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
While there’s certainly a case for returning to some of the more fantastical and ‘classic’ tropes/outlines (and even then one can argue we’ve drifted back to a lot of that in Craig’s last three films), I don’t think we’ll get a film built totally on that nostalgia. One of the things that regular viewers tend to praise about Craig’s run is that Bond felt a lot more human, with many praising the lead’s performances even if some of his films weren’t well regarded. That human element isn’t going to be sacrificed. They’ll just try and do something different.
It doesn't need to be either/or, I'll refer you to this post I made last week on the matter:
I agree that it isn’t a case of one or the other. That’s what I meant by them returning to the classical elements of the formula.
I’ve said this in the past, but going from previous Bond debuts it’s not usually a case where the new film is completely distinct from the previous one, even if the lead actor’s interpretation of the character is different. LALD carried over a lot of DAF’s absurdity, TLD had a bit of the Moore era’s tongue in cheek humour, and even GE felt a bit darker in places and more akin to Dalton’s adventures than his later ones. I’d even argue there are shades of Brosnan’s breezier portrayal of Bond in CR.
Going from that, it might be a case where Bond 26 isn’t a million miles away from NTTD in spirit. It could have similar tonal contrasts between lighter, tongue in cheek humour and darkness (even the Cuba sequence is preceded by one of the most horrific moments in the series - same for Safin’s introduction being followed by the epic Matera sequence). It’ll probably be more willing to start off by ‘breaking’ the rules of the Bond formula before slowly reverting to them by the end. It could well have a more fantastical, but modern villain scheme.
Yes, excellent post; I think you're bang on. They'll alter the mixture and flavour a bit (as The Batman is to Dark Knight) but I suspect we won't be on a substantially different course.
The nostalgia tour is pretty much done now- not only have we been there but it's also losing relevance to the audience as they get older.
Without wanting to derail the discussion into a cul-de-sac, I think one very important thing NTTD did which does chart the way ahead is its treatment of women: Bond is much less the womaniser in this, women aren't treated as sex objects, and indeed there's plenty of room for the female characters to be actual characters in their own right. It's not perfect on that score, but it does show a change from even the previous couple of films, and most importantly: no one complained. He still felt completely like Bond. I think they did a very good job there and I don't doubt that shows the way ahead.
I agree there is always a link from one era to the next, I just look at it the other way round. DAF was like the prototype Moore film, and the DAD PTS was very much them testing the waters for the more serious direction they were headed with Craig. Viewed like this, I thing the Ana De Armas portion of Bond 25 will be used as the template for Bond 26s story. I agree there will be a more human bond, but that has been done before using the framework of the formula and it worked just fine, look at TLD and OHMSS.
Yeah I think the Batman comparison isn’t far off. Both the new one and Nolan’s films were darker, more grounded reinterpretations of the source material. Both have different styles and have their own ‘identities’ as films, but in spirit they’re doing similar things. Could well be the same with Bond.
I hope we don’t get as many visual references to the 60s Bond films as we did in the Craig era. But it’s tricky to say. There’s always an element of self reference in Bond and it’s a series which contains many tropes and ideas carried over from film to film. I hope we don’t stray into weird territory such as having another version of, say, Oddjob or pop up in a completely different film.
Like I said, the Cuba sequence contains some of breeziest, most lighthearted moments of Craig’s tenure but are preceded by some of his darkest (honestly, the SPECTRE agents dying looks like something out of a horror movie). They may well iron out these tonal contrasts and make them flow more naturally. So more akin to Safin’s reveal (again, not far off of Horror territory) being followed by the more bombastic Matera action sequences.
Anyway, yes I broadly agree, there’s always that escapist element to Bond even with a more human approach to the character. Much like the balancing act the later Craig films ran with, whether one likes them or not. I don’t think that’ll change. I suspect this time round they’ll even be more willing to lean into fantastical, even absurd territory, albeit with a darker tone and more fatalistic ideas.
They can't make a Brosnan movie either.
They have to go back to the books. Any novel is good, choose one. Let the story set the tone.
They always go back to the books in some form. The later Craig films seemed to favour ideas from YOLT. So yeah, I think they’ll be doing that, but in a broad way.
When it comes to pure nostalgia the Craig era leaned into that more than any previous Bonds did, bringing back the GF Aston, Daltons TLD Aston, the girl covered in oil, the white dinner jacket, the Louis Armstrong theme. So to say nostalgia is on the way out, and then say they won't change course dramatically from the Craig films sounds a bit contradictory.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is arguing for a more nostalgic bond film. Most fans I see are sick of the constant use of the DB5, the little nods to previous installments. What people want is the formula updated for the modern day. If that means a more human bond, then so be it. It was done in the past with Lazenby and Dalton to great success. The point of the formula is that it can be adapted to suit any period in time, whether it be the espionage thrillers of the 60's, the OTT romps of the 70's, or the action heavy flicks of the 90's.
The answer was of course yes.
Now in late 2023, in a world of cancel culture, wokeism, me too, is a spy with a licence to kill, who treats woman as occasional pleasures going to be relevant or able to be re-invented for todays audiences.
The answer is again yes, but the challenge is imo greater having to re-invent, make it fresh and not copy any of the previous actors too much. Certainly not the Craig films anyway.
Bang on benster! :-bd
The hardest part is going to be making sure he stays consistent with the character fleming wrote about. I'm very critical of the Craig films, but I wouldn't say the core of the character has been compromised (yet), but there will be increasing pressure to "update" him in ways that simply don't ring true. Like I said in the other thread, I don't personally want a black bond because I want the character to remain accurate to how he was portrayed in the books (or as accurate as possible), but I would take a black guy playing him as the true defender of the realm, out for king and country spy, rather than a basterdized "woke" version who doesn't resemble the character at all but is white. Keeping the character intact is foremost, and it's going to be a very tricky needle to thread.
Yeah I would expect the next one to be broadly in the same camp as the last one, as you say, much like LALD was clearly part of the same series as DAF. I'm not expecting as much of a tonal shift as DAD/CR - not least because the films have gone down really well since then. The details and flavours will change, and a new lead will be a big part of that.
What a dream start that would be =D>
Granted I've only watched it once but I found the plot messy and not helped by the weak villains. But yeah I agree about the humour and gadgets, I think the juxtaposition of Dalton's portrayal with the Aston set piece works in a way that I'm sort of glad BMW didn't have the Z3 ready for GoldenEye. I don't think that movie needed it and obviously come CR it's a more conscious choice to forgo the gadgets. But I still think GoldenEye is the best movie to kick off a classic Bond's era.
And I'll add, maybe it's a controversial opinion of mine, but I don't think Dalton suited the film, actually.
I've felt that the film was in some parts was made with Moore's version of Bond in mind, yes, there's the humor, but that's the problem, Dalton was having a bit of problem delivering those, he's uncomfortable delivering such quips, so as a result, it comes off as forced or flat, none of the convincing charm that Moore had.
I've actually think that the film would've worked better with Brosnan in the lead, because he could carry those quips and one liners.
The Afghanistan scenes also felt like it came from Moore Bond Era, then so the Cello Case slide, TLD in some ways felt like a combination of Moore's last three Bond films (FYEO, OP and AVTAK), and the deleted scene of flying carpet with Bond drinking a martini, thankfully, it's removed.
The only scene in there where Dalton do fits in was the Pushkin interrogation scene.
I think it's still depends upon the tone and if that certain Bond actor could've pull it off, yes, I still think Goldeneye would've been a good inspiration for the next run in terms of the character's relevance with some Dr. No sprinkled in.
u wot m8?!
Yes, controversial opinion of mine, but for me, TLD is more of a Moore Bond film with Dalton as the lead and the film's tone did not matched with his version of Bond, that's why I always prefer LTK because it's the film that really suited Dalton.
I agree there; I like the film as it is but I think it might have been a bigger hit with Brosnan in the lead.
I think he'd have been fine in even the Pushkin bit to be honest- see Fourth Protocol from that year: he was fine at being a cold killer.
If there’s one thing I got out of Charlie Higson’s OHiMSS, it’s that I hope the Bond films don’t attempt to try and directly evoke some of those more contemporary political ideas. That’s not to say the film shouldn’t be modern or address modern concerns, but I’m not sure if I really want to see the film version of Bond take on a right wing grifter or address what he thinks of recent politicians as in that novel.
Otherwise yes, it’s all about keeping that balance between a fresh take on the role, the traits of the cinematic Bond, and the fundamental traits of the literary one. I know, for instance, that Bond’s womanising and attitude towards them are a big talking point. Truth is the cinematic Bond hasn’t tried to kiss a woman without her wanting to or slapped one since the Moore era. I can’t ever recall the cinematic Bond expressing the same level of overt sexism that the literary one does in CR (the film adapts this by having a more arrogant Bond who likes to bed married women, and it’s not something glamourised fully - ie we see how it leads to Solonge’s death). So I don’t think Bond will fundamentally change in this area. They’ll just do something slightly different, even if it means the film itself is a bit more critical about our hero.
He did karate chop xenia on the back of the head.
I think the days of Sleaziness in Bond films are long gone now.
No one?
On that subject, at what point did Bond twig that she was a spy. He noticed her when driving into Port Antonio and when she crosses him in the club, by time they formally meet outside by his car, he must know somethings up. Which is why I dont think he actually wants to get it on with Nomi, more play along with her until she reveals who she is.
A new UCLA study of teens and young adults ages 13-24 has found a significant portion of them, as much as 47.5%, think physical intimacy and romance are too prominent in both movies and TV shows.
44.3% cite romance in media as being ‘overused’, 51.5% want to see more content focused on friendships and platonic relationships, and 39% say they want to see more aromantic and/or asexual characters on screen.
I watched OHMSS the other day and some of the bits would make Roger Moore blush like "he branched off", the newfoundland arriving at the end, "fancy meeting you here fraulein". For a large part of the film he walks around in a kilt with a funny voice banging the various women, and yet it still manages to be one of the most grounded, emotionally affecting entries in the series. There's no reason why a Bond film with gadgets and quips, and a lively, breezy feel to it can't also have a complex character at the centre. When I say they should make a Bond based on the paloma scenes of Bond 25, I don't mean literally make every scene with that exact tone, but make it so a scenes like that no longer stands out like a sore thumb in contrast to the rest of the film.
I understand why 2006 was a special exception, it was like starting the franchise over again, but I just don't think it warrant that treatment this time, especially since how Bond 25 ended on such a downer. Bond needs to come roaring back into life, and I don't think putting the forumla in the cupboard is the right way to achieve that.
I think the Hilary Gray stuff feels more out of place than the Pamela scene does to be honest. Felt too carry on for that film. I agree, there’s no reason a Bond film like that can’t have a complex character at the centre, I remember saying similar myself. But I was saying that after QoS. The last three haven’t been consistently good but they’ve felt like Bond films imo.