Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Can Broccoli and Wilson learn from Abrams?
sunsanvil
Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
I'd like to note two points for thought and conversation:
1) In the myriad reviews and forum threads on the internet, whether you loved it, hated it, or fell somewhere in between, everyone agrees (including the film's makers) that The Force Awakens is little more than Star Wars (cica 1977) with a fresh coat of paint. Perhaps not a shot-for-shot remake, but certainly an act-for-act remake.
2) despite point #1, it has been a COLOSSAL financial success.
For my part, I had my misgivings about just how played Force Awaken's story felt to me....and then I stepped back and realized that A) I gladly spent the $13 anyway and B) so did a zillion other people.
What does this have to do with James Bond 007?
Could it be that Broccoli and Wilson need to reevaluate the notion they always operated under? Specifically the one which says they must constantly "take Bond in new directions", that they must perpetually "update" the formula and make the films "relevant". Perhaps they can take a page from Force Awakens...
Now I know a lot of you will cry "heresy" at the very notion, and I'm not saying that a shot-for-shot remake of Dr. No is a sure thing, but what if, just what if, EON tried their hand at putting a fresh coat of paint on the most financially successfully and culturally phenomenal Bonds of the 1960s? Would that be so bad? Heck, if the direction taken by Abrams and Co is any indication, it at very least is an idea worth putting on the table.
1) In the myriad reviews and forum threads on the internet, whether you loved it, hated it, or fell somewhere in between, everyone agrees (including the film's makers) that The Force Awakens is little more than Star Wars (cica 1977) with a fresh coat of paint. Perhaps not a shot-for-shot remake, but certainly an act-for-act remake.
2) despite point #1, it has been a COLOSSAL financial success.
For my part, I had my misgivings about just how played Force Awaken's story felt to me....and then I stepped back and realized that A) I gladly spent the $13 anyway and B) so did a zillion other people.
What does this have to do with James Bond 007?
Could it be that Broccoli and Wilson need to reevaluate the notion they always operated under? Specifically the one which says they must constantly "take Bond in new directions", that they must perpetually "update" the formula and make the films "relevant". Perhaps they can take a page from Force Awakens...
Now I know a lot of you will cry "heresy" at the very notion, and I'm not saying that a shot-for-shot remake of Dr. No is a sure thing, but what if, just what if, EON tried their hand at putting a fresh coat of paint on the most financially successfully and culturally phenomenal Bonds of the 1960s? Would that be so bad? Heck, if the direction taken by Abrams and Co is any indication, it at very least is an idea worth putting on the table.
^ 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
What EoN need to do is to overhaul the foundation of their creative team. Get in new writers who understand the spirit of Fleming's work and can tell their own exciting story; and bring in a director who understands character, plot and action who can bring fresh and dynamic ideas.
1. re: TFA being a little more than SW with a fresh coat of paint: - yes, that's true, but as I've said on other threads, it still feels fresh to me. I've asked myself why?
Ultimately it comes down to 1) charisma, or something like that, and also 2) execution. The film is reassuring in a way due to the similarities to the past, but the characters are quite compelling - at least for me. I've realized that this is the key. One must be able to relate to and believe in the characters and their motivations. This is a function of script work making them feel more 'whole', as well as acting.
Moreover, everything in this film is executed well (superior acting, beautiful cinematography, brilliant score, intriguing action etc. etc.)
Finally, they captured the 'essence' of SW in this film. It didn't feel 'painted on', but rather, 'real'.
2. re: Bond needing to take a page out of this book: - I'd say EON (at least under Cubby) knew this trick very well. In fact, they executed it themselves to near perfection (imho) in 1977, with TSWLM, one of my all time favourite films.
I have heard critiques that the film is nothing more than an amalgam of what has come before and a loose remake of YOLT. True perhaps, but regardless, this film succeeds on many levels and is cited by many (myself included) as one of EON's best, despite this very fact. Why? Again, in my view, this is due to compelling and interesting characters, fantastic visuals, and superior execution.
Everything was just done well (score, sets, acting, action, cinematography, title song etc. etc.). Even more remarkable since the film is not similar to the novel.
The 'essence' of Bond is also captured here
3. re: Remaking DN or something like DN: - For me, DN succeeds first and foremost because of story. It's a very interesting, low key, Fleming story and is a unique thriller set in exotic locales.
However, that in itself wouldn't have made it the phenomenon that it became.
It also succeeded because of the magnetism and near perfection in the role of one man: Sean Connery. It's very difficult to recapture his strength and sheer confidence. Connery was more instrumental to DN's success than anyone in SW was to its success. SW was far more a team effort.
DN also succeeds on many levels because of attributes that aren't popular these days. Namely, sexism and overt masculinity. Can you see Bond today dealing with Taro the way Connery did? Sadly, it's less likely (more likely that he'd bear his soul in bed like he did during the predominantly wussy 90's).
I also think that EON under Broccoli and Wilson did in fact recapture the essence of Bond during their recent reboot in CR. So they know what has to be done. Just get Campbell back as an advisor (or co-producer even), make sure Mendes doesn't get anywhere near a Bond film again, and move forward with confidence.
I think there is more to it than that though. I also believe we need a director who really understands Bond, and recently, only Campbell has proven that he does. All of the others seem like they are paying lip service to the character in my view.
My controversial take:
I think Mendes got lucky with SF because the Dench/Bardem conflict was so compelling, and he also made it a character piece (something he's very good at) where everyone else just shone. I've said before that I think Bond was just a bystander in SF, but the rest of the film was very charismatic and that drew the audience in.
With SP, he tried to make a 'Bond' film, but to me, it seemed 'painted on'. Not 'real'. More like Man From Uncle than real Bond. More like some of Brosnan's 90's efforts (which also seemed like an outsider was making a trope"y" Bond film rather than someone who really understood the character). I realize I may be in the minority, but that's how I felt.
A most insightful post. I think you and I are very much on the same page. This last point of yours gives me pause though. Would it really be so deviant? Its not as though movies today are devoid of sexism and misogynist characters (quite the opposite I'd have thought). Come to think of it, does a Bond have to be set in the year its made? I dont know, but I wonder...
Quite right. When I think on my favorite installments, 80%+ of the film plays out in a single country. :)
After that, who knows. Nolan seems like a shoe-in due to his high box office draw, but does he understand Bond? Will they continue hiring a new director for each film, or will they return to the 1962-1989 period with a director doing atleast 3 films?
Which I affectionately refer to as "The Golden Age of Bond". :)
I'm not religious, but I'm ready to 'pray' for Campbell's return for either DC's last, or preferably the new fella's first, even in advisory capacity, to set things in the right direction.
Unlike others, I'm completely open to Nolan. I think he'll do Bond credit. He's much better than some think in my view, may commit to multiple films, and will respect the franchise.
I agree with you on having directors do multiple films. I've said before that I think EON should insist that at least the first two from the new actor are done by the same director in order to ensure continuity of concept.
And in all honesty, having watched great films like "Gravity" and "The Revenant", that lack a complicated script and are built around a rather (super)thin plot, I think what matters all time is the final product. And even then, with films that are about espionage, the final product only has to be bettered with a better screenplay. Don't panic. Just.....do it. Everyone can do it :-).
TFA though, has a direct link to EP IV, in that it heavily features the original principal actors (well except for Luke but he's the central focus of the film). I think this has a lot to do with TFA 'feeling' like the original - the familiar faces. It would be hard to do this with Bond, because there isn't the same sense of continuity.
On the other hand, I would like a director who really studied the original films the ways Abrams did for SW to get the 'feel' right. I heard talk of Mendes and Craig going back to the old films, but the end product didn't quite feel immersive. The style and panache wasn't quite there, even though it seemed they were attempting to bring those elements in. It did feel more painted on than genuine.
Everything else seems to be in pretty good hands. They've moved the franchise to a point where they are able to bring Oscar-caliber talent both in front of and behind the camera. That just hasn't translated to the writing team yet.
I agree, what is being considered here is the last thing Bond needs to do IMO.
Agreed x2. Plus The Force Awakens was just horrible. Yea I griped about SP but I wasn't bored with it and I left smiling. But this crap... I've seen elementary plays with better acting!!! Even the Brits' acting sucked WTH!!!!
It bugs me when all media outlets call the new Canadian effort a remake of FYEO though, as it is nothing of the kind.
Hear, hear. I understand that there's going to be familiarity after 50 plus years, but I could never accept them throwing all imagination and creativity out the window like that.
Also, the character of Bond has to remain credible and consistent. That's where they might be confusing people. Which Bond is going to show up? Craigs? If so which version (moody but caring SF or blase & indifferent SP)? It's not easy to relate to a character who appears disinterested. This wasn't Connery or Moore casual. Rather, it was, to me, sleepwalking almost - spaced out even. I didn't get that with SW-TFA's characters.
In terms of actually remaking DN, I don't think this is what the OP is suggesting, but I could be wrong. If so, I'm not too keen on that idea. I'm also against a future remake of OHMSS, even though the possibility exists post-SP. I think those earlier efforts must be kept untouched for posterity. That's why I wasn't all that keen on the reintroduction from scratch of MP or Blofeld either. Unless, as hoped, it was just for the self-contained Craig universe.
The trouble I feel we have with SF and SP (and to a much smaller and more acceptable extent with CR) is that we have changed from doing the same thing but different, as during the Rog era and now just do shameless homages, references to old Bond films and fan wankery.
QOS is the only Bond film of the Craig era to have the confidence and balls to stand on its own two feet and for that you really have to applaud it.
CR is somewhat forgiveable because it is a total reboot and the references are rather more discreet (although I hate the desperate shoehorning in of the DB5) but the Mendes era is in its own way worse than DAD for the endless references.
During the Rog and Tim days (and to a lesser extent the Brozza era) they went and created their own classic moments but now classic moments seem to just revolve around reintroducing something from the past and playing a little snippet of the Bond theme.
The problem of course is that you can only get away with this trick for so long before it becomes tired and repetitive. After the Craig era do we reboot again and then reintroduce M, Q, MP, Blofeld etc again (and no doubt the f**king DB5 again)?
You only have to look at Spider-Man and Fantastic 4 to see that just rebooting over and over again produces diminishing returns.
I think Cubby's genius was to realise that to survive the series needs to keep looking forwards but these days we seem to be perpetually looking towards the past for inspiration.
But you can go into the opposite direction too :
You could also note that "this time it's personal" formula also worked well. You could tell the studio that seemingly the audience is done with missions, and rather prefer to hear about Bond's childhood. So let's see what happens when Bond learns his father is still alive ! Please phone Liam Neeson's agent now, we've got a billion movie here.
Well said!
The Mendes era seems to think it a novel idea to relive elements of the past that gave the series classic and iconic moments in the first place instead of looking forward and creating something meaningful and creating new classic and iconic moments. 50 years of Bond movie history is bound to cover and reintroduce what we're already familiar with but using it as a continuous crutch is grating and rather embarrassing.
What you say about QoS couldn't be more true. It has its faults but it's probably the most unique Bond film in the series at least it is for the Craig era. Forster had the unenviable task of making a follow up to CR but managed to tell a story that was different and a massive departure from what came before and after. I didn't much care for the oil/GF reference but at least that was just the one and only. Mendes seems to think he's being clever "reintroducing l" staples of the past but his inability to back it up with meaningful payoffs (blowing up the db5 and bringing it back again in the next movie) just rings lazy and hollow. I sense there's no real conviction or confidence in his ability to make a Bond film that can creatively take the series forward.
The major difference between TFA and a number of recent Bond films is that TFA pulsates with life to a degree that most of the references to past films become unobtrusive parts of the storytelling.
TND is a remake of TSWLM is a remake of YOLT is a remake of FRWL
Does Dan have even one iconic moment of his own that doesn't in some way incorporate a reference to old Bond films?
I wasn't 100% in the Mendes out camp but the more I think about it the more I'm coming to think he hasn't got much more in his locker than some angst and gratuitous use of the DB5 when he can't think of what else to do.