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 have a feeling that Villeneuve will go for something more realistic and technological, but who knows?
I agree. Hope that this time it’s not personal
We haven’t had a film this century where Bond has not resigned or been suspended. The last three films of the 20th century involved personal ties to him or M. Before that, he resigned.
We have to back to 1987 - which will be 40 years before the next film - where he did a non-personal mission. So much for the professional detached agent of the state. Most of the next audience were not alive when that last happened.
I mean, I have no idea what we'll get with this film, but we have a director with quite a wide range of creative capabilities. That's promising.
Incidentally, something I only just learned about him was he was supposedly so disappointed with his first two features he essentially stopped directing films (apart from the odd short) and became basically a stay at home Dad for 9 years until Polytechnique. That's weirdly inspiring all round (whether you're a father or aspiring filmmaker!)
So has Micheal Bay, doesn't mean he's right for Bond.
Yes, but Michael Bay hasn't made films like Blade Runner 2049, or Prisoners, or Sicario. Or any of the other films I mentioned.
Was there really much point in highlighting one part of what I wrote without acknowledging the rest? ;) I know you're anxious and/or depressed about this next film (and as I've said I can understand being hesitant towards it), but as I've said to you just wait and see mate.
Bond had a personal connection to Pushkin in TLD. And he disobeyed M's orders. And he was very jaded with his job, to the point him not fulfilling it was a major plot point in the story. Honestly, TLD is a major reason why we have the Bond films we do.
I regarded Pushkin as a professional contact (elite Intelligence being a small world), and that Bond exercised his professional judgement not to execute him as he had doubts whether Pushkin was guilty. As a later M said, a License to Kill is also a License Not to Kill
The Rock was a great Bond movie. ;)
They're not best mates, but Bond says he knows (and seemingly likes/respects) Pushkin. He goes against M's direct orders too (I can't see Brown's M having as much leniency as the M of SP with regards to the licence to kill or not distinction ;) )
I don't think TLD is as far removed from the modern Bond movies as you're making out.
You didn’t get any of this emotional nonsense with Moore or Connery - just detached gratuitous sex and violence.
I guess? I mean, I don't think Bond having some sort of personal connection to the story is a bad thing. It's something that can be done in a thousand different ways and still be interesting. Maybe Bond falls for the girl, or knows them from a previous affair, or knows a villain from something, or has some sort of personal conflict with another of the secondary characters, or perhaps the villain touches a nerve with Bond etc.
I love how Bond has literally never had gratuitous sex or violence despite the claim from a non Bond film :)) And no, not everything about the Moore or Connery films were detached. Have you watched them recently? TSWLM with Bond's involvement with Anya/him reacting to Tracy, FYEO with the whole 'dig two graves' speech and Bond worrying about Melina, Bond's attachment to Octopussy etc.
I dunno, I feel some fans are so detached from watching/expiriencing Bond movies I feel they haven't actually watched them recently and hold onto these memories of what they are and simplify them in terms of rhetoric ('it needs to be lighthearted' 'we need 'non personal missions' 'can't be personal' etc). Am I wrong in this area? I'm sure I've been guilty of it too, but it genuinely seems odd to me some people want to go back to stuff that never existed or wasn't already there in some form. Just seems bizarre, misplaced dissatisfaction to me.
That’s not personal, that’s his career.
Compared to Villinueve's work, TLD and GE look like Tootsie.
TLD and GE are similarly nuanced films in terms of what we get. I would not describe either as 'light hearted' Bond movies for what it's worth, and GE particularly I would hold off of showing, say, my young nephew for his first Bond film based on the number of violent scenes there.
Villeneuve has enough in his filmography to show he's capable I'd say.
I didn’t say Bond was an automaton. Connery-Bond had feelings, but deployed his stiff upper lip and got on with it. Such as the deaths of Tilly or Paula or Kerim Bey. He momentarily mourned, but didn’t go around sulking and resigning.
You are right in that my memories of RM post-MR are a little hazy, but I’m sure he was similar.
There was plenty of gratuitous violence and sex for the era (1960s) for films accessible for children. DN had a lingering two-piece bikini, a naked Bond girl, and a cold blooded execution. FRWL featured naked Bond girl, jokes about size of SC penis and oral sex, honey trap, voyeurism, a predatory lesbian, and a man being garrotted. And Bond being ordered to have sex - not sure what HR would have to say these days. TB had a naked Bond girl, people stabbed in the face, sadomasochism and references to bondage. Plus all the credits sequences full of naked women.
Gratuitous does not necessarily have to be explicit.
Having a personal connection is not bad in itself. But not in every single film for 40 years.
I'm not concerned with the production of Bond 26 - simply put I think Amazon put together a great team in place for now. I'd be much more worried about the long term health of the franchise under Amazon weather or not in 10-15 years time the property goes the way of Marvel and Star Wars and ends up being devalued because of too many spin-offs or unnecessary world building. I'm worried that Amazon will learn all the wrong lessons from Bond 26's success and will start pumping out films with the least amount of effort and creativity just to make a quick buck. The challenge isn't if Amazon are capable of making a good James Bond movie - it's can they maintain the series and if so for how long?
The personal connection is...very Fleming.
Depends on the story/moment each Bond was in then, surely? Connery's Bond didn't directly disobey orders or decide not to follow through on an order to kill someone because that's not what was required from the story. Every Bond has had that stiff upper lip from what I can see, even if some have been more jaded than others.
Time for a revisit I'd say. They're rather good and might surprise you, for better or worse. FYEO might not be your cup of tea at all incidentally (not mine either!)
Bond is pretty tame and innuendo based. No overt nudity either, no. It's a bit pantomime-esque in its own way, very 'wink wink'. It can be violent, but it's never exactly been leading in what can be shown for films in this area. I can't comment on what it was like for mainstream films in the 60s, but we're well beyond that now. For me, Bond has never been 'gratuitous' and that's never been part of its appeal.
But it surely depends on how it's done, no? It's not like any regular viewer would pick up on that broad similarity between, say, Bond knowing the villain as a former 00, Bond knowing the wife of the villain as an ex-lover, or falling for the female villain? Or indeed the idea of Bond being captured/betrayed. They've all been done in different ways and in different stories. It's only some of us who pick up on the 'personal' idea.
Agreed.
We're obviously not going to get a Craig era 2.0, yes. While they're the closest point of reference for a modern Bond film, and something from them might find their way there, it's not what we're going to get. It'll be a new thing. I'm still doubtful whether many of us will be happy with that when it comes about as you said.
Are we on the same forum? All I’m seeing is endless speculation on the direction of the new film from people who have zero knowledge of things going on behind the scenes - making bold assumptions that because Villenevue made “Prisoners” and “Sicario” that must automatically mean the next Bond film is going to be even darker than anything that came before. I said earlier that the tone will ultimately depend on the story they tell - want to know why “Prisoners” and “Sicario” were so dark? It’s because they were dealing with issues like Child Abduction and Drug Trafficking.
I’m sorry but if people look at those two films and think they’re indicative of the direction of the movie then they don’t know what they’re talking about.
This thread already proves that people will be going into this movie looking for any reason not to like it. Oh well - nothing that can be done about it.
Well, only amongst us anyway ;) As I've said in the past I think this film will do better with a wider audience anyway, and may well bring in newer Bond fans. We'll see though.
Great point - between Bond 26 and First Light we could potentially see waves of younger fans being recruited to the series in the same way that Brosnan's era and the Goldeneye video game achieved back in the late 90's/Early 2000's - only on a much bigger scale! That's an extremely enticing thought and the best case scenario for Amazon.
Oh, in the short term I think that's what'll happen naturally. Similarly I think those who disliked the Craig (and let's be honest, even the Brosnan films) will be less likely to enjoy this new one and may well just check out. Obviously there's a whole issue of what'll happen going forward, but it's all very fan/site isolated anyway and doesn't really matter.