Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Will the Producers Ever Listen to Fans? NO SPOILERS for 'NTTD'
OOWolf
Savannah
Although I have yet to see 'NTTD,' as I'm in the States, I have read a lot of SPOILER FREE reviews. In those reviews, I've noticed that there's a bit of gripe in regard to the "emotional" angles and continual insistence on "humanizing" Bond. I'm under the impression that the producers are unaware of the the fans' desire for a return to standalone missions, that are not linked to some kind of emotional backstory. Maybe they are, but the standalone films are harder to write. Who knows? I can't figure it out for the life of me.
I'm just curious as to why the producers think that we, the audience, care about a backstory or serializing a franchise that worked quite fine as it had for nearly 60 years. Bond is special intellectual property because of the formula. That's what we've all loved for so long. There's only so much deviation until it totally loses its face.
I'm just curious as to why the producers think that we, the audience, care about a backstory or serializing a franchise that worked quite fine as it had for nearly 60 years. Bond is special intellectual property because of the formula. That's what we've all loved for so long. There's only so much deviation until it totally loses its face.
^ 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
Ironically I’ve found Craig at his most Bondian in CR which is supposed to be a proto-Bond movie.
I honestly think that if they just tried to cater to what fans think they want, we’d have 25 Dr. No’s.
“Producers are unaware of the fans desire to return to standalone missions”, fair enough, if you and several other fans want this, but you can’t possibly speak for “the fans” at large I don’t think, and you do throughout.
Again, fair enough if the producers aren’t making the Bond films *you* want, but call it like it is.
So, in the 21st century with Marvel, DC, MI and F&F breathing down your neck how does Eon please everyone and keep Bond alive and relevant?
It’s not easy.
Personally I don’t mind what direction they take as long as they keep the fundamentals in place.
Also worth remembering that Fleming wrote a story arc. And at least in the last 5 films we have had a consistent Leiter & Blofeld - as opposed to the ‘any free actor will do’ approach to these characters in the 60s.
It's clear now that the Craig era is its own beast and that they wanted to try something different. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with those of us who wish to return to "simpler" times where the films were mostly standalone missions that were introduced and completed by the time the credits rolled.
Only time will tell whether we get another self-contained timeline or we go back to the traditions and typical beats the films used to offer with the next era. But to assume that they "owe" us anything is a bit extreme, in my view.
With that being said, I would like them to once again reboot Bond and let Craig's interpretation be what it is, and then just start making Bond movies again where, however many actors go on to play the part, we just accept that this is the same guy. I'm fine with redoing some of the older stories even, and if they want to try and set certain things up over time or even try to do something like the Blofeld Trilogy on screen, I'd also like that. But overall, I'd like a good run of the more serial-type films we got with the first 20. Maybe in a couple decades' time they can do another isolated set of films with the same actor to try and tell an overarching story.
Agree on all counts (except I haven't seen NTTD yet!); I have been thinking it might be kind of neat if they did an anthology of sorts; a few one-offs in a row, different actor, different director each time. It would be a cool way to see different takes on the character (Nolan, Tarantino's VO Bond, etc). Probably not practical if they keep releasing Bond films the way they are now, but I still think it would be a cool switch-up from the Craig era.
The only reason I don't want this is because, Craig aside, I don't think any actor generally gets to fully craft their Bond in one film and I want to see what an actor does with at least two or three (preferably more) turns in the role. For example I think Lazenby gets a whole whack of unfair stick for what is overall a surprisingly great performance because it's the only one we got from him, and he spends the entire middle act being dubbed by another actor. If he had gotten even just one more film, he would be regarded much more warmly.
I just always have Barbara Broccoli in mind, repeating how they want to keep the fans happy, yet they do everything to their own accord. I understand, I have no say in EON's business, but I bring them business, as we all do.
I have never been a fan of Craig's iteration, but I will admit that 'Casino Royale' was his best outing and it felt the most in-sync with the films that preceded it. There are people that give a lot of credit to 'Skyfall,' but to me, Craig's tenure and story arc has been quite a hodgepodge effort. The producers know it too, but they'll never admit to it. As a matter of fact, it's not even a hidden thing, as they openly didn't know where they'd go after 'Casino.'
It can be said that the most recent Bond films are a part of the current zeitgeist of a "lost identity." If we think about it, the Cold War fueled the plots of the classic Bond films and it never really ended. I think there is plenty of material for at least another decade of Bond films that don't have to be over-the-top to be exciting and good. The pen is mightier than the sword, as we all know, so good writing is truly what the franchise needs along with the return of the episodic entries.
QoS: Writers Strike.
Skyfall: 50th Anniversary, departure from narrative arc.
Spectre: Regained Spectre film rights, probably pressure to shoehorn Spectre in to the Quantum narrative they were building.
No Time to Die: Pandemic.
And it's very fair to not be a fan of the Craig era.
Agree wholly with your last paragraph; the writing truly is what's going to make or break future Bond films, I think, and a return to episodic entries (even if it's just because that's what the Craig era wasn't), is needed as well.
Exactly my thoughts, @NickTwentyTwo .. Plus, this is still a business with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake... If they listened to the fans, which group should they listen to? The Moore fans? Connery? Laz? Broz?... My Dog, they'd make messes of their films... But somehow, through the ingenuity of the production team, they've survived the odd mis-fire and have more than not consistently given us films that fans and general audiences can love and/or appreciate on some level...
They continue to pull in viewers, old and new.
The franchise is 60 years old and still going strong! What other franchise has done that with films coming out every 1-5 years for the past 60 years? Star Wars?... Indy?... Die Hard?... No one has done what EoN has done.
I was thinking about this last night: why didn't they have the rights to SPECTRE again?
Kevin McClory
Technically, they could release a Bond film with unicorns, but as long as the brand is attached, it'll probably survive and do well. It's easy to give the producers a lot of credit, but their dad was truly responsible for the success of the franchise, so the groundwork had already been properly laid. 'Die Another Day,' 'QOS' and most of all, 'SPECTRE' are not very good entries by any means, but regardless, people get excited by the prospect of a new OO7 film and that's ONLY because of history.
Can’t agree there; those films aren’t not very good entries by *any* means I don’t think, and I really don’t think people only get excited about new films only because of history.
It’s especially disingenuous because there’s this presumption that there are only fans that originated from the original 20 films, never taking into consideration there is a whole generation of Bond fans that were introduced to the franchise via Craig and were brought up on that.
This OP is less representative of fans as a whole and more so of a very specific subset of fans that want to return to “the good old days” when EON was a sausage factory.
It just sounds like you’re stubbornly trying to deny the accomplishments of Mike and Babs. Like, god forbid the idea that SKYFALL made new fans and that people saw SPECTRE due to the goodwill of its direct predecessor. Noooo, people only saw these Craig films because of Cubby’s run which ended over 30 years ago.
They moved on from selling quality sausage to selling mad cow disease riddled mince meat.
I have nothing to add @MakeshiftPython ... Bang. On.!!!!!
In your opinion.
Clearly there are others with that same opinion.
Definitely! I think the disconnect is that you think it's the opinion of the vast majority of the fans (or all the fans, as per your OP), when I think box office numbers would disagree.
I'm not saying good box office = good films, I'm saying some people definitely share your opinion but I think it's a smaller number than you think. Vocal minority and all that.
Well, then I apologize if it sounds like I'm speaking for the greater majority. I guess I'm just trying to elaborate on the opinion that Craig's run feels just a wee bit overrated. During Cubby's period, EON was capable of cranking out classics at the sausage factory, whereas, the modern EON needs double the time to deliver films with screenplays that are not very clever and laden with serious plot holes. 'Casino Royale' is the only relatively tight scripted entry during Craig's tenure, and that's greatly due to it being based on Fleming's classic novel.
I suppose that I'm compelled to discuss this, based on the mixed reviews of 'NTTD.' Without having seen it, yet, I truly bet that the abominable 'SPECTRE' has tainted it. The producers knew that it was a mess and can guarantee that it's the only reason why 'NTTD' is supposed to be a direct sequel; they thought something so bad could somehow be justified.
Lastly, where is the artistic integrity? 'Casino Royale' was supposed to set the tone for a more grounded run of films with Daniel Craig, and two films later, there are man eating Komodo dragons...
It was funny how in 2015 fans slated SP but praised The Force Awakens and Disney for supposedly having a direction. Come 2019 we realise the Star Wars sequel trilogy was ultimately pretty aimless and dispensable having been pulled in too many different directions.
Bond may not be high art but it's still art and the producers and writers should tell the story they want to tell and not feel bound to give the 25th reiteration of what some fans enjoyed back in the 60s.
Sure, it's a commercial cinematic franchise in which box office receipts determine the long term future but the film series has benefited from the course changes the producers themselves chose, the down to earth approach for FYEO, going with Craig and a reboot with CR.
I also want to add that the fans won’t have so many art house movie directors working on the movies. EON hasn’t been able to get over that they don’t need them.
Exactly. I guess the average moviegoer hasn't paid attention to the fact that the same writers responsible for giving a poor send off for Brosnan, had never left.