32 replies to this topic

[White Tuxedo]

I've seen forums talking about future 007's and titles and such. What about the direction of Bond films? Where do you want to see them go?

DAD looks to be somewhat like GoldenEye, very action oriented, but it also looks to have it's own sense of style. It looks like it may bring Bond into to 21st Century in a big way. But where do we go from that?

Personally, I'd like to see more suspensful and stylish Bond films, I'd also like to see Clive Owen as Bond and think he'd fit in well with that direction.

But who you'd cast and what stories you'd tell all depends on the direction you want to take with the franchise. Do you want more big-budget, small-brain shoot 'em ups, or more clever, stylish, and down to earth films? Maybe a combination of both.

Personally, I want to see a younger Bond (Clive Owen). I want more suspence, and I want more style. The Brosnan films are fine, but they lack to me in those departments.

[Roebuck]

I want them to keep doing what they have done for the last 40 years and give us a mix of stuff.
The spectacle of films like YOLT. The edgier stuff such as FYEO and LTK. Romance. Comedy.I want it all.
They would never have lasted this long if the Bond's had picked a single in house style and stuck rigidly to it.

[White Tuxedo]

I don't mean just sticking to one rigid style.

The 60's were ussually very stylish and suspencful.
The 70's were light, campy, escapist fare.
The 80's ussually had a harder edge to it.
The 90's tried to combine all of the above and bring Bond (duh) into the 90's.

What about the 2000's? Sure, it'll prove to be a mixed bag, but do you want to the return of more style and suspence- or do want more campy stuff action stuff?

It all depends on who you get as Bond. I want a younger Bond. One that is hip, edgey, fun, and has style. Brosnan doen't have the style I want.

I'd still like to see Clive Owen as Bond.

[ChandlerBing]

Well, Brozzy has the style that I want, that's for sure. I can't even watch the Dalton films anymore. Some people want a return to boring and dreary. Aside from drooling over Carey Lowell on that boat, there wasn't anything in those movies. If Al Pacino was a little taller and more British he could have played that part better than Dalton with the urgency and intensity Dalton tried but failed to do. So, thank you, but no, I like the direction Brosnan has been in. Once they get someone like Hugh Jackman in there, the series will continue without any Dalton-sized speedbumps.

{awaiting likely backlash for this post from behind a bulletproof Aston Martin}

[seanbean4pres]

what about having sort of the same thing going on as the first few Bonds. like they had spectar. i wouldnt mind seeing sumin like that again.

[Double-0 Six]

I'd also like to see a re-occuring villain, along the lines of SPECTRE. I'd like to see The Union adapted for the big screen - This need not be a direct translation of the Benson novels, just use them as the basis of the story (doesn't even have to be a trilogy).

It would be nice also to see the action become smarter, have Bond use his wits and ingenuity a bit rather than go in guns blazing. It's nice to have a shoot-out and explosions once in a while, but there's only so much the audience can take.

Finally, I'd like the next Bond actor to be a little bit younger and perhaps more like the Fleming original whilst hanging onto Brosnan's level of humour (which for me is spot on).

[mrmoon]

I think Pierce is a very stylish man, far, far more than Clive Owen. Pierce knows how to carry himself, and he has a superb physique for Bond, he can carry off pretty much anything in the way of clothing. The way he moves is also superb, his posture is very authoritative, which I think is necessary, he has what I like to call the two sides of Bond, the cool, calm, sophisticated confidence, and yet when called for he can look particularly vulnerable, edgy, tense, agitated, vengeful, killer.

As for the films, if you want me to tell you what direction I want, press EON to give me the job

[Peter]

Mansfield:

I entirely agree with you. I give credit to Brosnan for trying to push the productions to have interesting stories (eg. the betrayal of Trevelyn in GE, the love quadrangle in TND, the betrayal (again) of Elektra in TWINE), but unfortunately, these never go anywhere because the films are too overwhelmed by the over the top action set pieces (eg tanker chase, bike chase, almost everything in TWINE). Except for GE, it's like watching two different films that happen to have the same characters which are edited together.

I also believe a more stylish and suspensful approach, where Bond is brainy and tough, not just Rambo, would be better. I'm hoping with an extra year to prepare, they've actually planned this film to be cohesive.

Although I don't particularly care for Brosnan, he's okay. BUt I would be very interested in Clive Owen. I wasn't aware of who he was, but saw him in Gosford Park (An extremely different type of genre than Bond), and knew instantly he should be Bond. Then I read all this stuff about people rooting for him. He's charismatic, tough, smart, and has the style to pull it off.

[White Tuxedo]

It's funny really. I've been on the Brosnan-is-second-only-to-Connery bandwagon for a while. Last month, I watched all 19 films on DVD in order (with the exception of the last twenty minutes of Moonraker and AVTAK, for obvious reasons). I watched movies I hadn't seen in years, some I'd never gotten around to watching on the DVD sets I've had since they were released.

My feelings about the series have changed in some areas. Overall, I still don't care as much for the Moore films (I love FYEO, while Octopussy and TSWLM are ok) but I'm liking Roger Moore himself better. I'm liking OHMSS (and Lazenby) a heck of a lot more than I used to. Dalton is.. I dunno. I like him pretty well myself. I think he's a cool actor, but he's not good with the ladies really. My impression of Connery is the same, but on to Brosnan.

I no longer care for Pierce Brosnan as James Bond, there I said it. GE I liked, but his films really lack something to me. I can't explain it, but he just does not fit as James Bond to me. I mean, he's not a bad Bond. He's certainly better than Dalton, but I like Roger Moore better now (before he got old and fat and gross). It feels odd to say that, it really does.

The latest films look great, TWINE was visibly gorgeous at times to me. I just think they are too stuffy and big.

I can't explain what I feel. Basically, I think the films need come down to earth. The first handful of films were fantastical, but were grounded in our world, not in some odd, parallel universe. I dunno, it's really hard to explain what I want exactly.

I want a younger, hipper James Bond. M is fine, the new Q is fine, but Brosnan just seems square to me. Cut him loose, start fresh with Clive Owen. That's what I'd do. I really enjoy Clive Owen.

Make him a young Bond, a hip Bond. A Bond who would hit the social spots of London, not just mope around MI6 or Oxford. Connery was in his 30's as Bond, so is Owen now.

And leave Jackman to play around like Edward Scissorhands.

[White Tuxedo]

After reading over my reply, I have more.

Square, that's what I call the Bond films now. It's like Star Wars, it used to be popular in a different era, but now seems cold and distant. It seems like they're just making more Bonds for the hell of it, and people are just seeing them for the hell of it. Because it's James Bond.

Personally, I'm not getting much outta the newer films now. They just are not cool to me anymore. If you want explosions, see the latest Ahhhhnuld brain , or Jerry Bruckheimer's newest abomination. Don't see Bond. To me, Bond shouldn't be about explosions and set peices. That's it, it's becoming too Hollywood. It's trying too hard to be everything else, not hard enough at what it should be.

What should set Bond films apart are not explosions, it just CANNOT hope to compete with the other **** out there. What should set Bond apart is style, wit, and suspence.

I'm aimless here. Basically, I think the franchise is too stuffy. It needs a good kick in the pants. This isn't frickin' Shakespeare, it's James Bond. Make him younger, hipper, more like people are now. Don't try to be like the Connery years, society has changed (the whole point of Austin Powers). Make Bond someone who could be live in this century (that sounds weird to say).

Keep him British, keep him lethal, make him hip.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Clive Owen is 37, he'll be 39/40 by the next Bond. I like Owen but he's not what I'd call young and hip even now, let alone stylish, he's more like craggy, brooding, attractive in an irregular way, and balding.

I think Brosnan is an excellent Bond and the best thing to happen to the series in decades. As Bond he's stylish, sexy, smart, charismatic and ruthless; he's the hero darkened and yet still a lot of fun to watch. He grounds the films in reality, and at the same time makes it so you believe in the fantasy. He doesn't wink at the audience and he doesn't play it camp, but at the same time he's light on his feet and goes with the flow. IMO he gives the most fully dimensioned Bond in the series, or as Connery recently said he's created a character we care about among all the set pieces and stunts and megolamniacs.

But personal preference aside, they're not going to make the films smaller and edgier etc, unless they stop making money as larger extravaganzas. Changing the lead actor won't result in an entirely different approach, there are so many other factors in play. And I think the PB films are more gounded in reality than anything since FRWL except for maybe FYEO and LTK. Goldfinger, SPECTRE, Blofield, Drax, Kananga and Voodoo, Stromfield etc were all rather alternate fantasy creations, with larger than life elements.

PB's said on more than one occassion he'd love to do a Bond just in London, or one more gritty, do Casino Royale, or something akin to FRWL. (he had to settle for doing darker and more real in Tailor Of Panama) Michael Wilson has said they always start out trying to make another FRWL and then end up trying to make something bigger than the last, it's the nature of the business and the evolution of the series. Another post called the films "reactionary", and they are, they react to market trends, to what's making money, to public tastes, it's why they've last 40 years and 20 films. If they thought a smaller grittier film would make as much money as the last 3 then they'd make it and with a smaller budget to boot. But they don't believe it will. The only way they'll start cutting down on the scope the budgets and thinking about making smaller films is if the films stop making enough of a profit and they're forced to. I guess you could say they did that with LTK (smaller budget, smaller marketing) and that to me is one shabby, ugly looking, dreary, seedy, ill conceived poorly filmed Bond.

[White Tuxedo]

Very good post, and well defended opinion.

The kind of Bond films I'd make would be smaller scale in some ways, but certainly not at all cheap. I agree with on the whole larger than life thing, but all three PS films still (to me) fall into that catagory.

It's hard to argue with you because my opinions and ideas are still vague and undeveloped. Really, it's not just smaller and down to earth I want, it's also tighter, and edgier. You're right, it is about money. But something doesn't always have to be big to be successful. Look at Austin Powers, those films are relativley cheap and make a ton of money (atleast the second and third ones).

I still feel (to me) the PS films are empty, stuffy, and square. PS is rounding the character a bit, I'll give you that. It's just.. I dunno.

[Predator_007]

MBE, a fantastic, erudite post ... and I agree with it 100%.

Your description of PB really made me sit back and think. Don't get me wrong, I like him anyway, but your words resonated and I think you got it spot on.

I'd like to think that Eon could make a smaller Bond in the future (PB has also said that he would like to remake OHMSS incidentally), but the commercial pressures on them and their studio make me think that it will be a cold day in hell when they decide to remove the 'spectacle' of the Bond series. LTK was a strange beast indeed and doesn't sit well in my DVD shelf next to the big budget extravaganzas we've had since DAF. That in itself will prevent a tighter, edgier Bond film, but when you see that Bond does have to compete with the xXxs, I Spys and Bourne Identitys currently 'in vogue', you realise that it is very far from being likely.

It is a shame in a way, but like it or not Eon still make some of the best films around - they might not be the taught thrills of Dr No, but they are just as watchable.

Long may they continue, long may PB continue (and let's hope DAD is better than TWINE)

[ChandlerBing]

I like Brosnan. I like TWINE. You want younger and hipper, go for XXX. Bond is Bond. We like him that way. I like him that way.

[Jim]

Bring back the unfeeling callous Bond. Don't have him emoting or getting in touch with the "real" Bond. Nadgers to that. I've had far too much of Bond being turned into a woman by Mr Brosnan's performances. Make him male again. Make him the unreconstructed sexist he was meant to be. Pierce Brosnan as James Bond? Make me laugh not. Use 'em and abuse 'em, that's what I say. OK, so BrosnanBond shot a woman, but he then went and did some emoting over her. Rubb-ish. Just shoot her and chase the submarine mate. Much more like it.

(Just trying to tip the balance back to the chap who appears to have been forgotten on these boards: Sean Connery was great as James Bond. Everyone else is in second place. Second place is just first of the losers)

[ChandlerBing]

Jim, were you here when Bondpurist was here? You guys would have been in good company with each other.

[JimmyBond]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Jim, were you here when Bondpurist was here?  You guys would have been in good company with each other.

No they wouldnt have. Jim hates LTK.

[ChandlerBing]

I know! Sarcasm doesn't translate well over cyberspace

[Predator_007]

For a moment, let's remember that the Bond series still exists ... Yes, we can talk about Connery's performances in retrospect, but we can talk about Brosnan in the here and now. And here and now, he is the best Bond we could hope for (without resorting to time travel/genetic cloning etc.)

I think we'll be able to judge Brosnan best when he hands over the reigns to someone else, but in the mean time, let's enjoy his (and his directors') take on Bond.

[JimmyBond]

I just want people to know, I'm not a bandwagon jumper, I dont jump onto the latest craze at all.

With that said, Pierce Brosnan is, without a doubt, my favorite Bond. He brings everything to the role that I like in a Bond. He has the charm of Connery, the jokiness of Moore (without being too jokey), and he even has a bit of ruthlessness of Dalton (without being too dreary).

To me, Bond is a man who is one step ahead of death, he's a middle aged man who knows that he could be killed any minute, so he lives life to the fullest, and does his job without hesitation. While Moore played Bond as a playboy, his films still reflect this "devil may car" attitude. I agree with Chandler on this one, if you want a young hip guy, go watch XXX, Bond is Bond, to turn him into a 30 year old hipster would kill his mystique.

RE: Jim, the over sensitive Bond can get a bit dull, but face it, thats how PB is playing the character.

[Jim]

Originally posted by JimmyBond

RE: Jim, the over sensitive Bond can get a bit dull, but face it, thats how PB is playing the character.

"A bit" dull.

"A bit" yes.

[JimmyBond]

I still stand behind Pierce's portrayal of Bond and want to see him go on to make at least two more after DAD.

[ChandlerBing]

A proud supporter of Pierce as Bond and also a proud supporter of Hugh Jackman as Bond #6. Now that I've got that out of the way, I'd also like to reiterate keeping Bond..well, as Bond. Vin Diesel has his fans who like that "hip" stuff that the MTV people like. I'm not one of those people. Even though I go to school with them, I still don't share their appetites. I like Pierce's portrayal of Bond. You believe he's playing the same Bond Connery did. It's not a total stretch like with Dalton and a lot of the Roger Moore stuff {cough, Moonraker}.

[JimmyBond]

Chandler, are you sure you're not my clone my clone or something Its nice to see someone that shares the same views as I do on Bond, so many times on this board, I run into people who would rather insult my choices (BP) or who just want to argue for the sake of arguing (BP).

I realize that not everyone will agree with everyone, but it is nice to have healthy debate, I recently came from a message board that forgot this key factor, and each post and/or thread was all fighting and insults.

[ChandlerBing]

No, we're not clones, we just think a like, which can be a good thing or something really scary.

[Loomis]

I'd like to see less of an emphasis on megabudget action and a return to the old style of romance, suspense and sophistication, with two or three major action sequences. I enjoy TOMORROW NEVER DIES enormously, but it almost turns Bond into Rambo. By the climaxes of TND and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, one has had far too much of endless explosions and gun battles.
I'm not necessarily arguing for a low budget, for "smallness" or "realism", just for fewer action blowouts, so that when they do happen they really mean something and capture the audience's attention. With the Brosnan Bonds, the mentality seems to be that the amps must be cranked up to 11 right from the opening gunbarrel logo. Sure, the Bonds were always peppered with action scenes right the way through, but the pre-credits sequences of the last three series entries seem to contain more big bangs than the last act of DIE HARD.
I'd also like to see a sense of exoticism, sexiness and larger-than-life-ness return to the series, especially with regard to the locations, which more often than not are used simply as backdrops to actionfests. After watching FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, you feel like you've been to Turkey and eastern Europe, and while the Japan of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is ridiculous, it's certainly intoxicating. By contrast, when watching TND, you're just thinking: oh, we're in Saigon now, ho-hum.
The next 007 should also be younger, 35 or so.

[White Persian]

Firstly I can't agree that Fleming's Bond was unfeeling and callous - he is simply required to act in an unfeeling and callous way in order to do his job.
I don't object to Brosnan showing some humanity under the hardened carapace, but that aspect probably has been covered adequately over the last three films.
I'd like to see more of Bond gambling, playing golf, hanging around the Caribbean, grumbling about paperwork, and all the other Bond characteristics that have been rather neglected recently.

[Harmsway]

I'd like to see the next few Bond films go in something rather different. We will have explored Bond's humanity for the entire Brosnan era as soon as DAD is released. Maybe we should step back. Isn't it time that Bond be able to approach a mission without getting entirely emotionally involved (I mean, he gets involved to an extent on every mission, but does he have to fight his friend or get deeply betrayed by a woman he loved in every film)?

As far as style, let's go for something bigger and brighter. It's time we kept up with the world. I don't want to overdo the action like TND did, but I do want relevant well planned action scenes that have new ideas inside of them.

[freemo]

Maybe we should step back. Isn't it time that Bond be able to approach a mission without getting entirely emotionally involved (I mean, he gets involved to an extent on every mission, but does he have to fight his friend or get deeply betrayed by a woman he loved in every film)?

My thoughts exactly, it was great in GE (I won't say anything about TWINE today), but let's not do it every film. I'd like to see a good old-fashioned mission again, with the older villian and whatnot, not that it is essential.

It's time we kept up with the world.

Bond shouldn't be trying to keep up with the world, the world should be trying to keep up with Bond.

I don't want to overdo the action like TND did

Maybe there was too much action in TND, but for the most part that action was very good. The quality of the action concerns me more than the quantiy, doesn't worry me how much or how little action there is, as long as it's good stuff, and doesn't feel tacked on ofcourse.

[Spectre001]

For me TND was fine and I suspect that DAD will top it in terms of action so Bond 21 will either need to go back to - more storyline, less action - or a carry over from DAD.

They need to keep things believeable though so rather than try and out do the last movie I would consolidate a bit first.