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
The closest we got to that swagger with Craig, imo, was the "running through a wall" chase in CR, akin to the tank coming through the wall in GE, in an otherwise excellent bombastic action sequence, Quantum Opera sequence, I love the action finale of Skyfall as a TWINE redux, and the OHMSS cues in NTTD, though Bond was in a hallway when it came on, unfortunately.
Could this be a way of clearing the schedule for Villeneuve to direct B26?! Peter sent me this.
1000% agree, and this is from someone who’s favourite is probably the closest to Fleming of the lot. A world where we didn’t get Roger Moore as Bond doesn’t bear thinking about imo.
I do think some of the ways Craig’s modernised it are here to stay (can’t imagine we’ll ever get a dad bod Bond again for example), but Bond thrives off variety and it’s been nearly twenty years since CR. It’s time for a big change.
I concur, ofcourse, you never would've gotten to Casino Royale had it not been for Moonraker, Octopussy and A View To A Kill. I think there is a large section of the James Bond oeuvre which has gone unused for a long time, and it's just been collecting dust. My main sticking point with the Craig films is their preoccupation with groundedness, and consequentially that there's only so "larger than Life" they can take it, before that sense of realism is threatened. When Bond is snooping around we can't relish in it, because that would stretch credulity too much, that would make it so that Bond was more than just someone you might bump into at the pub. I think from 2006 -2012 this worked for them very nicely, and from then on it just became tiresome. If you're going to have Bond in a white tux, on a train being interrupted henchman, then why not go the whole hog like Brosnan did, unapologetically. Answer - because that would disrupt the feeling of groundedness that this Bond is built upon too much. If Bond is snooping and a dynamic interlude like "hamburg break in" starts playing then that starts to break continuity with the sweat drenched, recently rerestarted-heart bond of Casino Royale, and the fundamental dramatic underpinnings of this whole saga have been undermined.
Exactly..but, and it’s a matter of semantics, rather than silliness, I rather say lightheartedness . A sweet spot is absolutely possible.
GF and TB are the perfect mesh.
Yes…
That being said i still believe Eon has their Actor they just need their script and director
And yeah the fact that ATJ is at the events like a bond actor and at goldeneye on vacation and is very similar to the kind of guy Babs likes (craig and Dalton) in looks yeah
Making movies is really expensive (in time and money), and there isn't any evidence of an original spy film series succeeding at that scale. Notice how both Bourne and M:I were adaptations.
I miss the times when you could create Indiana Jones.
I mean even back then, Indy came from the two directors/producers who just made the two biggest financial hits ever.
And even Indy took awhile to get made. Studios were hesitant about working with the both of them, because of their (then) habit of going over budget. I think we can feel a bit safe with Amazon having a bit of the say in EON’s budget.
No doubt the stakes are higher this time. What were once sure bets are no longer guarantees of success. Films take time to make, but Bond 26 isn't being made, it's being thought about. That's the rub for me. If I take BB at her word that nothing is happening, nothing means no actor, no script, no nothing. October 2024 will mark five years since filming ended on NTTD. The final product was far from over, but the end of Craig's era was known well in advance of the last day of filming. As I have said previously, as a fan I am owed nothing, entitled to nothing. But five years or four or three is a lot of thinking.
EON doesn't owe me or anyone an explanation. They don't even have to make another Bond. As Peter pointed out, studios play their cards close to the chest. They're not going to give anything away unnecessarily. But again, I must take BB at her word. If such a long delay means the next film has to be truly great, I hope the film can live up to the expectations placed on it.
And Die Hard and Lethal Weapon?
I don’t think them reverting to the Bond formula lets these films down, nor do I think that’s what EON took away from them. I think EON’s direction with the Craig era was to go in that ‘out of the box’ direction but slowly revert back to those old tropes (which is what it does). I think what they took away from these two films was more that they needed the talent who could support these creative decisions (let’s be honest, Brosnan’s acting is embarrassing at times in TWINE and the direction of those two films let them down).
Yes I miss the days of creativity and originality in Hollywood.
Brosnan certainly could never live up to the thespian skill of Craigs "DIE BLOFELD DIE" or "I'm not gonna lose... control" that's for sure. ;)
The difference between brosnans first 2 films and the latter 2 is that the first 2 were traditional bond films with some emotional elements woven in, and the latter 2 were attempts at deeper stories with the Bond tropes awkwardly laid on top, which didn't really work too well.
You say EON reverted back to the old tropes, but iMO that's only true on a surface level. SP certainly has a lot of old school imagery, but it doesn't use that imagery with the same style and verve that the old films did. There's nothing in SP or Bond 25 that even comes close to being in the same ballpark of raciously, delightfully classic bond as the hamburg BMW car park chase. I mean, just compare that sequence to bond's chase with Hinx in Rome - there's no contest. One is jam packed fully of inventive ideas and little moments, along with the sheer bliss that is "back seat driver", the other is glacial by comparison, just going through the motions - perfunctory.
I don't know what the course of the next actor will be, but I think specifically in terms of the next film they need to get the basics right, which means putting the heavy emotionality to one side, and letting bond be Bond again. After several 5+ year gaps, a pandemic and killing off bond, they need to have a revival that will finally give people something to smile about.
God, imagine if Brosnan had done those lines, haha! It could always be worse as they say.
As for Brosnan's films, it really depends on how you view them. Arguably it's not all that useful (or indeed indicative of how these films were actually written/made) saying that GE is a traditional Bond film while TWINE is simply a drama with surface level Bond tropes stuck on. Why are GE's 'emotional elements' woven in? That makes it sound as if an AI produced a generic Bond film, and afterwards the writers came in and added a few 'edgy' scenes. These elements are very much the story. You can't really have GE as it is without Bond and Travelyan having a past together. You can't have GE as it is without Natlya losing all of her friends and trying to figure out why. You can't have GE as it is without the Cold War/post WW2 atrocities backdrop/history. If we're going from that logic it's very self consciously an attempt at a 'deeper story' (and honestly, I'm not even sure if that's useful to say - presumably the producers/writers simply thought these were interesting routes to take and planned their film around this). It's the same for TND, TWINE, and DAD. They're all films which attempt to tell specific stories. They're all Bond films and use elements of the Bond formula. They're all films made with the intention of exciting and captivating their audience with great action and adventure, as all Bond films are. Some are just better (insofar as this is subjective) in terms of execution for various reasons.
As for the Craig films, again, it really depends on what you mean by surface level and is dependent on how you view these films. I talked about in one of my previous posts about SF's PTS having that great mixture of tension, absurdity, and heightened reality, and feels very much in line with something like GE's tank chase or some of the action sequences you get in the older films. Other posters on here have talked favourably about other aspects of Craig's later films they find similarly inventive, entertaining, and Bondian. I'd certainly say NTTD did a decent job at points recontextualising a lot of those older Bond tropes and left me feeling buzzed, but that's just me.
I mean, I'd like to see Bond 26 doing something which stands up to my favourite films of the franchise too and makes me feel the way I do about them, but I think it's always going to be the case that fans want very different things, and usually when we do articulate what we want it's vague, one sided, and not very useful if anyone went to EON and told them this (ie. what does 'let Bond be Bond' even mean? What is 'getting the basics right'? I'm sure different people would have different ideas about what these things actually are, and honestly, I suspect EON can more specifically articulate what they think these are in tandem with what they want to do with the next film). They just need to do what I specified above, and indeed always have done - come up with the Bond story they want to tell, something that's interesting (yes, even if there are 'emotional elements' in there) and then slowly map it out and execute this story to the best of their ability. I know what I personally want from a Bond film but I don't know what they want this time round.