Where does Bond go after Craig?

1520521523525526554

Comments

  • Posts: 3,119
    Risico007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think that’s what Fiennes brought to it too. We’re pretty much told that he was a bit of a hero in the field.

    It’s there for sure. The issue with Mallory (in my opinion) is that he was, by temperament, much more ‘by the books’ and only seemingly did the right thing when pushed or the situation eventually presented itself (and of course Craig’s Bond was much more prone to going off grid to get the job done). I think it’d be cool if we got a dynamic between a Bond/new M where it’s the latter who pushes Bond to do stuff that’s not technically speaking above board. It could be interesting, especially if they adapt things from Fleming’s work like M sending Bond to kill someone due to a personal connection, or him asking Bind for a favour that’s not part of an official mission.

    I’d like this a lot. I’ve always loved Moonraker and how Bond and M are off hours, off the books, using Bond to clear up this little cheating matter over at Blades… I’d love to see this dynamic between M and his best Double-O.

    As i have said before i will say this again… Eon saying they don’t know where to go is ridiculous because as over 60 years will tell you when in doubt go back to fleming… the scene from moonraker could make an excellentl beginning scene after the titles to set up the main plot (although moonraker was used twice in the brosnan era so much like joker i feel the novel is a little played out and would prefer them take from a different fleming novel)

    You get my point i think if we combed through fleming we could find enough to do (or redo) for the next 25 films

    I think they understand that adaptation process. They made four films from the Craig era that still recognisably had aspects of Fleming but weren’t strict adaptations.

    The good thing about the idea of M getting Bond to do something as a personal favour is that it doesn’t need to be an assassination or bridge game. Just something that may potentially make Bond conflicted or test him in some way.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,722
    007HallY wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think that’s what Fiennes brought to it too. We’re pretty much told that he was a bit of a hero in the field.

    It’s there for sure. The issue with Mallory (in my opinion) is that he was, by temperament, much more ‘by the books’ and only seemingly did the right thing when pushed or the situation eventually presented itself (and of course Craig’s Bond was much more prone to going off grid to get the job done). I think it’d be cool if we got a dynamic between a Bond/new M where it’s the latter who pushes Bond to do stuff that’s not technically speaking above board. It could be interesting, especially if they adapt things from Fleming’s work like M sending Bond to kill someone due to a personal connection, or him asking Bind for a favour that’s not part of an official mission.

    I’d like this a lot. I’ve always loved Moonraker and how Bond and M are off hours, off the books, using Bond to clear up this little cheating matter over at Blades… I’d love to see this dynamic between M and his best Double-O.

    As i have said before i will say this again… Eon saying they don’t know where to go is ridiculous because as over 60 years will tell you when in doubt go back to fleming… the scene from moonraker could make an excellentl beginning scene after the titles to set up the main plot (although moonraker was used twice in the brosnan era so much like joker i feel the novel is a little played out and would prefer them take from a different fleming novel)

    You get my point i think if we combed through fleming we could find enough to do (or redo) for the next 25 films

    I think they understand that adaptation process. They made four films from the Craig era that still recognisably had aspects of Fleming but weren’t strict adaptations.

    The good thing about the idea of M getting Bond to do something as a personal favour is that it doesn’t need to be an assassination or bridge game. Just something that may potentially make Bond conflicted or test him in some way.

    Conflict is drama. Obstacles are conflict. Keep going @007HallY !
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 6 Posts: 15,186
    Just because this is kind of the closest we have to a general discussion thread; I'm sure a lot of us are familiar with this channel and this is a bit of fun:


  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,722
    mtm wrote: »
    Just because this is kind of the closest we have to a general discussion thread; I'm sure a lot of us are familiar with this channel and this is a bit of fun:


    Thanks @mtm — good fun. And I never believed that silly glove story from SF. Glad they went through it (never logistically made sense to me).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,028
    Wasn’t the glove incident supposed to be when bond is in his car following Patrice?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited April 6 Posts: 8,052
    Yes, it was alleged to have been when Bond follows Patrice up the tower and was fuelled by the still image that was released showing Craig with them on:

    Skyfall-first-production--007.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none

    Now, promo stills are often taken when the cast aren't shooting, so it's probable that Craig slipped his favourite mittens on between takes because they looked nice for the photograph (or maybe he was just chilly that night).
  • edited April 6 Posts: 310
    How would you feel if the picked your dream director, they picked your dream Bond actor, you found everything about Bond 26 incredibly encouraging and then they announced
    Simon Cowell as the new M
    ?

    I was confused at first because I misread it as Simon Callow, and wondered what you had against the Bafta-nominated actor.

    Honestly, they're not going to put a non-actor into that role.

    Lol

    Simon Cowell as M?

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT83g-xRcM9BHkVz45CZEqOq91uPvttub3fRLNDOUqpmQ&s

    ;))

    The Bond Factor!

    Or

    Bond's Got Talent!

    🤪
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 6 Posts: 8,186
    Hey, if it works for shrek.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 6 Posts: 15,186
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Just because this is kind of the closest we have to a general discussion thread; I'm sure a lot of us are familiar with this channel and this is a bit of fun:


    Thanks @mtm — good fun. And I never believed that silly glove story from SF. Glad they went through it (never logistically made sense to me).

    Yeah it’s always been nonsense, and as talos and Craig say, if it happened at all it would clearly have been the jellyfish scene if anything, but the rumours always say it’s the Komodo scene, which it just clearly wouldn’t. I do though like how they point out that the ‘fat hands’ part of the story is based on a misunderstanding of how VFX work.

    The bit about the lighting of the faces in the QoS skydive was new to me though, that seems bonkers.
  • Posts: 510
    EON Productions when they present a non-Nolan Bond 26 to the world:
  • Posts: 9,788
    EON Productions when they present a non-Nolan Bond 26 to the world:

    Because its gonna be Guy Ritchie
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,052
    I knew they had done a lot of tunnel work at Bedford. The guys down there are pretty proud of it. It does seem like an incredible amount of work, though.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,908
    @Colonel_Venus what the bloody hell are you going on about?

    Give it a rest with the Nolan fascination.
  • Posts: 1,600
    I quite enjoyed the VFX clip. The Bourne influence on QoS and Star Wars on Moonraker are reminders that the Bond series doesn't need to copy what's popular. I prefer Bond create what's popular.
  • Posts: 1,600
    Which of the five Craig lyricists was best?

    A million shards of glass
    That haunt me from my past

    We were a pair
    But I saw you there
    Too much to bear

    This is the end
    Hold your breath and count to ten
    Feel the Earth move and then

    Another blinger with the slick trigger finger for Her Majesty

    Arm yourself because no one else here will save you
    The odds will betray you
    And I will replace you
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,659
    Benny wrote: »
    @Colonel_Venus what the bloody hell are you going on about?

    Give it a rest with the Nolan fascination.

    Yeah. I heard Uwe Boll is directing the next Bond film anyway.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 7 Posts: 6,028
    bondywondy wrote: »
    How would you feel if the picked your dream director, they picked your dream Bond actor, you found everything about Bond 26 incredibly encouraging and then they announced
    Simon Cowell as the new M
    ?

    I was confused at first because I misread it as Simon Callow, and wondered what you had against the Bafta-nominated actor.

    Honestly, they're not going to put a non-actor into that role.

    Lol

    Simon Cowell as M?

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT83g-xRcM9BHkVz45CZEqOq91uPvttub3fRLNDOUqpmQ&s

    ;))

    The Bond Factor!

    Or

    Bond's Got Talent!

    🤪

    If they ever remake Live and Let Die, I nominate Wanda Sykes as Mrs. Bell.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 7 Posts: 2,949
    Yes, in SF when Mallory caught Tanner and Q illicitly helping Bond and told them to carry on and hope the higher ups don't find out, that fitted with the sort of thing you'd expect from someone with Mallory's SAS background. Someone like that just wouldn't have that fixed by-the-book approach - and if he'd had to learn to adopt some of that once he was in Whitehall, there'd still be times when he'd know what was more important - and that'd be whatever served the mission, not what it said in the protocol. So I had hopes that there'd be more of that from Fiennes's M and less of the standard rulebook-chews-out-maverick dynamic. Shame there wasn't. Bit of a missed opportunity, tbh.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,542
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, in SF when Mallory caught Tanner and Q illicitly helping Bond and told them to carry on and hope the higher ups don't find out, that fitted with the sort of thing you'd expect from someone with Mallory's SAS background. Someone like that just wouldn't have that fixed by-the-book approach - and if he'd had to learn to adopt some of that once he was in Whitehall, there'd still be times when he'd know what was more important - and that'd be whatever served the mission, not what it said in the protocol. So I had hopes that there'd be more of that from Fiennes's M and less of the standard rulebook-chews-out-maverick dynamic. Shame there wasn't. Bit of a missed opportunity, tbh.

    Yeah that's a great point mate, I love that scene in SF. I wish he'd been more like that in SP and NTTD
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,186
    EON Productions when they present a non-Nolan Bond 26 to the world:

    Yeah
  • Posts: 510
    Breaking News: despite rumours, Bond 27 won't be the next James Bond film. Bond 26 will be the next James Bond film. (Yes, the lack of news is slowly driving me crazy.)
  • Posts: 1,574
    Breaking News: despite rumours, Bond 27 won't be the next James Bond film. Bond 26 will be the next James Bond film. (Yes, the lack of news is slowly driving me crazy.)

    Skip the 26th to go to the 27th ? How...odd.
  • Posts: 1,574
    Such an uneven approach...
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,186
    The biggest problem is that people think a move towards humour is a move towards silliness, and going back to 80's Roger Moore territory feels like a regression. But for me at least the comedic side of Bond has the most potential, especially after how melodramatic the Craig films became at the end. We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue confessing love, to tight scenes of sharp witty dialogue and interplay between characters that all "have their armour on". Honestly the team behind "the menu" would be ideal for that in my eyes. Craft a story that is direct and "in the moment", where the humour is the selling point, that's what the promise of the paloma sequence showed us.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited April 29 Posts: 770
    The biggest problem is that people think a move towards humour is a move towards silliness, and going back to 80's Roger Moore territory feels like a regression. But for me at least the comedic side of Bond has the most potential, especially after how melodramatic the Craig films became at the end. We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue confessing love, to tight scenes of sharp witty dialogue and interplay between characters that all "have their armour on". Honestly the team behind "the menu" would be ideal for that in my eyes. Craft a story that is direct and "in the moment", where the humour is the selling point, that's what the promise of the paloma sequence showed us.

    I believe if you put "I think" before some of your statements this forum would be a better place. As it is, you write things like "We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue" which makes it sound like you are an expert fixing a problem rather than just another fan giving their opinion on a message board, and that will bring out the worst in peter, and I'll end up angry at the both of you. So please, just add "I think" before giving your opinion, even if you think it is obvious that it is just your opinion.

    Okay, that rant out of the way...

    Comedy. I like dry wit, but I think it is a hard sell globally. American audiences as a whole often don't get the English dry sense of humour, which is the kind of humour I'd like to see in the films. We saw some of that in the Craig era, but by the end I felt we were drifting back to bad pun territory. I think it is something the producers are struggling with, and I would worry about bringing humour to the fore. I felt Paloma worked because she was a breath of fresh air in the rather heavy drama, but too much of that would be equally as bad as overdoing the heavy drama, imo. I think humour in a drama is like adding salt to a meal - a little goes a long way, too much and you've ruined it.

    I would like snappy dialogue in there, noir films like The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High) are favourites, and they are pretty dark enlivened by the witty dialogue, but it is tricky to pull-off.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,186
    The biggest problem is that people think a move towards humour is a move towards silliness, and going back to 80's Roger Moore territory feels like a regression. But for me at least the comedic side of Bond has the most potential, especially after how melodramatic the Craig films became at the end. We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue confessing love, to tight scenes of sharp witty dialogue and interplay between characters that all "have their armour on". Honestly the team behind "the menu" would be ideal for that in my eyes. Craft a story that is direct and "in the moment", where the humour is the selling point, that's what the promise of the paloma sequence showed us.

    I believe if you put "I think" before some of your statements this forum would be a better place. As it is, you write things like "We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue" which makes it sound like you are an expert fixing a problem rather than just another fan giving their opinion on a message board, and that will bring out the worst in peter, and I'll end up angry at the both of you. So please, just add "I think" before giving your opinion, even if you think it is obvious that it is just your opinion.

    Okay, that rant out of the way...

    Comedy. I like dry wit, but I think it is a hard sell globally. American audiences as a whole often don't get the English dry sense of humour, which is the kind of humour I'd like to see in the films. We saw some of that in the Craig era, but by the end I felt we were drifting back to bad pun territory. I think it is something the producers are struggling with, and I would worry about bringing humour to the fore. I felt Paloma worked because she was a breath of fresh air in the rather heavy drama, but too much of that would be equally as bad as overdoing the heavy drama, imo. I think humour in a drama is like adding salt to a meal - a little goes a long way, too much and you've ruined it.

    I would like snappy dialogue in there, noir films like The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High) are favourites, and they are pretty dark enlivened by the witty dialogue, but it is tricky to pull-off.

    I mention "the menu" because it is zany and very heightened, but in a very mannered way. The last 2 bond films are dragged down because what should have been heightened stories are forced into a realistic framework, such as the nine eyes scheme and the subplot between M and C. To my eyes the realistic framework is the thing that's holding them back, because it seems like they are telling stories that would work better without it, just as die another day would have worked better if they had stuck to the tone in the first half, and not got lost with invisible cars and diamond satellites. I think "the menu" proves that, on a very small scale at least, you can do heightened reality and snappy dialogue without losing tension or devolving into broad roger moore era silliness.

    This is just my opinion.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 43
    The biggest problem is that people think a move towards humour is a move towards silliness, and going back to 80's Roger Moore territory feels like a regression. But for me at least the comedic side of Bond has the most potential, especially after how melodramatic the Craig films became at the end. We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue confessing love, to tight scenes of sharp witty dialogue and interplay between characters that all "have their armour on". Honestly the team behind "the menu" would be ideal for that in my eyes. Craft a story that is direct and "in the moment", where the humour is the selling point, that's what the promise of the paloma sequence showed us.

    I believe if you put "I think" before some of your statements this forum would be a better place. As it is, you write things like "We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue" which makes it sound like you are an expert fixing a problem rather than just another fan giving their opinion on a message board, and that will bring out the worst in peter, and I'll end up angry at the both of you. So please, just add "I think" before giving your opinion, even if you think it is obvious that it is just your opinion.

    Okay, that rant out of the way...

    Comedy. I like dry wit, but I think it is a hard sell globally. American audiences as a whole often don't get the English dry sense of humour, which is the kind of humour I'd like to see in the films. We saw some of that in the Craig era, but by the end I felt we were drifting back to bad pun territory. I think it is something the producers are struggling with, and I would worry about bringing humour to the fore. I felt Paloma worked because she was a breath of fresh air in the rather heavy drama, but too much of that would be equally as bad as overdoing the heavy drama, imo. I think humour in a drama is like adding salt to a meal - a little goes a long way, too much and you've ruined it.

    I would like snappy dialogue in there, noir films like The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High) are favourites, and they are pretty dark enlivened by the witty dialogue, but it is tricky to pull-off.

    I mention "the menu" because it is zany and very heightened, but in a very mannered way. The last 2 bond films are dragged down because what should have been heightened stories are forced into a realistic framework, such as the nine eyes scheme and the subplot between M and C. To my eyes the realistic framework is the thing that's holding them back, because it seems like they are telling stories that would work better without it, just as die another day would have worked better if they had stuck to the tone in the first half, and not got lost with invisible cars and diamond satellites. I think "the menu" proves that, on a very small scale at least, you can do heightened reality and snappy dialogue without losing tension or devolving into broad roger moore era silliness.

    This is just my opinion.
    As a fan of both the light and dark chocolate (as Edgar Wright put it), I would tend to agree that there is potential for expanding on a more humorous tone to the Bond movies going forward, even if I wouldn’t fancy being the one trying to piece that together in a way that would have global appeal.

    One aspect of this, which I don’t think the Bond movies have ever gotten right, is how to add humour consistently and in a way that is not jarring. It has often felt to me, since the mid-Connery years that the writers just insert one liners because they think that is what the public wants, instead of considering the extent to which they work within the context of the overall movie.

    One example where I think where humour works quite well, in terms of its consistency and fit with the overall ‘feel’ is ‘Slow Horses’. I appreciate that the style of humour may not be to everyone’s taste but there are often quite dark moments, accompanied by a very sarcastic comment / one liner (or fart) but to me, it feels consistent and as a viewer, I don’t feel like the humour is taking me out of the world that I am part of when watching.

    I am a fan of ‘The Menu’ also but I suspect it would be challenging to come up with some form of dark comedy that would do the global box office numbers expected of Bond.

    I would think it could be a very interesting direction (dark comedy, as opposed to camp silliness) to go in, if well executed.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,186
    meshypushy wrote: »
    The biggest problem is that people think a move towards humour is a move towards silliness, and going back to 80's Roger Moore territory feels like a regression. But for me at least the comedic side of Bond has the most potential, especially after how melodramatic the Craig films became at the end. We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue confessing love, to tight scenes of sharp witty dialogue and interplay between characters that all "have their armour on". Honestly the team behind "the menu" would be ideal for that in my eyes. Craft a story that is direct and "in the moment", where the humour is the selling point, that's what the promise of the paloma sequence showed us.

    I believe if you put "I think" before some of your statements this forum would be a better place. As it is, you write things like "We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue" which makes it sound like you are an expert fixing a problem rather than just another fan giving their opinion on a message board, and that will bring out the worst in peter, and I'll end up angry at the both of you. So please, just add "I think" before giving your opinion, even if you think it is obvious that it is just your opinion.

    Okay, that rant out of the way...

    Comedy. I like dry wit, but I think it is a hard sell globally. American audiences as a whole often don't get the English dry sense of humour, which is the kind of humour I'd like to see in the films. We saw some of that in the Craig era, but by the end I felt we were drifting back to bad pun territory. I think it is something the producers are struggling with, and I would worry about bringing humour to the fore. I felt Paloma worked because she was a breath of fresh air in the rather heavy drama, but too much of that would be equally as bad as overdoing the heavy drama, imo. I think humour in a drama is like adding salt to a meal - a little goes a long way, too much and you've ruined it.

    I would like snappy dialogue in there, noir films like The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High) are favourites, and they are pretty dark enlivened by the witty dialogue, but it is tricky to pull-off.

    I mention "the menu" because it is zany and very heightened, but in a very mannered way. The last 2 bond films are dragged down because what should have been heightened stories are forced into a realistic framework, such as the nine eyes scheme and the subplot between M and C. To my eyes the realistic framework is the thing that's holding them back, because it seems like they are telling stories that would work better without it, just as die another day would have worked better if they had stuck to the tone in the first half, and not got lost with invisible cars and diamond satellites. I think "the menu" proves that, on a very small scale at least, you can do heightened reality and snappy dialogue without losing tension or devolving into broad roger moore era silliness.

    This is just my opinion.
    As a fan of both the light and dark chocolate (as Edgar Wright put it), I would tend to agree that there is potential for expanding on a more humorous tone to the Bond movies going forward, even if I wouldn’t fancy being the one trying to piece that together in a way that would have global appeal.

    One aspect of this, which I don’t think the Bond movies have ever gotten right, is how to add humour consistently and in a way that is not jarring. It has often felt to me, since the mid-Connery years that the writers just insert one liners because they think that is what the public wants, instead of considering the extent to which they work within the context of the overall movie.

    One example where I think where humour works quite well, in terms of its consistency and fit with the overall ‘feel’ is ‘Slow Horses’. I appreciate that the style of humour may not be to everyone’s taste but there are often quite dark moments, accompanied by a very sarcastic comment / one liner (or fart) but to me, it feels consistent and as a viewer, I don’t feel like the humour is taking me out of the world that I am part of when watching.

    I am a fan of ‘The Menu’ also but I suspect it would be challenging to come up with some form of dark comedy that would do the global box office numbers expected of Bond.

    I would think it could be a very interesting direction (dark comedy, as opposed to camp silliness) to go in, if well executed.

    My hope, not for Bond 26, but down the line, maybe 27 or 28 is that we can get an actual bond film that goes straight for the humour in the same unapologetic way as did TSWLM back in the day, and that perhaps Edgar Wright could direct that film.

    People say its impossible, and audiences won't accept it, but they made a sequel to top gun almost 40 years later and it was just as cheesy and optimistic as the original and people lapped it up.
  • edited April 29 Posts: 3,119
    meshypushy wrote: »
    The biggest problem is that people think a move towards humour is a move towards silliness, and going back to 80's Roger Moore territory feels like a regression. But for me at least the comedic side of Bond has the most potential, especially after how melodramatic the Craig films became at the end. We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue confessing love, to tight scenes of sharp witty dialogue and interplay between characters that all "have their armour on". Honestly the team behind "the menu" would be ideal for that in my eyes. Craft a story that is direct and "in the moment", where the humour is the selling point, that's what the promise of the paloma sequence showed us.

    I believe if you put "I think" before some of your statements this forum would be a better place. As it is, you write things like "We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue" which makes it sound like you are an expert fixing a problem rather than just another fan giving their opinion on a message board, and that will bring out the worst in peter, and I'll end up angry at the both of you. So please, just add "I think" before giving your opinion, even if you think it is obvious that it is just your opinion.

    Okay, that rant out of the way...

    Comedy. I like dry wit, but I think it is a hard sell globally. American audiences as a whole often don't get the English dry sense of humour, which is the kind of humour I'd like to see in the films. We saw some of that in the Craig era, but by the end I felt we were drifting back to bad pun territory. I think it is something the producers are struggling with, and I would worry about bringing humour to the fore. I felt Paloma worked because she was a breath of fresh air in the rather heavy drama, but too much of that would be equally as bad as overdoing the heavy drama, imo. I think humour in a drama is like adding salt to a meal - a little goes a long way, too much and you've ruined it.

    I would like snappy dialogue in there, noir films like The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High) are favourites, and they are pretty dark enlivened by the witty dialogue, but it is tricky to pull-off.

    I mention "the menu" because it is zany and very heightened, but in a very mannered way. The last 2 bond films are dragged down because what should have been heightened stories are forced into a realistic framework, such as the nine eyes scheme and the subplot between M and C. To my eyes the realistic framework is the thing that's holding them back, because it seems like they are telling stories that would work better without it, just as die another day would have worked better if they had stuck to the tone in the first half, and not got lost with invisible cars and diamond satellites. I think "the menu" proves that, on a very small scale at least, you can do heightened reality and snappy dialogue without losing tension or devolving into broad roger moore era silliness.

    This is just my opinion.
    As a fan of both the light and dark chocolate (as Edgar Wright put it), I would tend to agree that there is potential for expanding on a more humorous tone to the Bond movies going forward, even if I wouldn’t fancy being the one trying to piece that together in a way that would have global appeal.

    One aspect of this, which I don’t think the Bond movies have ever gotten right, is how to add humour consistently and in a way that is not jarring. It has often felt to me, since the mid-Connery years that the writers just insert one liners because they think that is what the public wants, instead of considering the extent to which they work within the context of the overall movie.

    One example where I think where humour works quite well, in terms of its consistency and fit with the overall ‘feel’ is ‘Slow Horses’. I appreciate that the style of humour may not be to everyone’s taste but there are often quite dark moments, accompanied by a very sarcastic comment / one liner (or fart) but to me, it feels consistent and as a viewer, I don’t feel like the humour is taking me out of the world that I am part of when watching.

    I am a fan of ‘The Menu’ also but I suspect it would be challenging to come up with some form of dark comedy that would do the global box office numbers expected of Bond.

    I would think it could be a very interesting direction (dark comedy, as opposed to camp silliness) to go in, if well executed.

    I think there’s always an element of black humour to Bond. One of the reasons those one liners exist is to add a touch of gallows humour, something that allows both Bond as a character and the audience to separate themselves from the tangible grizzliness of what’s happened, while keeping the film a product of heightened reality.

    It’s there as well in things like how villains often die in ironic ways (there are times when, for example, a weapon or skill they have is used against them and is part of what allows Bond to kill them), or the often outlandish traps villains put Bond in with the idea he’ll die. Heck, take the William Tell idea on Silva’s island in SF, which is one of the darker moments of the series. A part of what makes it work is the undercurrent of black comedy - the twisted and ironic idea of making Bond - a character who can’t shoot straight at this time - shoot a glass off someone’s head with an antique gun, the jaunty French music playing in the background, Silva looking so eager about the whole thing and even making double entendres throughout.

    Obviously the tone of a film or a particular scene or film can skew darker or more humorous dependent on the story, but ultimately part of Bond is that black humour (and arguably quite a British form of it too). So it’ll always be there. So going back to Mylod as a potential director I think his experience on a film like The Menu might mean he’d be more suited to understanding and being able to convey that element of irony/humour that makes the Bond films work. Doesn’t necessarily mean the film itself will be more humorous or darker necessarily.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 43
    meshypushy wrote: »
    The biggest problem is that people think a move towards humour is a move towards silliness, and going back to 80's Roger Moore territory feels like a regression. But for me at least the comedic side of Bond has the most potential, especially after how melodramatic the Craig films became at the end. We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue confessing love, to tight scenes of sharp witty dialogue and interplay between characters that all "have their armour on". Honestly the team behind "the menu" would be ideal for that in my eyes. Craft a story that is direct and "in the moment", where the humour is the selling point, that's what the promise of the paloma sequence showed us.

    I believe if you put "I think" before some of your statements this forum would be a better place. As it is, you write things like "We need to shift from scenes of soppy dialogue" which makes it sound like you are an expert fixing a problem rather than just another fan giving their opinion on a message board, and that will bring out the worst in peter, and I'll end up angry at the both of you. So please, just add "I think" before giving your opinion, even if you think it is obvious that it is just your opinion.

    Okay, that rant out of the way...

    Comedy. I like dry wit, but I think it is a hard sell globally. American audiences as a whole often don't get the English dry sense of humour, which is the kind of humour I'd like to see in the films. We saw some of that in the Craig era, but by the end I felt we were drifting back to bad pun territory. I think it is something the producers are struggling with, and I would worry about bringing humour to the fore. I felt Paloma worked because she was a breath of fresh air in the rather heavy drama, but too much of that would be equally as bad as overdoing the heavy drama, imo. I think humour in a drama is like adding salt to a meal - a little goes a long way, too much and you've ruined it.

    I would like snappy dialogue in there, noir films like The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High) are favourites, and they are pretty dark enlivened by the witty dialogue, but it is tricky to pull-off.

    I mention "the menu" because it is zany and very heightened, but in a very mannered way. The last 2 bond films are dragged down because what should have been heightened stories are forced into a realistic framework, such as the nine eyes scheme and the subplot between M and C. To my eyes the realistic framework is the thing that's holding them back, because it seems like they are telling stories that would work better without it, just as die another day would have worked better if they had stuck to the tone in the first half, and not got lost with invisible cars and diamond satellites. I think "the menu" proves that, on a very small scale at least, you can do heightened reality and snappy dialogue without losing tension or devolving into broad roger moore era silliness.

    This is just my opinion.
    As a fan of both the light and dark chocolate (as Edgar Wright put it), I would tend to agree that there is potential for expanding on a more humorous tone to the Bond movies going forward, even if I wouldn’t fancy being the one trying to piece that together in a way that would have global appeal.

    One aspect of this, which I don’t think the Bond movies have ever gotten right, is how to add humour consistently and in a way that is not jarring. It has often felt to me, since the mid-Connery years that the writers just insert one liners because they think that is what the public wants, instead of considering the extent to which they work within the context of the overall movie.

    One example where I think where humour works quite well, in terms of its consistency and fit with the overall ‘feel’ is ‘Slow Horses’. I appreciate that the style of humour may not be to everyone’s taste but there are often quite dark moments, accompanied by a very sarcastic comment / one liner (or fart) but to me, it feels consistent and as a viewer, I don’t feel like the humour is taking me out of the world that I am part of when watching.

    I am a fan of ‘The Menu’ also but I suspect it would be challenging to come up with some form of dark comedy that would do the global box office numbers expected of Bond.

    I would think it could be a very interesting direction (dark comedy, as opposed to camp silliness) to go in, if well executed.

    My hope, not for Bond 26, but down the line, maybe 27 or 28 is that we can get an actual bond film that goes straight for the humour in the same unapologetic way as did TSWLM back in the day, and that perhaps Edgar Wright could direct that film.

    People say its impossible, and audiences won't accept it, but they made a sequel to top gun almost 40 years later and it was just as cheesy and optimistic as the original and people lapped it up.
    I would be front of the queue for that. I’d love to see his take on a Bond movie, being a major fan of ‘Baby Driver’ and ‘Last Night in Soho’.
Sign In or Register to comment.