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
And me @007ClassicBondFan
Much appreciated @jetsetwilly
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.
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.
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.
I don't think WB is in need of anything other than smarter spending with the properties they already have.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the next Bond should have his own distinctive car. A Bentley perhaps?.
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.
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.
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!