Where does Bond go after Craig?

14243454748679

Comments

  • Posts: 3,327
    Since62 wrote: »
    Ahhh, KNIVES OUT !
    Picking on one sentence or phrase appearing in that which someone else wrote, when their overall idea remains clear, is a matter of taking things rather personally -- on a fan website ! -- or looking to pick on things. Just how old are most of the folks writing here ? These films have been around since 1962, and the books since 1953, but many commenters talk about so-and-so being the Bond of record as they grew up...It appears there remains a great deal of growing up yet to be done. Just because you're online does not give license to behave foolishly. Try this, perhaps: Pretend you're speaking in person, in front of a knowledgeable audience. You're expected to stay on point, and not devolve to insults and name-calling.

    I agree that we should all try and be a bit more respectful towards one another. Perhaps I took that remark too personally, but I also don’t appreciate not having my opinions respected, and dismissed as rubbish in a manner like that. I’m perfectly fine with people disagreeing with me, in fact I wholeheartedly welcome disagreements (we’re not Communists after all), but I at least ask for my own opinions to be respected, and not dismissed in a way that could be interpreted as rude.

    You're welcome here by me @007ClassicBondFan.

    And me @007ClassicBondFan
  • Since62 wrote: »
    Ahhh, KNIVES OUT !
    Picking on one sentence or phrase appearing in that which someone else wrote, when their overall idea remains clear, is a matter of taking things rather personally -- on a fan website ! -- or looking to pick on things. Just how old are most of the folks writing here ? These films have been around since 1962, and the books since 1953, but many commenters talk about so-and-so being the Bond of record as they grew up...It appears there remains a great deal of growing up yet to be done. Just because you're online does not give license to behave foolishly. Try this, perhaps: Pretend you're speaking in person, in front of a knowledgeable audience. You're expected to stay on point, and not devolve to insults and name-calling.

    I agree that we should all try and be a bit more respectful towards one another. Perhaps I took that remark too personally, but I also don’t appreciate not having my opinions respected, and dismissed as rubbish in a manner like that. I’m perfectly fine with people disagreeing with me, in fact I wholeheartedly welcome disagreements (we’re not Communists after all), but I at least ask for my own opinions to be respected, and not dismissed in a way that could be interpreted as rude.

    You're welcome here by me @007ClassicBondFan.

    And me @007ClassicBondFan

    Much appreciated @jetsetwilly
    Do you think we will see a new Bond film without Craig before 2025?

    I hope so. I’m getting rather sick of the fact that these films are taking longer to make than they should. Cubby and Harry would never allow for 3-6 years in between films unless there was some behind the scenes battle taking place. They’ve stuck to a consistent schedule as much as they could. Something that Barbara and Michael unfortunately can’t do, and something which I find incredibly infuriating.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I know Barbara said some time would pass after Craig. But I think the best way to reward fans for this lengthy wait, is for EON to have started work on Bond 26's script, so they can start filming by the end of 2021. Right now I'm not that worried about NTTD, because it's already ready and waiting for release. My major Concern is waiting in limbo-like fashion for Bond 26.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited December 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Yes, they're taking longer to release films, but to expect the next film in the next couple of years is kind of ridiculous. EON need to take a step back for a bit otherwise they're just gonna keep falling into the same unfortunate traps as the Craig-era has done, as much as I love it. It's why they needed to take a step back from the Brosnan era, to re-calibrate. They can't do that if they're trying to rush a film into production, for an "issue" that nearly all films go through.

    Also, we're saying Cubby and Harry would never allow for 3 - 6 years in between films unless there was some behind the scenes battle? Yet I should remind you of what the behind the scenes of these films has been put through; Skyfall had MGM's financial problems, Spectre had the Sony leaks, and now No Time to Die had Danny Boyle leave and the coronavirus? Are these not behind the scenes battles that deserve halting production/release? Do you think Cubby and Harry would've handled the virus differently?
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    It's a tricky situation though. But It's only natural to think that during the almost one year lockdown, some thoughts would have been given to Bond 26.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,264
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Yes, they're taking longer to release films, but to expect the next film in the next couple of years is kind of ridiculous. EON need to take a step back for a bit otherwise they're just gonna keep falling into the same unfortunate traps as the Craig-era has done, as much as I love it. It's why they needed to take a step back from the Brosnan era, to re-calibrate. They can't do that if they're trying to rush a film into production, for an "issue" that nearly all films go through.

    Also, we're saying Cubby and Harry would never allow for 3 - 6 years in between films unless there was some behind the scenes battle? Yet I should remind you of what the behind the scenes of these films has been put through; Skyfall had MGM's financial problems, Spectre had the Sony leaks, and now No Time to Die had Danny Boyle leave and the coronavirus? Are these not behind the scenes battles that deserve halting production/release? Do you think Cubby and Harry would've handled the virus differently?

    It’s difficult to answer that question, there are many different factors. They should take a bit to re-examine the franchise and plot their next step, but after that I can’t see any reason why each film in the next era should take as many years to be produced. As far as NTTD, they also took a 4-5 year wait because everyone was so exhausted after SPECTRE, even to where Craig said his “wrist slitting” comments, so in that aspect I feel a large reason why the as to why the delay between SPECTRE, and the announcement of NTTD felt overlong was to appease to Craig in some aspect. As far as the Danny Boyle issue, that’s an issue with EON if anything. I’m sure Boyle’s ideas were very drastic, but that goes to show why hiring a big name director from outside the series comes with a bit of baggage. If they want someone who’s going to play by their rules, then they should’ve found someone from the start who wasn’t going to be making these radical story ideas, and that was an issue that was apparent even without the COVID pandemic. There was also the constant delays of the film itself, from a November 2019 release date (with Boyle), to a February 2020 release date (which could’ve worked), the April 2020 release date, the November 2020 release date, and now the April 2021 release date. Of all of those delays, one is to be blamed on Boyle/EON’s separation, while the other 3 can be attributed to the pandemic. As I said, they could’ve put this film out back in February this year, and it would’ve done fine. Now all the delays, coupled with the films budget points this being the first Bond film to actually lose money, and that’s probably a reason why EON doesn’t want NTTD on a streaming service. There is a lot to be said about the mistakes that the Pierce Brosnan era had made, Barbara and Michael were perhaps too controlling over those films, but there are just as many issues with the Craig era when you give directors too much freedom. 2 great films out of 4 isn’t a great batting average. They need to balance things out naturally, and I hope that this era will be another lesson learned for them.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited December 2020 Posts: 8,395
    I can see them delaying Bond 25 until late 2021, and then in early 2022 announcing after sixty years the franchise can move on and then Warner coming in to take over. WB is in need of franchises to remain competitive with the mouse house in the coming years. I get the feeling Babs wants to make more Rhythm section type movies, and without MGW and Craig probably won't continue with Bond beyond 25.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Mendes4Lyfe , have you contacted Gregg Wilson to tell him about these family plans? Just wondering.
  • I can see them delaying Bond 25 until late 2021, and then in early 2022 announcing after sixty years the franchise can move on and then Warner coming in to take over. WB is in need of franchises to remain competitive with the mouse house in the coming years. I get the feeling Babs wants to make more Rhythm section type movies, and without MGW and Craig probably won't continue with Bond beyond 25.

    I can’t see Babs doing that. This franchise is her father’s legacy, and I doubt she’d give it away just to make more arthouse type films. However I can definitely see WB owning the franchise if MGM truly does go under.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    I can see them delaying Bond 25 until late 2021, and then in early 2022 announcing after sixty years the franchise can move on and then Warner coming in to take over. WB is in need of franchises to remain competitive with the mouse house in the coming years. I get the feeling Babs wants to make more Rhythm section type movies, and without MGW and Craig probably won't continue with Bond beyond 25.

    I don't think WB is in need of anything other than smarter spending with the properties they already have.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I can see them delaying Bond 25 until late 2021, and then in early 2022 announcing after sixty years the franchise can move on and then Warner coming in to take over. WB is in need of franchises to remain competitive with the mouse house in the coming years. I get the feeling Babs wants to make more Rhythm section type movies, and without MGW and Craig probably won't continue with Bond beyond 25.

    There is a useful four letter word and you are full of it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I can see them delaying Bond 25 until late 2021, and then in early 2022 announcing after sixty years the franchise can move on and then Warner coming in to take over. WB is in need of franchises to remain competitive with the mouse house in the coming years. I get the feeling Babs wants to make more Rhythm section type movies, and without MGW and Craig probably won't continue with Bond beyond 25.

    There is a useful four letter word and you are full of it.

    "Hope" ?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I can see them delaying Bond 25 until late 2021, and then in early 2022 announcing after sixty years the franchise can move on and then Warner coming in to take over. WB is in need of franchises to remain competitive with the mouse house in the coming years. I get the feeling Babs wants to make more Rhythm section type movies, and without MGW and Craig probably won't continue with Bond beyond 25.

    There is a useful four letter word and you are full of it.

    "Hope" ?

    That wasn't the word I was alluding to but I would describe that paragraph above like most of the nonsense he spouts, extreme wishful thinking.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited December 2020 Posts: 4,515
    I hoped Bond 26 stil have been made with the help of Universal, but now MGM choose Warner again with take the job back from Fox and Paramount movies will no longer released by Universal (in the benelux), i think Bond 26 and 27 wil be made and released by MGM/Warner.

    A bit like times of Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies when MGM and United Artist made movies and Warner release them on VHS. Fox take job over with Twine and dvd's and whyle Twine was stil made by MGM/UA, United Artist logo is not used for dvd (and vhs) release. Difrence wil be this time that Warner made them with MGM insteed of UA. More control like Fox and Die Another Day.

    Also in 2006 Warner release some MGM movies on dvd.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 1,220
    While I can appreciate the idea that we may be due for a tonal shift for the next Bond, I really don't know why there is such a desire to go back to "workman" directors and I doubt the producers are going to go in that direction either. Bold directorial choices have been a pivotal part of the success of this era and whatever direction they go tonally, I think they will still make bold directorial choices to take them in the direction they want to go. Even if things do trend lighter, it'll much more likely be a Matthew Vaughn/Guy Ritchie kind of direction than a generic Christopher McQuarrie type.

    I often hear people attribute the "artsy-fartsyness" of the Craig era to Forster and Mendes, but I think Martin Campbell was really the one who paved the way for this, ironically. Yes, Martin Campbell could be described as a workman but I think his work on Casino Royale is anything but. It really feels like he really put his auteur hat on for that one. The decision alone to open the film without the gunbarrel and in B&W may be one of the boldest directorial choices in the history of the franchise and I think the film has a lot more directorial flair than most would give it credit for. To me, the issue is having a good understanding of the franchise and what works or doesn't work for Craig's Bond. Martin Campbell has a brilliant feel for the franchise and where the character needs to go and it is on display in his execution.

    The problem with Forster is QoS wasn't that he's an artsy director, it's that his vision of a Bond film was a total misread (unsurprisingly as he admitted he's not that big on Bond). He took all the wrong lessons from Casino Royale, and decided that his version of Bond is a quick hitting, aggressive, 100 minute revenge flick made in the image of Bourne. I don't really think that's what people wanted or expected, especially after following Casino Royale.

    Sam Mendes' vision for Skyfall, I think, was spot on. He took the groundedness, humanity, and emotional weight of Casino Royale and layered on more of the tradition and lush elegance that we've come to expect given the legacy of the franchise and by in large it really worked, the critical and financial response shows that. Skyfall is probably one of the most stylized non sci-fi action films ever made and the feel of the film is definitely a departure from what we've seen before, and sure I can see why some may find the Tennyson bit a little indulgent, but it made perfect sense in the context of the 50th anniversary the franchise and the overarching themes of the film, so I don't take issue with it one bit. Especially with it being Dame Judi's send off, I think Mendes really wanted to give her a "moment" and it's completely acceptable imo.

    Spectre is where the wheels fall off for Mendes, but I don't think it has to do with overdirection, stylization, or pretentiousness. In fact, I think Spectre probably would've benefited from a bit more "auteurism" as the opening one-take shot is widely considered to be the high point of the film and the cinematography is the saving grace in some moments. In his second go around, Mendes seemed to have exhausted all of his fresh ideas/perspective in Skyfall and instead leaned way too heavily into the "classic" Bond tropes that don't suit his sensibilities as a director or mesh with Craig's portrayal of the character at all. It came across as Mendes basically imitating the "workman" like quality of the pre-Craig era through the lens of a slightly moodier, more refined aesthetic, and it ended up being woefully dull. In Skyfall he got Craig's Bond. In Spectre he abandoned all of that and it showed. In fact, as weak of a Bond movie as QoS is, I think it's far more successful in achieving what it set out to as a film, as misguided as those aspirations may have been.

    If people are upset about the artistic license that has been taken over the past four films, I think they're going to be in for a unpleasant surprise when No Time To Die eventually releases because Cary Fukunaga is anything but a workman and he never would have accepted the job if that was the expectation of him. I do believe, based on comments he's made, that Fukunaga like Campbell "gets" Bond and in particular, Craig's Bond. I do have a feeling that the trailers have significantly undersold his stamp/vision on the project. The cast and crew have commented that Cary had a very particular vision for this film that is going to be unique. Barbara Broccoli herself said this isn't just a Bond film, it's a "Cary Joji Fukunaga Bond Film". Christopher Nolan and Broccoli/Wilson/Craig have paved the way for "prestige" action blockbusters and Bond films will continue to fly that flag and play that role in the cinema landscape for as long as it can.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @battleshipgreygt : wow! Without a doubt the best thing I’ve read about the future of this franchise in a long time!! For better or worse (for some), the steps taken with the Bond franchise were “progressions” during this era. They aren’t going to go backwards. They will perfect what they loved about their films, and drop what didn’t work.

    Gregg Wilson has been taking on more and more responsibilities and will be co-producing with his aunt. So his input to continue this progress, and making Bond relevant in this crowded market, will continue (that includes stories, castings, locations....)

    Thanks again for some truly lucid observations and opinions!!!
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    peter wrote: »
    @battleshipgreygt : wow! Without a doubt the best thing I’ve read about the future of this franchise in a long time!! For better or worse (for some), the steps taken with the Bond franchise were “progressions” during this era. They aren’t going to go backwards. They will perfect what they loved about their films, and drop what didn’t work.

    Gregg Wilson has been taking on more and more responsibilities and will be co-producing with his aunt. So his input to continue this progress, and making Bond relevant in this crowded market, will continue (that includes stories, castings, locations....)

    Thanks again for some truly lucid observations and opinions!!!

    +2 Couldn't have put it better myself, spot on @battleshipgreygt.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Agreed @battleshipgreygt. Well said.
  • While I can appreciate the idea that we may be due for a tonal shift for the next Bond, I really don't know why there is such a desire to go back to "workman" directors and I doubt the producers are going to go in that direction either. Bold directorial choices have been a pivotal part of the success of this era and whatever direction they go tonally, I think they will still make bold directorial choices to take them in the direction they want to go. Even if things do trend lighter, it'll much more likely be a Matthew Vaughn/Guy Ritchie kind of direction than a generic Christopher McQuarrie type.

    I often hear people attribute the "artsy-fartsyness" of the Craig era to Forster and Mendes, but I think Martin Campbell was really the one who paved the way for this, ironically. Yes, Martin Campbell could be described as a workman but I think his work on Casino Royale is anything but. It really feels like he really put his auteur hat on for that one. The decision alone to open the film without the gunbarrel and in B&W may be one of the boldest directorial choices in the history of the franchise and I think the film has a lot more directorial flair than most would give it credit for. To me, the issue is having a good understanding of the franchise and what works or doesn't work for Craig's Bond. Martin Campbell has a brilliant feel for the franchise and where the character needs to go and it is on display in his execution.

    The problem with Forster is QoS wasn't that he's an artsy director, it's that his vision of a Bond film was a total misread (unsurprisingly as he admitted he's not that big on Bond). He took all the wrong lessons from Casino Royale, and decided that his version of Bond is a quick hitting, aggressive, 100 minute revenge flick made in the image of Bourne. I don't really think that's what people wanted or expected, especially after following Casino Royale.

    Sam Mendes' vision for Skyfall, I think, was spot on. He took the groundedness, humanity, and emotional weight of Casino Royale and layered on more of the tradition and lush elegance that we've come to expect given the legacy of the franchise and by in large it really worked, the critical and financial response shows that. Skyfall is probably one of the most stylized non sci-fi action films ever made and the feel of the film is definitely a departure from what we've seen before, and sure I can see why some may find the Tennyson bit a little indulgent, but it made perfect sense in the context of the 50th anniversary the franchise and the overarching themes of the film, so I don't take issue with it one bit. Especially with it being Dame Judi's send off, I think Mendes really wanted to give her a "moment" and it's completely acceptable imo.

    Spectre is where the wheels fall off for Mendes, but I don't think it has to do with overdirection, stylization, or pretentiousness. In fact, I think Spectre probably would've benefited from a bit more "auteurism" as the opening one-take shot is widely considered to be the high point of the film and the cinematography is the saving grace in some moments. In his second go around, Mendes seemed to have exhausted all of his fresh ideas/perspective in Skyfall and instead leaned way too heavily into the "classic" Bond tropes that don't suit his sensibilities as a director or mesh with Craig's portrayal of the character at all. It came across as Mendes basically imitating the "workman" like quality of the pre-Craig era through the lens of a slightly moodier, more refined aesthetic, and it ended up being woefully dull. In Skyfall he got Craig's Bond. In Spectre he abandoned all of that and it showed. In fact, as weak of a Bond movie as QoS is, I think it's far more successful in achieving what it set out to as a film, as misguided as those aspirations may have been.

    If people are upset about the artistic license that has been taken over the past four films, I think they're going to be in for a unpleasant surprise when No Time To Die eventually releases because Cary Fukunaga is anything but a workman and he never would have accepted the job if that was the expectation of him. I do believe, based on comments he's made, that Fukunaga like Campbell "gets" Bond and in particular, Craig's Bond. I do have a feeling that the trailers have significantly undersold his stamp/vision on the project. The cast and crew have commented that Cary had a very particular vision for this film that is going to be unique. Barbara Broccoli herself said this isn't just a Bond film, it's a "Cary Joji Fukunaga Bond Film". Christopher Nolan and Broccoli/Wilson/Craig have paved the way for "prestige" action blockbusters and Bond films will continue to fly that flag and play that role in the cinema landscape for as long as it can.

    Very good observations, I respect your views. I’m just hoping future Bond films won’t have too much style over substance. It’s fine if some directors try to aim towards more than being “just another Bond film”, but at least don’t have too much focus on personal directorial flairs, and not enough on story and plot, because I do think those are largely the issues with both QOS and SP, and those films are the reasons are why I’m not entirely big on “Big Name Directors” for Bond.

    I do hope we ditch the “connected storytelling” though, go back to one off films like before, unless they actually plan things from the start.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2020 Posts: 6,288
    I enjoyed your take as well. I don't know why people want the return to formula. We already have enough formulaic films in the franchise from DN through DAD, with the exceptions of OHMSS and arguably LTK.

    The films should be about the character, not a formula. Fleming himself was very willing to experiment--see the endings of CR, MR, FRWL, OHMSS, YOLT, the opening of DAF and TMWTGG, and the entirety of TSWLM, as examples. That's at least 8 of the 12 books that don't follow a formula to a T. The Craig era gets this aspect of Fleming right.

    I do think that after Craig they need to mothball the DBV permanently. It's been an unnecessary drag on the Craig era, and it's time. Whatever the cool car is when B26 is released should be his car, not an old man's Aston.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,526
    echo wrote: »
    I enjoyed your take as well. I don't know why people want the return to formula. We already have enough formulaic films in the franchise from DN through DAD, with the exceptions of OHMSS and arguably LTK.

    The films should be about the character, not a formula. Fleming himself was very willing to experiment--see the endings of CR, MR, FRWL, OHMSS, YOLT, the opening of DAF and TMWTGG, and the entirety of TSWLM, as examples. That's at least 8 of the 12 books that don't follow a formula to a T. The Craig era gets this aspect of Fleming right.

    I do think that after Craig they need to mothball the DBV permanently. It's been an unnecessary drag on the Craig era, and it's time. Whatever the cool car is when B26 is released should be his car, not an old man's Aston.

    I agree. Enough of the db5 already.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    I think no two without tre with Campbell.
  • echo wrote: »
    I enjoyed your take as well. I don't know why people want the return to formula. We already have enough formulaic films in the franchise from DN through DAD, with the exceptions of OHMSS and arguably LTK.

    The films should be about the character, not a formula. Fleming himself was very willing to experiment--see the endings of CR, MR, FRWL, OHMSS, YOLT, the opening of DAF and TMWTGG, and the entirety of TSWLM, as examples. That's at least 8 of the 12 books that don't follow a formula to a T. The Craig era gets this aspect of Fleming right.

    I do think that after Craig they need to mothball the DBV permanently. It's been an unnecessary drag on the Craig era, and it's time. Whatever the cool car is when B26 is released should be his car, not an old man's Aston.

    I agree. Enough of the db5 already.

    Having the DB5 just feels like fan service at the most generic level. It was fine in GE and TND, it was fine on CR, but it’s overstayed it’s welcome starting on SF.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 1,220
    Right there with you on the DB5 @echo . I won’t dispute it’s place in Bond iconography but even by Skyfall it was completely stale for me. NTTD may rectify this a bit by utilizing it in some more dynamic sequences than we’ve seen in the past, but I actually think the reintroduction of the V8 was a stroke of genius, so much so that I wish they had introduced it in CR instead of the DB5.

    Aesthetically, Craig has channeled a lot of Steve McQueen throughout his run (again, a bold move when the obvious choice would be to look within the franchise for stylistic inspiration) and I think the muscle car sensibilities suit Craig’s aesthetic to a tee. The early production still of Bond walking away from the V8 instantly made me think of McQueen and his infamous Bullitt Mustang. Personally, I’d love to see some more of Fleming’s Bond depicted in the next incarnation of the character so it would be interesting to have him swap the Aston for a retro Bentley as his personal car, but I’m not sure that’s doable with the franchises Ford/AM relationship.

    On the note of Fleming, for the next Bond I’d love to see Blades introduced. I think M having his ear to the pulse of London’s elite and powerful provides some interesting opportunities/relationships (Moonraker novel anyone?) and could provide an interesting foil with Bond who is somewhat of that world while also being an outsider with humbler roots. I’d like to see the “evenings spent playing cards in the company of a few close friends, or at Crockford's; or making love, with rather cold passion, to one of three similarly disposed married women; weekends playing golf for high stakes at one of the clubs near London." that Fleming describes in the novels. It may be edgy for this new era of mass appeal but even Bonds use of amphetamines, alcohol etc. can bring a fresh perspective of Bonds inner life without demystifying the character. I’d say that may be one of the biggest missed opportunities of the Craig era as I think that’s an area of the character in which he’d have excelled in depicting and I hope it’s something we see more of in the future. I think it’s time we explored new ways of humanizing Bond without going down the “this time it’s personal” path and the blueprint for it is all there in the novels.
  • Posts: 16,154
    No more DB5.
    I think the next Bond should have his own distinctive car. A Bentley perhaps?.
  • edited January 2021 Posts: 121
    I have recently become obsessed with the idea of a remake of DR. NO, which is the only Bond movie I want to be remade. Not because I dislike the original movie. I want a remake of it exactly because I love the original one. Imagine a Dr. No remake that would be to the original what the 2018 Suspiria was to the 1977 Suspiria. Same basic idea, very different feel and look. Imagine a nearly 3 hour long, mostly character driven spy movie featuring James Bond, set entirely on the island of Jamaica.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,368
    I don't agree with the assessment that Mendes is too pretentious for Bond or that he feels 'too good' for it. I do have to point out that Martin Campbell is caught in one 'making of' for CR taking the piss out of DAD for having an exploding plane as its climax and how stupid it is. But in his own film he has a sinking house as the location for his denouement. To me, they are both as daft as each other. Which is to say - both are perfectly acceptable, there's nothing wrong with a bit of silliness. These are Bond movies after all. However, it doesn't help when one director is mocking his predecessor, even if that is the director of DAD.

    Oh that's odd, I didn't know that. DAD has its faults, but setting the climax on a big plane is far from its worst crime, I would say. I've not even heard anyone criticise it before for that scene in fact.
    And as you mention, CR is probably a worse offender as that sinking house scene to me always feels like it's getting in the way of the plot. The film doesn't need a big action scene there because there's enough going on; I actually feel like Campbell lost confidence in his movie at that point and felt he needed a big Hollywood action moment when he didn't.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 16,368
    Interesting thoughts, @007ClassicBondFan. Thanks for elaborating on them!

    Well thank you! I appreciate the compliment, and I’m glad that I can at least get people to see where I’m coming from, even if they don’t agree.
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There was still some elements that felt out of place in Skyfall (the gadget laden DB5 being one of them), but it didn’t depart far from what CR had established. SPECTRE does unfortunately, and it’s lazy attempts to connect all the previous films are the what drives the nail into the coffin for me.

    I really hate the criticism 'lazy'. It is, in itself, hugely lazy: these people are anything but lazy. Anyone who thinks they were sitting back with their feet on their desk saying "that'll do" and not flying across the globe, pulling all-nighters desperately trying to get their films to be the best shows a massive lack of understand of the nature of these things.
    Yes, Spectre fell apart while they were making it; Mendes has said as much. We know they were being pulled all over the place by the studio on that one and there were a myriad of pressures, and ultimately Mendes couldn't save it. Would Terence Young have been magically able to save it? I very much doubt it.

    Everything is either lazy or pretentious.

    Yeah I can't be bothered with this discussion. The idea that Mendes looked down on the material is so blatantly invented that it's not worth engaging with- the only proof being offered is that he's good. Which is somehow bad. And the accusation that anyone involved in these movies is lazy, coming from someone sat on their arse typing into a computer, is insulting. Decisions can be misjudged, plans can fail to come together, people can just plain get things wrong, but no one is being lazy- they're all sweating buckets over every single decision and trying their hardest to get these things made. It's such an empty and massively incorrect thing to say.
    I think Brofeld was a bad decision too, but they didn't just dash it off on a Friday evening and say 'yeah, fine': such a massive decision would not have been taken lightly, and obviously they believed they could make it work at the time.

    Funny how none of the beautifully composed shots and sequences of the 60s are pretentious, isn't it? An abstract graphic of looking though a photo taken of the inside of a gunbarrel at our hero on a stark white backdrop: that's not overly artistic and pretentious at all.
    But if something's old, and people have time to get used to them, they don't get held up to the same standards as the newer things.

    Well I just found this little backhanded remark. I’m sorry if my opinion offended you so much that you merely dismiss it as coming from “someone sitting around of their arse, typing on a computer”, you don’t know a single thing about me, nor do I of you, so let’s not start hurling insults at each other because of the opinions of a darn film, because that comes across as immature and childish. If you can’t “be bothered” to at least respect where I’m coming from, even while disagreeing, then guess what, that’s your problem, and not mine. This is a public forum, and I’m allowed to voice my criticism’s and share my opinions, just as you’re allowed to do the same. I’ve stated this to you before on the Star Wars thread, and I will state it again; my opinions are my opinions, and nothing more. If you can’t be bothered to continue reading my criticisms, then stop reading them, I’m not forcing you to read them, nor am I forcing you to agree with me. You don’t need to resort to mean spirited remarks just because I’m saying stuff you obviously disagree with. I’ve provided a thorough analysis for why I feel the way I do, and while the others in this thread may have disagreed with me, they can at least respect why I feel the way I do. With you, I’ve been getting the opposite impression, and now your little “insult” confirms that. If you’re too self centered in your thinking to not even try and understand where I’m coming from, then I’m not going to sit here and continue having this discussion with you, and I’m certainly not going to resort to insulting you for your own views.

    Sorry I just saw this response as I'd stopped reading this thread, as I'd said I would. My saying that you were sat on typing on a computer wasn't an insult: you are, aren't you? I certainly am. It was a point to say that the criticism that so-and-so making this-or-that movie is 'lazy' is always wrong, no matter who or what it's talking about. Because making a movie is an incredibly hard thing to do, and someone who is making that easy criticism whilst happily sat in their lounge or bedroom doing not very much, and not really thinking in a very in-depth way about their criticism, is really the one who is applying the lazy thinking. I hope that's made it clearer. And if you find your criticism being accused of being lazy as insulting, then perhaps don't accuse others of being lazy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 16,368
    While I can appreciate the idea that we may be due for a tonal shift for the next Bond, I really don't know why there is such a desire to go back to "workman" directors and I doubt the producers are going to go in that direction either. Bold directorial choices have been a pivotal part of the success of this era and whatever direction they go tonally, I think they will still make bold directorial choices to take them in the direction they want to go. Even if things do trend lighter, it'll much more likely be a Matthew Vaughn/Guy Ritchie kind of direction than a generic Christopher McQuarrie type.

    I often hear people attribute the "artsy-fartsyness" of the Craig era to Forster and Mendes, but I think Martin Campbell was really the one who paved the way for this, ironically. Yes, Martin Campbell could be described as a workman but I think his work on Casino Royale is anything but. It really feels like he really put his auteur hat on for that one. The decision alone to open the film without the gunbarrel and in B&W may be one of the boldest directorial choices in the history of the franchise and I think the film has a lot more directorial flair than most would give it credit for. To me, the issue is having a good understanding of the franchise and what works or doesn't work for Craig's Bond. Martin Campbell has a brilliant feel for the franchise and where the character needs to go and it is on display in his execution.

    The problem with Forster is QoS wasn't that he's an artsy director, it's that his vision of a Bond film was a total misread (unsurprisingly as he admitted he's not that big on Bond). He took all the wrong lessons from Casino Royale, and decided that his version of Bond is a quick hitting, aggressive, 100 minute revenge flick made in the image of Bourne. I don't really think that's what people wanted or expected, especially after following Casino Royale.

    Sam Mendes' vision for Skyfall, I think, was spot on. He took the groundedness, humanity, and emotional weight of Casino Royale and layered on more of the tradition and lush elegance that we've come to expect given the legacy of the franchise and by in large it really worked, the critical and financial response shows that. Skyfall is probably one of the most stylized non sci-fi action films ever made and the feel of the film is definitely a departure from what we've seen before, and sure I can see why some may find the Tennyson bit a little indulgent, but it made perfect sense in the context of the 50th anniversary the franchise and the overarching themes of the film, so I don't take issue with it one bit. Especially with it being Dame Judi's send off, I think Mendes really wanted to give her a "moment" and it's completely acceptable imo.

    Spectre is where the wheels fall off for Mendes, but I don't think it has to do with overdirection, stylization, or pretentiousness. In fact, I think Spectre probably would've benefited from a bit more "auteurism" as the opening one-take shot is widely considered to be the high point of the film and the cinematography is the saving grace in some moments. In his second go around, Mendes seemed to have exhausted all of his fresh ideas/perspective in Skyfall and instead leaned way too heavily into the "classic" Bond tropes that don't suit his sensibilities as a director or mesh with Craig's portrayal of the character at all. It came across as Mendes basically imitating the "workman" like quality of the pre-Craig era through the lens of a slightly moodier, more refined aesthetic, and it ended up being woefully dull. In Skyfall he got Craig's Bond. In Spectre he abandoned all of that and it showed. In fact, as weak of a Bond movie as QoS is, I think it's far more successful in achieving what it set out to as a film, as misguided as those aspirations may have been.

    If people are upset about the artistic license that has been taken over the past four films, I think they're going to be in for a unpleasant surprise when No Time To Die eventually releases because Cary Fukunaga is anything but a workman and he never would have accepted the job if that was the expectation of him. I do believe, based on comments he's made, that Fukunaga like Campbell "gets" Bond and in particular, Craig's Bond. I do have a feeling that the trailers have significantly undersold his stamp/vision on the project. The cast and crew have commented that Cary had a very particular vision for this film that is going to be unique. Barbara Broccoli herself said this isn't just a Bond film, it's a "Cary Joji Fukunaga Bond Film". Christopher Nolan and Broccoli/Wilson/Craig have paved the way for "prestige" action blockbusters and Bond films will continue to fly that flag and play that role in the cinema landscape for as long as it can.

    That's a great post, can't disagree with any of this. And I think to be honest, even when this approach has failed it's still been an avenue worth going down.
    Did Mendes get it wrong the second time? Yep, but I don't even really blame him for it- it got away from him. If I was in Eon's position in 2013 or whenever it was, would I have hired Mendes again? Damned right!
Sign In or Register to comment.