Story-Arc Fatigue?
antiamadeus
Posts: 16MI6 Agent
Long-time reader first-time posting:
I think this is the most exciting time to be a Bond fan in my life except for maybe the lead up to TWINE in early '99. It's extraordinary how both the Casino Royale and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. concepts were out of EON's control until just the last few years. Otherwise these great story ideas would have been played out back in the '80s.
I've noticed a lot of posts dealing with speculation about where Bond goes from here, and I'm realizing that we're dealing with something new in the series. Until the last few years these movies have always been one-and-done adventures. If we didn't like one movie, the next one could be totally different.
Now, however, we've got continuity. For the first time in the series we have details about Bond's parents, Oberhauser, how he became a 00, etc.
And now nothing is secure. We've just learned that CR, QOS, and SF all had something to do with SPECTRE all along! With the added complication that Daniel Craig may not return, it seems many fans are hesitant to embrace the ending of SP because, well, it doesn't really end. We're getting to the point where every new film is in the cliffhanger style of "The Empire Strikes Back." So it's difficult to judge the quality of one film without seeing how it sets up the next.
I think Broccoli and Wilson have made a daring decision by tying these films together, both proactively and retroactively. I think it's the right choice. But my hopes for Bond 25 are in conflict. I want Blofeld to return, to be smarter, tougher, and more ruthless. Yet I also want Bond to find some happiness with Dr. Swann.
I don't think I'm going to get both.
So for that reason I think the ending of SF (Bond in classic surroundings, ready to serve a new M who has earned our respect) is better than the ending of SP.
I think this is the most exciting time to be a Bond fan in my life except for maybe the lead up to TWINE in early '99. It's extraordinary how both the Casino Royale and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. concepts were out of EON's control until just the last few years. Otherwise these great story ideas would have been played out back in the '80s.
I've noticed a lot of posts dealing with speculation about where Bond goes from here, and I'm realizing that we're dealing with something new in the series. Until the last few years these movies have always been one-and-done adventures. If we didn't like one movie, the next one could be totally different.
Now, however, we've got continuity. For the first time in the series we have details about Bond's parents, Oberhauser, how he became a 00, etc.
And now nothing is secure. We've just learned that CR, QOS, and SF all had something to do with SPECTRE all along! With the added complication that Daniel Craig may not return, it seems many fans are hesitant to embrace the ending of SP because, well, it doesn't really end. We're getting to the point where every new film is in the cliffhanger style of "The Empire Strikes Back." So it's difficult to judge the quality of one film without seeing how it sets up the next.
I think Broccoli and Wilson have made a daring decision by tying these films together, both proactively and retroactively. I think it's the right choice. But my hopes for Bond 25 are in conflict. I want Blofeld to return, to be smarter, tougher, and more ruthless. Yet I also want Bond to find some happiness with Dr. Swann.
I don't think I'm going to get both.
So for that reason I think the ending of SF (Bond in classic surroundings, ready to serve a new M who has earned our respect) is better than the ending of SP.
Comments
That being said I can't be too disappointed. It was still a very good film, I just hope they drop the continuity once the Craig Bond era is over. If you get wrapped up too much in a continuous storyline, you risk the longevity of the franchise once the storyline gets stale. And I don't want a constant reboot after reboot, just continue the series with a new actor, new one-off story.
Also, welcome to the boards antiamadeus! Looking forward to discussing all things Bond with you.
What's different is that the focus was not on Bond's personal history so much as his professional exploits -- that distinction is important because the argument could be made that the Craig films operate more as sequels than a series. One could also say the reason we haven't had a "traditional" Bond film until, more or less, Spectre is because the focus, no matter how expository, on Bond's history precludes it. In the 1960s, for instance, many audiences would have had their credulity strained that so many personal elements of Bond's life just happen to line up with his professional missions.
I'm not sure how daring all this is. It follows suit with other franchises, such as Batman, Star Wars, and the Bourne films. I'm ready for standalone missions. The Craig films aren't that deep about Bond, and I find his spying more interesting.
I think that whoever picks up the PPK as Bond #7 will emerge from the gate fully-formed, and will proceed business-as-usual from there. It's hard to imagine multiple-picture story arcs going on in perpetuity.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Oh the next movie will be Bond recalled from duty and made active again, plus Blofelds escape from Wormwood scrubs via some dastardly plan. Oh and Hinx better return as well...
He does remind me of Dr Who's Delgardo Master and his escape in 'The Sea Devils'
But this Blofeld is hardly a supervillain. He was defeated by a simple explosive watch, just like the ones 00 agents have been using for decades. And with his whole organisation, crater lair and all, was still defeated by a single spy, whose watch ripped his face and whose few shots from a PPK downed his supervillain superhelicopter. Nah, they didn't catch him to let him starw in another movie, that would be too boring. We need a villain who can actually accomplish something in the next film, someone with a bit of ambition (world domination, remember?), not just out to punish his foster brother out of jealousy.
I'd disagree that a global monopoly on information gathering doesn't equal a play at world domination.
Remember, this era is all about story/character arcs. I'm actually glad that Waltz underplayed ESB a bit this time 'round...I think Blofeld will be highly motivated once on the lam, and will do something suitably alarming and evil (provided the writers are up to the challenge, naturally).
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Thank you. That's exactly what I think. I can accept OTT stuff in the world of Bond films (just like I accept the existence of a Batman in his world), but these constant personal missions take me right out of the picture.
I agree with you. The only point of divergence is that I think that we are done now with the personal arc and would not benefit with another.in a way it's a shame as although already tired they never to my mind did much with the personal angle, almost as if they fought shy of it. As another ( I think it's 'Mouse with Fleas' has it ) I think that they wanted to eat their cake and still have it for pudding. We got a lot closer to it in SP but I am still waiting for ' Bond to (fully)become Bond'. I am no longer interested in if he was Breast fed or not, and what impact that had upon him.
Great post. Remarkably sane and non partisan. We must see if we can change that
IMO, we ARE at that point; Bond is fully formed, with only a second tragic loss to solidify his life path. As far as mouth-to-breast goes, I think a bit of that is implied in every picture.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I found that we did have fully formed Bond in Spectre. Though we should have had that at the end of Casino Royale, which was implied then. Not getting fully formed Bond until age 47 was unrealistic. He should have been more formed as Bond by age 38. It's like we had a 25-year-old Bond in Casino Royale who looked 45.
Thank you all for the warm greetings.
I really disliked his look in Skyfall although I understood why they did it ( I would have liked more time to pass when he is getting back into shape to allow his hair to grow a bit ) The upside is that we now have a Bond who appears to be ageing backwards. I think Daniel is looking very good (even better when dressed as himself ( he seems to prefer his hair slightly longer than when playing Bond) The too tight Tom Ford high fashion thing does not work for him (or indeed anyone over 30) His age/appearance is not the barrier that I feared it might be.
as he looks younger in each film.
Were too tight. Much better Sartorial Elegance in the suit department
with Spectre.
Interestingly, only Lazenby has ever been hired that young. Connery was early 30s...Moore, Dalton & Brosnan were well into their 40s, and Craig was 38. I agree that it would be best for #7 to be in his early 30s at the oldest---to provide the best chance of long-term continuity---but when they find the right fit, age doesn't seem to be a leading consideration. That could change, though, given the physicality Craig has brought to it. It's a tough gig for geezers :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS