612 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

Would Guy Ritchie not be better suited for an adaptation of The Avengers? Talking about the TV series here.

Probably. But after the '97 disaster, that'll never happen.

[Matt_13]

I really enjoy the UNCLE film, though it took two viewings for me to settle in to it. If Ritchie were to direct a Bond film with an exciting script I think we would be on to something. He definitely has an eye for style.

[Orion]

Uncle was a lot of fun, Armie Hammer being particularly good value.

 

But the story, plotting and characterisation are treaded like dialogue in porn movie; "Yadda yadda, this'n that, whatever, lets have another action scene..."

 

Rather than let actor's act to create their characters he instead creates iconic slow-mo moments that brand the character so that he no longer needs to waste time on characterisation.

 

I don't want to see Bond characterised by a freeze frame with a burst of the theme and slow-mo at every opportunity. I'd prefer to carry on liking the occasional Guy Richie movie, rather than hate him for his Bond movie. But maybe i'm alone in that!

I'd agree, I like his Sherlock Holmes movies, but I think he's completely wrong for Bond.

[Odd Jobbies]

He definitely has an eye for style.

 

He has an eye for little else other than style....

 

But a Guy Ritchie Avengers movie i'd be interested in.

[Dustin]

I think the combination would work mainly because it's in some ways similar to his version of Holmes. For Bond it would need a very specific script and main lead (probably not Craig), but Avengers could work really well with him. The much greater problem would be to cast Steed and Peel and/or Gale. This would just be that bit OTT and far out that needs good chemistry to work.

But, as Harmsway said, this will probably not be touched again in our lifetimes.

That said, I think it's almost a given that Ritchie too is on Eon's radar. I expect them to talk with a number of directors and hear their ideas. And only then make their own decisions about whom to go with and which direction to pursue.

[SecretAgentFan]

Uncle was a lot of fun, Armie Hammer being particularly good value.

 

But the story, plotting and characterisation are treaded like dialogue in porn movie; "Yadda yadda, this'n that, whatever, lets have another action scene..."

 

Rather than let actor's act to create their characters he instead creates iconic slow-mo moments that brand the character so that he no longer needs to waste time on characterisation.

 

I don't want to see Bond characterised by a freeze frame with a burst of the theme and slow-mo at every opportunity. I'd prefer to carry on liking the occasional Guy Richie movie, rather than hate him for his Bond movie. But maybe i'm alone in that!

 

U.N.C.L.E. was not like that at all, IMO.

 

In fact, as Harmsway said: it was much more entertaining than SPECTRE and offered exactly the kind of tongue in cheek-moments that Mendes did not get quite right most of the time.

 

I would love Richie to steer things back to entertainment instead of a continuation of "we´re much more serious than Bond films ever were".

[Odd Jobbies]

Yes, Mendes and Craig have struggled with 'humour' (the latter struggles with the on-the-nose cheesy stuff and who can blame him?). Nolan hit the right tone of humour-mark with Hardy in Inception.

 

Ritchie makes what are essentially dramatic farces - like a sexy, glossy Marx Brothers movie. When he takes a known property like Holmes he makes an accomplished pastiche of it. We've had that with Faulks' Devil May Care and as much diversionary fun as that was it was far as can be (on purpose) from the real maccoy. UNCLE worked well because it is already a pastiche (of Bond no less).

 

If we got one a year (like the Disney's Star Wars conveyor belt) i'd be interested in the Richie-Bond experiment, but personally i don't want my once in 3-4 years Bond movie to be Richie'd. Different strokes for different folks

[Tiin007]

If we got one a year (like the Disney's Star Wars conveyor belt) i'd be interested in the Richie-Bond experiment, but personally i don't want my once in 3-4 years Bond movie to be Richie'd. Different strokes for different folks

 

I think this particular issue (the lack of a regular schedule) is the cause of many other issues with the films these days as well. It's partially (emphasis on partially) why EON feel the need to make every Bond film an event film, deeply personal, question Bond's relevance, and chock-full of homages (did someone say DB5?). It's why many elements of the films recently have felt more like intentional pastiche than vintage, organic Bond. Ironically, Odd Jobbies, it's why the pastiche element which so many of us cringe at has become "classic Bond" in EON's eyes. I think EON under BB and MGW do a much better job when they're simply trying to make a good movie (TND, CR) than when they're trying to make a classic (DAD, SP). Simply put, I'd say many recent Bond movies have anyway become what you so eloquently describe as "the Richie-Bond experiment," as BB and MGW seem to think this is what we want.  

 

In the Cubby days, when EON was on a much more regular schedule, there was no need for most of this. Look at any Bond movie from 1973-1989. These films may have varied widely quality-wise, but they all did a phenomenal job at being classic Bond by simply trying to make good movies. It was with the changing of the guard in the 90s that many (if not most) of EON's output has already become Richie'd.

 

I think if EON (writers and directors included) set out to make the best movie they can, without trying to inject "classic Bond" at every opportunity, the movie will be much stronger, and will achieve classic status organically. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t think EON is setting out to make a classic.  They always - as every serious producer - set out to make a great film.  And then, of course, reality hits, compromises have to be made and everybody weighs in and influences the proceedings.

 

Let´s be honest - every movie series loses its artistic range after at least two installments.  The first one still is new and fresh, the second one can improve on that and go further.  But the third one already has to repeat basic things because it is a series and sameness is not only encouraged but also asked for.  The third one can still have fun with the previously established conventions and sometimes manage to inject some new fire in it.  But the fourth one is basically one too many.  In order to be perceived as "not just a rehash" it has to go even bigger.  And that´s where the rot sets in.  Yes, it still can be fun to watch the excesses.  But it just cannot reach the heights of the first one or two.

 

So, the best Bond films in a tenure always are the first two - and maybe the third one is even better than the second one because the second one did not reach the heights of the first one, so the third one corrects this.  But the fourth is always a wobbly proposition.  There´s just no way around it.  Especially after 24 films.  24!  Man, that´s a lot.

 

And in a world in which audiences are overstuffed with entertainment options sending out a new Bond film too often just would diminish its status.  As much as I would like to see more Bond films, I acknowledge this fact: Bond films have to be an event now.  What almost killed the series in the later 80´s was the general idea that Bond films are like busses - miss one and the next one will come along soon.

 

Of course, the event character leads to making every new Bond film re-establish its cult status.  A new Bond film without the classic ingredients would feel weird to the audience - and the young ones who have to be made Bond fans would not even understand what makes a Bond film so special then.  There is a real danger in sending out a Bond film which does not include the allusions and the tropes - too soon this Bond film would appear like any other action thriller.

 

So, the next film will also include these elements - and IMO it needs to do it.  The question is: can one do this in a more elegant way, making it actually fun and mean something, not just a quick nod, not just an obligatory reference?

 

The next film - whether it will feature another Craig performance or introduce someone new - will have to set itself apart from what has gone before, simply because despite major earnings the perception of SPECTRE in the media was that of a rather tired, lethargic and "been there done that" outing.  It did not have the outrageous fun of fourth outings like THUNDERBALL or MOONRAKER.  It did not even have that total ridiculous over-the-top-ness of DIE ANOTHER DAY.  It wanted to be both: huge and intimate.  And that just let it fall into parts, some of which worked while others fell flat.

 

IMO a return of Craig would be the wrong way to go, a hindrance rather than an asset - because like every actor Craig has a certain skill set, and that has been featured now in four films.  Getting him to don the tuxedo again will only create another serious doom and gloom-scenario, especially if another Blofeld-showdown were part of the setup.  And it is impossible to move Craig to the other side of the spectrum, the more escapistic, light-weight entertainment of previous eras - he simply does not gel with that.

 

The best way therefore would be to move forward.  And if - a big IF - the Guy Richie rumour has some kernel of truth to it, one might imagine that EON / MGM and whatever studio will distribute have already seen the signs of these times: people need more fun in their lives.  The dark and gloomy-genre films are a thing of the past (see the DC movies).  And IMO that´s a welcome idea.  Stop treating pulp fiction as if it were Shakespeare.  It isn´t.  It is designed for feel good-pleasure, acknowledging its basic ridiculousness, not hiding it under false pretenses.

 

Guy Richie knows that.  Therefore his "Sherlock" movies and the "U.N.C.L.E."-reboot are constructed and designed to make something old fresh again.  And that´s what Bond desperately needs.

[Odd Jobbies]

I don't think Bond is in such dire need. Spectre catastrophically crumbles in the final act, but before that it was a great deal of fun, with plenty of ominous tension. In fact the final act is that much worse because the proceeding film is pretty damned good.

 

And it's only one movie before that which gave us a commonly accepted classic with SF.  I don't think it needs to be rebooted, refreshed etc. Just a bit more belief in their chosen writer and all the resources they come to require - including time if necessary - and a bit of luck with the studio execs they're saddled with.

[Tiin007]

I don´t think EON is setting out to make a classic.  They always - as every serious producer - set out to make a great film.  And then, of course, reality hits, compromises have to be made and everybody weighs in and influences the proceedings.

 

Let´s be honest - every movie series loses its artistic range after at least two installments.  The first one still is new and fresh, the second one can improve on that and go further.  But the third one already has to repeat basic things because it is a series and sameness is not only encouraged but also asked for.  The third one can still have fun with the previously established conventions and sometimes manage to inject some new fire in it.  But the fourth one is basically one too many.  In order to be perceived as "not just a rehash" it has to go even bigger.  And that´s where the rot sets in.  Yes, it still can be fun to watch the excesses.  But it just cannot reach the heights of the first one or two.

 

So, the best Bond films in a tenure always are the first two - and maybe the third one is even better than the second one because the second one did not reach the heights of the first one, so the third one corrects this.  But the fourth is always a wobbly proposition.  There´s just no way around it.  Especially after 24 films.  24!  Man, that´s a lot.

 

In terms of reception by the general public, you're probably right. Although I personally think Moore's later entries (under Glen) far surpass his earlier ones (under Hamilton), and I know a number of other fans who agree with me. 

 

I think it's okay if the general public loses its excitement over the current Bond by the fourth film--  that just means that he has been cemented in the role. Yes, it may be more difficult to attract those outside of fandom, but if anything that just forces the team behind the cameras to up their game. And then the movie can at least be judged on its own merits, rather than the incessant comparisons to the previous actor. Whereas with LALD or TMWTGG, audiences were no doubt constantly comparing Moore to Connery (heck, that's likely what soured Lazenby in the public eye for quite a while), by FYEO or OP he was no longer in his predecessor's shadow. 

 

And I'd add that, from the fans' perspective, stability in the role a la Connery or Moore is much preferable to the three or four films per tenure it seems like we'll be getting from here on out. The actors can only fully embody the role when given a decent number of films. 

[Tiin007]

And in a world in which audiences are overstuffed with entertainment options sending out a new Bond film too often just would diminish its status.  As much as I would like to see more Bond films, I acknowledge this fact: Bond films have to be an event now.  What almost killed the series in the later 80´s was the general idea that Bond films are like busses - miss one and the next one will come along soon.

 

Of course, the event character leads to making every new Bond film re-establish its cult status.  A new Bond film without the classic ingredients would feel weird to the audience - and the young ones who have to be made Bond fans would not even understand what makes a Bond film so special then.  There is a real danger in sending out a Bond film which does not include the allusions and the tropes - too soon this Bond film would appear like any other action thriller.

 

So, the next film will also include these elements - and IMO it needs to do it.  The question is: can one do this in a more elegant way, making it actually fun and mean something, not just a quick nod, not just an obligatory reference?

 

Two points:

 

1) You say that Bond films being released too often "would diminish its status." I agree, and I think that would be a good thing. Whether its for critical response or the billion dollar benchmark set by many blockbusters these days, the series has recently been trying to assert itself in ways it never had in the past (at least not since the 60s). And this has, in my view, been responsible for many of the issues with the past two or three films. You compare the current situation to the 80s, and I think the style and substance of those films (Glen) are what the series should be striving for. With the exception of AVTAK, I'd rank all of those entries in the top half of Bond films quality-wise, and I'd be more than thrilled if a new film every other year matched those efforts in the quality department. Way more desirable to me than the hit-or-miss nature of the Craig era. 

 

And from a financial perspective, it may be the better route as well. If EON were able to lower the budgets to between $175 and $200 million, then each new installment wouldn't have to be a record breaker in terms of ticket sales to still yield a decent profit. And there would be much less riding on each film when the next one isn't four years away. Perhaps, and this is just my opinion, EON should be striving for the $600 million range when it comes to box office, which would be easily attainable on a consistent two-year basis, as many moviegoers would see a Bond film regardless. Then the series won't be a desperate blitz to $1 billion every three or four years, and can focus more on what really matters.

 

2) I'd like to differentiate between the tropes and the homages. I think Bond films should still include the tropes inasmuch as the over-the-top villain, the girls, the gunbarrel, the title song, "Bond, James Bond," M, Q, and Moneypenny, and the general suave nature of Bond (differs somewhat depending on the actor, I know). But I think those are all that is necessary to make it a Bond film and not some generic action thriller. 

 

Once we enter the realm of homages galore like the Mendes films, I feel as if our series has been reduced to superficial pastiche. I don't need the film winking at me every other minute, proud as can be. The series did perfectly well without that type of stuff before Brosnan donned the tux. I find those homages more distracting than anything else. 

[SecretAgentFan]

You´re describing an ideal world in which the moneylenders would be content with aiming lower, enabling a different kind of Bond film, more reminiscent of the 80´s films that you (and I) embrace.

 

Unfortunately, once the Craig era reached previously thought unreachable heights at the box office it became inconceivable for them to greenlight a Bond film that will not go that far.

 

It´s a sad but typical development of modern business "wisdom": growth, growth, growth - that´s what´s all about.  Lower your expectations?  Be less greedy to deliver more quality that does not play to the lowest common denominator?

 

Never.  The money guys would never approve.

 

In that regards SKYFALL was a blessing and a curse.  And even if the next films with a new guy will make consistently good money - if they do not make as much as the Craig films did the new actor will be considered a flop and let go very fast.

 

Again, I don´t like this at all.  But this is the way it works nowadays.

[Tiin007]

Fair enough. 

 

Although I wonder how long this current approach can last. 

[Odd Jobbies]

I wasn't saying that i'd prefer a situation in which Bond films are released often enough for me not to mind a few dodgy ones. I'm fine with them taking a little longer to get it right

Spotted this:

 

“I think the British audience likes Bond being brought into a more serious real world. So they should nod to all those well-known Bond tropes and icons that we want, but with an undertone of gravitas.”

Ralph Fiennes.

 

I'm with Ralph...

 

http://www.telegraph...s-become-too-s/

[S K Y F A L L]

You know whose doing an event film now Shane Black doing The Predator. I thought NICE GUYS was well done, wasn't crazy about it but felt like good directing. Kiss Kiss Babg Bang was well received too but could he do a big film like Bond? He did Iron Man 3 if that helps...

[Odd Jobbies]

Shane Black has always been the best action writer out there. Now he's proved that he's in the top rank of directors too.

 

I imagine he's now pretty expensive, but if Eon dangled the opportunity to write & direct before him it could do the trick,

 

 It'd be a more mainstream, hollywood direction than they've gone before, which i'd usually be wary of, but in Black's case i'd make an exception.

 

Nice Guys  was great entertainment, if a little weak in the final third, but his scripts for Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout  and Long Kiss Goodnight  are almost peerless in the genre (the only competition being Die Hard, but i'm not sure how much of that script's genius was lifted from the original novel).

 

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang  and Iron Man 3  showed, imo, a deft grip on Direction (he handled that Ben Kingsley reveal with such aplomb).

 

So i'd be cock-a-hoopp if he took the Bond gig as writer and director, but with Doc Savage  on his plate after The Predator  (which i'm sure he'll score with) he's probably too busy for Bond 25. But he should be on Eon's radar thereafter.

[RMc2]

I absolutely love Shane Black, but I'm a stickler for the 'Commonwealth Rule' when it comes to Bond directors. (I wish they'd extend it to the writers too, since more and more Americanisms have slipped into Bond scripts over the years.) So I personally hope EON don't go down the route of looking at the Shane Blacks and Kathryn Bigelows of the world, and instead keep looking at the Martin Campbells, Christopher Nolans and Denis Villeneuves.

 

Which I guess is arbitrary xenophobia on my part, but hey  

[SecretAgentFan]

Shane Black, as great as he can be, would not be right for Bond, IMO, since he has a too much of an in-joke-y kind of style.  Also, he is too cynical for Bond.  

 

Maybe the kind of mindset a perfect director/writer has to have for Bond can only come from within the Commonwealth.

 

On the other hand, with the British mindset crumbling these days...

[Harmsway]

The British mindset isn't what it once was, and, in general, the British film industry lacks the vibrance and excitement it offered in the the 60s.

I have commented before that I'd like to see Bond look eastward for directorial talent.

[Odd Jobbies]

I guess i was just making the case for Black, rather than mooting him as my top choice. If he were chosen i'd be very excited about how the 'Blackisms' he'd bring would manifest in the Bond format.

 

However at this point my top choices would also be Nolan and Villeneuves.

[Orion]

pointless aside - despite his accent (which he gets from his Brit parents) Nolan is actually an american citizen, his parents having moved there when Nolan was very young, only returning for his University education. It's why his little brother (acclaimed writer Jonathan Nolan - co-wrote most of his brothers films as well as Person Of Interest and, currently, Westworld on HBO) has an American accent.

[S K Y F A L L]

Nolan would be my first choice for Bond 7. 

 

I know Mendes has said he will not return however if Craig returns I wouldn't be surprised if he was talked into it. 

[MISALA1994]

Is Martin Campbell too old to come back?

[rubixcub]

Is Martin Campbell too old to come back?

 

My thoughts exactly.  I don't mind keeping things in trusted hands with some breathing room in between films.

 

Dave

Edited by rubixcub, 11 October 2016 - 06:14 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Campbell will be approaching 80 years of age when BOND 25 could finally be go into production - and I don´t think anyone would want that enormous stress on him then.

 

My guess is: if Craig still wants to be Bond they will find a way to bring back Sam Mendes, too.  Even if he says now he´s done - he said it after SKYFALL, too.  Besides, in a few years another lucrative job will be something he won´t say no to.

[MISALA1994]

Paul McGuigan works with BB in "Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool"...

[Orion]

He would be good - Sherlock is filled with loving Bond references (though that is mostly from Gatiss and Moffat)

[Odd Jobbies]

I too once wanted McGuigan, but to be brutally honest now that Bond attracts top tier directors I'd be a little underwhelmed by this choice.

Gangster No1 showed real promise and Slevin was accomplished, if a little bit 'style over substance'.
But I recently watched his Frankenstein and it was pretty vacuous. A few memorable moments and McGuigan's exciting visuals aside it was an anticlimactic affair.

Sure much of the blame rests with the script which chewed its way through all of the cliches and ran out of ideas at the halfway point, but without a decent script to judge him by it's hard to tell whether McGuigan has developed or stagnated since that early promise.

It's a shame and no fault of his own that the good scripts keep going to the usual suspects, but that's about the shape it.

With names like Nolan and Villeneurves hopefully on BB's to-do list McGuigan's Bond boat may well have sailed.

 

 

..............................................................................................................................................

Edited to correct some confusing typos thanks to CBN not being very mobile friendly

[Orion]

I think Nolan is always going to be an availability issue, though I suppose this funding delay on MGM's side could have Bond 25 starting up as Nolan finishes promotion etc on Dunkirk. Availability is always going to be an issue with the bigger name directors.