Where does Bond go after Craig?

1190191193195196212

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 24 Posts: 11,648
    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.
  • edited September 24 Posts: 613
    I don't disagree with the dramatic angle. I just think the plot could help explore it in greater depth rather than limit it by being poorly constructed and quite frankly milk toast.
  • 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 agree with this line of thinking personally. I just don’t think the experimentation of the Craig era as a whole worked entirely. It was nice to see EON, for the most part, learn their mistakes from the Brosnan era, but when they tried and force these films into being an “arc” for Bond, it just didn’t work because of a lack of some sort of general idea of where to take the character and how to end it, and that’s a problem is when you’re trying to develop a multi-film storyline. Plus, the films began to obsess over the idea of deconstructing the character/franchise. Having more personal stakes is one thing, but breaking down and attempting to study Bond’s inner psychology is entirely different, and to do that for 5 films does become somewhat tiresome. Those are just my thoughts personally, but each Bond fan has an era that doesn’t work for them. But I’d just like to see a Classic Bond film that just revels in everything great about this character and the franchise without having to feel like it has to study the character/franchise closely.
  • Posts: 1,122
    This thread's taken an odd turn... I love SF for what it's worth. It can be weirdly divisive amongst Bond fans though.

    I would say though, that much like GF or FRWL, I suspect SF is one of those Bond films that a lot of new Bond directors and writers will try to emulate going forward. Hell, many aspects of SP and NTTD already bear similarities to the ideas honed in SF. It's not a perfect movie (no movie is) but it's one I felt understood Bond as a character and certainly dared to do something different while still being 'true' to him. It's also a Bond film with quite a lot of audience appeal, particularly amongst younger people going from personal experience. Often people who don't like Bond films tend to be drawn to this one, again just going from my personal experience.

    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I would love to see a sophisticated, elegant female villain with unique, extremely threatening henchmen.

    Yeah, a female villain would be great, but a proper one. So not an Elektra type who tricks Bond, or someone who has a sexual relationship with him. Just an elegant woman who is a legitimate threat and is depicted unambiguously as the antagonist of the film.

    Yeah I'm definitely up for a female villain, just for a change if nothing else. And yes, I don't want a Bond girl gone bad as Electra sort of was, I just want a proper villain who happens to be female. A Helen Mirren or someone like that.
    Actually Helen McCrory would have been a great villain (best known to Bond fans as the minister in the enquiry in Skyfall), so sad.

    A bit more diversity in the villains would be good, and not even for the sake of representation: it'd just be nice to have a bit of variation! The past five villains have all been white blokes, it's a bit samey.

    Well, four white blokes I guess... Silva ticked a few diversity boxes to be fair to him. The guy was a Spanish bisexual agent working for the British Government for some reason... Sounds positively woke. And of course Safin's played by an American actor of Egyptian descent doing the most generic European accent I think I've ever heard...

    I do get what you mean though. I think after Silva aspects of the villains felt a bit repetitive. At least to me. But yes, a female villain would be good and there are many different directions they could go in with this. Again, I'm personally a fan of not going down the 'deceitful seductress' cliche route that we saw with Elektra (and, let's be honest, way too many female villains in these sorts of movies when we do get them) and just having an interesting antagonist. I mean, my instinct would be someone like Tilda Swinton perhaps (a bit too famous or wouldn't be interested?) - a solid character actress with a naturally unique presence/look who could do something interesting with such a role. That said there are many actresses not only from the UK but elsewhere of different ages and 'types' who I'm sure could give us an interesting villain. Ruth Wilson, Florence Pugh, Isabelle Adjani, Nora Arnezeder, Shiela Vand... there are many possibilities.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited September 25 Posts: 3,833
    Yes sadly I was aware of the "personal side" comment made in the interview. Not sure how more personal we get than lovers, children, stepbrothers. We have had his boss dying in his arms. We have had him showing no skills after a break and then suddenly finding his mojo. We've even had him head back to the grave of his former lover. Someone he knew for a few weeks and yet carried deep feelings for over 15 years.

    I would prefer we pause that personal stuff for a while, or at the very least, tone it down.

    But let's spitball something. What else could you have a new Bond experience from a "personal" standpoint. Here are a few ideas:
    • James Bond in All in the Family Let's give Bond a Stepmom who didn't love him as much as her own son. She goes on to create a super criminal organization that has a sole focus to eliminate Bond. Have it that Bond beat out her son to make double-0. Bond must make the difficult decision whether to hunt down Stepmom and put an end to her reign of terror or give up being a spy so that his stepbrother can jump into service. In the office we can have Moneypenny file a sexual harassment suit against Bond and M. M for condoning the behavior and creating a male toxic workplace.
    • The Man from UNCLE Due to the trauma of dealing his Stepmom and the lawsuit Bond sees a therapist. The therapist is really a double agent for a long-lost Uncle of Bond's. The Uncle has an organization called UNCLE and he uses the info of the therapist to take down Bond. Bond must overcome the villain knowing deep dark details of Bond. Namely that he was happy his mom died in a mountain climbing accident.
    • The Cost of Privilege In the final film of the family trilogy Bond carries the weight of privilege, and this guilt impacts him. He eschews the service and heads to an island to rest and relax. He is coaxed back to the service after his friend from the CIA Felix Leiter comes to call and asks for a Favour. The favor is to go find and kill his nephew in a volcano installation.
    • Have the series of films end with Bond confessing his sins and dying in a volcano as a sacrifice to help make amends for the hurt and violence he has caused.

    Of course, I am jesting. But I find these "personal" stories so soap opera and so tedious. I just miss the "old days" of a spy on a mission to eliminate an enemy who wishes to bring harm to the world.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 25 Posts: 7,258
    thedove wrote: »
    Yes sadly I was aware of the "personal side" comment made in the interview. Not sure how more personal we get than lovers, children, stepbrothers. We have had his boss dying in his arms. We have had him showing no skills after a break and then suddenly finding his mojo. We've even had him head back to the grave of his former lover. Someone he knew for a few weeks and yet carried deep feelings for over 15 years.

    I would prefer we pause that personal stuff for a while, or at the very least, tone it down.

    I think you can rest easy then, I don't think they're going *more* personal, just that they're not completely abandoning that angle.

    Toning it down is exactly what I would expect.

    EDIT: I guess they're going "more" personal with regards to quantity (ie, they will make "more" Bond films with a personal angle), not with regards to quality (ie, the next Bond films will have even "more" of a personal angle). Maybe there was some confusion with my original post.
  • edited September 25 Posts: 613
    Backstory is not necessary to add complexity to the character, it is a rather cheap cop out. I hope the writers realise this.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 370
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do get what you mean though. I think after Silva aspects of the villains felt a bit repetitive. At least to me. But yes, a female villain would be good and there are many different directions they could go in with this. Again, I'm personally a fan of not going down the 'deceitful seductress' cliche route that we saw with Elektra (and, let's be honest, way too many female villains in these sorts of movies when we do get them) and just having an interesting antagonist. I mean, my instinct would be someone like Tilda Swinton perhaps (a bit too famous or wouldn't be interested?) - a solid character actress with a naturally unique presence/look who could do something interesting with such a role. That said there are many actresses not only from the UK but elsewhere of different ages and 'types' who I'm sure could give us an interesting villain. Ruth Wilson, Florence Pugh, Isabelle Adjani, Nora Arnezeder, Shiela Vand... there are many possibilities.

    Renate Reinsve is good. The Worst Person in the World I think has put her on the map internationally.
  • Posts: 1,122
    I think there's an unfortunate tendency to assume that character arcs, especially with a character like Bond, always have something to do with families, our hero's past, some sort of deep seated emotional trauma etc. There's literally hundreds of things that could be done which are 'personal' but don't involve these things.

    I mean, you could a Bond much like the one at the start of the TB novel - a hedonistic, heavy drinking, reckless, but essentially carefree version of the character. Throughout the film he takes increasingly dangerous risks to the point where he makes mistakes, possibly nearly gets himself killed at the hands of the villain. By the end he has to use his wits, be less impulsive, in order to save the day. By the end he's a better agent for it.

    Or maybe take a page out of the first chapter of GF and show Bond killing a man/drinking heavily afterwards. You could incorporate the bruise that Fleming describes on his hand as a reminder of this throughout the film, mix it with a TMWTGG plot where Bond has to go undercover and assassinate someone but keeps missing the opportunity because of his dislike of killing in cold blood.

    I mean, this is all pretty standard stuff for character/story writing anyway. While I accept that the likes of SP and even NTTD can get a bit 'soap operaish' without these sorts of arcs or ideas then the films will start to become rather repetitive, which was a problem with the old series after a point. Most of the Fleming novels by these standards contain things which are 'personal' too and this isn't criticised to the same extent the modern films are.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 25 Posts: 7,258
    Backstory is not necessary to add complexity to the character, it is a rather cheap cop out. I hope the writers realise this.

    Maybe they should just hire you, you seem to know exactly what to do to prevent the next era of Bond from turning into the absymal disaster-ridden pile of junk the Craig era was.

    And when people inevitably don't like it, you can just resort to ad hominem!
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there's an unfortunate tendency to assume that character arcs, especially with a character like Bond, always have something to do with families, our hero's past, some sort of deep seated emotional trauma etc. There's literally hundreds of things that could be done which are 'personal' but don't involve these things.

    I mean, you could a Bond much like the one at the start of the TB novel - a hedonistic, heavy drinking, reckless, but essentially carefree version of the character. Throughout the film he takes increasingly dangerous risks to the point where he makes mistakes, possibly nearly gets himself killed at the hands of the villain. By the end he has to use his wits, be less impulsive, in order to save the day. By the end he's a better agent for it.

    Or maybe take a page out of the first chapter of GF and show Bond killing a man/drinking heavily afterwards. You could incorporate the bruise that Fleming describes on his hand as a reminder of this throughout the film, mix it with a TMWTGG plot where Bond has to go undercover and assassinate someone but keeps missing the opportunity because of his dislike of killing in cold blood.

    I mean, this is all pretty standard stuff for character/story writing anyway. While I accept that the likes of SP and even NTTD can get a bit 'soap operaish' without these sorts of arcs or ideas then the films will start to become rather repetitive, which was a problem with the old series after a point. Most of the Fleming novels by these standards contain things which are 'personal' too and this isn't criticised to the same extent the modern films are.

    This is all great stuff. Not sure if you've read With A Mind To Kill, but his gunshot wound from TMWTGG pops up once in awhile in the narrative of this new book, to great effect.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,833
    I am all for showing some flaws or developing the character over a few films. Please let's have a plan and not retcon everything to fit. There was very little planned properly. When you write out the arc this character went on it plays like a soap opera and yet the producers play this off as it was high cinema. Cubby knew people went to a Bond movie to have fun and escape. This self-loathing, angst was okay for 5 films, but please do something a little lighter.

    To recap, Bond meets a treasury agent and works with her for a few days. They spend more time together after the mission. Bond falls completely and deeply in love. She dies, he then pines for her in the aftermath. Meanwhile, his stepbrother has started a sinister organization intent on making James' life hell. He hires Silva to kill M, he was the one who placed said treasury agent with Bond. He even booby traps the grave of the treasury agent so that when Bond comes to grieve, he can kill James. Meanwhile in another mission a woman Bond meets and falls deeply and madly in love. So much love that Bond throws away his career and travels with her. He gets her pregnant, but she doesn't tell him. He discovers years later that the child is his. He attempts to reconcile with the lover, but she resists. Bond dies saving his lover and child.

    If the producers ever start to spout the "Daniel and we knew what we wanted to do with the character" nonsense I might weep. Tears of laughter.

    You really think the first 20 Bond movies were the same? I think they did a wonderful job of entertaining an audience. Some were pure fluff some were more serious. The tone changed. Did Moore's Bond have an "arc", none that I can tell. Do we think his films suffered because of it? I don't think so. Not everything needs a "universe" or a series of related films.

    I can see that personal doesn't always have to be family or love. I doubt we will see an alcoholic Bond we don't even see one that can smoke anymore. I think we are far more likely to get family again. Maybe the M is the father or mother figure. Maybe this time he can have twins? Or maybe he can fall deeply in love with someone who he meets for a few days. Have him pine away for decades about her.

    It is funny that some on here slag TWINE for being like a soap opera, my God does Craig's Bond have that film beat. The Blofeld being my brother thing is way more soap opera than anything in TWINE!
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,258
    I agree, the retcon job in Spectre was very bad. It’s why I think it would be fine to include Blofeld and Spectre as soon as they’d like in the next era, because they’d be equipped to do it properly. I know it will be written off at semantics (and, probably, fair enough), but Bond and Blofeld weren’t related; not brothers, nor step brothers, but foster brothers. And honestly, in the grand scheme of what they were going for in the Craig era, it actually doesn’t bother me that much.
    Anyways, you make a lot of fair points.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,648
    007HallY wrote: »
    Most of the Fleming novels by these standards contain things which are 'personal' too and this isn't criticised to the same extent the modern films are.

    Yes that always puzzles me.
    ‘Go back to Fleming. No not like that!!’ :D
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,696
    I think they really mean to say: “Just make the movies like they did in the 60s where Bond never has any personal stakes or character arcs”.

    What they fail to comprehend is that movies as a whole just don’t do that anymore. At least since the 80s, action films have steered towards giving the protagonists character arcs and personal stakes. That has become an industry norm.

    Rambo films were never “just missions”. Indiana Jones wasn’t just recovering artifacts. John McClane wasn’t just fighting terrorists.

    Notice how once all those films were rolling along, Eon immediately adapted and featured personal elements for Bond by the late 80s with Dalton, most notably with LTK. And since then, there hasn’t been a single Bond film that didn’t feature a personal element for Bond. Like it or not, this has become the norm and will stay that way until something big happens with the action-adventure genre.
  • I'd like to see (or personate) a combined portrayal of the literary, cinematic, and lyrical Bond. The man envisioned in the songs. The man with a strong heart and sound mind.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited September 25 Posts: 1,698
    Whatever happens with Bond 26, I think it was always odds on to have a personal angle for Bond.
    Barbara and Michael have pushed for it ever since they took over, wasn't Goldeneye the first mention of Bond's parents in the film series?

    I think when it's done well it adds to the richness of the film
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,707
    A completely impersonal Bond film isn't going to happen any time soon, I suspect. Look around, all things from Batman to M:I to the action flicks mentioned in the previous posts include personal angles for their leads. Yes, the Bond series is its own thing and doesn't have to follow others. But even then, the Bonds don't exist in a vacuum. To some extent, they operate within the same parameters as the competition. They ultimately aim to please more or less the same subset of the audience.
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I think when it's done well it adds to the richness of the film

    I absolutely agree.
  • Yes but stepbrother Blofeld was a disaster.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,451
    I honestly think the word "personal" was incorrectly used by the producers.

    In contemporary script writing (that really started to evolve in the late 60s/70s), producers asked and continue to want a few things, and it's the basis of a lot of first discussions:

    1/conflict and obstacles.

    This gets broken into:

    1a/ external conflicts: usually related to the villain in action/thriller films, but it could be about the end of a relationship in a drama, or the protagonist losing their livelihood after being with the company for the last 25 years), and;

    1b/ internal conflict: this could be confronting a great fear (Luke Skywalker facing off with his father); could be John McClane trying to save his marriage; Rocky overcoming crippling self doubt to "just go the distance" with Creed, because nobody had ever done that before...

    And once conflicts (both external and internal) are established, then the protagonist and antagonist intentions can be explored through "action".

    I honestly don't think the Bond producers are looking for more "drama", and are, instead, talking about creating conflicts and obstacles for 007, that he will have to overcome in this new era.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,444
    Yes but stepbrother Blofeld was a disaster.

    I really dislike the film, but they weren't stepbrothers. Not sure why people keep saying they were.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,258
    Yes but stepbrother Blofeld was a disaster.

    I really dislike the film, but they weren't stepbrothers. Not sure why people keep saying they were.

    Thought I cleared it up, but my post went ignored.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,444
    Yes but stepbrother Blofeld was a disaster.

    I really dislike the film, but they weren't stepbrothers. Not sure why people keep saying they were.

    Thought I cleared it up, but my post went ignored.

    You're absolutely right. I merely skimmed. Apologies @NickTwentyTwo
  • edited September 25 Posts: 1,122
    Even by foster brother standards it's pretty thin. Wasn't the whole point that they only spent two years together? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong but it wasn't like they grew up together.

    Just goes to show how stupid the idea and execution was. Even from a scriptwriting perspective it's very strange. Blofeld's formation of SPECTRE has nothing to do with killing Oberhauser or his dislike of Bond technically, and yet the film emphasises the connection between the two characters (Blofeld even says that Bond in a way sent him down this path). I think people tend to read more into aspects of the film like Blofeld being 'the author of all Bond's pain', as if his hatred of this man was so deep seated that he specifically targeted Bond as early as CR, when in reality all it amounted to was pure coincidence. Again, it's the film's fault - it's hammering this point home so it's natural audiences latch onto the idea. Doesn't help that Blofeld had no believable motivation to kill his father or even dislike Bond, and the best they seem to do is 'he's crazy'.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 25 Posts: 5,157
    007HallY wrote: »
    This thread's taken an odd turn... I love SF for what it's worth. It can be weirdly divisive amongst Bond fans though.

    I would say though, that much like GF or FRWL, I suspect SF is one of those Bond films that a lot of new Bond directors and writers will try to emulate going forward. Hell, many aspects of SP and NTTD already bear similarities to the ideas honed in SF. It's not a perfect movie (no movie is) but it's one I felt understood Bond as a character and certainly dared to do something different while still being 'true' to him. It's also a Bond film with quite a lot of audience appeal, particularly amongst younger people going from personal experience. Often people who don't like Bond films tend to be drawn to this one, again just going from my personal experience.

    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I would love to see a sophisticated, elegant female villain with unique, extremely threatening henchmen.

    Yeah, a female villain would be great, but a proper one. So not an Elektra type who tricks Bond, or someone who has a sexual relationship with him. Just an elegant woman who is a legitimate threat and is depicted unambiguously as the antagonist of the film.

    Yeah I'm definitely up for a female villain, just for a change if nothing else. And yes, I don't want a Bond girl gone bad as Electra sort of was, I just want a proper villain who happens to be female. A Helen Mirren or someone like that.
    Actually Helen McCrory would have been a great villain (best known to Bond fans as the minister in the enquiry in Skyfall), so sad.

    A bit more diversity in the villains would be good, and not even for the sake of representation: it'd just be nice to have a bit of variation! The past five villains have all been white blokes, it's a bit samey.

    Well, four white blokes I guess... Silva ticked a few diversity boxes to be fair to him. The guy was a Spanish bisexual agent working for the British Government for some reason... Sounds positively woke. And of course Safin's played by an American actor of Egyptian descent doing the most generic European accent I think I've ever heard...

    I do get what you mean though. I think after Silva aspects of the villains felt a bit repetitive. At least to me. But yes, a female villain would be good and there are many different directions they could go in with this. Again, I'm personally a fan of not going down the 'deceitful seductress' cliche route that we saw with Elektra (and, let's be honest, way too many female villains in these sorts of movies when we do get them) and just having an interesting antagonist. I mean, my instinct would be someone like Tilda Swinton perhaps (a bit too famous or wouldn't be interested?) - a solid character actress with a naturally unique presence/look who could do something interesting with such a role. That said there are many actresses not only from the UK but elsewhere of different ages and 'types' who I'm sure could give us an interesting villain. Ruth Wilson, Florence Pugh, Isabelle Adjani, Nora Arnezeder, Shiela Vand... there are many possibilities.

    Isabelle Huppert. Of course she would be fabulous.

    I like the idea of a female villain, operating out in the open and not hidden like Elektra, much better than the obvious way to go right now, which would be a villain (god help us) based on Bezos/Trump/Musk.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited September 25 Posts: 5,201
    mtm wrote: »
    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 couldn’t agree more. For me, Skyfall is where we had reached the point I felt the series should stay. It was the perfect blend of the old classics and what had been achieved with the Craig-era, which is probably why I was also so disappointed when it came round to Spectre. While narratively, Skyfall was unique with its focus on M, overall (in terms of writing, casting, cinematography, production design) it is what they should be aiming for with Bond 25.
  • It should be better than Skyfall even if they choose to emulate its direction.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,833
    I think they really mean to say: “Just make the movies like they did in the 60s where Bond never has any personal stakes or character arcs”.

    What they fail to comprehend is that movies as a whole just don’t do that anymore. At least since the 80s, action films have steered towards giving the protagonists character arcs and personal stakes. That has become an industry norm.

    Rambo films were never “just missions”. Indiana Jones wasn’t just recovering artifacts. John McClane wasn’t just fighting terrorists.

    Notice how once all those films were rolling along, Eon immediately adapted and featured personal elements for Bond by the late 80s with Dalton, most notably with LTK. And since then, there hasn’t been a single Bond film that didn’t feature a personal element for Bond. Like it or not, this has become the norm and will stay that way until something big happens with the action-adventure genre.

    Am I the they you refer to? I guess this old dinosaur doesn't comprehend how movies work. I recall when Bond set the pace and others copied them. Now the series copies others. I guess this old guy can dream of a day when we return to having entertaining films. I enjoyed the Daniel Craig films, they are uneven in execution.

    To have Vesper be this overarching character that Bond pines for over 15 years seems a stretch to me. I don't recall Fleming referring to Vesper that much in subsequent novels, but maybe my old memory isn't serving me well.

    I am curious to the personal story that Indiana Jones undertook in Temple of Doom? I stopped watching Rambo after the second one as I didn't think there was much left to do with the character.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    edited September 25 Posts: 6,696
    thedove wrote: »
    Am I the they you refer to?
    I was actually thinking of a Facebook group when writing that post. Lots of 60 year old men lamenting about how Bond films aren’t like what they used to be in the 60s and just wanna return to that. I think that’s about as likely as seeing a return to a William Dozier style Batman film in cinemas.
    I am curious to the personal story that Indiana Jones undertook in Temple of Doom

    Indy’s personal story is that he starts off as someone who just collects artifacts for purely for “fortune and glory”, as we see in Shanghai. He doesn’t seem to have the kind of respect for artifacts and their historical significance in the same way he does in other films “this belongs in a museum!” By the end of the movie, instead of taking the Shankara stones for himself like he originally planned, he decides to return it to the village it belonged to. It’s not as strong a story for Indy as the other films, which is probably why many don’t rank it as high as RAIDERS.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,833
    Okay fair enough @MakeshiftPython and since I am 8 years younger than the Facebook Group I will breathe a sigh of relief. LOL!

    I guess my understanding of "personal" is now tied to how Craig's Bond did family and love. I have no problem with character development and arcs. Bond having kids seems weird and out of place for me.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 496
    The problem isn't the presence personal angles in Bond movies, the problem is that, recently, the movies themselves have all hinged purely on personal angles, usually on a character's past. With Skyfall it was M's past. With Spectre it was Bond's. With NTTD it was Madeline's. And it was always about revenge.

    The Craig era became a soap opera where every single major character shared a past with one another, and it became ridiculous. When everything is contrived through interpersonal relationships, it makes the Bond world very small and the events seem very forced.

    I'm also not convinced by the argument that, "Other franchises do it, therefore Bond has to do it." Bond should be setting trends, not following them. Interpersonal drama doesn't fit this series very well. It's not what Bond is about, in my opinion, of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.