Original Bond Format Gone For Good?

thesecretagent

What with the very modern way in which QoS was filmed, the sharp pacey way TV series such as 24 keep the plot moving and twisting, Tarrantinoesque plots and dialogues spilling into mainstream dramas - has Bond as we have all come to know him gone for good? It's hard to imagine Craig getting back to Bond basics, as is the whole franchise. It would seem that the Broccoli machine has taken Bond in a totally different direction, and although I thought Casino Royale was by and large a great film and even a little refreshing after DAD, I wasn't so enthralled with QoS, although good in parts, I found myself hankering after some chat-ups, bedroom scenes, a little more complexity in Craig's character, rather than just a computer-like killing game that the film had turned into. In short, with weaker and less outlandish villianish plots, rather dull villians, no tough henchmen to speak of, and rather cold, and by and large, unshaggable women, have we really seen the last of the traditional Bond formula that once made it so appealing and successful?

Thunderpussy

I agree Secretagent The old formula has been thrown away,so much for it it ain't bkoke don't fix it.I've read many times and heard in interviews Albert R saying that various big wiggs in the movie industry had always given him advice to change the formula over the years and he'd always refused, simply because it worked. I liken it to been given the secret of alcamy and deciding you know better so change it.( all kids think they know better than their parents),
I always wondered why the producers decided to go in a diffrent direction especially using J Bourne as a template,as just going by the Box office from the movies,
Bourne identity 2002= $214m, supremacy 2004= $288.5m, Ultimatum 2007= $443m
for the same time line and only two movies.
DaD 2002= $431 & CR 2006= $595
I always thought the quote was " If you are gonna steal, Steal from the best " not "Steal from those making an inferior product".
I loved the basic old formula, a big opening, a minor incident every 15 Mins, a major event every 30 mins,Bond blowing all the villians plans to hell at the end. Mixed with Bond shagging three ladies with an inocent being killed to cause Bond to have a personal reason to kill the bad guy. Along with some witty banter and a well place one liner.All beautifully filmed with time given for the audiance to get to know and care about the characters.
Qos was IMHO shot as a computer game by a director with no experience in the field of action movies ( his one attempt before was a flop).I couldn' believe the amount of control The producers handed over to him,So many of the old crew kicked to the curb.
I hope the next Bond movie will in some way get back to the old formula, but my hopes arn't high,This Bonds Diffrent, He's for the computer generation and a cinema audiance of 12-15 year olds, Short attention spans and who's idea of smart conversation is to grab their crotch ans say "how about it", or "help me find the stationary".
I know i'm an old Dinosaur,Mabey the films are just passing me by, But I still have my box set so can re-live all the great old adventures, while another generation moves on with this Inferior version of Bond. I'm sure the Producers have in mind a scene where Bond breaks down and cries over Vesper,at some point.They do seem to want Bond to get in touch with his femine side. Mixing in more smalltime villians and small plots.
IMNO, Die hard 4 had a better villian and plot, more in keeping with a traditional Bond movie.It even had a good hench woman. I live in hope that as easily as The producers have thrown away their formula, another crew will be taking it up. Matt Helm ?

zaphod

Thunderpussy wrote:

I agree Secretagent The old formula has been thrown away,so much for it it ain't bkoke don't fix it.I've read many times and heard in interviews Albert R saying that various big wiggs in the movie industry had always given him advice to change the formula over the years and he'd always refused, simply because it worked. I liken it to been given the secret of alcamy and deciding you know better so change it.( all kids think they know better than their parents),
I always wondered why the producers decided to go in a diffrent direction especially using J Bourne as a template,as just going by the Box office from the movies,
Bourne identity 2002= $214m, supremacy 2004= $288.5m, Ultimatum 2007= $443m
for the same time line and only two movies.
DaD 2002= $431 & CR 2006= $595
I always thought the quote was " If you are gonna steal, Steal from the best " not "Steal from those making an inferior product".
I loved the basic old formula, a big opening, a minor incident every 15 Mins, a major event every 30 mins,Bond blowing all the villians plans to hell at the end. Mixed with Bond shagging three ladies with an inocent being killed to cause Bond to have a personal reason to kill the bad guy. Along with some witty banter and a well place one liner.All beautifully filmed with time given for the audiance to get to know and care about the characters.
Qos was IMHO shot as a computer game by a director with no experience in the field of action movies ( his one attempt before was a flop).I couldn' believe the amount of control The producers handed over to him,So many of the old crew kicked to the curb.
I hope the next Bond movie will in some way get back to the old formula, but my hopes arn't high,This Bonds Diffrent, He's for the computer generation and a cinema audiance of 12-15 year olds, Short attention spans and who's idea of smart conversation is to grab their crotch ans say "how about it", or "help me find the stationary".
I know i'm an old Dinosaur,Mabey the films are just passing me by, But I still have my box set so can re-live all the great old adventures, while another generation moves on with this Inferior version of Bond. I'm sure the Producers have in mind a scene where Bond breaks down and cries over Vesper,at some point.They do seem to want Bond to get in touch with his femine side. Mixing in more smalltime villians and small plots.
IMNO, Die hard 4 had a better villian and plot, more in keeping with a traditional Bond movie.It even had a good hench woman. I live in hope that as easily as The producers have thrown away their formula, another crew will be taking it up. Matt Helm ?

I think it's too soon to say that those elements are gone for good, and perhaps an oversimplification to equate 'new Bond' to the Computer generation approach. For example one of the things that thrilled me about CR was the quality of some of the script, the train sequence between Bond and Vesper really had it all, with charm, and character exposition. For me the torture scene was truly brave, and one of the standout scenes of the whole series. I find little to value in QOS, (although I recognise that like all Bond movies it has it's advocates) but do not think that it is a forgone conslusion that 23 will follow in a similar vein. Critical and fan reaction to QOS was a the very best 'mixed' and opinion divided, plus Craig is rumoured not to be entirely thrilled with the version that we eventually got. Therefore there is reason to remain optimistic about 23 and beyond. I see QOS as a stage that the series went through, and to some extent an experiment, and so far for me at least the odds stack up as even, with it all to play for with 23.

I think the real challenge is to bring an esscence of those elelents back, but in new and surprisng ways...lets hope that they pull it off.

Hardyboy

I agree with Zaphod, and I'll add this: remember, just a few years ago the producers tried to create a more-or-less "traditional" Bond film with Die Another Day--outsized villain, secret lair, hold-the-world-hostage plot, the works--and many people on this site decried the film as a crime against humanity. I'm not saying that all such attempts at the Bond formula will be hated (and DAD was an enormous financial hit, no matter what the critics or fans had to say); but that styles come and go, and they will always have their fans and detractors. Personally, I'm happy with the way the series is going, and I'm anxious to see what's in store.

Loeffelholz

I'd disagree that Craig's Bond isn't complex---quite the opposite compared to Bonds of the past, IMO...but I'll concede that Eon's challenge in steering Bond back to the more traditional outing---without sacrificing what's made him more fresh and vital in the 21st century---cannot be overstated.

Sir Miles

Thunderpussy wrote:

This Bonds Diffrent, He's for the computer generation and a cinema audiance of 12-15 year olds, Short attention spans and who's idea of smart conversation is to grab their crotch ans say "how about it", or "help me find the stationary".

Wow !

Couldn't agree less. Ok - this Bond is different....but the last two films have been more 'grown up' Bond films, IMHO. I would think the average 12-15 yr old wouldn't neccessarily understand all of what happens in CR & QoS ! Heck - some 35-60 yr olds struggled )

Strange that you feel as though Craig's films are 'passing you by'....for me, I feel this is the first time since Dalton that the Bond films have been aimed at me and my age-bracket.

Sticking with your 'template/formula' for a Bond film...?...Really ? Are you not bored of that ? If Eon kept churning that out they would be hammered for not showing some originality...some daring...plus using that same formula must be hard to write for 23 films in a row !! And the box-office would fall off surely ?

I'm more than happy with the direction both Eon and Craig are taking.

Thunderpussy

Sir Miles, I do agree CR was a good film and I too think T Dalton was one of the Best Bonds But as for D Craig, I just can't see what you guys see.He was pretty good in CR but IMHO he's not that good of an actor, In QOS he was as good as Chuck Norris etc.And I would suggest that the box office from his own movies proves that he may be a star as Bond but not on his own.
The formula is not mine, I thought it was well know to Bond fans, The one for the Books goes, Bond spends two thirds of the Book finding out about the villians plans and hide-out then the last third breaking out and stopping it. Fleming seemed happy with it.
I have to say that I'm not bored by any of the Bond movies watching them over and over again.But I do have a problem with QOS as it's Badly made,I'll not go over the lazy film making problems I've seen in it, that IMHO proves it was a thrown together project.
The funny thing is I do like the more realistic Bonds OHMSS being my favorite movie and also my favorite book,but I just don't get Craigs Bond. Mabey given time in a couple of years I'll be on here saying how foolish I was and how all you guys were right It just took me a little longer to get the big picture.
But for the moment I miss the character I grew up watching from my schooldays, for the moment the only place I can see him in is my Box set.

Sir Miles

Thunderpussy wrote:

He was pretty good in CR but IMHO he's not that good of an actor, In QOS he was as good as Chuck Norris etc.And I would suggest that the box office from his own movies proves that he may be a star as Bond but not on his own.

Chuck Norris ? I'll have to take that with a 'pinch of salt' - because if your being serious...?...

Like Dalton, Craig is a great actor....maybe too good for Bond ? I think Dalton suffered with this, he also wanted to 'flesh out' the character of Bond, some people just don't want that. That's okay, no problem...but I'm a little older now and would really like some 'story' to crop up from film to film
The question of box-office is a good one, then again Craig has hardly been one for going for 'main-stream' Hollywood blockbuster type films has he ? When he does - then we can judge. His Bond box office is incredible though - both films have made LOTS of money at the box office.

Thunderpussy wrote:

The formula is not mine, I thought it was well know to Bond fans...

It is...I was merely referencing the fact that YOU had mentioned it...not that YOU had invented it. English - blooming confusing at times )

Thunderpussy wrote:

I have to say that I'm not bored by any of the Bond movies watching them over and over again.But I do have a problem with QOS as it's Badly made,I'll not go over the lazy film making problems I've seen in it, that IMHO proves it was a thrown together project.
The funny thing is I do like the more realistic Bonds OHMSS being my favorite movie and also my favorite book,but I just don't get Craigs Bond. Mabey given time in a couple of years I'll be on here saying how foolish I was and how all you guys were right It just took me a little longer to get the big picture.
But for the moment I miss the character I grew up watching from my schooldays, for the moment the only place I can see him in is my Box set.

QoS is the 'marmite Bond film' ) I love it....it's not perfect...it's not CR...but I love it.
OHMSS is my favourite too ( along with CR ).

You see....I missed him too...during the Brosnan reign....Brosnan was a good Bond...he just wasn't MY Bond...plus he got duff scripts IMO. I enjoyed the Brosnan films...just as I enjoyed the Moore films too....I just prefer the Dalton and Craig versions....give it a few years and you will get YOUR Bond back...then I can have a good old moan !

Thunderpussy

I like the marmite Bond Film idea, and I'll run with it.I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed for the next one and hope they put at least some of the old formula back.But it is nice to have some where to moan )

Napoleon Plural

Well, what more can I say? I think Craig is a great marketing idea, and I think the producers are great at marketing the films, less so at making them. He really is different to the other actors in the role, a total original and you can't deny the shake-up and refreshing of the franchise. On the other hand, though he may be good as an actor, he may not be that good for Bond imo. I don't think one-liners are within his range, though he's not as bad as Dalton or Lazenby. So grounded in reality is he at the expense of that leading man model good looks, it makes it harder to swallow the implausible aspect of Bond.

As for the formula, the main prob imo is that the writers are just rubbish at coming out with good jokes, interesting scenarios, great villains. Without that, it's like what's the point of life/the series? It's like if you can't enjoy a bit of banter during the day, or face a challenge, you may as well be sat in your room moping about life (or, er on a chatroom ) and it's partly for that reason, Bond has gone in that direction.