I don't agree that Licence to Kill is a good example of a forced personal element floundering. Even though Leiter's involvement in any given film is small, it is clear over the course of the series that he and Bond are good friends. I personally really like the relationship between Bond and Leiter - it is one of those elements that helps give us an idea of Bond's life outside the narrow slices we get from the films. As a driving force behind LTK, I think where the film flounders is when it strays too far from the revenge plot - not when it focuses on it.
Tangentially related - does anyone else think that Bond and Della's interactions in the early scenes of LTK are a little *too* friendly? I've been friendly with friends' wives before, and I've been friendly with females before, but throughout those scenes I always half expect Della to tell Felix she's through with him and run off with Bond into the sunset!
After reading all the comments, it sounds like this is treading back over old roads again. It's Fleming's Bond vs. EON's bond.
If you read Fleming's novels (and sometimes I think there are those who should be re-reading them to get the arc of Bond's character), you realize at the beginning he was trying to write simple St. George slaying the dragon plots through the use of a modern spy story based on real events he either was involved with personally (such as gambling against the Germans in Lisbon) or heard first hand from other agents and commandos during his stint in RNI.
Bond may have already been a 00 in CR, but Fleming does not address how long he had been one. For all we know, Le Chiffre may had been only his second or third 00 job. He did however, not just deliver a straight good chap gets the bad chap story, but also got under Bond's skin while he recovers from his torture where he doubts about his career choice and whether it even makes a difference in the end (Mathis set him straight on that).
Rebooting the series with the first novel was the best choice EON made, as it gave them the chance to modernize the franchise and get it back to Fleming's character. They took liberty with having the story be his actual first mission - but I had no problem with that.
He was Fleming's character throughout the film, they just made him more real by making him less the superman from the old series (despite the odds/physics defying stunts).
By FRWL he was ready to dump the character and killed him off at the end. Fortunately for us he changed his mind and brought him back to life. Then he does Thunderball, has to endure the public lawsuit (and his health just keeps going south). So he goes out on the limb creatively and does TSWLM. Getting tepid reviews and sales forces him to get Bond "back in the game" and he has him go after Blofeld and get married then become a broken widower. The critics love having the old Bond back and even more humanized. Now he has him kill Blofeld in Japan and start a new life over with Kissy. He could have left the character there, but once again brings him back once more (though struggling with his own health and even dying before being able to do the last edit).
Connery and Moore's Bond were creations of EON. They stayed close to Fleming's stories in the first five films and then with OHMSS, even if they made Bond superhuman. They EONized LALD with Moore, redid YOLT into TSWLM, MR, made TMWTGG into a comic opera, then tried to go back to Fleming with FYEO and OP and then redid GF as AVTAK. Dump Rog and try to get back to Fleming again with Dalton (and do a fairly decent job, but still sugar coated with EON's old formula). Dump Dalton and get Brosnan then continue the series with him and struggle with Brosnan wanting to get the character more human and EON wanting to stick with their sci fi plots with lots of explosions.
Now we get Craig, the reboot with CR, then do basically FYEO with the burning buildings scene from TSWLM for QOS with a little political/environmental problems and a pseudo SPECTRE thrown in the mix and then make SF with the burned out agent sent out to prove his worth aka TMWTGG and YOLT.
As one can see from the novels (especially the last ones) Fleming struggled with his character and the stories, trying to balance the act of revealing a real agent suffering from drug addiction (alcohol/tobacco) and PTS from his career and his wife's death (and his broken relationships and the death of Vesper). Craig and EON have tried to bring this 007 to the film series because he existed in the novels but (except for OHMSS and a bit of LTK) not really in the EON series in the past.
I can see how some would dislike this take on the character and would prefer the return of a straightforward mission like the earlier entries that leaves 007 merely a spy with a gun hunting down and killing the bad chap. I personally hope they will indeed do this to some extent in the the next film and it looks like they may since they've recreated the past characters from HQ and burned the "bridges" of his old life and EON's past formula - (his childhood home, the DB5, Dench and even his flat!). I really believe this is a setup to a straightforward, old Bond mission plot. I do not, however, believe we will ever see a return to the superman/sci fi spectacle of the old series as they now have to compete with the Marvel comic films and other fantasy action entries. They returned Bond back to his literary roots but cemented it in the realities of modern geopolitics and terrorism to keep the brand current and I for one am very thankful for that.
I do not, however, believe we will ever see a return to the superman/sci fi spectacle of the old series as they now have to compete with the Marvel comic films and other fantasy action entries. They returned Bond back to his literary roots but cemented it in the realities of modern geopolitics and terrorism to keep the brand current and I for one am very thankful for that.
I don't agree that Licence to Kill is a good example of a forced personal element floundering. Even though Leiter's involvement in any given film is small, it is clear over the course of the series that he and Bond are good friends. I personally really like the relationship between Bond and Leiter - it is one of those elements that helps give us an idea of Bond's life outside the narrow slices we get from the films. As a driving force behind LTK, I think where the film flounders is when it strays too far from the revenge plot - not when it focuses on it.
Nah, it felt tacked on. Bond fans generally like the film, but audiences in 1989 didn't really buy it, and I wasn't all that moved, in part because the whole movie treated the subject like a Miami Vice episode.
A more serious attempt would have spent a lot more time developing onscreen Bond's and Leiter's (and Della's) relationship. In this regard, I felt more moved by the deaths of Quarrel and Kerim Bey, even though Leiter has a longer screen history and I like the character. The Leiter affair felt more like an excuse to send Bond on a mission -- and the funny thing is that the mission could have turned out exactly the same if Bond had simply had another reason to go rogue. Heck, except for having his own agents after him, the mission could have been the same if it was simply a sanctioned mission.
I do not, however, believe we will ever see a return to the superman/sci fi spectacle of the old series as they now have to compete with the Marvel comic films and other fantasy action entries. They returned Bond back to his literary roots but cemented it in the realities of modern geopolitics and terrorism to keep the brand current and I for one am very thankful for that.
Amen, Brother! -{
I guarantee that so long as Bond films are being produced, we will see a return to the fantasy spectacle. Audiences will tire (a lot already are) of the "serious" Bond, and the producers will follow the trend. All it will take is for another blockbuster film to set the agenda first, as the Bond films no longer are setting the standards in the action genre. It will happen, and with CGI, I'm guessing, too, fairly soon.
Gassy Man - I always felt moved by the personal mission in LTK so I guess we can just agree to disagree. Part of the reason may be that Hedison is my favorite Leiter. Or maybe LTK is the very reason he's my favorite Leiter. Ahhhh, the classic quandary of which came first, the love of the Leiter or the love of the Bond film.
I do not, however, believe we will ever see a return to the superman/sci fi spectacle of the old series as they now have to compete with the Marvel comic films and other fantasy action entries. They returned Bond back to his literary roots but cemented it in the realities of modern geopolitics and terrorism to keep the brand current and I for one am very thankful for that.
Amen, Brother! -{
I guarantee that so long as Bond films are being produced, we will see a return to the fantasy spectacle. Audiences will tire (a lot already are) of the "serious" Bond, and the producers will follow the trend. All it will take is for another blockbuster film to set the agenda first, as the Bond films no longer are setting the standards in the action genre. It will happen, and with CGI, I'm guessing, too, fairly soon.
We'll see, but I don't necessarily agree with your premise that audiences are "tiring" of the "serious" Bond. While it is true that producers tend to follow trends, is it really true that the only trend relevant to Bond films is the "action film" trend? I like to think that Bond films have an added element, i.e. the espionage thriller. Perhaps if future Bond films could maintain the serious edge, but with a few lighter moments cropping up from time to time, and include more of the spying aspects of Bond's missions, there would be no need to go back to the "superman/sci fi spectacle" that we saw last in DAD. Only time will tell, but it would be a real disappointment to me if the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan trend takes hold again. Don't get me wrong, I'm a die-hard Bond fan and I'll still watch, but I doubt I will enjoy it as much.
Gassy Man - I always felt moved by the personal mission in LTK so I guess we can just agree to disagree. Part of the reason may be that Hedison is my favorite Leiter. Or maybe LTK is the very reason he's my favorite Leiter. Ahhhh, the classic quandary of which came first, the love of the Leiter or the love of the Bond film.
Oh, I like David Hedison, too -- he looks a lot like my dad, for one, and I grew up watching reruns of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. But I just didn't think the story did enough with him. It's not the actors or characters I'm referring to but the plot and pacing of the film, parts of which I do think are great.
I'll take Dalton's two serious Bond movies over Craig's three. Dalton's still feel like Bond movies. I like Casino Royale the most from Daniel Craig. The other two I can do without except for the Quantum of Solace opening car chase and some of the music themes. Speaking of which they still haven't released complete soundtracks for many of these movies. But I want to see Skyfall once more. It's still not on cable yet.
I guarantee that so long as Bond films are being produced, we will see a return to the fantasy spectacle. Audiences will tire (a lot already are) of the "serious" Bond, and the producers will follow the trend. All it will take is for another blockbuster film to set the agenda first, as the Bond films no longer are setting the standards in the action genre. It will happen, and with CGI, I'm guessing, too, fairly soon.
We'll see, but I don't necessarily agree with your premise that audiences are "tiring" of the "serious" Bond. While it is true that producers tend to follow trends, is it really true that the only trend relevant to Bond films is the "action film" trend? I like to think that Bond films have an added element, i.e. the espionage thriller. Perhaps if future Bond films could maintain the serious edge, but with a few lighter moments cropping up from time to time, and include more of the spying aspects of Bond's missions, there would be no need to go back to the "superman/sci fi spectacle" that we saw last in DAD. Only time will tell, but it would be a real disappointment to me if the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan trend takes hold again. Don't get me wrong, I'm a die-hard Bond fan and I'll still watch, but I doubt I will enjoy it as much.
Oh, no, I'm not asking for any of that, and I certainly wouldn't wish a DAD on any franchise. I'm talking more along the lines of the 60s Bonds.
Here's the deal for me. With Craig, they've got another hyper-masculine Bond. He proved himself easily believable in the fights in CR, for instance, in a way we haven't seen in years. He's got a manly confidence that seems to come from within rather than without. Craig can also do humor, though not as effortlessly as Connery did. All this means that they can build a larger-than-life plot and world around Craig without him disappearing too far into the fantasy world -- one of the reasons the Connery Bonds worked was because no matter how fantastic they got, Connery still projected an air of genuine manhood that kept him rooted in the world the rest of us live in.
Craig is also getting older (we're the same age, but he looks at least 10 years older than me). Sony/United Artists/EON/whatever **** around so much to get the movies made, everyone ages significantly. So like it or not, they're going to have to slow down some of the physical punishments that Craig dishes out and takes and probably start to rely a little more on gadgets and technology. They could, of course, go the opposite route and made the films more personal and quieter -- and that could work if properly done -- but I'm not sure that wouldn't alienate the younger audiences movies are always after. So, it only makes sense to make Bond's world bigger and more colorful. And I think after the past two films, we might be ready for a breather.
I don't know if Daniel Craig could do the fantasy Bond. Even if it's something like a You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me. They tried it with Pierce Brosnan and Die Another Day and that went too far. You Only Live Twice was the first of the big base Bond movies although you could say Dr. No had a big base. Quantum of Solace tried something similar with the end hotel and that felt misplaced. I remember Roger Ebert's review on Quantum of Solace about how that drained water area would be full of guys in red clothes. I just don't know the angle the producers are taking on Daniel Craig's Bond. Silva had that abandoned base but it didn't feel like a Bond big base. There was this penthouse that I think was torn down.
Something like this would be a good location for Daniel Craig Bond bad guy. Have him sneak or shoot his way up or skydive in.
I don't know if Daniel Craig could do the fantasy Bond. Even if it's something like a You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me. They tried it with Pierce Brosnan and Die Another Day and that went too far. You Only Live Twice was the first of the big base Bond movies although you could say Dr. No had a big base. Quantum of Solace tried something similar with the end hotel and that felt misplaced. I remember Roger Ebert's review on Quantum of Solace about how that drained water area would be full of guys in red clothes. I just don't know the angle the producers are taking on Daniel Craig's Bond. Silva had that abandoned base but it didn't feel like a Bond big base. There was this penthouse that I think was torn down.
Something like this would be a good location for Daniel Craig Bond bad guy. Have him sneak or shoot his way up or skydive in.
The problem with the modern take on it is that they do it half-heartedly, through compromise -- a mid-century-modern hotel with a handful of people in camo outfits, for instance, does not a volcanic lair with ninjas and jumpsuits make. DAD was just silly -- on paper it may sound like something in the same vein as YOLT or TSWLM, but on paper, Applebee's sounds like a restaurant.
It's all or nothing, and the whole world of the film has to embody it. Trying to walk the line between "realistic" and "fantasy" just results in something muddled, in my opinion.
I guarantee that so long as Bond films are being produced, we will see a return to the fantasy spectacle. Audiences will tire (a lot already are) of the "serious" Bond, and the producers will follow the trend. All it will take is for another blockbuster film to set the agenda first, as the Bond films no longer are setting the standards in the action genre. It will happen, and with CGI, I'm guessing, too, fairly soon.
We'll see, but I don't necessarily agree with your premise that audiences are "tiring" of the "serious" Bond. While it is true that producers tend to follow trends, is it really true that the only trend relevant to Bond films is the "action film" trend? I like to think that Bond films have an added element, i.e. the espionage thriller. Perhaps if future Bond films could maintain the serious edge, but with a few lighter moments cropping up from time to time, and include more of the spying aspects of Bond's missions, there would be no need to go back to the "superman/sci fi spectacle" that we saw last in DAD. Only time will tell, but it would be a real disappointment to me if the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan trend takes hold again. Don't get me wrong, I'm a die-hard Bond fan and I'll still watch, but I doubt I will enjoy it as much.
Oh, no, I'm not asking for any of that, and I certainly wouldn't wish a DAD on any franchise. I'm talking more along the lines of the 60s Bonds.
Here's the deal for me. With Craig, they've got another hyper-masculine Bond. He proved himself easily believable in the fights in CR, for instance, in a way we haven't seen in years. He's got a manly confidence that seems to come from within rather than without. Craig can also do humor, though not as effortlessly as Connery did. All this means that they can build a larger-than-life plot and world around Craig without him disappearing too far into the fantasy world -- one of the reasons the Connery Bonds worked was because no matter how fantastic they got, Connery still projected an air of genuine manhood that kept him rooted in the world the rest of us live in.
Craig is also getting older (we're the same age, but he looks at least 10 years older than me). Sony/United Artists/EON/whatever **** around so much to get the movies made, everyone ages significantly. So like it or not, they're going to have to slow down some of the physical punishments that Craig dishes out and takes and probably start to rely a little more on gadgets and technology. They could, of course, go the opposite route and made the films more personal and quieter -- and that could work if properly done -- but I'm not sure that wouldn't alienate the younger audiences movies are always after. So, it only makes sense to make Bond's world bigger and more colorful. And I think after the past two films, we might be ready for a breather.
I see now where you're coming from here, and I don't disagree for the most part. I guess I just cringed a bit at the thought that the series might go back to the cartoonish level of some of the past films. I'm glad you aren't suggesting or advocating for that.
{[] We're pretty much on the same page about things, Blackleiter, so I suspect we both want pretty much the same thing here.
I would like to see something big and brash and fun but not silly and campy and dumb (like DAD) -- a giant lair, a private army, and global aspirations don't seem beyond the pale to me for a film pushing the boundaries without stampeding over those boundaries. Heck, that's basically Microsoft, Google, and Facebook's description and mission statements.
On the other hand, I don't want to invisible cars, diamond-faced villains, or lame jokes for the sake of being goofy. Let the humor be witty and slick, growing out the characters and not at the expense of them. Craig can more or less play straight man in most scenes, but give him a chance to get some zingers in. Come up with some clever and not simply convenient gadgets. Do something interesting with the sets and locations rather than rely on cheesy CGI. Delight us in the sensuality -- clothes, cars, and sex -- rather than just spend a lot of money and go through the motions.
The 60s Bonds will never be recaptures but maybe they can take us as close as the modern sensibility and talent allows.
{[] We're pretty much on the same page about things, Blackleiter, so I suspect we both want pretty much the same thing here.
I would like to see something big and brash and fun but not silly and campy and dumb (like DAD) -- a giant lair, a private army, and global aspirations don't seem beyond the pale to me for a film pushing the boundaries without stampeding over those boundaries. Heck, that's basically Microsoft, Google, and Facebook's description and mission statements.
On the other hand, I don't want to invisible cars, diamond-faced villains, or lame jokes for the sake of being goofy. Let the humor be witty and slick, growing out the characters and not at the expense of them. Craig can more or less play straight man in most scenes, but give him a chance to get some zingers in. Come up with some clever and not simply convenient gadgets. Do something interesting with the sets and locations rather than rely on cheesy CGI. Delight us in the sensuality -- clothes, cars, and sex -- rather than just spend a lot of money and go through the motions.
The 60s Bonds will never be recaptures but maybe they can take us as close as the modern sensibility and talent allows.
{[] We're pretty much on the same page about things, Blackleiter, so I suspect we both want pretty much the same thing here.
I would like to see something big and brash and fun but not silly and campy and dumb (like DAD) -- a giant lair, a private army, and global aspirations don't seem beyond the pale to me for a film pushing the boundaries without stampeding over those boundaries. Heck, that's basically Microsoft, Google, and Facebook's description and mission statements.
On the other hand, I don't want to invisible cars, diamond-faced villains, or lame jokes for the sake of being goofy. Let the humor be witty and slick, growing out the characters and not at the expense of them. Craig can more or less play straight man in most scenes, but give him a chance to get some zingers in. Come up with some clever and not simply convenient gadgets. Do something interesting with the sets and locations rather than rely on cheesy CGI. Delight us in the sensuality -- clothes, cars, and sex -- rather than just spend a lot of money and go through the motions.
The 60s Bonds will never be recaptures but maybe they can take us as close as the modern sensibility and talent allows.
I just don't feel that EON will ever bring back the sci/fi fantasy's of YOLT and it's clones (TSWLM, MR,etc.). Craig would look as out of place in one of those as Dalton would and no matter how big of a presence as Bond Connery projected in his films, after GF he started to get overshadowed by all the gadgets and armys of thugs and explosions. It was one of the reasons LTK didn't work right. They wrote a serious revenge/drug dealer/arms smuggling story then had to make the heroine a female mercenary/flying vet who worked in Central America(?) - as if any male thugs in the drug/insurgent business would work with a women - they would more likely just rape and kill her off. Then they have the villain's chopper have a giant hatch to open and fly inside. It was these leftovers from the older films which EON could not leave out because they thought it would cheat the audicence somehow. They even threw in Wayne Newton for comic relief..another example of the old EON stew - remember Sheriff Pepper?
Craig would look out of place next to such characters. Would they do this again with a new Bond? Possibly, but god, I hope not.
I think EON will stay away from the fantasy stories as long as it has to keep competing with the comic book/heavy CGI film adventures and I don't see and end to them.
They may do something along the lines of GF or OHMSS in the future but that's probably it as far as fantastic storylines go.
I just don't feel that EON will ever bring back the sci/fi fantasy's of YOLT and it's clones (TSWLM, MR,etc.). Craig would look as out of place in one of those as Dalton would and no matter how big of a presence as Bond Connery projected in his films, after GF he started to get overshadowed by all the gadgets and armys of thugs and explosions. It was one of the reasons LTK didn't work right. They wrote a serious revenge/drug dealer/arms smuggling story then had to make the heroine a female mercenary/flying vet who worked in Central America(?) - as if any male thugs in the drug/insurgent business would work with a women - they would more likely just rape and kill her off. Then they have the villain's chopper have a giant hatch to open and fly inside. It was these leftovers from the older films which EON could not leave out because they thought it would cheat the audicence somehow. They even threw in Wayne Newton for comic relief..another example of the old EON stew - remember Sheriff Pepper?
Craig would look out of place next to such characters. Would they do this again with a new Bond? Possibly, but god, I hope not.
I think EON will stay away from the fantasy stories as long as it has to keep competing with the comic book/heavy CGI film adventures and I don't see and end to them.
They may do something along the lines of GF or OHMSS in the future but that's probably it as far as fantastic storylines go.
{[] We're pretty much on the same page about things, Blackleiter, so I suspect we both want pretty much the same thing here.
I would like to see something big and brash and fun but not silly and campy and dumb (like DAD) -- a giant lair, a private army, and global aspirations don't seem beyond the pale to me for a film pushing the boundaries without stampeding over those boundaries. Heck, that's basically Microsoft, Google, and Facebook's description and mission statements.
On the other hand, I don't want to invisible cars, diamond-faced villains, or lame jokes for the sake of being goofy. Let the humor be witty and slick, growing out the characters and not at the expense of them. Craig can more or less play straight man in most scenes, but give him a chance to get some zingers in. Come up with some clever and not simply convenient gadgets. Do something interesting with the sets and locations rather than rely on cheesy CGI. Delight us in the sensuality -- clothes, cars, and sex -- rather than just spend a lot of money and go through the motions.
The 60s Bonds will never be recaptures but maybe they can take us as close as the modern sensibility and talent allows.
{[] We're pretty much on the same page about things, Blackleiter, so I suspect we both want pretty much the same thing here.
I would like to see something big and brash and fun but not silly and campy and dumb (like DAD) -- a giant lair, a private army, and global aspirations don't seem beyond the pale to me for a film pushing the boundaries without stampeding over those boundaries. Heck, that's basically Microsoft, Google, and Facebook's description and mission statements.
On the other hand, I don't want to invisible cars, diamond-faced villains, or lame jokes for the sake of being goofy. Let the humor be witty and slick, growing out the characters and not at the expense of them. Craig can more or less play straight man in most scenes, but give him a chance to get some zingers in. Come up with some clever and not simply convenient gadgets. Do something interesting with the sets and locations rather than rely on cheesy CGI. Delight us in the sensuality -- clothes, cars, and sex -- rather than just spend a lot of money and go through the motions.
The 60s Bonds will never be recaptures but maybe they can take us as close as the modern sensibility and talent allows.
I just don't feel that EON will ever bring back the sci/fi fantasy's of YOLT and it's clones (TSWLM, MR,etc.). Craig would look as out of place in one of those as Dalton would and no matter how big of a presence as Bond Connery projected in his films, after GF he started to get overshadowed by all the gadgets and armys of thugs and explosions. It was one of the reasons LTK didn't work right. They wrote a serious revenge/drug dealer/arms smuggling story then had to make the heroine a female mercenary/flying vet who worked in Central America(?) - as if any male thugs in the drug/insurgent business would work with a women - they would more likely just rape and kill her off. Then they have the villain's chopper have a giant hatch to open and fly inside. It was these leftovers from the older films which EON could not leave out because they thought it would cheat the audicence somehow. They even threw in Wayne Newton for comic relief..another example of the old EON stew - remember Sheriff Pepper?
Craig would look out of place next to such characters. Would they do this again with a new Bond? Possibly, but god, I hope not.
I think EON will stay away from the fantasy stories as long as it has to keep competing with the comic book/heavy CGI film adventures and I don't see and end to them.
They may do something along the lines of GF or OHMSS in the future but that's probably it as far as fantastic storylines go.
I think they could do something like YOLT -- not only has it been done before, but it's a matter of how the production team approaches it. If they want it be silly or half-hearted, it won't work; but if they want it to be straight, they play it that way.
The Batman films are a good example. The idea of a guy in rubber suit chasing people around dressed up like clowns is just inane. Yet, the last three movies took the notion so seriously, the audience bought it. It's not the idea but the execution. By comparison, the Michael Keaton ones look campy -- and they were considered "dark" in their day. And can anyone imagine after the 1960s series another production even thinking about doing a serious Batman movie?
Time changes things. Old ideas get recycled. The problem is the people doing the Bonds have wanted to follow the trends for the past 30 years rather than set them. So, we'll have to wait until some other spectacle comes along with the general ingredients of YOLT or similar movies. When that succeeds, the people at EON will jump aboard the bandwagon and give us their version. But it will happen.
Yes, the emphasis on missions being personal, while it has produced some good movies, I think that theme is on it's breaking point. Especially with Spectre having the villain be Bond's brother. I'm starting to miss when James Bond would just go on a regular assignment, not disobey his orders and not try to shoehorn some personal plot into the matter. A 00-agent is supposed to be just one cog in a massive machine. Yes, he saves the world, but the world doesn't revolve around him. Evildoers in the world don't solely exist just to attack MI6.
License to Kill and Quantum of Solace are about Bond quitting his job to go on a revenge mission. The World Is Not Enough and Skyfall are about a villain personally knowing M, being hurt by her and wanting to take revenge. In Goldeneye and Spectre, the villain personally knew Bond, faked their own death, became evil and want to kill Bond.
Yes, the emphasis on missions being personal, while it has produced some good movies, I think that theme is on it's breaking point. Especially with Spectre having the villain be Bond's brother. I'm starting to miss when James Bond would just go on a regular assignment, not disobey his orders and not try to shoehorn some personal plot into the matter. A 00-agent is supposed to be just one cog in a massive machine. Yes, he saves the world, but the world doesn't revolve around him. Evildoers in the world don't solely exist just to attack MI6.
License to Kill and Quantum of Solace are about Bond quitting his job to go on a revenge mission. The World Is Not Enough and Skyfall are about a villain personally knowing M, being hurt by her and wanting to take revenge. In Goldeneye and Spectre, the villain personally knew Bond, faked their own death, became evil and want to kill Bond.
Yeah but TND and DAD are the films outside of this and they're rubbish!
I do agree though, I'd like to see a standard plot where Bond isn't being affected or gets upset at a personal event. They'll just have to pull it off well.
But then again, they're always going to be accused of copying Jason Bourne, The Dark Knight or Austin Powers if they try and do a modern save the world plot... 8-)
I do agree though, I'd like to see a standard plot where Bond isn't being affected or gets upset at a personal event. They'll just have to pull it off well.
Would you really like to see one Bond doesn't get affected by anything? How would you keep the lead actor interested?
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
I do agree though, I'd like to see a standard plot where Bond isn't being affected or gets upset at a personal event. They'll just have to pull it off well.
Would you really like to see one Bond doesn't get affected by anything? How would you keep the lead actor interested?
Not to mention a good portion of the audience! He is James Bond, not the T 1000 from Terminator! As it is, one of the key accusations against QoS was Mr Craig played it very flat, unintentionally creating that kind of perception.
Personally I disagree, he showed dangerously contained anger and some trite humour.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I do agree though, I'd like to see a standard plot where Bond isn't being affected or gets upset at a personal event. They'll just have to pull it off well.
Would you really like to see one Bond doesn't get affected by anything? How would you keep the lead actor interested?
I take both sides. I would like to see Bond have a regular mission that isn't all about him, but it would still be nice to see things affect Bond. I don't think the personal missions in Craig's films have been written or acted well. CR has too much nonsense thrown in to distract from Fleming's meaningful story, and Daniel Craig and Eva Green have no chemistry at all to make the personal story believable. QoS is poorly written and acted, SF is so poorly written that nothing makes sense and SP has a very forced storyline that isn't believable. I don't think I'd mind the personal missions if they were done as well as LTK.
Casino Royale, I think, achieved the balance of giving the viewer a perspective on Bond's personal life while also making the mission about the world at large (and not just about him). The later Craig films became increasingly focused on making the mission all about Bond.
Comments
Tangentially related - does anyone else think that Bond and Della's interactions in the early scenes of LTK are a little *too* friendly? I've been friendly with friends' wives before, and I've been friendly with females before, but throughout those scenes I always half expect Della to tell Felix she's through with him and run off with Bond into the sunset!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/skyfall-bluray-doesnt-match
Same here.
If you read Fleming's novels (and sometimes I think there are those who should be re-reading them to get the arc of Bond's character), you realize at the beginning he was trying to write simple St. George slaying the dragon plots through the use of a modern spy story based on real events he either was involved with personally (such as gambling against the Germans in Lisbon) or heard first hand from other agents and commandos during his stint in RNI.
Bond may have already been a 00 in CR, but Fleming does not address how long he had been one. For all we know, Le Chiffre may had been only his second or third 00 job. He did however, not just deliver a straight good chap gets the bad chap story, but also got under Bond's skin while he recovers from his torture where he doubts about his career choice and whether it even makes a difference in the end (Mathis set him straight on that).
Rebooting the series with the first novel was the best choice EON made, as it gave them the chance to modernize the franchise and get it back to Fleming's character. They took liberty with having the story be his actual first mission - but I had no problem with that.
He was Fleming's character throughout the film, they just made him more real by making him less the superman from the old series (despite the odds/physics defying stunts).
By FRWL he was ready to dump the character and killed him off at the end. Fortunately for us he changed his mind and brought him back to life. Then he does Thunderball, has to endure the public lawsuit (and his health just keeps going south). So he goes out on the limb creatively and does TSWLM. Getting tepid reviews and sales forces him to get Bond "back in the game" and he has him go after Blofeld and get married then become a broken widower. The critics love having the old Bond back and even more humanized. Now he has him kill Blofeld in Japan and start a new life over with Kissy. He could have left the character there, but once again brings him back once more (though struggling with his own health and even dying before being able to do the last edit).
Connery and Moore's Bond were creations of EON. They stayed close to Fleming's stories in the first five films and then with OHMSS, even if they made Bond superhuman. They EONized LALD with Moore, redid YOLT into TSWLM, MR, made TMWTGG into a comic opera, then tried to go back to Fleming with FYEO and OP and then redid GF as AVTAK. Dump Rog and try to get back to Fleming again with Dalton (and do a fairly decent job, but still sugar coated with EON's old formula). Dump Dalton and get Brosnan then continue the series with him and struggle with Brosnan wanting to get the character more human and EON wanting to stick with their sci fi plots with lots of explosions.
Now we get Craig, the reboot with CR, then do basically FYEO with the burning buildings scene from TSWLM for QOS with a little political/environmental problems and a pseudo SPECTRE thrown in the mix and then make SF with the burned out agent sent out to prove his worth aka TMWTGG and YOLT.
As one can see from the novels (especially the last ones) Fleming struggled with his character and the stories, trying to balance the act of revealing a real agent suffering from drug addiction (alcohol/tobacco) and PTS from his career and his wife's death (and his broken relationships and the death of Vesper). Craig and EON have tried to bring this 007 to the film series because he existed in the novels but (except for OHMSS and a bit of LTK) not really in the EON series in the past.
I can see how some would dislike this take on the character and would prefer the return of a straightforward mission like the earlier entries that leaves 007 merely a spy with a gun hunting down and killing the bad chap. I personally hope they will indeed do this to some extent in the the next film and it looks like they may since they've recreated the past characters from HQ and burned the "bridges" of his old life and EON's past formula - (his childhood home, the DB5, Dench and even his flat!). I really believe this is a setup to a straightforward, old Bond mission plot. I do not, however, believe we will ever see a return to the superman/sci fi spectacle of the old series as they now have to compete with the Marvel comic films and other fantasy action entries. They returned Bond back to his literary roots but cemented it in the realities of modern geopolitics and terrorism to keep the brand current and I for one am very thankful for that.
Amen, Brother! -{
A more serious attempt would have spent a lot more time developing onscreen Bond's and Leiter's (and Della's) relationship. In this regard, I felt more moved by the deaths of Quarrel and Kerim Bey, even though Leiter has a longer screen history and I like the character. The Leiter affair felt more like an excuse to send Bond on a mission -- and the funny thing is that the mission could have turned out exactly the same if Bond had simply had another reason to go rogue. Heck, except for having his own agents after him, the mission could have been the same if it was simply a sanctioned mission.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/skyfall-bluray-doesnt-match
We'll see, but I don't necessarily agree with your premise that audiences are "tiring" of the "serious" Bond. While it is true that producers tend to follow trends, is it really true that the only trend relevant to Bond films is the "action film" trend? I like to think that Bond films have an added element, i.e. the espionage thriller. Perhaps if future Bond films could maintain the serious edge, but with a few lighter moments cropping up from time to time, and include more of the spying aspects of Bond's missions, there would be no need to go back to the "superman/sci fi spectacle" that we saw last in DAD. Only time will tell, but it would be a real disappointment to me if the Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan trend takes hold again. Don't get me wrong, I'm a die-hard Bond fan and I'll still watch, but I doubt I will enjoy it as much.
Here's the deal for me. With Craig, they've got another hyper-masculine Bond. He proved himself easily believable in the fights in CR, for instance, in a way we haven't seen in years. He's got a manly confidence that seems to come from within rather than without. Craig can also do humor, though not as effortlessly as Connery did. All this means that they can build a larger-than-life plot and world around Craig without him disappearing too far into the fantasy world -- one of the reasons the Connery Bonds worked was because no matter how fantastic they got, Connery still projected an air of genuine manhood that kept him rooted in the world the rest of us live in.
Craig is also getting older (we're the same age, but he looks at least 10 years older than me). Sony/United Artists/EON/whatever **** around so much to get the movies made, everyone ages significantly. So like it or not, they're going to have to slow down some of the physical punishments that Craig dishes out and takes and probably start to rely a little more on gadgets and technology. They could, of course, go the opposite route and made the films more personal and quieter -- and that could work if properly done -- but I'm not sure that wouldn't alienate the younger audiences movies are always after. So, it only makes sense to make Bond's world bigger and more colorful. And I think after the past two films, we might be ready for a breather.
Something like this would be a good location for Daniel Craig Bond bad guy. Have him sneak or shoot his way up or skydive in.
It's all or nothing, and the whole world of the film has to embody it. Trying to walk the line between "realistic" and "fantasy" just results in something muddled, in my opinion.
I see now where you're coming from here, and I don't disagree for the most part. I guess I just cringed a bit at the thought that the series might go back to the cartoonish level of some of the past films. I'm glad you aren't suggesting or advocating for that.
I would like to see something big and brash and fun but not silly and campy and dumb (like DAD) -- a giant lair, a private army, and global aspirations don't seem beyond the pale to me for a film pushing the boundaries without stampeding over those boundaries. Heck, that's basically Microsoft, Google, and Facebook's description and mission statements.
On the other hand, I don't want to invisible cars, diamond-faced villains, or lame jokes for the sake of being goofy. Let the humor be witty and slick, growing out the characters and not at the expense of them. Craig can more or less play straight man in most scenes, but give him a chance to get some zingers in. Come up with some clever and not simply convenient gadgets. Do something interesting with the sets and locations rather than rely on cheesy CGI. Delight us in the sensuality -- clothes, cars, and sex -- rather than just spend a lot of money and go through the motions.
The 60s Bonds will never be recaptures but maybe they can take us as close as the modern sensibility and talent allows.
Now we're talkin'! {[]
+1. Loved the bit about Microsoft etc!
Craig would look out of place next to such characters. Would they do this again with a new Bond? Possibly, but god, I hope not.
I think EON will stay away from the fantasy stories as long as it has to keep competing with the comic book/heavy CGI film adventures and I don't see and end to them.
They may do something along the lines of GF or OHMSS in the future but that's probably it as far as fantastic storylines go.
The Batman films are a good example. The idea of a guy in rubber suit chasing people around dressed up like clowns is just inane. Yet, the last three movies took the notion so seriously, the audience bought it. It's not the idea but the execution. By comparison, the Michael Keaton ones look campy -- and they were considered "dark" in their day. And can anyone imagine after the 1960s series another production even thinking about doing a serious Batman movie?
Time changes things. Old ideas get recycled. The problem is the people doing the Bonds have wanted to follow the trends for the past 30 years rather than set them. So, we'll have to wait until some other spectacle comes along with the general ingredients of YOLT or similar movies. When that succeeds, the people at EON will jump aboard the bandwagon and give us their version. But it will happen.
License to Kill and Quantum of Solace are about Bond quitting his job to go on a revenge mission. The World Is Not Enough and Skyfall are about a villain personally knowing M, being hurt by her and wanting to take revenge. In Goldeneye and Spectre, the villain personally knew Bond, faked their own death, became evil and want to kill Bond.
Yeah but TND and DAD are the films outside of this and they're rubbish!
I do agree though, I'd like to see a standard plot where Bond isn't being affected or gets upset at a personal event. They'll just have to pull it off well.
But then again, they're always going to be accused of copying Jason Bourne, The Dark Knight or Austin Powers if they try and do a modern save the world plot... 8-)
"Better make that two."
Would you really like to see one Bond doesn't get affected by anything? How would you keep the lead actor interested?
Not to mention a good portion of the audience! He is James Bond, not the T 1000 from Terminator! As it is, one of the key accusations against QoS was Mr Craig played it very flat, unintentionally creating that kind of perception.
Personally I disagree, he showed dangerously contained anger and some trite humour.
I take both sides. I would like to see Bond have a regular mission that isn't all about him, but it would still be nice to see things affect Bond. I don't think the personal missions in Craig's films have been written or acted well. CR has too much nonsense thrown in to distract from Fleming's meaningful story, and Daniel Craig and Eva Green have no chemistry at all to make the personal story believable. QoS is poorly written and acted, SF is so poorly written that nothing makes sense and SP has a very forced storyline that isn't believable. I don't think I'd mind the personal missions if they were done as well as LTK.