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 suspect Eon probably know how long the average audience will be able to go Bondless before getting fidgety and won't push that boundary, but I do like setting up the threat at the start before bringing in Bond. One of the things I like about NTTD is the flashback to Madeleine's past at the beginning. I wouldn't be keen on long stretches without Bond once we're well into the main adventure, though.
It also brings up the question of how much should we, the audience, know before Bond knows it. Are the films as interesting when we're waiting for Bond to play catch-up?
I'm not saying it can't be done or even that it can't be done well (FRWL is a fine example - but I wonder if the reason that works is because of its atmospheric, Hitchcockian-tone) but if we're going for a big, brash and thundering adventure then it might just take away elements of surprise from the plot. I love TND precisely because it's a breezy and uncomplicated watch with lots of energy, but the story is definitely not one of its strong points.
Excellent post @Univex
That's a very good point my friend. It's an interesting one about the playing catch-up thing: obviously knowing the plots so well it's kind of hard to remember which ones he doesn't know about, but I agree that when there's a bit of a clever plot in there it's nice to see it unpicked as he goes along. Does, for example, SF suffer from introducing Silva quite late? I don't know if it does- I think he gets a good buildup from being referred to in hushed tones by Severine etc. and his final reveal is of course glorious. In GF it works well too, I'd say.
I think it's one of those things that can work either way and just depends on the execution: it's kind of impossible to say if it definitely would or wouldn't work. Personally I think I like it slightly less, but there's probably a Bond movie or two I don't mind the cutaway to the villain. Most of them keep it quite brief I think.
Fleming succeeded where others failed, that's absolutely correct. While his prose is brisk and seemingly very matter-of-fact, rarely lost in "deep" thoughts or artistical excursions into metaphorical extremes, there are layers hidden within that tell me almost as much about Ian as they do about James. Fleming's inner monologue is what's often rolling off Bond's tongue if you ask me.
And more than ever: yes, start with a great spy thriller, please. "Re-inventing" Bond for the new actor may as well be a matter of re-discovering the spy Bond once was. I am a big fan of the Craig series, by now I guess that is a well-known fact here. But I see him as a weight-lifter, a problem-solver, someone who actively pursues his target and will not stop, Terminator-wise, until he has plugged the right bullet in the right hole. Hell, I love this James Bond. But this James Bond is now no more, and now, if ever, is the time to reconfigure the narrative basis for the new batch of films.
Rather than push the next Bond in the direction of Craig 2.0, why not rethink what Bond 101 was like? Put the spy back in the heart of the films, and make the action and the drama peripheral, as it was, IMO at least, in FRWL. Granted, the bigger the Bonds got, the more money they hauled in. Then again, I'm not saying the next Bond can't be "big", I'm saying he may want to be big again where it matters most. Don't move from action piece to action piece, with the spy story just tagging along; move from dot to dot in spy thriller mode, and remove any obstacles in between with amazing action scenes. Trying to compete with modern action spectacles is futile anyway; that dimension of the Bonds was lost decades ago.
Audiences still love James Bond, despite fierce competition in the car driving, gun shooting, aerial stunts, and other departments. It means they still very much embrace the smart spy DNA of the series. Craig was celebrated for his excellent physique, his don't-give-a-damn attitude, and his overall "cool". But there are many types of cool. The next Bond can be just as cool, but in a different way. So I cannot agree more that starting from an excellent spy thriller, and then throwing Bond on a complicated chess board, and then showing how our man finds ways to beat the villain and make our lives somewhat better again, may be the right way to go. Bloody hell, just thinking about it, @Univex, gets me excited!
I would say, in terms of action, that's pretty much what Skyfall was. There's comparatively so little action in that film: between opening and climax there's a couple of fist fights and a foot chase. So it's not something that the films can't or haven't done relatively recently.
I don't think I'd want drama made peripheral myself though. Often really good spy stories are very dramatic.
I don't mind if you disagree, I may be wrong; these are just my thoughts.
The drama I was referring to (but failed to explain I now see) involves Bond's past, his love life and all that jazz. A bit of drama goes a long way, but it may be prudent to leave the grieving family man Bond firmly in the Craig era for a while.
Ah okay, fair enough. I think we're always going to have love life complications with Bond- it's kind of part of his innate character, but I agree that past family complications are probably done with for the time being.
I definitely want drama, because that's how you increase tension and excitement, and ultimately I want those things from a Bond. In terms of spy thrillers, it's funny because I'd say that something like Octopussy, say, has a more hard core sort of spy plot than most of the Flemings do. He really wrote updates of adventure stories in many ways.
Again, I may be wrong; I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Best post of the last 5 years, @DarthDimi. You’re right, just reading what you wrote got me excited with the prospect of that direction. That would be the smartest thing to do.
EON, take note. Hell, take all of it :)
BTW, just the other day I was at this online book club for authors, and we were discussing the organics of espionage in literature, and they all were vert sensible regarding introducing Fleming into the discussin. I… was not. And I brought up FRWL (and the Kennedy context), and some of them, wel, two, were adamant that it was the best Fleming ever wrote because it was a thriller in which Bond plays a role, and almost a secondary one, albeit pivotal. Even the ending is not formulaic, as we know.
They should hire a good spy novelist with script writing experience to so it. Amongst us, some would be keen. And one or two are well known internationally. It’s up to them, of course, but Bond fans lurk everywhere, some are not amateurs.
I’d be more excited for this to happen then to have, say, an A lister be the director, which would excite me no less, but I say that writing is key. CR proved us that.
I’m gonna read again @DarthDimi ’s post now, just to get me buzzed with the future. We all need that.
Thank you, @Univex!
And yes, CR proved everything there is to prove about the importance of good writing. Not a single one of the four films that came after CR have been given such good writing, IMO. (Some members have pointed out that CR actually suffers from tremendous logical problems, and while I can see their points, the overall writing of the film still amazes me.)
Good writing is essential. You build every up from there. Take SP, a film I like. Lots of things in the film that get me excited. Yet... problems too. And to some fans, these problems are too big an obstacle to overcome. Hence why they will probably never warm up to CR. You can give us a great actor, big sets, cool everything... but if the writing is "off", then so is the rest of the film.
Exactly. I temeber reading CR’s script in advance and immediately knowing it would be a brilliant film. I made it inside my head, I was the director, the production director, … and I still loved the final product, which is the mark of a great script.
I too find many bondian things to love about SP, and if the writing on the almost proverbial wall was better, so would the film be, I’m sure. QOS almost had a pragmatic script, praxis oriented, for the reasons we know. SF had an overall good production which made for a well produced final product, and NTTD had abismal writing, with some interesting florishes here and there. But none of them had the force of CR.
GE and CR are solid written pieces, each on his own way, and inaugural pieces at that, so I’m confident they’ll offer us some quality in the next one.
That's it. Just for fun, here's how I rank the "inaugural" Bond films as you so eloquently call them:
1) CR / GE (can't decide, sorry!)
2) TLD / OHMSS / DN
3) LALD
Yes, DN. I think the very first Bond film doesn't get the praise it deserves. There was no template, not a lot of money, not all that much experience... and yet, that film laid almost all but a minor few foundations of the film series we're still talking about today. And it was very well written, though simple -- or so I think.
LALD is the lesser achievement here, I'd say. Not a bad film, but uneven. I don't think the writing is at its strongest. In fact, Roger has the distinction of being the one Bond whose best films, at least in my humble opinion, come much later.
LALD was Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz making as quips and stereotypes as much as possible. I’m still happy Richard Maibaum didn’t write it though, it proved Bond didn’t always need him.
I think QoS has a decent story to be honest, and it is trying to say something about Bond's state of mind and his relationship with M etc. and indeed the concept of vengeance; plus there are lots of neat symmetries etc. in it. I think different direction and editing (and I don't mean the shaky stuff) could have improved it a lot.
CR still remains in my top 5 greatest Bond films. I felt with that one everyone got it spot on - direction, script, soundtrack, acting. 1952 Fleming updated to 2005, and it worked!
When Fleming sat down to write CR, he was nervous about his marriage and perhaps was expiating some ghosts there. At its heart, it is a novel about romantic betrayal. That's the launching pad of Bond. Any subsequent screenwriters should revisit it.
Haggis was as good as they got with writers in the Craig era.
I'm not convinced there aren't some Scientology smears against Haggis going on...they are powerful.
Thank you, @jetsetwilly!
Yes, CR was such a fine, exciting event. Everything worked. The film was well written, looked great, was very well cast, had a truly good score, and so on. I recall seeing the film for the umptieth time in theatres back in '06, thinking to myself "This is madness!" And yet, as soon as the film opens, there's so much to have a great time with. I'm never bored, not one second. Every moment in the film thrills me. Today I wonder why I didn't go back another few times. ;-) CR is not about "the good parts outweigh the bad parts" because there are no bad parts in it for me. When it comes to high-quality material, the film is so dense that even after dozens of viewings I continue to spot new things.
And with that, CR continues the trend from the Brosnan era that the first entry sets a bar never matched, not even approached, by the actor's subsequent films.
I can venture a guess that Lazenby, had he continued, would set that trend first. And I think that Dalton, had he made a few more, would also have TLD as his finest. In fact, I'd say OHMSS, TLD, GE and CR are all on my top best Bond films. It's hard to choose between Connery's first four, and Roger is always Roger, one cannot choose just one of the miracles from a saint ;)
Fingers crossed that the next one will be grand. Whatever the future brings, if there's a Bond film on the horizon, hope will be the forum's ethos.
It worked! They should have learned this lesson.
Not so much a lesson to learn but they did learn something from it. Having no more Fleming original big narratives to follow up, they at least kept the production values, the quality of the casting and tried their very best to keep it an A-list product in every regard but the writing department, which was the only thing lacking, I think. But they did increase production value and it shows. I’d say EON has been doing marvellously. If only they had better writers, they would do even better. But all in all, I do trust the team. Love them, actually. It’s a family affair, and one that works. There aren’t many family businesses that span over decades and keep delivering.
Very true.
Another thing that I feel worked well for CR and again with QOS, is the lack of big names in the cast.
Personally, I feel it makes the films feel more real by having a relatively unknown cast.
In saying that Ana De Armas worked wonderfully in NTTD, however for me Rami Malek wasn't quite so lucky. Coming off an Oscar win and a growing profile, I think many of us expected more, not that it's the actor's fault of course.
I agree with all of this. In particular, the writing department.
@Univex - As for production values, I don't necessarily see those as a continuation of what we got in CR. I think it's more about what can be done these days. But I do agree Bond films have always had a travelogue/panoramic quality about them.
With so much borrowed and re-borrowed from Fleming, I am not opposed to reworking any of his stories and calling them something else. Among a new generation of fans, few will know. I would rather see a reworked Fleming story than one that I've seen a dozen times in other action/thrillers. There's only so much train riding, motorcycle jumping, and things blowing up before all feels familiar and predictable. The difference for me is Fleming concentrates more on character than action. Others will disagree, but Malek and Waltz simply were not interesting characters. When I saw both films, I did not want to see more of either. Both seemed to get in the way of what could have been better films without them.
His motives, and obsession with Swann, were poorly defined and he would have been served better by not having the over the top accent.
Exactly. I only felt his villain in the opening scene.