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
There's a lot more than you're arguing.
In the 60s films the hierarchy of SPECTRE was heavily connected, with films like FRWL being revenge films by the organization to get Bond back expressly for killing Dr. No. At times the previous adventure were mentioned or made light of, and though the casting changed often, characters like Felix tied the movies together. Even the Blofeld featured films get connected, and though it's not as overt at the Craig era, DAF even makes connections to OHMSS. The Moore era's biggest example of continuity is Gogol's frequent use, which even carried into Dalton's time, where their relationship softened naturally over time. And while Brosnan's was somewhat lax, we at least got Zukovsky, and in GE and TWINE their dynamic does grow/change with events.
It's not crazy continuity in comparison to Craig's usage of the Vesper arch or Quantum's development over time, but if I was tasked with making a Bond timeline that connected the films from 1962 to Brosnan's time in a logical and consumable fashion, I could do it in my sleep and argue it well.
Yes, and even the interview with Bond by a doctor is reminiscent of the opening to TMWTGG.
However, these are all fleeting moments, hints, suggestions and nods. None of it is taken directly from source, something which Cubby obviously pushed for himself in the 80's when he wanted to return to Fleming.
I want to see entire scenes and chapters resurrected again, hot half-baked suggestions and nods, or a name on a tombstone, or EON's twisted take on Bond's childhood, changing and altering Fleming's creation to suit a movie.
But most people on here are to some extent going to be fans of Fleming. Do the producers think general audiences know or care about Fleming? Do they see cinematic 007 as needing to be faithful to the books?
Probably not, yet whenever EON do go back to the source, the results usually end up with the films becoming highly critically acclaimed. Probably because the novels were more plausible, and feature less plot holes.
The least highly thought of actors by critics and fans alike are Moore and Brosnan, and it is no coincidence that their films are OTT, and feature very little of Fleming (Brosnan's don't contain one single scene).
Moore's most critically acclaimed film is the one which uses entire scenes and short stories from Fleming - FYEO.
I think we'll look back on Craig's tenure with CR being mostly highly thought of. Dalton's films are also highly thought of, as they too borrow entire scenes from Fleming.
Two of the most highly acclaimed films in the entire franchise are OHMSS and FRWL - again both films are the closest adaptations of the novels. Likewise, the same can be said of GF, TB and Dr. No too.
The bottom line is, whenever EON try to create something new themselves, it usually ends up being done by committee, with additional rewrites and additional writers - typically ending up with muddled, confused plots, unrealistic character development, pretentious dialogue, and messy, glaring plot holes that don't make any sense.
Some of those perceptions may hold true here, but in the public, I honestly don't think they care. They wouldn't know Fleming from a picture, and on the whole most wouldn't have gone near the books or even knew they existed outside of being aware of them through a trivia question they ran into once. I wish people cared, but they don't seem to care how faithful or not the films are, if they even know of the books at all.
I honestly think P&W made a very astute statement that extended beyond their own writing, and just gave a snapshot about how many writers, myself included, feel. Bond is perceived as larger than life and fantasy, an experience that can't enter reality, but crazy things like the political upheavals that happened last year make you wonder if life truly is strange than fiction.
It's very hard to slip away into a fictional tale when you feel like you're in an alternate reality yourself. Bond films have always been a comfort because you think the villains can't reach us through the screen, but now cartoonish villains fill our own world in a fashion that feels like bizarre reality TV. It makes it hard to surprise or impress audiences, then, when what is on the screen is what they are blasted with on the news daily.
Yeah, up until last year it was all one happy and peaceful world.
Where I feel the films have been lacking ever since Babs has taken over are weak scripts, muddled storylines and plot holes. I think some of this could be remedied by going back to the Fleming novels, instead of re-imagining Fleming. They are the sole reason why this franchise exists in the first place, and why the films have stood the test of time.
I just saw the making of TLD and Michael Wilson says on camera that they were looking at the possibility of exploring Bond's childhood, but Cubby was dead against the idea and told them to focus more on existing Fleming material instead.
Cubby was 100% right. He probably wouldn't be too happy with what the producers and writers came up with in SF and particularly SP, having Bond and Blofeld being brothers.
You'd think after being in the business for so long EoN would understand this and adhere to Fleming as much as possible. What works well, works well and you can't go wrong with that. There's precedent for it. EoN are lucky they have more than enough material to adapt, manipulate and play with; there's little to no excuse, especially with 3 to 4 year gaps for failure at the script stage.
That being said, EoN should also look at what these new Bond comics are doing with the character. Writing good Bond material clearly isn't impossible. EoN just need to put in the work and manage things better. A lot better.
If he does return in Bond 25. What I would really like to see is Waltz's own take on the character. I'm not saying his ideas were better or worse than Mendes in SP, but it would be nice to have some idea of who essentially de-menanced the character.
And I imagine it bothers Waltz himself, that he didn't nail the character. It would be nice to see him nail it, he's got the skills he just needs to apply them in the right way (script willing).
I'd rather never see this character or his organization ever again on film (it should have been left for dead with the Connery entries) but I believe you're correct. They have the rights to the nefarious entity which can be used to blame for being behind all the world's ills, and they'll use it.
You cannot explain the first 4 Bond films, that are very close to the novels, and all performed very well at the BO (particularly GF and TB).
OHMSS's reception at the BO was probably more down to Lazenby as Bond.
I think TLD performed well. LTK still baffles me to this day why it didn't do well, particularly in light of the current action movies trends at the time (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon). That film really set the blueprint for the Craig movies, not the Brosnan films. I guess it was ahead of its time as a Bond film.
TWINE should not be on your list, because it doesn't contain one single line or scene from a Fleming novel.
I'm not wanting the writers to `write as Fleming'. They clearly cannot do this, as has been evident ever since GE. I'm wanting the writers to properly adapt unused Fleming material, and not write as Fleming. Big difference.
Let's hope so, and let's hope this new direction is actually more an old direction - back to the Fleming novels!
In AVTAK it's established they have microchip technology impervious to an EMP and yet in GE the use of an EMP weapon is a threat to Britain.
A very geeky nitpicking point but one, of probably many, which could shoot down a suggestion there's the same timeline from 1962 to 2002.
Although not a reboot I still regard the Brosnan Bond era as a different universe to that of Connery\Lazenby\Moore\Dalton one.
I agree. The Moore films still feel like a continuation of 60's Bond (particularly Bond visiting Tracy's grave in FYEO), and again in LTK Bond's wedding is mentioned.
From what I recall, this is the last time Tracy is ever mentioned. I don't remember her being referenced again during Brosnan's era.
The Bond era that began in 1962 ended in 1989 (along with many of the cast and crew).
The Brosnan and Craig eras are both reboots, that get slightly confused in their timelines occasionally when the DB5 appears, not to mention Judi Dench as M.
If CR is Bond at the start of his career, where does SF fit in with that timeline when M dies, and where does the Brosnan films fit in with that timeline?
Actually there is a school of thought that there are already 3 timelines based on the age of the actors, one being the films featuring Connery, Lazenby and Moore. The Bond of Dr.No is the same Bond as A View to a Kill
Then you have the Films featuring Dalton and Brosnan; the Bond in Living Daylights is the same Bond in Die Another Day.
Finally there is the Craig era. So the first re-boot is actually Dalton
For me this really works
How can this be when Bond being married is mention in LTK, not to mention a pissed off Bond in TLD looking to get fired and thanking M for it? This sounds like Bond at the end of his career, not at the beginning.
Plus we have an older Felix Leiter in LTK - the same actor playing Leiter from LALD.
We also have the same actor playing M from the Moore era, in the same office.
Sorry, but your school of thought is way off.
The tricky part of multiple timelines is that events can be the same and characters can be different.
If you think about it, M in Brosnan's films is not the same M as in Craig's even though portrayed by the same actress. So even though she died in the Craig timeline, theoretically if they were to make a new Bond with Brosnan, Judy Dench could return as M because THAT M could very well be alive.