Where does Bond go after Craig?

1460461463465466584

Comments

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 828
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit I'm not a massive fan of the bits where Bond disappears for long stretches. Like the TB plane crashing or the TND boat sinking etc. I like watching Bond himself so I like it when they integrate him if they can.
    That's my personal preference: I'm not saying it's the right way to do it or the only way to do it or if anyone thinks differently they're wrong. It's a shame I have to make that clear, but there we go.

    I suspect Eon probably know how long the average audience will be able to go Bondless before getting fidgety and won't push that boundary, but I do like setting up the threat at the start before bringing in Bond. One of the things I like about NTTD is the flashback to Madeleine's past at the beginning. I wouldn't be keen on long stretches without Bond once we're well into the main adventure, though.
  • Posts: 990
    I always thought Fleming's Bond was more naive and less tough than the film version.
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 257
    Great post, @Univex! A brilliant spionage narrative turned into a James Bond story would be awesome.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,136
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit I'm not a massive fan of the bits where Bond disappears for long stretches. Like the TB plane crashing or the TND boat sinking etc. I like watching Bond himself so I like it when they integrate him if they can.
    That's my personal preference: I'm not saying it's the right way to do it or the only way to do it or if anyone thinks differently they're wrong. It's a shame I have to make that clear, but there we go.

    It also brings up the question of how much should we, the audience, know before Bond knows it. Are the films as interesting when we're waiting for Bond to play catch-up?

    I'm not saying it can't be done or even that it can't be done well (FRWL is a fine example - but I wonder if the reason that works is because of its atmospheric, Hitchcockian-tone) but if we're going for a big, brash and thundering adventure then it might just take away elements of surprise from the plot. I love TND precisely because it's a breezy and uncomplicated watch with lots of energy, but the story is definitely not one of its strong points.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,955
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I thought Fleming said the opposite - that Bond was essentially a modern man with modern vices. Which I guess he would have been. Not to say there wasn’t an element of Bond being an outlier in the books, but the whole ‘man out of his own time’ is much more emphasised from GE onwards, and it’s an effective way of keeping the spirit of the character alive.

    Maybe. I have to find that quote. I'm sure I came across it at some point, because I've long said that the trick was to have the world change around Bond and have him react to it. I'm sure I didn't come up with that. Did I? :)

    Oh well... But, @007HallY, my friend, If he was to be a modern man with modern vices in 1955 why would he keep a 30s Blower? I know the cut of his suits was rather sharp. I guess he was a bit more complex than Fleming anticipated ;)

    I suppose if he were a modern man now, we wouldn't recognize our man Bond. What would modern vices constitute? :D

    To be fair I didn’t get the exact quote/context correct. Fleming said Bond was a ‘creature of the era’, not a typical man of his time but very much of his time. It makes sense in many ways. He’s a man who travels the world for his job in an era where commercial air travel was becoming bigger than ever, he gambles, sleeps with women without much of a thought of marriage or settling down, and he certainly doesn’t have a traditional black or white view of morality when it comes to his job, or even his country at times. So yeah, I guess in many ways the literary Bond is a product of that post WW2 Cold War world.

    But I think you’re right, Bond is probably more complex than Fleming may sometimes have let on. And the truth is many of these qualities - the womanising, indulgence in gambling/fast cars, and his cynicism - could be easily described as ‘symptoms of the era’ today.

    You are absolutely right. Symptoms of the era, and of Flemings marriage, and his relationship with his parents and his brother, or the bigger shadow of him, anyway. The man had his ghosts, dead and living. A cocktail for complexity.

    @Univex, @007HallY
    I like the points you have brought up, friends.
    When reading Fleming, I always get the sense too that he tried to make Bond less complex than he did. Bond's manners, frustrations and remarks have always felt to me as reflecting the maestro's struggles. Take Bond's offhand attitude towards certain things. Is that merely the character Fleming set out to create? Or is that Fleming himself trying to shrug off his feelings about the changing world?
    I'd like stand alone adventures.

    I'd like the next movie to introduce James Bond quite late in the film. Set up the villain's plan first, and introduce an enemy that we genuinely don't like, (Safin and Blofeld were hardly scary in the last film, were they?). We need to see baddies doing bad things, so that when Bond is introduced, we look forward to them meeting up. Think of how the From Russia With Love novel was plotted. Bond wasn't in it till quite late, and by that time we'd already learnt to hate and fear Red Grant.

    @ColonelAdamski
    I have always been fond of that idea too. FRWL, the novel, has a narrative structure that no Bond film has yet dared go for. Would it be the commercially smart thing to do? Probably not, since audiences want enough screen time with Bond, I suppose. But it certainly would be an interesting concept to explore.

    Our minds are aligned, @DarthDimi, my friend.

    About your first answer, yes, absolutely, any psychological authopsy of the maestro, as you so aptly called him, will tell us that his creation is really his sublimation, as so often it occurs in ficcional writing. I always got that feeling, particularly after reading some biographies of the man. That being said, it's very well discussed between novelists that creating a character by way of sublimating one self and still maintaining the quality the piece requires is often times an impossible project. And Fleming succeeded brilliantly.

    On your second answer. Absolutely, a few pages back I was trying to introduce the concept of having a brilliant spionage narrative in which to drop Bond at some point, a bit like in FRWL. Having a fantastically written context very well set up first, in which Bond then immerses himself is theatrical and a nod to great novelistic writing and film making.

    That could even balance out the so called formula with the non canonical. If I were them, I'd be trying to find a great narrative. And then have our man Bond deal with it, as if he were us, now having to deal with what was given to us.

    Very well thought out, my friend. Cheers

    Excellent post @Univex
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,580
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit I'm not a massive fan of the bits where Bond disappears for long stretches. Like the TB plane crashing or the TND boat sinking etc. I like watching Bond himself so I like it when they integrate him if they can.
    That's my personal preference: I'm not saying it's the right way to do it or the only way to do it or if anyone thinks differently they're wrong. It's a shame I have to make that clear, but there we go.

    It also brings up the question of how much should we, the audience, know before Bond knows it. Are the films as interesting when we're waiting for Bond to play catch-up?

    I'm not saying it can't be done or even that it can't be done well (FRWL is a fine example - but I wonder if the reason that works is because of its atmospheric, Hitchcockian-tone) but if we're going for a big, brash and thundering adventure then it might just take away elements of surprise from the plot. I love TND precisely because it's a breezy and uncomplicated watch with lots of energy, but the story is definitely not one of its strong points.

    That's a very good point my friend. It's an interesting one about the playing catch-up thing: obviously knowing the plots so well it's kind of hard to remember which ones he doesn't know about, but I agree that when there's a bit of a clever plot in there it's nice to see it unpicked as he goes along. Does, for example, SF suffer from introducing Silva quite late? I don't know if it does- I think he gets a good buildup from being referred to in hushed tones by Severine etc. and his final reveal is of course glorious. In GF it works well too, I'd say.
    I think it's one of those things that can work either way and just depends on the execution: it's kind of impossible to say if it definitely would or wouldn't work. Personally I think I like it slightly less, but there's probably a Bond movie or two I don't mind the cutaway to the villain. Most of them keep it quite brief I think.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 29 Posts: 15,580
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL.

    I would say, in terms of action, that's pretty much what Skyfall was. There's comparatively so little action in that film: between opening and climax there's a couple of fist fights and a foot chase. So it's not something that the films can't or haven't done relatively recently.
    I don't think I'd want drama made peripheral myself though. Often really good spy stories are very dramatic.
    I don't mind if you disagree, I may be wrong; these are just my thoughts.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL.

    I would say, in terms of action, that's pretty much what Skyfall was. There's comparatively so little action in that film: between opening and climax there's a couple of fist fights and a foot chase. So it's not something that the films can't or haven't done relatively recently.
    I don't think I'd want drama made peripheral myself though. Often really good spy stories are very dramatic.
    I don't mind if you disagree, I may be wrong; these are just my thoughts.

    The drama I was referring to (but failed to explain I now see) involves Bond's past, his love life and all that jazz. A bit of drama goes a long way, but it may be prudent to leave the grieving family man Bond firmly in the Craig era for a while.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 29 Posts: 15,580
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL.

    I would say, in terms of action, that's pretty much what Skyfall was. There's comparatively so little action in that film: between opening and climax there's a couple of fist fights and a foot chase. So it's not something that the films can't or haven't done relatively recently.
    I don't think I'd want drama made peripheral myself though. Often really good spy stories are very dramatic.
    I don't mind if you disagree, I may be wrong; these are just my thoughts.

    The drama I was referring to (but failed to explain I now see) involves Bond's past, his love life and all that jazz. A bit of drama goes a long way, but it may be prudent to leave the grieving family man Bond firmly in the Craig era for a while.

    Ah okay, fair enough. I think we're always going to have love life complications with Bond- it's kind of part of his innate character, but I agree that past family complications are probably done with for the time being.
    I definitely want drama, because that's how you increase tension and excitement, and ultimately I want those things from a Bond. In terms of spy thrillers, it's funny because I'd say that something like Octopussy, say, has a more hard core sort of spy plot than most of the Flemings do. He really wrote updates of adventure stories in many ways.
    Again, I may be wrong; I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
  • edited January 29 Posts: 6,687
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.

    Thank you, @Univex!

    And yes, CR proved everything there is to prove about the importance of good writing. Not a single one of the four films that came after CR have been given such good writing, IMO. (Some members have pointed out that CR actually suffers from tremendous logical problems, and while I can see their points, the overall writing of the film still amazes me.)

    Good writing is essential. You build every up from there. Take SP, a film I like. Lots of things in the film that get me excited. Yet... problems too. And to some fans, these problems are too big an obstacle to overcome. Hence why they will probably never warm up to CR. You can give us a great actor, big sets, cool everything... but if the writing is "off", then so is the rest of the film.
  • Posts: 6,687
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.

    Thank you, @Univex!

    And yes, CR proved everything there is to prove about the importance of good writing. Not a single one of the four films that came after CR have been given such good writing, IMO. (Some members have pointed out that CR actually suffers from tremendous logical problems, and while I can see their points, the overall writing of the film still amazes me.)

    Good writing is essential. You build every up from there. Take SP, a film I like. Lots of things in the film that get me excited. Yet... problems too. And to some fans, these problems are too big an obstacle to overcome. Hence why they will probably never warm up to CR. You can give us a great actor, big sets, cool everything... but if the writing is "off", then so is the rest of the film.

    Exactly. I temeber reading CR’s script in advance and immediately knowing it would be a brilliant film. I made it inside my head, I was the director, the production director, … and I still loved the final product, which is the mark of a great script.

    I too find many bondian things to love about SP, and if the writing on the almost proverbial wall was better, so would the film be, I’m sure. QOS almost had a pragmatic script, praxis oriented, for the reasons we know. SF had an overall good production which made for a well produced final product, and NTTD had abismal writing, with some interesting florishes here and there. But none of them had the force of CR.

    GE and CR are solid written pieces, each on his own way, and inaugural pieces at that, so I’m confident they’ll offer us some quality in the next one.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.

    Thank you, @Univex!

    And yes, CR proved everything there is to prove about the importance of good writing. Not a single one of the four films that came after CR have been given such good writing, IMO. (Some members have pointed out that CR actually suffers from tremendous logical problems, and while I can see their points, the overall writing of the film still amazes me.)

    Good writing is essential. You build every up from there. Take SP, a film I like. Lots of things in the film that get me excited. Yet... problems too. And to some fans, these problems are too big an obstacle to overcome. Hence why they will probably never warm up to CR. You can give us a great actor, big sets, cool everything... but if the writing is "off", then so is the rest of the film.

    Exactly. I temeber reading CR’s script in advance and immediately knowing it would be a brilliant film. I made it inside my head, I was the director, the production director, … and I still loved the final product, which is the mark of a great script.

    I too find many bondian things to love about SP, and if the writing on the almost proverbial wall was better, so would the film be, I’m sure. QOS almost had a pragmatic script, praxis oriented, for the reasons we know. SF had an overall good production which made for a well produced final product, and NTTD had abismal writing, with some interesting florishes here and there. But none of them had the force of CR.

    GE and CR are solid written pieces, each on his own way, and inaugural pieces at that, so I’m confident they’ll offer us some quality in the next one.

    That's it. Just for fun, here's how I rank the "inaugural" Bond films as you so eloquently call them:

    1) CR / GE (can't decide, sorry!)
    2) TLD / OHMSS / DN
    3) LALD

    Yes, DN. I think the very first Bond film doesn't get the praise it deserves. There was no template, not a lot of money, not all that much experience... and yet, that film laid almost all but a minor few foundations of the film series we're still talking about today. And it was very well written, though simple -- or so I think.

    LALD is the lesser achievement here, I'd say. Not a bad film, but uneven. I don't think the writing is at its strongest. In fact, Roger has the distinction of being the one Bond whose best films, at least in my humble opinion, come much later.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 29 Posts: 3,012
    Yes, CR clearly benefited from having a writer of Paul Haggis's standing on it. I've often wondered why Forster got Joshua Zetumer to work on the QOS script after the writers' strike was over, rather than get Haggis to do more work on it. The again, maybe it was a bit of a gaff for Haggis to have delivered the script to EON and then (according to BB) gone outside, picked up a placard and started picketing...cough. Anyway, he certainly won't be back after recent events, that's for sure.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,299
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.

    Thank you, @Univex!

    And yes, CR proved everything there is to prove about the importance of good writing. Not a single one of the four films that came after CR have been given such good writing, IMO. (Some members have pointed out that CR actually suffers from tremendous logical problems, and while I can see their points, the overall writing of the film still amazes me.)

    Good writing is essential. You build every up from there. Take SP, a film I like. Lots of things in the film that get me excited. Yet... problems too. And to some fans, these problems are too big an obstacle to overcome. Hence why they will probably never warm up to CR. You can give us a great actor, big sets, cool everything... but if the writing is "off", then so is the rest of the film.

    Exactly. I temeber reading CR’s script in advance and immediately knowing it would be a brilliant film. I made it inside my head, I was the director, the production director, … and I still loved the final product, which is the mark of a great script.

    I too find many bondian things to love about SP, and if the writing on the almost proverbial wall was better, so would the film be, I’m sure. QOS almost had a pragmatic script, praxis oriented, for the reasons we know. SF had an overall good production which made for a well produced final product, and NTTD had abismal writing, with some interesting florishes here and there. But none of them had the force of CR.

    GE and CR are solid written pieces, each on his own way, and inaugural pieces at that, so I’m confident they’ll offer us some quality in the next one.

    That's it. Just for fun, here's how I rank the "inaugural" Bond films as you so eloquently call them:

    1) CR / GE (can't decide, sorry!)
    2) TLD / OHMSS / DN
    3) LALD

    Yes, DN. I think the very first Bond film doesn't get the praise it deserves. There was no template, not a lot of money, not all that much experience... and yet, that film laid almost all but a minor few foundations of the film series we're still talking about today. And it was very well written, though simple -- or so I think.

    LALD is the lesser achievement here, I'd say. Not a bad film, but uneven. I don't think the writing is at its strongest. In fact, Roger has the distinction of being the one Bond whose best films, at least in my humble opinion, come much later.

    LALD was Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz making as quips and stereotypes as much as possible. I’m still happy Richard Maibaum didn’t write it though, it proved Bond didn’t always need him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,580
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, CR clearly benefited from having a writer of Paul Haggis's standing on it. I've often wondered why Forster got Joshua Zetumer to work on the QOS script after the writers' strike was over, rather than get Haggis to do more work on it. The again, maybe it was a bit of a gaff for Haggis to have delivered the script to EON and then (according to BB) gone outside, picked up a placard and started picketing...cough. Anyway, he certainly won't be back after recent events, that's for sure.

    I think QoS has a decent story to be honest, and it is trying to say something about Bond's state of mind and his relationship with M etc. and indeed the concept of vengeance; plus there are lots of neat symmetries etc. in it. I think different direction and editing (and I don't mean the shaky stuff) could have improved it a lot.
  • Posts: 3,291
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.
    I’ll second that! Great post!

    CR still remains in my top 5 greatest Bond films. I felt with that one everyone got it spot on - direction, script, soundtrack, acting. 1952 Fleming updated to 2005, and it worked!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,110
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, CR clearly benefited from having a writer of Paul Haggis's standing on it. I've often wondered why Forster got Joshua Zetumer to work on the QOS script after the writers' strike was over, rather than get Haggis to do more work on it. The again, maybe it was a bit of a gaff for Haggis to have delivered the script to EON and then (according to BB) gone outside, picked up a placard and started picketing...cough. Anyway, he certainly won't be back after recent events, that's for sure.

    When Fleming sat down to write CR, he was nervous about his marriage and perhaps was expiating some ghosts there. At its heart, it is a novel about romantic betrayal. That's the launching pad of Bond. Any subsequent screenwriters should revisit it.

    Haggis was as good as they got with writers in the Craig era.

    I'm not convinced there aren't some Scientology smears against Haggis going on...they are powerful.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,836
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.
    I’ll second that! Great post!

    CR still remains in my top 5 greatest Bond films. I felt with that one everyone got it spot on - direction, script, soundtrack, acting. 1952 Fleming updated to 2005, and it worked!

    Thank you, @jetsetwilly!
    Yes, CR was such a fine, exciting event. Everything worked. The film was well written, looked great, was very well cast, had a truly good score, and so on. I recall seeing the film for the umptieth time in theatres back in '06, thinking to myself "This is madness!" And yet, as soon as the film opens, there's so much to have a great time with. I'm never bored, not one second. Every moment in the film thrills me. Today I wonder why I didn't go back another few times. ;-) CR is not about "the good parts outweigh the bad parts" because there are no bad parts in it for me. When it comes to high-quality material, the film is so dense that even after dozens of viewings I continue to spot new things.

    And with that, CR continues the trend from the Brosnan era that the first entry sets a bar never matched, not even approached, by the actor's subsequent films.
  • edited January 29 Posts: 6,687
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.
    I’ll second that! Great post!

    CR still remains in my top 5 greatest Bond films. I felt with that one everyone got it spot on - direction, script, soundtrack, acting. 1952 Fleming updated to 2005, and it worked!

    Thank you, @jetsetwilly!
    Yes, CR was such a fine, exciting event. Everything worked. The film was well written, looked great, was very well cast, had a truly good score, and so on. I recall seeing the film for the umptieth time in theatres back in '06, thinking to myself "This is madness!" And yet, as soon as the film opens, there's so much to have a great time with. I'm never bored, not one second. Every moment in the film thrills me. Today I wonder why I didn't go back another few times. ;-) CR is not about "the good parts outweigh the bad parts" because there are no bad parts in it for me. When it comes to high-quality material, the film is so dense that even after dozens of viewings I continue to spot new things.

    And with that, CR continues the trend from the Brosnan era that the first entry sets a bar never matched, not even approached, by the actor's subsequent films.

    I can venture a guess that Lazenby, had he continued, would set that trend first. And I think that Dalton, had he made a few more, would also have TLD as his finest. In fact, I'd say OHMSS, TLD, GE and CR are all on my top best Bond films. It's hard to choose between Connery's first four, and Roger is always Roger, one cannot choose just one of the miracles from a saint ;)

    Fingers crossed that the next one will be grand. Whatever the future brings, if there's a Bond film on the horizon, hope will be the forum's ethos.
  • Posts: 1,707
    @Univex - Like the people in Casablanca waiting for exit visas, we wait, and wait, and wait, and wait. Feeling a little like Estragon, each day another disappointment. I certainly hope the wait will be worth it.
  • Posts: 990
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.
    I’ll second that! Great post!

    CR still remains in my top 5 greatest Bond films. I felt with that one everyone got it spot on - direction, script, soundtrack, acting. 1952 Fleming updated to 2005, and it worked!


    It worked! They should have learned this lesson.


  • edited January 30 Posts: 6,687
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.
    I’ll second that! Great post!

    CR still remains in my top 5 greatest Bond films. I felt with that one everyone got it spot on - direction, script, soundtrack, acting. 1952 Fleming updated to 2005, and it worked!


    It worked! They should have learned this lesson.


    Not so much a lesson to learn but they did learn something from it. Having no more Fleming original big narratives to follow up, they at least kept the production values, the quality of the casting and tried their very best to keep it an A-list product in every regard but the writing department, which was the only thing lacking, I think. But they did increase production value and it shows. I’d say EON has been doing marvellously. If only they had better writers, they would do even better. But all in all, I do trust the team. Love them, actually. It’s a family affair, and one that works. There aren’t many family businesses that span over decades and keep delivering.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,955
    Univex wrote: »
    There aren’t many family businesses that span over decades and keep delivering.

    Very true.
    Another thing that I feel worked well for CR and again with QOS, is the lack of big names in the cast.
    Personally, I feel it makes the films feel more real by having a relatively unknown cast.
    In saying that Ana De Armas worked wonderfully in NTTD, however for me Rami Malek wasn't quite so lucky. Coming off an Oscar win and a growing profile, I think many of us expected more, not that it's the actor's fault of course.

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,299
    Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Univex, I second @Tuxedo's sentiments: great post.

    Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.

    And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.

    Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.

    Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!

    Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.

    EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)

    BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.

    They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.

    I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.

    I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.
    I’ll second that! Great post!

    CR still remains in my top 5 greatest Bond films. I felt with that one everyone got it spot on - direction, script, soundtrack, acting. 1952 Fleming updated to 2005, and it worked!


    It worked! They should have learned this lesson.


    Not so much a lesson to learn but they did learn something from it. Having no more Fleming original big narratives to follow up, they at least kept the production values, the quality of the casting and tried their very best to keep it an A-list product in every regard but the writing department, which was the only thing lacking, I think. But they did increase production value and it shows. I’d say EON has been doing marvellously. If only they had better writers, they would do even better. But all in all, I do trust the team. Love them, actually. It’s a family affair, and one that works. There aren’t many family businesses that span over decades and keep delivering.

    I agree with all of this. In particular, the writing department.
  • Posts: 1,707
    @Benny - I share the opinion that big name stars don't necessarily make for a better Bond film. Malek and Waltz were huge disappointments, especially after seeing them do great work in other things. Both curiously underwhelming, certainly lacking the gusto of a Gert Frobe (even dubbed) and Telly Savalas. Bardem I liked, but a less known character actor could have pulled off that role.

    @Univex - As for production values, I don't necessarily see those as a continuation of what we got in CR. I think it's more about what can be done these days. But I do agree Bond films have always had a travelogue/panoramic quality about them.

    With so much borrowed and re-borrowed from Fleming, I am not opposed to reworking any of his stories and calling them something else. Among a new generation of fans, few will know. I would rather see a reworked Fleming story than one that I've seen a dozen times in other action/thrillers. There's only so much train riding, motorcycle jumping, and things blowing up before all feels familiar and predictable. The difference for me is Fleming concentrates more on character than action. Others will disagree, but Malek and Waltz simply were not interesting characters. When I saw both films, I did not want to see more of either. Both seemed to get in the way of what could have been better films without them.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,615
    Yeah. Malek's own was the bigger let down. I was looking forward to seeing an extraordinary Bond villain. Maybe they shouldn't have hyped him that much. Maybe If they hyped Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, we wouldn't have enjoyed him like we did in CR.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,105
    Yeah. Malek's own was the bigger let down. I was looking forward to seeing an extraordinary Bond villain. Maybe they shouldn't have hyped him that much. Maybe If they hyped Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, we wouldn't have enjoyed him like we did in CR.

    His motives, and obsession with Swann, were poorly defined and he would have been served better by not having the over the top accent.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,615
    talos7 wrote: »
    Yeah. Malek's own was the bigger let down. I was looking forward to seeing an extraordinary Bond villain. Maybe they shouldn't have hyped him that much. Maybe If they hyped Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, we wouldn't have enjoyed him like we did in CR.

    His motives, and obsession with Swann, were poorly defined and he would have been served better by not having the over the top accent.

    Exactly. I only felt his villain in the opening scene.
Sign In or Register to comment.