Back to Bond Basics

wollastonblue · June 2007

Who thinks we should go back to the original formula for Bond 22?

I for one believe that EON need to go back to it.

Also anyone up for The Union becoming the next enemy for Bond? They could run with this for quite a few films.

John Drake · June 2007

wollastonblue wrote:

Who thinks we should go back to the original formula for Bond 22?

Wasn't CR a return to the 'original formula?' It was based on Fleming's first novel. You can't get more back-to-basics than that.

Dan Same · June 2007

John Drake wrote:

wollastonblue wrote:

Who thinks we should go back to the original formula for Bond 22?

Wasn't CR a return to the 'original formula?'

I think he means a return to the original cinematic formula.

Which I am all for!

wollastonblue · June 2007

I should have been more specific, I mean cinematic formula.

Anyway how can you say that the film CR is exactly like the book?

John Drake · June 2007

wollastonblue wrote:

Anyway how can you say that the film CR is exactly like the book?

I didn't. I said it was based on Fleming's novel. That's not quite the same thing. The producers kept the storyline, but had to modernise it for contemporary audiences. Despite this it's pretty faithful to the story Fleming wrote. As for Bond 22, all I really want is for them to make a great film. If it's Flemingesque, then great. If it's more like TSWLM, well that's OK too, provided Eon give us the best they've got.

7289 · June 2007

Bond Basics = Fleming + Script

Bond Diaster = Script - Fleming + Purvis/Wade

Bond Greatness = Fleming + Script - Purvis/Wade + Haggis

Number24 · June 2007

What, precisely, is ment by back to the formula?
Gun pose at the begining? Moneypenny? Q? Large raid at the end? We have to say what we think "Back to basics is before we discuss if we want to go there!

00-Agent · June 2007

I for one missed some of the Cinematic Formula. Things like Moneypenny, Q, and the gadgets. Hopefully they will give us a movie in the same style as CR but add back these well loved things. In the end if they turn out another film as good as CR it will be hard to complain.

John Drake · June 2007

I think they will reinstall the gunbarrel. At least I hope they do. Moneypenny, I'm not that interested in. Q to me will always be Desmond Llewyln so I'm not sure if I want a replacement.

wollastonblue · June 2007

Hold on, what I am talking about is the Bond Formula used in the past films.

Stuff like Q, Moneypenny, and explosive endings. That is what got most of us into the world of James Bond anyway. How many people here got into Bond through the books first? I would say not many.

People will know from my previous posts that I was very disappointed with CR. If they are going to use Flemings material, it should be done properly.

My belief is that they have run out of ideas. I am sure that Benson or Gardner, would not mind on of their Bond novels being used as a film.

From Dr No to DAD, there was formula that people wanted, and people like us love. Looking at various peoples favourite Bond films, there are not that many that list CR as their number 1.

Loeffelholz · June 2007

Personally, I think CR did go 'Back to Bond Basics'...or, rather, it went 'To the Basics' for the very first (or perhaps second, considering OHMSS) time...

I'm sure Eon will return to the Precious Classic Formula soon enough...but I'm all for Bond continuing to push the envelope a bit---and hopefully the success enjoyed by the reviled (by some) CR will encourage them to continue to take chances.

Simply dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's, which they've largely done for 44 years, is no rock-solid guarantee of quality, IMRO.

Number24 · June 2007

You could say many things about the 007 producers post-Brosnan, but they have hardly run out of ideas. They have given Bond a fresh start, and there are many ways they can go from there.
I'm sure the gunbarrel wil be back at the start of Bond 22. What about Q and Moneypenny? Well, here is some of the scope for new ideas they gave themselves by filming CR!

John Drake · June 2007

wollastonblue wrote:

From Dr No to DAD, there was formula that people wanted, and people like us love.

I can't think of anybody that loved or wanted DAD. That film was so bad that the producers were smart enough to realise they had to shake things up a bit. What became apparent during CR's release is that a lot of people who didn't care much for previous Bond efforts, found themselves caring about this one. Eon now has to placate the loyal fans and the newcomers. They can't do that by just reverting to the kind of films they wasted on Pierce. They were standard-issue, made-to-order, by-the-numbers, formuliac 007 pastiches. Brosnan deserved better and so did the audience. I really don't mind what approach Eon takes with Bond 22, as long as they make it work.

wollastonblue · June 2007

DAD wasn't that bad. I can think of worse Bond films. GE was a fantastic film as was TND and TWISNE. They didn't waste anything on PB.

I just feel that a lot of Bond fans who do not read the books, were let down by CR. I know a few of them. I on the other hand, have now read most of the bond books, and they still let me down with CR.

My main worry is that we could end up with something like Die Hard, where we lose the sophiscation of Bond, and just end up with Action films.

John Drake · June 2007

[quote=wollastonblue[/quote]
My main worry is that we could end up with something like Die Hard, where we lose the sophiscation of Bond, and just end up with Action films.[/quote]

Eon won't let that happen. It would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. (Incidentally who came up with that saying? Did somebody really throw out a baby with their bath water? If so, they learnt a valuable lesson.

) I think what we'll see with Bond 22 is DC playing a more traditional Bond; more girls, possibly some gadgets, but the overall tone will remain similar to CR, that is tough and gritty.

Eon has always tailored Bond to suit the current cultural climate, as well as the ability of their leading man. In my lifetime I can't think of a time when politics and world affairs have been so incendiary. Bond has to reflect that. A Roger Moore style Bond would look completely out of place in 2007, although he was absolutely right for his decade, the 1970's. Craig suits the part right now, so I think Eon have to use him as best they can. But if it makes you feel better, he won't be doing this forever.

Dan Same · June 2007

wollastonblue wrote:

My main worry is that we could end up with something like Die Hard, where we lose the sophiscation of Bond, and just end up with Action films.

Considering that Die Hard was probably the greatest action film of all time and is one of my all-time favourite films, I don't think that would be a bad thing at all.

According to Loeff, there is every good chance that Bond 22 will be a more traditional Bond. I hope he's right.

Loeffelholz · June 2007

Judging from the last shot of CR, I'm not at all concerned about Bond losing his 'sophistication'---this seems to be a common touchstone for many who wish the Brosnan era still had a few years to go

I think that (Formerly) Poor Danny's^TM detractors become fixated on his 'rough and tumble' performance in CR (particularly early on, crashing through the drywall, etc.) and make a long-jump assumption that he's incapable of being sophisticated. I think the fellow positively fed upon the rampant underestimation he received from Oct '05 - Oct '06...

As for a more 'traditional' Bond, I really believe #22 will be that---not the Precious Classic Formula, per se, but more elements to which fans are accustomed: the gunbarrel, the Bond theme throughout, a 'love 'em and leave 'em' approach to the ladies...yes, more 'sophistication'...and (perhaps!) Moneypenny.

Not to worry though: it's still Craig, so there will be plenty about which to debate and complain {[]

7289 · June 2007

No Moneypenny in CR'06 didn't bother me at all. The gag has gone way to cold and if brought back the relationship needs to be way more professional. The mas*urbati*n business in DAD was horrible!!

Bond is best with a gun or a steak knife. I can live with the cars if we don't have to watch a seven minute Abbott/Costello routine when they are introduced.

John Cleese is a great actor, but distracting in a Bond film. If we must have a Q, let them harken back to a "Major Boothroyd" type from Dr.No

Barry Nelson · June 2007

Read all the posts on this thread and I see we have a difference of opinion of what "back to basics" is. So I will talk in general terms. I have been let down by the ending in the last few Bond movies. I would really like to see a return to Bond gathering up a group of supporters/ soldiers/mercenaries whatever, for a large scale attack on the bad guys lair. It seems all the recent movies end up with Bond having a one-on-one fight to the death with the villian. In most cases I find this boring, although GE's was pretty good. How about a large scale assault on the hideout with dozens of extras and action filling the screen. Something like GF, TB, YOLT and TSWLM. I have always thought of Bond as bigger than life and I think the action scenes should match that.

I also like some of the glamour elements that I thought were missing in CR. I like Moneypenny, although I think they need to go in a little different direction and I agree with the previous poster that said Desmond is Q and they need something different.

Loeffelholz · June 2007

I thought the Ocean Club, the Royale and the Hotel Splendide were rather glamourous...

As far as the traditional full-scale mercenary/military assault (GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, TSWLM, MR, OP, TLD)...well, they account for nearly 50% of the film's entries---if one includes the female acrobats in OP---so this element of the Precious Classic Formula is hardly underrepresented, but they're certainly due for another by now.

I think the final (third?) film in Craig's arc---where he finally reaches the executive level of this nebulous 'organization' which employed Le Chiffre---ought to feature such an epic attack, with Bond leading the way, naturally :007)

7289 · June 2007

I'm OK with the EPIC ASSAULT!

I really like Craig's oo7 getting the sn*t kicked out of him at every turn in CR'06, add that to the classic "Gypsy Fight" and you have something to look forward to.

The villians can be formidable, but in the Donald Grant way, no giants with steel teeth, bald Sumo wrestlers or Japanese robots!

Agreed "Classic Formula" = ?

JADE66 · June 2007

The first instinct of the producers, to move forward, was the correct one. I like the ruthlessness of the new Bond, the man's physicality and essential cruelty. I like the stylistic elements, a Bond who bleeds, whose sense of humor is dry, an M who is still unsure about her newest killer. Much as I enjoyed Brosnan, the rapid fire quips were getting more than a little stale and not to beat a dead horse, but the laser watches and invisible cars with rocket launchers and the inevitable and increasingly irritating Q Branch sequences were starting to grow mold. Evolution is life. I hope the series will continue to evolve for a more sophisticated perhaps JADED audience. Not that I'M JADED at all. Nope. Not me.8-)

Dan Same · June 2007

Regarding Q and Moneypenny, I would like to see both come back. While I agree that Desmond was the true Q (although I did like Cleese), I just think that, considering Bond was given a gadget of sorts in CR, there is no reason why Q can't appear in Bond 22. As for Moneypenny, perhaps she can be a younger woman who becomes M's assistant in Bond 22.

7289 · July 2007

Miss Moneypenny was always "desireable", but literary Bond had the good sense not to go after M's secretary.

Prehaps they should bring in Miss Ponsonby, the secretary to the "oo Section". Inspite of numerous assault on her virtue she knocks back the determined assaults of all three agents.

That might be fun!

Back to Bond Basics

Comments