Where does Bond go after Craig?

1396397399401402679

Comments

  • Posts: 1,333
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,369
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.

    I remember as a kid I didn't think it was a proper Bond film; I thought it was a knock-off like CR'67.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,787
    That's why it's a bit odd for me when the Producers referenced it in FYEO PTS, especially given of the film's reputation at the time.

    And it's more explicit than ever before, it felt like a direct sequel to OHMSS with Blofeld being even based off on Savalas' version of Blofeld, just odd especially given the history.

    Sure, introducing the new Bond actor (even though Moore still remained in the role), but again, they could've chose something from the Connery Era to remind people that this is still the same Bond, and what's more odd was it remained, when Moore decided to stay, like why to reference OHMSS given its reputation at the time among the Public? And also after the Producers' efforts of forgetting that film for so many years?

    For sure when the people saw it at the time, people hated it because it reminded them of OHMSS, which for many didn't felt like a proper Bond film at the time.

    When you're a child, @mtm, how'd you felt about that FYEO PTS? Like it reminded you of OHMSS, and for you, it didn't felt like a proper Bond film at the time, so seeing it referenced there, what have you felt at the time?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    This should be good. Very well, I'll bite. Kindle do explain what GE stole from NSNA.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,369
    I guess Xenia is a bit like Fatima, and are they the only Bond films where 007 visits the Riveria? And, erm, Bond is off-duty when he stumbles across a plan to steal a bit of military tech... is there much else?
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 95
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    IMO it has nothing to do with that. Plenty of Fleming fans loved NTTD, even though that movie took some bold directions that differed from Fleming (mainly killing Bond, something Fleming toyed with but never actually did).

    I think making Bond and Blofeld forster brothers was way too convoluted, and the way it was played in the movie it didn't seem to affect Bond at all.
    As far as I know even non-Bond fans found that the plot twist didn't really add anything to the movie.
  • Posts: 1,333
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    This should be good. Very well, I'll bite. Kindle do explain what GE stole from NSNA.


    New M, Fatima Blush, outdated Bond...even the laser watch. :))

    Bruce Feirstein, I know what you did. ;)

    Many fans saw GE first and they didn't care but It is time to put the record straight.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,369
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    IMO it has nothing to do with that. Plenty of Fleming fans loved NTTD, even though that movie took some bold directions that differed from Fleming (mainly killing Bond, something Fleming toyed with but never actually did).

    I think making Bond and Blofeld forster brothers was way too convoluted, and the way it was played in the movie it didn't seem to affect Bond at all.
    As far as I know even non-Bond fans found that the plot twist didn't really add anything to the movie.

    Yes that is a good point: it is lore without really being story on Bond's side. Bond doesn't really care (he doesn't even really seem to care about Oberhauser which does seem a bit of a missed opportunity). Blofeld basically becomes a stalker, but the problem is that the audience know when they're being played.
  • Posts: 16,154
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    This should be good. Very well, I'll bite. Kindle do explain what GE stole from NSNA.


    New M, Fatima Blush, outdated Bond...even the laser watch. :))

    Bruce Feirstein, I know what you did. ;)

    Many fans saw GE first and they didn't care but It is time to put the record straight.

    The Craig era also expanded on many of NSNA's ideas: Bond coming out of retirement, again having to deal with a new M, this time a male M who is younger than Bond, no opening gunbarrel, no Bond theme music (well.....until the end credits), and an older Bond having to get back into shape before returning to duty.

    All we needed was for Craig's Bond to play a video game at some point and we'd be set. :D :D

    That said, GE did a marvelous job of stealing from NSNA and making it look original. :D
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    Even if that were true (which it isn’t), GE is still 10x a better film than that turd NSNA.
  • Posts: 1,333
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    This should be good. Very well, I'll bite. Kindle do explain what GE stole from NSNA.


    New M, Fatima Blush, outdated Bond...even the laser watch. :))

    Bruce Feirstein, I know what you did. ;)

    Many fans saw GE first and they didn't care but It is time to put the record straight.

    The Craig era also expanded on many of NSNA's ideas: Bond coming out of retirement, again having to deal with a new M, this time a male M who is younger than Bond, no opening gunbarrel, no Bond theme music (well.....until the end credits), and an older Bond having to get back into shape before returning to duty.

    All we needed was for Craig's Bond to play a video game at some point and we'd be set. :D :D

    That said, GE did a marvelous job of stealing from NSNA and making it look original. :D


    Yeah, yeah, that's right.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,152
    mtm wrote: »
    They’re not real women though; they’re not actually making their own decisions.
    True enough, but Bond's not a real bloke either, tbf - he only does what EON decide he's going to do. And some women actually do like uncomplicated, one-off, casual sex. Er, so I've heard... They can be represented in films, too, right?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    This should be good. Very well, I'll bite. Kindle do explain what GE stole from NSNA.


    New M, Fatima Blush, outdated Bond...even the laser watch. :))

    Bruce Feirstein, I know what you did. ;)

    Many fans saw GE first and they didn't care but It is time to put the record straight.

    If that is the same as "GE stole everything from NSNA", then every Bond film stole "everything" from pretty much every other Bond film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,369
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    They’re not real women though; they’re not actually making their own decisions.
    True enough, but Bond's not a real bloke either, tbf - he only does what EON decide he's going to do. And some women actually do like uncomplicated, one-off, casual sex. Er, so I've heard... They can be represented in films, too, right?

    Sure, but that doesn't make any difference to what I said. I think we're all comfortable enough to admit that Bond films have been a bit sexist and guilty of a touch of misogyny here and there in the past, aren't we?
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 1,333
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    This should be good. Very well, I'll bite. Kindle do explain what GE stole from NSNA.


    New M, Fatima Blush, outdated Bond...even the laser watch. :))

    Bruce Feirstein, I know what you did. ;)

    Many fans saw GE first and they didn't care but It is time to put the record straight.

    If that is the same as "GE stole everything from NSNA", then every Bond film stole "everything" from pretty much every other Bond film.

    Yeah, we can say TSWLM is a YOLT's remake.

    And we can say NSNA has more Fleming than the Brosnan's movies and GE stole a lot
    from NSNA.


  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    This should be good. Very well, I'll bite. Kindle do explain what GE stole from NSNA.


    New M, Fatima Blush, outdated Bond...even the laser watch. :))

    Bruce Feirstein, I know what you did. ;)

    Many fans saw GE first and they didn't care but It is time to put the record straight.

    If that is the same as "GE stole everything from NSNA", then every Bond film stole "everything" from pretty much every other Bond film.

    Yeah, we can say TSWLM is a YOLT's remake.

    And we can say NSNA has more Fleming than the Brosnan's movies and GE stole a lot
    from NSNA.


    I'm quite confident that if GE had, indeed, stolen "everything" or even "a lot" from NSNA, McClory would have sued EON up the wazoo.
  • Technically you could make an argument that Goldeneye is an unofficial adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker, and DAD incorporates elements from that novel as well. TWINE was also heavily influenced by OHMSS, both the book and film, regardless of how some may feel on the quality of TWINE aside.

    Even if NSNA has the benefit of working directly from a Fleming novel, without all the elements that make a Bond film special, NSNA is just a shallow and boring film. A movie made out of spite and jealousy towards EON.

    NSNA and GE shouldn’t even be in the same conversation.
  • Posts: 1,333
    Technically you could make an argument that Goldeneye is an unofficial adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker, and DAD incorporates elements from that novel as well. TWINE was also heavily influenced by OHMSS, both the book and film, regardless of how some may feel on the quality of TWINE aside.

    Even if NSNA has the benefit of working directly from a Fleming novel, without all the elements that make a Bond film special, NSNA is just a shallow and boring film. A movie made out of spite and jealousy towards EON.

    NSNA and GE shouldn’t even be in the same conversation.

    Why not?

  • Technically you could make an argument that Goldeneye is an unofficial adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker, and DAD incorporates elements from that novel as well. TWINE was also heavily influenced by OHMSS, both the book and film, regardless of how some may feel on the quality of TWINE aside.

    Even if NSNA has the benefit of working directly from a Fleming novel, without all the elements that make a Bond film special, NSNA is just a shallow and boring film. A movie made out of spite and jealousy towards EON.

    NSNA and GE shouldn’t even be in the same conversation.

    Why not?

    Because Goldeneye is actually good ;)
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 1,333
    Technically you could make an argument that Goldeneye is an unofficial adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker, and DAD incorporates elements from that novel as well. TWINE was also heavily influenced by OHMSS, both the book and film, regardless of how some may feel on the quality of TWINE aside.

    Even if NSNA has the benefit of working directly from a Fleming novel, without all the elements that make a Bond film special, NSNA is just a shallow and boring film. A movie made out of spite and jealousy towards EON.

    NSNA and GE shouldn’t even be in the same conversation.

    Why not?

    Because Goldeneye is actually good ;)

    Not really. It's boring and unoriginal. ;)


    The safest movie since TSWLM but in a boring way.
  • Technically you could make an argument that Goldeneye is an unofficial adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker, and DAD incorporates elements from that novel as well. TWINE was also heavily influenced by OHMSS, both the book and film, regardless of how some may feel on the quality of TWINE aside.

    Even if NSNA has the benefit of working directly from a Fleming novel, without all the elements that make a Bond film special, NSNA is just a shallow and boring film. A movie made out of spite and jealousy towards EON.

    NSNA and GE shouldn’t even be in the same conversation.

    Why not?

    Because Goldeneye is actually good ;)

    Not really. It's boring and unoriginal. ;)


    The safest movie since TSWLM but in a boring way.

    If you think that way fine, I don’t.

    Also I find it hilarious calling GE “safe and unoriginal” when you’re singing the praises of NSNA, a remake.
  • Posts: 1,333
    Technically you could make an argument that Goldeneye is an unofficial adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker, and DAD incorporates elements from that novel as well. TWINE was also heavily influenced by OHMSS, both the book and film, regardless of how some may feel on the quality of TWINE aside.

    Even if NSNA has the benefit of working directly from a Fleming novel, without all the elements that make a Bond film special, NSNA is just a shallow and boring film. A movie made out of spite and jealousy towards EON.

    NSNA and GE shouldn’t even be in the same conversation.

    Why not?

    Because Goldeneye is actually good ;)

    Not really. It's boring and unoriginal. ;)


    The safest movie since TSWLM but in a boring way.

    If you think that way fine, I don’t.

    Also I find it hilarious calling GE “safe and unoriginal” when you’re singing the praises of NSNA, a remake.

    Yeah, It's crazy but NSNA was more fresh than GE.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    Technically you could make an argument that Goldeneye is an unofficial adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker, and DAD incorporates elements from that novel as well. TWINE was also heavily influenced by OHMSS, both the book and film, regardless of how some may feel on the quality of TWINE aside.

    Even if NSNA has the benefit of working directly from a Fleming novel, without all the elements that make a Bond film special, NSNA is just a shallow and boring film. A movie made out of spite and jealousy towards EON.

    NSNA and GE shouldn’t even be in the same conversation.

    Why not?

    Because Goldeneye is actually good ;)

    Not really. It's boring and unoriginal. ;)


    The safest movie since TSWLM but in a boring way.

    If you think that way fine, I don’t.

    Also I find it hilarious calling GE “safe and unoriginal” when you’re singing the praises of NSNA, a remake.

    Yeah, It's crazy but NSNA was more fresh than GE.

    Fresh like Bond's urine?

    Yeah, no, NSNA is a total failure. McClory's one big move against EON is a stinker worthy of Sunday afternoon TV programming.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,369
    I do remember coming out of GoldenEye and being just slightly underwhelmed that it was so typical a Bond film though. I enjoyed it a lot and went to see it a few times, but after all the hype there was something slightly disappointing about it being just a Bond film somehow.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2023 Posts: 24,173
    mtm wrote: »
    I do remember coming out of GoldenEye and being just slightly underwhelmed that it was so typical a Bond film though. I enjoyed it a lot and went to see it a few times, but after all the hype there was something slightly disappointing about it being just a Bond film somehow.

    I think that after the long hiatus and general uncertainty about Bond's appeal in the nineties, they wanted to play things safe by giving us, indeed, just another Bond film.

    And yet, I have always seen GE as a truly modern Bond film, in image and sound.
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 95
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    Even if that were true (which it isn’t), GE is still 10x a better film than that turd NSNA.

    Agreed.

    Besides, Octopussy introduced a new M and that came out in the same year as NSNA. I don't really see how that's "GE copying NSNA".
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 557
    I do think GE has that perfect blend of traditional with modern sensibilities.

    Also jumping back a bit, conceptually merging the Octopussy story with Blofeld I don't necessarily have a problem with but if you're gonna have him be a foster brother to Bond, it would've helped if he was the younger one in that relationship. Basically Scott should've been Blofeld and not Waltz, I'm sure he's lovely but I don't think he was right for the part.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,787
    I do think GE has that perfect blend of traditional with modern sensibilities.

    Also jumping back a bit, conceptually merging the Octopussy story with Blofeld I don't necessarily have a problem with but if you're gonna have him be a foster brother to Bond, it would've helped if he was the younger one in that relationship. Basically Scott should've been Blofeld and not Waltz, I'm sure he's lovely but I don't think he was right for the part.

    Kinda makes sense, since Craig's Bond is actually a separate one from the first 20 films, so his Blofeld was different from the previous Blofelds, that whatever decisions happened in his era was just in his era and not affecting the Classic Bond Era.

    Probably it's really set in stone, hence, why the Craig Era was made as a reboot, instead of continuing from where DAD left off, I mean the tone transition happened before with Dalton from Moore, so they could've done it, but they didn't.

    Yes, I kinda agree with you, but again, Oberhauser was meant to be more older than Bond, because Bond was an orphan, and there's the angle of a son killing his own father, so would've made sense that he's a little bit grown up.

    What I didn't liked in there was how all of Bond's previous missions were all made by him? I wish it didn't happened, that made that foster brother angle more worse.

    Like he made Le Chiffre, Quantum, Silva and all because he's jealous of Bond? That's kinda shallow of a reasoning.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I don’t really see Goldeneye as derivative at all. If anything I think it was a perfect balance of the Bond formula and a more modern (to the time period) action thriller, which I think needs to happen again going forward. I do feel that Brosnan’s films lost their way but I think that’s true of every era, of those who stuck around long enough anyway. I also cannot label Goldeneye as boring and unoriginal, especially when comparing it to Never Say Never Again, which is in my opinion one of the strangest experiences I’ve ever had with anything James Bond related. I enjoy it to an extent, mainly Fatima Blush, but everything just feels like a fever dream, I’d say more so than 1967’s Casino Royale in my opinion, because at least that had style and an obvious comedic angle, where I don’t know if we were meant to take NSNA seriously or not?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,369
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I do remember coming out of GoldenEye and being just slightly underwhelmed that it was so typical a Bond film though. I enjoyed it a lot and went to see it a few times, but after all the hype there was something slightly disappointing about it being just a Bond film somehow.

    I think that after the long hiatus and general uncertainty about Bond's appeal in the nineties, they wanted to play things safe by giving us, indeed, just another Bond film.

    Maybe, yes. I hope they don't go that way next time though; I'd like something a little more. When I think back to CR, that really was thrilling.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Michael Wilson's story ideas and scripts have been of uneven quality, to say the least. Yet, for some reason, it's "Babs" who takes most of the blame from so-called fans.
    Because they were probably thinking it could be played as dramatically epic like Cain and Abel. They weren’t concerned over fans crying foul because it’s not something Fleming did.

    And I hope they'll continue not being concerned over "fans". I don't like the foster brother plot either, but I still want every next film to try something new, something we haven't seen before. And in the past fifteen or so years, it's become obvious to me that many - not all! - fans simply want stuff they've already seen and are comfortable with...

    ... only to bash a film when it actually does the same things again. ;))
    We're a difficult lot. ;-)

    I want to see some different and unique stuffs too, as long as it's not:

    * Top far from the Bond standards (the Brofeld idea went too far from it)
    * Executed well (Bond having a kid and dying in NTTD are both different ideas that I have no problem about, it's just that, they're not executed well, or at least how the script handled those ideas).

    I liked both OHMSS and LTK, and it's showed the different side of Bond without veering too far away and executing it well, even TWINE's idea of making Elektra a main villain, even Skyfall of killing M, and it's the only film that handled that trope of "a villain coming back from the past to haunt a character" type of thing, successfully, the next two are very much a repeated steps and failed.

    I liked them trying something new, as long as they would pass the criteria above.

    At the time of their releases, OHMSS and LTK were thought by some to be veering too far off from where Bond had gone before.

    I remember hearing of a time when OHMSS was considered the black sheep of the franchise. Not just because of being a Lazenby one off, but there were audiences that thought the idea of Bond getting married was ridiculous for the series. Sure, it’s directly from Fleming, but most audiences that watch Bond never picked up a book. Only a few of us Bond nerds have, And for many years OHMSS had a terrible reputation that didn’t start to turn around until DVD.


    NSNA has terrible reputation and it has more Fleming than all Brosnan movies put together.

    Even if that were true, the movie Bond is not necessarily the Fleming Bond. Books are books; films are films. The sum total of all the things that GE, for example, does right as a Bond movie, makes NSNA pale in comparison.


    Well, GE stole everything from NSNA.

    Even if that were true (which it isn’t), GE is still 10x a better film than that turd NSNA.

    Agreed.

    Besides, Octopussy introduced a new M and that came out in the same year as NSNA. I don't really see how that's "GE copying NSNA".

    I think AVTAK was influenced by NSNA though, in terms of its villains at least.
    I do think GE has that perfect blend of traditional with modern sensibilities.

    Also jumping back a bit, conceptually merging the Octopussy story with Blofeld I don't necessarily have a problem with but if you're gonna have him be a foster brother to Bond, it would've helped if he was the younger one in that relationship. Basically Scott should've been Blofeld and not Waltz, I'm sure he's lovely but I don't think he was right for the part.

    That might have been interesting. I can't decide whether that would have been stronger or possibly slightly silly (shades of Woody Allen's Jimmy Bond with his chip on his shoulder?), but certainly a good thought.
    I do wonder if Oberhauser Jr should have been a different character who Blofeld had located and hired in order to mess with Bond. But then to be honest I can imagine streamlining that into one character in the script process.
Sign In or Register to comment.