1017 replies to this topic

[Mr_Wint]

And probably not only SPECTRE...
My guess is that Skyfall will have a huge influence/impact on upcoming Bond films for the 15-20 years or so. Just as GF and, to some extent, TSWLM did. Bond 25 might go in a different direction but there will be yet another SF-copy sooner or later.

[SecretAgentFan]

Very likely, indeed.  

 

Unless the next film starring a new actor lightens up and drops any personal angle AND becomes a runaway success.

[Jim]

Interesting thought, that - I wonder how much of a touchstone Skyfall will come to be, for the series going forward? We've had one partial clone already. Whenever they say "we're going back to Fleming / From Russia with Love / Goldfinger", will Skyfall join that (unachievable and depressingly backwards-looking) team? No-one says "back to The World is Not Enough", do they? Unless insane.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, a billion dollars will do this to you.  If you´re a studio executive.

[Gobi-1]

Interesting thought, that - I wonder how much of a touchstone Skyfall will come to be, for the series going forward? We've had one partial clone already. Whenever they say "we're going back to Fleming / From Russia with Love / Goldfinger", will Skyfall join that (unachievable and depressingly backwards-looking) team? No-one says "back to The World is Not Enough", do they? Unless insane.

 

Well they did say "back to The World Is Not Enough" when they were choosing locations for Skyfall.

[sharpshooter]

I think Casino Royale is the general template they're adhering to going forward. Hard action, giving Bond an arc, stripping back the gadgets and attracting quality talent.

[tdalton]

I think Casino Royale is the general template they're adhering to going forward. Hard action, giving Bond an arc, stripping back the gadgets and attracting quality talent.

 

Ideally that would be the template, although they could scale back on some of the action just a bit.  I think that they could accomplish all of that, even giving Bond an arc, without having to make everything as personal as they've been for the last however many films.  

 

A return to the more fun Bond films should be on tap, and would actually do the more serious films a service as it would allow their seriousness to have a bit more of an impact when they come back around.

[Tiin007]

 

I think Casino Royale is the general template they're adhering to going forward. Hard action, giving Bond an arc, stripping back the gadgets and attracting quality talent.

 

Ideally that would be the template, although they could scale back on some of the action just a bit.  I think that they could accomplish all of that, even giving Bond an arc, without having to make everything as personal as they've been for the last however many films.  

 

A return to the more fun Bond films should be on tap, and would actually do the more serious films a service as it would allow their seriousness to have a bit more of an impact when they come back around.

 

 

I think the same is true when it comes to the personal angles. LTK had emotional resonance because it didn't come off the heels of seven consecutive personal stories. And Skyfall would have had significantly more of an impact (for me as a fan) if it had followed numerous straight missions. Same with the homages. 

[SecretAgentFan]

The "personal angle" or "arc" is something that for some reason studio execs, producers and directors seem to be obsessed about.  No hero can do without it anymore because - this is the logic behind it - the audience only then can empathize.

 

Really?

 

For all those cardboard heroes like Bond or the myriad of comic book heroes I only need to know this: there is a mission, the hero is a good guy, he enjoys making the bad guy fall.

 

Was there ever a need to explain why Bond is doing what he does?  It was his job.  That was enough for decades.

 

For me, Bond just needs to work through a mission, experience setbacks and finally triumph.

[Surrie]

The "personal angle" or "arc" is something that for some reason studio execs, producers and directors seem to be obsessed about.  No hero can do without it anymore because - this is the logic behind it - the audience only then can empathize.

 

Really?

 

For all those cardboard heroes like Bond or the myriad of comic book heroes I only need to know this: there is a mission, the hero is a good guy, he enjoys making the bad guy fall.

 

Was there ever a need to explain why Bond is doing what he does?  It was his job.  That was enough for decades.

 

For me, Bond just needs to work through a mission, experience setbacks and finally triumph.

 

Would have to agree with this. Overkill on the personal front now, and it's become tiresome, forced and sloppy. 

[Harmsway]

The "personal angle" or "arc" is something that for some reason studio execs, producers and directors seem to be obsessed about. No hero can do without it anymore because - this is the logic behind it - the audience only then can empathize.

It's less about the emotional impact of said arc and more about the advertising value, I think. Hollywood likes snappy, high-concept pitches.

"Just another Bond film" doesn't pitch very well.

[SecretAgentFan]

True.  But "this time it´s personal" should have become as tired, too.

[Tiin007]

True.  But "this time it´s personal" should have become as tired, too.

 

I think that it hasn't become tired for EON or the higher ups at MGM because the team has no sense of direction. And I mean this both going forwards and looking backwards. Much ink has been spilled on these forums regarding the former, such as the lack of advance planning of Craig-Bond's arc over the course of his films, and how they seemed to be making it up as they go along (hence the disjointed nature of his tenure in contrast to, say, Moore's, which were all stand-alones to begin with and thus required no advance planning). But it is the latter (the inability to look backwards) which I think is equally problematic, as it resulted in perhaps the biggest two blunders of the Craig era: turning Bond into a worn-out and past-his-prime agent in Skyfall when he had just been a rookie 00 in the previous two films; and introducing Madeline as a serious love interest (above and beyond the usual Bond girl) whom Bond would leave the service for, just two films after the Vesper arc. Had EON simply looked backwards and taken stock of where the series had just been, neither of these blunders would have gotten past the early planning stages. 

 

And I think the same point applies to "this time it's personal." The reason such a tired plot device keeps getting used is because EON doesn't take the time to look backwards and see that it's been a staple of every Bond film since Licence to Kill (!). Almost all of EON's personal angles are brilliant in their own right (barring stepbrothergate), but contextually should not have been implemented successively for 26 years. 

 

The same goes for Bond going rogue in basically all of Craig's films. Had EON taken the time to look backwards at the previous films, it wouldn't have happened time and time again. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t think that EON was unaware of this.  

 

The personal angle (revenge, family) is always the go-to motif for any genre film - so I am not surprised that it was given to Bond, a hero that for most of his shelf life has been doing it for Queen and country and nobody else.

 

But really, if the next Bond again involves going rogue or encountering a secret from Bond´s past I will finally start to blame EON, too.

[Tiin007]

Then you are more forgiving of EON than I am, SAF. I've been blaming EON for this repeated story angle since Skyfall. And this is coming from someone who really likes both SF and SP. 

 

Also, just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the love story with Madeline? Leaving the service for a woman so soon after essentially doing the same thing for Vesper? Did you buy into it? 

 

The reason I'm asking is because while I can somewhat overlook the overuse of personal angles if I had to, I cannot fathom why EON would revisit the specific plot of leaving the service for a woman so soon after CR-QoS. And the conversation on the train with Madeline was almost an exact copy-and-paste job of Bond's conversation with Vesper over dinner after bankrupting Le Chiffre.

[SecretAgentFan]

Oh, that I buy absolutely since CraigBond never seemed to be overly happy with being in the service in the first place.  And between CR and SP there are supposedly many years in which Bond did serve.  

 

Since Bond´s career is put on ice (again) after his solo effort in the PTS, going through everything on his own account during SP, I don´t think he sees a lot of purpose going back to work for an organization which either distrusts him constantly or cannot always be trusted by him.

 

It´s less a sudden, deep love for Madeleine - like his feelings for Vesper - then the chance of a better life that Bond can imagine with a woman who also suffered through a life of mistrust.

[Tiin007]

That's an interesting take on Bond's motives, SAF, yet I wonder if it's what EON / Mendes had in mind. The sudden "I love you" from Madeline, combined with "I'd recognize those eyes anywhere" (or whatever his line was), topped off by her subsequent ultimatum to Bond ("it's either me or your job") makes me feel like Bond's primary reason for leaving was his feelings for Madeline. After all, had Madeline been willing to stay with Bond as he continued his career, he likely would not have needed to make a choice on that bridge. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I constantly got the feeling (in SPECTRE) that Bond was already fed up with the service and his bosses - so Madeleine just was a good perspective for the future.  I did not get the feeling of true love, and there was not enough time for that anyway.

 

When Madeleine says "I love you" I thought it was just an expression of her affection.  One could also interpret it more deeply as due to the life-threatening crisis in which she says it because in those moments emotions always get heightened.  Also, she is the daughter of an assassin, getting involved with another assassin who saves her life (kind of) - so Bond has that going for him.  Which is nice.  And Madeleine just is traumatized and stuck with a certain type, father complex and all.

 

The choice on the bridge - well, it is not absolutely clear whether this is about turning his back on the service or just turning his back on Blofeld and the whole revenge angle.  Madeleine at that moment, at least that´s what I think, is just like all the other Bond girls in former movies: Bond goes on a longer holiday with them, disregarding his superiors with no debriefing.  I mean, how often did ConneryBond hide and did not want to be saved, rather enjoying the fumbling around in boats or under parachutes, how often did Mi6 look for MooreBond who obviously did not care to inform them that he is off to, um, get off.

[Tiin007]

So you think it's possible that Bond did not leave the service at the end of SP?

 

From your above comment (#286 in this thread), I had assumed you thought otherwise. 

 

I always found the ending somewhat ambiguous (as did my wife), but it seems that the general consensus of Bond fans is that he quit. 

 

I'm very curious how this will be addressed in Bond 25-- I think they can easily pass it off as Bond "going on a longer holiday," a la ConneryBond, as you mentioned. 

[SecretAgentFan]

It is left ambiguous.  I could imagine this a happy end to CraigBond but it also plays well as the usual Bond gets the girl - and then in the next film he is back.

 

It must have been designed with Craig´s decision/non-decision in mind.

[sharpshooter]

I constantly got the feeling (in SPECTRE) that Bond was already fed up with the service and his bosses - so Madeleine just was a good perspective for the future.  

I think he was committed to the service after Skyfall. At the end of that film, he's relishing the prospect of getting back into work. He probably took regular missions for three years after Skyfall, and got back into the rhythym of espionage. However I believe the train sequence with Madeleine was what made him stop and reconsider his life going forward. She planted the idea he had free will. That there's more to life than being alone, hunted and killing. Madeleine could be that new life for him, but in a genuine way. He tried it with Vesper and that lasted a couple of days at most. 

[tdalton]

 

I constantly got the feeling (in SPECTRE) that Bond was already fed up with the service and his bosses - so Madeleine just was a good perspective for the future.  

I think he was committed to the service after Skyfall. At the end of that film, he's relishing the prospect of getting back into work. He probably took regular missions for three years after Skyfall, and got back into the rhythym of espionage. However I believe the train sequence with Madeleine was what made him stop and reconsider his life going forward. She planted the idea he had free will. That there's more to life than being alone, hunted and killing. Madeleine could be that new life for him, but in a genuine way. He tried it with Vesper and that lasted a couple of days at most. 

 

 

That was my reading of it as well.  

 

I think that there was a good story buried somewhere in the wreckage that is Spectre.  The OHMSS parallels could have amounted to something great, especially the idea of Bond romantically pursuing the daughter of the man who has been a major part of the organization that Bond has been pursuing and has felt a great deal of personal pain due to their actions.  

 

While I wasn't big on the idea of them revealing SPECTRE to be behind everything, I think that they could have used the opportunity with this film to perhaps revisit that old idea for TSWLM where SPECTRE was the victim of a hostile takeover.  It could have been done in reverse, with Quantum falling victim to an upstart Blofeld who could have stayed behind the scenes and in the shadows like he did in the early Connery days.  The skirmish with Blofeld forces Quantum's operatives to remove themselves from whatever hiding they had been in since Bond got the jump on them at the end of QoS thanks to Greene's information, which makes Bond believe that Quantum has returned only to find out, via the face-to-face with Mr. White, that something much worse is going on.  Putting Bond on one side of a villain vs. villain battle could have been an interesting track to take, and could have even given some legitimacy to those insufferable trust issues that EON likes to put in the films these days.  That could have also led to a more interesting scene on the bridge at the end of the film, with perhaps M not knowing Bond's allegiances until he tosses the gun into the river and walks off.

[Dustin]

It's fairly evident a much better, tighter story could have been found for SPECTRE, even one including the characters and personnel of Craig's timeline. Sadly, it's not what we've got and all we can hope for is that they do better next time. However, by now I think I'd rather not see Waltz's Blofeld returning, mainly because I found him to be relatively weak and uninteresting. Silva was a far more engaging character, everything Blofeld should have been. I would very much hope they concentrate on creating a similarly strong villain for BOND 25, whenever that may come to be.

[DaveBond21]

It is left ambiguous.  I could imagine this a happy end to CraigBond but it also plays well as the usual Bond gets the girl - and then in the next film he is back.

 

It must have been designed with Craig´s decision/non-decision in mind.

 

For me it was deliberately ambigious (no resignation scene, M not involved), with a view to either Craig coming back or a new Bond starting. Even the language used by Q ("I thought you'd gone?" rather than resigned) meant it was open to interpretation.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

[Jim]

There was no job from which to resign. Such as passes for a plot, the 00-Section was abolished. Bond has nothing to do. They've given themselves the possibility of running the plot line of the re-establishment of / need for a government-licensed killing organisation in "the modern age". On reflection, more smartly than I first thought. On further reflection, just more of the same.

[sharpshooter]

I don't think the 00 Section was abolished. Nine Eyes was averted, thus the status quo remained.

[Jim]

Maybe - I suspect it's ambiguous enough to allow them to at least consider pursuing the line of the next one being about re-establishing it (if so minded). Quite a lot of open ends - is the final scene the next morning or weeks later - that allow for a selection of embarkation points on the next film. They could go in a number of directions and not openly contradict such ambiguity.  

 

Is the kindly reading of - "nothing actually happened at the end and there were no consequences whatsoever". But today I am feeling kindly.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think you´re not only kind but right, Jim.  The 00-section was closed.  And even if C´s doings were revealed as villainous and the Nine Eyes program put on hold, it doesn´t mean that the 00-section was automatically reinstated.  This would take weeks, months, maybe even years of governmental dealings.

 

Q dabbling around in his little shop might be a sign that "old" M is reinstated and at least keeping him around - but it could also mean that Q again is just killing time on his own, putting together Bond´s old car just for kicks.

 

As you said: ambigious. 

[Dustin]

Read some piece in THR about the disappointment of sequels recently, looks like many, if not most, came in behind expectations - and what's worse: behind their predecessors. Speculation was the studios would react with even less creative initiative and settle even more for the tentpole production.

For Bond this will almost certainly mean the three-to-four year cycle Barber mentioned will become the standard. But as I see it this will probably also mean an end to the kind of continuing storyline we've seen in the last decade; at least if whatever studio gets their way.

This would also make sense from another angle: China is busy to become the biggest single film market, probably by 2017 already. No future big productions can ignore this fact. Yet only a select number of foreign productions are even allowed to compete each year. Whatever doesn pass censure (for political reasons, depictions of sex or homosexuality or certain other undesirable content) has to do better next time. A series franchise in the future will hardly risk complex storylines where it's vital the audience has seen previous entries.

[SecretAgentFan]

Yes, unfortunately, the hope for Chinese box office returns will result in pandering as so many studio films have proven so far.

 

The only way to avoid this would be a drastically shrunken budget and Bond films becoming less of a tentpole but a clever smaller enterprise with mean, lean spy thrillers.

 

Never gonna happen, I know...