677 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

I dont mean any of these as criticisms of the last three Bond films, as I think they are excellent, amongst the best of the series and I wouldnt change them. That said I really think some things have well and truly ran their course:

 

1. No more "trying not to be a traditional Bond film but then having huge homages to celebrate being a Bond film". We dont need references to old films like the Goldfinger car or the golden girl or teasing with a part of the Bond theme before leading into something else, or making in-jokes about the lack of gadgets, just put the gunbarrel at the start, use the Bond theme in an action sequence, use the classic lines. have some cool gadgets, Celebrate it being a Bond film by, well, being a Bond film. 

 

2. No more "personal" issues. No more studying of Bond's psyche. No more internal MI6 drama. 

 

3. A happy ending with Bond getting the girl. I think everyone will be pretty peeved at a fourth ending with someone dying and Bond not getting the girl in a row.

 

4. Humour. Despite what his critics say (and what he himself has said) Daniel Craig is actually excellent at humour. The dry wit, the off the cuff remarks, Daniel does it as well as Connery when they give him the chance, but its all too rare when they do. I'd like to see a lot more of it in the next film. I think Casino Royale did it pretty well, and parts of Skyfall but I'd like to see more

 

5. A normal mission. For the first time in about 6 movies. 

 

6. A BIG villain. With a cool lair, and henchmen, and a real threat to the world.

 

7. Tying up the Quantum loose ends. They are a branch of SPECTRE of something like that.

 

8. A somewhat slower Thunderball type storyline instead of racing from location to location, from action scene to action scene. 

 

9. Bond leading a commando assault on a villains compound. We havent had that in a LONG time.

 

10. It'd be nice to see Bond in his naval uniform. 

 

 

. 

 

I agree with alot of this. 

 

The reason they have gone on so many revenge-based adventures recently is because of the change in directors and also I honestly believe they have forgotten how many they've done in a row.

 

At the same time, they think the fans want to see revenge, Bond's pysche, personal issues and MI6's internal issues because each movie is a success.

[Walecs]

I guess Craig movies are compensating for the lack of "character development" of the 20 previous movies. OHMSS had pretty much nailed it, but then Diamonds are Forever completely ignored the death of Tracy, when it would have been nice to see how that event affected Bond.

[DaveBond21]

I guess Craig movies are compensating for the lack of "character development" of the 20 previous movies. OHMSS had pretty much nailed it, but then Diamonds are Forever completely ignored the death of Tracy, when it would have been nice to see how that event affected Bond.

 

I agree.

 

However the audiences were in the mood for something like DAF by the time 1971 rolled around. It was the beginning of a decade of popcorn movies with plenty of car chases and stunts. And of course, some of the audience wouldn't have seen OHMSS, forgetting perhaps that Connery had ever left the role. No internet in those days and no movies on TV either.

[DamnCoffee]

 

I guess Craig movies are compensating for the lack of "character development" of the 20 previous movies. OHMSS had pretty much nailed it, but then Diamonds are Forever completely ignored the death of Tracy, when it would have been nice to see how that event affected Bond.

 

I agree.

 

 

As do I. One of the positives things about this is that each Bond era from now will probably have some kind of overarching story. With Craig it's SPECTRE. Bond 7 opens up a whole new door of possibilities.  If we are to assume that Craig's Bond takes SPECTRE down, where will we go from there? 

[DaveBond21]

I can't wait to see a traditional M and Bond briefing again. Looks like we have one in SPECTRE.

[Call Billy Bob]

I can't wait to see a traditional M and Bond briefing again. Looks like we have one in SPECTRE.

Exposition!

[seawolfnyy]

I guess Craig movies are compensating for the lack of "character development" of the 20 previous movies. OHMSS had pretty much nailed it, but then Diamonds are Forever completely ignored the death of Tracy, when it would have been nice to see how that event affected Bond.

 
I agree.

 
As do I. One of the positives things about this is that each Bond era from now will probably have some kind of overarching story. With Craig it's SPECTRE. Bond 7 opens up a whole new door of possibilities.  If we are to assume that Craig's Bond takes SPECTRE down, where will we go from there?

Thing about is that the Craig films feel like a single, contained story. It began with Casino Royale and will end with Bond 25 or 26. I think it also means that SPECTRE's story will not conclude with SPECTRE....

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

I guess Craig movies are compensating for the lack of "character development" of the 20 previous movies. OHMSS had pretty much nailed it, but then Diamonds are Forever completely ignored the death of Tracy, when it would have been nice to see how that event affected Bond.

 
I agree.

 
As do I. One of the positives things about this is that each Bond era from now will probably have some kind of overarching story. With Craig it's SPECTRE. Bond 7 opens up a whole new door of possibilities.  If we are to assume that Craig's Bond takes SPECTRE down, where will we go from there?

Thing about is that the Craig films feel like a single, contained story. It began with Casino Royale and will end with Bond 25 or 26. I think it also means that SPECTRE's story will not conclude with SPECTRE....

 

If that is the case, do you think it means Mendes will be back to direct?

 

And that we have a 2017 release?

[Harmsway]

EON takes these films one at a time and re-evaluates the direction of the franchise every time it prepares for the next picture (note how they cut Quantum of Solace's closing scene to avoid being forced into a Quantum-driven sequel). Even if they have some ideas about where Bond 26 is to go (I wouldn't be surprised if they asked P&W to come up with a treatment for the next film), I'm certain there's nothing concrete and any story discussions are simply that.

 

I'd be pleased to see Mendes do a whole Bond trilogy, but I also appreciate that a guy like Mendes might not want to see his career swallowed up by the Bond juggernaut.

[Vauxhall]

I think it will be 2018 at the earliest. As things stand, I don't necessarily think Mendes would do another, given the problems he had to deal with in pre-production, but I suppose that could easily change if the filming goes well and the film is a huge hit.

[JCRendle]

I think it will be 2018

 

Would they pass up the opportunity of

?

[tdalton]

I think it will be 2018

 
Would they pass up the opportunity of
?

I would imagine they'd have no problem passing that up. They passed up the chance to do the same thing in 2007.

[JCRendle]

 

 

I think it will be 2018

 
Would they pass up the opportunity of
?

 

I would imagine they'd have no problem passing that up. They passed up the chance to do the same thing in 2007.

 

 

Only because of the Writers Strike - it was out of their hands.

[tdalton]

I think it will be 2018

 
Would they pass up the opportunity of
?

I would imagine they'd have no problem passing that up. They passed up the chance to do the same thing in 2007.

 
Only because of the Writers Strike - it was out of their hands.

I don't think that it had anything to do with it. The Writer's Strike began on November 5, 2007. If Quantum of Solace was going to be in theaters in 2007, the scriptwork would have been done far in advance of that date.

[DaveBond21]

So I go back to my original question.

 

If they wait until 2018 (3 long years), will the average movie audience remember what happened in SPECTRE?

 

It was easier to connect Dr No and FRWL, because they were only one year apart.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Call Billy Bob]

So I go back to my original question.

 

If they wait until 2018 (3 long years), will the average movie audience remember what happened in SPECTRE?

 

It was easier to connect Dr No and FRWL, because they were only one year apart.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the modern age, with DVD/blu-Ray and streaming readily available - I say they would remember.

[x007AceOfSpades]

 

So I go back to my original question.

 

If they wait until 2018 (3 long years), will the average movie audience remember what happened in SPECTRE?

 

It was easier to connect Dr No and FRWL, because they were only one year apart.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the modern age, with DVD/blu-Ray and streaming readily available - I say they would remember.

 

Agreed, especially considering Skyfall is on Netflix too. I think three-year gaps will be the norm from now on. You can definitely do two-year, but I always look at it as a gamble, as you're starting pre-production as the current film is in post, or just getting release. three-year allows breathing room and I'd say the proper amount of time to round everything out.

 

It's one of the reasons why Michael Bay was upset at having to come back to the third Transformers film. He wanted July 2012, so he would have a year of pre-production work, instead of July 2011 where he would have six months or less to start on the next film. Not that it would have made any difference as the film was still horrible of course.

[seawolfnyy]

So I go back to my original question.

If they wait until 2018 (3 long years), will the average movie audience remember what happened in SPECTRE?

It was easier to connect Dr No and FRWL, because they were only one year apart.


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the modern age, with DVD/blu-Ray and streaming readily available - I say they would remember.

Agreed, especially considering Skyfall is on Netflix too. I think three-year gaps will be the norm from now on. You can definitely do two-year, but I always look at it as a gamble, as you're starting pre-production as the current film is in post, or just getting release. three-year allows breathing room and I'd say the proper amount of time to round everything out.

It's one of the reasons why Michael Bay was upset at having to come back to the third Transformers film. He wanted July 2012, so he would have a year of pre-production work, instead of July 2011 where he would have six months or less to start on the next film. Not that it would have made any difference as the film was still horrible of course.

Transformers movies notwithstanding, I agree that the 3 year cycle will be the norm. 1-2 years of pre- production and 1 year of filming and post-production. The lack of CGI in MOST Bond films (*cough* Die Another Day *cough*) does not require heavy post-production and I believe that Mendes will be back for one more and that he will want his 3 years to work on the film. Besides, Casino Royale, Skyfall and SPECTRE (it appears anyway) all have greatly benefitted from extra development time. We saw what happened when production was rushed for Quantum of Solace. A good film, but one that would've benefitted greatly from a November 2009 release instead of 2008.

[DaveBond21]

Yes it does seem to suggest that it will be another 3 year wait, which I am fine with as long as the quality is the same. I'd like to see Mendes back for another, but I am assuming that SPECTRE is going to be excellent. 

[RMc2]

Yes it does seem to suggest that it will be another 3 year wait, which I am fine with as long as the quality is the same. I'd like to see Mendes back for another, but I am assuming that SPECTRE is going to be excellent. 

 

Hehe yes. I'm also confident SPECTRE will be good - but we better wait and see how ​good.

 

From the (admittedly careful to hype) interviews Mendes has given so far, he seems to have ideas for the characters' futures; and if SPECTRE gets even close to SF's $1 billion gross, EON will probably still do a lot to get him back for Bond 25.

 

Of course, I'm still hoping for a Daniel Craig-Christopher Nolan Bond film...provided Hans Zimmer and Jonah Nolan stay away from it.

[seawolfnyy]

There was a time when I was really on board with the idea of a Christopher Nolan Bond film. However, that was pre-The Dark Knight Rises. After seeing that debacle and the way Sam Mendes has handled Bond, I'm completely convinced Mendes is the better of the two. Personally, I'd like to see Mendes close out the Craig era and then begin Bond 7 will a new director. Perhaps, that could be Nolan's time, but not now. Craig and Mendes have a relationship that makes these films work in a way that Craig/Forster, for example, didn't.

[RMc2]

There was a time when I was really on board with the idea of a Christopher Nolan Bond film. However, that was pre-The Dark Knight Rises. After seeing that debacle and the way Sam Mendes has handled Bond, I'm completely convinced Mendes is the better of the two. Personally, I'd like to see Mendes close out the Craig era and then begin Bond 7 will a new director. Perhaps, that could be Nolan's time, but not now. Craig and Mendes have a relationship that makes these films work in a way that Craig/Forster, for example, didn't.

 

I dunno, isn't the jury still out on Mendes until SPECTRE comes out? But yeah, TDKR and Interstellar were disappointing, self-important and spoiled my enthusiasm for a Nolan Bond! 

 

On the other hand, I didn't like any of Mendes' films between Road To Perdition and SF, and I still only like SF (whereas I love CR, for example). And let's not forget the huge debt SF owes to Nolan's films, especially TDK. So despite his recent missteps, I'm willing to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt, given how much I like all his other films. I think if he directed a script by EON-approved writers, and didn't use Hans Zimmer, we'd have a fun and exciting Bond film.

 

Again, I'm reserving final judgement on Mendes until SPECTRE comes out, but you're probably right about Nolan not making a Craig Bond. Nolan said in an interview last year that EON don't need him at the moment - which implies they'll bring him in for Bond 7?

[graric]

 

 

 

So I go back to my original question.

If they wait until 2018 (3 long years), will the average movie audience remember what happened in SPECTRE?

It was easier to connect Dr No and FRWL, because they were only one year apart.


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the modern age, with DVD/blu-Ray and streaming readily available - I say they would remember.

Agreed, especially considering Skyfall is on Netflix too. I think three-year gaps will be the norm from now on. You can definitely do two-year, but I always look at it as a gamble, as you're starting pre-production as the current film is in post, or just getting release. three-year allows breathing room and I'd say the proper amount of time to round everything out.

It's one of the reasons why Michael Bay was upset at having to come back to the third Transformers film. He wanted July 2012, so he would have a year of pre-production work, instead of July 2011 where he would have six months or less to start on the next film. Not that it would have made any difference as the film was still horrible of course.

Transformers movies notwithstanding, I agree that the 3 year cycle will be the norm. 1-2 years of pre- production and 1 year of filming and post-production. The lack of CGI in MOST Bond films (*cough* Die Another Day *cough*) does not require heavy post-production and I believe that Mendes will be back for one more and that he will want his 3 years to work on the film. Besides, Casino Royale, Skyfall and SPECTRE (it appears anyway) all have greatly benefitted from extra development time. We saw what happened when production was rushed for Quantum of Solace. A good film, but one that would've benefitted greatly from a November 2009 release instead of 2008.

 

 

I'd argue the two year cycle wasn't the problem with QoS- the writers strike had a far bigger impact (rushing Haggis' draft, and limiting any subsequent re-writes.) Ad on to that Marc Forsters choice to try and keep exposition scenes to a minimum when shooting, and adapt the Bourne style shakey cam action scenes, and we are left with QoS. (And it is perfectly possible that even if they had an extra year, if Marc Forster was still directing it still would have been shakey cam action heavy, with minimal exposition or plot development.)

[x007AceOfSpades]

The writers strike did have a big impact, but they were already planning QOS shortly before filming finished for CR.

[Harmsway]

The writers strike did have a big impact, but they were already planning QOS shortly before filming finished for CR.

True, but Forster threw out P&W's work when he came on board.

[seawolfnyy]

Forster was just a poor choice for Bond. I'm not denying he's a great director, but there are far better choices out there. That said, I do agree that the writer's strike had the greatest effect on the film. Again, I think a 2009 release and a 20 minute longer run time would've done wonders.

[Harmsway]

I don't know what Forster would have done with Bond with more development time, but, in general, I don't think highly of him and think Quantum of Solace is a dud.

[x007AceOfSpades]

With more developmental time, I think QOS wouldn't have been as bad (as I think it is), but still nothing to write home about.

[RMc2]

Among the things it did well, QoS did do a lot in making Mr White a cool character. Based purely on CR, I don't know if he'd be so popular with the fans.

[tdalton]

 

There was a time when I was really on board with the idea of a Christopher Nolan Bond film. However, that was pre-The Dark Knight Rises. After seeing that debacle and the way Sam Mendes has handled Bond, I'm completely convinced Mendes is the better of the two. Personally, I'd like to see Mendes close out the Craig era and then begin Bond 7 will a new director. Perhaps, that could be Nolan's time, but not now. Craig and Mendes have a relationship that makes these films work in a way that Craig/Forster, for example, didn't.

 

I dunno, isn't the jury still out on Mendes until SPECTRE comes out? But yeah, TDKR and Interstellar were disappointing, self-important and spoiled my enthusiasm for a Nolan Bond! 

 

The jury is absolutely still out on Mendes in terms of his Bond films.  So far, with regards to Bond, all he has is one extremely overrated Bond film on his resume.  That's it.

 

And with regards to Nolan, I think your description of TDKR and Interstellar pretty much sum up every film on his resume, not just those two.