134 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

True. And I believe that EON is in a phase in which they want the most prestigious writers they can get - whether these actually can do a good Bond film or not. EON just wants to free Bond from the "unimportant pulp"-stigma of the first 20 films. The public will never know how much input from other writers, directors, actors actually will influence the script.

 

So, it just sounds better to attach a writer who also works for the theatre and wins awards instead of someone who is only a script writer, expert in doing spy action thrillers.

[Loomis]

Call me a dullard but I'd sooner watch NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN for the billionth time than yet another ill-conceived attempt to peel back the so-called layers of a hero who's actually more engaging the less he's "explained".

[tdalton]

Call me a dullard but I'd sooner watch NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN for the billionth time than yet another ill-conceived attempt to peel back the so-called layers of a hero who's actually more engaging the less he's "explained".

 

Agreed.

 

I'm all for them trying to add depth to the character, but it can be done without going to the lengths that Skyfall did and actually having them take us back to Bond's childhood.  Now that it seems that we're on a new schedule of 4-years between films now, I can't say that I could find myself getting excited for another trip into Bond's past the next time around, even though that's almost surely what EON's going to deliver.

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess his past has been done. 

 

And, quite frankly, Bond never had that many layers, and thankfully so. 

 

A straight mission next time, please. Of course, Bond has to find a new way of dealing with the new M. But apart from that, what could be explored what hasn´t already been? 

 

- Bond doubting his superiors? Done.

- Bond weary of falling in love? Done.

- Bond getting revenge? Done.

- Bond feeling like a shadow of the villain? Done.

- Bond feeling disillusioned? Done.

 

- Bond enjoying his job, women and fooling the villain? Not done in a while...

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 02 May 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[tdalton]

I guess his past has been done. 

 

And, quite frankly, Bond never had that many layers, and thankfully so. 

 

A straight mission next time, please. Of course, Bond has to find a new way of dealing with the new M. But apart from that, what could be explored what hasn´t already been? 

 

- Bond doubting his superiors? Done.

- Bond weary of falling in love? Done.

- Bond getting revenge? Done.

- Bond feeling like a shadow of the villain? Done.

- Bond feeling disillusioned? Done.

 

- Bond enjoying his job, women and fooling the villain? Not done in a while...

 

That's all true.

 

It also hasn't stopped them from repeating a lot of those themes several times over the course of the last few films.  

[Loomis]

Anyone else here reckon that Bond and Fiennes' M will actually come to blows in the next film? We had 007 shot by Moneypenny in the last one, so a punchup between our hero and his boss would seem to be a natural progression, especially given the new M's SAS background. I expect that this scene will occur when a resentful Bond breaks into M's flat (which seems to be an obligatory moment in every Bond film these days). The furniture-wrecking fight will end in a draw (naturally) and the two men will immediately patch up their differences, their respect for one another enhanced (grudging respect, of course, but respect nonetheless), while slumped battered and bruised in M's deep leather armchairs, nursing cut-glass tumblers of vintage scotch.

[SecretAgentFan]

The problem with casting a known, high profile actor as "M" will always be: you have to give them more then the expository scenes. Otherwise these actors won´t do it.

 

So, yeah, Fiennes will not stay in his office, no doubt. And he will try to downsize 007, throwing his weight around, putting him at risk and - shudder - develop an emotional relationship with him.

[tdalton]

If they're going to go that route, and it's almost a certainty that they will, at least they cast an actor that would, perhaps even should, have been a fantastic Bond in his own right.  So at least if they send him out in the field, I'll still be able to watch and think to myself "This is what the 1990s could have been like" instead of thinking "Why can't M stay in his office?"

[RMc2]

The problem with casting a known, high profile actor as "M" will always be: you have to give them more then the expository scenes. Otherwise these actors won´t do it.

 

So, yeah, Fiennes will not stay in his office, no doubt. And he will try to downsize 007, throwing his weight around, putting him at risk and - shudder - develop an emotional relationship with him.

 

You're right, but a lot of established British actors are happy to make brief scene-stealing appearances for oodles of money... and let's not forget Dench played M in, more or less, an extended cameo role until SF. Unlike Fiennes, she actually has an Oscar...

[SecretAgentFan]

I´d say Dench did more or less the screen time of other "M"s in GE and TND. But from TWINE onwards, and especially since CR, she got a supporting role. 

 

And even if Fiennes is yet to win an Oscar, he has such a high pedigree that EON will not dare to offer him less then what they offered Dench: a substantial role in the next two Bonds. 

 

I could also imagine that he will be the one they will keep when the next Bond actor succeeds Craig.

[Dustin]

Anyone else here reckon that Bond and Fiennes' M will actually come to blows in the next film? We had 007 shot by Moneypenny in the last one, so a punchup between our hero and his boss would seem to be a natural progression, especially given the new M's SAS background. I expect that this scene will occur when a resentful Bond breaks into M's flat (which seems to be an obligatory moment in every Bond film these days). The furniture-wrecking fight will end in a draw (naturally) and the two men will immediately patch up their differences, their respect for one another enhanced (grudging respect, of course, but respect nonetheless), while slumped battered and bruised in M's deep leather armchairs, nursing cut-glass tumblers of vintage scotch.

 

 

Perhaps not something so hammy. But I could see Bond shooting M in order to gain credibility with a villain or organization whose scheme Bond has to foil. Or Fiennes' M might in a parallel operation to 007's thwart the political side of Quantum/SPECTRE/Greenpeace/the EU. Fiennes' M could even lead the cavalry troops in the big climactic fight in Tiger Tanaka fashion. Endless possibilities.

 

No, I don't really believe M's role can be expanded beyond a certain point. It already stuck out in TWINE, where there was supposed to be a reason for Dench's character to be a target for Elektra King's hate. Not sure CR did give her so much more screentime, but QOS definitely wouldn't have needed her on location, too. With SF the relative amount of M for the whole story works because SF is about M. But you can only take this so far.  

[The Shark]

Anyone else here reckon that Bond and Fiennes' M will actually come to blows in the next film? We had 007 shot by Moneypenny in the last one, so a punchup between our hero and his boss would seem to be a natural progression, especially given the new M's SAS background. I expect that this scene will occur when a resentful Bond breaks into M's flat (which seems to be an obligatory moment in every Bond film these days). The furniture-wrecking fight will end in a draw (naturally) and the two men will immediately patch up their differences, their respect for one another enhanced (grudging respect, of course, but respect nonetheless), while slumped battered and bruised in M's deep leather armchairs, nursing cut-glass tumblers of vintage scotch.

 

Clouseau vs. Cato?

[Eric Stromberg]

Interesting idea.  Can't wait to see 007 come flying out of the fridge with flour on his face.  Let's get Little Danny waxed and buffed and shoot the scene shirtless!

[Robinson]

Interesting idea. Can't wait to see 007 come flying out of the fridge with flour on his face. Let's get Little Danny waxed and buffed and shoot the scene shirtless!

My favorite moment of that franchise. That and watching Peter Sellers work those nunchaku!

[GalaSilva]

I think we should just trust in Logan to create a more human Bond, yet hopefully keep the traditional Bond we all know and love. Now, Purvis and Wade have dropped out, maybe that's what'll happen. In my opinion, I would love to see a Bond film with big villains, good girls, bad girls, great action sequences and all keeping a great storyline, but all Bond actors have their own style and this is Daniel's - making Bond more human.

 

All these traditional and iconic Bond outlines can be adapted to fit into Daniel's style. 

 

But who knows? Only time will tell.

[JohnnyWalker]

If a more human Bond in Skyfall is a drinking, womanising, quipping fighter who doesn't talk about himself, I don't think there's much to worry about.

[00Twelve]

The problem with casting a known, high profile actor as "M" will always be: you have to give them more then the expository scenes. Otherwise these actors won´t do it.

 

So, yeah, Fiennes will not stay in his office, no doubt. And he will try to downsize 007, throwing his weight around, putting him at risk and - shudder - develop an emotional relationship with him.

See, I think Fiennes would be okay with the small scenes, at least for a while, perhaps with a short interjecting scene here and there. He's already been as on-top-of-the-world as an actor can get, being the villain of a massive blockbuster franchise. He doesn't fit the Dench mold of an M who entertains us by verbally sparring with the epitome of masculinity that is James Bond in at least 3 separate scenes. I rather expect it to go much closer to the old Lee days, with maybe an edge more dry humor.

 

"Good luck, 007. Don't cock it up."

 

Could there be a more concise, satisfying summation of every speech that Dench's M made to either Brosnan or Craig? This is who Fiennes' M seems to be. Dry, superior, everything we're going to want in M. I would be shocked to see vanity push him outside the traditional role.

[00Twelve]

 

I wouldn't read too terribly much into this. We're not going to get more superfluous backstory; the producers surely wouldn't allow more of that. 

 

I wouldn't be so sure that we're not going to get exactly that.  EON made an obscene amount of money by going that route, and I'd have to think that there would be a great deal of temptation for them to go back to that well again since audiences clearly responded to it.  It would be nice if EON could resist that temptation and not feel the need to delve back into Bond's backstory as a flimsy plot device, but I'm sure that they'll end up doing it again and simply say that it was what the audiences wanted.

 

Nah, there would be nothing but redundancy there. And they're absolutely smarter than that. The only real bit of Bond's backstory that was a retread was that he was orphaned as a boy. And the house was blown up as a metaphor to say, "That's enough of that."

[tdalton]

 

 

I wouldn't read too terribly much into this. We're not going to get more superfluous backstory; the producers surely wouldn't allow more of that. 

 

I wouldn't be so sure that we're not going to get exactly that.  EON made an obscene amount of money by going that route, and I'd have to think that there would be a great deal of temptation for them to go back to that well again since audiences clearly responded to it.  It would be nice if EON could resist that temptation and not feel the need to delve back into Bond's backstory as a flimsy plot device, but I'm sure that they'll end up doing it again and simply say that it was what the audiences wanted.

 

Nah, there would be nothing but redundancy there. And they're absolutely smarter than that. The only real bit of Bond's backstory that was a retread was that he was orphaned as a boy. And the house was blown up as a metaphor to say, "That's enough of that."

 

 

The problem is that EON specializes in redundancy.  We've seen the same tired plot device of Bond/M trust issues serving as a major theme in the films in five of the last seven films (GE, DAD, CR, QOS, and SF; and it even made an appearance in TWINE), as well as Bond having to deal with a turncoat agent four of the last seven films (006, Frost, Vesper, and Silva).  

 

Long story short, if EON feels as though they can make money off of their audience by rehashing the same things that they've been doing, they'll do it.  They've been playing up the personal vendetta angle to the hilt since 1989, as each and every films has featured it since LTK.  The time has come for Bond to have a mission that isn't personal, but EON is stuck in a storytelling rut of using the same plot devices over and over again, and that is constantly reinforced by the audiences at the box office who keep making each successive film bigger than the last.  There's no reason for them to discontinue doing it because they're making a massive amount of money doing so.  Bond 24 will feature more of the same, but luckily when the press makes it out to be a letdown after Skyfall and when it doesn't make a billion dollars at the box office, EON will probably look at that and decide it's time to change things up.

[00Twelve]

 

 

 

I wouldn't read too terribly much into this. We're not going to get more superfluous backstory; the producers surely wouldn't allow more of that. 

 

I wouldn't be so sure that we're not going to get exactly that.  EON made an obscene amount of money by going that route, and I'd have to think that there would be a great deal of temptation for them to go back to that well again since audiences clearly responded to it.  It would be nice if EON could resist that temptation and not feel the need to delve back into Bond's backstory as a flimsy plot device, but I'm sure that they'll end up doing it again and simply say that it was what the audiences wanted.

 

Nah, there would be nothing but redundancy there. And they're absolutely smarter than that. The only real bit of Bond's backstory that was a retread was that he was orphaned as a boy. And the house was blown up as a metaphor to say, "That's enough of that."

 

 

The problem is that EON specializes in redundancy.  We've seen the same tired plot device of Bond/M trust issues serving as a major theme in the films in five of the last seven films (GE, DAD, CR, QOS, and SF; and it even made an appearance in TWINE), as well as Bond having to deal with a turncoat agent four of the last seven films (006, Frost, Vesper, and Silva).

Don't forget Mitchell.

 

I get your point, and you definitely seem burned out on seeing missions that add a personal angle. Call me foolishly optimistic, but I don't think it's going to hit so close to home next time. Not in the form of a Bondian backstory, and not in the form of an MI6 turncoat.

[tdalton]

 

 Call me foolishly optimistic, but I don't think it's going to hit so close to home next time. Not in the form of a Bondian backstory, and not in the form of an MI6 turncoat.

 

 

One can only hope.  

 

I don't mind them going for something gritty.  I welcome that with open arms.  I'd go as far as to say that I wouldn't mind them going off and making the darkest, grittiest, and most depressing film of the entire series with Bond 24, but that should be done through the actual subject matter of the storyline rather than relying on tired tropes such as double-agents, personal vendettas, and the like.  

[S K Y F A L L]

I'm really not worried about Bond 24 being a really personal mission like we've been seeing for a long time simply because Judo Dench's M is dead it seems like the only way left is forward. 

[Hansen]

Call me a dullard but I'd sooner watch NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN for the billionth time than yet another ill-conceived attempt to peel back the so-called layers of a hero who's actually more engaging the less he's "explained".

I can't say better.
If they want to be consistent, they should have Bond being investigated for having his boss killed.

[RMc2]

Not another 'this time it's personal' story please. The traditional formula succeeded in making each mission personal as Bond learns how disgusting/deranged/dangerous the villain is, and by having an ally murdered on the villain's orders. Hopefully we'll have a break from delving deep into Bond's past - I think we've learned all we need to know about Bond, emotionally.

[glidrose]

 

Anyone else here reckon that Bond and Fiennes' M will actually come to blows in the next film? We had 007 shot by Moneypenny in the last one, so a punchup between our hero and his boss would seem to be a natural progression, especially given the new M's SAS background. I expect that this scene will occur when a resentful Bond breaks into M's flat (which seems to be an obligatory moment in every Bond film these days). The furniture-wrecking fight will end in a draw (naturally) and the two men will immediately patch up their differences, their respect for one another enhanced (grudging respect, of course, but respect nonetheless), while slumped battered and bruised in M's deep leather armchairs, nursing cut-glass tumblers of vintage scotch.

 
Please don't give then any ideas.
 

Call me a dullard but I'd sooner watch NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN for the billionth time than yet another ill-conceived attempt to peel back the so-called layers of a hero who's actually more engaging the less he's "explained".

 
Agreed.
 
I'm all for them trying to add depth to the character, but it can be done without going to the lengths that Skyfall did and actually having them take us back to Bond's childhood.  Now that it seems that we're on a new schedule of 4-years between films now, I can't say that I could find myself getting excited for another trip into Bond's past the next time around, even though that's almost surely what EON's going to deliver.

 
Ditto. No excitement at all for the films now.
 

The problem with casting a known, high profile actor as "M" will always be: you have to give them more then the expository scenes. Otherwise these actors won´t do it.
 
So, yeah, Fiennes will not stay in his office, no doubt. And he will try to downsize 007, throwing his weight around, putting him at risk and - shudder - develop an emotional relationship with him.

 
Probably.
 

Interesting idea.  Can't wait to see 007 come flying out of the fridge with flour on his face.  Let's get Little Danny waxed and buffed and shoot the scene shirtless!

 
Oooh, this gives me more ideas for the "Fixing OHMSS" thread. Let's see... Bond goes to Ruby's room. Can't find her. Opens her fridge to grab a can of coke and ol' Irma pops out of the fridge. Thanks for the inspiration, Eric.

Just one question, do you still want Irma waxed and buffed and the scene shot shirtless?

[FOX MULDER]

Not another 'this time it's personal' story please. The traditional formula succeeded in making each mission personal as Bond learns how disgusting/deranged/dangerous the villain is, and by having an ally murdered on the villain's orders. Hopefully we'll have a break from delving deep into Bond's past - I think we've learned all we need to know about Bond, emotionally.

This. All day long. The hero's 'personal journey' stuff has been all over commercial fiction, both in films and novels, for way too long now. It's tedious. Personally, I think excessive characterisation is a sure sign that a story is lacking... um, story. 

 

Bond was a cartoon hero who happened to appear in novels. Always was, always will be. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary...

 

So, stop pointing the camera directly AT him; let's put it back on his shoulder where it should be - where we can enjoy the ride with him. That was the spirit in which Fleming wrote Bond. Not in 'layers'.

Edited by FOX MULDER, 08 June 2013 - 01:26 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Personally, I think excessive characterisation is a sure sign that a story is lacking... um, story. 

 

 

Well put.

[AgentBentley]

I'm not too sure either what is meant by 'a more human Bond.' Skyfall already made him very human. So let's just have a great story, realistic up to a point, with some humor but not the old goofiness, and lots of action combining a realistic touch with the hard stuff.

[The Shark]

I like goofiness, whether it's a hover-gondala, double-taking pidgeon, dodgy CGI Komodo Dragon, runaway moon buggy, winking fish statue, or a delicatessen in stainless steel.

 

Its part of Bond's charm.

[SecretAgentFan]

I also think: it´s time for more goofiness in Bond again.