› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…764765767769770…2507

Comments

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think there's a view that if they leave it longer then audiences will have moved on and be expecting someone else. I don't buy this personally. I think Craig could do 2 more if he wanted.

    Personally, I don't see it at all. He looked good in QoS ( to me his High Point ) but was past his selling date in SF. The problem is it's getting more and more seen as a franchise for the elderly. I can't imagine that this is a good state of affairs. After all, going to cinema is a young men's game, so to speak. By virtue of a girlfriend who is together with almost all of her family quite active in several sporting clubs (and since always someone is celebrating birthday or something), I know many young people in the range from, let's say 16 to mid 20, and while they all are fond of spy movies (with the girls preferring Bourne and the boys leaning towards MI) they tend to be rather indifferent towards the recent Bond movies. Believe it or not, but to many of them (especially the female side ) their Bond is still Brosnan. To them, many of whom grew up with watching the old movies on TV together with their fathers, Craig simply doesn't feature the traits they expect from James Bond. And let me emphasize the lack of "camp" is only a small part of it.
    If they want Bond to stay relevant in the future I would very much recommend to them to alter course, otherwise they might find themselves in a state of permanently diminishing returns. Remember SP?

    I have no doubt SF will represent the commercial peak of the Craig era and that we're close to the end of his time as Bond. That doesn't mean he has to stop.

    There was talk of Rog leaving after MR I think, when he was probably already older than Dan is now. but he ended up doing 3 more. Those 3 films probably didn't match the commercial success of Spy and MR but I'm glad we've got them, especially FYEO and OP - 2 of my favourites.

    I think where Craig has shot himself in the foot is the story arc. If they can ditch that there's no reason he can't do one or two more very decent films.

    Like a lot on here, I'd like to see budgets stripped back and a bigger focus on quality writing. Some chance of that with P+W though!

  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    Once the Craig era is done, the franchise will take a different direction once more. Personally, I think he has one more movie in him. The franchise needs to distinguish itself from competitors like it used to do. The "James Bourne" experiment of the Craig years gets you only so far (still think LTK achieves more successfully what Craig has set out to do).

    Bond 25/26 is pivotal - what made DN-LTK era so successful was that the geopolitics was lacing the plot and implied, not stated. Bond going after ISIS or fighting a Trump like figure as some would propose isn't a Bond film and isn't the escapist element anymore. I'm hoping for something different from Bond 25 but feel the series is still searching for its place and what it's about ever since AVTAK
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think there's a view that if they leave it longer then audiences will have moved on and be expecting someone else. I don't buy this personally. I think Craig could do 2 more if he wanted.

    Personally, I don't see it at all. He looked good in QoS ( to me his High Point ) but was past his selling date in SF. The problem is it's getting more and more seen as a franchise for the elderly. I can't imagine that this is a good state of affairs. After all, going to cinema is a young men's game, so to speak. By virtue of a girlfriend who is together with almost all of her family quite active in several sporting clubs (and since always someone is celebrating birthday or something), I know many young people in the range from, let's say 16 to mid 20, and while they all are fond of spy movies (with the girls preferring Bourne and the boys leaning towards MI) they tend to be rather indifferent towards the recent Bond movies. Believe it or not, but to many of them (especially the female side ) their Bond is still Brosnan. To them, many of whom grew up with watching the old movies on TV together with their fathers, Craig simply doesn't feature the traits they expect from James Bond. And let me emphasize the lack of "camp" is only a small part of it.
    If they want Bond to stay relevant in the future I would very much recommend to them to alter course, otherwise they might find themselves in a state of permanently diminishing returns. Remember SP?

    I have no doubt SF will represent the commercial peak of the Craig era and that we're close to the end of his time as Bond. That doesn't mean he has to stop.

    There was talk of Rog leaving after MR I think, when he was probably already older than Dan is now. but he ended up doing 3 more. Those 3 films probably didn't match the commercial success of Spy and MR but I'm glad we've got them, especially FYEO and OP - 2 of my favourites.

    I think where Craig has shot himself in the foot is the story arc. If they can ditch that there's no reason he can't do one or two more very decent films.

    Like a lot on here, I'd like to see budgets stripped back and a bigger focus on quality writing. Some chance of that with P+W though!
    That's a good point. I always break Rog's tenure into the first 4 (up to and including MR) and the last 3 (the Glen years, if you will). For me, there is a distinct change in approach to those last 3 in comparison to what came before. I prefer the first 4 (by far) but like the change in approach for the latter 3 as well. In fact, he's the only actor who had a chance to go back to gritty after hitting the peaks of surreal escapism. All the other long running actors tended to get progressively more escapist & jovial with time.

    So there's precedent for changing tack mid stream. However, I only think it makes sense if Craig does two more. It doesn't make sense to have a stub film at the end of his tenure, that has been so connected to date.

    I also don't think Babs & Co. will want to repeat the length (in terms of number of films) of the Rog years. Times have changed, audience expectations are different, and we are in the disposable and 'refresh' era. Moreover, it takes far longer to get these off the ground now.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think there's a view that if they leave it longer then audiences will have moved on and be expecting someone else. I don't buy this personally. I think Craig could do 2 more if he wanted.

    Personally, I don't see it at all. He looked good in QoS ( to me his High Point ) but was past his selling date in SF. The problem is it's getting more and more seen as a franchise for the elderly. I can't imagine that this is a good state of affairs. After all, going to cinema is a young men's game, so to speak. By virtue of a girlfriend who is together with almost all of her family quite active in several sporting clubs (and since always someone is celebrating birthday or something), I know many young people in the range from, let's say 16 to mid 20, and while they all are fond of spy movies (with the girls preferring Bourne and the boys leaning towards MI) they tend to be rather indifferent towards the recent Bond movies. Believe it or not, but to many of them (especially the female side ) their Bond is still Brosnan. To them, many of whom grew up with watching the old movies on TV together with their fathers, Craig simply doesn't feature the traits they expect from James Bond. And let me emphasize the lack of "camp" is only a small part of it.
    If they want Bond to stay relevant in the future I would very much recommend to them to alter course, otherwise they might find themselves in a state of permanently diminishing returns. Remember SP?

    I have no doubt SF will represent the commercial peak of the Craig era and that we're close to the end of his time as Bond. That doesn't mean he has to stop.

    There was talk of Rog leaving after MR I think, when he was probably already older than Dan is now. but he ended up doing 3 more. Those 3 films probably didn't match the commercial success of Spy and MR but I'm glad we've got them, especially FYEO and OP - 2 of my favourites.

    I think where Craig has shot himself in the foot is the story arc. If they can ditch that there's no reason he can't do one or two more very decent films.

    Like a lot on here, I'd like to see budgets stripped back and a bigger focus on quality writing. Some chance of that with P+W though!
    That's a good point. I always break Rog's tenure into the first 4 (up to and including MR) and the last 3 (the Glen years, if you will). For me, there is a distinct change in approach to those last 3 in comparison to what came before. I prefer the first 4 (by far) but like the change in approach for the latter 3 as well. In fact, he's the only actor who had a chance to go back to gritty after hitting the peaks of surreal escapism. All the other long running actors tended to get progressively more escapist & jovial with time.

    So there's precedent for changing tack mid stream. However, I only think it makes sense if Craig does two more. It doesn't make sense to have a stub film at the end of his tenure, that has been so connected to date.

    I also don't think Babs & Co. will want to repeat the length (in terms of number of films) of the Rog years. Times have changed, audience expectations are different, and we are in the disposable and 'refresh' era. Moreover, it takes far longer to get these off the ground now.

    I somehow understand both of you, but you have to take into consideration how much Moore's last two movies contributed to giving Bond an old dodderer's image. I somehow find it strange that no one ever mentions the condescending almost contemptible way Kristina Wayborn's character treats Bond in OP every time he makes a pass on her. To the best of my recollection this is the only James Bond movie in which women behave that way towards Bond.
    I love FYEO dearly, but to me it clearly should have been Daltons first movie. Cut the childish comedy parts out of it and it would've been a perfect entry.
    Have it followed by OP with its outstanding cold war plot and again cut the embarrassing humor out of it and you would have established a new (still relevant and dangerous ) Bond firmly in the 80s and set up for the 90s. Of course someone would have had to tell Dalton to get rid of that terrible over acting of his, Develop some body tension and generally get a more relaxed, cool attitude.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think there's a view that if they leave it longer then audiences will have moved on and be expecting someone else. I don't buy this personally. I think Craig could do 2 more if he wanted.

    Personally, I don't see it at all. He looked good in QoS ( to me his High Point ) but was past his selling date in SF. The problem is it's getting more and more seen as a franchise for the elderly. I can't imagine that this is a good state of affairs. After all, going to cinema is a young men's game, so to speak. By virtue of a girlfriend who is together with almost all of her family quite active in several sporting clubs (and since always someone is celebrating birthday or something), I know many young people in the range from, let's say 16 to mid 20, and while they all are fond of spy movies (with the girls preferring Bourne and the boys leaning towards MI) they tend to be rather indifferent towards the recent Bond movies. Believe it or not, but to many of them (especially the female side ) their Bond is still Brosnan. To them, many of whom grew up with watching the old movies on TV together with their fathers, Craig simply doesn't feature the traits they expect from James Bond. And let me emphasize the lack of "camp" is only a small part of it.
    If they want Bond to stay relevant in the future I would very much recommend to them to alter course, otherwise they might find themselves in a state of permanently diminishing returns. Remember SP?

    I have no doubt SF will represent the commercial peak of the Craig era and that we're close to the end of his time as Bond. That doesn't mean he has to stop.

    There was talk of Rog leaving after MR I think, when he was probably already older than Dan is now. but he ended up doing 3 more. Those 3 films probably didn't match the commercial success of Spy and MR but I'm glad we've got them, especially FYEO and OP - 2 of my favourites.

    I think where Craig has shot himself in the foot is the story arc. If they can ditch that there's no reason he can't do one or two more very decent films.

    Like a lot on here, I'd like to see budgets stripped back and a bigger focus on quality writing. Some chance of that with P+W though!
    That's a good point. I always break Rog's tenure into the first 4 (up to and including MR) and the last 3 (the Glen years, if you will). For me, there is a distinct change in approach to those last 3 in comparison to what came before. I prefer the first 4 (by far) but like the change in approach for the latter 3 as well. In fact, he's the only actor who had a chance to go back to gritty after hitting the peaks of surreal escapism. All the other long running actors tended to get progressively more escapist & jovial with time.

    So there's precedent for changing tack mid stream. However, I only think it makes sense if Craig does two more. It doesn't make sense to have a stub film at the end of his tenure, that has been so connected to date.

    I also don't think Babs & Co. will want to repeat the length (in terms of number of films) of the Rog years. Times have changed, audience expectations are different, and we are in the disposable and 'refresh' era. Moreover, it takes far longer to get these off the ground now.

    I somehow understand both of you, but you have to take into consideration how much Moore's last two movies contributed to giving Bond an old dodderer's image. I somehow find it strange that no one ever mentions the condescending almost contemptible way Kristina Wayborn's character treats Bond in OP every time he makes a pass on her. To the best of my recollection this is the only James Bond movie in which women behave that way towards Bond.
    I love FYEO dearly, but to me it clearly should have been Daltons first movie. Cut the childish comedy parts out of it and it would've been a perfect entry.
    Have it followed by OP with its outstanding cold war plot and again cut the embarrassing humor out of it and you would have established a new (still relevant and dangerous ) Bond firmly in the 80s and set up for the 90s. Of course someone would have had to tell Dalton to get rid of that terrible over acting of his, Develop some body tension and generally get a more relaxed, cool attitude.
    You definitely have a point on Sir Rog's age being an issue post-MR. It impacted the stories in ways I wasn't too impressed with (as an example, he could have boinked Bibi if younger, rather than offering her an ice cream). Your last point is valid too. I don't think Dalton could have pulled these two films off to be honest. It required seasoned expertise that only Moore or Connery could have brought (in my controversial opinion).
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Yep Rog handles those last three films brilliantly. He was a seasoned pro by then. And knew what his approach to Bond was.

    But for me FYEO and OP are not just some of my favourite Moore films. They're top ten Bond movies IMO
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,992
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Jeffrey, for a few reasons that in combination suggest he won't be back for 2019.

    -It's more practically difficult to go back to his continuity driven character arc after 4 years (easier after 3). That's probably one of the reasons that they went in a new direction with SF initially. That arc was just starting with QoS.

    -Some think he'll definitely be back with a non-continuity story. I disagree. If it's 2018, it's much more likely that he is back and that it's continuity driven. If it's 2019, it's much more likely they'll recast. Babs and Co. always have their eye on the future and rebirth of the franchise. That's one of the reasons they ditched Brozza. I don't think anyone is focused on Bond right now to be honest. The P&W rumours haven't been confirmed. Everything is up in the air as the distributor deal is finalized, and we have not had any confirmation that it is a 'one picture deal' either.

    I would have thought Eon wouldn't go back years to a arc, but then, SP.

    It's too soon to know what Craig and Babs are thinking. She is keeping him "in the family."
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    I could really care less at this point now lets just move on and use Blofeld and spectre in a different way then spectre and all will be good even though I liked spectre they just need a new bond and new start
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    Hopes page 777 would bring us some official news! Oh well! lol!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    I could really care less at this point now lets just move on and use Blofeld and spectre in a different way then spectre and all will be good even though I liked spectre they just need a new bond and new start

    They don't need SPECTRE or Blofeld going forward.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    I honestly don't care either! I just want Craig back for one more. That's all I ask!
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    EON wont run a well oiled machine until new blood steps in.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,127
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    EON wont run a well oiled machine until new blood steps in.

    100% agreed.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    EON wont run a well oiled machine until new blood steps in.
    nonsense.

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    If Craig doesn't value the role and doesn't want to be bond then he doesn't deserve to. It's not like they arnt other capable actors. He is not entitled to the role because he's had a couple good films.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,888
    Even though I'm sure they wont be to alarmed at such comments. However it is rather disrespectful that some of you consider EON inept or incapable. They have produced the Bond series for 55 years after all.
    You complain that there is no news...what's going on...why are they so quiet...tell us something.
    Well they will, when there is something to announce. Some of you seem to forget that before social media and the internet were available to the masses, any such news was limited at best. Growing up the only Bond news I got was an occasional piece in the newspaper, and or the films trailer. We waited two years for anything sometimes. But I never once questioned why I wasn't hearing any news.
    Yes we're diehard fans of the Bond films. Yes we want news. But you don't always get what you want, when you want it. I don't know how many times it has to be said.
    News of Bond 25 will come from EON, when they're ready to give it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,571
    @JamesBondKenya , however you judge the DC films is your opinion-- BUT, what can't be questioned, is DC's commitment to his performances.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Benny wrote: »
    Even though I'm sure they wont be to alarmed at such comments. However it is rather disrespectful that some of you consider EON inept or incapable. They have produced the Bond series for 55 years after all.
    You complain that there is no news...what's going on...why are they so quiet...tell us something.
    Well they will, when there is something to announce. Some of you seem to forget that before social media and the internet were available to the masses, any such news was limited at best. Growing up the only Bond news I got was an occasional piece in the newspaper, and or the films trailer. We waited two years for anything sometimes. But I never once questioned why I wasn't hearing any news.
    Yes we're diehard fans of the Bond films. Yes we want news. But you don't always get what you want, when you want it. I don't know how many times it has to be said.
    News of Bond 25 will come from EON, when they're ready to give it.

    I SAY that they are inept not because of the past, they were amazing in the past but I FEEL that this second generation production team is out of creativity as they were handed the bond franchise by other more accomplished people.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,571
    yes @Benny -- we know nothing, at all, until EoN releases what we should know. They have shepherded all since 1962 ( and we fanboys think we know more than them???)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,085
    The current production team has been in place for some time. They're tremendously successful with audiences, the original and longtime intent of Broccoli and Saltzman, and not least based on the last two missions.

    The last four films have all been bold ventures on the part of Broccoli and Wilson.
    That means CASINO ROYALE kicking things off then QUANTUM OF SOLACE, SKYFALL, and SPECTRE. What they've also presented are more straightforward adventures that are smart, classy, and celebrate the previous films in a fun way.

    I'm lovin' it.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    RC7 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    I could really care less at this point now lets just move on and use Blofeld and spectre in a different way then spectre and all will be good even though I liked spectre they just need a new bond and new start

    They don't need SPECTRE or Blofeld going forward.

    Well they didn't bring them back for no reason and definitely not just one film in the Craig era they are in for the long haul past Craig. It would be foolish of them only being in one film.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited June 2017 Posts: 3,126
    MGM is the head of the train and eon are the box cars. MGM moves eon gets pulled along. If MGM doesn't move nothing happens. All eon can do is slow the train down but eon can't move it. Until MGM moves at full steam ahead eon can't do much and nothing happens. So until MGM moves and talks Bond 25 in a consistent basis nothing much will happen. Just to put an analogy on our little Bond 25 situation
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    Benny wrote: »
    Even though I'm sure they wont be to alarmed at such comments. However it is rather disrespectful that some of you consider EON inept or incapable. They have produced the Bond series for 55 years after all.
    You complain that there is no news...what's going on...why are they so quiet...tell us something.
    Well they will, when there is something to announce. Some of you seem to forget that before social media and the internet were available to the masses, any such news was limited at best. Growing up the only Bond news I got was an occasional piece in the newspaper, and or the films trailer. We waited two years for anything sometimes. But I never once questioned why I wasn't hearing any news.
    Yes we're diehard fans of the Bond films. Yes we want news. But you don't always get what you want, when you want it. I don't know how many times it has to be said.
    News of Bond 25 will come from EON, when they're ready to give it.

    Couldn't agree more

  • RC7RC7
    edited June 2017 Posts: 10,512
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    I could really care less at this point now lets just move on and use Blofeld and spectre in a different way then spectre and all will be good even though I liked spectre they just need a new bond and new start

    They don't need SPECTRE or Blofeld going forward.

    Well they didn't bring them back for no reason and definitely not just one film in the Craig era they are in for the long haul past Craig. It would be foolish of them only being in one film.

    Well, I don't think many people would find it a stretch to say that 'bringing them back for no reason' is exactly what they did. It's another case of, just because the could, they didn't stop to think if they should. The logical move would've been to hold back and use them as a unique selling point going into the next actors tenure - making sure they nail it. For me, that is more problematic now.

    They can feasibly bring back Waltz's Blofeld for a denouement with Craig. I don't think they should use YOLT wholesale as others are suggesting, but the Blofeld of the novel (and the organisation) is a spent force and he himself fruitcake. This is a viable way to continue. Howver, beyond (and even including that) Spectre as an organisation do not have the gravitas nor appeal to serve as a credible threat going forward imo. They'd need seriously retooling, which I would leave until the next incumbent but one, if at all.

    However, for me, it's absolutely clear to see that the general audience (and I include myself in this) favour a 'villain of the week' scenario. From 73' through 2015', that's over 40 years, Bond survived on a diet of eclectic, individual villains. It's key to what keeps Bond ticking. It is no surprise to me that CR and SF have been the clear standouts in this era. There's nothing more exciting, in my mind, than seeing what nefarious force they concoct for the new adventure. Silva came through on that score, as (unsurprisingly) did Le Chiffre.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    RC7 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    I could really care less at this point now lets just move on and use Blofeld and spectre in a different way then spectre and all will be good even though I liked spectre they just need a new bond and new start

    They don't need SPECTRE or Blofeld going forward.

    Well they didn't bring them back for no reason and definitely not just one film in the Craig era they are in for the long haul past Craig. It would be foolish of them only being in one film.

    Well, I don't think many people would find it a stretch to say that 'bringing them back for no reason' is exactly what they did. It's another case of, just because the could, they didn't stop to think if they should. The logical move would've been to hold back and use them as a unique selling point going into the next actors tenure - making sure they nail it. For me, that is more problematic now.

    They can feasibly bring back Waltz's Blofeld for a denouement with Craig. I don't think they should use YOLT wholesale as others are suggesting, but the Blofeld of the novel (and the organisation) is a spent force and he himself fruitcake. This is a viable way to continue. Howver, beyond (and even including that) Spectre as an organisation do not have the gravitas nor appeal to serve as a credible threat going forward imo. They'd need seriously retooling, which I would leave until the next incumbent but one, if at all.

    However, for me, it's absolutely clear to see that the general audience (and I include myself in this) favour a 'villain of the week' scenario. From 73' through 2015', that's over 40 years, Bond survived on a diet of eclectic, individual villains. It's key to what keeps Bond ticking. It is no surprise to me that CR and SF have been the clear standouts in this era. There's nothing more exciting, in my mind, than seeing what nefarious force they concoct for the new adventure. Silva came through on that score, as (unsurprisingly) did Le Chiffre.

    I have to agree, Blofeld doesn't seem to work on screen. At any rate they've never really come close making him work. It's telling when the best Blofeld appearances are in FRWL and TB when he's in relatively few scenes and we only hear his voice and see his hands.

    YOLT - doesn't live up to what you're expecting after FRWL and TB - the expected menace isn't there
    OHMSS - best incarnation
    DAF - Blofeld in drag?! Charles 'it's a jump to the left' Gray?!
    FYEO - does that even count?
    SP - I'm a jealous 'brother'
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited June 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I don't think they should cast Blofeld and Spectre aside for another 40 odd years but at the same time I don't really want another big multi film arc either, or we'll end up in a similar situation to the Connery era (I imagine to audiences at the time, his "reveal" in DAF wasn't a surprise but a crushing disappointment given how overused he was becoming). When the next actor takes over for example I don't want all his villains to be Spectre agents. They should be given a rest after Craig imo.

    Blofeld returning should be an event. He's Bond's arch nemesis and it's about time the films sold him as such. Don't have him lingering in the background in every film. Just every few films, bring him back for another round with Bond. Make it clear that (regardless of the actor) they have shared history, spare us the introductions, but keep that history vague so it works no matter what timeline or era we're in. Take inspiration from the books (the TB and YOLT versions would work particuarly well on screen imo) and focus on selling the audience on why he deserves to be classed as Bond's arch enemy.

    I think the other issue with SPECTRE agents as villains is that they often don't need much motivation. The script can use it as a crutch instead of making an interesting fleshed out character. "Oh they work for SPECTRE so they're evil and want money, the end" (e.g. Largo, Osato, even Blofeld in the films). But then the Craig era had the opposite issue; a villain with a clear personal motivation (Silva) was shoehorned in and it didn't quite work.
  • MilovyMilovy
    Posts: 676
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    But then the Craig era had the opposite issue; a villain with a clear personal motivation (Silva) was shoehorned in and it didn't quite work.
    Didn't quite work - why's that, would you say?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Silva is one of the best.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I disagree. Silva is the most incoherent villain of the Craig era, if not the entire series.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    That's a bit harsh. There are far bigger jokers in the series, including Renard.

    Silva was one of the reasons that SF got major traction. He was a throwback to the larger than life personalities of the classic days. They tried to go there before in the 'new' era (including with Carver) but it didn't catch.
Sign In or Register to comment.