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
Saying it needs to be lighthearted is just as useless as Craig saying that bond 24 will be back with more laughs. Both are accurate in describing what you want out of a film. If saying light-hearted is useless than saying a film is dark or gritty is just as useless which is silly logic.
Goldeneye and The living Daylights both have a light-hearted tone. Part of that is the scripts, the rapport between the characters and actors, the score, the way it's shot, lighting etc.
Again, When I say straightforward mission I mean Bond is assigned a mission at the beginning of the film and he completes that mission.
No soap opera about going rogue, or visiting his long lost cousin who is secretly had an affair with his girlfriend etc.
Careful, you’ll give poor @Mendes4Lyfe heart failure.
You only reminded me of why I believe Villeneuve is wrong for Bond 26, because he will take Bond more seriously than it needs to be taken, especially coming straight after the adventure where he literally sacrifices himself.
But it's not going to happen. It will probably be closer to CR. Even so, I expect Villeneuve puts a spin on things.
I'm tired of pretending its an either/or and we have to pick which we prefer when the franchise has successfully pulled off a balance of all aspects many times.
Trying to be balanced is what made the Brosnan era forgettable. I prefer variety to balance.
What feels tacky?
Anyway, Heyman has already laid it out, there's "no timeline" for Bond 26.
Time To Give Up
All of those are useless things to say, yes. Or at least very simplified descriptions of films that have their own creative directions.
A ‘dark and gritty’ Bond film can have Bond making quips and include outlandish action sequences. Hell, NTTD can be described as a fatalistic Bond film - or indeed ‘dark’ - and it has some overtly comedic scenes that would have been unusual even in a Moore film.
TLD is a conscious attempt to go ‘back to basics’. It integrates Fleming material, the story has noticeable similarities to FRWL’s story structure with villains playing the Russians and MI6 (and of course the multiple villains). Dalton plays Bond as a man seemingly jaded with his job at points, and has to go against M’s direct orders to do what’s right. He’s less quippy or outwardly comedic than Moore was in the role. But like every Bond film it’s got some exciting, memorable action sequences, and despite the approach to the story we get scenes like Bond and Kara using the cello case to ski down a hill (although they obviously edited out that magic carpet scene).
GE was an attempt to bring Bond into the 90s in a post Cold War world. It gives us tropes like a villain stealing a weapon and using it from his lair to cause chaos, but it’s no DAF or TB. Travelyan has a very personal motive, and the film plays up his relationship to Bond for a compelling story. There are some noticeably violent, harder edged scenes I think are comparable to LTK, such as Onnatop massacring the lab, Bond and Travelyan’s fist fight, and the death of the admiral. The cinematography even looks darker than any Bond film prior to it. But Brosnan’s Bond is certainly breezier and more quippy than Dalton, and the film consciously gives us comedic relief with big characters such as Boris and Zukovsky. The tank sequence as well is big and outlandish in concept, although unlike a Moore film it doesn’t rely on sound gags or anything like that, and I think it’s played a lot straighter than many other Bond scenes. So I’d say tone wise it’s less ‘lighthearted’ as a whole, but just has conscious things they’re doing.
Bond 26 will have its own identity in that way. There’s no ‘lighthearted’ or ‘dark and gritty’ dial that can be turned higher or lower. It’s just about what their approach to the material is.
It’ll be interesting to see. I would say it’s tricky not to defer/adapt to how Bond is depicted in the films in some way, and I think most viewers are expecting a spin on a Bond movie as they know it. But it’s an opportunity to reinterpret the character.
I'd add that I love when Ouramov takes a swig from his flask during the tank chase. It's the kind of humor I prefer to most of that in the Moore films, and it's more confidently directed than all of them save perhaps TSWLM.
Gottfried John is more important to GE than I initially realized. He's kind of a villainous stand-in for the audience.
Just feel the rumours and noise makes it lose its shine.
It’s a confidently directed film. And I don’t think it’d be the film we know without Campbell at the helm (who’d mainly directed darker thrillers for film/tv at that point from what I understand). An alternative director may not have given us some of those more violent, harder edged scenes, or have depicted other sequences in the same way.
It’s why I’m not worried about Villeneuve directing a Bond film, no matter what I personally think of it when it comes out. Any director knows they have a brief to go from for this job, and they’ve been picked to tell a story fundamentally. They’ll put their own spin on it and make it their own, but they can’t hijack the film and make it something fundamentally different to what’s desired.
I don't know, sometimes I get the sense some of us here won't be satisfied with any new Bond movie we'd get in practice anyway, regardless if it's under Amazon or EON! We cling to this idea that Bond 26 needs to be, or indeed will be, like GE and TLD because that's what we know and find reassuring I guess, even if these films are very different and can't be replicated. Ultimately those making this film will be thinking beyond that and how to make this adventure its own thing. It may not be a movie everyone here will love when we see it. Honestly, that's the case with every Bond film that fans have seen and responded to. I'm sure when it comes about we'll pick it apart, but ultimately the marker of Bond 26's success won't come down to us alone.
Balance is what brought Bond back from the dead after six years. LTK was too dark and it put off moviegoers. Not to mention the TV movie production quality it has. Goldeneye brought back the humour, and the glamour but also has its harder-edged moments.
I sincerely don't think most moviegoers want a Bond film like Prisoners after the Craig era. Cinephiles will love it, because it's villeneuve, and generations of regular folk will see it just because its a Bond movie, but i think a lot of them will come away disappointed if villeneuve is just going to do his same old schtick.
A film like Goldeneye and The living Daylights is needed. Both balance a light-hearted fun and atmosphere with the darker moments as mentioned above, But those are an anomaly.
Just like the "fun" moments in NTTD are an anomaly in what is otherwise a very dark film.
If you don't think the filmmakers decide how dark or light-hearted they wanted NTTD to go then you're kidding yourself. It's not an accident.
In Spectre, the producers decided they wanted to bring back the fun, and more laughs, so they did. It's pretty straightforward. In NTTD they wanted a more fatalistic, foreboding movie.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if villeneuve suddenly decides he wants to make a film different than anything he's done before, but I'm expecting Bond 26 to have a tone similar to his previous ten films.
There’s no anomalies between darker or lighter moments in those films. They don’t make these films by fiddling dials. It’s all part of the Bond story and individual scenes the filmmakers have chosen to tell. When Bond spars with Nomi, or Paloma proves herself a competent agent after being depicted as ditzy in NTTD, they’ve not just slapped those moments in there half heartedly for the giggles or to wake the audience up, it’s from coming up with ideas and rewriting those scenes a fair few times I’d imagine. Even cathartic, ‘really blew his mind’ type one liners are based on consideration of the scene and what it needs . Even comedic characters like Oburchev would have been written with consideration for what’s best for the story…
Come to think of it, NTTD has a lot of comedy in it. 😉 It’s part of the heightened tone the film goes for.
Anyway, all they need to do is give us the best Bond adventure they can and tell it to the best of their ability. Ultimately humour and a sense of outlandishness are part of the ‘genre’ that is Bond anyway, so I don’t see why we’d get something completely unlike that, even if it’s a very distinct take on Bond.
Yes, a Bond movie can be balanced, but the pursuit of a "perfect tone" is pointless. Bond films can and should be different.
In any case, TB's tone is better. :D
Last time I'll say this, if you don't think filmmakers pay attention to tone, or think to themselves they should a joke here or there, you're dead wrong. For instance, Barbs and Mike consider what kind of Bond film they want to make with Purvis and Wade before they set off and write a script. It's not the other way around.
I prefer directors who are able to tell different kinds of stories. People like Michael Apted who have done a mixture of comedies and dramas and inbetween. Villinueve has done some good dramas, but he also can't seem to do much else besides that. If you want change from the Craig era, I'm not sure we're going to be getting that.