Where does Bond go after Craig?

1610611613615616678

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    If The Spy Who Loved Me were made today, there would be a 5 minute scene, probably after Bond kicks Jaws out of the window on the train, where Anya breaks down in front of James, and tells him about losing her partner in the weeks prior, and Bond, not having any notion of being responsible, would console her, and say how theirs is a lonely profession, of never knowing who to trust, which company is safe etc.

    A five minute scene? About this one topic? Not a five minute sequence of events. But a five minute scene?!!

    A little bit— no, not a little, this is a massive exaggeration on your part. And presumptuous to boot. The reality is, you have zero idea how writers today would tackle that scene. I suppose you could break screenwriting rules and expectations and write one scene that’s five percent of a total film. A five minute exposition scene. But I’m gonna bet that wouldn’t happen if Spy was made today, yesterday, or tomorrow.

    Subtly and nuance just aren’t your strong points.



  • Posts: 3,274
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can understand you're not 14 anymore as you said you were when you got into Bond, and perhaps these recent Bond films just don't fill you with the same sense of joy/escapism you got with other Bond films because they are a bit different. That's fine.
    Yes, that's exactly it, but not entirely. What I personally want is connected to nostalgia . Like when I went to see the last Indy-movie and left pretty excited, because it was largely true to its 80's roots or when I listen to the new Pearl Jam album that sounds like it could have been made 30 years ago.

    But that doesn't explain why I was overly excited about CR - I think it was the last time I wasn't somehow disappointed with a Bond movie. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 24 Posts: 9,509
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can understand you're not 14 anymore as you said you were when you got into Bond, and perhaps these recent Bond films just don't fill you with the same sense of joy/escapism you got with other Bond films because they are a bit different. That's fine.
    Yes, that's exactly it, but not entirely. What I personally want is connected to nostalgia . Like when I went to see the last Indy-movie and left pretty excited, because it was largely true to its 80's roots or when I listen to the new Pearl Jam album that sounds like it could have been made 30 years ago.

    But that doesn't explain why I was overly excited about CR - I think it was the last time I wasn't somehow disappointed with a Bond movie. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this.

    Some things can’t be defined. Perhaps it’s as simple as: as the films moved forward with Craig, and as they explored his strengths in portraying this character, it just simply rubbed the wrong way for you. You have certain tastes and the films weren’t living up to those expectations anymore as they once did?

    I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Brosnan era. They looked like a Bond picture. All the ingredients were there. But, as a whole, I just didn’t enjoy the films. I still say Brozz was the right guy at the right time (although I wanted more Dalton, but the reality was, he didn’t put butts in seats).

    I can’t explain what exactly I didn’t like on a deep level, other than they didn’t excite me like the Connery era, they didn’t entertain me like the Moore era… I found them flat, although I’m very well aware they really worked for millions of people around the world. These just weren’t films for me.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,774
    Or even less is Moore, it could be said.

  • edited August 24 Posts: 3,274
    peter wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can understand you're not 14 anymore as you said you were when you got into Bond, and perhaps these recent Bond films just don't fill you with the same sense of joy/escapism you got with other Bond films because they are a bit different. That's fine.
    Yes, that's exactly it, but not entirely. What I personally want is connected to nostalgia . Like when I went to see the last Indy-movie and left pretty excited, because it was largely true to its 80's roots or when I listen to the new Pearl Jam album that sounds like it could have been made 30 years ago.

    But that doesn't explain why I was overly excited about CR - I think it was the last time I wasn't somehow disappointed with a Bond movie. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this.

    Some things can’t be defined. Perhaps it’s as simple as: as the films moved forward with Craig, and as they explored his strengths in portraying this character, it just simply rubbed the wrong way for you. You have certain tastes and the films weren’t living up to those expectations anymore as they once did?
    But I do remember my first reactions. Maybe they just got stuck in my mind and clouded my overall judgment?
    -QoS: "damn that editing team, I could barely see what was going on."
    -SF: "Ergh...they made Bond a weakling"
    -SP: "They sucked all the tension out of the setpieces with that cross-editing. And the grading? And Blofeld as foster brother? wtf?
    -NTTD: "Shame the second half wasn't as good as the first half."
    Writing the above sentences make me realize that my expectations are probably to high.
    peter wrote: »
    as the films moved forward with Craig, and as they explored his strengths in portraying this character, it just simply rubbed the wrong way for you.
    Here's a question for you (or anyone else): Why is CR widely regarded as the best Bond movie in the Craig-era?
    peter wrote: »
    I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Brosnan era.
    I can relate somehow. Liked the first two, didn't love them. GE was a breath of fresh air, and TND had that fantastic Arnold score. Then Purvis and Wade were hired for TWINE and meh for me ever since, with the exception of CR, where they had a Fleming blueprint to fall back on.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 24 Posts: 8,395
    I don't think anyone would have any problem if people said look, they made the Craig films the way they did because it played to his strengths, and just like the other actors sometimes that works out well (Casino Royale, Skyfall), and sometimes it doesn't work so well. The difference is that even the most diehard Roger, Sean and Peirce fans don't defend Moonraker, DAF and DAD on the basis that they're misunderstood films. Rather than asking other people to make peace that Craig latter entries "just aren't to their tastes" and that's why they don't like them, instead you might accept that you only like them because they happen to suit your specific tastes, which is often how someone explains a fondness DAF, DAD and MR, and there's nothing wrong with that.

    Or even less is Moore, it could be said.

    =D>
  • edited August 24 Posts: 380
    peter wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can understand you're not 14 anymore as you said you were when you got into Bond, and perhaps these recent Bond films just don't fill you with the same sense of joy/escapism you got with other Bond films because they are a bit different. That's fine.
    Yes, that's exactly it, but not entirely. What I personally want is connected to nostalgia . Like when I went to see the last Indy-movie and left pretty excited, because it was largely true to its 80's roots or when I listen to the new Pearl Jam album that sounds like it could have been made 30 years ago.

    But that doesn't explain why I was overly excited about CR - I think it was the last time I wasn't somehow disappointed with a Bond movie. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this.

    Some things can’t be defined. Perhaps it’s as simple as: as the films moved forward with Craig, and as they explored his strengths in portraying this character, it just simply rubbed the wrong way for you. You have certain tastes and the films weren’t living up to those expectations anymore as they once did?

    I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Brosnan era. They looked like a Bond picture. All the ingredients were there. But, as a whole, I just didn’t enjoy the films. I still say Brozz was the right guy at the right time (although I wanted more Dalton, but the reality was, he didn’t put butts in seats).

    I can’t explain what exactly I didn’t like on a deep level, other than they didn’t excite me like the Connery era, they didn’t entertain me like the Moore era… I found them flat, although I’m very well aware they really worked for millions of people around the world. These just weren’t films for me.

    I absolutely love GoldenEye on multiple levels but the Brosnan era feels like a compromised vision. Actually, it feels like a vision taking shape in the shadow of what came before. EON chose some really talented directors that, on paper, seemed well suited for the double-duty at hand: keep what worked before while adding a new level of depth.

    Those orders may have been impossible to execute given where EON and MGM were at in the 90s. EON was trying to explore new thematic directions while justifying Bond’s existence in the marketplace. MGM was a studio in decline that needed the Bond films to be consistent box office hits. The mixed message for directors: try something new without undermining the formula.

    I wonder if a clean start, like Casino Royale, was needed in order to pull everyone away from their preconceived notions about what a Bond film could be. The directors of the Brosnan era, or EON themselves, may not have had the skill or bravery to plunge into the creative depths that were reached in Craig’s era. Sometimes ambition outpaces ability. Sometimes the market isn’t quite ready for the innovation.



  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 24 Posts: 8,395
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can understand you're not 14 anymore as you said you were when you got into Bond, and perhaps these recent Bond films just don't fill you with the same sense of joy/escapism you got with other Bond films because they are a bit different. That's fine.
    Yes, that's exactly it, but not entirely. What I personally want is connected to nostalgia . Like when I went to see the last Indy-movie and left pretty excited, because it was largely true to its 80's roots or when I listen to the new Pearl Jam album that sounds like it could have been made 30 years ago.

    But that doesn't explain why I was overly excited about CR - I think it was the last time I wasn't somehow disappointed with a Bond movie. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this.

    Some things can’t be defined. Perhaps it’s as simple as: as the films moved forward with Craig, and as they explored his strengths in portraying this character, it just simply rubbed the wrong way for you. You have certain tastes and the films weren’t living up to those expectations anymore as they once did?

    I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Brosnan era. They looked like a Bond picture. All the ingredients were there. But, as a whole, I just didn’t enjoy the films. I still say Brozz was the right guy at the right time (although I wanted more Dalton, but the reality was, he didn’t put butts in seats).

    I can’t explain what exactly I didn’t like on a deep level, other than they didn’t excite me like the Connery era, they didn’t entertain me like the Moore era… I found them flat, although I’m very well aware they really worked for millions of people around the world. These just weren’t films for me.

    I wonder if a clean start, like Casino Royale, was needed in order to pull everyone away from their preconceived notions about what a Bond film could be.

    By the sounds of it, that could be exactly what we're in need of now. A clean slate, no connections to Bond going into hiding or being related to anyone. Sounds good to me. ;)
  • edited August 24 Posts: 380
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can understand you're not 14 anymore as you said you were when you got into Bond, and perhaps these recent Bond films just don't fill you with the same sense of joy/escapism you got with other Bond films because they are a bit different. That's fine.
    Yes, that's exactly it, but not entirely. What I personally want is connected to nostalgia . Like when I went to see the last Indy-movie and left pretty excited, because it was largely true to its 80's roots or when I listen to the new Pearl Jam album that sounds like it could have been made 30 years ago.

    But that doesn't explain why I was overly excited about CR - I think it was the last time I wasn't somehow disappointed with a Bond movie. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this.

    Some things can’t be defined. Perhaps it’s as simple as: as the films moved forward with Craig, and as they explored his strengths in portraying this character, it just simply rubbed the wrong way for you. You have certain tastes and the films weren’t living up to those expectations anymore as they once did?

    I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Brosnan era. They looked like a Bond picture. All the ingredients were there. But, as a whole, I just didn’t enjoy the films. I still say Brozz was the right guy at the right time (although I wanted more Dalton, but the reality was, he didn’t put butts in seats).

    I can’t explain what exactly I didn’t like on a deep level, other than they didn’t excite me like the Connery era, they didn’t entertain me like the Moore era… I found them flat, although I’m very well aware they really worked for millions of people around the world. These just weren’t films for me.

    I absolutely love GoldenEye on multiple levels but the Brosnan era feels like a compromised vision. Actually, it feels like a vision taking shape in the shadow of what came before. EON chose some really talented directors that, on paper, seemed well suited for the double-duty at hand: keep what worked before while adding a new level of depth.

    Those orders may have been impossible to execute given where EON and MGM were at in the 90s. EON was trying to explore new thematic directions while justifying Bond’s existence in the marketplace. MGM was a studio in decline that needed the Bond films to be consistent box office hits. The mixed message for directors: try something new without undermining the formula.

    I wonder if a clean start, like Casino Royale, was needed in order to pull everyone away from their preconceived notions about what a Bond film could be. The directors of the Brosnan era, or EON themselves, may not have had the skill or bravery to plunge into the creative depths that were reached in Craig’s era. Sometimes ambition outpaces ability. Sometimes one is ahead of their time. Sometimes the market isn’t quite ready for the innovation.

    By the sounds of it, that could be exactly what we're in need of now. A clean slate, no connections to Bond going into hiding or being related to anyone. Sounds good to me. ;)

    :) I agree that the next era needs its own voice. I think that’s why a new Bond film has yet to be announced. EON needs time to deliberate to hear pitches to develop a direction. I wrote in a previous post that Bond absolutely thrives in these fallow periods.

    Also, given the current volatility in the film industry, why not wait to see how it shakes out? Let other franchises either be the Guinea pig or the canary in the coal mine. Why announce something now when you really don’t have to? I wrote before that a bad film is more dangerous to any brand than no film.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    But I do remember my first reactions. Maybe they just got stuck in my mind and clouded my overall judgment?
    -QoS: "damn that editing team, I could barely see what was going on."
    -SF: "Ergh...they made Bond a weakling"
    -SP: "They sucked all the tension out of the setpieces with that cross-editing. And the grading? And Blofeld as foster brother? wtf?
    -NTTD: "Shame the second half wasn't as good as the first half."
    Writing the above sentences make me realize that my expectations are probably to high.
    .

    This is all fair, though, and I don’t think your expectations are too high at all. I think like all of us, you have your expectations, and you also have needs as a fan. Something in these films didn’t satisfy you. They may have had elements you really enjoyed, but as a whole, somewhere, they failed.

    I seriously fell madly in love with the Craig era, and his films, minus Spectre, reside in my top ten, with three of them 1,2 and 4. I didn’t plan for any of this, and I certainly had no plan of becoming a passionate advocate for NTTD. But for whatever reason, I feel those films so deeply within me, that it’s like my entire nervous system responds to them.

    I wish I could share these feelings with anyone who didn’t like them, but I can really understand and empathize with why they may not have been to certain fans tastes. I can discuss how the screenwriting seemingly became “deeper”, or how the new directors elevated the material, or how Craig himself brought rich dimensions to the character, but, if one’s not feeling it,, one is not feeling it. It really is as simple as that.

    Saying that, I still hope for the day I can watch a Brosnan Bond film from beginning to end and reconcile all my feelings to just be able to enjoy it for what these films were. And I hope for anyone who didn’t enjoy Craig, one day, the same experience may apply to them as well— they reconciled all the things they didn’t like, and can now enjoy the films for what they’re doing.

    In the end, no filmmakers go out of their way to upset audiences. They go out and try and make the best damn films they can. This is no different for Bond. Cubby and Harry wanted to make their version of Bond the best it could be at any given time, and sometimes, like with DAF, or TMWTGG (two films I have a weak spot for), they don’t pull it off and miss the mark. Other times, they hit it out of the ball park (DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS).

    And I believe his two protégé’s have done the same thing. I don’t think they went out of their way, with the intent to tick off the fans from the original era. They went out with the actors they had, and the talent and crews they had, to make their Bond films the best they could be.

    And after that?

    The filmmakers hope that more people than not loved the finished product and will see it a few more times!

    It doesn’t matter why one can’t explain why they liked or disliked something. All that matters is how they felt and responded to the material.

    I honestly hope that the next era gives you more of what you want from this character and his adventures, @Zekidk .
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can understand you're not 14 anymore as you said you were when you got into Bond, and perhaps these recent Bond films just don't fill you with the same sense of joy/escapism you got with other Bond films because they are a bit different. That's fine.
    Yes, that's exactly it, but not entirely. What I personally want is connected to nostalgia . Like when I went to see the last Indy-movie and left pretty excited, because it was largely true to its 80's roots or when I listen to the new Pearl Jam album that sounds like it could have been made 30 years ago.

    But that doesn't explain why I was overly excited about CR - I think it was the last time I wasn't somehow disappointed with a Bond movie. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this.

    Some things can’t be defined. Perhaps it’s as simple as: as the films moved forward with Craig, and as they explored his strengths in portraying this character, it just simply rubbed the wrong way for you. You have certain tastes and the films weren’t living up to those expectations anymore as they once did?

    I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Brosnan era. They looked like a Bond picture. All the ingredients were there. But, as a whole, I just didn’t enjoy the films. I still say Brozz was the right guy at the right time (although I wanted more Dalton, but the reality was, he didn’t put butts in seats).

    I can’t explain what exactly I didn’t like on a deep level, other than they didn’t excite me like the Connery era, they didn’t entertain me like the Moore era… I found them flat, although I’m very well aware they really worked for millions of people around the world. These just weren’t films for me.

    I absolutely love GoldenEye on multiple levels but the Brosnan era feels like a compromised vision. Actually, it feels like a vision taking shape in the shadow of what came before. EON chose some really talented directors that, on paper, seemed well suited for the double-duty at hand: keep what worked before while adding a new level of depth.

    Those orders may have been impossible to execute given where EON and MGM were at in the 90s. EON was trying to explore new thematic directions while justifying Bond’s existence in the marketplace. MGM was a studio in decline that needed the Bond films to be consistent box office hits. The mixed message for directors: try something new without undermining the formula.

    I wonder if a clean start, like Casino Royale, was needed in order to pull everyone away from their preconceived notions about what a Bond film could be. The directors of the Brosnan era, or EON themselves, may not have had the skill or bravery to plunge into the creative depths that were reached in Craig’s era. Sometimes ambition outpaces ability. Sometimes the market isn’t quite ready for the innovation.




    I think we see in the Brosnan era, (or even before that at say, AVTAK - LTK, when the Broccoli children were started to have more influence.) that they we're already plunging those "creative depths" going in a more dramatic way, having bond deal with more "interior trauma" like Felix's injury that was removed from LALD, dealing with close friend Alec's betrayal, the death of former lover Paris, Elektra's mind games and betrayal, his prison time in North Korea, etc.

    I don't think its fair to say they only started this with Craig. I think the creative inspiration was always there, but they stretched the tone of the subsequent Craig films (through, music, cinematography, and character) into more of a nihilistic, cynical take while the Brosnan's had more of a balance.


    I think its' more realistic to have a balance anyway since that mirrors our own real life emotional reality. It ebbs and flows. Darker doesn't always mean deeper.

  • edited August 24 Posts: 3,274
    peter wrote: »
    In the end, no filmmakers go out of their way to upset audiences. They go out and try and make the best damn films they can. This is no different for Bond.
    Here's a thought experiment: The Fleming canon aside, imagine that the first Bond movie ever was 2006's Casino Royale. Almost 20 years and four sequels later and the character playing Bond stepping down, the general consensus is that the original from 2006 was never bettered. That sort of thing is not good for a movie franchise. Would it be the end of James Bond then?

    As you know, most movie series have a limited life-span, even those who have sequels that, unlike the Craig tenure, are better than the orginal (T2, The Dark Knight, Captain America Winter Soldier, etc). They strive for bigger or better. And they succeed,

    Not entirely so with Bond. But since we have all grown up knowing that the character playing Bond can be replaced and we've seen our share of "James Bond will return" end-titles, we believe that a new Bond movie is not a matter of "if", but "when."

    So as the years pass by we wait. And we wait. Patiently. Some people just have a longer patience than others. But I'm not getting any younger.
    peter wrote: »
    I hope for anyone who didn’t enjoy Craig, one day, the same experience may apply to them as well
    SF has been growing on me the last couple of years, Sort of looking at the glass half full instead of half empty. I try to enjoy and focus on the work of Deakins and try to forget the motivation of the antagonist, which I will always find way off.
    My like/dislike of certain movies is thankfully not completely static.
  • edited August 24 Posts: 380
    Burgess wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I can understand you're not 14 anymore as you said you were when you got into Bond, and perhaps these recent Bond films just don't fill you with the same sense of joy/escapism you got with other Bond films because they are a bit different. That's fine.
    Yes, that's exactly it, but not entirely. What I personally want is connected to nostalgia . Like when I went to see the last Indy-movie and left pretty excited, because it was largely true to its 80's roots or when I listen to the new Pearl Jam album that sounds like it could have been made 30 years ago.

    But that doesn't explain why I was overly excited about CR - I think it was the last time I wasn't somehow disappointed with a Bond movie. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this.

    Some things can’t be defined. Perhaps it’s as simple as: as the films moved forward with Craig, and as they explored his strengths in portraying this character, it just simply rubbed the wrong way for you. You have certain tastes and the films weren’t living up to those expectations anymore as they once did?

    I have a somewhat troubled relationship with the Brosnan era. They looked like a Bond picture. All the ingredients were there. But, as a whole, I just didn’t enjoy the films. I still say Brozz was the right guy at the right time (although I wanted more Dalton, but the reality was, he didn’t put butts in seats).

    I can’t explain what exactly I didn’t like on a deep level, other than they didn’t excite me like the Connery era, they didn’t entertain me like the Moore era… I found them flat, although I’m very well aware they really worked for millions of people around the world. These just weren’t films for me.

    I absolutely love GoldenEye on multiple levels but the Brosnan era feels like a compromised vision. Actually, it feels like a vision taking shape in the shadow of what came before. EON chose some really talented directors that, on paper, seemed well suited for the double-duty at hand: keep what worked before while adding a new level of depth.

    Those orders may have been impossible to execute given where EON and MGM were at in the 90s. EON was trying to explore new thematic directions while justifying Bond’s existence in the marketplace. MGM was a studio in decline that needed the Bond films to be consistent box office hits. The mixed message for directors: try something new without undermining the formula.

    I wonder if a clean start, like Casino Royale, was needed in order to pull everyone away from their preconceived notions about what a Bond film could be. The directors of the Brosnan era, or EON themselves, may not have had the skill or bravery to plunge into the creative depths that were reached in Craig’s era. Sometimes ambition outpaces ability. Sometimes the market isn’t quite ready for the innovation.




    I think we see in the Brosnan era, (or even before that at say, AVTAK - LTK, when the Broccoli children were started to have more influence.) that they we're already plunging those "creative depths" going in a more dramatic way, having bond deal with more "interior trauma" like Felix's injury that was removed from LALD, dealing with close friend Alec's betrayal, the death of former lover Paris, Elektra's mind games and betrayal, his prison time in North Korea, etc.

    I don't think its fair to say they only started this with Craig. I think the creative inspiration was always there, but they stretched the tone of the subsequent Craig films (through, music, cinematography, and character) into more of a nihilistic, cynical take while the Brosnan's had more of a balance.


    I think its' more realistic to have a balance anyway since that mirrors our own real life emotional reality. It ebbs and flows. Darker doesn't always mean deeper.

    I didn’t mean to convey that creative risk only started when Craig came along. It seems obvious that there was sincere effort from the filmmakers to explore deeper themes in the Brosnan era, but the effort clearly didn’t pan out or coalesce as it did under Craig. I don’t think the Brosnan era had balance even though I acknowledge that’s what the filmmakers were trying to achieve.

    I don’t think the Craig era was always successful at achieving balance but there was a vision for Craig’s Bond that just didn’t exist with Brosnan. Maybe that’s EON’s fault. Maybe Brosnan doesn’t have the same acting range as Craig. Maybe EON had better studio partners in the Craig era. Maybe Barbara and Michael were honest in saying that they needed a fresh start away from Brosnan. Maybe genre filmmaking hadn’t matured in a way that made EON comfortable with certain choices.

    I mean, even after the success of Batman in ‘89, studios were giving us The Shadow instead of Superman or The Phantom instead of Spider-Man. Imagine trying to make Casino Royale in 1996 when the typical movie wasn’t longer than an hour and a half or the concept of a reboot didn’t exist or having a card game at the center of an action movie’s plot was a non-starter.

  • Posts: 1,974
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @Peter -- I don't believe anyone on this site believes they can make a better Bond film than EON.

    I can think of a few. Thankfully, they aren’t in charge of EON or IFP.

    You can think of a few, but won't name them. So PM them and ask them to post whether or not they think they can make a better Bond film.

  • I don’t think there was any sort of vision for Craig’s Bond anymore than there was for Brosnan or any of the previous actors; I just think Craig had the benefit of having his creative ideas listened to by EON whereas the previous Bond’s didn’t really have that luxury to the extent Craig had, and fair enough on Craig for being the one to break that pattern and make EON start taking serious risks again. I just wish the other Bond’s could’ve been afforded that opportunity.
  • edited August 24 Posts: 380
    I don’t think there was any sort of vision for Craig’s Bond anymore than there was for Brosnan or any of the previous actors; I just think Craig had the benefit of having his creative ideas listened to by EON whereas the previous Bond’s didn’t really have that luxury to the extent Craig had, and fair enough on Craig for being the one to break that pattern and make EON start taking serious risks again. I just wish the other Bond’s could’ve been afforded that opportunity.

    Craig wouldn't even consider taking on Bond without seeing a script first. The Casino Royale script, before Craig joined, was already hinting toward where EON wanted to go with Bond. I don't think a complete vision was mapped out but EON had a creative direction after acquiring the rights to the novel. That's why Brosnan's contract wasn't renewed around 2004. After CR's success, they knew what they had.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 24 Posts: 8,395
    Interesting, so it appears the "creative vision" could be what's holding things up at present? :-?
  • Posts: 380
    Only EON knows for sure but I believe Broccoli when she says that they're feeling their way into a new direction. I also believe that Broccoli won't be rushed into a new film without being on solid creative footing.
  • Posts: 1,974
    @burgess - The Casino Royale script, before Craig joined, was already hinting toward where EON wanted to go with Bond. In your opinion, where was that?
  • Burgess wrote: »
    I don’t think there was any sort of vision for Craig’s Bond anymore than there was for Brosnan or any of the previous actors; I just think Craig had the benefit of having his creative ideas listened to by EON whereas the previous Bond’s didn’t really have that luxury to the extent Craig had, and fair enough on Craig for being the one to break that pattern and make EON start taking serious risks again. I just wish the other Bond’s could’ve been afforded that opportunity.

    Craig wouldn't even consider taking on Bond without seeing a script first. The Casino Royale script, before Craig joined, was already hinting toward where EON wanted to go with Bond. I don't think a complete vision was mapped out but EON had a creative direction after acquiring the rights to the novel. That's why Brosnan's contract wasn't renewed around 2004. After CR's success, they knew what they had.

    I think EON knew what they had after CR but didn’t know how to properly utilize it (much like Brosnan/GE.) QOS tried to serve more of what so many people loved about Craig’s debut but the end result doesn’t really live up to expectations, and for how great SF is, I don’t really think it’s as good either.

    I don’t want to say that it’s an often case in Bond where a new actors first film is regarded as their best by a large majority; but I think in the case of Brosnan and Craig there era’s start off on such highs that following those up was always going to be somewhat difficult. Whereas I could see room to improve upon certain elements of Dr. No, LALD, and TLD.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited August 24 Posts: 556
    I think it's frustrating for us fans because it seems like too much of a touchy feely thing
    when we're accustomed to them being able to whip out a new film every couple years. It was quite the whipsaw between Roger and Timothy in their films but perhaps that was just them being very different actors.


    Not to Imply I think Cubby and Richard M, John Glen etc. were phoning it in, but I think they had a different philosophy on Bond that was perhaps not as emotionally attached and didn't have other career aspirations.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 24 Posts: 8,395
    Burgess wrote: »
    Only EON knows for sure but I believe Broccoli when she says that they're feeling their way into a new direction. I also believe that Broccoli won't be rushed into a new film without being on solid creative footing.

    Exciting times :) .Can't wait to see how things progress. If you're someone like me who thought Craig was better off finishing with SP, then this has been a long time coming. Hopefully they get it right and we get the best movie possible.
    I think they had a different philosophy on Bond that was perhaps not as emotionally attached and didn't have other career aspirations.

    Very true.
  • Posts: 380
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @burgess - The Casino Royale script, before Craig joined, was already hinting toward where EON wanted to go with Bond. In your opinion, where was that?

    Making the first Bond novel as the next Bond movie raises some essential questions around tone and direction. By its very nature of being first, CR is lean on formula but heavy on characterization. It's Bond's origin story so would one want to keep the same actor in the role? Is it wise to pivot from Brosnan's established and popular characterization after four films without a clean break?

    These are some questions I think EON asked themselves well before Craig was involved. Broccoli and Wilson would have to know what direction they wanted to go in to even consider an actor like Craig. He wasnt sought after because of his comedic timing. They wanted to match the man to the screenplay.

  • If BB and MGW aren't planning to produce a new Bond film in the near future, they might as well let Nolan make a one-off Bond film.
  • Posts: 1,974
    @Burgess - Clean break between DAD and CR, I get that. I am interested in where you believe the series went. How do you define Craig's Bond?
  • Posts: 1,075
    peter wrote: »
    I feel those films so deeply within me, that it’s like my entire nervous system responds to them.

    I love reading your stuff.
  • Posts: 1,859

    There are a lot of divergent opinions here as to what makes a Bond film work. If you could choose only one previous Bond film to use as a templet for the next one, what would it be?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    delfloria wrote: »
    There are a lot of divergent opinions here as to what makes a Bond film work. If you could choose only one previous Bond film to use as a templet for the next one, what would it be?

    Interesting question. It's hard to answer, though. Either GE or CR would be my pick, in part because they are (in my opinion) the best of the more recent ones. It would be awesome to get another GF or OHMSS, but I don't think they'd work in 2024 as a "new" Bond film. Perhaps a film like FRWL could work, more of a thriller but still retaining the spark and fun that DN had introduced. It would need updates, of course, but stylistically, with all the intrigue and whatnot, sure, it might work.
  • Posts: 1,974
    delfloria wrote: »
    There are a lot of divergent opinions here as to what makes a Bond film work. If you could choose only one previous Bond film to use as a templet for the next one, what would it be?

    FRWL - This was Bond before world destruction scenarios, outlandish villains, and giant set pieces. Darker, more intrigue. More believable. Not the kind of film a Sheriff Pepper or Jaws would fit into. None of the silliness that came with the RM series.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    I feel those films so deeply within me, that it’s like my entire nervous system responds to them.

    I love reading your stuff.

    Have another drink.
Sign In or Register to comment.