The future of James Bond

beauf

I liked the Moore films. But they were good only in the context of when they were made. That humour is too dated now and the modern audience are used to more complex movies.

I think the Craig movies got it right. I'd like more tech in it though.

BuilderPlumber

beauf wrote: »

I liked the Moore films. But they were good only in the context of when they were made. That humour is too dated now and the modern audience are used to more complex movies.

I think the Craig movies got it right. I'd like more tech in it though.

I feel there has been a tendency to underrate the Moore films. I feel that they were made at a time of great change in the franchise too and it took him a few films to find his style.

Moore joined the franchise 8 films in. Of the previous 7, Connery was Bond in 6 of them and SPECTRE/Blofeld was the enemy in at least 6 of them (Goldfinger was never mentioned to be a member but he may well have been and wears what looked like a SPECTRE ring). Moore came in at a time when other enemies were to be introduced.

Moore's first film Live And Let Die decided to play it safe and it was decided the film would start off without him in the pretitle. There was less emphasis on 2 big armies going into battle and Bond takes on the villains alone in their layer, underneath a voodoo ceremony. Gone too was the world domination plot and in its place was a drug dealer plot. Generally, it was not an overly humorous film and the humor was mostly consigned to the part of the JW Pepper character (who was a variant of a similar sheriff character from Connery's Diamonds Are Forever, the preceding film) during the boat chase. Overall this was a solid film and explored different aspects to the norm that were necessary and a given in the Blofeld and SPECTRE films.

His second outing The Man With The Golden Gun started off without Bond in the pretitle as in his first. It actually remains the last film to date not to feature Bond in the pretitle. The first hour or so of the film is awesome but the second hour or so lets things down. A major flaw is repetition of material from previous films. The car chase near the end featuring JW Pepper again and is the third film in a row to have this character or a similar one (in Diamonds Are Forever, he is not Pepper but he is a very similar sheriff) involved in a chase. As with Live And Let Die this chase is featured just prior to the climax and clearly it is using the template of this film. The pretitle and climax are really reworkings of the From Russia With Love pretitle. The rest of the climax is clearly modelled on Dr No. The climax features less action than usual and lets down what was a great film in its first half where we had a great fight in Beirut and a surprisingly violent martial arts fight scene.

The Spy Who Loved Me was where Moore found his style. This film set a template that would be continued well in to the 1980s and into Dalton's era. The minister and General Gogol are introduced. Originally meant to feature Blofeld, we get a similar guy wanting world domination from under the sea. While a whole lot of it is You Only Live Twice updated with some Thunderball, Diamonds Are Forever and On Her Majesty's Secret Service thrown in, it was massively entertaining and introduced Jaws, one of the top 3 henchmen along with Oddjob and Tee Hee. The film set the tone and was a major success in every way. It also introduced the prettitle as a major stunt highlight and was the first to feature Bond since Diamonds Are Forever. It is also the first since that film to have a major climatic shootout.

Moonraker is a film that gets a lot of bad press and unfairly. I think it does everything it is supposed to right and combined Bond and space elements well. The film is often criticised for its space setting and is unfairly dismissed as Bond's Star Wars. In reality space themes were present in You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever too but both ended with a conventional shootout at the villain's lair on land and on an oilrig respectively with conventional weapons. Moonraker's final shootout was with ray guns. Personally, I though it was a good climax and it was very well done. It reminded me of Thunderball's underwater climax. The chases are above average too and the fight between Bond and the Japanese henchman in Venice is one of the best ever. Drax makes a good villain and more vicious than usual but still sophisticated too.

By the time Moore made For Your Eyes Only, the series was almost 20 years old. There were plans to reintroduce Blofeld, last seen in Diamonds Are Forever, but legal disputes blocked this. Yet we have a pretitle sequence where Bond visits his wife's grave and gets captured by Blofeld in a remote control helicopter. Bond gains control again of it and dumps Blofeld down a chimney. This most likely came from source material featuring Blofeld as the main enemy. For Your Eyes Only does not turn into a Bond v SPECTRE affair and after the pretitle, we have Bond dealing with Greek criminals and dodgy KGB operatives. There is a whole On Her Majesty's Secret Service subtheme throughout with a contessa who gets killed, a Draco-like Bond ally, ski chases/shootouts, Bond visiting Tracy's grave, etc.

Moore second last film is one of the most underrated Bond films ever. Like Moonraker, it has everything that The Spy Who Loved Me had but yet is poorly rated. For me I think Octopussy is excellent and is the perfect thaw in the cold war era film. Kamal Khan may be a bit too sophisticated to be one of the Taliban but who cares. This Afghan warlord does not see any place for him in either the then communist government of Afghanistan or the official rebels and teams up with a dissident Soviet general who plans to take over the USSR and presumably give Khan Afghanistan. The film also hones in on nuclear disarmament talks and is politically more realistic than usual. Great action and memorable henchmen make this one of the most overlooked gems in the series. A good pretitle, climax, fights and shootouts and a good plot all the way. If Moore had done this earlier, it would be recognised more for the good film it actually is.

By the time Moore ended his tenure with A View To A Kill, he did look too old for the role and looked a lot older than in his previous film. This film is often ranked as the worst of the lot and even Moore himself is one who shares this view. He has never said anything positive about it and it is the one film of his that he will always say he did not appreciate making. I remember watching this for the first time some years ago aware of its reputation. This is actually quite a good film and underrated even if a whole lot of it seems to meander into Goldfinger updated territories. Moore plays Bond well. The pretitle is awesome. Zorin steals the show and is a very demented villain. Scenes like him machine gunning down unarmed men at the end of the film and laughing while he does so takes Bond villain personas to a new low. Mayday is almost like a female Jaws, changing in the end to the good side. The climax on the Golden Gate bridge is very entertaining.

Moore's 7 films along with its immediate predecessors You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever bridged the gap between the older Bond and the modern Bond. By A View To A Kill there was very little of Fleming's character left and certain Bondisms created in the films were cemented. Of course most of these films diverted severely from the original books but probably needed to.

If some of Fleming's books were followed religiously, they would be out of kilter with the times. Fleming's Moonraker for example would have been written at a time when space travel was not very advanced and when men were yet to be in space. By 1979 when the film came out, Fleming's ideas were used and updated. Fleming's Bond was a 1950s-1960s man whereas the films spanned the 1960s to today. Changes in culture, technology, world powers, etc. all had to come into them and reflect the realities.

Craig's Bond has been perfect for today's era. Moore's Bond was perfect for his era. While we sometimes look back at older Bond films and compare them with today's Bond films, this is pointless as we are comparing very different eras. One thing though that helped the series to survive and be respected is that it shunned any controversial topics. No story featuring trouble in countries or region like Vietnam, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, etc. that would divide audiences were used. Good Russians were always used to counter bad Russians who always were working against Russian interests too. The Afghan war featured in The Living Daylights but it was stressed that this was not an anti USSR propaganda film by having Bond and the good Russian Pushkin both against the bad Russian Koskov. Film series that took a more biased view of things like the Rambo sequels suffered for it of course.

beauf

I think I said moore or less the same thing, only shorter. I grew up with the moore bonds, had the toys etc. Its like someone watching Star Wars for the first time now out of context. Will have no idea of the impact it had. Similarly the moore movies were perfect at their time. It was a big deal when they were in the cinema or on the TV for the first time usually at Xmas. Movies these days don't have the same impact.

BorneTobyWilde

We need the first female bond .
Jamie Bond
That would be cool.

BuilderPlumber

beauf wrote: »

I think I said moore or less the same thing, only shorter. I grew up with the moore bonds, had the toys etc. Its like someone watching Star Wars for the first time now out of context. Will have no idea of the impact it had. Similarly the moore movies were perfect at their time. It was a big deal when they were in the cinema or on the TV for the first time usually at Xmas. Movies these days don't have the same impact.

That was true about back then. Octopussy, Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me were all popular Christmas films I recall. Bond films were also on bank holidays throughout the year as well and I remember specifically watching Diamonds Are Forever, Never Say Never Again, For Your Eyes Only and Live and Let Die for the first time on bank holidays. The Indiana Jones films served a similar purpose.

While still major events in the cinema, films like Bond are not as major events on TV anymore. Next Christmas (meaning 2017), 2015 blockbusters like the latest Bond film SPECTRE along with the new Mad Max and Star Wars films will no doubt be on Christmas Day/Eve, etc. but people will have seen them on DVD/BleRay/etc.

BuilderPlumber

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

We need the first female bond .
Jamie Bond
That would be cool.

I think a series with a female Bond-like agent could be good. They almost did that with Halle Berry back in the 2000s. Female cop and martial arts films came into being so who knows? I think keeping James Bond separate would be the wisest idea and coming up with a new character.

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

Here's Ian Fleming's own view on how the movie version of Bond should be played:

Ian Fleming had a vision for the Bond films that was a far cry from the movies we see made today. In fact, when the films were first being made he gave Cubby Broccoli a memorandum with his ideas on what the movies should be like. Below are some highlights.

Ian Fleming "Atmosphere: To my mind, the greatest danger in this series is too much stage Englishness. There should, I think, be no monocles, moustaches, bowler hats or bobbies or other "Limey" gimmicks. There should be no blatant English slang, a minimum of public school ties and accents, and subsidiary characters should, generally speaking, speak with a Scots or Irish accent."

"The Secret Service should be presented as a tough, modern organization in which men may dress more casually than they do in the FBI. Above all they should not slap each other on the back or call each other "old boy."

"James Bond: James Bond is a blunt instrument wielded by a Government Department. He is quiet, hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. In his relationships with women he shows the same qualities as he does in his job, but he has a certain gentleness with them and if they get into trouble he is sometimes prepared to sacrifice his life to rescue them. But not always, and certainly not if it interferes with his job. He likes gambling, golf, and fast motor cars."

"Neither Bond nor his Chief, M, should initially endear themselves to the audience. They are tough, uncompromising men and so are the people who work for and with them."

Fleming writes: (regarding the building where the HQ of the British Secret Service is located)

"The list of other occupants of the building is innocuous: Universal Export, Central Radio Communications and so forth."

"Bonds' secretary, formerly of the WRNS, should be attractive, sexy, but extremely efficient and rather severe. She would obviously look much prettier away from the office. She is inclined to mother Bond - brushes his coat and so forth."

"They [Bond and his secretary] have a friendly, businesslike relationship with occasional sparks of flirtation from Bond. The relationship...is rather similar to that between Perry Mason and Della Street."

"Bond's office, looking out over a park, should contain a number of office gadgets, such as a twenty-four-hour clock, Phonodeck, oddments like a shell-base for an ashtray, a shrapnel fragment as a paper-weight, three telephones, two black and one white - the latter direct with M and his Chief of Staff."

Fleming also said that M should wear a dark blue bowtie with white spots.

The Bond character and films have evolved a lot over the years. Early Connery, as well as Dalton and the first 2 films of Craig probably stay closest to the Fleming style Bond and so do these films. The first 4 films along with OHMSS stay close to the Fleming novels.

I feel as the series went on, it became more linked to what audiences were seeing in other similar films and TV series than Fleming's original source material. Elements of US gangster films were seen creeping in as early as Diamonds are Forever and Shaft greatly influenced Live and Let Die. Martial arts films were part of the inspiration behind The Man With The Golden Gun and space films inspired Moonraker. From there one could see Indiana Jones inspired some parts of Octopussy and you can see in many of the Dalton, Brosnan and Craig films elements of everything from Rambo to Miami Vice to Mad Max to The Bourne Identity being taken into account.

Of course the films needed to be updated from Fleming's 1950s and 1960s sources if they were to be viable 1970s and 1980s action films. Space travel, technology and cars became much more advanced since the time of Fleming. The Bond films never confined themselves to a 1960s setting so had to evolve with the times.

The major difference between the Fleming Bond and the film Bond was the latter was much more humorous and this aspect of Bond contrary to popular belief was introduced as early as Goldfinger. It was very much used by Lazenby to ease audiences into he being Bond and was continued by Moore, Brosnan and even Dalton and Craig.

The settings of the books and films changed too. I remember a lot of the books were set in Jamaica (Dr No, Live and Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun) while the films changed that around a lot. Some obvious countries Bond has yet to be in (in the films anyway) are Australia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Syria, New Zealand, South Africa, other parts of sub Saharan Africa, indeed Ireland. I know some of these would be controversial but others are rather obvious one would think. I think one of the Bond films may have been partly filmed in Canada but not set there?

Eddy_Phelan

I would rather see that dashing chap Edward Phelan given a go! ;)

Brief_Lives

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37848263

Michael Fassbender has ruled himself out of becoming the next James Bond.

The German-Irish actor had been tipped as one of the favourites to take over the role from Daniel Craig.
But when he was asked in an interview with GQ magazine if he would be up for the part, he said: "To be honest, no."
He said he thought the franchise needed a shake-up, suggesting a younger Bond played by someone like Unbroken star Jack O'Connell. He also said a woman could take on the role.

...
...

BuilderPlumber

Brief_Lives wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37848263

Michael Fassbender has ruled himself out of becoming the next James Bond.

The German-Irish actor had been tipped as one of the favourites to take over the role from Daniel Craig.
But when he was asked in an interview with GQ magazine if he would be up for the part, he said: "To be honest, no."
He said he thought the franchise needed a shake-up, suggesting a younger Bond played by someone like Unbroken star Jack O'Connell. He also said a woman could take on the role.

...
...

I think that the series has to retain a lot of its traditional elements and that broadening it out to alter the Bond character in radical ways could do a lot of harm. So far the character has been played in a serious and humorous way and the films ranged from realistic to invisible cars. All along the fundamental aspects of the Bond character remained intact.

If Bond was radically altered to be gay, a woman, transgender, etc., it would alienate probably near 100% of the followers. By all means, a Bond-style film or a Bond spinoff featuring an agent like that would of course work. A black Bond on the other hand could work with the right actor (Eddie Murphy would have done a good Bond in the 1980s or 1990s and Idris Elba would be perfect now) and a good script.

For now it looks most likely that Craig will do at least one more. There is no doubting he is popular, profitable and has appeared in some of the best of the Bond films. The makers of the films want things to remain like this. I'd like to see Craig do a film like Octopussy or The Living Daylights where real world events are blended into the film in a way that is not biased.

brevity

Jamie Bell would be a good option in a few years. He's only 30 now and that's way too young to be bond.

BuilderPlumber

I just bought some new Bond books for Christmas. They are Solo, Carte Blanche and Trigger Mortis. I have read Solo and will begin the other 2 during Christmas itself. It once more reminds me of a topic I brought up: these books and others like it should be made into films. I enjoyed Solo and it is like Devil May Care a worthy successor to Fleming's books and set after them in the 1960s. It is among the best of the post-Fleming books. Will get back in later December or in January about my other two purchases. For the moment, here are 4 books I would like to see turned into a film and one is even a Fleming one:

The Spy Who Loved Me: of course we got a film of this name and it is excellent. But the film had nothing at all to do with the book apart from the use of the 2 henchmen (yes, Jaws was based on Fleming's Horror character from the book). The story of the book is different and interesting, even if Fleming himself had a poor view of it and advised filmmakers to use the name not the story (which is exactly what they did). What makes the book different to others is: it is first told by a woman who is in trouble with criminals and more half the book does not even have Bond in it. When Bond does come into it, he is in the right place at the right time to save the woman and defeat the bad guys. There is a mention of Bond being in Canada, where the book is set, to defeat SPECTRE. The film version could be called something else and use Fleming's story and put in a Bond v SPECTRE element too and you have a good and different Bond with Bond in 2 parallel stories. Plus Canada is a place Bond has yet to visit in a film.

Colonel Sun: The first and arguably the best post-Fleming Bond film. Although one can argue that parts of The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day and even For Your Eyes Only were inspired by it, a faithful adaptation of the book itself would be excellent as it is a great book.

Devil May Care: Another great book and the way it was written seems to appreciate a film friendly nature. But any film version of this needs to be set in the places in the book and not some compromise location. Hopefully the direction of Iran's government will gradually change and in a more moderate, democratic and inclusive Iran, hopefully this film can be made. Iran is also a place Bond has not been to in the films and we want to see Bond in this country and not North Africa, Turkey, Azerbaijan, etc. deputising for Iran. Wait for Iran to change and make this properly. Who thought not that long ago Bond would actually be filmed in China and Russia.

Solo: This is a great book and added something new again. Bond was never in Sub-Saharan continental Africa either in film (IIRC, he was only ever in Egypt, Morocco, Madagascar and Mauritania (I am assuming that was where Blofeld had his HQ towards the end of SPECTRE) and that parts of Diamonds Are Forever and Casino Royale featured mainland SubSaharan Africa but not the parts with Bond) and Solo could easily be filmed authentically in a stable West African country such as Benin or Ghana. The book is clearly set in this general area as the fictional Zanzarim/Dahum are described as French, British and German colonies just like Benin (French), Togo (German and then French) and Ghana and Nigeria (British) are in the real world. Dahum of course sounds suspiciously like Dahomey, the old name for Benin. Bond was never in Washington DC either, so 2 different places for Bond to visit here. The war footage at the start could be updated as needed (would a film version of Solo go down the road of the 1960s era of the book or would it update it to today's era). Solo of course opened the door to a sequel and there is great potential to develop the devious CIA agent, the injured Kobus Breed and the nasty journalist character.

Agent Coulson

It's being reported today that Daniel Craig is about to sign on for two more Bond films and for that he will get £70m a film.

OU812

Agent Coulson wrote: »

It's being reported today that Daniel Craig is about to sign on for two more Bond films and for that he will get £70m a film.

That's a hell of a payday, but if you consider his four movies made over $3.1 billion against production costs of $810 million (although Goldfinger made far more on a cost v profit ratio), he probably deserves it.

Just want them to go ahead & make them now. Hope it's 2 & 3 of a Blofeld trilogy & then someone else can take over

Sad Professor

Can they not just forget Blofeld happened? That character should be left in the 60s where he belongs. After Mendes's two throwback films I think it's time to get back on track.

OU812

Have to disagree SP. I enjoyed the character, it's synonymous with Bond & I think needs closure before recasting 007

BuilderPlumber

Sad Professor wrote: »

Can they not just forget Blofeld happened? That character should be left in the 60s where he belongs. After Mendes's two throwback films I think it's time to get back on track.

OU812 wrote: »

Have to disagree SP. I enjoyed the character, it's synonymous with Bond & I think needs closure before recasting 007

I think that the current backstory for Blofeld and his persona wasted a good character and a good actor. It is clear the character was written as Oberhauser but was turned into Blofeld once permission for granted to use that name. He is more like Silva from Skyfall than the real Blofeld. The original Blofeld featured in Bond films between 1963 and 1971 and also in 1981 and 1983.

While the new Blofeld was introduced in a rather poor way, there is nothing to say that the character can't be improved upon in the next film. I think closure is needed for his character and Craig's Bond defeating him and killing him would be a fitting way to close out his tenure.

FunLover18

BuilderPlumber wrote:

I think closure is needed for his character and Craig's Bond defeating him and killing him would be a fitting way to close out his tenure.

But this would completely defy the point if Spectre's ending. I didn't like Spectre and tbh I was really hoping Craig wouldn't come back and we could get a restart (not a reboot) but if he is coming back I hope they forget about Blofeld because he was crap and his whole "architect of your misery" schtick was ****ing awful, there's no recovering from how badly thought out and executed it was.

BuilderPlumber

FunLover18 wrote: »

But this would completely defy the point if Spectre's ending. I didn't like Spectre and tbh I was really hoping Craig wouldn't come back and we could get a restart (not a reboot) but if he is coming back I hope they forget about Blofeld because he was crap and his whole "architect of your misery" schtick was ****ing awful, there's no recovering from how badly thought out and executed it was.

I agree that this reinvention of Blofeld was very poor. As said many times previously, I feel the character was written as yet another former friend of Bond (or the secret service) gone bad. By now, that type of villain had been played out. But one could have lived with it if they didn't turn him into Blofeld. Oberhauser as Bond's former friend and son of his adopted parent could be forgiven as a copy of the Skyfall and Goldeneye villains, although played out. But making him Blofeld ruined things.

The fact that the series waited so long to get Blofeld and SPECTRE means for sure we haven't seen the last of him. I predict he will be in the next one and may survive in the post-Craig films. Sad they went with the silly backstory obviously more influenced by Skyfall than the original Blofeld.

brevity

To be honest, since Casio Royale, the films have taken a strange turn.

These films are supposed to be about Bond in his early years. I would have thought there would be a bit more energy or excitement from the movies. The characters seem to be so jaded and fed up. They are all quite grim in places.

It needs a bit of spark, a bit of fun.

Sad Professor

brevity wrote: »

To be honest, since Casio Royale, the films have taken a strange turn.

These films are supposed to be about Bond in his early years. I would have thought there would be a bit more energy or excitement from the movies. The characters seem to be so jaded and fed up. They are all quite grim in places.

It needs a bit of spark, a bit of fun.

I blame this on Mendes, whose movies all feel this way. But it doesn't help that Craig has looked sickly the last two movies.

OU812

Sad Professor wrote: »

I blame this on Mendes, whose movies all feel this way. But it doesn't help that Craig has looked sickly the last two movies.

He was supposed to though, wasn't he?

Sad Professor

OU812 wrote: »

He was supposed to though, wasn't he?

Yeah it definitely fits the Skyfall/Spectre take on the character, but it feels a bit premature. And personally I just really dislike that take on the character.

Agent Coulson

Bond needs a bid more campiness and a bid more crazy gadgets and a bit less realism.

fluke

Since I saw Skyfall I checked out completely on Craig's Bond.

Agree with a previous poster - the spark is missing.

FunLover18

All the emotional baggage stuff should have ended after QoS (which I shall defend till I die), at the end of that film he was the cold heartless Bond we all love. But they kept up the emotional stakes with the M=surrogate mother stuff in Skyfall and the Blofeld half brother nonsense in Spectre.

BuilderPlumber

I agree with the last number of posts. QoS I feel too is very underrated. It has great action and set a lot of things up nicely. Enjoyed Skyfall too but SPECTRE was sort of 2 films: a strong first half and a rather weak second half. The conclusion was poor by Bond standards. I feel we haven't had a good strong Bond villain for years. Looking at Craig's films:

-Le Chiffre was always meant to be just an operative and this was Fleming's intention. Hardly a villain, more someone who has been forced to do something for villains he owes.
-Mr White was set up nicely as a mastermind but he was shown to be a good person in the end.
-Dominic Greene and the military dictator had potential but were really not doing anything truly evil. Like Scaramanga in that regard.
-Silva was more a pathetic man with a chip on his shoulder and a a deep grudge. You could almost feel sorry for him and you also feel Judi Dench's M was heartless how she reacts to him. When one feels sorry for a Bond victim, there is something wrong!!
-Oberhauser/Blofeld could have passed as an ok villain if they just left him as Oberhauser. Turning him into Blofeld was unwise.

BuilderPlumber

FunLover18 wrote: »

All the emotional baggage stuff should have ended after QoS (which I shall defend till I die), at the end of that film he was the cold heartless Bond we all love. But they kept up the emotional stakes with the M=surrogate mother stuff in Skyfall and the Blofeld half brother nonsense in Spectre.

The Blofeld foster brother thing was ridiculous and clearly was tacked on when they got permission to use him. It would have been much better to have Oberhauser (who is NOT Blofeld) half brother/foster brother of Bond be the main enemy and call the film The Writing's On The Wall. The theme would be Bond finds out he is involved and then Bond needs to find out why he has turned against him only to discover he works for SPECTRE and Blofeld. Oberhauser and the rest then can be seen as Dr No or Largo types. Blofeld would be introduced as head of SPECTRE and then have the next film focused on the real Blofeld and called SPECTRE. That's how it should have been handled.

fluke

Spectre would've been better if Monica Bellucci was Blofeld...

Sad Professor

fluke wrote: »

Spectre would've been better if Monica Bellucci was Blofeld...

Yeah major missed opportunity there and a reflection of how unimaginative the two Mendes films were.