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
Real life events saying: "Look around you!" :))
And you could say it’s already felt like that 30 years ago. The Brosnan films got accused of being a greatest hits package of previous films, despite introducing new dynamics like a female M.
There are worse directions to pick. I approve.
Yeah, true.
For big acting moments I think the often suggested ‘Bond struggles with brainwashing’ is the best. I’m kind of surprised they didn’t make that one of Craig’s films, I would have thought it was right up his alley.
For big personal stories I can think of ‘Bond investigates death (or defection) of school friend or first love’, which might work, but feels a bit le Carre; and the risible shock-revelation ‘Bond discovers his parents are alive and held hostage/ are bad guys’, which would be total shark-jump as far as I’m concerned.
I'm just worried she specifically mentions the "emotional heft" who is needed - no word about humor, charm, presence or anything else who is needed for the Bond role.
This indicates they still want to go down the "dark, personal and emotional" route of the Craig era.
Nothing against some well-made drama (I really like LTK and CR for example), but I'm just missing the charm, humor and adventure of earlier movies, but maybe I'm in the minority in that regard.
For me the term 'emotional heft' is pretty wide, especially for Bond. NTTD had some pretty unusual ideas for the series within it, but SP I'd argue wasn't particularly emotionally heavy on the character drama. It just happened to have a villain who Bond knew from his past. SF handled its ideas pretty well/subtly without feeling weighty in my opinion. Same I'd argue for CR.
I mean, the adventure, humour and charm (insofar as they're subjective) were still there in all those films I'd argue, as much as I have criticisms of some of them. Heck, I'd argue SP and NTTD had moments which felt a bit too lighthearted and was to their detriment, especially when it came to Craig's performance.
I don't watch Bond films to be reminded of real life.
That they've always at least partially drawn from real life influences is the point.
The majority of the Bond films' plots were based on real life events, and also the villains.
Real life events influenced some of the Bond films, think of 9/11 post cold war, Drug lords, Rupert Mudoch, and even Covid 19 and etc.
But there are a lot them that exist way outside real life...........Toppling US space missions from Jamaica, WW3 being started from a volcano in Japan, The gold supply of the US being irradiated, humanity being wiped out and restored on the ocean floor or outer space, EMT attacks on financial organizations to rob them, space lasers that terrorize the earth as well as silicone valley being drowned. Personally, give me an imaginative fantastic plot line over a drug dealer or media mogul any day.
It pains me that EON no longer recognises what the bread and butter of its own franchise is.
You’re not really doing a good job of making your point by picking THOSE three films that actually have emotional heft. Hell, two of them are the reason we saw LTK give Dalton tons of emotional heft. I’d also include RAMBO, ROBOCOP and many other pioneering 80s actioners.
Pick whatever franchise you want the point still stands, why is the idea of simple crowd-pleasing fun so passe all of a sudden? No ones saying that you can't go too far with it and end up in die another day territory, its a delicate balancing act, but I'd rather see the next Bond try for another spy who loved me type outing (though not as globetrotty) then another stale retread of the "bond is a loose canon/has trust issues/bond goes rogue/the modern world is scary" saga we've been saddled with for almost 2 decades now.
I mean, I completely understand not wanting to retread ideas such as villains reappearing from Bond's past (although it was there too in GE), or him having a daughter. I personally don't think either of those things worked in the context of the Craig era. I can also understand wanting to see a Bond in his prime with a story that's a bit more fantastical or escapist (I'd broadly like to see that too, and going from the last two films I suspect we'll get this, albeit with some darker moments mixed in). But I'm not sure where this resistance to any sort of two dimensionality comes from, nor do I think the examples being given do this argument justice.
Out of curiosity, what did you think of the first half of NTTD? For the most part I felt it delivered on the fun escapism you're talking about.
If you want to categorise TSWLM in the emotionally resonant column, that's fine by me. If bond 26 had one or at most two short scenes that played to Bond emotional side, just like TSWLM or even Goldeneye as you mention, that would be permissable. What I don't want is another instance as we have seen in the recent past, where everything in the story is geared towards bond managing his inner conflicts and less about the actual impact he has on the world around him.
You claim people like me are resistant to bond being shown in another way to how we'd like him, but from my point of view it's the opposite. We've just had 2 decades of films which portrayed bond in a darker more realistic manner, and I certainly find things to like about casino royale, and some aspects of his tenure inspite of the diminishing returns. They were never my cup of tea, but can at least see how thats a valid take on the character in its own right. Its the people who believe bond can never raise an eyebrow again, can never throw out a quip at a smouldering wreckage again, can never stealthily lead an small army into the baddies secluded lair again who have a "resistance" to embracing bonds true "dimensions" IMO.
Die Another Day had its fair shares of emotional heft like Bond getting tortured in North Korea, Miranda Frost and her betrayal, Gustav Graves and his conflicted relationship with his father.
All of the Bond films, had its fair shares of dramatic moments, even The Man With The Golden Gun with every scene involving Andrea Anders.
The only Bond film I could think of without any emotional heft is Diamonds Are Forever, but that film was (I admit) bordering on a parody instead of actual Bond film, but did Bond went rogue in the PTS with him searching Blofeld everywhere?
Of course, I do get your point and where you're coming from, not just you, everyone seemed a bit tired with the tropes of the Craig Era, like going rogue, trust issues and etc. I do get you on that.
Many people enjoyed Kingsman films and saying that Bond should be like that, so definitely you're not alone, so is it passe? Definitely not, many people were shouting to have Bond be fun again.
But for me, it depends on what kind of fun, mind you, I don't want Bond to be something similar in the vein of Austin Powers and Johnny English, or something along the lines of Casino Royale 1967 😅 (if that makes sense), I just don't want Bond to be some sort of self parody.
You can just say instead that why we can't have another Bond films whose vibes are similar to the Classic Bond films, think of Goldfinger or Thunderball for example.
I disliked almost every aspect of Bond 25 and left the cinema utterly deflated (first time that happened with a bond film for me and I've been seeing them in the cinema since DAD, even Skyfall and SP I had a good time with initially and then fell in my rankings on subsequent viewings) the one exception is that 15 minute sequence with Ana de amas which did capture the essence of old bond for me because they embraced the lightheartedness nature of it.
My dream of a bond film in the 2020's would be that same tone but more or less stretched to cover more or less the entire runtime (kinda like how mad max: fury road was one gaint chase scene, with the odd scene inbetween to catch your breathe), adding in the occasional note of seriousness to balance things out. This was basically the model for so many classic bond films Goldfinger, Thunderball, Live And Let Die, Spy, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye etc. Again, I'm not saying literally nothing serious can happen in the entire story, that would just be silly, but it shouldn't get so dark that in brings down the tone of the whole thing. My problem with the Craig tenure post-casino royale is that inspite of how much they try to plug in the traditional elements like the tux, the gadget cars, henchman, evil lairs etc. It doesn't feel like real bond because the underlying tone isn't there to make the whole thing "sing". Unless they actually purposefully set out to recapture that spirit it's not going to ring true, and EON as of late haven't been too busy delving into the pits of Bonds soul, that's clearly what the central concern of the Craig films have been and which is why I believe bond 26 is a great opportunity for a fresh start. Babs says they need to take a year off to reinvent the character, but to my eyes the reinvention is right their staring us in the face and has been waiting to be told for over a decade, they just need the right guy to tell it.
I agree with all of this, you're right it's not just one or two who want a more breezy bond adventure, which is why it's kinda perplexing that Barbara keeps signalling towards maintaining the same bond that Craig established, that's what audiences wanted in 2006 not necessarily what audiences will want in 2026.
Agreed
Also agreed
I agree, and would add that we've already breached that threshold in my opinion. Bond has cradled a dead/dying Vesper, Mathis, M, Felix in his arms, who's going to die in the next one, Moneypenny? Once you literally given bond a family and killed him off in the same picture, how exactly do you top those personal stakes? You can't, the only option is to change course completely. I personally think edgar wright is the perfect director to bring back the flippancy and kineticism back to Bond which has been sorely lacking in the 21st century thus far.
I think there is a recency bias here. Feeling deflated after seeing a Bond film in the theater happens more often than you think. For me, it was after AVTAK, TND, TWINE, DAD, QoS, and SP.
Fleming got pretty dark, though. It's the films (late Connery, Moore, and Brosnan) that lost sight of Fleming.
Where the Craig era was not great for me was that they kept telling the *same* story but pretending that it was original: introducing Bond, introducing Moneypenny and M, introducing Blofeld. Killing M, Leiter, Blofeld, and Bond. Hitting the same notes over and over.
That being said, there was a "clearing the decks" air to NTTD that I appreciated.