30 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

MOONRAKER put 007 in space, and from there there was only one place to go: back down to earth. The subsequent FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was a much more "back to basics" Bond film that didn't depend on gadgets galore, villains with steel teeth and the like.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE almost put Bond into space. It was an extravagant fantasy adventure crammed with sci-fi elements. The followup, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE switched the emphasis back from spectacle to drama, aiming to deliver a tale far more grounded in reality.

DIE ANOTHER DAY has nothing to do with Bond becoming an astronaut again, but it does look like it will be the most fantastical Bond film in years. featuring hi-tech hardware (people flying around on rockets), and disfigured, face-changing villains with elaborate lairs (the Ice Palace). It looks like it will push giganticism to extremes that the series has not seen for many years.

Do you think Bond 21 will be the FYEO to DAD's MOONRAKER, or the OHMMS to its YOLT?

[Dr. Tynan]

Originally posted by Loomis
Do you think Bond 21 will be the FYEO to DAD's MOONRAKER, or the OHMMS to its YOLT?

I couldn't say for sure, either way (yes or no).

I'm not sure the fact that it's happened a lot of times before means it should now (I'm not saying that's what you think).

[JimmyBond]

I think now would be a good time to start thinking about doing Casino Royale. I mean, they own the rights now, plus they know we want to see it onscreen, and here's the clincher, Brosnan wants to do it.

If Bond 21 ties up plotlines created by DAD, perhaps Bond 22 could be Casino Royale, being released in 2007, how cool would that be?

[Harmsway]

WARNING: DIE ANOTHER DAY SPOILERS




I have a feeling they'll go for a slightly more down to earth Bond film, but keep the tone of DAD. It'll be the follow-up film to DAD, with Bond facing the surviving villain (whoever that is) and with Damian Falco back at Bond's side. I have a feeling it'll be like TND, big and bold, but a little more restrained than DAD is.

I could be wrong, they could go for an FYEO film, but I doubt it, because it would be a step back on the way they seem to be reinventing the series. Perhaps it'll be just as outrageous as DAD is, but I think that'd be a mistake seeing as it'd be a nearly impossible task to outdo DAD.

[Loomis]

Yes, I think that if the main aim of the next one to outdo DAD in its extravagance and spectacle, it might well lead to a truly ridiculous movie, the sort of self-parody that MOONRAKER ended up as by trying to copy THE SPY WHO LOVED ME too closely. I think Bond 21 will of necessity be a "smaller" film, as you say, Harmsway, but with certain plot ties to DAD. Also, all of Brosnan's Bond films to date (IMHO, anyway) have been full-on action extravaganzas; he (and Purvis and Wade and Tamahori, if they're going to do Bond 21) might want to ring the changes a bit.

[BondNumber7]

Small Bond films include, Dr. No, From Russia With Love, OHMSS(Despite its length and the fact that much happens in the film), Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man With the Golden Gun, For Your Eyes Only, A View To A Kill, and Licence To Kill.

The extravagant ones(or bigger ones). Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, Octopussy, The Living Daylights(Some Might Disagree with me on that one), GoldenEye(I think all modern action films are big), Tomorrow Never Dies, and The World Is Not Enough.

There will be disagreements and agreements with what I have defined as big or small, but what does everyone prefer? The big ones? Or small ones?

Personally, if I directed Bond 21 it would be very small and certainly not extravagant. We would not want the Bond films looking like Lethal Weapon but I would still set a picture in L.A. and have something about gangs such as Boyz in the Hood or Colors.

[Harmsway]

From the way you've listed it, I prefer the big ones when they're compared to their low-key counterparts. But personally, I don't think TLD is a big Bond film, and I don't think that TWINE is big, rather I believe TWINE represents the modern FYEO.

Dear Lord, number 7, Bond in L.A.? If that's what Bond's come to, I think Bond should hang up his hat. I never want to see Bond 21: "Bond in the Hood". They already tried the Harlem approach in LALD and it failed pretty badly. Let's stick to more extravagant locations.

[brendan007]

in my opinion OHMSS is defientely a 'big' bond film, much bigger than goldfinger. id probably list goldfinger on the 'small' list

[Atticus17F]

I agree with you, JimmyBond. I'd love to see an official interpretation of Casino Royale although, sadly, I doubt anything will come of it.

The second best thing (for me at any rate) would be a series of one-hour dramas on TV, with Bond getting "back to basics" - maybe in faithful adaptations of Fleming's original short stories like Octopussy, Risico, FYEO, etc.

I recall Michael Wilson stating that there's no way Bond would be on TV, at least not while the films are so successful. Pity, really.

[zencat]

Hard to say until the movie comes out and we see what audience reaction is to what, I agree, looks to be the most fantastic Bond in years. It will be interesting.

For me personally, I don't want a "smaller" James Bond film. I like 'em big and fantasic!

[ray t]

personally i thinK MOONRAKER was amazing and For Your Eyes Only was a bit of a let down.

why do i say that?

Because...i WATCHED them both on their respective opening days.

Moonraker was BOND AND BEYOND!

FYEO, with its citroen chase, the clue-providing parrot, and the UNDEWHELMING "assault" on the meteora, was a BIG LET DOWN!!!

i dont want a "smaller" bond film. i'd bet general audiences dont want a "smaller" bond film.

and i'm willing to bet that MGM dont want a "smaller" box-office/world wide gross to go with it....'cause thats what theyd get.

BOND was meant to be BIG BOLD and BEYOND and current audiences EXPECT it or they wont go to repeated viewings

[Se]

I think it all depends on the period of time that is inbetween DAD and the next one. Since TWINE they got 3 years to make this film the best to date. If they wait another 3 years, technology will have grown quite a bit and Bond 21 will be huge again. But if 21 is a sequel for DAD, I think it will be a smaller one.
Afterall, what more plot could there be if, let's say Frost or Zao were to return?

[Loomis]

Some good points, ray t.

OHMSS and FYEO are generally held by most critics to be better (i.e. more "realistic" and much less silly) films than YOLT and MOONRAKER, but are they as entertaining? I agree with you, even though FYEO has easily the meatiest story of any Moore Bond film (with Moore trying to do a comparatively "serious" performance), I do find it a bit of a bore. And you're right when you say that audiences want Bond films to be spectacular.

I guess the "smaller" Bonds turned out that way chiefly for economic reasons that the general public will never be fully aware of.

[Zero Zero]

Originally posted by JimmyBond
If Bond 21 ties up plotlines created by DAD, perhaps Bond 22 could be Casino Royale, being released in 2007, how cool would that be?

I agree totally, it'd be nice to see this.

Plus, if B22 is Brosnan's last, it'd be good to see him in an interpretation of Fleming's first Bond novel, and his only real Fleming Bond.

[WC]

I'd also really like to see Pierce Brosnan in Casino Royale, his one official Ian Fleming Bond film. Brossers ought to get to do at least one Fleming novel for his service to the films so far, and since we don't know how many films he has left in him, it should be Bond 21. In fact, CR should have been Bond 20 in my opinion, as it's 50 years since the novel this year and the 40th anniversary. That was a wasted opportunity with a good Bond actor.

However, if it were Bond 21, I don't see that it has to necessarily be a small film with the plot solely about him attempting to out-play Le Chiffre in a baccarat game. That could merely be the first act.

For example, TLD short story is really the first act of the actual filmed version. Then there is a lot more plot after that. The same goes for FYEO, incorporating parts of Risico, or Octopussy, incorporating The Property of A Lady. As for TSWLM or YOLT, the plots don't resemble the books at all.

So Casino Royale could easily be a big spectacle of a film if a further plot were invented. Then Bond could play against Le Chiffre just as Sean Connery did against Emilio Largo in the World Domination game in NSNA. Then later he could face off against him at the climax of the film after some other plot has developed, and after possibly being tortured (for the third film in a row if it were Bond 21).

As for whether Vesper Lynn dies at the end, well that's another matter. If she's the main Bond girl, I'm not sure the producers would want that now.

If Casino Royale were made, it would ensure a good Bondian and Fleming title which fans would be happy with, as well as many genuine Fleming/Bond elements, a decent villain with a decent name, and a Bond girl with a Flemingesque name. It would keep everyone happy.

The next question would be then, who could play Le Chiffre or Vesper? Any ideas?

[Kingdom Come]

{haven't read all these posts} - It seems to me that as far back as YOLT and in particular Moonraker - the films that followed both those 2 films were much smaller in scale and disappointing. Then after GoldenEye we had TND again smaller in scale and again disappointing. That is if you're after fantasy/larger the life/candy for the eye type of films in the series which were/are my favourites and judging by box office the publics as well. If DAD does hit the jack pot we may well see the producers forking out less on the next one as the series - if its a big hit, will have proven that it is safe and they can gamble with a pairing down as it were. This does seem to be the patern. Also I'd like to add this comment on Bond stories - who the hell wants to go to a Bond film for the story!!!

[WC]

Originally posted by Kingdom Come
Also I'd like to add this comment on Bond stories - who the hell wants to go to a Bond film for the story!!!

Actually, lots of Bond fans do. If there wasn't a good storyline but pure action, it would be just like every other American action film and would be rather mindless. That's what differentiates Bond from many other franchises - the storylines are fascinating. That's what it always has been, especially in the Fleming novels.

Those who only want pure action tend to be big fans of TND because they cite it as "having more action" than other Bond films, especially its predecessor, Goldeneye. But from what I've seen on these forums, TND is generally considered the weakest of the Brosnan movies and not the best of offerings of a Bond movie - it just doesn't have the right balance!

[JimmyBond]

TND isnt just considered the weakest among us Bond fans either. Go to public forum like the IMDB and youll see that a lot of normal moviegoers also rate TND very lowly. There complaints? Similar to ours, too much action, the story isnt there, etc. etc.

[Kingdom Come]

What stories? The man trying to take over the world? Hitchcock had the right idea - actions were what mattered. For any1 to say TND had more action than any other is almost beyond words. It's the dullest Bond film since OHMSS. It had at least 3 major action set pieces that are missing which I've named in previous posting - these were never filmed but scripted and couldn't be filmed because of this particular films very very tight production time which was one of the tightest in the series history.

[JimmyBond]

It actually is the most action packed Bond flim since OHMSS. The only difference between the two is that OHMSS had a great story in between the action scenes to keep the film moving. TND jumped from action scene to action scene with very little plot.

[WC]

And as for Hitchcock, to say it was simply the action which mattered is also beyond words. Alfred Hitchcock had some very complex plotlines which kept the audience engaged. It wasn't just one action sequence after another, but logically led from one thing to another, building up the suspense as he went along.

As for action in Bond, even the TWINE action sequence with the para-gliders and the skiing seemed rather contrived. They simply had Bond and Elektra up there on the mountains to inspect something so that they could get those flying machines to take a poke at them. It happened all too suddenly as if they appeared out of nowhere. However, there was more story in the rest of TWINE than TND. Bond was just too trigger happy at the end of TND.

Action undoubtedly adds to a Bond film, but action alone without a story is like a soulless movie. The action is the icing on the cake. But pure action is like having icing without a cake - very little substance, and after a while it becomes sickening.

[gkgyver]

I agree. A Bond movie is a Bond movie because of state-of-the art- gadgets, the most beautiful girls, breathtaking stunts, menacing villains, tremendous scores AND clever and a bit "edgy" storylines.

[WarBird]

I think it should be a little of both. I'd like to see a long Bond film for the 21st.

[Kingdom Come]

I think Jimmy u need to watch TND again and time the action against say GoldenEyes. The bond 'stories' are dreadful - come on!

[JimmyBond]

If you find the stories so dreadful what are you even doing here posting on a Bond message board? Some fan you are.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by JimmyBond
If you find the stories so dreadful what are you even doing here posting on a Bond message board? Some fan you are.

That's a little harsh, isn't it? Who are you to say what makes a Bond fan?

Personally, I love the Bond films, but I agree with Kingdom Come that some of the plots are unbelievably dumb, TOMORROW NEVER DIES being a prime example. A silly story doesn't stop it being an entertaining movie, but I'd never defend its script.

Sure, there are some great Bond stories (normally thanks to Ian Fleming), but there are also plenty of lame ones. From what I've heard of the villains' scheme in DIE ANOTHER DAY, I think it sounds laughable. But let's face it: most of the time the so-called story in a Bond film is just a Hitchcock-style "McGuffin" to justify a few major action scenes and chases being strung together. Most of the time, the story of a Bond film just isn't worth a damn.

[JimmyBond]

Sarcasm doesnt show up as well on posting boards as good as it would if I was speaking eh

[Loomis]

Oops. My sincere apologies, JimmyBond. Hope you're not too offended by my attack, which I should like to withdraw and apologise for unreservedly.

[JimmyBond]

No apologies necessary, I've done it before myself actually

[iceberg]

I may be in the minority here, but my favorite Brosnan Bond (and one of my top five) is TWINE.

The things I like:

-- A more grounded plot line involving the oil pipelines.
-- A serpentine story with shifting loyalties and hidden agendas (these are in most Bond movies but was used to great advantage here).
-- A lot of detective work (relatively speaking) on Bond's part.
-- M greater role.
-- The contradictions of Bond--brutal yet vulnerable, and vice versa.
-- And of course, the complex good-girl-gone-bad, Elektra King.

The things I bemoan:

-- A low-key Renard.
-- The cutting back of Christmas Jones' character, and the further miscasting of Denise Richards, who can act but doesn't have the gravity needed for the role of Nuclear physicist.
-- Somewhat thin action scenes, especially the sub ending. Bond films should end on a high note, not, "Is that it?"

If they could've fixed the items above, TWINE would've been the best Bond movie since the Connery era. As it is, it is merely very good.

I want a Bond 21 that succeeds with the above formula. Too much to ask, I'm sure.