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
If this is true, I think an announcement would be made. I'm running against the grain on this and think there is no announcement to be made; that BB is allowing her boy to go and play while they work a script for him.
If it was so obvious that this is post-Bond re-building, there's no point in not to saying he's retired from the role.
But they're ignoring the news because, to them, there is no news. They want Dan to feel fresh and happy coming back, so there's no reason at all to limit the roles he does-- so long as it doesn't interfere with their projected shooting schedule.
Those are a lot of generic movie tropes that existed long before either movie.
"Both films have the protagonist meeting with a secondary villian from a previous film for information about the organization"
You mean like...Bond meeting Valentin Zukovsky in TWINE? Bond meeting Mathis in QOS?
"Both films have the protagonist abandoned by the head of the orgnization they work for and rely on friends from said orgnization to join him (black widow and Falcon in Winter soldier Moneypenny and Q in Spectre heck in both films one is black and the other is white)"
Like in Quantum of Solace where Bond has to rely on Fields, Leiter etc.
Both films have a high up mole that was part of the sinister orgnization
Moles in organizations were hardly invented in 2014. Hell there have been moles in every Bond film since 2002 - Frost in DAD, Mathis in CR, Mitchell in QOS
Both films have a lost brother angle
Literal brother or brother in arms? I don't remember if metal arm guy was a literal brother. If just a buddy who is killed but then comes back as a villain, then Captain America is a total ripoff of Goldeneye. EON should sue.
I could go on but what is the point Spectre stole from Winter Soldier hook line and sinker
OK, go on, and I'll tell you which other Bond films they stole from :)
I'm amused at the idea of Babs and co sitting around watching a Captain America movie and saying "Yes, this is what we need - a high up mole that was part of the sinister organization. How come nobody has ever thought of this before now?"
They should not have hired purvis and wade after twine. Good film, really mediocre script. Then dad was shit, cr was fantastic but the script was only good because of fleming, qos was shit, sf was good however the script could have been better, sp was good but flawed only because of bad decisions that would seemingly be obvious to like anyone. Consistently p&w have demonstrated a lack of ability suitable towards bond, and everyone except barbara and michael seem to be able to see it. Add the 3-4 year gaps compared to 2 years during most of cubby's time, barbara's insistence on making every damn film involve a personal aspect, and just less of the "bond film feel" which you really got in all of cubby's films and I think you can understand the fans frustration. I have always been sceptical of barbara and michael however on this forum it has been kind of controversial to suggest that they should not be in charge of bond.
To my knowledge, the only Bond script which is pure, unadulterated P&W is Die Another Day and, sadly, it shows. The duo has since blamed the director for a "poor interpretation" (which is undeniably true), but their own dialogue was pure corn: "That's a mouthful."
Fine have purvis and wade adapt you only live twice done easy
As much as i loved Pierce as Bond i see that his problem to not add anything new to the character and being a compoiste Bond was that was more of a fan of Sean Connery and Roger Moore's Bond than a fan Ian Fleming's James Bond.
Craig loved Connery but as far as I know he wasn't very much of Bond fan so he treated Bond as another great character in his resume than treating the character as OMG i will be like my idol Sean Connery.
So maybe the first thing the producers need to look for is an actor who is not a Bond fan at all or being a fan because of the books not the films.
As much as i do like the composite Bond Pierce made and I personally see it as a strength having a bit of everyone. What prevented him to do something really original is that he was more of a fan of previous films from Roger Moore and Sean Connery.
If some want to complain about SP, think about just how bad it could have been. What you all got was gold compared to what it could have been sans P&W. SP should be appreciated for what it is just as much as for what it isn't, and thankfully it isn't Logan's vision.
Just get a bloody good quality script will you!!!
Well yes ofcourse any actor will be at least a little familiarized with the franchise it would be strange if he wasn't but it would be better for their performances to create their bond from the books or script rather than the predecessors.
Many think Pierce was imitating Sean and Roger because his main inspiration for Bond were them instead of the books.
Brosnan had said many times that his first feature film he saw was Goldfinger and since then he loved Bond.
Its for me a little weird writing this because im a huge Pierce defender as Bond but i just got why people think he was never original and why he didn't manage to be that way.
I don't mind that he had a bitt of all his predecessors and actually for me it worked that made him a very well rounded character with all the traits the Bond needs but to make a new take on Bond the actor has to part from the books or scripts instead of his predecessors.
D%^mn it!!! You made good points, but still don't like them. Lol
Yes, they seem to have given too much free reign to writers recently - they rejected initial ideas and script ideas from Haggis (QoS), Peter Morgan (SF) and John Logan (SP). They should know what the writer's ideas are before they let them loose in writing the script. Surely they could have rejected these ideas earlier in the process, certainly Logan's which made it all the way in successive screenplay drafts?
Rubbish. Of all the things to complain about this is what people moaned about? Urgh.
I can't believe it either. On the grand scale of the movie those two scenes do not matter much.
Maybe there's too many other people, producers, actors, cleaning lady, all having input. Back in the day the scripts were based on the solid stories of Fleming and at least the first two had minimal input from others.
Actually that wasn't P+W at all, it was producers BB and MGW. However, you are correct that Haggis did try to float the idea which resulted in a rather stern "no" response. This one was weeded out pretty early in the process, but the writers strike didn't help the QOS scriptwriting process. Wasn't the rumor that Craig and Forster were making stuff up whilst they were filming? If so - it's a wonder it turned out as good as it did.
Seems when a well respected or currently popular writer or director gets their hands on a Bond film, we get a film that either tries to force a personal twist into the mix or change the formula. I'm not sure who came up with the idea to have M turn out to be a traitor in SP, but to me, that idea is about as good as having a Marvel crossover film where it turns out 007 is actually Iron-Man. I'm glad it was vetoed.
I just want writers and a director who will respect the formula, come up with a good caper for the villain, good characterizations, and not apologize for it being a James Bond film by trying to prove 007 is still relevant.