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 agree with Mendes4Lyfe, a lighter Bond is probably more needed than ever.
Nice, first time I've read O'Connell discuss Bond in years. Good answer too. Probably more or less the 'right' one at this point.
The misspelling in that article of 'Barbara Groccoli' is one I find quite funny too, although I'm not entirely sure why...
"Bond always adapts with the times to survive."
These two statements are in conflict with eachother.
It also has to be said that I think one of the reasons the Craig era resonated with general audiences as much as it did was because of how they explored Bond's character. It's really nothing new for the series anyway, conservatively we can go back to Dalton and find this (I'd argue you can go back much further). But the fact is Craig's era was praised by many people for this. It doesn't mean we'll always get elements from Bond's past in future films, nor that he'll now be brooding and angsty, nor does it mean we won't get a more lighthearted take on Bond (it's a bit pointless trying to claim Bond has to be one or the other fully - 'serious' or 'lighthearted' etc. Bond can be both and was during the Craig era especially, regardless of which way it skews with each film/actor). It just means we'll get a more human Bond, and as I said this is what the films have been skewing towards for a long, long time. Like I said, even the Bond of FRWL is different to the Bond of DN. And anyway, why wouldn't they try to explore something interesting with regards to Bond's character? I'm not sure a one dimensional Bond is what we need really.
How??
Because often times, especially recently, that's exactly what gets in the way of the narrative.
Would SPECTRE be improved if Bond and Blofeld weren't relatives, but merely conventional rivals?
Bond and Blofeld aren't relatives.
There is arguably a misfire with how they dealt with the Blofeld/Bond background, but that doesn't mean the concept of exploring Bond character is ill advised.
When else, especially recently, has the exploration of Bond got in the way of the narrative, @Mendes4Lyfe ?
Well, we've discussed this in the past, but usually those personal elements are the story and part of the foundation of these films - GE, SF, CR, and QOS being examples. Even TSWLM, LTK and many other Bond films.
I think SP would have been improved by Bond and Blofeld not knowing each other as children, yes, but they're not conventional rivals at all. Blofeld never has been. They already had a backstory that involved each other. Blofeld headed the organisation that essentially killed Vesper and made Bond continue his career in the Service, and Bond thwarted Blofeld's plans more than once and led him to essentially take over Quantum/creating SPECTRE. Their paths crossed and they got in each other's way. They had an impact on each other's lives. Just like in the books/early films. There was plenty there already. If anything I feel what SP did by having Bond/Blofeld know each other made it less dramatic, less personal (why would Bond care about some kid he knew for a couple of months when he was 11? He doesn't even call him Franz after a point. It's not as though much can be done with the idea of Blofeld killing Hans as the audience didn't know this character, and they actually have little connection to each other when the ideas I wrote previously aren't emphasised). For all the dramatics, he is a conventional villain in the film we got.
You've literally just demonstrated my point - remove the character angle and the story works much better for it. The fact blofeld did all that stuff because he was upset that bond "pushed him out of the nest" is what gets in the way of a better narrative.
No, it's just a dynamic between the characters you'd likely prefer. Like I said their paths crossed. For Bond there is a personal element in taking Blofeld/SPECTRE down even if they don't know each other previously. For Blofeld he wants to ensure Bond will not destroy his organisation/plans as he did with Quantum. The weird 'pushed him out of the nest' thing is so underbaked anyway that Blofeld may as well have been a conventional villain. It's still personal, just in my opinion a better starting point for a film with these two characters.
'Personal' elements don't need to involve characters knowing each other as children, or even things from the past coming back. You seem to like a lot of Bond films that do have an element of drama and even things from Bond's past (TSWLM, GE) so I'm not quite sure why you paint all this with the same brush.
I’ve tried to engage with @Mendes4Lyfe about nuance, and things don’t have to be all white or all black. But, as demonstrated above, sometimes people want to read messages that they want to read and ignore what’s actually being presented… 🤷♂️
We're essentially in agreement, remove the character angles between Bond and blofeld so that their history results from the story and not the other way around, and the last half of his tenure would be greatly improved.
Well, it’s still a character angle with a personal element. But I get what you’re saying about their history coming from the story (not that that’s a hard rule either, just depends on how it’s done. In this case I agree though). So yeah, I’m sure we agree it would have made for a more satisfactory Bond/Blofeld antagonism (not sure about the rest of Craig’s tenure or even SP being vastly improved by this one thing though. I think SP has more issues).
Obviously I’m one of the lot who loves what we got throughout Craig’s era.
But I understand why it’s not to others tastes.
But, as @007HallY is saying, this type of exploration doesn’t have to be what has come before (and it doesn’t have to be, and it definitely won’t be a Craig-repeat), but audiences tend to respond to a more complete, three dimensional character.
We’ve seen this not just in Bond, but take a look at his cousin in Mission Impossible… In films one and two, Hunt is a far more simple character with less dimensions.
By the third one, they started to layer more on top of him. There were now stakes in his life…
And people respond to dilemmas and stakes, and, the more personal, the more value the suspense and tension delivers…
DV says he's not interested in other cinematic universes after Blade Runner burned him. Does Bond count as that, I wonder?
I get that, and for a long time probably before Spectre came out I’d always preferred the Bond films that do lean a bit more into his character and the dilemmas he faces. But after running through the first 21 films (still have Craig’s remaining four to go) recently, I found myself more appreciative of the films that manage to achieve a sense of personal stakes from other elements of the story. I really love the tension on Bond and Tatiana’s relationship after the death of Kerim in FRWL, and I really love the possibility of Anya killing Bond after he killed her lover in TSWLM.
Like I said I’ve got Craig’s remaining four films left to go in my Bondathon this year so who knows what tune I’ll be singing afterwards, but if personal stakes are going to continue (which they will) I’d rather the writing team find some other means of achieving those stakes as opposed to dramatically revealing more and more about Bond’s character, which I think Craig’s tenure leaned a bit too much into for my own personal liking.
I understand that Mendes, emboldened by exploring Bond's past in SF, chose to double down with another trip to the past in SP.
If Oberhauser had been a *separate* character from Blofeld (akin to a Klebb or a Largo), this could have worked very well. Blofeld could have toyed with both of Bond's distinct past traumas (losing his parents/Oberhauser, and later, Vesper) and felt like the criminal mastermind.
Imagine if at the end of the PTS, the assassin mentioned "Oberhauser" to Bond instead of Bond finding the silly Spectre ring.
Blofeld later could have dispatched Oberhauser in one of the great SPECTRE deaths from the days of yore, another element SP missed.
SP remains, perhaps, the single biggest missed opportunity in the series. A bunch of half-baked ideas and the souffle never rose.
This is why I blame Mendes.
This may not work for you @Mendes4Lyfe , but with 10 thousand-plus reviews on Rotten Tomatoes NTTD scored 88% positive reviews via audiences/ 83% with critics…. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/no_time_to_die_2021)
Once again showing that EoN may actually know how to make an internationally satisfying film that the vast majority of audiences enjoyed.
🤷♂️….
As I’ve stated before: these films may not be for you, and I understand that @Creasy47 , and I understand that Mendes likes to bang-on about his dislike for, especially, the last two films of Craig’s run.
I’ve made it clear: I get it. But my “thesis”, as has been the case pretty consistently, and it’s got me in trouble: these films are made for international audiences, and my point here was, we can criticize any film all we want, and I’m not belittling when I point out that 10thousand plus “fresh” votes is pretty significant.
Someone like Mendes speaks as if his opinions/thoughts are actual facts. He's been quoted many times saying what audiences want (I’ve asked him if he’s spoken to moviegoers in Canada or India, Ohio or Portland, Hong Kong etc., etc).
It’s not negating his feelings, it’s pointing out that his opinions are his, not everyone’s.
If I insulted anyone, that wasn’t the intent.
Contrary to other opinions, I don't see the need for a substantial gap between Craig and the next Bond. I completely understand the opposing arguments with respect to wait time and creativity. I liked Craig in the role, but I am not so attached to him that I can't see anyone else in the role, and soon. As I've noted previously, it's happened so often it's just a changing of the guard.
I still don't really know what a modern Bond is. Isn't each Bond a modern Bond? Mostly it seems the real issue is Bond's relationship with women. EON can sort that.
Tone appears to be looming large. Craig's era was characterized by sturm und drang.
I'm certainly for a less troubled Bond, but I don't want a Bond cut from the same cloth of RM. For me a lighter, less serious Bond undercut the drama and tension of the stories. After all these years, it's hard for me to believe Moore's Bond, with some few exceptions, ever seems truly treated. The humor and flippancy were too much. Connery's Bond was a better balance. I hope that's what the next actor and writers are capable of.
Not interested in any more story arcs. Nothing speaks more clearly to how misguided the Quantum/SPECTRE angle was when in the final installment someone heretofore unknown is introduced to wipe out SPECTRE instead of Bond.
Stand alone missions, please. The continuity will be baked in via Bond's cast of supporting characters (even if new) and the familiar Bond music.
No more resignations, MI-6 infiltrations, is Bond dead or not, smart blood, nano-bots, DB-5, fights on top of trains, motorcycles, MI-6 C style makeovers, villains who can miraculously predict Bond's every move in a chase, and no more dinosaur and misogyny talk.
Let the man be young and committed (if not enthusiastic) to his job.
We haven't had a standalone mission since 1987. And the idea of a "company man" is also something from the past. Time marches on. [shrug]
For example, I agree that we need less MI6 moles going forward. It's overdone, but if EON do give me that again and it's the best I've ever seen it done? I'll eat my words straight away.
But why is anyone assuming the next era could be a Craig 2.0?
I’m a fan of the Craig era, but I don’t want Craig 2.0, and I don’t see the filmmakers going backwards to design and create a new era.
Each era has had its own uniqueness, strengths and weaknesses… I don’t see this changing in the slightest.
I don't know what the next era will bring, I can only speculate. I hope it's good and to my liking. There's a lot at stake that's for sure.