Where does Bond go after Craig?

13839414344682

Comments

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    And I've said it before: My hope for B26 is that somebody has a real filmmaking idea the way CR was an idea and not that they go through the motions.
    Yes, I totally agree and this is also my first hope. One's can find a lot of flaws in the most recent installments of the Mission: Impossible series, but Christopher McQuarrie has brought a vision that he has managed to develop over the long term through creative stability. It is something that Eon should take a page from, especially since the series has given itself a much more artistic image, distinguishing itself from Marvel Studios productions or other blockbusters, by trusting more or less renowned filmmakers (Forster, Mendes, Fukunaga and Boyle of course, but also Villeneuve and Winding Refn who were approached too).

    To be honest, who the next director will be is something that today interests me much more than all the speculation about the next actor.

    What is bizarre and frustrating about this is that the MI franchise is doing nothing particularly innovative at all. In fact, it is doing what makes sense and what EoN used to pioneer - that is to think about the franchise longer term, and at least have an idea of what the next film is going to be. It blows my mind that EoN aren't thinking about this in terms of longer term sustainability and the need for regular instalments (even if it was to deliberately set out to make one every five years, it would at least be regular, rather than the haphazard schedules we have had for the last 15 years).

  • What is bizarre and frustrating about this is that the MI franchise is doing nothing particularly innovative at all. In fact, it is doing what makes sense and what EoN used to pioneer - that is to think about the franchise longer term, and at least have an idea of what the next film is going to be.
    I think where the MI series innovates relatively is by introducing a figure comparable to that of a showrunner but where generally in franchises this role is given to a producer (think Kevin Feige for Marvel Studios and to a lesser extent Cubby himself), here it is assigned to a director who also happens to be a screenwriter. The closest we got in recent Bond films were Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. It would be relevant to Eon, when they select the next director to ask him or her to detail their long-term vision for the franchise, not just for one movie, but all of the progression for the next actor.
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 4,617
    IMHO, most punters are not concerned with different directors, their vision, their style etc etc. They want to book their tickets, buy the popcorn and get a great escapist adventure (in line with previous adventures) McQ does his best at making movies that the punters want rather than inprint whatever personal style he would want. He puts the punters first and just "gets it". In additional, he clearly has a great working relationship with TC and the rest of the team.

    Compare this with another option of bringing in new directors into a long standing franchise. Directors with their own styles. visions and ideas of "where to take" the series. The MI option makes more sense in terms of producing a consistant end result that punters want but EON prefer the latter option and we have seen over the past decades the rollercoaster, "hit and miss" effect which, personaly speaking, is so frustrating. Just imagine where the Bond franchise would be today if they had chosen the MI route.
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    Posts: 524
    What is bizarre and frustrating about this is that the MI franchise is doing nothing particularly innovative at all. In fact, it is doing what makes sense and what EoN used to pioneer - that is to think about the franchise longer term, and at least have an idea of what the next film is going to be.
    I think where the MI series innovates relatively is by introducing a figure comparable to that of a showrunner but where generally in franchises this role is given to a producer (think Kevin Feige for Marvel Studios and to a lesser extent Cubby himself), here it is assigned to a director who also happens to be a screenwriter. The closest we got in recent Bond films were Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. It would be relevant to Eon, when they select the next director to ask him or her to detail their long-term vision for the franchise, not just for one movie, but all of the progression for the next actor.

    If the rumour mill is to be believed, EON has asked Phoebe Waller-Bridge for some ideas for Bond 26, and Cary Fukunaga would be considering doing the next one as well. If Fukunaga stays on, then you've got a director who can also write (part of) the screenplay, like the M:I franchise currently has with McQuarrie.
    The question of course, is if that would be wise. We all know what happened when Sam Mendes took on a second Bond film after already using all creativity he had. I think it largely depends on the critical success of NTTD, but I agree that a long-term vision is necessary if the films stay interconnected like the Craig-era. If EON goes back to stand-alone, a long term plan is perhaps not needed, but a general idea of who this new Bond is and what the style of the films will be should be enough.
    But to me it's clear a new era will be upon us, with MGW possibly retiring, Gregg taking over, MGM clearly wanting a steadier output of Bond films and the people brought on board for NTTD maybe staying beyond the one film, the seeds are there for a new, long-term plan.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    EON has done the MI route in reverse. In the first 4 MI films they brought in auteurs with different visions for how it should look, and then reverted to the single director/vision over a number of films. As MI took that route, EON moved away from journeymen and towards auteurs. The results have been, at best, mixed.

    I am not sure it suits Bond to be honest.
  • edited November 2020 Posts: 4,617
    It takes a certain discipline and lack of ego to keep producing stuff that punters want rather than go arty or prove you can do different things. I have heard a few interviews with Mendes when he stated he did not want to do a straight repeat of Skyfall. We see this in other areas of art ("Tusk" for example). McQ seems to be ego free and just focus on giving punters what they want. (Stallone is another great example) If EON could find their own McQ, surely, it would be a good thing?

    @DeerAtTheGates good points, it would be great to have a new Bond with a plan for 4/5 movies. They dont have to be connected re narrative but the key issue IMHO is the tone of this Bond's career. The last MI's have some variation but they are essentially very similar in tone. The same cannot be said re DC's tenure.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,421
    echo wrote: »
    Any fans of The Crown in this forum?

    There are elements from that show that I would love to see brought into the Bond universe, Martin Phipps for example does excellent work with the music especially in the last season, it has the sense of grandeur, romance and sinister vibes that would fit a Bond movie like a glove IMO. I'm also a fan of the cinematography, it really captures the locations beautifully which would be a plus in a Bond movie too. Wouldn't mind seeing Emma Corrin in a Bond movie either, she gave a star performance as the Princess of Wales.

    I'll take Helena Bonham Carter as a Bond villain.

    That's very fun! I do think it's actually getting a bit weird that we haven't had a female baddie in 20 years now.
    You are absolutely right and this isn't just a Craig-era thing. Eon have for a long time tried to swim in the mainstream of action movies of the given era.

    So what are the current trends?

    I recently rewatched Mission Impossible 4 and 5 and was struck by how gadget heavy those films are. It's weird how the different franchises are viewed. I of course haven't done any representative study on this, but I think a Bond film would have been ridiculed for something like the sticky glove stunt on the Burj Khalifa or the flute gun in Rogue Nation and so much more, not to mention all of the mask business. Maybe the differentiating factor is the whole "Cruise did this for real"-framing?

    I don't quite get the issue with the flute gun? But in Ghost Protocol especially the point is that all of the gadgets let them down and malfunction and they have to use their wits to solve the problems.
    I'd love to see something influenced by John Wick. I'd like stunning fight choreography, with bone-crunching consequences, bright cinematography, witty dialogue and single missions with minimal navel-gazing. P&W need to f/ck off too.

    I find Wick a bit too stylised for Bond. It works for Wick (although I've only got through one of them I must admit) but I don't think sexy ultraviolence is quite Bond's thing.
    Interesting. I never really saw Wick as very nostalgic. What makes you say that?
    I can overanalyze but, especially because of its color composition, made of purple or blue neons, John Wick seems to me to be a tribute to a certain imagery of the 80s and which will today be associated with cyberpunk or retrowave. The first reference that comes to mind is Ridley Scott's Black Rain. It might be exaggerated to see nostalgia, but certainly a strong tribute.
    7oiwug5g2gwz.jpg

    To stay on a potential influence from John Wick, and this is a point I've made on this discussion before, I think the most important lesson, and which could also be learned from Atomic Blonde, is that a spy-tinged action movie with a moderate budget is capable of delivering something stylish and polished. NTTD will probably not succeed in recouping its colossal budget and it seems to me that if Eon wants to continue to be able to be profitable on the big screen, to take a page from these mid-budget movies would seem necessary to me.

    Apart from the brilliant one-shot stairway fight I found Atomic Blonde pretty forgettable, I would say. And it just couldn't evoke the period setting either (in some places literally: lots of present day cars visible on the streets).
    What is bizarre and frustrating about this is that the MI franchise is doing nothing particularly innovative at all. In fact, it is doing what makes sense and what EoN used to pioneer - that is to think about the franchise longer term, and at least have an idea of what the next film is going to be.
    I think where the MI series innovates relatively is by introducing a figure comparable to that of a showrunner but where generally in franchises this role is given to a producer (think Kevin Feige for Marvel Studios and to a lesser extent Cubby himself), here it is assigned to a director who also happens to be a screenwriter. The closest we got in recent Bond films were Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. It would be relevant to Eon, when they select the next director to ask him or her to detail their long-term vision for the franchise, not just for one movie, but all of the progression for the next actor.

    Well, Fukunaga is the first Bond director to take a writing credit so I guess we'll see, but I think McQ is a bit of a one-off in a way- there aren't many around who just have this perfect feel for how a blockbuster works. As Father Valentine says, they're not really doing anything hugely new or innovative (although I guess having the star involved so obviously in the big stunts is a USP): they're just doing traditional blockbusters incredibly well.
  • I have a feeling Cary has done amazing work with NTTD. It's a shame he's such an in demand auteur. I'd love to see what he could build from the ground up, with a new Bond and fresh canvas.
  • mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Any fans of The Crown in this forum?

    There are elements from that show that I would love to see brought into the Bond universe, Martin Phipps for example does excellent work with the music especially in the last season, it has the sense of grandeur, romance and sinister vibes that would fit a Bond movie like a glove IMO. I'm also a fan of the cinematography, it really captures the locations beautifully which would be a plus in a Bond movie too. Wouldn't mind seeing Emma Corrin in a Bond movie either, she gave a star performance as the Princess of Wales.

    I'll take Helena Bonham Carter as a Bond villain.

    That's very fun! I do think it's actually getting a bit weird that we haven't had a female baddie in 20 years now.

    To be fair, we've only had 4 going on 5 films in the 18 years since Die Another Day , but I agree, it's high time we had a proper villainess in Bond again. I've long thought Gong Li would make a fantastic Bond villain. While an Academy Award seems to be a prerequisite to play the lead villain of late, Gong's recent appearance in Disney's Mulan may be just the exposure she would need for consideration.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2020 Posts: 16,421
    Interesting thought. I even think Michelle Yeoh could come back and be a pretty good main baddie now! She could even present a physical threat to Bond, unlike Safin/Blofeld/Green.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    One of the best female villains in recent years was Lena Heady's performance in Dredd. She would be good in a Bond film in virtually any role - as a love interest, villain, or even as M.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,532
    One of the best female villains in recent years was Lena Heady's performance in Dredd. She would be good in a Bond film in virtually any role - as a love interest, villain, or even as M.

    She's got a good name for a bond girl, Lena Heady.... ;))
  • Posts: 1,632
    How dare you say that about her name ! (btw I think you're referencing a mis-pronunciation since I am rather certain it is pronounced "hee-dee") For that dispay of yours -- It's the Wall of Shame for you !!! (She used a body double, btw, in her Game of Thrones Walk of Shame, with CGI to put her head/face on the double. However, for the real deal -- watch her in 300, alongside once and present Bond "candidates" per fans: Gerard Butler, Dominic West, Michael Fassbender -- all in one movie ! Eva Green, of course, appeared in the sequel)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Her performance in GOT is enough proof of what Lena is capable of. She would be a great addition, especially as villainess.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,636
    Forever and a Day-Take the time to plan it right. Have Gregg Wilson team up with Barbara Broccoli, with Michael G. Wilson in Cubby's place on GE. Update the story to present day. Have Anthony Horowitz cowrite the screenplay with someone(s) new. No Purvis and Wade! New James Bond, new screenwriters! Get a director who will be true both to the novel and the character of James Bond. Cast an unknown as James Bond, akin to Sean Connery or George Lazenby. Cast a big name actress as Madame Sixtine, I was thinking Gal Gadot. Take Diana Rigg in OHMSS as an example. No Scarlett Johansson or Jennifer Lawrence! Keep Ralph Fiennes as M, recast Moneypenny and Tanner. Hold of on Q, as he isn't in Horowitz's text. Take CR as an example. I think it would be time to bring in May (Bond's housekeeper) for the series, I was thinking Felicity Jones. As for the 007 that is killed in the beginning, I'd have it be Alec Trevelyan. His abandonment and stealing of his 00 number would help setup future stories. The casting can be used for long term planning. Keep it fresh, with ensemble casts of reoccurring characters is my goal (due to my acting background and James Bond fanboyness).
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    I think it's go more traditional direction.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    We can only hope so after the last 15 years.
  • I’m hoping they ditch the emotional storytelling/connected aspect of the Craig era. It was an interesting experiment that sadly didn’t pay off the way it should have. As far as tonal direction, I’m sure in this age of doom and gloom that appears to be ravaged across news networks and social media, I wouldn’t mind a return to the style of the late Connery/Moore period, just as long as they don’t take things too far like Die Another Day did. There’s enough distance from Austin Powers and the other Bond spoofs to where I think a Classic, lighthearted Bond film could work now.
  • Posts: 3,327
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Forever and a Day-Take the time to plan it right. Have Gregg Wilson team up with Barbara Broccoli, with Michael G. Wilson in Cubby's place on GE. Update the story to present day. Have Anthony Horowitz cowrite the screenplay with someone(s) new. No Purvis and Wade! New James Bond, new screenwriters! Get a director who will be true both to the novel and the character of James Bond. Cast an unknown as James Bond, akin to Sean Connery or George Lazenby. Cast a big name actress as Madame Sixtine, I was thinking Gal Gadot. Take Diana Rigg in OHMSS as an example. No Scarlett Johansson or Jennifer Lawrence! Keep Ralph Fiennes as M, recast Moneypenny and Tanner. Hold of on Q, as he isn't in Horowitz's text. Take CR as an example. I think it would be time to bring in May (Bond's housekeeper) for the series, I was thinking Felicity Jones. As for the 007 that is killed in the beginning, I'd have it be Alec Trevelyan. His abandonment and stealing of his 00 number would help setup future stories. The casting can be used for long term planning. Keep it fresh, with ensemble casts of reoccurring characters is my goal (due to my acting background and James Bond fanboyness).

    Well said, and spot on! I agree with pretty much 100% of all this.
    You have great taste mate!
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 4,617
    Bringing in May is a great idea. It would provide something new and fresh (most movie goers would have no idea of the original character) and provide a new space for friendly banter and a warmer glimpse into Bonds every day life. Ironically, I can see Judi Dench in that role (too late now). Seeing Bond nagged (warmly) like a naughty school boy (by M and Kinkade) worked well IMHO and that to tone would work well re Bond and May. It could also symbolise the start of a new era if we see Bond moving into a new apartment and meeting May for the first time.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 16,421
    I’m hoping they ditch the emotional storytelling/connected aspect of the Craig era.

    No thanks; I want my movies to have drama in them. Jokes too, but I want to get emotionally involved- that way the tension works better in the action scenes etc.
    Blockbusters are stronger if you care about the characters- I was just watching Avengers Endgame again: how would that work without emotion?
    patb wrote: »
    Bringing in May is a great idea.

    Personally I think it would distance Bond from the audience more if we saw he had a live-in maid and couldn't make eggs for himself! :) It's just a bit of a weird thing in this day and age.

    And if we don't want an emotional life for Bond why would we want to see what he does at home? Either he is his job or he isn't.
  • Posts: 4,617
    I think, culturally, we have become more emotionally engaged: both with each other and with all movies including action. I think it's pretty unthinkable now to have a Bond who just does the job and walks away. It would just seem shallow (the Avengers referencemakes perfect sense). It makes the writing far more challenging when dealing with a character who works within a limited environment, with limited contacts and cant die. How do the writers create emotional engagement with every new movie? This will be a major challenge in the "post Craig" era.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,270
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m hoping they ditch the emotional storytelling/connected aspect of the Craig era.

    No thanks; I want my movies to have drama in them. Jokes too, but I want to get emotionally involved- that way the tension works better in the action scenes etc.
    Blockbusters are stronger if you care about the characters- I was just watching Avengers Endgame again: how would that work without emotion?
    patb wrote: »
    Bringing in May is a great idea.

    Personally I think it would distance Bond from the audience more if we saw he had a live-in maid and couldn't make eggs for himself! :) It's just a bit of a weird thing in this day and age.

    And if we don't want an emotional life for Bond why would we want to see what he does at home? Either he is his job or he isn't.

    Drama and Emotion is fine, so long as you don’t hit the audiences over the head constantly with it. The older Bond films have had their share of drama and emotion, but they didn’t feel like Action Soap Dramas, which is how I describe the Craig Era. Even the Marvel films don’t constantly feel the need to make everything so emotionally complicated. They’re just fun Action Flicks, with no deeper meaning behind them, but can be serious when needed. I just find that all of the emotional storytelling aspects of the Craig era have dragged down what those films could’ve been. It’s fine to give serious emotional stakes once in a while. OHMSS, LTK, and Casino Royale are the best examples of that, but you ruin the overall impact when each film becomes a constant one upsman ship of “How can we put Craig’s Bond through the ringer worse than last time”, that is, in my opinion, the wrong way to approach a Bond film. Take a look at FRWL, that film is a simple “Bond gets an assignment, and is tasked with completeing it” story, but the drama within that film doesn’t come from some “serious emotional stakes” for Bond, it comes from the suspense carefully layered throughout the film, and the result? A Bond film that manages to stand head and toes above the rest of the series. Take “The Spy Who Loved Me”, the drama and tension comes from the fact that two agents, from opposing sides, are forced to work with each other, and then more tension is brought in when Anya discovers Bond was the one responsible for the death of her lover, which ups the stake even more. Even Skyfall managed to get a handle on the fantastic elements while managing to have serious stakes in the film, only to have the impact of that cut short by SPECTRE, which takes the emotional storytelling aspects too far. You can have Drama and Emotion without feeling the need to constantly up the personal stakes for Bond. People haven’t been going to these films for nearly 60 years because there “serious films with serious emotional aspects”, they’ve been going because their fun, easy to watch films that can also be serious when they needed to be. Also James Bond isn’t Marvel, that’s why SPECTRE fell short of a lot of people’s expectations. It’s fine if you like the emotional aspect of the Craig era, but I just happen to share a different opinion. It’s why the Craig era is the one I revisit the least.
  • Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m hoping they ditch the emotional storytelling/connected aspect of the Craig era.

    No thanks; I want my movies to have drama in them. Jokes too, but I want to get emotionally involved- that way the tension works better in the action scenes etc.
    Blockbusters are stronger if you care about the characters- I was just watching Avengers Endgame again: how would that work without emotion?
    patb wrote: »
    Bringing in May is a great idea.

    Personally I think it would distance Bond from the audience more if we saw he had a live-in maid and couldn't make eggs for himself! :) It's just a bit of a weird thing in this day and age.

    And if we don't want an emotional life for Bond why would we want to see what he does at home? Either he is his job or he isn't.

    Drama and Emotion is fine, so long as you don’t hit the audiences over the head constantly with it. The older Bond films have had their share of drama and emotion, but they didn’t feel like Action Soap Dramas, which is how I describe the Craig Era. Even the Marvel films don’t constantly feel the need to make everything so emotionally complicated. They’re just fun Action Flicks, with no deeper meaning behind them, but can be serious when needed. I just find that all of the emotional storytelling aspects of the Craig era have dragged down what those films could’ve been. It’s fine to give serious emotional stakes once in a while. OHMSS, LTK, and Casino Royale are the best examples of that, but you ruin the overall impact when each film becomes a constant one upsman ship of “How can we put Craig’s Bond through the ringer worse than last time”, that is, in my opinion, the wrong way to approach a Bond film.

    Yes I agree. Other than OHMSS, its a trend that really started (successfully, IMO) in LTK, but then continued on badly through the Brosnan era.

    In CR they got it right, but then the Craig films have suffered more and more with each release afterwards because of this desperate need for emotional ties or personal backstories, to the extent that even Blofeld can no longer just be a bad guy. He has to be family connected to Bond in some way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 16,421
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m hoping they ditch the emotional storytelling/connected aspect of the Craig era.

    No thanks; I want my movies to have drama in them. Jokes too, but I want to get emotionally involved- that way the tension works better in the action scenes etc.
    Blockbusters are stronger if you care about the characters- I was just watching Avengers Endgame again: how would that work without emotion?
    patb wrote: »
    Bringing in May is a great idea.

    Personally I think it would distance Bond from the audience more if we saw he had a live-in maid and couldn't make eggs for himself! :) It's just a bit of a weird thing in this day and age.

    And if we don't want an emotional life for Bond why would we want to see what he does at home? Either he is his job or he isn't.

    Drama and Emotion is fine, so long as you don’t hit the audiences over the head constantly with it. The older Bond films have had their share of drama and emotion, but they didn’t feel like Action Soap Dramas, which is how I describe the Craig Era. Even the Marvel films don’t constantly feel the need to make everything so emotionally complicated. They’re just fun Action Flicks,

    Really? You didn't see the last few Marvel films? The most successful movies ever, incidentally.
    The Bond films aren't soap, they just aren't. You're not being hit over the head with it.

    The films Bond fans constantly cite as the best include OHMSS and LTK, plus Casino Royale too. Just have a think about why: fans actually do want these characters to live and breathe more and get involved more in their world- to see Bond's flat and his housemaid and his accidie and find about all the other parts of his life Fleming talked about, even though they say they just 'want to see him go on a mission'.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,270
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m hoping they ditch the emotional storytelling/connected aspect of the Craig era.

    No thanks; I want my movies to have drama in them. Jokes too, but I want to get emotionally involved- that way the tension works better in the action scenes etc.
    Blockbusters are stronger if you care about the characters- I was just watching Avengers Endgame again: how would that work without emotion?
    patb wrote: »
    Bringing in May is a great idea.

    Personally I think it would distance Bond from the audience more if we saw he had a live-in maid and couldn't make eggs for himself! :) It's just a bit of a weird thing in this day and age.

    And if we don't want an emotional life for Bond why would we want to see what he does at home? Either he is his job or he isn't.

    Drama and Emotion is fine, so long as you don’t hit the audiences over the head constantly with it. The older Bond films have had their share of drama and emotion, but they didn’t feel like Action Soap Dramas, which is how I describe the Craig Era. Even the Marvel films don’t constantly feel the need to make everything so emotionally complicated. They’re just fun Action Flicks, with no deeper meaning behind them, but can be serious when needed. I just find that all of the emotional storytelling aspects of the Craig era have dragged down what those films could’ve been. It’s fine to give serious emotional stakes once in a while. OHMSS, LTK, and Casino Royale are the best examples of that, but you ruin the overall impact when each film becomes a constant one upsman ship of “How can we put Craig’s Bond through the ringer worse than last time”, that is, in my opinion, the wrong way to approach a Bond film.

    Yes I agree. Other than OHMSS, its a trend that really started (successfully, IMO) in LTK, but then continued on badly through the Brosnan era.

    In CR they got it right, but then the Craig films have suffered more and more with each release afterwards because of this desperate need for emotional ties or personal backstories, to the extent that even Blofeld can no longer just be a bad guy. He has to be family connected to Bond in some way.

    The Blofeld thing felt like a huge kick in the nuts for me. The return of one of cinema’s most iconic villains, a character responsible for so many legal entanglements in this franchise, and they botched him badly beyond repair. It doesn’t help that Christoph Waltz is a fantastic actor, who gives a weak performance in the film. I think in concept, the idea of Blofeld being behind the events of CR and QOS is quite brilliant, they just managed to F it up so badly that I just gave up on any chance of enjoying the Craig era as a whole now, I mean who in their right mind ever thought that it was a good idea to turn Blofeld into Bond’s Step Brother? To boil his entire motivation down too “Daddy spent more time with you than he did with me, now I’m going to dedicate my life to making your life hell!” After that, Charles Gray in drag seemed brilliant in comparison. It was even more insulting when they had to drag down Skyfall with it as well. It didn’t even make any sense. Silva’s plan was purely just to get revenge on M, now making him just another pawn in Blofeld’s scheme ruined that for me, in fact my enjoyment of Skyfall as a whole was unfortunately affected because if the stupid decision to tie that in with everything else, as if to try and make you believe that this was planned from the start. I partly agree with you on the Brosnan era though, I felt it worked in Goldeneye and TWINE, but hey, that’s just my opinion. Also agree on LTK; that film is just awesome. I’d take that over Craig’s era (CR withstanding) anyday. And one final note, I really hope we stop getting pretentious directors for Bond films.
  • Posts: 4,617
    The issue is IMHO that, for example, Marvel is relatively easy to write re emotion. The dynamics across a team, the internal relationships, the need to come together in the wider interest. A story played out across the Universe and, of course, actual death. Bond places the writers in a relative straight jacket and it worked fine in previous decades but the audience has changed so its a real challenge. The "brother" thing is the perfect example of how desperate they are to create emotional connections where they simply dont exist and it back fired hugely. Killing much loved supporting characters clearly works but you cant do that every time and Bond cant fall in love again and again. It's tricky....very tricky.
  • edited December 2020 Posts: 2,270
    patb wrote: »
    The issue is IMHO that, for example, Marvel is relatively easy to write re emotion. The dynamics across a team, the internal relationships, the need to come together in the wider interest. A story played out across the Universe and, of course, actual death. Bond places the writers in a relative straight jacket and it worked fine in previous decades but the audience has changed so its a real challenge. The "brother" thing is the perfect example of how desperate they are to create emotional connections where they simply dont exist and it back fired hugely. Killing much loved supporting characters clearly works but you cant do that every time and Bond cant fall in love again and again. It's tricky....very tricky.

    Well Marvel was also meant and planned to be connected on a large scale, and they’ve made it work (and I say that as someone who doesn’t really like a majority of those films), whereas Bond wasn’t meant to be this huge, connected affair. Yes there is continuity in the books, and even in the first 20 films, but it didn’t hit you over the head with it. That’s why I personally love the FYEO pre-title sequence; it did a far better job at connecting the Bond films than SPECTRE ever did.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,421
    patb wrote: »
    The issue is IMHO that, for example, Marvel is relatively easy to write re emotion. The dynamics across a team, the internal relationships, the need to come together in the wider interest. A story played out across the Universe and, of course, actual death. Bond places the writers in a relative straight jacket and it worked fine in previous decades but the audience has changed so its a real challenge. The "brother" thing is the perfect example of how desperate they are to create emotional connections where they simply dont exist and it back fired hugely. Killing much loved supporting characters clearly works but you cant do that every time and Bond cant fall in love again and again. It's tricky....very tricky.

    Yeah that's a fair point, in order to have inter-personal relationships you need more than one person! :)
    Brofeld was a dreadful idea, yes, and you're right about Bond falling in love. I don't know what the answer is, but they're the writers, not me! :) Skyfall managed to be a very effective dramatic story with progression for Bond and stakes for him- and we need stakes for the main characters.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Yes, for emotion, you need connections. Characters cant have emotions between each other if they don't connect. Bond was never designed for that. His essential role is a single mission and, when required, to kill and then get out. That context worked perfectly in the SC era and the raw emotion of OHMSS was clearly ahead of its time. If they re made Dr No, for example, IMHO, the current audience would find it cold and shallow. The stakes are too low. Would Bond fall in love with Honey? Is Dr No Bond's long lost cousin? Sounds silly but times have really changed.
Sign In or Register to comment.