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
That probably is true but it still way more than in the Craig movies.
+1
I would love to have had more Lazenby!
I hope I was clear too that my issues are with him as the character and not the person. He was a wonderful man.
I completely agree. What worked about CR is that, even as it took cues from Bourne and Batman Begins, it developed into its own organic story. The casino, Vesper, the ending with White--that was all Bond--while not being something we had seen before in the series. The film was forward-, not backward-looking.
The best Bond films, IMHO, bring their own originality rather than aping movie trends. Of course that applies to DN-GF, arguably TB and YOLT, and of course OHMSS.
After that, it's pretty slim pickings--I'd argue FYEO and TLD were the entries that attempted something fresh for the series--until CR. All of those were inspired by Fleming, not by movie trends.
That's what the series needs again.
SC was perfect, agreed. He was smart to move on at the right time and even when he returned for DAF, he was the right man for the tone.
I can't say if GL was the right man for anything. He happened to be in one of the best Bond films. That's about all. He may have been a rebel personally, but I'm referring more to the manner in which he portrayed Bond.
RM was perfect for the 70's, but I'd say he wasn't right for the 80's, which had a more aggressive tone characterized by the Stallones, Gibsons, Bruces and Arnies.
TD was cast to fit into that culture, but I don't think the public really bought into it. I'm not sure if PB would have been the right choice for 1986 either, but perhaps he would have fit the public's perception of Bond more.
PB was great for the early 90s, but I think he was already out of tune by DAD, when muscular chaps like Diesel were taking hold.
DC was perfect for the post 911 Bourne/Batman Begins world, but I'd say we've moved on again to a more fantastical environment.
---
I agree with your comments, but don't agree with your examples. I believe SF was an excellent way to move forward while embracing the past (plot holes aside).
So ultimately we're never all going to agree on which Bond films are the best for their times (or even which actors are best) because we are all so different and became fans at different times and with different contexts. Some of us prefer suave, and others prefer a bit more blunt. Etc. etc.
This is why I think it's important to maintain some flexibility with the narrative, not box oneself in, and shake it up from time to time (in more ways than one). That goes for shifting everything, including the actor. Keep it fresh.
Because that's where the market is headed. It's really not about the actor, but the direction. The actor just fills a role. That's why Bond has survived for so long while other series have always required substantial (and sometimes not so successful) reboots. Bond has been flexible and adaptable, and the best long serving actors are that way too.
What I'm saying is do what you do well (I think you agree with me that SP wasn't that) and ensure that your actor can play to the type of film you're making (and not the other way around). Ultimately though, Bond follows the market. The much touted Logan was an exception to the rule, and quite frankly I didn't think too much of it myself (I can appreciate that I'm in the minority).
For me personally, SF balanced the dark stuff and the humor very well. Its funny moments were far more subtle and believable than SP’s. Craig’s Bond really shouldn’t go funnier than SF probably, which has some good humor but never went too far.
The only time it failed was with "circle of life", and unfortunately SP is a film riddled with that kind of humour.
They have to be careful with Craig though, because he can sometimes come across as a bit of an a** when they try to give him something humorous to say. The writing has to be spot-on and careful in order to accommodate the sensitive times we live in.
Yes, and anytime now would be great to start receiving said info.
Regardless of how Bond 25 turns out, I think it might be best for EON to sell. I definitely worry about the enthusiasm level. Whoever is handling Bond should be doing it with plenty of energy and care. SP lacked both sadly.
Babs made the Brosnan films out of a sense of duty to protect her father's legacy, but when it came time for the reboot, she had to tune the franchise so that it suited her, otherwise her heart wouldn't be in it and the films would fall off.
I'm always amused whenever I see people saying how essential the reboot was in 2006, when most audiences understand that with a new Bond things change. We made the transition from Moore without the need for a Bond origin story, and from Dalton to Brosnan too.
The reboot was not needed from the point of view of the audience, but it was needed for Babs (that's why she got someone like Craig to play Bond). It does not shock me to hear that they are thinking of selling the franchise after Craig leaves, since they don't really the same motivation to tell ordinary Bond stories.
I still say we're due for a change in technique and approach. I hope the producers see that and do what's necessary, either next time around, or for the one after that.
Having said that, I'd argue that they are in fact making films from the heart. It's just that their heart is a bit different from yours, mine and a few others. That's why there was a deliberate tonal shift after P&W came in for TWINE. They are making the films they want to make, but there is a distinct feeling that formula is being given lip service. Formula isn't something to be taken for granted. It's nothing to be ashamed of either. To do it well requires real skill and belief, especially since it's been done so many times before by definition. You can't fake it. Perhaps it's better not to try if one isn't really behind it (SP).
*Oh, you want an Aston Martin gag do you?*
* Well here you are then.*
* Run along now, while we focus on more pressing 'emotional' and 'family matters'.*
I wish it wasn't so obvious. This all began, as I said, with TWINE imho. That was the first film where I felt they were taking us for granted when it came to action and suspense at the expense of drama.