It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
The main reasons I consider TLD an epic Bond film, are the fact that Bond hops around so much (UK, Austria, Tangier, Afghanistan), and that, for lack of a better description, the film has so much "space" to it. QOS, IMO, is a claustrophobic Bond film. All is dark and in tight quarters, almost to a suffocating extent. TLD, OTOH, and particularly in the Tangier and Afghan sequences, is all sunshine and wide views. The film just has so much scope to it. And Barry's soaring score heightens that effect.
One of the reasons Craig's films have not been epic is because the plots have all been so intimate and personal. In CR, Bond is out to destroy one man (Le Chiffre), and he falls in love with a femme fatale who meets a tragic end. QOS is largely a revenge film. And SF is a revenge film where the villain is the avenger.
For a DC film to have that epic feel, it will need an epic plot. And that means a plot where the whole world, or at least a very large portion of it, is imperiled. The personal slant, too, will need to fall by the wayside.
Returning to earlier approaches would be change. Doesn't mean it would be successful--charge hardly guarantees success--but it would certainly constitute change.
Classic- Cool PTS, Villain who has a realistic plan, henchmen-optional, cool Q scene without TO any gadgets, nice Money Penney scene, one bond girl who isn't a strong willed character who eventually dies (spare CR), also a strong willed bond girl who survives, exotic and also dark locations, plot twists, automobile chase, a cool third act with a one-on-one confrontation with the villain and the bond theme with a classic score with a gun barrel opener (spare CR and skyfall) .
Examples: GF, GE, Skyfall, CR, FRWL
Epic- has some classic elements but add some more
Things like more gadgets, a slightly over the top villain but not too far over the top, all exotic locations and girls, definitely a henchmen, big big action scenes, an exciting score,a fast moving story and a few big chases plus a big finale.
Examples: TB, TSWLM, TND, YOLT
I agree with this, although QOS, with all its flaws, had also a large scale plot, not the way TB or GF was, but still larger than CR. It would be nice to see a movie where "the world could fall apart", where a threat is global. My idea would be to use elements of the novel TB and OHMSS that were not used in the past.
Those are lists, and of so many elements that any attempt at a definition is vague at best. So you want in your OP a more classic Bond movie, but you consider Skyfall classic. As for epic, how are more gadgets and OTT villains make a Bond movie classic? And, as people pointed out before, you don't get more OTT than Silva. Same with exotic locations, we had plenty of those in the last three movies. That is the problem with your lists, many of the things on it are already there in Craig movies.
I don't want to be rude, but you do sound like a spoiled child. "Oh I want something different." "But what?" "I don't know, just different."
Like many of us have been saying on this thread, a 'classic' Bond movie is a little to vague for many of us to pinpoint. For some, a classic would be in the style of From Russia With Love, and for others it would be Goldfinger. Despite what some may think, these two films are incredibly different in tone and story.
From what I've read, it seems like classic to many of you means a world threatening plan and over the top elements. Truthfully, I cannot see the producers going for this style of film with Craig. Yes, The Avengers did it, but then again....it's The Avengers. It's not James Bond. For now, those days are over. (And it was not just Pierce or Roger who had those movies - Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, and Diamonds Are Forever were all large scale schemes.)
I will agree with the comments that state Skyfall was a step in the 'traditional' James Bond direction (despite breaking traditions, such as a lack of main Bond girl and a young Q). Skyfall gave us a slightly hammy, megalomaniacal, yet ultra-magnificient villain with Silva. It also gave us a plot that involved mass-destruction and blackmail. You get the Aston with some of the usual refinements. You get more one-liners and cuff adjustments. I would say that Skyfall brought back a little bit of the 'fun' the older films carried.
I would probably start to draw the line at where Skyfall was, however.
There was one moment in Skyfall where I think they went a little too far: the Komodo Dragon scene. The camp was a bit too much there, and it didn't help that computer effects were less than convincing. Roger Moore ran over crocodiles in Live and Let Die, but Daniel Craig using the CGI dragon as a stair step just didn't sit right with me. Even if the film had pulled the scene off from a technical perspective, I think it still would have been silly from a situation perspective. The bottom line is: they should stay away from sight gags like that. Added to that, there wasn't really a scene before or after the Komodo Dragons that maintained that tone. The scene kind of came out of nowhere.
That scene should also act a lesson to future Bond films: if you can't pull most of it off without practical effects, then don't bother doing it. I'm really not sure why the special effects department couldn't have made an animatronic for the close up shots of the dragons (and pretty much every scene the dragon doesn't run). If they can make 40 foot long moving dinosaurs for Jurassic Park, then the $200 million Skyfall certainly should be able to make eight foot long Komodo Dragon animatronics.
Yes, the Komodo Dragon scene is small and I almost didn't remember it when I saw Skyfall for the first time. But I just don't want that turning into some snowball effect where, sometime down the line, something even sillier happens in a later film. I feel that Skyfall was the right amount of seriousness, camp and fun, which is why I admire the film so much.
If anything, Bond 24 needs another great villain and a slightly larger emphasis on story. If the film can achieve that with Skyfall's tone (more or less), then I think we are in store for another fantastic Bond film.
Classic isn't over the top, it's just hard to define. It's a serious film that doesn't take it TO seriously with memorable villains and scenes without getting to campy or to serious. I didn't mind the Komodo dragon it kinda payed homage to when Bond was campy without going too far. But I agree dc is the best bond, no question.
If you look at the originals thread, the oldest of fans seem to like where we are, very much at the moment too.
You are changing your definition or indeed your OP as you post. At first you said maybe we need a more classic Bond, now you talk about an epic Bond, then you throw in some other considerations.
Of said do we need an epic bond because we just got a classic thanks for letting me know.