Where does Bond go after Craig?

1232233235237238512

Comments

  • edited February 2023 Posts: 2,744
    007HallY wrote: »
    Even TSWLM did a lot more with Bond's character for the time - the conscious reference/reaction to Tracy, the relationship between him and Anya which involved him admitting he'd killed her lover/him consciously deciding to reuse her at the end even when he knew it meant she might kill him. The latter I'd argue is a major reason why it's considered one of the best Bond films by general audiences - because it has engaging characters/a story behind it. Like I said, it's very possible to have a crowd pleaser which also involves solid characters who have obstacles, goals, wants, needs and all that Scriptwriting 101 stuff (or 'emotional heft' one could say). Robocop, Rambo, both Top Gun films (much as I dislike both of them), Die Hard... take your pick.

    I mean, I completely understand not wanting to retread ideas such as villains reappearing from Bond's past (although it was there too in GE), or him having a daughter. I personally don't think either of those things worked in the context of the Craig era. I can also understand wanting to see a Bond in his prime with a story that's a bit more fantastical or escapist (I'd broadly like to see that too, and going from the last two films I suspect we'll get this, albeit with some darker moments mixed in). But I'm not sure where this resistance to any sort of two dimensionality comes from, nor do I think the examples being given do this argument justice.

    If you want to categorise TSWLM in the emotionally resonant column, that's fine by me. If bond 26 had one or at most two short scenes that played to Bond emotional side, just like TSWLM or even Goldeneye as you mention, that would be permissable. What I don't want is another instance as we have seen in the recent past, where everything in the story is geared towards bond managing his inner conflicts and less about the actual impact he has on the world around him.

    You claim people like me are resistant to bond being shown in another way to how we'd like him, but from my point of view it's the opposite. We've just had 2 decades of films which portrayed bond in a darker more realistic manner, and I certainly find things to like about casino royale, and some aspects of his tenure inspite of the diminishing returns. They were never my cup of tea, but can at least see how thats a valid take on the character in its own right. Its the people who believe bond can never raise an eyebrow again, can never throw out a quip at a smouldering wreckage again, can never stealthily lead an small army into the baddies secluded lair again who have a "resistance" to embracing bonds true "dimensions" IMO.

    But Bond has thrown out quips and continued to act in that eyebrow raising manner during the last two films. He’s even infiltrated villain’s bases and saved the world. I don’t see why any fan would claim that these aspects of Bond can’t continue to be present in the film series.

    I also think you’re vastly overestimating just how dark and realistic and even emotionally tortured Bond was during the Craig era. Same for the idea that TSWLM and GE just have ‘one or two emotional scenes’ as if there’s some sort of permissible quota for a Bond film. What happens with Anya and Alec in those films makes the climaxes of those films more tense and impactful for audiences because of the character conflict. It’s good storytelling, not a cumbersome couple of scenes to get through before stuff is blown up.

    I think most folks here agree they weren’t entirely sold on the writing of the last two Craig films. I wasn’t. I think everyone wants to see a Bond film that entertains them and gives them at least 2 hours of gripping fun. I just think some people on here tend to take the line that anything vaguely ‘personal’ about the character isn’t desired and that it’s completely separate from the story (which I don’t think it is).
  • echo wrote: »
    I think there is a recency bias here. Feeling deflated after seeing a Bond film in the theater happens more often than you think. For me, it was after AVTAK, TND, TWINE, DAD, QoS, and SP.

    I've often finished a Bond film thinking, 'hmmm, that wasn't quite what I wanted'. But NTTD was a whole different feeling. I've never finished watching the film thinking 'I wish they hadn't bothered' before. I've always found Bond films to have enough in there to keep me happy, even if they're not always what I wanted at the time. But no Time to Die if a different deal.
    I hated it.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,968
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Even TSWLM did a lot more with Bond's character for the time - the conscious reference/reaction to Tracy, the relationship between him and Anya which involved him admitting he'd killed her lover/him consciously deciding to reuse her at the end even when he knew it meant she might kill him. The latter I'd argue is a major reason why it's considered one of the best Bond films by general audiences - because it has engaging characters/a story behind it. Like I said, it's very possible to have a crowd pleaser which also involves solid characters who have obstacles, goals, wants, needs and all that Scriptwriting 101 stuff (or 'emotional heft' one could say). Robocop, Rambo, both Top Gun films (much as I dislike both of them), Die Hard... take your pick.

    I mean, I completely understand not wanting to retread ideas such as villains reappearing from Bond's past (although it was there too in GE), or him having a daughter. I personally don't think either of those things worked in the context of the Craig era. I can also understand wanting to see a Bond in his prime with a story that's a bit more fantastical or escapist (I'd broadly like to see that too, and going from the last two films I suspect we'll get this, albeit with some darker moments mixed in). But I'm not sure where this resistance to any sort of two dimensionality comes from, nor do I think the examples being given do this argument justice.

    If you want to categorise TSWLM in the emotionally resonant column, that's fine by me. If bond 26 had one or at most two short scenes that played to Bond emotional side, just like TSWLM or even Goldeneye as you mention, that would be permissable. What I don't want is another instance as we have seen in the recent past, where everything in the story is geared towards bond managing his inner conflicts and less about the actual impact he has on the world around him.

    You claim people like me are resistant to bond being shown in another way to how we'd like him, but from my point of view it's the opposite. We've just had 2 decades of films which portrayed bond in a darker more realistic manner, and I certainly find things to like about casino royale, and some aspects of his tenure inspite of the diminishing returns. They were never my cup of tea, but can at least see how thats a valid take on the character in its own right. Its the people who believe bond can never raise an eyebrow again, can never throw out a quip at a smouldering wreckage again, can never stealthily lead an small army into the baddies secluded lair again who have a "resistance" to embracing bonds true "dimensions" IMO.

    But Bond has thrown out quips and continued to act in that eyebrow raising manner during the last two films. He’s even infiltrated villain’s bases and saved the world. I don’t see why any fan would claim that these aspects of Bond can’t continue to be present in the film series.

    I also think you’re vastly overestimating just how dark and realistic and even emotionally tortured Bond was during the Craig era. Same for the idea that TSWLM and GE just have ‘one or two emotional scenes’ as if there’s some sort of permissible quota for a Bond film. What happens with Anya and Alec in those films makes the climaxes of those films more tense and impactful for audiences because of the character conflict. It’s good storytelling, not a cumbersome couple of scenes to get through before stuff is blown up.

    I think most folks here agree they weren’t entirely sold on the writing of the last two Craig films. I wasn’t. I think everyone wants to see a Bond film that entertains them and gives them at least 2 hours of gripping fun. I just think some people on here tend to take the line that anything vaguely ‘personal’ about the character isn’t desired and that it’s completely separate from the story (which I don’t think it is).

    What I'm saying is that I'd be perfectly happy with the degree of emotionality present in GE or TSWLM, if you consider those films frivolous fun or fully engaging on a character level, that's fine by me. If those scenes enhance the viewing for the general public, great. But we don't need the story to become about JUST those aspects and neglect the other aspects of the 60 year legacy the franchise was built on. Bond 25 is the perfect example for how this goes wrong, as if you remove everything explicitly about his personal drama and include only his mission you're left with about a 45 minute movie.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    You could say the same for OHMSS.

    Take out Tracy and Bond's "Blofeld is something of a must with me" story and you have 45 minutes left.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited February 2023 Posts: 1,419
    I would be fine with:

    Bond facing substance abuse, whether performance-enhancing spy drugs or just alcohol. What if he gets too drunk one night and surprised by the villain and that's how he's caught? Etc. That could make a man want to change his ways.

    I think we'll inevitably get more Bond versus M., maybe as a literal villain this time around.

    I'm sure Bond will fall in love again. That's actually right up the character's alley. Constantly falling in love, or something like it.

    By the end, I'd be ok with more "Bond versus his body/age" but only on film four or five please.

    I also think it's down to who is producing next. If they bring in younger producing talent, I'll be more hopeful for a more youthful, less world-wary Bond. I feel like Barbara and Michael let their cynicism for aging show through their Bond movies.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2023 Posts: 7,968
    echo wrote: »
    You could say the same for OHMSS.

    Take out Tracy and Bond's "Blofeld is something of a must with me" story and you have 45 minutes left.

    I'm the biggest fan of OHMSS (my second favourite in the series), but even I don't think that film should be a template for the franchise as a whole, and Bond 25 came after 4 films that already focused on his sensitive side only to double down on the most clichéd aspects of those.
  • Bond having just quit smoking could be a nice add on.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,482
    CrabKey wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    After 25 films it will be difficult to create a story that doesn't feel like a retread of a previous Bond film or two.

    Real life events saying: "Look around you!" :))

    I don't watch Bond films to be reminded of real life.

    This is really interesting point, I get your point completely mate, but I feel the exact opposite.

    Perhaps it's growing up in a post 9/11 world, but it's a reassuring to watch Bond save the day.
    I think Bill Clinton said something similar in the Everything Or Nothing documentary too.

    I get the escapism factor though, I still watch Dr No and feel the urge to put on some Ambre Solaire
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,968
    It was reassuring when bond incinerated himself because he could never touch his family again without wearing gloves.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited February 2023 Posts: 3,382
    echo wrote: »
    You could say the same for OHMSS.

    Take out Tracy and Bond's "Blofeld is something of a must with me" story and you have 45 minutes left.

    I'm the biggest fan of OHMSS (my second favourite in the series), but even I don't think that film should be a template for the franchise as a whole, and Bond 25 came after 4 films that already focused on his sensitive side only to double down on the most clichéd aspects of those.

    Nothing should be a template, not Goldfinger, not OHMSS, not TSWLM, not LTK, not GE.

    Every Bond film should be on its own.
    echo wrote: »
    I think there is a recency bias here. Feeling deflated after seeing a Bond film in the theater happens more often than you think. For me, it was after AVTAK, TND, TWINE, DAD, QoS, and SP.

    I've often finished a Bond film thinking, 'hmmm, that wasn't quite what I wanted'. But NTTD was a whole different feeling. I've never finished watching the film thinking 'I wish they hadn't bothered' before. I've always found Bond films to have enough in there to keep me happy, even if they're not always what I wanted at the time. But no Time to Die if a different deal.
    I hated it.

    Yes, we're the same, it's not worth it, actually I'm not bothered with the Future Bond films, in terms of quality (in story, in plots, and etc.) I just don't care anymore, they're starting to go far away in this point, especially that reinvention thing.

    It's like the spirit was no longer there, all I see is money and business (there's no wrong with that, but if the spirit of the real Bond is still there).

    What I'm looking to the future Bonds is the style, the action, the fashion, but the story and direction? I don't know.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 648
    I don't mind emotion in Bond movies, as nearly every one of them has some semblance of it. I just don't want the emotional heft to be the story itself. These are supposed to be spy movies. For Bond 26 I'd like an actual plot that Bond needs to navigate as opposed to a big contrivance that centers around Bond himself. I don't want Bond movies to be emotionless, I just don't want them to be soap operas with occasional shootouts and explosions.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,968
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    You could say the same for OHMSS.

    Take out Tracy and Bond's "Blofeld is something of a must with me" story and you have 45 minutes left.

    I'm the biggest fan of OHMSS (my second favourite in the series), but even I don't think that film should be a template for the franchise as a whole, and Bond 25 came after 4 films that already focused on his sensitive side only to double down on the most clichéd aspects of those.

    Nothing should be a template, not Goldfinger, not OHMSS, not TSWLM, not LTK, not GE.

    Every Bond film should be on its own.

    Exactly, which is why having something in common with OHMSS shouldn't count for or against bond 25, the film should stand on its own.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I don't mind emotion in Bond movies, as nearly every one of them has some semblance of it. I just don't want the emotional heft to be the story itself. These are supposed to be spy movies. For Bond 26 I'd like an actual plot that Bond needs to navigate as opposed to a big contrivance that centers around Bond himself. I don't want Bond movies to be emotionless, I just don't want them to be soap operas with occasional shootouts and explosions.

    Just balanced.
  • Posts: 2,744
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Even TSWLM did a lot more with Bond's character for the time - the conscious reference/reaction to Tracy, the relationship between him and Anya which involved him admitting he'd killed her lover/him consciously deciding to reuse her at the end even when he knew it meant she might kill him. The latter I'd argue is a major reason why it's considered one of the best Bond films by general audiences - because it has engaging characters/a story behind it. Like I said, it's very possible to have a crowd pleaser which also involves solid characters who have obstacles, goals, wants, needs and all that Scriptwriting 101 stuff (or 'emotional heft' one could say). Robocop, Rambo, both Top Gun films (much as I dislike both of them), Die Hard... take your pick.

    I mean, I completely understand not wanting to retread ideas such as villains reappearing from Bond's past (although it was there too in GE), or him having a daughter. I personally don't think either of those things worked in the context of the Craig era. I can also understand wanting to see a Bond in his prime with a story that's a bit more fantastical or escapist (I'd broadly like to see that too, and going from the last two films I suspect we'll get this, albeit with some darker moments mixed in). But I'm not sure where this resistance to any sort of two dimensionality comes from, nor do I think the examples being given do this argument justice.

    If you want to categorise TSWLM in the emotionally resonant column, that's fine by me. If bond 26 had one or at most two short scenes that played to Bond emotional side, just like TSWLM or even Goldeneye as you mention, that would be permissable. What I don't want is another instance as we have seen in the recent past, where everything in the story is geared towards bond managing his inner conflicts and less about the actual impact he has on the world around him.

    You claim people like me are resistant to bond being shown in another way to how we'd like him, but from my point of view it's the opposite. We've just had 2 decades of films which portrayed bond in a darker more realistic manner, and I certainly find things to like about casino royale, and some aspects of his tenure inspite of the diminishing returns. They were never my cup of tea, but can at least see how thats a valid take on the character in its own right. Its the people who believe bond can never raise an eyebrow again, can never throw out a quip at a smouldering wreckage again, can never stealthily lead an small army into the baddies secluded lair again who have a "resistance" to embracing bonds true "dimensions" IMO.

    But Bond has thrown out quips and continued to act in that eyebrow raising manner during the last two films. He’s even infiltrated villain’s bases and saved the world. I don’t see why any fan would claim that these aspects of Bond can’t continue to be present in the film series.

    I also think you’re vastly overestimating just how dark and realistic and even emotionally tortured Bond was during the Craig era. Same for the idea that TSWLM and GE just have ‘one or two emotional scenes’ as if there’s some sort of permissible quota for a Bond film. What happens with Anya and Alec in those films makes the climaxes of those films more tense and impactful for audiences because of the character conflict. It’s good storytelling, not a cumbersome couple of scenes to get through before stuff is blown up.

    I think most folks here agree they weren’t entirely sold on the writing of the last two Craig films. I wasn’t. I think everyone wants to see a Bond film that entertains them and gives them at least 2 hours of gripping fun. I just think some people on here tend to take the line that anything vaguely ‘personal’ about the character isn’t desired and that it’s completely separate from the story (which I don’t think it is).

    What I'm saying is that I'd be perfectly happy with the degree of emotionality present in GE or TSWLM, if you consider those films frivolous fun or fully engaging on a character level, that's fine by me. If those scenes enhance the viewing for the general public, great. But we don't need the story to become about JUST those aspects and neglect the other aspects of the 60 year legacy the franchise was built on. Bond 25 is the perfect example for how this goes wrong, as if you remove everything explicitly about his personal drama and include only his mission you're left with about a 45 minute movie.

    I guess what I’m trying to say I don’t think that’s necessarily true (or at least isn’t the full story) when it comes to NTTD or SP. Stuff like the Cuba sequence and the PTS in Italy certainly evoke that sense of action, fun and adventure but are mixed with either the drama of Madeline/Bond or the darker tone when the SPECTRE agents are killed by the nanobots. Again, despite my criticisms of the writing at points, that sense of story, darkness, escapism and drama work in tandem with each other. I think it’s true of TSWLM and GE too - those personal aspects (which have been broadly present in every Bond film since LTK and even in films before that) are a part of the story.

    It’s just a case of knowing where the Craig era didn’t resonate with people and why.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 203
    I just don't see why we can't have at least one bond film where they leave "emotional heft" at the door and just focus on having a rollicking good time. Babs keeps saying that men have evolved, but evolved to the point where they can no longer enjoy simple popcorn entertainment? Does no one enjoy "raiders of the lost ark" or "diehard" or "mission impossible" anymore because they don't have that layer of interpersonal drama draped on top? When you hear the first notes of the bond theme kick in, do you think "hey, time for 2hrs of intense interpersonal drama and emotional heft" or do you think you're about to experience a rip-roaring thrillride of escapist cinema?

    It pains me that EON no longer recognises what the bread and butter of its own franchise is.

    Can’t speak to Mission Impossible, but Die Hard is very much emotional heft in the Craig Era style (or vice versa) and even features improbable lift shaft scenes to boot. (The whole marriage and emotional side of MacLean is literally the USP in that film, and Willis for that point in his career) Raiders also has something we see in the Craig films, and the Brosnan films (TND Paris) where the hero hits the bottle hard after losing a woman they care for. Outside of Indy already being influenced by Bond (Raiders even has a PTS) the whole Marion arc is more integral to the plot of the film than Indiana’s presence in any other part of it. It literally *is* the film, because everything else, as is well known, would still have ended up with melted Nazi’s in the middle of no-where. It’s the story of an emotional arc, that also happens to involve an action film. The modern era of Bond even plays its comedy more like Jones — right back to pierce fixing his tie underwater — rather than the occasional gallows quip of Connery or the the Arch Moore. Craig landing on a sofa after a building falls is more of that.

    I wasn’t a fan of the Craig era at first, but it grew on me, and part of that is precisely because the ‘more human’ Bond was both a call back to what Dalton and Brosnan had both been trying for, but also because it had grown past the sixties and seventies at last, and embraced that kind of more grown up action adventure.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,968
    JustJames wrote: »
    Raiders also has something we see in the Craig films, and the Brosnan films (TND Paris) where the hero hits the bottle hard after losing a woman they care for. Outside of Indy already being influenced by Bond (Raiders even has a PTS) the whole Marion arc is more integral to the plot of the film than Indiana’s presence in any other part of it. It literally *is* the film, because everything else, as is well known, would still have ended up with melted Nazi’s in the middle of no-where. It’s the story of an emotional arc, that also happens to involve an action film.

    If there's a scene in bond 26 where Bonds actions lead to a young woman's death and he sits at a bar and consoles himself ala brosnan in tnd or indiana in Raiders I would be perfectly fine with that. A nice touching moment with a soft score, great. But if he spends the next film and a half moping around until that all hint of irreverence and levity is vacant, and it consumes his entire being to the extent he is unrecognisable, then It'll be "no thanks" from me.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895
    As someone who much preferred the Matera sequence to the Cuba sequence (Paloma excepted, obvs!) in NTTD, I'd prefer a full film of the former to an entire movie of the latter. But there's scope for both elements in various amounts from film to film, right? It doesn't have to be either/or.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,482
    Venutius wrote: »
    As someone who much preferred the Matera sequence to the Cuba sequence (Paloma excepted, obvs!) in NTTD, I'd prefer a full film of the former to an entire movie of the latter. But there's scope for both elements in various amounts from film to film, right? It doesn't have to be either/or.

    Couldn't agree more mate. The vibe of the Matera sequence is were I want my Bond, thrilling, suspenseful, a touch of romance, with a great location
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 784
    edgar wright is the perfect director to bring back the flippancy and kineticism back to Bond which has been sorely lacking in the 21st century thus far.

    I am a a big fan of Edgar but I don’t see him doing bond justice early on in someone’s tenure, towards the end sure. Sony/Marvel should have hired him for Spider-Man a long time ago though. His style would have been perfect.

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,282
    The Matera Sequence is so good, it feels like a short Bond film that doesn't even feels like it's supposed to be in NTTD. It's more suited to CR & QoS. Just like how the Cuba sequence feels like it belongs to SP, since SP mostly had soft action scenes. I really don't know what Fukunaga was thinking when he directed the chilling opening Norway sequence, then the stylish Matera sequence....before a great deal of the film started turning into a dirge filled with comedy. I just hope Bond 26's director doesn't make the same mistake.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2023 Posts: 2,895
    Agreed - the tonal shift from Matera to Borat and soup gags just pulls me straight out of the film. Misfire, Cary!
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    The vibe of the Matera sequence is were I want my Bond, thrilling, suspenseful, a touch of romance, with a great location
    Me too, Jordo - perfectly put, mate.

  • I’d like for Bond to be more emotionally understated. That scene in Thunderball where he breaks the news to Domino about her brothers death was perfectly handled. Same with the beach scene in Goldeneye.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2023 Posts: 7,968
    I’d like for Bond to be more emotionally understated. That scene in Thunderball where he breaks the news to Domino about her brothers death was perfectly handled. Same with the beach scene in Goldeneye.

    Agree on the thunderball scene, compare sean putting on his shades with a slight shake in his wrist to craigs "I've got no armour left"


    no contest.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    When you pointed to Mission: Impossible as a film series without emotional heft I was completely baffled by that attempt at an argument because that film series has ALWAYS had emotional heft for Ethan Hunt. Those films all indulge in the same exact personal tropes that the Craig films have so it’s bizarre to see an attempt to pass it off as “just a roller coaster”. Seriously?

    The idea of an actioner not having emotional heft is really just something we haven’t seen for awhile, not just with Bond but with action cinema in general. At this point, it would be highly unusual for any film to NOT to try to give characters some emotional heft because it’s become so embedded in how films are written and viewed today.

    But it’s understandable why some fans would want to see Bond done in an old school way, because unlike so many other active franchises, we can actually trace back with Bond to a time when the series wasn’t at all concerned with Bond’s emotional and psychological state beyond just being cool and unflappable. Bond actually crossed over from one era of filmmaking to another over the past 60s that can’t be said of any other film series. There’s no such thing as a DIE HARD film where John McClane had no emotional investment in his tasks. There’s no Marvel film without a character arc. There’s no MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE film with Ethan Hunt not taking a mission personally (especially when it comes to the loves of his life). INDIANA JONES probably has one film you could say is just a pure rollercoaster (TEMPLE OF DOOM) which is actually esoteric for those films and probably the reason it got so unfairly dismissed over the years (even by Spielberg himself).
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 784
    The emotional arcs were simple and undeveloped. People are more complex than how they were portrayed in SF onwards. Usually fictional characters are more developed and astute than real people, but when we get dumbed down versions of them, the amazement and the bewilderment of the audience disappears.

    It can be done well, but if they don’t bother doing it well, then perhaps they should refrain all together. The ideal would be to do it well.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited February 2023 Posts: 686
    When you pointed to Mission: Impossible as a film series without emotional heft I was completely baffled by that attempt at an argument because that film series has ALWAYS had emotional heft for Ethan Hunt. Those films all indulge in the same exact personal tropes that the Craig films have so it’s bizarre to see an attempt to pass it off as “just a roller coaster”. Seriously?

    The idea of an actioner not having emotional heft is really just something we haven’t seen for awhile, not just with Bond but with action cinema in general. At this point, it would be highly unusual for any film to NOT to try to give characters some emotional heft because it’s become so embedded in how films are written and viewed today.

    But it’s understandable why some fans would want to see Bond done in an old school way, because unlike so many other active franchises, we can actually trace back with Bond to a time when the series wasn’t at all concerned with Bond’s emotional and psychological state beyond just being cool and unflappable. Bond actually crossed over from one era of filmmaking to another over the past 60s that can’t be said of any other film series. There’s no such thing as a DIE HARD film where John McClane had no emotional investment in his tasks. There’s no Marvel film without a character arc. There’s no MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE film with Ethan Hunt not taking a mission personally (especially when it comes to the loves of his life). INDIANA JONES probably has one film you could say is just a pure rollercoaster (TEMPLE OF DOOM) which is actually esoteric for those films and probably the reason it got so unfairly dismissed over the years (even by Spielberg himself).

    …and that’s because Hollywood loves formula. I’m just not convinced that this particular formula works for a movie series that is supposed to run indefinitely.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2023 Posts: 23,448
    The emotional arcs were simple and undeveloped. People are more complex than how they were portrayed in SF onwards. Usually literary characters are more developed and astute than real people, but when we get dumbed down versions of them, the amazement and bewilderment of the audience disappears.

    It can be done well, but if they don’t bother doing it well, then perhaps they should refrain all together. The ideal would be to do it well.

    Well, yes, that goes without saying. Do it well, or not at all. Despite my love for the Craig era, I can safely say that some things worked for me and some things didn't. And I wouldn't mind a more detached Bond, not at all. But a guy who's just following orders and has no personal stakes in the game of any kind is not likely to 'move' audiences these days.

    I also agree with @ByRoyalDecree in that complexity seems to be what people now want. Successful characters aren't simply archetypical or superficial; they are real. Audiences don't resonate with a collection of simple traits anymore, they want depth. Old-school fans may reject that and want a return to simpler days -- heck, so do I sometimes, which is why I still watch GF or TB or any of the others from decades ago -- but I doubt that such a film has a big chance of getting released today, especially with an extremely big budget behind it.

    I honestly think there's a middle ground where we can all meet. Forget Bond's family tree, please. No matter how much I love SF and SP, that part rubbed me the wrong way. It didn't work for me and added nothing to the suspense or excitement of the films. (Just my opinion, of course.) But an angry Bond (LTK, DAD, OHMSS), or a Bond in love (CR, NTTD), or a Bond who feels betrayed (GE, TWINE), well, that's a Bond I can definitely work with. But it's like salt in my soup: a little goes a long way, but too much makes me lose my appetite.

    And if we must, well then we can always go back to Fleming. (Not that I always want to; films and books are two different things.) But as far as I can tell, Fleming delivered it all in small doses. By the climax of nearly every book, Bond had built up some emotional investment in the mission, but rarely ever to the point where we were in some kind of Shakespearean drama. Not zero, not amped up to 11, but somewhere in between, and we're good.
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 784
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The emotional arcs were simple and undeveloped. People are more complex than how they were portrayed in SF onwards. Usually literary characters are more developed and astute than real people, but when we get dumbed down versions of them, the amazement and bewilderment of the audience disappears.

    It can be done well, but if they don’t bother doing it well, then perhaps they should refrain all together. The ideal would be to do it well.

    Well, yes, that goes without saying. Do it well, or not at all. Despite my love for the Craig era, I can safely say that some things worked for me and some things didn't. And I wouldn't mind a more detached Bond, not at all. But a guy who's just following orders and has no personal stakes in the game of any kind is not likely to 'move' audiences these days.

    I also agree with @ByRoyalDecree in that complexity seems to be what people now want. Successful characters aren't simply archetypical or superficial; they are real. Audiences don't resonate with a collection of simple traits anymore, they want depth. Old-school fans may reject that and want a return to simpler days -- heck, so do I sometimes, which is why I still watch GF or TB or any of the others from decades ago -- but I doubt that such a film has a big chance of getting released today, especially with an extremely big budget behind it.

    I honestly think there's a middle ground where we can all meet. Forget Bond's family tree, please. No matter how much I love SF and SP, that part rubbed me the wrong way. It didn't work for me and added nothing to the suspense or excitement of the films. (Just my opinion, of course.) But an angry Bond (LTK, DAD, OHMSS), or a Bond in love (CR, NTTD), or a Bond who feels betrayed (GE, TWINE), well, that's a Bond I can definitely work with. But it's like salt in my soup: a little goes a long way, but too much makes me lose my appetite.

    And if we must, well then we can always go back to Fleming. (Not that I always want to; films and books are two different things.) But as far as I can tell, Fleming delivered it all in small doses. By the climax of nearly every book, Bond had built up some emotional investment in the mission, but rarely ever to the point where we were in some kind of Shakespearean drama. Not zero, not amped up to 11, but somewhere in between, and we're good.

    Indeed family relationships make the character feel less enigmatic. But past school/work relationships/traumas should be good to go. No flashbacks or explicit expositions however.

    My biggest pet peeve is that the backstory/canon almost always was mixed with cartoonish tones. If you want full realism go full realism and make the entire thing believable and aesthetically down to earth. Then we’d buy it.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    When you pointed to Mission: Impossible as a film series without emotional heft I was completely baffled by that attempt at an argument because that film series has ALWAYS had emotional heft for Ethan Hunt. Those films all indulge in the same exact personal tropes that the Craig films have so it’s bizarre to see an attempt to pass it off as “just a roller coaster”. Seriously?

    The idea of an actioner not having emotional heft is really just something we haven’t seen for awhile, not just with Bond but with action cinema in general. At this point, it would be highly unusual for any film to NOT to try to give characters some emotional heft because it’s become so embedded in how films are written and viewed today.

    But it’s understandable why some fans would want to see Bond done in an old school way, because unlike so many other active franchises, we can actually trace back with Bond to a time when the series wasn’t at all concerned with Bond’s emotional and psychological state beyond just being cool and unflappable. Bond actually crossed over from one era of filmmaking to another over the past 60s that can’t be said of any other film series. There’s no such thing as a DIE HARD film where John McClane had no emotional investment in his tasks. There’s no Marvel film without a character arc. There’s no MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE film with Ethan Hunt not taking a mission personally (especially when it comes to the loves of his life). INDIANA JONES probably has one film you could say is just a pure rollercoaster (TEMPLE OF DOOM) which is actually esoteric for those films and probably the reason it got so unfairly dismissed over the years (even by Spielberg himself).

    …and that’s because Hollywood loves formula. I’m just not convinced that this particular formula works for a movie series that is supposed to run indefinitely.

    It’s been running this way for half of its run already.
  • quantumspectrequantumspectre argentina
    Posts: 61
    if theres a new bond, to me needs to be just the first movie like casino royale, more funny than dramatic, and then become more thriller than spy. that if the new actor and movie worked.also lets not forget many thrillers have jokes in the middle of serious moments, so they could do something.
Sign In or Register to comment.