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
Yes, I believe so. As a writer, Tarantino is in an entirely different league to P&W. And as a director, he is undeniably in a different league to Mendes.
Also @NicNac, his range extends far beyond 'streetwise' American dialogue. The opening scene in Inglorious Basterds demonstrates his range - it plays out in French and English (between a Nazi Gestapo officer and a French farmer).
Then there's the entire basement scene - which, plays out in German. The tension arises due to the fact that the British officer is caught out on a faux pas - and blows his cover. The stuff of a classic spy plot. The script and acting are impeccable. And Fassbender demonstrates a Bond-like presence and charisma throughout that harks back to the Bond of the novels.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9-Bqycjw_tw"; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's the kind of scene that would not (or should not) be out of place in a Bond film.
However, sadly, the Bond franchise seems to be drifting a million miles away from achieving anything even remotely close.
I think you're right @NicNac - people do expect different things from a Bond film than a Tarantino film. And I think it's rather tragic.
They expect Tarantino to create - at the very least - a unique creative statement. A masterclass in cinema. Something that plays with the art form and pushes all its elements - narrative, dialogue, acting, cinematography and soundtrack.
And what did we get with SPECTRE? A finely honed, stylish spy thriller?
Why not? There was no excuse.
All the elements were there - Craig is a fine Bond actor - one of the best, and totally committed to the role. A great cinematographer. A great cast. A celebrated director. Talent and money thrown at the production.
Blofeld. Spectre. The chance to give the classic elements a powerful reimagining that would set the franchise up for years...
And instead, we get a meat-head, poorly conceived action movie.
Huge explosions. soulless set pieces. Poorly crafted dialogue. A confused narrative with horrendous sixth-form tropes. Poorly realised characterisation. And a main protagonist who seems entirely divorced from Fleming's creation.
With TV drama fast surpassing cinema in terms of quality, ambition and sheer storytelling (Westworld, Game of Thrones, etc.), cinema is beginning to look like the TV's poorer cousin.
That's why it's so vital to treat the art-form and the audience with a little more respect.
If Eon (or the writers) have any kind of craft or ambition left, if they care about more than just creating 'blockbuster family entertainment', if they don't want to the franchise to die, then they should aim to raise the franchise above shallow action fare...
Praying they don't repeat ...please new talent. [-O< :o3
Tarantino lost all his discipline after Jackie Brown, when he lost himself to the ravages of cocaine. You can see how juvenile and indulgent all his post-Jackie Brown movies are in comparison to what came before. A sad Hollywood story but all too common. He was shaping up to be a legend.
Bond films should be juvenile, but in a Carry On way, rather than a Kill Bill way.
If Tarantino has a place in a Bond movie, it's as a writer of a first draft. But you need a bread and butter director to bring it to the screen. A bit like Roald Dahl script being delivered by Lewis Gilbert. Crazy ideas welcomed, but presented with economy.
@TigerTiger That's a fantastic post, sir. I agree, Tarantino is all about indulgence, taking 3 hours over a simple murder mystery. That's the last thing the Bond franchise needs right now. We need something leaner, to refocus on the fundemental elements of Bond, not preoccupied with the artistic flourishes.
Agreed... and what's more, many of his dialogue scenes tread over the same talking points. "I know you are not really a German, but I will be coy about it. And you know it. And I know it. For I am a German. And you sir are not. Or are you? I know the truth." blah blah blah. They go in circles, and the viewer gets nothing new.
Whereas Bond dialogue should be focused - say it once and say it right. The term "one-liner" is generally dismissed as a joke or pun, but when you think about it, if you can convey a whole lot with one line, you're doing a great job. The Maibaum Bond movies were very, very good at this.
Carry on Bond. Starring Aiden Turner. Yay.
Really?
You don't want Eon to be a little more ambitious - a bit more creative - than that?
I do agree with you on one thing TigerTiger, Bond dialogue should be more focused.
There has been a distinct lack of wit, invention, genuine tension or charisma in Bond dialogues (and scripts) for far too long. (CR aside, of course).
Not that people seem to care.
Appealing to lowest common denominator ensures big bucks.
One of the strangest things about the Bond franchise - and when you think about it, it REALLY is strange - the sophistication, snobbery, materialism, glamour, spy-craft, intrigue, otherworldliness... the details originally devised in Fleming's creation is not something that Bond fans seem to be overly concerned about losing...
Even worse - Bond's prime characteristic is almost entirely absent now. He is primarily a SPY.
Instead, the 'cinematic' Bond is increasingly becoming a 'stock' action hero. Where 'sophistication' is signified only by Tom Ford clothing, an Omega watch and the most expensive explosions ever put on screen.
So, no. In short, I don't think cheesy one-liners are going to cut it.
I love that part of the character, and hope to see more of it going forward.
This was most utterly offensive in the 90's imho, but we seem to be relapsing, which is unfortunate.
The sophisticated aspect of Bond has been missing since TLD for the most part, at least imho. I've missed it.
Ambitious and creative is fine - but Tarantino isn't the answer. I think the series is bests suited to creativity and ambition within the formula. You Only Live Twice is much loonier than From Russia With Love, but is still absolutely a Bond film in form and content.
You also have a point about the sophistication, otherworldliness, etc. - and how many of today's Bond fans are completely oblivious to it.
That's why you find so many fanfics and fan ideas that are all about hackings, USB drives, traitors, Bond meeting arms dealers in backstreet warehouses, etc. This is Tom Clancy stuff.
For all Broccoli and Wilson's faults, they at least never take us too far down that track. Spectre did contain a lot of bizarre, surreal elements, after all. They just need to bring back more of the good things in life that Fleming enjoyed - cards, sports, motoring, fine wining and dining.
While I have advocated Tarantino for Bond, I will say I was very, very disappointed by how The Hateful Eight retread so much of Tarantino's preexisting filmography. It was like experiencing a very long and not terribly well produced greatest hits album through airplane headphones. For me. Others' mileage will vary.
This may very well have been Bowie in '85 when he was asked to play Max Zorin. Had he accepted the part, it's difficult to imagine he wouldn't have insisted on shouldering title song duties as well (see Labyrinth the following year). I wouldn't trade Duran Duran's pop masterpiece for the world, but as you say, an interesting prospect nonetheless.
Yes, this I think is indeed the Tarantino arc. Not a bad thing, just kind of a natural organic career evolution.
I did enjoy his last film, but it did seem very familiar.
Edit: Wow! Just read through the last page
@tigertiger and others - some great discussion and observations here.
Real interesting reading!
We Bond fans are invested and passionate about maintaining greatness for this franchise.
Interesting point @TigerTiger.
In some ways I agree. Yet, part of me feels that the 'formula' is a noose around Eon's neck. It's the very thing that is suffocating the franchise.
The 'formula' is an interesting concept.
When we refer to the Bond formula, we are essentially referring to the iconic elements that were established in the Connery era (and to some extent the Moore era).
Regardless of how you feel about the Connery and Moore eras, those movies were bold and inventive. They made their mark. They often made confident cinematic statements. No apologies. They created the 'formula'.
However, whenever the series consciously tries to adhere to the 'formula' it becomes self-referential. It becomes weaker creatively.
Bond films have become incredibly self-conscious - particularly in the Craig era.
Since CR, the series no longer feels fresh or vibrant.
It feels self-conscious. Apologetic, even. Embarrassed to fully celebrate or embrace what the character is (a slightly obnoxious, materialistic, snob. A highly prejudiced, tool of the state. A faceless assassin. A man with little spiritual depth. A man with strong character traits, but with little personality - because he can't and shouldn't have one).
Instead of revelling in the character's charm and mystique, they attempt to 'add layers'.
And as they demystify Bond, at the same time, they awkwardly adhere to the formula and reference the elements that were once so great about the character.
It's a horrible juxtaposition - "look how we've deconstructed the hero and dragged him into the modern age. Yet, at the same time, look at how great he once was (wink, wink)."
As a result, the series is becoming stale in its attempt to recapture or recreate former glories.
How about we bin the formula? How about we stop jumping on trends?
How about setting trends rather than following them?
Bond was once a movie genre of its own.
Today, even M:I out-Bonds the franchise.
Eon need to be brave next time around. They need to execute a carefully considered plan. One that confidently celebrates the character - and allows him simply to BE.
They need to be bold and creative. In a way they haven't done before. Without apology.
I think we're sometimes using double standards when judging directors.
I mean, Sam Mendes isn't universally loved in here. Yet his filmography, as a director, is impressive. Lots of heavy drama yes, but movies like "Revolutionary Road" and "American Beauty" were truly groundbreaking and did win a string of awards. We see these qualities reflected in "Skyfall" and "SPECTRE", and we could have guessed that was going to happen. Yet on the whole a big majority of fans in here isn't that thrrilled about Sam Mendes, because of his style of filmmaking.
On the other hand, a director like Martin Campbell didn't really 'excell' outside the Bond franchise. Movies like "The Green Lantern", "Vertical Limit" and even "The Mask Of Zorry" weren't critically acclaimed universally. But that doesn't immediately mean he can't do a Bond film. And we all know that, because his best films so far have been Bond films.
So we can't we apply that thought to director Guy Ritchie? To me it now makes perfectly sense. And obviously people may dislike his films, I do think it's realistic to at least consider the man. "SPECTRE" made a lot of money, but it wasn't the kind of financial success Sony was hoping for. So, let's asume Warner Brothers or Universal Pictures becomes the new distributor. They want to start clean-sheet, especially financially. And market-wise Guy Ritchie is a much cheaper director to contract that an award-winning director like Mendes.
Do I make some sense?
Uncle has hurt his reputation even more.
No way EON would take such a risk.
Did you actually read what I posted?
I don't think Craig would want Ritchie involved in a million years though. I also agree that Ritchie would have to rein in the tricksyness. But I don't think he'd be the worse choice.
Welcome out of the shadows, dear @Pushee
Yes, great to have you here in the light. Real interesting commentary!
Back in the 60s and 70s there was no box ticking. Bond 'elements' didn't exist.
He didn't wear a tux in You Only Live Twice or Live And Let Die for example, and no one really noticed.
The series gradually adapted to it's own formula and played around with it, but it had no competition to speak of so it led the way. Bond had created the modern action/adventure genre, and for 15 years had it all to itself.
Star Wars and Indiana Jones shook things up, but Bond remained in its own stunt obsessed bubble. It began to lose ground. The only sure thing was that Bond was uniquely British. It learnt a few things off other series, but other series existed in the first place because of Bond.
And no way could a franchise this old really be completely freshened up time and time again without eventually losing its identity.
I totally agree that in the 90s the films became self-referential. But each film was a product of it's time and it had to make money. How do you do that if you scrap a winning formula and re-invent the wheel? What if it goes disastrously wrong commercially?
So with each film the producers have to ask, how can we change and remain the same without jeopardising the franchise entirely?
How can we 'bin the formula', yet recapture the glories of Bond's past?
Well in 2002 they boldly dumped Q and Moneypenny for a start. Two iconic Bond characters cleared out in Craig's early days.
Now we have given Bond a past. A childhood. That is adding layers, but it's also an attempt (failed or otherwise) to change things a little.
I do fundamentally agree with @pushee but I don't know the answer. Saying that
Eon need to be brave and execute a carefully considered plan, and confidently celebrates the character and allow him simply to be, is ok, but it's vague.
Allow him to simply be what?
Some great points here. Wish Mendes had read this before starting out on his misfiring brace of movies.
Allow the main protagonist to be Bond. Simple.
I think a fundamental aspect of any movie franchise that represents an iconic character, is that it needs to respect (and be faithful to) that character.
Bond should be Bond.
Not a ham-fisted action hero in a too-tight suit. Not a scowling, shaven-haired brute. Not a tormented soul with mummy/daddy/long-lost foster brother issues.
The problem for me, is that Eon has shaped the character into their own creation.
They've completely lost focus on the character. Because, presumably, they're embarrassed by what Bond actually is. And when you think about, he is not really a character that lends himself to big family blockbuster entertainment...
So what is Bond?
A licensed killer.
A spy. An assassin. A detective.
His backstory is vague. And crucial to his mystique (an orphan. Eaton educated. A Naval commander before entering MI6).
A ruthless individual who is prepared to carry out orders (without question) and kill for the ideology of his superiors/country.
A snob.
Though he rarely shows remorse, he doesn't relish killing.
And often needs to pop pills or take Benzedrine to get the job done.
A chain smoker. An excessive drinker. He drinks for courage. And to forget.
He gambles excessively and takes delight in the material world of clothes, gambling, food, etc... to fill the void. He believes in nothing beyond the material world, and so delights in his situation and in his worldly-vices, knowing that every day could be his last.
A man untied from the responsibilities of the average joe.
A fantasy figure, who shoots and shags his way around the globe, flirting with the glamorous upper echelons of society, enjoying the finest hotels in the most glamorous locations. He engages with weird megalomaniacs/threats to the west in often surreal situations.
That's pretty much it. and it's a great foundation for a fictional character and some stylish thrillers.
Now Connery managed to convey much of that in his debut Dr No casino scene.
No back story. Man of mystery. Cool. Suave. Looks great in a suit. And, if you get in his way, depending on your gender, he will kill you, f@ck you. Or maybe even both.
As much as I enjoy Craig, he always seemed slightly apprehensive about the role. As if it was a little beneath him. He was reluctant to take it on as cinematic Bond had become a joke in Eon's hands
He triumphed in CR. But after his success in CR, the producers had no real plan or direction.
Making it up, one movie at a time (with long gaps) has been a terrible waste of Craig's talents.
And - as much as I love Craig, I think the producers have given him far too much creative control - choice of directors, pandering to his dramatic interests (giving the character 'depth' that kills the mystique) to keep him interested rather than building movies that stay faithful to the character.
Bond hasn't lost his identity from where I stand now.
In 2012 I thought they will turn what is left of Bond anyway completely into a daily soap over dramatised drab and dreary snot. Silva is a parody of a Bond villain and the plot is worse than a whole season of The Bold And The Beautiful.
But SPECTRE has made up for all the faults of the last two films.
Bond is back, Craig proved, finally, he can play Bond. Now he stands with this one film in a row to Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby and Connery in that regard. Finally a performance that can be recognised as James Bond and not some mash up of an every day action hero and Jason Bourne.
SPECTRE has brought back the fun, the OTT elements, the original action, filmed properly, Blofeld, Spectre and an iconic henchman. Not to mention the long missed humour.