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
Eon owns and produces Bond films.
MGM finances and, with partners, works the P&A and distributing (release/dates) the finished product.
(I suppose they can request dates, and they’re the mouth pieces for the IP, but really, distribution isn’t in their wheelhouse)
But release dates can always be changed. And they are. Every year.
EDIT: sorry for the double post; I was answering something on a previous page.
Getting rid of P&W and the producers doesn't sound like a fresh creative team? What would then?
I think he was referring to your point about using Fleming leftovers and continuation novels as the basis for future films.
If we should hire a new team of writers, let them write something completely original.
Something `completely original' is what we have had ever since Babs took over (and look how well that turned out).
We haven't had any Fleming leftovers since 1989 (other than CR) - hence why we need a new creative team to have the balls to go back to the books, instead of trying to come up with something `completely original.'
I'm done with the likes of invisible cars, Brofeld, the Scooby gang out in the field, Bond having kids, M getting killed, nanobots, Bond getting killed. If that's what `completely original' gives us, no thank you. Go back to the novels.
I could be speaking to my own reflection.
Incredibly well...? Extremely popular and some of the biggest Bond films ever.
Yes, if you don't count the whole film which was a book adaptation (or the other looser adaptations like DAD), they haven't touched Fleming at all :))
I've got an idea though: they should do something with gangsters in.
You missed out killing off Felix. Another inspired decision.
You might as well give up on Bond as we move further into the 21st century. Stick to the books.
"Babs" has been in charge since GoldenEye and directly involved since childhood. Where would you like us to start measuring her failings, and with what argument? Critical reception? Go on, run the numbers.. Box office? OOps.
You should just say you don't like Barbara, and blame her for everything, because you need a scapegoat to feel better about a few movies that didn't do everything to your standard. Don't try to prove a point that doesn't exist.
I struggle to see what's wrong with any of those things. They weren't in the books (although some were, and some were extrapolations from them) but that seems to be the extent of the issue here.
Huge chunks of the recent Bond films have had little unused chunks of the books in, and at the same time, earlier adaptations were in name only.
I think all the Barbs influenced (and fully run) films have been significantly better than what came before. (She started with Goldeneye, but I think her influence really started with Dalton and TLD as she was being handed over to) They have done gangbusters critically, and at the box office, and really only DAD was much of a cock up. The production design, cinematography, character work, stunts and effects… all have steadily improved under her aegis, and not necessarily just because of the tech advances in cinema in general.
They are also more faithful to the books, and more ‘British’ without becoming caricature, and have managed to move with the times enough to distance themselves from any valid criticism of the older films from a modern perspective.
They’re just… better. Objectively, if you really look at them.
It’s not the Bond I grew up with, but that’s ok, because the world moved on and so did I, so did we all. Until NTTD I was genuinely kind of against the current era, but somehow they managed to tie it all up.
What should it do next? More character stuff, more stylish stuff, the films they should have made after QoS if they could have got some momentum going and Craig hadn’t aged as heavily. Another five or seven film arc, with good stuff in. Don’t start from an origin story, we did that, just hit the ground running.
Or…. Old Man Bond with Brosnan.
Or one off period piece set in the fifties, maybe pull from Horowitz.
Or… Craig washing up amnesiac in Japan, because the only thing more shocking than the end of NTTD would be a surprise ‘just one more then’.
Hey, I'd like to see more elements of Fleming going froward, especially when it comes to Bond as a character. I don't want a straightforward adaptation of the unused novels or whatever but just more consideration for the source material going forward. There's plenty that's interesting and unexplored that could help result in a fresh take on the character and, potentially anyway, a great film. I personally think BB/MGW are just as capable of giving this to us as Cubby was when he produced TLD and LTK.
True, the world has moved on and so has Bond. I realize that things have to evolve or become irrelevant to the general movie going audience. Fortunately, we all have the films that made us Bond fans in the first place while enjoying where ever the 007 ride takes us next. That said I'm glad the Brofeld scenario is finally behind us.
I think that would be a curious criticism for films which are supposed to appeal to mass audiences though. And also they took the boldest decision so far in the entire series to ditch (the still very successful) Brosnan and reboot the series, both in continuity and tonally, with CR.
It's a valid one if you don't feel that those creative choices work in the context of the story they're telling. Even if you don't believe some of these decisions were made because of the success of other films/for more commercial and even critical appeal you can still criticise them if you feel they don't work. Bond's death in NTTD is a big one. A lot of viewers in my experience simply don't seem to find it even works emotionally. I get it.
I mean, one can argue that Batman Begins successfully rebooted the Batman series in this way before CR and even prior to that there were planned reboots of other franchises. I mean, yes it was a 'risk' of sorts, as is every Bond film which changes the tone of the prior film, but it's one which had a precedent before it and a hint that this was something audiences wanted. That's how Producers work in my experience. But again, whether or not you believe that's the case or if you felt CR was right for the series is another matter.
Bond films will always have to appeal to mass audiences though and will always have an element of trend following. Again, the main thing is if you think find the story these films are telling work, and it's fair to say not all of the story elements of the Craig era have gone down well for viewers. But hey, I still think on the whole the Producers have done well and if we're to get a truly great Bond film going forward I think BB and MGW will be the ones to helm it.
Plus of course it was his idea to reboot to a young Bond, which he wanted to do in '87.
I think he is good though, I like the 80s; and although I'm not a massive fan of the film, I do think LTK has one of the strongest storylines of any of the Bond films - in terms of everything leading logically to the next event, characters have proper motivations and everything has repercussions. Even the action scenes have an impact on the whole story: waterskiing behind a plane is great fun, but also the whole film pivots around that scene.
I don't think so, CR does remain a fresh and interesting approach for a Bond film, even in retrospect.
Personally I don't understand how folks can find Bond's death doesn't work emotionally- I don't love NTTD but the whole film is moving towards that moment and it's perfectly set up.
I find this all oddly reductive: CR clearly was a massive hit, reinvigorated Bond and is near the top of the list of most peoples' 007 film rankings. They'd been working on a rebooted version of CR from 2004, Batman Begins was only released in 2005. Sure, they might have heard about it, but they were well on their way before it was released.
It was an unnecessary risk for the Bond films (DAD was a massive hit); it wasn't a movie unlike anyone had ever seen, no; but is anyone really expecting that from a Bond movie? These are huge mass audience blockbusters, I'm not sure what you're expecting of them.
Fair enough, I agree there.
We never knew if the kid was even born, and Bond certainly didn't die in the books, ever.
And if you consider people who have been maimed as 'sorta kinda dead', I'd suggest a career in trauma therapy wouldn't be a wise move for you, (ha ha!).
Yeah, there's a lot that feels fresh in CR. Like I said the Craig era has had its highs and lows for me and clearly for others.
Bond's death never worked for me emotionally if I'm honest. I dunno, there are probably people who have thought about and rewatched NTTD much more than me. Calvin Dyson had some good thoughts about it in his video. A lot of it boils down to the individual viewer's ability to truly believe the information the film is giving you about nanobots and tramistting them in the lead up to the death, and indeed be invested in the final act of the film. Things like Safin waxing lyrical at the end for me is cringey and takes me out of the moment, a part of me always thinks in the back of my head 'why's Bond being so daft? Just get off the island and have Q-Branch adapt their EMP watch to nuke those nanobots from your system'. I'm not saying the film doesn't work for a lot of people, it does. But it's telling that it can be hit or miss with viewers. It's a shame because I want to like NTTD more than I do, and there's a lot in it that I enjoy. It's just the ending is such a bum note for me.
Weren't they originally planning on Brosnan returning for a CR adaptation in the early stages? (not the one Tarrantino suggested, but early drafts). I'm not 100% sure but to me that suggests it was the story they were keen to adapt after getting the rights back and they leant into the whole 'young/rebooted Bond' after Brosnan left and word had gotten around that Batman was working on rebooting its own franchise in a similar way and at that time had Darren Aronfosky working on the script. I think by the time they went into production they had plenty of assurance with BB that the direction they were going in wouldn't be a major risk and audiences would accept the premise. Anyway, like I said CR had a lot that was fresh for Bond anyway and I'm not criticising them for rebooting the franchise (heck, I've said many times I hope the concept of Bond 26 is a reboot about a Bond in his early years/learning to navigate his role as 007 in a similar way to The Batman). Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything about that particular point as among my problems with the Craig era and even CR (the sinking house and some of the action scenes always felt to me just a bit overblown and outright jarred with the 'down to earth' approach, Bond breaking into M's flat and going 'rogue' never worked for me etc.) I really don't have a problem with the reboot concept.
I must admit that although I have seen and read most of the Bond (and John Le Carré) films and books I prefer the matter of fact raw noir espionage as portrayed in the Harry Palmer films based on Deighton's novels or even the dark satanic humour of Slow Horses. The good news is there is still hope for a Harry Palmer legacy but probably not via the “other Joe Cole”.
There is a series of intriguing and enigmatic fact based spy novels called The Burlington Files in which the protagonist (Edward Burlington aka Bill Fairclough, a real spy) has been likened to a posh and sophisticated Harry Palmer. What a life he must have led! There are six novels. The first (Beyond Enkription) only covers his life and time in 1974 with MI6 and the CIA in the UK, USA and Caribbean and it is a huge action packed thriller in its own right.
It's so real it made me wonder why bother reading espionage fiction when facts are so much more exciting. Len Deighton and Mick Herron could be forgiven for thinking they co-wrote this noir narrative. Atmospherically it's reminiscent of Ted Lewis' Get Carter of Michael Caine fame.
Let's hope one day soon a rare breed of film producer who doesn't rely on remakes or rehashes, makes brand new films based on The Burlington Files series. If they do they'll only have themselves to blame if they don't go down in film history as classic espionage thrillers.
;)
I'm going by the only critic that matters - me! ;)
CR gave us a modern take on a Fleming novel (the very first Fleming novel), and I don't think many will claim that film to be stuck in the past.
So bringing Fleming into the 21st century can be done. It ain't rocket science.
I want to see a Bond film where it kind of balances the humor/camp, grittiness, drama, romance and sex.
That would be a thrill ride of a Bond film for me, I laugh, cry, feel for the romance, and enjoy the action.
The only Bond films that were balanced it in my opinion was GF, OHMSS, FYEO, both of Dalton films, yes LTK has also some humor (think of Q disguised as a street sweeper with a gadget in his broomstick, an exploding toothpaste?), And GE.
But none of the Bond films ever get that balance.
Some relied on pure camp, pure grittiness.
My first post regarding the plot of spam bots has been moved to the Bond 26 ideas thread.
The arrogant entitlement of a ticked-off fan-boy...