Where does Bond go after Craig?

1379380382384385679

Comments

  • edited October 2023 Posts: 6,709
    Univex wrote: »
    Speed tamping and slo-mo are crimes against cinema and I’m thankful that they don’t use those anymore.

    Woah, @Univex - you're dismissing John Woo's entire catalogue there, which is a crime in itself! ;)

    Well, you are right, of course :) But I would argue that Woo has a cinematic language of his own, and one that makes use of both artifices. But I dislike the use of them in general and they were a trend back then, in the early 2000s, more thanks to the Matrix than to John Woo, I think. And colour filters. For years movies were greenish, blueish, yellowish. Oh, how I hated that. IMO, the speed ramping in DAD made it feel and look so cheap. One of its many crimes.
  • Univex wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Speed tamping and slo-mo are crimes against cinema and I’m thankful that they don’t use those anymore.

    Woah, @Univex - you're dismissing John Woo's entire catalogue there, which is a crime in itself! ;)

    Well, you are right, of course :) But I would argue that Woo has a cinematic language of his own, and one that makes use of both artifices. But I dislike the use of them in general and they were a trend back then, in the early 2000s, more thanks to the Matrix than to John Woo, I think. And colour filters. For years movies were greenish, blueish, yellowish. Oh, how I hated that. IMO, the speed ramping in DAD made it feel and look so cheap. One of its many crimes.

    Oh I absolutely hated that sped up style editing in DAD too. Felt more suited to a Fast and Furious movie, and has absolutely no place being in a James Bond film. Thankfully CR ditched all that nonsense!
  • Posts: 1,859
    mtm wrote: »
    @mtm I've seen the films many times - there isn't.

    It's rubbish mate. It may not be to your taste, but to pretend there aren't any jokes in there (seem them with an audience in a cinema: you'll hear laughs) or style or swagger is just boring. Like the guy who claimed that Connery's Bond 'never ran' a page or two back, I'm not sure why we get people who feel they have to pretend that black is white just to say that they have a preference for a different flavour.
    To me, Skyfall is one of the most stylishly made of all of the Bond films: it has actual flair and flourish in the filmaking where the previous films were all turned out by pretty style-free workmanlike directors. And that's fine, but you don't get many tense scenes of stalking through a maze of glass reflections or a one-shot fight scene in silhouette done that way, purely for the sake of aesthetic style. Or the oppressive mood of the overcast, doom laden approach to the Skyfall house itself; a one shot monologue to introduce your magnetic villain as he walks to the camera; the pure luxury of the approach to the Macau casino.
    You may not appreciate it, but surely you can see they were at least aiming for style in all of those, and more?

    Just say 'I would prefer more jokes' if that's how you feel, you don't have to go for hyperbole just to get attention.

    The "Guy" from a few pages back?!!? Thanks. OK, almost never ran. Regardless, I felt there was an unevenness in the Craig films that did not exist in the early films. I just hope EON ups their game the next time around and does not get anywhere close to the foster brothers debacle of Craig's era.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,366
    I'd say stuff like DAF, TMWTGG etc. are pretty uneven. A lot of people don't like AVTAK. I think Thunderball is pretty flat.
    But when you say that you feel 'unevenness didn't exist in the early films' I assume you mean that in the same way that 'Connery's Bond never ran'! :)

    Personally I hope EON can manage to keep to the high standard that the better Craig films set.
  • I think when Mendes4Lyfe says Skyfall isn’t ‘stylish’ he means ‘stylized’. Think of the original Star Trek TV show’s acting and directing style - it’s very stylized, exaggerated and theatrical rather than today’s more naturalistic style. That’s the kind of thing he’s looking for I think.

    But (at least in my personal opinion) Skyfall is the single most theatrical Bond film ever! Examples: the opening shot, the fight in Shanghai, the dialogue between Bond and Silva before the crash of the tube.

    Yeah Skyfall isn’t naturalistic at all. I wouldn’t say any Bond film is. If anything I think they seem more stylized now in some ways, because they tend to skip most of the mundane kitchen sink sort of stuff the old films used to do.
    Craig films really don't do anything to distinguish themselves from the classic films, it's a myth. :-B

    So we can make more stories like the classic films right?

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! That wouldn't work! [-( ~X(

    Not sure who you’re arguing with because nobody in the last few pages has said said they don’t do anything differently. They said they’re not less stylish, because they’re not.

    Nobody in the last few pages has said a more old school Bond film wouldn’t work either. I think certain ways they’ve modernised the character and the world around him are here to stay. But that’s just them reflecting the time they were set, nothing to do with the style of the stories. Most of us have hoping for Bond on a mission and less emotional baggage.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,620
    mtm wrote: »
    I'd say stuff like DAF, TMWTGG etc. are pretty uneven. A lot of people don't like AVTAK. I think Thunderball is pretty flat.
    But when you say that you feel 'unevenness didn't exist in the early films' I assume you mean that in the same way that 'Connery's Bond never ran'! :)

    Personally I hope EON can manage to keep to the high standard that the better Craig films set.

    Glad to see that I'm not the only one who sees TB as flat. I'm kind of happy that Terence Young (or Kevin McClory) didn't come back after TB. EON should look past Craig's films in general as the series does need some new creative blood.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 1,332
    I just hope they don't kill Q this time. Or Moneypenny.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,620
    I just hope they don't kill Q this time. Or Monyepeny.

    Ironically, Lois Maxwell wanted Moneypenny killed off in AVTAK. But, you're right about both characters, plus M. Same with one of them turning evil. Save that for an Alec Trevelyan comeback.
  • Posts: 1,075
    I just hope they don't kill Q this time. Or Moneypenny.

    Now they've killed Felix Leiter and James Bond, they can kill anyone and just bring them back. Great, isn't it?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,620
    I just hope they don't kill Q this time. Or Moneypenny.

    Now they've killed Felix Leiter and James Bond, they can kill anyone and just bring them back. Great, isn't it?

    You're right. Plus I forgot about Leiter. Let's throw in Blofeld and the many other villains that EON (and IFP) have killed over the years! They can probably all be written to come back for this next era.
  • Posts: 1,332
    I just hope they don't kill Q this time. Or Moneypenny.

    Now they've killed Felix Leiter and James Bond, they can kill anyone and just bring them back. Great, isn't it?

    Yeah, but it's boring.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,366
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I just hope they don't kill Q this time. Or Moneypenny.

    Now they've killed Felix Leiter and James Bond, they can kill anyone and just bring them back. Great, isn't it?

    You're right. Plus I forgot about Leiter. Let's throw in Blofeld and the many other villains that EON (and IFP) have killed over the years! They can probably all be written to come back for this next era.

    Does anyone complain when the Joker gets brought back in a Batman film, despite having died 30 years ago? All produced by Michael Uslan, as you pointed out. I don't really see the problem.
    But Dench's M is never going to come back.
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,098
    I don't know about you, but if i were in charge of the next Bond, i'd make a trilogy that goes back to the classic formula and at the same time reinvent it, bringing a balanced tone between the light adventures (TND) and the gritty thrillers (LTK). As for Bond, i'd also try to bring a balance between both of his cinematic portrayals:
    Charismatic, Delicate and Charming. (Connery, Moore and Brosnan)
    And
    Cold, Serious and Brute. (Dalton and Craig)
    For the Bond girls, i'd go by the lines of Anya, Kara and Natalya.
    I don't mind having Q and Moneypenny on the field, but i'd rather something like Q in TB, YOLT, TSWLM and others and Moneypenny in DAF.
    For the villain, i'd be inspired from Sanchez, and for the henchman, Mr. Hinx.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 1,075
    mtm wrote: »
    Does anyone complain when the Joker gets brought back in a Batman film

    I don't know, because I don't watch sci-fi comic book movies.

    But I do know, whenever I talk about the daftness of having alternate universes in James Bond films, someone on here pops up and goes "BUT LOOK AT BATMAN!!!! . . . ."
    Yeah, but it's boring.

    It's worse than boring, it's taken a lot of fun out of a great film franchise for me.

    Is you real name Jimmy Tompkins?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,366
    mtm wrote: »
    Does anyone complain when the Joker gets brought back in a Batman film

    I don't know, because I don't watch sci-fi comic book movies.

    But I do know, whenever I talk about the daftness of having alternate universes in James Bond films, someone on here pops up and goes "BUT LOOK AT BATMAN!!!! . . . ."

    Because it's a good point, yes ;)
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,133
    As usual @mtm, you're right of course. ;)
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I just hope they don't kill Q this time. Or Moneypenny.

    God I hope not.
    The last two films haven't had any female deaths, which is progression no doubt, but I hope they don't kill any more of the "regulars", personally I think NTTD went too far in my mind.
    Kill off a new ally rather than kill off a regular so early into the next Bond's era
  • Posts: 3,327
    I don't know about you, but if i were in charge of the next Bond, i'd make a trilogy that goes back to the classic formula and at the same time reinvent it, bringing a balanced tone between the light adventures (TND) and the gritty thrillers (LTK). As for Bond, i'd also try to bring a balance between both of his cinematic portrayals:
    Charismatic, Delicate and Charming. (Connery, Moore and Brosnan)
    And
    Cold, Serious and Brute. (Dalton and Craig)
    For the Bond girls, i'd go by the lines of Anya, Kara and Natalya.
    I don't mind having Q and Moneypenny on the field, but i'd rather something like Q in TB, YOLT, TSWLM and others and Moneypenny in DAF.
    For the villain, i'd be inspired from Sanchez, and for the henchman, Mr. Hinx.

    Yes, nice choices. 100% agree.
  • Posts: 1,859
    mtm wrote: »
    I'd say stuff like DAF, TMWTGG etc. are pretty uneven. A lot of people don't like AVTAK. I think Thunderball is pretty flat.
    But when you say that you feel 'unevenness didn't exist in the early films' I assume you mean that in the same way that 'Connery's Bond never ran'! :)

    There is an evenness up through Thunderball (flat or not) then skips YOLT (which is a mess) and finishes with OHMSS. After that they began to experiment with the formula to greater and lesser success along the way.

    Personally I hope EON can manage to keep to the high standard that the better Craig films set.

    The Craig films are a great example of how uneven the series finally became. Though Craig himself had a wonderful interpretation of Bond, the universe he inhabited was all over the place sometimes from scene to scene and even film to film. They need to find a new path and up their game to introduce us to a new Bond.
  • delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'd say stuff like DAF, TMWTGG etc. are pretty uneven. A lot of people don't like AVTAK. I think Thunderball is pretty flat.
    But when you say that you feel 'unevenness didn't exist in the early films' I assume you mean that in the same way that 'Connery's Bond never ran'! :)

    There is an evenness up through Thunderball (flat or not) then skips YOLT (which is a mess) and finishes with OHMSS. After that they began to experiment with the formula to greater and lesser success along the way.

    Personally I hope EON can manage to keep to the high standard that the better Craig films set.

    The Craig films are a great example of how uneven the series finally became. Though Craig himself had a wonderful interpretation of Bond, the universe he inhabited was all over the place sometimes from scene to scene and even film to film. They need to find a new path and up their game to introduce us to a new Bond.

    I agree. The problem with the Craig era is nothing to do with Craig himself, but the rather convoluted way in which his era connects from beginning to end. If EON insists on doing something similar for Bond #7, I’d at least hope that era will be a bit more planned accordingly than Craig’s was.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,366
    delfloria wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'd say stuff like DAF, TMWTGG etc. are pretty uneven. A lot of people don't like AVTAK. I think Thunderball is pretty flat.
    But when you say that you feel 'unevenness didn't exist in the early films' I assume you mean that in the same way that 'Connery's Bond never ran'! :)

    There is an evenness up through Thunderball (flat or not) then skips YOLT (which is a mess) and finishes with OHMSS. After that they began to experiment with the formula to greater and lesser success along the way.

    Personally I hope EON can manage to keep to the high standard that the better Craig films set.

    The Craig films are a great example of how uneven the series finally became. Though Craig himself had a wonderful interpretation of Bond, the universe he inhabited was all over the place sometimes from scene to scene and even film to film. They need to find a new path and up their game to introduce us to a new Bond.

    ‘All over the place’ in what way? I don’t know what you mean.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,152
    Although NTTD was all over the place, tonally, I'd say. Soup gags straight after Matera; Cuba and 'May I cut in?' after Jamaica; Q's secret tea set and the 'fairly strong?!' quip two minutes after Madeleine and Mathilde have been kidnapped, etc. For me, the most jarring was M being responsible for Heracles after the way his character had been portrayed in SP. Didn't ring true. Still think Heracles should've been one of C's projects that M had been ordered to continue against his better judgment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,366
    Must admit I didn't find the tone to jar that much- the soup gags came after the title sequence, for example. FRWL and FYEO still have jokes in.
    I think you're right about M messing up; that felt like an error, I'm not sure we should lose faith in one of our heroes like that. But I don't see that as proof that the Craig films were all bad and all over the place.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    No, they really weren't.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    The thing that puzzled me about the M-Heracles thing was the timeline presented in the film.

    It's five years after the end of SP, which takes place very shortly after the end of SF (when Mallory became M), yet Bond accuses him of developing the weapon for almost a decade.

    It's minor things like that which make me feel that the script needed an extra bit of polishing, and it's one thing I hope they pay extra attention to in the next run.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,620
    mtm wrote: »
    Must admit I didn't find the tone to jar that much- the soup gags came after the title sequence, for example. FRWL and FYEO still have jokes in.
    I think you're right about M messing up; that felt like an error, I'm not sure we should lose faith in one of our heroes like that. But I don't see that as proof that the Craig films were all bad and all over the place.

    As I said in the controversial opinions about Bond movies, it seems that Judi Dench’s M made a lot of mistakes. It was hard to sympathize with her considering her many errors (namely in her personality). We need to move on from M being seen as a paternal figure, if EON is going to have her past coming back to haunt (then).
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Venutius wrote: »
    Although NTTD was all over the place, tonally, I'd say. Soup gags straight after Matera; Cuba and 'May I cut in?' after Jamaica; Q's secret tea set and the 'fairly strong?!' quip two minutes after Madeleine and Mathilde have been kidnapped, etc. For me, the most jarring was M being responsible for Heracles after the way his character had been portrayed in SP. Didn't ring true. Still think Heracles should've been one of C's projects that M had been ordered to continue against his better judgment.

    Completely agree on this mate

    If the Craig era has a problem, it's perhaps that it started so strong with Casino it was always going to be tough to top it. I personally loved what they did and think it was the most consistent era since the 60's
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,620
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Although NTTD was all over the place, tonally, I'd say. Soup gags straight after Matera; Cuba and 'May I cut in?' after Jamaica; Q's secret tea set and the 'fairly strong?!' quip two minutes after Madeleine and Mathilde have been kidnapped, etc. For me, the most jarring was M being responsible for Heracles after the way his character had been portrayed in SP. Didn't ring true. Still think Heracles should've been one of C's projects that M had been ordered to continue against his better judgment.

    Completely agree on this mate

    If the Craig era has a problem, it's perhaps that it started so strong with Casino it was always going to be tough to top it. I personally loved what they did and think it was the most consistent era since the 60's

    Same here. I know I’m guilty of criticizing Bond movies, but it is a tough love situation. I’ll always be a fan, and EON (or even IFP) would really have to mess up to change my mind about Bond.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 1,332
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Although NTTD was all over the place, tonally, I'd say. Soup gags straight after Matera; Cuba and 'May I cut in?' after Jamaica; Q's secret tea set and the 'fairly strong?!' quip two minutes after Madeleine and Mathilde have been kidnapped, etc. For me, the most jarring was M being responsible for Heracles after the way his character had been portrayed in SP. Didn't ring true. Still think Heracles should've been one of C's projects that M had been ordered to continue against his better judgment.

    Completely agree on this mate

    If the Craig era has a problem, it's perhaps that it started so strong with Casino it was always going to be tough to top it. I personally loved what they did and think it was the most consistent era since the 60's

    They learned the wrong lessons from Casino Royale. They should have adapted more books.

    But, yeah, the Craig era is OK.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,366
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Must admit I didn't find the tone to jar that much- the soup gags came after the title sequence, for example. FRWL and FYEO still have jokes in.
    I think you're right about M messing up; that felt like an error, I'm not sure we should lose faith in one of our heroes like that. But I don't see that as proof that the Craig films were all bad and all over the place.

    As I said in the controversial opinions about Bond movies, it seems that Judi Dench’s M made a lot of mistakes. It was hard to sympathize with her considering her many errors (namely in her personality). We need to move on from M being seen as a paternal figure, if EON is going to have her past coming back to haunt (then).

    I mind that less than Mallory messing up for some reason: one of the many things I liked about the Craig films was that it made it possible for Bond to make mistakes and yet still remain our hero and recognisably 007, which was a hard thing to pull off. That Mansfield M was guilty of errors of judgement too I didn't mind, but Mallory's was a pretty major error of judgement and developing what was in effect a secret biological weapon is over the line into illegality.
Sign In or Register to comment.