Direction of the new films

MilleniumForce

So, in the mid 2000s, a lot of film series turned more serious/had serious reboots. In 2006, James Bond went from a full on spy, with gadgets such as invisible cars, underwater breathing devices and villains who planned to destroy the world with lasers in space, to a more serious, dark action flick. Bond didn't have any OTT gadgets or villains.

But in Skyfall, it was very clear to see the film was a bit lighter, with the re-introduction of Q and characters such as Moneypenny.

So, do you think Bond is starting to go back to the basics of the 60's/80's/90's films? And what is your opinion?

I wouldn't mind if the Bond films had some more gadgets, but not things like submarine cars. Basically, non-OTT gadgets/villain plans (although when it comes to villain plans, how would the idea of, say, a space laser destroying military bases/nuclear weapons fit with audiences of today?)

superado

Because of heightened technology and communications, it seems like the only way Bond could take initiative and have more independent discretion over his missions/objectives, he needs to disobey orders or go completely rogue. As long as we continue to see Bond wearing an earphone, it will be a tethered blunt instrument we'll have instead of the innovative agent we're used to seeing, who had the sanctioned trust of his chief and government.

Paradoxically related to that, our Bond's irreverence to M is no longer a novelty but the norm and to be fair, this "normal" began with PB and I'm afraid it will continue, just as our new Bond will go on to battle his newly found demons; gone is happy-go-lucky 007 at least for now.

Virgil37

I don't see a big tone change in SF. It felt pretty much like CR and QoS did, DC movies are consistent that way. If anything, it was darker with M dying and all that. The villain was more flamboyant, but I can't see the light side in SF. Yes, it has the Q scene, and Bond almost ejecting M from the Aston Martin, but both CR and QoS had little things like that too.

I hope they don't go the lighter, jokes, silly gadgets (invisible cars), and hollowed volcanoes route. Always trying to jump the shark is the kiss of death.

broadshoulder

I cant see the direction being clear for the Bonds until Craigs era.

With the Brozzers we were flailing around. No clear directors, directors who messed with the script ie Tamahori. Directors wives messing with the script., the studios interfering...

Craig gave them direction.They could concentrate on the script.It was clear what direction they wanted.

superado

broadshoulder wrote:

I cant see the direction being clear for the Bonds until Craigs era.

With the Brozzers we were flailing around. No clear directors, directors who messed with the script ie Tamahori. Directors wives messing with the script., the studios interfering...

Craig gave them direction.They could concentrate on the script.It was clear what direction they wanted.

Some may not agree with the "solid" direction of QoS and maybe even SF.

BTW, which director's wives are you talking about?

Firemass

Virgil37 wrote:

Always trying to jump the shark is the kiss of death.

Way to combine two obscure sayings into one doozy of a sentence.

broadshoulder

superado wrote:

broadshoulder wrote:

I cant see the direction being clear for the Bonds until Craigs era.

With the Brozzers we were flailing around. No clear directors, directors who messed with the script ie Tamahori. Directors wives messing with the script., the studios interfering...

Craig gave them direction.They could concentrate on the script.It was clear what direction they wanted.

Some may not agree with the "solid" direction of QoS and maybe even SF.

BTW, which director's wives are you talking about?

Michael Apted. Whose wive kept sending the scripts back to Purves and Wade. One of the reasons the script is so uneven.

Honestly, I do believe that Craig gives direction to the films.They've not been this coherent since the eighties.

Virgil37

Firemass wrote:

Virgil37 wrote:

Always trying to jump the shark is the kiss of death.

Way to combine two obscure sayings into one doozy of a sentence.

I think you got the point

superado

broadshoulder wrote:

superado wrote:

broadshoulder wrote:

I cant see the direction being clear for the Bonds until Craigs era.

With the Brozzers we were flailing around. No clear directors, directors who messed with the script ie Tamahori. Directors wives messing with the script., the studios interfering...

Craig gave them direction.They could concentrate on the script.It was clear what direction they wanted.

Some may not agree with the "solid" direction of QoS and maybe even SF.

BTW, which director's wives are you talking about?

Michael Apted. Whose wive kept sending the scripts back to Purves and Wade. One of the reasons the script is so uneven.

Honestly, I do believe that Craig gives direction to the films.They've not been this coherent since the eighties.

Thanks, I didn't know that. So it was only one director's wife, not directors' wives. I'm surprised the producers even put up with the slightest non-sense of that sort. As far as Craig, I can certainly agree about the caliber of his performance and what he brings to the table, but you make it sound like his presence is the absolute x-factor, the omnipotent governing force over the creative output of the past three movies. I'm sorry, but it's just a bizarre expression about the actor's role, like the punch line of a Chuck Norris joke.

AlphaOmegaSin

The Series has changed with the Times. Just think of the Computers and Microchips in AVTAK, then of the Technology in DAD and the Craig Films -{

Absolutely_Cart

Craig himself said Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were made dark and gritty because Austin Powers ruined any chance of the Bond series getting away with a silly film. People wouldn't see the difference between the parody and original. Skyfall slowly introduced the grandiosity and fantasy elements back and Spectre looks like it will continue in that direction.