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
oddly enough, QoS brings this in spades, a stoic hero who puts his inner turmoil aside to fulfill his mission, and is highly criticised for it as beeing a 'revenge' film, whilst the opposite is true.
But yes, that's one of the reasons it sits up somewhere on top of the list-i-prefer-not-to-make.
Yeah, that's what I said, hes a very Fleming cynical Bond but the story is brisk enough that we don't get the opportunity to see behind the mask, besides in brief moments such as Saunders death. He is forced into keeping composed as a result of his circumstance, whether it be his passion for avenging his fallen 00's, playing the role of the Koskovs' friend for Kara's benefit, or putting on a smug, unbothered persona to hide his desperation when captured in Afghanistan (another moment where the cynical Bond bubbles to the surface "we're inside a bloody Russian airbase!")
The 'horses arse' scene also to mind as a genuine moment where Bond seems very human and his front slips in front of Kara. It's a sense you get which the film is trying to play up with Kara/Bond's relationship, particularly in regards to his deception towards her. Bond's mask is very much taken off when he decides to tell Kara the truth! Honestly though, I don't think it's all that dissimilar to CR. The whole point of that film is that Bond puts up that 'front' when doing his job and until he tells Vesper he's ready to retire (and of course the reaction to her death) he maintains that mask.
I know it's annoying, but TLD is a major reason we have CR ;) I don't get the sense you'd particularly enjoy a Bond 26 that drew heavily upon TLD. Personally, I certainly don't mind a Bond film giving us a sense of his struggles or conflict in the story. Just depends on how it's done.
Probably true, yes!
I dunno, I think it's ironic that despite this longing for a GE or TLD for Bond 26, those are the two films which played a major role in giving us the Craig films! GE with its themes of Bond's relevancy in the modern world, a villain who comes back from the dead and operates in 'the shadows', the references to Bond's childhood. And of course TLD with Bond going against MI6 (or indeed 'rogue') to get the job done etc.
Again, I doubt some here will be happy with anything we get. It is what it is ;)
Anyway, we'll see.
That's why I used the example of John McClane in Die Hard. you could say his mask is off in a similar fashion to Dalton in that he is at a low ebb professionally and personally. If you were to take John McClane out of the context of saving New York he would doubtless become a very sad figure very quickly. likewise, if you were to take Dalton in TLD aside and have an frank conversation he would probably be a mess of psychological issues and loneliness. but the point is, and this is crucial, we are witnessing it from the outside looking in. that's what I mean by not seeing behind the mask, I think you may have misunderstood slightly. we witness Dalton developing feelings for Kara, but he doesn't bare his soul in the same way that Bond does falling for Vesper or Tracy.
I guess I just don't see anything wrong with it in the context of CR or OHMSS. Nor am I seeing a major difference between Dalton in TLD and those other examples. We're always looking at Bond from the outside in, whether it's that 'horses arse' scene with Bond's mask slipping when he looks at Kara with that very emotional expression before telling her he'll send her back to London (hinting that he genuinely cares and feels for this woman), or Craig's Bond saying frankly to Vesper that he's decided to resign.
I can understand preferring the execution of one over the other - that's natural, and it's understandable preferring, say, the performance or writing of one scene over the other. But I'm not sure the mental gymnastics to try and justify all this is working, especially considering we're talking about slightly different movies.
Personally, I probably wouldn't disagree that a character using their reactions to convey their vulnerability is more interesting than a frank conversation. But ultimately a frank conversation is sometimes needed dependent on the scene or film. I mean, you wouldn't see Craig's Bond in QOS, SF or SP being as open as he is during that moment in CR (or at least saying outright to another character - they're more in the Dalton vein you were speaking about). Different stories and different scenes.
I agree, the big mistake is thinking a weighty "meaty" story is always better and a lightweight, breezy story is always worse. The been the issue over the past couple decades, each film NEEDS to have some kind of added twist or personal stakes and it has arguably hurt as much as it has improved the end result. There does come a time when an audience is ready to get lost in escapism and thrills unburdened by emotional angst.
BTW who do you think can direct Bond film if not for Villeneuve?
Maybe save that question for the Director thread you are also very aware exists?
I agree, we don't need personal takes in every Bond film, I think the last two Craig films are evidence that they tried too hard to concoct that into the plot.
As far as a new director, I would recommend Joseph Kosinski, Top Gun Maverick and F1 both have panache, practical action and have great story and character. Also, most of all, they achieve a great tone. They have great light moments and sadder moments, but the baseline is very enjoyable.
Another suggestion would be Ron Howard, he's capable of making huge blockbusters but also smaller human dramas as well. Although, I don't think he would make a Bond film that is too meaty. He would make a thrill ride.
Honorable suggestions include: Peter Berg, Lee Isaac Chung and Peter Jackson
I agree and i for one am glad that they going to continue in the craig era direction
Villeneuve named CR and SF, and not any of the earlier films, FWIW.
He’s also on record as saying he’s a huge fan of the early Connery films. Being a fan of CR and SF still doesn’t mean we’re in for a repeat of what we’ve been getting for the past 10-20 years.
But I don’t think it’ll be Craig 2.0. Not a complete departure, but different.
The production of dune 3 has wrapped
You're probably just joking but you shouldn't want something like that - not only will it invite endless comparisons to a film many (including myself) love and adore but also because the new film should be able to stand on it's own two feet and stand ALONGSIDE great entries like Casino Royale, Goldeneye, From Russia With Love, etc.
Instead of getting 2.0 of ANY Bond film, let's opt for originality and creativity.
They'll be a good frame of reference - but I don't think we'll see any sort of thematic continuation of his era. Perhaps the new Bond will be more closer to Craig's conception of the character - more physically active, brutal, etc but from all the bits of info that have come back - I think we're looking at a complete reinvention which is for the best.
I think with the director and writer they hired we're going to see more of craig era type story. Than say roger moore which to be honest im happy with personally but it'll definitely be its own thing i agree
I was being a little facetious but im excited with the direction amazon is going and do think they will definitely be looking to put their own stamp on bond.
It’s worth saying First Light seems to have echos of the later Craig films in its trailers - the death of Bond’s parents/his past being expanded on, Bond being more of a loose cannon, the use of an existing OHMSS theme, and even some of the designs/scenarios don’t look unlike what we’ve see in recent Bond films. It’s obviously doing its own thing, but I can imagine Bond 26 having similar echoes and some broad thematic similarities.
Anyway, ultimately any Bond film will draw from its predecessors in some way. It’s the nature of a formulaic series like Bond, even with a hard reinvention. But I’m certainly not expecting a Craig era 2.0. It has to be its own thing.
I'm excited as well - a bit nervous over the long term health of the franchise - but everything that has come out on this film so far has gripped my attention. I think we're in for a great film.
Yeah I see lots of similarities between First Light and the Craig era - but at the same time the game began development while under EON's watch. I think the buyout happening came at a time when things were pretty far along in it's internal development that to scrap everything and start fresh to fit whatever vision Amazon has for the series would've been madness. Then the interesting question comes up - are the inclusions you've brought up meant to be an overt reference to the Craig era, or references to what inspired the Craig era? I certainly think making him a bit more reckless is a reference to Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace (though Bond has always been somewhat reckless in the films) but I think everything is less a reference to Craig's era itself and more referencing the books or OHMSS the film. Though did Bond come across as a mix of Brosnan and Craig which I quite liked.
When it comes to Bond 26, it's truly going to be the first project without any sort of creative input from BB, MGW, and the people who have shaped the series since Goldeneye - it's really hard for me to picture what the final film will look like and in a way that makes it exciting to speculate and ponder. We don't know what this movie is going to look like, how it will be plotted, and what patterns we can expect based off of prior Bond films. It's a clean break - an even bigger break from what came before than Casino Royale was.
I reckon what the makers of the game did was to look at the Bond films and try to figure out how to get that ‘flavour’ and put their own spin on it. It may or may not be quite the same approach Bond 26 goes for behind the scenes (although I do think they’ll want to give the audience that sense that this is a Bond film, no matter how much of a reinvention it is).
I think something will come through from EON’s films. It’s simply impossible to make something out of nothing with Bond, and it has such a rich history to draw from. But you’re right, we simply don’t have any idea what it’ll look like for now.