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
They killed James Bond. How much further can you go?
Ok… not quite sure if I’m following you here/what that means for Bond 26.
It means they have to do something different. The stakes must be different (you Killed James Bond after all), the tone has to be different.
NTTD is like Moonraker right now. You can't go any further.
Right. I’m not sure if it’s about going further as much as it is about figuring out how to make the best Bond film. Anyway, you can do something different while having tonal similarities. LALD is different to DAF but doesn’t have a wildly different tone. Same for LTK and GE. Arguably it’s the case for AVTAK and TLD too. Like I said CR and DAF are outliers in how much of a course correction they were from the previous actor’s last films. Most of the time they keep and expand on what they think works.
Making more "Skyfall sequels" are pointless.
I’d say they’re surprisingly similar totally. GE actually has some brutal and pretty dark sequences that I don’t think would look out of place in LTK (ie. The computer lab shooting, the gritty fight between Travelyan/Bond at the end, and even the Captain’s dead asphyxiated body always reminded me of Krest’s death). LTK has some fantastically Bondian stuff in there as well (ie. The gadgets, Bond water skiing). The scores both have something a bit more industrial and un John Barry-like about them in places. Different decades, yes, but I think GE’s a film where they kept a lot of that darkness from the Dalton era.
I don’t remember SF sequels with the last two Bond movies… anyway, SF itself re adapts a lot from previous Bond movies (including the Brosnan era - particularly TWINE and GE) like all Bond movies do, so I think it’ll be the same with Bond 26.
GE was quite different. It's almost a reboot.
I think TWINE was an attempt to return to Fleming and hone some of the more character based stuff they’d been doing in Brosnan’s first two. It’s not quite a course correction (or at least a hard one) as such, but it’s consciously doing something different.
I wouldn’t call GE a hard reboot either necessarily. In fact the whole point was that it bridged the Cold War Bond to the post Cold War decade. It’s a new era for sure though, but there’s a harder edge tonally to it that I think comes from the previous film. I can see Bond 26 having a similar sense of being consciously different but still having those tonal similarities to the later Craig films.
I’d be up for them doing a DN thing where Bond is sent on a seemingly routine/grounded mission only to discover the villain’s more destructive plan by the end. That might be a way of incorporating something fantastical into a more ‘grounded’ Bond film.
Just more a thing where it starts off relatively grounded (ie ‘we’re sending you on this by the books mission 007’) and slowly those fantastical elements like the colourful allies, action sequences, maniacal villains and hidden lairs come into the story. You can have a more detective-esque plot with Bond uncovering things which has a nice ‘back to basics’ thing about it.
He means that the first half is more realistic than the second.
It is very unlikely that they will reduce the action at this point.
Skyfall had very little action for the majority of its runtime.
n.b. pointing out an action scene it had in it is not an argument to this.
You're right but it still has more action than Dr.No.
Anyway, I still think it's unlikely.
Most of the Bond films do hit that fatigue point by the third act. There are exceptions, like OHMSS.
That's really interesting as a common criticism about SF is its third act feels out of place or lacking or is way too reminiscent of Home Alone (for some reason, I think it's simply because he sets up some traps). I agree with you that there's a wonderful pace and momentum to it, and the ending, while a little unconventional for a Bond film, works and is narratively satisfying. And of course it's way more Straw Dogs than Home Alone.
IMO it's about becoming Bond rather than being Bond.
CR: Bond has to be more clinical and less emotional about his job, and then he's James Bond
QOS: Bond has to get over Vesper and earn M's trust, then he's really James Bond
SF: Bond has to get over his childhood trauma, then he's really, truly James Bond
SP: Bond has to defeat his evil adoptive bother and then he- oops, he quit his job before he could really be James Bond
NTTD: Bond has to come out of retirement to try being James Bond again so he can save his daughter from his girlfriend's father's enemy, then he finally, really, truly is the James Bond we all know and l- oh wait, time to die
That happens a lot, even in good ones.
I've said in another thread that I don't think the Craig era is a 'Bond begins' thing at all, so I'm inclined to disagree with you fundamentally.
I would say in CR Bond is already an established professional (and even killer) who is promoted to the highest ranking in the British Service. He's pretty clinical anyway throughout the film (if you mean his tendency to go rogue from MI6 for the greater good, then that's a common trait anyway throughout his era), it's just that Vesper's betrayal/death sways him from falling in love/deciding to leave the service to going back to it. It's the tragedy of the character in a sense. But ultimately he's James Bond, and always has been.
QOS is simply about Bond coming to terms with Vesper's betrayal. He decides against going after revenge against Yussief by the very end (after seeing the pitfalls/how empty it leaves Camille) but throughout the entire film he's simply doing his job despite how much the odds are against him. As he himself said he 'never left'. He's James Bond.
SF isn't about Bond getting over his childhood trauma at all. Never once does he openly speak about this and it's clear this is something he's left behind until it's been opened. The significance is in him going back to his 'roots' and finding his sense of self again. It's about a Bond who has lost his way and goes back to his sense of duty after a bad mission. No character arc in this film revolves around Bond getting over his childhood trauma. He's James Bond finding his way back. But he's James Bond.
SP is a Bond in his prime - fit for duty, humorous, and completely willing to go off script to do his job. He's James Bond. The strut on the roof is enough to show that.
In NTTD he's an agent who has found love and retires from MI6. He's older 5 years later, but he's James Bond.
The Craig era had nothing to do with Bond becoming 'Bond'. I understand why it's a misconception, but when you actually watch the films that angle doesn't make sense. It's an era that gives us snapshots at 'the life of James Bond' (insofar as it's the character we recognise from his late 30s to early 50s/when he's conceivably the character we know). It's more a Fleming-esque journey through this character's lifespan as we know it (albeit adapted) than some elaborate origin story. I don't think this is the 'Craig formula' at all.
Well, I think he is almost certainly becoming James Bond in CR. He gets the Aston, he gets the tux, he gets the martini, he gets the tagline at the end.
I feel that's less an origin story than it is symbolic (and more for the audience). In CR he's a man in his mid to late 30s who shags married women, has a history of heavy drinking/living, and most importantly does 'dirty work' for his his job. He's basically James Bond, just early in his 00 career.
If it was a Bond who has worn the tux for the first time and was in his mid 20s, then I'd say CR was arguably more an 'origin story' and about Bond becoming Bond. As it is I don't see it like that.
Not that it really matters however because origin or not, Casino Royale is still one helluva relaunch for the series.