Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

12 Changes 007 Movies Need to Make James Bond Great Again?


19 replies to this topic

#1 occhile007

occhile007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 132 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 November 2015 - 05:27 PM

Hello All,

I recently read this article on Screenrant.com and I must say, it really mad me mad. The author went on a rant about how James Bond films should have longer gaps between movies, there should be no backstory for Bond, gadgets need to return, less romance, etc. In my opinion, the author is pretty much saying he wants a soulless, generic spy film. Please give it a read and let me know what your thoughts are. Cheers!

http://screenrant.co...age-1/#comments

#2 The Dove

The Dove

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16671 posts
  • Location:Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 09 November 2015 - 05:28 PM

Thanks for the summary, occhile... I don't need to bother reading it to tell that the author is pretty much a clueless individual.. :D



#3 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 09 November 2015 - 05:49 PM

I think he made some valid points. Who wouldn't want standalone adventures and less backstory for Bond these days?

#4 stromberg

stromberg

    Commander RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts
  • Location:Saarland / Germany

Posted 09 November 2015 - 07:15 PM

I think he made some valid points. Who wouldn't want standalone adventures and less backstory for Bond these days?

Me?



#5 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 09 November 2015 - 07:29 PM

 

I think he made some valid points. Who wouldn't want standalone adventures and less backstory for Bond these days?

Me?

 

 

 

and me?

 

 

There's nothing wrong with backstory. It doesn't all have to be personal to Bond though.



#6 FlemingBond

FlemingBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Az U.S.

Posted 09 November 2015 - 11:20 PM

there's a few of those i agree with, but most of them i don't



#7 casinoroyale75

casinoroyale75

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 47 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 11:52 PM

1) lose the slapstick, goofy bits -- (see car chase airbag scene in SP)

2) keep the Bond persona of Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, he's the man

3) no gadgets (too predictable, and lame storytelling devices)

4) Hire Martin Campbell or George Miller

5) No more horrible endings: QOS and SP



#8 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 10 November 2015 - 12:01 AM

1) lose the slapstick, goofy bits -- (see car chase airbag scene in SP)

2) keep the Bond persona of Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, he's the man

3) no gadgets (too predictable, and lame storytelling devices)

4) Hire Martin Campbell or George Miller

5) No more horrible endings: QOS and SP

 

Although most will disagree, I enjoyed the QOS ending better than SP's... (on first viewing anyway)



#9 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 10 November 2015 - 12:08 AM

Weak villains? Le Chiffre and Silva are two of the series' best. Not too mention, Skyfall completely flipped the script for a Bond film as did Casino Royale. Neither of those were business as usual films. Skyfall didn't even really have a main Bond girl (unless you count M). I don't need to have the gadgets brought back. They got too ridiculous and needed to be removed....invisible car *pfft*. I will agree though, that tying everything together seems a stretch. The idea might have worked had Skyfall come out in 2010 and Spectre in 2012. The fact that each of these four films had troubled productions didn't help matters.

Casino Royale: Die Another Day's reception, Brosnan's retirement and the Daniel Craig backlash

Quantum of Solace: The writer's strike and beginning filming with an incomplete script

Skyfall: MGM's bankruptcy

Spectre: Script issues and budget problems

Releasing the films over the course of 9 years really hurt the overall narrative. And while CR/QoS and SF/SP take place in the same years respectively (while it's never stated, it's pretty clear Spectre takes place only a few months after Skyfall) the story just isn't there. I don't really buy Silva working with Blofeld. He was his own man with his own agenda.



#10 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 November 2015 - 12:10 AM

I think he made some valid points. Who wouldn't want standalone adventures and less backstory for Bond these days?

Me?
 
 
and me?
 
 
There's nothing wrong with backstory. It doesn't all have to be personal to Bond though.
Me too.

#11 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 November 2015 - 07:27 AM

This article, of course, is just click-bait (with the requisite splitting of one argument per page).

 

I find it hilarious that already the author is asking for "modernizing" Bond - as if the Craig era happened decades ago.

 

- More time between films?  MORE?  

 

- People don´t remember what happened one or two films before?  Marvel films would disagree...

 

- Ditch the Bond elements?  Why, so you can complain in your next article that Bond films have become generic?

 

- Bond does not have to bed every woman?  In the Craig era he really does not.  And I think he should because he is Bond.  (By the way, the author finds it morally repugnant for Bond to romance the widow of someone he offed - hey, that´s exactly what Bond is all about!)

 

- Stand-alone adventures?  Okay, yeah, I wouldn´t mind that.

 

- No backstory?  Well, after finding out about Bond´s parents and his step-brother - what else is there to say about his past?  I´d say: no more family drama.  BOND 25 will have to deal with Madeleine in some way.  But that´s enough.

 

- Unusual casting?  Of course, the Idris Elba-rumor gets more airplay in this article.  What a fresh idea.  Definitely something to write the next click-bait about.

 

 

Apart from all that - Bond films don´t need fixing.  They are constantly evolving and changing, going with the zeitgeist.  They have always done that and stayed alive that way.



#12 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 10 November 2015 - 12:36 PM

 

 

 

I think he made some valid points. Who wouldn't want standalone adventures and less backstory for Bond these days?

Me?
 
 
and me?
 
 
There's nothing wrong with backstory. It doesn't all have to be personal to Bond though.
Me too.

 

 

Count me in as well.



#13 agentbug

agentbug

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 122 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 November 2015 - 01:56 PM

This article, of course, is just click-bait (with the requisite splitting of one argument per page).

 

I find it hilarious that already the author is asking for "modernizing" Bond - as if the Craig era happened decades ago.

 

- More time between films?  MORE?  

 

- People don´t remember what happened one or two films before?  Marvel films would disagree...

 

- Ditch the Bond elements?  Why, so you can complain in your next article that Bond films have become generic?

 

- Bond does not have to bed every woman?  In the Craig era he really does not.  And I think he should because he is Bond.  (By the way, the author finds it morally repugnant for Bond to romance the widow of someone he offed - hey, that´s exactly what Bond is all about!)

 

- Stand-alone adventures?  Okay, yeah, I wouldn´t mind that.

 

- No backstory?  Well, after finding out about Bond´s parents and his step-brother - what else is there to say about his past?  I´d say: no more family drama.  BOND 25 will have to deal with Madeleine in some way.  But that´s enough.

 

- Unusual casting?  Of course, the Idris Elba-rumor gets more airplay in this article.  What a fresh idea.  Definitely something to write the next click-bait about.

 

 

Apart from all that - Bond films don´t need fixing.  They are constantly evolving and changing, going with the zeitgeist.  They have always done that and stayed alive that way.

 

 

I refuse to read the article for it being clickbait as you said, but agree with everything you've said.



#14 RMc2

RMc2

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 10 November 2015 - 01:58 PM

 

1) lose the slapstick, goofy bits -- (see car chase airbag scene in SP)

2) keep the Bond persona of Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, he's the man

3) no gadgets (too predictable, and lame storytelling devices)

4) Hire Martin Campbell or George Miller

5) No more horrible endings: QOS and SP

 

Although most will disagree, I enjoyed the QOS ending better than SP's... (on first viewing anyway)

 

 Me too!



#15 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 10 November 2015 - 10:26 PM

- No backstory?  Well, after finding out about Bond´s parents and his step-brother - what else is there to say about his past?

A step-sister. An evil step-sister?

#16 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 11 November 2015 - 12:08 AM

 

- No backstory?  Well, after finding out about Bond´s parents and his step-brother - what else is there to say about his past?

A step-sister. An evil step-sister?

 

 

Turns out Judi's M actually was Bond's mother, who he thought had died. She had plastic surgery to change her appearance but now she's dead for real. Bond 25: Quantum of Solace II



#17 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 24 November 2015 - 10:40 AM

This article, of course, is just click-bait (with the requisite splitting of one argument per page).

 

I find it hilarious that already the author is asking for "modernizing" Bond - as if the Craig era happened decades ago.

 

- More time between films?  MORE?  

 

- People don´t remember what happened one or two films before?  Marvel films would disagree...

 

- Ditch the Bond elements?  Why, so you can complain in your next article that Bond films have become generic?

 

- Bond does not have to bed every woman?  In the Craig era he really does not.  And I think he should because he is Bond.  (By the way, the author finds it morally repugnant for Bond to romance the widow of someone he offed - hey, that´s exactly what Bond is all about!)

 

- Stand-alone adventures?  Okay, yeah, I wouldn´t mind that.

 

- No backstory?  Well, after finding out about Bond´s parents and his step-brother - what else is there to say about his past?  I´d say: no more family drama.  BOND 25 will have to deal with Madeleine in some way.  But that´s enough.

 

- Unusual casting?  Of course, the Idris Elba-rumor gets more airplay in this article.  What a fresh idea.  Definitely something to write the next click-bait about.

 

 

Apart from all that - Bond films don´t need fixing.  They are constantly evolving and changing, going with the zeitgeist.  They have always done that and stayed alive that way.

 

I wouldn't mind more stand-alone adventures, but having said that I think the continuation of the story through Craig's era has strengthened the credibility of the franchise with the general public. People who aren't usual Bond fans (like us) are very quick to moan about the 'traditional Bond formula' so it made sense for EON to mix things up slightly in Craig's movies for the masses.

 

Other than that, I disagree with everything else this author has written. What's the likelihood of this guy ever having read one of the novels!? :P  



#18 Zen Razor

Zen Razor

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 87 posts
  • Location:Miami, FL

Posted 22 December 2015 - 10:22 AM

Don't worry about it Screen Rant has a way of doing click baits. Usually by pissing off fans.


I love the way people nitpick and complain as if SPECTRE destroyed the Bond franchise when it still made the second most money of all the Bond film's if I'm correct. It didn't receive as positive reviews as hoped but frankly I think a few years from now people will look back on it and change their minds. I do agree on the stand alone Bond missions though.


Edited by Zen Razor, 22 December 2015 - 10:22 AM.


#19 TheREAL008

TheREAL008

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1190 posts
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 02 January 2016 - 05:55 PM

I enjoyed SPECTRE for what it was. I admired the different-yet-classic approach. But I wouldn't have minded a more shadowy Thunderball approach to the film as well.

Screen rant misses the point. They're not worth bothering with. IGN as well.  



#20 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 02 January 2016 - 07:54 PM

Clickbait, and contradictory clickbait at that. Read it and at the end thought to myself "well, Haines, that's five minutes or so you'll never have again!" ;-)