The esteemed David_M beat me to the punch with a great post. CR is arguably the furthest away anyone will ever get from the template that’s been established.
It’s that old existential question - just what is a Bond film? Is it even possible now to move forward with the character without referencing the history? Is it that that connects-the-dots for the audience? We have the on-going canon discussion going on in this very thread, and of course, one man’s canon is invariably another’s controversy.
Are the next iteration of EON, or whoever, Amazon, someone else entirely, able to move forward without referencing the past, even in the form of “inverting it” to make it “fresh.” Let’s face it, there is a large chunk of the audience (and a percentage of fandom maybe), that don’t think that CR is a Bond-film in the traditional sense, even though it’s a relatively faithful adaption of the source material.
To an extent the filmmakers are on a hiding to nothing. Dump callbacks and too much else that seems to be removed from the collective memory of six decades and the run the risk of “This isn’t Bond.” Too much the other way, and it’s Aston Martin time.
As for NTTD - yes, it is explicitly an ending to a tenure (duh, obviously). But I’d offer that thematically - creatively - it’s SF that is the ending. I must say at the time - even now - if you’d told me the whole thing was done after that film, I would have bought it on an emotional level. That, after CR (and QoS), Mendes et al was hell-bent on bringing back everything that for many felt stripped away (Q! DB5! Jokes about gadgets! A leather door!), leaves SF completing a circle that perhaps from a creative standpoint, might have been better off not being completed, forcing the series back into a loop that for the briefest of moments it might have broken away from.
The proof for me is in the uneven pudding of disappointment that was SP, a film neither brave enough to be CR (and QoS), and frankly not entertaining enough to be TB or TSWLM. Maybe SP is what you get when you ask a focus group “What is a Bond film?” - lots of stuff that should be “Bond!” (set-pieces, henchmen, gadgets, exotic base) without it being that entertaining on the basest of levels.
Not to take anything away from the brilliance of CR, but in a way Eon had an advantage there in that there was a great, as-yet unadapted Fleming novel to start from. As I said above, I think the approach was, “forget we’ve done this before; if we just found this book today, how would we adapt it?”
That won’t be possible next time out, and whether they can construct a totally new iteration of Bond with nothing to go on but their own inventiveness remains to be seen (spoilers: I have my doubts).
If they’re going to take inspiration from the past, maybe they should look to CR. Not for any baggage to carry over from the Craig years, but for the approach of adapting Fleming. Cubby frittered away a long line of Fleming titles with films that had nothing to do with the books; why not pick one and adapt it faithfully to the screen, but with a 21st-century spin? Then build an “arc” off of that. Vesper Lynd only appeared in Fleming’s CR but she haunts all of Craig’s films. Maybe the next Bond could similarly be shaped by the events of another Fleming novel, with the first film adapting the book and the rest picking up the pieces, or extrapolating the fall-out.
Part of me wishes they’d just pack it in, though. First Eon kept the momentum going on the classic formula longer than anyone else could’ve managed. Then the next generation of producers proved they could find success by reinventing the series on their own terms. I’m not convinced they (or Bond) have anywhere left to go.
For me, I think it goes beyond EON. As your last sentence proffers, is it as much the audience’s expectations that limit the path of the product. Is there a way forward that is completely fresh without becoming something else? I don’t think so. Remove EON completely and the challenge remains the same. Where can Bond go next?
I agree, there is plenty of source material. But does the general audience care? They are, for better or for worse, attracted by the cinematic product which unfortunately has conditioned them (EON have to take responsibility for this) to expect certain things from a Bond film. Unlike say, Agatha Christie, where the plot-twist is much of the point, Bonds are ultimately a “style” rather than a “substance.” And if the style changes, then the substance however worthy, might not be a enough to sate the general audience.
I’d further argue that a lot of what audiences traditionally wanted from a Bond film they’re now getting from Mission: Impossible. At this point the only thing Bond has over M:I is that it’s already established a tradition of soft reboots when the lead actor ages out. M:I has yet to prove it can survive that transition and Cruise isn’t getting any younger.
Maybe it’s just old age talking, but I’ve gotten to the point with Bond (and Trek and superheroes) where I actually do have enough in the tank already to keep me happy, thanks very much. My demand for additional content is low to none as long as I can revisit what I already have and enjoy.
But for a Bond film to be a Bond film, callbacks are necessary. They acknowledge the lineage, while allowing for the film to resonate/reflect the moment in which it is made. A sort of Buddhist approach to filmmaking.
And the style any film embraces must of its time, e.g., OHMSS is quintessential late 1960s, while DAF is a perfect introduction to the 1970s.
Beautifully put. The formula allows for continuity, but is flexible enough to permit the current moment to suffuse the work, making it (hopefully) appealing to audiences.
Most „original content“ is a mix of previous ideas, often as an obvious influence or homage (always steal from the best). It can happen, though, that this greatest hits mix transcends the quality of what came before.
I‘m looking at you, Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek, Die Hard etc.
Indeed the secret to success seems to be finding the right mix of sources to rip off, like a chef knowing the right ingredients to blend. For instance, Superman = John Carter + Samson + Moses + Scarlet Pimpernel + Doc Savage. Batman = Zorro + Sherlock Holmes + Dick Tracy + Houdini + The Shadow. Star Wars = Flash Gordon + John Carter + Western + WWII air battles + Samurai films. And so on.
Where you get into trouble is when you borrow too lopsidedly from a single source, like all the Bond and Superman and Star Wars imitators. Audiences are willing to accept a novel mix of familiar elements as “original enough,” but they can smell a copycat a mile away.
That said, I’m not sure the Fleming/70s Eon analogy is entirely on point. Trying to incorporate the cinematic fad du jour – whether it fits comfortably into the Bond template or not – isn’t the same as saying “Why don’t I try for some of Raymond Chandler’s audience?” or writing a character with elements of Bulldog Drummond. I’m not convinced Fleming’s experimentations with the formula – such as they were – were driven by the evolving fads of pop culture.
But yes, in spirit Fleming and Eon had the same motivation and ethos: Anything that sells is good.
Fleming was a magpie artist, and the best Bond films (for me) follow this aesthetic tradition. They also, again following Fleming, reflect the moment of their making (I know I have made this point before).
The better films are the ones that manage their magpie and mirroring practices best.
1? I like even DAD to a degree, but in the midst of that company it’s the stinker.
2? More like 2 stinkers with that song and the store.
3? Oh, no, you had to put that novel there? I only read a few, and I don’t even remember whether that one was one of them, so it would be an awkward conversation. Especially if it was one of those I did read.
4? Not a gamer. And Jinx making crude double entendres about the thrust of golden guns would also be weird.
5? Hey, I always had a soft spot for Stacey Sutton (damn, Jinxed that). So, yeah, maybe.
6? My devotion to TSWLM makes me decide: this is my table. I do have a weakness for Mango Tree, too. And I would love to hear Martin Campbell sing it. I will even offer an additional chair for „Do you know how Christmas trees are grown?“
There was a blend of the stoic colonial long forgotten heros of earl Victorian and Edwardian novels, reimagined by a damaged snob who could write in a brilliantly terse manner.
It’s the damaged Psyche that makes the novels memorable and the ’ of the moment ’ pop cultural references. To this end the 70s were the most Fleming’. Perhaps though, going back to Fleming actually means a propulsive plot, linear action, themes of loss and regret, remembrance of things lost.
Newer Bond films often face harsh comparisons to the past, saying that they aren’t as good anymore. GE, TND, CR, SF and NTTD have been excellent in my estimations.
Wow, well done, SPECTRE; coming up with an eatery even more evil than Chick-fil-A. Nice job dealing the cards so there’s pain no matter what, but I’m going to have to go with Table 1 as it lets me save the novel that started it all, my favorite Bond song and, vitally, my favorite Bond.
When the floor opens up to claim the other tables and diners, I shove in DAD to join them, and all is well.
It helped to imagine DAD as a restaurant patron. I can see it now, eating Kimchi it’s trying to pass off as Shepherd’s Pie, before lingering far too long on the Baked Alaska, its spoon moving from plate to mouth and back again in irritating speed ramp transitions while humming a Madonna song and throwing in a few “Yo Mamma” jokes. Die, DAD, Die!
Gay men looooove going to restaurants, so here we go:
Table 5: Terence Young to the furnace? Easy choice.
Table 4: SKYFALL and TMWTGG (novel) to the furnace? I can live with that. Sorry, Jinx.
Table: 2: CraigBond to the furnace? He is already dead, so I am sending a zombie.
Table 3: Goodnight, Mary. And really, really sorry GOLDFINGER (film), but you should have sat elsewhere.
Table 6: TSWLM (film)–I prefer you as MOONRAKER, and others do it better than your tablemates.
I will now take my seat at Table 1 with MooreBond, do a sing-along to “Live and Let Die,” muse about Bond’s origins, and agree that we will die another day.
As you’re all bullying DAD, let it know I’ll take care of it. It’s doing very well, in spite of their parents being an unhealthy relationship and the amount of bullying it keeps getting.
