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
To go on a tangent, that’s why I’m not big fan of the Marvel films. They’re fine, perfectly enjoyable films, but I think the effects they’ve had on the film industry as a whole is why I feel so pessimistic about them. Every damn studio has felt the need to connect everything just to jump and cash in on what Marvel is doing. It’s fine for DC because that’s another Connected Universe, but I don’t need to see every damn film property turned into a cinematic universe. Ironically, I think the solution to “The Marvel Problem” would be to do the “Joker” Method. “Joker” proved that you can still get audiences interested and engaged in the story without bending head, over heels to connect everything. Now I’m not saying make Bond movies that are exactly like “Joker”, but if “Joker” proved that an audience demand for standalone stories still exist, and if “John Wick” proved that audiences still love crazy, balls to the wall action, then I have no trouble seeing how the Bond films can’t go back to the way they were before.
Because they are “the most successful” films ever, doesn’t mean that they should be the “gold standard” for how Big Budget action films are made. You’re right, the Bond films aren’t soap operas, but the Craig era turned them into exactly that. And yes, we are being constantly hit over the head with that aspect. I can’t begin to describe how many Bond fans I’ve seen just say that they wanted Craig to go out on a “Traditional Classic Bond” type story, we don’t need another chapter in the “ever so dramatic life” of Craig’s Bond. OHMSS, LTK, and CR all work because they dramatically shook things up when they NEEDED too. They didn’t constantly barrage the audiences with emotional stories before, or after those films, that’s why the work, they manage to be standout gems. The appeal of a serious emotional Bond story loses its impact when they try to constantly engage those emotions over, and over again. Again, I cite that as the reason why SPECTRE was so disappointing.
I think yes and no: Fleming wanted to put Bond through the wringer and gave him interpersonal relationships too, and a lot of the stuff going on inside Bond's head was about what he was feeling. So in terms of a literary character he wasn't the machine that he basically was for most of the 60s and 70s; the problem is adapting that intention for the screen. And as you say, you can't easily portray that level of emotional involvement which Fleming intended without connections, so you adapt the films by linking the characters up more. In the BBC radio dramas they have him growling away to himself and he seems a bit mad! :)
Now I'm not defending Brofeld: that was a mistake no matter which way you look at it, but adapting the feel of a book doesn't always mean going by the absolute word of it.
The John Wick films have been hugely successful though, not to the degree of Marvel or Bond, but each film managed to top the grosses of the previous film. The reason those films work is because they’re so goofy, and ludicrous, yet their action is so perfectly staged to where it’s captivating. Even look at Fast and Furious, the worse film franchise I think I’ve ever witnessed, people like how stupidly crazy those films get, even if they’re crap.
"some people like" - if EON want to take Bond into that arena after DC, then best of luck
Come now, they’re not going to sink that low. All I’m saying is that if The Fast and Furious and John Wick prove that audiences still want pure adrenaline rush action, the kind that used to be in the older Bond films, then it wouldn’t be an entirely stupid idea to go back to the fun of the earlier Bond films. To do something in the tone and style of “Goldfinger”, or “The Spy Who Loved Me”. To make a “Classic Bond” without feeling the need to make your audiences connect with Bond on some emotional level.
Also, isn't the story of the Wick films that he was sacked from his profession and went rogue out on his own? So all about him doing the sort of thing Bond fans complain about.
I actually didn't make it through one of them, I'm not sure which it was- it was just too bang-bang-bang for me. They're popular though so I'm not saying they're bad, just not to my taste. I think I enjoyed the second one enough to watch all of it, I think I was in the right frame of mind for it on a Friday night or something.
The story for John Wick was that he left his profession as an assassin, and recently lost a girlfriend, who as a departing gift, gave him a puppy. But then 3 muggers break into his house, attack him, and kill the dog. One of the muggers is the son of one of Wick’s former contract employers, so basically the entire film is Wick destroying a Russian mafia because his puppy was killed. I’m not making that up too, that’s the actual premise.
The second and third films are about him getting kicked out though, aren't they?
In the second one, an old acquaintance he has a literal blood pact with, comes to him and forces him under threat of having him thrown out and every killer in the world sent after him to kill his sister (not Wick's sister, the guy's sister) so he can become head of the mafia or something. Wick kills her but finally, for some reason I can't recal at the moment, kills the guy in the Assassin Org's HQ which is a big no-no and leads to him kicked out at the end of the second film.
The third is about him on the run after being "excommunicated".
The first really is just: "The son of the Russian Mob Boss I used to work for, killed the puppy my dead wife gave me, so I am going to kill every single member of the Russian Mob in New York."
From what I can remember, the second film has one of Wick’s former colleagues/employers put a hit out on him, and essentially ends with Wick killing the guy at the “Continental” which is this hotel that is considered “sacred ground” to all of the assassins in that world. The film ends with word getting out that Wick killed the man at the “Continental”, thus as a price, he gets another hit placed on his head, one so large that every Assassin takes up the offer. So the third film takes place right after the second film, and is essentially just one big chase scene of Wick dodging Assassins from every corner of the world. That’s basically it, and there are 2 more films coming out after that. The Wick films have these weird, kind of simplistic plots, but they work for they’re going for. Also Halle Berry is in John Wick 3, and her performance in that is 10x better than her performance in Die Another Day, so that’s another positive.
I think that hiring Forster and Mendes (both times) was a mistake. There was both too much continuity and no continuity at the same time.
Certainly SF was more artistically appealing than SP, but CR boldly gave us a story without Q and Moneypenny, and Mendes cocked that up in SF...because he didn't know how to end it, other than to copy CR with its "becoming Moneypenny/M/Bond".
There should have been a believable Quantum arc from CR through SP. It wouldn't have been that hard to figure out how to dole out Quantum: they already accomplished it in DR-YOLT. But in SP they really mucked it up. (They also had the unused TSWLM script where the new guard assassinated the old guard and took over--that too, could have been a good way to get from Quantum to Spectre. Imagine if SP had opened with a Severnaya-like coup of Quantum by Blofeld, and White being forced into hiding, where Bond later finds him in Austria.)
Similarly, Fleming brought up Vesper, or later, Tracy...but not every five minutes. Balance.
Thing is, TLD was the third-lowest grossing Bond film and viewed as a bit of a disappointment, and Skyfall was the highest-earning Bond ever (inflation adjusted). It was even the highest grossing British film ever for a while, and got rave reviews and is hailed as a bit of a classic. So I'm not sure we can say TLD got it right and SF did it wrong, because audiences loved SF. Massively.
TLD is now highly thought of among Bond fans, the same way OHMSS is now appreciated too, even though either film didn't perform particularly well at the BO.
No one is denying SF's success at the BO. TB was the highest grossing up until SF, but I doubt many today would hail TB as the best Bond film, so the high grossing numbers don't necessarily mean it is the best Bond film. Its more likely EON spent fortunes on marketing SF for the 50th anniversary, coupled with one of the most successful singles released for a Bond film with Adele.
With regards SF's success critically, only time will tell how SF will be fared in 20 years time. I really liked it when it first came out, but I see it for all its flaws now, and it dropped quite drastically in my rankings over the past few years (the release of SP didn't help). I now find the 2 Mendes films rather slightly annoying, and find it hard to separate them.
I love TLD, it's probably one of my favourites as I always loved it at the time. But I don't think it's flawless.
SF also got incredibly good reviews as well as financial success. It's a classic.
It's just regarded as a better and more impactful movie than TLD. I love TLD but I think SF is a much more impressive and better-made film.
TLD has a lot going for it, even though it does have flaws. Dalton is one, Barry's final score is another, the title song is one of the last great pop songs, the PTS in Gibraltar is superb (soon to be my home town), the return of the Aston Martin, the script is faithful to the Fleming short story, etc.
I think the film sags a tad when it gets to Afghanistan, and the story gets a bit too complicated overall on first viewing, but it does feel like one of the last Bond films in the classic sense.
From LTK onwards this set the template for all future Bonds - we would have Bond going rogue, bent on revenge, less standard M briefings, no longer flirting with Moneypenny, no standard mission, etc.
John Wick is driven by his emotions, but it isn’t his emotions that are the main central part of the film; its present, but one doesn’t go into a John Wick film for some exploration of his psychology, which is what I feel has been a bit of an issue with the Craig Bond films
Audiences loved Skyfall when it came out because it returned to the classic Bond formula; it was an amazing way to celebrate the franchise’s 50th anniversary. It didn’t feel the need to connect to the other Craig Era Bond films, it had emotion it it’s core, but arguably that had more to do with Judi Dench as M more than Bond, so initially they got it right with Skyfall. The problem was SPECTRE coming in and connecting all of Craig’s Bond films just to lazily continue the “Emotional Storytelling” aspect, so in hindsight, SPECTRE kind of lowered the impact that Skyfall had.
The point is, if they really wanted to make Craig’s Bond an intentionally connected story, one with heavy emotion at its core, than it should’ve been planned that way. EON didn’t have the foresight to do that, that’s why I think the experiment failed in hindsight. It’s fine to want drama/an emotional core at the center of your story, but if your trying to go for that, then go back to the style of FRWL/TLD, which managed to balance the drama/action and spectacle perfectly. Or better yet, ditch the emotional storytelling aspect all together, and just make classic Bond films in the spirit of Goldfinger, or TSWLM, which is what I think they should do.
This is pretty much the issue I have now with SF. I really liked it when I first saw it, but once SP was released, with all the problems it carried, for some reason they began to highlight the flaws in SF too, to the extent that I find it hard to separate the 2 films now. SP picked up on all the work started in SF and then went too far with it, none more so than the Brofeld connection, and Newman's lazy score.
Mendes direction lacked the gritty, tough, bloody, violent edge that Campbell brought with CR, and to a lesser extent Forster did in QoS.
Yeah Skyfall was dragged down because of Spectre’s faults. I simply think Mendes was too pretentious a Bond director. He doesn’t have the hard edged style the way Martin Campbell does, he’s not a bad director by any means, but I’ll say that his urge to “put is own stamp on the series” is why I don’t revisit his films a lot. It’s an issue I also have with the debate over whether Chris Nolan should direct a Bond film. If he did, it wouldn’t feel like a Bond film; it’d just feel like another Chris Nolan movie.
I was all for Chris Nolan doing a Bond film until I saw Tenet, and again that film suddenly highlights all that is wrong with his direction, to the extent that the traits start to show up now in his older films. Once seen, its hard to ignore.
For me, the directors who really knew how to do Bond are Young, Hamilton, Hunt, Glen and Campbell. I appreciate many would say I should also add Gilbert to the list too, but for some reason I'm not a massive fan of his 3 films. I like certain scenes and elements from all 3, but overall the OTT Bond's don't do much for me.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but it’s not like I dislike the Craig Era. Casino Royale was literally the first Bond film I ever saw in theaters, and I can remember leaving feeling so optimistic and hopeful about the future of Bond. I just find myself to be disappointed that the era didn’t live up to the expectations and hype set by Casino Royale.
Haven’t seen Tenet yet, but I’ve heard the film described as Christopher Nolan’s worse excesses rolled up into one, single film.
Dislike is maybe too strong. Disappointed is more fitting, for me anyway. Every Bond film I can find elements or scenes that I like (apart from DAD, which I openly loathe with every cell in my body).... ;)
One of my favourite scenes in any Bond film is the centrifuge one in MR, even though I think the film is silly overall. Likewise, John Barry knocks the soundtrack out of the park with that one.
That in a nutshell is exactly how I feel. Nice to know there are other people out there that think the way I do.
Believe it or not, I can defend some of the aspect of DAD. The pre title sequence, the torture of Bond, Rosamund Pike, the sword fight scene, and the ice chase scene to name them precisely. Everything else...Yikes.
Same here on my end, I’m glad I’m not feeling completely alone in my analysis of the Craig era.