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
They all have something special about them, but the new ones do have a modern flair. I love that Dan shoots a new walk for each film too, because the other eras just recycled the same walk/s over and over for each actor.
I prefer the old way though. I like the SP gunbarrel and the one from CR is functional too but the other two not so much. Maybe if they were at the beginning I would be less severe.
F&F, MI, and Bourne are all marketed for younger audiences.
Bond is more geared to older audiences. This flip of the switch happened with SF and it's old/young, old/new dynamic. Bond, as the older agent playing a "young man's game," is far more appealing to the 40+ crowd. My father, who is in his 80s, and who hadn't seen a Bond film since FYEO, saw SF three times and then saw SP on opening night. He loved both. DC's Bond was a type of action/adventure hero that he could relate to, get into.
I don't think EON is doing anything wrong at all in marketing the franchise this way. Let the teens have Vin and Dwayne.
Here's my controversial view: I think there is a gap in the spy universe right now, which is unusual given that there are so many entries in the genre. What's missing in my view is that unique combination of fantasy, adventure, British high style & class, wit, fun & phenomenal death defying action (in small but very memorable doses).
That's a space which Bond used to own all to itself in the 60's through to the early 80's. Since then the franchise has either focused more on pure thrill seeking action (the Brosnan 90's) or more mature angst driven thrillers (the Craig 00's and 10's).
The spy market is more fragmented now, with films like Kingsman & UNCLE playing in distinct niches, MI owning the action/style space (but infringing on the Bond universe with humour, glamour and class), FF owning the pure out and out kid driven action space & Bond owning the more mature thriller/spy space.
I think there is an opening for a more fun, stylish and distinctly British entry. One that blends the current MI & Bond universes. That's what I miss, and would really like to see again when they eventually reboot.
I just worry how EON would go about it, and if they'd bring back too much of the old films, trying to be the 60s again instead of putting a spin on it as has happened so many times before. Then I would very much be bored.
The nearest we got to it, was QOS which was butchered to a degree where it was barely recognisable as a Bond film. What a shame.
:>
@bondjames, it's a difficult balance to strike, and the series is always in danger of hanging onto the way it was done for at least 4 decades. I probably sound like an ass when I explain this, but I just don't want to see the movies made like they were in the 60s, as those films were right for their time and we need to recognize that time shifts and tone does too. A fresh spark needs to be ignited so that the old still can feel new in the next era. You're right that it will all come down to casting, as it does with most things. Casting the right Bond next time around will be as important as ever, as it's harder to get away with what you used to with these films and following Craig is a task in and of itself.
They need a guy who has the style to pull off the suits, the charisma to light the screen, the look of capability to make the killing feel grounded and genuine, the dedication to make the role his own while also doing a good bit of stunts, and he needs the ability to support any one-liners that they throw his way (which I hope are very little). The issue is that this mix is as rare as can be, and of the 6 actors we've had the only ones that solidly impressed me across the board across those areas were Sean and Dan, with minor fluctuations.
It will be crucial how EON play their hand when the time comes, and I have my worries. Not because I doubt them, but because I am aware of what they're up against and realize that it would be a difficult situation for any company to face. I think P&W were very perceptive (and not at all dismissive) when they said that Bond films are harder to make in the way people have always known them to be. Gigantic lairs and world domination plots don't play well, but neither do stone-faced personal tales with a scarcity of some idyllic spirit. A fascinating compromise will have to be met.
As long as they have a credible & enticing story underpinning each film, cast the right supporting actors & ensure the look and feel of the film is worthy of the Bond legend, they will be halfway there. The other half will be down to the actor they cast. I think they will need someone with real star quality next time out, as that is the type of actor that can carry a film that is lighter and which perhaps will have less meat in it. His presence will have to do a lot in lieu of depth. This is why I don't have a problem with casting someone known, like a Fassbender for instance.
If they can retain the fundamental Britishness of the character & the essential savoir faire & joie de vivre (without overdoing it like Kingsman) as well, then they will have the final ingredient which will differentiate Bond from his contemporaries.
I think most of us can at the very least agree that new creative blood is needed. I have enjoyed the Craig films to high heaven despite the very personal nature of them, but I think the clear move forward is returning to the standard mission format as before to really make the next set stand out and feel different. It'll be very important for EON to differentiate the new films from Craig's and anything else recent, to make their newest approach as much of a cemented idea as these films have been for the series. Committing to that idea and trying to reinvent like Craig's films did but in a new way should work.
I'd also like the first two films to come out at most two years apart, to expedite establishing the new man in the role, whenever that may eventually be.
Another Glen would be nice, but with a bit more style and finesse behind the camera. Consistency would be very nice to see, as tone is one of the things this series always struggles with, even from film to film in each era.
Quite true, but isn't that what makes the Bond films so great? It would get rather dull if the tone always stayed the same from film to film, and they wouldn't be as truly unique to each other, as they are. So the fact that the producers (from Cubby/Saltzman to today) were willing to 'shake things up', gave us the opportunity to watch such great movies.
Take YOLT/ OHMSS, TMWTGG/TSWLM or DAD/CR as some great examples of tonal shift between two consecutive Bond films. You'd think they'd be crazy to make such different movies from the previous successful ones, but it paid off very well. Even the jarring difference between QoS and SF paid off nicely. No guts, no glory.
Not what I meant, really. When I talk of consistency, I largely look for a Bond actor to appear consistent with how they acted in their other films. This is often what really fluctuates at times, and it can be strange to witness when you notice it.
Other times the tone of the narrative can make or break a film. The Dalton era offers many examples of when the style of Dalton's approach was sacrificed to be a traditional Bond film, and it hurt those movies in many respects. So no, I don't think the variety is always great, especially when the tone can be so unpredictable that it creates a movie that feels all over the board.
Agreed. I remember thinking "him again?".
We knew nothing about Blofeld in the Craig era until SP. There had been no buildup to his importance. We were just told about it (very sloppily) in SP, and so there really wasn't anything of consequence for us to attach to.
It's generally much more effective if the audience is shown something rather than told about it. Keyser Soze is an obvious exception, and their attempts to create a similar sense of dread via the White description fell humiliatingly flat ("Women!!! Children!!!!")
1) I don't much care about the gunbarrels. I like them enough and they're nice little signal that 'this is Bond,' but I don't think I'd mind that much - or maybe even notice - if they were omitted.
2) I don't care too much about the scores, either. At the extreme end I'm a bit distracted by, say, Conti's disco-Bond, but mostly I don't really notice movie scores generally and that includes Bond. When people here get into knock-down, drag-out debates about Newman et al., I'm totally indifferent.
I don't agree on the score. It's a critical component of what makes me enjoy a film (not just a Bond entry). Since I was a child, the Bond scores have sucked me into his world and shaped my enjoyment of music. So the score can almost make or break how I feel about a film. If it doesn't work for me, then the film has to work that much harder in other areas to compensate, because I will definitely notice.
On the first point I somewhat agree. I don't have a dislike of the gun barrels, but you also would never hear me mewling about them not starting off the film either. They're not an essential part of my enjoyment of a Bond film, but if they show up, grand.
I've spent too many hours lost to John Barry to agree about scores though. Music can sometimes be the element that lifts a scene to crescendo in a way no other element could alone. Imagine Tracy's death without the light sound of "We Have All the Time in the World," for instance. Without it, so much would be lost. Music is as important as everything else, a main factor with unlimited consequence to it depending on the right use. A poor use of music, in turn, can sag otherwise brilliant moments.
About the music, I think a good/bad movie score can make a film more or less enjoyable as well. For instance, I think the score of TND makes it a better movie. I also listen to film scores on a regular basis, so it's clearly important for me.