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
Dalton was ahead of his time, both in terms of incorporating Fleming and in taking the films in a dark direction (Batman was a huge hit at the time).
I would not say that TLD and LTK were snores. I watched LTK for the first time in 1998 so I did not have the context of what was on TV at the time.
I disagree about TLD and LTK. I’ll admit that as a kid, those two didn’t capture my imagination the way the Connery/Moore/Brosnan era’s did, but in the context of what the Craig era has done (even if it’s not my favorite), me reading the books, and also me aging and becoming more mature, I’ve come to find both TLD and LTK as films I really love and respect.
And as far as Dalton, he’s never really been an absolute favorite of mine, and it’s been previously stated in this thread that Dalton didn’t have the star studded prowess of some of the other Bonds, and he certainly does lack swagger. But in a weird way, that’s what draws me too him. He has some enduring quality that I like and whenever I do watch his films, I always find myself rooting for him for reasons other than just “he’s James Bond, he has to win and save the day.”
Totally disagree, but then again I would as both TLD and LTK are in my top 10 (LTK is in my top 5).
Santos and Dario are terrific.
This is really, really smart. I don't think they'll go the A24 route though, and I love many films from A24, but they haven't produced a massive box office smash yet.
I think it will combine what you said above with the following
Connery to Lazenby back to Connery wasn't a huge change in tone on the level of DAD to CR, I would say.
And they could of course either stay the course or go full John Wick hardcore-action with the next guy. I think that is very unlikely, not impossible.
But in general it is the prevailing opinion and mine, too, that they will go lighter. If they stay true to form and try to follow trends in blockbuster filmmaking, I would think they try to have the next guy be somewhere in the Marvel and specifically Captain America/Black Panther zone. Not straight up comedies, but some purposefully placed lighter scenes and 'banter' in between the bombast and melodrama that make up the meat of the story.
(Although NTTD might already get there with Q and Moneypenny specifically)
Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were basically like John Wick already in terms of hard-hitting action.
While I wouldn't mind a Bond in the vein of any of these two series, it would be two very different approaches, especially in visual terms.
Connery to Moore wasn't a big change, I'd say. But I get what Patb is saying and it does seem likely: basically Bond films are about Bond himself, so it makes sense that a change in style from how he's played (which seems kind of inevitable) will affect the entire film given he's right at the centre of it.
It depends on what you mean by a reboot, but if Bond 26 is any close to Goldeneye (a reintroduction to Bond, a new M, a new Moneypenny, no reference to past installments), it will be consider as such. Particularly after the Craig era that was more or less developed around a storyline and recurring characters. In many ways I agree that we're heading toward a new Goldeneye, leaning on the classic iconography of the series as you say, but, by doing so, it would be a (soft-)reboot.
I do think this is another area the possible success of The Batman could inspire, seeing as this is an introduction to a new younger actor in an iconic role, but not an origin story.
The other option would be to take the premise seen in both John Gardner's books and Goldeneye: Bond as a seasoned agent, far from being a rookie, even old-fashioned in the eyes of the administration of the secret services that changed. Although commercially viable, such an approach would risk being redundant with the Craig era.
It is in Eon's best interests to present the new Bond as young, fresh, a product of his time, both to distinguish from what came before and to send a message to the audience about the relevance of the brand.
100% spot on
I phrased that unclearly. You are absolutely right. The two - what do we call them? Sub-franchises? - are different in many ways (although I never really bought Winter Soldier's supposed grittiness). I was just trying to separate them out from the more overtly comedic or otherwise strange offerings of the MCU like Ant-Man, Guardians or Spiderman. Cap and Black Panther to me are the films that are first and foremost serious action films (you know, as serious as guys in Spandex punching each other can be) while having some levity sprinkled in.
But going off of your comment: Would people be down with a more futuristic Bond?
Also, it's an interesting thought, if we're taking into account what James Bond is and has been to what he could be as we get further and further away from the period that birthed his characterisation, is to maybe have James Bond become a product of that characterisation through his childhood, and how that affects a man who will be in his prime during the modern day.
So his mother, father, and most of the other people who raised him would represent the ideals and principles of classic James Bond, which would've influenced a James Bond who would've been raised in the 80s or 90s, creating an interesting juxtaposition - which could be furthered by the allies and villains he comes across.
I quite liked what was seen in Quantum of Solace with the technology advanced MI6 head office, and I would be open to a generalization of such treatment of futuristic elements. This could also translate into architecture, whether it is the villain's lair or London and the cities visited by Bond. The creative team could thus try to develop something visually close to what cities will probably be in ten or fifteen years, without impacting the plot itself which could still be a classical Bond adventure.
As long as it's not too artificial, it could indeed be an original way to keep Bond classical, while modern.
I can't see a lighter approach with the next Bond film. No way, it is not happening,
A lot obviously depends on the reviews of NTTD, and how it is received, but in almost all circumstances, everything points to the next film being dark and serious in just about every scenario.
If the film is similar in tone to SP, and has outlandish moments like DAD, and inevitably gets (quite rightly) panned by the critics, then the next film will almost certainly revert to a back-to-basics approach again, similar to what happened with TLD after AVTAK, and CR after DAD.
If NTTD is a lot more darker, and serious in tone (CR/SF), and gets universal acclaim, then the next film will also follow on in the same vain.
There are only 2 possible exceptions to this, and where we could see a lighter film next time -
1) If the critics pan NTTD for being too dark and too serious, like what happened by some critics after LTK (but I seriously doubt this would happen).
2) If NTTD is already an outlandish, gadget-laden, OTT, light-hearted romp (which the trailer doesn't lead me to believe), and the critics are absolute loving it in their glowing reviews, and are demanding more of the same for Bond 26.
So for all of you fans who are desperate for another Roger Moore or Brozza type romp, with double taking pigeons, slide whistles, underwater tie-straightening, invisible cars and plenty of Tarzan swinging yells, sorry to break it to you folks, but it ain't happening. ;)
We hear a lot about the lightness of the Moore years, and yet we still get Bond threatening to kill Rosie after having sex with her, torturing a woman for information, killing a bloke by throwing him off a roof and shooting the main villain in the balls, kicking a man off a cliff in revenge for him running down a woman in a car, shooting a Russian soldier in the forehead at point blank range etc. This is mixed in with a lot of daftness, for sure, but these violent and dark moments are mostly forgotten it seems.
Likewise, in the supposedly dark and gritty LTK we've got Bond parachuting into a wedding, being attacked with a swordfish, fighting ninjas, doing a wheelie in a truck, and it all closes with a winking fish.
There is maybe a lack of silliness in CR and QoS (I wouldn't say there is a lack of humour, but certainly not the Moore style quips), but in SF and SP there's plenty of light moments - the London Underground chase, the way Hinx dies, the parachute ejector seat etc.
And, if the rumours about NTTD are correct, it looks set to be one of the more fantasy style entries in the entire franchise.
Basically, I don't see a huge difference between the Craig years and what has gone on before - they have always tried to balance action, violence, humour, and glamour. Yes, they have toned down the more extreme outrageousness of the Moore years (though some of this touches moments of wonderful surrealism and absurdism in my eyes and I would welcome it back), but otherwise the balance isn't that different.
They are fantasy adventures and it looks as if they will remain that way. Why would they change now? The balance might shift slightly in favour of one element at the expense of others, but not hugely. There will still be outlandish villains, stylish locations, and violent action. And all of it will be slightly over the top so will always have an absurd edge to it.
I wouldn't categorise the winking fish of LTK, the Tube chase or Hinx's death in the same vain as double taking pigeons, Tarzan yells or invisible cars. These stupid moments are when the series strayed too far, and the producers knew full well they had too, which is why they reigned the tone back in after MR and DAD, which contain the worst of these moments.
But yes, the films will always have fantasy moments in them, no matter how dark or serious the tone may get, and this was reflected even back in the Fleming novels. It's all a matter of how subtle they are done. A winking fish at the very last frame before the end credits is far less jarring than a Tarzan yell in the middle of an action sequence, for example.
I think of past moments when Bond wasn't totally focused on his job, like in FRWL when we see Bond and Sylvia Trench's picnic, relaxing in the boat on the river and later at the car. Or Sean singing "Underneath the Mango Tree", not that we need to see Bond singing again. Or Roger in Octopussy, right after the tense moment with Kamal, telling the Major "lt's not really in the wrist, you know"; giving money to his Indian associates to keep them in curry; and riding in the company car saying "Easy come, easy go". And there are other scenes like that.
Based on?
I see humor in his exchanges with Camille in QoS. YMMV.