Can Broccoli and Wilson learn from Abrams?

sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
edited January 2016 in Bond Movies Posts: 260
I'd like to note two points for thought and conversation:

1) In the myriad reviews and forum threads on the internet, whether you loved it, hated it, or fell somewhere in between, everyone agrees (including the film's makers) that The Force Awakens is little more than Star Wars (cica 1977) with a fresh coat of paint. Perhaps not a shot-for-shot remake, but certainly an act-for-act remake.

2) despite point #1, it has been a COLOSSAL financial success.

For my part, I had my misgivings about just how played Force Awaken's story felt to me....and then I stepped back and realized that A) I gladly spent the $13 anyway and B) so did a zillion other people.

What does this have to do with James Bond 007?

Could it be that Broccoli and Wilson need to reevaluate the notion they always operated under? Specifically the one which says they must constantly "take Bond in new directions", that they must perpetually "update" the formula and make the films "relevant". Perhaps they can take a page from Force Awakens...

Now I know a lot of you will cry "heresy" at the very notion, and I'm not saying that a shot-for-shot remake of Dr. No is a sure thing, but what if, just what if, EON tried their hand at putting a fresh coat of paint on the most financially successfully and culturally phenomenal Bonds of the 1960s? Would that be so bad? Heck, if the direction taken by Abrams and Co is any indication, it at very least is an idea worth putting on the table.
«1345

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    You sound like a studio exec.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    EoN's problem with SP at least had already been highlighted and for the world to see courtesy of the hacking but very little was done to make major overhauls. Mendes' directing also serves to cause problems. He himself stated for his Bond movies he isn't really interested or bothered about plot and as such so much of what went into SP felt incomplete, rushed and naturally holes in the plot. EoN don't need to learn anything from Abrams because they've been rehashing their movies for years and is something they started decades ago.

    What EoN need to do is to overhaul the foundation of their creative team. Get in new writers who understand the spirit of Fleming's work and can tell their own exciting story; and bring in a director who understands character, plot and action who can bring fresh and dynamic ideas.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    It's an interesting question.

    1. re: TFA being a little more than SW with a fresh coat of paint: - yes, that's true, but as I've said on other threads, it still feels fresh to me. I've asked myself why?
    Ultimately it comes down to 1) charisma, or something like that, and also 2) execution. The film is reassuring in a way due to the similarities to the past, but the characters are quite compelling - at least for me. I've realized that this is the key. One must be able to relate to and believe in the characters and their motivations. This is a function of script work making them feel more 'whole', as well as acting.
    Moreover, everything in this film is executed well (superior acting, beautiful cinematography, brilliant score, intriguing action etc. etc.)
    Finally, they captured the 'essence' of SW in this film. It didn't feel 'painted on', but rather, 'real'.

    2. re: Bond needing to take a page out of this book: - I'd say EON (at least under Cubby) knew this trick very well. In fact, they executed it themselves to near perfection (imho) in 1977, with TSWLM, one of my all time favourite films.
    I have heard critiques that the film is nothing more than an amalgam of what has come before and a loose remake of YOLT. True perhaps, but regardless, this film succeeds on many levels and is cited by many (myself included) as one of EON's best, despite this very fact. Why? Again, in my view, this is due to compelling and interesting characters, fantastic visuals, and superior execution.
    Everything was just done well (score, sets, acting, action, cinematography, title song etc. etc.). Even more remarkable since the film is not similar to the novel.
    The 'essence' of Bond is also captured here

    3. re: Remaking DN or something like DN: - For me, DN succeeds first and foremost because of story. It's a very interesting, low key, Fleming story and is a unique thriller set in exotic locales.
    However, that in itself wouldn't have made it the phenomenon that it became.
    It also succeeded because of the magnetism and near perfection in the role of one man: Sean Connery. It's very difficult to recapture his strength and sheer confidence. Connery was more instrumental to DN's success than anyone in SW was to its success. SW was far more a team effort.
    DN also succeeds on many levels because of attributes that aren't popular these days. Namely, sexism and overt masculinity. Can you see Bond today dealing with Taro the way Connery did? Sadly, it's less likely (more likely that he'd bear his soul in bed like he did during the predominantly wussy 90's).

    I also think that EON under Broccoli and Wilson did in fact recapture the essence of Bond during their recent reboot in CR. So they know what has to be done. Just get Campbell back as an advisor (or co-producer even), make sure Mendes doesn't get anywhere near a Bond film again, and move forward with confidence.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,686
    @bondjames I think one of the key 'measures' EON can take for making the story tighter is to reduce the amount of locations. For the last 2 decades or so, it seems EON is sacrificing the logic of the plot in order to get excuses to change countries every 15 to 20 to minutes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I agree @DaltonCraig007. @doubleoego has also advocated for fewer locations and more immersive experiences within them. I also think that this would work better. Less is more when it comes to location work these days.

    I think there is more to it than that though. I also believe we need a director who really understands Bond, and recently, only Campbell has proven that he does. All of the others seem like they are paying lip service to the character in my view.

    My controversial take:
    I think Mendes got lucky with SF because the Dench/Bardem conflict was so compelling, and he also made it a character piece (something he's very good at) where everyone else just shone. I've said before that I think Bond was just a bystander in SF, but the rest of the film was very charismatic and that drew the audience in.
    With SP, he tried to make a 'Bond' film, but to me, it seemed 'painted on'. Not 'real'. More like Man From Uncle than real Bond. More like some of Brosnan's 90's efforts (which also seemed like an outsider was making a trope"y" Bond film rather than someone who really understood the character). I realize I may be in the minority, but that's how I felt.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited January 2016 Posts: 260
    bondjames wrote: »
    DN also succeeds on many levels because of attributes that aren't popular these days. Namely, sexism and overt masculinity. Can you see Bond today dealing with Taro the way Connery did? Sadly, it's less likely (more likely that he'd bear his soul in bed like he did during the predominantly wussy 90's).

    A most insightful post. I think you and I are very much on the same page. This last point of yours gives me pause though. Would it really be so deviant? Its not as though movies today are devoid of sexism and misogynist characters (quite the opposite I'd have thought). Come to think of it, does a Bond have to be set in the year its made? I dont know, but I wonder...
    @bondjames I think one of the key 'measures' EON can take for making the story tighter is to reduce the amount of locations.

    Quite right. When I think on my favorite installments, 80%+ of the film plays out in a single country. :)

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2016 Posts: 15,686
    @bondjames I think it's inevitable that Campbell will either direct Craig's last film or introduce a new Bond for the 3rd time, depending on what happens for Bond 25.

    After that, who knows. Nolan seems like a shoe-in due to his high box office draw, but does he understand Bond? Will they continue hiring a new director for each film, or will they return to the 1962-1989 period with a director doing atleast 3 films?
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    ...the 1962-1989 period...

    Which I affectionately refer to as "The Golden Age of Bond". :)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    DN also succeeds on many levels because of attributes that aren't popular these days. Namely, sexism and overt masculinity. Can you see Bond today dealing with Taro the way Connery did? Sadly, it's less likely (more likely that he'd bear his soul in bed like he did during the predominantly wussy 90's).

    A most insightful post. I think you and I are very much on the same page. This last point of yours gives me pause though. Would it really be so deviant? Its not as though movies today are devoid of sexism and misogynist characters (quite the opposite I'd have thought). Come to think of it, does a Bond have to be set in the year its made? I dont know, but I wonder...
    I agree with you that it can definitely be done today. One has to be a little careful, but it can be done. Again, I think they did it marvelously in CR (especially in the Bond/Vesper exchange on the balcony of the casino....."Well then you're an idiot". "I'm sorry!" "I said you're a bloody idiot. Look in my eyes, I can beat this man"). They could indeed go 'back in time' with one Bond film if they want. It will be ballsy, but brave. High risk though and I'm not all that keen on the idea personally.
    @bondjames I think it's inevitable that Campbell will either direct Craig's last film or introduce a new Bond for the 3rd time, depending on what happens for Bond 25.

    After that, who knows. Nolan seems like a shoe-in due to his high box office draw, but does he understand Bond? Will they continue hiring a new director for each film, or will they return to the 1962-1989 period with a director doing atleast 3 films?
    I'm not religious, but I'm ready to 'pray' for Campbell's return for either DC's last, or preferably the new fella's first, even in advisory capacity, to set things in the right direction.

    Unlike others, I'm completely open to Nolan. I think he'll do Bond credit. He's much better than some think in my view, may commit to multiple films, and will respect the franchise.

    I agree with you on having directors do multiple films. I've said before that I think EON should insist that at least the first two from the new actor are done by the same director in order to ensure continuity of concept.
  • Posts: 11,119
    From my point of view the only thing that EON needs to do, is hiring some writers who can write a story/screenplay with a bit more plot, intrige, realism and surprises, sans plot holes. People make it sound like Barbara and Michael suddenly need to cleansweep the franchise. Now that I find nonsense. CR, SF and even SP have proven us fans that Bond is loved. Perhaps slightly more than in the 1990's and 1980's.

    And in all honesty, having watched great films like "Gravity" and "The Revenant", that lack a complicated script and are built around a rather (super)thin plot, I think what matters all time is the final product. And even then, with films that are about espionage, the final product only has to be bettered with a better screenplay. Don't panic. Just.....do it. Everyone can do it :-).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Are you suggesting a new Bond entry should borrow heavily from a 60's entry without technically being a remake (as is the case for TFA), or are you suggesting (as many have) that we should just remake the old films?
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,497
    I agree with the sentiment sure, and it's very likely knowing EON's track record that the next Bond will be Abrams-esque, because that's where the money is.

    TFA though, has a direct link to EP IV, in that it heavily features the original principal actors (well except for Luke but he's the central focus of the film). I think this has a lot to do with TFA 'feeling' like the original - the familiar faces. It would be hard to do this with Bond, because there isn't the same sense of continuity.

    On the other hand, I would like a director who really studied the original films the ways Abrams did for SW to get the 'feel' right. I heard talk of Mendes and Craig going back to the old films, but the end product didn't quite feel immersive. The style and panache wasn't quite there, even though it seemed they were attempting to bring those elements in. It did feel more painted on than genuine.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2016 Posts: 10,512
    With this talk of getting the 'feel' right, I'm reminded of a discussion from a week or so ago. IMO I don't think they need to capture the feel of the old films at all, but what I'd welcome is capturing the feel, tone, and to some degree structure, of the earlier Fleming novels. That is something that can be translated into a modern setting, without carrying over specific relics from days gone by. It's also something largely missing from a good portion of the canon because the films grew into a new beast entirely. This would retain authenticity, without having to be slave to the past. TFA is built on nostalgia, which is a powerful agent. Bond has tried that to varying degrees, but for me I'd rather see risk taking and possible failure over safety and gauranteed success ala TFA.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    Eon just needs some new Scriptwriters. Spectre wasn't this huge disaster. It was flawed sure but not Oh no, Eon has lost their minds... Abrams while a good director is a bit too fast paced for Bond. I don't know if he could do Bond justice. A lot of people here seem to be ready for the Remake route for Bond which I think is stupid. The Bond movies don't need remade. Eon just needs some new writers with fresh ideas to take Bond on brand new Adventures. Personally they should take the best bits of all the continuation novels and use those elements next.
  • Posts: 1,631
    EON only needs to do what many have been saying they need to do for the better part of a decade now: hire new writers.

    Everything else seems to be in pretty good hands. They've moved the franchise to a point where they are able to bring Oscar-caliber talent both in front of and behind the camera. That just hasn't translated to the writing team yet.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote: »
    Eon just needs some new Scriptwriters. Spectre wasn't this huge disaster. It was flawed sure but not Oh no, Eon has lost their minds... Abrams while a good director is a bit too fast paced for Bond. I don't know if he could do Bond justice. A lot of people here seem to be ready for the Remake route for Bond which I think is stupid. The Bond movies don't need remade. Eon just needs some new writers with fresh ideas to take Bond on brand new Adventures. Personally they should take the best bits of all the continuation novels and use those elements next.

    I agree, what is being considered here is the last thing Bond needs to do IMO.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Eon just needs some new Scriptwriters. Spectre wasn't this huge disaster. It was flawed sure but not Oh no, Eon has lost their minds... Abrams while a good director is a bit too fast paced for Bond. I don't know if he could do Bond justice. A lot of people here seem to be ready for the Remake route for Bond which I think is stupid. The Bond movies don't need remade. Eon just needs some new writers with fresh ideas to take Bond on brand new Adventures. Personally they should take the best bits of all the continuation novels and use those elements next.

    I agree, what is being considered here is the last thing Bond needs to do IMO.

    Agreed x2. Plus The Force Awakens was just horrible. Yea I griped about SP but I wasn't bored with it and I left smiling. But this crap... I've seen elementary plays with better acting!!! Even the Brits' acting sucked WTH!!!!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    EON has remade Bond films before. Remakes of remakes even. Sometimes it has ben a success, sometimes a complete failure.

    It bugs me when all media outlets call the new Canadian effort a remake of FYEO though, as it is nothing of the kind.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    They've recycled story elements but they've never remade a Bond film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Neither has Abrams. It is the same thing.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    TFA though, has a direct link to EP IV, in that it heavily features the original principal actors (well except for Luke but he's the central focus of the film). I think this has a lot to do with TFA 'feeling' like the original - the familiar faces. It would be hard to do this with Bond, because there isn't the same sense of continuity.
    That's a great point. Ultimately, TFA was about passing the torch to this new generation of characters. That is completely unnecessary at this point in Bond's universe.

    RC7 wrote: »
    I'd rather see risk taking and possible failure over safety and gauranteed success ala TFA.
    Hear, hear. I understand that there's going to be familiarity after 50 plus years, but I could never accept them throwing all imagination and creativity out the window like that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I thought SF & SW-TFA had heart and soul. They both held my attention throughout. I think the trick with these things is to weave it together in a way that seems credible and integral. The devil is in the details. It can't feel 'forced' or 'contrived'. It must feel organic. That's a matter of execution.

    Also, the character of Bond has to remain credible and consistent. That's where they might be confusing people. Which Bond is going to show up? Craigs? If so which version (moody but caring SF or blase & indifferent SP)? It's not easy to relate to a character who appears disinterested. This wasn't Connery or Moore casual. Rather, it was, to me, sleepwalking almost - spaced out even. I didn't get that with SW-TFA's characters.

    In terms of actually remaking DN, I don't think this is what the OP is suggesting, but I could be wrong. If so, I'm not too keen on that idea. I'm also against a future remake of OHMSS, even though the possibility exists post-SP. I think those earlier efforts must be kept untouched for posterity. That's why I wasn't all that keen on the reintroduction from scratch of MP or Blofeld either. Unless, as hoped, it was just for the self-contained Craig universe.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Well EON wrote the book on this back in the day as they just successfully kept mixing up the same ingredients for 40 years.

    The trouble I feel we have with SF and SP (and to a much smaller and more acceptable extent with CR) is that we have changed from doing the same thing but different, as during the Rog era and now just do shameless homages, references to old Bond films and fan wankery.

    QOS is the only Bond film of the Craig era to have the confidence and balls to stand on its own two feet and for that you really have to applaud it.

    CR is somewhat forgiveable because it is a total reboot and the references are rather more discreet (although I hate the desperate shoehorning in of the DB5) but the Mendes era is in its own way worse than DAD for the endless references.

    During the Rog and Tim days (and to a lesser extent the Brozza era) they went and created their own classic moments but now classic moments seem to just revolve around reintroducing something from the past and playing a little snippet of the Bond theme.

    The problem of course is that you can only get away with this trick for so long before it becomes tired and repetitive. After the Craig era do we reboot again and then reintroduce M, Q, MP, Blofeld etc again (and no doubt the f**king DB5 again)?

    You only have to look at Spider-Man and Fantastic 4 to see that just rebooting over and over again produces diminishing returns.

    I think Cubby's genius was to realise that to survive the series needs to keep looking forwards but these days we seem to be perpetually looking towards the past for inspiration.

  • edited January 2016 Posts: 2,015
    Ballsy ? To introduce Craig, they went back to Fleming... One of the best action movies of the last 25 years devotes a whole section to a card game, but there's a story and characters thanks to Fleming ! So to go back to a Fleming book would not be so surprising. Phone Paul Harris and ask him what is his favorite Fleming book, right now !

    But you can go into the opposite direction too :

    You could also note that "this time it's personal" formula also worked well. You could tell the studio that seemingly the audience is done with missions, and rather prefer to hear about Bond's childhood. So let's see what happens when Bond learns his father is still alive ! Please phone Liam Neeson's agent now, we've got a billion movie here.



  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Well EON wrote the book on this back in the day as they just successfully kept mixing up the same ingredients for 40 years.

    The trouble I feel we have with SF and SP (and to a much smaller and more acceptable extent with CR) is that we have changed from doing the same thing but different, as during the Rog era and now just do shameless homages, references to old Bond films and fan wankery.

    QOS is the only Bond film of the Craig era to have the confidence and balls to stand on its own two feet and for that you really have to applaud it.

    CR is somewhat forgiveable because it is a total reboot and the references are rather more discreet (although I hate the desperate shoehorning in of the DB5) but the Mendes era is in its own way worse than DAD for the endless references.

    During the Rog and Tim days (and to a lesser extent the Brozza era) they went and created their own classic moments but now classic moments seem to just revolve around reintroducing something from the past and playing a little snippet of the Bond theme.

    The problem of course is that you can only get away with this trick for so long before it becomes tired and repetitive. After the Craig era do we reboot again and then reintroduce M, Q, MP, Blofeld etc again (and no doubt the f**king DB5 again)?

    You only have to look at Spider-Man and Fantastic 4 to see that just rebooting over and over again produces diminishing returns.

    I think Cubby's genius was to realise that to survive the series needs to keep looking forwards but these days we seem to be perpetually looking towards the past for inspiration.

    Well said!

    The Mendes era seems to think it a novel idea to relive elements of the past that gave the series classic and iconic moments in the first place instead of looking forward and creating something meaningful and creating new classic and iconic moments. 50 years of Bond movie history is bound to cover and reintroduce what we're already familiar with but using it as a continuous crutch is grating and rather embarrassing.

    What you say about QoS couldn't be more true. It has its faults but it's probably the most unique Bond film in the series at least it is for the Craig era. Forster had the unenviable task of making a follow up to CR but managed to tell a story that was different and a massive departure from what came before and after. I didn't much care for the oil/GF reference but at least that was just the one and only. Mendes seems to think he's being clever "reintroducing l" staples of the past but his inability to back it up with meaningful payoffs (blowing up the db5 and bringing it back again in the next movie) just rings lazy and hollow. I sense there's no real conviction or confidence in his ability to make a Bond film that can creatively take the series forward.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 5,767
    Well EON wrote the book on this back in the day as they just successfully kept mixing up the same ingredients for 40 years.

    The trouble I feel we have with SF and SP (and to a much smaller and more acceptable extent with CR) is that we have changed from doing the same thing but different, as during the Rog era and now just do shameless homages, references to old Bond films and fan wankery.
    I agree.




    The major difference between TFA and a number of recent Bond films is that TFA pulsates with life to a degree that most of the references to past films become unobtrusive parts of the storytelling.
  • Posts: 4,325
    EON has remade Bond films before. Remakes of remakes even. Sometimes it has ben a success, sometimes a complete failure.

    It bugs me when all media outlets call the new Canadian effort a remake of FYEO though, as it is nothing of the kind.

    TND is a remake of TSWLM is a remake of YOLT is a remake of FRWL
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    And MR is a remake of TSWLM. Sort of.
  • Posts: 1,631
    I couldn't agree more with regards to EON relying far too heavily on references to the first 20 films as of late. I've been banging that drum since Casino Royale was released, and it's only gotten worse with Skyfall and Spectre. Eventually we're going to run into the problem that there are no iconic scenes for future filmmakers to call back to (when appropriate) later on in the franchise because they've spent a good amount of time (an entire actor's tenure at this point) creating "iconic" moments by recycling older, actual iconic moments from the days of Connery and Moore.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited January 2016 Posts: 9,117
    Exactly.

    Does Dan have even one iconic moment of his own that doesn't in some way incorporate a reference to old Bond films?

    I wasn't 100% in the Mendes out camp but the more I think about it the more I'm coming to think he hasn't got much more in his locker than some angst and gratuitous use of the DB5 when he can't think of what else to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.