It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
At any rate, I know it's tempting to find some sort of pattern in terms of cinematic trends. But it's too simple and naive to say a case where major/successful films are all sunshine and roses now, and anything darker/more complex is out. I've seen it mentioned here a few times. If that were the case Oppenheimer wouldn't have been a success back in 2023. Or The Batman in 2022. Same for Dune 2. It would have meant that the last two Mission Impossible films would have fared better financially. Even so called 'romps' like Deadpool vs Wolverine and Spiderman No Way Home have some pretty dark ideas/story beats in there.
Every film is different, and Bond is Bond at the end of the day. It'll be interesting going froward seeing if there's any sort of fuss within that small circle of Bond fans with Bond 26 (a bit like how some Snyder fans were getting hung up on the new Superman). Not sure I can quite see that happening though under the circumstances though, and another thing I believe is it doesn't matter if a chunk of Bond fans (ie. people on this site) don't like this one.
If 2025 has proven anything, it's that light-hearted doesn't have to mean lightweight. You can have a relatively zany film with fully sincere characters and still have a message and stakes.
The notion that "grit" equals good drama is very 2006, and frankly way outdated at this moment in time.
I don't think that's how they're going to go into this one. Frankly I'm not entirely sure if that's the way they consciously went into certain Bond films you might be thinking of.
They just need to make the best Bond film they can.
Indeed, I haven't seen it yet but there is plenty of criticism around that the characters don't really get much meat.
What are you referring to?
Then mission accomplished. I just don't see my people think "grittiness" is somehow crucial, or why they think modern audiences think that?
I think it's true that people want more complex stories with more going on, and people don't want to go the cinema unless it's for an experience that will leave them with something, but that doesn't have much bearing on how gritty the film is. I think it's an outdated way of looking at things, and reminds me of the trend with Harry Potter in the late 00's, "just make the screen darker and more desaturated, that means important!"
Even “The Room” has that.
In all seriousness, I don’t see how DV and Steven Knight would represent some continuation of the Craig era but I do understand the worries that some fans have. EON did a great job at differentiating each Bond actor’s tenure and making each one feel unique - whether Amazon has that ability is something we all don’t know yet. Besides I’d like to think that DV and Knight would have a little more foresight and creativity as opposed to them just copying everything that made the Craig era successful.
This is exactly how I feel too mate.
I've always felt fun/camp Bond can only last so long, before you end going too far into sci-fi or back in space, then inevitably they course correct into dark/gritty again. They're action films and that should be the focus.
They don't make these films at regular intervals anymore, so it makes sense to plan it out, rather than be reactionary like they were in the Craig era.
I think it depends on the specifics here. It's easy to talk conceptually, but ultimately this film will be a product of a creative collaboration, and they'll be thinking about what's the best story to tell and how best to tell it (whether that's in terms of script, cinematography, performances etc).
If we're talking about 'grittiness' for example, I can imagine that'd be relevant in some ways. Maybe they'd look at the early Craig films/Fleming novels and note how impactful it was that we saw Bond get hurt to the extent he did. The fact that we saw him get tortured and end up in hospital, the fact that we saw him struggle during chases/fights, even downed whiskey after a brutal fight in CR after tending his wounds. Maybe this new Bond is at a stage in his career where he is a bit more reckless, or perhaps or is put through it a lot in this mission to the point he winds up hurt by the end. It could be part of what they want to do with his character and the story itself, adding that sense of grittiness/realism, even if the film is quite fantastical in many other ways. But ultimately those are big words.
If you literally mean with musical gags and random animals encounters, then no that probably wouldn't work, but I don't think anyone is arguing for that. The early Connery films wouldn't land now either, doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, kind of: as you say, the Connerys wouldn't land now- my point is that the folks on the podcast are disappointed that DV's hiring mean the films might not move far away from the Craig films, and my point is that they shouldn't, because those films worked for audiences today. Well, of 20 years ago to today, so obviously it should move on slightly; but we're not going back.
Honestly, the Craig films are so varied anyway in terms of tone there'd be overlap even if we do get a course correction film. I don't really know what these guys want though - do they want Bond to be more one dimensional as a character or not have some sort of conflict to deal with? Do they not want as much 'seriousness' or 'darkness' in these films? Do they even know what they want and simply want to relive the first time they watched a Bond movie as a kid and enjoyed it? I genuinely have no idea one way or the other...
Haha, I suppose that film does! In all seriousness I think it's weirdly part of its appeal. It's not a completely incoherent film story-wise, it's just a bizarre rendition of a melodrama (ok, it doesn't fully represent how real people would act and there's the occasional plot line which doesn't go anywhere, but I've seen student films which are much less easy to follow than The Room purely in terms of plot/how things are shown, and they're much more boring/don't have that bizarre Wiseau trait to everything).
I agree. It'll be a new era whatever way, just as much as GE was from Dalton, or LALD from DAF. Ultimately they're thinking about how to make the best Bond film they can.
It's not going back, it's moving forward. You had a somewhat brutal Bond in the early 60's, late 80's and mid 00's but they weren't "going back" just because they happen to revisit the same general tone, they're adapting for the modern age and times in each instance.
Theres no reason they couldn't make a Bond film with a similar tone to TSWLM or OP, even if some of the sight gags and comedic stings wouldn't translate.
What popular films are like those today?
The film will be different. I'm sure Villeneuve has an ace up his sleeve that we don't know about yet.
James Bond and Friends is always a frustrating listen for me, and no less their recent drop. I'm horrible with names, but the graphic designer is the personality I most like in this group. I don't think our tastes align too much, but I always enjoy his take as he seems to be very optimistic and loving of this series, where I find the others a mix bag of know-it-all grumps, who have outlandish expectations of where this series should go (usually in a backwards trajectory). And being Canadian, I'm kinda embarrassed with who my representative is on this pod (she sounds like she's thirteen, and some of her opinions over the years does sound like it did comes from someone about that same age)..
And as you said, why were they only releasing this now? A little odd.
I wonder if the majority of these guests respect filmmaking and filmmakers? DV gets hired and there's anxiety that this means the next film will be more of the Craig Era films, and such nonsense as that.
@007HallY has said this repeatedly, and it's basically a pillar of filmmaking: make the best possible film, now.
Since this character is almost 65-screen years old, the team will capture the essence of what makes Bond, Bond, but these are all artists who want to create their own pieces of work for worldwide audiences. Just because DV has stated he loves CR and SF doesn't mean-- and I don't know why they'd think this-- he's coming on board to make more of the same.
DV was just stating a couple of films he liked (possibly because it showed him how far you could explore James Bond without losing his essence).
More often than not, I finish this podcast happy that these guys are only fans and will never, ever be close to shaping Bond films, 😂 (except the graphic designer guy-- he's genuine, authentic, humble and a curious character. He could join the creative team-- his heart is seemingly in the right place!!)
Yes, Sean; he is a lovely fella, and very talented too of course. As for your representative, yes I agree entirely; I always go on edge a bit when someone introduces themselves as 'award-winning'.
Phil is a nice guy too though and I've interacted with him a bit, he does also lean into the grump angle too though! :) I committed a bit of crime with him the other day when I dared to say I quite liked the new 007 Blu Ray covers :D
Sean is the only one who points out in that podcast, in amongst all of the doom and gloom about kids and younger people not liking Bond, that Dune seems to have hit very well with younger audiences. And it's far from being frothy and light stuff.
Man I wish I could stop myself from watching those types of videos. I unfortunately watched a video that was about an hour or two long basically dissecting why the Bond films never went to Ireland and why that’s bad for the series and I couldn’t bring myself to finish it. Fair enough there were some great points being made but it was just to damn gloomy - and somewhat painted the Bond films to be at fault for avoiding the country.
Yes I must admit I get that feeling from Dyson himself sometimes: I watched his NSNA review and he really seemed to hate everything about it, picking apart shots from the film, to the extent I was thinking 'it's just a Bond film'. I get that it's a deep dive and everything and when you're doing stuff like that you have to judge it relative to the other ones, but it seemed to lose a bit of perspective. I don't think it's great, but it's not that bad.
One thing that stuck in mind was he really tore into that shot where Domino is walking through Cannes or wherever it was, walks past a tree and then it's revealed to the audience that Bond was standing behind the tree. He thought it made no sense, but I couldn't help thinking it's just a movie and it's quite a neat little witty shot.
One thing I need to get off my chest too: he has this weird way of writing that he seems to think you can't describe someone the same way twice in the same sentence. You might just about be able to write something like "Sean Connery made his first Bond film in 1962, and after that the actor made five more appearances as 007", but it sounds really weird to say it. Just say 'he' or 'Connery'. It makes him seem really unnatural and he does it all the time.
I think sadly with most of these things, when you become a superfan and basically find fandom as a way of life or vocation, you always seem to lose perspective and hate the thing you're supposed to be a fan of. Dyson still has enthusiasm, so I'm not aiming that at him so much as Page etc. Graham Rye's another one.
John Rain of Smershpod seems to hate most films made after he turned 18 or so, including the Bonds in that period, but his podcasts are at least very funny so I'm more than happy to spend lots of time with those.
I must admit, as someone who just gets a horrid feeling watching NSNA I can somewhat sympathise! I actually rewatched NSNA and then his review. I don’t disagree. But I can also admit that having gone through the five stages of griefs towards Craig Bond’s death and come out believing NTTD is a rather good (but very flawed) Bond movie I can understand some of his criticisms can be picked apart and disagreed with. Even if I agreed with them maybe three years ago.
At any rate he’s the only Bond commenter I’ll sit down and watch when he comes out with his reviews. I’m not listening to an hour long podcast of grumps or a talking head giving a take I’ve heard here (I don’t have the time, haha).
While they aren’t exactly like TSWLM or OP, I’d probably say the Marvel films are the closest of today’s blockbusters. They’re usually lighthearted and witty but not at the expense of dramatic stakes. I’m not saying Bond should copy those films nor would I want them too (I hate the type of humor presented in the Marvel movies) but they’re the type of lighthearted affairs that I’d say are the most comparable to Moore’s tenure.
I think Hollywood has pulled itself out of its “dark and gritty” phase and that post 911 realism popularized by Bourne and expanded upon by the likes of Nolan’s Batman and Craig’s Bond has somewhat settled down. Heck we even saw this in Craig’s final three Bond films where they become much more fantastical. In that sense, I don’t think going back to the likes of TSWLM is a bad idea - it’s certainly no less valid than using Craig’s era as a reference. But ultimately I want something that’s original and that I haven’t really seen from the series before.
Unfortunately it actually underperformed but its more of the type of blockbuster I would like.
All this to make my point that there's a balance that can be achieved, and I also doubt we are ever going back to a Moonraker type of entry nowadays.
I actually think that EON said (unofficially) that the closest movie of theirs that copied the MCU is Spectre, and to a degree No Time to Die. EON is known for chasing trends, and that's when the MCU was at its most popular. That's why I think that Dave Bautista was in SP and Lashana Lynch in NTTD. While a bit of humor would be nice, I think that EON and the current Amazon team is smart enough to know that the MCU isn't as popular as it was. And that the MCU style of humor would be a MAJOR turnoff for a lot of people.
Exactly, how can you argue that "we're not going backwards" and then claim that the only option is to go back to 2006, which was in the past...?