134 replies to this topic

[007jamesbond]

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

 

no way...no more fake parody Bond that is not Bond at all............Mendes vision of Bond is perfect and why mess with a winning formula? 

[sharpshooter]

I enjoyed the "he's keen to get home" quip when Bond jumps on the back of the train. Humour and goofiness hasn't left completely. 

[tdalton]

 Humour and goofiness hasn't left completely. 

 

Agreed. 

 

There was plenty of goofiness in Skyfall.  There's no need to bring it back to the franchise because it hasn't really left. 

[SecretAgentFan]

 

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

 

no way...no more fake parody Bond that is not Bond at all............Mendes vision of Bond is perfect and why mess with a winning formula? 

 

 

I should clear this up: I did not mean goofiness as in "fake parody Bond". I just think there should be more of a light-hearted tone next time. The all the weight of the world on Bond´s shoulders-idea has been explored enough.

 

Even LTK had plenty of time for more fun despite the revenge storyline. In fact, LTK could be a great model for making Bond films serious and fun.

[RMc2]

 

 

 

 

 

Even LTK had plenty of time for more fun despite the revenge storyline. In fact, LTK could be a great model for making Bond films serious and fun.

 

 

Hmmmm. Have to disagree with you there; I think LTK's failure is it's combination of Mooreish silliness with Dalton intensity. 

 

I think CR and SF (especially) struck the balance just right in terms of humour. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree that it's time to ditch Bond's emotional baggage and get on with the job at hand...much like Bond himself does. Any more SF-style dramatic darkness could be stifling.

[Dustin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even LTK had plenty of time for more fun despite the revenge storyline. In fact, LTK could be a great model for making Bond films serious and fun.

 

 

Hmmmm. Have to disagree with you there; I think LTK's failure is it's combination of Mooreish silliness with Dalton intensity. 

 

I think CR and SF (especially) struck the balance just right in terms of humour. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree that it's time to ditch Bond's emotional baggage and get on with the job at hand...much like Bond himself does. Any more SF-style dramatic darkness could be stifling.

 

 

 

Indeed, it seems as if there isn't much more room left in that direction. Bond has been through most conceivable emotional turmoil now; more of that would just be more, not better.

[SecretAgentFan]

I wonder where Mendes or Logan or anybody else would draw from if they intended to peel back even more layers.

 

Bond´s childhood? Done.

 

His first love? Done.

 

His ersatz-mother? Done.

 

His agent-colleague turned enemy? Done.

 

 

They probably would have to invent another trauma for Bond. Which I hope they won´t. It would be more than enough to show his personal opinions during a mission - and his way of dealing with them so he can remain a professional doing his job.

[Shrublands]

 

 

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

 

no way...no more fake parody Bond that is not Bond at all............Mendes vision of Bond is perfect and why mess with a winning formula? 

 

 

I should clear this up: I did not mean goofiness as in "fake parody Bond". I just think there should be more of a light-hearted tone next time. The all the weight of the world on Bond´s shoulders-idea has been explored enough.

 

Even LTK had plenty of time for more fun despite the revenge storyline. In fact, LTK could be a great model for making Bond films serious and fun.

 

 

When they are looking for a model for Bond 24, I don't imagine they will be looking away from Skyfall and towards the least attended Bond film of the lot.

[ChrissBond007]

I loved Skyfall, but I also felt after seeing the movie in the cinemas that now after the first three Craig movies going deeper into the character of Bond it's time to go back to just "Bond on the job."

If they would continue this direction in Bond 24 it would just get too much. It's time for Bond to lighten up.

Edited by ChrissBond007, 10 June 2013 - 04:40 PM.

[RMc2]

I wonder where Mendes or Logan or anybody else would draw from if they intended to peel back even more layers.

 

Bond´s childhood? Done.

 

His first love? Done.

 

His ersatz-mother? Done.

 

His agent-colleague turned enemy? Done.

 

 

They probably would have to invent another trauma for Bond. Which I hope they won´t. It would be more than enough to show his personal opinions during a mission - and his way of dealing with them so he can remain a professional doing his job.

 

Exactly! I hope they're smart enough to do this.

[GalaSilva]

I wish I was Logan right now or anyone who knows everything about the next Bond film.

Knowledge is power people.

[S K Y F A L L]

Don't we all. 

 

 

My first instinct when I seen the title of this thread was that we would see Bond in more disposable situations like we did SF. Like when M orders Bond to leave the agent found wounded at the start of the film or when M told Eve to take the shot even though it might hit Bond but I don't think there is going to be anything really deep and dramatic that is going to unfold from this or at least I don't read to much into it. 

[GalaSilva]

It'll be interesting to see, if Quantum return, how Logan handles them and if he handles them much better than Haggis, Purvis and Wade did? 

Edited by GalaSilva, 12 July 2013 - 02:15 AM.

[Pushkin]

I think a professional mission can fit quite well with peeling back the layers. If there was one theme I would liked to see explored it would be Bond's distaste for killing in cold blood. I know its been done - TWINE and at the beginning of TLD but in TLD it was in passing and TWINE did not do it justice.  To me, the key point would be unlike TLD not liking it but perhaps having to do it because it has to be done (i.e., to use the TLD reference Pushkin is guilty and needs to be killed).

 

The other layers I would like to see peeled back that really have not been touched on with any depth IMHO (unless I am forgetting things) is Bond's life outside the service:

 

1) I would like to see a few scenes of Bond in his flat and at least one scene with his housekeeper May. Given that housekeepers are not all that regular anymore for someone like Bond (i.e., not filthy rich) I wonder if she could be a housekeeper his family had that employs on a part time basis who, though its not her job, always offers to make him breakfast. They have great affection for one another and she is almost like a grandmother.  Not suggesting anymore than a scene or two, but it would bring a part of the Fleming Bond that has not been seen in the films (was she ever in a film - I don't recall?) and briefly show a softer side of Bond. No need to kidnap her per Gartner.

 

2) While related to the service, I would like to see his relationship with Tanner dealt with in more depth and outside of the office - perhaps at lunch following golf. Again, this can be tied into a mission that is about to happen or has happened. I don't want Bond thinking about quitting the service. Bond burnout should only be explored with Craig in 26 or 27 if we get that far as I think right now we are dealing with Bond at his peak.

 

3) I would like to see Felix Leiter play a significant role in the movie and for us to witness the true bonding of the two characters as friends who understand what each has to do in their jobs.

 

4) In an ideal world, I would like to see the setup of a lasting relationship with Tracy (change the background etc) that could be explored a little more in the next film. I am not suggesting this dominate the film as I am all for the womanizing etc. They could follow this up with her murder in Bond 25 but, unlike OHMSS, without the need for revenge (perhaps she is killed towards the end of 25 as a result of Bond's actions but the murderer is dealt with Bond or someone else more quickly - perhaps the scene could take place in a stainless steel delicatessen).

 

5) I think the relationship with M could be explored but in a different way.  Bond is his trusted agent as a result of his actions in Skyfall and the one he turns to first.  Perhaps, M has a little distaste for his womanizing ways as per the novels (yes it was done by Dench but I always thought the dynamic was different given his But above all, he respects and likes Bond (I am thinking of the handshake in the Col. Sun Novel before Bond is about to be tortured - though I am not suggesting anything like that). Some unused material that could be explored (though not sure if this is the right time given card playing in CR) would be how M gets Bond to help catch Drax cheating at his club but this leads to more. I also would love one scene at Quarterdeck.  We don't know alot about Mallory so perhaps he has the means to own a place like Quarterdeck. Perhaps, Bond is called to Quarterdeck for a briefing because its urgent and while irregular, M allows it because Bond is his man.  I am not advocating a cushy relationship but one that is reminiscent of the novels and to some extent the films with Bernard Lee.

 

Not directly related to this thread but I would like to see Quantum return. In an ideal world, the big reveal at the end of the film would be that once again the organization he has battled the entire film, unbeknownst to Bond throughout the film, is Quantum and they have finally pinned the organization down for a final battle in Bond 25 where Bond will faceoff against the head of the organization - Bloefeld (like that wasn't predictable). I understand the producers' reluctance to go back to Bloefeld but he is the bloody Joker in the Bond world and I think its time for a modern day showdown that is more serious than DAF or the beginning of FYEO. 

[Walecs]

I like all your ideas, especially the return of Felix (Wright) and Tracy.

[RMc2]

I understand the producers' reluctance to go back to Bloefeld but he is the bloody Joker in the Bond world and I think its time for a modern day showdown that is more serious than DAF or the beginning of FYEO. 

 

You're completely right, but I personally don't want to see Blofeld back in Craig's tenure. I feel the whole purpose of Quantum is to hark back to SPECTRE but without resurrecting and re-doing what's gone before - both out of respect for the original films' work, and in the interest of doing something fresh.

 

Babs and Michael are very interested in forging a new Bond franchise with its own mythology, but aware of its filmic history and based heavily in the themes and style of Fleming's work. Then again, they allowed Mendes to incongruously shove the Goldfinger DB5 into SkyFall, so maybe they'd be happy to reintroduce Blofeld.

 

As for the rest of your ideas, they're great - hope EON's reading this thread!

Edited by RMc, 18 July 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[S K Y F A L L]

Felix and Tanner are interesting and entertaining ideas. 

[Moore'sStuntDouble]

So much great stuff said in this thread. 

 

Count me as a member of the camp that is nervous about this "peeling back the layers" business. This is actually a question I've been wrestling with since I saw Skyfall and its intense concentration on Bond's psyche. Just to add to the great arguments that others have already made, it comes down to this for me: I want Bond to enjoy being Bond. So many of us watch these movies for some kind of fantastical escapism. We don't come to Bond for intense character studies. The adventures, the missions, the women have always been the interesting parts of these films, never Bond himself. I'd never read that quote from Fleming, and I'm so glad I did. And by the way, Fleming's writing could be quite clumsy at times whenever he tried to make Bond a more burdened, weary figure (cf. You Only Live Twice). He was much better at writing the plots and the adventures, which, again, is what we love. I'd just want a fun action adventure in the next film. I couldn't care less who Craig's Bond really is on the inside. 

[Pushkin]

@RMc If you had asked me 10-15 years ago if I wanted Bloefeld back I would have said absolutely not.  Personally, I found SPECTRE a bit dated and quite frankly, a bit rediculous. But its now been more than 40 years since a film really dealt with Bloefeld (DAF) and more than 30 years years since he was even used (FYEO).  Quantum to me represents a chance to bring back an iconic villan - while he can be modernized and updated, the name sends chills up my spine. But I do get why people would be resistance to revisiting the past. Having said that, its worth noting how CR did revist the past in new ways (i.e., the development of a shaken not stirred martini (recipe included!), the acquisition of the Aston Martin, and Felix Leiter).  

 

@Moore'sStuntDouble I agree that peeling back the layers could go horribly awry but I do have some faith in Logan and Mendes in balancing things based on Skyfall. I was watching the commentary last night and Mendes noted how the scene with the komodo dragons was designed to introduce a little bit of the fun of the Roger Moore years. To me that scene succeeded because they struck the right balance, did not let it play on too long or get overly rediculous. So I have faith they will not get bogged down in the layers stuff.  As well, I thought that while Skyfall was serious, it knew how to have fun and let Bond have fun. I think there is room in the Bond world to have a film that would focus on angst and burnout - but given the last three films, I am wanting a film more like you - a fun Bond adventure where he is given a mission and goes on it. I think they can peel back the layers, give more depth to Bond but I really don't want him pondering leaving the service or being burnt out, or having a personal vendetta. I would like, as I noted above, to see more about Bond's life (i.e. his flat, May, relationship with Tanner, Leiter and M).

 

Cheers

[MooseWithFleas]

I am a little nervous of the peeling back the layers. I've loved it in the first three, but Skyfall went on the brink of plausibility. If they go much further, it will stop seeming like Bond. Mendes "gets" Bond though so he should hopefully take Bond in the correct decision for our times

[RMc2]

I think The Spy Who Loved Me and OHMSS managed to reveal more about Bond without it being heavy, time consuming or spoil the fun.

 

And pretty much all the Connery Bonds revealed a lot about the character, by just having a definitive idea of who the character was and letting him behave the way he'd behave in the situations in which he found himself. Admittedly, he was probably a less complex character than Craig's Bond, but we didn't need an overdose of heavy drama to explore his character.

 

So I hope Logan and Mendes pay attention to how those films (especially TSWLM and OHMSS) did it - but I doubt they will.

[Hansen]

I think The Spy Who Loved Me and OHMSS managed to reveal more about Bond without it being heavy, time consuming or spoil the fun.

 

And pretty much all the Connery Bonds revealed a lot about the character, by just having a definitive idea of who the character was and letting him behave the way he'd behave in the situations in which he found himself. Admittedly, he was probably a less complex character than Craig's Bond, but we didn't need an overdose of heavy drama to explore his character.

 

So I hope Logan and Mendes pay attention to how those films (especially TSWLM and OHMSS) did it - but I doubt they will.

Very good point. You can also add the lines in LTK with Della and Felix.

I fully agree with Moore's Stunt Double. I also want to see Bond enjoying being himself (à la Connery in Goldfinger & Thunderball)

We need to be 'slightly' reminded of his traumas to make him human enough to fully accept/enjoy all the extravagances of the adventures. But definitely, going deeper into his psyché would be a non-sense in regard of what the franchise has developped so far.

Bond is not a normal agent dealing with a normal world. It's beyond.

 

[SecretAgentFan]

For me the "Bond should enjoy being Bond" is a big part of what I want to see in BOND 24.

 

Enjoyment seems to have gotten a bad rep during the last decade.  Of course, the post 9/11-phase made everybody question everything.  But the whole "only if entertainment is dark it can be considered mature and good" is nonsense, IMO.

 

In fact, during the Big Depression and World War II the entertainment offered enjoyment and light-hearted entertainment exactly because real life was so depressing and full of fear and dread. And audiences loved this chance of getting away from it all for two hours.

 

I believe it´s high time that entertainment allows escapism and light-hearted fun to return. That does not include Adam Sandler-imbecile-jokes. I´m talking about class, intelligent comedy and action with adventure instead of action with "the higher the body count, the better". And its heroes do not have to carry around a big trauma. I would rather have them be basically well-intentioned. Like Indiana Jones, Superman - and, of course, James Bond.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 22 July 2013 - 03:31 PM.

[RMc2]

 

I think The Spy Who Loved Me and OHMSS managed to reveal more about Bond without it being heavy, time consuming or spoil the fun.

 

And pretty much all the Connery Bonds revealed a lot about the character, by just having a definitive idea of who the character was and letting him behave the way he'd behave in the situations in which he found himself. Admittedly, he was probably a less complex character than Craig's Bond, but we didn't need an overdose of heavy drama to explore his character.

 

So I hope Logan and Mendes pay attention to how those films (especially TSWLM and OHMSS) did it - but I doubt they will.

Very good point. You can also add the lines in LTK with Della and Felix.

I fully agree with Moore's Stunt Double. I also want to see Bond enjoying being himself (à la Connery in Goldfinger & Thunderball)

We need to be 'slightly' reminded of his traumas to make him human enough to fully accept/enjoy all the extravagances of the adventures. But definitely, going deeper into his psyché would be a non-sense in regard of what the franchise has developped so far.

Bond is not a normal agent dealing with a normal world. It's beyond.

 

 

 

 

For me the "Bond should enjoy being Bond" is a big part of what I want to see in BOND 24.

 

Enjoyment seems to have gotten a bad rep during the last decade.  Of course, the post 9/11-phase made everybody question everything.  But the whole "only if entertainment is dark it can be considered mature and good" is nonsense, IMO.

 

In fact, during the Big Depression and World War II the entertainment offered enjoyment and light-hearted entertainment exactly because real life was so depressing and full of fear and dread. And audiences loved this chance of getting away from it all for two hours.

 

I believe it´s high time that entertainment allows escapism and light-hearted fun to return. That does not include Adam Sandler-imbecile-jokes. I´m talking about class, intelligent comedy and action with adventure instead of action with "the higher the body count, the better". And its heroes do not have to carry around a big trauma. I would rather have them be basically well-intentioned. Like Indiana Jones, Superman - and, of course, James Bond.

 

I agree with everything you've both said Couldn't have put it better.

[bondjames]

 

 

I think The Spy Who Loved Me and OHMSS managed to reveal more about Bond without it being heavy, time consuming or spoil the fun.

 

And pretty much all the Connery Bonds revealed a lot about the character, by just having a definitive idea of who the character was and letting him behave the way he'd behave in the situations in which he found himself. Admittedly, he was probably a less complex character than Craig's Bond, but we didn't need an overdose of heavy drama to explore his character.

 

So I hope Logan and Mendes pay attention to how those films (especially TSWLM and OHMSS) did it - but I doubt they will.

Very good point. You can also add the lines in LTK with Della and Felix.

I fully agree with Moore's Stunt Double. I also want to see Bond enjoying being himself (à la Connery in Goldfinger & Thunderball)

We need to be 'slightly' reminded of his traumas to make him human enough to fully accept/enjoy all the extravagances of the adventures. But definitely, going deeper into his psyché would be a non-sense in regard of what the franchise has developped so far.

Bond is not a normal agent dealing with a normal world. It's beyond.

 

 

 

 

For me the "Bond should enjoy being Bond" is a big part of what I want to see in BOND 24.

 

Enjoyment seems to have gotten a bad rep during the last decade.  Of course, the post 9/11-phase made everybody question everything.  But the whole "only if entertainment is dark it can be considered mature and good" is nonsense, IMO.

 

In fact, during the Big Depression and World War II the entertainment offered enjoyment and light-hearted entertainment exactly because real life was so depressing and full of fear and dread. And audiences loved this chance of getting away from it all for two hours.

 

I believe it´s high time that entertainment allows escapism and light-hearted fun to return. That does not include Adam Sandler-imbecile-jokes. I´m talking about class, intelligent comedy and action with adventure instead of action with "the higher the body count, the better". And its heroes do not have to carry around a big trauma. I would rather have them be basically well-intentioned. Like Indiana Jones, Superman - and, of course, James Bond.

 

I agree with everything you've both said Couldn't have put it better.

 

This post and its replies should be sent to Eon immediately!

 

If they just can absorb what has been said here, they will definitely give us a killer Bond 24.

 

I particularly agree with TSWLM. The part re: Bond's wife with Anya at the Mojaba Club, and the discussion, again with Anya, when she found out he put a bullet in her BF were franchise highs in terms of peeling back the layers. It's the way they were delivered that was the key. Moore at his best. Subtlety seems to be a 'lost art' to paraphrase Defense Minister Dmitri Mishkin.

 

I also agree fully with the point that Connery's Bond, by at least being a consistent character that continued to develop throughout his portrayal, revealed a lot about Bond via his actions. We learn about him by seeing him in action in difficult situations. The confidence, the arrogance, the fear (Thunderball when he's strapped to the exercise equipment after Count Lippe's intervention at Shrublands), the loyalty to friends (his behaviour after Kerim dies in FRWL) - it's almost like we knew how he would act in a given situation at the end of his run. Like being with an old friend. A lot of this is due to the quality of the scripts in those days, but a lot of it is also is due to Connery's delivery and style.

 

The only point I may disagree a little with is LTK. I felt Dalton went a little overboard during the post-Leiter shark attack - particulary when he saw Dela on the bed and then Leiter on the chair. He was flailing about like an amateur when calling the cops - I'll always remember the first time I saw that scene and found it a little un-Bond like -  I expected a little more composure at this moment, although I understood the grief.

 

I think Craig handled it better post-Vesper. There was a steely look in his face when he realized she was dead after they came up to shore. I think Lazenby handled it very well post-Tracey's death in the car when talking to the cop.

 

So again, it comes down to 'subtlety' in the script and in the actor's understated approach to delivery when you're talking about peeling it back with a tough mysoginistic spy like Bond. It's not an easy thing to do.

Edited by bondjames, 22 July 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[Emma]

I am perfectly fine with them exploring Bond's human side. I think it adds depth to the character and makes for smarter films. I mean why cast an actor of Craig's caliber if you aren't going to use his talents? Having said that, I do believe they could explore his character whilst also making a film that isn't as heavy and dark as Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. I want them to explore his human side, but do it in a somewhat lighter tone.

 

Personally I find this whole talk of exploring Bond's 'human side' to be a bit alarming. I don't want to see the Bond franchise turned into an episode of Dr. Phil where the character is psychoanilized and spills his guts. This is a tough hardened spy and ex-millitary man who probably isn't going to go around revealing his innner most secrects.

 

I think that Bond's human side can be shown in various subtle ways without it turning into a dissertation. For example it wasn't until after I had seen CR about five times that I understood why he did some of the things he did. It was because he hated bullies and a___________s. The scene in CR which he climbed into the running shower with a traumatized Vesper showed his compassion for others. Those small instances like that spoke far more about Bond than having him spout some Hamlet like soliloque.

[JohnnyWalker]

 I don't want to see the Bond franchise turned into an episode of Dr. Phil where the character is psychoanilized and spills his guts. 

 

He's never done that before though so what's the danger?

[Cody]

Logan intends Bond 24 and 25 to build on Skyfall

 

 

 

Details on Bond films are notoriously kept under lock and key, and Logan was hesitant to reveal particulars about the story for the upcoming film. "All I can say about Bond is that I'm happily writing it" he said. Joking that, "Sam [Mendes] would rappel through the window and kill me." Though the writer did indicate that the next two films would carry forward what had been established with Skyfall.

 

One of the intentions with Skyfall was to recapture and contemporize some of the classic elements of Bond. "My goal is to write a great movie that's appropriate, to build on what we did on Skyfall, but make it its own unique animal," Logan said of the teams aspirations for Bond 24. "The themes, ideas and the characters from Skyfall can obviously continue on, because it is a franchise, and it is an ongoing story. So I think there's resonance from Skyfall in the new movie."

 

"I grew up on the Bond movies," Logan said of his own connection to the franchise. "The first one I saw was Diamonds Are Forever, when I was a kid. I just loved them to pieces. I love all the elements, from the books -- mostly from the novels; going back to Ian Fleming is where I started with Skyfall -- and there's certainly elements of the movies and the novels that we've brought into the new movie, as they did into Skyfall."

 

One of the most memorable elements in Skyfall was Javier Bardem's villainous Silva. "He was just fantastic!" Logan enthused, adding that the creative team didn't feel pressure to match the success of that villain as each story requires its own unique antagonist.

 

Eon, the production company behind the Bond franchise, just got back the rights back to the Joker of the Bond world, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. As such, fans have been wondering if we may see Blofeld make an appearance was early as the next Bond film.

 

"You know, I think our villain's appropriate to the story we're telling," Logan said slyly when asked if there was a temptation to utilize that character now that they are able.

[Janus Assassin]

I like what he says, but at the same time I hope we don't get Skyfall part 2. As much as I love it and it's ranked #3 on my list of Bond films, I want to see a less serious go around this time. 

[Walecs]

I like what he says, but at the same time I hope we don't get Skyfall part 2. As much as I love it and it's ranked #3 on my list of Bond films, I want to see a less serious go around this time. 

 

I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean that Bond 24 will see Bond coming back to his home, because Silva is somehow still alive.

 

He means that Bond 24 will have the same feeling, it'll have the same good things as Skyfall, but the plot will be something completely different.