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
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.
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.
-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.
Here's a question for you (or anyone else): Why is CR widely regarded as the best Bond movie in the Craig-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.
=D>
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very true.
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.
I love reading your stuff.
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.
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.
Have another drink.