Where does Bond go after Craig?

1211212214216217512

Comments

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    How many security service or police officers would be familiar with the assassination section of MI6. Oh wait, even smugglers in Amsterdam know who Bond is.

    Everyone knows it, even those undercover drug cops in LTK for example, or
    I couldn't do it last night, but I'll just link my post in controversial opinions here, but you all kind of cited the major points by now anyway (and it seems this isn't a controversial opinion at all).

    I am kind of itching at doing a proper content analysis of the books and films about M's role and any descriptions of MI6's structures and the people working there. I obviously won't do that - that's a full-on media studies thesis - but it feels like there could be some surprising differences between what people think is in there and what actually is.

    I think this is somewhat explored at Kim Sherwood's Double Or Nothing Novel.

    That’s interesting to hear. I haven’t read that yet.

    We also have to keep in mind that these are stories told for entertainment. Not organisational documents or reportage. So as much as I would be interested in it - and yes at this point I am always reminded that that’s more Le Carre than Fleming - M‘s role in the books and films is as much defined by the necessities of the plot and pacing as it is by any real-life Chief of MI6.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    How many security service or police officers would be familiar with the assassination section of MI6. Oh wait, even smugglers in Amsterdam know who Bond is.

    Everyone knows it, even those undercover drug cops in LTK for example...


    Okay pardon my passion on this one, and with respect

    ca86c604-827f-402d-aadd-cc7ff7a54e98_text.gif

    So I'm not disagreeing just wanted to repeat this meme.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    How many security service or police officers would be familiar with the assassination section of MI6. Oh wait, even smugglers in Amsterdam know who Bond is.

    Everyone knows it, even those undercover drug cops in LTK for example...


    Okay pardon my passion on this one, and with respect

    ca86c604-827f-402d-aadd-cc7ff7a54e98_text.gif

    So I'm not disagreeing just wanted to repeat this meme.

    LOL. Talk about good underused actors in Bond films!
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 784
    I want much less action in bond films. Not none, but it shouldn’t be there just because.

    I’d much rather have suspense, witty dialogue, mystery, ingenious plot with twists and turns, (real) drama, and elegant, atmospheric moments of bond being bond.

    The action should have more stealth, be more gritty, and realistic.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Like Skyfall?
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 784
    mtm wrote: »
    Like Skyfall?

    CR, DN, FRWL more like.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I feel like there's more action in CR than there is in Skyfall.
  • Posts: 2,742
    Yes, must admit I did think of SF too after reading that.

    I think it'll be interesting not only seeing how much action is in Bond 26 but what kind of action. One of the issues I have with the last two Craig films is that it didn't always feel like Bond was genuinely in danger. The car chase during SP is an example (Craig's performance is purposely very lighthearted and it seems like Bond is meant to be a bit detached, albeit comically, from what's going on around him which doesn't help). Doesn't help that Craig's Bond seemed to become superhuman at points, and there was a more conscious attempt at stylised camerawork/choreography (ie. the long take during the staircase fight in NTTD) which didn't feel in-keeping with many of the fight scenes from CR, SF and to a lesser extent QOS (although there are shades of that problem in that latter film, just in a different manner).

    Not saying all the action sequences in Bond have to necessarily be realistic by any means. But it does have to have that sense of danger and tension.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 784
    I don’t know the action in that film felt contrived.

    Might have been because of the lacklustre plot.
  • Posts: 2,742
    Maybe it's just a matter of preference for the film itself then... like I said all of that sounds like SF to me, insofar as it's quite broad and subjective.

    I like what they were trying to go for in CR with many of the fight scenes. The staircase fight is an example and feels genuinely real, like Bond is actually a) in danger and b) getting hurt. I don't get that sense so much with the sinking house at the end. I'm sure the next Bond film could successfully convey those things in the context of a larger, perhaps more fantastical action sequence/set piece.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 784
    Agree with you, I would add the opening as well.

    Bond getting hurt and not defying physics makes for much more believable cinema.

    I feel the last three films have made the producers believe third rate drama and and big action is enough to make a good film, while having relied on the nostalgia and cultural prominence of the franchise for their success. I’d rather flip the script and have good drama and less full on action.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited December 2022 Posts: 3,382
    I want much less action in bond films. Not none, but it shouldn’t be there just because.

    I’d much rather have suspense, witty dialogue, mystery, ingenious plot with twists and turns, (real) drama, and elegant, atmospheric moments of bond being bond.

    The action should have more stealth, be more gritty, and realistic.
    Agree with you, I would add the opening as well.

    Bond getting hurt and not defying physics makes for much more believable cinema.

    I feel the last three films have made the producers believe third rate drama and and big action is enough to make a good film, while having relied on the nostalgia and cultural prominence of the franchise for their success. I’d rather flip the script and have good drama and less full on action.

    The last three films felt like a bit of Brosnan Era Bond films really, with big action and
    (a bit cheap) drama sprinkled around here and there.

    I think the 60's films (with the exception of YOLT) really captured like what you say, less on big action, more on drama.

    I want something with spying, drama, still retaining the Bondian tone, with real stakes plot and great action (should be climactic), it should come all in balance, like in FRWL or OHMSS.

    I think the Producers were trying to recapture those things worked in OHMSS to NTTD, but still failed, just because the former balanced all of the elements well and had been put in the right place, right timing, with the latter, it's too lazily put all over the place, just for the satisfactory instead of quality.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe it's just a matter of preference for the film itself then... like I said all of that sounds like SF to me, insofar as it's quite broad and subjective.

    I like what they were trying to go for in CR with many of the fight scenes. The staircase fight is an example and feels genuinely real, like Bond is actually a) in danger and b) getting hurt. I don't get that sense so much with the sinking house at the end. I'm sure the next Bond film could successfully convey those things in the context of a larger, perhaps more fantastical action sequence/set piece.

    Yeah I was annoyed at the sinking house even watching the film in the cinema: I was too interested in the actual plot but this big, fairly dull, very standard Bond set-piece was getting in the way of the story.
  • Posts: 1,545
    LESS action ? Mission Impossible films are eating Bond's lunch...
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Since62 wrote: »
    LESS action ? Mission Impossible films are eating Bond's lunch...

    Are they, financially? And do we want Bond to just be the same as M:I?

    I want some action, but I don’t need a ton of it.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 2,742
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe it's just a matter of preference for the film itself then... like I said all of that sounds like SF to me, insofar as it's quite broad and subjective.

    I like what they were trying to go for in CR with many of the fight scenes. The staircase fight is an example and feels genuinely real, like Bond is actually a) in danger and b) getting hurt. I don't get that sense so much with the sinking house at the end. I'm sure the next Bond film could successfully convey those things in the context of a larger, perhaps more fantastical action sequence/set piece.

    Yeah I was annoyed at the sinking house even watching the film in the cinema: I was too interested in the actual plot but this big, fairly dull, very standard Bond set-piece was getting in the way of the story.

    I get it's not easy adapting the novel for a modern film. Vesper's death needed to be more dramatic than in the novel, and it's understandable it takes place in the context of an action set piece. But yeah I feel the same, I never really got along with that sequence.

    It's fine though. CR is still a film I enjoy watching and the specific moment of Vesper drowning always tugs on the heartstrings well enough. I suppose it's a small (and again, very subjective) price to pay.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    I feel similarly about the Venice scene.
  • Posts: 15,785
    The sinking building along with the Miami airport action sequence never really did it for me, TBH.
    Well choreographed and filmed I suppose, but neither really excite me or leave me cheering.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited December 2022 Posts: 2,481
    Bond 26 doesn't need tons of action, but when there is some it needs to be thrilling tense action

    I thought the action in NTTD was great, it just ended too abruptly, which is ridiculous when you think it's the longest Bond film I'm history
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2022 Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Maybe it's just a matter of preference for the film itself then... like I said all of that sounds like SF to me, insofar as it's quite broad and subjective.

    I like what they were trying to go for in CR with many of the fight scenes. The staircase fight is an example and feels genuinely real, like Bond is actually a) in danger and b) getting hurt. I don't get that sense so much with the sinking house at the end. I'm sure the next Bond film could successfully convey those things in the context of a larger, perhaps more fantastical action sequence/set piece.

    Yeah I was annoyed at the sinking house even watching the film in the cinema: I was too interested in the actual plot but this big, fairly dull, very standard Bond set-piece was getting in the way of the story.

    I get it's not easy adapting the novel for a modern film. Vesper's death needed to be more dramatic than in the novel, and it's understandable it takes place in the context of an action set piece. But yeah I feel the same, I never really got along with that sequence.

    It's fine though. CR is still a film I enjoy watching and the specific moment of Vesper drowning always tugs on the heartstrings well enough. I suppose it's a small (and again, very subjective) price to pay.

    Yeah, now I know it's there it doesn't rankle- it was just the first time really where I was so caught up in the interpersonal drama between Bond and Vesper, and it felt fresh and new for watching a Bond film to actually feel emotionally involved in the story, and then this Brosnan-style action scene lumbers along and just obstructs the film. There does need to be a situation where Vesper drowns, and it's a Bond film so a bit of action is understandable, but after the great action scenes of earlier in the film it feels like they lost confidence a bit at this point and thought the audience would demand a big action finale where I'm not sure we did.

    As MI has been mentioned, if you look at Mission Impossible Rogue Nation I think it's quite striking that they had this big action finale planned but just realised that the most satisfying thing was just to trap the baddie in a glass box. The big set piece went out of the window and they did what the story wanted- in CR I think they tried to override the story and do what they thought the audience would demand, and it feels awkward.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The sinking building along with the Miami airport action sequence never really did it for me, TBH.
    Well choreographed and filmed I suppose, but neither really excite me or leave me cheering.

    I must admit I think the airport bit is great, however. And, most importantly for an action scene, it has real repercussions and drives the story of the rest of the film (I think the waterskiing scene in LTK doesn't get enough love for that, actually- one action scene which sets up so many bits of plot for later in the film).
    I think it's interesting that even in fan-made ideas for film adaptations of CR I'd seen before this, the idea that Bond must be involved in the event which loses Le Chiffre his money was always there- it's just makes sense.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2022 Posts: 2,895
    Don't mention the password and the account! I said don't mention the...oh.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    The Miami Action sequences, I would still stand by my opinion, it felt like a Liam Neeson action movie.

    And I would still stand by my opinion that Vesper's death was more impactful in the book given the almost unpredictable twist, and the time that Bond and Vesper had together whereas in the film they've just spent a little time being with together.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 988
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    And I would still stand by my opinion that Vesper's death was more impactful in the book given the almost unpredictable twist, and the time that Bond and Vesper had together whereas in the film they've just spent a little time being with together.

    It was set up perfectly in the book. Bond had decided to ask her to marry him if I remember right. Was it on the day she died, I can't remember? It's been a couple of years since I read it.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,282
    I think Vesper's death in the book would have been filmed in a way that might not suit the cinematic Bond, because I don't know how else to film Vesper's book death, without it being too stylistic like a music video or commercial, otherwise, it might be boring on screen. But I mean it would be cool to watch, but I don't know if it would suit Bond on screen.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited December 2022 Posts: 5,834
    Also, her death from the book would feel too similar to Solange who was found lying dead earlier in the film.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    But they've did that with Paris Carver's death, also lying dead on the bed, and it suits the cinematic Bond, I mean Brosnan Bond's reaction to her death, as much as it wasted the potential of being emotional, I think the idea would still suit the cinematic Bond, and that scene wasn't boring either.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    But I think Paris Carver's death worked because of its placement structurally I'm not sure Casino Royale would end with the same punch if it was as simple a scene.
  • Posts: 1,693
    Craig seems to be delivering with the "Knives Out" franchise and there is little to no action in those. Could a new actor in a suspense/spy thriller film along these lines with just a fraction more action be a template for the new Bond series?
  • Posts: 1,477
    For me no Bond film has felt like a Bond film since SC's last outing -- even that barely felt like a Bond film. Not to say that I haven't enjoyed some films by other Bond actors. But's there a quality about the SC era films that has not been captured by other iterations. Perhaps it's just that SC was my first Bond and no one since has been able to take his place, although I do like GL, DC's turn in CR, and TD. I'd like to see the series capture the flavor of the early Bond films. This was a Bond who was confident and assured, not a Bond with with a five story chip on his shoulder. I liked DC as Bond, even if not a fan of four of the five films. Enough of the burdened Bond.
  • They’ll reset, maybe taking off from a NTTD/OHMSS mashup point, and rewrite continuity asap so as not to lose new viewers.I will mourn the passing of my eras. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.