198 replies to this topic

[David Schofield]

I can't believe that we now actually want to set out to make a BAD Bond film!!!

And with Daniel Craig doing Moore-ish schtick or even - heaven save us - David '"I don't want to go" to the Job Centre' Tennant!!!!!

I know you lot are a different generation of Bond fans, but there will be Bond fans who "grew up" with the late 70s and early 80s WEEPING as they read these posts.

[Zorin Industries]

Because there is such a canon in the Bond film back-catalogue the arena of "comparison" inevitably rears its ugly head. And that "comparison" is often filtered through individual filters that rarely judge the films on their creative merits within the context of their release years / zeitgeists. Those comparisons also fail to take into consideration that people grow up. So a young/twenty something audience raised on 1960's Bond is bound to find fault in A VIEW TO A KILL or DIE ANOTHER DAY, but if you are nine years old when those titles came out you will look at Bond and the canon completely differently.

There is still a really restrictive barrier brought down on discussing Bond which cites entries that a person does not like as being "bad" or "creatively redundant". That is where the back-catalogue is both unique and its own downfall - it demands comparison for each new film based on - usually - some that were made twenty years ago.

Contrary to popular belief (which itself is fed by this stale waiting game for the next major punctuation point in James Bond's development), things are not creatively stagnant at Bond HQ. Regardless of what folk think of the likes of Peter Morgan and Sam Mendes, their possible involvement in future Bond films is not a sign of creative stalemate but the exact opposite in fact.

And put yourself in the blade-tipped shoes of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson. They have been making Bond films for nearly 50 years, have a combined experience of 007 movie making that easily totals 75 years and cannot keep making films in the style of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. There is no agenda for courting awards and "luvvie" prowess (despite what some are now harping on about). These are just the natural developments of a team of people who cannot keep making the same film thirty times but with different chase vehicles.

Yes, there is a scope for a bigger Bond film with a lighter swagger here and there, but it will not be in the realm of Moore's bigger and lighter Bond entries. It will be through the prism of what bigger and lighter means to today's audiences - and that will have scant resemblance to what went before.

GOLDFINGER and MOONRAKER were bigger and lighter entries in their day, but can they really be compared that easily?

[Mr_Wint]

I don't care what you call it or what you compare with. Just bring back the real James Bond. I have had enough of this pretentious nonsense.

[Zorin Industries]

I don't care what you call it or what you compare with. Just bring back the real James Bond. I have had enough of this pretentious nonsense.

Where is the "pretentious nonsense"? I'm curious as to what is "pretentious" to some people.

[Loomis]

So a young/twenty something audience raised on 1960's Bond is bound to find fault in A VIEW TO A KILL or DIE ANOTHER DAY, but if you are nine years old when those titles came out you will look at Bond and the canon completely differently.

I was ten when A VIEW TO A KILL came out, and well remember the excitement it caused (as well as Duran Duran's song, which - like McCartney's "Live and Let Die" - was a super-catchy tune that sounded up-to-the-minute hip yet also slightly ahead of time). There was also a tie-in "computer game".

Anyway, my schoolfriends and I really loved A VIEW TO A KILL. We thought it was a thrilling, excellent film. And, no, we weren't being "ironic" or "postmodern" or anything - we genuinely enjoyed it. Now, you could turn round and say that perhaps our being so young had something to do with our accepting A VIEW TO A KILL so uncritically, but the point I'm trying to make is that - at the time - the film worked for mass audiences.

So did DIE ANOTHER DAY. A massive hit, and it even had some good reviews.

And with Daniel Craig doing Moore-ish schtick

Why should we demand that Craig play only one kind of Bond?

[Zorin Industries]

Thank you Loomis. That is exactly what I mean and exactly my experiences of A VIEW TO A KILL. Bond was very contemporary at the time. I didn't even know Roger Moore was maybe too old for the role. It didn't cross my mind until that ogre of comparison pops up again.

And it is not anything to do with being young and falling for anything. Or if it is then the nine year olds watching FROM RUSSIA and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE were coming at it from exactly the same starting point.

And I hate to say it, but there is a whole swathe of new Bond fans hooked on the films from the very likes of QUANTUM OF SOLACE - people who will be the CBN members of future times with names like IlikeSolace, SlateRIP, TheStationaryCupboard and CraigShouldHaveDoneMoreThan3.

The spectatorship of Bond has been completely overlooked and undervalued, shunted aside by flawed notions of what stats a website named after rotting tomatoes wants you to think (and usually from the creators of such websites who are jaded and bitter they have never made a film themselves so jump at scorning and revelling in downfalls). All discussion is good, but it should understand and see the bigger picture when slamming something for not being like a film made 40 years ago or swiping at one Bond actor because he does not play the role like someone did three actors ago.

There is also an ownership of Bond. All the fans filling the likes of CBN and MI6 believe (and in many cases, rightly so) that they have some stake, some ownership of Bond. That is a natural by-product of fandom. For example, I personally do not care what happens to the TRANSFORMERS franchise, but I do have a vested concern/allegiance/loyalty to 007. But such ownership creates its own parameters and restrictions - especially when discussing / evaluating the world of Bond.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

And put yourself in the blade-tipped shoes of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson. They have been making Bond films for nearly 50 years, have a combined experience of 007 movie making that easily totals 75 years and cannot keep making films in the style of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. There is no agenda for courting awards and "luvvie" prowess (despite what some are now harping on about). These are just the natural developments of a team of people who cannot keep making the same film thirty times but with different chase vehicles.

I agree. Anyone who knows their Bond film history will surely realise the Bonds have primarily been about entertaining the audience. I can't see any evidence of a departure from this approach just because some bigger creative names may be attached to 23.

[Loomis]

Thank you Loomis. That is exactly what I mean and exactly my experiences of A VIEW TO A KILL. Bond was very contemporary at the time. I didn't even know Roger Moore was maybe too old for the role. It didn't cross my mind until that ogre of comparison pops up again.

Exactly. I don't doubt that grown-up and "jaded" Bond fans in 1985 were grumbling about Rog's age, but, honestly, it never even occurred to me that he might have been too old. It just wasn't an issue in the playground when there were exciting action sequences like the fire engine chase to discuss.

Ditto Connery in NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN - my mates and I weren't sitting there thinking "Silly old fool." We thought he was supercool. He was James Bond!

Hell, to us, everyone who wasn't our age was "old". I mean, twenty-five seemed ancient. So we weren't about to start becoming unduly concerned about Rog's or Sean's age when the stars of MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME and RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II were also codgers from our perspective.

[bond 16.05.72]

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.

I have no love whatsoever for MR I was squirming with embarrassment when I last watched it and I did see it on the big screen back in 1979 and most likely loved it but I've grown up. I know some can still watch these films with rose tinted specs on, I can't.

VTAK I hailed as the best Bond film ever at the age of 12 in an English assignment now I would be quite happy if I never saw it again.

I have no problem with the next entry being more fun but a parody no thank you, I hated the Brosnan era and I think if it dipped back into that kind of tone again I would be signing off. I only just held on despite not liking him in the role and I attended all 4 of his entries theatrically but descent back into that kind of a thing would kill my interest.

I don't feel the passion I used to anyway and it was only Craig's appointment that got me back on board with enthusiasum if all that was jettissoned to return to 70's-80's style capers I'm sure I could find other film series to entertain me.

[David Schofield]

Both Zorin and Loomis' points are noted (though I feel sad that we should waste Craig's talents on light comedy: has he shown any aptitude for it?), if 9 year old's bought into Rog in 1985 'cos that was the limit of their Bondian understanding, fine. That, conversely, doesn't mean that those of us at the time who considered ourselves more Fleming-purists and couldn't wait for Rog to bugger off, should be brainwashed into seeing anything in Octopussy or AVTAK we might like to have seen in the first place.

Sure, we like the Duran Duran song. And we laugh at Rog's incontinent running. And the dreadful cuts to stuntmen. And we laugh. And reach for more alcoholic sustinence when we watch them. But they weren't the films we hoped EON would be making. Our fault, of course.

But as you say, Bond is subjective and so vast that there are elements for us all to tune into, like and dislike.

I am sure there are some kids out there who now who appreciated QOS as a shallow action-fest, rather than the directorial and editoral masterpiece it might be considered.

[Zorin Industries]

But - and I hate to say this - the likes of A VIEW TO A KILL, as well as a few Bond films before and after it - are not made for Fleming purists. Fleming purists have not kept the film series going for all these decades. They have have had occasional windows of 'opportunity' but Bond HQ care more about the nine year olds watching Bond than the Fleming purists who haven't seen a good film since 1969 - and that has nothing to do with the box office generated by nine year olds on a Saturday afternoon either.

But David Schofield is right - there should enough for everyone to find their own havens of favouritism and enjoyment.

[Loomis]

if 9 year old's bought into Rog in 1985 'cos that was the limit of their Bondian understanding, fine.

Well, it wasn't the limit of my Bondian understanding at the time. I'd also seen the earlier films with Connery and Lazenby, and I'd even enthusiastically sampled the Fleming novels (albeit without understanding everything and managing to finish none of them), as well as COLONEL SUN, JAMES BOND: THE AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY and Gardner. It's not as though I assumed in 1985 that James Bond was purely about Moore in A VIEW TO A KILL and there was nothing else.

[David Schofield]

if 9 year old's bought into Rog in 1985 'cos that was the limit of their Bondian understanding, fine.

Well, it wasn't the limit of my Bondian understanding at the time. I'd also seen the earlier films with Connery and Lazenby, and I'd even enthusiastically sampled the Fleming novels (albeit without understanding everything and managing to finish none of them), as well as COLONEL SUN, JAMES BOND: THE AUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY and Gardner. It's not as though I assumed in 1985 that James Bond was purely about Moore in A VIEW TO A KILL and there was nothing else.

Then, sir, you were far more perceptive a Bond fan as a nine year old than I at the same age, when TMWTGG was released.

I was just a daft kid who enjoyed action movies, knew Rog wasn't Seean but couldn't see how their portrayals differed much, and knew tha there were some old books with the same names written by a bloke who was dead.

But hey, junior school education has always varied over the years and through the regions in the UK.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I was nine when I saw AVTAK. I remember watching it but also liking it. It must have clicked with me because it helped cement my cinematic Bond fandom. I saw other movies in '85 of which Back To The Future was one. Although I enjoyed that film and remember it well, it didn't resonate with me like AVTAK did. I had no desire to own a poster, buy it on VHS or watch a TV showing of it as I had done with AVTAK. This may sound obvious but I think it shows that although it's not disputed we watch movies as kids with a far less critical eye, it has to be the case that a film still connects at an abstract level in order to secure a Bond fandom and internet posting some twenty five years later....

[BoogieBond]

I think a balance should be applied to Bond 23
If Bond 23's story is great and it has a great script, a good story and decent Character arc for Craig then why not bring some of the crowd pleasing elements back. Gadgets, Epic stunts, Stunning locations, Q and moneypenny. And also have Bond having a bit of fun here and there and some Connery wit.
Nothing wrong with that in my book.
Is a Bond film bad because it has gadgets and Q and Moneypenny, no. Its normally because of the characters and story, Q and gadgets etc take a tiny amount of screentime.
I am not sure parodies and overly comedic moment would work for Bond 23, but maybe Bond 25(with a new actor), but not Bond 23, it would not be consistent.
I think they did great with CR, it had Bond enjoying himself, being a sexist SOB, jumping off cranes, it was super, but it also had good character arc for Bond , a bit of wit and humour(that worked) and an arc based on the novel. Without looking back at the 60's and 70's, it was fresher and theres no reason why Bond 23 can't have a great original script, moving the series forward, Fleming tone, and be a fun outing. There have been actions films (and not just Bond films) in the last 10 years(and there will be in the next 10 years) that will demonstrate that I am sure.
We've had Bond hit emotionally hard in CR and QOS, time for the lighter side, going back to the first 1hour or more of CR where Bond is a bit lighter. "Gutten abend" and "Do I look like a give a damn" I am not saying go back to the 60s when I say Thunderball, I am just thinking of the tone of Thunderball. Good fun, crowd pleasing, but not OTT.
Balance between tradition and "knowing" it is Bond film and some of the trademarks(gunbarrel, theme) and pushing forward.

Edited by BoogieBond, 25 June 2010 - 01:32 PM.

[Messervy]

Couldn't we envisage having a film that touches upon both?
We could pretty well have a movie that is both serious and, at times, highly comical (mind you, not parody, but genuine humour). Even Craig's 2 films have some funny moments (every player ordering the "Vesper" cocktail thus annoying Le Chiffre, dialogue between Bond and Mathis in Talamone, the lines delivered by Craig to Agent Fields, etc.). We even got a shot at goofy, with M recieveing a phone call while removing her make-up at home (somehow reminiscent of Mrs Thatcher phoning Bond and talking to the parrot).
One is clearly not incompatible with the other. A nice mixture could actually turn the next Bond into a greater enjoyment.

[General G.]

I am not saying go back to the 60s when I say Thunderball, I am just thinking of the tone of Thunderball. Good fun, crowd pleasing, but not OTT.

Amen, BoogieBond.

I have two words for those who want to see the return of "OTT" 007 pics...

Austin Powers.

Because of those Mike Myers films, I don't think Bond can go back there again. (And that's a good thing.)

[Mr_Wint]

They should dust off the Goldfinger formula and bring it to life in a modern setting.

[Safari Suit]

I have two words for those who want to see the return of "OTT" 007 pics...

Austin Powers.

Because of those Mike Myers films, I don't think Bond can go back there again.

Austin Powers was an affectionate parody. Not to be rude, but why is the concept of such a thing seemingly beyond the grasp of so many people these days? Good thing High Anxiety taught us all how rubbish Hitchcock films are eh?

Not that I'm saying Bond will or should go back to being OTT. But I sincerely doubt the work of Mike Myers (who following an extended break leading up to The Love Guru, is probably about as culturally relevant as Roger Moore theses days) will affect the future direction of the series in any way.

[triviachamp]

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

How about traveling on Q's gadget equipped pink spacecraft while wearing a tuxedo and drinking a martini and having sex with Miss Cummingwell (Megan Fox) to Mars where the bad guy, a vaguely Continental European with a monotone voice named Evelyn (pronounced Evil-en) DeVille, is teaming up with the Martians (lead by Marvin) to destroy the Earth with some Giant Death Ray and then create a Master Race of Human-Martian hybrids to rule the Galaxy?

And, no, we weren't being "ironic" or "postmodern" or anything

Funny you use those terms when "parody Bond" is ironic and postmodern.

slamming something for not being like a film made 40 years ago

Calls for a "parody Bond" are just that?

They should dust off the Goldfinger formula and bring it to life in a modern setting.

Hasn't Bond been doing that all the time? And why continue rehashing an almost 50 year old formula? Can't we have a fun Bond movie that isn't a GF rehash or a ridiculous self-parody? And a self-parody Bond is as ironic and postmodern as a grim gritty Bond.

[Mr_Wint]

Can't we have a fun Bond movie that isn't a GF rehash or a ridiculous self-parody? And a self-parody Bond is as ironic and postmodern as a grim gritty Bond.

Who mentioned anything about self-parody?

[triviachamp]

Who mentioned anything about self-parody?

Well the opening post? "Parody Bond" would be self-parody I would think.

[Loomis]

I was nine when I saw AVTAK. I remember watching it but also liking it. It must have clicked with me because it helped cement my cinematic Bond fandom. I saw other movies in '85 of which Back To The Future was one. Although I enjoyed that film and remember it well, it didn't resonate with me like AVTAK did. I had no desire to own a poster, buy it on VHS or watch a TV showing of it as I had done with AVTAK. This may sound obvious but I think it shows that although it's not disputed we watch movies as kids with a far less critical eye, it has to be the case that a film still connects at an abstract level in order to secure a Bond fandom and internet posting some twenty five years later....

Yeah, A VIEW TO A KILL was probably my favourite film of '85, along with Stallone's double whammy of RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II and ROCKY IV. I remember buying A VIEW TO A KILL on VHS (in those days, films on video used to cost a pretty penny - £30-40 a pop in some cases), as well as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, and saving up to purchase FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE via mail order (don't recall whether I ever ended up getting it or not).

As for the remainder of my Bond video collection, it was taped off the telly. I'd sit there with the remote in hand waiting to hit the pause button when the commercial breaks started, in order to get an ad-free copy of the film.

Not to come over all "In my day, we were so poor that we....", but in those days films were special. Access to films was special (other than the TV schedules - and there were only four channels - one had to rely on whatever happened to be available to rent from the local off-licence). Building a collection of pre-recorded titles was a rich man's hobby. And, needless to say, this was long before the time of "letterbox" titles on VHS (let alone DVD or Blu-ray), which meant that everything was in pan-and-scan, and literally the only way to see something in its correct aspect ratio was to see it at the cinema. What's more, even on a good day, VHS picture quality (especially on something taped off TV) was a sick joke. Where I lived, ITV reception tended to be pisspoor.

But I loved the films, in whatever form, and they were happy days. *Wipes away sentimental tear*

[Matt Sherman]

There's a point I'd like to not be missed in this thread.

Quantum of Solace is an excellent, excellent Bond film. Unfortunately it was overshadowed by its proximity to the glorious CR--and of course, the rush editing.

15 minutes more of film and you've got a fantastic film. It's already one of the best, anyway.

Felix's character work and Fields', the Opera scene, the near double suicide scene at the end, the fight between Greene and Bond--and Bond dropping Greene in the desert, the cinematography and film tones--there's so many little and big gems in QOS. Super.

We could use a little refinement on the direction, of course. Bring back Campbell, add a little lighter humor and Q and Penny--we're off to the races for 23. Can't wait!

[Messervy]

Can't wait!

Well, actually, we'll have to!...

[Zorin Industries]

I was nine when I saw AVTAK. I remember watching it but also liking it. It must have clicked with me because it helped cement my cinematic Bond fandom. I saw other movies in '85 of which Back To The Future was one. Although I enjoyed that film and remember it well, it didn't resonate with me like AVTAK did. I had no desire to own a poster, buy it on VHS or watch a TV showing of it as I had done with AVTAK. This may sound obvious but I think it shows that although it's not disputed we watch movies as kids with a far less critical eye, it has to be the case that a film still connects at an abstract level in order to secure a Bond fandom and internet posting some twenty five years later....

Yeah, A VIEW TO A KILL was probably my favourite film of '85, along with Stallone's double whammy of RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II and ROCKY IV. I remember buying A VIEW TO A KILL on VHS (in those days, films on video used to cost a pretty penny - £30-40 a pop in some cases), as well as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, and saving up to purchase FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE via mail order (don't recall whether I ever ended up getting it or not).

As for the remainder of my Bond video collection, it was taped off the telly. I'd sit there with the remote in hand waiting to hit the pause button when the commercial breaks started, in order to get an ad-free copy of the film.

Not to come over all "In my day, we were so poor that we....", but in those days films were special. Access to films was special (other than the TV schedules - and there were only four channels - one had to rely on whatever happened to be available to rent from the local off-licence). Building a collection of pre-recorded titles was a rich man's hobby. And, needless to say, this was long before the time of "letterbox" titles on VHS (let alone DVD or Blu-ray), which meant that everything was in pan-and-scan, and literally the only way to see something in its correct aspect ratio was to see it at the cinema. What's more, even on a good day, VHS picture quality (especially on something taped off TV) was a sick joke. Where I lived, ITV reception tended to be pisspoor.

But I loved the films, in whatever form, and they were happy days. *Wipes away sentimental tear*

A perfect post there Loomis. And one that echoes most of my early associations with cinema and Bond.

The cutting out the ads used to drive my parents nuts as they would be watching something on the other side and I would have to keep flicking over to make sure I hadn't missed them (we only had one TV in the house). I remember buying that A VIEW TO A KILL too (the black cover with the red gunbarrel....? And, sad-warning, I remember the trailers for MAD MAD III, THE GOONIES and others on there too?).

And you are right. Films were not the mass-produce they are now. It was special when RAIDERS was on TV on Christmas Day ('84?) and Bank Holidays were eagerly awaited as ITV would indeed pull another Bond film from the hat. Imagine getting a brand new Bond film every three months....(!). Easter was always good and I still half expect a new Bond to be on TV every Easter Monday.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

But I loved the films, in whatever form, and they were happy days. *Wipes away sentimental tear*

They were indeed. I think I can still remember where some ad breaks were in the versions I taped from ITV. I used to rip the tab off the tapes to stop other family members recording over my copies. It's little wonder we can't help but look back when we think of how future Bonds should be.

Easter was always good and I still half expect a new Bond to be on TV every Easter Monday.

There was a time where the nation wept if no Bond was shown on a Bank Holiday.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of moreose, introspective "emo" action characters with deep psychological issues, as well as the faux-documentary style that's currently in vogue - and I'd include Craig's two Bond films in that description. But the pendulum will swing back, as it always does.

I'm not sure that Bond needs to revert to self-parody, but I do miss the sense of larger-than-life outrageousness that was present in the 60s and 70s Bonds, as well as most of the Fleming books. I'd like to see the black humour and sense of the bizarre return to the series.

The idea that a "gritty" and "realistic" approach is somehow more faithful and authentic to the spirit of Fleming is nonsense.

[Royal Dalton]

I used to rip the tab off the tapes to stop other family members recording over my copies.

That reminds me of the time I lent my off-air copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark to a friend and his mum taped over it with a John Denver concert!

[Safari Suit]

Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of moreose, introspective "emo" action characters with deep psychological issues, as well as the faux-documentary style that's currently in vogue - and I'd include Craig's two Bond films in that description. But the pendulum will swing back, as it always does.

I think it's already swung back. Look at the eye rolling aimed at the direction of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood this summer. I think the public are staring to see the whole "darker, grittier, more realistic reboot" schpiel as a cliche, and are certainly becoming aware it doesn't always work.