Where does Bond go after Craig?

mtm · April 30

sandbagger1 wrote: »

I really enjoyed Skyfall when I saw it in the cinema. I remember being asked if it really was the best Bond film ever, and I laughed and said no, it was fun despite bits not making sense. On subsequent watches I have grown to love it more, and I'm more forgiving of its stupid bits (it was his plan all along! & that train!). These days I'm torn between Skyfall & CR as my favourite of Craig's run. CR is great for being a really good, grounded thriller/action film, plus Vesper is one of the best female characters in Bond, but like @007HallY says, some of the dialogue grates, and its pacing (or perhaps its plot structure) is kind of odd; Skyfall integrates some of the old Bond formula back into the franchise and feels more of a crowd-pleaser, but it definitely sees the franchise move away from the more grounded thrills of CR back to more familiar Bond ground.

I find Skyfall very easy to rewatch, Casino Royale is always a bit harder for me for some reason, despite me thinking its the better film.

Yeah I love them both but Skyfall probably edges it slightly for me as it's just more fun to watch, where CR is more dramatic; and I find Skyfall just aesthetically superior in every way - it looks and sounds beautiful and drips with style (which for me is kind of half of the point of Bond) where CR just kind of looks and sounds fine (maybe an exception for the wonderful title sequence). Also SF has a proper sweep to it, where CR, for reasons of its plot, kind of starts and stops a bit more, and then keeps going after you think it's ended etc. - I wouldn't go as far as to say it has pacing problems (maybe apart from that sinking building scene which I find a bit obstructive to the story), but yeah; SF just sweeps more.
Both are absolute top tier though and it's great that candidates for 'best Bond ever' are still being made this far into the series.

007ClassicBondFan · April 30

007HallY wrote: »

TND is another Bond film that's really worked its way up my rankings, although I always enjoyed it.

It was one of my first Bond films, but I unfortunately turned on TND around my teenage years. I dismissed it as "generic" which perhaps is a bit misguided on my end, but now as an adult I've come around to loving it again.

007HallY wrote: »

This might be thinking about it a bit too deeply, but I don't think it's as much about the question of Bond's relevancy (which of course was a question viewers would have had after the Cold War/in the run up to GE and is significant to that film) but more about the idea of a changing and increasingly modern world, and how the old guard (Bond and M) can even navigate and survive within it. I think more so than CR and QOS there really was a sense of that at the time in the UK - I remember for instance in the run to the London Olympics there being a lot of cynicism towards how much it would cost/whether it would be worthwhile, there were genuine questions about whether the UK would even be together before the Scottish Referendum two years later, and of course there's stuff like WikiLeaks, the increasing advancement of technology etc.

Fair enough, those are excellent points I hadn't taken into consideration. I always assumed those questions of relevancy were purely related to the franchise as a whole at that time, which is why I found that reading to be a bit odd as somebody who had a (fair) bit of knowledge at least of the films and the trends they take. Admittedly I was around 11-12 years old when WikiLeaks really took off, and I can remember just seeing constant segments on all the Major News outlets here in the US, and I think there was also a movie with Benedict Cumberbatch as well, so now it makes a bit more sense why EON would make that approach. I also have to admit that until you mentioned WikiLeaks, the influence of Julian Assange on Silva never stuck out for me at all haha.

007HallY wrote: »

I certainly don't remember there being issues of James Bond's relevancy as a character/franchise (although QOS was very disappointing for many) but I'd say in terms of where the UK was at at the time it's the closest contextually when Fleming was writing the novels - that sort of post empire, post war period where Britain was still suffering from the effects of WW2 and its role as an imperial power was declining. So I think SF definitely touched on something at the time, and how it handled it struck a chord.

I remember lots of people who were dismissing the character of Bond and the series as a whole in the mid to late 2000's, especially here in the US where the Bourne films really struck a cord in that sort of dark/really depressing time following 9/11. Again I was incredibly young around this time, but I can certainly remember the shift towards more "grittier" tones in cinema, which was being pushed by Bourne and Christopher Nolan's Batman. I think it's pretty easy to forget that aside from the technical achievements of those films, Bourne tapped into an anger and distrust that so many Americans had following 9/11, and that many Americans still have. That connection inevitably led to many unfavorable comparisons between both Bourne and Bond, to the point where even Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon were slandering the character of Bond publicly.

DarthDimi · April 30

mtm wrote: »

Yes, I'd say Skyfall is stronger too. Both have big plotholes which make the whole thing fall apart if you think about it too much, but equally both are extremely entertaining films and rank right at the top of surveys of best Bond films amongst fans.
I think SF has some cracking and nicely witty gags in there too; it all feels much more sophisticated than the 90s films.

I think the power of both is that we rarely think about those plotholes because the overall quality distracts our attention away from any issues the films may have. That's good enough for me. Writing a perfect script is almost impossible.

Mendes4Lyfe · April 30

Certain plot holes don't bother me with Bond films. Silva clearly did not think james bond would be standing there when he blew up the tunnel. That was to cause an commotion and draw police away from the hearing, so he could slip in. The fact that bond was there was pure coincidence.

Another example, Goldfinger gassing the gangsters after telling them his plan to me has always been him letting his ego get the better of him. He wants to show people his genius, for them to admire it, even if he's going to kill them moments later. In many ways those were the only people it was safe too tell, if it weren't for james bond listening in that is.

One thing I always wondered, who are Mr Wint and Mr Kid supposedly working for?

007HallY · April 30

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I certainly don't remember there being issues of James Bond's relevancy as a character/franchise (although QOS was very disappointing for many) but I'd say in terms of where the UK was at at the time it's the closest contextually when Fleming was writing the novels - that sort of post empire, post war period where Britain was still suffering from the effects of WW2 and its role as an imperial power was declining. So I think SF definitely touched on something at the time, and how it handled it struck a chord.

I remember lots of people who were dismissing the character of Bond and the series as a whole in the mid to late 2000's, especially here in the US where the Bourne films really struck a cord in that sort of dark/really depressing time following 9/11. Again I was incredibly young around this time, but I can certainly remember the shift towards more "grittier" tones in cinema, which was being pushed by Bourne and Christopher Nolan's Batman. I think it's pretty easy to forget that aside from the technical achievements of those films, Bourne tapped into an anger and distrust that so many Americans had following 9/11, and that many Americans still have. That connection inevitably led to many unfavorable comparisons between both Bourne and Bond, to the point where even Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon were slandering the character of Bond publicly.

Yeah, and I suppose the Bond series followed on from Bourne's lead in Craig's first two (there's definitely that element of mistrust in QOS/that idea that even Bond's allies can work with villains/do things for very self serving interests, although it's understandably directed a bit more at the Americans). I think you're right though, there was a sense that Bond was being overshadowed by those other franchises.

SF's a uniquely British Bond film in many ways, and I think it's when the Craig era came into its own. Just superficially there's things like M reading out the Tennyson poem, much of it being set in London, Bond going back to his 'roots' in the form of Scotland, and the Union Jack iconography that pops up in the form of the bulldog and flag in the London skyline at the end. Again, I remember there was just that sense of cynicism in the UK during the early 2010s, young as I was (there were other things like austerity, a cobbled together coalition government few seemed to want, and just a general cynicism/sense that the UK was not becoming a nice country to live in and less relevant in the world, not that it's improved much as of late). Obviously in this film we see M - the old guard whose grip on power is crumbling - making some very questionable and consequential decisions, leading to both Bond's physical decline and Silva becoming this anarchist who literally destroys MI6. It's Bond who choses to return to the Service in the name of duty, overcomes his issues and is ultimately the only character in the film who is redeemed by the end. I think for a lot of British viewers at the time it would have struck a chord seeing Bond do that in that sort of escapist way (again, similar to what Fleming's novels were doing in their context - namely showing a British hero, albeit a very flawed one, who could defeat evils in the world). Not to say it's propaganda, just a film that caught the zeitgeist.

mtm · April 30

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Another example, Goldfinger gassing the gangsters after telling them his plan to me has always been him letting his ego get the better of him. He wants to show people his genius, for them to admire it, even if he's going to kill them moments later. In many ways those were the only people it was safe too tell, if it weren't for james bond listening in that is.

Yeah I've never minded that one. 'Because he's mad' is generally a bit of a cop out when it comes to film scripting, but in this case I think it works.

007HallY wrote: »

SF's a uniquely British Bond film in many ways, and I think it's when the Craig era came into its own. Just superficially there's things like M reading out the Tennyson poem, much of it being set in London, Bond going back to his 'roots' in the form of Scotland, and the Union Jack iconography that pops up in the form of the bulldog and flag in the London skyline at the end. Again, I remember there was just that sense of cynicism in the UK during the early 2010s, young as I was (there were other things like austerity, a cobbled together coalition government few seemed to want, and just a general cynicism/sense that the UK was not becoming a nice country to live in and less relevant in the world, not that it's improved much as of late). Obviously in this film we see M - the old guard whose grip on power is crumbling - making some very questionable and consequential decisions, leading to both Bond's physical decline and Silva becoming this anarchist who literally destroys MI6. It's Bond who choses to return to the Service in the name of duty, overcomes his issues and is ultimately the only character in the film who is redeemed by the end. I think for a lot of British viewers at the time it would have struck a chord seeing Bond do that in that sort of escapist way (again, similar to what Fleming's novels were doing in their context - namely showing a British hero, albeit a very flawed one, who could defeat evils in the world). Not to say it's propaganda, just a film that caught the zeitgeist.

I'm very nostalgic for the positive UK we had in 2012 - Skyfall was genuinely a big part of the country feeling good about itself that year.
I think we do need 007 again.

007ClassicBondFan · April 30

Nicely put @007HallY. I’d like to add that it must’ve felt a bit refreshing for the series to embrace its British identity after the Brosnan era became a bit too “Americanized” by the end. I’d say Moore and Craig are the only Bonds who truly embrace their British identity, whereas I feel the others don’t as much; that’s probably why many people think Craig’s Bond is a bit more authentic than say Brosnan, even if I disagree.

DarthDimi · April 30

@mtm
Serious question: what happened in 2012 that made the UK feel good about itself?

007HallY · April 30

One plot hole, if you can call it that, that always confused me is the one in TSWLM where Sandor shoots the girl after she screams no. Like, was she meant to distract Bond or is she being held at gunpoint against her will? Did Sandor accidentally shoot her or did Bond spin her around? Did she have a change of heart? Very confusing moment.

mtm wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Another example, Goldfinger gassing the gangsters after telling them his plan to me has always been him letting his ego get the better of him. He wants to show people his genius, for them to admire it, even if he's going to kill them moments later. In many ways those were the only people it was safe too tell, if it weren't for james bond listening in that is.

Yeah I've never minded that one. 'Because he's mad' is generally a bit of a cop out when it comes to film scripting, but in this case I think it works.

007HallY wrote: »

SF's a uniquely British Bond film in many ways, and I think it's when the Craig era came into its own. Just superficially there's things like M reading out the Tennyson poem, much of it being set in London, Bond going back to his 'roots' in the form of Scotland, and the Union Jack iconography that pops up in the form of the bulldog and flag in the London skyline at the end. Again, I remember there was just that sense of cynicism in the UK during the early 2010s, young as I was (there were other things like austerity, a cobbled together coalition government few seemed to want, and just a general cynicism/sense that the UK was not becoming a nice country to live in and less relevant in the world, not that it's improved much as of late). Obviously in this film we see M - the old guard whose grip on power is crumbling - making some very questionable and consequential decisions, leading to both Bond's physical decline and Silva becoming this anarchist who literally destroys MI6. It's Bond who choses to return to the Service in the name of duty, overcomes his issues and is ultimately the only character in the film who is redeemed by the end. I think for a lot of British viewers at the time it would have struck a chord seeing Bond do that in that sort of escapist way (again, similar to what Fleming's novels were doing in their context - namely showing a British hero, albeit a very flawed one, who could defeat evils in the world). Not to say it's propaganda, just a film that caught the zeitgeist.

I'm very nostalgic for the positive UK we had in 2012 - Skyfall was genuinely a big part of the country feeling good about itself that year.
I think we do need 007 again.

Yeah, that and the Olympics came at the right time.

It does make thinking about what the next Bond film will look like interesting too. Like I said the UK's probably in a much worse place nowadays, as is the world unfortunately. EON certainly seem interested in tapping into the fears of the times to craft these Bond adventures, so we'll get something relevant, even if in a broad sort of way.

Hopefully a good Bond film can bring a bit of much needed escapism and a little bit of positivity, however fleeting.

Mendes4Lyfe · April 30

DarthDimi wrote: »

@mtm
Serious question: what happened in 2012 that made the UK feel good about itself?

Olympic games.

Creasy47 · April 30

@007HallY, I always thought she was just a pawn in Sandor's mission but fell so madly in love with Bond so quickly that she sacrificed herself to save him. It's so ludicrous that it works for me. Just the notion that someone was willing to let herself be killed because the guy she just met was so charming and handsome is a riot to me.

DEKE_RIVERS · April 30

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

Nicely put @007HallY. I’d like to add that it must’ve felt a bit refreshing for the series to embrace its British identity after the Brosnan era became a bit too “Americanized” by the end. I’d say Moore and Craig are the only Bonds who truly embrace their British identity, whereas I feel the others don’t as much; that’s probably why many people think Craig’s Bond is a bit more authentic than say Brosnan, even if I disagree.

SF is too british IMO.

Funnily enough, the villain is not a british thespian like, I don't know, Anthony Hopkins.

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ · April 30

I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but I'm not a fan of Craig's Bond hair in SF....especially in the first half of the film. Albeit as the film went on, it got better. But over all, the haircut is way too short for a James Bond. I never did understand why Craig's Bond looked very traditional Bond in Bond commercials and interviews, but looked unorthodox Bond in some of his films.

007HallY · April 30

DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

Nicely put @007HallY. I’d like to add that it must’ve felt a bit refreshing for the series to embrace its British identity after the Brosnan era became a bit too “Americanized” by the end. I’d say Moore and Craig are the only Bonds who truly embrace their British identity, whereas I feel the others don’t as much; that’s probably why many people think Craig’s Bond is a bit more authentic than say Brosnan, even if I disagree.

SF is too british IMO.

Funnily enough, the villain is not a british thespian like, I don't know, Anthony Hopkins.

Indeed, Silva’s a bisexual foreigner (very villainous)… who also seems to have been a British agent… 🤔

Javiar Bardem’s great so I can’t complain. Silva's a dark mirror image of Bond so you need an actor around Craig's age who has charisma, confidence, physicality, and even a degree of sex appeal within the menace. Hopkins just doesn't cut it, and Bardem ticks all the boxes. Always found Silva's nationality a bit odd in some ways, but hey, it makes more sense than Alec Travelyan's age or even Safin's entire motive/mindset in the last chunk of NTTD so I can live with it.

Creasy47 wrote: »

@007HallY, I always thought she was just a pawn in Sandor's mission but fell so madly in love with Bond so quickly that she sacrificed herself to save him. It's so ludicrous that it works for me. Just the notion that someone was willing to let herself be killed because the guy she just met was so charming and handsome is a riot to me.

Haha, makes sense. Always confused the hell out of me.

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »

I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but I'm not a fan of Craig's Bond hair in SF....especially in the first half of the film. Albeit as the film went on, it got better. But over all, the haircut is way too short for a James Bond. I never did understand why Craig's Bond looked very traditional Bond in Bond commercials and interviews, but looked unorthodox Bond in some of his films.

Not my favourite Craig Bond haircut. Slightly too short. But honestly, Bond looks a bit rough for a good bit of the film anyway, and I think Craig in the second half looks great. So I can't complain too much about it.

sandbagger1 · April 30

Le Carre often depicted foreigners working as MI6 agents, and as a former MI6 man himself he should know what he was talking about.

Mendes4Lyfe · April 30

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »

I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but I'm not a fan of Craig's Bond hair in SF....especially in the first half of the film. Albeit as the film went on, it got better. But over all, the haircut is way too short for a James Bond. I never did understand why Craig's Bond looked very traditional Bond in Bond commercials and interviews, but looked unorthodox Bond in some of his films.

Craigs best performance as Bond was in the ads.

007HallY · April 30

sandbagger1 wrote: »

Le Carre often depicted foreigners working as MI6 agents, and as a former MI6 man himself he should know what he was talking about.

Yeah, I guess it's definitely within the bounds of reason. And it's not as though there's a discrepancy between the character and Bardem (his name is literally Raoul Silva/Rodriguez, so it's seemingly a purposeful decision, even if just to accommodate for Bardem's involvement). Like I said, I can't imagine an alternative actor taking that role. Bardem's a wonderful and charismatic actor.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »

I hope I'm not being too pedantic, but I'm not a fan of Craig's Bond hair in SF....especially in the first half of the film. Albeit as the film went on, it got better. But over all, the haircut is way too short for a James Bond. I never did understand why Craig's Bond looked very traditional Bond in Bond commercials and interviews, but looked unorthodox Bond in some of his films.

Craigs best performance as Bond was in the ads.

I'm going to be annoying and say I think his hair's too long in that ad, haha.

mtm · April 30

sandbagger1 wrote: »

Le Carre often depicted foreigners working as MI6 agents, and as a former MI6 man himself he should know what he was talking about.

I believe technically in the real world, 'agents' are always foreigner nationals, operated and run by MI6 (or SIS rather) officers - the agents are normal people already on the ground who the officers turn and rely on for intelligence.
But that's obviously not what Skyfall is trying to say with Silva(!) as he seems to be a proper MI6 officer, although I guess the best British spy is probably not going to be an obviously British person.

007HallY wrote: »

I'm going to be annoying and say I think his hair's too long in that ad, haha.

Ha! Yeah, tend to agree- I think his Spectre look was pretty much the perfect look for his Bond. He looks ridiculously good in that film.

I always think this, on the other hand, is quite the odd hairstyle for his Bond - almost like an undercut!

007HallY · April 30

mtm wrote: »

sandbagger1 wrote: »

Le Carre often depicted foreigners working as MI6 agents, and as a former MI6 man himself he should know what he was talking about.

I believe technically in the real world, 'agents' are always foreigner nationals, operated and run by MI6 (or SIS rather) officers - the agents are normal people already on the ground who the officers turn and rely on for intelligence.
But that's obviously not what Skyfall is trying to say with Silva(!) as he seems to be a proper MI6 officer, although I guess the best British spy is probably not going to be an obviously British person.

007HallY wrote: »

I'm going to be annoying and say I think his hair's too long in that ad, haha.

Ha! Yeah, tend to agree- I think his Spectre look was pretty much the perfect look for his Bond. He looks ridiculously good in that film.

I always think this, on the other hand, is quite the odd hairstyle for his Bond - almost like an undercut!

Agreed, haha! But I'll give Daniel a break on this one. He's clearly rocked up to a studio months after filming Spectre and has had to sit in front of a green screen for a few hours. Probably like most actors grows his hair out long in order to more easily style it for his next role.

What a terrible ad by the way. Never seen this one.

mtm · April 30

It's at least easier to figure out what's happening than in the boat chase in QoS! :)

007HallY · April 30

mtm wrote: »

It's at least easier to figure out what's happening than in the boat chase in QoS! :)

Oh, 100% agreed there!

DarthDimi · April 30

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

@mtm
Serious question: what happened in 2012 that made the UK feel good about itself?

Olympic games.

Oh yes, I should have known that. Thanks for clarifying that, @Mendes4Lyfe.

CrabKey · May 1

At last, some positive comments about the U.K.

Reflsin2bourbons · May 1

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

One thing I always wondered, who are Mr Wint and Mr Kid supposedly working for?

I believe they are working for SPECTRE, eliminating the "actual" smugglers so that SPECTRE can steal the diamonds from the smugglers.

mtm wrote: »

sandbagger1 wrote: »

Le Carre often depicted foreigners working as MI6 agents, and as a former MI6 man himself he should know what he was talking about.

I believe technically in the real world, 'agents' are always foreigner nationals, operated and run by MI6 (or SIS rather) officers - the agents are normal people already on the ground who the officers turn and rely on for intelligence.
But that's obviously not what Skyfall is trying to say with Silva(!) as he seems to be a proper MI6 officer,

Le Carre still had foreign nationals in officer positions (even in London positions) Toby Esterhase for example.

In regards to humour I think that Bond in Quantum of Solace is probably the amount of quippiness we should go for. Often people try and compare it to Licence to Kill, but Bond in Quantum has a lot more fun without any of the silliness in the one-liners (instead we get clever, tone-downed ones like "teachers who won the lottery" and "I'm sure they do."

And speaking of Skyfall, I feel like people kind of dislike it because it's too perfect. My feelings on it change every day, but there are very few flaws one could pick up upon on the film. It looks good, sounds good etc. But it also is a bit presumptuous and maybe takes itself too seriously without feeling especially entertaining plotwise. I can't think of a funny one-liner (the word association was alright, and the radio bit wasn't funny in the slightest)

I think Casino Royale gets the fun/serious blend in a way that is more palatable to my taste and I also think that there are more scene of consequence that generate emotion (any emotion, things like suspense and awe as well). Skyfall saves the punches for late on and the poetry reading scene cut with the subway chase is probably the most powerful scene of the Craig era.

CrabKey · May 1

The biggest weakness about the Craig films are the big action pieces that feel tacked on. As much as I love CR, the Miami airport scene has always felt like an add on.

I especially don't like criminal mastermind action scenes. Silva is so smart, he knows how everything will play out right down to Bond chasing him, as planned, into the tube trap. What kind of planning and manpower went into that? It would have all been for nothing had Bond been killed in the courtroom or decided not to follow Silva. Too much impossible split timing to be credible.

Then there's SP. How long after Bond blows up Blofeld's desert hideout did the following events in London take place? What kind of planning did that take. Who purchased the red spray paint, acquired hundreds of yards of red twine, and made photocopies everyone who died. Convenient that Madeleine strolled off down a dark street all alone. And the net? Why? I've actually gotten to like SP more, but that final scene in the old Mi6 building is silly. I want to see those scenes in which the villain has a conversation with his henchmen about who's doing what and how.

mtm · May 1

CrabKey wrote: »

The biggest weakness about the Craig films are the big action pieces that feel tacked on. As much as I love CR, the Miami airport scene has always felt like an add on.

I can’t really see that: the whole plot of the film hinges on it. Take it away and we don’t go to Casino Royale.

It might have been nice for Bond to reveal to Le Chiffre that he was the author of all his pain. I don’t think he knows, does he?

CrabKey wrote: »

I especially don't like criminal mastermind action scenes. Silva is so smart, he knows how everything will play out right down to Bond chasing him, as planned, into the tube trap. What kind of planning and manpower went into that? It would have all been for nothing had Bond been killed in the courtroom or decided not to follow Silva. Too much impossible split timing to be credible.

Why would it have been for nothing if Bond was killed in the courtroom?

DarthDimi · May 1

CrabKey wrote: »

The biggest weakness about the Craig films are the big action pieces that feel tacked on. As much as I love CR, the Miami airport scene has always felt like an add on.

I especially don't like criminal mastermind action scenes. Silva is so smart, he knows how everything will play out right down to Bond chasing him, as planned, into the tube trap. What kind of planning and manpower went into that? It would have all been for nothing had Bond been killed in the courtroom or decided not to follow Silva. Too much impossible split timing to be credible.

Then there's SP. How long after Bond blows up Blofeld's desert hideout did the following events in London take place? What kind of planning did that take. Who purchased the red spray paint, acquired hundreds of yards of red twine, and made photocopies everyone who died. Convenient that Madeleine strolled off down a dark street all alone. And the net? Why? I've actually gotten to like SP more, but that final scene in the old Mi6 building is silly. I want to see those scenes in which the villain has a conversation with his henchmen about who's doing what and how.

I think the Miami airport scene was necessary, not so much to drive the plot forward, but to convince the sceptics of Craig's cool action skills. I know, we had seen those at work already, but in this introduction film, more was more IMO.

Mendes4Lyfe · May 1

Franchises ending or rebooting in the next few years:

Jurassic World
Harry Potter
Naked Gun
Fast X
Mission Impossible
Jason Bourne
Indiana Jones
Terminator
Alien
Matrix
Pirates of the Carribean
Scary Movie
Top Gun
The DCU
Men in Black

If Bond was ever going to take an extended break, and emerge like a pheonix, then it seems appropriate to be happening when the whole industry is having a reset after the pandemic and strikes tore up the business model. 2023 lead to an unprecedented amount of flops as the old model of throwing 300 million at an established superhero or action brand and expecting a easy 750+ return is simply not the reality anymore. The next Jurassic world will be a back to basics thriller, alien is going back to its roots, and EON will be paying close attention when deciding where to takes things next. I really think the next Bond film will be a lot leaner production than Bond 25 and SPECTRE and lead to a tighter film.

DEKE_RIVERS · May 1

Mr Wint and Mr Kid were working for Blofeld and they were eliminating the contraband set-up. These were the last diamonds they needed.

007HallY · May 1

I suppose the idea of Silva constantly being one step ahead, getting captured only to break out, and having a rather meticulous plan is quite a timely concept. The Dark Knight had Joker getting captured only to escape and there were similar contrivances that gave the impression he’d pre-planned everything. It’s something that was also seen in Avengers and Star Trek Wrath of Khan from around the same time. Always reminded me of the break out scene in Silence of the Lambs personally (the glass cell Silva is put in in SF certainly reminds me of Lecter earlier in that film). Honestly, out of all of these films (not including Silence of the Lambs) I prefer how SF does it. The break out scene with is fine, but TDK is a film with plot holes and even contradictions of ideas that genuinely takes me out of that film. I can go along with SF more easily. Anyway like I said, there are far more contrived scenes/plot holes in Bond, especially the 60s ones.

As for the Miami Airport scene, I can’t see how that’s tacked on. It’s pretty vital to the plot. Maybe the sinking building at the end can be accused of that, but I think it was needed for the climax of the film, and the alternatives wouldn’t have been as gripping.

Apart from that maybe a ‘tacked on’ action scene in the Craig era is the plane chase in SP? I can’t think of anymore apart from that, certainly not in SF. Anyway like plot holes, tacked on/contrived (in the best way possible) action scenes are pretty much standard for Bond. It’s heightened reality, so we’re going to see an elaborate stunt or chase at some point even if it’s not always strictly speaking ‘needed’. Ideally they’ll always be relevant to the plot and move it forward, but not always (ie. Is the Aston/cello chase in TLD necessary? No, but it’s fun, and the pace of the film is at risk of dragging without something like that. Same can be said for the helicopter sequence and boat chase in FRWL. Are they really needed strictly speaking? I’m sure they can be accused of being ‘tacked on’.).

Reporting For Duty

Categories

In this Discussion

Where does Bond go after Craig?

Comments

Reporting For Duty

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Where does Bond go after Craig?

Comments