Sequels never as good as the originals?
Strangeways
London, UKPosts: 1,469MI6 Agent
I was just thinking the other evening, and thought I'd provoke discussion.....
Every time EON re-boot the franchise, the 2nd movie never lives up to our expectations. Examples:
OHMSS -v- DAF
TSWLM -v- MR
TLD -v- LTK
GE -v- TND/TWINE
Does this mean that Bond 22 will be pale in comparison to CR? (The only exception to the rule above is I actually thought TND better than GE, but hey ho!)
What do fellow fans think?
Every time EON re-boot the franchise, the 2nd movie never lives up to our expectations. Examples:
OHMSS -v- DAF
TSWLM -v- MR
TLD -v- LTK
GE -v- TND/TWINE
Does this mean that Bond 22 will be pale in comparison to CR? (The only exception to the rule above is I actually thought TND better than GE, but hey ho!)
What do fellow fans think?
Comments
Just for the record, I think LTK was very underrated. Would have loved Dalton to do more in the 90s. Loved it, but was just appealing to the masses.
To conclude, I am keeping an open mind about Bond 22, but I have to say that I do think the series has peaked. 10 BAFTA nominations and all the other awards, nothing can come close to CR. Or can it.........?
However, I think what EON does is that they make a rebbot movie, see what works well, and then continue down the path that they were going down. That certainly happened with TSWLM and MR, then GE and TND.
I think that they may get Bond 22 to avoid the trap, but I think what it will depend on is how much the producers do to make it feel original. After going on for so many years its pretty easy to appear stale. The real challenge for the producers this time around is creating a movie that feels as fresh as Casino Royale, but doesnt repeat anything from that movie - and also doesnt repeat from the first 20 movies. Hard.
That's interesting. I suppose I'd have to know what constitutes the 'worthy back-to-back' moniker, as you define it...if you simply mean two good Bond films back-to-back, I'd have to disagree.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
DN/FRWL
OHMSS/DAF
and I think both films are pretty close together, to be honest Bond 22 has a lot of oppurtunity's being a fresh start for Bond so lets hope it does us proud.
First of all, although I like DAF, I admit it didn't live up to OHMSS, so agree on that one.
MR definitely didn't live up to TSWLM, so also agree on that one.
TND/TWINE were, to be honest, awful compared to GE. GE was a brilliant film, whereas TND and TWINE I rank near the bottom of my entire Bond list tbh (and DAD is even worse).
The only one I disagree on is the Dalton films. I like TLD, but I actually liked LTK even more. More interesting moments and better villains IMO. Both great films though.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
When TND was being filmed in 1997, EON had script problems, location problems, a release date but no title, they were late starting filming and the cast was not even confirmed prior to filming. [Feel familiar?] The result was a crappie title, ham acting [Pryce, Yeoh] and a rushed storyline that seemed just like a series of set pieces connected by periods of utter boredom.
When I say sequels are never as good as the original I don't refer to Godfather or Star Wars, whose sequels were years in production but mainly Bond. EON appear guilty of becoming obsessed with making production line movies that never live up to the expectation of the grass roots 100% loyal fanatics, [that’s us btw!] the very people that they should not alienate.
After the critical and commercial success of CR globally, 10 BAFTA nominations and other awards the expectation for Bond 22 is huge to say the least. I for one would have preferred there to have been a 3-4 year gap to consolidate on CR then produce an outstanding sequel of quality rather than a rush job.
Don't get me wrong, I can't wait for November and am sooooo excited about Bond 22, but I do remember 1997 like it was yesterday [age setting in] and I fear that the producers will miss out on this huge opportunity and not learn from the lessons of the past 10 years.
It happened in the beginning. It could happen again.
Licence to Kill is on the same level as The Living Daylights indeed, but this and GF to TB are probably the only exceptions of sequels living up to their predecessors.
In my opinion, the Bond films are varied greatly when it comes to tone and quality. I find that to be a good thing. We have had streaks of greatness and mediocrity as well as back and forth stuff.
The back and forth stuff was pretty much the way it was from YOLT all they way to MR. OTT with slight camp, then serious spy stuff. By the way, I love LALD and do not consider it to be too reliant on humor and other things like TMWTGG, even though that film is still underrated.
The best streaks of pure greatness in my book only happened twice. The original streak of Connery's first four films is the first. Each got better and better. The other streak, albeit divided by time considerably, is the The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, and Goldeneye streak. That one could have been even longer going back to Octopussy, but AVTAK hampers it a bit.
The worst streak is really the only one. The streak beginning with TND to the current. This mediocre streak has not ended for me. The Brosnan films got worse and he was never able to live up to his full potential. Casino Royale took a good idea and still did not really impress me. It's like DAD took a big step in one direction and CR took a big step in another direction. Neither got it just right for me.
Perhaps this new film can be better than CR. Maybe it will begin a new streak of greatness or maybe it will be back and forth again. I will tell you one thing. They need to ditch Purvis and Wade and get a new guy to help Haggis out because they are not cutting it. If they are still writing, the mediocrity is likely to continue if you ask me.
It would save on production costs and also mean that characters could appear in both movies. Also, it would mean that we could have 2 Bond films within 12 months of each other for the first time since the 1960s.
As noted previously,Sean Connery's first four films had the great benefit of being based on some of Ian Fleming's best novels--and aside from some reasonably minor alterations to the storylines made during the adaptation process--they were faithful to their source material.The first four books Eon filmed were also relatively recent and well known best sellers--a few of them being less than ten years old.Additionally, these films also had Connery, who quickly became the most popular actor in the world during this period.Every component fell into place.
Eon's said in various articles and interviews that they're not interested in remaking any of their older successes, and that they have no intention of ever filming any of the "continuation" novels--prefering instead to generate their own material.Thus,the challenge remains--if Eon can develop two solid screenplays and if Craig is available(and at the right price he probably would be), then I think there's a very good reason for them film two 007 movies together.This would probably prove to be cost efficent--this was certainly the case for Zemeckis' Back to the Future" II & III, and also for the Salkind productions of The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers.We all know that Cubby Broccoli was as tight with a dollar as he was adventurous with his productions.His kids probably share his vision.If all the conditions prove promising,the idea of making two Bonds together might just appeal to them.
But it all starts with the story...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh, and no offence taken, thanks!
Oops...This is what happens when you're tired and hit the wrong key...:o
Anyway,I agree with blueman-I think with the introduction of a potentially new criminal organization,Eon's got a pretty good idea of what they'd like to do with 007 in both Bond 22 and 23.Granted,it might only be a loose outline, but could serve as an outline for future films nonetheless.
Of the films that you mentioned; OHMSS is a masterpiece but DAF (although it does have some great things going for it) is nowewhere near as good. I adore TSWLM, but MR (which is not as bad IMO as some people think it is) wasn't as good. I loathe TLD, and I consider LTK (which I didn't particularly like) to be superior. That isn't saying much since IMO TLD was the second worst Bond film of all time.
Personally, I never saw the 007 films as sequels. Sure, you had a light progression from Dr. No to FRWL to Goldfinger. But, I always thought the connections between these films were tenuous at best. I'm thinking in particular about how "forced" Connery's line was in Goldfinger when he says to Felix something like: "They got much closer to you in Jamaica, didn't they?". Or, even Sylvia Trench's appearance in FRWL was "forced" (though I love her character!). Anyway, these films never seemed like sequels to me, but rather films in a series.
When you get to a film like OHMSS, whose ending simply begs for a sequel in the proper sense, my sense is that OHMSS's true sequel isn't DAF but rather FYEO. Or perhaps, it's better to say that OHMSS's true sequel is LTK.
I can only imagine how it would have impacted the series had, say, Peter Hunt had his way with DAF with George Lazenby. Or, perhaps, had a film like LTK appeared immediately after OHMSS. Would it have changed the series? Would it have adversely affected the 007 trajectory? I don't know. Thus, the same sort of issues are present with QoS as a direct sequel to Casino Royale. How will this affect the future of the series? Will it harm it? Help it?
Perhaps I take solace (ha ha) in the fact that, if we look at the NOVEL You Only Live Twice as a sequel to OHMSS, I see how the literary character of James Bond can survive sequel treatment. In fact, the character almost begs for that kind of attention. So, now that we have the cinematic Daniel Craig incarnation that holds so much potential, I'm excited about this direction for the film series. It's almost as if we fans who wonder how a George Lazenby DAF would have turned out are getting a second chance. Only this time, we have a strong (arguably the best) Bond actor.
One thing's for sure: the producers can potentially go anywhere they want with this character now that Casino Royale was so successful. The fact that they went with a sequel suggests that they are more concerned now with story-driven action films rather than the Moonrakers, DAD-type entertainment. While I love Moonraker and I'm beginning to warm to DAD, I've always loved the "deeper" Bond films. Anyway, hopefully, QoS will be a film that is so good on its merits that it will beg for yet another true "sequel." (though if they end QoS with Bond getting amnesia and going to China, I'll be upset).
As for the producers trying to reboot the series at other times, IMO CR is the first time they've ever tried a serious reboot. OHMSS, FYEO, and others were made to get back to the basics when the producers felt the gadgetry was getting out of hand. Never before have I heard of these being seen as reboots by the producers. They're just films where everyone wanted to go back to the basics. CR also goes back to the basics but CR is the only true reboot because it literally starts the series all over again. OHMSS doesn't do this since it obviously continues on from the other films (the various items in Bond's desk, Blofeld) and FYEO is a continuation of the other films as well (Tracy's grave). CR starts everything fresh again and is unrelated to any of the other films (except for QOS of course).
During the 007 history, I see the following reboots after EON realized, that their movies went OTT.
DAF - reboot OHMSS -followed by LALD well. the positive is Roger moore
Moonraker - reboot FYEO -followed by Octopussy - less than average
DAD - reboot CR - what will come?
I sincerely hope, that Marc Forster will not let it happen, but I am seriously concerned.
However I am more concerned to hear, that 007 will use an attache with secret weapons. I thought, they wanted 007 without gadgets (I know, Sony Computers and SE mobile phones are also gadgets....)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!