4014 replies to this topic

[Odd Jobbies]

I would gladly see the Garden of Death-part of YOLT - but the amnesia, with Bond having to learn who he is - no, please.  We had enough movies about Bond becoming Bond (again).

 

The next Bond should just start with a new mission.

This is a fair point.

 

For me it's selfish - not getting any younger, so i'd like to see this great untold story while i still have a little zip in my step. But we certainly have had a heavy dose of 'To Bond, or not to Bond' of late.

[sharpshooter]

I think a YOLT inspired Craig film could be a case for why 'Bond must always be Bond'. If he lets his guard down and tries to live a routine life, bad things start to happen. Not just for himself, but for world security. If done properly, the plot wouldn't be about Bond learning who he is. He knows this already - and that's why he threw his gun away. He's afraid there won't be much of a soul left to salvage. So Bond 25 would be about 007 finally resigning himself to the life of a spy, even if it's mainly driven by revenge. 

[Surrie]

I think a YOLT inspired Craig film could be a case for why 'Bond must always be Bond'. If he lets his guard down and tries to live a routine life, bad things start to happen. Not just for himself, but for world security. If done properly, the plot wouldn't be about Bond learning who he is. He knows this already - and that's why he threw his gun away. He's afraid there won't be much of a soul left to salvage. So Bond 25 would be about 007 finally resigning himself to the life of a spy, even if it's mainly driven by revenge. 

 

Thus, bringing the franchise full circle and leaving Craig's era as a stand-alone Bond self-exploration era. This would be the ideal IMO, and then the franchise is left in a position to carry on stand-alone missions with a new actor. 

Edited by Surrie, 29 July 2016 - 09:35 AM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Those are good ideas, but i personally feel that ground ('learning who he is') is too well trodden by Craig already and i don't see him wanting to retell that story.

The disintegration into self loathing and drug/alcohol abuse of Fleming's YOLT has also been covered by Craig in SF.

 

So i see his predicament - he needs a new story that says something about the character that he hasn't already said. This is doubtless why he wants to see a script before committing ( if  that be the state of things at present ).

 

This is the problem with hiring a serious actor who's not content with repartition. But i'm not complaining - it forces Eon to push harder on the script etc. which obviously means longer pre-production, but it's a worthwhile trade-off imo.

 

On balance if they can convince Craig, then i'd like to see him bow out on a faithful adaptation of YOLT and let Bond 7 do the 'learning who he is' routine via Fleming's amnesia/brainwashing device from TMWTGG.

 

 

Btw, because it's Friday....

 

(not my work )

[SecretAgentFan]

Again, I wonder whether it would do the Bond films a service to continue exploring the character.

 

In CR and QOS, yes, that worked.  In SKYFALL, okay - the "am I too old, washed up for this, can I stay loyal even if I am disposable, and my surrogate mother dies, where does that leave me" worked, too.  Although the answer to all these questions was not a surprise at all, therefore the inherent drama was kind of pretentious and forced.

 

In SPECTRE the "can I live outside of this profession" seemed to me more like an afterthought, but I´m willing to say it added an additional layer to the character.  However, do I want Bond to continually doubt himself and his life?

 

Rhetorical question, this. 

 

No, of course not.  I want Bond to enjoy his life, to see meaning in his job and to have made up his mind about it a long time ago.

 

So, which angle can still be exploited to explore the character?  Can the character actually be explored more?  Should he be - or does this only lead to a weakening of its impact, turning him into - yes - a Bourne-like figure, always at odds with his past and therefore his present?

 

To me, Bond films only have a future if they set themselves apart from other spy fare, especially the Bourne series.  They must not try to give Bond extra layers because that would take away from the character´s appeal: that he is a cool professional, living his life to the fullest.

 

As for the Craig arc - if it continues after SPECTRE, there seems to be only one way forward: another confrontation with Blofeld, the discovery that a life with Madeleine is impossible and that he is condemned to be and remain a spy.

 

The Craig Bond, it seems, can only really be about revenge for Vesper and what she stands for: a "normal" life taken away from him (and in a way because of him, since he chose the profession before she met him and therefore endangered her as well).

 

But - do I want this in another film that mainly will tread water, showing me Bond coming to terms with what he is?

 

No.

 

Move on, EON.

[Tiin007]

Again, I wonder whether it would do the Bond films a service to continue exploring the character.

 

In CR and QOS, yes, that worked.  In SKYFALL, okay - the "am I too old, washed up for this, can I stay loyal even if I am disposable, and my surrogate mother dies, where does that leave me" worked, too.  Although the answer to all these questions was not a surprise at all, therefore the inherent drama was kind of pretentious and forced.

 

In SPECTRE the "can I live outside of this profession" seemed to me more like an afterthought, but I´m willing to say it added an additional layer to the character.  However, do I want Bond to continually doubt himself and his life?

 

 

I think the problem with the Craig era's exploration of these issues is that there weren't any traditional Bond-on-a-mission films interspersed between these plotlines.

 

For instance, imagine if Craig had done a total of seven films which went as follows:

1) CR

2) QoS

3) A mission-focused film wherein Bond essentially finishes off the Quantum organization, but with no mention of the Vesper stuff. Although Mr. White can be a factor. Same gritty tone though.

4) A complete stand-alone film wherein Judi Dench's M receives very little screen time. Normal Bond on a mission. 

5) Skyfall

6) A complete stand-alone film wherein Ralph Fienne's M (and Moneypenny and Q) receives very little screen time. Normal Bond on a mission. 

7) SPECTRE

 

If this were the Craig era, it wouldn't feel like EON were constantly trying to shove personal angles and emotional resonance down our throats. Additionally, some of the plot threads of SPECTRE would not feel like they are being rehashed too soon since CR-- particularly Bond falling in love (I'm still not even sure if we're meant to actually believe he seriously fell for Madeline), and Bond contemplating quitting the service to live a normal life. And Skyfall, as Craig's fifth entry, would be a logical place to question whether he is too old / washed up, rather than the way it currently stands as coming just off the heels of rookie Bond. And Judi Dench's M's last hurrah would have more of an impact if it wasn't coming just off the heels of her globetrotting around with Bond in QoS-- it would feel more fresh. 

 

Had the personal stuff and character exploration been spread out as outlined above, it would resonate more with the audience. But the way things are in reality, it's as if EON keeps trying to outdo themselves in the personal department with each successive film. 

[Surrie]

It's just a shame they can't a) get actors to sign longer contracts, b.) push films out on a 24-month basis anymore. If they could, then maybe we would have seen something like the above. 

Edited by Surrie, 29 July 2016 - 08:44 PM.

[Tiin007]

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

[Surrie]

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

 

But are EON trying too hard to make these films fantastic by giving them a personal edge, and just missing the point? Brosnan's era was BB and MGW and we didn't experience the personal stories there over and over... why is Craig's era plagued with them? 

Edited by Surrie, 29 July 2016 - 08:47 PM.

[Tiin007]

 

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

 

But are EON trying too hard to make these films fantastic by giving them a personal edge, and just missing the point? Brosnan's era was BB and MGW and we didn't experience the personal stories there over and over... why is Craig's era plagued with them? 

 

 

I'd say the Brosnan era did include personal angles in each entry. 

 

GE- Bond has to fight one of his closest friends, a former 00-agent gone bad

TND- an old flame returns, and Bond has to deal with his feelings, particularly as she is now married to the villain

TWINE- M's past comes back to haunt her, MI6 is under attack, Bond falls in love with the villain

DAD- self-explanatory 

 

Granted, TND is the least personal of the bunch, but if you watch interviews with Brosnan from around that time, he constantly reiterates how "I wanted it to be personal, someone Bond once loved." The fact that it wasn't as in our face as the other examples is a good thing in my book. Partially why TND is my favorite Brosnan outing (I have other reasons too). 

[Dustin]

The problem for me is that there is, in my view, not that much more substance in the character of Bond to explore. Really, towards what state of mind and conscience could he - believably, please - develop? He's been the confident agent, the man willing to give up his career, the doubting, grieving revenger, the tired drifter coming back. And now once more the agent coming in from the heat. What is left?

I can see only one further iteration of the theme and I'm convinced nobody would want to see that with Bond: 007 defecting for real, fighting against his former home and heart. And not because he's lost his memory or brainwashed; for real because he can't stand the whole phoney hullabaloo any longer.

There is a splendid thriller about that agent who wakes one morning and just can't fight the way how his job makes him retch any more - but it just wouldn't be Bond. Certainly not the Bond of the films.

In all of this exploring of Bond's character it's important to keep in mind how Fleming fared with this endeavour: after Tracy's death Bond is an utter wreck, about to be sacked. The whole of YOLT is based on a lengthy roadtrip of two middle-aged men with interspersed bits of spy-episodes. A trip that gradually turns into St George's voyage to the dragon's lair and ends with both of them eradicated. End of story. A possible further chapter is hinted at but never actually shown.

When Bond finally does return he's at first not accountable for his behaviour - and then so much deprogrammed and reprogrammed he doesn't know where he is after he wakes, doesn't seem to be aware of the significance of the days after Christmas and New Year, doesn't even seem to recall he has been married. In terms of character and exploration (or peeling back of layers, if that appeals more) there is not a lot more on display in the last novel. It's more or less a reboot.

To me the logical conclusion of Bond's character - and at the same time the outer fringe of what most of us can buy as Bond - is his résumé in The Living Daylights, the hope his failure to kill Trigger would get him sacked from the 00 section. This is already borderline for Bond, it reads like a character ten years older. And for fans who knew Bond only from the screen that phrase must have sounded out of place when Dalton used it in TLD.

[SecretAgentFan]

That actually is a brilliant idea - and one that definitely resonates with today´s political climate.  Bond fed up with being constantly doubted, Mi6 on the bubble due to untrustworthy politicians (and people voting unreasonably) - and in addition to that another personal tragedy (loss of Madeleine) - yep, that would send him over the edge.

 

Unfortunately, that would really be the end of 007.  A next film would have to reinstate him or act as if this whole arc had not happened.

 

Which is possible. 

 

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

 

But are EON trying too hard to make these films fantastic by giving them a personal edge, and just missing the point? Brosnan's era was BB and MGW and we didn't experience the personal stories there over and over... why is Craig's era plagued with them? 

 

 

Why?  Not because EON desperately wants this.  It will mainly be due to Craig wanting this.  He never would have signed up for the "frothy business", he definitely will have asked for the dark, actorly thing.

[Odd Jobbies]

I wouldn't sell BB short. She would've known what Craig wanted and still hired him, so i'd say rather than Craig bossing the show, BB would've also wanted these character driven stories.

[RedsBaron]

Henry Cavill.

[Orion]

I wouldn't sell BB short. She would've known what Craig wanted and still hired him, so i'd say rather than Craig bossing the show, BB would've also wanted these character driven stories.

She actually says this on a DAD extra...make of that what you will.

Henry Cavill.

WB might complain about losing their Superman 

[RedsBaron]

WB might complain, but I want James Bond back. I liked Casino Royale but I have grown tired of Craig and the angst of his character. Cavill seems more like Bond to me.

[SecretAgentFan]

I wouldn't sell BB short. She would've known what Craig wanted and still hired him, so i'd say rather than Craig bossing the show, BB would've also wanted these character driven stories.

 

Character-driven stories don´t have to be dark and gloomy.  

in the end it´s all about an actor´s strengths.  EON definitely wanted to prove that Bond can be different from the previous eras, and Craig was the guy to prove that, and for him a certain kind of persona was created that had to be accomodated by the stories.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

I wouldn't sell BB short. She would've known what Craig wanted and still hired him, so i'd say rather than Craig bossing the show, BB would've also wanted these character driven stories.

She actually says this on a DAD extra...make of that what you will.

Lol... So i guess you could interpret that as BB does  want 'character driven stories' - she just doesn't know what one looks like. Brilliant. Maybe that explains Craig's Producer credit.

in the end it´s all about an actor´s strengths...

 

Which is why it's important to pick an actor whose strength is acting  

[Surrie]

 

 

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

 

But are EON trying too hard to make these films fantastic by giving them a personal edge, and just missing the point? Brosnan's era was BB and MGW and we didn't experience the personal stories there over and over... why is Craig's era plagued with them? 

 

 

I'd say the Brosnan era did include personal angles in each entry. 

 

GE- Bond has to fight one of his closest friends, a former 00-agent gone bad

TND- an old flame returns, and Bond has to deal with his feelings, particularly as she is now married to the villain

TWINE- M's past comes back to haunt her, MI6 is under attack, Bond falls in love with the villain

DAD- self-explanatory 

 

Granted, TND is the least personal of the bunch, but if you watch interviews with Brosnan from around that time, he constantly reiterates how "I wanted it to be personal, someone Bond once loved." The fact that it wasn't as in our face as the other examples is a good thing in my book. Partially why TND is my favorite Brosnan outing (I have other reasons too). 

 

 

I see your point. But, Craig's ear is heavily (actually, underpinned) by the fact that all of his missions hold A LOT of personal grievances. IMO, Brosnan's missions were stand-alone missions, and only ever referred to a past life in an aim to humanise him somewhat. Which is fine, but Craig's era has seen nothing but personal angles and I think his missions/one-big mission has suffered from this.

 

That actually is a brilliant idea - and one that definitely resonates with today´s political climate.  Bond fed up with being constantly doubted, Mi6 on the bubble due to untrustworthy politicians (and people voting unreasonably) - and in addition to that another personal tragedy (loss of Madeleine) - yep, that would send him over the edge.

 

Unfortunately, that would really be the end of 007.  A next film would have to reinstate him or act as if this whole arc had not happened.

 

Which is possible. 

 

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

 

But are EON trying too hard to make these films fantastic by giving them a personal edge, and just missing the point? Brosnan's era was BB and MGW and we didn't experience the personal stories there over and over... why is Craig's era plagued with them? 

 

 

Why?  Not because EON desperately wants this.  It will mainly be due to Craig wanting this.  He never would have signed up for the "frothy business", he definitely will have asked for the dark, actorly thing.

 

But just because he potentially wanted the 'dark, actorly thing' doesn't mean the only way to convey this was making his whole era personal. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m afraid it is - because in these times only the personal angle makes revenge palatable to a mass audience.

[Odd Jobbies]

Not just these times - LTK was a revenge plot.

[SecretAgentFan]

True.

[RMc2]

 

 

 

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

 

But are EON trying too hard to make these films fantastic by giving them a personal edge, and just missing the point? Brosnan's era was BB and MGW and we didn't experience the personal stories there over and over... why is Craig's era plagued with them? 

 

 

I'd say the Brosnan era did include personal angles in each entry. 

 

GE- Bond has to fight one of his closest friends, a former 00-agent gone bad

TND- an old flame returns, and Bond has to deal with his feelings, particularly as she is now married to the villain

TWINE- M's past comes back to haunt her, MI6 is under attack, Bond falls in love with the villain

DAD- self-explanatory 

 

Granted, TND is the least personal of the bunch, but if you watch interviews with Brosnan from around that time, he constantly reiterates how "I wanted it to be personal, someone Bond once loved." The fact that it wasn't as in our face as the other examples is a good thing in my book. Partially why TND is my favorite Brosnan outing (I have other reasons too). 

 

 

I see your point. But, Craig's ear is heavily (actually, underpinned) by the fact that all of his missions hold A LOT of personal grievances. IMO, Brosnan's missions were stand-alone missions, and only ever referred to a past life in an aim to humanise him somewhat. Which is fine, but Craig's era has seen nothing but personal angles and I think his missions/one-big mission has suffered from this.

 

CR felt like a standard mission - but like classic Bond, it's gets personal as his new allies come under attack (or betray him) and the villain gets under his skin. SF was also a mission-that-becomes-personal, because M is under attack and Silva gets under his skin.

 

And I think there's a reason those two are significantly better than QoS and SP...

[Tiin007]

 

 

 

 

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

 

But are EON trying too hard to make these films fantastic by giving them a personal edge, and just missing the point? Brosnan's era was BB and MGW and we didn't experience the personal stories there over and over... why is Craig's era plagued with them? 

 

 

I'd say the Brosnan era did include personal angles in each entry. 

 

GE- Bond has to fight one of his closest friends, a former 00-agent gone bad

TND- an old flame returns, and Bond has to deal with his feelings, particularly as she is now married to the villain

TWINE- M's past comes back to haunt her, MI6 is under attack, Bond falls in love with the villain

DAD- self-explanatory 

 

Granted, TND is the least personal of the bunch, but if you watch interviews with Brosnan from around that time, he constantly reiterates how "I wanted it to be personal, someone Bond once loved." The fact that it wasn't as in our face as the other examples is a good thing in my book. Partially why TND is my favorite Brosnan outing (I have other reasons too). 

 

 

I see your point. But, Craig's ear is heavily (actually, underpinned) by the fact that all of his missions hold A LOT of personal grievances. IMO, Brosnan's missions were stand-alone missions, and only ever referred to a past life in an aim to humanise him somewhat. Which is fine, but Craig's era has seen nothing but personal angles and I think his missions/one-big mission has suffered from this.

 

CR felt like a standard mission - but like classic Bond, it's gets personal as his new allies come under attack (or betray him) and the villain gets under his skin. SF was also a mission-that-becomes-personal, because M is under attack and Silva gets under his skin.

 

And I think there's a reason those two are significantly better than QoS and SP...

 

 

I fully agree with you regarding CR, which would've been my response to Surrie had you not beaten me to the punch.

 

As for Skyfall, I'm honestly not sure. Bond's going off the grid after M's insistence that Moneypenny "take the bloody shot" added a personal dimension to the whole thing, particularly as M had similarly thrown Silva to the wolves in a past life. He was coming to grips with his own mortality and relevance. And the bombing of MI6 from someone who wanted revenge against M (strong echoes of TWINE, but I digress) made the stakes very personal (even if only by extension to Bond). The death of M certainly didn't help matters. So I think SF really could go either way, and coming off the heels of the Vesper arc in CR-QoS, it wasn't the right time for this story (in addition to the fact that Bond was just a rookie in the previous two films). 

 

What I would have wanted from the Craig era (after QoS, which I think made sense as a follow up to CR, even if it could have been executed better) is the same gritty tone and characterization of Bond from CR (albeit a little more mature and seasoned). And a plot that doesn't rely too heavily on the personal dimension, as such an angle is often a poor way of compensating for lack of a solid plot. 

[Surrie]

 

 

 

 

 

I still don't think we would have. EON is so consumed with creating deeply personal stories for Bond that the three mission-focused entries I included on my list are simply wishful thinking on my part. If Craig had been given seven films, the additional three would have likewise been personal.

 

I also think that, given the current EON leadership, if fans got their wish of a mission-focused film, it would essentially be just for a single film, as EON would no doubt revert to their usual ways with the next entry anyway. 

 

But are EON trying too hard to make these films fantastic by giving them a personal edge, and just missing the point? Brosnan's era was BB and MGW and we didn't experience the personal stories there over and over... why is Craig's era plagued with them? 

 

 

I'd say the Brosnan era did include personal angles in each entry. 

 

GE- Bond has to fight one of his closest friends, a former 00-agent gone bad

TND- an old flame returns, and Bond has to deal with his feelings, particularly as she is now married to the villain

TWINE- M's past comes back to haunt her, MI6 is under attack, Bond falls in love with the villain

DAD- self-explanatory 

 

Granted, TND is the least personal of the bunch, but if you watch interviews with Brosnan from around that time, he constantly reiterates how "I wanted it to be personal, someone Bond once loved." The fact that it wasn't as in our face as the other examples is a good thing in my book. Partially why TND is my favorite Brosnan outing (I have other reasons too). 

 

 

I see your point. But, Craig's ear is heavily (actually, underpinned) by the fact that all of his missions hold A LOT of personal grievances. IMO, Brosnan's missions were stand-alone missions, and only ever referred to a past life in an aim to humanise him somewhat. Which is fine, but Craig's era has seen nothing but personal angles and I think his missions/one-big mission has suffered from this.

 

CR felt like a standard mission - but like classic Bond, it's gets personal as his new allies come under attack (or betray him) and the villain gets under his skin. SF was also a mission-that-becomes-personal, because M is under attack and Silva gets under his skin.

 

And I think there's a reason those two are significantly better than QoS and SP...

 

 

I fully agree with you regarding CR, which would've been my response to Surrie had you not beaten me to the punch.

 

As for Skyfall, I'm honestly not sure. Bond's going off the grid after M's insistence that Moneypenny "take the bloody shot" added a personal dimension to the whole thing, particularly as M had similarly thrown Silva to the wolves in a past life. He was coming to grips with his own mortality and relevance. And the bombing of MI6 from someone who wanted revenge against M (strong echoes of TWINE, but I digress) made the stakes very personal (even if only by extension to Bond). The death of M certainly didn't help matters. So I think SF really could go either way, and coming off the heels of the Vesper arc in CR-QoS, it wasn't the right time for this story (in addition to the fact that Bond was just a rookie in the previous two films). 

 

What I would have wanted from the Craig era (after QoS, which I think made sense as a follow up to CR, even if it could have been executed better) is the same gritty tone and characterization of Bond from CR (albeit a little more mature and seasoned). And a plot that doesn't rely too heavily on the personal dimension, as such an angle is often a poor way of compensating for lack of a solid plot. 

 

 

Haha this discussion has certainly moved away from the topic title! However, I would have to agree with Tiin, SF is personal. In fact, it's my least favourite Craig film as I feel it didn't belong in his arc and contradicted a lot of what was achieved in CR and QOS. Why is he now a 'washed up' agent, and it just didn't feel like a Bond film to me. It's a fantastic film, but not a Bond film. That's just my opinion. 

 

CR was Craig's best outing as it's more of a stand-alone mission, and it was superbly acted by Craig. He had the right level of arrogance and humanism that Bond requires. It went wrong when his era was loosely focussed on all that CR encompassed. Had CR been made as it is, and then left - great! IMO, it's a bit tragic his era has constantly harped on about his personal problems that stemmed from that mission... Eon need to make films that focus on stand alone missions. Yes, it's fine to refer back to previous outings (Moore visiting Tracy's grave for example) but FYEO did not dwell on the past of that referral. 

 

My concern is that if Eon can't find a way of getting out of this funk, then we aren't going to have a Bond film where Bond enjoys being Bond anymore. Films can be dark, brooding and menacing without focussing on that person's inner monologue or existentialist crises. Let's have dark, brooding and menacing villains/henchmen/villainous activity that excite the audiences, rather than trying to achieve that artistic movie type with the same old story. 

Edited by Surrie, 01 August 2016 - 03:39 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

My concern is that if Eon can't find a way of getting out of this funk, then we aren't going to have a Bond film where Bond enjoys being Bond anymore. Films can be dark, brooding and menacing without focussing on that person's inner monologue or existentialist crises. 

 

Can they really?  How?

[Surrie]

Let's have dark, brooding and menacing villains/henchmen/villainous activity that excite the audiences, rather than trying to achieve that artistic movie type with the same old story. 

 

 

That would be one example. 

[Jim]

That would appear to be a bit of a challenge, yes.

[RedsBaron]

 For me, much of the fun in the James Bond series of films has largely disappeared during the Craig era. Craig is a good actor, perhaps the best of the six actors to play Bond on the big screen. Casino Royale remains one of my favorite 007 movies and Quantum of Solace has grown upon me. However, why highly praised by the critics, the logical inconsistencies and sheer gloominess of Skyfall keep it from being one of my favorites, and Spectre suffered from many of the same flaws (not as gloomy as Skyfall but even more illogical).

 I am particularly tired of the "James Bond is tired of being a spy and wants to retire" that we have been getting.

 The James Bond films can never be a wholly serious series. Real spies do not regularly drive around in $250,000+ cars with millions of dollars of modifications and are not greeted around the world with "Welcome Mr. Bond. Here is your martini, shaken not stirred." The James Bond films can be, and should be, fun. Not Austin Powers fun, but fun.

[Dustin]

Let's have dark, brooding and menacing villains/henchmen/villainous activity that excite the audiences, rather than trying to achieve that artistic movie type with the same old story.

That would be one example.

I'm not sure why there wasn't made better use of Waltz for just that job. He can be brilliantly charming while he's doing wicked things; you could imagine him setting a country on fire and inviting the audience to enjoy the spectacle with him - and they'd do. Instead we see him do only very little evil before Bond confronts him - and practically nothing else. Waltz would have been the guy to give the audience just that old comfy shiver. I still would have preferred it if his villain (regardless of name) had tied in more with Silva instead of making that absurd claim of his.

By showing the villain actively pursuing his career in Satan's Task Force One you also create motivation for Bond to battle him. The personal angle need not be Bond's personal angle, we accept that he's going after the baddie just because we've seen what the baddie can do. And we can sympathise with Bond for enjoying the hunt, enjoying his job.