I don't think EON needed to consult me, a random guy on the internet, to find out that killing off the central character of their franchise and demoting his iconic archnemesis into a jealous foster brother, were two woeful ideas.
That is just your personal opinion though, not objective fact. I still think Bond dying makes perfect sense and I wouldn't change it. The foster parent thing didn't work out, but I can see how they got to it from adapting Fleming storylines, and even in fact from some of Fleming's real life.
So yeah, if they wanted to find out your red lines, they would have to ask you.
And no, I don't subscribe to the notion that a silly Tarzan sound effect that lasts all but five seconds and has no detrimental impact on the overall narrative is tantamount to the above.
Lots of people thought it was awful though, and even more of them thought taking Bond into space was shark-jumping of the highest order. Seemingly Bertie Brocs had no red lines where childish stupid humour was concerned.
Killing Bond got folks talking about a 60 year old franchise (and not that they could have predicted it, kept that ball in the air through a multi-year pandemic). It did what it was meant to do; I think folks just aren't on the same page as what the franchise shepherd's goals need to be.
I don't think folks recognize the longevity value the clean slate they've made provides.
Now, they could still screw THAT up, but if you zoom out enough, No Time To Die made a great deal of business sense. And weirdly, killing Bond is this generation's "send him to space" - the franchise has always pushed a little too far before reining it back in. This is part of the same cycle.
EON would measure these "red lines" quantitatively by the money made.
much more efficient than surveying self declared fans. and as folks keep pointing out here, these Craig films have made outrageous amounts of $$$, even with the last one being released in the middle of a pandemic. so whatever I liked or didnt like about NTtD (Bond's death was not one of the issues for me, though there were others), EON are going to draw the conclusion that those controversial choices were popular.
re the Tarzan yell: this is anecdotal, but Octopussy was the last new Bond film I saw til Goldeneye came out. I was 17and becoming a pretentious arthouse snob, thats on me, but I had liked the change in tone with the previous film, and the sillier aspects of the new one seemed like a step back into what I felt I had outgrown. so that was a "red line" for at least one us.
and since the films went gim'n'gritty shortly after, maybe EON saw the silly aspects of octopussy as a "red line" for others as well
thinking out my response above reminded me of your post @SeanIsTheOnlyOne
who are these "real fans" you speak of? do I count as one of "us" or one of "them"? because I actually like the codename theory in some ways, and see Craig's arc as confirming it
and assuming that "real fans" are not everybody who watches new James Bond movies, why should EON pander to them rather than trying to retain the new generation of fans who discovered the series with Craig's films?
don't mean to single you out Sean, this is a good subject for general debate, especially in context of the thread. You get into this issue with any longrunning successful artistic product. Rock bands, like Pink Floyd for one notorious example, have vast legions of fans divided over when they first got into the artist and who each call themselves the "true fans"
@caractacus potts I must say I didn't expect such an answer from you ! I always thought (then I guess I was wrong) every single Bond fan who knows about Fleming's work couldn't give any credit to that theory.
The Craig era is different indeed, but I can argue the fact Bond tells Madeleine his parents died in a climbing accident, something Alec also reminds Bond in GE, is a way to show we are dealing with two separate iterations of the SAME character, the one Fleming created.
While I consider all of us "real Bond fans", I have to say I consider the codename theory James Bond blasphemy. James Bond is ONE fictional character, but there are at least two itirations of him. The code name theory basically says there isn't a James Bond, just some people who use the name. Blasphemy.
It also just doesn’t make any sense. All of these guys have the same slightly snobbish attitude to the nicer things in life? They all have an easy way with women and regard them rather as sex objects? They all are fans of bad puns? And so on. Bit of a coincidence!
That EON starts reading and taking seriously what people have to say on this forum..................just joking of course. 😁 They could do worse (and have done worse).😁
I'm afraid James Bond might be a mime. Ok - I'm just kidding.
I'm really fed-up of having a token black and gay person. Which - they never did and now - they do it to rake in more money from these groups. If I was black and/or gay, I would take offence of it. There's also the fact that it feels awkward. Don't get me wrong - I'd feel the same way if Uhura was white or if Sulu was not asian.
If ever Bond is black -the way to do it - would be a sort of spin-off. Tell the story of 004 or such. Loved Harris as Moneypenny but, Q - nah - I think they wanted someone young - to play in lots of future movies too? Or make contrast with older Q? He was too much of a cliché - very very young - geek - a few strokes on the keyboard and he can see what going on in the toilet of the US president. No more pls.
Also...one big thing that has really bothered me... Bond doesn't himself kill LeChiffre, doesn't, kill Greene, doesn't kill Bloefled (well ok - in next movie with virus), kills ex-rogue-agent in Skyfall by throwing knife (or axe) while his back is turned. Got this great beautiful tasty Sunday...with no cherry on the top... :-)
The fact Bond doesn't kill Le Chiffre makes sense. The idea is to show there's a higher/powerful entity behind all this (Smersh in the novel, Quantum/Spectre in the Craig era). Le Chiffre works for them and the fact they don't hesitate to get rid of their own operatives makes them even more dangerous and terrifying. Fleming wrote it this way, and the movie uses the concept faithfully.
About Greene, leaving the man in the middle of the desert with nothing but an engine oil can is a death sentence.
For Silva, it's because of M, who is the main target of all this and the most important character of the plot. I suppose having Silva killed by Bond during an epic fight was not the point plotwise.
For Blofeld, this iteration of the character is a failure IMHO, so why bother ? I think the way Bond kills Safin in NTTD can be seen as some kind of compensation.
In the last three films, the same pattern is repeated: the main villain knows Bond or at least one person within his entourage, and that's the issue. I don't pay attention to the concept of revenge unless it concerns Bond himself. It works in LTK and QoS precisely because the character I'm supposed to identify with is...Bond, and that's why I don't buy villains like Trevelyan, Silva, Oberhauser and Safin. I highly prefer when the enemy has nothing to do with the background of the protagonists.
Comments
I don't think EON needed to consult me, a random guy on the internet, to find out that killing off the central character of their franchise and demoting his iconic archnemesis into a jealous foster brother, were two woeful ideas.
That is just your personal opinion though, not objective fact. I still think Bond dying makes perfect sense and I wouldn't change it. The foster parent thing didn't work out, but I can see how they got to it from adapting Fleming storylines, and even in fact from some of Fleming's real life.
So yeah, if they wanted to find out your red lines, they would have to ask you.
And no, I don't subscribe to the notion that a silly Tarzan sound effect that lasts all but five seconds and has no detrimental impact on the overall narrative is tantamount to the above.
Lots of people thought it was awful though, and even more of them thought taking Bond into space was shark-jumping of the highest order. Seemingly Bertie Brocs had no red lines where childish stupid humour was concerned.
Killing Bond got folks talking about a 60 year old franchise (and not that they could have predicted it, kept that ball in the air through a multi-year pandemic). It did what it was meant to do; I think folks just aren't on the same page as what the franchise shepherd's goals need to be.
I don't think folks recognize the longevity value the clean slate they've made provides.
Now, they could still screw THAT up, but if you zoom out enough, No Time To Die made a great deal of business sense. And weirdly, killing Bond is this generation's "send him to space" - the franchise has always pushed a little too far before reining it back in. This is part of the same cycle.
Hey, @emtiem , I might just use that Bertie Brocs name in an Imaginary Conversation.
(And thank you for it, if I do)
Ha! Go for it 😁
EON would measure these "red lines" quantitatively by the money made.
much more efficient than surveying self declared fans. and as folks keep pointing out here, these Craig films have made outrageous amounts of $$$, even with the last one being released in the middle of a pandemic. so whatever I liked or didnt like about NTtD (Bond's death was not one of the issues for me, though there were others), EON are going to draw the conclusion that those controversial choices were popular.
re the Tarzan yell: this is anecdotal, but Octopussy was the last new Bond film I saw til Goldeneye came out. I was 17and becoming a pretentious arthouse snob, thats on me, but I had liked the change in tone with the previous film, and the sillier aspects of the new one seemed like a step back into what I felt I had outgrown. so that was a "red line" for at least one us.
and since the films went gim'n'gritty shortly after, maybe EON saw the silly aspects of octopussy as a "red line" for others as well
thinking out my response above reminded me of your post @SeanIsTheOnlyOne
who are these "real fans" you speak of? do I count as one of "us" or one of "them"? because I actually like the codename theory in some ways, and see Craig's arc as confirming it
and assuming that "real fans" are not everybody who watches new James Bond movies, why should EON pander to them rather than trying to retain the new generation of fans who discovered the series with Craig's films?
don't mean to single you out Sean, this is a good subject for general debate, especially in context of the thread. You get into this issue with any longrunning successful artistic product. Rock bands, like Pink Floyd for one notorious example, have vast legions of fans divided over when they first got into the artist and who each call themselves the "true fans"
Imaginary Conversations - Page 88 — ajb007
@caractacus potts I must say I didn't expect such an answer from you ! I always thought (then I guess I was wrong) every single Bond fan who knows about Fleming's work couldn't give any credit to that theory.
The Craig era is different indeed, but I can argue the fact Bond tells Madeleine his parents died in a climbing accident, something Alec also reminds Bond in GE, is a way to show we are dealing with two separate iterations of the SAME character, the one Fleming created.
While I consider all of us "real Bond fans", I have to say I consider the codename theory James Bond blasphemy. James Bond is ONE fictional character, but there are at least two itirations of him. The code name theory basically says there isn't a James Bond, just some people who use the name. Blasphemy.
It also just doesn’t make any sense. All of these guys have the same slightly snobbish attitude to the nicer things in life? They all have an easy way with women and regard them rather as sex objects? They all are fans of bad puns? And so on. Bit of a coincidence!
It's also nice to see some lively debate in the forum again. To quote dr. Frankenstein: "It's alive!" 😀
That EON starts reading and taking seriously what people have to say on this forum..................just joking of course. 😁 They could do worse (and have done worse).😁
Hello Gang,
I'm afraid James Bond might be a mime. Ok - I'm just kidding.
I'm really fed-up of having a token black and gay person. Which - they never did and now - they do it to rake in more money from these groups. If I was black and/or gay, I would take offence of it. There's also the fact that it feels awkward. Don't get me wrong - I'd feel the same way if Uhura was white or if Sulu was not asian.
If ever Bond is black -the way to do it - would be a sort of spin-off. Tell the story of 004 or such. Loved Harris as Moneypenny but, Q - nah - I think they wanted someone young - to play in lots of future movies too? Or make contrast with older Q? He was too much of a cliché - very very young - geek - a few strokes on the keyboard and he can see what going on in the toilet of the US president. No more pls.
Also...one big thing that has really bothered me... Bond doesn't himself kill LeChiffre, doesn't, kill Greene, doesn't kill Bloefled (well ok - in next movie with virus), kills ex-rogue-agent in Skyfall by throwing knife (or axe) while his back is turned. Got this great beautiful tasty Sunday...with no cherry on the top... :-)
You guys be safe!
I have none. I'll worry about it when it comes out.
There's nothing I or anyone here can do about it anyways. No sense worrying about something you have no control over.
Bond: “I must be dreaming.”
The fact Bond doesn't kill Le Chiffre makes sense. The idea is to show there's a higher/powerful entity behind all this (Smersh in the novel, Quantum/Spectre in the Craig era). Le Chiffre works for them and the fact they don't hesitate to get rid of their own operatives makes them even more dangerous and terrifying. Fleming wrote it this way, and the movie uses the concept faithfully.
About Greene, leaving the man in the middle of the desert with nothing but an engine oil can is a death sentence.
For Silva, it's because of M, who is the main target of all this and the most important character of the plot. I suppose having Silva killed by Bond during an epic fight was not the point plotwise.
For Blofeld, this iteration of the character is a failure IMHO, so why bother ? I think the way Bond kills Safin in NTTD can be seen as some kind of compensation.
In the last three films, the same pattern is repeated: the main villain knows Bond or at least one person within his entourage, and that's the issue. I don't pay attention to the concept of revenge unless it concerns Bond himself. It works in LTK and QoS precisely because the character I'm supposed to identify with is...Bond, and that's why I don't buy villains like Trevelyan, Silva, Oberhauser and Safin. I highly prefer when the enemy has nothing to do with the background of the protagonists.
Hm, I feel like an author once had a quote about that very subject...