From here? I hate to sound like a broken record but...
Drop all "personal" plots.
Stop trying to link the stories together.
Don't feel compelled to integrate the supporting cast into the storyline.
Use unfilmed Fleming material where possible.
Bring back David Arnold!
+ 1 {[]
+2
It was either that.....or the priesthood
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Loeffs, how about you and I pool our resources and buy out Eon? ) ) )
) [their people are scrambling in fear as I type this response]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As I said before, the producers put themselves into a corner when they approved the idea of a “hard reboot” in Casino Royale. Then they gradually ran out of ideas in subsequent films, which became increasingly self-referential and even self-contradictory (Q abandons gadgets in Skyfall and then they return in SPECTRE). So of course, they must be all wondering now, “where do we go from here?”. It will take a brave decision to move the franchise forward successfully. And some fans will not like it.
I'd say that's a bit extreme. It's a movie series not an ongoing documentary. Ironically, for many at the AJB, you got what you wished for in SPECTRE, a more traditional Bond film in many ways. Unfortunately the producers tried a little too hard to please everyone which usually means everyone ends up a bit disappointed. I liked but did not love SPECTRE. Like QOS, it had some outstanding individual pieces but the parts were better than the whole. If Craig is back, in grand Bond tradition, EON can easily move on from SPECTRE (which in fact was a big hit, not the dismal failure that it's made out to be by some). Let Blofeld rot in jail, out of site, out of mind; Madeline Swan: gone (just another affair that ran its course). So now you have a fresh start and Barbel's plan can now be implemented. I would like to see Jeffrey Wright as Felix return and Bond drop in on Monica Bellucci (friends with benefits).
The problem is never the concepts but the execution. Saying SP is a traditional Bond film is like saying Donald Trump is President of the United States -- the title is there, but the execution is off.
The problem is the Bond films are now primarily in the hands of Gen-Xers, who don't quite get what made the originals work so well. On top of that, they're making them for Millennials. At least that generation wanted 1960s retro in style and fashion, which is in part why the films have gotten some of that mojo back. But Gen-X is weird in that we grew up with the 1960s Bond films on TV but internalized the idea that such were campy -- ironically more than the Moore films, which were "postmodern" in their sense of being self-referential and self-aware of what they were parodying. Austin Powers is the ultimate reflection of this attitude, congealing everything about the spy craze as a joke so Gen-Xers could snicker at them 'cause, you know, we're more sophisticated than that.
Same Mendes was born right at the beginning of the Gen-X birth period. His two films are perfect examples of the schizophrenia that comes from being in one's formative period during the late 1970s through 1980s.
On the one hand, SF and SP want to be hard hitting and sentimental. So, they rely on a kind of Star Trek: The Next Generation style character development, which is to say the characters are overwrought in their emotions and seem to be facing deeply personal issues, but the story never really confronts those so much as raises them to form the backdrop to the action.
On the other hand, the films spend enormous sums of money but never quite go all-in with the scope and scale. In a Mendes film, there are many, many moments where only one character is on the screen in vast, empty landscapes. The climaxes are always small scale -- we don't see anything on the order of the volcano raid in YOLT or even the underwater battle in TB, even though they had the ridiculously huge budget to do so. It's not just that pulling off something like that requires a deft touch that Mendes may not be capable of. The fear is that such will not be taken seriously in this day and age. Instead, we get some minimalist battle that is more like a video game. It's not surprising Mendes finds Moore's early Bonds to be so inspirational.
So, the end result are middling Bond films -- big budgets with small ideas. CR went beyond that in part because its director wasn't Gen-X but a Baby Boomer who was around when the originals came out. The script was doctored by a Baby Boomer and adapted from an actual Fleming story. The roots of classic Bond are there. After that, not so much.
So long as the thinking is "smaller is better," we'll keep getting these compromise Bond films -- at least until some other blockbuster film changes the expectations and the Bond people decide to follow suit.
The problem is never the concepts but the execution. Saying SP is a traditional Bond film is like saying Donald Trump is President of the United States -- the title is there, but the execution is off.
The problem is the Bond films are now primarily in the hands of Gen-Xers, who don't quite get what made the originals work so well. On top of that, they're making them for Millennials. At least that generation wanted 1960s retro in style and fashion, which is in part why the films have gotten some of that mojo back. But Gen-X is weird in that we grew up with the 1960s Bond films on TV but internalized the idea that such were campy -- ironically more than the Moore films, which were "postmodern" in their sense of being self-referential and self-aware of what they were parodying. Austin Powers is the ultimate reflection of this attitude, congealing everything about the spy craze as a joke so Gen-Xers could snicker at them 'cause, you know, we're more sophisticated than that.
Same Mendes was born right at the beginning of the Gen-X birth period. His two films are perfect examples of the schizophrenia that comes from being in one's formative period during the late 1970s through 1980s.
On the one hand, SF and SP want to be hard hitting and sentimental. So, they rely on a kind of Star Trek: The Next Generation style character development, which is to say the characters are overwrought in their emotions and seem to be facing deeply personal issues, but the story never really confronts those so much as raises them to form the backdrop to the action.
On the other hand, the films spend enormous sums of money but never quite go all-in with the scope and scale. In a Mendes film, there are many, many moments where only one character is on the screen in vast, empty landscapes. The climaxes are always small scale -- we don't see anything on the order of the volcano raid in YOLT or even the underwater battle in TB, even though they had the ridiculously huge budget to do so. It's not just that pulling off something like that requires a deft touch that Mendes may not be capable of. The fear is that such will not be taken seriously in this day and age. Instead, we get some minimalist battle that is more like a video game. It's not surprising Mendes finds Moore's early Bonds to be so inspirational.
So, the end result are middling Bond films -- big budgets with small ideas. CR went beyond that in part because its director wasn't Gen-X but a Baby Boomer who was around when the originals came out. The script was doctored by a Baby Boomer and adapted from an actual Fleming story. The roots of classic Bond are there. After that, not so much.
So long as the thinking is "smaller is better," we'll keep getting these compromise Bond films -- at least until some other blockbuster film changes the expectations and the Bond people decide to follow suit.
As a Gen Xer (and an author) I owe it to my generation to take at least some issue with this! It's definitely true that my generation grew up recoiling from a lot of what the Baby Boom represented. By the time we came of age free love had given way to AIDs fears and possessing drugs — with intent to sell, even if the intent was in the minds of prosecutors — got you sent to prison for decades. So who wouldn't be cynical?
Austin Powers was a brutal send-up, but Bond was already being spoofed to various degrees in the 1960s (see the original Casino Royale Not to mention Derek Flint, Napoleon Solo, Matt Helm).
I've always thought of Bond belonging to the parents of the Boomers. Connery's famous put-down of the Beatles being proof. He was already a cultural outlier when the first films were being made.
To me the central creative conundrum with Bond is that times changed so what do you do with a Cold War era boozing and womanizing assassin? Look how TLD attempted to make Bond monogamous! (It might have been interesting if the CR reboot had been set in the 1950s although it could have become a Mad Men type thing — too self aware for its own good.) Generation-wise, it's hard for me to think that Millennials growing up in the era of trigger warnings and conscious uncoupling are primed for Fleming's Bond. But who knows?
I DO like your comparison of the sentimentality in Skyfall and SPECTRE to Star Trek the Next Generation. And I always appreciate your insights, Gassy Man.
EON isn't going to go along with anything truly original regarding Bond. And it doesn't matter what decade the director is born in. I think they view it as "protecting their brand."
EON isn't going to go along with anything truly original regarding Bond. And it doesn't matter what decade the director is born in. I think they view it as "protecting their brand."
But they are willing to change things up to follow trends and copy what is popular. It's a shame that they aren't willing to fully go back to their roots or trying to do something of their own.
I'm not sure we will. Looking like 2019 at the earliest.
You think it will be 2 years before they even say anything about another Bond film or if Daniel Craig will continue?
No. My post was unclear. I think it'll be 2019 at the earliest before we get another Bond film. We might have to wait until 2018 for any word on Craig, though.
The longer it takes to make movie 25, the less likely it is that Craig will return. Which may be good news for same, and bad for others.
I agree with both points. Bond films for the forseeable future will remain harder in tone with one foot in reality and the other in selected pieces of the Bond canon whether it is DC, Hiddleston, Turner or whoever ends up in the tux. A new Bond actor I assume would be at least 10 years younger than DC so there would not be the same sense of urgency to get into production as there would be with an aging Craig. Also with a new actor EON would want to put a bit more distance between Craig, an extremely popular Bond and a new Bond. That being said, I don't think it will be an extreme hiatus due to pressure from MGM for another Bond film as it is their only real cash cow. If Craig comes back we could see Bond 25 in Nov 2018; a new Bond actor, Nov 2019.
By this point I just hope there's a new Bond movie soon! The length of time between films is ridiculous these days.
Yes, but at the same time it should be about quality, not quantity... Wouldn't we all rather wait 10 years and get something truly stunning?
I've lost hope for something truly stunning, so I'll take more mediocre films over fewer mediocre films. More time between films hasn't proven that longer waits make better films.
Comments
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Perhaps Dell Deaton has deeper pockets, then. :v
I'd say that's a bit extreme. It's a movie series not an ongoing documentary. Ironically, for many at the AJB, you got what you wished for in SPECTRE, a more traditional Bond film in many ways. Unfortunately the producers tried a little too hard to please everyone which usually means everyone ends up a bit disappointed. I liked but did not love SPECTRE. Like QOS, it had some outstanding individual pieces but the parts were better than the whole. If Craig is back, in grand Bond tradition, EON can easily move on from SPECTRE (which in fact was a big hit, not the dismal failure that it's made out to be by some). Let Blofeld rot in jail, out of site, out of mind; Madeline Swan: gone (just another affair that ran its course). So now you have a fresh start and Barbel's plan can now be implemented. I would like to see Jeffrey Wright as Felix return and Bond drop in on Monica Bellucci (friends with benefits).
The problem is the Bond films are now primarily in the hands of Gen-Xers, who don't quite get what made the originals work so well. On top of that, they're making them for Millennials. At least that generation wanted 1960s retro in style and fashion, which is in part why the films have gotten some of that mojo back. But Gen-X is weird in that we grew up with the 1960s Bond films on TV but internalized the idea that such were campy -- ironically more than the Moore films, which were "postmodern" in their sense of being self-referential and self-aware of what they were parodying. Austin Powers is the ultimate reflection of this attitude, congealing everything about the spy craze as a joke so Gen-Xers could snicker at them 'cause, you know, we're more sophisticated than that.
Same Mendes was born right at the beginning of the Gen-X birth period. His two films are perfect examples of the schizophrenia that comes from being in one's formative period during the late 1970s through 1980s.
On the one hand, SF and SP want to be hard hitting and sentimental. So, they rely on a kind of Star Trek: The Next Generation style character development, which is to say the characters are overwrought in their emotions and seem to be facing deeply personal issues, but the story never really confronts those so much as raises them to form the backdrop to the action.
On the other hand, the films spend enormous sums of money but never quite go all-in with the scope and scale. In a Mendes film, there are many, many moments where only one character is on the screen in vast, empty landscapes. The climaxes are always small scale -- we don't see anything on the order of the volcano raid in YOLT or even the underwater battle in TB, even though they had the ridiculously huge budget to do so. It's not just that pulling off something like that requires a deft touch that Mendes may not be capable of. The fear is that such will not be taken seriously in this day and age. Instead, we get some minimalist battle that is more like a video game. It's not surprising Mendes finds Moore's early Bonds to be so inspirational.
So, the end result are middling Bond films -- big budgets with small ideas. CR went beyond that in part because its director wasn't Gen-X but a Baby Boomer who was around when the originals came out. The script was doctored by a Baby Boomer and adapted from an actual Fleming story. The roots of classic Bond are there. After that, not so much.
So long as the thinking is "smaller is better," we'll keep getting these compromise Bond films -- at least until some other blockbuster film changes the expectations and the Bond people decide to follow suit.
As a Gen Xer (and an author) I owe it to my generation to take at least some issue with this! It's definitely true that my generation grew up recoiling from a lot of what the Baby Boom represented. By the time we came of age free love had given way to AIDs fears and possessing drugs — with intent to sell, even if the intent was in the minds of prosecutors — got you sent to prison for decades. So who wouldn't be cynical?
Austin Powers was a brutal send-up, but Bond was already being spoofed to various degrees in the 1960s (see the original Casino Royale
I've always thought of Bond belonging to the parents of the Boomers. Connery's famous put-down of the Beatles being proof. He was already a cultural outlier when the first films were being made.
To me the central creative conundrum with Bond is that times changed so what do you do with a Cold War era boozing and womanizing assassin? Look how TLD attempted to make Bond monogamous! (It might have been interesting if the CR reboot had been set in the 1950s although it could have become a Mad Men type thing — too self aware for its own good.) Generation-wise, it's hard for me to think that Millennials growing up in the era of trigger warnings and conscious uncoupling are primed for Fleming's Bond. But who knows?
I DO like your comparison of the sentimentality in Skyfall and SPECTRE to Star Trek the Next Generation. And I always appreciate your insights, Gassy Man.
I do wonder if we'll even get any news this year.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I'm not sure we will. Looking like 2019 at the earliest.
But they are willing to change things up to follow trends and copy what is popular. It's a shame that they aren't willing to fully go back to their roots or trying to do something of their own.
You think it will be 2 years before they even say anything about another Bond film or if Daniel Craig will continue?
No. My post was unclear. I think it'll be 2019 at the earliest before we get another Bond film. We might have to wait until 2018 for any word on Craig, though.
Or perhaps just a phase Bond will be going through.
I agree with both points. Bond films for the forseeable future will remain harder in tone with one foot in reality and the other in selected pieces of the Bond canon whether it is DC, Hiddleston, Turner or whoever ends up in the tux. A new Bond actor I assume would be at least 10 years younger than DC so there would not be the same sense of urgency to get into production as there would be with an aging Craig. Also with a new actor EON would want to put a bit more distance between Craig, an extremely popular Bond and a new Bond. That being said, I don't think it will be an extreme hiatus due to pressure from MGM for another Bond film as it is their only real cash cow. If Craig comes back we could see Bond 25 in Nov 2018; a new Bond actor, Nov 2019.
Yes, but at the same time it should be about quality, not quantity... Wouldn't we all rather wait 10 years and get something truly stunning?
I've lost hope for something truly stunning, so I'll take more mediocre films over fewer mediocre films. More time between films hasn't proven that longer waits make better films.
At my age? Plus what Matt said above.