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
Yes I get that. I work in the TV industry, which isn't that far removed from cinema. I also know that EON probably have lots of unused script ideas that they have collected over the years that have yet to be used, and can be adapted to a modern day storyline, not to mention the still unused Fleming scenes from the novels that could be reworked too (and yes, there are lots of unused scenes and storylines from the books).
My biggest fear is Babs has lost interest in the franchise since Craig's departure, yet doesn't want to depart with it and sell it on, because its personal to her family, which is why she is taking time out in not pushing for a new script.
I really hope I'm wrong, and I'm just being another paranoid impatient Bond fan.
Exactly what I've been spouting on this forum for months. Go back to Fleming, use the Spangled Mob, bring in the gangsters. Rework TSWLM's gangsters too, and Scraramanga from TMWTGG.
I'd much rather see a down-to-earth gritty Bond film with nasty violent gangsters, Bond being Brooklyn stomped on with football boots, than much of the trash we have suffered during the Craig era, particularly SP and NTTD.
Yeah. James Bond has never really been about wallowing in the past. It’s always been about the present and how exactly the character of Bond works within the context of the changing times. Which is very rooted in the Fleming novels with Bond watching the once powerful British Empire become dwarfed by the Americans and Russians.
What’s the point of Bond staying in the 60s? Is it just for the sake of nostalgia for a world that no longer exists?
I would argue that the `weak' storylines and scenes from the unused Fleming novels (DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG) are still far stronger than much of the garbage in SP and NTTD. If you think those 2 films are far stronger as stories, then you have very poor taste, IMO.
1. Bond should move forward
2. Bond should have its originality again (no copying trends from other films).
3. Be unique
#2 is probably the most important to me, to the Producers: don't look at the other films, focus on Bond, don't mind the trends, they're making Bond worse, make a great Bond film, not cashing in, lack of identity could ruin the quality of a product.
No matter how Marvel, Star Wars, DC and etc. Would make lots of money, a lot of it don't work with Bond, it works for them because that's their style, their signature, but Bond have it's own style, and they should think ways about growing on that.
So please, just don't repeat the same mistake again!
No problem with them using original stories, or doing Fleming (the latter is much better and preferable to me), just stop chasing trends, that's one of the reasons why the quality of some Bond films really fell.
Whatever will be the next Blockbuster trend, hope EON would never look on that.
I'm not miserable though.
Just hoping for the future of Bond.
Maybe now, as they've said, they're reinventing the character.
Yeah, Bond was very popular when Brosnan started, but Craig's films were more of a phenomenon. Skyfall felt like it was in tune with the whole country.
I don’t think I’ve EVER been to a revival showing if any film, so the Connery Bonds, OHMSS, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, and Octopussy are films I’ve never seen on a big screen. I think there are a number of other classic films I’d choose to see at the cinema before I’d pick a Bond movie (Goldfinger might tempt me, though), I’m a more casual Bond fan than most here. Moonraker remains the only Fleming 007 book I’ve read, and I rather regret having read a Gardner effort.
At the top of my list of the best Bond films.
In an earlier post I mentioned what an impact the first four Bond films had on me.1962 through 1965. They were not like other films I had seen at the time. But that newness wore off. YOLT's leap into space went too far. OHMSS disappointed only because GL was not SC. But it was a much better film than YOLT and has subsequently emerged as one of the great Bond films. DAF was hardly better than YOLT. And, as you point out, then comes the string of Bond films sampling every trend in film. An irritation of minor note is the CE3K ringtone in MR. Not witty, not amusing. Just a nod to a better film than MR.
I've enjoyed Craig as Bond more than I've enjoyed the DC films themselves. (CR is unmatched by the rest of the films in the DC series.) I share the view that Craig's films don't remind me of those early SC films, but other nonBond films.
It may be we'll never have the experience of the first kiss again. Maybe for us original Bond fans it will continue to be been there, done that, seen that, etc. But then maybe that applies to film in general. Having seen thousands of films, is there really anything new? I continue to hope for a good Bond film, if not a classic.
The challenge of finding new, fresh stories, film, Bond adventures:
“Many academics, most notably author Christopher Booker, believe there are only seven basic narrative plots in all of storytelling – frameworks that are recycled again and again in fiction but populated by different settings, characters, and conflicts. Those seven types of story are:
Overcoming the Monster
Rags to Riches
The Quest
Voyage and Return
Rebirth
Comedy
Tragedy”
Definitely. I wish we could get a Bond film that's able to drum up that sense of anticipation, excitement, and dare I say unity again at some point in the near future. I remember at the time SF felt like a 'big event' and everyone I know went to see it.
But then again I suppose it's more about the circumstances around the film and how the producers harness it in the advertising (for SF it probably had a lot to do with the London 2012 Olympics, the 50th Bond Anniversary and the Bond/Queen segment from the opening ceremony). That and it tends to come in the middle of an actor's tenure, presuming they've done more than two films. So for Connery it was the GF-YOLT Bondmania years, for Moore it was the rise of blockbusters and the anticipation of a 'big Bond film' with TSWLM after years of comparatively smaller scale ones, and of course Craig with SF. Interestingly as was said I don't think Brosnan ever quite had that, even with DAD coining with the 40th Bond film anniversary. If anything he had that with GE due to the long delay and it being the first post Cold War Bond film... perhaps in that sense we may get something similar with Bond 26 being that 'big event' film... maybe.
The Craig films particularly the last three became almost celebratory because SF is about the 50th anniversary and the Olympics.
SPECTRE because of the comeback of Bond's nemesis in Blofeld and the long gap, and NTTD because again, long gap and it's Craig's last film.
What made the Craig Era Bond films seemed exclusive compared to the classic Bond films was because of the long gaps and the fact that the Social Media was also helping the Bond hype in making noises.
But just imagine it being released every two years, and the media not that much prominent, I don't think it would have been that much exclusive and celebratory feel.
Product placement? The Classic Bonds also had them, but when I think of the Craig Era, I always felt they're very exclusive, VIP.
Maybe it had something to do with marketing? I don't know, but the long gaps and the media surely helped the hype.
Let us hope the writers of Bond 26 find a fresh way to dress up whichever narrative archetype they employ.
I think that’s partly because his first was an unusually strong entry. I think more than any other actor to play Bond, Brosnan seemed very comfortable with the role straight out the gate. Unfortunately I don’t think he had anywhere to go from there.
Which shows they know what they're doing. They make them feel special. The filmgoing experience is never just confined to the cinema.
You're not wrong, but then Craig's was a bit of smash hit too and redefined Bond in a lot of peoples' eyes. I agree Brosnan had nowhere to go though, and the producers must have felt that too.
Let’s hope that those writers aren’t Purvis and Wade. I know that people have said that it’s hard to come with ideas, but these two have been falling back on their cliches. Namely Bond taking a resignation, or M’s past haunting (them), than blaming Bond and later saying he’s the best. Nothing for the future of James Bond in cinema needs to change more than the writing. Their past is coming back to haunt them and having to resign.
I’m a weirdo, so I would like for them to do something properly strange, like using the script from DN and setting it today, to see what’s changed. Or switch around the cast after every film (this time Whishaw is Bond and Craig is M!). I get that that’s never going to happen, but there are still so many ways to tell this myth to a modern audience and interrogate what it is that makes people come back again and again.
I appreciate the challenges of writing. Not an easy thing to do, even for experienced writers. But enough of Bond's fake and real deaths, resignations tendered or imposed.
I hope the end of NTTD really means something. I hope it's more than a convenient way to end an actor's tenure. New day. New Bond. Old writing team. Not seeing it.
Yes, I have. It helped that I lived in L.A.
I think CR is a good template, not just because the story is strong, but also because it leans into Bond's womanizing, drinking, etc. without apologizing for it. SF does this even further with benzadrine or whatever.
Or what they want you to think.
The idea that they don’t have a draft at work is as fictional as the scripts being written.
After four entries of experimentation with uneven results, the producers would do well to stop trying to impress people with wanna-be prestige films and adopt a back-to-basics approach for Bond 26.
The crane fight in CR was impressive, and the train sequence in SF was good, but most of the set pieces in the films have been sub standard, from what we've seen from the series before. And that is meant in no disrespect to the stunt team, who always do a fantastic job.
But films like Mission Impossible are leaving Bond for dead in this department. Not saying the next actor should be committing to the stunts like Tom Cruise, but at least let's get Bond in an action scene, where people talk about it, want to see the next film, because of something amazing they see in the trailer.
I think it would also be okay, for the films to go back to there over the top and fantastical stories and villains. Hollowed out volcanoes...perhaps. But far fetched is often seen now, as being too much like Austin Powers. But I don't think audiences would care too much. The average film goer doesn't watch Bond films like the die hard fans do.
Take GE for example. You have the villain with a satellite dish under a lake, that drains to reveal itself. And everyone lapped it up. A massive success.
I don't think this direction would alienate people to the point of making Bond a parody of itself. Just a thought.