SkyFall & Beyond: Do the producers want classic Bond back or not then?

scottmu65

First of all, don't get me wrong, I loved Skyfall, I saw it multiple times at the Cinema and even more since it was released on DVD but there has been something on my mind about the whole thing, I will try to make as much sense of it as possible as I would love to hear other peoples views on it, whether they are fans of the film or not. I apologize if I end up babbling on making little sense.

So Casino Royale ended up 'rebooting' (hate that term) the franchise, the producer's wanted to start again with Ian Fleming's first Bond story and reintroduce our beloved character and bring him into the 21st century, they wanted a more modern, less 'fantastical', realistic and human Bond. All of this is fine, but what I do not understand is this, since Casino Royale the direction the Bond franchise was taken in has received ALOT of praise by fans and critics alike, but in each of Daniel Craig's Bond films there has always been the claim that this is how Bond becomes Bond, e.g.

Casino Royale: This is how Bond becomes 007, gets his license to kill, becomes the character we know and love, even going as far as to give the gunbarrel sequence a backstory (a nice touch btw)

Quantum of Solace: OK, actually this is the film where Bond becomes the character you know and love (after he gets his revenge for Vespa despite the fact that he used the 'The bitch is dead' line to emphasize the fact that he doesn't care any more and has become cold and emotionless towards it all.

Skyfall: Actually, forget all that, this is where we find out what Bond is about and how he becomes who he is through a metaphorical 'rebirth' process after a job gone wrong, this is where we meet Q and Moneypenny and get a proper introduction of a new M for the first time then getting a classic 'Ms Office' scene then a gunbarrel sequence thus bringing everything full circle and showing us that Bond is definitely back...

I guess my question is what exactly are the producers doing? I thought they wanted this new, more down to earth Bond but then Skyfall comes along and all they talk about is bringing 'Classic Bond' back, are they bored of the reboot series and want to bring back some normality for the series or was it all just a gimmick for the 50th Anniversary, will they disregard all of the classic elements from Skyfall in the next installment, i.e. Car with weapons and gadgets, Classic M's office, over the top villains? I think personally I want classic Bond back, but I think that they should choose one direction and stick to it, I mean how many times can they re-introduce Daniel Craig as Bond? As in my eyes he hasn't actually had a proper stand-alone Bond film yet that doesn't focus on Bond's character development.

I understand that I may just be reading into this too much but surely I am not the only person who holds the same view?

Barbel

No, you're not alone. Bond 24 should clearly be a standard Bond assignment without personal implications.

don p

i think the whole reboot is now complete, the 3 movies have brought all the main people together now, and my opinion is we should get a classic bond next set in modern era
why bring in moneypenny, and Q if not to restart the Bond /moneypenny relationship. and Q if not to bring in good gadgets
Q did say, "we dont do exploding pens now" which is a hint of things to come,

scottmu65

He said, "We don't go in for that anymore", meaning those types of gadgets were outdated and old in the new age of computers/hacking etc.

Napoleon Plural

It is tricky, because presumably the whole 'let's have M's old office with padded door' thing was Mendes' idea, but if so, he's not around to see it through. And that's the prob with hiring 'name-ish' directors for Bond rather than journeymen or efficient hired hands; they tend to impose their vision on things, but another director has to pick up from there and run with the ball.

So Campbell's successor has to go with Craig's vision on how to play Bond (shaped by the director surely), the casting of Leiter, the continuance of Dench as M, and follow up the Quantum story. Along with Bond's shadowy back story and talk of a guardian. Not saying that is all wrong, but really it should be Campbell's responsibility if he has any clue as to where it's going.

Now Mendes' successor has to go with a new Moneypenny, Fiennes as M, no Aston Martin DB5 - but where to? I suppose in other respects the slate is wiped clean.

superdaddy

don p wrote:

i think the whole reboot is now complete, the 3 movies have brought all the main people together now, and my opinion is we should get a classic bond next set in modern era
why bring in moneypenny, and Q if not to restart the Bond /moneypenny relationship. and Q if not to bring in good gadgets
Q did say, "we dont do exploding pens now" which is a hint of things to come,

And it's taken 3 bloody films to do what they did with one in Dr No I.e introduce all the characters,absolute joke IMHO.

Napoleon Plural

Yes and no, it gives them something else to do and has generated a lot of interest. I don't care for how they've gone about it, but it is interesting. Some of us feel a bit deprived though!

Lady Rose

Napoleon Plural wrote:

It is tricky, because presumably the whole 'let's have M's old office with padded door' thing was Mendes' idea, but if so, he's not around to see it through. And that's the prob with hiring 'name-ish' directors for Bond rather than journeymen or efficient hired hands; they tend to impose their vision on things, but another director has to pick up from there and run with the ball.

I think there's a lot to be said for hiring the same director or 'efficient hired hands', especially when they are following a story arc as they have with Craig's Bond. I think then its important for the films to have the same feel or vibe.

The other problem with 'name-ish' directors is the 'putting their stamp on' it thing. Its about Flemings Bond not about it being Sam Mendes idea of Bond.

To me, the series seems a tad confused now and I think that is down to having had three separate directors . Mendes even brought in his own music guy with Thomas Newman.

I liked the series best when there was the least disruption between directors. When there was a uniformity. The Bond actors could change but on the whole it stayed the same.

I loved CR. Didn't like QoS and enjoyed SF but found bits of it rather odd.

There was a lot of SF that I liked. I like Craig as Bond and liked the new M, Q and Moneypenny
but I do think the series now needs to decide what it wants to be.

zaphod

superdaddy wrote:

don p wrote:

i think the whole reboot is now complete, the 3 movies have brought all the main people together now, and my opinion is we should get a classic bond next set in modern era
why bring in moneypenny, and Q if not to restart the Bond /moneypenny relationship. and Q if not to bring in good gadgets
Q did say, "we dont do exploding pens now" which is a hint of things to come,

And it's taken 3 bloody films to do what they did with one in Dr No I.e introduce all the characters,absolute joke IMHO.

I know, I know...we are now where we should have been if the lamentable QOS had not happened,but with a now rapidly ageing Bond who has already played the burnt out fin de siècle card and who is going to have to convince us that he is an up to snuff career prime Bond in 24.
It's going to take some doing. EON have in my view painted themselves and the franchise into a corner.

chrisisall

don p wrote:

i think the whole reboot is now complete, the 3 movies have brought all the main people together now, and my opinion is we should get a classic bond next set in modern era

THREE movies to set it up? )
Will this be standard for every new actor that takes over, then?

Sir Miles

chrisisall wrote:

don p wrote:

i think the whole reboot is now complete, the 3 movies have brought all the main people together now, and my opinion is we should get a classic bond next set in modern era

THREE movies to set it up? )
Will this be standard for every new actor that takes over, then?

If the movies are as good as the three we have had...why complain ? B-)

Blackleiter

Excellent point!

Sir Miles wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

don p wrote:

i think the whole reboot is now complete, the 3 movies have brought all the main people together now, and my opinion is we should get a classic bond next set in modern era

THREE movies to set it up? )
Will this be standard for every new actor that takes over, then?

If the movies are as good as the three we have had...why complain ? B-)

scottmu65

Sir Miles wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

don p wrote:

i think the whole reboot is now complete, the 3 movies have brought all the main people together now, and my opinion is we should get a classic bond next set in modern era

THREE movies to set it up? )
Will this be standard for every new actor that takes over, then?

If the movies are as good as the three we have had...why complain ? B-)

Three? Casino Royale, Skyfall... What was the third good movie????

chrisisall

Sir Miles wrote:

If the movies are as good as the three we have had...why complain ? B-)

Well, I like Bond adventures, not Bond personal growth documentaries. )
So far, only QOS felt to me like a proper adventure; CR was how he became a cold 00, SF was about dumping M.... if we have to RE-ESTABLISH Bond and his world with each actor now, this will be a very long century. 8-)

Thunderpussy

scottmu65 wrote :

Sir Miles wrote, 3 good movies.

Three? Casino Royale, Skyfall... What was the third good movie????

Yes, I'd be interested to know the answer to that as well .

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

scottmu65 wrote :

Sir Miles wrote, 3 good movies.
Three? Casino Royale, Skyfall... What was the third good movie????

Yes, I'd be interested to know the answer to that as well .

"How's this thread now?"
"Silly. One sympathizes."

Thunderpussy

Everyone needs a hobby... )

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

Everyone needs a hobby... )

Sir Miles

Thunderpussy wrote:

scottmu65 wrote :

Sir Miles wrote, 3 good movies.

Three? Casino Royale, Skyfall... What was the third good movie????

Yes, I'd be interested to know the answer to that as well .

Yea sorry....I know QoS was a spectacular movie...but I'm happy to downgrade it to 'good' for this

James Suzuki

Nice to see some apprecation of Quantum of Solace. Many people have nicnamed it Quantumof Bollocks but I think it is an enjoyable Bond movie with a stellar Bond in DC, some great action scenes ignoring the shaky camera and the score was pretty cool.
I'm praying for ordinary Bond with a twist. A film simliar to LALD in stlye and humour.

chrisisall

James Suzuki wrote:

Nice to see some apprecation of Quantum of Solace. Many people have nicnamed it Quantumof Bollocks but I think it is an enjoyable Bond movie with a stellar Bond in DC, some great action scenes ignoring the shaky camera and the score was pretty cool.
I'm praying for ordinary Bond with a twist. A film simliar to LALD in stlye and humour.

I agree with this entirely! -{

CmdrAtticus

chrisisall wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Everyone needs a hobby... )

DANGER WILL ROGERS..DANGER!
"I never met a robot I didn't like" - Will Rogers.

chrisisall

CmdrAtticus wrote:

DANGER WILL ROGERS..DANGER!
"I never met a robot I didn't like" - Will Rogers.

)

CmdrAtticus

I think the producers do want to do a more classical Bond next time around. CR was meant to modernize the whole series and make the character more real and relevant to this century. Using Fleming's first novel was the ideal way to do it as it was Bond's first adventure. QOS was not out of the ordinary with its continuation of Bond finding the people who blackmailed Vesper - Fleming had Bond tracking down Blofeld through several stories. It was just that the writing was not stellar because of the writer's strike which also brought about the lackluster villain and whole Bolivian water plot. Skyall to me was not about rebooting Bond or the series again - it was just about making Bond even more human as he is in the novels (the way he "died" in YOLT then was
resurrected in TMWTGG). I think they have gotten the reboot and character where they want it now and will make a "classic" and perhaps lighter Bond next time around.

Richard--W

Do the producers want classic Bond back or not then?

As I've said before:

It was never necessary to deconstruct the character of James Bond in order to update him.


What the producers want is a Jane Bond. They are out of their minds, both of them, and should be replaced by sane, rational people.

Jedi Master

don p wrote:

Q did say, "we dont do exploding pens now" which is a hint of things to come,

I hope you're right, I took that to mean "you aren't gonna see any stupid, gimicky gadgetry anymore." After all, he then gave him a gun and a radio homing device. Not exactly high tech!

Also I wish he had left it at "What were you expecting, an exploding pen?" and not added "We don't really go in for that sort of thing anymore." I don't know why but the second half of that line really annoyed me!

Richard--W wrote:

What the producers want is a Jane Bond.

If that's what they want then they probably should have cast someone with less of a penis!

Richard--W

They tried to hire Sharon Stone at one time but she laughed them right out of the office.

The Domino Effect

If I had a dollar for every time I have misread this thread as "Skyfall & Beyoncé.." and done a double-take, I'd be able to buy one of those Golden Gun thingies!

Charmed & Dangerous

Richard--W wrote:

Do the producers want classic Bond back or not then?

As I've said before:

It was never necessary to deconstruct the character of James Bond in order to update him.


What the producers want is a Jane Bond. They are out of their minds, both of them, and should be replaced by sane, rational people.

As has been stated before, Casino Royale gave the producers the opportunity to explore the origins of the Bond character, as it was the first novel and, with Vesper's death, gave Bond his raison d'être. So it's not exactly a deconstruction, more a fresh start. The series, with DAD, was again straying towards becoming self-parody again and CR was an opportunity to get Bond back on track. In my opinion

What exactly do you mean by "a Jane Bond", Richard--w?

Silhouette Man

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

Richard--W wrote:

Do the producers want classic Bond back or not then?

As I've said before:

It was never necessary to deconstruct the character of James Bond in order to update him.


What the producers want is a Jane Bond. They are out of their minds, both of them, and should be replaced by sane, rational people.

As has been stated before, Casino Royale gave the producers the opportunity to explore the origins of the Bond character, as it was the first novel and, with Vesper's death, gave Bond his raison d'être. So it's not exactly a deconstruction, more a fresh start. The series, with DAD, was again straying towards becoming self-parody again and CR was an opportunity to get Bond back on track. In my opinion

What exactly do you mean by "a Jane Bond", Richard--w?

Very true indeed. Well said. And Skyfall was an example of James Bond's origin story - from here on in we're back to a slightly more recognisable form of James Bond film, is perhaps less than classic. A very welcome change in my (James Bond) book.

CmdrAtticus

Well, actually, they did need to deconstruct Bond, because over the 50 years of films they went from Dr. No where he was really a spy without gadgets to a superhero a la Batman with unbelievable gadgets including an invisible car (were they going to give him an invisible plane next like Wonder Woman?) and where he went
from getting beat up by Dr. No's henchmen and having to crawl in dirty clothes through
a ventilation shaft like Bruce Willis in Die Hard to running through armies of soldiers
in his undamaged Italian suits firing away with machine guns and repelling across
rooms on a wire shot from his belt buckle! The series and the character needed to be
stripped of all those layers of cartoonish spackle back to Fleming's original spy and then
layered back up with realistic, modern plots. As much as I enjoy some of the visual spectacle of some of the extremes - YOLT, MR, TSWLM, etc., I personally don't want to
ever see those again. I hope they'll leave those things to the DC comics films and keep Fleming's original ordinary spy for all the future films.