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
It might not be Bean but the dialogue that is to blame, but he comes off as very theatrical during his many lectures through out the film. It should never feel like the actor is reading from a script during a movie, but with Trevelyan it does.
Humbly noted. :)
The ship was good but I wasn't overly impressed with Scaramanga's funhouse. The only reason I like it at all is because it set a tense duel between Bond and Scaramanga; the design itself wins points for its eccentricity but not much else. Some of the shots of the walls make it look like an aquarium.
It might've also been the transports used, like the AMC cars. I don't mind it myself, but you can see what I mean when you compare them to the more "traditional" Bond cars.
But you might be right in saying that TMWTGG looked better than the last two. My complaints with TMWTGG do involve the aesthetic, but to a much lesser degree. It's mostly the plotline which falls into total disarray, and the excessive cheap humour. There's a huge segment of the film where the plot doesn't really move and it feels thrown in just to pass the time with a few laughs for the sake of it.
Well said. In many ways I find the character more 3-dimensional pre-Craig simply because the character was so well established in the first three films, even without a backstory. We knew exactly who he was, what he was, his tastes and attitudes as well as skills.
Connery and Moore, both in particular, gave Bond personality, and maintained it even as the films progressed more into fantasy. The personal elements were subtle, yet, at least to me, all the more effective for it. Connery's reaction when finding Jill, or Roger's when Anya brings up Tracy and so forth.
Exactly. It almost becomes a soap opera and is no longer fresh. It's likely for the filmmakers to write themselves into a corner and become baffled as where to take the character next............which is where I think the series is at now.
So where's all the drama? I'm somehow not too fond of SP, as it's a bit of a mess story wise, but I don't see it as 'Neighbours - the battle' series or anything like that.
SF is more about M's comeuppance than it is about Bond (which is why I enjoy it so much).
SP is ostensibly about Spectre, but sadly they tied in the personal angle. Sure, Craig tries to brush it off (like he did the Vesper interrogation tape) and appear unfazed by it all, but the fact remains that Blofeld has a childhood connection to his Bond, and Smith's whiny title song suggests that he is torn inside about his life and Madeliene's effect on him, despite attempts by Craig Bond to not show any emotional connection to her ("you're leaving"?). So ultimately I think that is what is impacting some (including my own) perceptions of where we stand.
And Brosnan's youthful actually serves him here. A mature looking Bond would have come off as an amateur. Bean just has enough authority and maturity to pass as a seasoned villain.
@jobo I don't mind at all a theatrical villain in Bond movies, in fact larger than life villains work better and are very Fleming. There's such hatred in Trevelyan's tone of voice, such venom. He never comes off as petulant or comedic.
If that didn't happen then she would have walked off and Bond would shrug and get on with mission ,as indeed he did.
So,he isn't that bothered about her,which is why she doesn't need to be in the film or even mentioned.
But he did choose to not shoot Blofeld for her, to prove that he wasn't like her father. As much as I'd like for the next film to make no mention of her or the disastrous ending of SP, I fear we'll get just the opposite.
I honestly cant wait to see a change of actor, and what will hopefully bring a fresh approach. This is no fault of Craig's. It's the producers, who let a so called auteur loose on the last two films.
Exactly, no need for a Bond Begins and yet his youth still works, would have been the same in CR.
@Roadphill I agree!
This is why we need workman directors who treat the film like a job that they are doing for the Bond series, rather than their own work to do with as they please.
Both yes and no. It's a balance thing. A director with zero drive or creative output is not good either
I've mentioned it before, but I'd have loved him to say yes to coming back for FYEO. Each of his three were larger-than-life, and I think it could've been really interesting seeing what he did with a small scale film.
I've never thought of it that way, but you're right.
I've never really paused to appreciate the production design in that film, but now you mention it, it is very good.
True. When writing my post I had a particular workman in mind; Martin Campbell.
Campbell has allegedly been high on the priority list ever since Goldeneye. However he is repetedly turning the job down. It's a shame.
Not sure what you mean by that. Brosnan still youthful when CR was made? Or they could have done away with Bond being new in CR, whoever played Bond? Either way I don't think so.
True. I think the A-list directors of their time: Forster, Mendes, in a way have done more damage to the franchise in that now it seems it has set a new standard for EON. I fear we may only be getting current A listers with their own agendas from now on. With the Blade Runner director being a front runner of names touted I can almost rest my case.
This is why I far prefer Cubby's method of promoting from within. Hunt knew Bond inside and out formula wise, yet could deviate by making a faithful adaptation of OHMSS that still very much felt like a Bond film. It's a Bond masterpiece IMO. Likewise, John Glen paid his dues and directed some of my most watched Bonds. By comparison, I rarely pop in QoS or the Mendes films.
He is? I had no idea!
But do you think they will ever go back to workman directors? Personally, I suppose they will, but first, audiences will have to grow tired of the more artsy, introspective vibe of the recent films. I figure if it's already happening in a place like this, it will eventually happen with your average moviegoer. And as someone pointed out somewhere else, there is a disconnect between the tone of the recent Bond films and the tone of certain ads made to promote them, which clearly present a lighter, funnier take on Bond, akin to the Bond of yesteryear. Perhaps that hints at a longing-- an acknowledgment that there is, on some level, a need for a less dramatic type of film, closer to the style of the 1962-2002 era, and closer to the quintessential type of Bond film.
We can get something more straightforward without a workman like director though. Look at the John Wick movies or Atomic Blonde for example. High budget straightforward (by that I mean focus on story on action instead of any deeper themes or character drama) action films and thrillers are still out there but nowadays the good ones are usually made by more controlling (not sure what the best word to use is, individual?) directors. Journeyman were fine back in the 80s but you don't get directors like Glen anymore imo. If we got a journeyman director now I think it'd be a bad move because the current aesthetic/formula for blockbusters just isn't the same as it was back then, so best to get someone who will deviate from it or at least do it stylishly and differently.
I do hope so. At this point a workman director could really re-energize the series and bring back a level of classic Bond excitement. I'd love a return to pure entertainment with a fun Bond film that includes some dramatic tension, thrills, true stunt work, a solid caper for the villain, and interesting characters for Bond to interact with. Glen and Gilbert both were masters at bringing those elements to Bond. A workman director along those lines I'd be thrilled with.
I do like the Craig films, and at the time seemed like an interesting direction, but now (all these years and gaps later), I really do miss the 1962-2002 period.
I suppose if EON hires another prestigious name to direct B25, it will give an indication on either the series' future or finish. I speculate what workman directors are out there currently who might be right for Bond.
Just add David Arnold.
Sadly, the die is cast, and neither Forster nor Arnold will be involved. This might be the end of good Bond movies... or it might be a fantastic last Craig Bond... no knowing at this point.
I find the photography in TMWTGG so flat. Compare Thailand in this movie with Thailand in TND. Or the fun house with the interiors of Piz Gloria or even Williard Whyte's penthouse. Visually, the film is just boring.
I was wondering the same.
Because I want him to... ;)