Your feelings about the future? (Spoilers)

Smoke_13

I'm curious folks, does the end of the movie make you feel that we're returning to the "Cookie Cutter" Bond movie formula? I won't waste anybody's time walking through it, as most of us all know what I'm referring to.

Skyfall's Bond also featured a lot more wit and one-liners. I feel Bond had a bit of glibness to his character. I'm not altogether thrilled about it. I really felt that Casino Royale got extremely close to what I felt was Flemings version of Bond. Now I feel we're going to be drifting away from that type of Bond again.

To me, Flemings Bond was a man who endures tremendous abuse, a man who gets scared, a man who occasionally doubts himself and his survival, but regardless of circumstance, or pain, he's a man who always seems to find a way to conquer those inner and outer demons and forge on because his incredible will to survive is only matched by his unflappable sense of duty.

Simply put, I like my Bond stressed - not glib and assured all the time.

So, my opinion states pretty clearly that I'm a bit uneasy as to where Bond is headed. It's just an opinion, so of course it's neither right nor wrong. But I am curious, what is the opinion of the AJB Bond fans about where Bond's character is headed after seeing Skyfall and how you all feel about it?

Smoke_13

Come on people. Over 50 views and no response? It's really just an opinion thread. How do you feel about where the films and character are headed? -{ As I said, there's no right or wrong here - just opinions. -{ Cheers!

DTReinsma

I see many comparisons to the Fleming Bond but the truth is the cinematic Bond is another animal at this point. We expect certain things from our cinematic Bond and I do not feel the two should be compared anymore. Most of us were upset that the gun barrel sequence wasn't at the beginning. It is less than 30 seconds but is tradition and altering that caused quite a stir.

Le Samourai

Smoke_13,

I'm a huge fan of the direction the Bond films have taken under Craig's tenure. Like you, I prefer a more Fleming-based Bond, not the caricature created by the filmmakers back in the 1960s. I am not one of those crying over the placement of the gun barrel or lack of gadgets or a young Q, etc.

That being said, I feel good about the current direction of the series. I think 'Skyfall' did an excellent job of incorporating elements of so-called traditional Bond films while still remaining fresh and exciting and maintaining a Fleming-esque feel. Plus, Bondian film tropes were not merely repeated but tweaked and reformulated.

I believe future films may continue this trend, but I don't think we are about to return to the days of cookie-cutter Bond movies. In other words, I think we'll see elements of the classic formula without the films themselves being formulaic. The producers have come too far to turn back now and start churning out endless remakes of 'Goldfinger' again.

The impression I get is that the Bond movies are going to reflect the famous quote by Somerset Maugham - "Tradition is a guide and not a jailer."

Lexi

Le Samourai wrote:

Smoke_13,

I'm a huge fan of the direction the Bond films have taken under Craig's tenure. Like you, I prefer a more Fleming-based Bond, not the caricature created by the filmmakers back in the 1960s. I am not one of those crying over the placement of the gun barrel or lack of gadgets or a young Q, etc.

That being said, I feel good about the current direction of the series. I think 'Skyfall' did an excellent job of incorporating elements of so-called traditional Bond films while still remaining fresh and exciting and maintaining a Fleming-esque feel. Plus, Bondian film tropes were not merely repeated but tweaked and reformulated.

I believe future films may continue this trend, but I don't think we are about to return to the days of cookie-cutter Bond movies. In other words, I think we'll see elements of the classic formula without the films themselves being formulaic. The producers have come too far to turn back now and start churning out endless remakes of 'Goldfinger' again.

The impression I get is that the Bond movies are going to reflect the famous quote by Somerset Maugham - "Tradition is a guide and not a jailer."

I also think it depends on the Director.... although I do feel Craig has an input in the direction of the movies - but I do think that we are going to see more Skyfall style Bond movies from now on... I loved CR (and QoS) and I'm struggling to place SF...

What would I like to see?

I want to see Bond back in action - ready to rock and roll....a decent villian (or organisation) for him to go up against, and a girl that lasts more than 3 scenes ) I'd lke 1 location that is exotic, but where we stay... to get some depth of where he is, and what he's up to.... and more time with Q.

Will we get that? No idea... but as long as Craig is Bond for at least 1 more, then I'll be happy -{

Thunderpussy

I for one feel much Happier with the direction they now seem to be on.
They at least have learnet a lot from QOS ( Hence the change ) and have
brought in many of the changes I wanted. ( Yes I do hold that kind of power )
Craig himself seems more at ease in Skyfall than in his first two, and I think
that helps an audience. If Bond looks like hes having fun so do the viewers.
Only my Opinion But they seem to be on the same critical and Popular high
thay had with CR ( lost it with QOS ) so hopefully can carry this forward to the
next adventure.

zaphod

I think we at a genuine cusp. Skyfall leaves us with a padded leather door, a male M and Moneypenny.it could continue along either path, all options are open. I hope it continues in it's current trajectory,but incorporates some sense of pleasure derived from his 'tough life' I would also really like to see further instalments be unconnected with a central characters past (we have had far, far too much of that in recent times.

For me Skyfall is either an ending or a beginning. in my perfect Bondiverse DC bails out now and leaves the path clear having got us to this place.

Virgil37

It´s obvious that the reboot is now complete; Moneypenny, the padded door, the old office, Q, male M...It´s back to square one, to just before Dr. No. So, IMO it would be a great idea to just re-do the old ones. It´s been over half a century now. It would be just perfect to re-visit and re-interpret the classic novels. They have a big new audience in their hands and they could take them wherever they wanted to.

Gala Brand

Now that Bond's parents have been introduced, the series could do something with that. Bond's father worked for an armaments company, but I read somewhere there was a theory that one or both parents was a spy and the mountain climbing accident was really no accident. If Bond were to find out and start his own investigation, that plot line could occupy a couple of films.

Gassy Man

I thought all along this was the direction they were headed. The casting of Craig as a more Connery-esque type of man rather than a male model was a step in that direction. I fully expect the next film to be essentially a traditional Bond movie, with Craig settling into a portrayal closer to that of the traditional Bond. The only problem is that Craig seems to be aging a lot faster than he should be. He and I are almost exactly the same age, and though I'm told I look young for my age, there's no doubt Craig is looking much older than his 44 years.

I do wish, though, that it hadn't taken three films to essentially get us to the point where Bond is ready to be Bond again. With a reworked PTS, Skyfall could have served as the second film in the series, resolving the Casino Royale storyline and getting Bond back to speed. It's not so much that Quantum of Solace bothers me as the second film so much as it's taken six years to essentially get us to the point where the Bond films as we have understood them can be done again, albeit with a more masculine Bond and a stronger commitment to producing 007 films instead of movies.

thegoldengunguy

I kind of agree with Virgil37 actually. I was thinking that perhaps redoing some of the old films may not be such a bad idea! Or more specifically, redo them but make them much closer to the books. I would love to see a remake of Live and Let Die that sticks to the original formula of the book!

What I personally think will happen though? Craig will stay on for a while (he signed on for quite a few more didn't he?) and the new films will be a bit more back to basics with Moneypenny, M and Q scenes. But the movies will still have the darker and more intense vibe Craig brings with him. I don't see this as a bad thing though. I mean we haven't had a "cookiecutter formula" Bond film like that in a long long time. I think it would be nice to go back to that for a little bit.

That is one thing about Skyfall I found so brilliant! The film has this whole "brave new world" out with the old and in with the new feel. But at the same time they bring back so many old classic Bond elements and they do it flawlessly! :007) Good time to be a Bond fan I think.

Thunderbird 2

Virgil37 wrote:

So, IMO it would be a great idea to just re-do the old ones. It´s been over half a century now. It would be just perfect to re-visit and re-interpret the classic novels. They have a big new audience in their hands and they could take them wherever they wanted to.

Awful idea. I'd be bloody annoyed to go the cinema after a two year wait to see Dr No-Yes-No, Silverfinger or Saphires For Eternity! -0 One of the strengths of the Bond films is presenting something new and a bit different. Its easy for me I suppose, I like all the film styles form the heady 60's glamour of Connery, to the Uber villains and their secret armies of the Moore years through the 90's post Cold War colour of the Brosnan years. I agree that CR was great because it lifted elements from Fleming direct with a modernised twist, but if anything Skyfall has highlighted a new element needs to be included next time round, and I don't envy Mr Wilson & Ms Broccoli on working out what it will be.

Re references to Bond's history we can't assume anything. DTR makes a good point about the films doing their own thing, and its a good idea to keep that in mind. Skyfall tells us who his parents were, and where he grew up. Anything else would be speculation on our part at this stage, since we don't know how much will be lifted from the books and what will be invented for the benefit of future films in their storylines. For example I understand literary Bond had an Aunt Charmain who cared for him after his parents died? - I assumed Vesper was unconsciously referencing her as the source of Bond being able to attend Oxford / Cambridge, but there is no evidence to support this in the films so far.

As to QoS, I will always see it now as the film that was a waste of time. A serious wring turn in style and content. Fortunately in spite of some glaring narrative gaffs, Skyfall gets things back on track. Here's hoping that the next film maintains the standard,while giving a new and original story that does not lean on the past. (I only hope Logan gets it right - Star Trek Nemesis was crap!!) Re the cast and production personell, they know there stuff and Mr Craig is a brilliant Bond.

Donald Grant

I like the direction Broccoli and Wilson have gone. Bond of the novels is person who drinks too much, smokes too much and and in general lives too much because of the soul erosion that his job causes. Nevertheless M ,in his obituary to Bond (literary), says Bond has the "Nelson touch".
That means that when the chips are down and all seems lost, Bond has the ability to succeed like Admiral Horatio Nelson*.


When Nelson began to form his line during the battle of Trafalgar ( a line that ran perpendicular to the enemy rather than parallel as was common practice at that time), Nelson signaled by code flag "England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty". In this new imagining, James Bond, despite his foibles and failings will always do his duty and come through in a pinch.

I like it. Bond is Patriot but he is also an outsider, a loner and breaks the rules. Put simply, Bond is not perfect, but he is perfectly suited to his job. Keep it going EON!

DG

*Nelson was small of stature, had a passionate affair with a married woman, could see in only one eye, and had one arm yet he utterly defeated the French at Trafalgar and proved that England ruled the seas.

zaphod

Gala Brand wrote:

Now that Bond's parents have been introduced, the series could do something with that. Bond's father worked for an armaments company, but I read somewhere there was a theory that one or both parents was a spy and the mountain climbing accident was really no accident. If Bond were to find out and start his own investigation, that plot line could occupy a couple of films.

Enough with the back story, please no more. I don't want to know about Bond's Dog or childhood trauma. I want him to be an intelligence operative that has missions. Fleming was deliberately vague, giving us just enough to go on to flesh out the cipher into a more rounded character. Since TWINE we have to greater or lesser degrees been mining either M's past or the Bond/M relationship. Now ding-dong the witch is dead, we can get away from self referential story lines. That does not mean that there is not more to learn about the man, his interior life and psyche, far from it, but no more background please. Skyfall got away with it, but more in my view would be too much. I suspect others will disagree with me.

zaphod

Gassy Man wrote:

I thought all along this was the direction they were headed. The casting of Craig as a more Connery-esque type of man rather than a male model was a step in that direction. I fully expect the next film to be essentially a traditional Bond movie, with Craig settling into a portrayal closer to that of the traditional Bond. The only problem is that Craig seems to be aging a lot faster than he should be. He and I are almost exactly the same age, and though I'm told I look young for my age, there's no doubt Craig is looking much older than his 44 years.

I do wish, though, that it hadn't taken three films to essentially get us to the point where Bond is ready to be Bond again. With a reworked PTS, Skyfall could have served as the second film in the series, resolving the Casino Royale storyline and getting Bond back to speed. It's not so much that Quantum of Solace bothers me as the second film so much as it's taken six years to essentially get us to the point where the Bond films as we have understood them can be done again, albeit with a more masculine Bond and a stronger commitment to producing 007 films instead of movies.

I agree. Bond is primed to be Bond again, but with a story that has already played the old Warhorse schtick. Are we know to have amnesia re Skyfall and accept Daniel as a prime of life Bond mid career in 24? This for me is why it would be right for DC to leave it here. He has done a fine job, but as you point out diminishing returns set in after this point.

Donald Grant

I think that EON should be able to delve into Bond's backstory in as much as Fleming did it in his novels. In other words, it should not dominate the story lines, but you should be given glimpses of Bond's background.

DG

Lexi

zaphod wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

Now that Bond's parents have been introduced, the series could do something with that. Bond's father worked for an armaments company, but I read somewhere there was a theory that one or both parents was a spy and the mountain climbing accident was really no accident. If Bond were to find out and start his own investigation, that plot line could occupy a couple of films.

Enough with the back story, please no more. I don't want to know about Bond's Dog or childhood trauma. I want him to be an intelligence operative that has missions. Fleming was deliberately vague, giving us just enough to go on to flesh out the cipher into a more rounded character. Since TWINE we have to greater or lesser degrees been mining either M's past or the Bond/M relationship. Now ding-dong the witch is dead, we can get away from self referential story lines. That does not mean that there is not more to learn about the man, his interior life and psyche, far from it, but no more background please. Skyfall got away with it, but more in my view would be too much. I suspect others will disagree with me.

Nope, I agree with you. -{

As much as I love to know the back story and the psychology of what makes someone tick, I think we've seen this now with the last 3 movies (all rather self indulgent, but loved them... :x ) Now it's time to move on...

That's why it was so lovely to see the padded door, the more traditional M, Moneypenny.... it's like Bond is back to how we we were introduced to him...(in Dr No)

Although please, let's not make any remakes of past Bond movies... but let's do get on with the story!

Donald Grant

I think all the elements, new M, Q, Moneypenny, Bond and the padded door, as it were, are somewhat of a signal to a return of old Bond. However all these elements are a twist on the old. So, I'm hopeful that the new stories will have a twist as well. I don't want to see the same old missions and the same old Bond, it's been done to death.

DG

Colonel Shatner

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

As to QoS, I will always see it now as the film that was a waste of time. A serious wring turn in style and content.

The style and content of QoS is very similar to the other two Craig movies, only its execution seemed a bit rushed and unfocused in comparison. It will be more of a wasted effort if Quantum and Mr. White (nicely introduced in CR and a bit more fleshed out in QoS) get dumped permanently.

Virgil37

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

Awful idea. I'd be bloody annoyed to go the cinema after a two year wait to see Dr No-Yes-No, Silverfinger or Saphires For Eternity! -0 One of the strengths of the Bond films is presenting something new and a bit different. .

My point is that they could do something new and different with the old stories, they could re-interpret the novels and adapt them to the XXI century. They never did that before. However, I think next time around they are going to do a traditional Bond, gunbarrel first, Moneypenny, M´s office...

Shatterhand67

With this being the 50th anniversary year, I thought the homages they sprinkled into the SKYFALL story were terrific. The ending was outstanding. Perfect way to introduce Monneypenny and the new M. Same old familiar office. I wouldn't be too concerned about a return to the 1970's Bond. I think it's a great way to honor the past of the franchise and yet set the tone for the future. What's new is old. Bond told M (appropriately) that "we're going into the past."

There were a lot of elements I read that Craig wanted to introduce over the years that I wasn't too thrilled with...him stating he wanted Bond to do a gay scene for instance. However, it looks like that was worked into the SKYFALL plot if you want to count his initial conversation with Silva. And you know what...it worked. Very creepy scene, but one of the movie's most memorable moments.

I think the new Moneypenny is gorgeous and she and Craig obviously get on well on screen. I like the back story that Moneypenny was an agent that came out of the field. I remember reading an interview with Lois Maxwell years ago and that's the way she always looked at Moneypenny.

I also think Ralph Fiennes is an excellent choice to play M. I can go either way on the actor who played Q. But you put all of these things together and it completes the reboot that was started several years ago with Casino Royale.

I think most fans are glad to see the return of Moneypenny and Q; and I for one love the fact that M has the old familiar office. I am sure they will keep Bond story lines up with the times and hope that Craig makes at least two more movies...which should put him right around 50 when he's done...although I'd like to see him continue beyond that.

I keep thinking of the T.S. Elliott quote: "We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. "

thegoldengunguy

My point is that they could do something new and different with the old stories, they could re-interpret the novels and adapt them to the XXI century. They never did that before. However, I think next time around they are going to do a traditional Bond, gunbarrel first, Moneypenny, M´s office...

Once again I agree with you. Though I don't think this is necesarry I just think it would be kind of interesting.... if they they took more from the original novels and then updated them for a modern day film. If they did that I don't think the issue of "it's been done to death" would be relevant.

But yeah I think you're right. The next film will hopefully begin with a gunbarrel, have an unrelated PTS and then begin the story after the title song. Then show the Bond/Moneypenny banter and have the M and Q scene! I wouldn't mind this at all.

toutbrun

Obviously we will never go back to the way-too-light Roger Moore style. Pierce was very charming and that could be incorporated in the future. But movies in general are in a darker place, more action and violence oriented, and it's hard to see how that will go away.

Virgil37

thegoldengunguy wrote:

But yeah I think you're right. The next film will hopefully begin with a gunbarrel, have an unrelated PTS and then begin the story after the title song. Then show the Bond/Moneypenny banter and have the M and Q scene! I wouldn't mind this at all.

I just got "The James Bond 007 Archives", fantastic coffe table book from Taschen. In the TLD entry, it explains more in detail what Michael G Wilson hints in the TLD DVD about "exploring Bond´s beginnings". A first treatment was submitted on 25th october 1985, entitled"Bond XV", and the story has two key elements that they used in CR and SF: The first two kills, and going back to his parents house in Scottland. That treatment ended with Bond getting his 007 number and being informed that his next task would be "investigating a certain Dr. No in Jamaica". IMO they have been toying with the idea for a while.

Going back to the Batman comparison, just imagine what we would have lost if someone had said, "naahh, the Joker again...? we did that already and Nicholson is the Joker...no way". ´

IMO, the next film will be a traditional one, probably the last usable Fleming title, "Risico", and with all the traditional elements. And the next, probably Craig´s last, will be the first of the remakes of the Fleming novels. We are now prepared for that, that´s the whole point of the reboot. They had us all cheering just by putting Craig in the old office with padded door! We would surely accept a new LALD, OHMSS,...

LastRatStanding

Personally I cringed a little when we seen Bonds parents grave in Skyfall. Although saying that I was so scared for the duration of the movie that Silva or M was going to be related to him in some way - so seeing his parents names on the grave put that to rest, but only after 2 hours of fearing it. I heard there was a "great twist" at the end and was scared that it would be that. I like that they have rounded off skyfall with the new M, new Moneypenny, new Q and padded door thing, it gives us a starting point for the next film. I wouldn't like to the see the next 20 years of films being standard structure Bond adventures but I'd like Craig to at least be in one. Casino Royale was a clear re-boot but it wasn't a 'classic' (Not a bad thing at all) and after the unstructured Quantum and the new direction in Skyfall (also not a bad thing) I'd like to see Craig pass over the flame after he's completed a good old Classic. I really think he could finish off his reign as Bond amazingly in a film that can be described as a classic. I'd love to see him in farfetched action scenes - Dalton was as close as we've came to the Fleming Bond and he still managed to escape down a snowy hill in a Cello case after dismantling an enemy vehicle with a laser. I'd also like to see Craig in the naval uniform (theres a thread about it somewhere) and perhaps toss a bowler on the hat-stand! If the next Bond film has proper classic moments like that in it - and maybe even an extended car chase and a Bond girl that actually lasts through the entire film if we're lucky, I'll be very pleased. However if the next 20 years of Bonds all follow this formula then it may lose its 'freshness'. I'm only really in the mood for a Classic bond film because its been over 10 years since we had one. Admittedly though, I do approve of the new direction Craig has taken.

Jimatay

I would like to see Bond on a normal mission for the next films. The becoming Bond has been done now. Done well, but done. They can still keep the same vibe as they have been since CR (the more down to earth) but still have a CLASSIC Bond mission. Gunbarrel at the start, a PTS, Plot point, Bond called into M's office, Q scene, off he trots to the mission.

Napoleon Plural

Don't care for future Bond, think they've blown it. Would like a wintery Craig Bond, all Scandinavia and New York actually if pushed, but otherwise if the had a new cheeky chappy Henry Cavill Bond for the next one, starting off where Craig left off with a fresh start, I wouldn't mind frankly. In the fact the more I think about it, I would rather leave the Craig era as a bad dream, like Bobby Ewing in the shower. It just seems to go nowhere, and unconvincingly at that.

The big problem is villains. When M blathers on about not knowing who the villains are in today's world, they are just referring to the scriptwriters' dilemma. And the problem comes from Bond being so damned iconic, he hardly gets any screentime with the villains in the last few films, there is really no developing relationship allowed. Esp in the last one. The villains are just not allowed to 'own' the movie in any way, I mean Bardem was in it for what half an hour. With a late, unconvincing entrance. It's no Lector, or Colonel Jessop.

HowardB

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Don't care for future Bond, think they've blown it. Would like a wintery Craig Bond, all Scandinavia and New York actually if pushed, but otherwise if the had a new cheeky chappy Henry Cavill Bond for the next one, starting off where Craig left off with a fresh start, I wouldn't mind frankly. In the fact the more I think about it, I would rather leave the Craig era as a bad dream, like Bobby Ewing in the shower. It just seems to go nowhere, and unconvincingly at that.

The big problem is villains. When M blathers on about not knowing who the villains are in today's world, they are just referring to the scriptwriters' dilemma. And the problem comes from Bond being so damned iconic, he hardly gets any screentime with the villains in the last few films, there is really no developing relationship allowed. Esp in the last one. The villains are just not allowed to 'own' the movie in any way, I mean Bardem was in it for what half an hour. With a late, unconvincing entrance. It's no Lector, or Colonel Jessop.

"Skyfall" just pulled in a record breaking 87 million opening weekend in the US and Canada. I don't think EON would be on board with replacing DC at this time......

Blackleiter

I'm with you on this one.

Shatterhand67 wrote:

With this being the 50th anniversary year, I thought the homages they sprinkled into the SKYFALL story were terrific. The ending was outstanding. Perfect way to introduce Monneypenny and the new M. Same old familiar office. I wouldn't be too concerned about a return to the 1970's Bond. I think it's a great way to honor the past of the franchise and yet set the tone for the future. What's new is old. Bond told M (appropriately) that "we're going into the past."

There were a lot of elements I read that Craig wanted to introduce over the years that I wasn't too thrilled with...him stating he wanted Bond to do a gay scene for instance. However, it looks like that was worked into the SKYFALL plot if you want to count his initial conversation with Silva. And you know what...it worked. Very creepy scene, but one of the movie's most memorable moments.

I think the new Moneypenny is gorgeous and she and Craig obviously get on well on screen. I like the back story that Moneypenny was an agent that came out of the field. I remember reading an interview with Lois Maxwell years ago and that's the way she always looked at Moneypenny.

I also think Ralph Fiennes is an excellent choice to play M. I can go either way on the actor who played Q. But you put all of these things together and it completes the reboot that was started several years ago with Casino Royale.

I think most fans are glad to see the return of Moneypenny and Q; and I for one love the fact that M has the old familiar office. I am sure they will keep Bond story lines up with the times and hope that Craig makes at least two more movies...which should put him right around 50 when he's done...although I'd like to see him continue beyond that.

I keep thinking of the T.S. Elliott quote: "We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. "