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 love Brosnan's first two films very much. Very enjoyable entries that ushered in a new age while retaining the things that made Bond different to other series. TWINE I also enjoy, though it aims high and misses rather dramatically by its end. DAD, well....everyone knows the story with that one. A disaster.
That makes him two for four, for me. Just like Craig's era so far (at least for a few more weeks!), from which we also have a nadir in the form of SP. I think I would probably be harder on the weaker Craig films than the Brosnan ones though, considering the more "prestige" talent involved. That may be a tad unfair on my part (and in a way its a compliment as to where we're at!), but it is what it is.
Skyfall and fresh start is an oxymoron. It was a dead end. CR was the fresh start. EON has no idea what they want to do or should do from one film to the next... and they have no faith in their main character, proven time and again. But I agree and hope Cary can pump life into their stale and confused Craig era.
Dear lord how many almost 007's have become Batman Christian Bale now this and Robert Pattison...
I agree with this. They keep falling back on the idea that Bond has to have life-changing adventures. He doesn't. It's a long running franchise, Bond has to be pretty much the same person at the end of the film as the start for the majority of the films. The current creative team have no faith in Bond simply being cool going on a mission as the basis of a movie. They need better writing, not new gimmicks.
I don't know if that's a 'gimmick': it's kind of the basis of drama. Personally I like a dramatic adventure where I get emotionally involved: it makes the tension tenser. OHMSS is on the top of a lot of fans' lists of Bond movies so it seems to be a well-liked way of doing it.
I quite like OHMSS. I know it's got love song montages and tragic deaths and silly OTT 'angels of death' stuff which is all the stuff of melodrama, but it still works for me.
So basically everything in the Craig/Mendes era got it :D
It's not really melodrama though, as melodrama only really becomes a thing to compensate for unbelievable relationships. Bond falling in love with Tracy (and her death being tragic as a result) is believable in comparison with a lot of the stuff with Madeleine in SP.
See also, Bond and Vesper in CR. That is great drama (a couple of clunky lines aside!).
I'm not suggesting we'll see and hear Tarzan yells, slide whistles, cartoonish local sheriffs, terrible puns ("She's just dead !" was funny, "I thought Christmas came only once a year..." was awful, and it was the last line of the film !). But they need not go that far for a different tone.
There still can be an arc, or multiple arcs, across the next actor's Bond films. I suggest that, with a tonal change, they would not be the heavier, weighty, life-and-death type arcs. They could be slighter, yet helpful to tie off loose ends and maintain plot logic, such as when, in the books, M asked Bond about "So, whatever happened between Miss Case and you ?" Fleming included more wrap-up of the plot points of earlier novels in the beginnings of the following ones. M appears to prefer that Bond be free of emotional commitments, for the sake of his work, and perhaps for the sake of someone who'd miss Bond were he killed in the next assignment. Agents like Bond are expected, after all, to expire while on the job.
Good post. Well thought out.
I wouldn't mind hearing a few good puns again, myself! ;)
Fair enough and all good points.
I find the first hour of TND to be great along with the excellent score, but the second hour descends into mediocrity for me. Brosnan is still solid in this film as well.
I love the TWINE pre title sequence, but the rest of the film again, for me, is weak.
For me, the Craig films are delivered in order of superiority, much like the Brosnan era.
But I won’t deny Brosnan was a solid, popular and sensible choice when he was cast in 1994.
+1. OHMSS is brilliant and faithful to the book. Hunt was also a fantastic Director who should have returned. IMO he made Lazenby a decent enough Bond, without him, it could ha e been a different story.
Trying to equate OHMSS with Mendes era is pure fantasy, not the good kind, which is why we have mediocre movies instead of something great
Of the Batmen, I think Clooney is the only one who would have worked a sBond.
Bale is a Brit but too old -- not to mention that, reportedly, having portrayed American Psycho, he denied interest, having already played a serial killer. At 5'11 3/4" tall, he is tall enough, and -- unless he intentionally changes for a role -- is fit. As for his good looks, I think the way his upper teeth sometimes don't show is intentional, for certain parts. Pattinson is a Brit and is 6' tall, handsome, high cheekbones and all. However -- would the producers go for someone -- he's now The Batman -- tied in with another repeat role ?
That's debatable: Tracy falls in love with Bond during a montage, not because it's believable. If you look at the definition of melodrama all Bond films generally tick a lot of the boxes.
Apart from being very American I'd say Clooney was pretty perfect, wasn't he? The complete movie star, and did cool and suave incredibly well.
Exactly. He is someone who can own the room.
Wow. Yes, I’d love to see his attempt at any kind of British accent! A horror show, no doubt.
No, that's not accurate at all. She doesn't fall in love with him during the montage alone. It's merely just a device to show a passage of time. Which is a smart thing to do, in comparison with the leading lady proclaiming her love after two days.
Are you saying that Bond and Tracy's relationship is not believable, then?
I know what the definitions are (there are varying ones depending on the mediums being talked about), thanks; I think the point still stands that there is a clear difference between drama and melodrama, especially in a Bond film. TWINE and SP are melodramatic. I don't consider CR - or the aforementioned OHMSS - to be as the emotions on display there are developed pretty naturally without being forced or exaggerated.
What are the boxes that all the other Bond films tick to make them melodramas? There are a couple more for sure, but I wouldn't say all of them do. Bond is not in love in every film, after all.
I honestly don't know if you're trolling me, or if I didn't make my point clear.
Pretty much everyone rates OHMSS. I'm more critical of it than some, but it's a great story with a great emotional arc. So is CR. They are both stories where Bond falls madly in love, so much so he decides to get married in one, and leave the service in the other.
These are great and have such a great impact because they are out of character for Bond. There is more than thirty years distance between these films. You need that distance otherwise it becomes stupid. Darth Vader revealing to Luke that he is his father is a great moment, and it's a revelation that really works; Luke discovering that Leia is his sister just seems like "oh, they went there again?" You can't keep up with shock revelations or big lifechanging moments in a long-running series like Bond, it just gets silly and eye-rolling.
You can make Bond emotionally invested in smaller ways - the Bond films often kill a woman Bond is sleeping with fairly early on so there is a level of personal involvement for 007 - that works to show how evil the bad-guys are and to give both Bond and audience a reason to want to see the villain dead. You can do that fairly regularly without it becoming eye-rolling in the same way that trying to tell the audience that "this girl is different - she's the one" becomes silly.
You've sited OHMSS as a good template. I'll point out From Russia with Love, also a fan favourite, does not resort to finding a life-changing love or have Bond a changed man by the end. Most Bond films don't. It's important to be able to make a Bond film that works without using the old "...and nothing will be the same ever again" trick, because each time you do it it cheapens the previous time. There is, imo, no future in it.
Not without seeing her fall in love with him, no. Are you saying it is?
She doesn't get enough screentime and it's not brilliantly done, but frankly I find the building connection between Bond and Madeline to be more believably handled as I can see their opinions of each other changing over time. It's accelerated but still there.
Bond falling in love with Tracy is done better as it takes more time and we're shown what he finds to be impressive about her and, frankly, it's way easier to swallow because she's Diana Rigg and so therefore clearly amazing and anyone would fall in love with her!
:)
Well I thought you knew the definitions, thanks :) Some just define them as having moustache-twirling villains in them or loosely sketched-in evil women types.
I'd agree TWINE is way up one end, with Bond's rather forced and cheesy crying over a monitor, but I'd say Spectre is a few notches down from that. But they're all up there to some extent.
Absolutely, yes. But as I said, she doesn't fall in love with him during the montage alone. So again, that's not really accurate at all, I don't think. But I guess it's open to interpretation and how the performances sell it. I always found Lazenby and Rigg to be excellent together.
You're welcome, but why are you thanking me? :)
Yes, but again....how? What boxes are checked to make them melodramatic in terms of Bond's relationships?
Couldn’t agree more.