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
Actually, TLD is the remake of FRWL but I take your point.
There are little bits here and there--Bond adjusting his cuffs on the train in SF comes to mind, and more controversially, Bond's reaction to Silva's "seduction." But mostly it is recycled moments.
Craig has found Bond's humanity and has incorporated it into the character better than Dalton or Lazenby ever did. The PTS in SF is just about perfectly incapsulates Craig's Bond: he wants to save Ronson, M decides to sacrifice him and Bond (like Silva--and finally delivering on alt-universe M's promise "I have no compunction sending you to your death"), and in the end sacrifices herself. Bond mourns her and moves on. Perfect.
But with SP they lost the plot, and the character. As much as I enjoyed the SP PTS, I kept thinking that Bond (according to Wilson) wouldn't put the public in jeopardy like that.
Bingo. They attract much better talent now thanks to what they created with CR (even though that is clearly the high water mark for casting in the Craig era), which is why each film keeps going back to the CR cast. Paging Jeffrey Wright for Bond 25.
Abrams is a flash in the pan. Bond films have lasted over fifty years. My God, they recast Connery. Nobody has those cojones in the film industry anymore. Think about that for a moment: that would be like recasting Indiana Jones.
I get more of an opporite impression in fact. The heavier the talent, the more they seem to lose sight of the track.
You make a good point there and that's something I've noticed too. When EoN make these casting stunts of heavy talent actors they seem to forego telling a focused story and instead rely on the hype of who they've cast and in the case of Mendes, the person directing.
As cliche as it's now becoming but just look at CR, sure, we had Fleming material to work with but there was a genuine focus on telling a great story and having to adapt the Fleming material and adding their own story, where they got excellent actors to fulfil their roles in a very satisfying way. Quality was never compromised and they managed to freshen this gSekICGI up in an exciting way. No pretense, no feeble oscar-baiibg, no casting stunts; just good old fashioned film making.
Well I do think there is a case for going 'back to basics' when a franchise has gone so far off kilter that it just starts to look like it's trying too hard to be 'relevant'.
The OP asked - Now I know a lot of you will cry "heresy" at the very notion, and I'm not saying that a shot-for-shot remake of Dr. No is a sure thing, but what if, just what if, EON tried their hand at putting a fresh coat of paint on the most financially successfully and culturally phenomenal Bonds of the 1960s? Would that be so bad? Heck, if the direction taken by Abrams and Co is any indication, it at very least is an idea worth putting on the table.
These are the thoughts of a Studio exec, following trends with a view to maximising profit. The whole opening gambit reeks of someone who implies 'creativity' is at the heart of their thinking, while masking the driver, money.
Firstly, what we're talking here is the cinematic version of '007 Legends', which quite frankly is a diabolical idea.
Secondly, this talk of TFA is boring. Yes, it's a really enjoyable romp, but it does nothing new or creative with the material. It's a cookie-cutter production using all the classic visual tropes and narrative twists. The only reason people are chomping at the bit is because it's pulling in a f*** tonne of money. There isn't anything about it, whether it's character, plot, direction, score... that attempts anything new. Add to this that all the film had to do was have a Millenium Falcon for the audience to getting a lob on, why would you bother writing fully formed characters? It's not the route for Bond and trust me, the SW bubble will burst.
Going back to basic, yes, I'm all for it and have actively advocated it, but that doesn't equate to putting a new lick of paint on GF. It means going back to the source, reigning in the need for mass global adoration as your primary objective, and producing a different take on the 007 myth.
I think I didn't take it quite as literally :> I extrapolated.
That's certainly one way to do it. I think, when you have a long running franchise like Bond, you have to mix it up from time to time. Not every Bond film can be CR, and not every Bond film can be TSWLM. I love them both equally, even though they are world's apart. Just speaking from my perspective as a Bond fan, I just want the film to have 'heart and soul', I want to care about the characters, and I want them to do whatever they do 'well' by my relatively critical standards, and surprise me. Even if it's derivative, there's a way to do it so that it impresses. Nearly everything is derivative of something these days anyway.
You forget the 90 minute breakfast and shower scene.
Joking aside, there's a lot in the tone of the books that can ignite a different take, even now. Trust me, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.
The prequels aren't nostalgic. They feature no one bar Threepio and Artoo. TFA is pinned on the fact that
Precisely, which is why post DC they need to take a step back and see where they go next. Emulating TFA is not the next logical step imo.
What I connected to was Finn, Rey and BB8. That's what really impressed me about this film. I 'felt' these characters. I know you have issues with them, but for some reason they resonated with me, more than anyone in the prequels. That's what impressed me more than anything about this effort.
I'm massively impressed, as I've said before, these aren't particularly well written characters (that's being fair). Any screenwriter worth his salt can tell you that, but if they connected with you I'm glad because it will have elevated this film for you way beyond my experience.
EDIT: Actually, BB8 can stay. He was decent, albeit a riff on R2.
He has plenty. These just off the top of my head:
from CR:
1. PTS (actually a couple of scenes)
2. Stairway fight, followed by...
3. The sink scene, downing scotch and trying to collect himself, followed by...
4. Shower scene with Vesper
5. The torture scene and the "scratching my balls" line.
(none of these could have been pulled off by any other Bond actor--except maybe Dalton)
from QoS:
6. The fight with Slate
(again, couldn't be pulled off by any other Bond actor)
from SF:
7. Doing a shot with a scorpion on his hand
8. Second fight with Patrice
9. Meeting Silva (and the "first time" line)
10. Standing on the roof of the Dept of Energy Building
from SP
11. PTS (several scenes)
12. The clinics scenes, though you can make a case that the backdrop is too much based on OHMSS
My two cents: EON made a mistake by not re-setting CR in the 50s/early 60s and leaving Bond in that era. This would freeze him, chronologically, and make him a Cold War hero again. The fear, of course, is that today's audiences wouldn't get it. But TMFU was a pleasant surprise, despite this setting, and I would argue that the setting was part of what made the film so enjoyable. There is something to be said of that era and spies in the Cold War.
Indeed!
The rest of the film would see how his first two kills happened and he got his 00 number, ending with M telling about a doctor in Jamaica who needed checking into-a bit of a retcon, but not a reboot.
Maibaum and Wilson s idea for a period piece (would most likely be a one off for the actor cast, and not sure where they could go from there) was vetoed by Albert R. Broccoli.
God bless, Cubby.
Well, they didn´t get the re-boot either ;-). In comparison, a period piece seems easier to get to me, but you´re not wrong.
Plenty of original iconic moments in CR. But take your point on Mendes.
That is exactly what made CR such a strong entry, and what I have missed in DC's tenure since.
Dan's debut had iconic moments galore, whereas Mendes & co. don't seem capable of coming up with anything half as cool as CR served up.
Some may hold up QoS in this regard as well, but I don't agree, although I like the film very much. It had fewer 'iconic' moments (as I said earlier, I can only think of the Opera sequence) but it must be credited for being a different kind of Bond film. Same goes for SF.
What they should have done is keep updating the novels into films.
The follow up to CR should have been a mix of the LALD and Moonraker novels, updated to modern settings.
The third film should have been drawing from DAF and FRWL novels, with Bond dying at the end (instead of at the beginning like in Skyfall)
Then they should have drawn from Dr No and Goldfinger, rolled into one film.
Then adapt straight TB, OHMSS and YOLT/MWTGG, remaking the movies in essence, just like the new SW remakes the first.
That would have been 7 Craig films, some of them costing about half what any current Bond movie cost, covering most of the Fleming era, just like CR draws from CR.
Instead they spend x amount of money into stunts no one cares about and jokes only die hard fans would smile for, basically remaking the Brosnan era films.
Makes no sense.
That would be my preferred option as well. There's still a multitude of Fleming material that has never been adapted and even then there's the continuation Bond novels...
I'm all for hallmarks and tropes but they need to be done in an organic way and with moderation. Now that I think about it, as much as I don't like Newman's score, I'm surprised we didn't get the Bond theme blaring every 4 minutes.
Bond needs to be Bond obviously but we need these films to showcase a willingness and boldness in the same way CR and QoS did. One of the worst scenes in Bond history, for me, was Bond and Swann shooting their way out of Blofeld's lair. *groan* Anyway, going forward these films need to be better written and elevate itself from cliche and the pastiche it's now almost becoming.
SP on the whole is good but the spy competition of 2015 and what's to come this year will force EoN to re-evaluate things. More CR and less SF/SP. Thank you very much.
It's quite ironic, because they started the DC era with the intention of moving away from pastiche. Now they seem to be embracing it - as if now we've had a few films that aren't like that we suddenly want to do what we were originally so opposed to.
Perhaps they just wanted to give Craig a proper 'Bondian' sendoff. If that's the case, then I think they've sort of forgotten how to make a traditional Bond film imho, without it looking cliche ridden. In fact, as I think about it, the last traditional Bond film in my view was 1987's TLD. So this Broccoli/Wilson team has never given us one without it looking like pastiche (like the 90's).
I'm certainly glad they didn't do that.
Me too. I'm just surprised they managed to restrain themselves, all things considered.
I agree completely.
It was in the DNA of the Connery era, but during the Rog years they weren't burdened by that sense of nostalgia that crept into pop culture during the 90's and has yet to wain. In fact if you look at the biggest grossing films of the year it's quite obvious that we are experiencing, or are at least close to, peak nostalgia (which I can't wait to see subside). The DB5 did not feature in a Bond film for 30 years, they created all new icons, such as the Lotus you mention. For me it's a case of looking forward. The DB5 is always there to enjoy when I pop in GF, but I want invention not blatant nostalgia. It's a visual safety net which they don't need.