189 replies to this topic

[Capsule in Space]

I think Bond right now is in a better position than it has been since the height of Bondmania with THUNDERBALL.

Out of curiosity can you explain how this is the case?

I'm not sure if SecretAgentFan means artistically or commercially. If he means commercially I disagree. I think Bond was at his biggest height post Thunderball with TSWLM. In my lifetime I saw Bondmania at it's heights in 77-79 (unfortunately it dropped by 1980). GE would be the next big boost only to be topped with the release of CR. Artistically SAF might just be correct, fanboys aside, CR did what I never thought was possible. It knocked GF off the #1 Bond film spot for most film critics. It was the first Bond film to ever recieve a Best Picture nomination (BAFTA) as well as a nomination for lead actor as James Bond (BAFTA). Many people speculate that if in 07 The Oscars had 10 BP nomination fields like they do now, CR could have been nominated in the US as well.

Many criticize the Brosnan films by being very formula somewhat generic James Bond films, however that is what the series really needed at the time. The Bond series was basically dead prior to GE and people needed to feel James Bond is Back, not a new James Bond. That is one reason the Brosnan films play like a greatest his album. However after going a bit too formula and reestablishing the series, the producers felt the time was right to try to be a bit more bold, and it payed off in spades.

I meant to say that with Craig and CR/QOS Bond films have moved on from being traditional fun but routine movies to a higher profile. Yes, they are still installments in a series of films for pure entertainment factor. But they are ready and eager to stray from the pure formula, more adapt at re-inventing themselves and trying to shed new light on its main character, attracting critical interest and directors who would never have touched Bond before.

Thus, a new excitement for the films have emerged. After THUNDERBALL this interest had decreased, and even the Brosnan era could not match this.

There is certainly an excitement amongst Craig fans for the news of Bond 23. It doesn't seem like the average moviegoer is as interested. It seems like all of these fantasy films get more play. Films like Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Harry Potter, etc. If anything I think Bond has hit a lull amongst average filmgoers.

On your point the the series is "attracting critical interest and directors who would never have touched Bond before." Wouldn't you say that this has been the case with Bond for a long time? Many Bond films have garnered critical acclaim especially from big names like Leonard Maltin. Lewis Gilbert and Michael Apted are highly regarded film directors who directed Bond films, and Spielberg was even interested in directing a Bond film. I guess Cubby Broccoli said he wouldn't be able to work out a deal with Spielberg because he would want a percentage of the profits.

Perhaps it could be considered a big deal that EON got screenwriter Paul Haggis to work on Bond.

I agree. We're experiencing a renewed effort in Bond that can rival the zeitgeist of the 60's. It might even be possible to say that CR ranks above Goldfinger as the best Bond film. I remember on the old MKKBB forums on how people wished for a return to the style of FRWL and we got that with 'Royale.

II was in my late teens when GE came out and I enjoyed it as a Bond film that tried to update Bond for the post Cold War era. I think the 95-02 era should have been handled differently considering how GE set the mold for having Bond deal with enemies outside of the former Soviet Union. If the plots for TND, TWINE, and even DAD were more grounded in reality and depending less on CGI, tech, and terrible one liners; then that particular era would have received less critique.,

I totally disagree with you about Goldfinger versus Casino Royale, but I totally agree with this statement: "I think the 95-02 era should have been handled differently considering how GE set the mold for having Bond deal with enemies outside of the former Soviet Union." -I really wish that would have been done. There was so much going on in the 1990's (especially in Europe) that could have played a part in the plots to Brosnan's films, and I think it was a waste that they went with villains like Eliot Carver instead. Doing what you suggested would have made Brosnan's era much better. I guess I should make it clear that I like Brosnan and I will continue to defend his portrayal as Bond, but I do not like a lot of the material he was given.

[jaguar007]

Jaguar, I am trying to find a way to upload some neat newspaper articles I researched that are from 1966 to the EONomics thread that show how huge Thunderball was. No Bond film has been able to match the worldwide admissions that Thunderball received, but you are right that The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker were very big, and actually I think Live and Let Die got great admissions as well.

Capsule, you misunderstand me. I know GF/TB were the absolute heights of the BOnd series. Adjusted for inflation, TB was a bigger hit than The Dark Knight was a few years ago. I'm saying 77-99 was the biggest period for Bond since the 60s. I doubt BOnd will ever be as popular again as he was in the 60s.

LALD was very big in the international market, but underperformed in the all valuable US market (where studios get a bigger percentage of profits than other countries). Since I live in the US, I remember the hype for TSWLM in the US.

[Capsule in Space]

Jaguar, I am trying to find a way to upload some neat newspaper articles I researched that are from 1966 to the EONomics thread that show how huge Thunderball was. No Bond film has been able to match the worldwide admissions that Thunderball received, but you are right that The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker were very big, and actually I think Live and Let Die got great admissions as well.

Capsule, you misunderstand me. I know GF/TB were the absolute heights of the BOnd series. Adjusted for inflation, TB was a bigger hit than The Dark Knight was a few years ago. I'm saying 77-99 was the biggest period for Bond since the 60s. I doubt BOnd will ever be as popular again as he was in the 60s.

LALD was very big in the international market, but underperformed in the all valuable US market (where studios get a bigger percentage of profits than other countries). Since I live in the US, I remember the hype for TSWLM in the US.

I was trying to say I agreed with your comments!

[jaguar007]

I was trying to say I agreed with your comments!

I guess we are just destined for misunderstandings

"I think the 95-02 era should have been handled differently considering how GE set the mold for having Bond deal with enemies outside of the former Soviet Union." -I really wish that would have been done. There was so much going on in the 1990's (especially in Europe) that could have played a part in the plots to Brosnan's films, and I think it was a waste that they went with villains like Eliot Carver instead. Doing what you suggested would have made Brosnan's era much better. I guess I should make it clear that I like Brosnan and I will continue to defend his portrayal as Bond, but I do not like a lot of the material he was given.

I totally agree with you here. Although TND is a guilty pleasure and my favorite Brosnan film, they really should have gone with the route dealing with Hong Kong reverting back to China like they originally considered.

[iBond]

I was trying to say I agreed with your comments!

I guess we are just destined for misunderstandings

"I think the 95-02 era should have been handled differently considering how GE set the mold for having Bond deal with enemies outside of the former Soviet Union." -I really wish that would have been done. There was so much going on in the 1990's (especially in Europe) that could have played a part in the plots to Brosnan's films, and I think it was a waste that they went with villains like Eliot Carver instead. Doing what you suggested would have made Brosnan's era much better. I guess I should make it clear that I like Brosnan and I will continue to defend his portrayal as Bond, but I do not like a lot of the material he was given.

I totally agree with you here. Although TND is a guilty pleasure and my favorite Brosnan film, they really should have gone with the route dealing with Hong Kong reverting back to China like they originally considered.

I honestly wish they focused more on General Chang rather than just seeing him walk down the hallway. He looked like a pretty sinister villain, if not a henchmen. But, he was introduced late in the movie anyway, so I guess it was just as well. Yeah, the whole Hong Kong thing really disappeared in the film. However, overall China was the focus since it was mainly about Carver getting distributing rights to have his "news" program there.

Edited by iBond, 19 April 2011 - 10:24 PM.

[jaguar007]

I remember reading in 1996, that the original storyline for TND was supposed to be about the transfer of ownership of Hong Kong from England to China. However since this happened in July of 97, they changed plans for the film because they could not get it in theaters before the change.

[Royal Dalton]

That was a crap script, anyway. Mind you, so was the one they shot.

[00 Brosnan]

Tomorrow Never Dies is pure action and entertainment bro just like QoS.

It doesn't drag at any point (TWINE, CR) and it's not completely ridiculous (DAD, MR). Nor was it laughably cheesy (DAF, AVTAK).

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 20 April 2011 - 05:09 AM.

[Davy]

Brosnan was let down by the producers - they waited years to get him and then they gav him so little to do. What they gave him seemed to be mostly quips and one liners thrown away in the Roger Moore era. Goldeneye was his high pint and no other Bond he did comes close.

[iBond]

Tomorrow Never Dies is pure action and entertainment bro just like QoS.

I'd pick TND over QoS any day!

[jaguar007]

Tomorrow Never Dies is pure action and entertainment bro just like QoS.

I'd pick TND over QoS any day!

Hmmm, it is actually a toss up for me. TND is a guilty pleasure of mine (my favorite Brosnan film).

[Fan]

I am a younger fellow, but I was introduced to Bond through Fleming, so I think I'm in a decent position to speak.

Brosnan's problems are many. It is not simply a matter of being true to Fleming - I love Moore's films and they have little to do with the literary character for the most part. There was no shortage of quips, innuendo and silly plots but Moore had a natural charm that made it watchable, entertaining and not overly serious. It also helped that Moore, despite his relatively advanced age for an action star, looked like he could have been an ex-officer (which, as we know, he was). Also not to be undervalued is his Britishness. Perhaps it may seem a silly thing to bring up, but it is quite central to the character and Brosnan's "Band, James Band" accent never quite worked.

Brosnan's films had the silly plots and one-liners that the Moore films did but both were taken up a level - this is not bad in and of itself but Brosnan's films took themselves with much seriousness, which made such plots seem even sillier. It also didn't help that Brosnan had no presence (in the sense of physicality) to him whatsoever (which is a huge part of why Sean Bean upstaged him in every scene together). He looked like the average foppish metrosexual 90s/early 00s businessman, except better-looking. That is fine, but it is not Bond.

The little details, too, were quite irritating in Brosnan's films (though this should be blamed on the production, not Brosnan himself). Case in point - the replacement of traditional British tailoring (still de rigeur for British officers of taste) with Brioni and the general push for Europeanness over Britishness for Bond in general. It has been put forth that they tried to do this in the Dalton years as well, but Mr Dalton (Bless him!) refused to go along because it didn't befit a Naval man. I am aware in case you are about to point out that Bond is half-Swiss but one should not draw from that that he would adopt such a style. Much of this was due to the political climate of the time but it is incongruous with the character.

[Davy]

I think you'e mad some excellent points. What I hate abbout the Brosnan era, and this is EON's fault more than his, is that they defaulted to the campy Bond touches of the Moore era.....an era which had been proven to have gone stale yet the Brosnan Bond seemed rooted in it. Pierce provedin Goldeneye that with a decent story, a few less gags and less OTT gadgets that he was a solid choice for Bond but you can almost trace his disillusionment as the films progress.

[201050]

I got the impression that at the time, they just weren't interested in using any "Fleming" elements.....EON seemed more interested in turning out the live-action equivalents of video games.

I agree. It was finished product that made the last two Brosnan films so ridiculous, not source material. They made the films they wanted to make. Non-Fleming stories can be done very well. They just chose not to. Come on, man - a villain who doesn't feel pain, Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist, a villain who changes his race, invisible car, Madonna - those two films were doomed from the start.

[SecretAgentFan]

There is certainly an excitement amongst Craig fans for the news of Bond 23. It doesn't seem like the average moviegoer is as interested. It seems like all of these fantasy films get more play. Films like Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Harry Potter, etc. If anything I think Bond has hit a lull amongst average filmgoers.

Please give an example for this. The fact that BOND 23 does not get as much attention right now is IMO simply due to the lack of information on it. I´m absolutely sure this will change once production starts in the Fall/Winter.

On your point the the series is "attracting critical interest and directors who would never have touched Bond before." Wouldn't you say that this has been the case with Bond for a long time? Many Bond films have garnered critical acclaim especially from big names like Leonard Maltin. Lewis Gilbert and Michael Apted are highly regarded film directors who directed Bond films, and Spielberg was even interested in directing a Bond film. I guess Cubby Broccoli said he wouldn't be able to work out a deal with Spielberg because he would want a percentage of the profits.

Perhaps it could be considered a big deal that EON got screenwriter Paul Haggis to work on Bond.

I disagree. For the first 30 years Bond did not attract high profile directors/writers but genre people. Of course, they were very capable as well and I´m not saying they are any worse than the A-listers. But Bond was considered to be fluff entertainment.

Apted was a surprise choice during the Brosnan era because he was more of a "serious" director with films like "Gorillas in the mist" attracting Oscar attention. Only when Paul Haggis agreed to re-write CR things changed. And Haggis, whether you like him or not, was coming off two Oscar films, very high profile and shooting into the A-list with "Million Dollar Baby" and "Crash". Then Forster did QOS and now Mendes doing No. 23 - this is definitely a change for Bond.

Of course, this is not only due to the new allure Bond has for "serious" directors/writers but to one other aspect of today´s film industry: pulp films actually are the ones who will get greenlighted more often and with bigger budgets, "serious" films don´t offer this anymore. So even the A-listers who would have considered themselves above the subject matter actually have to take on this stuff in order to keep working (and earning enough money).

[sharpshooter]

Hmmm, it is actually a toss up for me. TND is a guilty pleasure of mine (my favorite Brosnan film).

Same here. Although for me, QoS gets across the line for doing something different.

The fact that BOND 23 does not get as much attention right now is IMO simply due to the lack of information on it. I´m absolutely sure this will change once production starts in the Fall/Winter.

Exactly. Getting a solid trailer out there changes everything.

[jaguar007]

There is certainly an excitement amongst Craig fans for the news of Bond 23. It doesn't seem like the average moviegoer is as interested. It seems like all of these fantasy films get more play. Films like Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Harry Potter, etc. If anything I think Bond has hit a lull amongst average filmgoers.

Please give an example for this. The fact that BOND 23 does not get as much attention right now is IMO simply due to the lack of information on it. I´m absolutely sure this will change once production starts in the Fall/Winter.

yes, very true. Of course there is not much excitement right now from the average moviegoer, the camera's have yet to start rolling. Wait until the first trailer hits.

THat said, last week's news that Sony was signed to distribute the film, did make the top news headline on imdb so I guess that does say something.

[TheREAL008]

I am a younger fellow, but I was introduced to Bond through Fleming, so I think I'm in a decent position to speak.

Brosnan's problems are many. It is not simply a matter of being true to Fleming - I love Moore's films and they have little to do with the literary character for the most part. There was no shortage of quips, innuendo and silly plots but Moore had a natural charm that made it watchable, entertaining and not overly serious. It also helped that Moore, despite his relatively advanced age for an action star, looked like he could have been an ex-officer (which, as we know, he was). Also not to be undervalued is his Britishness. Perhaps it may seem a silly thing to bring up, but it is quite central to the character and Brosnan's "Band, James Band" accent never quite worked.

Brosnan's films had the silly plots and one-liners that the Moore films did but both were taken up a level - this is not bad in and of itself but Brosnan's films took themselves with much seriousness, which made such plots seem even sillier. It also didn't help that Brosnan had no presence (in the sense of physicality) to him whatsoever (which is a huge part of why Sean Bean upstaged him in every scene together). He looked like the average foppish metrosexual 90s/early 00s businessman, except better-looking. That is fine, but it is not Bond.

The little details, too, were quite irritating in Brosnan's films (though this should be blamed on the production, not Brosnan himself). Case in point - the replacement of traditional British tailoring (still de rigeur for British officers of taste) with Brioni and the general push for Europeanness over Britishness for Bond in general. It has been put forth that they tried to do this in the Dalton years as well, but Mr Dalton (Bless him!) refused to go along because it didn't befit a Naval man. I am aware in case you are about to point out that Bond is half-Swiss but one should not draw from that that he would adopt such a style. Much of this was due to the political climate of the time but it is incongruous with the character.

Well said!

[00 Brosnan]

I can't believe people are actually complaining about what "nationality" his suits are. Obsess much? Let it go...

[Fan]

I can't believe people are actually complaining about what "nationality" his suits are. Obsess much? Let it go...

It's not an obsession. Clothing actually does play into the character in quite a strong way.

Have you read the Fleming novels? Have you met British officers? There's a whole subculture involved that Fleming was intimately a part of and to which Bond belongs.

There's a tradition of 'military cut' in England - of civilian suits that are made with the fit and construction of military uniforms and they are generally worn by Bond-types in real life. I wouldn't mind so much if Brioni had made the suits look English, but they didn't. The Roman shoulder is clear as day.

By the way, I have the same criticism of the CR, so don't take this as an anti-Brosnan thing.

Edited by Fan, 25 April 2011 - 02:00 AM.

[00 Brosnan]

I can't believe people are actually complaining about what "nationality" his suits are. Obsess much? Let it go...

It's not an obsession. Clothing actually does play into the character in quite a strong way.

Have you read the Fleming novels? Have you met British officers? There's a whole subculture involved that Fleming was intimately a part of and to which Bond belongs.

There's a tradition of 'military cut' in England - of civilian suits that are made with the fit and construction of military uniforms and they are generally worn by Bond-types in real life. I wouldn't mind so much if Brioni had made the suits look English, but they didn't. The Roman shoulder is clear as day.

By the way, I have the same criticism of the CR, so don't take this as an anti-Brosnan thing.

I just don't really care where the suit is from as long as it looks professional and sharp...and when it comes to Bond they always do.

I think that the literary Bond has always been a bit different from the on-screen character and while the little nods to the literary version are applauded, I just don't think that small details like that necessarily make a bit of difference.

Also, I wouldn't take it as an anti-Brosnan thing, I would be saying the same thing about any of the Bonds. Sharp, professional looking suit, nice watch....awesome.

[iBond]

Of course, this is not only due to the new allure Bond has for "serious" directors/writers but to one other aspect of today´s film industry: pulp films actually are the ones who will get greenlighted more often and with bigger budgets, "serious" films don´t offer this anymore. So even the A-listers who would have considered themselves above the subject matter actually have to take on this stuff in order to keep working (and earning enough money).

This is very true. Just because Eon is getting more well-known names, doesn't mean the stories are superior to the ones that came before. Yes, I loved Casino Royale and yes I do respect Quantum of Solace for what it was, but yes it's all on the producers and the directors they choose. To be honest, when I heard Sam Mendes was to direct this film...I felt a sense of disappointment. I mean, don't get me wrong I respect the guy and like his movies for the most part, but at the same time it shouldn't matter who the director is as long as a good film is made. And Quantum...eh...it just made me think more and more of Jason Bourne and less and less of 007. But yeah, in terms of seriousness to the job, I feel like people just don't care about seriousness rather than action and suspense, which sucks...but hey, that's America for you. I feel that Bond should go back to the basics, like it did in Casino Royale. And if people don't like it, they can change it....but not to the point where it seems like a typical American-made film...because let's remember...Bond is British and these still are British films...

AND FOR GODSAKE...PLEASE BRING US BACK TO THE MI6 HEADQUARTERS ON THAMES! PLEASE!!!

[Bucky]

...because let's remember...Bond is British and these still are British films...

I agree that Bond is British but I am not sure if I agree that they are British films. The Bond films are about as British as the Harry Potter films in my opinion.

[iBond]

...because let's remember...Bond is British and these still are British films...

I agree that Bond is British but I am not sure if I agree that they are British films. The Bond films are about as British as the Harry Potter films in my opinion.

Well, my claim goes to Eon Productions.

[jaguar007]

I feel that Bond should go back to the basics, like it did in Casino Royale. And if people don't like it, they can change it....but not to the point where it seems like a typical American-made film...because let's remember...Bond is British and these still are British films...

I agree and I think most people (even us Americans) preferred CR to QoS. I also think EON know this. This was also a problem with LTK, it was too American.

[iBond]

I feel that Bond should go back to the basics, like it did in Casino Royale. And if people don't like it, they can change it....but not to the point where it seems like a typical American-made film...because let's remember...Bond is British and these still are British films...

I agree and I think most people (even us Americans) preferred CR to QoS. I also think EON know this. This was also a problem with LTK, it was too American.

I'm so glad we had a glimpse of England in that half a minute sequence with M and Moneypenny. If it wasn't for that...I would have forgotten it was Bond a movie!

Edited by iBond, 28 April 2011 - 09:40 PM.

[JimmyBond]

...because let's remember...Bond is British and these still are British films...

I agree that Bond is British but I am not sure if I agree that they are British films. The Bond films are about as British as the Harry Potter films in my opinion.

Well, my claim goes to Eon Productions.

They may have started out as British films, but now they are closer to internationally made action films.

[Capsule in Space]

There is certainly an excitement amongst Craig fans for the news of Bond 23. It doesn't seem like the average moviegoer is as interested. It seems like all of these fantasy films get more play. Films like Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Harry Potter, etc. If anything I think Bond has hit a lull amongst average filmgoers.

Please give an example for this. The fact that BOND 23 does not get as much attention right now is IMO simply due to the lack of information on it. I´m absolutely sure this will change once production starts in the Fall/Winter.

On your point the the series is "attracting critical interest and directors who would never have touched Bond before." Wouldn't you say that this has been the case with Bond for a long time? Many Bond films have garnered critical acclaim especially from big names like Leonard Maltin. Lewis Gilbert and Michael Apted are highly regarded film directors who directed Bond films, and Spielberg was even interested in directing a Bond film. I guess Cubby Broccoli said he wouldn't be able to work out a deal with Spielberg because he would want a percentage of the profits.

Perhaps it could be considered a big deal that EON got screenwriter Paul Haggis to work on Bond.

I disagree. For the first 30 years Bond did not attract high profile directors/writers but genre people. Of course, they were very capable as well and I´m not saying they are any worse than the A-listers. But Bond was considered to be fluff entertainment.

Apted was a surprise choice during the Brosnan era because he was more of a "serious" director with films like "Gorillas in the mist" attracting Oscar attention. Only when Paul Haggis agreed to re-write CR things changed. And Haggis, whether you like him or not, was coming off two Oscar films, very high profile and shooting into the A-list with "Million Dollar Baby" and "Crash". Then Forster did QOS and now Mendes doing No. 23 - this is definitely a change for Bond.

Of course, this is not only due to the new allure Bond has for "serious" directors/writers but to one other aspect of today´s film industry: pulp films actually are the ones who will get greenlighted more often and with bigger budgets, "serious" films don´t offer this anymore. So even the A-listers who would have considered themselves above the subject matter actually have to take on this stuff in order to keep working (and earning enough money).

Lewis Gilbert directed the critically acclaimed Alfie prior to directing YOLT.

You make my point by stating: "The fact that BOND 23 does not get as much attention right now is IMO simply due to the lack of information on it." Other film series like Twilight and Harry Potter have an easier time keeping the buzz going.

I can't believe people are actually complaining about what "nationality" his suits are. Obsess much? Let it go...

Agreed. All the Bonds were well (i.e. expensively dressed). Moore's suits were from an Italian house. And Connery's "plain business suits" were Turnbull & Asser. Not exactly Macy's!

I feel that Bond should go back to the basics, like it did in Casino Royale. And if people don't like it, they can change it....but not to the point where it seems like a typical American-made film...because let's remember...Bond is British and these still are British films...

I agree and I think most people (even us Americans) preferred CR to QoS. I also think EON know this. This was also a problem with LTK, it was too American.

I agree with your premise. Americans have plenty of American stories. Americans look to Bond to get stories that take place around the world. Obviously there are great Bond films that use the U.S., but they find other places to go too in these films (eg. Goldfinger uses Ft. Knox, but it also uses Geneva and Britain as well).

Edited by Capsule in Space, 03 May 2011 - 12:29 AM.

[jamie00007]

Anybody who thinks Bond has hit any kind of lull in interest in filmgoers must not read a lot of papers or visit many other forums. The postponement last year of Bond 23 practicaly caused front page news, as did its revival, and theres been more rumours and news reports about it in the last year than the likes of the new Batman and Superman movies, all of which have been discussed and analysed all over the net. I would say that theres far more interest now than in any other time in the past 30 years aside from the releases of GE and CR.

Edited by jamie00007, 03 May 2011 - 01:47 AM.

[iBond]

...because let's remember...Bond is British and these still are British films...

I agree that Bond is British but I am not sure if I agree that they are British films. The Bond films are about as British as the Harry Potter films in my opinion.

Well, my claim goes to Eon Productions.

They may have started out as British films, but now they are closer to internationally made action films.

True, but their hearts will always remain British...unless Eon sells the rights to Universal or something.