Where does Bond go after Craig?

1638639641643644678

Comments

  • edited September 19 Posts: 380
    I just don't understand why every Bond film now needs a prestige filmmaker at the helm nowadays. Sam Mendes, then Danny Boyle was intended for B25, now Chazelle? It just seems strange for a series about a spy in a tuxedo saving the world from a superweapon.

    If visions align, why shouldn't EON pursue the best director their money can buy? We live in a time where the delineated line between genre movies and prestige films is slightly blurred. Artists of all pedigrees want to work.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Burgess wrote: »
    I just don't understand why every Bond film now needs a prestige filmmaker at the helm nowadays. Sam Mendes, then Danny Boyle was intended for B25, now Chazelle? It just seems strange for a series about a spy in a tuxedo saving the world from a superweapon.

    If visions align, why shouldn't EON pursue the best director their money can buy? We live in a time where the delineated line between genre movies and prestige films is slighlty blurred. Artist of all pedigrees want to work.

    Exactly. You wrapped this up nicely. Aligned visions/best talent available to execute. End of story.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 18 Posts: 3,787
    I've seen some people being confused about terms such as "classic bond", "fun romp", "comedic bond adventure" and misunderstanding what is meant by that, so I want to clarify what I would like to see with Bond 26. For future reference, when I'm referring to Bond films, these are the metrics I'm going by.

    For me, broadly speaking there's two types of Bond films:

    Type A: films which by and large follow the formula that was cemented with Goldfinger, updating the style to fit the times, ebbing and flowing between darker and lighter tones, but sticking true to a fundamental set of rules, rarely making exceptions. These films are usually plot-focused, and work in character and drama where it is appropriate for the story. Examples of this include Thunderball, Live And Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, Octopussy, The Living Daylights and Goldeneye.

    Type B: Are films which break from the formula, where they have a specific story which doesn't include so many of the typical tropes and plot beats, and instead are more character-driven. Examples include On Her Majestys Secret Service, Casino Royale, Skyfall.

    Additionally there's two sub-categories:

    Films which think they belong in Type A but actually belong in Type B e.g. License To Kill

    and films which think they belong in Type B but actually belong in Type A e.g. SPECTRE, B25.

    When I say I want Bond 26 to be a fun romp, or a classic bond adventure, I mean I want a film that KNOWS its a Type A film and is not trying to be anything else, and is sure-footed enough to make no excuses. That doesn't mean that there's no character development whatsoever, but the character and drama happen where appropriate to suit the story, like in the other type A Bond films mentioned above. This also doesn't mean that we would see a return of slide whistles, gondolas, double taking pigeons and such like. Obviously humour is updated all the time, so say "she always did enjoy a good squeeze" might seem a bit too 90's cheese now, but it doesn't mean that 2020's bond can't find its own kind of irreverent, zany feel that does feel appropriate for the 2020's. Basically there's no need to shy away from jokes, just because it's "less realistic".

    That's a great categorization, @Mendes4Lyfe
    I think the films in Type B were also those that follow the Fleming style very closely, two of them are adapted from the source material.
  • Posts: 1,330
    Burgess wrote: »
    I just don't understand why every Bond film now needs a prestige filmmaker at the helm nowadays. Sam Mendes, then Danny Boyle was intended for B25, now Chazelle? It just seems strange for a series about a spy in a tuxedo saving the world from a superweapon.

    If visions align, why shouldn't EON pursue the best director their money can buy? We live in a time where the delineated line between genre movies and prestige films is slighlty blurred. Artist of all pedigrees want to work.

    Yeah but the Danny Boyle thing happened and Boyle doesn't look like a snob or anything.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 18 Posts: 8,395
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The same people who say Bond is timeless are should never cater to specific cultural trends are the same ones who say a comedic bond film wouldn't work in this day and age because "audiences have moved on", so which is it?

    It really depends on what you mean by a comedic Bond film I suppose. I’d say Bond movies all have a mixture of the dark and the light, and Bond is essentially escapism at the end of the day.

    It’s also worth saying that jumping on a trend isn’t always the same as trying to create the best film possible for new audiences.

    But "create the best film for new audiences" and appealing to Gen Z are just two different formulations with the same underlying meaning.

    Again, it depends on what you mean.

    If you mean a ‘comedic’ Bond film in the sense it’s more along the lines of something like MR (ie. Bit of an illogical plot, self referential humour, but big on spectacle) it depends as well. I don’t think a subsequent Bond film will ever be exactly like any of the others that came before it. Every Bond is unique in its own way. Roger Moore era esque humour was there in both SP and NTTD but those are quite dark films in their own way. I think for a new actor’s first outing they’ll want to play it a bit more straight with a slightly more hardboiled story, albeit with a good bit of Bondian humour (witty lines, a few visual gags etc. I can’t see the next film going into ‘Bond riding in a gondola to classical music’ levels of outrageousness or Tarzan yells or whatever).

    It just comes down to what story they want to tell and how best to tell it.

    Essentially the horse has to start pulling the cart again, and not the other way around.

    I think Skyfall just about gets away with it (even if Silvas villainous scheme dissipates into nothing more than revenge against M by the end, again more personal stakes), but if you look at the 2 films released since 2012, they both suffer from the same chronic problem. You could say that EON saw the widespread acclaim that Skyfall had and took the lesson that from now on Bond films have to first and foremost be about Bond and what he is dealing with emotionally before they're about the earthly danger hes intent on preventing. Rather than resulting from a confluence of the right director coming along and having the right story to tell, now exploring Bond's emotional journey is a MUST. The problem is not every film needs that, indeed some films are better off without it. Imagine Live And Let Die in 1973, but it needed a tortured, uncertain Bond at the centre. It would ruin the lighthearted, funky tone of the adventure entirely. Imagine if during The Spy Who Loved Me Bond is still mourning Tracy and drinking himself into a stupor everynight, it would completely clash with the Jaws ripping doors off vans and underwater car antics the rest of the film going for. And that's essentially what has happened with the last 2 Craig films in my view, which are perfectly competent romp adventure films that are held captive to an unwelcome air of angst and unease which doesn't appear to improve the stories much at all. SP could be a straightforward Bond adventure where through following up a lead Bond comes across Mr White, who agrees to give Bond information about SPECTRE in exchange that he keeps his daughter safe, then the two fall in love and ride off together, the end. Technically speaking ofcourse all of that does happen, but it is weighted down by so much extraneous stuff which seems not to add much of anything except put a dampener on things. Bond's backstory with Blofeld is obvious, staring at a photo, cuckoo, but also theres commentary on government bureaucracy and the surveillance state between M and Denbigh, Madeline lay on a bed drunk taunting Bond, just lots of stuff to give the impression that there's more going on than there actually is. By the end of the film it's a standard bond blows up the villains base, beats the ticking clock type of story, so why not at least be up front about it, and take that approach from the beginning?

    I don't see the Craig films (or Craig's Bond) being as depressing or angst ridden as you're trying to see them as. We get moments like Bond drinking heavily on the plane in QOS while thinking of Vesper, him struggling with the idea he's lost a step in SF/not engaging with any sort of psychological evaluation of his past (he never does throughout the entire film incidentally, and it's not directly part of what he needs to overcome in the film). But ultimately he's still James Bond - a man who sleeps around, has a dark witty sense of humour, a swagger, charisma, and even a sense of mystery to him.

    As for SP, one thing I actually like about it is Bond's newfound lease on life after SF. He's much more humorous and relaxed. There's surprisingly little Bond himself actually has to overcome in the film. His past with Blofeld amounts to a couple of months when he was 11/12 (it's Blofeld who has the chip on his shoulder to some extent. Bond himself doesn't seem particularly interested in him beyond any immediate threat).

    As for those individual gripes with SP, I'd say some of those things add good texture that a Bond film needs. Bond drunkenly aiming his gun at the mouse (which actually I think is quite funny), or Madeline drunkenly telling Bond to watch over her aren't dissimilar to moments like Bond and Natalya on the beach in GE talking about his profession, or Bond drinking vodka alone/keeping watch before Paris arrives in TND. They're little insights into the danger of Bond's job and how he deals with them. Being able to have those moments is part of what makes Bond great. Commentary on government bureaucracy isn't unusual for Bond, and I'm not quite sure what it has to do directly with what you're saying. I don't see anything wrong with a Bond film being... well, a Bond film. It will have things like the action, perhaps the ticking clock finale etc.

    Not saying SP is my favourite Bond movie, but I don't quite understand the need to suck any sense of character from it for it to be a more interesting film. I don't think any Bond film would be improved by that, whether it's TSWLM or SP.

    Because "texture" is only useful if it has a purpose. If the point is that Bond and Madeline start off prickily and fall in love, there's no reason that process can't play out in a more lively, upbeat context. There's nothing justifying their dynamic being so formal and stiff.
  • edited September 18 Posts: 4,122
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The same people who say Bond is timeless are should never cater to specific cultural trends are the same ones who say a comedic bond film wouldn't work in this day and age because "audiences have moved on", so which is it?

    It really depends on what you mean by a comedic Bond film I suppose. I’d say Bond movies all have a mixture of the dark and the light, and Bond is essentially escapism at the end of the day.

    It’s also worth saying that jumping on a trend isn’t always the same as trying to create the best film possible for new audiences.

    But "create the best film for new audiences" and appealing to Gen Z are just two different formulations with the same underlying meaning.

    Again, it depends on what you mean.

    If you mean a ‘comedic’ Bond film in the sense it’s more along the lines of something like MR (ie. Bit of an illogical plot, self referential humour, but big on spectacle) it depends as well. I don’t think a subsequent Bond film will ever be exactly like any of the others that came before it. Every Bond is unique in its own way. Roger Moore era esque humour was there in both SP and NTTD but those are quite dark films in their own way. I think for a new actor’s first outing they’ll want to play it a bit more straight with a slightly more hardboiled story, albeit with a good bit of Bondian humour (witty lines, a few visual gags etc. I can’t see the next film going into ‘Bond riding in a gondola to classical music’ levels of outrageousness or Tarzan yells or whatever).

    It just comes down to what story they want to tell and how best to tell it.

    Essentially the horse has to start pulling the cart again, and not the other way around.

    I think Skyfall just about gets away with it (even if Silvas villainous scheme dissipates into nothing more than revenge against M by the end, again more personal stakes), but if you look at the 2 films released since 2012, they both suffer from the same chronic problem. You could say that EON saw the widespread acclaim that Skyfall had and took the lesson that from now on Bond films have to first and foremost be about Bond and what he is dealing with emotionally before they're about the earthly danger hes intent on preventing. Rather than resulting from a confluence of the right director coming along and having the right story to tell, now exploring Bond's emotional journey is a MUST. The problem is not every film needs that, indeed some films are better off without it. Imagine Live And Let Die in 1973, but it needed a tortured, uncertain Bond at the centre. It would ruin the lighthearted, funky tone of the adventure entirely. Imagine if during The Spy Who Loved Me Bond is still mourning Tracy and drinking himself into a stupor everynight, it would completely clash with the Jaws ripping doors off vans and underwater car antics the rest of the film going for. And that's essentially what has happened with the last 2 Craig films in my view, which are perfectly competent romp adventure films that are held captive to an unwelcome air of angst and unease which doesn't appear to improve the stories much at all. SP could be a straightforward Bond adventure where through following up a lead Bond comes across Mr White, who agrees to give Bond information about SPECTRE in exchange that he keeps his daughter safe, then the two fall in love and ride off together, the end. Technically speaking ofcourse all of that does happen, but it is weighted down by so much extraneous stuff which seems not to add much of anything except put a dampener on things. Bond's backstory with Blofeld is obvious, staring at a photo, cuckoo, but also theres commentary on government bureaucracy and the surveillance state between M and Denbigh, Madeline lay on a bed drunk taunting Bond, just lots of stuff to give the impression that there's more going on than there actually is. By the end of the film it's a standard bond blows up the villains base, beats the ticking clock type of story, so why not at least be up front about it, and take that approach from the beginning?

    I don't see the Craig films (or Craig's Bond) being as depressing or angst ridden as you're trying to see them as. We get moments like Bond drinking heavily on the plane in QOS while thinking of Vesper, him struggling with the idea he's lost a step in SF/not engaging with any sort of psychological evaluation of his past (he never does throughout the entire film incidentally, and it's not directly part of what he needs to overcome in the film). But ultimately he's still James Bond - a man who sleeps around, has a dark witty sense of humour, a swagger, charisma, and even a sense of mystery to him.

    As for SP, one thing I actually like about it is Bond's newfound lease on life after SF. He's much more humorous and relaxed. There's surprisingly little Bond himself actually has to overcome in the film. His past with Blofeld amounts to a couple of months when he was 11/12 (it's Blofeld who has the chip on his shoulder to some extent. Bond himself doesn't seem particularly interested in him beyond any immediate threat).

    As for those individual gripes with SP, I'd say some of those things add good texture that a Bond film needs. Bond drunkenly aiming his gun at the mouse (which actually I think is quite funny), or Madeline drunkenly telling Bond to watch over her aren't dissimilar to moments like Bond and Natalya on the beach in GE talking about his profession, or Bond drinking vodka alone/keeping watch before Paris arrives in TND. They're little insights into the danger of Bond's job and how he deals with them. Being able to have those moments is part of what makes Bond great. Commentary on government bureaucracy isn't unusual for Bond, and I'm not quite sure what it has to do directly with what you're saying. I don't see anything wrong with a Bond film being... well, a Bond film. It will have things like the action, perhaps the ticking clock finale etc.

    Not saying SP is my favourite Bond movie, but I don't quite understand the need to suck any sense of character from it for it to be a more interesting film. I don't think any Bond film would be improved by that, whether it's TSWLM or SP.

    Because "texture" is only useful if it has a purpose. If the point is that Bond and Madeline start off prickily and fall in love, there's no reason that process can't play out in a more lively, upbeat context. There's nothing justifying their dynamic being so formal and stiff.

    But it does have a purpose as you yourself seemed to say. You just don’t personally like how it’s done. Fair enough, and this is all subjective, but I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at here by your own criteria beyond you saying the film isn’t your thing.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I've seen some people being confused about terms such as "classic bond", "fun romp", "comedic bond adventure" and misunderstanding what is meant by that, so I want to clarify what I would like to see with Bond 26. For future reference, when I'm referring to Bond films, these are the metrics I'm going by.

    For me, broadly speaking there's two types of Bond films:

    Type A: films which by and large follow the formula that was cemented with Goldfinger, updating the style to fit the times, ebbing and flowing between darker and lighter tones, but sticking true to a fundamental set of rules, rarely making exceptions. These films are usually plot-focused, and work in character and drama where it is appropriate for the story. Examples of this include Thunderball, Live And Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, Octopussy, The Living Daylights and Goldeneye.

    Type B: Are films which break from the formula, where they have a specific story which doesn't include so many of the typical tropes and plot beats, and instead are more character-driven. Examples include On Her Majestys Secret Service, Casino Royale, Skyfall.

    Additionally there's two sub-categories:

    Films which think they belong in Type A but actually belong in Type B e.g. License To Kill

    and films which think they belong in Type B but actually belong in Type A e.g. SPECTRE, B25.

    When I say I want Bond 26 to be a fun romp, or a classic bond adventure, I mean I want a film that KNOWS its a Type A film and is not trying to be anything else, and is sure-footed enough to make no excuses. That doesn't mean that there's no character development whatsoever, but the character and drama happen where appropriate to suit the story, like in the other type A Bond films mentioned above. This also doesn't mean that we would see a return of slide whistles, gondolas, double taking pigeons and such like. Obviously humour is updated all the time, so say "she always did enjoy a good squeeze" might seem a bit too 90's cheese now, but it doesn't mean that 2020's bond can't find its own kind of irreverent, zany feel that does feel appropriate for the 2020's. Basically there's no need to shy away from jokes, just because it's "less realistic".

    That's a great categorization, @Mendes4Lyfe
    I think the films in Type B were also those that follow the Fleming style very closely, two of them are adapted from the source material.

    I think an issue with trying to categorise Bond films in that way is you can argue something like GE belongs to any of them dependent on opinion/how you want to view the film. Does it lean more wholeheartedly into Bond formula tropes or does it do so to purposely subvert fundamental ideas in a Bond story? It’s not rule driven in that sense. Does it belong to subcategory 1 potentially? Same with TLD. Alternatively something like SF does actually include many Bond tropes not seen before in the Craig films and has more in common with GF than perhaps TLD does. What is ‘the Bond formula’ for the films exactly? I suspect it involves a whole range of fundamental things no Bond film can function without (a villain being a major example).

    I wouldn’t be too academic when it comes to these stories. Sometimes putting them into strict categories can be undone with a single example, and it’s a bit opinion based.
  • edited September 18 Posts: 346
    According to Google:
    Amazon makes around $1.29 billion per day, which breaks down to $53–54 million per hour, $896,000 per minute, and $15,000 per second.

    If these stats are accurate I would suggest Eon and Amazon consider making the most expensive film ever made for Bond 26. 500 million dollar budget. I accept that's an obscene amount of money and arguably morally questionable but if Amazon make 1.29 billion dollars a day they would recoup the production and marketing budget in half a day!

    I think Bond 26 as the most expensive film ever made, and it looks it on screen, is the way to market Bond 26.

    Also, Bond 26 as 500 million dollars would justify a six or more year gap between NTTD and Bond 26. I would even consider a non theatrical release. Straight to Amaxon Prime.

    Bond 26 as the premier film on Amazon in 2026 or 2027.

  • Posts: 4,122
    I'm not sure if that's the type of thing EON would do just for notoriety or because they can. I think they'll decide what they want to do first and then work out expenses (I guess that's how it works more or less?)

    Also I suspect that 1.29 billion a day from Amazon is stretched out in an obscene numbers of ways before Bond. So there's a chance they won't be allowed a 500 million dollar budget. It's a crazy amount of money though, agreed.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The same people who say Bond is timeless are should never cater to specific cultural trends are the same ones who say a comedic bond film wouldn't work in this day and age because "audiences have moved on", so which is it?

    It really depends on what you mean by a comedic Bond film I suppose. I’d say Bond movies all have a mixture of the dark and the light, and Bond is essentially escapism at the end of the day.

    It’s also worth saying that jumping on a trend isn’t always the same as trying to create the best film possible for new audiences.

    But "create the best film for new audiences" and appealing to Gen Z are just two different formulations with the same underlying meaning.

    Again, it depends on what you mean.

    If you mean a ‘comedic’ Bond film in the sense it’s more along the lines of something like MR (ie. Bit of an illogical plot, self referential humour, but big on spectacle) it depends as well. I don’t think a subsequent Bond film will ever be exactly like any of the others that came before it. Every Bond is unique in its own way. Roger Moore era esque humour was there in both SP and NTTD but those are quite dark films in their own way. I think for a new actor’s first outing they’ll want to play it a bit more straight with a slightly more hardboiled story, albeit with a good bit of Bondian humour (witty lines, a few visual gags etc. I can’t see the next film going into ‘Bond riding in a gondola to classical music’ levels of outrageousness or Tarzan yells or whatever).

    It just comes down to what story they want to tell and how best to tell it.

    Essentially the horse has to start pulling the cart again, and not the other way around.

    I think Skyfall just about gets away with it (even if Silvas villainous scheme dissipates into nothing more than revenge against M by the end, again more personal stakes), but if you look at the 2 films released since 2012, they both suffer from the same chronic problem. You could say that EON saw the widespread acclaim that Skyfall had and took the lesson that from now on Bond films have to first and foremost be about Bond and what he is dealing with emotionally before they're about the earthly danger hes intent on preventing. Rather than resulting from a confluence of the right director coming along and having the right story to tell, now exploring Bond's emotional journey is a MUST. The problem is not every film needs that, indeed some films are better off without it. Imagine Live And Let Die in 1973, but it needed a tortured, uncertain Bond at the centre. It would ruin the lighthearted, funky tone of the adventure entirely. Imagine if during The Spy Who Loved Me Bond is still mourning Tracy and drinking himself into a stupor everynight, it would completely clash with the Jaws ripping doors off vans and underwater car antics the rest of the film going for. And that's essentially what has happened with the last 2 Craig films in my view, which are perfectly competent romp adventure films that are held captive to an unwelcome air of angst and unease which doesn't appear to improve the stories much at all. SP could be a straightforward Bond adventure where through following up a lead Bond comes across Mr White, who agrees to give Bond information about SPECTRE in exchange that he keeps his daughter safe, then the two fall in love and ride off together, the end. Technically speaking ofcourse all of that does happen, but it is weighted down by so much extraneous stuff which seems not to add much of anything except put a dampener on things. Bond's backstory with Blofeld is obvious, staring at a photo, cuckoo, but also theres commentary on government bureaucracy and the surveillance state between M and Denbigh, Madeline lay on a bed drunk taunting Bond, just lots of stuff to give the impression that there's more going on than there actually is. By the end of the film it's a standard bond blows up the villains base, beats the ticking clock type of story, so why not at least be up front about it, and take that approach from the beginning?

    I don't see the Craig films (or Craig's Bond) being as depressing or angst ridden as you're trying to see them as. We get moments like Bond drinking heavily on the plane in QOS while thinking of Vesper, him struggling with the idea he's lost a step in SF/not engaging with any sort of psychological evaluation of his past (he never does throughout the entire film incidentally, and it's not directly part of what he needs to overcome in the film). But ultimately he's still James Bond - a man who sleeps around, has a dark witty sense of humour, a swagger, charisma, and even a sense of mystery to him.

    As for SP, one thing I actually like about it is Bond's newfound lease on life after SF. He's much more humorous and relaxed. There's surprisingly little Bond himself actually has to overcome in the film. His past with Blofeld amounts to a couple of months when he was 11/12 (it's Blofeld who has the chip on his shoulder to some extent. Bond himself doesn't seem particularly interested in him beyond any immediate threat).

    As for those individual gripes with SP, I'd say some of those things add good texture that a Bond film needs. Bond drunkenly aiming his gun at the mouse (which actually I think is quite funny), or Madeline drunkenly telling Bond to watch over her aren't dissimilar to moments like Bond and Natalya on the beach in GE talking about his profession, or Bond drinking vodka alone/keeping watch before Paris arrives in TND. They're little insights into the danger of Bond's job and how he deals with them. Being able to have those moments is part of what makes Bond great. Commentary on government bureaucracy isn't unusual for Bond, and I'm not quite sure what it has to do directly with what you're saying. I don't see anything wrong with a Bond film being... well, a Bond film. It will have things like the action, perhaps the ticking clock finale etc.

    Not saying SP is my favourite Bond movie, but I don't quite understand the need to suck any sense of character from it for it to be a more interesting film. I don't think any Bond film would be improved by that, whether it's TSWLM or SP.

    Because "texture" is only useful if it has a purpose. If the point is that Bond and Madeline start off prickily and fall in love, there's no reason that process can't play out in a more lively, upbeat context. There's nothing justifying their dynamic being so formal and stiff.

    But it does have a purpose as you yourself seemed to say. You just don’t personally like how it’s done. Fair enough, and this is all subjective, but I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at here beyond you saying the film isn’t your thing.

    Put it this way - You yourself have admitted that SP and B25 share elements with classic bond films, right? SP has the gadget car, the henchman, the train fight, the bits of humour, etc.

    The difference is that unlike, say, Skyfall, the ways in which SP diverts from the formula are exactly what makes it worse off as a story. As much as I'm not really a fan of Skyfall, I will admit that Sam Mendes and Co. Clearly had a vision and a story to tell that justified taking certain liberties. Everything still added up to a whole, even if the whole might not be my cup of tea personally. The difference is that with SP I can't help but feel that underlying material or vision just isn't there, so as a consequence, when you have scenes with bondian aspects, and a conclusion which basically amounts to "stop the villain, save the girl", then I can't help but feel like it would work better as a straightforward, sleek bond adventure with all the fat cut out. If Madeline is going to end up as a damsel strapped to a chair that bond has to save, then why waste time setting her up as quiet, soulful character that bond falls for. Make her lively and give her and Bond more of a fiery dynamic, like a traditional bond/bond girl back and forth. Why not? If Blofeld is basically going to amount to a typical moustache-twirling, or indeed pussycat stroking villain by the end, why make out like he's some missing puzzle peice from Bond's former life, the only peice left? If we're going to end on a tradition bond gets the girl and heads off into the sunset ending, then why not treat it that way from the start?

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 18 Posts: 16,359
    I can't follow the logic of that at all. The answer to all of those is 'because they thought it would make it better and get the audience more involved'.

    I may as well ask, if Bond is supposed to fall in love with Stacey Sutton, why make her a dumb mid-20s blonde who wears the shortest silk PJs ever instead of being a genuinely interesting and mature, intelligent woman the audience can actually get attached to and believe in the relationship between her and 007, instead of getting irritated every time she yells "JaaAAammes!"?

    Why do we have fans asking for things like the films having less depth, fewer stunts, less money spent on them, rubbish filmmakers working on them etc. so often? It feels like people don't want them to be the films they're are and actively worse. This guy doesn't even know what the last film was called.
    My hope for the next film is that they keep doing what they've always done throughout the last 25 films, and maybe hopefully throw in some ideas to make it just that little bit even better. That would be great.
  • edited September 18 Posts: 4,122
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The same people who say Bond is timeless are should never cater to specific cultural trends are the same ones who say a comedic bond film wouldn't work in this day and age because "audiences have moved on", so which is it?

    It really depends on what you mean by a comedic Bond film I suppose. I’d say Bond movies all have a mixture of the dark and the light, and Bond is essentially escapism at the end of the day.

    It’s also worth saying that jumping on a trend isn’t always the same as trying to create the best film possible for new audiences.

    But "create the best film for new audiences" and appealing to Gen Z are just two different formulations with the same underlying meaning.

    Again, it depends on what you mean.

    If you mean a ‘comedic’ Bond film in the sense it’s more along the lines of something like MR (ie. Bit of an illogical plot, self referential humour, but big on spectacle) it depends as well. I don’t think a subsequent Bond film will ever be exactly like any of the others that came before it. Every Bond is unique in its own way. Roger Moore era esque humour was there in both SP and NTTD but those are quite dark films in their own way. I think for a new actor’s first outing they’ll want to play it a bit more straight with a slightly more hardboiled story, albeit with a good bit of Bondian humour (witty lines, a few visual gags etc. I can’t see the next film going into ‘Bond riding in a gondola to classical music’ levels of outrageousness or Tarzan yells or whatever).

    It just comes down to what story they want to tell and how best to tell it.

    Essentially the horse has to start pulling the cart again, and not the other way around.

    I think Skyfall just about gets away with it (even if Silvas villainous scheme dissipates into nothing more than revenge against M by the end, again more personal stakes), but if you look at the 2 films released since 2012, they both suffer from the same chronic problem. You could say that EON saw the widespread acclaim that Skyfall had and took the lesson that from now on Bond films have to first and foremost be about Bond and what he is dealing with emotionally before they're about the earthly danger hes intent on preventing. Rather than resulting from a confluence of the right director coming along and having the right story to tell, now exploring Bond's emotional journey is a MUST. The problem is not every film needs that, indeed some films are better off without it. Imagine Live And Let Die in 1973, but it needed a tortured, uncertain Bond at the centre. It would ruin the lighthearted, funky tone of the adventure entirely. Imagine if during The Spy Who Loved Me Bond is still mourning Tracy and drinking himself into a stupor everynight, it would completely clash with the Jaws ripping doors off vans and underwater car antics the rest of the film going for. And that's essentially what has happened with the last 2 Craig films in my view, which are perfectly competent romp adventure films that are held captive to an unwelcome air of angst and unease which doesn't appear to improve the stories much at all. SP could be a straightforward Bond adventure where through following up a lead Bond comes across Mr White, who agrees to give Bond information about SPECTRE in exchange that he keeps his daughter safe, then the two fall in love and ride off together, the end. Technically speaking ofcourse all of that does happen, but it is weighted down by so much extraneous stuff which seems not to add much of anything except put a dampener on things. Bond's backstory with Blofeld is obvious, staring at a photo, cuckoo, but also theres commentary on government bureaucracy and the surveillance state between M and Denbigh, Madeline lay on a bed drunk taunting Bond, just lots of stuff to give the impression that there's more going on than there actually is. By the end of the film it's a standard bond blows up the villains base, beats the ticking clock type of story, so why not at least be up front about it, and take that approach from the beginning?

    I don't see the Craig films (or Craig's Bond) being as depressing or angst ridden as you're trying to see them as. We get moments like Bond drinking heavily on the plane in QOS while thinking of Vesper, him struggling with the idea he's lost a step in SF/not engaging with any sort of psychological evaluation of his past (he never does throughout the entire film incidentally, and it's not directly part of what he needs to overcome in the film). But ultimately he's still James Bond - a man who sleeps around, has a dark witty sense of humour, a swagger, charisma, and even a sense of mystery to him.

    As for SP, one thing I actually like about it is Bond's newfound lease on life after SF. He's much more humorous and relaxed. There's surprisingly little Bond himself actually has to overcome in the film. His past with Blofeld amounts to a couple of months when he was 11/12 (it's Blofeld who has the chip on his shoulder to some extent. Bond himself doesn't seem particularly interested in him beyond any immediate threat).

    As for those individual gripes with SP, I'd say some of those things add good texture that a Bond film needs. Bond drunkenly aiming his gun at the mouse (which actually I think is quite funny), or Madeline drunkenly telling Bond to watch over her aren't dissimilar to moments like Bond and Natalya on the beach in GE talking about his profession, or Bond drinking vodka alone/keeping watch before Paris arrives in TND. They're little insights into the danger of Bond's job and how he deals with them. Being able to have those moments is part of what makes Bond great. Commentary on government bureaucracy isn't unusual for Bond, and I'm not quite sure what it has to do directly with what you're saying. I don't see anything wrong with a Bond film being... well, a Bond film. It will have things like the action, perhaps the ticking clock finale etc.

    Not saying SP is my favourite Bond movie, but I don't quite understand the need to suck any sense of character from it for it to be a more interesting film. I don't think any Bond film would be improved by that, whether it's TSWLM or SP.

    Because "texture" is only useful if it has a purpose. If the point is that Bond and Madeline start off prickily and fall in love, there's no reason that process can't play out in a more lively, upbeat context. There's nothing justifying their dynamic being so formal and stiff.

    But it does have a purpose as you yourself seemed to say. You just don’t personally like how it’s done. Fair enough, and this is all subjective, but I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at here beyond you saying the film isn’t your thing.

    Put it this way - You yourself have admitted that SP and B25 share elements with classic bond films, right? SP has the gadget car, the henchman, the train fight, the bits of humour, etc.

    The difference is that unlike, say, Skyfall, the ways in which SP diverts from the formula are exactly what makes it worse off as a story. As much as I'm not really a fan of Skyfall, I will admit that Sam Mendes and Co. Clearly had a vision and a story to tell that justified taking certain liberties. Everything still added up to a whole, even if the whole might not be my cup of tea personally. The difference is that with SP I can't help but feel that underlying material or vision just isn't there, so as a consequence, when you have scenes with bondian aspects, and a conclusion which basically amounts to "stop the villain, save the girl", then I can't help but feel like it would work better as a straightforward, sleek bond adventure with all the fat cut out. If Madeline is going to end up as a damsel strapped to a chair that bond has to save, then why waste time setting her up as quiet, soulful character that bond falls for. Make her lively and give her and Bond more of a fiery dynamic, like a traditional bond/bond girl back and forth. Why not? If Blofeld is basically going to amount to a typical moustache-twirling, or indeed pussycat stroking villain by the end, why make out like he's some missing puzzle peice from Bond's former life, the only peice left? If we're going to end on a tradition bond gets the girl and heads off into the sunset ending, then why not treat it that way from the start?

    It's a valid set of opinions and I really don't disagree with all of them. I just don't fundamentally think there's anything wrong with having a 'romp' of a Bond adventure that has character based ideas (although as I said I'm not quite sure how character driven or angsty SP actually is in practice) if its the Bond story they want to tell. I think all Bond movies use the Bond 'formula' simply because they can't not. There has to be a villain, regardless of whether they're personally connected to Bond like in SP or GE, or if they're a maniac who wants to flood the world. There has to be a love interest (or at the very least a sexual partner for Bond) regardless of whether or not she dies. The villain has to have a scheme for Bond to go against, regardless of whether it's world domination or something as simple as getting revenge. Bond, and by extension 'good', needs to triumph over evil, regardless of whether he saves the day and beds the girl, or if he sacrifices himself.

    I think SP did what it did was because they wanted to create the most interesting Bond adventure they could. Even without the Blofeld subplot there still would have been an element of darkness/personal history there (Blofeld was, after all, effectively responsible for Vesper's death and has been aware of Bond but hiding in the shadows until now. Even without the personal history in the film we got it's a completely valid thing to explore). Fair enough if you don't like how the Madeline/Bond relationship was handled, but I actually quite like it at points. Bond answering the questions in the clinic is actually one of my favourite scenes of the series (love how nonchalant Bond is about the pretence). I also quite like Madeline being drunk and telling Bond to watch over her (feels like something Fleming would write and that his Bond would be attracted to. And as I said I love that we actually get to see Bond doing some heavy drinking and getting a bit tipsy. It's simply something the character does, and I think the mouse scene is quite funny).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 18 Posts: 16,359
    Yep, Bond films are always plot motivated, not character-driven. Adding some character stuff in there is great: it gets the audience more emotionally involved, which makes the danger more exciting and tense, because you can't get scared for characters you don't care about.
    If someone cried buckets over Chuck Lee CIA getting killed well then great; but a lot more people had damp eyes watching Vesper die, I can assure you- and that made for a more compelling and exciting climax and made for a properly excellent film.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    mtm wrote: »
    I can't follow the logic of that at all. The answer to all of those is 'because they thought it would make it better and get the audience more involved'.

    I may as well ask, if Bond is supposed to fall in love with Stacey Sutton, why make her a dumb mid-20s blonde who wears the shortest silk PJs ever instead of being a genuinely interesting and mature, intelligent woman the audience can actually get attached to and believe in the relationship between her and 007, instead of getting irritated every time she yells "JaaAAammes!"?

    Why do we have fans asking for things like the films having less depth, fewer stunts, less money spent on them, rubbish filmmakers working on them etc. so often? It feels like people want them to be the films they're not and actively worse. This guy doesn't even know what the last film was called.

    Bond doesn't fall in love with Stacy Sutton.


    Also I never asked for films to have less depth, just that if you're going down that road it should make up a cohesive story of its own, like Skyfall did.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 18 Posts: 16,359
    mtm wrote: »
    I can't follow the logic of that at all. The answer to all of those is 'because they thought it would make it better and get the audience more involved'.

    I may as well ask, if Bond is supposed to fall in love with Stacey Sutton, why make her a dumb mid-20s blonde who wears the shortest silk PJs ever instead of being a genuinely interesting and mature, intelligent woman the audience can actually get attached to and believe in the relationship between her and 007, instead of getting irritated every time she yells "JaaAAammes!"?

    Why do we have fans asking for things like the films having less depth, fewer stunts, less money spent on them, rubbish filmmakers working on them etc. so often? It feels like people want them to be the films they're not and actively worse. This guy doesn't even know what the last film was called.

    Bond doesn't fall in love with Stacy Sutton.

    She's the love interest of the movie. A fling isn't terribly interesting.
    But explain: why shouldn't Stacey be a more interesting character?
    Also I never asked for films to have less depth, just that if you're going down that road it should make up a cohesive story of its own, like Skyfall did.

    You are asking for it to have less depth. Using some exisiting tropes and adding flesh to them (like the evil master villain Silva) is not a fault, not at all. Otherwise that's all Batman movies in the last 20 years which should be chucked in the bin too, or y'know: Ian Fleming books. Audiences like seeing characters they believe in.
    It's just not coherent to say they shouldn't add any flesh to a story which is x amount closer to an older Bond movie than Skyfall is. Where is the cut off line exactly? How much are they allowed to do? Is the beach scene in GoldenEye too much? Because that's a very old style Bond movie, but here's Bond talking about feelings- is that too much?
  • edited September 18 Posts: 4,122
    To be fair I think they were really trying to go for a more romantic angle with Stacy (probably due to Moore's age compared to hers). There's a heavy element of that with Bond watching over her, cooking her dinner etc. I feel they were trying to make her more interesting on the page than she turned out.
    mtm wrote: »
    I can't follow the logic of that at all. The answer to all of those is 'because they thought it would make it better and get the audience more involved'.

    I may as well ask, if Bond is supposed to fall in love with Stacey Sutton, why make her a dumb mid-20s blonde who wears the shortest silk PJs ever instead of being a genuinely interesting and mature, intelligent woman the audience can actually get attached to and believe in the relationship between her and 007, instead of getting irritated every time she yells "JaaAAammes!"?

    Why do we have fans asking for things like the films having less depth, fewer stunts, less money spent on them, rubbish filmmakers working on them etc. so often? It feels like people want them to be the films they're not and actively worse. This guy doesn't even know what the last film was called.

    Bond doesn't fall in love with Stacy Sutton.


    Also I never asked for films to have less depth, just that if you're going down that road it should make up a cohesive story of its own, like Skyfall did.

    Ultimately, as I said, it comes down to specifically what they want to do. But as I kinda said before as well, these are James Bond films, and they go into it wanting to make a James Bond adventure. Something like SP (and indeed SF) didn't start out with them wanting to make a dark, angst ridden drama with no villain or love interest, but instead was the conclusion of what they thought a good high stakes Bond adventure would include - inclusions of Bond's past and all. Whether or not it was an enjoyable Bond film is subjective and thus questionable.

    I understand thinking that this film would have been better had it leaned into certain tones a bit more, but I don't think you can have a Bond adventure that isn't recognisably... well, a Bond adventure, no matter what character driven stuff it contains.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 18 Posts: 8,395
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I can't follow the logic of that at all. The answer to all of those is 'because they thought it would make it better and get the audience more involved'.

    I may as well ask, if Bond is supposed to fall in love with Stacey Sutton, why make her a dumb mid-20s blonde who wears the shortest silk PJs ever instead of being a genuinely interesting and mature, intelligent woman the audience can actually get attached to and believe in the relationship between her and 007, instead of getting irritated every time she yells "JaaAAammes!"?

    Why do we have fans asking for things like the films having less depth, fewer stunts, less money spent on them, rubbish filmmakers working on them etc. so often? It feels like people want them to be the films they're not and actively worse. This guy doesn't even know what the last film was called.

    Bond doesn't fall in love with Stacy Sutton.

    She's the love interest of the movie. A fling isn't terribly interesting.
    But explain: why shouldn't Stacey be a more interesting character?

    For the same reason Boris the computer programmer isn't - its unnecessary.
  • edited September 18 Posts: 4,122
    I think they were really trying with Stacy on the page to make her interesting. She has a backstory, a motive etc. I think the creative opportunity was there to do something slightly more interesting with her in the third act (much like Kara in TLD). Some sort of way she could help Bond that shows growth. She's a missed opportunity in a sense. I don't see that as unnecessary, and the film may well have been slightly more compelling for it.

    Boris is a bit different. He's a flat, rather duplicitous character in the context of the film, rather than the more rounded one Stacy is set up as. But that's actually ok incidentally. Not all characters need to be rounded or change. The difference is how you set them up, and Stacy is set up very differently to Boris. Boris gets his comeuppance too incidentally in the place of character growth - he underestimates Natalya and dies by his own arrogance. Simply different characters (love Boris by the way).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 18 Posts: 8,395
    007HallY wrote: »

    I understand thinking that this film would have been better had it leaned into certain tones a bit more, but I don't think you can have a Bond adventure that isn't recognisably... well, a Bond adventure, no matter what character driven stuff it contains.

    The difference is that you think that EON were intentional, but to me the decisions seem more based in fear. It feels like they recognise on some level that the general audience wants to see a return to more classic elements, a Type A Bond film, but at the same time they feel like doing that will mean giving up some sophistication and prestige. So films like SP are supposed to be a halfway house, to try and keep the both the media elite and the general public happy. I don't think the series can ever truly move forward until it is ready to embrace a TSWLM level of heightened reality again, and I don't just mean in the setting and aesethics, I mean the storytelling, the cinematic language, the tone, etc.

    And that doesn't mean slides whistles and gondolas BTW.
  • edited September 18 Posts: 4,122
    007HallY wrote: »

    I understand thinking that this film would have been better had it leaned into certain tones a bit more, but I don't think you can have a Bond adventure that isn't recognisably... well, a Bond adventure, no matter what character driven stuff it contains.

    The difference is that you think that EON were intentional, but to me the decisions seem more based in fear. It feels like they recognise on some level that the general audience wants to see a return to more classic elements, a Type A Bond film, but at the same time they feel like doing that will mean giving up some sophistication and prestige. So films like SP are supposed to be a halfway house, to try and keep the both the media elite and the general public happy. I don't think the series can ever truly move forward until it is ready to embrace a TSWLM level of heightened reality again, and I don't just mean in the setting and aesethics, I mean the storytelling, the cinematic language, the tone, etc.

    And that doesn't mean slides whistles and gondolas BTW.

    Well, obviously neither of us were there nor know how this film was made conceptually. I must say from what I've read briefly it doesn't seem like the logic of what you're saying was ever in mind, but it's probably not worth going into too deeply as it's so second hand to both of us.

    I'd love Bond to go to a TSWLM type of place again! Heightened reality, spectacle, and a good dose of character driven drama/a rounded love interest at its heart. Maybe make a slightly more interesting villain, but otherwise I like it. I like that that film is very fast paced too and not afraid to be pause at those more intimate character moments (SP and NTTD do as well to be fair, but they're much more drawn out pace wise). I'd love them to even slightly deviate from the Bond formula established from GF and have them put Bond in situations, even personally, he hasn't quite been in before.

    I agree, would love them to embrace TSWLM!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I can't follow the logic of that at all. The answer to all of those is 'because they thought it would make it better and get the audience more involved'.

    I may as well ask, if Bond is supposed to fall in love with Stacey Sutton, why make her a dumb mid-20s blonde who wears the shortest silk PJs ever instead of being a genuinely interesting and mature, intelligent woman the audience can actually get attached to and believe in the relationship between her and 007, instead of getting irritated every time she yells "JaaAAammes!"?

    Why do we have fans asking for things like the films having less depth, fewer stunts, less money spent on them, rubbish filmmakers working on them etc. so often? It feels like people want them to be the films they're not and actively worse. This guy doesn't even know what the last film was called.

    Bond doesn't fall in love with Stacy Sutton.

    She's the love interest of the movie. A fling isn't terribly interesting.
    But explain: why shouldn't Stacey be a more interesting character?

    For the same reason Boris the computer programmer isn't - its unnecessary.

    Says who?
    She's the co-lead of the film, she should engage the audience. We should care for her.
    Now, it doesn't matter in AVTAK so much because it's essentially a cartoon. Fun, but slight. And even in that, as 007HallY astutely points out, they did try and give her a little depth, as they had even been adding to Bond himself over the course of the last five or six films.
    But if the filmmakers decide they want to aim for a slightly different tone, one which will engage audiences even more, who's to say what's unnecessary?
    A reminder that we just had a poll of forum users' favourites on here, and OHMSS came top. The one which is all about Bond falling in love and marrying, and with the sad ending: sad because we've grown to love and care for the character at the heart of it. People like and enjoy emotional peaks and troughs in these films. Maybe they are necessary.
  • I keep hearing rumours that some sort of announcement is going to be made in November. Well according to Ajay Choudhury anyway. Im also awaiting news on what’s going to happen about Bonds 60th anniversary as nothing much seemed to happen at the time.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 18 Posts: 8,395
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I can't follow the logic of that at all. The answer to all of those is 'because they thought it would make it better and get the audience more involved'.

    I may as well ask, if Bond is supposed to fall in love with Stacey Sutton, why make her a dumb mid-20s blonde who wears the shortest silk PJs ever instead of being a genuinely interesting and mature, intelligent woman the audience can actually get attached to and believe in the relationship between her and 007, instead of getting irritated every time she yells "JaaAAammes!"?

    Why do we have fans asking for things like the films having less depth, fewer stunts, less money spent on them, rubbish filmmakers working on them etc. so often? It feels like people want them to be the films they're not and actively worse. This guy doesn't even know what the last film was called.

    Bond doesn't fall in love with Stacy Sutton.

    She's the love interest of the movie. A fling isn't terribly interesting.
    But explain: why shouldn't Stacey be a more interesting character?

    For the same reason Boris the computer programmer isn't - its unnecessary.

    Says who?
    She's the co-lead of the film, she should engage the audience. We should care for her.
    Now, it doesn't matter in AVTAK so much because it's essentially a cartoon. Fun, but slight. And even in that, as 007HallY astutely points out, they did try and give her a little depth, as they had even been adding to Bond himself over the course of the last five or six films.
    But if the filmmakers decide they want to aim for a slightly different tone, one which will engage audiences even more, who's to say what's unnecessary?
    A reminder that we just had a poll of forum users' favourites on here, and OHMSS came top. The one which is all about Bond falling in love and marrying, and with the sad ending: sad because we've grown to love and care for the character at the heart of it. People like and enjoy emotional peaks and troughs in these films. Maybe they are necessary.

    Spoiler alert, OHMSS is one of my favourite Bond films too. But that's irrelevant since I never said Bond films shouldn't have depth or emotional range or whatever. But If you're going to go for that, then you'd better have the material in a story and a vision to make it work. Otherwise you're going to end up with, well, with SP and B25. My point is that the story of SP is weak enough that it might as well be a more traditional Bond adventure with all the "depth" taken out and would work much better just as a straightforward romp. I think people would find it more memorable if that were the case, and people would talk about it in a more favourable light, I'd imagine.

    People seem to think making something more complex or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited September 18 Posts: 9,509
    or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Like assuring there are Gen Z elements? Something Skyfall failed to do? (A few days ago you were very hung up about this…)

    I’m gonna start gobbling these word salads of yours pretty soon, but I’m fearful of my health since they’re nutrient deficient…
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited September 18 Posts: 8,395
    peter wrote: »
    or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Like assuring there are Gen Z elements? Something Skyfall failed to do? (A few days ago you were very hung up about this…)

    I’m gonna start gobbling these word salads of yours pretty soon, but I’m fearful of my health since they’re nutrient deficient…

    Skyfall didn't "fail", it didn't have Gen Z elements because the oldest members of Gen Z were only 15 at the time.

    The Craig films do look considerably dated compared to modern movies now.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    People seem to think making something more complex or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Does anyone think that, though? I think we've all complained about unnecessary elements making a film feel bloated. I, for instance, have never made peace with the vastly oversized horse racing subplot in a film that futilely tries to get me nervous about microchip espionage. And whatever sort of benefit TWINE draws from making Renard impervious to pain is lost on me as well.

    Then again, some sub- and side-plots can add value to a film, I think. I was never against the Nine-Eyes thing in SP since it helps to establish Spectre as a sinister leader in controlling information and misinformation, a modern and by all means very frightening threat. As for NTTD, I know it has its distractors who feel that too much is going on, but I see half of those plots as tying up loose threads from previous films, and the other half as giving us an idea of what retirement and post-retirement life could be like for 007. I appreciate both, especially in a film that runs for nearly three hours.

    I, too, like my Bonds brisk and fleet, but I also appreciate a little extra meat on the side. Something that feels redundant can still somehow pay off at the end. Surely, we hadn't much use for Paris Carver, but knowing that her husband had her killed made Bond's rather sadistic termination of his life more satisfying than it had otherwise been.
    peter wrote: »
    or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Like assuring there are Gen Z elements? Something Skyfall failed to do? (A few days ago you were very hung up about this…)

    I’m gonna start gobbling these word salads of yours pretty soon, but I’m fearful of my health since they’re nutrient deficient…

    Skyfall didn't "fail", it didn't have Gen Z elements because the oldest members of Gen Z were only 15 at the time.

    The Craig films do look considerably dated compared to modern movies now.

    Whoa, now THAT is a statement I cannot agree with. CR and QOS still look like they were made yesterday. They, and the other Craigs, do not look dated; they are simply 'above' the lowest common denominator of mass-produced Netflix movies and your standard CGI-heavy action flicks. The absence of (poor) CGI and the classy cinematography gives them a timeless quality. Besides, what constitutes "modern movies"? Barbie? Sonic The Hedgehog? Avatar 2? Fast X? Because those aren't films we want the Bonds to look like, now are they?
  • edited September 18 Posts: 4,122
    peter wrote: »
    or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Like assuring there are Gen Z elements? Something Skyfall failed to do? (A few days ago you were very hung up about this…)

    I’m gonna start gobbling these word salads of yours pretty soon, but I’m fearful of my health since they’re nutrient deficient…

    Skyfall didn't "fail", it didn't have Gen Z elements because the oldest members of Gen Z were only 15 at the time.

    I'm genuinely curious as to what exactly you mean by this?

    The oldest Gen Z members are, what, 27-28? I'm not too far off the oldest in that spectrum but for a lot of people I know my age/younger, this was their first or favourite Bond film.

    For a lot of people I know this is one of the only Bond films they've actually watched. Again, they're younger, not Bond fans, and have liked it. I know you've talked about what you see as 'Gen Z' elements (although I think you've been spitballing/it's not entirely the case in practice- 'goofy' humour, self referentiality etc. Correct me if I'm wrong). I just don't exactly know what you mean.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,359
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I can't follow the logic of that at all. The answer to all of those is 'because they thought it would make it better and get the audience more involved'.

    I may as well ask, if Bond is supposed to fall in love with Stacey Sutton, why make her a dumb mid-20s blonde who wears the shortest silk PJs ever instead of being a genuinely interesting and mature, intelligent woman the audience can actually get attached to and believe in the relationship between her and 007, instead of getting irritated every time she yells "JaaAAammes!"?

    Why do we have fans asking for things like the films having less depth, fewer stunts, less money spent on them, rubbish filmmakers working on them etc. so often? It feels like people want them to be the films they're not and actively worse. This guy doesn't even know what the last film was called.

    Bond doesn't fall in love with Stacy Sutton.

    She's the love interest of the movie. A fling isn't terribly interesting.
    But explain: why shouldn't Stacey be a more interesting character?

    For the same reason Boris the computer programmer isn't - its unnecessary.

    Says who?
    She's the co-lead of the film, she should engage the audience. We should care for her.
    Now, it doesn't matter in AVTAK so much because it's essentially a cartoon. Fun, but slight. And even in that, as 007HallY astutely points out, they did try and give her a little depth, as they had even been adding to Bond himself over the course of the last five or six films.
    But if the filmmakers decide they want to aim for a slightly different tone, one which will engage audiences even more, who's to say what's unnecessary?
    A reminder that we just had a poll of forum users' favourites on here, and OHMSS came top. The one which is all about Bond falling in love and marrying, and with the sad ending: sad because we've grown to love and care for the character at the heart of it. People like and enjoy emotional peaks and troughs in these films. Maybe they are necessary.

    Spoiler alert, OHMSS is one of my favourite Bond films too. But that's irrelevant since I never said Bond films shouldn't have depth or emotional range or whatever. But If you're going to go for that, then you'd better have the material in a story and a vision to make it work. Otherwise you're going to end up with, well, with SP and B25. My point is that the story of SP is weak enough that it might as well be a more traditional Bond adventure with all the "depth" taken out and would work much better just as a straightforward romp. I think people would find it more memorable if that were the case, and people would talk about it in a more favourable light, I'd imagine.

    People seem to think making something more complex or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    I'm just not seeing a coherent argument here. What is it you're saying? That they should have made Spectre better? Well sure, they should have made AVTAK better too, but guess what: they tried to. The benefit of hindsight is it's really easy to say something didn't work as well as it should have done, but usually it's actually possible to point to the actual problem with hindsight, something you're not really managing here. Just saying 'SP would have worked better with the depth taken out' doesn't even hold up to close examination, and of course they were never going to do that because they were making a follow-up to Skyfall, one of the most successful Bond films ever, and so of course were trying to stay in the same tonal ballpark. It's why they got the same director. It's meaningless to say they should have made it shallow like a cartoon, because that's not what they were going for, nor should they have.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem to think making something more complex or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Does anyone think that, though? I think we've all complained about unnecessary elements making a film feel bloated. I, for instance, have never made peace with the vastly oversized horse racing subplot in a film that futilely tries to get me nervous about microchip espionage. And whatever sort of benefit TWINE draws from making Renard impervious to pain is lost on me as well.

    Then again, some sub- and side-plots can add value to a film, I think. I was never against the Nine-Eyes thing in SP since it helps to establish Spectre as a sinister leader in controlling information and misinformation, a modern and by all means very frightening threat. As for NTTD, I know it has its distractors who feel that too much is going on, but I see half of those plots as tying up loose threads from previous films, and the other half as giving us an idea of what retirement and post-retirement life could be like for 007. I appreciate both, especially in a film that runs for nearly three hours.

    I, too, like my Bonds brisk and fleet, but I also appreciate a little extra meat on the side. Something that feels redundant can still somehow pay off at the end. Surely, we hadn't much use for Paris Carver, but knowing that her husband had her killed made Bond's rather sadistic termination of his life more satisfying than it had otherwise been.
    peter wrote: »
    or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Like assuring there are Gen Z elements? Something Skyfall failed to do? (A few days ago you were very hung up about this…)

    I’m gonna start gobbling these word salads of yours pretty soon, but I’m fearful of my health since they’re nutrient deficient…

    Skyfall didn't "fail", it didn't have Gen Z elements because the oldest members of Gen Z were only 15 at the time.

    The Craig films do look considerably dated compared to modern movies now.

    Whoa, now THAT is a statement I cannot agree with. CR and QOS still look like they were made yesterday. They, and the other Craigs, do not look dated; they are simply 'above' the lowest common denominator of mass-produced Netflix movies and your standard CGI-heavy action flicks. The absence of (poor) CGI and the classy cinematography gives them a timeless quality. Besides, what constitutes "modern movies"? Barbie? Sonic The Hedgehog? Avatar 2? Fast X? Because those aren't films we want the Bonds to look like, now are they?

    I think Paris Carver could have been handled better if they are initially jovial with eachother, like old friends, but we know from the car ride with M there was a thing between them, and then when she turns up at bonds hotel room they get more personal and intimate. I just don't like the "I never knew what I'd feel if I ever saw you again", "to the gun" exchange between them, it feels way to theatrical, almost old hollywood.

    I agree bond films should feel like a complete meal, but SP and B25 could both work probably much better as 130 minute movies.
  • peter wrote: »
    or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Like assuring there are Gen Z elements? Something Skyfall failed to do? (A few days ago you were very hung up about this…)

    I’m gonna start gobbling these word salads of yours pretty soon, but I’m fearful of my health since they’re nutrient deficient…

    Skyfall didn't "fail", it didn't have Gen Z elements because the oldest members of Gen Z were only 15 at the time.

    The Craig films do look considerably dated compared to modern movies now.

    The Craig era can be criticized for many things, but looking dated ain’t one of them. In fact I’d argue that the Craig era represented some of the best action/adventure films for the time they were made, and when compared to the vast majority of action blockbusters coming out today, films like CR and SF still hold their own.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited September 18 Posts: 24,169
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem to think making something more complex or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Does anyone think that, though? I think we've all complained about unnecessary elements making a film feel bloated. I, for instance, have never made peace with the vastly oversized horse racing subplot in a film that futilely tries to get me nervous about microchip espionage. And whatever sort of benefit TWINE draws from making Renard impervious to pain is lost on me as well.

    Then again, some sub- and side-plots can add value to a film, I think. I was never against the Nine-Eyes thing in SP since it helps to establish Spectre as a sinister leader in controlling information and misinformation, a modern and by all means very frightening threat. As for NTTD, I know it has its distractors who feel that too much is going on, but I see half of those plots as tying up loose threads from previous films, and the other half as giving us an idea of what retirement and post-retirement life could be like for 007. I appreciate both, especially in a film that runs for nearly three hours.

    I, too, like my Bonds brisk and fleet, but I also appreciate a little extra meat on the side. Something that feels redundant can still somehow pay off at the end. Surely, we hadn't much use for Paris Carver, but knowing that her husband had her killed made Bond's rather sadistic termination of his life more satisfying than it had otherwise been.
    peter wrote: »
    or throwing in extra elements automatically makes something better, when in actual fact often times the opposite can be true.

    Like assuring there are Gen Z elements? Something Skyfall failed to do? (A few days ago you were very hung up about this…)

    I’m gonna start gobbling these word salads of yours pretty soon, but I’m fearful of my health since they’re nutrient deficient…

    Skyfall didn't "fail", it didn't have Gen Z elements because the oldest members of Gen Z were only 15 at the time.

    The Craig films do look considerably dated compared to modern movies now.

    Whoa, now THAT is a statement I cannot agree with. CR and QOS still look like they were made yesterday. They, and the other Craigs, do not look dated; they are simply 'above' the lowest common denominator of mass-produced Netflix movies and your standard CGI-heavy action flicks. The absence of (poor) CGI and the classy cinematography gives them a timeless quality. Besides, what constitutes "modern movies"? Barbie? Sonic The Hedgehog? Avatar 2? Fast X? Because those aren't films we want the Bonds to look like, now are they?

    I think Paris Carver could have been handled better if they are initially jovial with eachother, like old friends, but we know from the car ride with M there was a thing between them, and then when she turns up at bonds hotel room they get more personal and intimate. I just don't like the "I never knew what I'd feel if I ever saw you again", "to the gun" exchange between them, it feels way to theatrical, almost old hollywood.

    I agree bond films should feel like a complete meal, but SP and B25 could both work probably much better as 130 minute movies.

    B25 has a name. I hope you don't mind me saying that it's very childish to shake off your frustrations by pretending it doesn't. And it's not the first time you've done that.

    SP and NTTD (which stands for "No Time To Die") have a lot going on. And like most films, books, plays, and forum posts, they could benefit from leaning up a bit. In hindsight, there's always stuff we all might want to cut away. What we'd choose to cut out almost qualifies as a Rorschach test, I reckon. Some of us want less intimacy, others want less comedy, and others still prefer less talking. Even some of the shorter films, like QOS, have bits that I could do without, but there's also stuff I might consider throwing in. So a definitive 130-minute feature length is meaningless to me. What I would take out and put in differs from what you would take out and put in. As such, we might end up with vastly different cuts of the same movie, resulting also in vastly different feature lengths.

    In the end, however, these are not our films. Chef's cooked our food and we are politely asked to finish the meal. You may not like the sauce and I may not like the side dish, but it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I'll happily swallow down the side dish provided that the majority of what's on my plate tastes great. And I'm not going to complain about it because what I enjoy, you may not; and what you enjoy, I may not. So it's probably best to leave it to the chef and decide whether you want to return to his kitchen.
Sign In or Register to comment.