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
If I had to rank the ones that I have enjoyed the most with the personal angle I'd say that CR, GE and SF would be the ones that stand out for me.
"This time it's personal" has lost its meaning because every. time. it's. personal.
Well said
TLD was the last traditional Bond movie. LTK set the template for everything that followed (particularly in the Craig era), with Bond going rogue, which Craig seems to have done every single film.
Where LTK does work, and should be the template for future films is in its use of incorporating accurately adapted Fleming scenes, rather than Fleming re-imagined, which has been the trend with Craig's last 3 films.
The material still unused in the Fleming books is far stronger than most of the stuff in the last 3 films, which is where EON have been making a big mistake in departing from using this.
If the personal angle is so precious to EON, then why the hell have they still not adapted the most personal story of all in YOLT? Beggars belief.
The fact that we haven’t seen a more faithful adaption of YOLT in the Craig era is really surprising to me as well. I was thinking of all the (mostly baseless) speculation that NTTD would be a remake of Dr. No, but it gave me the idea, if I were to remake a Bond film, I’d do it by rebooting a new Bond actor with a remake of OHMSS and then adapting the literary arc of YOLT and TMWTGG. I think there’s a lot of material in those novels that could be adapted well to Craig or a subsequent actors.
Although they may go “lighter” with the next actor, I think “prestige” Bond is here to stay, after bringing in directors like Forster, Mendes, and Fukunaga, and I believe that means that we’ll continue to see more thematic/emotional heft than we have in the pre-Craig era. That being said, they need to find a way to do so without the “this time it’s personal trope,” which seems to be very hard for them to do.
It's obviously not a remake of Dr. No. Speculation came from that probably because Jamaica is one of the locations.
Also don't forget the rumoured working title on Bond 25 was Shatterhand, so NTTD may still well be YOLT, particularly if it involves Blofeld. Also, if Bond's girl/bride is killed as has been rumoured, this gives even more weight to NTTD being the final Blofeld arc, which ties in again with YOLT.
Felix Leiter may be Tiger Tanaka in all but name. Asking Bond for a favour, the same way Tiger asked Bond for a favour in the novel. And Bond accepts the favour because the person he has been asked to eliminate turns personal for Bond, when he discovers who Shatterhand really is.
I would love the ending of the film to go one step further, and give us the last chapter of YOLT - an amnesia ridden Bond living a simple life by the beach with his girlfriend, then one day thinking he has connections with Russia and sets off to travel there, still not knowing who he is.
This would set things up nicely for the new actor of Bond 26, and the breathtaking opening of TMWTGG.
You may be right there. Breaking Bad's El Camino, and The Irishman by Scorsese may be the new way big drama Hollywood films now get released - short cinema release, followed by Netflix.
If you also look at the trends of filmgoers now, where TV drama has replaced going to the cinema, and the likes of Breaking Bad has become the standard which all dramas should now be judged by, the new Joker film is obviously influenced by this - a character arc study in the same vain as Walter White, slowly turning more bad, yet somehow managing to keep the audience just about on his side.
So I expect the character arc of Bond to be more explored in depth going forward, rather than those clamouring for the camp 70's Moore days of double taking pigeons, Bond in space, underwater cars and Ken Adam volcano sets. Those Lewis Gilbert type of Bond films are well and truly over for the time being.
I agree about scaled back, but I'm not sure on the lighter tone. Netflix dramas don't generally follow this trend, and recent movies like Joker don't either. I think if anything Bond will go darker, not lighter. Maybe blacker humour could be the new way, but I doubt we'll ever see the likes of a 70's Sheriff Pepper reappearing again like we had in those early Moore flicks.
But I agree, maybe more scaled back in terms of action, with smaller missions.
Never say never. No one knows.
That's what I want to see. What I expect we'll get is quite different; I guess character explorations are here to stay, the films will tend to be a bit longer and rooted in drama rather than a lighter tone. I also think it's telling with EON picking directors like Forster, Mendes, and Fukunaga that films like these are here to stay – potentially for a long time.
As to where Bond ends up – on the big screen or streaming; I really don't care. I don't go to the cinema often anymore.
If you didn't laugh you'd cry.
I know, right?
The films can still be serious without making it another personal mission for Bond. In Dr. No, FRWL or TB, Bond was not a personal mission, neither was he in OHMSS (other than Bond falling in love).
I don't want Bond on straight-to-Netflix either
I think movies like OHMSS should only be attempted once in a while. When you try and do that every single time, it gets tiresome and redundant. The Craig era is testimony to that. I think Dr No and FRWL, are great for there time, but are a bit too dry and slow for 2020 audiences. I think they need that element of humour and breeziness too. But it doesn't have to be too pronounced.
You seem to be implying that Bond is some niche dying brand but SF was the highest grossing film of all time in the UK, SP did really well too, and NTTD has already gotten loads of publicity before they've even dropped the trailer.
The Bond brand is doing fine. No they're not constantly churning films out like Marvel but that's a good thing imo and they still have a massively successful film every few years. In what world would they abandon that to go straight to Netflix?
Stuff like the Irishman going to Netflix makes sense because that sort of film might not have been able to make its massive budget back in cinemas. Bond isn't a risky edgy drama like that, it's a 12a rated blockbuster. SF grossed over a billion, SP nearly 900 million. They're not going to abandon that for Netflix. And TV might not be an inferior medium anymore but in no way has it replaced going to the cinema, especially not for big blockbusters like Bond.
I could see a spin-off more likely for Netflix, maybe a 50's period piece based on the novels.
That no one would watch. It’s a fanboy wet dream. The general public’s view of Bond is very different to that of a someone who is a devoted fan. There’s no mileage in it.
How do you know for certain there is no mileage in it?
I would like to see that if happened.
According to RC7, us 2 would be the only people on planet earth wanting to watch that, along with a handful of fanboys.
+1
I want him to stay on the big screen it wouldn't feel the same plus I don't go to movies often so the pace they are doing is perfect for me.
I just prefer watching movies at home rather than at a cinema. No people talking loudly, sitting on their phones throughout the film, eating noisily, etc. It's rarely worth the price going to the cinema, IMO.
I kind of agree with that.
I took my dad to see SP on opening night and,when I mentioned he could come with us to see NTTD,he refused,saying it was so loud it almost deafened him.
He will wait until I get the DVD.
Cinemas do crank up the sound, don't they (but for a reason, of course). The cinemas I have access to aren't the most impressive ones, so you're really just paying to see a film on a larger screen with the volume turned up a bit. No IMAX or something like that.