Daniel Craig - 'We've started something here'
Halcon
Zen TemplePosts: 487MI6 Agent
On the premier date of Skyfall, Craig is interviewed and he states that 'We've started something here' and that he would like to see the series continue from where this one left off...
This lead me to believe that in fact the previous two films were largely ignored and that the series had in fact
're-started' yet again.
the movies have taken a turn for the better, and Mendes' interpretation has opened the door for some fabolous ideas and concepts involving Bond (ex- doing FRWL type spy films), not unlike what's happened to Batman or the Spiderman films.
i can see a director doing a full blown 'period' piece, completely set in the 60's, with additional adventures involving Blofield...i for one would be a tad excited over this.
This lead me to believe that in fact the previous two films were largely ignored and that the series had in fact
're-started' yet again.
the movies have taken a turn for the better, and Mendes' interpretation has opened the door for some fabolous ideas and concepts involving Bond (ex- doing FRWL type spy films), not unlike what's happened to Batman or the Spiderman films.
i can see a director doing a full blown 'period' piece, completely set in the 60's, with additional adventures involving Blofield...i for one would be a tad excited over this.
Comments
If they can't come up with new inventive ideas and good villains.
Then it's time to stop the series.
Me to. If they remake anything then the whole thing does become 'a relic of the Cold War ', a historical curio rather than a living thing.
+1
I can't stand the idea of resurrecting SPECTRE etc etc.
The days of white cats, bald bad guys and volcano lairs are hopefully over.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
As far as Bond going back to the 60s...I think that would be a bad Idea. Those films have already been made. However, sometimes it takes digging into the past to keep a series current. If they are done well, I wouldn't mind seeing a period Bond films or two--perhaps md-50s, and maybe even based closely on the books. I've always felt that "You Only Live Twice" could stand for a more literal adaptation.
"Governments change. The lies stay the same."
"They say you're judged by the strength of your enemies."
Think about how badly Tracy's death revenge was handled in DAF, it was a 'mother' of a dropped ball.
How about going back and re-doing the sequence turning it into a full movie? You'd have all the elements of a great Bond film surrounding a simple idea, with wonderfully nostalgic touches to boot.
I'm actually serious.
Good idea, but how about filming Ian Fleming's untouched TSWLM novel in the style of CR 06? By which I mean using the book's plot as far as possible with updating where needed, added action scenes integrated into the plot, etc. Drop Viv's backstory or severely compress it, anyway; have some fun with making Horror (and Sluggsy) memorable without invoking Jaws.
It would be particularly nice to see that moment, perhaps the best in the book, where the threatened and badly frightened Viv opens the door to the man who will save her- the spy who will love her. Strangely enough, speaking as a non-Craig fan, I think he would do very well in this one.
Edit- though of course this could never happen.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
agreed even though some of them are shocking and deserve a proper remake but they are what they are flaws and all . New stories are needed.
Well, they did royally screw up the revenge story that was supposed to come after OHMSS. And you can't tell me otherwise, God damn it!
If they were to update the OHMSS storyline (for modern times) while still keeping the point of the original storyline intact, and then follow that up with a proper revenge story, (You Only Live Twice; the Ian Fleming vengeance story set in Japan) that would be absolutely perfect!
Alright. When you put it that way, I suppose remaking OHMSS (and updating it) and then subsequently remaking YOLT (properly this time by following the original source material) is a bit of an outrageous proposition...But isn't that also partly because Hollywood has a reputation for making "bad" remakes? I mean, Hollywood has had so many bad remakes that they tend to overshadow the good ones, don't they?
What if the next Bond movie was something set in the middle east. With all the unrest over in Israel, Gaza, Syria, etc. it would be relevant. The plot could deal with a terrorist group trying to manipulate Israel and the U.S. and Syria, Iran, and Gaza into starting yet another war to basically drain all parties economically, therefore creating world turmoil and re-structuring the world super-powers all to their advantage and profit.
Just an idea....
Also, I would love to see Fleming's Bond novels all re-done eventually. But not now. Eon does have something going on now, and Bond is relevant again. It would be a shame to ruin that. EON could maybe do the Flemming Bonds independently of the continuing original bonds maybe 20 years or so down the road. Maybe update them slightly and add a little modernization to them, but not enough to take away from them. Personally, I hate the movie LALD.... But the novel is one of my favorites.
Just my 2 useless cents.
I'll admit that although I'm completely against remaking any of the films, a remake of a few would be very interesting to see. I just couldn't stand the idea of the whole lot being remade from here and a bunch of new fans who, although always welcome, say stuff like "But the old ones are so old! OHMSS 2018 is much better!!!111 xD". As interesting as it would be to watch there would always be something about it that annoyed me. Also, I love George Lazenby and to take away his only outing as Bond by remaking it would not only be an insult to his performance but also to his decision to leave the franchise.
I'd be a lot more open to remaking Diamonds Are Forever to include more revenge for Tracy's death but even then I think the idea is stupid.
Well, one of the criticisms of On Her Majesty's Secret Service has always been George Lazenby. And it's certainly a valid criticism that I can get behind. The criticism being that George is not an interesting enough leading man, (at least not in Majesty) and therefore it's not fun to watch Lazenby do the legwork of a spy. And it probably would've been much more fun to watch another actor (who has a similar style to Cary Grant) doing the legwork of a spy in Majesty.
The closest actor, we've ever gotten to Cary Grant is Roger Moore, but personally, I like Cary Grant better.
Also, if I had my way the Ian Fleming published, You Only Live Twice novel, would get a proper translation from the written page to the silver screen. But of course it would be updated and modernized for a new generation of Bond fans, as would it's prequel On Her Majesty's Secret Service but Majesty would get a much more charismatic leading man, (who has a lot of acting experience under his belt) and the leading man would have an actor's director helping him bring some gravitas to the picture. As opposed to an editor-turned-director whom couldn't help Lazenby at all. (As far a director actually directing a lead actor in a film production is concerned.)
Yeah, I suppose OHMSS would be better with a leading man who actually had some acting experience :007)
But personally I really liked Lazenby and will always sit disappointed that he never did any more. I think OHMSS is a stand alone film; it really is so different from any other Bond adventure and I think, although Lazenby and the film itself don't get as much credit as they deserve with the majority of fans, to remake the film would be interesting but also degrading to the original.
OHMSS is of course, not perfect. But there isn't really a 'perfect' Bond film to me and considering it was Lazenby's first ever leading role and the first film to not star Connery, it's very good. The only remake I could stand would be Diamonds Are Forever and even then that would only be acceptable if it was a revenge-for-his-dead-wife adventure that took the PTS from DAF and developed it into a full movie. So not really a remake as such, but something that gives the ending of OHMSS what it deserves.
I know, I'm probably talking to a brick wall here but I think everybody's problem (including my own) is the fact that George Lazenby just wasn't a strong enough leading man to carry a film like On Her Majesty's Secret Service. In fact Lazenby, himself, believed that a movie like Majesty was the wrong place for him to start at. Because George was very green, and Peter R. Hunt wasn't a miracle worker by any stretch of the imagination.
By the way, I believe that IF any James Bond picture were to be remade it would have to be Majesty and You Only Live Twice. In that particular, GOD. DAMN. ORDER. Because you need to have a charismatic leading man, (with acting experience) being James Bond in a modern day update of Majesty, and then when Tracy Bond dies again, you can finally see James Bond going back to Japan to claim his vengeance. (And it's the same actor from the Majesty remake who strangles Ernst Starvo Blofeld to death.)
Because that's how it happened in the Ian Fleming books, and that's how it should happen in the live-action films.
As much as I'd like to see that, I sincerely doubt that John Logan is writing modern day adaptation updates of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and You Only Live Twice. Because director Sam Mendes, and writer John Logan, seem more interested in having topical Bond films---Basically James Bond movies that pay more attention to the world they live in. Because it's always interesting to weave real life drama into a James Bondian world.
Also, I doubt that Daniel Craig would wanna stay for seven films like Roger Moore did. Because Daniel ain't getting any younger and I believe those stunts will begin to hurt once he reaches age fifty.
Agree 1000% Not Fleming. Not Bond.
Just because they ignored the story line from CR and QOS doesnt mean the series has restarted.
Did the series restart in GF since they ignored the whole Spectre plot established in DN and FRWL?
Did they restart it in OHMSS when they basically ignored the fact that Bond and Blofeld had already met face to face in YOLT?
Or did they restart it in DAF when the entirety of OHMSS was ignored?
This is why I don't get why people where so upset with the CR "reboot". The series is so inconsistent to begin with it doesn't matter. Bond movies have always been great at ignoring the previous films when convenient.
Although I do believe that a much more faithful YOLT can be made by changing the title, the name of the villain and setting. Theres a lot of untapped story in that book. Perhaps they could just use "Shatterhand" for the villain and use it for the title as well.
Yes, a "Shatterhand" movie based upon the You Only Live Twice novel would be great, but don't you see that there's a whole other world of cinema that James Bond hasn't really played around in? Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were accused of being like the Jason Bourne movies and Sam Mendes, himself has openly said that Skyfall took inspiration from The Dark Knight. Not, The Dark Knight Rises, but The Dark Knight. Period.
And other Bond films have done this. Live and Let Die took inspiration from the blacksploitation films of the 1970's. The Man with the Golden Gun took inspiration from the Karate films of the 1970's. And Moonraker was basically Star Wars with an Earthly setting and the James Bond character. Die Another Day tried to be like the CGI fantasy films from the early 2000's.
But the James Bond movies haven't really dipped their toes into the world of film remakes, have they? I know not everybody likes the idea of a remake, but if you look for the bad in something; you're always going to find it. But if you look for the good in something; it's THAT much harder to find it, isn't it? I believe there have been good remakes, here and there; but they're few and far between. And they are always nitpickers out there, who will look for the worst in everything. And unfortunately, looking for the worst in everything is not something that is hard to do. Quite the opposite, in fact.