› ›

What do you want to see?

Fairbairn-SykesFairbairn-Sykes
edited March 2011 in Skyfall Posts: 54
I hereby take the virginity of this category with this discussion (we no longer have forums or threads, I see).

What direction do you want Bond 23 to take? We've gotten the message loud and clear from Babs that Bond is to remain an insolent, immature manchild who cannot think for himself and must have direction and guidance from his all knowing, all seeing, never wrong female superior. But aside from that, we've got Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) directing -- aka the first time in decades that a REAL filmmaker has handled a Bond film -- but with Purvis and Wade still writing, this time asssited not by Oscar-winning hack Paul Haggis, but Star Trek Nemesis writer John Logan (oh joy).

My response so far is a groan, but let's hear from everyone else.
«13456

Comments

  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    I'd like to see my name in the credits. Preferrably under the "Written By" heading.
  • Fairbairn-SykesFairbairn-Sykes
    Posts: 54
    Haha.
  • 007007
    Posts: 42
    I would like to see it go back to the more traditional Bond formula, however not the ludicrousness of DAD. I think it is good to have CR and QoS in hindsight, but like Daniel Craig has already said it would be good to have a bit more fun this time around. I would like to see the return of Q and Moneypenny. I'm just looking forward to seeing what Craig does with the role now that he actually is Bond.
  • Fairbairn-SykesFairbairn-Sykes
    Posts: 54
    I want the darn thing to slow down, take its time, and tell me a story without worrying about providing "pulse pounding" adrenaline overload action setpieces every two seconds. The original movies had unified stories because they had the support of the novels, and the novels told stories -- not excuses to move between action setpieces, which is what we've largely had since at least TND.
  • 007007
    Posts: 42
    Quoting Fairbairn-Sykes:

    I want the darn thing to slow down, take its time, and tell me a story without worrying about providing "pulse pounding" adrenaline overload action setpieces every two seconds. The original movies had unified stories because they had the support of the novels, and the novels told stories -- not excuses to move between action setpieces, which is what we've largely had since at least TND.
    Hmmm I agree. A lot of movies these days do rely on fasted paced action to keep up the audiences' interest, but nothing does it better than a good story. I'm hoping that since Bond 23 has had a bit of a break while MGM got sorted out, the writers will be able to come back to it with a fresh mind and create an amazing story.
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    The "slow" parts where the best parts of CR, so I hope they have more breathing room in Bond 23. Especially when compared to the balls to the wall mentality of QOS.

    The pace has to make sense, however. I'm not in favour of slow parts of a film that go nowhere.
  • Fairbairn-SykesFairbairn-Sykes
    Posts: 54
    Also -- we need a Bond movie that's a BOND MOVIE -- The Brosnan era was trying to be the M:I movies and the Craig era has so far aped Bourne.
  • CommanderJamesBondCommanderJamesBond
    Posts: 24
    -Smoking
    -Drinking
    -Gambling
    -Rooting
    -Male 'M'
    -Bond being the right-wing arsehole he was always meant to be
    - Larger than life villain and villainy
  • Fairbairn-SykesFairbairn-Sykes
    Posts: 54
    Agreed.
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    When was the last time we saw the old fashioned "military saves the day" ending from the Connery films. Moonraker? The Living Daylights?

    If it makes sense, it's something I'd like to see. Less of the "one man army" version of Bond.
  • CommanderJamesBondCommanderJamesBond
    Posts: 24
    Indeed, the raids were some of the best bits of the old Bonds. It was usually a chance for Bond to display his leadership qualities - and he was a Naval Commander after all.
  • AgentLeiterAgentLeiter
    Posts: 39
    Quoting Fairbairn-Sykes: Also -- we need a Bond movie that's a BOND MOVIE -- The Brosnan era was trying to be the M:I movies and the Craig era has so far aped Bourne.
    This is absolutely correct, and perhaps more vital now than ever.

    It has been a few years since Bourne now, and the times have changed. If Bond is to survive on the silver screen, he must establish an identity of his own again and break from comparisons to other action movie characters. I think a return to the spiritual roots of cinematic Bond will help preserve his legacy best at this point, and hopefully the powers that be realize as much.

    Time will tell, of course.

    I recognize that our view of things here as the die-hard fans may be a bit different, but I think it is fair to presume that people have their eyes on the franchise at the moment; there's been a bit of a break now... what will Bond do?
  • MooreMoore
    Posts: 114
    ( o ) ( o )
  • AstonMartins4MeAstonMartins4Me
    Posts: 5
    Quoting AgentLeiter: It has been a few years since Bourne now, and the times have changed. If Bond is to survive on the silver screen, he must establish an identity of his own again and break from comparisons to other action movie characters. I think a return to the spiritual roots of cinematic Bond will help preserve his legacy best at this point, and hopefully the powers that be realize as much.

    I disagree but only to an extent. It's my belief that the difference between the interpretations is part of the appeal of Bond as a franchise. Anyone who's watched a few Bond films can name a favorite Bond or a favorite film and strangely enough they don't all give the same answers. Everyone finds something different in the franchise to love and I think that's a part of why it's such a legendary and iconic series and didn't die out some 20 years ago like so many other franchises. So while you may not like the current entries in the franchise there are others that consider them among the best but may not like your favorite entries so much.

    So while I agree that Bond has to have it's own identity in that I don't want it to ever become a series that provides carbon copies of whatever action film is popular at the time (which admittedly has happened a few times in the history of the franchise *cough* Moonraker and Star Wars *cough*) by the same token I think trying to lock all future Bond films into the style and approach of the early Bonds is just as much of a mistake and will only result in the franchise heavily limiting it's new fanbase and possibly losing many of the fanbase that fell in love with the other interpretations of what a Bond film could be.
  • MrBrownMrBrown
    Posts: 202
    More tits, more cigarettes.

    Less politics.
  • MooreMoore
    Posts: 114
    I second the more tits policy.

    :O (o)(o)
    Hummana hummana
  • Fairbairn-SykesFairbairn-Sykes
    Posts: 54
    Speaking of which, this whole redux forum makes me wanna take up cigarettes again.
  • MrBrownMrBrown
    Posts: 202
    I'd love to see Helga Krilencu come back.

    She was great in "Quantem of Solstice".
  • MooreMoore
    Posts: 114
    I liked that one movie with Bond in it
  • AgentLeiterAgentLeiter
    Posts: 39
    In response to AstonMartins4Me:

    I do agree that the distinctive flavor of each Bond film and respective era has been a large of what keeps Bond alive in as a cinematic force. It's not the specific style or approach of the older Bond films that I am speaking of here though... rather something more ethereal and hard for me to define. The spirit of the Bond films, that is, whatever element it is that turns base materials to gold and gives Bond his identity on the silver screen. Whenever we put in a James Bond movie it registers on some level and we have certain expectations regardless of the actor or era; I enjoy the latest outings and have few complaints, but nonetheless it seems that we are going in a strange new direction... and while I would even go so far as to applaud the change in direction for those films, Bond mustn't stray to far from what makes the movies special to us, the fans.

    That certain special formula must be captured again. Where is the gunbarrel? The prominent theme music? The witty one liners and the beautiful women at every turn? These have appeard in the latest outings but their presence is limited; Bond must paradoxically forge new ground and push the right buttons of nostalgia to succeed.
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    Things we haven't seen in a Bond film in a long, long time.

    -Searching the hotel room.
    -Bond's flat
    -Climactic military raid
    -Traditional Moneypenny->M briefing->Q lab chronology.
    -Baccarat
    -Smoking
    -A liquor besides Vodka (Bond drank bourbons a lot in the early years)
    -Freakish henchmen
    -Small scale gadgets that made logical sense
    -Bond doing any "detecting"
    -Bond doing any "spying"
    -Bond doing anything that doesn't directly or indirectly involve explosions, gunfire, hand to hand combat, or sparks.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Quoting Tubes: Searching the hotel room.
    He did that in QOS when he checked out Slate's room and acquired the briefcase. They also searched Mitchell's apartment.
    Quoting Tubes: Bond doing anything that doesn't directly or indirectly involve explosions, gunfire, hand to hand combat, or sparks.
    The entire poker game in CR. Eavesdropping on Quantum at the opera. Bond going after Yusuf.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    I want to see Javier Bardem in the movie. I really hope he will like the script.
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    i hope it wont be typical cliche and i hope it will be typical Bond action.girls,villains,gambling
  • AgentJM7AgentJM7
    Posts: 421
    I wouldn't be surprised if we see some "freakish henchmen", or some more alcohol. Look at the whiskey Bond was necking after the stairwell fight in CR. Smoking is probably too much to ask for. We almost got the big army raid in GoldenEye, but Wade never "sent in the Marines". I would love to see "Commander Bond" in some fashion anyway.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Wade sent Marines. They were stationed around the satellite dish, probably preparing to advance when Bond destroyed the facility.
  • VesperVesper
    Posts: 20
    What Tubes said.
  • AgentJM7AgentJM7
    edited March 2011 Posts: 421
    Quoting shadowonthesun:
    Wade sent Marines. They were stationed around the satellite
    dish, probably preparing to advance when Bond destroyed the facility.


    OK, but they were never "called in", as part of a big battle. Just showed up when Bond and Natalya were trying to have some private time :) Even then, they just flew off after Bond had destroyed the facility...
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I really hate to say this but I do miss the more debonair suarve Bond (the Connery's, the Moore's the Brosnan's). They had a confidence and a likeability about them. They were the type of character I wanted to be: confident with the ladies, professional elegant spies.

    I know they are (perhaps) not quite the character Fleming envisioned but hey...I don't care. They made me love James Bond.
  • TubesTubes The Hebrew Hammer
    Posts: 158
    Quoting shadowonthesun:
    The entire poker game in CR. Eavesdropping on Quantum at the opera. Bond going after Yusef.
    The best parts of each film. At least in CR, the poker game is the majority of the film. Those segments in QOS add up to only 15 minutes or so out of a 107 minute feature.
Sign In or Register to comment.