I‘m too depressed fpr more drama.
3 Likes
I agree. Gadgets generally make Bond Bond.
But that said my favourite film doesn’t feature any gadgets other than a safecracking machine and a camera, yet it doesn’t feel like a slam back down to earth after YOLT. It has more energy and excitement in my estimations through the younger lead and Bond troubleshooting solutions to problems. A more realistic Bond film is still fantasy (Blofeld’s brainwashing scheme is a big part of the plot) but a stripped down gadget approach can still have plenty of flair.
4 Likes
“The world only spins forward”
–Tony Kushner, “Angels in America”
3 Likes
Another hard one. If it’s true we were “evolving” towards an OTT approach with NTTD, then I would vote to continue to evolve in that direction while evolving out of the angsty, mopey schtick. But as written, it’s “keep the tone as it is,” and while like Dustin I think the tone of NTTD was all over the place, the general takeaway was that “Bond is a miserable person and his life is a tragedy,” and I can’t see the end of that tone fast enough.
On the other hand, Revolution is described here as “back to scraped-out basics,” which implies chucking the gadgets, the world-scale threats and the more outlandish moments. I’m ready for more of all those things, but at the same time I see the logic – and proven success – of starting small and building up to the big stuff, if only because once you’ve dialed things up to 11 there’s nowhere left to go.
So I guess it’s “Revolution” for me. But only if “basics” means a Kananga-level threat vs a Drax-level threat and the gadgets are in the “trick watch” vein and not (yet) at full-on, hover-gondola levels. In voting for “basics” I am NOT asking for an origin story or a gradual re-introduction of M, Q, Moneypenny, or a “Bond learning the ropes” arc. Let us please, please steer clear of all of that.
Anyway, arguably whatever happens next is part of the continual evolution of Bond, whether we think it’s evolving in the right direction or not. And going “back to basics” is what we technically deem Devolution, not Revolution. But anyway, we knew logic was irrelevant as soon as we found a delicatessen behind an advent calendar window, even if Fauxfeld did promise us one.
8 Likes
This. Though my gut was to say Evolution, but what’s an R between friends? The world’s had enough of those type of one-liners.
It’s a funny old thing this Bond-business. One of the necessities of these gaps is that it forces us (in lieu of nothing else to do) to evaluate what we want as individual fans. I have very much enjoyed the DC-era but as we move away from it, it’s more on the basis of how the lead convincingly played a “real” person rather than the charicature that Brozza had been saddled with.
So with that said, I’m done with excessive MI6 and a whole load of “it’s all connected.” I do want to keep an air of “seriousness” about proceedings - there is a definite ceiling to the comic aspect of killing people on your government’s orders.
Of course, so much will depend on the strengths of the next guy and how long it will take the writers’ to tap into that, but with the mention of Kanaga, I’ll be fine with an LALD in tone - relatively straight-laced with a sprinkling of the throwaway.
Is that Evolution then? Damn you, Jim, with your categories and such…
3 Likes
“It’s all connected” might even be an interesting evolution for the series, but only if it really is all connected and not the retroactive “because we said so” nonsense we got in the Craig era. In order to carry out a master plan you have to have a master plan in the first place. Every time I hear Blofenhauser say “I am the author of all your pain,” I hear Eon saying through the fourth wall, “We had this all planned from the start,” which in turn makes me think of Pee-Wee Herman taking a header off his bicycle and leaping to his feet to declare, “I meant to do that.”
Having said that, I would only want an inter-connected saga if they can manage to complete a story arc in less than two decades next time. If you’re only going to manage a release every 5 to 6 years, then each one needs to stand completely on its own.
6 Likes
Agree with that clarification. I’ve always said that SP is a “worse” film than DAD, but quality aside, it’s existence (and to an extent the film that followed) are from a ‘Spectre’ perspective an utter waste of the half-century legal rights battle over that part of the property (all that, for that?). The resurrection of Blofeld as underwhelming as Lew Grade’s raising of the Titanic, I would have had far more respect for the whole thing if they’d just stuck with the (accidental) birth of Quantum and fleshed that out; at that moment the “retrofitting” might have been a more convincing fib on us all.
4 Likes
What do we want?
A non-binary Bond flick.
When do we want it?
Now!!
3 Likes
I just want a Moonraker part 2 and a DAF part 2 (and no DAD and SP are not even near this quality of my favorites), or…even more daring: a combination/cross-pollination of my two favorites merged into one big banger of a blockbuster Bond film!
2 Likes
That actually opens up an important question: if the new guy is a success, will they make him a co-producer as well, wait for him and the director and so on?
Or will they put the Amazon money to a good use for a two year rhythm again?
I fear the next guy will want the same perks as Craig.
3 Likes
Indeed, they’ve opened a door that should’ve stayed shut. Cubby might’ve come off as hard-hearted (or even reckless) when he said “James Bond is the star” and denied Connery’s demands, but in the long run he was right, something the next generation seems to have lost sight of.
This is another good argument for making the next James Bond some actor we’ve never heard of, or else yes he’ll come in the front door asking for the moon. Instead of waiting til he’s a couple of pictures in to engage Prima Donna mode.
5 Likes
In all fairness, I’m not sure Connery was really interested in influence as a producer. He wanted to do quality films with some of the biggest names at the time - but he largely kept his ambition to the part he really was proficient with, the acting. The dealbreaker for his first run as Bond apparently has always been the money. And that could have been dealt with.
Connery got the producer/exec producer credits late in his career - and it’s not even clear whether he did anything beyond what he has been always doing ever since he became a household name.
I dare say Eon learned from that first fallout and seemed to be generally very accommodating to their leads afterwards, within reasonable limits. It would also seem Craig has been a major contributor to the general idea of this run of films before he got producer credit. I suppose Eon were happy to have him on board during the chaotic QUANTUM OF SOLACE production - and the influence simply grew from that point onwards.
4 Likes
I didn’t mean to imply Connery was looking to be a producer, but he did push for a bigger financial stake in the series given that he considered himself integral to its success, and the fact that a lot of the marketing revolved around his participation would, you’d think, suggest that the producers thought he was a key element, as well. But, as it turned out, not enough to share the wealth.
Personally I think Cubby and Harry were wrong to shoot him down, but I can easily imagine the whole thing quickly escalating into a pissing match between alpha males, each insisting that they alone were the most important part of the whole operation. There probably wasn’t a lot of room left for compromise.
I can also understand the temptation to keep giving Craig more and more influence and titles, but I’d argue that you have to take the long view and realize this franchise will outlive the latest star and, in all probability, Babs and Michael. You’re making your job harder if you’ve set it up so when the next guy asks for the same perks you have to respond, “Well, Danny was special. You’re not.”
Of course ideally the next guy in line will be thrilled just to be asked to take on the role and won’t have aspirations beyond that. And equally ideally, Eon will have their act together enough not to need their star to fill additional roles just to get a film made.
4 Likes
Broccoli and Saltzman, I believe, were correct in not giving in to Connery‘s demands because otherwise Bond would have been tied to the actor.
It was a combination of luck and stinginess which handed them the chance to recast Bond with more success than failure.
But EON after Cubby made the strange decision to not reward the hugely successful Brosnan with influence and co-producer title but hand it all over to Craig.
Now they are in the situation Cubby and Harry avoided.
Would Craig have left after SP otherwise? Would that have been fatal?
4 Likes
Agreed, Though ultimately (luck or judgement the debate) they were proved right.
As a brain exercise I often ponder an alternative history where SC stays on through much of what became Sir Rog’s tenure - heck even to '82. As NSNA proved, he could still be believable as Bond. What kind of films did EON put out? What would the box office have been? Would the public have tired of the character because it was still the same actor in the lead?
Would change, whenever it eventually came, be damaging to the series, an audience unable to accept a new actor? Would a mid-80s audience be ready and willing to accept a four-film, four-lead reality as was 69-73?
Cubby and Harry were famous for their (I paraphrase) “they’ve been 20 guys that have played Tarzan” attitude. I wonder, would that quote have rolled so easily out their mouths if they, the studios, whoever, had paid SC for another decade?
2 Likes
I‘d say audiences would have grown tired of Bond and Connery in the 70‘s. It is a major selling point to see a new actor in the role (and have the films change accordingly) after a while.
But if Connery had flopped in, let‘s say, TMWTGG it would have looked like a last desperate attempt at saving the series if they had recast then.
5 Likes
I suspect an unadulterated history of the making of QoS would be fascinating. I know I’ve sometimes used “writer’s strike” as the answer to the “what happened” question but if memory serves it was more than that.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but prior to the strike, wasn’t QoS the first time that the script went to P&W, rather than from them to someone else? If I remember, it was all Haggis before they got involved - Bond as a dad, death of M etc. And with what script there was, it went to Roger Michell with the offer to direct who backed out - rather than a flat no - thereby squeezing the already tight schedule. As an aside, if you are in the part of the Venn diagram that hates long gaps between the films as well as disliking QoS, then I would cheekily offer “2-year schedule” as defense Witness #1! 
I had heard there was an uncredited writer who helped through production (I wish I could remember his name), and DC has said that he and Forster were coming up with lines as they went.
Ok - now shakey-cam me as punishment!
2 Likes
Well, maybe I should reverse myself there. I feel it would have been wrong to treat Connery as nothing more than a hired hand given how key he was to the success of the series, and if that’s how it went down (it’s certainly how Sean framed it), it’s not a good look for them. On the other hand, I’m happy things turned out as they did and if we hadn’t already been on Bond #3 (and my personal favorite) when I came along as a lad, who knows, I might never have ended up a fan. Also (on the third hand??) there were recurring team members as important to Bond’s success as Sean, including but not limited to John Barry, Peter Hunt, John Stears and Bob Simmons, and if you gave them ALL a percentage, you’d be giving away the farm. It was probably necessary to reinforce just who was calling the shots at the end of the day.
It’s an interesting thought experiment, but as stated, I’m glad things went as they did. I wouldn’t have wanted to give up Roger, or even Laz. OHMSS would’ve been a different film entirely and almost certainly not as good. I wouldn’t have LALD or TSWLM or MR as I know and love them. Sean did look great in NSNA but there were plenty of times between YOLT and NSNA where he didn’t look so great, to put it mildly. He looked older and less fit in The Anderson Tapes or even DAF than he did ten years later.
I think if he’d stayed we’d Bond would’ve ended up like Indiana Jones: with the role so solidly identified with one performer that audiences would never accept a new face. Sooner or later, the Grim Reaper will come for all the actors, but Bond shouldn’t have to die. Plus there were fans and critics of a certain vintage already crowing “the REAL Bond is back” in 1983 having had a decade to get over Connery and willfully failed to do so. If you’d given in to that crowd and kept him on out of fear or fan service, the day would still have come when you’d have to let him go, and it only would’ve been ten times harder and riskier to make it work. It might be odd for a fan to say on a fan message board, but I miss the days when producers were unafraid to say, “We’re calling the shots, not the fans.” Eon was able to put their foot down on that pretty early on.
5 Likes
Clearly not with you DavidM, but I’ll gladly get into a rumble with anyone out there who wants to come at me with the “OHMSS would have been (even more) brilliant with SC in it!”
What, you mean watching the guy slouching around Japan hot footing it across the ice? No bleeping way! I’ve always said that OHMSS works so well because of the young, athletic, un-cynical, slightly naive Bond that Laz brought us - having that guy “lose” is what makes the last act.
And I’ve always said, I don’t think SC could have sold us a Bond falling love and wanting to marry - his version of the character wasn’t that, and while I appreciate SC the actor, I’m not sure that back then he could’ve performed the pivot required.
If you disagree, then rear-projection me as punishment!
4 Likes
?? I think we’re arguing on the same side, plank. OHMSS with Connery wouldn’t have been as good as what we got, we agree on that.
Connery never worked for me in a romance, with the possible exception of “Robin and Marian” but even that was a pretty unconventional romance. By 1969, his Bond had evolved into such a superman type that I don’t think audiences would’ve bought him being vulnerable and lovestruck even if he could’ve delivered those things. The only thing that would’ve been more fun, in a twisted way, would have been having him show up at Piz Gloria expecting to get away with the Clark Kent schtick.
Anyway, sorry if my wording was confusing: I agree OHMSS alone is worth losing Connery over, even if for me the #1 upside was Roger’s tenure.
6 Likes