101 replies to this topic

[seawolfnyy]

What made OHMSS, LTK and CR special was that in those stories, things happened to Bond, instead of just him happening to the villain's plot.
 
Four 'personal' films in a row and that element isn't so special any more. Having a film with a straightforward mission, with no personal involvement, would make that film special again.

This point makes perfect sense to me.
 
Don't get me wrong, getting to know Bond on a more personal level is interesting. However, at no time do I think Mr. Ian Fleming wanted to see his penned work played out into some big personal reflection journey. The novels themselves are a little about Bond and a lot about the life he currently lives in and the situation he has to deal with then and there. Bond films should be fun, big and sexy. With that said, the films have always delivered that. Now, the series has decided to zoom in on the little human details Fleming originally established for Bond. 
 
I do agree though, four films with the same general theme is just about enough. Come 2016, it'll be time again to adapt and change the formula.

SPECTRE's box office gross will dictate that.

[AMC Hornet]

Well, even with Paris' death, I don't really consider Tomorrow Never Dies to be a this time it's personal story. After she's killed, she gets one more fleeting mention in the film and that's it.

 

I felt that the 'personal' elements in all of Brosnan's films were lip-service, added in rewrites to placate Pierce and allow him to do some acting. Craig's scripts were written around the character, rather than around the set-pieces.

 

I go to a Bond film to be entertained, and to have a glimpse into a rarified world through the eyes of a character I can envy. I don't envy Craig's Bond, and wouldn't trade places with him and endure all that suffering for any material reward.

 

I envy Moore in most of his films, and Connery in a few.

[x007AceOfSpades]

SPECTRE's box office gross will dictate that.

If it ain't broke why fix it

 

Well, even with Paris' death, I don't really consider Tomorrow Never Dies to be a this time it's personal story. After she's killed, she gets one more fleeting mention in the film and that's it.

I don't even consider CR personal at all, nor Skyfall - in terms of being overly personal for Bond. It was personal for M and Silva, but not as much for Bond. He was just doing a job for M - a job that came back and ultimately haunted her.

[seawolfnyy]

That's actually a good point about Casino Royale. It became personal as it went on, but I guess if I had to pick one of Craig's films that would fit the classic Bond mold, it would have to be Casino Royale.

[Trevelyan 006]

 

 

What made OHMSS, LTK and CR special was that in those stories, things happened to Bond, instead of just him happening to the villain's plot.
 
Four 'personal' films in a row and that element isn't so special any more. Having a film with a straightforward mission, with no personal involvement, would make that film special again.

This point makes perfect sense to me.
 
Don't get me wrong, getting to know Bond on a more personal level is interesting. However, at no time do I think Mr. Ian Fleming wanted to see his penned work played out into some big personal reflection journey. The novels themselves are a little about Bond and a lot about the life he currently lives in and the situation he has to deal with then and there. Bond films should be fun, big and sexy. With that said, the films have always delivered that. Now, the series has decided to zoom in on the little human details Fleming originally established for Bond. 
 
I do agree though, four films with the same general theme is just about enough. Come 2016, it'll be time again to adapt and change the formula.

SPECTRE's box office gross will dictate that.

 

With all due respect, I do hope you are wrong. But then again, if that is what needs to happen, so be it.

 

I know I'll be ready for a theme shift next time around... Nothing too dramatic, of course, but different all the same.

[x007AceOfSpades]

That's actually a good point about Casino Royale. It became personal as it went on, but I guess if I had to pick one of Craig's films that would fit the classic Bond mold, it would have to be Casino Royale.

It got personal in a sense that as the poker game went on, Bond became more and more fixated on defeating Le Chiffre. And of course it was personal when Bond found out about Vesper's betrayal at the end. It's hardly 140 minutes of "This time it's personal".

[tdalton]

Well, even with Paris' death, I don't really consider Tomorrow Never Dies to be a this time it's personal story. After she's killed, she gets one more fleeting mention in the film and that's it.

 

I would contend that, given that she's used as the starting point for sending Bond after Carver, that it could be included.  But, that's why I said that the argument could be made. 

 

Even if Tomorrow Never Dies isn't included, one film in the past three decades that doesn't heavily deal with personal issues for Bond is still a bit much.

[Harmsway]

Those expecting the Craig era to give us a "non-personal" Bond flick are naturally going to be disappointed.

You don't get the interest of folks like Craig and Mendes if you're making "just another Bond film."

[seawolfnyy]

No, but it is how the series attracted Roger Spottiswoode, Michael Apted, Lee Tamahori, Denise Richards Robert Carlyle and Teri Hatcher.

[Hockey Mask]

Denise Richards.

[tdalton]

Those expecting the Craig era to give us a "non-personal" Bond flick are naturally going to be disappointed.

You don't get the interest of folks like Craig and Mendes if you're making "just another Bond film."

 

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  It's possible to make a Bond film that's intelligent, mature, deals with real world issues, and is worthy of the talents of Craig and company without it having to deal with Bond's childhood or being overly personal.

[Harmsway]

Sure, it's possible, but that's harder to sell.

When you're pitching a film, you need a clear, dramatic hook.

[x007AceOfSpades]

No, but it is how the series attracted Roger Spottiswoode, Michael Apted, Lee Tamahori, Denise Richards Robert Carlyle and Teri Hatcher.

I laughed a little bit there. Not gonna lie.

[tdalton]

Considering it's a Bond film, it should sell itself.  Plus, with all of the goodwill they got from Skyfall, now would be the time to go that route if they actually deemed doing so to be a risk.

[Harmsway]

Considering it's a Bond film, it should sell itself.

"Just another Bond film" doesn't really cut it anymore. With hundreds of millions on the line, the studio is always going to seek a bold story hook.

And if you want a first-class creative team, they're going to look for something that inspires them, too. It's very telling that Mendes didn't come back on board until they came up with the connection to Bond's childhood.

I'd like another "Bond on a mission" feature, too, but I don't see it happening unless the Bond films are scaled way back.

[tdalton]

I didn't say that they should make "just another Bond movie".  Mendes and whatever screenwriters they bring in should be able to look at the current political and global climates and be able to come up with a story that is timely and has a dramatic hook that doesn't involve Bond's childhood or his mommy issues.  If EON needs to have every Bond film from now on feature Bond pining over lost friends or his mommy in order to be seen as "mature" or "important", then they ought to fold up shop.

[Harmsway]

They're always going to start with the Bond character, at least as long as Craig is involved. The initial question is always going to be "How can we give Craig something to act?"

When we get another Bond who isn't quite a "serious actor," they might be a little less preoccupied with giving Bond a dramatic arc in every picture. But, when that happens, I suspect the series will be driven by creative talent that isn't as prestigious as Mendes.

[seawolfnyy]

No, but it is how the series attracted Roger Spottiswoode, Michael Apted, Lee Tamahori, Denise Richards Robert Carlyle and Teri Hatcher.

I laughed a little bit there. Not gonna lie.

Well they kind of deserve it, don't they?

[JCRendle]

"Just another Bond film" doesn't really cut it anymore. With hundreds of millions on the line, the studio is always going to seek a bold story hook.

I think this trailer says "Not just another Bond film"

[dtuba]

Then there's that little event called the Academy Awards. You can't tell me that Mendes, Craig, and all the talent involved aren't looking for a way for Bond to snag one of the little gold men (in a non-technical category).

Edited by dtuba, 28 March 2015 - 09:28 PM.

[tdalton]

They can try all they want for the Oscars, but they'll never get anything in the acting, directing, or Best Picture categories.  Being a Bond film pretty much eliminates them from contention in those categories.  

 

The best that SPECTRE will be able to hope for is another nod for Newman for the score and for cinematography alongside whatever other nominations it may be able to get in the more technical categories.

[dtuba]

They can try all they want for the Oscars, but they'll never get anything in the acting, directing, or Best Picture categories.  Being a Bond film pretty much eliminates them from contention in those categories.  

 

The best that SPECTRE will be able to hope for is another nod for Newman for the score and for cinematography alongside whatever other nominations it may be able to get in the more technical categories.

Sadly I think you are right. But that will not stop Mendes from laying on the dramatic gravitas as thickly as possible...just in case.

[tdalton]

 

They can try all they want for the Oscars, but they'll never get anything in the acting, directing, or Best Picture categories.  Being a Bond film pretty much eliminates them from contention in those categories.  

 

The best that SPECTRE will be able to hope for is another nod for Newman for the score and for cinematography alongside whatever other nominations it may be able to get in the more technical categories.

Sadly I think you are right. But that will not stop Mendes from laying on the dramatic gravitas as thickly as possible...just in case.

 

 

Oh, I don't disagree that that's what they're aiming for.  And, it's something that they should aim for.  I just don't see it happening, especially after The Dark Knight failed to get any major nominations even though the critics couldn't stop heaping praise on that film.

[FlemingBond]

the Academy Awards are a joke at this point. I watched Argo a few weeks ago. Nice movie. Best Picture of 2012 ?! 

[plankattack]

Considering that Mendes said that there were story strands in SF that he wanted to take somewhere (I'm paraphrasing, of course), I think it's a given that SP is a sequel/continuation/whatever you want to call it. Okay, that's this thread closed then...

But seriously, the conversation about what should the series be is a fascinating one. I do have doubts about continuing to probe Bond's childhood (and frankly the leaks, the teaser, the rumors do have me a little apprehensive about SP), but surely it's a foundation of compelling story-telling, in literature, film, TV etc that there is more to plot than characters just unspooling it? I don't have a problem with the franchise keeping this in mind, rather than, as someone else in the thread said, playing lip-service to it.

I watched The French Connection the other night. On the face of it, it's a cop movie - shoot-out, punch-up, car-chase etc. But what makes it a classic is the characters, their motivations, their backstory, an ambiguous ending. Without that, it could just be an episode of Starsky and Hutch. Cops chase drug-dealer, boss yells at them.

I know there's a desire for a "Bond-on-a-mission" film. I'm not against it myself either, but how else would one elevate the umpteenth story about missing nuclear devises, mysterious organizations holding the world to ransom, etc etc. Heck, Fleming knew that - even he kept trying to throw something new at his hero, rather than just throwing him into another story.

As I said, I'm nervous about SP, but the fact that we're having these discussions is the sign of a franchise that still carries freight in Hollywood.

As for sequels....this looks more like a continuation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.....

[Harmsway]

I think Spectre will try to unite all four Craig features into a unified arc. If it's successful, it will be a unique achievement in Bond history.

[The Shark]

I watched The French Connection the other night. On the face of it, it's a cop movie - shoot-out, punch-up, car-chase etc. But what makes it a classic is the characters, their motivations, their backstory, an ambiguous ending

 

Not to mention Hackman and Schieder's and performances, Friedkin's breakneck direction and Ellis's avant-garde score.
 

[AMC Hornet]

I think Spectre will try to unite all four Craig features into a unified arc. If it's successful, it will be a unique achievement in Bond history.

I like this.

Each of Connery's films were made more or less independent of each other. 

If SPECTRE can wrap DC's arch up, and still make it possible for another director to see DC finish his tenure on a high note, then I say go for it.

As for Oscars, the LOTR trilogy got all their statuettes after TROTK, so it's not impossible that EON may get their long-overdue nod (to top Cubby's Thalberg award).

[Call Billy Bob]

It's more or less the same template as the Connery films. FRWL mentions Doctor No, and has Sylvia Trench re-appear. Goldfinger is a separate outing devoid of SPECTRE, and then they come back in full force with TB and YOLT.

THIS. So much this. Well put.

[x007AceOfSpades]

the Academy Awards are a joke at this point. I watched Argo a few weeks ago. Nice movie. Best Picture of 2012 ?! 

Based on their choice of nominees this year they're a joke. Gone are the times when the Academy were actually honoring the best in year for film. Now it's all a race to see what studio can make the best biopic and put out the worst Oscar bait. Acting awards are given to actors playing characters that are almost too easy to sympathize with. Not to mention, playing a character with any major illness nowadays pretty much locks that statue in for you. It's not longer about who truly had the best performance of the year, alongside his fellow nominations that were just as good.

 

Academy Awards are a joke, and will continue to be. Paul Thomas Anderson said it right.