75 replies to this topic

[Bondian]

[quote name='Qwerty' date='23 December 2004 - 03:14'][quote name='Bondian' date='22 December 2004 - 22:05']I agree. Couldn't he take a bus for a change?.

[Qwerty]

Touche.

[Bondian]

[brendan007]

According to brendan007: "You DO need to rely on the same elements each and every time to make a successful Bond film. Look at the Bond films that didnt, audiences stayed away."

By that logic, I guess they should never have made OHMSS and LTK, two films held in very high regard by many Bond fans.

Of course every now and then departing from the formula can be quite exciting and result in a good film. But it should only be used occasionally, the more its done, the less effect it has.
LTK was only a few films ago & since then we've had films that have sublety changed the formula as well. Like all long running series, Bond has entered the stage where the stories get personal. While it has been handled well and resulted in four great films, the personal thing is starting to get old, like it does in many other series.
At this point in a series, it usually marks the beginning of the end, or jumping the shark. While some series bounce back successfully, it never lasts long, no more than say 2 movies or a season or two on television.
So Bond now seems to be in trouble. After getting over initial shock, ive come to realise dumping Brosnan was a very smart move. If they find the right actor, they can completely relaunch the Bond series, bringing back the things people love about the series.
Like it or not, nobody takes Bond movies seriously, They are fun films that provide mindless entertainment, a fantasy. They are not hard edged reality based thrillers. (Flemings books yes, but that was the fantasy life back in the 50's for Fleming's target audience).
Bond 21 needs to bring back the fantasy elements, the xenia onnatop's, pussy galores, villians in volcanos and bikini clad women. Thats what people remember about Bond, it needs to stay, a OHMSS/LTK type change just will not work right now.
Rant over

[Loomis]

Of course every now and then departing from the formula can be quite exciting and result in a good film. But it should only be used occasionally, the more its done, the less effect it has.

Agreed. If all Bond films were like LICENCE TO KILL, then that would be the formula (obviously), and it would get pretty stale after a while. And if all Bonds films were completely different, there wouldn't be a formula at all (and in that case one wonders whether the cinematic Bond would have lasted so long, and whether the films would hang together as a series).

It's not that I mind "the formula", or that I enjoy only those films that depart from it. Give me the most formula-bound Bond flick ever made, and I'll enjoy it, as long as it's well-made and entertaining. Heck, I like all the Bonds, apart from just one (THE WORLD I---- well, I guess I've made my dislike of this movie so clear that I don't even have to mention it by name any more ). But, like I say, I'm a Bond fan because the series occasionally departs from the formula and gives us interesting movies (and interesting failures). I read something recently (on an AICN Talkback, I think) to the effect that the Bond series has at least one film for everyone, regardless of his or her taste in movies, and that's something I consider cool about it. Look at the DIE HARDs, for instance: terrific action entertainments, but they're all the same (basically). Ditto the LETHAL WEAPONs (okay, a lot more comedy creeps into the series as it progresses, but, essentially, they're much of a muchness), and I reckon that, however many Bournes they'll end up making, they'll all be pretty darn similar (and I also reckon that they'll all be excellent). But look at Bond: there's a lot of variety. I still struggle to get my head around the fact that this is a franchise in which A VIEW TO A KILL and LICENCE TO KILL are separated by just one film (if you see what I'm trying to say here - not expressing this too well).

Still, you and I agree that "occasionally" should be the operative word when it comes to departures from the formula.

LTK was only a few films ago & since then we've had films that have sublety changed the formula as well. Like all long running series, Bond has entered the stage where the stories get personal. While it has been handled well and resulted in four great films, the personal thing is starting to get old, like it does in many other series.

Agreed on the point that the Brosnan era marked a "personal" period for the series, as well as on the point that this personal stuff is starting to get old. Let's have a fun, lighthearted Bond flick again, or at least a film in which he simply goes off on a mission and accomplishes it without any personal issues interfering. I disagree, though, that the personal stuff was "handled well and resulted in four great films". I'd say it was handled well in places, but fumbled badly at other times, which is why the Brosnan era was a real "mixed bag" for me.

Like it or not, nobody takes Bond movies seriously, They are fun films that provide mindless entertainment, a fantasy. They are not hard edged reality based thrillers.

Agreed, but that's surely not to say that some Bond films shouldn't be grittier and more hard-edged than others? I don't consider the Bournes "hard edged reality based thrillers" - sure, they have the trappings of realism (especially when you compare them to, say, MOONRAKER, OCTOPUSSY, DIE ANOTHER DAY....), but, still, they're completely preposterous action flicks. People shouldn't take Bourne seriously for a single second - IDENTITY and SUPREMACY are no more grounded in reality than yer average 007 outing. However, they have a certain style about them that I think Eon would do well to take notice of.

Bond 21 needs to bring back the fantasy elements, the xenia onnatop's, pussy galores, villians in volcanos and bikini clad women. Thats what people remember about Bond, it needs to stay, a OHMSS/LTK type change just will not work right now.

But, wait: didn't DIE ANOTHER DAY have the bikini-clad Jinx, a villain in an ice palace, elaborate world domination schemes, face-swapping, an invisible car, an outer space death ray....? Surely all these fantasy elements were a staple of the Brosnan era? If we were having this discussion in the wake of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, I might agree with you that these elements needed to be brought back, but as things stand I'd say that the series could use a little break (only a little one - one or two movies, max) from fun-for-all-the-family epic fantasy Bond. Judging by threads on sites like AICN and the IMDb, it seems that many movie lovers (not just hardcore Bond fans) think DAD pushed this kind of Bondage just about as far as it was possible to go, and was a disappointing film. Many people appear to be crying out for a "back-to-basics" 007 adventure at this point.

Now, I love DAD, but I disagree with you that "a OHMSS/LTK type change just will not work right now" - I think it's precisely what the doctor ordered. Doesn't have to mean a gloomy and boring film, but just something a little less overblown and a little more suspenseful than DAD. If they tried to make BOND 21 DAD II, I'm sure it would come across as a ridiculous and tired self-parody - it would probably play like an Austin Powers flick, only one provoking unintentional laughter.

Why not ring the changes a bit with BOND 21, especially since we're promised a new, young star, and some sort of adaptation of "Casino Royale"? Why not have a BOND 21 that's closer in spirit to, say, TLD, LTK, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (the first movie), IDENTITY or SUPREMACY than to, say, MOONRAKER, OCTOPUSSY, GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES or DAD? Wouldn't you enjoy that (assuming it was a decent film)? Why wouldn't it work, especially given the success of the Bournes, and if they hired an "audience-friendly" star like Jackman? (You know I'd like Owen to land the gig, but I freely admit that he'd seem to be a much less "commercial" choice than someone like Jackers.) They could always keep epic fantasy Bond up their sleeve for the new guy's second or third film.

[DLibrasnow]

Bond is a fantasy figure, there is not a shred of realism to him. Lets face it, how can you take a secret agent (who everyone knows e.g. Tiffany Case in DAF) who has beautiful women hanging all over him, drives expensive cars, flies all over the world to the most exotic locations and saves the world like other people change their socks seriously.

He's a caricature and every time they have attempted to turn him into a three dimensional character it hasn't worked because Bond doesn't reside in the real world.

[Loomis]

Bond is a fantasy figure, there is not a shred of realism to him. Lets face it, how can you take a secret agent (who everyone knows e.g. Tiffany Case in DAF) who has beautiful women hanging all over him, drives expensive cars, flies all over the world to the most exotic locations and saves the world like other people change their socks seriously.

Well, I don't think you should ever take Bond (or Bourne) seriously - you should just enjoy these things for what they are. I believe there's room in the world for both "fun" interpretations of Bond (e.g. Moore) and "serious" interpretations of Bond (e.g. Dalton), and the fact that films like THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (a load of rubbish, but a would-be "serious" film) did well at the box office, just like MOONRAKER and OCTOPUSSY, shows that audiences welcome both extremes of Bondage.

[brendan007]

Bond 21 needs to bring back the fantasy elements, the xenia onnatop's, pussy galores, villians in volcanos and bikini clad women. Thats what people remember about Bond, it needs to stay, a OHMSS/LTK type change just will not work right now.

But, wait: didn't DIE ANOTHER DAY have the bikini-clad Jinx, a villain in an ice palace, elaborate world domination schemes, face-swapping, an invisible car, an outer space death ray....? Surely all these fantasy elements were a staple of the Brosnan era? If we were having this discussion in the wake of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL, I might agree with you that these elements needed to be brought back, but as things stand I'd say that the series could use a little break (only a little one - one or two movies, max) from fun-for-all-the-family epic fantasy Bond. Judging by threads on sites like AICN and the IMDb, it seems that many movie lovers (not just hardcore Bond fans) think DAD pushed this kind of Bondage just about as far as it was possible to go, and was a disappointing film. Many people appear to be crying out for a "back-to-basics" 007 adventure at this point.

Yes they did bring all that fantasy stuff back in DAD, and it was great imo. But by putting it in the same movie where Bond gets captured and has the crap beaten out of him for over a year, well, its just not the same really.
Bringing up movie fans and threads like AICN and IMDb, what nobody seems to realise around here are that the opinions put up on those places do not represent the majority of Bond fans (or movie fans for that matter).
I'd say less than 5 percent of Bond fans actually bother to post their opinions on the net. So just because every second person online is screaming to bring Bond back to basics, in reality you'd probably find a huge majority completely disagreeing.
When people think of Bond fondly, they usually think of the fun parts, the fantasy. While a smaller thriller might be entertaining enough, its not what most Bond fans want. The last time they tried scalling things back with a new Bond, it didnt work. I dont want it to happen again.

[Bondian]

Darren and Loomy, you're both right as usual.

[Pussfeller]

Why can't Bond films be exciting, fantastical, and explosive as well as well-written, intellectually engaging, and even coherent? It's almost taken for granted that you have to pick one or the other, and if we simply must make "a high-octane thrill ride for the whole family", a lot of people are willing to write off plot and dialogue as impossible art-house stuff. "The formula", as used by the current creative crew, is a plot-o-matic that allows them to get by with the least possible amount of thinking. That leaves them plenty of time to think up juvenile quips and figure out exactly what sort of car Bond should be driving.

I certainly don't want to see the Bond films scaled down or cheapened in any way. I just want the story to come first. They ought to find a good screenwriter who can use the formula--not discard it utterly, mind you--and not follow it as slavishly and robotically as P&W have done. First and foremost we need a good, solid espionage plot set in the world of James Bond. If the formula is worth anything, it should come about organically. Bond should go to M and Q and Moneypenny in the natural course of his work. The Q scene should just be "another scene", and not a little humorous interlude. Likewise for the meeting with M and flirting with Moneypenny.

Now normally, none of this would be a problem. In most situations, Bond would go to MI6 HQ, where he's given orders, engages in some banter, and then meets Q. However, if an unconventional story like Casino Royale were to be filmed faithfully, Bond would never be in London, or in a position to meet with Q. If I were the screenwriter, I would be bold and just leave the film sans Q.

[Loomis]

Yes they did bring all that fantasy stuff back in DAD, and it was great imo. But by putting it in the same movie where Bond gets captured and has the crap beaten out of him for over a year, well, its just not the same really.

I reckon most people who saw DIE ANOTHER DAY remember it as a zany, fun-for-all-the-family fantasy epic with sci-fi elements. Remembering it, in other words, as the movie with the invisible car/the face-swapping/the outer space death ray/Halle Berry, rather than as the movie "where Bond gets captured and has the crap beaten out of him for over a year". The "gritty" stuff you refer to amounts to only a few minutes of screentime, and in any case isn't as gritty as all that. DAD is hardly another LICENCE TO KILL, or even 50% another LTK and 50% a fun fantasy flick like MOONRAKER. It's about 95% silly fun (with all the "classic" Bond touches you call for trotted out), 5% so-called "dark" Bond.

Bringing up movie fans and threads like AICN and IMDb, what nobody seems to realise around here are that the opinions put up on those places do not represent the majority of Bond fans (or movie fans for that matter).
I'd say less than 5 percent of Bond fans actually bother to post their opinions on the net. So just because every second person online is screaming to bring Bond back to basics, in reality you'd probably find a huge majority completely disagreeing.

Well, I know people who've never posted on the internet in their lives who've told me they think the recent Bonds are silly, overblown, too focused on action and effects, and not focused enough on story. BTW, these people are neither highbrow film buffs who watch only "art house" fare, nor old buffers who aren't interested in film, but people in their 20s who watch a lot of movies, including action movies.

Their idea of James Bond is not a guy running around with a machine gun, with a large explosion every two minutes. Their idea of James Bond is a classy chap who appears in films with a lot of suspense as well as a lot of action, with the huge final "mega" action sequence taking place right at the end, for instance with 007 leading an army against the villain's elaborate lair.

Now, whether most movie/Bond fans are quite happy with the direction in which the series has been going of late, with complainers in a minority, I don't know. But I don't see why we should assume that people who don't post on the net about Bond would automatically disagree with those who post on the net about Bond and call for change. I'm sure some would disagree, but some wouldn't.

The last time they tried scalling things back with a new Bond, it didnt work. I dont want it to happen again.

Are you referring to LICENCE TO KILL? THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS worked (both at the box office and as a good film), surely?

Why can't Bond films be exciting, fantastical, and explosive as well as well-written, intellectually engaging, and even coherent? It's almost taken for granted that you have to pick one or the other, and if we simply must make "a high-octane thrill ride for the whole family", a lot of people are willing to write off plot and dialogue as impossible art-house stuff.

Quite. It's not as though we're asking for, I don't know, Peter Greenaway or Wong Kar-Wai to be given the director's chair on BOND 21; or for absolutely everything about the all-time classic Bond films (or absolutely everything about the recent Bond films, for that matter) to be thrown out of the window in order for Bond to be reinvented in some truly radical way, as, say, a drug-abusing amnesiac with suicidal tendencies, played by Colin Salmon.

But why should us fans talk like fat cat producers, calling only for that which is action-packed, aimed squarely at "the masses", and at every step adheres strictly to "the Bond formula" (girls in bikinis, grotesque villains, elaborate world domination schemes, casino scenes, Q, etc.)?

If making a commercial Bond film means that we must forget about all sophistication and ambition, then I fail to see the difference between the Bond franchise and the XXX franchise. If they're going to go down, as Pussfeller puts it, the "plot-o-matic" route for BOND 21, then the film will probably end up looking like XXX: STATE OF THE UNION on a bigger budget. I for one would rather they delivered a BOND 21 closer to the Bournes than to XXX (not necessarily a film similar to the Bournes in subject matter, look or tone, but definitely a film similar to the Bournes in terms of intelligence and risk-taking).

Simply ticking off all the items on some "classic Bond elements" checklist (girl in bikini - check, casino scene - check....) will not be enough to make a terrific BOND 21. What's wrong with calling for a little more than just the joining of dots?

[brendan007]

What's wrong with calling for a little more than just the joining of dots?

Because in this series, when they 'just join the dots' they usually come out with a better film. Its only when they try to reinvent the wheel that the series comes out badly (which i admit they've been doing somewhat with the personal stuff in Brosnan films).
Some of the best films in the series were all about delivering exactly what people wanted, no more no less (eg Thunderball, TSWLM, Octopussy, Goldeneye). If they focus on making the key elements seem new and exciting, theres no need to change the formula and the majority of people are kept happy.

[JackChase007]

But how, exactly, are you so sure that you speak for the majority?

[Loomis]

What's wrong with calling for a little more than just the joining of dots?

Because in this series, when they 'just join the dots' they usually come out with a better film. Its only when they try to reinvent the wheel that the series comes out badly ... Some of the best films in the series were all about delivering exactly what people wanted, no more no less (eg Thunderball, TSWLM, Octopussy, Goldeneye).

And yet, according to your profile, your favourite Bond film is ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.



It's a favourite of mine, too, along with THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and LICENCE TO KILL, two other 007 adventures that aren't exactly usually considered to have delivered "exactly what people wanted".

Are we wrong, though, brendan007, in liking these movies? I mean, we don't have majority opinion on our side, do we? Joe Public and the box office stats aren't in our favour.

Oh, well. Here's to not always just following the hallowed formula and joining the dots. *Raises glass*

[brendan007]

What's wrong with calling for a little more than just the joining of dots?

Because in this series, when they 'just join the dots' they usually come out with a better film. Its only when they try to reinvent the wheel that the series comes out badly ... Some of the best films in the series were all about delivering exactly what people wanted, no more no less (eg Thunderball, TSWLM, Octopussy, Goldeneye).

And yet, according to your profile, your favourite Bond film is ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.



It's a favourite of mine, too, along with THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and LICENCE TO KILL, two other 007 adventures that aren't exactly usually considered to have delivered "exactly what people wanted".

Oh, well. Here's to not always just following the hallowed formula and joining the dots. *Raises glass*

Hehe, i never said those movies shouldnt exist, they are just not right for Bond 21. I've no problem with taking a chance in a few films time, I just think the best thing for the next film (and the series in general) is to go classic, not to screw around with the formula right now.

Are we wrong, though, brendan007, in liking these movies? I mean, we don't have majority opinion on our side, do we? Joe Public and the box office stats aren't in our favour.

Of course not, my rants in this post come from a purely business type of thinking. I happen to genuinely believe that Speed 2 is a far better movie than the original, I certainly cant back that one up with box office stats (or even common sense really )

[Loomis]

Of course not, my rants in this post come from a purely business type of thinking.

Pleased to read that. I was worried that a discerning Bond fan had been possessed by the ghost of some rapacious studio executive.

Yes, if I had a financial stake in BOND 21, I'd agree that they should "go classic" and not "screw around with the formula right now" (and hire Hugh Jackman). However, since I don't have a financial stake in BOND 21, I say they should, erm, "go Bourne", and give the formula a good old session of how's yer father (with Clive Owen as 007).

Or, how about this for a compromise: a "back-to-basics" LIVING DAYLIGHTS-type flick, but with an "audience-friendly" star like Brosnan or Jackman instead of the dark and Daltonite Owen? That way, the masses get their "popular Bond", and the Bond geeks get their "down-to-earth", Fleming-type story.

I happen to genuinely believe that Speed 2 is a far better movie than the original, I certainly cant back that one up with box office stats (or even common sense really  )

You may be right. I've always found SPEED overrated. Then again, I'm someone who genuinely believes that John McTiernan's ROLLERBALL is superior to the original!