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
But again, at the time of NTTD, the Bond series is already a legend of a franchise that already established itself as a 'brand', it's already a trademark, so, it's indeed successful, but what if NTTD was released in the other time? The same for the Bond actors' supposed to be final films in this time?
I may not be a fan of the film itself, but I could see NTTD as a Bond film that encapsulated the Craig Era very well, as there's no way his Bond could survive, that's the only way, for this version of Bond who have been through so much and suffered so much, I think NTTD fits in as a closure of the Craig Era, it's quite a successful Bond film both in critical and box office), although when some fans like us (me included) see some detractors, it's more like nitpicking or not being our taste, but not objective, so, I don't see NTTD being a failure as DAF, AVTAK, LTK (which failed in box office and got mixed critical reviews), and DAD which reputation have already died out the day Casino Royale 2006 was released.
So, yes, Craig still managed to be a winner of this.
If we can count OHMSS as Lazenby's final film, then might be that one.
But which film would you rather watch from each Bond?
For me I am selecting their first films in a clean sweep. I love DAF for what it is but would rather see DN. Moore was in fine form in LALD, the movie felt a bit dangerous, by AVTAK it all felt so...safe. Brosnan in GE vs DAD, I am picking GE though I don't fault the mess of a film DAD was on Pierce. Craig I am choosing CR any day over NTTD.
So to me none of these actors stuck the landing and had as good quality end as they did beginning. Is this coincidence? Does the actors second last film hit a high and that's where it should have ended?
I think it is interesting that no one, to my opinion has had a high quality last film in the role, forgetting the finality of the film or that there must be an definitive ending.
1. DAF was made at the height of dark comedies of 1970s, but the producers were still yet to stick the landing until Moore take over, and Connery already aged by then.
2. AVTAK, as we all know, have Moore also aged as Bond, and was shot in the height of 80s Pop, relying on the 80s Action Movie tropes at the time, if LTK was made with an aging actor, we would all complain of the same, Dalton just happened to be young when LTK was released, but without a Bond actor in his prime in it, people would be labelling it as a Miami Vice/Die Hard rip off.
3. DAD was made in an era of Video Games, height of CGI trend (Matrix?), And technology, and the need to get Bond on with the younger generation, we're tackling how Bond could move on in the 21st century, but Brosnan was still in his prime.
4. NTTD was just Craig's Bond at the end of the tether and also to get in with the latest film trends of giving action movies emotions and drama storylines, to make it 'the be it all end' endgame of all movies, as the audiences' demands gets high, the likes of DAD, AVTAK, and DAF wouldn't likely to work in today's era, younger audiences of today were used to seeing their heroes be humans, and NTTD quite fit.
It's just in the way the time progresses and how it affects a Bond actor's tenure.
Sure, none of the Bond actors' first films were comparable to their last, but it's really not comparable, they've started their Bond tenures in energized and vigor state and ended already as matured ones 😅, and so the times were changing.
Sure, no one fires an actor after a "great film" but if an actor makes two or three more movies, it's not by chance. The thing is, I don't think fans would have felt any differently if Moore's last film had been Octopussy, for example. Moore would have had to leave It with TSWLM, and they still would have thought it was a YOLT rip-off!
I mean starting to lose their vigor and youthfulness, Moore didn't looked his age when cast as Bond, as time progressed that he was in the role, he was starting to show his age.
Each actor changed as they've got longer in the role.
But TSWLM is a YOLT rip-off. But a rip-off done right (and, I might add, with enthusiasm and a more engaged lead).
I think the three films are a fine example of what happens: TSWL is a big success, so they do a carbon copy of it in MR (same plot), which gets heavily criticised, so they change the approach for the next Bond film. There were even talks of replacing Moore.
I favor 4 is that 3 doesn’t seem enough; Bond actors often hit their stride in the 3rd film; but by the 5th and beyond a complacency and staleness begins to creep in
In athletics it’s generally accepted that it’s preferably to move on from a player a little too soon than a little too late; I tend to think the same is true for Bond actors. I absolutely believe that Octopussy would have been a stronger curtain call than A View To a Kill was.
I also think that at some point the actor begins to lose interest in the role if not actually feeling contempt for the franchise and character
I’d agree theoretically, but in the case of Craig, I think, due to his injury and a dodgy fourth-film script, he is far more engaged in his fifth vs fourth film(?). Subjective of course, but it’s apparent he’s not physically comfortable in Spectre (he was wearing a knee brace for much of the production— and you can see it in certain angles, especially as he’s walking along the rooftops in the PTS (my wife pointed that out to me)).
Either way, the more films you make, in any series, the harder it must be for everyone (the creative producers, heads of departments, writers, leads), to remain engaged. That’s why sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder…There’s no magical recipe to this, it just takes immense effort to keep everyone excited.
I think if there are shorter gaps, then bang-out a planned three-part mini-series with the conclusion in the third film, and move into a hiatus and re-casting. Or; bang out one film at a time, with the appropriate space between each film, giving the writers a chance to reboot and build a brand new story to excite the lead creatives including, and especially, the leads. Give them new and exciting opportunities to explore their characters; let them stretch. Make them want to step back into that character’s skin again…and then I’d say five films would be just fine. Anything over that, and I think audiences will also grow tired of the character(s).
I dunno. Just theories. Nothing more. There’s no special sauce, just effort and a whole lot of luck.
How is GE a version of DN, better or otherwise? It's pretty much a revamped adaptation of the novel MR.
It's Thunderball meets DAF. And NSNA, of course. ;)
I think it's TB meets MR (the novel) with a dash of DAF, but DAF done right (ie not comedic).
Lets dive into another subject that comes up semi-frequently on these boards.
What is your theory on why none of the continuation novels have been used as the basis of a film?
Since the death of Ian Fleming we have been blessed with many continuation novels. Admittedly they are uneven in their execution. The most prolific is John Gardener, but we have had Kingsley Amis, Raymond Benson, Sebastian Faulks, Jeffery Deaver, and Anthony Horowitz.
Some wrote in the style of Fleming, some created new literary canon and characters. Until SP no material from the continuation novels made it to the screen. But the producers did give a credit to Colonel Sun author Kingsley Amis for the torture sequence that was used in that film.
What is your theory on why there hasn't been more material, characters or plots from the continuation novels in the films? It might be legal rights, or maybe the producers are loathe to go away from Fleming? Is there a continuation novel you would like brought to the screen?
Give me your theories on this subject.
I don't think IFP and EON had any deals or agreements made regarding to this, as IFP seemed to let EON do their own things, I think it's more on if the continuation authors themselves would agree, Fleming agreed to film all of his works, and the reason why The Spy Who Loved Me hasn't still made on screen because Fleming didn't allowed the Producers to adapt it, so I think the same logic could be applied for the continuation authors, but in case of Raymond Benson, I think he would've been open to the possibilities of it, if the Producers would reach out to him, Gardner was dead, so, they couldn't consult him.
Or EON may just have this standard of strictly sticking to Fleming (the most likely scenario), which, I hope Amazon wouldn't follow, I want to see the continuation novels get adapted too.
Or more kindly: why focus any resources on a version of a character that is of similar authenticity to your own?
Not to add the fact that all every continuation author not penned by Amis or Horowitz has received quite heavy criticism, whether from fans or reviewers. If a good Fleming adaptation is done well (say, Moonraker), the fans will love it. If a good Gardner adaptation is done (say, The Man From Barbarossa), the fans will probably be split or dislike it somewhat. Even a better novel (like Icebreaker), would still split Bond audiences. Add on the cost of acquiring rights and it doesn't make sense to go down that route.
Of course this functions with the assumption that the authors or their estates must be paid royalties in order for their work to be adapted. Not a crazy leap, but the world of James Bond rights is a very complex one.
But if Amazon/MGM did have to pay for a continuation novel, I suspect they'd forgo the effort and take ideas and inspirations from those novels. Like the speculation the whole horse cheating idea from AVTAK was Gardner inspired.
In terms of adapting continuation novels, I'd love for them to go for Nobody Lives Forever. It is perhaps the most innovative of all Bond continuation novels. It probably could have been used in place of No Time To Die to be honest; SPECTRE angry and out for revenge with Blofeld in prison, Bond suspicious of Madeleine, and a way to do a "one last mission" without it being too cliche. And the title implies the death scene that was wanted as well.
High Time To Kill is innovative as well, the race up the mountain unlike anything else in Bond. In terms of more "by-the-numbers" adventures, Trigger Mortis and Colonel Sun both have enough of an edge that I think they'd stand out on screen.
And which of the continuation novels has come up with a really killer idea anyway? I generally enjoy them but struggle to think of any which have had a truly unique concept at the heart of them which deserves adaptation. The plots of the films are pretty much always stronger. If TWINE or SF or LTK or TLD etc, had been books first we’d all be demanding they were adapted to the screen.
We’ve had that bit of dialogue from Colonel Sun make it to Spectre, that’s probably the extent we’ll see.