Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Could the 2010's Become The Golden Age of Cinematic Bond?
ForYourEyesOnly
In the untained cradle of the heavens
Cinematically, it seems that people rank the 60's as the Golden Age of Bond - Connery being at his best in most of the era, most of the films making it into top 10's, and all of them having immense strengths in some sort of area. It was also an era of really big progress for the franchise (obviously, since it was being established in this era), and it benefited from (or perhaps it produced) the period of spy-mania.
Out of curiosity, how good would the average of the next upcoming film(s) have to be to raise the 2010's to a greater standard than the 60's if:
1. There will only be one more movie in the 2010's.
2. There will be two more movies in the 2010's.
Out of curiosity, how good would the average of the next upcoming film(s) have to be to raise the 2010's to a greater standard than the 60's if:
1. There will only be one more movie in the 2010's.
2. There will be two more movies in the 2010's.
^ 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
1 movie or 2, they'd both have to really blow people away, whilst being able to really stand out from other movies and that's a significantly tall order that I think EoN do not have the capacity to achieve an nor do I think they need to. If EoN can produce a movie that dispenses with the nonsense that has plagued the last 3 Bond films we'd be lucky. A coherent and engaging script/plot, which combines thrilling action is a realistic expectation that is easily achievable and can restore that feeling that this really is a second goden age for Bond.
The 2010's present Bond a bit too thuggish. I'm not that big of a fan.
For the general public, people loved SF but SP is met with mixed reactions so I guess it's going to be difficult to replace the 60's as the golden era.
Moreover, the 60's gave us four/five/six classic Bond films (*), no era can ever produce that much Bond films with at least four of them being more than average.
(*)
DN, FRWL, GF = establishing the formula;
TB, YOLT = escapist spectacles (not liked by everyone, but without them you're still at four for the 60's),
OHMSS = starts to earn a reputation as the undiscovered gem.
True. With Bond it's about legacy and the most recent run has contributed to that. As did every run before. Each film adds another chapter to the book. I don't really care for perception.
\m/
But I really like what @Murdock and @RC7 said. The whole thing is something really special, one long golden age, and they all compliment eachother. That's why it'd worry me if EON sold up. I'd be scared that magic would be lost.
At this stage we'll be lucky if the 10s can even compete against the 70s.
Take the two worst films of the 60s TB and YOLT and I'd say SF and SP are just about on a par with those but for the 10s to surpass the 60s now it means we need a cocktail of DN, FRWL, GF and OHMSS shaken to perfection and served with a cherry on top in just one film.
Just to put that into perspective that is Sean, Maibaum, Adam, Barry, Hunt, Cubby and Harry all operating at their absolute peak and with the four closest adaptations of Fleming of the series to work from.
Literally impossible as that level of talent in every department simply isnt out there these days even if EON tried to recruit it all at once in a Man City or PSG spending spree.
We're more in the West Ham bracket trouseting the $2bn takings and promising the fans big signings then fobbing them with two free signings from the Albanian league - Purvisovic & Wadeski.
As for the 60's era... it is leagues ahead of anything that has, or ever will come after. I, too, like @Murdock's perspective that the entire series is one big golden era.
I love the current era's films but when you have movies like DN, FRWL, TB and OHMSS in one decade? Come on, now. Nothing was the same afterward.
I think an interesting question would be: Which seems more of a 'silver age'? 90's, 00's or 10's?
Too soon to say for the 10's, but the 00's would easily win over the 90's for me, which may be my bronze era. CR and QoS redeem DAD enough for me. ;)
Think it'd be 80s>60s>10s>90s>70s>00s for me.
And if the 60's is regarded by many to be the golden age, then when does the silver age begin? With LALD and the ushering in of a new Bond? Or when Moore really hit his stride with TSWLM? I guess it is all subjective.
I'd go:
60s - Comfortably top and will certainly never be topped. 4 classics and even the lesser 2 efforts would shine in any other decade.
80s - 4 very solid entries and only one weak effort and the best action by some distance.
00s - Shades the 70s based on pretty much the pull of CR alone. QOS is solidly average and DAD appalling so it's the most variable decade with one classic, one shocker and one in the middle.
70s - A lot of flaws in this decade but two films with Rog at the top of his game (although personally I think OP is him at his absolute peak) and one with Sean enjoying himself in the role again makes up for a lot.
10s - SF very good if not quite one of the greats and SP an OK middle ranking film. If B25 is on a par with CR the 10s could potentially jump into 3rd. It would take B25 being as good as OHMSS to propel it into second I think. And those are two pretty big ifs. Got a reasonable shout of nudging ahead of the 70s if they can get their shit together.
90s - Three greatest hits packages which are fairly by the numbers.
I'd say thats pretty much spot on how I feel too, although I might give the 70s a little more credit in third. It is kinda tricky comparing the decades when we're only getting three films a decade now vs five or six back in the day, the consistency just isn't there anymore. The 2010s could end up on par with the 2000s if Bond 25 closes it out with something like a TB. Maybe they can get back to a more regular schedule of every 2-3 years in the 2020s, then we could get an era to contend for the silver place, but nothing can touch the 60s.
I think the 70s are pretty poor too but TSWLM is so good that elevates it for me. The 90s I'm pretty fond of. GE is great, TND isn't great but it isn't bad and I think TWINE is really underrated. And the 10s I've really enjoyed so far but the jury is still out.
@TheWizardOfIce I've always thought TSWLM was Moore at his peak but OP is a very, very close second. They'd make a great little double bill, I was gutted when for the memorial screenings they chose FYEO instead.
I feel that there's a fag paper between his TSWLM, MR and OP performances but OP shades it just for the sheer unflappable Rogerness of 'Fill her up please', the auction scene, the backgammon scene, 'Keep you in curry for a few weeks' (you can shove your diversity and inclusivity up your arse I bloody love that line!), 'Hiss off' and so many more but then on top of that we have flappable Rog which is something we've never seen before and is pretty terrifying because when a guy who can ski off a mountain or fall out of a plane sans parachute without an eyebrow hair being out of place starts to get worried you'd better believe this shit just got serious. Best bomb countdown of the series and it's due largely to Rog being 'deadly serious' for practically the only time in the series.
But it's very fine margins and I would say 77 to 89 has a good claim on being Bond's silver age with only AVTAK being a real clunker.
Agreed.
One cannot reinvent the wheel. What we got in the 60s was something that can never be recaptured or duplicated. We'd need at least 5 films of CR quality and even then it'll still fall short.
I think a lot of that also has to do with the time in which they were made, close to when Fleming was writing the books. As the world progresses more of that old era is lost, but the 60s films were ripe with the period and used it to the fullest.
I think SF and SP have especially been able to capture some vintage flair and feeling, but only artificially. The 60s had the real thing.
Ohhh you meant his performance rather than the film itself. In that case I think I'd have to give the nod to OP as well. The scene where he confronts Orlov on the train is so good.
And he actually makes the bomb defusal work too, despite the clown get-up. Maybe his greatest achievement as Bond??
It's definitely up there. And solid proof to show anyone who thinks he wasn't a good actor. That whole sequence is just perfect. Confronting Orlov then spinning round and shooting the soldier in the head. The train fight. "That's for 009". The tension when he finally gets to the circus. It's one of those instances where everything just comes together and works brilliantly.
The only thing I can think that's an issue is how he had time to do the makeup perfectly when he knew the bomb was about to go off but I think that's just nitpicking because at that point I'm way too invested to care.
That'd be brilliant. Him and Maibuam really were a dream team.