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 don't want a shorter and uglier Bond. That precedent is a "bad precedent".
I mean, we needed Skyfall after QoS. That was a clear course correction. You can't stray too far.
That's what I'm worried about.
I just want someone who looks like he's described in the books, and can act. I don't think that'll be what we'll get though.
We've never had a guy who looked like Fleming's description. And yet, we've been pretty lucky, overall, with the EON's choices so far.
But that's what I'd like anyway. I'd like them to go to the books when looking for a new actor. I'd like the next film to be a celebration of the character Fleming created. As I say, I doubt it'll happen, but I can at least admit that's what I'd like to see happen.
What constitutes "our Bond formula"?
That said I think within that very broad framework they’ll do something different with it - subvert some sort of expectation, put a twist on something etc. Honestly, every Bond film does something different anyway using that foundation, even if the Craig films departed from some of it (ie. Every Bond film will have a villain, a set up to Bond’s mission, an ally of some sort even if it’s simply M, Bond girl etc, and at least one part of the usual fodder is there - the Bond theme, the ‘Bond, James Bond’, the gun barrel etc.)
+1
(do we do +1s anymore? If not, I’ll say I couldn’t agree more)
They're sequels, they're not adapting any source material. It's pretty rare for a sequel not to be faithful to the film it's following up: Quantum of Solace is faithful to Casino Royale, for instance.
Yeah I think there's a good chance of this. I can imagine it having all of those things but in a re-imagined way: M's office changed again, the opening titles in a whole new style etc.
Godzilla Minus One is a beautiful example of using modern filmmaking to energize an existing property.
It’s not a sequel but does not have a man in a rubber suit stomping model cities.
With a novel you don't need a "twist" . The book will give you enough stuff.
Well, no, not really... as I've said before even when adapting a novel the script will often change something or indeed give it a 'twist' of some sort. That's been the case with pretty much every Bond film that's been faithful to the source material.
The others all are though, hence they simply draw on the film they're sequels to. And I'd also disagree that Ghostbusters did it well; I thought it completely misunderstood what Ghostbusters is i.e. a comedy blockbuster, and tried to force it into being a Spielberg/Stranger Things-style nostalgia schmaltzfest with a load of overly fetishised old props thrown in.
And Godzilla aside, these aren't series with over 25 entries: if they were they wouldn't have kept making the same film over and over again. Which is why the new Godzilla film isn't that: it's a new take on how to tell a Godzilla story. But which respects the original material... and that's exactly what the recent Bond films have been doing too, so there's no real reason to think they won't continue on that track.
Just like the stuff going on in the scenes. For example, in the trailer for Netflix's The Gentlemen, there was some "Bondian" aspects/styles going on. Don't you feel it copies Bond? When the supercar powerslid into shot, I was shaking my head.
Indeed. So I suppose @talos7 wishes they continue down that trajectory (whilst diverting from annoying narrative divergences such as making a villain Bond’s stepbrother, giving him a daughter to make breakfast to, or killing him). He is, as am I, and I take it you are too, making the case for what works best within the confinements of the source material and the cannonical films. I suppose they have learned by now what works and what doesn’t, but I may be proven wrong, as I’ve thought the same before and was left with a bitter taste after sampling their efforts. Must say that, despite not agreeing with their direction in the latest instalments, I still am a strong supporter of EON and their work and artistic ethos.
In short, going back to basics and to what works is the key. Not saying this is the so called formula, not at all, but the elements that work. CR, for example, while jumping over formulaic tropes, had those elements in spades.
I also thought Ghostbusters was an odd example! I don't know if the new ones are good or not for what they are, but they aren't even the same genre as the first one (or two).
I suppose this is purely syllogistic. But I find that most good Bond films are first and foremost, good films overall (FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, GE, CR, SF, to name a few that aren’t that polemical to name as good films - please don’t digress into that sort of discussion).
I ask this because I keep hearing people say that the new Godzilla is a good film that happens to be a Godzilla film.
I respectfully disagree and enjoyed it, as did many others.
Hey, @DEKE_RIVERS ... Uhm, I've adapted a novel, and the same producer of that project has hired me to adapt another novel (from the same author)... I'm genuinely asking you to join me in a conversation (in our DMs), about how utterly misguided your post was. I don't think you'll accept the invitation, but I am asking...
From your comments about scripts aren't written to be read, to this latest about books providing "enough stuff", it sounds like you think whipping up a $200 million tentpole film is easy-peasy. I can assure you, putting together a half a million dollar contained film, is brutal, let alone a massive multi million dollar blockbuster.
My DM's open and I'd be happy to chat further...
These statements are said with the utmost confidence, that maybe I'm missing the genius (which is to be expected, since I'm obviously an idiot!)...Oh well, there's always my next life (I hear we live two of them...)...
Well, then we’re two idiots, and two of those don’t make a right, as one knows. At least the next life is meant “for our dreams”… or was it this one? ;)
Interesting question. I suppose I'd ask if there's any genuine difference between a good Bond film and a good film anyway. I mean, if a Bond film came out that had a technically polished script, good filmmaking, good acting etc. but completely did away with any sense of the 'Bond formula', iconography or character I don't think many viewers would like it at all (and I don't mean in a Craig era subversion way, I mean in a way where all these elements - the formula, adventure, action etc - are stripped away it's not recognisably a 'Bond film'... I suppose the closest I can think of to this extreme would be a loose adaptation of, say, 007 In New York directed by someone like Jim Jarmusch).
But yeah, I think EON will always strive to make a great film, and this is what I'd want too. But they also know that they're making Bond films and want to craft the best adventure with that character, and this is why I go to see them... not sure if that answers the question/what you were getting at though.
Verily.