›

EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards (Steven Knight to Write)

1…141142143144145147»

Comments

  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,522
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    I don't know why people keep mentioning Prisoners when Sicario exists.

    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

    I wouldn’t mind a film in the tone/style of Thunderball - I would just hope it doesn’t suffer similar pacing issues.

    Really looking back to those first four Connery films would be a pretty good frame of reference in general.

    We need an homage to the rack scene from TB if that's the direction they go. A scene which we've never again seen the likes of in a Bond film... for better or worse ;)

    I'd be interested in seeing how a Villeneuve directed Bond film would depict, say, an old school villain's lair, or some of those distinctive sets we get in the early Connery films. His films have some pretty interesting designs (I'm thinking of Wallace's water lair in Blade Runner 2049 with its constantly dimming lights and strange colours).

    Haha yes! Complete with the dry humping and all!

    I’m wondering about that too - my guess would be that an old school villains lair would probably closer to the satellite center in Goldeneye or the SPECTRE base in SP as opposed to the Piz Gloria’s or Volcano Lair’s we’d see back in 60’s Bond.

    I have a feeling that Villeneuve will go for something more realistic and technological, but who knows?
  • TroyTroy
    edited 7:22pm Posts: 406
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    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.

    I agree. Hope that this time it’s not personal

    We haven’t had a film this century where Bond has not resigned or been suspended. The last three films of the 20th century involved personal ties to him or M. Before that, he resigned.

    We have to back to 1987 - which will be 40 years before the next film - where he did a non-personal mission. So much for the professional detached agent of the state. Most of the next audience were not alive when that last happened.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 7:33pm Posts: 6,316
    I think he could be interesting in the sense that he's done all these science fiction and bigger 'spectacle films' alongside the odd film like Enemy (which is very unusual and otherworldly). He obviously has that clear undercurrent of 'realism' in a lot of his films though, and as seen in something like Prisoners and Polytechnique he can do something more grounded.

    I mean, I have no idea what we'll get with this film, but we have a director with quite a wide range of creative capabilities. That's promising.

    Incidentally, something I only just learned about him was he was supposedly so disappointed with his first two features he essentially stopped directing films (apart from the odd short) and became basically a stay at home Dad for 9 years until Polytechnique. That's weirdly inspiring all round (whether you're a father or aspiring filmmaker!)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Edward Berger for Bond 27
    Posts: 9,396
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think he could be interesting in the sense that he's done all these science fiction and bigger 'spectacle films' alongside the odd film like Enemy (which is very unusual and otherworldly). He obviously has that clear undercurrent of 'realism' in a lot of his films though, and as seen in something like Prisoners and Polytechnique he can do something more grounded.

    I mean, I have no idea what we'll get with this film, but we have a director with quite a wide range of creative capabilities. That's promising.

    So has Micheal Bay, doesn't mean he's right for Bond.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 7:47pm Posts: 6,316
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think he could be interesting in the sense that he's done all these science fiction and bigger 'spectacle films' alongside the odd film like Enemy (which is very unusual and otherworldly). He obviously has that clear undercurrent of 'realism' in a lot of his films though, and as seen in something like Prisoners and Polytechnique he can do something more grounded.

    I mean, I have no idea what we'll get with this film, but we have a director with quite a wide range of creative capabilities. That's promising.

    So has Micheal Bay, doesn't mean he's right for Bond.

    Yes, but Michael Bay hasn't made films like Blade Runner 2049, or Prisoners, or Sicario. Or any of the other films I mentioned.

    Was there really much point in highlighting one part of what I wrote without acknowledging the rest? ;) I know you're anxious and/or depressed about this next film (and as I've said I can understand being hesitant towards it), but as I've said to you just wait and see mate.
    Troy wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    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.

    I agree. Hope that this time it’s not personal

    We haven’t had a film this century where Bond has not resigned or been suspended. The last three films of the 20th century involved personal ties to him or M. Before that, he resigned.

    We have to back to 1987 - which will be 40 years before the next film - where he did a non-personal mission. So much for the professional detached agent of the state. Most of the next audience were not alive when that last happened.

    Bond had a personal connection to Pushkin in TLD. And he disobeyed M's orders. And he was very jaded with his job, to the point him not fulfilling it was a major plot point in the story. Honestly, TLD is a major reason why we have the Bond films we do.
  • TroyTroy
    edited 8:00pm Posts: 406
    007HallY wrote: »

    Bond had a personal connection to Pushkin in TLD. And he disobeyed M's orders. And he was very jaded with his job, to the point him not fulfilling it was a major plot point in the story. Honestly, TLD is a major reason why we have the Bond films we do.

    I regarded Pushkin as a professional contact (elite Intelligence being a small world), and that Bond exercised his professional judgement not to execute him as he had doubts whether Pushkin was guilty. As a later M said, a License to Kill is also a License Not to Kill
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,522
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think he could be interesting in the sense that he's done all these science fiction and bigger 'spectacle films' alongside the odd film like Enemy (which is very unusual and otherworldly). He obviously has that clear undercurrent of 'realism' in a lot of his films though, and as seen in something like Prisoners and Polytechnique he can do something more grounded.

    I mean, I have no idea what we'll get with this film, but we have a director with quite a wide range of creative capabilities. That's promising.

    So has Micheal Bay, doesn't mean he's right for Bond.

    The Rock was a great Bond movie. ;)
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,316
    Nothing wrong with The Rock, haha.
    Troy wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    Bond had a personal connection to Pushkin in TLD. And he disobeyed M's orders. And he was very jaded with his job, to the point him not fulfilling it was a major plot point in the story. Honestly, TLD is a major reason why we have the Bond films we do.

    I regarded Pushkin as a professional contact (elite Intelligence being a small world), and that Bond exercised his professional judgement not to execute him as he had doubts whether Pushkin was guilty. As a later M said, a License to Kill is also a License Not to Kill

    They're not best mates, but Bond says he knows (and seemingly likes/respects) Pushkin. He goes against M's direct orders too (I can't see Brown's M having as much leniency as the M of SP with regards to the licence to kill or not distinction ;) )

    I don't think TLD is as far removed from the modern Bond movies as you're making out.
  • TroyTroy
    edited 8:38pm Posts: 406
    That kind of makes it worse. It means we have to go back to the Roger Moore era to get a non-personal Bond film.

    You didn’t get any of this emotional nonsense with Moore or Connery - just detached gratuitous sex and violence.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 8:52pm Posts: 6,316
    Troy wrote: »
    That kind of makes it worse. It means we have to go back to the Roger Moore era to get a non-personal Bond film.

    I guess? I mean, I don't think Bond having some sort of personal connection to the story is a bad thing. It's something that can be done in a thousand different ways and still be interesting. Maybe Bond falls for the girl, or knows them from a previous affair, or knows a villain from something, or has some sort of personal conflict with another of the secondary characters, or perhaps the villain touches a nerve with Bond etc.
    Troy wrote: »
    You didn’t get any of this emotional nonsense with Moore or Connery - just detached gratuitous sex and violence.

    I love how Bond has literally never had gratuitous sex or violence despite the claim from a non Bond film :)) And no, not everything about the Moore or Connery films were detached. Have you watched them recently? TSWLM with Bond's involvement with Anya/him reacting to Tracy, FYEO with the whole 'dig two graves' speech and Bond worrying about Melina, Bond's attachment to Octopussy etc.

    I dunno, I feel some fans are so detached from watching/expiriencing Bond movies I feel they haven't actually watched them recently and hold onto these memories of what they are and simplify them in terms of rhetoric ('it needs to be lighthearted' 'we need 'non personal missions' 'can't be personal' etc). Am I wrong in this area? I'm sure I've been guilty of it too, but it genuinely seems odd to me some people want to go back to stuff that never existed or wasn't already there in some form. Just seems bizarre, misplaced dissatisfaction to me.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,522
    If the movie shows us the days in the Navy, it's already personal in some way.
  • TroyTroy
    Posts: 406
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    If the movie shows us the days in the Navy, it's already personal in some way.

    That’s not personal, that’s his career.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited 9:28pm Posts: 949
    You're not allowed to call a Bond film light-hearted. or any other descriptor for that matter. I can say a Bond film like Licence to Kill is dark and a film like Octopussy is light-hearted. I consider The Living Daylights and Goldeneye to generally be light-hearted but they also strike a balance in tone.

    Compared to Villinueve's work, TLD and GE look like Tootsie.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 9:40pm Posts: 6,316
    Call it whatever you want. LTK is a revenge driven Bond film where Bond goes against MI6 to avenge a friend and has a fair few violent scenes (but of course there are gadgets, a pseudo water ski sequence, a fair few gags, and even some sort of love triangle that seems to me more soap opera-ish than anything in Craig's films). OP is a Bond adventure where we get some very Hitcockian scenes such as Bond having to dress as a clown to diffuse a bomb, and a rather gruesome death for another 00 dressed as said clown.

    TLD and GE are similarly nuanced films in terms of what we get. I would not describe either as 'light hearted' Bond movies for what it's worth, and GE particularly I would hold off of showing, say, my young nephew for his first Bond film based on the number of violent scenes there.

    Villeneuve has enough in his filmography to show he's capable I'd say.
  • TroyTroy
    edited 9:55pm Posts: 406
    007HallY wrote: »
    Troy wrote: »
    That kind of makes it worse. It means we have to go back to the Roger Moore era to get a non-personal Bond film.

    I guess? I mean, I don't think Bond having some sort of personal connection to the story is a bad thing. It's something that can be done in a thousand different ways and still be interesting. Maybe Bond falls for the girl, or knows them from a previous affair, or knows a villain from something, or has some sort of personal conflict with another of the secondary characters, or perhaps the villain touches a nerve with Bond etc.
    Troy wrote: »
    You didn’t get any of this emotional nonsense with Moore or Connery - just detached gratuitous sex and violence.

    I love how Bond has literally never had gratuitous sex or violence despite the claim from a non Bond film :)) And no, not everything about the Moore or Connery films were detached. Have you watched them recently? TSWLM with Bond's involvement with Anya/him reacting to Tracy, FYEO with the whole 'dig two graves' speech and Bond worrying about Melina, Bond's attachment to Octopussy etc.

    I dunno, I feel some fans are so detached from watching/expiriencing Bond movies I feel they haven't actually watched them recently and hold onto these memories of what they are and simplify them in terms of rhetoric ('it needs to be lighthearted' 'we need 'non personal missions' 'can't be personal' etc). Am I wrong in this area? I'm sure I've been guilty of it too, but it genuinely seems odd to me some people want to go back to stuff that never existed or wasn't already there in some form. Just seems bizarre, misplaced dissatisfaction to me.

    I didn’t say Bond was an automaton. Connery-Bond had feelings, but deployed his stiff upper lip and got on with it. Such as the deaths of Tilly or Paula or Kerim Bey. He momentarily mourned, but didn’t go around sulking and resigning.

    You are right in that my memories of RM post-MR are a little hazy, but I’m sure he was similar.

    There was plenty of gratuitous violence and sex for the era (1960s) for films accessible for children. DN had a lingering two-piece bikini, a naked Bond girl, and a cold blooded execution. FRWL featured naked Bond girl, jokes about size of SC penis and oral sex, honey trap, voyeurism, a predatory lesbian, and a man being garrotted. And Bond being ordered to have sex - not sure what HR would have to say these days. TB had a naked Bond girl, people stabbed in the face, sadomasochism and references to bondage. Plus all the credits sequences full of naked women.

    Gratuitous does not necessarily have to be explicit.

    Having a personal connection is not bad in itself. But not in every single film for 40 years.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,730
    Going off these last few pages it's quite clear that some people are hyping themselves up thinking we're going to be getting "The Craig era 2.0" - forgetting the fact that ALL the major players of the Craig era are now no longer associated with the series. BB and MGW are out - so are Purvis and Wade - and so is Craig himself. For better or worse these were the people responsible for the creative decisions made from 2006 - 2021. They have absolutely ZERO involvement with the new film - so why are we dismissing the new creatives and the new film when we know absolutely nothing about what kind of direction they wish to take? It's as if some people are purposefully hyping themselves up so that if heaven forbid the film actually isn't good they can sit there and feel validated.

    I'm not concerned with the production of Bond 26 - simply put I think Amazon put together a great team in place for now. I'd be much more worried about the long term health of the franchise under Amazon weather or not in 10-15 years time the property goes the way of Marvel and Star Wars and ends up being devalued because of too many spin-offs or unnecessary world building. I'm worried that Amazon will learn all the wrong lessons from Bond 26's success and will start pumping out films with the least amount of effort and creativity just to make a quick buck. The challenge isn't if Amazon are capable of making a good James Bond movie - it's can they maintain the series and if so for how long?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 7,030
    Troy wrote: »
    That kind of makes it worse. It means we have to go back to the Roger Moore era to get a non-personal Bond film.

    You didn’t get any of this emotional nonsense with Moore or Connery - just detached gratuitous sex and violence.

    The personal connection is...very Fleming.
Sign In or Register to comment.