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
Well said!
I'm not so certain they know what films they want to make, or else 'QOS' to 'SPECTRE' and now based on reviews, 'NTTD,' wouldn't be such a mixed bag.
Reviews of NTTD have been pretty positive. Nothing mixed like QOS and SP.
Also, let’s not pretend the Cubby years didn’t have their fair share of mixed reviews. This isn’t something unique to his children’s tenure.
Excellent post. Yes, listening to the fans is rarely a good idea.
They say ‘make them like Fleming’ and they say ‘we want stand-alone missions where Bond has no emotions’- well you can’t have both because that’s certainly not how Fleming wrote his books.
It feels like you’re looking for any reason to bash these films. CR is not a realistic film: Bond is sent to gamble a man to death, it’s nonsense. It’s also heavily based on Fleming, who put a man-eating giant squid in his novels. A Komodo dragon is something I’ve never heard anyone but you be annoyed by.
Maybe some fans are determined to overthink these things.
Like Mendes? Who made the first billion dollar Bond? I guess they didn’t need future Oscar-winning composers like John Barry either, but I’m glad they used him.
Indeed, there are even some mad people who don’t like Moonraker :)
Ding ding ding
The Cubby years are a different entity/universe as far as I'm concerned. The formula was used for all of his films and it was all about what could be done within those confines. More times than not, it gave the respective directors some focus. In general, it's pretty safe to say that there are more Cubby Bond films that we, the fans, do love than those that we don't.
Marc Forster and Sam Mendes are not action movie directors, by any means, and like it or not, Bond films are action films. There's only so much deviation that can take place within the world of Bond, before it's no longer Bond. To me, the Craig era is nothing, but a collection of Bond moments, aside from perhaps 'Casino Royale'-directed by a Bond veteran and action film director.
In regard to the Craig era itself, I've had a hard time looking at a Red Grant looking Bond with a ridiculously tight suit and ear piece, while out on a reconnaissance mission with a puny little Walther PPk, or speed ordering a vodka martini (every predecessor would have taken his time), or going back to the old M office in the modern world, or Eve introducing herself as Moneypenny, or Bond reciting corny lines like, "with pleasure...M, with pleasure," or crying over M's body, or being Blofeld's foster brother, and the list goes on...
Yes, Craig is a fine actor, but I don't understand why he had been given so many creative liberties for a role in which he never truly cared too much about. Also, no one ever asked for the gradual reintroduction of characters, gadgets and whatnot. The franchise survived all those years because Bond just WAS. Cubby even smartly avoided a Bond origins approach when the option came up. Timothy Dalton was a soft reboot and Pierce Brosnan effortlessly continued in the role, so there was never an awkward readjustment period. The flow just seemed more natural back then.
Change is good, yes, but to me, Daniel Craig's Bond could easily be another agent in a different series, all together. I never felt that way about any of his predecessors or any of the films during Cubby's time.
So if you can’t get past Cubby, maybe it’s time to let this franchise go because it’s never going to return to the way it used to be when you grew up with Bond. Tough luck.
This might be an unpopular take here, but I don't believe Bond films are action films in the sense that most think. Action is a key part of the formula, but Bond movies are really their own genre. They are time capsules that say something about the day in which they were made, while also heavily leaning into a shared legacy. There's the thematic undercurrent of Britain's role (and the role of spies) in a post-WWII, post-Cold War, and noe post-9/11 world. There's the globe trotting travelogue appeal, there's the style, glamour, world class production values etc. and I believe all these elements take precedence in the identity of Bond over action and I'd even go as far as to say that changing with the times is maybe the most critical aspect of the Bond formula. There's a reason these haven't been period pieces. There's a complexity and sophistication to the Bond formula beyond the box ticking of tropes and it takes more than a journeyman action director to pull that off in a manner that is fresh and engaging for non-diehard fans. That might work for Mission Impossible or Marvel, but I don't know if that approach is right for Bond at this point in time.
With that, it makes sense for this age of Bond to have "arthouse" (I'd say auteur is more appropriate) directors. Nolan changed everything with his Batman trilogy and Inception, and thus blockbuster audiences came to crave and expect a higher level of sophistication thematically, narratively, and aesthetically than they had before. Nolan has been the poster child but we've had Shane Black and James Gunn in the MCU, Marc Forster, Sam Mendes, and Cary Fukunaga doing Bond, Rian Johnson in Star Wars, Dennis Villeneuve with Blade Runner 2049 and Dune, James Mangold for Wolverine, the list goes on and on. High-brow blockbusters with a strong directorial voice/vision are a trademark of the past 10 - 15 years, as is the shift from down and dirty post-9/11 grit and nihilism to more heartfelt emotional experiences with a heavy dollop of the nostalgia we all know and love.
This may not be the kind of Bond you've grown to love and expect, I can completely appreciate that, but that doesn't make it any "less" Bond. Perhaps its not "your" Bond, but it's just as Bond as it has ever been, and perhaps the cinematic trends to come will be more in line with your preferences. I for one enjoy this "auteur blockbuster" period and appreciate it for what it is.
"It was me, James. It was always me."
:))
And as the franchise gets older, the demographics change and so does fan consensus. What is seen as the default for Bond will shift because of that. As a kid, the conceit I noticed from Boomers was that only 60s Bond was “true” Bond, anything else after is lesser. But then younger generations started making their voices heard. GOLDFINGER may have been considered untouchable by the 90s, but 30 years later I’m seeing more much appreciation for films like OHMSS, no doubt because that film fits in better with recent films emphasizing emotion and character. Same with TSWLM and GE.
What I look forward to is how Craig’s run is seen roughly decade later, when there has been enough distance from it to judge it as a Bond era of the past rather than of the present, especially when we’re deep into another actor’s run. There was a period where Moore, Dalton and Brosnan got a lot of flack after their tenures ended. Craig will no doubt get that flack at first, but by 2031 it’ll be interesting to hear Genration Z’s assessment of Craig’s run and how much it means to them in the same way Moore is to GenXers and Brosnan is to millennials.
Yes, what the OP means by ‘why don’t they listen to the fans’ is actually ‘why don’t they listen to me’, and the answer to that is pretty obvious.
I agree with many of the things that you've said, and yes, I completely concur that Bond films are an entity of their own...but, they still lean toward action. Mendes and Forster did not achieve the emotional impact with Bond that Nolan had, simply because a film like 'The Dark Knight' went beyond the superhero genre and delved into psychological and existential themes: think of the scene with the two boats and the explosive remotes.
Mendes on the other didn't open my eyes to any humanism in regard to Bond. His attempt was hodgepodge, whereas Nolan's vision with Batman was sharper.
Villeneuve handled 'Blade Runner 2049' masterfully, because that universe isn't simply sci-fi, it's very allegorical and covers a variety of themes. So, in regard to Bond, Martin Campbell was the only director during Craig's tenure to effectively marry the action and adventure with a certain grounding. Mendes went off the rails, because he was willing to risk the feel of Bond. At the end of the day, a Bond film needs to exude "Bond," the very thing that sets those films from other actioners. Both 'Skyfall' and 'SPECTRE' do not seem convincing with the tale that they are trying to tell. This is why I worry that 'NTTD' will probably get lost in the mumbo jumbo that taints it.
There, fixed it for you.
The problem with what you are saying, Friend Wolf, is that your are confusing your own opinion with that of ALL fans. "Will the producers ever listen to fans?" Of course they will, they already do. It's just that expecting ALL fans to speak with one voice -- yours -- is like asking a randomly assembled batch of cats to march in a straight line. It's just not going to happen, no matter how fervently you believe it should.
And yet there are things like FRWL, GF, OHMSS or CR, which come very close to that.
Tight good stories, well contained, good writing, and with airtight productions. And very close to the source material, as close as they could.
I truly believe there is a sweet spot which is close to being consensual amongst Bond fans. That relativity theory works for most opinions and tastes, but despite that, there is that sweet spot which is almost universally a given.
So they can't replicate that anymore? Really?
How sad if true.
And yet those are four very different films. I don't see that as a sweet spot, I see that as the series doing different things as it always has and finding (mostly) success in that.
Excellent thoughts. I’ve mentioned in other threads that EON is very savvy and have shown that they know when to course correct, with FYEO and CR being the most notable. Now I’m not saying that a change of tone would be. “ correction” but I do think that the are perceptive enough to know that trying to duplicate the Craig era’s tone is not the right way to go.
I get that. Like when you buy the DVDs, you want them to all have the same uniform design so that they all look consistent with each other. But then you drop that design in favor of a new one, suddenly it’s no longer the case. I think book collectors understand that, as there was a period where the Fleming novels took awhile to have all 14 books carry a uniform design.
To me Skyfall feels like a proper old school Bond movie at times, through a lens of modernity, and is clearly made by people who have a great deal of affection for the movies of the 60s and 70s. It feels way more old school to me than CR does and does indeed ‘exude’ Bond. You may disagree, but I think you’ve mistaken your opinion for fact.
Absolutely right. There’s a thread on here called ‘is Skyfall the best Bond film’ which is full of people saying it is and people saying it isn’t. I happen to like and enjoy all of the Bond films, but judging by this site not all Bond fans agree. So consensus is pretty hard to achieve. The issue is people who believe that everyone agrees with them, or that they should agree with them.
Like the last 5 Bond films in a row?
As someone who watched all five within about a 36 hour span, that's a ridiculous statement to me. These are five different films.
Every time I try asking someone what the issue is with the emotional stuff I get a different answer: so much for consensus. I genuinely don’t understand.
I think the problem is fans are fans because they like the thing that already exists, so often you’ll find fans who aren’t open to any sort of variation- and that’s understandable. That’s why they’re fans. They want Bomd in a tux getting gadgets from Q and drinking martinis. Tell them that didn’t happen in Live And Let Die and they’ll splutter and say “that doesn’t count because it’s in the past! I’m saying new films can’t do that!!” as if that’s logical.
But for that reason fans are exactly the wrong people to talk to about keeping something relevant or fresh. They want that same thing again please.
They're awfully formulaic to me. But that's okay, we all see things differently.
And a lot of fans ask for the films to be formulaic: they literally use the word formula. No wonder Eon wouldn’t ask them what they want! We can’t even agree if sticking to a formula is a good thing or a bad thing! :D
Ironically, I never found the original 20 films formulaic. It was a new adventure with every one. Never a dull moment.