Where does Bond go after Craig?

1429430432434435674

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 1 Posts: 16,291
    Is OCTOPUSSY more over the top, and less grounded than NSNA? Yes, but that’s not to the detriment of the film.

    That's right.

    I re-watched OP only last week, and I found it very watchable, and yes, it's probably more entertaining than NSNA.
    In my ideal world, I'd trim five or six things from OP just to make it less juvenile.
    Of course, Connery is the only Bond to break the 'fourth wall' in NSNA, (unless you count Laz's "other fellow" comment).

    I would have liked to see the jungle hunt played a bit more seriously. I like gags in my Bond films, even the silly ones, but the ones in there really are a bit naff and episodic, and the idea of Bond being hunted like an animal in the jungle is a really good one; I can imagine it being really scary in a Fleming novel or something. And towards the end you do see a touch of the desperation of Bond- a bit more of that would have been welcome.
    The photography thing is a weird one because it’s by Douglas Slocombe, whose previous film was RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. I dunno why why the movie looks as dull as it does. Maybe that’s just a consequence of having different production team working off of.

    Plus it's directed by the guy who made the best Star Wars movie too. It is a mystery what happened to everyone's talent! :)
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    It'd be nice to have some rumours to talk about in the next few months. Something for us to debate and get excited about
  • Posts: 1,071
    mtm wrote: »
    I would have liked to see the jungle hunt played a bit more seriously. I like gags in my Bond films, even the silly ones, but the ones in there really are a bit naff and episodic, and the idea of Bond being hunted like an animal in the jungle is a really good one; I can imagine it being really scary in a Fleming novel or something. And towards the end you do see a touch of the desperation of Bond- a bit more of that would have been welcome.

    They had a great, silly gag at the end with "I'm on the economy tour". That was all that was needed. The Tarzan yell and the Barbara Woodhouse impression ruined any tension that was there in that jungle scene.
    And, for an international movie, was there anyone outside the UK that understood the Barbara Woodhouse thing anyway?
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited January 1 Posts: 1,028
    My guess is they wanted to lighten the mood after a pretty dark scene where Bond hides in the freezer amongst corpses, and then we see them being thrown down the hill. Come to think of it, that's got to be one of the most morbid scenes in the franchise. Does not excuse the silly gags however, as a jungle chase should've been a properly tense sequence.
  • Posts: 1,301
    I think if the average person were to watch Octopussy and Never Say Never Again, they would say Octopussy was more outlandish than Never Say Never Again. There's daft stuff in most Bond movies, but Octopussy has more daft stuff than Never Say Never Again.
    We could spend all day saying "but this happened in such-and-such", but I'd be very surprised if the average person considered Octopussy as the more 'grounded' of the two.

    Yeah.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 1 Posts: 16,291
    mtm wrote: »
    I would have liked to see the jungle hunt played a bit more seriously. I like gags in my Bond films, even the silly ones, but the ones in there really are a bit naff and episodic, and the idea of Bond being hunted like an animal in the jungle is a really good one; I can imagine it being really scary in a Fleming novel or something. And towards the end you do see a touch of the desperation of Bond- a bit more of that would have been welcome.

    They had a great, silly gag at the end with "I'm on the economy tour". That was all that was needed. The Tarzan yell and the Barbara Woodhouse impression ruined any tension that was there in that jungle scene.

    Yeah that is a good solid punchline. I like that ending too- Bond is so desperate and at the end of his tether that he has to get a load of ordinary tourists to rescue him; being in dire straights to that extent is quite unusual for him.
    And, for an international movie, was there anyone outside the UK that understood the Barbara Woodhouse thing anyway?

    I think she was well-known in the US too. But I kind of like that they don't care about that sort of thing too much sometimes: like the Clampers guy in TWINE!
  • mtm wrote: »

    NSNA also has remote-controlled sharks. Plus man-sized hovering jet rocket things and a mad woman wanting James Bond to sign a document saying she was his greatest ever lay. And, y'know, Rowan Atkinson not exactly giving his most subtle performance.

    Oh yes I completely forgot about those elements too. Thank you @mtm!
    I think if the average person were to watch Octopussy and Never Say Never Again, they would say Octopussy was more outlandish than Never Say Never Again.

    Would they though?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    mtm wrote: »

    NSNA also has remote-controlled sharks. Plus man-sized hovering jet rocket things and a mad woman wanting James Bond to sign a document saying she was his greatest ever lay. And, y'know, Rowan Atkinson not exactly giving his most subtle performance.

    Oh yes I completely forgot about those elements too. Thank you @mtm!
    I think if the average person were to watch Octopussy and Never Say Never Again, they would say Octopussy was more outlandish than Never Say Never Again.

    Would they though?

    Doubtful. Whatever outlandish things happen in OP, they comfortably blend with the rest of the film, which at times takes a surprisingly serious tone, even with a Bond in clown make-up. The silly stuff in NSNA sticks out like a sore thumb. That doesn't mean I would mind Barbara Carrera in nurse outfit telling me to be a good boy, though. Minus the dope.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    NSNA also has remote-controlled sharks. Plus man-sized hovering jet rocket things and a mad woman wanting James Bond to sign a document saying she was his greatest ever lay. And, y'know, Rowan Atkinson not exactly giving his most subtle performance.

    Oh yes I completely forgot about those elements too. Thank you @mtm!
    I think if the average person were to watch Octopussy and Never Say Never Again, they would say Octopussy was more outlandish than Never Say Never Again.

    Would they though?

    Doubtful. Whatever outlandish things happen in OP, they comfortably blend with the rest of the film, which at times takes a surprisingly serious tone, even with a Bond in clown make-up. The silly stuff in NSNA sticks out like a sore thumb. That doesn't mean I would mind Barbara Carrera in nurse outfit telling me to be a good boy, though. Minus the dope.

    Bingo!
  • Posts: 2,156
    The photography thing is a weird one because it’s by Douglas Slocombe, whose previous film was RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. I dunno why why the movie looks as dull as it does. Maybe that’s just a consequence of having different production team working off of.

    Is the dullness of the cinematography (which I agree with) a result of how it was shot and finished, or how the film has been treated after release. I don't think it has had a 4k restoration, the same as the other Bond films, with a clean up and colour touch up. Maybe that would make it look better? I have seen a DVD version which didn't look great and a 1080 HD TV broadcast recorded which looks significantly better, though not to the standard I would expect. Raiders also benefits from an extensive 4k restoration and touch up, overseen by Spielberg I think, hence why even today it looks absolutely fantastic.
  • Posts: 1,301
    Mallory wrote: »
    The photography thing is a weird one because it’s by Douglas Slocombe, whose previous film was RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. I dunno why why the movie looks as dull as it does. Maybe that’s just a consequence of having different production team working off of.

    Is the dullness of the cinematography (which I agree with) a result of how it was shot and finished, or how the film has been treated after release. I don't think it has had a 4k restoration, the same as the other Bond films, with a clean up and colour touch up. Maybe that would make it look better? I have seen a DVD version which didn't look great and a 1080 HD TV broadcast recorded which looks significantly better, though not to the standard I would expect. Raiders also benefits from an extensive 4k restoration and touch up, overseen by Spielberg I think, hence why even today it looks absolutely fantastic.

    The movie looks like The Italian Job or something like that, but it needs some kind of restoration.

    But, you know, Eon will never do that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    Mallory wrote: »
    The photography thing is a weird one because it’s by Douglas Slocombe, whose previous film was RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. I dunno why why the movie looks as dull as it does. Maybe that’s just a consequence of having different production team working off of.

    Is the dullness of the cinematography (which I agree with) a result of how it was shot and finished, or how the film has been treated after release. I don't think it has had a 4k restoration, the same as the other Bond films, with a clean up and colour touch up. Maybe that would make it look better? I have seen a DVD version which didn't look great and a 1080 HD TV broadcast recorded which looks significantly better, though not to the standard I would expect. Raiders also benefits from an extensive 4k restoration and touch up, overseen by Spielberg I think, hence why even today it looks absolutely fantastic.

    I recall watching the 4K remaster on Amazon. It looked more filmic with the appropriate grain of an 80s film, so it’s technically a proper upgrade from the previous HD release. It’s still a dull looking film, seemingly by design.

    If I had to guess, they might have been trying to go for a “naturalistic” aesthetic rather than something fantastically stylish. I can only guess because this is a movie nobody seems to want to talk about, including the people that actually made it. Except for Connery, I remember a magazine from 1990 where he called it “a piece of ****”. He thought producer Jack Schwartzman was completely unsuitable for a Bond film and when you look at the guy’s resume he really did look like he was out of his league.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,291
    I think the budget of MSNA was higher than OP wasn’t it? Which is amazing as OP looks far more sumptuous and full of impressive stuff to me. Stuff like Shrublands and MI6 in NSNA look like they were shot in a local school building.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the budget of MSNA was higher than OP wasn’t it? Which is amazing as OP looks far more sumptuous and full of impressive stuff to me. Stuff like Shrublands and MI6 in NSNA look like they were shot in a local school building.

    That’s what happens when you have someone in production that doesn’t know how to spend on a budget.
  • Posts: 2,156
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the budget of MSNA was higher than OP wasn’t it? Which is amazing as OP looks far more sumptuous and full of impressive stuff to me. Stuff like Shrublands and MI6 in NSNA look like they were shot in a local school building.

    That’s what happens when you have someone in production that doesn’t know how to spend on a budget.

    As Cubby always said, make sure every penny shows on screen. And for all of EoN's faults, both past and present, they certainly do that.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    Mallory wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the budget of MSNA was higher than OP wasn’t it? Which is amazing as OP looks far more sumptuous and full of impressive stuff to me. Stuff like Shrublands and MI6 in NSNA look like they were shot in a local school building.

    That’s what happens when you have someone in production that doesn’t know how to spend on a budget.

    As Cubby always said, make sure every penny shows on screen. And for all of EoN's faults, both past and present, they certainly do that.

    I can also say that when it comes to mere visuals, all the EON Bonds have aged very well. For example, we know that GF is a '60s Bond film, but does it really show? I find all of these films to have a timeless quality that is impressive.

    NSNA, by contrast, doesn't have any of that.
  • edited January 2 Posts: 1,301
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the budget of MSNA was higher than OP wasn’t it? Which is amazing as OP looks far more sumptuous and full of impressive stuff to me. Stuff like Shrublands and MI6 in NSNA look like they were shot in a local school building.

    That’s what happens when you have someone in production that doesn’t know how to spend on a budget.

    As Cubby always said, make sure every penny shows on screen. And for all of EoN's faults, both past and present, they certainly do that.

    I can also say that when it comes to mere visuals, all the EON Bonds have aged very well. For example, we know that GF is a '60s Bond film, but does it really show? I find all of these films to have a timeless quality that is impressive.

    NSNA, by contrast, doesn't have any of that.

    There are a lot of "dated" Bond movies. LALD, LTK, GE, DAD, QOS...
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited January 2 Posts: 1,979
    I feel like if NSNA was an EON-produced Bond film, with the gunbarrel sequence, James Bond theme, proper Bond score & proper title sequence, it would have been more universally accepted, regardless of the plot. But over all, I like the film for its visuals, theme song and some music, and locales, not for the plot. It just gets to show that without the gunbarrel sequence, Bond theme, Proper Bond score, title sequence, it becomes another action film.
  • Are people out there seriously questioning Nolan as a director? Each to their own I guess but it's made me laugh.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,264
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I think Connery convincingly acted scared and vulnerable after he got shot in the leg and was being chased by Volpe and her men through the Junkanoo in TB. Of course he turns on the unflappable charm again when he has to dance with her again but Bond often acts sure of himself as a defence mechanism when he’s verbally sparring with his enemies.

    Connery showed moments of vulnerability in DN-TB...after that, not so much.

    You can see the humanity kind of sapping out from Connery's portrayal as he goes along.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    Are people out there seriously questioning Nolan as a director? Each to their own I guess but it's made me laugh.

    Why has that made you laugh?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2 Posts: 3,147
    Suspect the reason some people believe that Nolan absolutely has to direct the next Bond film is his statement that he's only interested in directing Bond when EON reboot the character. Which they're about to do. As BB's said that the new Bond actor has to make a decade-long commitment, that could well mean that it's this time or never for Nolan. Hence, his fans have a lot of hopes riding on him for Bond 26. Me, I'm neutral on this one.
  • edited January 2 Posts: 6,709
    People do question high quality things. There are those who are critic of the very best. Today we get to hear and read these mostly cinical and uninformed voices more than before, thanks to social media. They are unfiltered, and we have no idea of the suitability and true nature of their intentions. IMO.

    About Nolan, yeah, I’d love him to direct. But it’s not sine qua non for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2 Posts: 16,291
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the budget of MSNA was higher than OP wasn’t it? Which is amazing as OP looks far more sumptuous and full of impressive stuff to me. Stuff like Shrublands and MI6 in NSNA look like they were shot in a local school building.

    That’s what happens when you have someone in production that doesn’t know how to spend on a budget.

    Yes indeed, Broccoli knew what he was doing. The scale and variety of OP is pretty amazing.
    Are people out there seriously questioning Nolan as a director? Each to their own I guess but it's made me laugh.

    It's all a matter of opinion: there's no objective truth about who is the best and who isn't. If someone can make an intelligent case for why they think what they do, as I would say Peter certainly did upthread, then I think that's to be respected rather than dismissed.
    echo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I think Connery convincingly acted scared and vulnerable after he got shot in the leg and was being chased by Volpe and her men through the Junkanoo in TB. Of course he turns on the unflappable charm again when he has to dance with her again but Bond often acts sure of himself as a defence mechanism when he’s verbally sparring with his enemies.

    Connery showed moments of vulnerability in DN-TB...after that, not so much.

    You can see the humanity kind of sapping out from Connery's portrayal as he goes along.

    Yes I think that's absolutely true (and I'd say there's noticeably less after FRWL). In Dr No he's scared by a tarantula so much that he appears to throw up; the Bond of DAF wouldn't blink an eye. Maybe the most you get is a moment of very mild panic in the coffin, but he's not exactly sick with shock when he's let out :D
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I can understand the thoughts about Nolan, it does feel very now or never and if he doesn't do one it'd be a "what if" scenario for some.
    I'm easy personally, I think he's made some great films, but he can be a tad pretentious as a filmmaker.

    I think Martin Campbell did a better job of rebooting Bond than Nolan could have ever done, he set up the last two eras perfectly. I think Campbell did wonderfully in modernising the series without straying too far from what Bond should be.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    Venutius wrote: »
    Suspect the reason some people believe that Nolan absolutely has to direct the next Bond film is his statement that he's only interested in directing Bond when EON reboot the character. Which they're about to do. As BB's said that the new Bond actor has to make a decade-long commitment, that could well mean that it's this time or never for Nolan. Hence, his fans have a lot of hopes riding on him for Bond 26. Me, I'm neutral on this one.

    Pretty much. This is likely one of the few opportunities Nolan will ever be interested in doing a Bond gig. But I won’t shed tears if his time never comes. Bond and Nolan don’t necessarily need each other, they’re both in good standing.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I can understand the thoughts about Nolan, it does feel very now or never and if he doesn't do one it'd be a "what if" scenario for some.
    I'm easy personally, I think he's made some great films, but he can be a tad pretentious as a filmmaker.

    I think Martin Campbell did a better job of rebooting Bond than Nolan could have ever done, he set up the last two eras perfectly. I think Campbell did wonderfully in modernising the series without straying too far from what Bond should be.

    I can absolutely agree with this. GE and CR rank as my two favourite Bond films after all.

    I wouldn't necessarily say that Nolan can't do it. I'm just not seeing him as "the lord our saviour" for the Bond series. I bet others can pull it off too.
  • Posts: 1,858
    With all the back and forth between OP and NSNA during this period I'll take Lazenby in "The Return of The Man from U.N.C.L.E." as my favorite Bond of that era.
  • Posts: 1,301
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I can understand the thoughts about Nolan, it does feel very now or never and if he doesn't do one it'd be a "what if" scenario for some.
    I'm easy personally, I think he's made some great films, but he can be a tad pretentious as a filmmaker.

    I think Martin Campbell did a better job of rebooting Bond than Nolan could have ever done, he set up the last two eras perfectly. I think Campbell did wonderfully in modernising the series without straying too far from what Bond should be.

    I can absolutely agree with this. GE and CR rank as my two favourite Bond films after all.

    I wouldn't necessarily say that Nolan can't do it. I'm just not seeing him as "the lord our saviour" for the Bond series. I bet others can pull it off too.

    Campbell can't save Bond either. He is old and out of touch.

    Sam Mendes can do it but It's a boring choice.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I can understand the thoughts about Nolan, it does feel very now or never and if he doesn't do one it'd be a "what if" scenario for some.
    I'm easy personally, I think he's made some great films, but he can be a tad pretentious as a filmmaker.

    I think Martin Campbell did a better job of rebooting Bond than Nolan could have ever done, he set up the last two eras perfectly. I think Campbell did wonderfully in modernising the series without straying too far from what Bond should be.

    I can absolutely agree with this. GE and CR rank as my two favourite Bond films after all.

    I wouldn't necessarily say that Nolan can't do it. I'm just not seeing him as "the lord our saviour" for the Bond series. I bet others can pull it off too.

    Campbell can't save Bond either. He is old and out of touch.

    Sam Mendes can do it but It's a boring choice.

    @DEKE_RIVERS
    1) Why does Bond have to be "saved"?
    2) When did either @Jordo007 or myself suggest Campbell for the next Bond?
Sign In or Register to comment.