Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Playing it Safe, Where has creativity gone?
We all love Bond but how many times have we felt the inevitable "Been there, done that"?
Bond movies post Goldfinger have pretty much stayed to an established formula that was perfected in the third installment. However once in a while a film will pop up and break that mold. Some of my favorite films are the ones that did just that.
OHMSS
LTK
CR
OHMSS was not well received when it was first released but has since found a solid fan base and has achieved a cult status among the Bonds. The producers took a big chance with it and were loath to take any more chances. DAF adheres to the formula with a good dose of tongue in cheek paving the way for Roger Moore's highly successful films. As for formula approaches, TSWLM and MR are essentially the same film.
I could not help but feel remorseful at the "by the numbers" approach to much of the Brosnan films. Especially TND and TWINE seemed to be trying so hard to top previous films and it just "blah".
I liked the serious approach to CR and it had not been since OHMSS that the Bond character was taken so seriously.
But then I guess it would not be a Bond film if they did not keep the formuliac elements in place.
Upon Goldeneye's release in 1995 a good friend of mine said, "It makes no difference who plays Bond, the films are so formuliac".
It is not just Bond but Hollywood moguls are loath to try something different these days. I guess the costs and fear of losing money and their jobs(too many ex wives and kids in college to support) has them playing it safe. That's for another discussion.
Your thoughts, feelings, hate?
Bond movies post Goldfinger have pretty much stayed to an established formula that was perfected in the third installment. However once in a while a film will pop up and break that mold. Some of my favorite films are the ones that did just that.
OHMSS
LTK
CR
OHMSS was not well received when it was first released but has since found a solid fan base and has achieved a cult status among the Bonds. The producers took a big chance with it and were loath to take any more chances. DAF adheres to the formula with a good dose of tongue in cheek paving the way for Roger Moore's highly successful films. As for formula approaches, TSWLM and MR are essentially the same film.
I could not help but feel remorseful at the "by the numbers" approach to much of the Brosnan films. Especially TND and TWINE seemed to be trying so hard to top previous films and it just "blah".
I liked the serious approach to CR and it had not been since OHMSS that the Bond character was taken so seriously.
But then I guess it would not be a Bond film if they did not keep the formuliac elements in place.
Upon Goldeneye's release in 1995 a good friend of mine said, "It makes no difference who plays Bond, the films are so formuliac".
It is not just Bond but Hollywood moguls are loath to try something different these days. I guess the costs and fear of losing money and their jobs(too many ex wives and kids in college to support) has them playing it safe. That's for another discussion.
Your thoughts, feelings, hate?
^ 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
I think the producers know they need to change it up to keep it fresh etc. The problem is that people complain whenever there is change. "Oh that's not Bond! wheres the martini!?" So the consequent movies following the changed one are trying to go back to the formula.
Another problem with sticking to the formula is that the movie is...well..nothing new. You need to make each movie stick out in its own way or else you get forgettable movies. I know i'll get bashed by some people here but if you look at TND and TMWTGG for example- there is absolutely nothing special about those movies..in my opinion. Not to say they're not good or entertaining etc but they're not special.
Everyone has their own opinion of what Bond should be which is part of the problem. But if you ask the question what makes a Bond movie?- you will probably find 2 groups of people. The first group who see cliche Bond stuff- gadgets, women, cartoonish villains etc. And the 2nd group looks at Bond as a character and sees that it is just the character that makes the movie- not what's in the movie.
I might be going off on tangents- sorry! It's interesting to look at NSNA in this argument- like that is a Bond film but why is it not considered a good one? Just because it's not made by EON? Just because it doesn't have the trademark lines and music etc. (Although i know NSNA was basically TB redone)
But any who.. yes bring back creativity. IT's hard to think outside the box with Bond sometimes.
So I'd say there is still hope for less formulaic Bonds in the future.
Personally I've got some fresh ideas (albeit tweaked from existing ideas!) for my own Bond story, so I can imagine what awesomeness professional scriptwriters can come up with. Let's have some faith in EON.
The problem is people like their formula. I dont. I like changes which keep a series fresh. But some must have their walther PPKs, their Aston Martins, their smarmy onliners, their exploding villains bases, Q, Miss Moneypenny etc. To them its not a Bond film without them. My father is an offender. Since 1964 he's been saying "not as good as Goldfinger. I want another Oddjob" People like the familar. People like things they can relate too. Maybe thats why GE is so popular? It gives the audience what it expects but nothing more.
I prefer the "left turn" Bonds and am looking forward to Skyfall because if the rumours are true there is a plot point which will turn the series on its head.
Can I just remind you that P & W are credited as screenwriters on SF. The masters of awesomeness.
You are spot on Bro!
P&W have probably (hopefully) picked up a few tips from working with Haggis, Morgan, and Logan,
Thats what I am hoping. They do seem to be kept in check by more experienced writers.
History has shown that you can't tinker with a formula TOO much because ultimately people become hostile towards it.
"The secret of Bond is to remember it's Bond. It has a lot of elements that work so don't f**k with them".
Martin Campbell
Like I've said b4 I recently had a double bill of OHMSS and LTK. Both are "more serious" "left turn" Bond films but the former won by a mile. Why? Because it still had that all important sense of Bond-esque escapism. It was a bit quirky, it had more memorable locations and characters. It didn't take itself TOO seriously either despite the downbeat ending.
In the case of Kill the story is something different but the whole thing still feels quite tired. Maybe it's the effective but slightly sleepy Michael Kamen score. Maybe it's the final song by Patti LeBelle. Maybe it's the "grubby" look of the film but there is a sense that "things are coming to an end".
I believe that is exactly what has happened.
I think that LTK isn't at all hurt by it being a "different" Bond film. What I find hurts it is pedestrian direction and a look of...cheapness. Put those two things together and the film is really lessened IMHO. If you took LTK and gave it a bigger budget and a better director (say, Martin Campbell) but kept the same story and cast then I think you'd have a real winner.
If only they could try to do that again, without ruining it
WHEEEEEEEEEEERRREEEEEEEEEE HAS THE CREATIVITY GOOOONNNEEE *WAH* *WAH* *WAH* *WAH*
Why did I even think of this?
And you thought of it because your "CREATIVITE" juices are flowing!?
I agree with campbell on this, there should be a middle ground between a DAD and a QOS, don't change too much.
I disagree on LTK though, I know I've said this before but I think the reason LTK is so awesome is because it keeps bond elements like Q, gadgets, a gunbarrel, one liners, bond getting laid, but takes these elements and puts them in a dark, realistic story.
CR did this, but was missing afew traditional bond elements. But it was a reboot and the franchise needed it. But QOS went too far, it didn't even feel like a bond film. QOS did the exact opposite of what campbell said, it took away almost all the great elements, even ones that were in CR (gunbarrel).
Exotic locations are where TWINE falls short for me. London and Istanbul and Azerbaijan are just not that thrilling. Hopefully SF will showcase the first two cities a little better.
We didn't always get secret agent/ Spy genre, Fleming intentions, and truth be told some of the 007 releases since 1962 to the present day have wandered so far off the James Bond path you start to wonder where we should really categorize them at, honestly there have been times from previous viewings where you would find yourself watching and if you didn't know they were Bond films to begin with, you would have a hard job making out quite what you were seeing, License To Kill is one prime example of this
@Echo London is one of the most cosmopolitan Cities of all Europe, and there's really a wide range of things to do and Istanbul is the Gateway to Asia and such a vibrant and lively, exotic place in Europe. Not sure about Azerbaijan though, doesn't sound too exciting does it?, not really a fun vacation maybe
yeah I know. I suppose you can say the same about all the Brosnan films except perhaps DAD.
TWINE does have Electra King tho - a rather "Bond-esque" character. Also, is a Bond film about Oil really going to be set in a particularly exotic location?
No doubt. I just don't think it's that exotic.