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
The first and most basic rule of filmmaking since forever is the script is 100%.
With the Mendes era it appears the current thinking seems to be:
Script = 10%
Underwhelming action set pieces = 10%
M = 5%
MP = 5%
Q = 5%
Rory Kinnear standing around looking gormless = 5%
If in doubt use the DB5 = 60%
Agreed 100%
Script = 20%
When in doubt use corny gags and throwbacks to the 60's = 80%
Like I said I don't mind a bit of nostalgia but I prefer bond being a current player
I feel like they've just done so many of them from TWINE onward that any callback or homage is distracting. They've really become a crutch for the filmmakers over the years. The longer they continue on using them in the fashion that they are, the closer and closer the franchise will get to self-parody, IMO.
When Rog took over they made the conscious decision not to have the DB5, say 'shaken not stirred' etc etc and just came up with original adventures and situations in which to place Bond. They even created new iconic moments of their own such as the ski jump and Jaws.
Ever since Brozza harking back to the past is all we seem to have with the exception of CR (although they still couldn't avoid forcing the DB5 down our throats) and QOS which despite its faults has the balls to stand on its own two feet.
The Mendes era is propped up by more crutches than you'd find on a coach trip of pensioners on their way to Lourdes. On the face of it SF and SP seem very slick and classy entry but when you boil it down the guy is just Tesco Finest fan fiction.
We're back in the same place as Brozza just back in his day the shop was Lidl.
I guess at least you can say we're shopping in a better supermarket these days.
"Certainly, sir. Sorry, sir."
TheWizardOfIce--I laughed out loud at your post about the ratios!
Craig really brought out the humanity and depth of character that was present in the books, while still retaining everything we've come to expect from the cinematic Bond. Really, he is to Bond, what Jeremy Brett was to Sherlock Holmes.
As great as Connery was, there was room for Bond to evolve past the character he established. With Craig, I'm seriously wondering; where do we go from here?
Oh, I don't think there's any problem. Brosnan seemed like the ultimate Bond until Craig came along. Craig's Bond has his shortcomings like any Bond (is he really a good-looking guy?), and the next Bond just needs to not be Craig.
The next actor will have big shoes to fill, but so long as they make the role their own convincingly, they’ll be fine. I think more people will compare Bond 26 to CR and SF rather than get hung up on the lead.
I also have no idea where they go from here, but Villeneuve and Knight are much better at making films than I am, better than most people in fact, so I'm not too worried!
The only thing to take from the films is to check that they are not repeating an earlier interpretation. We saw how Moore-Bond became really successful once in stopped trying to follow Connery (in LALD and TMWTGG) and instead created his own interpretation (TSWLM)