That seems to be what EON looks for in a “great” Bond story these days. References. Tons and tons of references. References to when the franchise was actually clever and able to tell an original story that was engaging on its own.
Bunt’s inclusion will also boil down to their desire to play things safe, which a familiar character will do for them over a brand new one. These are the same people who took what was shaping up to be a radically different Bond film in Spectre and made one of the most dull, boring, paint-by-numbers affairs we’ve seen in a while. I would expect something similar again this time out.
…although, we need something to do whilst we wait for actual news.
Bond 27 - Bond doesn’t have the same gravitas he had in 26, but I think the minimising was a directorial choice as I think our director may have gone a bit far with the meta-continuity generally, in particular that bit, just after Shatterhand was beaten by Sean Connery leading the US Troops and ninjas, when she came on screen, looked straight down the camera and said “this okay?”
It seemed to have started with DAD, cramming in references for anniversaries sake (20th film and 40 years since DN).
Then it happened all over again with SF (the Aston Martin gags eventually jumped the shark with the music cue and zoom on its explosion). With so many wonderful aspects to that great movie it was a shame imo that they sabotaged the tone with these crowbarred-in ‘traditional moments’ making it an uneven affair.
The gag in the tube station when the old guy says to his wife “He’s in a hurry to get home” is obviously there as a misguided nod to the 70s Carry On Bond gags such as the sunbather throwing away his bottle of booze when the lotus drives out of the ocean in TSWLM. I know it’s only my opinion, but for me the slapstick are low points in the franchise (double-take pigeon in MR and Tarzan yell in OC). It’s bizarre to me that the slapstick is something they chose to recall.
Using ‘traditions’, from slapstick to branding such as Aston Martin as incongruous motifs and signifiers of ‘Bond’ is a weakness, rather than a strength; intended to woo with nostalgia and pedigree, they instead undermine the mise en scene and suspension of disbelief. Sure, it’s all just entertainment and some/many may be entertained by this breaking of the 4th wall, but doesnt it diminish the drama/thriller we’re watching? Or am I taking it too seriously - is Bond essentially just light entertainment?
There’s clever ways of nodding to the past and there’s blunt ways - let’s shove one in here! Imagine that with every new album your favourite band release they shove a bunch of songs from the early days on there, just to remind you that they’ve been around for ages. You’d start to question their confidence in the new material.
Sure, I don’t need to be reminded of previous Bond eras. I would not even miss the references at all. But every audience I saw SF with were THRILLED with the Aston moments. Applause. Hollering.
And it surely does not throw off the tone. C´mon, we´re talking Bond films here. The tone is always between seriousness and wink-wink.
Oh god, yes! The irony of overstating my dislike of overstated references… You got me banged to rights
The Aston moments certainly played well with the audiences i saw it with too, no question. My point, i guess, is that it’s very difficult to have it both ways - is it a thriller, or light entertainment? Doesn’t one cancel out the other?
Craig’s Bond movies have generally been pitched as thrillers, with a healthy dose of emotional drama. SF was in keeping with this and for me was sabotaged a little (just a little) by the hand break turns into slapstick. The slapstick itself was usually done well enough - made us laugh - but however good it is, however entertaining it divests us a little from the momentum of the drama. There’s always room for wit, but slapstick…?!
I think this is a general malaise in much of the UK’s mainstream cinema - we try to make everything ‘all singing, all dancing’; bit of drama, bit of comedy, some thrills and some sex. Imo it’s a uniquely English habit, with US and continental mainstream having a little more tonal focus. And also, i think it’s a Mendes thing - CR and QoS, love’em or loath’em have more tonal consistency.
N.B. i’m a fan of Mendes contribution to Bond - he’s given us some of the franchise’s best scenes imo, but no one’s perfect!
Kingsley Amis, one of Fleming’s most outspoken fans, even regarded the oneliners from Connery’s early films as too flippant, damaging the tone of the thriller he considered the Bond adventures to be. It’s a common lament that the Bond films always (at least since GOLDFINGER) tried to have it both ways, the tough thriller with the light comedy moments. Fans of the books often had a particularly hard time to accept the cinematic approach Bond took for most of the time.
Indeed, after CASINO ROYALE I was hoping for a more serious approach. More serious, not less fun. And the billing of Craig’s performances up to a point justified the claim, at least if we accept the heightened drama revolving around Bond as a given degree of seriousness. But I think we really don’t do Eon justice if we blame them for not reinventing the wheel with every new Bond film. That’s just not their aim.
What they are setting out to do, every once in a while, every few years, is just to bring back a spectacularly successful spy franchise, no more no less. And they can’t just drop their epos when spies and action heroes are in demand and hugely popular and keep off the turf when the genre isn’t doing well. They’ve got to deliver a sure fire hit, nothing less. Therefore their product always has to walk that thin line where the fans of the oneliners and the slapstick and the fans of the tough thriller all get something to chew on while they try to ignore the parts they don’t like.
I perfectly understand how this isn’t everybody’s idea of a satisfying Bond experience. But given that this balance act is keeping up for over five decades I seriously doubt we are going to witness a major break from that procedure.
Also - let’s not forget how many (even here) complained about CraigBond getting too serious after QOS.
EON seemed to listen and react. But that, naturally, irked those who prefer their Bond to be that kind of serious.
In the end, there is no winning strategy here. Except making a film that brings in worldwide audiences.
As for BOND 25: the long gap between SPECTRE and this one will ensure that nobody involved will want to risk anything. And they probably shouldn’t.
If BOND 25 took a very specific approach that would alienate a large part of the mainstream audience it would certainly be a problem for the whole series.
SPECTRE was a massive hit. But if BOND 25 tanked it could very well take many more years for a new actor to step in, with all the uncertainties of that. If that next actor (in 2023/24/25?) did not bring in enough money where would that leave the franchise?
Let´s be honest: BOND 25 has to succeed. So… no pressure then.
Not for me, I must say. Wit, it goes without saying, is wonderful and always important.
But a masterfully performed slapstick scene is absolutely worthy and can be a piece of art as well.
What is slapstick but a look at the silliness of human behavior, mostly in situations in which we think we behave absolutely dignified and sure of ourselves. When the opposite is true.
Slapstick exposes our pompousness and tells us to be humble. Because we all are rather silly small beings.
I think the DCEU and MCU have shown us wit is needed. Too dark and the film is just depressing and un-interesting. Thor: Ragnorak was basically a comedy and completely nailed it. Now, I’m not saying we need a Spectre-level of comedy, but something like what we got in Casino Royale would be nice.
At which point people will be angrily typing on here how CJF turned Bond into a Marvel movie (you think I’m exaggerating, but angry twitter does seem to believe that wit and heavy marketing were invented by Kevin Feige)
It’s been said a few times above, but we’ll always come back to it - You can’t please everyone and it’s a fools errand to try. You just need to accept that, if you have a large audience, there will be people who feel angrily that EON did something differently than aforementioned angry individual would’ve liked. Just make the film you want to make, and if others like it, that’s just a nice bonus. Fortunately, CJF has a CV that would suggest he agrees.
In any event, EON/MGM will most probably strive for BOND 25 to be more SKYFALL than QUANTUM or LICENCE TO KILL, although I would love to see a Bond film like that again.
Shakespeare managed it well enough with the porter scene in Macbeth and I don’t recall hearing of too many complaints about how the tone of that worked out!
I totally agree with your thoughts on slapstick - I’m a big fan too! A character I adore as much as Bond is Clouseau. For me that collaboration of Edwards and Sellers will never be topped. To some extent I see clouseau as the flip side of Bond. And to be honest I find the slapstick closer to real life than the action man.
So im definitely not turning my nose up at slapstick, just the decision to randomly shove into a dramatic thriller in order to nod to the past. It was fine in Moore’s day because they never really pretended to be dramatic. But when, as with SF it does aim for drama, the slapstick sits uncomfortably.
Lets be honest, at times it’s only there as a post modern reference to itself and not because the story needed it. I think the story at these points would run far better without these indulgences.
