198 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

In my perusings of the forum today, I found in two different places (from two different people I think) someone saying that "Us Fans" want down to Earth Bond films and no longer want "parody" Bond films.

Is that true? I know it's certainly not true for me. While yes I'm a champion of Craig and love the direction they're going with his films (permitting he gets a chance to make a few more down the line), I have never turned my back on one of my favorite era's of Bond films, namely the 70's Moore films. As much as I love Connery as Bond it's the Moore films that get more viewings from me lately, especially Moonraker, Octopussy, and AVTAK. To a lesser extent that's why I enjoy the goofiness of the Brosnan films as well, though he never let his films go the route they should have gone, Tomorrow Never Dies is still goofy fun in that old fashioned Moore way.

While I think it's true that most of the more serious Bond films get lambasted (by the general public) because they're not like the Moore films (which I believe is what many people in the film going public believe a Bond film should be), there's nothing wrong with them, and I would welcome with open arms another goofy Bond film in the Moore style (on one condition though, if it were a new Bond in the role, I couldn't buy Craig in that type of Bond film).

[Loomis]

In my perusings of the forum today, I found in two different places (from two different people I think) someone saying that "Us Fans" want down to Earth Bond films and no longer want "parody" Bond films.

Is that true? I know it's certainly not true for me.

Or me. I've long been longing for another big, goofy campy Bond film in the Moore vein. A film without a "personal" mission for 007. A film with "Bond girls" as opposed to "Bond women". A film that's as dumb as a bucket of rocks, but as fun as a barrel full of monkeys.

Although I guess we got such a film - to an extent - with DIE ANOTHER DAY, which is partly why I'm so fond of that one.

I've no problem with Craig doing a silly Bond outing, though. I'd like to see his funny side.

Mind you, we'll never get the kind of Bond flick I'm after. The new, solemn Eon Productions wouldn't be caught dead making a good-old fashioned rollercoaster ride of unpretentious fun. Nowadays, it's all about giving employment to "artists" like Marc Forster, Paul Haggis, Sam Mendes and Peter Morgan. In light of which, I'm actually rather relieved that BOND 23 has been mothballed.

[JimmyBond]

My dream would be a David Tennant starring James Bond film made with only one thing in mind: To be a huge epic of a film that tries to outdo each and every Bond film that came before it.

That is one thing I miss about the series: The Harry Houdini syndrome (as Bond film book author Steven Jay Rubin put it). It no longer seems like the newest Bond film tries to outdo the last one in terms of ridiculous stunts. I think the last time we had a really good opening stunt was in TWINE (as much as I dislike the film, it did try to do something big with it's opening). Since then we've had a hovercraft chase, which yes it was really fun, didn't really try to break any ground in terms of stunt work, and then Craig's two outings have had relatively short and tight teasers (nothing wrong with that either, mind you).

[jaguar007]

There is an audience for all types of Bond films (both goofy and serious) and there will never be a Bond film that will please everyone.

Personally I don't want to see them get as goofy as they did in films like Moonraker or AVTAK, but I would like to see a big epic adventure with plenty of fun more in the vein of Thunderball (that is something I could see Craig easily doing).

[DamnCoffee]

I'm all for a fun Bond outing, as long as it's grounded in reality. Something in the vein as Thunderball would be brilliant.

By all means have an outlandish villain, but as long as it's believable and realistic.

[Mr_Wint]

Super-gritty Bondfilms grounded in reality are merely a parenthesis in this series history... and future. That's not the trademark.

[Guy Haines]

I'm all for a fun Bond outing, as long as it's grounded in reality. Something in the vein as Thunderball would be brilliant.

By all means have an outlandish villain, but as long as it's believable and realistic.

I agree. The 1960s Bond films provided the full range, from "gritty realism" (FRWL) to over the top (YOLT), and all points in between.

Our current incumbent could, I think, fit in to any one of those types of Bond films - even an epic such as YOLT, with a villain threatening the end of everything. The key is the credibility invested in the Bond character, and the story. We know that Craig is utterly credible as Bond. A Goldfinger or Thunderball style story could work as well, provided it is presented in as realistic a way as possible. The way to create a story like this is, I think - "we know it isn't possible, but if it were, it might go like this".

And not - "we know it isn't possible, so lets just send the whole thing up."

[BoogieBond]

I agree with Bond 23 being something like Thunderball, something ultimately fun, but not OTT.
I want to see Craig back for 1 or 2 more before he hangs up his gun. I would like to see Bond 23 more balanced.Then perhaps a more epic spectacle for his fourth outing send off. Although I would hold on the double taking pigeons for awhile.
I have firm favourites in the entertaining Moore era, but I think the time to return would be on a change of actor. Crowd pleasing spectacle and exciting action sequences are part of what makes Bond for me.Even chuck a few clever gadgets in there, why not(in the Thunderball mode of his underwater "Breather") or Daltons "Signature gun" in LTK or his deadly keyring in TLD. Have the gunbarrel at the beginning, and have the Bond theme blaring out a few times. Even have some optional extras on his Aston Martin, which are not too OTT, something like Thunderballs PTS watercannon.

Edited by BoogieBond, 24 June 2010 - 11:38 PM.

[Matt_13]

DAD is atrocious not because the humor was poor (which, in most places, it was) but because it wasn't very self aware. DAD is a film that takes itself to be a serious affair. That straight faced attitude is what makes the film so weak. Moonraker, on the other hand, is very self aware, and that's what makes it so enjoyable. It realizes how uncompromisingly goofy it is as a work and revels in it. As a result, Moonraker is a far more enjoyable film to view as opposed to DAD.


I think if we were to return to the "tried and true" fun Bond films, something in the vein of Thunderball is the extent to which the producers could use Craig without risking the entire affair becoming a dated snoozefest devoid of any wit or suspense. Craig plays a harder character, and the film to some degree needs to reflect that. Casino Royale was a very rare exception in that it successfully balanced the humor and seriousness with relative panache. I find Moonraker very enjoyable, but I also savor the edgier scenes more than, say, the double taking pigeon. That said, Moonraker has quite a few good lines in there (" Very novel, Q, they should get them in the stores for Christmas.") and I do have a massive grin plastered on my face for the entire Venice boat scene, but the films strengths (that spectacular opening sky dive, Corrinne's death in the woods, Bond's fight in the church tower in Venice, investigating his leads and uncovering bits of Drax's operation) are what I really tend to enjoy in the film. Moonraker really only becomes outrageous in the final 25 mins, and, as I said, even that is tolerable because the film itself was self aware. I don't think something like this can be done with Daniel Craig, which in my opinion is great news.

[Royal Dalton]

I'd say Craig needs a Spy Who Loved Me, rather than a Thunderball. An old-style epic adventure, with an outlandish plot and big villains.

[zencat]

I love larger than life Bond films that have a taste of silly about them (but hold the line beautifully). Trouble is, the current creative team just do not have a good feel for this type of Bond film. It's been lost.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

DAD is atrocious not because the humor was poor (which, in most places, it was) but because it wasn't very self aware. DAD is a film that takes itself to be a serious affair. That straight faced attitude is what makes the film so weak. Moonraker, on the other hand, is very self aware, and that's what makes it so enjoyable. It realizes how uncompromisingly goofy it is as a work and revels in it. As a result, Moonraker is a far more enjoyable film to view as opposed to DAD.

Yeah I agree but would also add there was a greater calibre of talent behind the camera for MR than there was for DAD. Also MR suited Moore better than DAD suited Brosnan.

I love larger than life Bond films that have a taste of silly about them (but hold the line beautifully). Trouble is, the current creative team just do not have a good feel for this type of Bond film. It's been lost.

You think? I would say currently off limits but not lost.

[zencat]

I love larger than life Bond films that have a taste of silly about them (but hold the line beautifully). Trouble is, the current creative team just do not have a good feel for this type of Bond film. It's been lost.

You think? I would say currently off limits but not lost.

That's a better way to look at it.

[dinovelvet]

I'd like Craig to do two more, with a little more humor, and then flame out spectacularly with a hilarious, over the top, bloated, beer-gut, jowly AVTAK/DAF/DAD

[Mr. Blofeld]

I do have a massive grin plastered on my face for the entire Venice boat scene

Really? I thought that was a terrible scene.

We don't need goofy-off-their- Bond films; you lot all seem to be drowning in nostalgia, now that we've hit a dry patch, and that's not what we need.

Rather than reveling in the past, we need to think about what can be made better in the future... for, you see, we are truly living in a golden age.

The time of bright-yellow gyrocopters, motorized gondolas, and wild 'n' wacky fire trucks is long behind us; let us push onwards, into a new and happy era of tense, thrilling Bond-dom...



...for that is what we are, is it not?

[TheREAL008]

I'd say Craig needs a Spy Who Loved Me, rather than a Thunderball. An old-style epic adventure, with an outlandish plot and big villains.

Just as long as the main villain isn't as lame as Stromberg. Having watched the movie this morning I felt the character was totally useless, weak, and dull.

With CR and QoS, Eon has the opportunity to recapture the Connery era perfectly. Many people here might dislike QoS, but at the very least it sets the stage for another FRWL type film or maybe even a Goldfinger after that.

In all honesty I want to see Daniel tie with Connery per film. Probably will never happen but I can keep my fingers crossed.

[bondrules]

I wouldn't mind Craig doing Conneryesque lines. Some from DAF would fit just right.

"Ye-es, as a matter of fact there is.There's something I'd like you to get off your chest"

I can totally see Craig being truly ruthless tours women. That would work for me.



Also some banter with a villain like we saw in TB between Bond and Largo.

"It's your SPECTRE against mine." ------ PRICELESS!



And how about bringing back a male M. I want Bond to say lines from the likes of FRWL:

"Once, when I was with M in Tokyo, we had an interesting experience. ..."

[Mike00spy]

Hopefully the recent Hollywood trend for "darkness" and "realistic" action films is over, or over soon enough.

As much fun as I have with the Craig films, I would like to see something different now.

[triviachamp]

The problem with "parody" Bond films is that they are a caricature of what Bond films are perceived as, not what they actually are. Basically you just rehash Goldfinger and/or You Only Live Twice several times until it becomes tiresome, lazy and completely ridiculous. Also they tend to just become a random mishmash of stunts and gags loosely tied together with little rhyme and reason. Not to mention it becomes a lazy checklist formula.

The big problem I have with Moonraker is that it is really, really, lazy. Rehash TSWLM, which was a rehash of YOLT and add in some Star Wars. I mean in Moonraker Bond just shows up at Drax's place with no evidence of anything and Drax immediately tries to kill him! What did Bond expect to find there? And why would Drax try to kill Bond if Bond has no evidence of anything? And why doesn't he just shoot Bond rather then let him leave after it becomes obvious that Drax is trying to kill Bond? Because otherwise Bond would have no idea that Drax was the bad guy obviously. AVTAK has the same problem with Bond going after Zorin on the basis of no evidence whatsoever and then completely forgeting about the microships he was supposed to be investigating. The only reason I can think of for these scenes is because similar scenes occured in Goldfinger. But since they rehash it so much it becomes nonsensical.

These films also tend to overrely on gadgets and the problem with the gadgets is that Bond solves his problem not with his wits but by pressing a button. Also the gadgets are copouts and have to be telegraphed early on and the writers are usually too lazy to do this well because they have Bond given gadgets that don't seem relevant to the mission at hand and can only be used in specific ways.

To be a huge epic of a film that tries to outdo each and every Bond film that came before it.

Not sure how you would outdo Moonraker. Would Bond go to the Moon? Austin Powers did that already. Or turn Bond into Sci-Fi?

By all means have an outlandish villain, but as long as it's believable and realistic.

What I really like is a villain with motivation. The Seventies Bond villains have zero motivation for doing anything which is lazy and annoying. I mean why exactly does Stromberg want to commit genocide and build an undersea civilization? And why exactly does Drax want to commit genocide (again) and create a master race? Why does Scaramanga care about the Solex? Why does Kanaga sell drugs and why does he want to monopolize the US market? What the hell is Blofeld up to anyway? "Auction off nuclear supremacy to the highest bidder"[?] Seems like they were making it up as they went in that one.

I love larger than life Bond films that have a taste of silly about them (but hold the line beautifully). Trouble is, the current creative team just do not have a good feel for this type of Bond film. It's been lost.

Well it is pretty difficult to make a "heh this movie sucks but we know it sucks so therefore it is good" movie without without it, you know sucking.

Anyway I wouldn't mind a fun Bond movie but I don't want another GF/YOLT rehash, villains with no motivation besides "I'm a Bond Villain!", copout gadgets whose purpose can be seen from miles, Bond acting like he has the read the script and knows he will win, godawful puns (how about good ones?), terrible actresses whose characters are for the sole purpose of giving Bond someone to sleep with and I would like an actual plot between the set pieces and not just make up as you go.

So yes you could say that I am jaded.

[Mike00spy]

We don't have to go to Moonraker.

How about The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Thunderball, Octopussy? Those movies were great summer blockbusters.

[coco1997]

We don't need goofy-off-their- Bond films; you lot all seem to be drowning in nostalgia, now that we've hit a dry patch, and that's not what we need.

Wow, condescend much? Stop acting like your little voice speaks for the majority.

The time of bright-yellow gyrocopters, motorized gondolas, and wild 'n' wacky fire trucks is long behind us

Says you. You may not like it but that "bright-yellow gyrocopter" is one of the most ingenious elements and iconic images of the Bond series and just happened to come from what many consider to be a classic Bond film.

[Guy Haines]

"Well it is pretty difficult to make a "heh this movie sucks but we know it sucks so therefore it is good" movie without without it, you know sucking.

Anyway I wouldn't mind a fun Bond movie but I don't want another GF/YOLT rehash, villains with no motivation besides "I'm a Bond Villain!", copout gadgets whose purpose can be seen from miles, Bond acting like he has the read the script and knows he will win, godawful puns (how about good ones?), terrible actresses whose characters are for the sole purpose of giving Bond someone to sleep with and I would like an actual plot between the set pieces and not just make up as you go.

So yes you could say that I am jaded."

No more than I am, triviachamp, and I don't consider myself jaded. I agree with the above and indeed the rest of your post.

I've always believed that if the series hadn't changed direction as long ago as 1987, let alone 2006, then Mike Myers would have had to find another role to send up, because the Austin Powers character would have been irrelevant - how do you parody something that was itself becoming beyond parody?

Not a dig at Roger Moore, but the film makers, who at that time had got Bond stuck in a rut, aptly described in the quotation I borrowed above.

[SecretAgentFan]

2006: Casino Royale.

Everybody loved that the old days of pure fun-Bond were gone for good.

2008: Quantum of Solace.

More and more audience members want the pure fun-Bond to return.

2010: ?

The Craig era is too damn solemn.


Once again, the Bond films ARE always reflecting the zeitgeist. Didn´t some of us predict that the pendulum would swing back?

[JimmyBond]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dogging on the Craig films. Nor would I be against a few more Craig adventures in a similar vein. I'm merely pointing out that it appears to be a common theme on this forum that people no longer want the goofy Bond epics of the 70's to return. As if that was somehow a low point for many "True Bond fans" and they no longer wish to go down that route.

[Guy Haines]

2006: Casino Royale.

Everybody loved that the old days of pure fun-Bond were gone for good.

2008: Quantum of Solace.

More and more audience members want the pure fun-Bond to return.

2010: ?

The Craig era is too damn solemn.


Once again, the Bond films ARE always reflecting the zeitgeist. Didn´t some of us predict that the pendulum would swing back?

CR was certainly harder edged, but not "too damn solemn". I thought they got the balance between humour and seriousness more or less right, for the first time since, well, way back when.

QoS - I enjoyed and can watch time and again, but it couldn't help but be more serious than its predecessor, given the events it followed.

A swing back to the style of CR I think would work. But Craig in a 1970s romp? Well, to borrow one of the major props from TSWLM, it would be like turning around a supertanker - you can't just slam the breaks and put her in reverse!

(of course, some of us out there will be thinking - "it might not be Craig next time". I believe it will be, but even so, a drastic change of style would be a bit hard to take for some of us, so soon after CR & QoS. LALD was nearer in style to its predecessor, rather than MR or OP, even with a new actor as Bond. Perhaps because the scripts are written for James Bond, initially, rather than written with a certain actor in mind.)

[Trident]

Bond films have never been about what 'us fans/true fans/hardcore fans' want (or not want). The films are always produced with a firm eye on the general entertainment market, trying to sell as many tickets as possible. In that regard EON tried to be one step ahead of the 'mainstream' (although it often was only an inch ahead and perhaps has become half an inch back in later years). But whatever the films picked up on, whatever trend they seemingly started, it always had to be present in some form in the first place, or EON couldn't have hit pay dirt again and again, tickling cultural nerves with each new entry. Whatever Bond film we get is due to whatever overall state our society is in at that time. Goofy, serious, OTT, down-to-earth - that's all just landmarks on our cultural map. Bond can only ever go where we let him, for he has to meet us. We always have been there before him.

Don't blame EON, not for the spoofs, not for the darkness. It's all ours.

[bond 16.05.72]

The last 2 films have managed to shake of this silly side, I wouldn't mind if the big silly ones were few and far between but they pretty much dominate the series, can we have some more semi serious non parody types before we descend back into that ridiculousness again?

I'll be gone if we get anything like DAD again, I can't believe people want it back in that territory it's what made the series a laughing stock, go and watch Austin Powers if you want that kind of thing, yes the reboot isn't all good. I agree the next one needs to lighten up but MR 2 or DAD 2 no thanks, the grounded approach is best for Craig and David Tennant playing Bond, anymore ludicrous ideas?

[JimmyBond]

and David Tennant playing Bond, anymore ludicrous ideas?

How about Bond piloting a shuttle to the moon to stop a baddie who has his base of operations up there?

I'm not sure where you got this idea that the series was a laughing stock because of the Moore films (and even DAD was a hit when it came out and many people enjoyed it immensely). Sure maybe it would be better if the next few films stayed on the path the last two Craig films were on, but there's no reason somewhere down the line the series can't have some fun again.

[Aris007]

I'm a fan of both aBond film types. I'd welcome any type of them. Thing is though that we've seen good films from every type so we have placed some standards. What I mean is that we've seen marvellous OTT films as TSWLM and GE and thrilling down-to-earth films as CR and TB and FRWL. As a matter of fact whenever we come across a film that belongs to one of the two categories we compare it to those "masterpieces". If the film is good and slightly worse we say "Oh, rubbish go back to the other type!". That's what happened with DAD and now what happened with QoS. I'm not trying to say that DAD was a good film, it's an example.
On the other hand when we see a piece of art like CR we want to stick with this type of films. That's what will happen if we have a truly great OTT film as Bond 23.

Now the problem with OTT Bond films nowadays is that we've all seen preety amazing OTT non-Bond productions, which can overtake any OTT Bond film in the first 10 minutes. As a result the producers need to go very far in order to achieve the amazing results we had in Connery or Moore era resulting in rediculous films, which make us say "Oh, crap! Stick with the reality!"

[Zorin Industries]

I love larger than life Bond films that have a taste of silly about them (but hold the line beautifully). Trouble is, the current creative team just do not have a good feel for this type of Bond film. It's been lost.

To be fair that is not a Bond thing as such. Cinema has moved on, moved back, evolved and changed across all genres - as it should and always will.