› ›

Would you rather loose continuity for the next films OR a story arc for James Bond and continuity?

1…152153154155157

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,189
    eva_green_bafta_jan_2008_1.jpg
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,184
    Tracy would be way more fun and we'd probably go ice skating.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,260
    Tracy 100%
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,101
    Knowing that one is really a sort of nut case and the other a cheat... can I pick a third option?
  • ArapahoeBondFanArapahoeBondFan Colorado
    Posts: 76
    QBranch wrote: »
    It has to be Lobes. More attractive and trustworthy than Bitch.

    This made me lol. I quite agree!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,516
    Tracy.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,357
    Tracy.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,525
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Knowing that one is really a sort of nut case and the other a cheat... can I pick a third option?

    Both are flawed, but who is perfect?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,019
    The love of my life versus the one who betrayed me for another man. Very easy choice.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,516
    He found one at her lowest and gave her hope, he found one at her happiest and gave her despair.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,357
    We're not by definition supposed to step in Bonds shoes I take it? If it's just for the night out I'd definitely choose the 'loose cannon' Tracy. If it was for long term relationship I'd go for the dedicated .. Tracy. If it was for standing in Bonds shoes, I don't know. Probably still Tracy. At least her death was at the hands of evil doers, not the demons inside.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,525
    Great question @CommanderRoss you can take it anyway you wish.

    I try to leave it open so we get more responses.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,525
    Alright lets jump into another choice. With the next fella taking on the role I am curious:

    Would you rather a series of films with loose continuity OR a series of films with a story arc for Bond?

    Before Marvel film series were loosely connected. There wasn't a strict adherence to character or character arcs to films. Sure Connery's early films alluded to previous films. the Mi6 staff stayed the same. However we ended up with different Felix Leiters, then different Bonds and yet the character was the same. Missions were dealt with, Bond didn't really have any character development aside from OHMSS. We saw some flashes of a character development with Dalton but by Brosnan it was back to loose connection.

    In the meantime Harry Potter, Marvel and Batman with Christopher Nolan all seemed to swing the pendulum where all films felt the need to do story arcs, and have very close and rigid continuity.

    The Craig films had an arc, Bond began in CR, he is a blunt instrument with some faint echoes of who he will become. QOS he's on a revenge rampage to avenge his loss. SF he returns to his roots and deals with childhood drama, SP he continues to explore his past and NTTD attempts to retire but is pulled back in and dies in the mission.

    What would you rather for the next fella? A return to Connery and Moore where the films were standalones and Bond was a constant? Or keep on with Craig where the films are tied together and the Bond character evolves and changes as the missions tick by?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,274
    I'm probably going to be in the minority, but I'd rather have some kind of arc, with stronger continuity and some recurring villains.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 4 Posts: 16,719
    Continuity for me, and a story arc for Bond. But nothing that a new viewer can’t pick up from watching each film. I kind of don’t see how you can have a series of films with the same characters where there isn’t a story being told nowadays, and it’s something Bond fans have always enjoyed: look at folks wanting DAF to be a proper continuation to OHMSS etc.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,715
    Not a massive fan of the story arc in Bond, particularly as each successive film can risk diluting its own identity, persona. I did get that vibe a bit from SP/NTTD. Not with CR/QOS however, as the films were very different in tone. A sequel every now and then would be cool though. Don't really care to see Bond's character growth across several films, just give me escapist adventures.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,375
    Continuity's fine for me, but ultimately it depends on what's done. I'm fine with something about the previous film informing how Bond acts in the next one (a bit like how, for example, after SF Bond is has a new lease on life in SP. Or how in Fleming Bond's near death experience in FRWL shakes his confidence in DN - something like that is fine). If necessary I'm fine with recurring characters and story threads, but ultimately I think Bond films should always be their own adventures. Even if it's a FRWL or QOS which are effectively sequels, there's always a distinctiveness to each individual Bond film. I don't want any elaborate, Marvel type nonsense where stuff is mapped out and preplanned years in advance either.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,053
    Continuity is provided by the characters, general Mi6 setting, opening sequence and music. An arc, though intended to be a source of ongoing conflict, seems more to me an ongoing lack of resolution. Blowing up stuff but not defeating the villain feels episodic and slightly inept. We've gone two rounds with Blofeld. Let's not do a third. Stand alone gets my vote.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,525
    007HallY wrote: »
    Continuity's fine for me, but ultimately it depends on what's done. I'm fine with something about the previous film informing how Bond acts in the next one (a bit like how, for example, after SF Bond is has a new lease on life in SP. Or how in Fleming Bond's near death experience in FRWL shakes his confidence in DN - something like that is fine). If necessary I'm fine with recurring characters and story threads, but ultimately I think Bond films should always be their own adventures. Even if it's a FRWL or QOS which are effectively sequels, there's always a distinctiveness to each individual Bond film. I don't want any elaborate, Marvel type nonsense where stuff is mapped out and preplanned years in advance either.

    I loved how in SF they echoed back to CR with the hand by the ear comment when Moneypenny is in the casino with Bond.

    Also recalling how Bond thought he outsmarted Kananga by requesting a table by the stage instead of a booth.

    We should have more of these little touches in the films as they add to the story and show how an agent must think.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,260
    Continuity.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,237
    Loose continuity for me, please. I'd love an old-school straightforward mission for the next one. It's been a while now.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,357
    First off, the essence of QoS is that he isn't out for revenge, that's what everybody else thinks. It's only after bond gets rounded up in the hotel m understands her mistake, 'i don't care what the Americans think, he's my agent'.
    And yes, he thus is ' a pretty cold hearted bastard'.
    It's due to this lack of understanding QoS is under appreciated.

    Anyway, personally I'd like Bond to be set it our current world. Considering the enemy the UK now has (shadow warfare), continuity seems most likely and fitting.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited January 4 Posts: 9,101
    I'm all for loose continuity... unless the next timeline tries to be more or less true to Fleming (which I doubt, as it would require to start with yet another CR again). But other than that, much of the "story arc" telling has most recently been botched, in particular caused by the messed-up plot of SP which needed cleaning up in NTTD...and as we see, many people here thought that catharsis went too far. Let's keep the stories stand-alone as much as possible. No more cliffhangers, please. Kill the baddies off for good every time. One Bloberhauser was one too many.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,475
    Dump the story arc, they tried that and did a terrible job.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited January 4 Posts: 713
    Loose continuity. They already did a strict continuity and completely botched it. When every film is connected, you run the risk of retroactively making the previous films worse. It also makes each individual movie less of a complete story and more like episodes of a TV show. I can watch Goldfinger or License to Kill at any time and enjoy them, but QOS doesn't really work on its own since it's so dependent on CR. Loose continuity worked for 40 years, there's no reason why it can't work now.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,019
    Loose continuity with standalone installments please. If they're going to institute another arc for the next era, then I at least hope it's somewhat planned out from the start.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited January 4 Posts: 4,375
    I'm not sure how much they can (or should) plan ahead to be honest, as much as it's easy to say. At least I don't think the can do it in great detail. Doing that requires them to have an idea of what the next two or three films will actually be about and the circumstances in which they'll be made, which I don't think is likely to happen. Maybe they can have a rough idea of where to go, but plans always change. In some ways it's better to role with the punches even if just to allow for 'course correction films'. Anyway, the Bond films have never had a tendency to plan their arcs ahead (just look at YOLT-OHMSS-DAF. Absolutely nothing preplanned there, but financially they probably made the right decision to make DAF standalone, and many would say it was better adapting OHMSS faithfully. YOLT certainly gave them success too, so I don't think any bad decisions were made here). Fleming certainly did not map out his books a decade in advance either.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,525
    That is a great point. With the comic films they are taking plots from the comics and bringing them to life. So they know the end game...sorry couldn't resist. LOL!

    With the Fleming Novels they are not using them anymore and as such would need to develop an arc for the character themselves. This might prove tricky. I agree with a loose continuity and no story arc for Bond.

    I would however one day like to see a proper Blofeld trilogy but this is likely never to happen.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 5 Posts: 16,719
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm not sure how much they can (or should) plan ahead to be honest, as much as it's easy to say.

    Yeah I think it's silly to insist that they planned ahead. If Fleming had mapped out where his OHMSS-YOLT-GG storyline was going before he wrote it I'd be amazed but I don't see anyone criticising that. As far as I've read about, a lot of writers don't know where their projects are going when they start them: it's not a flaw. Especially when it comes to big films where listening to the response before starting the next one would seem to make a lot of sense.
    I think not wanting to see a main character progress and change seems a bit odd in a way. I think that aspect in particular with Craig's Bond worked very well indeed. He learned, matured, relaxed, and grew in each of his films.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited January 5 Posts: 4,375
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm not sure how much they can (or should) plan ahead to be honest, as much as it's easy to say.

    Yeah I think it's silly to insist that they planned ahead. If Fleming had mapped out where his OHMSS-YOLT-GG storyline was going before he wrote it I'd be amazed but I don't see anyone criticising that. As far as I've read about, a lot of writers don't know where their projects are going when they start them: it's not a flaw. Especially when it comes to big films where listening to the response before starting the next one would seem to make a lot of sense.
    I think not wanting to see a main character progress and change seems a bit odd in a way. I think that aspect in particular with Craig's Bond worked very well indeed. He learned, matured, relaxed, and grew in each of his films.

    I think what made Craig's Bond work was that everything about him growing older felt organic. It wasn't some pre-planned nonsense shoehorned into the films, but instead it seemed to fit the story and the context they were making these films in. In SF Bond is an agent pushing 40 (as Craig was at the time) and it feels like we've jumped a bit into Bond's career (which makes sense as we had a four year gap between films, and that jump was very conscious when coming up with SF). That's not to mention all the stuff about Bond's relevancy in the modern world which is all wrapped up in the context. It feels as if everything has been considered with the character in order to create a story. SP also is constructed as a more 'classic' Bond film with a lot more of the tropes and a more humorous tone in places, so it makes sense that Bond has a newfound lease on life in that adventure (which fits perfectly with him coming out the other end after the events of SF).
Sign In or Register to comment.