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
I would definitely agree with that. The formula was still very much there, albeit subverted in some places, but it's still there. I do think that it gets a (justly deserved, I think) bump in terms of its reputation because it comes after a stretch of extremely generic and bland 90s action films masquerading as Bond films.
Is this not the "Flemingesque" we all claim to clamor for?
If that's "Flemingesque," then I don't want "Flemingesque". This aside, I'm not a Fleming purist anyway. I want film-Bond to be what film-Bond has always been; fun escapism, with occasional serious underpinnings.
As @BMW_with_missiles so correctly hinted at, film and novel are different mediums, each with its own strengths.
Keep an eye on the announcement, I believe that MGW and BB may kept Daniel Craig for Bond 25 otherwise Adrian Turner may announced as the new James Bond (sadly, no Bond for Tom Hiddleston).
I agree and wish they would too. I am ready for a good Bond film. Not a lackluster hack job like SP ...and as much as I loved SF I don't want another Dark Knight redux either.
I think Brad Bird would make a stellar Bond film, as can be seen in Ghost Protocol. And that movie was his first go at live-action, if you can believe it! He can clearly orchestrate and direct scenes of big, done-for-real action, while keeping those sequences clever and fresh in a franchise that has a lot of them.
I've heard of Brad Bird before, he's directing several films including "The Incredibles"; "Mission Impossible IV" (M:I:IV); and now, "Tomorrowland: A World Beyond".
He'll be good to direct Bond 25 because that's excellent man ;-)
Haha, same here.
Totally agree.
The classic formula stopped working some time between 89 and 95 IMO.
TLD is the last film that still feels like it's really fully part of the original Cubby era IMO.
LTK (although I like it) begins a process of tinkering with the formula - Bond going rogue, 'this time it's personal', Q joining Bond in the field etc.
GE by contrast tries so hard to go back to the formula that it ends up feeling like pastiche. By 95 the magic was gone and its as if EON is just going through the motions.
It took them until 2006 to work out how do take a new approach that wasn't just at attempt at doing a poorly reheated Moore movie.
And then Mendes came along and almost took us back to pastiche again (although superior quality pastiche to what we'd seen during Brosnan's era).
And predictably, they all complained. Humans are fun like that. And by fun, I mean...
Opinions vary is why. I most certainly see a growth and a slight variation of the character as the series goes along (he's obviously not the exact same man in CR that he is in SF), but I prefer the Bond we get in the former two than the latter two, for different reasons.
It had many aspects of the traditional Formula but not full back in since it still has the Casino Royale print. It's the end of Craig's Bond evolution and journey.
If the Formula would have been completely in we wouldn't have had Bond going Rough he would have gotten his mission from M receiving oficially his gadgets from Q meet his Bond ladies sleep with them and at end being with Madeline but not the i love you thing or Bond retiring.
So it had some stuff of the formula but wasn't placed like it was from 1962-2002.
I still love the Craig era films but ive said it many times to make the transition easier from one actor to another there can't be direct sequels or films to close to the other we need the light standalone missions.
The Craig era was great i loved it but its a sure thing they got themselves trapped in the corner by being forced to a reboot again.
Maybe just a soft reboot where we keep Ralph Fiennes, Ben Wishaw and Naomi harris but starting with a plain mission and succeeding at the end with no single losse ends so we can go back to the traditional Bond.
Although, the complaints weren't really about the return to the older style, they were about the way in which it was done; anticlimactic action sequences, plot holes, and a lackluster ending (I say this as a fan of SP). Shortly after SP, I noticed many people speaking more favorably of the Brosnan films. I believe that was due to the fact that his films were the most recent time we had seen the classic formula, and they were done with arguably more solid plots and action sequences.