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
And whilst it is easy to be clever in hindsight, a lot of ideas that didn’t work probably would have worked with a certain amount of fine-tuning. I think there is often a really great Bond film lurking in some of the franchise’s weaker entries, had things been done a little differently.
Why so hard?
Agree Goldfinger is iconic. But I've never considered TSWLM exciting.
Yes, it's true. TWINE is a decent example, I think. The story is interesting and fresh and has good and quite exciting ideas: if it were a Bond novel brought out by Benson or Horowitz we'd be demanding a movie adaptation. But for me something just falls apart in the making and I find it all a bit dull and lacking in style. Michael Apted was an odd choice, really.
Apart from the superhuman henchman, I think CR and SF have all those elements between them. Although you could argue Sébastien Foucan is pretty superhuman.
I often look at films that don’t work and feel that if I was a movie exec I might well have green-lit the thing expecting it to be a hit. As they say, it’s an art not a science.
Yeah absolutely. I even think that with Spectre: it's full of good bits and I think the script probably reads like a good Bond film, but it just.. isn't. And I couldn't even really tell you why.
I prefer it to TWINE though!
Yes, I think approaching each film with a shopping list of requirements is a bad idea. I guess the challenge is finding new ways to push the boundaries of the formula while still staying true to the core of what a Bond film is.
It relates to what I said earlier about CR and how it's viewed as being the formula-breaking Bond film when it actually has a lot of the same elements we expect, it just twists them in more obvious and (arguably) more creative ways, which, if you ask me, is no bad thing.
Not a bad thing at all. I mentioned several pages back that even creating a THRILLER in the style of Oppenhiemer under Nolan's guidance would shake things up.
Indeed, it drags on subsequent rewatches, the wooden acting of some cast (I'm including Moore himself in there) doesn't helped either.
If anything, Moonraker and Octopussy are far more exciting Bond films for me, compared to TSWLM (if we're talking Moore Bond films).
Anyway, folks of MI6Community, if you could choose for the next Bond Era, which one you prefer? Play It Safe or Experimental?
(Sounding a bit like @thedove in here 😅)
A.) If play it safe, it would be a Bond film full of Bond elements, just a classic, back to basics adventure.
B.) If experimental, it would be exploring some things that never done before in a Bond film (the Craig Era being an example of this), experimenting unusual things if they're going to fit in a Bond film, it's different.
Which one do you prefer?
Yep same. In order to survive, Bond has to adapt and change, whilst staying the same.
It's a very complicated thing to get right.
I'd like to see them do a film without any high-concept crutch to lean on, just focus on doing the basics really well.
Sure they have: we've had Bond before he's Bond, grieving revenge-driven Bond, past-it Bond, Bond meets long lost evil Brother responsible for everything in the last three movies, and finally retired Bond. It's not that they're all bad by any means, but as I've said before, imo you want a steady rhythm that you break occasionally, not 'this time it's different, and nothing will ever be the same again'. I'd like to see them make Bond going on a 'standard' mission work.
Yeah same for me mate.
Personally I'm glad when some of the checklist doesn't appear in a film to be honest, espicially the humour, over the top gadgets and superhuman henchman.
Grounded Bond is always my favourite
IMO, the problem with attempting to play it safe with the tried and true formula is that most of the talent that made those classic films are long gone. It would be new talent essentially trying to replicate the classic formula and therefore may have an unnatural result.
Considering the gaps now, I really do believe the next film could be a one and done. So I'd like an even balance of formula, yet bringing something fresh to the table.
I guess.. I mean a lot of those are similar to plotlines in the books.. I don't know if I'd call OHMSS a 'high concept crutch' of a movie; it's just a story about Bond.
You seem to be missing my point - OHMSS was a big, personal story breaking the rhythm of standard missions briefly before going back to mission-driven stories; at the moment we've got nothing but these non-standard missions with big personal themes and revelations, and there's a limit to how many times you can make these big reveals before it gets stupid.
I'd like a good, solid mission-driven story with no big personal revelations before we move on to the next deeply personal epic about Spectre resurrecting Bond's parents as zombie killers in order to assassinate Bond's old nanny/first girlfriend while Bond is saddled with an AI wingman.
Sounds like one of those unlicensed Canadian Bond novels.
(Source: "Best Bond Films Now Are Mission: Impossibles": No Time To Do Die Gets ... https://screenrant.com/no-time-to-die-movie-young-james-bond-author-review-response/)
I don't want to pop the bubble on you, but it's already an old news.
And not surprising either.
It's already a same old story about "Mission Impossible now does it better than Bond".
Bond is Bond and rises are falls based off the expectations of 60 years of adventures where they’ve been able to recreate, regenerate and resurrect over and over.
When another film series lasts 60 plus years and remains vital and valuable to the film industry and pop culture, then I’ll take notice.