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
I agree with this line of thinking personally. I just don’t think the experimentation of the Craig era as a whole worked entirely. It was nice to see EON, for the most part, learn their mistakes from the Brosnan era, but when they tried and force these films into being an “arc” for Bond, it just didn’t work because of a lack of some sort of general idea of where to take the character and how to end it, and that’s a problem is when you’re trying to develop a multi-film storyline. Plus, the films began to obsess over the idea of deconstructing the character/franchise. Having more personal stakes is one thing, but breaking down and attempting to study Bond’s inner psychology is entirely different, and to do that for 5 films does become somewhat tiresome. Those are just my thoughts personally, but each Bond fan has an era that doesn’t work for them. But I’d just like to see a Classic Bond film that just revels in everything great about this character and the franchise without having to feel like it has to study the character/franchise closely.
I would say though, that much like GF or FRWL, I suspect SF is one of those Bond films that a lot of new Bond directors and writers will try to emulate going forward. Hell, many aspects of SP and NTTD already bear similarities to the ideas honed in SF. It's not a perfect movie (no movie is) but it's one I felt understood Bond as a character and certainly dared to do something different while still being 'true' to him. It's also a Bond film with quite a lot of audience appeal, particularly amongst younger people going from personal experience. Often people who don't like Bond films tend to be drawn to this one, again just going from my personal experience.
Well, four white blokes I guess... Silva ticked a few diversity boxes to be fair to him. The guy was a Spanish bisexual agent working for the British Government for some reason... Sounds positively woke. And of course Safin's played by an American actor of Egyptian descent doing the most generic European accent I think I've ever heard...
I do get what you mean though. I think after Silva aspects of the villains felt a bit repetitive. At least to me. But yes, a female villain would be good and there are many different directions they could go in with this. Again, I'm personally a fan of not going down the 'deceitful seductress' cliche route that we saw with Elektra (and, let's be honest, way too many female villains in these sorts of movies when we do get them) and just having an interesting antagonist. I mean, my instinct would be someone like Tilda Swinton perhaps (a bit too famous or wouldn't be interested?) - a solid character actress with a naturally unique presence/look who could do something interesting with such a role. That said there are many actresses not only from the UK but elsewhere of different ages and 'types' who I'm sure could give us an interesting villain. Ruth Wilson, Florence Pugh, Isabelle Adjani, Nora Arnezeder, Shiela Vand... there are many possibilities.
I would prefer we pause that personal stuff for a while, or at the very least, tone it down.
But let's spitball something. What else could you have a new Bond experience from a "personal" standpoint. Here are a few ideas:
Of course, I am jesting. But I find these "personal" stories so soap opera and so tedious. I just miss the "old days" of a spy on a mission to eliminate an enemy who wishes to bring harm to the world.
I think you can rest easy then, I don't think they're going *more* personal, just that they're not completely abandoning that angle.
Toning it down is exactly what I would expect.
EDIT: I guess they're going "more" personal with regards to quantity (ie, they will make "more" Bond films with a personal angle), not with regards to quality (ie, the next Bond films will have even "more" of a personal angle). Maybe there was some confusion with my original post.
Renate Reinsve is good. The Worst Person in the World I think has put her on the map internationally.
I mean, you could a Bond much like the one at the start of the TB novel - a hedonistic, heavy drinking, reckless, but essentially carefree version of the character. Throughout the film he takes increasingly dangerous risks to the point where he makes mistakes, possibly nearly gets himself killed at the hands of the villain. By the end he has to use his wits, be less impulsive, in order to save the day. By the end he's a better agent for it.
Or maybe take a page out of the first chapter of GF and show Bond killing a man/drinking heavily afterwards. You could incorporate the bruise that Fleming describes on his hand as a reminder of this throughout the film, mix it with a TMWTGG plot where Bond has to go undercover and assassinate someone but keeps missing the opportunity because of his dislike of killing in cold blood.
I mean, this is all pretty standard stuff for character/story writing anyway. While I accept that the likes of SP and even NTTD can get a bit 'soap operaish' without these sorts of arcs or ideas then the films will start to become rather repetitive, which was a problem with the old series after a point. Most of the Fleming novels by these standards contain things which are 'personal' too and this isn't criticised to the same extent the modern films are.
Maybe they should just hire you, you seem to know exactly what to do to prevent the next era of Bond from turning into the absymal disaster-ridden pile of junk the Craig era was.
And when people inevitably don't like it, you can just resort to ad hominem!
This is all great stuff. Not sure if you've read With A Mind To Kill, but his gunshot wound from TMWTGG pops up once in awhile in the narrative of this new book, to great effect.
To recap, Bond meets a treasury agent and works with her for a few days. They spend more time together after the mission. Bond falls completely and deeply in love. She dies, he then pines for her in the aftermath. Meanwhile, his stepbrother has started a sinister organization intent on making James' life hell. He hires Silva to kill M, he was the one who placed said treasury agent with Bond. He even booby traps the grave of the treasury agent so that when Bond comes to grieve, he can kill James. Meanwhile in another mission a woman Bond meets and falls deeply and madly in love. So much love that Bond throws away his career and travels with her. He gets her pregnant, but she doesn't tell him. He discovers years later that the child is his. He attempts to reconcile with the lover, but she resists. Bond dies saving his lover and child.
If the producers ever start to spout the "Daniel and we knew what we wanted to do with the character" nonsense I might weep. Tears of laughter.
You really think the first 20 Bond movies were the same? I think they did a wonderful job of entertaining an audience. Some were pure fluff some were more serious. The tone changed. Did Moore's Bond have an "arc", none that I can tell. Do we think his films suffered because of it? I don't think so. Not everything needs a "universe" or a series of related films.
I can see that personal doesn't always have to be family or love. I doubt we will see an alcoholic Bond we don't even see one that can smoke anymore. I think we are far more likely to get family again. Maybe the M is the father or mother figure. Maybe this time he can have twins? Or maybe he can fall deeply in love with someone who he meets for a few days. Have him pine away for decades about her.
It is funny that some on here slag TWINE for being like a soap opera, my God does Craig's Bond have that film beat. The Blofeld being my brother thing is way more soap opera than anything in TWINE!
Anyways, you make a lot of fair points.
Yes that always puzzles me.
‘Go back to Fleming. No not like that!!’ :D
What they fail to comprehend is that movies as a whole just don’t do that anymore. At least since the 80s, action films have steered towards giving the protagonists character arcs and personal stakes. That has become an industry norm.
Rambo films were never “just missions”. Indiana Jones wasn’t just recovering artifacts. John McClane wasn’t just fighting terrorists.
Notice how once all those films were rolling along, Eon immediately adapted and featured personal elements for Bond by the late 80s with Dalton, most notably with LTK. And since then, there hasn’t been a single Bond film that didn’t feature a personal element for Bond. Like it or not, this has become the norm and will stay that way until something big happens with the action-adventure genre.
Barbara and Michael have pushed for it ever since they took over, wasn't Goldeneye the first mention of Bond's parents in the film series?
I think when it's done well it adds to the richness of the film
I absolutely agree.
In contemporary script writing (that really started to evolve in the late 60s/70s), producers asked and continue to want a few things, and it's the basis of a lot of first discussions:
1/conflict and obstacles.
This gets broken into:
1a/ external conflicts: usually related to the villain in action/thriller films, but it could be about the end of a relationship in a drama, or the protagonist losing their livelihood after being with the company for the last 25 years), and;
1b/ internal conflict: this could be confronting a great fear (Luke Skywalker facing off with his father); could be John McClane trying to save his marriage; Rocky overcoming crippling self doubt to "just go the distance" with Creed, because nobody had ever done that before...
And once conflicts (both external and internal) are established, then the protagonist and antagonist intentions can be explored through "action".
I honestly don't think the Bond producers are looking for more "drama", and are, instead, talking about creating conflicts and obstacles for 007, that he will have to overcome in this new era.
I really dislike the film, but they weren't stepbrothers. Not sure why people keep saying they were.
Thought I cleared it up, but my post went ignored.
You're absolutely right. I merely skimmed. Apologies @NickTwentyTwo
Just goes to show how stupid the idea and execution was. Even from a scriptwriting perspective it's very strange. Blofeld's formation of SPECTRE has nothing to do with killing Oberhauser or his dislike of Bond technically, and yet the film emphasises the connection between the two characters (Blofeld even says that Bond in a way sent him down this path). I think people tend to read more into aspects of the film like Blofeld being 'the author of all Bond's pain', as if his hatred of this man was so deep seated that he specifically targeted Bond as early as CR, when in reality all it amounted to was pure coincidence. Again, it's the film's fault - it's hammering this point home so it's natural audiences latch onto the idea. Doesn't help that Blofeld had no believable motivation to kill his father or even dislike Bond, and the best they seem to do is 'he's crazy'.
Isabelle Huppert. Of course she would be fabulous.
I like the idea of a female villain, operating out in the open and not hidden like Elektra, much better than the obvious way to go right now, which would be a villain (god help us) based on Bezos/Trump/Musk.
Am I the they you refer to? I guess this old dinosaur doesn't comprehend how movies work. I recall when Bond set the pace and others copied them. Now the series copies others. I guess this old guy can dream of a day when we return to having entertaining films. I enjoyed the Daniel Craig films, they are uneven in execution.
To have Vesper be this overarching character that Bond pines for over 15 years seems a stretch to me. I don't recall Fleming referring to Vesper that much in subsequent novels, but maybe my old memory isn't serving me well.
I am curious to the personal story that Indiana Jones undertook in Temple of Doom? I stopped watching Rambo after the second one as I didn't think there was much left to do with the character.
Indy’s personal story is that he starts off as someone who just collects artifacts for purely for “fortune and glory”, as we see in Shanghai. He doesn’t seem to have the kind of respect for artifacts and their historical significance in the same way he does in other films “this belongs in a museum!” By the end of the movie, instead of taking the Shankara stones for himself like he originally planned, he decides to return it to the village it belonged to. It’s not as strong a story for Indy as the other films, which is probably why many don’t rank it as high as RAIDERS.
I guess my understanding of "personal" is now tied to how Craig's Bond did family and love. I have no problem with character development and arcs. Bond having kids seems weird and out of place for me.
The Craig era became a soap opera where every single major character shared a past with one another, and it became ridiculous. When everything is contrived through interpersonal relationships, it makes the Bond world very small and the events seem very forced.
I'm also not convinced by the argument that, "Other franchises do it, therefore Bond has to do it." Bond should be setting trends, not following them. Interpersonal drama doesn't fit this series very well. It's not what Bond is about, in my opinion, of course.
But that should have been it, and I think the end of the film communicated that with Bond now ready to move on. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been any more personal struggles or themes within future narratives, but it felt like we were now going to continue with independent stories and characters with those personal struggles and themes coming organically from there.
What shouldn't have happened was the deep dive into his past, and attempting to tie it all into a bow with everything we've seen being connected to Casino and Quantum. That is what made everything crumbled and messy. I think Mendes, the producers and writers may have misinterpreted what made Skyfall so successful.
You want to have a classic James Bond story that also includes Hannes Oberhauser in some way? Cool, I've always thought that'd be really interesting, but doing that by making his son Ernst Stavro Blofeld, and that everything leading up to where we are now, including Silva, was all part of one overarching organisation that's built upon family drama and jealousy? No. Just no.
To put it simply, Skyfall was brilliant. What followed was what messed it all up, and once Spectre did all that, No Time To Die couldn't ignore it and did the best with what it was given.