4014 replies to this topic

[Surrie]

 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

RedBarons you have both perfectly summarised exactly how I feel about Craig's era and the way Eon have taken it.  

 

Dustin - this is what Eon need to be doing to move the series forward again. Of course, they could do dark, and brooding if they wanted to but in the sense you suggest. We don't constantly have to be reminded of Bond's personal complexes, let's see him enjoying being him again and let Eon focus on the chaos and carnage around him. 

 

For me, that's why I love the franchise. We can feel the tension of the villains plot during the film, and enjoy watching Bond succeed. Success isn't so sweet if it's constantly questioned. 

[univex]

Largo´s shotgun scene exemplifies this very aptly. Bond is having fun, teasing and being, well, Bond. Seriousness is the Villain´s trait and undoing. Sure, Bond means business sometimes, but he has to enjoy his work. The books are filled with references the indicate Bond is hedonistic, it´s his defense against the darkness. That being said, very well put my friends, very well put.

[dirtymind]

Exactly. A movie can be dark and gritty without the protagonist being depressive.

[Surrie]

Largo´s shotgun scene exemplifies this very aptly. Bond is having fun, teasing and being, well, Bond. Seriousness is the Villain´s trait and undoing. Sure, Bond means business sometimes, but he has to enjoy his work. The books are filled with references the indicate Bond is hedonistic, it´s his defense against the darkness. That being said, very well put my friends, very well put.

 

 

Exactly. A movie can be dark and gritty without the protagonist being depressive.

 

THANK YOU! I'm just hoping we can get out of this funk, and move on to more of what we miss from the rest of the franchise. That being said, Craig's era has been great, but for me, just lacking some of Bond's traits that we've grown to love. 

[SecretAgentFan]

 

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 disagree: if you want a movie to be dark, brooding and menacing it won´t be enough to make the villains that way.  You have to focus on the protagonist.  

 

Look at the Moore era - lots of dark, brooding and menacing villains and henchmen - but the films were breezy entertainment.

[Odd Jobbies]

The tone of the film won't be dark, brooding etc. if the protagonist is having lots of fun. This completely undercuts the antagonists efforts to intimidate (and the editor's efforts to maintain a menacing tone. We will always see the villains through the protagonist's eyes; if those eyes are smiling then the general mood is buoyant, not brooding.

 

I'm afraid we can't have our cake and  eat it. Either this is a serious business or it's fun (in terms of the film's tone).

 

Compare The Dark Knight and Raimi's Spider-Man... Ledger retains his menace throughout, because Batman takes it all 'so seriously', Whereas Defoe's Goblin is hardly menacing at all, because Spidey remains wise-crackingly buoyant throughout.

 

That's not to say Spider-Man is a bad film, but dramatically it is impossible for it to ever to reach the heights of Dark Knight because the menace and tension is handicapped by the more buoyant tone. It sets the bar lower but achieves it with aplomb.

 

Equally, going for a serious dramatic tone is no guarantee of superiority - just look at the travesty of Batman vs. Superman, which mistakes brooding for drama.

 

So, personally i don't mind if they go the heavy or light route, just so long as they pay for the best talent for that purpose and let them do their jobs, without then hiring script Drs to do Producer/Studio vanity edits.

 

(Oh, and when i say light tone, i don't mean 'Roger Moore-comedic', i mean 'mission de jour' rather than the 'Why am i?' Nietzschean angst).

[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. 

 

 

I disagree: if you want a movie to be dark, brooding and menacing it won´t be enough to make the villains that way.  You have to focus on the protagonist.  

 

Look at the Moore era - lots of dark, brooding and menacing villains and henchmen - but the films were breezy entertainment.

 

 

But, IMO Connery's era had the same types of villains, and these weren't breezy entertainment. That's because it came down to the different way in which Connery and Moore acted the part. 

 

The tone of the film won't be dark, brooding etc. if the protagonist is having lots of fun. This completely undercuts the antagonists efforts to intimidate (and the editor's efforts to maintain a menacing tone. We will always see the villains through the protagonist's eyes; if those eyes are smiling then the general mood is buoyant, not brooding.

 

I'm afraid we can't have our cake and  eat it. Either this is a serious business or it's fun (in terms of the film's tone).

 

Compare The Dark Knight and Raimi's Spider-Man... Ledger retains his menace throughout, because Batman takes it all 'so seriously', Whereas Defoe's Goblin is hardly menacing at all, because Spidey remains wise-crackingly buoyant throughout.

 

That's not to say Spider-Man is a bad film, but dramatically it is impossible for it to ever to reach the heights of Dark Knight because the menace and tension is handicapped by the more buoyant tone. It sets the bar lower but achieves it with aplomb.

 

Equally, going for a serious dramatic tone is no guarantee of superiority - just look at the travesty of Batman vs. Superman, which mistakes brooding for drama.

 

So, personally i don't mind if they go the heavy or light route, just so long as they pay for the best talent for that purpose and let them do their jobs, without then hiring script Drs to do Producer/Studio vanity edits.

 

(Oh, and when i say light tone, i don't mean 'Roger Moore-comedic', i mean 'mission de jour' rather than the 'Why am i?' Nietzschean angst).

 

I've thought of the Dark Knight a lot throughout this discussion and can see your point. However, a lot more added to the tone of the movie than just the way Batman felt about Joker and what he was doing. More tension was built in the way the soundtrack complemented the on-screen drama and victims reactions to The Jokers behavior. We saw A LOT of what The Joker was capable of in this movie and therefore we weren't short of chaos. This went much further to set the tone of the movie rather than Batman's thoughts/actions/behaviour. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Even the Connery era was breezy entertainment IMO, and even Shaw´s psychotic killer in FRWL did not make the film dark and brooding.

 

Then again, I do like Bond as breezy entertainment - and I don´t need dark, brooding and menacing.  That´s so tired and, let´s face it, no fun.  It was fine and maybe even needed after 9/11 - but a whole generation has grown up accustomed to everything being edgy, dark and hopeless, it seems they were never given the chance to experience that movies could be fun by being light-headed, optimistic and carried by heroes who enjoyed themselves.

 

It´s high time that kind of approach returns.

[Surrie]

Even the Connery era was breezy entertainment IMO, and even Shaw´s psychotic killer in FRWL did not make the film dark and brooding.

 

Then again, I do like Bond as breezy entertainment - and I don´t need dark, brooding and menacing.  That´s so tired and, let´s face it, no fun.  It was fine and maybe even needed after 9/11 - but a whole generation has grown up accustomed to everything being edgy, dark and hopeless, it seems they were never given the chance to experience that movies could be fun by being light-headed, optimistic and carried by heroes who enjoyed themselves.

 

It´s high time that kind of approach returns.

 

Very much agree. I'm not saying it HAS to be brooding and dark etc. and I do hope Eon find their way out of this. With that in mind, until cinema tone's move away from this current phase we can't expect to see Eon do anything but mirror current trends.

[sharpshooter]

SPECTRE had plenty of fun and escapism. If future movies had that tone I would be a happy camper. Bond expresses pleasure in flame throwing Hinx's car for starters, and drops a few more quips. Love his byplay with C and Lucia. But that doesn't mean Bond can't have deeper thoughts and feelings to explore. That's what Craig has brought to the table, and I don't see a problem with it. But each to their own. No Bond movie is ever completely dark, brooding or menacing.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

The tone of the film won't be dark, brooding etc. if the protagonist is having lots of fun. This completely undercuts the antagonists efforts to intimidate (and the editor's efforts to maintain a menacing tone. We will always see the villains through the protagonist's eyes; if those eyes are smiling then the general mood is buoyant, not brooding.

 

I'm afraid we can't have our cake and  eat it. Either this is a serious business or it's fun (in terms of the film's tone).

 

Compare The Dark Knight and Raimi's Spider-Man... Ledger retains his menace throughout, because Batman takes it all 'so seriously', Whereas Defoe's Goblin is hardly menacing at all, because Spidey remains wise-crackingly buoyant throughout.

 

That's not to say Spider-Man is a bad film, but dramatically it is impossible for it to ever to reach the heights of Dark Knight because the menace and tension is handicapped by the more buoyant tone. It sets the bar lower but achieves it with aplomb.

 

Equally, going for a serious dramatic tone is no guarantee of superiority - just look at the travesty of Batman vs. Superman, which mistakes brooding for drama.

 

So, personally i don't mind if they go the heavy or light route, just so long as they pay for the best talent for that purpose and let them do their jobs, without then hiring script Drs to do Producer/Studio vanity edits.

 

(Oh, and when i say light tone, i don't mean 'Roger Moore-comedic', i mean 'mission de jour' rather than the 'Why am i?' Nietzschean angst).

 

I've thought of the Dark Knight a lot throughout this discussion and can see your point. However, a lot more added to the tone of the movie than just the way Batman felt about Joker and what he was doing. More tension was built in the way the soundtrack complemented the on-screen drama and victims reactions to The Jokers behavior. We saw A LOT of what The Joker was capable of in this movie and therefore we weren't short of chaos. This went much further to set the tone of the movie rather than Batman's thoughts/actions/behaviour. 

 

This is all true, but none of these factors would've added up if Batman's demeanour had been lighter.  It would've been tonally uneven and at odds with itself.

[SecretAgentFan]

SPECTRE had plenty of fun and escapism. If future movies had that tone I would be a happy camper. Bond expresses pleasure in flame throwing Hinx's car for starters, and drops a few more quips. Love his byplay with C and Lucia. But that doesn't mean Bond can't have deeper thoughts and feelings to explore. That's what Craig has brought to the table, and I don't see a problem with it. But each to their own. No Bond movie is ever completely dark, brooding or menacing.

 

You´re right, SPECTRE offered fun and escapism, too.  But maybe it could have worked without the brooding "step-brother has been watching you all along"-angle even better.

[Tiin007]

 

SPECTRE had plenty of fun and escapism. If future movies had that tone I would be a happy camper. Bond expresses pleasure in flame throwing Hinx's car for starters, and drops a few more quips. Love his byplay with C and Lucia. But that doesn't mean Bond can't have deeper thoughts and feelings to explore. That's what Craig has brought to the table, and I don't see a problem with it. But each to their own. No Bond movie is ever completely dark, brooding or menacing.

 

You´re right, SPECTRE offered fun and escapism, too.  But maybe it could have worked without the brooding "step-brother has been watching you all along"-angle even better.

 

 

My thoughts as well, SAF. I think SPECTRE's tone was fine. The issue was the inability to move away from the personal stuff, even with a change of tone when compared with the previous outings. 

[Dustin]

Perhaps 'dark and brooding' in general is hugely overrated. Craig's first entry had two dead-serious scenes, the stairwell fight and the torture scene. The fight got its seriousness from the near-panic with which Vesper tries to aid Bond - and from the frantic moment of nerves Bond experiences thereafter when he swallows the horror and pain and adrenaline with his glass of spirits.

The torture scene is disgusting and no-nonsense and the screams and convulsions transport this perfectly. But the emotional impact is made by Bond's attempt at gallows humour. There is no hope so Bond decides to laugh at his own end.

However, these two scenes, while certainly lending shades of darkness, do not carry the entire tone of CASINO ROYALE. I'd wager not even Vesper's suicide does that, for even in death she leaves behind the necessary information for Bond to catch up with White. And M told Bond right after how Vesper apparently was blackmailed into betrayal.

So when Bond finally meets White I'd argue the résumé of CASINO ROYAL in its final frame is anything but dark and brooding. It's a more serious entry than most other Bond films, granted; but there is no lack of the playful and even fun moments either.

The dark-and-brooding monicker CASINO ROYALE earns itself only retroactively by QOS's depiction of Bond as being supposedly more affected than the previous film leads us to believe. And since QOS lacks a new love interest for Bond the whole importance of the previous film and its unhappy ending is heavily overemphasised.

[SecretAgentFan]

That´s a very insightful look at it.

 

I would like to add by considering not even QOS as the darkest (and most brooding?) chapter in Craig´s era since it consistently features sardonic humour and would work even if we did not know that Vesper´s death drives Bond here.  

 

Only SKYFALL, with Bond´s personal involvement, his backstory and his relationship towards M and Silva, really is a sinister entry.  Although, again, it is not a downbeat, depressive film (well, not to me).

 

SPECTRE makes a turn towards dark in the Austrian scenes (for me) and never regains the playfulness of the beginning.

 

Looking at the whole Craig era, however, I would argue that it is much more of an introspective look at a suffering Bond.  Comparing it with LTK, for example, I feel that the Craig era is much more consumed by this darkness.  LTK, despite having Bond on the edge and full of rage, still manages to be quite a lot of fun (at least for me).

[Tiin007]

Interesting points about CR, Dustin. I actually agree with you there, although I'd add that "the stairwell fight" includes not just the reaction from Bond afterwards but also that of Vesper in the shower scene. Not exactly "dark and brooding," but certainly emotionally resonant in a way we had hardly seen in the series beforehand. 

 

The dark-and-brooding monicker CASINO ROYALE earns itself only retroactively by QOS's depiction of Bond as being supposedly more affected than the previous film leads us to believe. And since QOS lacks a new love interest for Bond the whole importance of the previous film and its unhappy ending is heavily overemphasised.

 

As to this point, I respectfully disagree. I think even the end of CR leads us to believe that Bond was deeply affected by it-- his insistence to M that he does not need time ("the job's done, and the b*tch is dead") always struck me as more of a defense mechanism to hide his inner anguish. And even upon first watching CR, his decision to go after Mr. White (per Vesper's message) seemed as motivated by his own loss as by his sense of duty. I think QoS furthered these themes, and was the natural continuation to the story (even if QoS could have been executed better).

 

Anecdotally, I remember immediately after CR was released, my brothers and I discussing how it seemed quite likely that Bond 22 would pick up from where the film left off (as opposed to, say, Fleming's novels, where Vesper's death isn't really revisited in LALD). 

[Dustin]

Affected: yes. But grieving, doubting even: no, can't say I see this in Craig's face. For me this ending alone was the end of the story, the conclusion. I remember thinking at the time that they could go anywhere from there; it wouldn't even have bothered me if we hadn't heard of White again.

Yes, QOS deepened the theme of loss - but was that really necessary in the first place?

[Surrie]

SPECTRE had plenty of fun and escapism. If future movies had that tone I would be a happy camper. Bond expresses pleasure in flame throwing Hinx's car for starters, and drops a few more quips. Love his byplay with C and Lucia. But that doesn't mean Bond can't have deeper thoughts and feelings to explore. That's what Craig has brought to the table, and I don't see a problem with it. But each to their own. No Bond movie is ever completely dark, brooding or menacing.

 

For me, CR was the best of both worlds - in terms of film tone and fun. But SP does come a close second. 

[Tiin007]

Affected: yes. But grieving, doubting even: no, can't say I see this in Craig's face. For me this ending alone was the end of the story, the conclusion. I remember thinking at the time that they could go anywhere from there; it wouldn't even have bothered me if we hadn't heard of White again.

Yes, QOS deepened the theme of loss - but was that really necessary in the first place?

 

I agree that it wasn't necessary. But, had it been executed better, I think many of us would have relished the opportunity.

 

So often I hear fans nowadays saying, "SPECTRE is the perfect set-up for finally adapting Fleming's You Only Live Twice to the screen. Even though we've gotten sick and tired of the personal angst, now is a better time than ever for a faithful adaptation of that novel." 

 

In a similar vein, I would argue that QoS was the perfect time to explore Bond's response to losing someone he loved, as he struggles to contain his desire for revenge. CR was the ideal set-up for a "Bond goes rogue" story. So yes, such a follow-up was not necessary, and they could have just ignored it completely in the next film, but I'd still argue that it was a better time than any (and unlike LTK, at least QoS had the advantage of an entire previous film to establish the deep relationship with Vesper). 

 

(As an aside, since I brought it up, I'd rather hold off on the faithful  You Only Live Twice adaptation. Too much personal angst recently.) 

[Odd Jobbies]

Anecdotally, I remember immediately after CR was released, my brothers and I discussing how it seemed quite likely that Bond 22 would pick up from where the film left off (as opposed to, say, Fleming's novels, where Vesper's death isn't really revisited in LALD). 

CR aside a few Fleming's novels did indeed pick where the last left off.

[Tiin007]

True, although not to the extent that QoS did to CR the movie. Mostly just some quick explanations on Fleming's part as to where Tiffany went or whatever. Even look at the relatively quick way in which Fleming revives Bond in Doctor No. 

[Odd Jobbies]

The most direct sequel is YOLT - TMWTGG; we leave Bond sailing off to Moscow, under the impression he's a SMERSH agent thanks to amnesia. Then we start the next novel with brainwashed Bond trying to kill M. That's followed by rehabilitation. That's not just loose ends, but a continuation of the story..

[Tiin007]

Correct. 

[Toxteth_OGrady]

http://www.dailymail...ck-Forsyth.html

[sharpshooter]

I've gone off him now, too.

[Orion]

I actually found that "article" funny, he was blatantly talking about something else (whodunit crime novels) then the mail tried to steer him towards something more click bait worthy.

[Surrie]

I'm glad these Hiddleston rumours are starting to dry up. 

[Dustin]

It would seem most rumours have dried up for now, simply for lack of any kind of factual evidence. They will be back at once when some betting player needs gratuitous ad space and odds skyrocket another name.

Why Forsyth would be in-the-know about casting of the role is beyond me though.

[S K Y F A L L]

I've seen THE DAY OF THE JACKAL on peoples recommend reading lists here on CBn, I'll have to remember to check it out.

I thought it was official when he started dating the Taylor, lol. jk.

[clavinbot]

After seeing suicide squad and finding out Jai Courtney is really Australian I would have to vote for him, he would be great.