So do I, but that’s mostly because I like Star Wars better than Marvel. Probably not the space to get into this, but it hasn’t been all bad. Mandolorian is great fun.
and both Marvel comics and Star Wars had the infinitely expandable universe as part of their essential concept long before Disney took over, Marvel comics especially.
But in the original Star Wars novelization, Lucas (or his ghost) including a capsule summary of thousands of years of backstory, and there were comic book spinoffs and tie-in novels well before the second film came out.
I believe the first ever non-Lucas Star Wars story was in fact a Marvel comic book. the first six issues adapted the movie, then issue 7 was an all new story with Han and Chewie having an adventure in January 1978, I think this was before Splinter in the Minds Eye
Fleming never envisioned this sort of thing when he was writing his 14 books, so fars i know, But then he spent that last decade of his life trying again and again for a film deal, any film deal, and it took him til he was nearly dead to achieve that one goal. If he'd gotten that film deal earlier and was more involved and in good health, he might have actually been interested in spin-off characters and Early Years and all those additional potential revenue sources.
The three Star Wars prequels and sequels are of course not in the same league as the original trilogy, but I still find them enjoyable (in the most..) There are things that I find annoying in them, things they did they shouldn't have, things they didn't do they should have, but NTTD had that as well. So, if EON depart, although, it will be the end of an era, I'll try to remain optimistic that the films will still be entertaining and (hopefully) a bit more frequent. None of us are getting any younger, so I dislike the thought of a Bond film every 4/5 years even more now).
I know it's a danger of a massive tangent, but I'd probably rank Force Awakens as being better than one, maybe two of the original films. Less original, sure, but you're throwing stones in a glass house when it comes to SW and originality! :)
I would obviously like EON to keep making them because I think they just know how to do it and do it well, but they're not the only people who can make a film. NSNA didn't feel right but it wasn't that far off.
now theres a good question!, we've probably debated it before but relevant here:
was Never Say Never Againmore or less similar to a Classic era Bond film than these last five Craig films?
EON did make a conscious and radical change of style with Casino Royale, and even after the return of the gunbarrel and Q and Moneypenny, the subsequent films still are dong things the original films never would and avoiding things that were ritualistic in the original films.
sorry @Miles Messervy , you mean yes NSNA is more similar to classic Bond, or yes NSNA is less is similar?
and you're right to specify its not a value judgement. NSNA is arguably not a very good movie, but it follows the formula and feel of the established EON films up til that point.
The Craig films are arguably high quality products, in all technical or artistic senses except writing (which seems to be where most of the arguments focus) (and maybe except music, and maybe except something else...). but they are deliberately avoiding much of the expected formula and tone
I was indeed deliberately avoiding the Thunderball-shaped elephant in the room so as not to digress.
It is inherent that such a prototypical BondFilm plot (conceived as such by Fleming, McClory et al years before Dr No) should end up looking like a typical BondFilm even when made by completely different people. but the end result is that it does regardless of origins. I suppose the real test is what if McClory were allowed to make a genuine second film not recycling that plot? (I think he tried and lawyers stopped him)
if we could somehow parse out all elements that were recycled from Thunderball does the remainder begin to resemble a classic Bondfilm less than Craig's films? I cant quite imagine how to begin that thought experiment, we'd have to make a list and cross Thunderball derived elements off that list.
(EDIT: Rowan Atkinson for example. I could more easily imagine him in a Cubby produced EON BondFilm that in in a superserious CraigBondFilm. John Cleese in the last two Brosnans was not so different from Atkinson, and was not invited back for the Craig films even though the more Serious actor Dench was.)
SPECTRE was also a Thunderball remake, in the sense that EON recovered the rights to that movie and somehow took that material and made the movie we know with WaltzBlofeld. I know they used little other than the names Blofeld, SPECTRE, and a meeting scene, but thats sort of the point: given the rights to the same protoypical Bondfilm material, they made something that looks so completely unlike a classic Bondfilm
Comments
So do I, but that’s mostly because I like Star Wars better than Marvel. Probably not the space to get into this, but it hasn’t been all bad. Mandolorian is great fun.
and both Marvel comics and Star Wars had the infinitely expandable universe as part of their essential concept long before Disney took over, Marvel comics especially.
But in the original Star Wars novelization, Lucas (or his ghost) including a capsule summary of thousands of years of backstory, and there were comic book spinoffs and tie-in novels well before the second film came out.
I believe the first ever non-Lucas Star Wars story was in fact a Marvel comic book. the first six issues adapted the movie, then issue 7 was an all new story with Han and Chewie having an adventure in January 1978, I think this was before Splinter in the Minds Eye
Fleming never envisioned this sort of thing when he was writing his 14 books, so fars i know, But then he spent that last decade of his life trying again and again for a film deal, any film deal, and it took him til he was nearly dead to achieve that one goal. If he'd gotten that film deal earlier and was more involved and in good health, he might have actually been interested in spin-off characters and Early Years and all those additional potential revenue sources.
The three Star Wars prequels and sequels are of course not in the same league as the original trilogy, but I still find them enjoyable (in the most..) There are things that I find annoying in them, things they did they shouldn't have, things they didn't do they should have, but NTTD had that as well. So, if EON depart, although, it will be the end of an era, I'll try to remain optimistic that the films will still be entertaining and (hopefully) a bit more frequent. None of us are getting any younger, so I dislike the thought of a Bond film every 4/5 years even more now).
I know it's a danger of a massive tangent, but I'd probably rank Force Awakens as being better than one, maybe two of the original films. Less original, sure, but you're throwing stones in a glass house when it comes to SW and originality! :)
I would obviously like EON to keep making them because I think they just know how to do it and do it well, but they're not the only people who can make a film. NSNA didn't feel right but it wasn't that far off.
now theres a good question!, we've probably debated it before but relevant here:
was Never Say Never Again more or less similar to a Classic era Bond film than these last five Craig films?
EON did make a conscious and radical change of style with Casino Royale, and even after the return of the gunbarrel and Q and Moneypenny, the subsequent films still are dong things the original films never would and avoiding things that were ritualistic in the original films.
The answer is “yes.” That’s not a value judgement, just a fact.
sorry @Miles Messervy , you mean yes NSNA is more similar to classic Bond, or yes NSNA is less is similar?
and you're right to specify its not a value judgement. NSNA is arguably not a very good movie, but it follows the formula and feel of the established EON films up til that point.
The Craig films are arguably high quality products, in all technical or artistic senses except writing (which seems to be where most of the arguments focus) (and maybe except music, and maybe except something else...). but they are deliberately avoiding much of the expected formula and tone
Am I missing something here, or are you avoiding the "Thunderball"-shaped elephant in the room, caractacus?
I was indeed deliberately avoiding the Thunderball-shaped elephant in the room so as not to digress.
It is inherent that such a prototypical BondFilm plot (conceived as such by Fleming, McClory et al years before Dr No) should end up looking like a typical BondFilm even when made by completely different people. but the end result is that it does regardless of origins. I suppose the real test is what if McClory were allowed to make a genuine second film not recycling that plot? (I think he tried and lawyers stopped him)
if we could somehow parse out all elements that were recycled from Thunderball does the remainder begin to resemble a classic Bondfilm less than Craig's films? I cant quite imagine how to begin that thought experiment, we'd have to make a list and cross Thunderball derived elements off that list.
(EDIT: Rowan Atkinson for example. I could more easily imagine him in a Cubby produced EON BondFilm that in in a superserious CraigBondFilm. John Cleese in the last two Brosnans was not so different from Atkinson, and was not invited back for the Craig films even though the more Serious actor Dench was.)
SPECTRE was also a Thunderball remake, in the sense that EON recovered the rights to that movie and somehow took that material and made the movie we know with WaltzBlofeld. I know they used little other than the names Blofeld, SPECTRE, and a meeting scene, but thats sort of the point: given the rights to the same protoypical Bondfilm material, they made something that looks so completely unlike a classic Bondfilm
*mashes button*
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say yes, NSNA is more similar than recent entries. And it was the second best Bond film released that year!