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
But Bond has thrown out quips and continued to act in that eyebrow raising manner during the last two films. He’s even infiltrated villain’s bases and saved the world. I don’t see why any fan would claim that these aspects of Bond can’t continue to be present in the film series.
I also think you’re vastly overestimating just how dark and realistic and even emotionally tortured Bond was during the Craig era. Same for the idea that TSWLM and GE just have ‘one or two emotional scenes’ as if there’s some sort of permissible quota for a Bond film. What happens with Anya and Alec in those films makes the climaxes of those films more tense and impactful for audiences because of the character conflict. It’s good storytelling, not a cumbersome couple of scenes to get through before stuff is blown up.
I think most folks here agree they weren’t entirely sold on the writing of the last two Craig films. I wasn’t. I think everyone wants to see a Bond film that entertains them and gives them at least 2 hours of gripping fun. I just think some people on here tend to take the line that anything vaguely ‘personal’ about the character isn’t desired and that it’s completely separate from the story (which I don’t think it is).
I've often finished a Bond film thinking, 'hmmm, that wasn't quite what I wanted'. But NTTD was a whole different feeling. I've never finished watching the film thinking 'I wish they hadn't bothered' before. I've always found Bond films to have enough in there to keep me happy, even if they're not always what I wanted at the time. But no Time to Die if a different deal.
I hated it.
What I'm saying is that I'd be perfectly happy with the degree of emotionality present in GE or TSWLM, if you consider those films frivolous fun or fully engaging on a character level, that's fine by me. If those scenes enhance the viewing for the general public, great. But we don't need the story to become about JUST those aspects and neglect the other aspects of the 60 year legacy the franchise was built on. Bond 25 is the perfect example for how this goes wrong, as if you remove everything explicitly about his personal drama and include only his mission you're left with about a 45 minute movie.
Take out Tracy and Bond's "Blofeld is something of a must with me" story and you have 45 minutes left.
Bond facing substance abuse, whether performance-enhancing spy drugs or just alcohol. What if he gets too drunk one night and surprised by the villain and that's how he's caught? Etc. That could make a man want to change his ways.
I think we'll inevitably get more Bond versus M., maybe as a literal villain this time around.
I'm sure Bond will fall in love again. That's actually right up the character's alley. Constantly falling in love, or something like it.
By the end, I'd be ok with more "Bond versus his body/age" but only on film four or five please.
I also think it's down to who is producing next. If they bring in younger producing talent, I'll be more hopeful for a more youthful, less world-wary Bond. I feel like Barbara and Michael let their cynicism for aging show through their Bond movies.
I'm the biggest fan of OHMSS (my second favourite in the series), but even I don't think that film should be a template for the franchise as a whole, and Bond 25 came after 4 films that already focused on his sensitive side only to double down on the most clichéd aspects of those.
This is really interesting point, I get your point completely mate, but I feel the exact opposite.
Perhaps it's growing up in a post 9/11 world, but it's a reassuring to watch Bond save the day.
I think Bill Clinton said something similar in the Everything Or Nothing documentary too.
I get the escapism factor though, I still watch Dr No and feel the urge to put on some Ambre Solaire
Nothing should be a template, not Goldfinger, not OHMSS, not TSWLM, not LTK, not GE.
Every Bond film should be on its own.
Yes, we're the same, it's not worth it, actually I'm not bothered with the Future Bond films, in terms of quality (in story, in plots, and etc.) I just don't care anymore, they're starting to go far away in this point, especially that reinvention thing.
It's like the spirit was no longer there, all I see is money and business (there's no wrong with that, but if the spirit of the real Bond is still there).
What I'm looking to the future Bonds is the style, the action, the fashion, but the story and direction? I don't know.
Exactly, which is why having something in common with OHMSS shouldn't count for or against bond 25, the film should stand on its own.
Just balanced.
I guess what I’m trying to say I don’t think that’s necessarily true (or at least isn’t the full story) when it comes to NTTD or SP. Stuff like the Cuba sequence and the PTS in Italy certainly evoke that sense of action, fun and adventure but are mixed with either the drama of Madeline/Bond or the darker tone when the SPECTRE agents are killed by the nanobots. Again, despite my criticisms of the writing at points, that sense of story, darkness, escapism and drama work in tandem with each other. I think it’s true of TSWLM and GE too - those personal aspects (which have been broadly present in every Bond film since LTK and even in films before that) are a part of the story.
It’s just a case of knowing where the Craig era didn’t resonate with people and why.
Can’t speak to Mission Impossible, but Die Hard is very much emotional heft in the Craig Era style (or vice versa) and even features improbable lift shaft scenes to boot. (The whole marriage and emotional side of MacLean is literally the USP in that film, and Willis for that point in his career) Raiders also has something we see in the Craig films, and the Brosnan films (TND Paris) where the hero hits the bottle hard after losing a woman they care for. Outside of Indy already being influenced by Bond (Raiders even has a PTS) the whole Marion arc is more integral to the plot of the film than Indiana’s presence in any other part of it. It literally *is* the film, because everything else, as is well known, would still have ended up with melted Nazi’s in the middle of no-where. It’s the story of an emotional arc, that also happens to involve an action film. The modern era of Bond even plays its comedy more like Jones — right back to pierce fixing his tie underwater — rather than the occasional gallows quip of Connery or the the Arch Moore. Craig landing on a sofa after a building falls is more of that.
I wasn’t a fan of the Craig era at first, but it grew on me, and part of that is precisely because the ‘more human’ Bond was both a call back to what Dalton and Brosnan had both been trying for, but also because it had grown past the sixties and seventies at last, and embraced that kind of more grown up action adventure.
If there's a scene in bond 26 where Bonds actions lead to a young woman's death and he sits at a bar and consoles himself ala brosnan in tnd or indiana in Raiders I would be perfectly fine with that. A nice touching moment with a soft score, great. But if he spends the next film and a half moping around until that all hint of irreverence and levity is vacant, and it consumes his entire being to the extent he is unrecognisable, then It'll be "no thanks" from me.
Couldn't agree more mate. The vibe of the Matera sequence is were I want my Bond, thrilling, suspenseful, a touch of romance, with a great location
I am a a big fan of Edgar but I don’t see him doing bond justice early on in someone’s tenure, towards the end sure. Sony/Marvel should have hired him for Spider-Man a long time ago though. His style would have been perfect.
Me too, Jordo - perfectly put, mate.
Agree on the thunderball scene, compare sean putting on his shades with a slight shake in his wrist to craigs "I've got no armour left"
no contest.
The idea of an actioner not having emotional heft is really just something we haven’t seen for awhile, not just with Bond but with action cinema in general. At this point, it would be highly unusual for any film to NOT to try to give characters some emotional heft because it’s become so embedded in how films are written and viewed today.
But it’s understandable why some fans would want to see Bond done in an old school way, because unlike so many other active franchises, we can actually trace back with Bond to a time when the series wasn’t at all concerned with Bond’s emotional and psychological state beyond just being cool and unflappable. Bond actually crossed over from one era of filmmaking to another over the past 60s that can’t be said of any other film series. There’s no such thing as a DIE HARD film where John McClane had no emotional investment in his tasks. There’s no Marvel film without a character arc. There’s no MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE film with Ethan Hunt not taking a mission personally (especially when it comes to the loves of his life). INDIANA JONES probably has one film you could say is just a pure rollercoaster (TEMPLE OF DOOM) which is actually esoteric for those films and probably the reason it got so unfairly dismissed over the years (even by Spielberg himself).
It can be done well, but if they don’t bother doing it well, then perhaps they should refrain all together. The ideal would be to do it well.
…and that’s because Hollywood loves formula. I’m just not convinced that this particular formula works for a movie series that is supposed to run indefinitely.
Well, yes, that goes without saying. Do it well, or not at all. Despite my love for the Craig era, I can safely say that some things worked for me and some things didn't. And I wouldn't mind a more detached Bond, not at all. But a guy who's just following orders and has no personal stakes in the game of any kind is not likely to 'move' audiences these days.
I also agree with @ByRoyalDecree in that complexity seems to be what people now want. Successful characters aren't simply archetypical or superficial; they are real. Audiences don't resonate with a collection of simple traits anymore, they want depth. Old-school fans may reject that and want a return to simpler days -- heck, so do I sometimes, which is why I still watch GF or TB or any of the others from decades ago -- but I doubt that such a film has a big chance of getting released today, especially with an extremely big budget behind it.
I honestly think there's a middle ground where we can all meet. Forget Bond's family tree, please. No matter how much I love SF and SP, that part rubbed me the wrong way. It didn't work for me and added nothing to the suspense or excitement of the films. (Just my opinion, of course.) But an angry Bond (LTK, DAD, OHMSS), or a Bond in love (CR, NTTD), or a Bond who feels betrayed (GE, TWINE), well, that's a Bond I can definitely work with. But it's like salt in my soup: a little goes a long way, but too much makes me lose my appetite.
And if we must, well then we can always go back to Fleming. (Not that I always want to; films and books are two different things.) But as far as I can tell, Fleming delivered it all in small doses. By the climax of nearly every book, Bond had built up some emotional investment in the mission, but rarely ever to the point where we were in some kind of Shakespearean drama. Not zero, not amped up to 11, but somewhere in between, and we're good.
Indeed family relationships make the character feel less enigmatic. But past school/work relationships/traumas should be good to go. No flashbacks or explicit expositions however.
My biggest pet peeve is that the backstory/canon almost always was mixed with cartoonish tones. If you want full realism go full realism and make the entire thing believable and aesthetically down to earth. Then we’d buy it.
It’s been running this way for half of its run already.