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
What is bizarre and frustrating about this is that the MI franchise is doing nothing particularly innovative at all. In fact, it is doing what makes sense and what EoN used to pioneer - that is to think about the franchise longer term, and at least have an idea of what the next film is going to be. It blows my mind that EoN aren't thinking about this in terms of longer term sustainability and the need for regular instalments (even if it was to deliberately set out to make one every five years, it would at least be regular, rather than the haphazard schedules we have had for the last 15 years).
Compare this with another option of bringing in new directors into a long standing franchise. Directors with their own styles. visions and ideas of "where to take" the series. The MI option makes more sense in terms of producing a consistant end result that punters want but EON prefer the latter option and we have seen over the past decades the rollercoaster, "hit and miss" effect which, personaly speaking, is so frustrating. Just imagine where the Bond franchise would be today if they had chosen the MI route.
If the rumour mill is to be believed, EON has asked Phoebe Waller-Bridge for some ideas for Bond 26, and Cary Fukunaga would be considering doing the next one as well. If Fukunaga stays on, then you've got a director who can also write (part of) the screenplay, like the M:I franchise currently has with McQuarrie.
The question of course, is if that would be wise. We all know what happened when Sam Mendes took on a second Bond film after already using all creativity he had. I think it largely depends on the critical success of NTTD, but I agree that a long-term vision is necessary if the films stay interconnected like the Craig-era. If EON goes back to stand-alone, a long term plan is perhaps not needed, but a general idea of who this new Bond is and what the style of the films will be should be enough.
But to me it's clear a new era will be upon us, with MGW possibly retiring, Gregg taking over, MGM clearly wanting a steadier output of Bond films and the people brought on board for NTTD maybe staying beyond the one film, the seeds are there for a new, long-term plan.
I am not sure it suits Bond to be honest.
@DeerAtTheGates good points, it would be great to have a new Bond with a plan for 4/5 movies. They dont have to be connected re narrative but the key issue IMHO is the tone of this Bond's career. The last MI's have some variation but they are essentially very similar in tone. The same cannot be said re DC's tenure.
That's very fun! I do think it's actually getting a bit weird that we haven't had a female baddie in 20 years now.
I don't quite get the issue with the flute gun? But in Ghost Protocol especially the point is that all of the gadgets let them down and malfunction and they have to use their wits to solve the problems.
I find Wick a bit too stylised for Bond. It works for Wick (although I've only got through one of them I must admit) but I don't think sexy ultraviolence is quite Bond's thing.
Apart from the brilliant one-shot stairway fight I found Atomic Blonde pretty forgettable, I would say. And it just couldn't evoke the period setting either (in some places literally: lots of present day cars visible on the streets).
Well, Fukunaga is the first Bond director to take a writing credit so I guess we'll see, but I think McQ is a bit of a one-off in a way- there aren't many around who just have this perfect feel for how a blockbuster works. As Father Valentine says, they're not really doing anything hugely new or innovative (although I guess having the star involved so obviously in the big stunts is a USP): they're just doing traditional blockbusters incredibly well.
To be fair, we've only had 4 going on 5 films in the 18 years since Die Another Day , but I agree, it's high time we had a proper villainess in Bond again. I've long thought Gong Li would make a fantastic Bond villain. While an Academy Award seems to be a prerequisite to play the lead villain of late, Gong's recent appearance in Disney's Mulan may be just the exposure she would need for consideration.
She's got a good name for a bond girl, Lena Heady.... ;))
Well said, and spot on! I agree with pretty much 100% of all this.
You have great taste mate!
No thanks; I want my movies to have drama in them. Jokes too, but I want to get emotionally involved- that way the tension works better in the action scenes etc.
Blockbusters are stronger if you care about the characters- I was just watching Avengers Endgame again: how would that work without emotion?
Personally I think it would distance Bond from the audience more if we saw he had a live-in maid and couldn't make eggs for himself! :) It's just a bit of a weird thing in this day and age.
And if we don't want an emotional life for Bond why would we want to see what he does at home? Either he is his job or he isn't.
Drama and Emotion is fine, so long as you don’t hit the audiences over the head constantly with it. The older Bond films have had their share of drama and emotion, but they didn’t feel like Action Soap Dramas, which is how I describe the Craig Era. Even the Marvel films don’t constantly feel the need to make everything so emotionally complicated. They’re just fun Action Flicks, with no deeper meaning behind them, but can be serious when needed. I just find that all of the emotional storytelling aspects of the Craig era have dragged down what those films could’ve been. It’s fine to give serious emotional stakes once in a while. OHMSS, LTK, and Casino Royale are the best examples of that, but you ruin the overall impact when each film becomes a constant one upsman ship of “How can we put Craig’s Bond through the ringer worse than last time”, that is, in my opinion, the wrong way to approach a Bond film. Take a look at FRWL, that film is a simple “Bond gets an assignment, and is tasked with completeing it” story, but the drama within that film doesn’t come from some “serious emotional stakes” for Bond, it comes from the suspense carefully layered throughout the film, and the result? A Bond film that manages to stand head and toes above the rest of the series. Take “The Spy Who Loved Me”, the drama and tension comes from the fact that two agents, from opposing sides, are forced to work with each other, and then more tension is brought in when Anya discovers Bond was the one responsible for the death of her lover, which ups the stake even more. Even Skyfall managed to get a handle on the fantastic elements while managing to have serious stakes in the film, only to have the impact of that cut short by SPECTRE, which takes the emotional storytelling aspects too far. You can have Drama and Emotion without feeling the need to constantly up the personal stakes for Bond. People haven’t been going to these films for nearly 60 years because there “serious films with serious emotional aspects”, they’ve been going because their fun, easy to watch films that can also be serious when they needed to be. Also James Bond isn’t Marvel, that’s why SPECTRE fell short of a lot of people’s expectations. It’s fine if you like the emotional aspect of the Craig era, but I just happen to share a different opinion. It’s why the Craig era is the one I revisit the least.
Yes I agree. Other than OHMSS, its a trend that really started (successfully, IMO) in LTK, but then continued on badly through the Brosnan era.
In CR they got it right, but then the Craig films have suffered more and more with each release afterwards because of this desperate need for emotional ties or personal backstories, to the extent that even Blofeld can no longer just be a bad guy. He has to be family connected to Bond in some way.
Really? You didn't see the last few Marvel films? The most successful movies ever, incidentally.
The Bond films aren't soap, they just aren't. You're not being hit over the head with it.
The films Bond fans constantly cite as the best include OHMSS and LTK, plus Casino Royale too. Just have a think about why: fans actually do want these characters to live and breathe more and get involved more in their world- to see Bond's flat and his housemaid and his accidie and find about all the other parts of his life Fleming talked about, even though they say they just 'want to see him go on a mission'.
The Blofeld thing felt like a huge kick in the nuts for me. The return of one of cinema’s most iconic villains, a character responsible for so many legal entanglements in this franchise, and they botched him badly beyond repair. It doesn’t help that Christoph Waltz is a fantastic actor, who gives a weak performance in the film. I think in concept, the idea of Blofeld being behind the events of CR and QOS is quite brilliant, they just managed to F it up so badly that I just gave up on any chance of enjoying the Craig era as a whole now, I mean who in their right mind ever thought that it was a good idea to turn Blofeld into Bond’s Step Brother? To boil his entire motivation down too “Daddy spent more time with you than he did with me, now I’m going to dedicate my life to making your life hell!” After that, Charles Gray in drag seemed brilliant in comparison. It was even more insulting when they had to drag down Skyfall with it as well. It didn’t even make any sense. Silva’s plan was purely just to get revenge on M, now making him just another pawn in Blofeld’s scheme ruined that for me, in fact my enjoyment of Skyfall as a whole was unfortunately affected because if the stupid decision to tie that in with everything else, as if to try and make you believe that this was planned from the start. I partly agree with you on the Brosnan era though, I felt it worked in Goldeneye and TWINE, but hey, that’s just my opinion. Also agree on LTK; that film is just awesome. I’d take that over Craig’s era (CR withstanding) anyday. And one final note, I really hope we stop getting pretentious directors for Bond films.
Well Marvel was also meant and planned to be connected on a large scale, and they’ve made it work (and I say that as someone who doesn’t really like a majority of those films), whereas Bond wasn’t meant to be this huge, connected affair. Yes there is continuity in the books, and even in the first 20 films, but it didn’t hit you over the head with it. That’s why I personally love the FYEO pre-title sequence; it did a far better job at connecting the Bond films than SPECTRE ever did.
Yeah that's a fair point, in order to have inter-personal relationships you need more than one person! :)
Brofeld was a dreadful idea, yes, and you're right about Bond falling in love. I don't know what the answer is, but they're the writers, not me! :) Skyfall managed to be a very effective dramatic story with progression for Bond and stakes for him- and we need stakes for the main characters.