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
These Bourne-type complaints have kicked around long enough for the producers to have picked up on it, so we shall see soon enough if the complainst from fans have been heeded.
"The franchise won't survive if they stay giving those spoiled Jason Bourne styled Bond films."
The box office figures would disagree...
But I also don't buy into the "Bond as Bourne" argument that many people make. Over 22 films and 50 years there have been a wide range of style of "Bond films" so other than the basic concept there isn't one true "type" to return to. There's also the fact that films evolve - think of how different DAF or LALD were from DN and that was only after ten years! Or even how different YOLT was from FRWL and that was even less time! Or FYEO from MR (or MR from FRWL). I could go on and on...
As things have to constantly change to keep up with the times and also to keep things fresh I think that whatever Bond film opens ten years from now - and yes, there will be one - will be fairly different from QOS. How different? Who knows? But James Bond will return.
As I said in another post the Bond film is a great core concept that can have the film around it tweaked or modified in several different ways while still being Bondian. I doubt Bond would have survived if we had had 22 films that were carbon copies of the original. There has to be *some* amount of change to keep things interesting as well as keeping up with the times.
But Bond evolves, changes, reflects the trends of the day and the movie making styles.
Change is good.
For me, QOS was a step to Bourne, but who knows what will come next? Bourne is old now....and it will be a big gap between Bond 22 and 23......
But as already said by others, Bond moves with the times and all signs point to the series doing so again with Bond 23 - what has been dubbed "the first of a new generation of Bond films" - let's see what happens next year. Bardem himself has talked of a "different dynamic" to the upcoming film and has also mentioned "everything is more nuanced. It's very intriguing."
Fiennes will play a part "of extreme complexity", a "darkly complex" character, due to him as an actor having "great ability and dexterity".
See here: http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=9242
The talent of the actors involved should also give hope that this one can't really go that wrong - if the people who have been linked to the film are cast, Bond 23 may have one of the best in any Bond film, due to Mendes' involvement, who Craig wanted on board after the split reaction to Quantum Of Solace.
This Bond has to go on acting like he did in the last two films. He isn´t traditional Bond, but even more so he isn´t Bourne. He has to take the basis he established so far and develop from there. Maybe in more traditional directions, which anyhow seems logical after the events in CR and QOS, but for sure it would be utterly wrong to ignore the last two films and make something completely different in the coming one.
It would have been quite easy to re-boot without all the drama, but no we had to have two films worth of As the Bond World Turns. Please let it be over. [-O<
Just his face was scary!
And say what you think, it won't corrupt this circle of friends (unless we start throwing insults around, which won't happen I'm sure)
;-)
Ok, I'm ready for it..... >:-)
There is some weight to the whole "Bond becoming Bourne" argument. What has set the James Bond series apart has been its indulgence and sense of fun. The stories themselves - going right back to Ian Fleming - were written with a certain...irony and wit, not to mention a very English style. They were fantasy and, although relitively down-to-earth compared to the films, weren't OVERLY serious. The readers relished in the larger-than-life escapides the "anonymous" hero went through.
Royale struck a pretty good balance IMO. It mixed the contemporary with the traditional - as did GE. I'll admit that I wasn't overly keen on CR when I first saw it but since then I've seen the light. Solace was a step in the wrong direction.
That is one reason LTK is so divisive amongst fans - there is little fantasy...and I say that as someone who likes the film.
People can say what they like about Roger Moore as Bond but most of his films were at least "fun" to watch.
(hm i thought i already posted this)