Skyfall is my favorite Bond but should DC do an "epic" Bond film like TB or GE?

edited May 2013 in Bond 26 & Beyond Posts: 63
Craig is my favorite Bond. Skyfall is my favorite movie ever and CR is top 5. I have no complaints but with an actor as amazing as Daniel should they try making a bond film with him in the tone that the classics were made with? With megalomaniacs and damsel in distress bond girls and henchmen and evil lairs. I just wonder ar we past the point as a society where EVERYTHING has to have a post 9/11 feel to it. Why not make a fun and exciting movie that doesn't need to conquer terrorism and the threat of technology destroying us all?
«1

Comments

  • Posts: 1,492
    Because audiences are more sophisticated. a cartoon/brosnan bond wont do anymore.
  • Posts: 12,837
    The current trend in Hollywood is dark and gritty but that appears to be dying out now.

    With the success of films like The Avengers, I think that a big, fun, blockbuster type Bond could work. They'd have to tailor it to Craig's style but I don't see why they couldn't do one.
    actonsteve wrote:
    Because audiences are more sophisticated.

    Are they? Crap like Transformers shoots up to the top of the box office on release and today's audience also seem to happily accept "reboots" of franchises that aren't even 10 years old.
  • Posts: 14,896
    The movies now have a post 9/11 feel because it shaped the world we now live in and the world Bond lives in. Just like the novels had a post WWII and Cold War feel.
  • Posts: 1,492
    T

    Are they? Crap like Transformers shoots up to the top of the box office on release and today's audience also seem to happily accept "reboots" of franchises that aren't even 10 years old.

    I accept that some people will always be unsophisticated. They prefer their dumb shit with oneliners and cliche over something with more meat on the bone.

    But that shouldnt stop filmmakers from trying
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Skyfall is the closest we've had to "classic Bond" for a while. It's got the "cheesey one liners" (put it all on red), a sort of OTT villain (Silva has a big plan and is based in an abandoned island) and a damsel in distress (M).

    The end of SF is sort of like the end of old Bond films (an epic explosive climax with a bit of humour and lots of action and, while the film certainly has its dark moments, it's probably the most light hearted of the three Craig's done.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BAIN123 wrote:
    and a damsel in distress (M).

    Care to check on your definition of 'damsel' Bain?

    Damsel - noun Literary. a young woman or girl; a maiden,

    Each to his own I suppose.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    M for maiden? ;)

    Well ok...a woman in distress.

    Could Severine count as a 'damsel'? Probably not as she's the sacrificial lamb.
  • Posts: 14,896
    BAIN123 wrote:
    M for maiden? ;)

    Well ok...a woman in distress.

    Could Severine count as a 'damsel'? Probably not as she's the sacrificial lamb.

    Severine? Absolutely.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    M for maiden? ;)

    Well ok...a woman in distress.

    Could Severine count as a 'damsel'? Probably not as she's the sacrificial lamb.

    Severine? Absolutely.

    Well I suppose she could but Bond is hardly prince charming then is he. Just stands there while she gets shot in the face. If he had the measure of Silvas goons, why didnt he take them down before that happened and when he had a loaded gun in his hand?
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 14,896
    Ludovico wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    M for maiden? ;)

    Well ok...a woman in distress.

    Could Severine count as a 'damsel'? Probably not as she's the sacrificial lamb.

    Severine? Absolutely.

    Well I suppose she could but Bond is hardly prince charming then is he. Just stands there while she gets shot in the face. If he had the measure of Silvas goons, why didnt he take them down before that happened and when he had a loaded gun in his hand?

    I need to rewatch the scene, but I understood that 1)Bond had a gun pointed at his head and 2) He was still unsure of his physical capacity at the time. He took them down when they were lowering their guard.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 12,837
    actonsteve wrote:
    T

    Are they? Crap like Transformers shoots up to the top of the box office on release and today's audience also seem to happily accept "reboots" of franchises that aren't even 10 years old.

    I accept that some people will always be unsophisticated. They prefer their dumb shit with oneliners and cliche over something with more meat on the bone.

    But that shouldnt stop filmmakers from trying

    Skyfall has plenty of one liners and cliché.

    I don't see why they couldn't do a film that has the great humour, drama and characterisation that Skyfall delivered, along some real gadgets, a secret base, an old style villain and a henchman that could really f**k Bond up.

    That's what I want from Bond 24.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 1,492
    Are they? Crap like Transformers shoots up to the top of the box office on release and today's audience also seem to happily accept "reboots" of franchises that aren't even 10 years old.

    I accept that some people will always be unsophisticated. They prefer their dumb shit with oneliners and cliche over something with more meat on the bone.

    But that shouldnt stop filmmakers from trying

    Skyfall has plenty of one liners and cliché.

    I don't see why they couldn't do a film that has the great humour, drama and characterisation that Skyfall delivered, along some real gadgets, a secret base, an old style villain and a henchman that could really f**k Bond up.

    That's what I want from Bond 24.[/quote]

    Your stuck in a timewarp of 1979. Every genre must change and adapt not just to survive but thrive.

    If you stand still you are overtaken or go backwards like the brosnan era. The craig era has moved forward and thrived.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,948
    Yes, I think we may see a more traditional Bond entry next, although Skyfall was surely at least a step in this direction, was it not?
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    A certain amount of "over-the-topness" in Bond is fine, but you can't really do a film in the same tone as the "classic era" nowadays. As @actonsteve has said before stuff like Austin Powers makes all that stuff look dated and cheesey (despite the fact AP was done as a tribute to the classic era of Bond).

    The closest thing you can do is weave the over-the-top-ness into a contemporary setting and keep it grounded in the real world, which is what I think Skyfall does quite nicely. Its silly in places but not <i>too</i> silly. It gets the balance right without going into parody. M's death for instance truely is a revelation and continues the trend set by Fleming of bringing the adventures back to reality in the final few moments after some credibility-straining antics. That sort of stuff is timeless really.

    I like my Bond films with a bit of humour and...dare I say...silliness, but I understand that if you take the latter too far you damage the credibility of the series (just as you do if you make the make the tone too dark).

    Meglomaniac plots have been done to death in Bond anyway.
  • Posts: 101
    Audiences are less sophisticated now.
    They need everything spoon fed to them.
    They can't accept fantasy or humour any more.
    That's how we end up with brain dead Nolan Batman movies where everyone and everything, in a bid to seem "realistic", just looks embarrassing and ridiculous.
    Whereas the Burton Batmans have a fine balance of fantasy and humour and are still lovely.
    God help us if Nolan directs Bond 24.
    He destroyed Batman for a generation and turned a great superhero into a dumb, slobbering dog.
    I wont let him get his grubby Tory hands on James Bond too.
  • Posts: 2,483
    I personally consider SF to by quite classic and uber-traditional, so this thread is a bit of a moot point to my mind. What I would like to see, however, as another grand and epic Bond film. There have been three: TB, Spy and TLD. I think it's high time we have another Bond film that emphasizes globe-trotting, glamour, a broad scope and a plot of global import.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 63
    actonsteve wrote:
    Are they? Crap like Transformers shoots up to the top of the box office on release and today's audience also seem to happily accept "reboots" of franchises that aren't even 10 years old.

    I accept that some people will always be unsophisticated. They prefer their dumb shit with oneliners and cliche over something with more meat on the bone.

    But that shouldnt stop filmmakers from trying

    Skyfall has plenty of one liners and cliché.

    I don't see why they couldn't do a film that has the great humour, drama and characterisation that Skyfall delivered, along some real gadgets, a secret base, an old style villain and a henchman that could really f**k Bond up.

    That's what I want from Bond 24.

    Your stuck in a timewarp of 1979. Every genre must change and adapt not just to survive but thrive.

    If you stand still you are overtaken or go backwards like the brosnan era. The craig era has moved forward and thrived.[/quote]

    Hey I love serious bond films like I said Skyfall is my favorite. But I want Craig to show the world he can also do some of the stuff that made us love Bond in the first place without losing his gritty take on bond.
  • Posts: 63
    I personally consider SF to by quite classic and uber-traditional, so this thread is a bit of a moot point to my mind. What I would like to see, however, as another grand and epic Bond film. There have been three: TB, Spy and TLD. I think it's high time we have another Bond film that emphasizes globe-trotting, glamour, a broad scope and a plot of global import.

    Totally agree Skyfall is a classic but it doesn't have the grandiose things we AlSO love in Bond. Some people don't understand we
    can like the serious bonds but we don't mind adding doses of the things we used to love
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    But Craig already has shown he can do the stuff we have seen the Bond of the past do.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    007Skyfall wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Are they? Crap like Transformers shoots up to the top of the box office on release and today's audience also seem to happily accept "reboots" of franchises that aren't even 10 years old.

    I accept that some people will always be unsophisticated. They prefer their dumb shit with oneliners and cliche over something with more meat on the bone.

    But that shouldnt stop filmmakers from trying

    Skyfall has plenty of one liners and cliché.

    I don't see why they couldn't do a film that has the great humour, drama and characterisation that Skyfall delivered, along some real gadgets, a secret base, an old style villain and a henchman that could really f**k Bond up.

    That's what I want from Bond 24.

    Your stuck in a timewarp of 1979. Every genre must change and adapt not just to survive but thrive.

    If you stand still you are overtaken or go backwards like the brosnan era. The craig era has moved forward and thrived.

    Hey I love serious bond films like I said Skyfall is my favorite. But I want Craig to show the world he can also do some of the stuff that made us love Bond in the first place without losing his gritty take on bond.
    [/quote]

    But he already has. He's shown he can deliver humour extremely well. They tried to make Bond more playful and excessible in SF and bring back the stuff audiences want yet keep an overall serious tone. I think it worked. What do you want to see?

    With respect this is what I've noticed with fans. They say they want a more traditional Bond yet are vague in what exactly they are expecting.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    007Skyfall wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Are they? Crap like Transformers shoots up to the top of the box office on release and today's audience also seem to happily accept "reboots" of franchises that aren't even 10 years old.

    I accept that some people will always be unsophisticated. They prefer their dumb shit with oneliners and cliche over something with more meat on the bone.

    But that shouldnt stop filmmakers from trying

    Skyfall has plenty of one liners and cliché.

    I don't see why they couldn't do a film that has the great humour, drama and characterisation that Skyfall delivered, along some real gadgets, a secret base, an old style villain and a henchman that could really f**k Bond up.

    That's what I want from Bond 24.

    Your stuck in a timewarp of 1979. Every genre must change and adapt not just to survive but thrive.

    If you stand still you are overtaken or go backwards like the brosnan era. The craig era has moved forward and thrived.

    Double post
  • Posts: 14,896
    I personally consider SF to by quite classic and uber-traditional, so this thread is a bit of a moot point to my mind. What I would like to see, however, as another grand and epic Bond film. There have been three: TB, Spy and TLD. I think it's high time we have another Bond film that emphasizes globe-trotting, glamour, a broad scope and a plot of global import.

    I can see about TB and TSWLM being epic, heck I would consider GF epic too (as well as YOLT, maybe even MR which I disliked), but I don't see TLD fitting that mould. For me it is more a relatively low key spy thriller, like FRWL. Not that there is anything wrong with it, on the contrary.

    That said, I agree with you, we need an epic, TB-like Bond movie with Craig in it. And I agree about how uber-traditional SF is. Way more, in a way, than a lot of what we had after TB, actually.
  • Posts: 63

    BAIN123 wrote:
    007Skyfall wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Are they? Crap like Transformers shoots up to the top of the box office on release and today's audience also seem to happily accept "reboots" of franchises that aren't even 10 years old.

    I accept that some people will always be unsophisticated. They prefer their dumb shit with oneliners and cliche over something with more meat on the bone.

    But that shouldnt stop filmmakers from trying

    Skyfall has plenty of one liners and cliché.

    I don't see why they couldn't do a film that has the great humour, drama and characterisation that Skyfall delivered, along some real gadgets, a secret base, an old style villain and a henchman that could really f**k Bond up.

    That's what I want from Bond 24.

    Your stuck in a timewarp of 1979. Every genre must change and adapt not just to survive but thrive.

    If you stand still you are overtaken or go backwards like the brosnan era. The craig era has moved forward and thrived.

    Double post

    Honestly I seriously wouldn't mind if they kept the Skyfall
    Style. Hell I love it sooooo much but I was just wondering your opinions on it. Skyfall is traditional but I kinda wanna see
    A EPIC bond with Craig. But if they kept making them like Skyfall I would still be super happy
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    But what constitutes an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

  • Posts: 63
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    Skyfall and CR are my two favorite bonds but I don't know, I get a different feeling when I watch TB or TSWLM. Maybe a Bond that doesn't have to directly do with today's problems of terrorism, maybe one where Bond faces a problem and villain that we wouldn't or couldn't see in reality. Maybe he needs some gadgets but I don't really mind the modern style but a LOT of fans miss the epic,


  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,352
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    I agree. Part of the problem with this "epic" idea is, as times have changed, it's not possible to recreate or capture what certain people are after. Bond will always move forward and will never go back to what it was and thinking about this subjectively, doing anything else would be suicidal. It must keep changing.
  • Posts: 11,189
    007Skyfall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    Skyfall and CR are my two favorite bonds but I don't know, I get a different feeling when I watch TB or TSWLM. Maybe a Bond that doesn't have to directly do with today's problems of terrorism, maybe one where Bond faces a problem and villain that we wouldn't or couldn't see in reality. Maybe he needs some gadgets but I don't really mind the modern style but a LOT of fans miss the epic,


    But you would have to somehow apply it todays climate. Both TB and Spy were set in their time. The former particularly had a lot of stuffy government officials getting anxious and tried to get the right feel of government intelligence in the 60s.
  • Posts: 63
    BAIN123 wrote:
    007Skyfall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    Skyfall and CR are my two favorite bonds but I don't know, I get a different feeling when I watch TB or TSWLM. Maybe a Bond that doesn't have to directly do with today's problems of terrorism, maybe one where Bond faces a problem and villain that we wouldn't or couldn't see in reality. Maybe he needs some gadgets but I don't really mind the modern style but a LOT of fans miss the epic,


    But you would have to somehow apply it todays climate. Both TB and Spy were set in their time. The former particularly had a lot of stuffy government officials getting anxious and tried to get the right feel of government intelligence in the 60s.

    You make a great point but there's gotta be a way to make a Bond today with a cool pts a over-the-top villain and some gadgets. Not a lot but a small dose would inject some excitement in Craig's bond we haven't seen yet despite how great CR and SF are

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    007Skyfall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    007Skyfall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    Skyfall and CR are my two favorite bonds but I don't know, I get a different feeling when I watch TB or TSWLM. Maybe a Bond that doesn't have to directly do with today's problems of terrorism, maybe one where Bond faces a problem and villain that we wouldn't or couldn't see in reality. Maybe he needs some gadgets but I don't really mind the modern style but a LOT of fans miss the epic,


    But you would have to somehow apply it todays climate. Both TB and Spy were set in their time. The former particularly had a lot of stuffy government officials getting anxious and tried to get the right feel of government intelligence in the 60s.

    You make a great point but there's gotta be a way to make a Bond today with a cool pts a over-the-top villain and some gadgets. Not a lot but a small dose would inject some excitement in Craig's bond we haven't seen yet despite how great CR and SF are

    I think we got a beyond cool PTS in Skyfall and how much more over the top can you get than Silva as a villain? I have never been that interested in the gadgets, so if a film doesn't have them it doesn't bother me. Still, I loved the tricked out DB5, naturally.
  • Posts: 63
    007Skyfall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    007Skyfall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    Skyfall and CR are my two favorite bonds but I don't know, I get a different feeling when I watch TB or TSWLM. Maybe a Bond that doesn't have to directly do with today's problems of terrorism, maybe one where Bond faces a problem and villain that we wouldn't or couldn't see in reality. Maybe he needs some gadgets but I don't really mind the modern style but a LOT of fans miss the epic,


    But you would have to somehow apply it todays climate. Both TB and Spy were set in their time. The former particularly had a lot of stuffy government officials getting anxious and tried to get the right feel of government intelligence in the 60s.

    You make a great point but there's gotta be a way to make a Bond today with a cool pts a over-the-top villain and some gadgets. Not a lot but a small dose would inject some excitement in Craig's bond we haven't seen yet despite how great CR and SF are

    I think we got a beyond cool PTS in Skyfall and how much more over the top can you get than Silva as a villain? I have never been that interested in the gadgets, so if a film doesn't have them it doesn't bother me. Still, I loved the tricked out DB5, naturally.

    Honestly me too I freaking love the new style. But I feel some of the previous generation of Bond fans are losing touch with this generation of Bond. I wouldn't change a thing but I think that in order to keep some older fans they might need to add a little more of the old things back. if they don't I'm cool I just know people who want some more of the old bond that's all.

Sign In or Register to comment.