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
I don't see that with the MI films, nor do I see that with the Marvel output either. The closest they compare to for me is the Nolan Bat and the first three Bourne films tonally, but I personally believe those entries were far more successful in telling a coherent protagonist narrative - i.e. they used the angst more proactively and in a more compelling and engaging manner for me.
The Craig narrative is not over yet. B25 will be critical in either ensuring a more positive legacy (for those, like me who increasingly have doubts) or a negative one. Those already converted are likely to be enthused irrespective.
Now the next Bond actor will probably bring a different tone. To which extent that remains to be seen. But I can bet that whatever the tone they'll keep at least a degree of personal angle. A brainwashed Bond trying to kill M, the memory of Vesper coming back from time to time, a villain with a personal grudge against him, doing something out of friendship for Tanner, Leiter, Moneypenny or what have you, but there will be a degree of it.
So yes, it's perhaps likely that some personal elements will exist in the future, but from my perspective at least, I hope they get an actor, writers and directors who can successfully deliver a more lighter tone without descending into comical.
I had enough of comical/flippant with later Connery and Moore. I hope Bond #7 gives us something different.
Definitely agree. Bond should be an entertaining spectacle, and a return to these elements would be very welcome, IMO.
So it should. There's a time for a brooding Bond, and a time for bright Bond. With the next guy, hopefully the latter.
Great post.
I'm not sure that's even controversial. The last line of TWINE is the absolute worst. Whatever happened to sophisticated British humor and innuendo? How did we get from the dialogue of a OHMSS to that of TWINE?
Purvis and Wade, that's how. Their biggest problem is with dialogue. Not many memorable lines in their movies.
LTK did feature personal issues, and that was fine then and fine when they did it in CR. But four films in a row with elements of it are making it feel as stale as old bread.
Again I have to make a point to you @Ludovico
Whilst I agree there has been some personal elements in all since TLD, they have been far more subtle. Take GE for an example. The personal aspect is only used for two sequences. Bond meets Trevelyan again and Bond is questioned on the beach by Natalya. Even in that second scene, all we are basically told is 'He used to be your friend, but now you will kill him'. Job done.
Things like that can't be compared to scene after scene and endless exposition, not to mention moody shots of Bond staring off into the distance that we have now. Don't even get me started on Blofeld-gate. The point I am making is, these elements have been offered up before, but we have never been beaten over the head with it, in the fashion of the last two or three films.
Will this appeal to modern audiences though? I have my doubts...
I understood that very well. I am just debating how likely it is to happen. Me and you might not care much about what the general public thinks. But I assure you EON does. Quite a bit...
Most of the general resentment towards Spectre was ironically that it was outlandish and silly with not much story depth.
I think one of Spectre's major problems is that it has its feet on both sides of the fence, so to speak. It tries to give off more of the typical Craig introspection, but marries this up with a few bits of levity. The two don't mix unfortunately. If they wanted to go full, old school Bond, they should have jettisoned all the more 'Craigy' elements.
Firstly, yes the general public did harbour moderate resentment for those aspects of SP, but this is done to execution moreso than concept. I really think the problem is that they looked back instead of forward. A lot of the silly moments in SP feel like they were ripped straight out of a Moore outing, instead of have their own contemporary flavour. It felt like retreading old paths, instead of forging new ones. In Skyfall it was somewhat justified because it was a movie ABOUT being trapped in the past somewhat, and not being able to find your place in the modern world. But with SP it just comes across as recycling old and tired ideas. That being said, I have no doubts that light-hearted, somewhat operatic adventures are the way to go moving forward. But they need to actually find a modern cinematic volcabulary with which to tell that kind of story instead of relying on old tropes.
At the moment it really appears like Bond has two sources of inspiration, the same old 60's/70's style of Bond with itself exotic flair and campness, and the dark, gritty era of the mid 2000's with franchises like Bourne and The Dark Knight. Both of these are increasingly dated material to be basing your franchise off of, and as time goes by the more it shows. Bond needs a new source of inspiration and a new direction. In short the franchise needs to move on. I have a feeling that this won't truly come to pass while Craig is still in the role.
Whether it was done more subtly or not was not my point though. My point is that it has been there in Bond and other franchises and that it is likely to remain whatever the approach they take for the next Bond actor. Unless/until action/adventure franchises decide to go "impersonal" it will stay for a while.
Fair enough @Ludovico If they do continue with it, I hope it's a far subtler approach than the Craig era's.
Yes, look at any Liam Neeson movie. Until the industry changes, the personal angle is here to stay.
NSNA is a cheap remake of TB, granted with a very good cast, but just as good as OP. Louis Jourdan, Kabir Bedi, Steven Berkoff, Maud Adams. I'd say there's more Fleming in OP than NSNA, which bizarrely seems to follow the Roger Moore style quips and gags, even though it stars Sean Connery.
Of course our opinions as fans will always differ. Just adding my take on it. ;)
If one gets those elements right, the film will click with hardcore and the wider audience. If one doesn't, then one ends up with a polarized end product, which ticks off a component of the fanbase or ends up being forgotten by the general public (irrespective of in the moment box office - Bond films always make money). Such was the case with SP and definitely QoS.
It doesn't apply to SF because it resonated with Joe Public. I have my opinion on why that's the case and have mentioned it on this and other threads - the SF situation is incredibly difficult to duplicate imho, because there were many external factors that played into its success as well. Chasing that going forward will be a fool's game.
Additionally, there's only so much one actor can do because to a large part he is a part of the picture, whether he likes it or not. Attempts at changing ones approach can only go so far, and sometimes it can come across fake. The same goes for a group of writers. Ultimately when we look back on this with the benefit of hindsight we will see clear influences pervading the era, and the actor and writers will be the key elements. Not so much the director in this case, because they have been varied.
It's a fine line between the childish dialogue in DAD and the sophisticated repartee in TB. It's a fine line between the callbacks to the past in SF and the similar attempts in SP. It's all a question of how it's done. Execution and finesse. Context and delivery. Tone. Emphasis. Imho. How some of the crap we've endured over the last 25 years made it to the final film amazes me. Especially with so much experience and high powered talent at the table (at all levels of the film making and production process).
So I don't have a problem with a bit of personal continuing for Bond #007. However, I'd like the overall tone and approach to follow this:
If Broccoli has a problem with this, then maybe it's time to move on and let someone else get it done.
Back in the day most television series told stand-alone stories with some callbacks to earlier episodes with recurring characters or popular villains. The phenomenon of television cliffhangers only goes back to the early '80s or so. These days it's all about the continuity as even sitcoms these days have ongoing storylines, so there's an audience that has never known anything else. It won't change.
For those of us who have been through both types, it's especially polarizing. It's interesting I can enjoy what's gone before still with the standalones, but with the modern looking forward to the next chapter being teased.
As I said before somewhere, my judgment on NSNA vs. TB is influenced by the fact that I saw NSNA about three or even five times before ever encountering TB...which may have influenced my expectations not including extremely drawn-out underwater scenes. Again, not saying TB is bad, but still for me a lesser Connery entry.
The segments I have seen though felt slow and not engaging with a significantly worse production value compared to OP.
Yes to all of that.
https://rogerebert.com/reviews/never-say-never-again-1983
https://rottentomatoes.com/m/never_say_never_again
https://variety.com/2012/film/reviews/revisiting-1983-s-never-say-never-again-1118058278/
I'll spare you the German-language ones which clearly gave the edge to NSNA, but I am still glad I'm nowhere alone with my opinion basically formed in 1983.
(Runs)
To put it like that: +1