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
If the films kept going in the faux gritty Bourne style after QOS I probably would have dropped out.
Mendes basically gave us the Bond that was promised at the end of CR, rather than the regressed character we saw in QOS. This is especially true of SP, like how Bond shows up at Lucia’s home killing two assassins. THAT right there felt like the Bond promised at the end of CR.
QOS was rightfully discarded.
I mean superfluous in the sense there would be no point in retreading what came before with a different story. QOS was very different to CR, and what followed later had to be different too. I think if we'd gotten a Bond film along the lines of the Blood Stone video game it wouldn't have reaped the most creative or financial rewards. At any rate I'd prefer one great Bond film - SF in this case - over two extra middling entries in Craig's era.
I wouldn't describe SF as 'safe' either. It's not unlike CR in the sense it slowly reintroduced those classic 'Bond' elements I guess, albeit in a recontextualised way. But a lot of the story/character choices are quite brave for a Bond film.
Genuinely interested, why don't you believe Bond in SF's PTS is a slightly older version of the one in QOS or CR? I don't see any major differences personally beyond what he goes through. It's an argument I've never been convinced by as no one seems to give specifics!
I'm not as harsh on QOS, but I can understand it's this strange outlier in Craig's films. For all the complaints that it's too 'gritty' it never feels as real as CR for me. In that film we saw Bond cleaning himself up after fight, drowning whiskey, wincing to the point of tears while patching his wounds, and of course winding up in hospital. There are some genuinely great moments in QOS which show Bond as human, but action sequence wise the guy's a terminator! It nullifies a bit of tension that could have been there with this film unfortunately. At least SP leans into the idea that Bond is back on top form after his experiences in SF.
CR ended with Bond standing victoriously over White with strong assuredness and satisfaction. That’s completely done away with in the beginning of QOS. So no, I don’t really see QOS being all that compatible with CR in terms of style or character.
Maybe one standalone instead of QOS would have been nice, but there had been six years between CR and SF, and the latter is SO bloody good that I’m perfectly fine with jumping ahead. Besides, the whole point of SF is that he is NOT past it. That’s something M, Mallory, and Silva each ask (for different reasons), but the answer is Bond is still on top of it, and SP plays that up even more.
I think it would have been worth putting some distance between CR and QOS. Have it be a few months later and give us a better PTS with Bond investigating some sort of lead on Quantum (ironically maybe something a bit more like SP's PTS! the car chase we get in QOS isn't great). I think there's a great Bond film in there, but it's struggling to get out. Anyway, if QOS's creative shortcomings gave us SF, I suppose I can't complain.
I've never felt that Bond is a different character in SF to CR; can I ask what makes you feel that? He seems to react to things in a very similar way to me. He's maturing certainly, by SP he's more comfortable in his own skin, playful at times even, but I don't see that as being a different person.
The major difference I suppose is Bond’s reactions to his fellow agents. He seemed much fonder of Robson than Carter.
:)) I totally agree and I like Butler's movies, but QoS was definitely generic.
It's not that CR didn't have Bourne's influence, but with QoS they dropped the pretense.
Him being more worn down after his injuries makes sense, but I'd still say he retains that humour and wit (I really can't understand the criticism that it's gone in SF frankly - he cracks more one liners in SF than in QOS I'd say).
No, I'm just not seeing it, at least not at the very beginning. Certainly not noticing any fundamental differences in speaking, and I think he's still the same hard edged Bond, albeit in a different story. Sorry. I can maybe understand SF has a different direction/style than QOS, and I can certainly understand simply preferring one over the other. But I don't see anything jarringly different about the Bond in these films.
Gallows humour ('not a very good one, is it?'). Black humour ('You shot him at point blank range and threw him off a roof' - 'I did my best not to'). I much preferred that to gags like 'Go on, then, eject me' and 'I got into some deep water'. Personal preference, that's all.
I suppose it should be taken into consideration that because the plots and filmmaking for both QOS and SF are so radically different - maybe that’s why some of you feel a bit of a disconnect? Please correct me if I’m wrong though .
I don't think there as much a difference in Bond's humour really. You get some more overt quips such as the 'health and safety, carry on', but there's quite a number where he's dry or has that black humour. Lines like 'Well, everybody needs a hobby', "I always hated this place", "Day-" "Wasted", "Well, you gave it your best shot", "Last rat standing", "I'm sorry, have we met before?" and of course, "It was only four ribs. Some of the less vital organs. Nothing major".
QOS isn't as humorous (or I'd argue as well written dialogue wise) as SF. I guess you could argue the latter script gives Bond much more wise cracks/witticisms by design, but I think it bridges Bond's humour from CR quite well.
On a separate note, that line in QOS about Mathis's codename was always a bizarre one to me, as absolutely no one seems to understand it! It doesn't make you smirk as much as go 'hold on, Mathis isn't his real name?' Apparently it's something to do with him being Italian but having a French name. Strange line.
"Waste of good scotch"?
SF's writing, particularly the dialogue, is pretty great all round in my opinion. Out of the modern Bond films I'd argue it's the wittiest. I rate it higher than CR's script personally.
I dunno, he carries himself differently, he presents himself differently, his speech patterns are different, his sense of humour's (largely) changed. I do think there's enough of a disparity there to not quite buy that the Bond of SF, SP and NTTD is the same man that was in CR and QOS. But - just IMO, as always.