SkyFall & Beyond: Do the producers want classic Bond back or not then?
scottmu65
Carlisle, Cumbria, UKPosts: 402MI6 Agent
First of all, don't get me wrong, I loved Skyfall, I saw it multiple times at the Cinema and even more since it was released on DVD but there has been something on my mind about the whole thing, I will try to make as much sense of it as possible as I would love to hear other peoples views on it, whether they are fans of the film or not. I apologize if I end up babbling on making little sense.
So Casino Royale ended up 'rebooting' (hate that term) the franchise, the producer's wanted to start again with Ian Fleming's first Bond story and reintroduce our beloved character and bring him into the 21st century, they wanted a more modern, less 'fantastical', realistic and human Bond. All of this is fine, but what I do not understand is this, since Casino Royale the direction the Bond franchise was taken in has received ALOT of praise by fans and critics alike, but in each of Daniel Craig's Bond films there has always been the claim that this is how Bond becomes Bond, e.g.
Casino Royale: This is how Bond becomes 007, gets his license to kill, becomes the character we know and love, even going as far as to give the gunbarrel sequence a backstory (a nice touch btw)
Quantum of Solace: OK, actually this is the film where Bond becomes the character you know and love (after he gets his revenge for Vespa despite the fact that he used the 'The bitch is dead' line to emphasize the fact that he doesn't care any more and has become cold and emotionless towards it all.
Skyfall: Actually, forget all that, this is where we find out what Bond is about and how he becomes who he is through a metaphorical 'rebirth' process after a job gone wrong, this is where we meet Q and Moneypenny and get a proper introduction of a new M for the first time then getting a classic 'Ms Office' scene then a gunbarrel sequence thus bringing everything full circle and showing us that Bond is definitely back...
I guess my question is what exactly are the producers doing? I thought they wanted this new, more down to earth Bond but then Skyfall comes along and all they talk about is bringing 'Classic Bond' back, are they bored of the reboot series and want to bring back some normality for the series or was it all just a gimmick for the 50th Anniversary, will they disregard all of the classic elements from Skyfall in the next installment, i.e. Car with weapons and gadgets, Classic M's office, over the top villains? I think personally I want classic Bond back, but I think that they should choose one direction and stick to it, I mean how many times can they re-introduce Daniel Craig as Bond? As in my eyes he hasn't actually had a proper stand-alone Bond film yet that doesn't focus on Bond's character development.
I understand that I may just be reading into this too much but surely I am not the only person who holds the same view?
So Casino Royale ended up 'rebooting' (hate that term) the franchise, the producer's wanted to start again with Ian Fleming's first Bond story and reintroduce our beloved character and bring him into the 21st century, they wanted a more modern, less 'fantastical', realistic and human Bond. All of this is fine, but what I do not understand is this, since Casino Royale the direction the Bond franchise was taken in has received ALOT of praise by fans and critics alike, but in each of Daniel Craig's Bond films there has always been the claim that this is how Bond becomes Bond, e.g.
Casino Royale: This is how Bond becomes 007, gets his license to kill, becomes the character we know and love, even going as far as to give the gunbarrel sequence a backstory (a nice touch btw)
Quantum of Solace: OK, actually this is the film where Bond becomes the character you know and love (after he gets his revenge for Vespa despite the fact that he used the 'The bitch is dead' line to emphasize the fact that he doesn't care any more and has become cold and emotionless towards it all.
Skyfall: Actually, forget all that, this is where we find out what Bond is about and how he becomes who he is through a metaphorical 'rebirth' process after a job gone wrong, this is where we meet Q and Moneypenny and get a proper introduction of a new M for the first time then getting a classic 'Ms Office' scene then a gunbarrel sequence thus bringing everything full circle and showing us that Bond is definitely back...
I guess my question is what exactly are the producers doing? I thought they wanted this new, more down to earth Bond but then Skyfall comes along and all they talk about is bringing 'Classic Bond' back, are they bored of the reboot series and want to bring back some normality for the series or was it all just a gimmick for the 50th Anniversary, will they disregard all of the classic elements from Skyfall in the next installment, i.e. Car with weapons and gadgets, Classic M's office, over the top villains? I think personally I want classic Bond back, but I think that they should choose one direction and stick to it, I mean how many times can they re-introduce Daniel Craig as Bond? As in my eyes he hasn't actually had a proper stand-alone Bond film yet that doesn't focus on Bond's character development.
I understand that I may just be reading into this too much but surely I am not the only person who holds the same view?
http://www.classicbondforums.tk - Please support our community.
Comments
why bring in moneypenny, and Q if not to restart the Bond /moneypenny relationship. and Q if not to bring in good gadgets
Q did say, "we dont do exploding pens now" which is a hint of things to come,
So Campbell's successor has to go with Craig's vision on how to play Bond (shaped by the director surely), the casting of Leiter, the continuance of Dench as M, and follow up the Quantum story. Along with Bond's shadowy back story and talk of a guardian. Not saying that is all wrong, but really it should be Campbell's responsibility if he has any clue as to where it's going.
Now Mendes' successor has to go with a new Moneypenny, Fiennes as M, no Aston Martin DB5 - but where to? I suppose in other respects the slate is wiped clean.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think there's a lot to be said for hiring the same director or 'efficient hired hands', especially when they are following a story arc as they have with Craig's Bond. I think then its important for the films to have the same feel or vibe.
The other problem with 'name-ish' directors is the 'putting their stamp on' it thing. Its about Flemings Bond not about it being Sam Mendes idea of Bond.
To me, the series seems a tad confused now and I think that is down to having had three separate directors . Mendes even brought in his own music guy with Thomas Newman.
I liked the series best when there was the least disruption between directors. When there was a uniformity. The Bond actors could change but on the whole it stayed the same.
I loved CR. Didn't like QoS and enjoyed SF but found bits of it rather odd.
There was a lot of SF that I liked. I like Craig as Bond and liked the new M, Q and Moneypenny
but I do think the series now needs to decide what it wants to be.
I know, I know...we are now where we should have been if the lamentable QOS had not happened,but with a now rapidly ageing Bond who has already played the burnt out fin de siècle card and who is going to have to convince us that he is an up to snuff career prime Bond in 24.
It's going to take some doing. EON have in my view painted themselves and the franchise into a corner.
Will this be standard for every new actor that takes over, then?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
If the movies are as good as the three we have had...why complain ? B-)
Three? Casino Royale, Skyfall... What was the third good movie????
So far, only QOS felt to me like a proper adventure; CR was how he became a cold 00, SF was about dumping M.... if we have to RE-ESTABLISH Bond and his world with each actor now, this will be a very long century. 8-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes, I'd be interested to know the answer to that as well .
"How's this thread now?"
"Silly. One sympathizes."
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yea sorry....I know QoS was a spectacular movie...but I'm happy to downgrade it to 'good' for this
I'm praying for ordinary Bond with a twist. A film simliar to LALD in stlye and humour.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
DANGER WILL ROGERS..DANGER!
"I never met a robot I didn't like" - Will Rogers.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
resurrected in TMWTGG). I think they have gotten the reboot and character where they want it now and will make a "classic" and perhaps lighter Bond next time around.
As I've said before:
It was never necessary to deconstruct the character of James Bond in order to update him.
What the producers want is a Jane Bond. They are out of their minds, both of them, and should be replaced by sane, rational people.
Also I wish he had left it at "What were you expecting, an exploding pen?" and not added "We don't really go in for that sort of thing anymore." I don't know why but the second half of that line really annoyed me!
If that's what they want then they probably should have cast someone with less of a penis!
As has been stated before, Casino Royale gave the producers the opportunity to explore the origins of the Bond character, as it was the first novel and, with Vesper's death, gave Bond his raison d'être. So it's not exactly a deconstruction, more a fresh start. The series, with DAD, was again straying towards becoming self-parody again and CR was an opportunity to get Bond back on track. In my opinion
What exactly do you mean by "a Jane Bond", Richard--w?
Very true indeed. Well said. And Skyfall was an example of James Bond's origin story - from here on in we're back to a slightly more recognisable form of James Bond film, is perhaps less than classic. A very welcome change in my (James Bond) book.
from getting beat up by Dr. No's henchmen and having to crawl in dirty clothes through
a ventilation shaft like Bruce Willis in Die Hard to running through armies of soldiers
in his undamaged Italian suits firing away with machine guns and repelling across
rooms on a wire shot from his belt buckle! The series and the character needed to be
stripped of all those layers of cartoonish spackle back to Fleming's original spy and then
layered back up with realistic, modern plots. As much as I enjoy some of the visual spectacle of some of the extremes - YOLT, MR, TSWLM, etc., I personally don't want to
ever see those again. I hope they'll leave those things to the DC comics films and keep Fleming's original ordinary spy for all the future films.