Where does Bond go after Craig?

1477478480482483523

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,067
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, TWINE and DAD showed that EON had the potential to do unique things with Bond films (they both contain interesting stuff, a lot of which was reused in the Craig era - Bond getting injured, him being genuinely unsure if a girl has betrayed him or not, getting captured/tortured etc). In another universe they would have been rather good films.

    I don’t think them reverting to the Bond formula lets these films down, nor do I think that’s what EON took away from them. I think EON’s direction with the Craig era was to go in that ‘out of the box’ direction but slowly revert back to those old tropes (which is what it does). I think what they took away from these two films was more that they needed the talent who could support these creative decisions (let’s be honest, Brosnan’s acting is embarrassing at times in TWINE and the direction of those two films let them down).

    Brosnan certainly could never live up to the thespian skill of Craigs "DIE BLOFELD DIE" or "I'm not gonna lose... control" that's for sure. ;)

    The difference between brosnans first 2 films and the latter 2 is that the first 2 were traditional bond films with some emotional elements woven in, and the latter 2 were attempts at deeper stories with the Bond tropes awkwardly laid on top, which didn't really work too well.

    You say EON reverted back to the old tropes, but iMO that's only true on a surface level. SP certainly has a lot of old school imagery, but it doesn't use that imagery with the same style and verve that the old films did. There's nothing in SP or Bond 25 that even comes close to being in the same ballpark of raciously, delightfully classic bond as the hamburg BMW car park chase. I mean, just compare that sequence to bond's chase with Hinx in Rome - there's no contest. One is jam packed fully of inventive ideas and little moments, along with the sheer bliss that is "back seat driver", the other is glacial by comparison, just going through the motions - perfunctory.

    I don't know what the course of the next actor will be, but I think specifically in terms of the next film they need to get the basics right, which means putting the heavy emotionality to one side, and letting bond be Bond again. After several 5+ year gaps, a pandemic and killing off bond, they need to have a revival that will finally give people something to smile about.

    God, imagine if Brosnan had done those lines, haha! It could always be worse as they say.

    As for Brosnan's films, it really depends on how you view them. Arguably it's not all that useful (or indeed indicative of how these films were actually written/made) saying that GE is a traditional Bond film while TWINE is simply a drama with surface level Bond tropes stuck on. Why are GE's 'emotional elements' woven in? That makes it sound as if an AI produced a generic Bond film, and afterwards the writers came in and added a few 'edgy' scenes. These elements are very much the story. You can't really have GE as it is without Bond and Travelyan having a past together. You can't have GE as it is without Natlya losing all of her friends and trying to figure out why. You can't have GE as it is without the Cold War/post WW2 atrocities backdrop/history. If we're going from that logic it's very self consciously an attempt at a 'deeper story' (and honestly, I'm not even sure if that's useful to say - presumably the producers/writers simply thought these were interesting routes to take and planned their film around this). It's the same for TND, TWINE, and DAD. They're all films which attempt to tell specific stories. They're all Bond films and use elements of the Bond formula. They're all films made with the intention of exciting and captivating their audience, as all Bond films are. Some are just better (insofar as this is subjective) in terms of execution for various reasons.

    As for the Craig films, again, it really depends on what you mean by surface level and is dependent on how you view these films. I talked about in one of my previous posts about SF's PTS having that great mixture of tension, absurdity, and heightened reality, and feels very much in line with something like GE's tank chase or some of the action sequences you get in the older films. Other posters on here have talked favourably about other aspects of Craig's later films they find similarly inventive, entertaining, and Bondian. I'd certainly say NTTD did a decent job at points recontextualising a lot of those older Bond tropes and left me feeling buzzed, but that's just me.

    I mean, I'd like to see Bond 26 doing something which stands up to my favourite films of the franchise too and makes me feel the way I do about them, but I think it's always going to be the case that fans want very different things, and usually when we do articulate what we want it's vague, one sided, and not very useful if anyone went to EON and told them this (ie. what does 'let Bond be Bond' even mean? What is 'getting the basics right'? I'm sure different people would have different ideas about what these things actually are, and honestly, I suspect EON can more specifically articulate what they think these are in tandem with what they want to do with the next film). They just need to do what I specified above, and indeed always have done - come up with the Bond story they want to tell, something that's interesting (yes, even if there are 'emotional elements' in there) and then slowly map it out and execute this story to the best of their ability. I know what I personally want from a Bond film but I don't know what they want this time round.

    GE has an emotional arc for Bond, but it is "woven" into the skeleton of a traditional bond film, meaning it shows up where the structure allows, but "the basics" are all present and correct. The World Is Not Enough is an attempt to tell a deeper story with bond, and than placing the familiar elements rather clumsily over the top. For instance, to begin with the PTS was supposed to end with Bond jumping out the window, but they quickly found that that "wasn't bond enough", so they hastily added the Thames chase on, which is why it was the longest PTS until recently.

    By "the basics" I mean pulling off the elements people expect from Bond without any attempt to tell a deeper story. Goldfinger and Live And Let Die fall into this category, as while there may well be some drama, it is mostly for the purpose of creating tension, not to be genuinely emotionally affecting. It might be sad that Tilly died before she could avenge her sister Jill (or vice versa) but ultimately its supposed to be forgotten about quickly and moved onto the next set piece. Similarly Domino losing her powers is more incidental than central to bond's mission to stop Kanagas plans - more or less brushed off.

    I somewhat can see what you mean about the Skyfall PTS. Him using the crane to hook the train carriage, leap inside and then check the cuffs is very bondian and inventive. I also liked the "he's keen to get home" line, the enzyme shake talk with Q in SP, and ofcourse the paloma sequence of B25. But its still just a handful of small moments sprinkled throughout a mammoth 2hr 25 minute runtime, whereas something like TND is a brisk 2 hrs and has so much bond bravado crammed in its bursting at the seams.
  • edited February 20 Posts: 2,856
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, TWINE and DAD showed that EON had the potential to do unique things with Bond films (they both contain interesting stuff, a lot of which was reused in the Craig era - Bond getting injured, him being genuinely unsure if a girl has betrayed him or not, getting captured/tortured etc). In another universe they would have been rather good films.

    I don’t think them reverting to the Bond formula lets these films down, nor do I think that’s what EON took away from them. I think EON’s direction with the Craig era was to go in that ‘out of the box’ direction but slowly revert back to those old tropes (which is what it does). I think what they took away from these two films was more that they needed the talent who could support these creative decisions (let’s be honest, Brosnan’s acting is embarrassing at times in TWINE and the direction of those two films let them down).

    Brosnan certainly could never live up to the thespian skill of Craigs "DIE BLOFELD DIE" or "I'm not gonna lose... control" that's for sure. ;)

    The difference between brosnans first 2 films and the latter 2 is that the first 2 were traditional bond films with some emotional elements woven in, and the latter 2 were attempts at deeper stories with the Bond tropes awkwardly laid on top, which didn't really work too well.

    You say EON reverted back to the old tropes, but iMO that's only true on a surface level. SP certainly has a lot of old school imagery, but it doesn't use that imagery with the same style and verve that the old films did. There's nothing in SP or Bond 25 that even comes close to being in the same ballpark of raciously, delightfully classic bond as the hamburg BMW car park chase. I mean, just compare that sequence to bond's chase with Hinx in Rome - there's no contest. One is jam packed fully of inventive ideas and little moments, along with the sheer bliss that is "back seat driver", the other is glacial by comparison, just going through the motions - perfunctory.

    I don't know what the course of the next actor will be, but I think specifically in terms of the next film they need to get the basics right, which means putting the heavy emotionality to one side, and letting bond be Bond again. After several 5+ year gaps, a pandemic and killing off bond, they need to have a revival that will finally give people something to smile about.

    God, imagine if Brosnan had done those lines, haha! It could always be worse as they say.

    As for Brosnan's films, it really depends on how you view them. Arguably it's not all that useful (or indeed indicative of how these films were actually written/made) saying that GE is a traditional Bond film while TWINE is simply a drama with surface level Bond tropes stuck on. Why are GE's 'emotional elements' woven in? That makes it sound as if an AI produced a generic Bond film, and afterwards the writers came in and added a few 'edgy' scenes. These elements are very much the story. You can't really have GE as it is without Bond and Travelyan having a past together. You can't have GE as it is without Natlya losing all of her friends and trying to figure out why. You can't have GE as it is without the Cold War/post WW2 atrocities backdrop/history. If we're going from that logic it's very self consciously an attempt at a 'deeper story' (and honestly, I'm not even sure if that's useful to say - presumably the producers/writers simply thought these were interesting routes to take and planned their film around this). It's the same for TND, TWINE, and DAD. They're all films which attempt to tell specific stories. They're all Bond films and use elements of the Bond formula. They're all films made with the intention of exciting and captivating their audience, as all Bond films are. Some are just better (insofar as this is subjective) in terms of execution for various reasons.

    As for the Craig films, again, it really depends on what you mean by surface level and is dependent on how you view these films. I talked about in one of my previous posts about SF's PTS having that great mixture of tension, absurdity, and heightened reality, and feels very much in line with something like GE's tank chase or some of the action sequences you get in the older films. Other posters on here have talked favourably about other aspects of Craig's later films they find similarly inventive, entertaining, and Bondian. I'd certainly say NTTD did a decent job at points recontextualising a lot of those older Bond tropes and left me feeling buzzed, but that's just me.

    I mean, I'd like to see Bond 26 doing something which stands up to my favourite films of the franchise too and makes me feel the way I do about them, but I think it's always going to be the case that fans want very different things, and usually when we do articulate what we want it's vague, one sided, and not very useful if anyone went to EON and told them this (ie. what does 'let Bond be Bond' even mean? What is 'getting the basics right'? I'm sure different people would have different ideas about what these things actually are, and honestly, I suspect EON can more specifically articulate what they think these are in tandem with what they want to do with the next film). They just need to do what I specified above, and indeed always have done - come up with the Bond story they want to tell, something that's interesting (yes, even if there are 'emotional elements' in there) and then slowly map it out and execute this story to the best of their ability. I know what I personally want from a Bond film but I don't know what they want this time round.

    GE has an emotional arc for Bond, but it is "woven" into the skeleton of a traditional bond film, meaning it shows up where the structure allows, but "the basics" are all present and correct. The World Is Not Enough is an attempt to tell a deeper story with bond, and than placing the familiar elements rather clumsily over the top. For instance, to begin with the PTS was supposed to end with Bond jumping out the window, but they quickly found that that "wasn't bond enough", so they hastily added the Thames chase on, which is why it was the longest PTS until recently.

    By "the basics" I mean pulling off the elements people expect from Bond without any attempt to tell a deeper story. Goldfinger and Live And Let Die fall into this category, as while there may well be some drama, it is mostly for the purpose of creating tension, not to be genuinely emotionally affecting. It might be sad that Tilly died before she could avenge her sister Jill (or vice versa) but ultimately its supposed to be forgotten about quickly and moved onto the next set piece. Similarly Domino losing her powers is more incidental than central to bond's mission to stop Kanagas plans - more or less brushed off.

    I somewhat can see what you mean about the Skyfall PTS. Him using the crane to hook the train carriage, leap inside and then check the cuffs is very bondian and inventive. I also liked the "he's keen to get home" line, the enzyme shake talk with Q in SP, and ofcourse the paloma sequence of B25. But its still just a handful of small moments sprinkled throughout a mammoth 2hr 25 minute runtime, whereas something like TND is a brisk 2 hrs and has so much bond bravado crammed in its bursting at the seams.

    I'm still not quite sure how those elements of GE aren't integral to the story. You can easily argue that GE is a better Bond film and crafts specific Bondian scenes better than TWINE (I'd agree), but otherwise I'm not sure if this is simply a case where you prefer GE so are more willing to overlook that it might have more of those 'emotional elements' than you would normally claim not to want in a Bond film.

    I mean, what you say about those specific films in terms of 'deeper stories' might be true, but it's all still a bit vague. I still don't know what you think the basics are of a Bond adventure, what every Bond film should fundamentally have, and how these should be done. Again, people can have very different things to say about this. Personally I'm not quite sure how different the basics of Bond are to telling a story along the lines of GE, SF, SP, NTTD, or even TWINE or DAD.

    I personally believe SF's PTS is pure cinematic Bond. Not only do you have Bond chasing Patrice in varied ways (from foot, to motorbike, to a fight on a train) but you have those Bondian absurdities such as him being able to commandeer the crane (very similar to Bond hijacking a tank or taking a car from the store in TMWTGG - why would the key be in the vehicle? No one care as it's heightened reality). Honestly though, I think that film is chock full of Bond elements and is very inventive with them, whatever this may mean to someone. Silva's abandoned ghost-town island is this otherworldly (I'd say Fleming-esque) location, and the build up to his reveal with Severine feels very classic Bond. In terms of Bond himself, the film has much of Fleming's character in there (on the one hand he's a man whose vices have the potential to destroy him, he's often conflicted about his job, and even his past from the books is integrated into the story) but he also retains those flourishes of the cinematic character (his quips, his devil may care attitude, and quite frankly how awesome he can be - I remember watching SF in the cinema a few times and being on the edge of my seat when Bond gives Mallory a wink before he shoots the fire extinguisher. Fun fact, I also distinctly remember people cheering during one showing when Bond blows up his house straight after Silva destroys his Aston Martin. Just something about the Bond theme blaring and the bravado of the moment got them going I think. Anyway, for me that's pure Bondian escapism). Even some of the broad ideas like the question of Bond's place in the modern world and how Silva and him are these twisted mirror images of each other (by the way very much ideas integral to GE as well) feel fundamentally Bond to me.

    I know people here have talked about other aspects of SP and NTTD they find Bondian (I dunno, could be Bond landing on a sofa after the explosion, Blofeld's base, the Cuba sequence, Matera etc.) As I implied, I don't think the fundamentals of Bond are inherently separate from things like character, and I think there's quite a lot of understanding about Bond in this way in both those films. Obviously comparing SP and NTTD to a film like TND will bring up differences. They're different Bond adventures, and even with the latter movie's fans (I love it personally) there are people - fans on here in fact - who would claim it doesn't always feel like Bond more than it does a generic 90s action movie at times. But to each their own. They're all still very much Bond films for me.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited February 20 Posts: 1,349
    Mendes needed to direct NTTD. Like previous Bond directors, he also understands those little extra things that makes Bond work. Little things like the casual stroll on rooftops in SP with the Bond theme playing, and Bond adjusting his cufflinks and putting his gun together, all with a very Bond stare, is something NTTD doesn't have.
  • Posts: 511
    Mendes needed to direct NTTD. Like previous Bond directors, he also understands those little extra things that makes Bond work. Little things like the casual stroll on rooftops in SP with the Bond theme playing, and Bond adjusting his cufflinks and putting his gun together, all with a very Bond stare, is something NTTD doesn't have.

    Whether one likes it or doesn't like it, I think missing things like a "Bond stare" are to reflect how the character changed.
  • Posts: 1,505
    Where do we first see a Bond who adjusts his tie or cuff links? Is that an original Bond mannerism or later?
  • Posts: 2,856
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Where do we first see a Bond who adjusts his tie or cuff links? Is that an original Bond mannerism or later?

    Connery and Moore did it a lot. My favourite is in FRWL after his fight with Grant where he looks disheveled but adjusts his tie and fixes his suit.

    You get the more tongue in cheek nods to it by Moore’s era with him adjusting his tie after slapping the henchman off the roof in TSWLM. Then later there’s Brosnan adjusting his tie underwater in TWINE.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 650
    The producers just need to stop pretending that Bond is some complex enigmatic character whose psychology needs to be explored and just let him be Bond from the first scene to the last. It's very silly to take this attitude towards a character who everyone has understood since the 60s.
    The last few movies all dealt with Bond battling his doubles/dark egos or whatever; as if Blofeld being a reflection of Bond is somehow a novel idea. Even the silliest Bond movies like TMWTGG and DAD did this exact same thing, only they weren't so pretentious as to think it was deep or interesting, and the filmmakers weren't so foolish as to center the plots themselves around this idea; those movies had a ton of other stuff happening in them, too.
    Babs and MGW need to rewatch the staples (GF, TSWLM, GE- something other than OHMSS) and remember what made them work: things like story, pacing, tone, and imagination, not how they treated Bond himself. Bond isn't supposed to have an arc. He didn't even have one in the novels. Just ignore modern writing conventions and go back to what worked originally. It's not like you can improve upon that formula.
  • Posts: 1,505
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Where do we first see a Bond who adjusts his tie or cuff links? Is that an original Bond mannerism or later?

    Connery and Moore did it a lot. My favourite is in FRWL after his fight with Grant where he looks disheveled but adjusts his tie and fixes his suit.

    You get the more tongue in cheek nods to it by Moore’s era with him adjusting his tie after slapping the henchman off the roof in TSWLM. Then later there’s Brosnan adjusting his tie underwater in TWINE.

    Indeed. Thanks for the FRWL reminder.
  • Posts: 1,505
    @slide_99 - I don't need to see Bond on the analyst's couch. TB had as much health info about Bond as I needed to know. I hope the series can move forward without more talk of Bond being an orphan and no mention ever again of Blofeld and Bond linked as adopted brothers. Not that the well hasn't been poisoned. Audiences who know SPECTRE will always remember that writing fail. A different Bond and a different timeline aren't going to make that go away. I much prefer a new writing team. P&W may know their man and know how to write a big Bond film. Not convinced they're the best choice to write a lean Bond film more reminiscent of those early films. But I will always applaud them for CR. That was writing never matched by a Craig film after.
  • Posts: 2,856
    Personally, whatever they do with Bond next time round I just hope a) it isn’t boring, b) it keeps to the fundamentals of the character (with a healthy dose of his flaws from the Fleming novels) and c) they don’t default to writing a ‘generic’ movie Bond (I don’t think EON will for what it’s worth, and it’s not an approach to the character that will satisfy all that many).

    The same goes for the film itself. I hope we get something that understands what makes Bond films what they are, but still feels fresh. That’s what every great Bond film does. We’ve had the Craig era (the average viewer really doesn’t dwell all that much about its flaws as we do here), and every other Bond tenure is long gone and part of that long 007 history. I certainly wouldn’t want them to simply retread anything from any of these eras, no matter what they take away from these films in spirit.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,917
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, TWINE and DAD showed that EON had the potential to do unique things with Bond films (they both contain interesting stuff, a lot of which was reused in the Craig era - Bond getting injured, him being genuinely unsure if a girl has betrayed him or not, getting captured/tortured etc). In another universe they would have been rather good films.

    I don’t think them reverting to the Bond formula lets these films down, nor do I think that’s what EON took away from them. I think EON’s direction with the Craig era was to go in that ‘out of the box’ direction but slowly revert back to those old tropes (which is what it does). I think what they took away from these two films was more that they needed the talent who could support these creative decisions (let’s be honest, Brosnan’s acting is embarrassing at times in TWINE and the direction of those two films let them down).

    Brosnan certainly could never live up to the thespian skill of Craigs "DIE BLOFELD DIE" or "I'm not gonna lose... control" that's for sure. ;)

    The difference between brosnans first 2 films and the latter 2 is that the first 2 were traditional bond films with some emotional elements woven in, and the latter 2 were attempts at deeper stories with the Bond tropes awkwardly laid on top, which didn't really work too well.

    You say EON reverted back to the old tropes, but iMO that's only true on a surface level. SP certainly has a lot of old school imagery, but it doesn't use that imagery with the same style and verve that the old films did. There's nothing in SP or Bond 25 that even comes close to being in the same ballpark of raciously, delightfully classic bond as the hamburg BMW car park chase. I mean, just compare that sequence to bond's chase with Hinx in Rome - there's no contest. One is jam packed fully of inventive ideas and little moments, along with the sheer bliss that is "back seat driver", the other is glacial by comparison, just going through the motions - perfunctory.

    I don't know what the course of the next actor will be, but I think specifically in terms of the next film they need to get the basics right, which means putting the heavy emotionality to one side, and letting bond be Bond again. After several 5+ year gaps, a pandemic and killing off bond, they need to have a revival that will finally give people something to smile about.

    God, imagine if Brosnan had done those lines, haha! It could always be worse as they say.

    As for Brosnan's films, it really depends on how you view them. Arguably it's not all that useful (or indeed indicative of how these films were actually written/made) saying that GE is a traditional Bond film while TWINE is simply a drama with surface level Bond tropes stuck on. Why are GE's 'emotional elements' woven in? That makes it sound as if an AI produced a generic Bond film, and afterwards the writers came in and added a few 'edgy' scenes. These elements are very much the story. You can't really have GE as it is without Bond and Travelyan having a past together. You can't have GE as it is without Natlya losing all of her friends and trying to figure out why. You can't have GE as it is without the Cold War/post WW2 atrocities backdrop/history. If we're going from that logic it's very self consciously an attempt at a 'deeper story' (and honestly, I'm not even sure if that's useful to say - presumably the producers/writers simply thought these were interesting routes to take and planned their film around this). It's the same for TND, TWINE, and DAD. They're all films which attempt to tell specific stories. They're all Bond films and use elements of the Bond formula. They're all films made with the intention of exciting and captivating their audience, as all Bond films are. Some are just better (insofar as this is subjective) in terms of execution for various reasons.

    As for the Craig films, again, it really depends on what you mean by surface level and is dependent on how you view these films. I talked about in one of my previous posts about SF's PTS having that great mixture of tension, absurdity, and heightened reality, and feels very much in line with something like GE's tank chase or some of the action sequences you get in the older films. Other posters on here have talked favourably about other aspects of Craig's later films they find similarly inventive, entertaining, and Bondian. I'd certainly say NTTD did a decent job at points recontextualising a lot of those older Bond tropes and left me feeling buzzed, but that's just me.

    I mean, I'd like to see Bond 26 doing something which stands up to my favourite films of the franchise too and makes me feel the way I do about them, but I think it's always going to be the case that fans want very different things, and usually when we do articulate what we want it's vague, one sided, and not very useful if anyone went to EON and told them this (ie. what does 'let Bond be Bond' even mean? What is 'getting the basics right'? I'm sure different people would have different ideas about what these things actually are, and honestly, I suspect EON can more specifically articulate what they think these are in tandem with what they want to do with the next film). They just need to do what I specified above, and indeed always have done - come up with the Bond story they want to tell, something that's interesting (yes, even if there are 'emotional elements' in there) and then slowly map it out and execute this story to the best of their ability. I know what I personally want from a Bond film but I don't know what they want this time round.

    GE has an emotional arc for Bond, but it is "woven" into the skeleton of a traditional bond film, meaning it shows up where the structure allows, but "the basics" are all present and correct. The World Is Not Enough is an attempt to tell a deeper story with bond, and than placing the familiar elements rather clumsily over the top. For instance, to begin with the PTS was supposed to end with Bond jumping out the window, but they quickly found that that "wasn't bond enough", so they hastily added the Thames chase on, which is why it was the longest PTS until recently.

    By "the basics" I mean pulling off the elements people expect from Bond without any attempt to tell a deeper story. Goldfinger and Live And Let Die fall into this category, as while there may well be some drama, it is mostly for the purpose of creating tension, not to be genuinely emotionally affecting. It might be sad that Tilly died before she could avenge her sister Jill (or vice versa) but ultimately its supposed to be forgotten about quickly and moved onto the next set piece. Similarly Domino losing her powers is more incidental than central to bond's mission to stop Kanagas plans - more or less brushed off.

    I somewhat can see what you mean about the Skyfall PTS. Him using the crane to hook the train carriage, leap inside and then check the cuffs is very bondian and inventive. I also liked the "he's keen to get home" line, the enzyme shake talk with Q in SP, and ofcourse the paloma sequence of B25. But its still just a handful of small moments sprinkled throughout a mammoth 2hr 25 minute runtime, whereas something like TND is a brisk 2 hrs and has so much bond bravado crammed in its bursting at the seams.

    I'm still not quite sure how those elements of GE aren't integral to the story. You can easily argue that GE is a better Bond film and crafts specific Bondian scenes better than TWINE (I'd agree), but otherwise I'm not sure if this is simply a case where you prefer GE so are more willing to overlook that it might have more of those 'emotional elements' than you would normally claim not to want in a Bond film.

    I mean, what you say about those specific films in terms of 'deeper stories' might be true, but it's all still a bit vague. I still don't know what you think the basics are of a Bond adventure, what every Bond film should fundamentally have, and how these should be done. Again, people can have very different things to say about this. Personally I'm not quite sure how different the basics of Bond are to telling a story along the lines of GE, SF, SP, NTTD, or even TWINE or DAD.

    I personally believe SF's PTS is pure cinematic Bond. Not only do you have Bond chasing Patrice in varied ways (from foot, to motorbike, to a fight on a train) but you have those Bondian absurdities such as him being able to commandeer the crane (very similar to Bond hijacking a tank or taking a car from the store in TMWTGG - why would the key be in the vehicle? No one care as it's heightened reality).

    My favourite is the shot following Eve's Land Rover which passes by a line of policemen sitting on their motorbikes, who then take off in pursuit at speed one by one. There's something very tongue-in-cheek and Roger Moore about that shot to me.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited February 23 Posts: 559
    I think Bond functions very well in the region of 'possible, but very unlikely'. It's obviously possible to corkscrew a car over a river (because it was real), but the amount of planning and James May-level calculations needed to pull it off, not to mention two sides of a broken bridge that are perfectly angled for the car to make a full rotation, makes it extremely unlikely you could do it in any circumstances other than as a pre-planned stunt. But in a Bond film, it works because everything's just a little bit exaggerated and absurd. It's not sci-fi or fantasy, but it's a perfect example of what is sometimes referred to as 'cinematic realism'.

    Of course, the fact these stunts are done for real helps with the believability. I'm sure it's possible to kite surf a big wave, but the fact it's done with such appalling computer effects, with no genuine stunt work, I think is why it's so derided. It crosses the line into sci-fi/fantasy, where absolutely anything can happen as long as you have the software, and we just have to accept it.
  • Posts: 1,505
    Unfortunately, we get the slide whistle to remind us we are watching the least serious Bond which makes an impressive stunt a little cartoonish. But that was the RM era. Hard to take a series seriously when ridiculous sound effects and silly sight gags suggest the producers aren't terribly serious.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,523
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Unfortunately, we get the slide whistle to remind us we are watching the least serious Bond which makes an impressive stunt a little cartoonish. But that was the RM era. Hard to take a series seriously when ridiculous sound effects and silly sight gags suggest the producers aren't terribly serious.

    The sound effects and gags are truly problematic for me. In all my decades of enjoying the RM Bonds, those problems are, by far, the most difficult for me to overcome. If I were to plug in my TMWTGG disc right now, I'd enjoy most of the film, but when the whistle happens, and JW starts doing his Henry Kissinger thing, I will be looking around to check that no one catches me watching that. I'm embarrassed; always have been.
  • CrabKey wrote: »
    Hard to take a series seriously when ridiculous sound effects and silly sight gags suggest the producers aren't terribly serious.
    Exactly why I hate the RM era.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 23 Posts: 8,067
    It just seems strange that on the one hand you have a director sweeping the awards season, about to win his first oscar saying he would love to reinvent bond and its something he's dreamt about since he was a small boy, and on the other hand you have the producers of the bond films saying they have no idea where to take it, there's no plans, no writer nothing, and the two can't somehow find a way of coming to the negotiating table and seeing eye to eye. If EON don't think Nolan is right for Bond then fair enough, there are plenty of great options, but they don't seem to be making any progress on their own either. I'm not convinced that Nolan won't attempt some kind of time-related conciet with bond, perhaps cross-cut between young bond and him as a fully fledged agent, so I'm not exactly mad about the idea, but EON don't appear to have any inspiration at all at the moment, so in that case isn't someone with fresh ideas coming in to shake things up what they should be looking out for? What are they up to? :-?
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,349
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Unfortunately, we get the slide whistle to remind us we are watching the least serious Bond which makes an impressive stunt a little cartoonish. But that was the RM era. Hard to take a series seriously when ridiculous sound effects and silly sight gags suggest the producers aren't terribly serious.

    The sound effects and gags are truly problematic for me. In all my decades of enjoying the RM Bonds, those problems are, by far, the most difficult for me to overcome. If I were to plug in my TMWTGG disc right now, I'd enjoy most of the film, but when the whistle happens, and JW starts doing his Henry Kissinger thing, I will be looking around to check that no one catches me watching that. I'm embarrassed; always have been.

    Lol.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,858
    It just seems strange that on the one hand you have a director sweeping the awards season, about to win his first oscar saying he would love to reinvent bond and its something he's dreamt about since he was a small boy, and on the other hand you have the producers of the bond films saying they have no idea where to take it, there's no plans, no writer nothing, and the two can't somehow find a way of coming to the negotiating table and seeing eye to eye. If EON don't think Nolan is right for Bond then fair enough, there are plenty of great options, but they don't seem to be making any progress on their own either. I'm not convinced that Nolan won't attempt some kind of time-related conciet with bond, perhaps cross-cut between young bond and him as a fully fledged agent, so I'm not exactly mad about the idea, but EON don't appear to have any inspiration at all at the moment, so in that case isn't someone with fresh ideas coming in to shake things up what they should be looking out for? What are they up to? :-?

    Whilst I do like your thirst for continuation and love of Bond.
    I also see the need to rejuvenate the Bond character.
    Whether Nolan is right for Bond is debate able .
    At the end of the day EON have never been pressured into a corner, and likely never will be told how too make their films.
    Nolan’s biggest stumbling block is his want and need for control.
    Something EON are not likely to hand over.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 23 Posts: 8,067
    Benny wrote: »
    It just seems strange that on the one hand you have a director sweeping the awards season, about to win his first oscar saying he would love to reinvent bond and its something he's dreamt about since he was a small boy, and on the other hand you have the producers of the bond films saying they have no idea where to take it, there's no plans, no writer nothing, and the two can't somehow find a way of coming to the negotiating table and seeing eye to eye. If EON don't think Nolan is right for Bond then fair enough, there are plenty of great options, but they don't seem to be making any progress on their own either. I'm not convinced that Nolan won't attempt some kind of time-related conciet with bond, perhaps cross-cut between young bond and him as a fully fledged agent, so I'm not exactly mad about the idea, but EON don't appear to have any inspiration at all at the moment, so in that case isn't someone with fresh ideas coming in to shake things up what they should be looking out for? What are they up to? :-?

    Whilst I do like your thirst for continuation and love of Bond.
    I also see the need to rejuvenate the Bond character.
    Whether Nolan is right for Bond is debate able .
    At the end of the day EON have never been pressured into a corner, and likely never will be told how too make their films.
    Nolan’s biggest stumbling block is his want and need for control.
    Something EON are not likely to hand over.

    What is interesting @Benny is that Campbell seems to suggest in his interviews that EON give you free rein to do what you want as long as they "think you're on the right track". So presumably Campbell met with their approval on his two films, as did Mendes, hence the fairly bold storytelling they were allowed to explore. So presumably EON view Nolan as being closer to Danny Boyle, too precious to accept input into his vision for the character.

    I just find it bizarre that a director with the prestige of Nolan is signalling he'd be very much interested in directing the next Bond, and EON are seemingly lost for ideas and motivation. It appears, at least only on the surface, to be an obvious formula for success. Not that it's always that simple, of course, but sometimes the most obvious decisions are the most logical, e.g. hiring Brosnan in 1994.
  • edited February 23 Posts: 2,856
    Well, we really don’t know if EON are lost for ideas or motivation (they might be, but it’s also likely they’re not - again, none of us are truly privy to this). We don’t even know if Nolan has been hypothetically rejected for whatever reason, or if him and EON have met about this film.

    EON do give their directors a lot of creative freedom from what I’ve read. I’ve read of people who have worked with them using words to the effect of ‘it’s like an indie movie which happens to be a big budget blockbuster’, and they seemingly approach it like this. But they are a business at the end of the day. They have to know their collaborators are going to do their job - in this case for the director to make the film they need in the best possible way. It’s no good if they have an acclaimed director who won’t play ball or isn’t giving them the best possible work (ie. Boyle).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,067
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, we really don’t know if EON are lost for ideas or motivation (they might be, but it’s also likely they’re not - again, none of us are truly privy to this). We don’t even know if Nolan has been hypothetically rejected for whatever reason, or if him and EON have met about this film.

    EON do give their directors a lot of creative freedom from what I’ve read. I’ve read of people who have worked with them using words to the effect of ‘it’s like an indie movie which happens to be a big budget blockbuster’, and they seemingly approach it like this. But they are a business at the end of the day. They have to know their collaborators are going to do their job - in this case for the director to make the film they need in the best possible way. It’s no good if they have an acclaimed director who won’t play ball or isn’t giving them the best possible work (ie. Boyle).

    I'm just operating on the information we have. If EON had set up a shell company by now, or there were credible industry rumours that a writer had been hired and they were waiting to make an announcement, then I could happily presume they are much further along than we know, but for the time being I have to take Barbara at her word when she says nothing is happening. EON have been known to be coy in the past, but I don't think it's wise or particularly logical to assume that's the case here on face value.

    There is always the possibility that Nolan goes off to make his horror movie he keeps talking about, and then is free again to direct bond 26 for a July 2028 release date. I certainly don't think that's outside the realm of possibility, and personally I'd much prefer Nolan to Villeneuve. Nolan movies might be a bit impenetrable at times, but I still say The Dark Knight Trilogy, Prestige and Inception demonstrate a greater level of directorial showmanship than anything Villeneuve has shown us thus far.
  • I see the topic of Nolan being brought up again, so I just want to reiterate that I don’t think a Nolan Bond film would be much different than what we’ve just had with Craig’s run. Just my two cents on that subject.
  • edited February 23 Posts: 2,856
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, we really don’t know if EON are lost for ideas or motivation (they might be, but it’s also likely they’re not - again, none of us are truly privy to this). We don’t even know if Nolan has been hypothetically rejected for whatever reason, or if him and EON have met about this film.

    EON do give their directors a lot of creative freedom from what I’ve read. I’ve read of people who have worked with them using words to the effect of ‘it’s like an indie movie which happens to be a big budget blockbuster’, and they seemingly approach it like this. But they are a business at the end of the day. They have to know their collaborators are going to do their job - in this case for the director to make the film they need in the best possible way. It’s no good if they have an acclaimed director who won’t play ball or isn’t giving them the best possible work (ie. Boyle).

    I'm just operating on the information we have. If EON had set up a shell company by now, or there were credible industry rumours that a writer had been hired and they were waiting to make an announcement, then I could happily presume they are much further along than we know, but for the time being I have to take Barbara at her word when she says nothing is happening. EON have been known to be coy in the past, but I don't think it's wise or particularly logical to assume that's the case here on face value.

    There is always the possibility that Nolan goes off to make his horror movie he keeps talking about, and then is free again to direct bond 26 for a July 2028 release date. I certainly don't think that's outside the realm of possibility, and personally I'd much prefer Nolan to Villeneuve. Nolan movies might be a bit impenetrable at times, but I still say The Dark Knight Trilogy, Prestige and Inception demonstrate a greater level of directorial showmanship than anything Villeneuve has shown us thus far.

    Again, we’re really not privy to any sort of game plan with EON in regards to this. It may well be the case that not working (at least officially) on Bond 26 but instead focusing on the video game and public events is actually the smarter move. We can take all this at face value, but we don’t know if they lack direction or motivation one way or the other.

    Not the greatest fan of Villeneuve either (although Prisoners is awesome) but I’m not too sold on Nolan. I think some of his usual directing decisions could clash with EON (ie. He doesn’t use 2nd Unit Teams, which Bond obviously does routinely. Honestly, even in TDK he has a tendency towards sloppy and rather confusing filmmaking the bigger the action scene, so he’d likely benefit by deferring sometimes, but he doesn’t seem to want to). I dunno, a Nolan directed Bond movie doesn’t excite me, but if that’s what we get I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
    I see the topic of Nolan being brought up again, so I just want to reiterate that I don’t think a Nolan Bond film would be much different than what we’ve just had with Craig’s run. Just my two cents on that subject.

    Who knows. Probably with more rubbish sound design though.
  • edited February 23 Posts: 2,038
    007HallY wrote: »

    Who knows. Probably with more rubbish sound design though.

    And a Bond who sounds like he’s garbling a mouth of marbles haha
  • Posts: 2,856
    007HallY wrote: »

    Who knows. Probably with more rubbish sound design though.

    And a Bond who sounds like he’s garbling a mouth of marbles haha

    Preferably with a lot of clanging background noise and people mumbling. I prefer not to hear all of the exposition, especially if the film is already convoluted.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,445
    If @Mendes4Lyfe is to take EoN at their word, didn’t they already mention, quite a while ago, that they’d be going back to discuss things with P and W?

    From the James Bond Dossier:

    Who will write Bond 26? Broccoli has said that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are likely to be hired initially to work on the next film. Screenplays are almost always collaborative so they are unlikely to be the only writers involved. New writers are often hired to sort out specific script problems, such as dialogue or structure.



  • Posts: 1,505
    If Nolan never directs the greatest Bond film never made, so what?
  • edited February 23 Posts: 479
    I will repeat my prediction from a couple of months ago: EON will produce a maximum of two more Bond movies. Artificial intelligence will soon completely reshape not only the entire film industry but humanity as well.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,427
    Well let's just hope not?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,067
    Human beings fought for rights to freedom in the 19th and 20th century, rights to health care, to broadband internet in some places, I don't think its too crazy that legislation comes which makes it illegal to decieve someone with AI without consent. All AI should be transparent and need labelling in the same way you need to label things for vegetarians. If you distribute AI content to someone without their informed consent they can sue you for compensation, plain and simple. Suddenly the value of "human made" becomes important, you check for it the same way you check no ones allergic to peanuts. Then it just becomes a cultural battle to make LLM become like intensively farmed chicken as opposed to organic, free range i.e. you might get less, but its a better product overall.

    People forget the early days of the internet when people could host anything on a website without any kind of consequences, and now you say the wrong thing on twitter and you lose your job.

    That's where we are with AI currently, it's a wild west - there are no rules. Taylor Swift, one of the most powerful people on the planet, has her likeness stolen for AI porn which goes viral, how can this continue? Eventually there will be lawsuits, and new rules will have to be made, and hopefully, people will start to value things made by humans for their own sake - because humans actually experience things firsthand, which AI can't.
Sign In or Register to comment.