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
Nah to that either. There needs to be healthy mix if this franchise is to continue, and it’s always been that way with Bond. We just had 15 years of more adult oriented fare. Plus we’re on the other side of a pandemic in which everyone felt hopeless and depressed. People want escapism again, that’s why a film like Top Gun Maverick was able to outgross NTTD, The Batman, Dune, and a lot of other blockbusters that were released around that time; it was the kind of escapism that’s been lost in most mainstream movies that aren’t from Marvel. Bond needs to return to that style if the series is to continue gaining new fans. You can’t build a future based off pessimism.
Makes sense. There's an old BBC interview with Raymond Chandler and Ian Fleming as well, and I know the two admired each other's work. But yes, that influence of Detective Fiction is an important element of Fleming's work, and again makes it distinct from your usual Le Carre spy thriller fare.
It'd be nice to try and evoke that side of the source material - Bond being sent on a seemingly routine investigation, setting up little traps in his hotel room, snooping around places, having to piece together things etc. but eventually discovering those otherworldly elements I mentioned. We saw a similar 'return to the source material's roots' last year with the new Batman film (Batman and Bond being two characters with quite a lot of similarities and creative directions in their separate franchises I'd argue) in the sense that they really tried to hammer home that detective-like aspect of that character. I'm sure it's something they can do for Bond as well.
I don’t really care about the future. I look forward to Bond #7, but if he turned out to be the last Bond of Eon? That wouldn’t bother me. Plus, I already have 25 films to watch. So it’s not like I need another 25.
Also, comparing its box office to TOP GUN: MAVERICK makes no sense.
If you have that mindset then fine, but I care about the character, and this series. I would like my own children to be interested in Bond the way I am, and I would like to keep seeing these films evolve as they had been before my time.
What’s your argument for the Top Gun comparison not making any sense? Because it makes plenty of sense to me when you take a look at all the other films being released around that time, and figuring out why Top Gun struck a cord the way it did.
They shouldn't shy away from crafting the best film possible, even if it means touching on some darker ideas (I don't want a sanitised Bond film that tries to appeal to many while satisfying no one, and I certainly don't think Top Gun Maverick will have any influence on Bond 26) but I don't think they should make an 18 rated Bond film either.
I think the Top Gun comparison is appropriate. Both NTTD and Top Gun were released during mid point of the pandemic. Lots of people weren’t abiding by social distancing mandates which meant that audiences were ready to return to movie theaters by that point. Yeah they were released a few months apart, but I don’t think that made as much a difference as it would have pre-pandemic.
I’m not saying TGM should be an influence on Bond 26, but it’s worth noting that people kept going to see that film in theaters based off of word of mouth, and it was the type of lighthearted entertainment that was needed for audiences. I think The Batman was 10x the better movie than Top Gun, and I enjoyed NTTD more myself. But it’s hard to deny that Top Gun made some sort of impact with the general audience, and I think it was down to being a fun, easy movie for everyone to get behind and enjoy. In other words, the kind of escapism people were looking for.
From what I remember there was a sense of Bond fatigue even before NTTD had been released (remember, it had been delayed a number of times compared to TG while still having a lot of advertisement behind, and even with the popularity of Craig's Bond we're certainly not in a 60s Bondmania or even SF in 2012 mode). TG is also an 80s product which is a decade that seems to have a lot of nostalgia behind it which I think impacted the numbers slightly. But yes, the fact that it was a bit more lighthearted and 'escapist' likely had an impact.
Personally, I really get nothing out of that film and find it a bit dull to watch, but then again I never liked the original anyway, or indeed Tom Cruise in general. But maybe that's just me...
I tend to think of Bond more as adventurer than a detective (or spy really!); he has adventures in the old kind of Buchan way, it's just that his job makes it easier for the writer to set them up. There's not a world of difference between his adventures and those of The Saint, it's just that he gets them delivered to him by M rather than have to wait around for a damsel.
It’s like comparing CASINO ROYALE’s box office unfavorably to PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN’S CHEST. Or THUNDERBALL to DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. Or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME to STAR WARS. TOMORROW NEVER DIES to TITANIC. Or even THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS to the original TOP GUN.
There’s always something bigger than Bond. Funny thing is that DEAD RECKONING is doing very good at the moment, but there’s this bizarre chatter that it’s a disappointment because it’s not as big as TOP GUN: MAVERICK. That’s such a ridiculous comparison, because like Bond, M:I has never been as massive as it’s contemporaries.
Bond has come close at times. SKYFALL would have been #1 had THE AVENGERS not happen.
There is that factor, I remember too people were just sick of waiting for NTTD to come out, and some people were sick of all the advertising also. But at the same time, I think if you asked me before TGM’s release if I thought that film was going to be successful, I would’ve said no there and then. The original TG is the epitome of everything that was wrong with commercialized 80’s filmmaking, the final nail in the coffin of those slow paced, more prestigious films that were coming out during the New Hollywood era. Never did I think a sequel that came out more than 30 years later would’ve been the juggernaut that it was.
I don’t want to sound like the people who bring up other franchises on this thread and point to them as an indicator of everything EON is doing wrong. Like I said, I think NTTD and The Batman were much more deserving of TGM’s success I believe. But I think Maverick at least signals that the attitude of general audiences has changed, much like The Bourne Identity did when it came out back 2002. I think we’re out of the “dark and gritty” blockbuster phase made popular by Bourne, Nolan’s Batman, and Craig’s Bond. We’re now in an era of spectacle, over the top thrills, fantasy, and escapism, elements that have all been apart of Bond’s DNA since 1962, and I think Bond should embrace those aspects more.
Of course Bond will always hit the ceiling it’s projected, there hasn’t been a single official Bond film that has lost any money. But comparing the box office is a good indicator of what the General audience wants and looks for in a film. Yeah they’re will always be bigger competition, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. The whole reason I compared NTTD and Maverick’s box office in the beginning was to highlight that the General audiences attitudes are shifting in a different direction. We’re no longer in the era of “Post 9/11” gritty realism, and I have serious doubts as to whether or not Maverick would’ve made as much if it was released in the late 2000’s or 2010’s during the height of that era. The fact of the matter is that we’re in a whole different cinematic landscape now, one where audiences are starting to reject “Dark and Gritty” in favor of escapism, and Maverick’s success is an indicator of that.
Of course the travelogue aspect of Fleming's writing is another element of the Bond novels and subsequently Bond films which makes these stories unique. He's certainly an adventurer as you said too. Hell, one can argue he even has shades of Sherlock Holmes in the novels as well (easily getting bored/prone to depression when not on an assignment being an example). But I think all these influences come together in Fleming's writing that make Bond pretty unique.
Think it was an old rerun of QI where I heard the phrase, "James Bond isn't a spy, he's a secret agent", which is probably a better way of describing him.
I actually remember TG:M being a source of curiosity in its run up because of its 80s roots for a lot of people (mainly younger people). Remember, we've had shows like Stranger Things and several 80s inspired shows/music/media which seem to be popular, and I think the original TG has a lot of that nostalgia behind it.
It's difficult to say if TG:M will be a trend setter in a sense, especially considering where big franchise films are at at the moment. I wouldn't necessarily call NTTD dark and gritty, and would even say it's quite lighthearted and fantastical at points, albeit with heavier and more subversive ideas within the context of the franchise to it than most Bond films. I suspect some of that will creep into Bond 26. I really can't see how TG:M would have any influence on Bond 26 though.
I have read that it is doing less business than expected. I have seen folks say that it's made less than Indy did in the first week, and that was talked up as a massive flop.
Bear in mind I don't follow this money stuff much myself as I'm not hugely interested in it; I've just seen other folks reporting that so I'm prepared for it to be incorrect.
Yes that's a good way of putting it. He is an agent because he takes action: he's not a spy as that's about intelligence gathering.
I do think expectations were blown out of proportion because many thought TOP GUN: MAVERICK’s success would trickle down to MI7. Despite sharing the same star, their appeals were never the same.
I think they expected it to do better than Indy though as the word of mouth was stronger and it didn't have a WOMAN in it. Maybe it will, early days.
I’ve written about my dislike for Cruise, which first arose when I was a kid and I hated Top Gun. I was the only one in my group of friends who couldn’t stand the flick. And my dislike has only grown over time, including hearing stories leak out about him from my friends who are below-line talent on some of his films.
Saying that, I still am happy people derive great pleasure from his films, and he’s committed to providing the best possible entertainment. He takes that job absolutely seriously and he delivers.
But as I’ve recently told people: I will likely never watch another Tom Cruise film again… I say “likely”, leaving the door open by half an inch. But it certainly won’t be TG, nor a Mission film (although I’ve enjoyed all your reports on the film; it’s been interesting reading through the posts).
So you weren’t necessarily a fan during that period where he took on some of his most acclaimed work correct? Like “A Few Good Men”, or “Eyes Wide Shut” amongst others, because I kind of find it a tad bit disappointing that Cruise seems to have developed a preference for these types of blockbuster films, and he doesn’t seem all that interested in going back to the type of work directors got out of him in the 90’s.
I’m tainted, @007ClassicBondFan , and I have tried to get over my dislike.
In the end, I just don’t find him authentic/genuine. He’s play acting (to me), and I can see his tricks. I feel he’s so bloody constrained and every movement is mapped out well in advanced.
I did think Paul Anderson came the closest to getting Cruise to lose his “star-shine” and let loose in Magnolia. That’s the closest he’s got, for me, to playing a human character. Otherwise I see him as a facsimile of a “human”.
I mean, I think he's great in Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut and A Few Good Men, but again this is where he played that type. And it's like I always say, Christian Bale was correct when he talked about Cruise being an influence for Bateman in American Psycho. There's really nothing behind those eyes and that smile. For me, he's a very strange actor to watch.
A friend of mine recently worked with one of the top-line crew members on one of his more recent films, and obviously asked the question about Tom. It does sound like the Scientology stuff is a lot.
It doesn't put me off him in films though; I find him good value and he knows his way around a movie screen.
Fair enough, I actually agree. When compared to some of his contemporaries, like Brad Pitt, or Leonardo DiCaprio, Cruise falls a bit by the wayside, and even as an action hero, I don’t find Ethan Hunt to be as compelling as Bond or Jason Bourne, and I think that’s down to him just being Tom Cruise. I don’t think Cruise loses himself in the role the way Craig did with Bond, or Matt Damon as Bourne, or even Keanu Reeves as John Wick.
Even in the films I previously mentioned, I don’t think Cruise is what makes those movies great. I think Jack Nicholson is what makes “A Few Good Men” great for me, and “Eyes Wide Shut” is perhaps more notable for being Kubrick’s last film than a vehicle for Cruise to stretch his acting chops.
I do think it’s funny that Christian Bale found inspiration for his performance in AMERICAN PSYCHO by watching Tom Cruise appear on Letterman, noting “a very intense friendliness with nothing behind the eyes”. I kinda GET what Bale is talking about there. Tom Cruise as he presents himself in the real world doesn’t feel like a real person, but rather a front.
But when it comes to his films? I like his commitment, it’s very admirable. I do think his best work is far behind him. I preferred his career from the 80s to 90s.
I don’t adore Tom Cruise, but I don’t dismiss him either.
The Scientology thing is, generally, disturbing. Actually, it’s absolutely disturbing. But when I was a kid, I don’t know if he had started practicing yet? I actually don’t know how long he’s been a member.
My issues with him truly started with Top Gun. I just didn’t understand the love for the film or for the guy that bothered me with his sh*t-eating grin.
I sound like an a**, but I’m capturing the way my eleven year old self felt, 😂.
And, once again, you’re correct on his savviness in front of the camera. He has a strong instinct on what audiences want, and he’s usually able to deliver.
(And my dislike for the actor, is mainly separate from my amnesia concerning the last three Mission films I’ve seen. Absolutely, having an actor I don’t like playing a prominent role in a series will set it in the negative, but I can genuinely say, I really loved the third Mission film. I liked the first, and loathed the second. But I have have no problems remembering any of those three pictures, nor do I have any “amnesia” with his other films that I’ve seen in the past… There’s something about these last three that just floated away and became one giant movie of fights and stunts and nothing else…)
In a sense it's similar to how I've noticed some people view the Fast and Furious films. People watch and enjoy them, but don't overly like The Rock or Jason Statham or even Vin Diesel to a great extent (honestly, a joke amongst my friends is that there's a well known clause in all these actor's contracts supposedly that means none of them can get beaten up fully in a fight by one another onscreen. Obviously when you compare that to Reeves in the John Wick films or Craig in his Bond films/the hits they take, again onscreen, in those movies it makes them all seem like egotistical idiots). Maybe that's what something like Bond has over these franchises - the strength of the lead actor to be that correct screen presence.
If there is one franchise I despise more than anything else, it’s The Fast and Furious series, and it doesn’t have really anything to do with the actors involved in those movies, I just can’t stand those films period. But what I think Bond has over the likes of John Wick, Mission Impossible, or F&F is style and longevity. I remember when the Bourne films were at the height of their popularity, people just dismissed Bond as passé and outdated. But which one is still thriving to this day? Not Bourne.
@007ClassicBondFan , I agree with everything you said. And I always thought Brad Pitt to be a character actor stuck in a Hollywood hunk’s body. I’m usually very impressed with Pitt (not all the time, but when he’s good, he’s excellent).
DiCaprio is a really curious and intuitive actor, and has made a career of choosing a vast array of films.
@MakeshiftPython , wow, I didn’t know Bale had said this. That’s pretty scary, 😂!
@007HallY , please lump me in with the others who don’t like The Rock and Vin Diesel. And I tried to watch one of the FF films with my son a long time ago. I checked out inside of ten minutes, never to watch another of these ever again!
I think it's quite interesting that when he's promoting these movies you don't generally hear him talk about how he loves playing the character of Ethan Hunt (as opposed to Craig, who I feel would say that quite often). I can't remember ever hearing him say that in fact: but he does always talk about how he loves making those movies. I think that's fine: Hunt isn't supposed to be an answer to Bond.
Yeah I think when he says he loves movies, the history of movies and making the perfect audience movie, he's being entirely genuine and I believe he's completely committed to it. He's got more money than God at this point so it's clear he's being driven by something! But beyond that he's certainly an odd chap. He's been world famous for longer than many people on this forum have been alive- he's not going to be a normal guy!