Controversial opinions about Bond films

1507508510512513707

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2019 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think people who complain about Bond movies taking a personal term since the Craig era have a very short memory. It has been the case since LTK.
    True, but it was quite fresh and unexpected then. GE gave it a new twist. From then on in Babs took her penchant to new highs (or is that lows) with the hiring of P&W & Craig. With any luck, this will be put out to pasture once they're gone. It likely won't happen before then.

    I think it has nothing to do with freshness and expectation anymore: in fact a personal angle in any kind of action movie, whether it's a "conventional one or a superhero movie or a medieval fantasy or what have you, IS now expected. My bet is that it won't change when Craig leaves, not unless and until it changes elsewhere.
    The increasing success of the MI series says otherwise. Like classic Bomd there is one film that established the emotional core. Then they moved on, to bigger financial success with that as its base.

    I've only seen MI 1 and 3, but there were personal elements in both. Heck compare the movies to the original series and the personal element has been increased tenfold. The source material was about a team going on dispassionate missions, manipulating villains who were pretty much taking center stage, now it's a Tom Cruise centered franchise.

    Beside, even if we'd said for argument sake that MI is all about the mission and no personal drama, it's one franchise among many. It's not the be all and end all of popular cinema.
    The last three have been increasingly more successful and while the personal element is certainly there, it's not front and centre. There are several other elements that draw the viewer in (glamour, locations, suspense, awe inducing action, humor etc.).

    I used it as a counterexample because it is in the same genre with a lot of similarities to Bond, and is a series that has grown its viewer base and reputation among fans (including many Bond fans) and the general public (as evidenced by the increasing global box office) without putting the personal element front and centre (even if it may be there in the background).

    This is a Babs driven desire and Craig was hired to fulfill it. It's not a necessity however. MI shows that there are other ways forward which can succeed today, with a solid and loyal global following (box office is remarkably stable in all markets across all 3 last films with positive bias). That would have been unheard of in this genre outside of Bond a decade ago. I'm grateful that they are there to fill a void.

    I will be very careful as I haven't seen them all (frankly I always felt it was a Cruise glorification franchise more than anything else), but you admit yourself that the personal element is there albeit not central. How much more central was it in the Craig movies? Only in SP with Blofeld knowing him from childhood did it take absurd proportions. Otherwise it was pretty contained.

    And I will say it again: it's not particular to Bond, it's common across board and has been for decades now. Your counterexample is at best an exception that confirms the rule... And is not so much an exception to begin with.
    You should see the last three. Then we can take this up again if you'd like. The tone is quite different to Craig's. We can argue details, but the bottom line is the Craig films have been deeply personal and introspective in comparison to what has come before in this genre and with this character on film. The MI films are not primarily that way. They don't rely on introspection and soul searching and are far more light on their feet in that old school manner.

    In terms of the market in general, while Marvel does take time to tell backstory, personal angst is not central to the narrative of those films. They are essentially comic book adaptations and have a lot of humour and lighter moments throughout - generally nothing like the 3 Nolan Batman films or the DC output (prior to Justice League and Aquaman). There are exceptions of course, like the Thor films.

    It's a matter of overall tone in my view. Twisting the backstory and motivation of Bond's nemesis to fit into an overall market isn't something I'd have advised.

    Well I have no intention to see the other MI movies, just for the sake of comparing them to Craig Bond films. I have no interest in the MI franchise. In any case the personal angle is a recurring trend in action movies of all sorts since at least 1988 and MI has not escaped it completely according to your own words. One can deplore this, but Craig Bond tenure is in essence no different regarding this than pretty much most of what has been done since 1988. We haven't had a completely "impersonal" Bond mission since TLD.
    Technically you could be correct, and that's not something I'm going to argue with. My view is more on the tonal level. I'd argue that the overall tone of these Craig films in their entirety (which reflects on his overall tenure) has been somewhat angsty. That is how they come across to me in general, and also in comparison to the past Bond films. It's a reason why I don't revisit some of them often. Some of that could be on account of the vibe he gives off as an actor - not sure. The narrative certainly plays into it though.

    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.
  • Posts: 15,106
    I was not arguing about the tone. For the record I'm very happy with the tone of Craig's tenure overall, but then again I love this tone in pretty much any genre and non genre movie. I understand it's not to everyone's taste. The issue I had with SP is not about its tone, but about the plot element of Blofeld being Oberhauser's son. I'm all for his return, but I hope they do like in the USSR of old and just ignore Franz Oberhauser.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was not arguing about the tone. For the record I'm very happy with the tone of Craig's tenure overall, but then again I love this tone in pretty much any genre and non genre movie. I understand it's not to everyone's taste. The issue I had with SP is not about its tone, but about the plot element of Blofeld being Oberhauser's son. I'm all for his return, but I hope they do like in the USSR of old and just ignore Franz Oberhauser.

    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.
    Both factors (tone and narrative) play into the overall impression of a specific film and of a tenure. The actor himself can impact that as well.

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I was not arguing about the tone. For the record I'm very happy with the tone of Craig's tenure overall, but then again I love this tone in pretty much any genre and non genre movie. I understand it's not to everyone's taste. The issue I had with SP is not about its tone, but about the plot element of Blofeld being Oberhauser's son. I'm all for his return, but I hope they do like in the USSR of old and just ignore Franz Oberhauser.

    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.
    Both factors (tone and narrative) play into the overall impression of a specific film and of a tenure. The actor himself can impact that as well.

    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.
  • Posts: 17,744
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to see a turn to the grandiose, operatic Bond epics; with villains that border on the absurd. I could do without a return to the puns and innuendos; humor, but far more sophisticated than what we got in the Brosnan Era (in my opinion, that was the nadir for dialogue in the series). We've gone far enough the other way. It does seem that SP was an attempt at that, but it sure fell flat in my estimation. Let's go bright, big and thrilling with the next guy. We can switch back to brooding in a decade or two.

    Definitely agree. Bond should be an entertaining spectacle, and a return to these elements would be very welcome, IMO.
  • Posts: 17,744
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm glad you agree, but, to be clear, I like to see the pendulum swing.

    So it should. There's a time for a brooding Bond, and a time for bright Bond. With the next guy, hopefully the latter.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2019 Posts: 6,277
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to see a turn to the grandiose, operatic Bond epics; with villains that border on the absurd. I could do without a return to the puns and innuendos; humor, but far more sophisticated than what we got in the Brosnan Era (in my opinion, that was the nadir for dialogue in the series). We've gone far enough the other way. It does seem that SP was an attempt at that, but it sure fell flat in my estimation. Let's go bright, big and thrilling with the next guy. We can switch back to brooding in a decade or two.

    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?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,604
    echo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to see a turn to the grandiose, operatic Bond epics; with villains that border on the absurd. I could do without a return to the puns and innuendos; humor, but far more sophisticated than what we got in the Brosnan Era (in my opinion, that was the nadir for dialogue in the series). We've gone far enough the other way. It does seem that SP was an attempt at that, but it sure fell flat in my estimation. Let's go bright, big and thrilling with the next guy. We can switch back to brooding in a decade or two.

    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.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think people who complain about Bond movies taking a personal term since the Craig era have a very short memory. It has been the case since LTK.

    Talking of personal elements, TND would have strongly benefitted of abandoning entirely the back history between Paris Carver and Bond (did they even give her a maiden name?), or on the contrary developing it and making their relation far more important.

    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.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think people who complain about Bond movies taking a personal term since the Craig era have a very short memory. It has been the case since LTK.
    True, but it was quite fresh and unexpected then. GE gave it a new twist. From then on in Babs took her penchant to new highs (or is that lows) with the hiring of P&W & Craig. With any luck, this will be put out to pasture once they're gone. It likely won't happen before then.

    I think it has nothing to do with freshness and expectation anymore: in fact a personal angle in any kind of action movie, whether it's a "conventional one or a superhero movie or a medieval fantasy or what have you, IS now expected. My bet is that it won't change when Craig leaves, not unless and until it changes elsewhere.
    The increasing success of the MI series says otherwise. Like classic Bomd there is one film that established the emotional core. Then they moved on, to bigger financial success with that as its base.

    I've only seen MI 1 and 3, but there were personal elements in both. Heck compare the movies to the original series and the personal element has been increased tenfold. The source material was about a team going on dispassionate missions, manipulating villains who were pretty much taking center stage, now it's a Tom Cruise centered franchise.

    Beside, even if we'd said for argument sake that MI is all about the mission and no personal drama, it's one franchise among many. It's not the be all and end all of popular cinema.
    The last three have been increasingly more successful and while the personal element is certainly there, it's not front and centre. There are several other elements that draw the viewer in (glamour, locations, suspense, awe inducing action, humor etc.).

    I used it as a counterexample because it is in the same genre with a lot of similarities to Bond, and is a series that has grown its viewer base and reputation among fans (including many Bond fans) and the general public (as evidenced by the increasing global box office) without putting the personal element front and centre (even if it may be there in the background).

    This is a Babs driven desire and Craig was hired to fulfill it. It's not a necessity however. MI shows that there are other ways forward which can succeed today, with a solid and loyal global following (box office is remarkably stable in all markets across all 3 last films with positive bias). That would have been unheard of in this genre outside of Bond a decade ago. I'm grateful that they are there to fill a void.

    I will be very careful as I haven't seen them all (frankly I always felt it was a Cruise glorification franchise more than anything else), but you admit yourself that the personal element is there albeit not central. How much more central was it in the Craig movies? Only in SP with Blofeld knowing him from childhood did it take absurd proportions. Otherwise it was pretty contained.

    And I will say it again: it's not particular to Bond, it's common across board and has been for decades now. Your counterexample is at best an exception that confirms the rule... And is not so much an exception to begin with.
    You should see the last three. Then we can take this up again if you'd like. The tone is quite different to Craig's. We can argue details, but the bottom line is the Craig films have been deeply personal and introspective in comparison to what has come before in this genre and with this character on film. The MI films are not primarily that way. They don't rely on introspection and soul searching and are far more light on their feet in that old school manner.

    In terms of the market in general, while Marvel does take time to tell backstory, personal angst is not central to the narrative of those films. They are essentially comic book adaptations and have a lot of humour and lighter moments throughout - generally nothing like the 3 Nolan Batman films or the DC output (prior to Justice League and Aquaman). There are exceptions of course, like the Thor films.

    It's a matter of overall tone in my view. Twisting the backstory and motivation of Bond's nemesis to fit into an overall market isn't something I'd have advised.

    Well I have no intention to see the other MI movies, just for the sake of comparing them to Craig Bond films. I have no interest in the MI franchise. In any case the personal angle is a recurring trend in action movies of all sorts since at least 1988 and MI has not escaped it completely according to your own words. One can deplore this, but Craig Bond tenure is in essence no different regarding this than pretty much most of what has been done since 1988. We haven't had a completely "impersonal" Bond mission since TLD.

    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.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to see a turn to the grandiose, operatic Bond epics; with villains that border on the absurd. I could do without a return to the puns and innuendos; humor, but far more sophisticated than what we got in the Brosnan Era (in my opinion, that was the nadir for dialogue in the series). We've gone far enough the other way. It does seem that SP was an attempt at that, but it sure fell flat in my estimation. Let's go bright, big and thrilling with the next guy. We can switch back to brooding in a decade or two.


    Will this appeal to modern audiences though? I have my doubts...
  • Posts: 7,507
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don’t care if it does or doesn’t (I never have). It’s what I would like to see.

    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.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited February 2019 Posts: 984
    jobo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don’t care if it does or doesn’t (I never have). It’s what I would like to see.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    jobo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don’t care if it does or doesn’t (I never have). It’s what I would like to see.

    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.

    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.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    2x controversial points......NSNA is much better than OP (better cast, settings, Fleming style script). The tone of QoS is much better than Skyfall (more serious, better score, more suited to Craig).
  • Posts: 15,106
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think people who complain about Bond movies taking a personal term since the Craig era have a very short memory. It has been the case since LTK.
    True, but it was quite fresh and unexpected then. GE gave it a new twist. From then on in Babs took her penchant to new highs (or is that lows) with the hiring of P&W & Craig. With any luck, this will be put out to pasture once they're gone. It likely won't happen before then.

    I think it has nothing to do with freshness and expectation anymore: in fact a personal angle in any kind of action movie, whether it's a "conventional one or a superhero movie or a medieval fantasy or what have you, IS now expected. My bet is that it won't change when Craig leaves, not unless and until it changes elsewhere.
    The increasing success of the MI series says otherwise. Like classic Bomd there is one film that established the emotional core. Then they moved on, to bigger financial success with that as its base.

    I've only seen MI 1 and 3, but there were personal elements in both. Heck compare the movies to the original series and the personal element has been increased tenfold. The source material was about a team going on dispassionate missions, manipulating villains who were pretty much taking center stage, now it's a Tom Cruise centered franchise.

    Beside, even if we'd said for argument sake that MI is all about the mission and no personal drama, it's one franchise among many. It's not the be all and end all of popular cinema.
    The last three have been increasingly more successful and while the personal element is certainly there, it's not front and centre. There are several other elements that draw the viewer in (glamour, locations, suspense, awe inducing action, humor etc.).

    I used it as a counterexample because it is in the same genre with a lot of similarities to Bond, and is a series that has grown its viewer base and reputation among fans (including many Bond fans) and the general public (as evidenced by the increasing global box office) without putting the personal element front and centre (even if it may be there in the background).

    This is a Babs driven desire and Craig was hired to fulfill it. It's not a necessity however. MI shows that there are other ways forward which can succeed today, with a solid and loyal global following (box office is remarkably stable in all markets across all 3 last films with positive bias). That would have been unheard of in this genre outside of Bond a decade ago. I'm grateful that they are there to fill a void.

    I will be very careful as I haven't seen them all (frankly I always felt it was a Cruise glorification franchise more than anything else), but you admit yourself that the personal element is there albeit not central. How much more central was it in the Craig movies? Only in SP with Blofeld knowing him from childhood did it take absurd proportions. Otherwise it was pretty contained.

    And I will say it again: it's not particular to Bond, it's common across board and has been for decades now. Your counterexample is at best an exception that confirms the rule... And is not so much an exception to begin with.
    You should see the last three. Then we can take this up again if you'd like. The tone is quite different to Craig's. We can argue details, but the bottom line is the Craig films have been deeply personal and introspective in comparison to what has come before in this genre and with this character on film. The MI films are not primarily that way. They don't rely on introspection and soul searching and are far more light on their feet in that old school manner.

    In terms of the market in general, while Marvel does take time to tell backstory, personal angst is not central to the narrative of those films. They are essentially comic book adaptations and have a lot of humour and lighter moments throughout - generally nothing like the 3 Nolan Batman films or the DC output (prior to Justice League and Aquaman). There are exceptions of course, like the Thor films.

    It's a matter of overall tone in my view. Twisting the backstory and motivation of Bond's nemesis to fit into an overall market isn't something I'd have advised.

    Well I have no intention to see the other MI movies, just for the sake of comparing them to Craig Bond films. I have no interest in the MI franchise. In any case the personal angle is a recurring trend in action movies of all sorts since at least 1988 and MI has not escaped it completely according to your own words. One can deplore this, but Craig Bond tenure is in essence no different regarding this than pretty much most of what has been done since 1988. We haven't had a completely "impersonal" Bond mission since TLD.

    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.

    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.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think people who complain about Bond movies taking a personal term since the Craig era have a very short memory. It has been the case since LTK.
    True, but it was quite fresh and unexpected then. GE gave it a new twist. From then on in Babs took her penchant to new highs (or is that lows) with the hiring of P&W & Craig. With any luck, this will be put out to pasture once they're gone. It likely won't happen before then.

    I think it has nothing to do with freshness and expectation anymore: in fact a personal angle in any kind of action movie, whether it's a "conventional one or a superhero movie or a medieval fantasy or what have you, IS now expected. My bet is that it won't change when Craig leaves, not unless and until it changes elsewhere.
    The increasing success of the MI series says otherwise. Like classic Bomd there is one film that established the emotional core. Then they moved on, to bigger financial success with that as its base.

    I've only seen MI 1 and 3, but there were personal elements in both. Heck compare the movies to the original series and the personal element has been increased tenfold. The source material was about a team going on dispassionate missions, manipulating villains who were pretty much taking center stage, now it's a Tom Cruise centered franchise.

    Beside, even if we'd said for argument sake that MI is all about the mission and no personal drama, it's one franchise among many. It's not the be all and end all of popular cinema.
    The last three have been increasingly more successful and while the personal element is certainly there, it's not front and centre. There are several other elements that draw the viewer in (glamour, locations, suspense, awe inducing action, humor etc.).

    I used it as a counterexample because it is in the same genre with a lot of similarities to Bond, and is a series that has grown its viewer base and reputation among fans (including many Bond fans) and the general public (as evidenced by the increasing global box office) without putting the personal element front and centre (even if it may be there in the background).

    This is a Babs driven desire and Craig was hired to fulfill it. It's not a necessity however. MI shows that there are other ways forward which can succeed today, with a solid and loyal global following (box office is remarkably stable in all markets across all 3 last films with positive bias). That would have been unheard of in this genre outside of Bond a decade ago. I'm grateful that they are there to fill a void.

    I will be very careful as I haven't seen them all (frankly I always felt it was a Cruise glorification franchise more than anything else), but you admit yourself that the personal element is there albeit not central. How much more central was it in the Craig movies? Only in SP with Blofeld knowing him from childhood did it take absurd proportions. Otherwise it was pretty contained.

    And I will say it again: it's not particular to Bond, it's common across board and has been for decades now. Your counterexample is at best an exception that confirms the rule... And is not so much an exception to begin with.
    You should see the last three. Then we can take this up again if you'd like. The tone is quite different to Craig's. We can argue details, but the bottom line is the Craig films have been deeply personal and introspective in comparison to what has come before in this genre and with this character on film. The MI films are not primarily that way. They don't rely on introspection and soul searching and are far more light on their feet in that old school manner.

    In terms of the market in general, while Marvel does take time to tell backstory, personal angst is not central to the narrative of those films. They are essentially comic book adaptations and have a lot of humour and lighter moments throughout - generally nothing like the 3 Nolan Batman films or the DC output (prior to Justice League and Aquaman). There are exceptions of course, like the Thor films.

    It's a matter of overall tone in my view. Twisting the backstory and motivation of Bond's nemesis to fit into an overall market isn't something I'd have advised.

    Well I have no intention to see the other MI movies, just for the sake of comparing them to Craig Bond films. I have no interest in the MI franchise. In any case the personal angle is a recurring trend in action movies of all sorts since at least 1988 and MI has not escaped it completely according to your own words. One can deplore this, but Craig Bond tenure is in essence no different regarding this than pretty much most of what has been done since 1988. We haven't had a completely "impersonal" Bond mission since TLD.

    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.

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I think people who complain about Bond movies taking a personal term since the Craig era have a very short memory. It has been the case since LTK.
    True, but it was quite fresh and unexpected then. GE gave it a new twist. From then on in Babs took her penchant to new highs (or is that lows) with the hiring of P&W & Craig. With any luck, this will be put out to pasture once they're gone. It likely won't happen before then.

    I think it has nothing to do with freshness and expectation anymore: in fact a personal angle in any kind of action movie, whether it's a "conventional one or a superhero movie or a medieval fantasy or what have you, IS now expected. My bet is that it won't change when Craig leaves, not unless and until it changes elsewhere.
    The increasing success of the MI series says otherwise. Like classic Bomd there is one film that established the emotional core. Then they moved on, to bigger financial success with that as its base.

    I've only seen MI 1 and 3, but there were personal elements in both. Heck compare the movies to the original series and the personal element has been increased tenfold. The source material was about a team going on dispassionate missions, manipulating villains who were pretty much taking center stage, now it's a Tom Cruise centered franchise.

    Beside, even if we'd said for argument sake that MI is all about the mission and no personal drama, it's one franchise among many. It's not the be all and end all of popular cinema.
    The last three have been increasingly more successful and while the personal element is certainly there, it's not front and centre. There are several other elements that draw the viewer in (glamour, locations, suspense, awe inducing action, humor etc.).

    I used it as a counterexample because it is in the same genre with a lot of similarities to Bond, and is a series that has grown its viewer base and reputation among fans (including many Bond fans) and the general public (as evidenced by the increasing global box office) without putting the personal element front and centre (even if it may be there in the background).

    This is a Babs driven desire and Craig was hired to fulfill it. It's not a necessity however. MI shows that there are other ways forward which can succeed today, with a solid and loyal global following (box office is remarkably stable in all markets across all 3 last films with positive bias). That would have been unheard of in this genre outside of Bond a decade ago. I'm grateful that they are there to fill a void.

    I will be very careful as I haven't seen them all (frankly I always felt it was a Cruise glorification franchise more than anything else), but you admit yourself that the personal element is there albeit not central. How much more central was it in the Craig movies? Only in SP with Blofeld knowing him from childhood did it take absurd proportions. Otherwise it was pretty contained.

    And I will say it again: it's not particular to Bond, it's common across board and has been for decades now. Your counterexample is at best an exception that confirms the rule... And is not so much an exception to begin with.
    You should see the last three. Then we can take this up again if you'd like. The tone is quite different to Craig's. We can argue details, but the bottom line is the Craig films have been deeply personal and introspective in comparison to what has come before in this genre and with this character on film. The MI films are not primarily that way. They don't rely on introspection and soul searching and are far more light on their feet in that old school manner.

    In terms of the market in general, while Marvel does take time to tell backstory, personal angst is not central to the narrative of those films. They are essentially comic book adaptations and have a lot of humour and lighter moments throughout - generally nothing like the 3 Nolan Batman films or the DC output (prior to Justice League and Aquaman). There are exceptions of course, like the Thor films.

    It's a matter of overall tone in my view. Twisting the backstory and motivation of Bond's nemesis to fit into an overall market isn't something I'd have advised.

    Well I have no intention to see the other MI movies, just for the sake of comparing them to Craig Bond films. I have no interest in the MI franchise. In any case the personal angle is a recurring trend in action movies of all sorts since at least 1988 and MI has not escaped it completely according to your own words. One can deplore this, but Craig Bond tenure is in essence no different regarding this than pretty much most of what has been done since 1988. We haven't had a completely "impersonal" Bond mission since TLD.

    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.

    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.

    Yes, look at any Liam Neeson movie. Until the industry changes, the personal angle is here to stay.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    suavejmf wrote: »
    2x controversial points......NSNA is much better than OP (better cast, settings, Fleming style script). The tone of QoS is much better than Skyfall (more serious, better score, more suited to Craig).

    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. ;)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2019 Posts: 23,883
    I don't believe it's just a matter of personal angles or outlandishness. It's a matter of how these elements are put together, in what mix, with what emphasis and in what context. It's a question of how it's sold as well, and that comes down to the actor and the overall tone.

    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:
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to see a turn to the grandiose, operatic Bond epics; with villains that border on the absurd. I could do without a return to the puns and innuendos; humor, but far more sophisticated than what we got in the Brosnan Era (in my opinion, that was the nadir for dialogue in the series). We've gone far enough the other way. It does seem that SP was an attempt at that, but it sure fell flat in my estimation. Let's go bright, big and thrilling with the next guy. We can switch back to brooding in a decade or two.

    If Broccoli has a problem with this, then maybe it's time to move on and let someone else get it done.
  • Posts: 1,916
    In reading over this thread about the old style of Bond and the modern continuing stories with personal angles and such it got me thinking. It's not just films, but extends to television as well. It's all about the personal and continuing stories and ongoing.

    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.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited February 2019 Posts: 9,020
    Benny wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    2x controversial points......NSNA is much better than OP (better cast, settings, Fleming style script). The tone of QoS is much better than Skyfall (more serious, better score, more suited to Craig).

    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. ;)
    I personally like NSNA better than OP and in fact also find it more entertaining than TB, which is not equivalent to saying it is a better movie overall. I remember strongly, however, that when it first came out NSNA was always considered a spoof on the James Bond movies, rather than a would-be entry on the "official" series. And in that regard it succeeded, IMO, while OP was simply silly and ridiculous much of the time, while (funnily enough) seeming to take itself serious as a bona-fide Bond entry.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I too preferred it over OP at the time, and I also had yet to see TB.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 7,507
    I have yet to see NSNA actually (except for individual segments randomly stumbled upon on TV) , and I have honestly no plan of doing so. The whole story behind and premise behind its existence annoys me! And why would I want to see a cheap remake of Thunderball anyway?

    The segments I have seen though felt slow and not engaging with a significantly worse production value compared to OP.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I find my appreciation for OP and NSNA to always be about equal, even in ‘83. Entirely different sets of strengthening and weaknesses, but it seems to balance out. High teens in my rankings; great moments and some excellent performances, also a good chunk of regrettable choices.

    Yes to all of that.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,020
    First of all: to each his/her own. But regarding the OP/NSNA battle, here are some opinions from the time they were first shown (and later)::
    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I used to listen to movie reviews on Radio Luxembourg in the 80s, and the presenter said NSNA was miles and miles better than OP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I find my appreciation for OP and NSNA to always be about equal, even in ‘83. Entirely different sets of strengthening and weaknesses, but it seems to balance out. High teens in my rankings; great moments and some excellent performances, also a good chunk of regrettable choices.
    I agree. I too find them about equal these days although they are very different Bond films stylistically. However, in my case, my appreciation for NSNA is far more recent. I find OP has more highs and lows, whereas NSNA is more consistent to me throughout its run time.
  • Posts: 2,159
    I love Thomas Newman’s two scores.

    (Runs)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Mallory wrote: »
    I love Thomas Newman’s two scores.

    (Runs)

    To put it like that: +1
Sign In or Register to comment.