Where does Bond go after Craig?

14344464849697

Comments

  • mtm wrote: »
    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.

    It did, thank you for clearing that up. My apologies my brash behavior with you on this website. The days leading up to X-Mas were quite stressful for me, between a job transition and the actual Holiday season, and I think it needlessly took it out on you in our debates. I hope this clears any negative air between us!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    Thanks, no problem; I guess this year hasn't been a nice time for any of us so I certainly apologise if I caused any upset in the same way.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Thanks, no problem; I guess this year hasn't been a nice time for any of us so I certainly apologise if I caused any upset in the same way.

    Thank you, hopefully 2021 and a new Bond film will prove to be much better experiences than anything 2020 has provided us!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    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.

    Hugely agreed. We've had plenty of films where Bond gets a job, goes to meet a villain and defeats him. I like to see new takes on it.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I think after Covid and all the restrictions we've all had to get used to. I think after
    Craig The Bonds will take on a lighter touch, not as gritty. A s I think People will
    just want some entertainment. Not to mention some relief from the Politics
    nightmare we're seeing in the US.
  • Posts: 9,860
    peter wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe , have you contacted Gregg Wilson to tell him about these family plans? Just wondering.

    I would love to see Greg's face while reading this thread...

    "They think we are going to do WHAT!!!"
  • Posts: 121
    I want Barbara Broccoli to be the sole producer of future Bond films until she is like 100, if the alternative is Gregg Wilson.
  • Posts: 9,860
    Mr_Beach wrote: »
    I want Barbara Broccoli to be the sole producer of future Bond films until she is like 100, if the alternative is Gregg Wilson.

    why?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,387
    For argument's sake...

    Gregg did screw up the plane chase in SP.

    Barbara did NOT screw up the tanker chase in LTK.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Never understood why people seem to think Gregg will carry the franchise by himself soon.
  • Posts: 9,860
    Never understood why people seem to think Gregg will carry the franchise by himself soon.

    because it makes sense
  • Posts: 1,650
    Brosnan's first Bond film was directed by Martin Campbell.
    Craig's first Bond film was directed by Martin Campbell.
    I don't know who will portray Bond next, but I DO know who'd be great for Director !!!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Gregg isn't taking over the franchise by himself. Who said that?

    He will be taking his father's place and producing WITH Barbara Broccoli! Michael G. is likely to take more of a more of a background role.


  • Posts: 9,860
    peter wrote: »
    Gregg isn't taking over the franchise by himself. Who said that?

    He will be taking his father's place and producing WITH Barbara Broccoli! Michael G. is likely to take more of a more of a background role.


    Script writer I hope,.
  • Posts: 1,713
    I wouldnt mind period based films , 50s/60s , if it could freshen up the product
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    edited January 2021 Posts: 1,351
    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.

    This is one of the two ways I would be happiest to see the franchise go. Either go much lighter, almost to the point of comedy, or go for "Bond, the addict".

    This is an idea that came up in this foum before (most likely this very thread. I am too lazy to look it up). To be very clear, I don't mean a drug addict - although I wouldn't mind incorporating his use of uppers in missions from Fleming - I mean addicted to this lifestyle. The danger. The adrenaline. The question I always come back to when thinking about Bond in the 21st century (and I believe one that Fleming thought about in his time as well) is why does he do this to himself? or, to turn it around: What type of person would agree to live the life of an anonymous (kind of) government assassin in a world in which the World Wars and the Cold War are history?
    And one of the possible answers to that is: He is addicted to it. He likes the lifestyle, basically the only person he has a deeper personal connection to (being an orphan whose first great love kills herself on one of his missions) is the man who keeps sending him on these missions and he is great at it, so he keeps doing it. He goes crazy, when he doesn't get to go on a mission. He tries to substitute it with gambling, drinking, eating great food, driving fast cars and starting affairs with married women, but at the end of the day all he really wants to do is go out there and do something dramatic (while also gambling, drinking, eating great food, driving fast cars and starting affairs with married women) and get that validation from M.

    Basically, take this line from Moonraker and make it the thesis of the films: "On these things he spent all his money and it was his ambition to have as little as possible in his banking account when he was killed, as, when he was depressed, he knew he would be, before the statutory age of forty-five. Eight years to go before he was automatically taken off the 00 list and given a staff job at Headquarters. At least eight tough assignments. Probably sixteen. Perhaps twenty-four. Too many."


    EDIT: Ok, i did look it up after all. The original idea is this from @thelivingroyale:
    A story that uses the MR novel as a blueprint would be really cool. So much of that is untapped, and using a bit of Fleming would be a great way to give it a sense of legitimacy, in the same way going back to CR did.

    Personally though I’m not too bothered about where we go story wise, at least not specifically anyway. All I want is them to keep the fleshed out, real feeling Bond of the Craig films, but for them to ditch the personal missions. You can do interesting stuff with Bond as a character without tying his whole world to him and his childhood.

    I think deconstructing the character from a different angle would be cool too. Because on the one hand, he’s a dinasour. Drawing attention to that is the only way he works in the modern world. But on the other hand, we get it, he’s a sexist assassin. Those points have kind of been explored to death over the last twenty odd years imo. Something they’ve never touched on though is the snobbery. That could be fun to explore. Maybe do it like GE, with a new M who doesn’t approve of Bond straight away, but this time from the angle of the saville row suits and Aston Martins, rather than his sexism. An M from a working class background maybe, who’s got no time for Bond’s old boys club attitude, while Bond sees him as a boring pearl clutching lefty. But as with GE, you could build up a mutual respect there by the end. And then if you wanted to make that a theme that runs through the film, you could have a villain cut from the same old Etonian cloth as Bond, but highlight the difference between them through some sort of evil elitist plan that Bond has to stop.

    Something else I hope we’ll see the back of for a while is the burnt out, TLD esque Bond. Since the next actor will be younger than Craig has been for the last few films, lets have him in his prime. Show the side of him that loves his tough, exciting job, the man who gets off on the danger. Going in depth with that would be a cool way of setting the next actor apart. Maybe have a scene of him doing paperwork but he’s bored stiff, itching to get back out there. In the London scenes he could be twitchy and restless, then in the field he’s in his element. Highlight Bond the addict. That could be a fairly novel take. In keeping with that, it’d be nice if he could start smoking again, but obviously that’s unlikely with them being family films.
  • Posts: 3,327
    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.

    This is one of the two ways I would be happiest to see the franchise go. Either go much lighter, almost to the point of comedy, or go for "Bond, the addict".

    This is an idea that came up in this foum before (most likely this very thread. I am too lazy to look it up). To be very clear, I don't mean a drug addict - although I wouldn't mind incorporating his use of uppers in missions from Fleming - I mean addicted to this lifestyle. The danger. The adrenaline. The question I always come back to when thinking about Bond in the 21st century (and I believe one that Fleming thought about in his time as well) is why does he do this to himself? or, to turn it around: What type of person would agree to live the life of an anonymous (kind of) government assassin in a world in which the World Wars and the Cold War are history?
    And one of the possible answers to that is: He is addicted to it. He likes the lifestyle, basically the only person he has a deeper personal connection to (being an orphan whose first great love kills herself on one of his missions) is the man who keeps sending him on these missions and he is great at it, so he keeps doing it. He goes crazy, when he doesn't get to go on a mission. He tries to substitute it with gambling, drinking, eating great food, driving fast cars and starting affairs with married women, but at the end of the day all he really wants to do is go out there and do something dramatic (while also gambling, drinking, eating great food, driving fast cars and starting affairs with married women) and get that validation from M.

    Basically, take this line from Moonraker and make it the thesis of the films: "On these things he spent all his money and it was his ambition to have as little as possible in his banking account when he was killed, as, when he was depressed, he knew he would be, before the statutory age of forty-five. Eight years to go before he was automatically taken off the 00 list and given a staff job at Headquarters. At least eight tough assignments. Probably sixteen. Perhaps twenty-four. Too many."


    EDIT: Ok, i did look it up after all. The original idea is this from @thelivingroyale:
    A story that uses the MR novel as a blueprint would be really cool. So much of that is untapped, and using a bit of Fleming would be a great way to give it a sense of legitimacy, in the same way going back to CR did.

    Personally though I’m not too bothered about where we go story wise, at least not specifically anyway. All I want is them to keep the fleshed out, real feeling Bond of the Craig films, but for them to ditch the personal missions. You can do interesting stuff with Bond as a character without tying his whole world to him and his childhood.

    I think deconstructing the character from a different angle would be cool too. Because on the one hand, he’s a dinasour. Drawing attention to that is the only way he works in the modern world. But on the other hand, we get it, he’s a sexist assassin. Those points have kind of been explored to death over the last twenty odd years imo. Something they’ve never touched on though is the snobbery. That could be fun to explore. Maybe do it like GE, with a new M who doesn’t approve of Bond straight away, but this time from the angle of the saville row suits and Aston Martins, rather than his sexism. An M from a working class background maybe, who’s got no time for Bond’s old boys club attitude, while Bond sees him as a boring pearl clutching lefty. But as with GE, you could build up a mutual respect there by the end. And then if you wanted to make that a theme that runs through the film, you could have a villain cut from the same old Etonian cloth as Bond, but highlight the difference between them through some sort of evil elitist plan that Bond has to stop.

    Something else I hope we’ll see the back of for a while is the burnt out, TLD esque Bond. Since the next actor will be younger than Craig has been for the last few films, lets have him in his prime. Show the side of him that loves his tough, exciting job, the man who gets off on the danger. Going in depth with that would be a cool way of setting the next actor apart. Maybe have a scene of him doing paperwork but he’s bored stiff, itching to get back out there. In the London scenes he could be twitchy and restless, then in the field he’s in his element. Highlight Bond the addict. That could be a fairly novel take. In keeping with that, it’d be nice if he could start smoking again, but obviously that’s unlikely with them being family films.

    Taking Bond lighter, to the point of comedy would harken back to films like MR, and characters like Sheriff Pepper. I for sure wouldn't want that, and I'm not sure how that would fare with audiences now who have grown up on edgy, dark Netflix dramas and violent movies.

    Going for your other option, yes yes YES. Let's have more of the Bond character that Fleming wrote about, who loved eating fine food. When have we ever seen Craig's Bond tuck into a plate of scrambled eggs, or any other meal for that matter?

    Let's see him doing press-ups in his apartment and taking his cold showers as part of his routine. You only need a few seconds of this, but it would give far more insight into the character than the recent `Fleming reimagined' crap that we have endured over the past few years, with orphaned angst, and long lost brother Blofeld garbage.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited January 2021 Posts: 6,387
    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.

    This is one of the two ways I would be happiest to see the franchise go. Either go much lighter, almost to the point of comedy, or go for "Bond, the addict".

    This is an idea that came up in this foum before (most likely this very thread. I am too lazy to look it up). To be very clear, I don't mean a drug addict - although I wouldn't mind incorporating his use of uppers in missions from Fleming - I mean addicted to this lifestyle. The danger. The adrenaline. The question I always come back to when thinking about Bond in the 21st century (and I believe one that Fleming thought about in his time as well) is why does he do this to himself? or, to turn it around: What type of person would agree to live the life of an anonymous (kind of) government assassin in a world in which the World Wars and the Cold War are history?
    And one of the possible answers to that is: He is addicted to it. He likes the lifestyle, basically the only person he has a deeper personal connection to (being an orphan whose first great love kills herself on one of his missions) is the man who keeps sending him on these missions and he is great at it, so he keeps doing it. He goes crazy, when he doesn't get to go on a mission. He tries to substitute it with gambling, drinking, eating great food, driving fast cars and starting affairs with married women, but at the end of the day all he really wants to do is go out there and do something dramatic (while also gambling, drinking, eating great food, driving fast cars and starting affairs with married women) and get that validation from M.

    Basically, take this line from Moonraker and make it the thesis of the films: "On these things he spent all his money and it was his ambition to have as little as possible in his banking account when he was killed, as, when he was depressed, he knew he would be, before the statutory age of forty-five. Eight years to go before he was automatically taken off the 00 list and given a staff job at Headquarters. At least eight tough assignments. Probably sixteen. Perhaps twenty-four. Too many."

    Great post. They could do worse than to work that bolded line into one of the scripts. They probably wouldn't commit to the 45-year-old age, but Bond spending all his money because he could die at any time is a nice character detail.
  • Posts: 1,650
    Actually, it was in Craig's very first portrayal when the audience saw Craig's Bond eat scrambled eggs. After the game is over Vesper meets him in the dining room where he ingests a classic Bond meal, straight from the book: scrambled eggs, caviar, toast and champagne. In SP we saw Bond at his flat, and -- especially with the more Flemingesque depictions already having been portrayed in DN and LALD, though both lacked May the elderly and cranky Scottish maid with a hidden soft spot for Bond -- it worked quite well and made a point. Realistically, I don't see Bond with a maid, and, also realistically, it makes sense that his flat -- as in SP -- would be bare.
    At any rate, the idea of a Bond nearly unhinged and really a psychologically disturbed person -- he's a professional killer, after all -- might well be where they go. As a practical matter, it would admit the obvious. Also as a practical matter, they'd likely want to keep him somehow likeable enough that fans root for him and show up for the films. Fleming went down this path after a while. Bond went to Shrublands in TB the novel because of his incessant drinking and smoking. He lost Tracy in OHMSS the novel as well as the film -- right in front of him, in a manner related to his work. In YOLT the novel he lost his memory after a traumatic killing that capped a several-book arc. Hit on the head, sure, but he lost his memory and his brain may have been coping with more than impact to his head. In the beginning of TMWTGG he'd been brainwashed, then tried to do something very uncharacteristic, and then collapsed. After that he was sent on a mission where could just as well have died, and, back at MI-6, a "so be it" attitude was at least partially in place. Agents like him do not last long, and they're best spent, so to speak, dying in action.
  • Posts: 1,650
    I'm not the first to note the Bond-the-psycho underpinnings, either. Reportedly, Christian Bale commented that he'd rather not play Bond, since he already had portrayed a homicidal psycho. OK, that was somewhat over-the-top and snarky, but the point is there. Regardless, I don't see the producers going this route with the next actor. For this reason I do not see Tom Hardy in the role. (Also too short) As I've written in other posts here, I think a change in tone and style is on the way. Does that mean they'd ignore the obvious (ie, points made in my prior post, immediately above) ? Not necessarily. Not that they'd go full-on goofy -- I sure hope -- but in Lethal Weapon (I don't know about the interminable number of sequels) there was humor, lightness, action, and a depressed character portrayed by Gibson. So, with many points along the spectrum, it can be done. At any rate -- it would be nice if, for the first time, it seems, in many years -- I hope they get a well-written, thoroughly considered script written and finished well before filming !
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited January 2021 Posts: 8,452
    A deeper psychological exploration of a character like Bond sounds like a good a good idea on the surface, and they managed to make it work for one film, but where narratively does that go over the course of a 4 or 5 film arc? Bond films need the formula, and Bond himself should be a gentleman spy. That's the niche, and what the franchise does best. I hope soon we'll get the humour and breezy adventure back to Bond, it's a real shame that Ethan Hunt has completely usurped him lately.

    They need to seriously go back to the drawing board, and go back go what worked for decades, and at least attempt to recapture some old magic. I feel like 1962 - 2002 pretty much every film had the same goal in mind, even OHMSS didn't step TOO far out of line. I think since then the films have lost some of their entertainment value, because they are always trying to do more than just being simple escapist fun.

    It's been 20 years, people are ready for a romping ride of a Bond film again, we don't need more Bond soul searching, family backstories, social commentary and trust issues. It's not novel, or interesting, it's just dull and done to death. People liked those Bourne movie back in the early 2000's, because they were all gritty and realistic, it seems like Bond is still stuck in that period, and everyone else has moved on. We used to get darker superhero films like Dark knight, Watchmen, Man of Steel, now we have lighthearted Aquaman and Wonder Woman.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    A deeper psychological exploration of a character like Bond sounds like a good a good idea on the surface, and they managed to make it work for one film, but where narratively does that go over the course of a 4 or 5 film arc? Bond films need the formula, and Bond himself should be a gentleman spy. That's the niche, and what the franchise does best. I hope soon we'll get the humour and breezy adventure back to Bond, it's a real shame that Ethan Hunt has completely usurped him lately.

    They need to seriously go back to the drawing board, and go back go what worked for decades, and at least attempt to recapture some old magic. I feel like 1962 - 2002 pretty much every film had the same goal in mind, even OHMSS didn't step TOO far out of line. I think since then the films have lost some of their entertainment value, because they are always trying to do more than just being simple escapist fun.

    It's been 20 years, people are ready for a romping ride of a Bond film again, we don't need more Bond soul searching, family backstories, social commentary and trust issues. It's not novel, or interesting, it's just dull and done to death. People liked those Bourne movie back in the early 2000's, because they were all gritty and realistic, it seems like Bond is still stuck in that period, and everyone else has moved on. We used to get darker superhero films like Dark knight, Watchmen, Man of Steel, now we have lighthearted Aquaman and Wonder Woman.

    This is your view on things, I'm pretty sure not everyone shares your opinion.

    The only reason so many actors want to play the part and distinctly different ones before 2006 is Craig's portrayal.

    Your boyfriend wouldn't wanting to play it like Pierce pretty sure of that and no the Scientologist hasn't usurped Bond at all.

    We certainly don't want your director of choice at the helm as well after that nonsensical bollocks he put out last year.

    Its dull to you, I hate Spectre, I make no secret of it but other than that, I've been more than happy with this era, most certainly leaves heated over Moore era of the Transatlantic one in the shade and that includes GE, possibly one the most overrated films of the series since GF.

    Skyfall will cast a long shadow over Bond and just because broken records like you churning out same old rhetoric are around doesn't mean that the rest of us are beating the same old tired drum.


    So go and watch that vile Scientologist in his next Mission not so impossible if you don't like what this series is giving you because Barbara Broccoli has made a great success of the last 15 years of Bond and I believe she is in control and the last thing she wants to do is make lighthearted capers again like you seem to so want.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Shardlake wrote: »
    A deeper psychological exploration of a character like Bond sounds like a good a good idea on the surface, and they managed to make it work for one film, but where narratively does that go over the course of a 4 or 5 film arc? Bond films need the formula, and Bond himself should be a gentleman spy. That's the niche, and what the franchise does best. I hope soon we'll get the humour and breezy adventure back to Bond, it's a real shame that Ethan Hunt has completely usurped him lately.

    They need to seriously go back to the drawing board, and go back go what worked for decades, and at least attempt to recapture some old magic. I feel like 1962 - 2002 pretty much every film had the same goal in mind, even OHMSS didn't step TOO far out of line. I think since then the films have lost some of their entertainment value, because they are always trying to do more than just being simple escapist fun.

    It's been 20 years, people are ready for a romping ride of a Bond film again, we don't need more Bond soul searching, family backstories, social commentary and trust issues. It's not novel, or interesting, it's just dull and done to death. People liked those Bourne movie back in the early 2000's, because they were all gritty and realistic, it seems like Bond is still stuck in that period, and everyone else has moved on. We used to get darker superhero films like Dark knight, Watchmen, Man of Steel, now we have lighthearted Aquaman and Wonder Woman.

    This is your view on things, I'm pretty sure not everyone shares your opinion.

    The only reason so many actors want to play the part and distinctly different ones before 2006 is Craig's portrayal.

    Your boyfriend wouldn't wanting to play it like Pierce pretty sure of that and no the Scientologist hasn't usurped Bond at all.

    We certainly don't want your director of choice at the helm as well after that nonsensical bollocks he put out last year.

    Its dull to you, I hate Spectre, I make no secret of it but other than that, I've been more than happy with this era, most certainly leaves heated over Moore era of the Transatlantic one in the shade and that includes GE, possibly one the most overrated films of the series since GF.

    Skyfall will cast a long shadow over Bond and just because broken records like you churning out same old rhetoric are around doesn't mean that the rest of us are beating the same old tired drum.


    So go and watch that vile Scientologist in his next Mission not so impossible if you don't like what this series is giving you because Barbara Broccoli has made a great success of the last 15 years of Bond and I believe she is in control and the last thing she wants to do is make lighthearted capers again like you seem to so want.

    Hear hear! =D>

    I hated the Brosnan era with a passion, and never want Bond return to what drivel we were given back then. To me the franchise gave us its best films in the 60's, it dropped off in the 70's, resurged briefly by the end of the 80's (although I know not everyone is a Dalton fan), and then dropped off a cliff in the 90's until 2005, when Craig arrived on the scene. He has made Bond cool again.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    Shardlake wrote: »
    So go and watch that vile Scientologist in his next Mission not so impossible if you don't like what this series is giving you because Barbara Broccoli has made a great success of the last 15 years of Bond and I believe she is in control and the last thing she wants to do is make lighthearted capers again like you seem to so want.

    I enjoy both Bond and Mission, myself.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Personally, I would like to see them go with what brought them to the dance.

    Less of the so called 'naval gazing' and to a fun, rip roaring spy adventure. I'm not talking the nonsense of DAD, but something more in line with TB or TSWLM. Films are trending away from the more somber elements now. Craig's films have done a great job with this (well two of them did) and they fit the times well, but a change of actor needs a refresh creatively, too.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,452
    Bond is not and never will be a kitchen sink drama, no matter how much Craig and the regime wish to contorted it into one. When I compare the likes of Skyfall with any of the pre-Barbara films, theres a cavernous divide in style and intrigue. For instance, compare Skyfall and Live And Let Die. Which has more colourful characters, memorable scenes, vibrant locales etc. LALD wins every time. Ofcourse Skyfall has more Tennyson quotes than LALD, and more naval gazing, and midlife crisis but should Bond have those things to begin with?

    Growing up I always viewed the franchise as family entertainment that anyone can watch. After goldfinger, every 6 year old wanted a corgi Aston Martin, and as a boy I would watching Bond marathons and pretend to be Moore or Brosnan. What does a young kid today get from watching Skyfall today, what memorable scenes do they want to replicate with their friends? The baddie taking out his teeth and his face falling apart?

    To be blunt, these movies aren't made for everyone anymore and that's a sad fact. They are made for Hollywood liberals approval of out of touch elites. No wonder it's considered a franchise for old people now, what could possibly trigger a young imagination any less than two fogies looking across a moor. Deconstructing Bond has no purpose other than for Barbara to show off to her Guardian reading elitist chums.
    And all people like me have heard for the past 15 years is how this era is the best thing since sliced bread, and so much better than those old dusty, rubbish movies from the 70's. In reality your average Roger Moore outing is more inventive and suspenseful than the entire Craig arc altogether. Which is not to say that Cubby never made any mistakes either. There are duds in the original movies, but even a Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker is still highly enjoyable despite its flaws because it's only mission statement is to make you smile. That's it. And there is a wonderful earnest quality to it, whereas with Quantum of Solace or Spectre not only are they bad but they have a self-seriousness, pretentiousness which just sours the whole experience. Why the need for so many hearings and grand councils adjourned, M interrogated by her seniors, huh? It's a bloody Bond caper for heavens sake!
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Bond is not and never will be a kitchen sink drama, no matter how much Craig and the regime wish to contorted it into one. When I compare the likes of Skyfall with any of the pre-Barbara films, theres a cavernous divide in style and intrigue. For instance, compare Skyfall and Live And Let Die. Which has more colourful characters, memorable scenes, vibrant locales etc. LALD wins every time. Ofcourse Skyfall has more Tennyson quotes than LALD, and more naval gazing, and midlife crisis but should Bond have those things to begin with?

    Growing up I always viewed the franchise as family entertainment that anyone can watch. After goldfinger, every 6 year old wanted a corgi Aston Martin, and as a boy I would watching Bond marathons and pretend to be Moore or Brosnan. What does a young kid today get from watching Skyfall today, what memorable scenes do they want to replicate with their friends? The baddie taking out his teeth and his face falling apart?

    To be blunt, these movies aren't made for everyone anymore and that's a sad fact. They are made for Hollywood liberals approval of out of touch elites. No wonder it's considered a franchise for old people now, what could possibly trigger a young imagination any less than two fogies looking across a moor. Deconstructing Bond has no purpose other than for Barbara to show off to her Guardian reading elitist chums.
    And all people like me have heard for the past 15 years is how this era is the best thing since sliced bread, and so much better than those old dusty, rubbish movies from the 70's. In reality your average Roger Moore outing is more inventive and suspenseful than the entire Craig arc altogether. Which is not to say that Cubby never made any mistakes either. There are duds in the original movies, but even a Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker is still highly enjoyable despite its flaws because it's only mission statement is to make you smile. That's it. And there is a wonderful earnest quality to it, whereas with Quantum of Solace or Spectre not only are they bad but they have a self-seriousness, pretentiousness which just sours the whole experience. Why the need for so many hearings and grand councils adjourned, M interrogated by her seniors, huh? It's a bloody Bond caper for heavens sake!

    giphy.gif
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Bond is not and never will be a kitchen sink drama, no matter how much Craig and the regime wish to contorted it into one. When I compare the likes of Skyfall with any of the pre-Barbara films, theres a cavernous divide in style and intrigue. For instance, compare Skyfall and Live And Let Die. Which has more colourful characters, memorable scenes, vibrant locales etc. LALD wins every time. Ofcourse Skyfall has more Tennyson quotes than LALD, and more naval gazing, and midlife crisis but should Bond have those things to begin with?

    Growing up I always viewed the franchise as family entertainment that anyone can watch. After goldfinger, every 6 year old wanted a corgi Aston Martin, and as a boy I would watching Bond marathons and pretend to be Moore or Brosnan. What does a young kid today get from watching Skyfall today, what memorable scenes do they want to replicate with their friends? The baddie taking out his teeth and his face falling apart?

    To be blunt, these movies aren't made for everyone anymore and that's a sad fact. They are made for Hollywood liberals approval of out of touch elites. No wonder it's considered a franchise for old people now, what could possibly trigger a young imagination any less than two fogies looking across a moor. Deconstructing Bond has no purpose other than for Barbara to show off to her Guardian reading elitist chums.
    And all people like me have heard for the past 15 years is how this era is the best thing since sliced bread, and so much better than those old dusty, rubbish movies from the 70's. In reality your average Roger Moore outing is more inventive and suspenseful than the entire Craig arc altogether. Which is not to say that Cubby never made any mistakes either. There are duds in the original movies, but even a Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker is still highly enjoyable despite its flaws because it's only mission statement is to make you smile. That's it. And there is a wonderful earnest quality to it, whereas with Quantum of Solace or Spectre not only are they bad but they have a self-seriousness, pretentiousness which just sours the whole experience. Why the need for so many hearings and grand councils adjourned, M interrogated by her seniors, huh? It's a bloody Bond caper for heavens sake!

    Yet you like nonsensical pretentious nonsense like Tenet, kind of at odds here aren't or are you going to tell me that Tenet was an enjoyable frothy little caper?

    I like Nolan a lot well not Tenet and Interstellar but his films aren't much removed from the DC Bond era, in their tone and seriousness

    I said heated over Moore, I wasn't referring to Rog's films, (I'm not their biggest fan though) I meant Brosnan's films.

    The DC films repositioned the series, it needed to be done if they'd have continued with anything more with Pierce after DAD however much they'd tamed the OTT business down like MR - FYEO it wouldn't have worked.

    His Bond was cast and trying to make him more serious and not so jokey just wouldn't have convinced, the same as if Dalton had suddenly become all jokey with his proposed 3rd film.

    They tried it with Spectre with Craig and didn't work.

    I really don't see them moving much too far away from what they've established, especially with BB who you so obviously hate being in charge.

    So suck it up or move on, MI seems much more your bag anyway.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Bond is not and never will be a kitchen sink drama, no matter how much Craig and the regime wish to contorted it into one. When I compare the likes of Skyfall with any of the pre-Barbara films, theres a cavernous divide in style and intrigue. For instance, compare Skyfall and Live And Let Die. Which has more colourful characters, memorable scenes, vibrant locales etc. LALD wins every time. Ofcourse Skyfall has more Tennyson quotes than LALD, and more naval gazing, and midlife crisis but should Bond have those things to begin with?

    Growing up I always viewed the franchise as family entertainment that anyone can watch. After goldfinger, every 6 year old wanted a corgi Aston Martin, and as a boy I would watching Bond marathons and pretend to be Moore or Brosnan. What does a young kid today get from watching Skyfall today, what memorable scenes do they want to replicate with their friends? The baddie taking out his teeth and his face falling apart?

    To be blunt, these movies aren't made for everyone anymore and that's a sad fact. They are made for Hollywood liberals approval of out of touch elites. No wonder it's considered a franchise for old people now, what could possibly trigger a young imagination any less than two fogies looking across a moor. Deconstructing Bond has no purpose other than for Barbara to show off to her Guardian reading elitist chums.
    And all people like me have heard for the past 15 years is how this era is the best thing since sliced bread, and so much better than those old dusty, rubbish movies from the 70's. In reality your average Roger Moore outing is more inventive and suspenseful than the entire Craig arc altogether. Which is not to say that Cubby never made any mistakes either. There are duds in the original movies, but even a Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker is still highly enjoyable despite its flaws because it's only mission statement is to make you smile. That's it. And there is a wonderful earnest quality to it, whereas with Quantum of Solace or Spectre not only are they bad but they have a self-seriousness, pretentiousness which just sours the whole experience. Why the need for so many hearings and grand councils adjourned, M interrogated by her seniors, huh? It's a bloody Bond caper for heavens sake!

    Yet you like nonsensical pretentious nonsense like Tenet, kind of at odds here aren't or are you going to tell me that Tenet was an enjoyable frothy little caper?

    I like Nolan a lot well not Tenet and Interstellar but his films aren't much removed from the DC Bond era, in their tone and seriousness

    I said heated over Moore, I wasn't referring to Rog's films, (I'm not their biggest fan though) I meant Brosnan's films.

    The DC films repositioned the series, it needed to be done if they'd have continued with anything more with Pierce after DAD however much they'd tamed the OTT business down like MR - FYEO it wouldn't have worked.

    His Bond was cast and trying to make him more serious and not so jokey just wouldn't have convinced, the same as if Dalton had suddenly become all jokey with his proposed 3rd film.

    They tried it with Spectre with Craig and didn't work.

    I really don't see them moving much too far away from what they've established, especially with BB who you so obviously hate being in charge.

    So suck it up or move on, MI seems much more your bag anyway.

    I agree and disagree with you both on this. I think that some of what was done in the Craig era was necessary, just to keep with cinematic trends, if not for anything else. And it may be these new elements that helped push Bond back to the top of the mainstream.

    I do think EON have taken it a bit far, on occasion though. The male fantasy element that Mendes4lyfe mentioned is something that has been lost from Bond, and I believe it needs to be returned in the next actors era. I'm not talking about full bore, DAD stuff, but slightly lighter fare would be appreciated. From me, at least.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2021 Posts: 16,606
    Bond is not and never will be a kitchen sink drama, no matter how much Craig and the regime wish to contorted it into one. When I compare the likes of Skyfall with any of the pre-Barbara films, theres a cavernous divide in style and intrigue. For instance, compare Skyfall and Live And Let Die. Which has more colourful characters, memorable scenes, vibrant locales etc. LALD wins every time.

    To be fair, it's the fans here asking for more scenes of him sitting in his flat, making scrambled eggs, sitting around the office doing nothing etc. rather than the film producers.
Sign In or Register to comment.