of the Craig dynasty, the series has actually worsened, drifting in slow decline—creatively, existentially, and even in stature, as it becomes increasingly eclipsed by blockbusters such as the Bourne series, Christopher Nolan's very Bondian Batman franchise, and the very Bondian Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. That the Skyfall teaser poster and trailer give few clues to signal a new James bond film tell us a lot about the sensibilities of the filmmakers, but also express the quiet implosion of the series as it dissociates itself from its own legacy."
Harsh but I see where theyre coming fom.
What he doesn't seem to grasp is that Eon/Mendes are deliberately keeping a lot of the film under wraps in the tweets and trailer. The marketing strategy has changed for a spoiler-crazy era.
And then there's this howler:
"Oddly, though he's a relatively young actor, Craig is essentially too old to play the British agent with any credibility."
Elsewhere on the site, he proclaims FYEO as one of the best three Bond films.
Same here. If your going to attempt to convince me, you're going to have to go in depth. Just saying 'its bad because there is something better and it's trying something new' sounds immature and very unprofessional.
The teaser poster and teaser trailer for CR really didn't tell much about the film other than 'Bond is back !'... which is the same case here. Let's wait for the theatrical poster/trailer to learn more about the film.
I was underwhelmed by the teaser but am not worrying too much about it. Could be a bad sign or could mean nothing.
Thank you for this "other opinion" which is harsh and thus will not be very popular with the folks that are convinced that this next vehicle is oscar worthy and a big hit. After QoB I have my reservations.
I feel like the critique is missing the point. From the press conference onward, they've been trying to keep an air of mystery about SF--not mentioning the characters' names at first, the oblique Twitter shots. Not telling us much about the film is completely intentional. It's kind of cool.
Agreed - it's great to not have spoilers and as @echo said it's very obviously (well, maybe to everyone but the author at TheGoldenEye) intentional.
"Moreover, since the founding of the Craig dynasty, the series has actually worsened, drifting in slow decline—creatively, existentially, and even in stature..."
Huh? They really lost me at this point. Many people (including me) think that the series is at a creative high and that its "stature" is quite good. Existentially? What do they even mean by that?
The fact that they say "the Craig dynasty" (WTF?) makes me think that they're unhappy with the casting of a certain actor...