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
Craig has said how they have a great set up, with quantum and the vesper storyline finished for them to market on. What I think, and slightly coincides with Shadow's thoughts, is that they have a whole UNIVERSE to market on, thats already set up. They could get away with killing off their lead (somewhat) or following the baddie for most of the movie. They're probably the only franchise that could get away with it. Break the pattern and surprise us. You could even cut a trailer for a film following the baddie to appear like its another machine product, only to surprise viewers in the theater. It'd be quite brilliant honestly. Bond wouldn't be completely out of the films. You'd still see him work against the baddie, or come back from the dead. It would just be a change in motion.
You could even have Bond fail sometime, and have the baddie actually manage to run amuck.
At the end of From Russia With Love, Bond was poisoned by Rosa Klebb. Fleming left his fate in the balance - and got a major response from it. Why couldn't something like that be done in the film? The only difference is that the audience would be led to believe that Bond was dead.
If the film was written in such a way that Bond staged his own death a part of a wider plan - maybe to draw Quantum operatives out into the open and get careless - it could be done very well. Bond wouldn't simply disappear after five minutes and return in the final five. There would be plenty of clues for audiences to respond to, and pick up on when viewing the film a second time, clues that show Bond is alive.
When Robert Jordan was writing The Wheel of Time series, he had a bit of a problem. His main character was being set up as a saviour for humankind, but also as a potential destroyer. In the third book, The Dragon Reborn, Jordan deliberately left his main character - the Dragon Reborn - out of it. The intention was to show just what sort of effect said character would have on the lives of the people he met, and how the world saw him. It inverted the entire story structure. The first two books showed the way the main character perceived the world around him. The third book showed the way the world perceived the character.
There is a precedent for this within Bond canon: The Spy Who Loved Me. Bond does not appear until the third and final act. It's true, Fleming forbade the sotry from ever being adapted, but with the novel, he was trying to show how ordinary people saw Bond after writing eight books about how Bond viewed ordinary people.
A Bond film without Bond in it (for most of it) would hinge on the ability to create a mystery about Bond's disappearance. So long as it is done well, and is a mystery the audience can solve for themselves, I think it can be done without alienating audiences.
In DEATH PROOF, by Quentin Tarantino, the entire second half of the movie focuses on the girls, and not the bad guy. But you can see the bad guy's car parked in the background. In the diner scene, he is sitting at the bar right next to the girls table they're talking at. I didn't even notice the first go round, but it was brilliant once I realized it. Tarantino received some flak for how much his story was centered on the would-be victims, but the overall execution still garnered the film much respect from critics and fans alike.
I say go for it the next re-invention period.
And to the point of EON being to safe - if B23 is a disappointment, they are going to lose out massively, especially to weaker audiences. Strong audiences that are huge fans of Bond will continue, but a tiring formula overused is going to lose fans. You never know what they'd be willing to do. They took a risk going straight and serious with Craig, and people loved CR. It wouldn't be as bad as people say. And plus, Bond is all about taking risks, that's who he is and that's what makes the movies. He does what others wont. Whose to say Eon doesn't/shouldn't think the same way?
And to clarify, my proposed introduction for a new Bond film would only have Bond somewhat out of the story line for approx. 30 minutes, just to build tension and suspense, and convince the viewer there really is no hope. THEN have Bond swoop in. And even throughout those 30 minutes, you would see little clues of Bond. Like a small part of the baddies plan goes wrong without explanation, things are misplaced that the baddie notices, and trademarks, like an Aston in the background would be present. It would really be up to brilliant writing to pull it off, but it can be done reasonably.
We've seen the whole faking death angle before in YOLT, nothing particularly special and I hate to point out the obvious but these are movies being made and not novels being written. 2 very different medias with very different ways to convey a story. The Bond films are and will always be about Bond. No plot in a Bond movie regardless of how brilliant it is will force Bond to take a back seat. From a movie-making perspective it's a dumb idea that will never get made. You don't side-line your star attraction for anything. People are paying to see Bond, investors are financing the movie because of Bond, not for some villain or some obscure 00 agent eating up majority screen time. Bond is the show, Bond is the movie and Bond is who people want to see.
With all due respect, since when is 30 minutes the majority of a Bond movie? Your tone is insulting, but I may be taking it wrong. Please read what I said carefully. It would only make the moment the new Bond did appear that much greater. I think we could follow a gteat villain for a good 20-30 minutes no prob.
Look at all of the things featured in Casino Royale and/or Quantum of Solace that are part of the 'Bond formula':
- Bond drives an Aston Martin (CR/QOS)
- Bond in a Tuxedo (CR/QOS)
- "Bond, James Bond" (CR)
- 'Spectacular' if often implausible action scenes (African Rundown in CR, Miami Airport in CR, Ending gunfight in QOS)
- The villain's base blowing up in the end (QOS)
- Vodka Martini (CR/QOS)
- One night stands (Solange in CR, Fields in QOS)
- Villain with a physical deformity (Le Chiffre's eye in CR)
- Emphasized one liners ("That last hand nearly killed me," in CR)
- Sadism (Blowing up Carlos at Miami Airport in CR)
- The James Bond Theme* (Kind of; it was notably absent in both CR's and QOS's soundtracks, but the blaring Bond theme at the end of CR counts for me)
There may be more, there may not be. The point is that a complete reinvention of James Bond and the 'formula' these films follow simply is not plausible from a financial standpoint. These formulaic films have been successful and are still raking in the money, so doing something as drastic as keeping Bond out for even just 30 minutes would send angry shock waves throughout the casual fan community. EON knows this, and even still, they are too glued to the tradition to do anything that liberal anyway.
Now, the topic of this thread is 'realistic and serious'. Sure, bond films should be realistic to a degree. If Bond is to be shot at by multiple assailants, at least put cover for him to hide behind so it tricks the audience into thinking it a realistic scenario. But just how realistic do you want? There have always been some incredulity to the superior Bond action scene. I'll even appease @DaltonCraig007 and say that the car flip from The Man with the Golden Gun is a spectacular stunt, (that flippin' whistle is a different story, but that's for another thread) but when you sit back and think about it, the fact that the bridge was damaged in a way that allowed the car to do that stunt in the first place is just not in line with reality.
If you're not a Moore fan, let's take the film, Goldfinger as example. Goldfinger is NOT realistic and serious. As a matter of fact, GF is one of the more campy Bond films. It's all there: Pigeon diving masks, tuxedos under wetsuits, Oddjob being able to shrug off a gold bar hitting him square in the chest, the one liners ("Shocking" etc.), I could go on. Now, Goldfinger is often considered as one of the best James Bond films. (I consider it one of the best, too, but surprisingly doesn't get much love on these forums.) More importantly however, Goldfinger made a ridiculous amount of money. What I'm trying to say is that the more iconic films of the original series for better or for worse (GF, TSWLM, GE) were the least realistic ones. No one remembers For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights, not necessarily because they were poor films, but because they didn't have the (insert crazy gadget/golden painted girl scene here). Is that fair? No. But that seems to be the way it is.
Then we have serious. Ask License to Kill how that went. Actually don't, the film will likely tell you to f*** off. The movie wasn't financially successful! So why would they make another movie in that vain? Okay, LTK still has some silly parts (which is what hurts it as a film...like that silly bar fight), but the violence and blood....and stumps where legs should be really turned off audiences. (Perhaps it was mixed with a poor marketing campaign, but how much really? I think this marketing excuse is just a result of filmmakers in denial: it is James Bond for God's sake, how much marketing do you need?) Make a Bond film too serious and it turns people off. Quantum of Solace, another low key Bond adventure, raked in a good amount of cash (likely due to Casino Royale residuals), but fan reaction was bleak. Remember the last time fans and critics complained this much about a Bond film? That's right, it was Die Another Day, and EON ended up listening with the making of CR. What I'm saying is that QOS's mixed critical reaction has the potential to hurt Bond 23 at the box office, just as DAD's negative reviews threatened to hurt Bond 21. With all of this in mind, I personally think that Bond 23 is going to be more inline with the 'standard' Bond film that audiences think of, and EON will be very vocal in saying that it is.
Phew. I've ranted enough, I hope that some of this post is in relation to this topic! (And I hope I haven't offended any of you that much!)
Cliff notes of what I said: Bond needs some unrealism and silliness to be wholly successful. Not stupid silly like double taking pigeons, but more witty and low key. And relating to realism, Bond films are known for some of their incredulous stunts, I think you cannot eradicate those either. (Even the african rundown in CR featured some over the top stunts, mainly by Mollaka.)
Make the action completely gritty and 100% real, you lose some fun and Bond films should be more fun than your average action flick.
How's that, Brady? ;-)
EDIT: Just my random thoughts really. Not necessarily directed at you @DaltonCraig007 but more the thread topic in general.
Get rid of humour, class, fun and intelligence too, because there isn't in any the books by Ian Flemming.
Hans Zimmerman should do the score, and Chris Nolan should direct.
That would be 4rsome lol
Disclaimer: The above post is pure satire.
The Shark is not associated with MGM, EON, Danjac or the staff of MI6Community and does not reflect their views.
Maybe that's why Dalton is a favorite, it was such a relief to get back to the Fleming ways of old, Bond had finally become serious once again and you could believe in the character once again, such nonsense as doing wild ski jumps to the Beach Boys had quickly been forgotten
If I need silly, then I'll watch Johnny English and Austin Powers. What I want from Bond is wit.