48 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Thunderball, Moonraker, and Die Another Day. Three distinctive Bond films, and yet they all have a few things in common. They are the fourth films of their respective actor, they all revel in excess. It appears that with the fourth film the Producers took out all the stops in trying to deliver a huge Bond epic. One for the ages, so to speak. Whether or not any of these films succeeds in that, is entirely subjective, but it does bring up an interesting question:

Can we expect the same from Craig's fourth film? From all accounts, Skyfall seems to be a pretty tightly packed film, and yet, we can't really say for certain until we've seen it. So it's definitely interesting to think whether or not the producers will feel they need to top it, and give us yet another Bond film of surprising excess. Perhaps this is not a question that can be answered yet, but it's definitely something to think about.

[Vauxhall]

Nice observation. I guess there's always a temptation for the producers to cut loose when an actor is settled after three movies and really go for it with their fourth installment. However, there's one individual currently involved with the Bond franchise who I'm confident would not allow the films to become too extravagant and overblown, and that's Daniel Craig himself. Admittedly, it's doubtless a strange situation where the main actor has such power and influence over the films but, by all accounts, that's testament to Craig's devotion to the role and the time he has committed to making these movies a success. With this in mind, I'm hopeful the tone and nature of the Bond films will remain very similar while Craig continues to hold the mantle.

I'm slightly more concerned about what's likely to happen when Bond #7 takes over, as it's certainly conceivable that the producers may take that opportunity to refresh the franchise again, but in the mean time I don't think we've got too much to worry about.

[Pussfeller]

I would argue that TB is one of the more subdued Connery films: fewer locations, more down-to-earth villains (except for the eyepatch, Largo is not especially cartoonish), and more of a "suspense" vibe in place of sweeping action. Compared to YOLT and DAF, it's practically an exercise in gritty realism. But I agree with JimmyBond's overall observation. As an actor approaches the end of his tenure, he often finds himself in increasingly over-the-top situations, with ludicrously high stakes and exotic new forms of villainy. DAD is the epitome of that.

Honestly, I don't know what to expect after Skyfall. But the compressed schedule might work against extravagance. If B24 is to be released in 2014, there will perhaps be less time and money to play with, and less opportunity for things to spiral out of control. No one likes to talk about "scaling down", but there are different ways of focusing resources. For instance, the producers might confine the film to a smaller geographical area, to make the production simpler. That would also allow for a richer exploration of the setting, and leave the film with a more distinctive tone.

B24 is also shaping up to be the beginning of a new chapter.

Spoiler

Dench will be gone, there will be a whole new MI6 set-up, and it will feel like a page has been turned.

My hope is that B24 will revert to the basic narrative structure of the pre-Brosnan films, with less emphasis on the home office and more time spent on Bond's independent actions in the field. Of course, there's always the danger that they could revert too completely to "classic" formula. I would hate B24 to turn into a pastiche of the earlier films, merely because "the gang is back together". One commenter actually suggested reviving the tradition of Bond tossing his hat onto the rack in Moneypenny's office -- as if a 21st century human male would carry a hat. If anything would turn me into a hater, it's stuff like that. But I don't expect it to happen. Even after DAD, I have faith that the producers wouldn't do anything really egregious and lazy.

And I like Vauxhall's point about the influence of Daniel Craig. As long as he's playing Bond, I'm not too worried about the rest.

Actually, that's not quite true. Craig or no Craig, if I hear the words "American Bond girl", I'll bite my cyanide cigarette.

[Golden Claw]

Good observation by Jimmy, but I agree with Pussfeller that Tunderball wasn't Connery's excess film. That honour goes to YOLT.

But times have changed since DAD in 2002, and I don't think in today's day & age, a YOLT/Moonraker/DAD type film would work, what with Britain and the whole world in recession. The producers are trying their best to scale down costs, and Skyfall does seem to be tightly packed. Babs, Michael Wilson & Daniel Craig would prefer a lower budget fourth film, but you never know.

[Guy Haines]

I agree with the above that TB wasn't Bond's first "excess" film. YOLT gets that honour. (Although some argue that YOLT the movie was itself an overblown version of DN - villainous lair, weird villain, plot involving rockets, threat to world peace etc.)

I'd argue that we had two "excess films" back to back in the 1970s - TSWLM and MR. The first was a change of direction after the relatively small scale plots of the first two Moore movies, the second a continuation of that approach, on the basis, I suppose, that "nothing succeeds like excess".

We could have an "excess" film in the future, but I can't see the point of doing one just because "Craig hasn't done one yet". It would have to be appropriate - set against some contemporary backdrop, as most of the Bond movies are - and as mentioned above, affordable.

[L4YRCAKE]

I heard a quote from one of the producers (and I'm gonna have a tough time remembering if it was new or old, I'm watching a lot of Bond this month and it's making my head swim and I love it!) saying that their motto had always been when in doubt, go back to the source material, meaning the books. I'll say this much: it seems like Mr. Craig's got a good barometer for not only what does or doesn't work with Bond but also how to make something work in the Bond universe. I think a big reason the Bond films got perennially bombastic was because of the one-off quality of the stories, the continuity-amnesia as it were. I don't think they'll attempt a direct sequel again any time soon, but I do think there will be a general continuity, and Bond may actually grow as a character in Craig's tenure. Which would make much of the trendy excess at least less necessary. Bond is excessive by nature for sure, but an emotional truth to the character would be far more interesting than seeing him go into outer space because that's the current fad.

Also, I can't help but watch the Skyfall trailer and think, good lord, if it's as good as it looks like it will be, how will they follow it up?? I think much of that question rests with whether a certain primary villain returns or not, which I think said villain will (sooner or later), and whether they can reinvent said villain for today's audiences the way Craig reinvigorated Bond by giving him motivation and character while reestablishing his old classic traits in a way that is appealingly convincing and believable.

Great topic, by the way. It really seems like one of the primal questions for hard core Bond fans: how do we get five (or more, please?!?) great Bond films instead of one or two greats and the rest seem to lag and lose steam and become a self parody and the series becomes in dire need of a rehaul...?

[Guy Haines]

I heard a quote from one of the producers (and I'm gonna have a tough time remembering if it was new or old, I'm watching a lot of Bond this month and it's making my head swim and I love it!) saying that their motto had always been when in doubt, go back to the source material, meaning the books. I'll say this much: it seems like Mr. Craig's got a good barometer for not only what does or doesn't work with Bond but also how to make something work in the Bond universe. I think a big reason the Bond films got perennially bombastic was because of the one-off quality of the stories, the continuity-amnesia as it were. I don't think they'll attempt a direct sequel again any time soon, but I do think there will be a general continuity, and Bond may actually grow as a character in Craig's tenure. Which would make much of the trendy excess at least less necessary. Bond is excessive by nature for sure, but an emotional truth to the character would be far more interesting than seeing him go into outer space because that's the current fad.

Also, I can't help but watch the Skyfall trailer and think, good lord, if it's as good as it looks like it will be, how will they follow it up?? I think much of that question rests with whether a certain primary villain returns or not, which I think said villain will (sooner or later), and whether they can reinvent said villain for today's audiences the way Craig reinvigorated Bond by giving him motivation and character while reestablishing his old classic traits in a way that is appealingly convincing and believable.

Great topic, by the way. It really seems like one of the primal questions for hard core Bond fans: how do we get five (or more, please?!?) great Bond films instead of one or two greats and the rest seem to lag and lose steam and become a self parody and the series becomes in dire need of a rehaul...?

"Said villain" wouldn't be criminal mastermind with a fondness for Mao style suits and Persian cats, would he? If so, I think both of those might be dropped if he returned to the series. They've been parodied too often, and those attributes never featured in the novels he appeared in anyway. But I would like to see that said villain return, and his organisation, one way or another.

[Pussfeller]

I've been trying to imagine a rebooted ESB. There would be such a strong desire to avoid cliche, and at the same time such a strong desire for authenticity, they would have no choice but to play up some buried aspect of the literary character that never translated to the films.

I suppose they could play up his Polish-Greek ancestry. Perhaps, in his new incarnation, he is the mysterious leader of some unsavory neofascist Europarty. Think Jobbik, BNP, and Golden Dawn, with Ernst as the shadowy puppetmaster, playing all these clowns for his own private gain. As an added bonus, this would provide another opportunity for Bond to be adopted by Vavra, whose Gypsy ways are threatened by Ernst's skinheads.

If that's too political, they could play up his asexuality and physical malleability, and turn him into a real body horror villain.

[The Shark]

I still think Ciaran Hinds would be the perfect actor to play him.

[Pussfeller]

So do I.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

In my opinion "rebooted" Blofeld would be a former East German double agent who after 1989 went underground. Take the Fleming character and substitute World War 2 with the Cold War. The actor should be German in his mid-50's.
Here's my attempt of rebooting Blofeld:
Blofelds father Ernst was a long time member of Communist Party of Germany and left Germany for Soviet Union in 1933 when Hitler rose to power playing later a significant role in establishing the East German regime rising high in the ranks of the SED, GDR's ruling party. Blofelds mother, Maria, was a daughter of a Greek communist who met Ernst in Moscow and followed him to East Germany marrying him in 1952. Ernst Stavro Blofeld, their only child, was born in 1960 to parents who belonged into GDR's elite. Blofeld excelled in school and in military service reaching the rank of Captain in 1980 when he was recruited into GDR intelligence service, the HVA. He was seen as an industrious and dutiful servant of the regime by his superiors while in reality he had approached the western intelligence agencies and started supply them with valuable information as the Cold War had reached another era of high tension in the early 1980's. As the wall fell Blofeld (who by that had amassed a sizable chunk of cash) diappeared. After his disappearance it was found out that along with him materiel for biological and chemical weapons had disappeared and it is now believed that materiel along with Blofeld were taken to Iraq to work as a consultant to Saddam Hussein...

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 03 October 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[PPK_19]

In my opinion "rebooted" Blofeld would be a former East German double agent who after 1989 went underground. Take the Fleming character and substitute World War 2 with the Cold War. The actor should be German in his mid-50's.
Here's my attempt of rebooting Blofeld:
Blofelds father Ernst was a long time member of Communist Party of Germany and left Germany for Soviet Union in 1933 when Hitler rose to power playing later a significant role in establishing the East German regime rising high in the ranks of the SED, GDR's ruling party. Blofelds mother, Maria, was a daughter of a Greek communist who met Ernst in Moscow and followed him to East Germany marrying him in 1952. Ernst Stavro Blofeld, their only child, was born in 1960 to parents who belonged into GDR's elite. Blofeld excelled in school and in military service reaching the rank of Captain in 1980 when he was recruited into GDR intelligence service, the HVA. He was seen as an industrious and dutiful servant of the regime by his superiors while in reality he had approached the western intelligence agencies and started supply them with valuable information as the Cold War had reached another era of high tension in the early 1980's. As the wall fell Blofeld (who by that had amassed a sizable chunk of cash) diappeared. After his disappearance it was found out that along with him materiel for biological and chemical weapons had disappeared and it is now believed that materiel along with Blofeld were taken to Iraq to work as a consultant to Saddam Hussein...

Whatever it is you're using, stop taking it!

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Whatever it is you're using, stop taking it!

Huh?

[JimmyBond]

I agree with the above that TB wasn't Bond's first "excess" film.

Very true. I did however, also point out that each actor's fourth film attempted to be a huge sprawling epic, played out in excotic and glamorous locations. The first three Connery films are certainly glamorous, but I wouldn't call them epics. But then I don't think anyone can deny that Moonraker and Die Another Day do better fit in with the term "excess."

Regardless, what I am trying to get at, is that it seems the trend is, that once an actor reaches his fourth film, he's firmly established himself in the role. Then the producers are free to place him in an epic film.

[Guy Haines]

In my opinion "rebooted" Blofeld would be a former East German double agent who after 1989 went underground. Take the Fleming character and substitute World War 2 with the Cold War. The actor should be German in his mid-50's.
Here's my attempt of rebooting Blofeld:
Blofelds father Ernst was a long time member of Communist Party of Germany and left Germany for Soviet Union in 1933 when Hitler rose to power playing later a significant role in establishing the East German regime rising high in the ranks of the SED, GDR's ruling party. Blofelds mother, Maria, was a daughter of a Greek communist who met Ernst in Moscow and followed him to East Germany marrying him in 1952. Ernst Stavro Blofeld, their only child, was born in 1960 to parents who belonged into GDR's elite. Blofeld excelled in school and in military service reaching the rank of Captain in 1980 when he was recruited into GDR intelligence service, the HVA. He was seen as an industrious and dutiful servant of the regime by his superiors while in reality he had approached the western intelligence agencies and started supply them with valuable information as the Cold War had reached another era of high tension in the early 1980's. As the wall fell Blofeld (who by that had amassed a sizable chunk of cash) diappeared. After his disappearance it was found out that along with him materiel for biological and chemical weapons had disappeared and it is now believed that materiel along with Blofeld were taken to Iraq to work as a consultant to Saddam Hussein...

An updated "backstory" was, of course, produced for the new re-booted Bond in 2006, although it has hardly been seen since. So if a re-booted Blofeld (for it is he!) was to be introduced in a future Craig film some kind of background might be in order. Interesting attempt.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Since realism* has been the trend during the Craig era, it stands the reason to have more rounded, more fleshed out villains. In my opinion Blofeld as Fleming described him could be easily brought to date, as my made-in-3-minutes attempt pointed out. But could a Craig-Bond with a plot like in TSWLM work today, without the result being silly?

* A relative term.

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 03 October 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[Dustin]

In my opinion Blofeld as Fleming described him could be easily brought to date, as my made-in-3-minutes attempt pointed out. But could a Craig-Bond with a plot like in TSWLM work today, without the result being silly?

That is the real hurdle. I remember Broccoli was asked about MOONRAKER's story and he answered 'Bond's after Drax, Drax is after Bond. What more do you want?' (or words to the same effect). Today expectations have become a bit higher than this.

Edited by Dustin, 03 October 2012 - 07:01 PM.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Indeed Today a villain should have at least more substance than Stromberg or Drax.

[FredJB007]

I was the person that posted I liked the idea of the return of Bond tossing his hat onto the rack in Moneypenny's office.
I am in my late 50's and am fortunate to have seen every film in the theater from Day One. I like tradition
and am old fashioned and maybe men don't wear hats anymore, but I don't care, I still like it and would relish
seeing it again. My opinion.

[Guy Haines]

Since realism* has been the trend during the Craig era, it stands the reason to have more rounded, more fleshed out villains. In my opinion Blofeld as Fleming described him could be easily brought to date, as my made-in-3-minutes attempt pointed out. But could a Craig-Bond with a plot like in TSWLM work today, without the result being silly?

* A relative term.

I don't think Craig-Bond versus a revised version of Blofeld would result in a film similar to TSWLM. Probably more like TB. Not destroying the world, just extortion, or carrying out some outrage, for money, on behalf of someone else. Which, given the state of the world at the moment would seem to be no more than taking already existing and credible threats one or two steps further.

[Dustin]

I was the person that posted I liked the idea of the return of Bond tossing his hat onto the rack in Moneypenny's office.
I am in my late 50's and am fortunate to have seen every film in the theater from Day One. I like tradition
and am old fashioned and maybe men don't wear hats anymore, but I don't care, I still like it and would relish
seeing it again. My opinion.

Which reminds me: didn't Moore get to do the hat-trick without ever actually wearing one?

But I have to agree, the hat's time seems to be over for good, no chance to revive that particular element.

[JimmyBond]

Unless bowler hats all of a sudden come back into style.

[Iceskater101]

Interesting observation! I really enjoyed Thunderball though. Moonraker is not my favorite and Die another Day could have been better. I think that goes for a matter of opinion though, I mean some may have liked Moonraker etc. I hope it is not like that with Daniel Craig, but we shall see I guess.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I don't think Craig-Bond versus a revised version of Blofeld would result in a film similar to TSWLM. Probably more like TB.

I guess that is as "far" Craig-Bond could go. I think it is safe to say that we won't be getting a OTT film before the next actor the least. And of course bringing back Blofeld does not automaticly mean OTT.

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 04 October 2012 - 09:43 AM.

[L4YRCAKE]

I don't think Craig-Bond versus a revised version of Blofeld would result in a film similar to TSWLM. Probably more like TB.

I guess that is as "far" Craig-Bond could go. I think it is safe to say that we won't be getting a OTT film before the next actor the least. And of course bringing back Blofeld does not automaticly mean OTT.

Sorry if I'm missing the obvious (it wouldn't be the first time), but what's 'OTT' refer to? 'Over the top'? Or is it in reference to a Bond film? I'm guessing the former but correct me if I'm wrong.

So, a couple things: first of all, I want Ralph Fiennes to turn out to be Blofeld in Skyfall, and I realize I'm probably kidding myself, but I do think there's some pretty big mysteries going on with his character. I refuse to believe the 'common wisdom' about how his character ends up. Again, I may be in denial, but I'm going to hold out until proven otherwise.

A big part of me wants to see Blofeld turn into M's opposite number, and for SPECTRE to have a direct or indirect involvement with the plots of future Bond films. In other words, Bond's job is to seek and root out immediate Goldfinger/Silva type villains in order to work his way to the top of the ladder, with Blofeld being the one pulling the strings and pitting his best agents against Bond in each film. There's a potential for the films to become an intricate game of chess between Mi6 vs. SPECTRE, and making other 00's characters in the films can help flesh this out. Thunderball touched on it, but wouldn't everyone thrill to see a modern version of a SPECTRE meeting with various nefarious agents (perhaps cameos or nods to characters like Dr. No and Goldfinger, just for fun?) headed by Blofeld, followed by a similar meeting of the 00's being briefed in their tall chairs in rows by M and the Prime Minister?

I think many of the previous Bond films would have followed a more similar SPECTRE/Blofeld model were it not for legal reasons (The Spy Who Loved Me is a prime example). I'm all but certain from what I've read and researched and heard in interviews that those characters from a legal standpoint are now back on the table, and it would be a shame not to utilize them.

Also, I totally get why it would be incredibly difficult from a visual standpoint to go back to Blofeld being bald with a white cat et. al, and also that he's not portrayed that way in the books, so there's precedence. And yet, a Blofeld that wasn't bald... it just doesn't feel right. A big white tiger at his feet would be a nice modern nod.

Or is all that the definition of over the top and what future Bond films ought to be avoiding...?

[Jose]

On the topic of trends and certain returns, I suspect that if Skyfall does indeed turn out to be Craig's Goldfinger then Bond 24 could end up being like Thunderball. Not only in terms of scale (bombastic in its own way) but in regards to a return of an organization.

Let's of course remember that Dr. No and FRWL both dealt with SPECTRE, while Goldfinger didn't. CR and QoS dealt with Quantum whereas Skyfall doesn't seem like it will, not from what I've been told/read here at least.

With that in mind, if Bond 24 does somehow end up being like Thunderball we might see the return of Quantum, which is something I'm looking forward to* so we get the closure we missed out in QoS.

*If it's done correctly, not just shoe-horned in for the sake of having Bond fight an evil organization.

[freemo]

I wouldn't say THUNDERBALL is too big. It's just the right size... for me that is.

[CasinoKiller]

I don't think its fair to compare 'Thunderball' to 'Moonraker' and 'Die Another Day'. Ultimately, TB was a great film, while the others...weren't.

Ultimately, whether a Bond film is good or bad really depends on a lot of factors beyond such simplistic notions of it being 'gritty' or 'campy', low-key or excess etc. TSWLM and Moonraker are both arguably 'over the top' and campy films (with virtually the same plot!)...but TSWLM is one of the best films in the series and Moonraker is IMO one of the worst. It's all about finding balance ultimately. TSWLM, Thunderball et all had a few more outrageous and sci-fi elements and gimmickry...but they also had solid plots, interesting characters and situations and took the Bond character seriously.

[L4YRCAKE]

I don't think its fair to compare 'Thunderball' to 'Moonraker' and 'Die Another Day'. Ultimately, TB was a great film, while the others...weren't.

Ultimately, whether a Bond film is good or bad really depends on a lot of factors beyond such simplistic notions of it being 'gritty' or 'campy', low-key or excess etc. TSWLM and Moonraker are both arguably 'over the top' and campy films (with virtually the same plot!)...but TSWLM is one of the best films in the series and Moonraker is IMO one of the worst. It's all about finding balance ultimately. TSWLM, Thunderball et all had a few more outrageous and sci-fi elements and gimmickry...but they also had solid plots, interesting characters and situations and took the Bond character seriously.

I couldn't agree more. I don't think Thunderball was campy, like the other two were. In fact, Goldfinger had a better villain, but I think Thunderball is a epic, better film overall.

It seems to me that a big part of how Bond films get in trouble is when they try to pretend that Bond that should appeal to all age groups. I really, really love Moonraker. It's a ton of fun to watch it with kids, and yet as a Bond film it seems fatally flawed in not only its implausibility and its pandering to Star Wars, but also the fact that it's basically a kids film about a guy that surrounds himself with sexy mysterious women, fast cars, tons of alcohol, and kills people for a living. And as a kid, I loved it of course. But I have a really hard time imagining Craig's Bond ever pandering to a younger audience and trying to mask those core Bond attributes in the process.

[Hockey Mask]

I would think it would be more valuable to compare the third movie of each Bond. Goldfinger, TSWLM, and TWINE. All three are examples of quality Bond movies where the Bond actor seemed to settle comfortably into his role. With Craig's third outing a month away I am expecting something really special.