Where does Bond go after Craig?

1350351353355356540

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,943
    Precisely Forster's thinking.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,621
    mtm wrote: »
    I didn't know that, that's very interesting. Glad they nixed it; sounds a bit naff!

    I agree with you @mtm … last night I finished re-watching Gangs of London (further solidifying my choice for Bond, but I just don’t see it happening…), and Elliot is
    having visions of his recently murdered father. It just felt like screenwriting 101: showing our protagonist (or on this case, anti-hero), haunted by the loved one he couldn’t save. It took away from the otherwise fantastically brutal last couple episodes.

    Although I love Eva, I really think this would have taken away the uniqueness of who Vesper was, seeing her image haunt Bond. It’s unnecessary, and it’s just a little too much like banging a hammer over our collective heads…
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2023 Posts: 5,999
    I agree. Bond lost Vesper, and we the audience lost her too. That's what so heartbreaking about CR.

    To have flashbacks of Vesper in subsequent films--minus the opening credits (where I think she was overused)--would diminish that loss.

    I wouldn't have wanted Tracy flashbacks, either.
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 2,098
    Anyone care to wager what the budget would be? My bet is around a comfortable $150 million total like Casino Royale. Though the sadist in me would love to see what a Bond film made on a budget comparable to that of ‘Joker’ would look like.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,943
    Seeing as Forster rejected it outright, it was probably in the P & W script that he threw out almost as soon as he came on board.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,152
    Venutius wrote: »
    Seeing as Forster rejected it outright, it was probably in the P & W script that he threw out almost as soon as he came on board.

    That's a shame, there were a lot of ideas in their script that I liked.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,152
    https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/wga-resumes-bargaining-ceos-record-1235729779/

    Looks like the Writers and the studios are in the same room again, at least..
    Great news! I am now predicting that the director of Bond 26 will be announced by the end of March 2024.

    I hope so, and at least a few story ideas should be around.
  • Posts: 1,560
    echo wrote: »
    I agree. Bond lost Vesper, and we the audience lost her too. That's what so heartbreaking about CR.

    To have flashbacks of Vesper in subsequent films--minus the opening credits (where I think she was overused)--would diminish that loss.

    I wouldn't have wanted Tracy flashbacks, either.

    I didn't think it necessary for Bond to visit Vesper's gravesite. And I still don't know why she was buried in Italy. I guess the Aston shootout would have been harder to pull off in England.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,393
    CrabKey wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I agree. Bond lost Vesper, and we the audience lost her too. That's what so heartbreaking about CR.

    To have flashbacks of Vesper in subsequent films--minus the opening credits (where I think she was overused)--would diminish that loss.

    I wouldn't have wanted Tracy flashbacks, either.

    I didn't think it necessary for Bond to visit Vesper's gravesite. And I still don't know why she was buried in Italy. I guess the Aston shootout would have been harder to pull off in England.

    Vesper died in Venice, so yes, that's where she should be buried, or maybe in England (since, she's British; the character, and worked for the British Government), might be more plausible if MI6 get her corpse there and buried her in UK.

    The other (perhaps more questionable) was Tracy who was buried in England (as shown in FYEO), and considering she's killed in Portugal, and had never been in England before (not that she had connection in there, as she's purely foreign), unless Bond took her corpse and buried her there (with Draco's permission, perhaps?)
  • Posts: 1,560
    @SIS_HQ - Matera is 434 miles from Venice. I wish the filmmakers had provided a reason.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @SIS_HQ - Matera is 434 miles from Venice. I wish the filmmakers had provided a reason.

    What I mean is Vesper should've been buried in Venice instead of Matera, should've clarified it more.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Maybe her family cemetery is in Matera.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 537
    Murdock wrote: »
    Maybe her family cemetery is in Matera.

    That's literally the explanation they give in the film. I like NTTD and even I think that's a flimsy justification but it gives an excuse to go to Matera so I can live with it.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,393
    Murdock wrote: »
    Maybe her family cemetery is in Matera.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Maybe her family cemetery is in Matera.

    That's literally the explanation they give in the film. I like NTTD and even I think that's a flimsy justification but it gives an excuse to go to Matera so I can live with it.

    I think Vesper being buried in Matera could've been given such a reason, than to Tracy being buried in England (which is just very far).

    That's the thing, Vesper's background was vague, that one can make various assumptions as to why she ended up in there maybe yes, in Matera is where her family is buried, we don't fully know Vesper, where she came from, her family, all about her, we have no idea about her, so her being buried in Matera could've been justified with many conclusions regarding her identity (that's not explored in the film), she's not fully explored as a character.

    Unlike Tracy, whose background was fully explored, that's why when she's buried in England (since we know her fully, even down to her family), it's confusing, that why she's buried in England?
  • Posts: 1,560
    Murdock wrote: »
    Maybe her family cemetery is in Matera.

    That's literally the explanation they give in the film. I like NTTD and even I think that's a flimsy justification but it gives an excuse to go to Matera so I can live with it.

    BOND (knowingly)
    Is that why we’re here?
    MADELEINE
    She’s buried at the acropolis -
    BOND (gentle)
    I know where she’s buried.

    The dialogue doesn't make clear it is a family vault. I suppose we're to assume that. But I don't know why. Interesting to have a French actress playing an English civil servant with some connection to Italy. Even if the character's background doesn't make sense, she and Diana Rigg are my favorite leading ladies in a Bond film.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,029
    As @CharmianBond says, Vesper is buried with family. The Lynds and Savianis. Their plaques are above hers.
  • i absolutely do not want a return to the silliness of the Moore and Brosnan eras
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,393
    i absolutely do not want a return to the silliness of the Moore and Brosnan eras

    The same as me (especially the Moore Era, I don't want a comeback of that tone).

    But I'm not sure if the Brosnan Era was as outrageously silly as the Moore Era though (sure, DAD was silly, but I'm not sure if GE, TND and TWINE are as silly and cartoonish as the Moore Era).
  • Posts: 3,037
    Must admit, out of all the things I questioned about NTTD, the place of Vesper’s grave wasn’t one. If anything what was more jarring was seeing her birth year written as 1983 (bit odd considering Eva Green was born in 1980 and would have made Vesper 23 during CR… which is a little bit young for an MI6 treasurer in her position if I’m honest).

    As for the Moore era, I wouldn’t classify it as silly overall necessarily (elements of LALD, FYEO, TMWTGG and OP are surprisingly quite grounded). It’s just that the humour tends to be a bit stupid really with its Tarzan yells and slide whistles. Honestly, even the Craig era had the occasional couch gag or Bond adjusting his suit after an action sequence. The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,098
    007HallY wrote: »
    The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.

    Also in retrospect it looks quite timid now: they'd bolt on a scene where he can do some squinting because he's sad about his amazing ex Paris, and then straight to a remote control car scene. The Craig films committed to that stuff and made it intrinsic to the film.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    007HallY wrote: »
    Must admit, out of all the things I questioned about NTTD, the place of Vesper’s grave wasn’t one. If anything what was more jarring was seeing her birth year written as 1983 (bit odd considering Eva Green was born in 1980 and would have made Vesper 23 during CR… which is a little bit young for an MI6 treasurer in her position if I’m honest).

    Yes, that one too, it bothered me, and became impossible too, like why changed her birth year? Why made her younger? I don't understand. It made Vesper Lynd an impossible character for me, actually these two Bond films (SP & NTTD) ruined CR for me, aside from interconnecting the events, was the fact they've ruined Vesper's character many times, her change age in NTTD, included.
    007HallY wrote: »
    As for the Moore era, I wouldn’t classify it as silly overall necessarily (elements of LALD, FYEO, TMWTGG and OP are surprisingly quite grounded). It’s just that the humour tends to be a bit stupid really with its Tarzan yells and slide whistles. Honestly, even the Craig era had the occasional couch gag or Bond adjusting his suit after an action sequence. The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.

    The drama scenes in the Brosnan Era may not hit the mark, but at least they've tried to make things grounded, and not completely campy.

    The Moore Era, sure some of Bond's expression can be a bit grounded, but in all of the films in his era, it's just a matter of 20%, compared to the silliness which was 80%.
    The campy elements still overshadowed the dramatic things.
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 3,037
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Must admit, out of all the things I questioned about NTTD, the place of Vesper’s grave wasn’t one. If anything what was more jarring was seeing her birth year written as 1983 (bit odd considering Eva Green was born in 1980 and would have made Vesper 23 during CR… which is a little bit young for an MI6 treasurer in her position if I’m honest).

    Yes, that one too, it bothered me, and became impossible too, like why changed her birth year? Why made her younger? I don't understand. It made Vesper Lynd an impossible character for me, actually these two Bond films (SP & NTTD) ruined CR for me, aside from interconnecting the events, was the fact they've ruined Vesper's character many times, her change age in NTTD, included.
    007HallY wrote: »
    As for the Moore era, I wouldn’t classify it as silly overall necessarily (elements of LALD, FYEO, TMWTGG and OP are surprisingly quite grounded). It’s just that the humour tends to be a bit stupid really with its Tarzan yells and slide whistles. Honestly, even the Craig era had the occasional couch gag or Bond adjusting his suit after an action sequence. The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.

    The drama scenes in the Brosnan Era may not hit the mark, but at least they've tried to make things grounded, and not completely campy.

    The Moore Era, sure some of Bond's expression can be a bit grounded, but in all of the films in his era, it's just a matter of 20%, compared to the silliness which was 80%.
    The campy elements still overshadowed the dramatic things.

    I wouldn’t put it like that. Sometimes those campier ideas in the Moore films play hand in hand with the more dramatic ones. A case in point being the scene when Bond dresses as a clown in OP. It’s a pretty silly idea, but the scene is played straight to the point where it comes off as a sort of anxiety dream. I’d even argue something like Drax’s plan in MR is in itself similarly played straight to the point it’s actually quite a chilling idea (and yes, it’s one of the sillier Moore movies overall). It’s also an era that contained what were then some of the darkest scenes in the series - ie, Connie getting mauled by dogs in MR, 009 being killed at the start of OP, Bond realising he’s sitting next to Andrea’s corpse in TMWTGG.

    The Tarzan yells and slide whistles take you out of the films somewhat, and I can see what people mean about not wanting to return to some of that. But honestly, a big part of Bond is its absurdity, and certainly a big part of the films is that tongue in cheek humour. So broadly the ‘silliness’ of the Moore films is something that will always be in the Bond films to some extent, and is arguably vital to how they work.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.

    Also in retrospect it looks quite timid now: they'd bolt on a scene where he can do some squinting because he's sad about his amazing ex Paris, and then straight to a remote control car scene. The Craig films committed to that stuff and made it intrinsic to the film.

    I don’t necessarily mind that in TND. It’s a fast paced film anyway and I’m not sure what Bond mourning Paris would have added. But I do get what you mean, perhaps if Bond had at least had a line about her death when he later confronts Carver it would have added something.

    Honestly, seeing Brosnan struggle through the bizarre soap opera style dialogue in TWINE when he confronts Ekektra is far worse for me. Perhaps Brosnan just wasn’t an actor suited to that type of drama, in which case perhaps they dodged a bullet not dwelling too much on Paris in TND (one can only see so much Brosnan squinting before it comes off as stupid).
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,393
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Must admit, out of all the things I questioned about NTTD, the place of Vesper’s grave wasn’t one. If anything what was more jarring was seeing her birth year written as 1983 (bit odd considering Eva Green was born in 1980 and would have made Vesper 23 during CR… which is a little bit young for an MI6 treasurer in her position if I’m honest).

    Yes, that one too, it bothered me, and became impossible too, like why changed her birth year? Why made her younger? I don't understand. It made Vesper Lynd an impossible character for me, actually these two Bond films (SP & NTTD) ruined CR for me, aside from interconnecting the events, was the fact they've ruined Vesper's character many times, her change age in NTTD, included.
    007HallY wrote: »
    As for the Moore era, I wouldn’t classify it as silly overall necessarily (elements of LALD, FYEO, TMWTGG and OP are surprisingly quite grounded). It’s just that the humour tends to be a bit stupid really with its Tarzan yells and slide whistles. Honestly, even the Craig era had the occasional couch gag or Bond adjusting his suit after an action sequence. The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.

    The drama scenes in the Brosnan Era may not hit the mark, but at least they've tried to make things grounded, and not completely campy.

    The Moore Era, sure some of Bond's expression can be a bit grounded, but in all of the films in his era, it's just a matter of 20%, compared to the silliness which was 80%.
    The campy elements still overshadowed the dramatic things.

    I wouldn’t put it like that. Sometimes those campier ideas in the Moore films play hand in hand with the more dramatic ones. A case in point being the scene when Bond dresses as a clown in OP. It’s a pretty silly idea, but the scene is played straight to the point where it comes off as a sort of anxiety dream. I’d even argue something like Drax’s plan in MR is in itself similarly played straight to the point it’s actually quite a chilling idea (and yes, it’s one of the sillier Moore movies overall). It’s also an era that contained what were then some of the darkest scenes in the series - ie, Connie getting mauled by dogs in MR, 009 being killed at the start of OP, Bond realising he’s sitting next to Andrea’s corpse in TMWTGG.

    The Tarzan yells and slide whistles take you out of the films somewhat, and I can see what people mean about not wanting to return to some of that. But honestly, a big part of Bond is its absurdity, and certainly a big part of the films is that tongue in cheek humour. So broadly the ‘silliness’ of the Moore films is something that will always be in the Bond films to some extent, and is arguably vital to how they work.

    Well, depends upon the perspective, but one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of the Moore Era is the campiness, the silliness, it's just too much, where it's already too far, and they're played for laughs too, even the one liners felt bland (yes, iconic, but shallow).
    Moore fitted in that, but not in the context of Bond (the amount and type of humor or bizarreness in the Craig and Brosnan Era worked because it's not played to the most ultimate, it's still balanced with groundedness, like the books).

    But the aspects in the Moore Era, just went too far, more like scenes from a Willy E. Coyote shows than James Bond.

    Even Moore's performances doesn't helped.

    Those are more made for children, hence, people's nostalgia for it.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Honestly, seeing Brosnan struggle through the bizarre soap opera style dialogue in TWINE when he confronts Ekektra is far worse for me.

    I'm not a fan of the soap opera style of TWINE, either.
    I do liked the concept, but the execution failed on it.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited September 2023 Posts: 4,152
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    i absolutely do not want a return to the silliness of the Moore and Brosnan eras

    The same as me (especially the Moore Era, I don't want a comeback of that tone).

    But I'm not sure if the Brosnan Era was as outrageously silly as the Moore Era though (sure, DAD was silly, but I'm not sure if GE, TND and TWINE are as silly and cartoonish as the Moore Era).

    I’d say the first 3rd of DAD with Bond captured is as serious as any of the TD or DC films. The rest of the film is enjoyable camp. Over the top, but enjoyable. The Bond family soap opera is at its worst when M is involved. Their past mistakes coming back to haunt them, and yelling at Bond about it. It’s tiring. That’s something that needs to go away for awhile in Bond. Or at least don’t make it a plot point, like in TWINE, SF and NTTD. The artsy family soap opera stuff is getting as silly as the Roger Moore era. If Bond has a past connection to someone, you have to make drama, not necessarily with a art house touch like modern day Bond directors often use.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 2023 Posts: 2,943
    The absurdities brought us to DAD and after BB and MGW went to see The Bourne Identity, they apparently came out of the cinema thinking that 'we were dead in the water'. Hence the drastic course-correction with Dan and CR. But the next guy's films won't be made in the same Bourne-dominated 'milieu', so yes, there's a chance that the absurdities and lame gags might creep back in to some extent. I hope not, but I know plenty of people would welcome it, so...mixed bag.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    Venutius wrote: »
    The absurdities brought us to DAD and after BB and MGW went to see The Bourne Identity, they apparently came out of the cinema thinking that 'we were dead in the water'. Hence the drastic course-correction with Dan and CR. But the next guy's films won't be made in the same Bourne-dominated 'milieu', so yes, there's a chance that the absurdities and lame gags might creep back in to some extent. I hope not, but I know plenty of people would welcome it, so...mixed bag.

    As long as Barbara Broccoli is in the position, it's not going to happen.
    I think, it's MGW who wants the silliness and absurdities, but not Barbara.
    That's why Barbara Broccoli have been a hands on Producer during the Craig Era, she put a lot of effort into it because she really liked the direction that the Franchise is going.
    For sure, she would continue where the Craig Era left off, as she said in the articles:

    The next James Bond will be more in touch with his feelings, producers say
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/21/next-james-bond-will-sensitive-producers-say/
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 3,037
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Must admit, out of all the things I questioned about NTTD, the place of Vesper’s grave wasn’t one. If anything what was more jarring was seeing her birth year written as 1983 (bit odd considering Eva Green was born in 1980 and would have made Vesper 23 during CR… which is a little bit young for an MI6 treasurer in her position if I’m honest).

    Yes, that one too, it bothered me, and became impossible too, like why changed her birth year? Why made her younger? I don't understand. It made Vesper Lynd an impossible character for me, actually these two Bond films (SP & NTTD) ruined CR for me, aside from interconnecting the events, was the fact they've ruined Vesper's character many times, her change age in NTTD, included.
    007HallY wrote: »
    As for the Moore era, I wouldn’t classify it as silly overall necessarily (elements of LALD, FYEO, TMWTGG and OP are surprisingly quite grounded). It’s just that the humour tends to be a bit stupid really with its Tarzan yells and slide whistles. Honestly, even the Craig era had the occasional couch gag or Bond adjusting his suit after an action sequence. The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.

    The drama scenes in the Brosnan Era may not hit the mark, but at least they've tried to make things grounded, and not completely campy.

    The Moore Era, sure some of Bond's expression can be a bit grounded, but in all of the films in his era, it's just a matter of 20%, compared to the silliness which was 80%.
    The campy elements still overshadowed the dramatic things.

    I wouldn’t put it like that. Sometimes those campier ideas in the Moore films play hand in hand with the more dramatic ones. A case in point being the scene when Bond dresses as a clown in OP. It’s a pretty silly idea, but the scene is played straight to the point where it comes off as a sort of anxiety dream. I’d even argue something like Drax’s plan in MR is in itself similarly played straight to the point it’s actually quite a chilling idea (and yes, it’s one of the sillier Moore movies overall). It’s also an era that contained what were then some of the darkest scenes in the series - ie, Connie getting mauled by dogs in MR, 009 being killed at the start of OP, Bond realising he’s sitting next to Andrea’s corpse in TMWTGG.

    The Tarzan yells and slide whistles take you out of the films somewhat, and I can see what people mean about not wanting to return to some of that. But honestly, a big part of Bond is its absurdity, and certainly a big part of the films is that tongue in cheek humour. So broadly the ‘silliness’ of the Moore films is something that will always be in the Bond films to some extent, and is arguably vital to how they work.

    Well, depends upon the perspective, but one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of the Moore Era is the campiness, the silliness, it's just too much, where it's already too far, and they're played for laughs too, even the one liners felt bland (yes, iconic, but shallow).
    Moore fitted in that, but not in the context of Bond (the amount and type of humor or bizarreness in the Craig and Brosnan Era worked because it's not played to the most ultimate, it's still balanced with groundedness, like the books).

    But the aspects in the Moore Era, just went too far, more like scenes from a Willy E. Coyote shows than James Bond.

    Even Moore's performances doesn't helped.

    Those are more made for children, hence, people's nostalgia for it.

    It really depends on your preferences, yes. Like I said, I think a big part of Bond is that self aware humour. And it’s something that was established in the Connery films. The Moore films took these ideas further, but ultimately things like Bond having a car that can turn into a sort of submarine, or suddenly having an inflatable gadget laden gondola are ideas that come from something like Bond’s Aston Martin in GF (which the director described as being a sort of ‘supercar’ and has a cartoonish quality to it). Certainly Moore’s brand of humour as the character is something that came from Connery too.

    There are some very strange ideas in there no doubt. But I would also say as much as, say, Jaws falling in love with Dolly is weird, it’s an idea that works more and even effectively for that film than, say, Blofeld and Bond knowing each other as children does for SP.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Honestly, seeing Brosnan struggle through the bizarre soap opera style dialogue in TWINE when he confronts Ekektra is far worse for me.

    I'm not a fan of the soap opera style of TWINE, either.
    I do liked the concept, but the execution failed on it.

    Oh yeah, everything about the execution of that film is wrong - from the weird casting of Robert Carlyle as Renard to Brosnan’s strange acting.
    Venutius wrote: »
    The absurdities brought us to DAD and after BB and MGW went to see The Bourne Identity, they apparently came out of the cinema thinking that 'we were dead in the water'. Hence the drastic course-correction with Dan and CR. But the next guy's films won't be made in the same Bourne-dominated 'milieu', so yes, there's a chance that the absurdities and lame gags might creep back in to some extent. I hope not, but I know plenty of people would welcome it, so...mixed bag.

    The gadgets and even absurdities made their way back during the Craig era, so I think we’ll get a spin on them (they might simply be more ‘realistic’ or their role in the story will be subverted in some way, but I suspect Bond will have some sort of equipment, and things like megalomaniac villains, sometimes hell bent on destruction, will be there). Apart from that it’s about what course the producers will want to take. The only film I can see having that Bourne effect on Bond 26 is The Batman.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 15,098
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Must admit, out of all the things I questioned about NTTD, the place of Vesper’s grave wasn’t one. If anything what was more jarring was seeing her birth year written as 1983 (bit odd considering Eva Green was born in 1980 and would have made Vesper 23 during CR… which is a little bit young for an MI6 treasurer in her position if I’m honest).

    Yes, that one too, it bothered me, and became impossible too, like why changed her birth year? Why made her younger? I don't understand. It made Vesper Lynd an impossible character for me, actually these two Bond films (SP & NTTD) ruined CR for me, aside from interconnecting the events, was the fact they've ruined Vesper's character many times, her change age in NTTD, included.
    007HallY wrote: »
    As for the Moore era, I wouldn’t classify it as silly overall necessarily (elements of LALD, FYEO, TMWTGG and OP are surprisingly quite grounded). It’s just that the humour tends to be a bit stupid really with its Tarzan yells and slide whistles. Honestly, even the Craig era had the occasional couch gag or Bond adjusting his suit after an action sequence. The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.

    The drama scenes in the Brosnan Era may not hit the mark, but at least they've tried to make things grounded, and not completely campy.

    The Moore Era, sure some of Bond's expression can be a bit grounded, but in all of the films in his era, it's just a matter of 20%, compared to the silliness which was 80%.
    The campy elements still overshadowed the dramatic things.

    I wouldn’t put it like that. Sometimes those campier ideas in the Moore films play hand in hand with the more dramatic ones. A case in point being the scene when Bond dresses as a clown in OP. It’s a pretty silly idea, but the scene is played straight to the point where it comes off as a sort of anxiety dream. I’d even argue something like Drax’s plan in MR is in itself similarly played straight to the point it’s actually quite a chilling idea (and yes, it’s one of the sillier Moore movies overall). It’s also an era that contained what were then some of the darkest scenes in the series - ie, Connie getting mauled by dogs in MR, 009 being killed at the start of OP, Bond realising he’s sitting next to Andrea’s corpse in TMWTGG.

    Yes this is very well-put and a great strength of those films if you ask me. In the 70s and 80s it was pretty standard for family entertainment to contain some pretty shockingly dark moments: see the 'scarred for life' social media feed and podcast for evidence of that!
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The Brosnan films tried to replicate that tongue in cheek humour to some extent. I’d argue it actually fell apart when they tried to lean into the weightier character drama stuff that was out of Brosnan’s range.

    Also in retrospect it looks quite timid now: they'd bolt on a scene where he can do some squinting because he's sad about his amazing ex Paris, and then straight to a remote control car scene. The Craig films committed to that stuff and made it intrinsic to the film.

    I don’t necessarily mind that in TND. It’s a fast paced film anyway and I’m not sure what Bond mourning Paris would have added. But I do get what you mean, perhaps if Bond had at least had a line about her death when he later confronts Carver it would have added something.

    Honestly, seeing Brosnan struggle through the bizarre soap opera style dialogue in TWINE when he confronts Ekektra is far worse for me. Perhaps Brosnan just wasn’t an actor suited to that type of drama, in which case perhaps they dodged a bullet not dwelling too much on Paris in TND (one can only see so much Brosnan squinting before it comes off as stupid).

    Yeah, it's not that I mind it in the films, more that it's just a bit half-hearted in most cases in the Brosnans. The 'it's what keeps you alone' beach scene in GE is probably the worst for that: a brief moment of introspection which doesn't really have much bearing on anything and almost feels more of a chance for Pierce to wear a lovely linen blouse for a bit than anything else.
    TWINE is a bit embarrassing in places (hardened assassin James Bond 007 crying over some news footage of a woman he's never met) but I guess it is at least making the squinting bits more intrinsic to the story of the film. Folks can criticise Purvis and Wade all day long, but I don't see what they did wrong with that film. And wisely they got Dench more involved in the plot as they probably knew she'd carry it better. Her witnessing Bond murdering Electra is a nicely weighty moment.

    Venutius wrote: »
    The absurdities brought us to DAD and after BB and MGW went to see The Bourne Identity, they apparently came out of the cinema thinking that 'we were dead in the water'. Hence the drastic course-correction with Dan and CR. But the next guy's films won't be made in the same Bourne-dominated 'milieu', so yes, there's a chance that the absurdities and lame gags might creep back in to some extent. I hope not, but I know plenty of people would welcome it, so...mixed bag.

    The funny thing is, I find myself not minding. I loved the Craig films; I loved the Roger films. If the next one hits the highs of either of those, I'm happy regardless.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,393
    mtm wrote: »
    TWINE is a bit embarrassing in places (hardened assassin James Bond 007 crying over some news footage of a woman he's never met) but I guess it is at least making the squinting bits more intrinsic to the story of the film.

    Watched that scene again, there's Bond touching the monitor screen on Elektra's tear while she's crying, okay, but what I find funny was after that, he's constantly touching the monitors screens 😅.

    That's kinda weird.
Sign In or Register to comment.