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
A guy like Bond could still just walk in, receive the mission briefing, run the villain's meticuously engineered obstacle course in his sleep, save the world, kiss the babe, and throw us a goodbye joke. In 2023, that means you've made a pastiche version of Bond, something closer to In Like Flint than to From Russia With Love, something that I sincerely doubt has a future.
I have just given NTTD another watch. The film makes sense to me. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that they set us up for this conclusion with CR. The Craig films are interconnected like no Bonds were ever before, and I like the entire construct, even if they made it up as they went. All the nagging about NTTD being nothing like what we deserve, not a true Bond film, something that Barbara Broccoli should be fired over, and so on, has become empty sentiment to me. This has been a very good era, despite some obvious setbacks, most of which the producers had nothing to do with.
The next era will be different, I guess. And it'll come when it comes. I am not hooked on more product fast; I just want a great film when they're ready to deliver. I have 25 awesome films to enjoy in the meantime -- what film series can say that?
By that logic, there wouldn’t be any more Sherlock Holmes or Dracula after someone played the part. Or, more recently, Batman films after Nolan made The Dark Knight Rises with its ending. Which, like Bond, would be a crying shame.
I’d understand this sentiment more if the Craig films weren’t their own thing, which it’s been clear from when CR was announced as the next movie in 2005 was the case. Though, in the years that have followed, a number of people (including at least one column writer for The Guardian) had forgotten that was the case.
:D
For me making bond and the villain brothers is closer to a bond pastiche, since that's what they did in the real bond pastiche. That's the stuff that's dated, and doesn't have a future. Bond going rogue everytime, getting wasted on a beach before eventually emerging from the shadows, and everyone around him saying he's too washed up to come back. That's the stuff which reeks of early 00's grittiness which the rest of cinema has moved on from, but bond seems stuck to like a limpet for some reason.
I've never understood this idea that audiences suddenly don't like playfulness, don't like the typical set ups and payoffs of Bond films, instead of tank chases and volcano battles, they much prefer two cars driving through empty streets at night, and bond alone walking through a cavernous lair with his walther. I'd love to know where this idea comes from, as often it's not stated with any supporting evidence but just thrown out there as fact. As far as I can see, fans are really hoping that there's more humour and escapism in the next one, that seems to be the element that's been missing lately.
Forgetting, of course, the reasons why they stopped doing those things in the first place. Because as much as people cite Bourne and Dark Knight as influences on the Craig films, they often forget the other thing that also helped lead to the rest: Austin Powers.
For example, when Die Another Day came out, BBC Radio 4's Back Row assembled a panel consisting of the likes of Mark Gatiss and former KGB spy Oleg Gordievsky to pitch ideas for Bond 21. It's archived on a portion of the BBC site and it makes fascinating listening because Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson respond to a number of suggestions by effectively saying, "We have to watch what we do now because Austin Powers has spoofed up big time."
Being on this forum's predecessor at the time, I can vouch for the feeling being expressed that there was a sense that Austin Powers had put a spotlight onto how the old Bond film formula didn't work anymore. The Brosnan films were expressing that as well in big and small ways, including M's cut line from both TND and TWINE that the world wasn't full of madmen hollowing volcanoes, etc. so Eon was clearly aware of the fact, even then. Austin Powers put a major nail in that coffin, as did Bourne and eventually Nolan's Batman films. It's no wonder Eon went back to basics and took things more down to Earth because, frankly, there was nowhere else for them to go.
As for going back to that, the problem is that the franchise moved so far away from it, I'm not sure it can. I'd also point to last year's cinema re-release box-office numbers. The top ten is dominated by Craig films, established classics, and the Dalton films. Most of the lighter touch Bonds are toward the bottom of the list. If that is any indicator of what the general audience, not fans, are looking for, then turning the clock back to 2002 (or whenever) isn't what they're looking for, either.
I understand your point, but that was 20+ years ago. The austin powers films are as much artifacts now as the bond films they were spoofing were at the time. I understand the need for early 00's grittiness IN the early 00's when that was what the moment called for, I just don't see the point in persisting with it 20 years later, when most of cinema has already moved on. Are we supposed to believe that because of Austin Powers, Batman and Bourne films that Bond can never take a lighthearted tone ever again? These things are supposed to go in cycles, they fall in and out of favour. There's probably a generation now that barely even know what Austin powers is, and even if they do, so what? I really don't think it matters.
Could we please have a Bond Girl who's as fun as Paloma, or a Bond Girl that has no emotional baggage or personal problems, mind them, I liked Tracy, Melina and the likes.
But this damaged, sad Bond Girl trope were overplayed too much in the Craig Era, where all of the Bond Girls were either depressed or traumatized, and it's consistent throughout his run consecutively.
* Camille - traumatized and depressed
* Severine - traumatized
* Lucia Sciarra - Depressed
* Madeleine - Traumatized and Depressed
The only problem free Bond Girls that Craig's Bond had encountered so far other than Paloma was Strawberry Fields or maybe Solange.
But all of his main Bond Girls were all plagued by blues, as much as they're interesting, they've been overplayed to death and it's been tiring, they're all damaged.
I think we need to have a fun Bond Girl again, not bimbo or helpless damsel, they could still be interesting even without emotional baggage or traumas, not damaged.
Think of the Classic Era Bond Girls, they're interesting, but not in a sense that they're moping in the whole film's runtime.
So, it's not just Bond who needs to change, but also the characters around him.
If Bond was changed and fun again, but the characters around him didn't changed, and they're all still acting like in the Craig Era, it wouldn't makes sense either.
Right. Here’s how the films turned up during the re-release last year:
Casino Royale - £21,441
Skyfall - £20,361
No Time to Die - £17,780
GoldenEye - £16,800
Goldfinger- £13,960
The Spy Who Loved Me - £12,844
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - £11,114
Live and Let Die - £10,767
The Living Daylights - £10,707
Licence to Kill - £9,667
Quantum of Solace - £9,404
Spectre - £8,992
From Russia with Love - £8,806
Moonraker- £8,494
Dr. No - £8,349
A View to a Kill - £8,065
You Only Live Twice - £8,030
The Man with the Golden Gun - £8,001
Thunderball - £7,907
Tomorrow Never Dies - £7,825
For Your Eyes Only - £7,631
The World is Not Enough - £6,933
Diamonds Are Forever - £6,638
Octopussy - £6,449
Die Another Day - £6,225
If I were a major studio, I’d interpret these numbers to mean that audiences crave more films like Craig’s than Brosnan’s. Even GE has a lot of elements that would carry over onto the Craig films like the twist of the villain being someone Bond thought was his friend.
“For England, James?”
“No. For me.”
PERSONAL GRIEVANCES!
You’re right about cycles, to an extent. But, again, look at last year's cinema re-release box-office numbers (which I see @MakeshiftPython kindly dropped in as I typed this). The top ten is dominated by Craig films, established classics, and the Dalton films. Most of the lighter touch Bonds are toward the bottom of the list. If that is any indicator of what the general audience, not fans, are looking for, then a return to the Bond formula of old isn’t they’re looking for, either.
FWIW, before last year (and as much as I enjoyed the Craig era, even NTTD) I would have said “We need to go back to something more classic Bond influenced” and cited something like TND or TWINE as an example of classic and modern tropes. But the re-releases strongly suggest that’s not on the cards, especially given how well Dalton and Craig’s era did. Whether that’s for better or worse is, of course, another matter…
If there’s any past Bond films Eon will likely take cues from on how to successfully relaunch with a new Bond, they’re more likely to look at the two most recent debuts like GE and CR.
It appears they already have. Top Gun: Maverick absolutely crushed boxoffice expectations to become the biggest hit of the summer BY FAR. Mission Impossible and JOHN WICK continue to set franchise highs with each new installment, and that trend looks set to continue this summer with DEAD RECKONING PART 1. Meanwhile bond is perhaps the only franchise which has been in decline since 2012, despite gargantuan marketing budgets in excess of 100 million dollars. It seems the punters have already spoken.
Apples and oranges. Just because a non-Bond film makes more money at the box office doesn’t make Craig’s run a failure. That’s an extremely weak argument. Is SKYFALL a failure because it didn’t please as many audiences as AVATAR? Is TOP GUN: MAVERICK now a failure because AVATAR 2 surpassed it at the box office?
When I say let audiences vote with their wallet, I’m speaking of Bond 26. Whatever direction Eon takes with the new Bond will be determined by how Bond 26 performs.
On a wider point, spy films in general haven’t seen great box-office numbers outside of Bond and M:I for awhile now. There’s been a number of high-profile flops (including UNCLE and The 355) that left potential franchises dead in the water. Bourne and Kingsman have fizzled out (the latter with a retro-based film whose fate ought to be a warning for those wanting a Cold War Bond). Jack Ryan went from one cinema reboot to another before landing on streaming. From where I’m sitting, and looking at the number of spy films going straight to streaming, I’d say Bond is SF’s proverbial last rat standing, particularly with the next two M:I films being the apparent last ones.
It's quite simple. The James Bond books and movies have always operated as dramas that work within the realms of real-world science. Yes, I know they're outlandish, but they're not fantasy films like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or super-hero movies. There's no science defying 'magic' in the world of 007. He doesn't teleport, travel through time, or magically come back from the dead. That sort of thing only happens in science fiction films, which is why they're called science fiction. So to kill him off and say he'll return at the end, is science fiction.
It's one of the reasons why the death of Bond simply doesn't work at the end of No Time to Die. It's ludicrous. You're left sat there thinking "well is he supposed to be dead, or not?"
And the answer to whether the James Bond character is dead, according to people on here, is "well Craig Bond is dead, but there'll be another James Bond that's a different character in a different timeline/universe".
And you say it's not gone sci-fi?
It's not though, is it. No more than when Poirot died on telly and then John Malkovich and Ken Branagh started playing him. Maybe you do think Poirot is sci-fi, I guess it's a free country.
By that logic, Bond went sci-fi when he stopped being a purely literary character. Which would have been… 1954 when the TV Casino Royale was made?
If multiple iterations of a character is all it takes, then Sherlock Holmes is sci-fi, too.
That would only be true if Bond came back from the dead within the narrative of the Craig films. That’s not how it’s gonna happen. Stop reading tabloids.
That’s not how science fiction works. If the films actually acknowledge the presence of a multi-verse where different realities exists as a way to explain all the different Bonds, THEN it would constitute as science fiction.
Otherwise, what does that make of the books? The films and books have always been separate. Does that mean they’re science fiction because they have different continuities? Does James Bond meeting Felix Leiter in DN for the first time do that because it contradicts what Fleming established in the books? Does all the different interpretations of Sherlock Holmes make them science fiction because they’re not unified within a single universe?
Of course not. It’s ALL fiction.
I'm actually jealous of you guys that can look past all that daftness.
It'd never happen in literature. A good novelist wouldn't expect their readers to accept this ridiculous notion of a separate universe for a different character that's the same character.