Where does Bond go after Craig?

1189190192194195512

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2022 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Bond producers seem to have an issue with pushing people who actually understand Bond (Arnold, Haggis, Campbell, Hemming) out of the franchise and drawing in people who don't understand Bond (Mendes, Logan, Butterworth, Fukunaga, Waller-Bridge, Newman) for the purpose of chasing Oscars that nobody cares about anymore, anyway.

    I would very much disagree that Mendes and Newman didn't get Bond; Skyfall felt way more like a Bond film than its predecessor for my money. And it was the most successful British film ever at the time, so it was hardly just chasing Oscars.

    The film itself was vague, hollow, riddled with plot holes and pretended to have a psychological layer. It was wannabe (super cringey) bondian moments strung together without any coherent story or arc or resolution. Stylish film, but extremely stupid, and lacked finesse like most pretentious art films.

    Nope, it was an excellent and gripping adventure movie, extremely stylishly made. It got brilliant reviews across the board and was the most popular Bond movie in decades. If they didn't understand how to make a Bond movie then the audience don't know what one is either: you must be the lone person in the world who does.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Bond producers seem to have an issue with pushing people who actually understand Bond (Arnold, Haggis, Campbell, Hemming) out of the franchise and drawing in people who don't understand Bond (Mendes, Logan, Butterworth, Fukunaga, Waller-Bridge, Newman) for the purpose of chasing Oscars that nobody cares about anymore, anyway.

    I would very much disagree that Mendes and Newman didn't get Bond; Skyfall felt way more like a Bond film than its predecessor for my money. And it was the most successful British film ever at the time, so it was hardly just chasing Oscars.

    The film itself was vague, hollow, riddled with plot holes and pretended to have a psychological layer. It was wannabe (super cringey) bondian moments strung together without any coherent story or arc or resolution. Stylish film, but extremely stupid, and lacked finesse like most pretentious art films.

    Nope, it was an excellent and gripping adventure movie, extremely stylishly made. It got brilliant reviews across the board and was the most popular Bond movie in decades. If they didn't understand how to make a Bond movie then the audience don't know what one is either: you must be the lone person in the world who does.

    More than the quality of a film factors into ticket sales and critic scores, but you’d have to actually be considerate and measured to grasp that.

    https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/

    https://fandomwire.com/whos-laughing-now-14-famous-movies-critics-hated-but-still-ended-up-as-cult-classics/

    I bet Skyfall was popular with people who will be dead in 10 years. It doesn’t come close to Casino Royale so ‘decades’ is a stretch considering Mendes also directed SP, and NTTD being heavily influenced by his films.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2022 Posts: 14,861
    Well not really, especially when it comes to critic scores, because they really are about nothing but film quality. They can disagree, obviously; I'm sure you'll find some bad ones for Skyfall around, but the consensus is that it's a really good Bond movie. No-one is saying you can't have your own opinion, and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but you made the mistake of confusing your opinion with fact, and it just isn't (yes, I used that style in reply to you, but I'm under no illusions that it's my opinion that it's a great movie. It just happens to be one which aligns with critical and audience opinion too). You can say it's beyond my grasp and throw whatever other ad hominem you like, but it doesn't make it true.

    It also pleased and satisfied millions of people around the world who wanted to see a Bond movie, so the statement that the makers didn't know how to make one seems at odds with the general reaction of those who wanted one. Finding a list of good films (in whose opinion?) which didn't make money has nothing to do with a blockbuster which satisfied its audience.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    mtm wrote: »
    Well not really, especially when it comes to critic scores, because they really are about nothing but film quality. They can disagree, obviously; I'm sure you'll find some bad ones for Skyfall around, but the consensus is that it's a really good Bond movie. No-one is saying you can't have your own opinion, and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but you made the mistake of confusing your opinion with fact, and it just isn't (yes, I used that style in reply to you, but I'm under no illusions that it's my opinion that it's a great movie. It just happens to be one which aligns with critical and audience opinion too). You can say it's beyond my grasp and throw whatever other ad hominem you like, but it doesn't make it true.

    It also pleased and satisfied millions of people around the world who wanted to see a Bond movie, so the statement that the makers didn't know how to make one seems at odds with the general reaction of those who wanted one. Finding a list of good films (in whose opinion?) which didn't make money has nothing to do with a blockbuster which satisfied its audience.

    My arguments seem to go over your head. It was a new interesting take on the character, and it was an expensive blockbuster. But it was very far from being a well written film or one that really captured the bondian feel to it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2022 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    Well not really, especially when it comes to critic scores, because they really are about nothing but film quality. They can disagree, obviously; I'm sure you'll find some bad ones for Skyfall around, but the consensus is that it's a really good Bond movie. No-one is saying you can't have your own opinion, and I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but you made the mistake of confusing your opinion with fact, and it just isn't (yes, I used that style in reply to you, but I'm under no illusions that it's my opinion that it's a great movie. It just happens to be one which aligns with critical and audience opinion too). You can say it's beyond my grasp and throw whatever other ad hominem you like, but it doesn't make it true.

    It also pleased and satisfied millions of people around the world who wanted to see a Bond movie, so the statement that the makers didn't know how to make one seems at odds with the general reaction of those who wanted one. Finding a list of good films (in whose opinion?) which didn't make money has nothing to do with a blockbuster which satisfied its audience.

    My arguments seem to go over your head.

    Yes that's a lovely attempt at riling me by trying to insinuate that I'm thick, but without even a vague attempt to point out which 'argument' I'm missing, it's clear that it's an empty accusation made because you think it sounds good. We both know that neither of are missing anything the other is saying, we're simply disagreeing.
    It was a new interesting take on the character, and it was an expensive blockbuster. But it was very far from being a well written film or one that really captured the bondian feel to it.

    Bless you, but that's just your opinion, it's not a fact. Maybe I was wrong and my pointing that out did go over your head, I'm not sure. As I said, millions loved it, it was the biggest Bond hit in years and Bond films are mass market things; if it fulfilled the audience's expectation then it's rather them who get to decide what is and isn't a Bond film, and not one guy on a forum.
    You're massively welcome to disagree with the consensus, that's everyone's right, and maybe it didn't hit the Bond buttons for you, but that doesn't make it a universal fact- you don't need to try and give your opinions more weight by claiming that they are universal truth, or to tell others that they're thick for not agreeing. Eon make these to satisfy their massive audience around the world, and this one did. It's just something you have to accept. Maybe your idea of a Bond film is different to what the majority of people expect and enjoy in a Bond film, and that's fine, we're all different.
    I've said my piece now, you're welcome to repeat yourself on how it's not a Bond movie if you like but it won't make it true or apply to how others feel about it.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    I am saying it could have been better. Many bond films could have been better, and many are far worse than Skyfall.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 4,599
    If you look at great villains over the years, you need some sort of "back story" with a certain sense of empathy so the audience can relate to them but, at the same time, be in no doubt that they are still on the wrong side of the battle. "pure evil/greed" may have worked previously in Bond but they need to do better IMHO. (one Bond made it into the list below)

    http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2019/10-great-movies-made-you-sympathize-with-the-bad-guy/
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Bond producers seem to have an issue with pushing people who actually understand Bond (Arnold, Haggis, Campbell, Hemming) out of the franchise and drawing in people who don't understand Bond (Mendes, Logan, Butterworth, Fukunaga, Waller-Bridge, Newman) for the purpose of chasing Oscars that nobody cares about anymore, anyway.

    I would very much disagree that Mendes and Newman didn't get Bond; Skyfall felt way more like a Bond film than its predecessor for my money. And it was the most successful British film ever at the time, so it was hardly just chasing Oscars.

    The film itself was vague, hollow, riddled with plot holes and pretended to have a psychological layer. It was wannabe (super cringey) bondian moments strung together without any coherent story or arc or resolution. Stylish film, but extremely stupid, and lacked finesse like most pretentious art films.

    Nope, it was an excellent and gripping adventure movie, extremely stylishly made. It got brilliant reviews across the board and was the most popular Bond movie in decades. If they didn't understand how to make a Bond movie then the audience don't know what one is either: you must be the lone person in the world who does.

    More than the quality of a film factors into ticket sales and critic scores, but you’d have to actually be considerate and measured to grasp that.

    https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/

    https://fandomwire.com/whos-laughing-now-14-famous-movies-critics-hated-but-still-ended-up-as-cult-classics/

    I bet Skyfall was popular with people who will be dead in 10 years. It doesn’t come close to Casino Royale so ‘decades’ is a stretch considering Mendes also directed SP, and NTTD being heavily influenced by his films.

    Plugging your fingers in your ears and yelling “I’m not listening” isn’t going to change the cold hard facts that SF is one of the highest regarded Bond films ever. It was in 2012 and it still is today going by the box office results of the 60th anniversary re-release.

    It’s okay for you to admit you’re in a very minority opinion.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    Lol you people

    I would have made a better humanised, realistic, complex and dark Bond than Mendes. I bet you liked the last 4 seasons of GoT, the Star Wars sequels, the 4th Matrix film, the 3rd Godfather etc.

    It’s easy to like something when you don’t appreciate what could have been. I am not going to blindly glorify Skyfall because of box office, in an inflationary and increasingly less competitive market, a film that relies on the success and familiarity of previous iterations, and received a huge push in marketing because of the London olympics.

    Cinema is dying and streaming is seeing signs of struggle because of the industry’s inability to reinvent itself, keep up and contribute to popular culture. Kids are way more astute than you think and are spending their hours on social media accordingly.
  • Posts: 117
    It sounds like pierce Brosnan didn't like no time to die. https://ew.com/movies/pierce-brosnan-doesnt-care-about-next-james-bond/
  • Posts: 4,599
    why do all threads seem to end up arguing about Skyfall? bonkers
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    patb wrote: »
    why do all threads seem to end up arguing about Skyfall? bonkers

    Because it’s such a massively popular Bond film.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    Because some people believe it doesn’t deserve any criticism whatsoever.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2022 Posts: 8,000
    Only QOS deserves the criticism. It’s a bigger betrayal to Bond than DAD.
  • Posts: 1,693
    CrabKey wrote: »
    As one who has been with film series since Dr. No, I wonder if it's possible to recapture the anticipation and excitement of the three films that came after. No doubt it was youth and the times. Bond fan that I am, the series hasn't been as engaging as those first four films. My hope is a fresh start means trying to recapture what made those first films new and exciting. By way of analogy I look at the Star Trek spinoffs. Most are entertaining, but lack that special something of the original. After decades, along comes Strange New Worlds, an ST series that seems to understand the original. I hope we can expect that from the new Bond. I did like Craig as Bond, but I did not care for the story arc nor the ending of NTTD. I hope fresh start includes a new writing team. I accept that Bond 2025 will not be the Bond of 1963. I haven't been in the demographic for Bond films for decades. But that's okay as long as there's a good story to be told.

    I was there too. Tough to compare then to now regarding the anticipation. Bond was completely new back then and Goldfinger was a phenomenon that changed the world. Now the Bond films are spectacular entertainment but don't have the same impact on the world's culture. The '60s were AMAZING times.
  • Posts: 1,693
    talos7 wrote: »
    I would love to see a sophisticated, elegant female villain with unique, extremely threatening henchmen.

    Worked for U.N.C.L.E.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Only QOS deserves the criticism. It’s a bigger betrayal to Bond than DAD.

    Yeah, I'd probably agree with that.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,518
    Omg, QOS does not deserve this! Especially not from two otherwise extremely reasonable people.

    A bigger betrayal to Bond than DAD? Shocking… positively shocking.
    Because some people feel the need to believe it doesn’t deserve any criticism.

    I kind of find it boring. But I’m under no illusion that’s not an incredibly well made film. To me it will always be the Mona Lisa of Bond films.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Omg, QOS does not deserve this! Especially not from two otherwise extremely reasonable people.

    A bigger betrayal to Bond than DAD?

    Okay, maybe I went too far.

    CR was the bigger betrayal.
  • edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    I curse upon thee slow and horrid deaths by butt eating corpse worms, and don't you dare enjoy it in the beginning.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,518
    Omg, QOS does not deserve this! Especially not from two otherwise extremely reasonable people.

    A bigger betrayal to Bond than DAD?

    Okay, maybe I went too far.

    CR was the bigger betrayal.

    This is unfair, I'm sick and delusional with all the drugs.
    I curse upon thee a slow and horrid death by butt eating corpse worms, and don't you dare enjoy it in the beginning.

    You can't tell me what to enjoy and what not to enjoy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Is all okay Nick?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Oh yeah, all good, thanks. Not Covid, but I seem to get sick very rarely and when I do it really kicks my ass,
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Ah I’m sorry to hear that, hope it’s nothing too bad and you’re feeling better soon.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,036
    At this stage, the writing team is more important than a director. Thats what they need to get right.

    If its P&W again.... well... I dont rate them. They may be ok for a script’s skeleton but not much else.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,518
    Mallory wrote: »
    At this stage, the writing team is more important than a director. Thats what they need to get right.

    If its P&W again.... well... I dont rate them. They may be ok for a script’s skeleton but not much else.

    100%. The director is such an interesting position. Strictly, a director's job is to direct the actors, but more and more in modern times they're taking on more jobs, and it's made the director seem like this apotheosis of filmmaking, when in reality, it's just that they're doing the writing, and that actually is the most important job. Nolan is a good example of one of the biggest names in directing, who is very famous for a lot of things that are not directing.

    It's obviously not quite the case with Bond where they do have independent writers and the directors are responsible for less of the writing, but all of the directors do still put their own artistic stamp on these films, which is good I suppose, and maybe the true purpose of the director. It just feels muddied these days.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    Where do I want to see Bond go?

    How about back to basics, no not the stripped away version of Craig. Back to the days of Connery Bond. Or Moore Bond. An agent doing his job. Using his wits and in some cases gadgets to get out of tight corners. I want a great villain who has a clear plan to cause harm. I want some great locales (let's stay away from bloody Italy!). I want a Bond that is suave and sophisticated.

    I don't want a personal angle to a mission. I don't want a backstory to make the villain (more relatable). I didn't need to know why Goldfinger was fixated on gold, or how Kanaga came to power in St. Monique. If EON had balls, or guts we'd have a Jeff Bezos type to look to grow even more powerful.


    I want a henchman who imposes his physical will on Bond. I would mind a femme fatale with a modern take, not a kick ass one, but one that uses her feminine wiles on agent 007.

    I would prefer we stop with the 3-5 year gaps between films. I want a director who wants to have a straightforward adventure. One that remembers these movies were meant to entertain and excite. Not be drawn out therapy sessions.

    Is this all too much to ask?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    thedove wrote: »
    Where do I want to see Bond go?

    How about back to basics, no not the stripped away version of Craig. Back to the days of Connery Bond. Or Moore Bond. An agent doing his job. Using his wits and in some cases gadgets to get out of tight corners. I want a great villain who has a clear plan to cause harm. I want some great locales (let's stay away from bloody Italy!). I want a Bond that is suave and sophisticated.

    I don't want a personal angle to a mission. I don't want a backstory to make the villain (more relatable). I didn't need to know why Goldfinger was fixated on gold, or how Kanaga came to power in St. Monique. If EON had balls, or guts we'd have a Jeff Bezos type to look to grow even more powerful.


    I want a henchman who imposes his physical will on Bond. I would mind a femme fatale with a modern take, not a kick ass one, but one that uses her feminine wiles on agent 007.

    I would prefer we stop with the 3-5 year gaps between films. I want a director who wants to have a straightforward adventure. One that remembers these movies were meant to entertain and excite. Not be drawn out therapy sessions.

    Is this all too much to ask?

    I can certainly understand this sentiment, and I do think the next films will go in this direction, but they've already said in that Hollywood Reporter interview that there will be some global threat and something personal Bond will have to overcome.

    I'm not 100% sure I subscribe to your line of thinking; it comes a little close to having and endless line of Doctors No, of Spies Who Loved Me. The things you've described are things we've had in many Bond films, and we'll always have those Bond films. I commend them for evolving things a little bit and changing up the formula; I think it has the potential to make more interesting stories. Have they swung the pendulum too far in the Craig era? Maybe. And like I said I think the pendulum will swing back the way you've described things, but I personally do hope they hold on to some of the things that evolved through the Craig era. Even if that just makes one of me.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited September 2022 Posts: 4,052
    thedove wrote: »
    Where do I want to see Bond go?

    How about back to basics, no not the stripped away version of Craig. Back to the days of Connery Bond. Or Moore Bond. An agent doing his job. Using his wits and in some cases gadgets to get out of tight corners. I want a great villain who has a clear plan to cause harm. I want some great locales (let's stay away from bloody Italy!). I want a Bond that is suave and sophisticated.

    I don't want a personal angle to a mission. I don't want a backstory to make the villain (more relatable). I didn't need to know why Goldfinger was fixated on gold, or how Kanaga came to power in St. Monique. If EON had balls, or guts we'd have a Jeff Bezos type to look to grow even more powerful.


    I want a henchman who imposes his physical will on Bond. I would mind a femme fatale with a modern take, not a kick ass one, but one that uses her feminine wiles on agent 007.

    I would prefer we stop with the 3-5 year gaps between films. I want a director who wants to have a straightforward adventure. One that remembers these movies were meant to entertain and excite. Not be drawn out therapy sessions.

    Is this all too much to ask?

    I can certainly understand this sentiment, and I do think the next films will go in this direction, but they've already said in that Hollywood Reporter interview that there will be some global threat and something personal Bond will have to overcome.

    I'm not 100% sure I subscribe to your line of thinking; it comes a little close to having and endless line of Doctors No, of Spies Who Loved Me. The things you've described are things we've had in many Bond films, and we'll always have those Bond films. I commend them for evolving things a little bit and changing up the formula; I think it has the potential to make more interesting stories. Have they swung the pendulum too far in the Craig era? Maybe. And like I said I think the pendulum will swing back the way you've described things, but I personally do hope they hold on to some of the things that evolved through the Craig era. Even if that just makes one of me.

    Make that two of us. Make Bond a human spy. Also, give us villains who we love to hate, in a good way. Remember, movies are a group effort. Both sides, (EON and us), need to remember that. I think that for other writers, besides Purvis and Wade, EON should look at people who have written Bond before. Not just Anthony Horowitz and Kim Sherwood, but do what IFP did with Kingsley Amis and Raymond Benson. Just a suggestion that both sides to consider. Not just Oscar nominated people and whoever is hot at the moment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2022 Posts: 14,861
    Yeah I watched Skyfall tonight after talking about it on here earlier, and it's bloody brilliant. I love the old ones too, like any Bond fan, but I want more in the vein of SF. Stylish and larger than life, but also dramatic and affecting and tense. I don't really need any more where Bond isn't affected by anything he does (or not remember what he did in the last movie) and just turns up to press buttons and kiss girls- Bond films are sophisticated, that's kind of the point of them; and to be sophisticated today means that you do more than just shoot baddies and ski off things.
Sign In or Register to comment.