Skyfall is my favorite Bond but should DC do an "epic" Bond film like TB or GE?

2»

Comments

  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Well...lets remember that SF had a DB5 WITH GUNS. If thats not a bit of "the old" I don't know what is.
  • Posts: 63
    Yeah you're barking up the wrong tree I get it, but a lot of older fans still think it's to datk
  • Posts: 14,800
    @007Skyfall-You have so far completely failed to explain what you mean by classic type Bond, or epic, or how Skyfall is so different from epic or classic.
  • Posts: 2,483
    Ludovico wrote:
    I personally consider SF to by quite classic and uber-traditional, so this thread is a bit of a moot point to my mind. What I would like to see, however, as another grand and epic Bond film. There have been three: TB, Spy and TLD. I think it's high time we have another Bond film that emphasizes globe-trotting, glamour, a broad scope and a plot of global import.

    I can see about TB and TSWLM being epic, heck I would consider GF epic too (as well as YOLT, maybe even MR which I disliked), but I don't see TLD fitting that mould. For me it is more a relatively low key spy thriller, like FRWL. Not that there is anything wrong with it, on the contrary.

    That said, I agree with you, we need an epic, TB-like Bond movie with Craig in it. And I agree about how uber-traditional SF is. Way more, in a way, than a lot of what we had after TB, actually.

    Ludovico,

    The main reasons I consider TLD an epic Bond film, are the fact that Bond hops around so much (UK, Austria, Tangier, Afghanistan), and that, for lack of a better description, the film has so much "space" to it. QOS, IMO, is a claustrophobic Bond film. All is dark and in tight quarters, almost to a suffocating extent. TLD, OTOH, and particularly in the Tangier and Afghan sequences, is all sunshine and wide views. The film just has so much scope to it. And Barry's soaring score heightens that effect.

  • Posts: 63
    @ludovico I don't know honestly I'm just making a generalization about the things I've heard from older bond fans, they are not views I 100% agree with, they are just ones I have heard. @perilagu_khan I definitely agree about QOS but I don't think Skyfall or CR is like that.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 2,483
    007Skyfall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    Skyfall and CR are my two favorite bonds but I don't know, I get a different feeling when I watch TB or TSWLM. Maybe a Bond that doesn't have to directly do with today's problems of terrorism, maybe one where Bond faces a problem and villain that we wouldn't or couldn't see in reality. Maybe he needs some gadgets but I don't really mind the modern style but a LOT of fans miss the epic,


    One of the reasons Craig's films have not been epic is because the plots have all been so intimate and personal. In CR, Bond is out to destroy one man (Le Chiffre), and he falls in love with a femme fatale who meets a tragic end. QOS is largely a revenge film. And SF is a revenge film where the villain is the avenger.

    For a DC film to have that epic feel, it will need an epic plot. And that means a plot where the whole world, or at least a very large portion of it, is imperiled. The personal slant, too, will need to fall by the wayside.

  • Posts: 2,483
    Samuel001 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    I agree. Part of the problem with this "epic" idea is, as times have changed, it's not possible to recreate or capture what certain people are after. Bond will always move forward and will never go back to what it was and thinking about this subjectively, doing anything else would be suicidal. It must keep changing.

    Returning to earlier approaches would be change. Doesn't mean it would be successful--charge hardly guarantees success--but it would certainly constitute change.

  • Posts: 63
    @ludovico
    Classic- Cool PTS, Villain who has a realistic plan, henchmen-optional, cool Q scene without TO any gadgets, nice Money Penney scene, one bond girl who isn't a strong willed character who eventually dies (spare CR), also a strong willed bond girl who survives, exotic and also dark locations, plot twists, automobile chase, a cool third act with a one-on-one confrontation with the villain and the bond theme with a classic score with a gun barrel opener (spare CR and skyfall) .
    Examples: GF, GE, Skyfall, CR, FRWL

    Epic- has some classic elements but add some more
    Things like more gadgets, a slightly over the top villain but not too far over the top, all exotic locations and girls, definitely a henchmen, big big action scenes, an exciting score,a fast moving story and a few big chases plus a big finale.

    Examples: TB, TSWLM, TND, YOLT
  • Posts: 14,800
    Samuel001 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But what compensates as an "epic" Bond? CR could be considered epic because of the stunning cinematography and well filmed action. Ditto with SF.

    I agree. Part of the problem with this "epic" idea is, as times have changed, it's not possible to recreate or capture what certain people are after. Bond will always move forward and will never go back to what it was and thinking about this subjectively, doing anything else would be suicidal. It must keep changing.

    Returning to earlier approaches would be change. Doesn't mean it would be successful--charge hardly guarantees success--but it would certainly constitute change.

    I agree with this, although QOS, with all its flaws, had also a large scale plot, not the way TB or GF was, but still larger than CR. It would be nice to see a movie where "the world could fall apart", where a threat is global. My idea would be to use elements of the novel TB and OHMSS that were not used in the past.
    007Skyfall wrote:
    @ludovico
    Classic- Cool PTS, Villain who has a realistic plan, henchmen-optional, cool Q scene without TO any gadgets, nice Money Penney scene, one bond girl who isn't a strong willed character who eventually dies (spare CR), also a strong willed bond girl who survives, exotic and also dark locations, plot twists, automobile chase, a cool third act with a one-on-one confrontation with the villain and the bond theme with a classic score with a gun barrel opener (spare CR and skyfall) .
    Examples: GF, GE, Skyfall, CR, FRWL

    Epic- has some classic elements but add some more
    Things like more gadgets, a slightly over the top villain but not too far over the top, all exotic locations and girls, definitely a henchmen, big big action scenes, an exciting score,a fast moving story and a few big chases plus a big finale.

    Examples: TB, TSWLM, TND, YOLT

    Those are lists, and of so many elements that any attempt at a definition is vague at best. So you want in your OP a more classic Bond movie, but you consider Skyfall classic. As for epic, how are more gadgets and OTT villains make a Bond movie classic? And, as people pointed out before, you don't get more OTT than Silva. Same with exotic locations, we had plenty of those in the last three movies. That is the problem with your lists, many of the things on it are already there in Craig movies.

    I don't want to be rude, but you do sound like a spoiled child. "Oh I want something different." "But what?" "I don't know, just different."
  • Posts: 63
    You don't seem to understand that these things aren't my opinion, they are things I hear from the older fans @ludovico
  • Posts: 14,800
    Which Bond fans? I am an older fan. I am 36, seen my first Bond movie about 30 years ago (it was TB). You mention in your OP that it may be time for a classic Bond movie, you fail to give a proper definition of one, then you say it is not your opinion but one of older fans? Whoever they are, whatever they say, you present the facts here, you present the premisse for your question.
  • Posts: 63
    Ok I'm just saying @ludovico that some people, maybe not me or you, want a plot where the whole world is in danger not just M16 and it's something you WOULDN'T face in real life. I like the older style but I'm tired of others complaining about how Craig's style Is to far away from the original formula. Maybe they make one to please those fans then go back to Craig's forte.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 1,310
    Danny is my favorite Bond, and Skyfall is in my top 3 so I'm right there with you, @007Skyfall.

    Like many of us have been saying on this thread, a 'classic' Bond movie is a little to vague for many of us to pinpoint. For some, a classic would be in the style of From Russia With Love, and for others it would be Goldfinger. Despite what some may think, these two films are incredibly different in tone and story.

    From what I've read, it seems like classic to many of you means a world threatening plan and over the top elements. Truthfully, I cannot see the producers going for this style of film with Craig. Yes, The Avengers did it, but then again....it's The Avengers. It's not James Bond. For now, those days are over. (And it was not just Pierce or Roger who had those movies - Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, and Diamonds Are Forever were all large scale schemes.)

    I will agree with the comments that state Skyfall was a step in the 'traditional' James Bond direction (despite breaking traditions, such as a lack of main Bond girl and a young Q). Skyfall gave us a slightly hammy, megalomaniacal, yet ultra-magnificient villain with Silva. It also gave us a plot that involved mass-destruction and blackmail. You get the Aston with some of the usual refinements. You get more one-liners and cuff adjustments. I would say that Skyfall brought back a little bit of the 'fun' the older films carried.

    I would probably start to draw the line at where Skyfall was, however.

    There was one moment in Skyfall where I think they went a little too far: the Komodo Dragon scene. The camp was a bit too much there, and it didn't help that computer effects were less than convincing. Roger Moore ran over crocodiles in Live and Let Die, but Daniel Craig using the CGI dragon as a stair step just didn't sit right with me. Even if the film had pulled the scene off from a technical perspective, I think it still would have been silly from a situation perspective. The bottom line is: they should stay away from sight gags like that. Added to that, there wasn't really a scene before or after the Komodo Dragons that maintained that tone. The scene kind of came out of nowhere.

    That scene should also act a lesson to future Bond films: if you can't pull most of it off without practical effects, then don't bother doing it. I'm really not sure why the special effects department couldn't have made an animatronic for the close up shots of the dragons (and pretty much every scene the dragon doesn't run). If they can make 40 foot long moving dinosaurs for Jurassic Park, then the $200 million Skyfall certainly should be able to make eight foot long Komodo Dragon animatronics.

    Yes, the Komodo Dragon scene is small and I almost didn't remember it when I saw Skyfall for the first time. But I just don't want that turning into some snowball effect where, sometime down the line, something even sillier happens in a later film. I feel that Skyfall was the right amount of seriousness, camp and fun, which is why I admire the film so much.

    If anything, Bond 24 needs another great villain and a slightly larger emphasis on story. If the film can achieve that with Skyfall's tone (more or less), then I think we are in store for another fantastic Bond film.
  • Posts: 63
    @skj91
    Classic isn't over the top, it's just hard to define. It's a serious film that doesn't take it TO seriously with memorable villains and scenes without getting to campy or to serious. I didn't mind the Komodo dragon it kinda payed homage to when Bond was campy without going too far. But I agree dc is the best bond, no question.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Skyfall is a classic Bond film albeit not in the cheesey Roger Moore-era sense of the word which is no bad thing! Got to move with the times!
  • Posts: 63
    Yeah @lechiffre I 100% agree with you. It's a 21st century classic though, different from the original classics, which I know some people want to see again.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Plus we now have Moneypenny, Q and a male M in place to cater for the "traditionalists" so I'm sure Bond 24 will appeal to this demographic in the Bond world.
  • Posts: 63
    Yeah I just hope they use those elements right and didnt just use it as fan service in Skyfall and then use them as side elements, I want more money penny and Q and less M. Hopefully they can change it up from lee and maxwell and make their own schtick.
  • actonsteve wrote:
    Because audiences are more so
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2013 Posts: 13,350
    Ludovico wrote:
    Which Bond fans? I am an older fan. I am 36, seen my first Bond movie about 30 years ago (it was TB). You mention in your OP that it may be time for a classic Bond movie, you fail to give a proper definition of one, then you say it is not your opinion but one of older fans? Whoever they are, whatever they say, you present the facts here, you present the premisse for your question.

    If you look at the originals thread, the oldest of fans seem to like where we are, very much at the moment too.
  • Posts: 14,800
    007Skyfall wrote:
    Ok I'm just saying @ludovico that some people, maybe not me or you, want a plot where the whole world is in danger not just M16 and it's something you WOULDN'T face in real life. I like the older style but I'm tired of others complaining about how Craig's style Is to far away from the original formula. Maybe they make one to please those fans then go back to Craig's forte.

    You are changing your definition or indeed your OP as you post. At first you said maybe we need a more classic Bond, now you talk about an epic Bond, then you throw in some other considerations.
  • Posts: 63
    @ludovico you're right. I think I should
    Of said do we need an epic bond because we just got a classic thanks for letting me know.
  • Posts: 1,215
    For me, Casino Royale nailed it on the head. Some may feel it was too dark, (but I like my Bonds on the darker side), with enough lush, exotic extravagance and large scale to go along with the dirtier grimier moments. IMO, Casino Royale felt more epic than even TB, YOLT, and MR.
  • Posts: 63
    For me, Casino Royale nailed it on the head. Some may feel it was too dark, (but I like my Bonds on the darker side), with enough lush, exotic extravagance and large scale to go along with the dirtier grimier moments. IMO, Casino Royale felt more epic than even TB, YOLT, and MR.
    I thought CR was one of the most down-to-earth and grounded Bond. Its isn't even close to the epic style of TB, MR, and YOLT. I love CR but I think your point is not even close to reality.

Sign In or Register to comment.