388 replies to this topic

[hoagy]

Oh, I feel sick -- how could I miss the Sphinx !!!?????  Even moreso since EVERYONE KNOWS all those ancient Egyptian monuments -- as well as the large-scale land-scars in S America, and the invention of toilet paper -- came from ALIENS !!!!

[Professor Pi]

I did read an article proposing that James Bond and Mission Impossible join universes.  Umm...no, people!  No!  They also claimed James Bond is old and out of date ... um, Tom Cruise is 6 years older than Craig.  And besides, Bourne, IMF, U.N.C.L.E. all were imitations of Bond.  Sometimes better, but never first.

[tdalton]

 They also claimed James Bond is old and out of date ... um, Tom Cruise is 6 years older than Craig.  A

 

I think they could be forgiven for thinking that considering the idea of whether or not Bond and the Double-oh Section is still relevant in today's world is a predominant theme of the franchise since the current regime at EON took over the day-to-day production of the films.  If the films themselves constantly ask the question, then eventually the people watching the films will start to ask it as well.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

What annoys me about the people from the Jason Bourne franchise (especially Matt Damon), is that they don't recognize the influence of Bond, and instead of that, they make harsh critics against the EON' series and Fleming's creation.

[tdalton]

Damon and Greengrass are never going to praise or otherwise say anything nice about the Bond franchise, regardless of whether or not their actual feelings about the Bond films mirror what they say in public (although I suspect that they do).  They are in direct competition with EON and Bond, so they're not going to tip their cap in any way.  Tom Cruise and his Mission: Impossible films are also in competition, but they've never managed to dictate what EON has done with the Bond franchise in the way that Bourne has done to Bond with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

 

For me, I'm not the least bit bothered by their criticisms of Bond because I have pretty much zero respect for either of them.  I don't necessarily disagree with all of their criticisms (such Damon's critique that Bond is dated, a criticism that holds some weight considering EON seems to ask this question as part of every single film they release now), but I don't find their work in Bourne to be as deep and thought-provoking as they think it is, which seems to be a basis for their critiques on Bond in the first place.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I agree, they think or at least tried that people believe that Bourne is so profound, when clearly it isn’t.

 

In the other hand, I don't think that the Bourne franchise dictated what EON did in CR; that was dictated for having the rights to the "Casino Royale" novel since 1999 (of course they could have done it in 2002, but an origin story with a new Bond actor for the 40^th anniversary of the series, perhaps it didn’t sounded as such a good idea), the mixed reviews to DAD, and having a Bond actor around 50 years old not wanting to repeat the Moore path. I believe your comment it's only valid for QOS.

[tdalton]

I think it heavily in influenced CR, mostly in the casting of Craig and, therefore the direction of the character, but also in the style of the action. If you look at who Campbell wanted (Visnjic and Cavill), he was looking for someone more in the Brosnan style. EON, influenced by Bourne in terms of wanting to get someone tougher and more physical, went for Craig.

Even Brosnan states that Bourne was an influence. He's said that when he saw The Bourne identity, he knew that he was going to be out and EON was going to have to make a shift to match that new dynamic in the genre.

The action of CR is also influenced by Bourne, much tougher and focused on hand-to-hand and close quarter combat as opposed to the endless shootouts of the Brosnan era.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think it heavily in influenced CR, mostly in the casting of Craig and, therefore the direction of the character, but also in the style of the action. If you look at who Campbell wanted (Visnjic and Cavill), he was looking for someone more in the Brosnan style. EON, influenced by Bourne in terms of wanting to get someone tougher and more physical, went for Craig.

Even Brosnan states that Bourne was an influence. He's said that when he saw The Bourne identity, he knew that he was going to be out and EON was going to have to make a shift to match that new dynamic in the genre.

The action of CR is also influenced by Bourne, much tougher and focused on hand-to-hand and close quarter combat as opposed to the endless shootouts of the Brosnan era.

Brosnan can say whatever he wants; especially when he didn’t end in good terms his work relation with EON. And of course, they wanted someone tougher… they wanted someone very different to Brosnan, and that doesn’t necessarily means Bourne or Matt Damon.

Regarding the action in CR…. It was very much Martin Campbell’s old school type (unlike QOS’s action scenes). Hand to hand and close quarter combat weren’t invented by the Bourne franchise, it has existed for years, even at some extent, in the earliest Bond movies.

[tdalton]

Hand to hand and close quarter combat weren’t invented by the Bourne franchise, it has existed for years, even at some extent, in the earliest Bond movies.

 
No, but the decision to go bring the franchise back to that was influenced by what Bourne was doing.  They could have continued going in the more fantastical direction, especially considering the huge box office that they got for Die Another Day, but they saw that there was a path forward with the more serious, tougher spy films based on the popularity of The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy.
 
There is, of course, more Bourne influence in Quantum of Solace, but it did influence Casino Royale as well.
 
There's also this New York Times article which explicitly states that Bourne was the model for what they were doing:

For both Ms. Broccoli and Sony, executives said, the model was Jason Bourne, the character Matt Damon successfully incarnated in two gritty spy movies for Universal Pictures, "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy."

The rest of the article can be found here

Edited by tdalton, 06 December 2015 - 06:30 AM.

[AngusMcLean]

I like the idea of Craig returning as a more mature, rounded agent-but possibly a bit bored with life, as in Thunderball; the slow life is killing him and he realises his true self is the guy living on the edge, constantly searching, putting himself out there. Maybe he just walks away from domestic bliss with Madeline? Maybe he strays and she walks out? Craig could do it justice either way, and he throws himself into his work, hunting Blofeld.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

Hand to hand and close quarter combat weren’t invented by the Bourne franchise, it has existed for years, even at some extent, in the earliest Bond movies.

 
No, but the decision to go bring the franchise back to that was influenced by what Bourne was doing.  They could have continued going in the more fantastical direction, especially considering the huge box office that they got for Die Another Day, but they saw that there was a path forward with the more serious, tougher spy films based on the popularity of The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy.
 
There is, of course, more Bourne influence in Quantum of Solace, but it did influence Casino Royale as well.
 
There's also this New York Times article which explicitly states that Bourne was the model for what they were doing:

For both Ms. Broccoli and Sony, executives said, the model was Jason Bourne, the character Matt Damon successfully incarnated in two gritty spy movies for Universal Pictures, "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy."

The rest of the article can be found here

 

There isn’t any direct quote in that article from EON’s producers or even Sony people stating that Bourne was the model for CR, so I can only take that as media conjectures. What Michael G. Wilson actually said (being quoted on that) is: "I was desperately afraid, and Barbara was desperately afraid, we would go downhill. We are running out of energy, mental energy. We need to generate something new, for ourselves"…… Thus, the inspiration for CR looks more like the already traditional EON’s backlash after an over-the-top movie as DAD (like OHMSS after YOLT, and FYEO after MR), than anything else.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´d like the series to lose the "it´s personal"-angle.  That has been done to death.

 

And whether critics or some part of the audience likes it or not, the Bond film series has survived because of its key ingredients, with the main component being "fun".

 

That should be brought back with no remorse, and I imagine that this can only be achieved by directors who don´t want to force their artistic vision on to the story.

 

 

To clear this up: I loved Sam Mendes´ direction for SKYFALL.  And I appreciate a lot of what he has done in SPECTRE.  But I get the feeling that it would have been better for him not to immediately return for another Bond.

 

SPECTRE, I think, could have been much better if another director had taken over, without the idea of "I started something and wanted to continue that".

[Surrie]

I have to say - the sooner they drop the personal back stories/continuity they have focussed on in Craig's era the better! As SecretAgentFan said - the series has survived without this for so long. Ironically - we've lasted over 50 years without the need for major continuity in the franchise!

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I have to say - the sooner they drop the personal back stories/continuity they have focussed on in Craig's era the better! As SecretAgentFan said - the series has survived without this for so long. Ironically - we've lasted over 50 years without the need for major continuity in the franchise!

Yes, perhaps after all… the best could be since Craig movies onwards, only continuity within each actor era (and not necessarily that much either, I mean not two parts movies), starting of course with the next Bond actor as an already fully seasoned Bond, without the need of any other origin story in the future of the EON series. The only heritage from former eras could be the same MI6 cast, or at least part of it.

[Surrie]

IMO I think this would be the best way forward for EON and the franchise. 

[Odd Jobbies]

Well, unless they recast and semi-reboot, then the way SPECTRE ended means that unless Bond 25 is a rom-com about Bond's domestic life, we'll be seeing Waltz and Bautista kill Swann - probably pre-titles (with the titles sequences and possibly even the theme nodding to OHMSS).

 

That means more step-sibling rivalry and more allusions to Bond's childhood.

 

They've written themselves into that corner and so long as Craig is Bond and Waltz is Blofeld i (don't see Craig agreeing to Eon breaking continuity by recasting/reinventing Blofeld already - need to be a damn good Brazillian plastic surgeon!) they're trapped into playing out that saga. Hopefully they'll turn to Fleming's as yet cinematically untapped YOLT as inspiration.

[Professor Pi]

You can recast a character without the need for explaining the differing outward appearance of the character, ala plastic surgery.  Fans went to Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan movies assuming, and somewhat being told, that it was the same Bond character.  Blofeld was recast each time, and once by an actor who played another role not two films prior.  How many actors played Felix Leiter? Yes, it'd be good to have Waltz back, but it's not a deal breaker if he doesn't return.  Ditto Craig.  Audiences will suspend disbelief when they buy the ticket.

 

EON, do a YOLT novel adaptation.  Keep the MI6 team for Bond 7.  If you film it, people will come.  SPECTRE is the second highest grossing Bond movie of all time, and $200M ahead of the third.  If it weren't for Skyfall, critics would be raving.  It's outgrossed every Bourne movie, Mission Impossible movie, and all but three Marvel MCU movies (IM3 and both Avengers.)  Next thing ya know, people will be saying it has to compete with Star Wars.

 

Oh, wait, been there done that!

[tdalton]

I have to say - the sooner they drop the personal back stories/continuity they have focussed on in Craig's era the better! As SecretAgentFan said - the series has survived without this for so long. Ironically - we've lasted over 50 years without the need for major continuity in the franchise!

 

There's nothing wrong with bringing continuity into the series.  If anything, it was long due for EON to start taking the storytelling in the franchise a bit more seriously.

 

The problem has been in the awful execution of this.  There's no reason that EON couldn't create a series of films that carry over certain plot points from one to the next without making it impossible to view them as standalone films.  They almost pulled that off in the 1960s, with Bond battling SPECTRE for several films, with only the strange continuity gaffes (Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS, DAF ignoring OHMSS) keeping them from actually pulling it off.  The problem is that EON will seek to follow the popular trends at the cinema, rather than trying to set them themselves, rather than properly focus on any potential story that they should be telling.

[Professor Pi]

 

I have to say - the sooner they drop the personal back stories/continuity they have focussed on in Craig's era the better! As SecretAgentFan said - the series has survived without this for so long. Ironically - we've lasted over 50 years without the need for major continuity in the franchise!

 

There's nothing wrong with bringing continuity into the series.  If anything, it was long due for EON to start taking the storytelling in the franchise a bit more seriously.

 

The problem has been in the awful execution of this.  There's no reason that EON couldn't create a series of films that carry over certain plot points from one to the next without making it impossible to view them as standalone films.  They almost pulled that off in the 1960s, with Bond battling SPECTRE for several films, with only the strange continuity gaffes (Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS, DAF ignoring OHMSS) keeping them from actually pulling it off.  The problem is that EON will seek to follow the popular trends at the cinema, rather than trying to set them themselves, rather than properly focus on any potential story that they should be telling.

 

 

And that's been the problem since 1973.  If the 70s films are guilty of following blaxpoitation, kung fu, and sci fi movies, the 80s Indiana Jones and Miami Vice, and the Brosnan Bonds the action buddy blockbusters, Die Hards and XXX, then the Craig era is guilty of following in the footsteps of Bourne, Batman, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe idea (although Iiked the retconning in SPECTRE.) 

 

Bonds are artistically successfull when they don't stray too much from Fleming (DN-TB, OHMSS, FYEO, LTK, and CR.)  Quit following your imitators, EON.

[tdalton]

 

Quit following your imitators, EON.

 

 

Unfortunately, that will never happen.  They don't know how to set trends, they only know how to follow them.  Despite the number of reboots we've seen over the past decade-plus, thus giving them examples of how to successfully reboot a franchise, they managed to botch the reboot by inexplicably abandoning it after only two films.

[Odd Jobbies]

 Yes, it'd be good to have Waltz back, but it's not a deal breaker if he doesn't return.  Ditto Craig.  Audiences will suspend disbelief when they buy the ticket

Sure, the audience will come. But the point i made above is that i don't see Craig sticking around if they recast Blofeld, unless the the script has a very plausible reason for the change of appearance. His era has been all about continuity of story and character development. That's made a farce if they suddenly revert back to the old style of ad hoc recasting.

 

It may not be a deal breaker for you, but Broccoli has made it clear that she'll bend over backwards to keep Craig (which is wise since he's by far their greatest asset). But having written it so that they need to dispose of Swann to get Bond back in the game it'll be very ad hoc if they have a new, non-SPECTRE villain do that, so they need Blofeld/Hinx and so if they want to keep Craig, whom i'd guess would walk if they broke continuity, then they need to keep Waltz. Perhaps an alternative SPECTRE villain could step in, but i think they'll already have signed Waltz to a multi-picture deal.

 

To be honest i suspect they had an outline for Bond 25 when they wrote 24, or they'd not have ended SPECTRE in such a fashion. I'm guessing that they've basically moved the end of OHMSS to the beginning of Bond 25; the Tracy/Swann death-by-Blofeld scene. They set up in SPECTRE that a major motivation for Blofeld is torturing Bond and Bond's final line to Blofeld, "I've got something better to do" may as well be an invitation to Blofeld to kill Swann once Hinx boosts him from his prison cell. I imagine this will all be pre-titles - post titles being Bond on Blofeld's trail some months later. They'll save the 'visiting the grave stone' scene for the film's closing epilogue. Speculation, of course, but that's how i'd probably do it. 

 

But having said that i'd probably save that grave stone scene for Bond 26 - after the brainwashed Bond has returned from SPECTRE and failed to assassinate M and is in the process of remembering who he is. This would be a nice 'swan' song for Craig, or equally, as i've suggested a few times in these forums the post-brainwashing remembering storyline would be an ideal way to introduce a new actor as Bond, picking up right where Craig left off, as the new actor is evaluated and we see him remembering one way and another what makes him Bond.

[Surrie]

 

 

I have to say - the sooner they drop the personal back stories/continuity they have focussed on in Craig's era the better! As SecretAgentFan said - the series has survived without this for so long. Ironically - we've lasted over 50 years without the need for major continuity in the franchise!

 

There's nothing wrong with bringing continuity into the series.  If anything, it was long due for EON to start taking the storytelling in the franchise a bit more seriously.

 

The problem has been in the awful execution of this.  There's no reason that EON couldn't create a series of films that carry over certain plot points from one to the next without making it impossible to view them as standalone films.  They almost pulled that off in the 1960s, with Bond battling SPECTRE for several films, with only the strange continuity gaffes (Blofeld not recognizing Bond in OHMSS, DAF ignoring OHMSS) keeping them from actually pulling it off.  The problem is that EON will seek to follow the popular trends at the cinema, rather than trying to set them themselves, rather than properly focus on any potential story that they should be telling.

 

 

And that's been the problem since 1973.  If the 70s films are guilty of following blaxpoitation, kung fu, and sci fi movies, the 80s Indiana Jones and Miami Vice, and the Brosnan Bonds the action buddy blockbusters, Die Hards and XXX, then the Craig era is guilty of following in the footsteps of Bourne, Batman, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe idea (although Iiked the retconning in SPECTRE.) 

 

Bonds are artistically successfull when they don't stray too much from Fleming (DN-TB, OHMSS, FYEO, LTK, and CR.)  Quit following your imitators, EON.

 

 

Continuity is a problem when it's the only thing carrying the franchise forward. I don't have a problem with the '60s movies with their numerous nods to SPECTRE, Blofeld etc. (In fact, I like them - more accurate to Fleming). What I do have an issue with is if EON decide the only way to keep the franchise alive is to not make any stand-alone films anymore. I think it would be a real shame for Babs and Mike to succumb to the pressures of cinematic trends and imitators. If that is the case then I can't help but feel that they don't have the confidence in the success of the franchise that Cubby once did. 

[tdalton]

If they worked out the continuity in advance and were smart about doing it (as opposed to cannibalizing their films, as SPECTRE apparently does to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall), then it wouldn't be an issue.  There's nothing wrong with continuity itself, as telling a continuing story can be a worthwhile thing if the story is good, but EON has shown no ability in terms of how to do this correctly.  They want to keep the same standalone approach each time but then force continuity into the proceedings after the fact, and that's why it hasn't worked.  I don't think there would be complaints about the continuity aspect had they planned things out in advance and done that aspect of the films properly.

[Surrie]

It's almost as if Babs and Mike are stuck with trying to remain loyal to Cubby's old 'Bond Format', but not quite sure how to work it and keep it current? 

[plankattack]

It's almost as if Babs and Mike are stuck with trying to remain loyal to Cubby's old 'Bond Format', but not quite sure how to work it and keep it current?

IMHO it is ultimately the company's history that buffets both itself and whoever its partner is, whether that be Sony or whoever. Perfectly natural and understandable for any business or individual - to always go back to what you know. To be fair on EON, what's been established over the past half-century is both an incredibly solid foundation to work from, and yet also something that must feel at times quite restraining.

Look at the at times contradictory mix of reactions of just those in the fanbase to every installment, especially over the last decade. For some the casting of DC was nigh-on blasphemy, while for others it was the best thing decision in at least 20 years. Some want "classic Bond," some want to see the "fun back." Some like it when the franchise takes chances, others decry that those chances are "not Bond."

I don't always think EON have got it right, but even when they haven't to my mind, I try not to ignore or underestimate how hard it must be sometimes to chart a course. I will say, I do think that your point definitely speaks to 94-95 EON; I do think that post 2002 was the first time when current management felt that they were really doing their "own" thing, rather than continue in a caretaker capacity.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

 

Quit following your imitators, EON.

 

 

Unfortunately, that will never happen.  They don't know how to set trends, they only know how to follow them.  

I agree, EON movies shouldn’t follow trends. But it surprise me that you’re saying that, because LTK, your favorite movie, is one of the Bond movies that clearly followed the current trend of its time (Miami Vice/ Lethal Weapon) .

[tdalton]

Virtually all of the films post-Diamonds are Forever have been trend-followers, meaning that unless you're favorite film is a Connery or Lazenby film, you're a fan of a trend-following film, including the revered Casino Royale and Skyfall.

Edited by tdalton, 07 December 2015 - 02:15 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Virtually all of the films post-Diamonds are Forever have been trend-followers, meaning that unless you're favorite film is a Connery or Lazenby film, you're a fan of a trend-following film, including the revered Casino Royale and Skyfall.

I don't think so.

 

CR is the response from EON (as any movie that wants to succeeds at the Box Office) to its direct competition at the time, in this case: Bourne and Nolan’s Batman, but for this backlash they gone back for some Fleming material and inspiration from sixties movies like The Ipcress File (Campbell again, stated this on the Blu-Ray commentary), and most likely from the first Bond movies too. Thus, they didn’t tried to imitate its competitors in the way that QOS does, at the point to use the same editor and second unit director, to just name a few “coincidences”.

 

Besides CR…. In TLD for instance, there’s no such big influence from any current trend at its time, the same could be said about FYEO or TSWLM, and even from AVTAK.

[SecretAgentFan]

The problem is: how could any film these days be truly original?  Haven´t we reached a point where everything has already been done?  Isn´t it impossible not to be a trend-follower?

[tdalton]

The problem is: how could any film these days be truly original? Haven´t we reached a point where everything has already been done? Isn´t it impossible not to be a trend-follower?

Somebody has to start the trend for everyone to follow, so it is possible for Bond to set the trend rather than follow it. They've done enough following, having done it almost exclusively since DAF, and the current regime HAS done it exclusively since they officially took the reigns with TND.

Sometimes it's appropriate to change in order to adapt, but they just model Bond after whatever is popular at the given time, be it over-the-top 90s action films, Bourne, Batman, or whatever else.