But how far could any director depart from the main formula without a Bond film becoming a film that is not recognizable (and enjoyed by the obligatory mass audience) as a Bond film?
In other words: which part of the formula could a director disregard - and with what should he replace it?
As argued on this thread before, some ingredients seem to be non-negotiable:
the gun barrel (at the beginning of the film)
the PTS
a title song
Bond on a mission given by M
flirting with Moneypenny, squabbling with Q
Bond meeting a woman that will accompany him on his journey
a villain that has an elaborate plan that Bond has to sabotage
action sequences with spectacular stunts
exotic or at least interesting locations
one-liners or at least humor to show Bond stays on top of any situation
CASINO ROYALE ditched both of these and is regarded as one of the best films in the franchise. SKYFALL also ditched the first one as well and many thought that it should have been nominated for Best Picture in 2012.
I donât subscribe to the notion that a Bond film has to have any of these things in order to be a âBond filmâ. For my money, it only needs to feature James Bond and feature a story in which the main focus is Bond performing his duties as a spy/assassin. Outside of that, the rest of it is just window dressing that can come and go as it pleases the creative team. Forcing these superficial things onto the films limits their potential. I guarantee not more than a small handful of people exited the theater after CASINO ROYALE and immediately started complaining about the exclusion of Moneypenny or Q.
Still, both have been re-integrated again, and the response - one can only measure that with some credibility by box office receipts and reviews - was a collective âfinally, all things are back in placeâ.
QOS, a movie you and I like very much, was greeted instead with complaints about it being âtoo much Bourne, not enough Bondâ.
Iâm sure thatâs why EON/MGM and even Mendes and Craig said: letâs return to those roots again.
The gun barrel was even planned to start SKYFALL until Mendes noticed that the way he framed the first shot would feel repetitive. (By the way, I donât think it was necessary at all to put âThe dead are aliveâ after the gun barrel in SPECTRE, a completely artsy touch by Mendes, allowed by EON because of Mendes´ stature).
Well, I guess the only thing I can really say is that if SPECTRE is the publicâs idea of âfinally, all things are back in placeâ then Iâm not long for this franchise. Bond and Moneypennyâs interactions were groan-worthy in that film, as was practically everything else contained within the film. My feelings on SKYFALL are pretty well known, but SPECTRE makes that film look like CITIZEN KANE by comparison.
It also stands that, if you make a good enough picture, most wonât care about those elements. If CASINO ROYALE was bad, there would have been complaining about missing tropes, as though those mystical elements could have somehow saved a bad CR film. They told an entertaining tale for 2.5 hours and nobody missed these supposedly indispensable tropes. Craig and EON retreating to them based on a lack of public enthusiasm for QUANTUM OF SOLACE was, IMO, a rather lazy creative move that, quite frankly, hasnât really done the franchise any favors moving forward.
Thereâs no reason why Bond canât do different things moving forward. If itâs just about ticking the same boxes over and over again, there are 20-24 films that already do that. If itâs only the box-ticking that makes something a âBond filmâ, then, IMO, that makes it a very shallow form of entertainment.
I do have some sympathy for EON - it is a nigh on impossible task to evaluate exactly how the franchise is perceived by the general audience and the latterâs expectation when they buy a ticket.
CR was preceded by a very savvy and effective PR campaign of âthis is different, weâre removing the usual tropesâ etc. And the audience bought it and moved along. Fast forward to SP and you can see the skeleton of attempt to capture some of the âorginalityâ that unerpins CR (and yes, QoS which one day I guarantee will endure far greater respect that it does now). But SP also highlights the paradox that EON must feel trapped in - the film is undone by those âtrappingsâ that EON (or likely faceless studio types) believe the audience expect.
I know this statement might upset a great deal, but EON has never been the most creative of franchises. It created one thing, and then just kept building it. Over and over. And so now, it continually wrestles with itâs own history, unable to discern what it is that makes that product work. And to be fair, itâs a lot easier to define a trapping than an essence.
I get why DC made his comment about Logan/Woverine, a film that successfully brought along itâs core fans without being derivative of itself. Why? By trusting the power of the source material and leaving it in the hands of a director/writer with what appears to be a singular vision and purpose. And most importantly, respecting that the modern general audience is far savvier than they were 30 years ago.
QoS is still lazily criticized (a narrative shaped by the media - not the general public who went to see it in droves remember) for feeling like something else (Bourne) and yet SP feels like âBondâ and is far the worse for it.
One Bond trope thatâs been missing since 1987 is a big battle between two armies at the end. This would have made SPECTRE, and perhaps even Die Another Day, better.
I thought QoS was the worst. The chases were repetitive (land, sea, air) and there was barely a story. There was no script.
Skyfall was full of plot holes, which doesnât bother some people but that many is always a deal-breaker for me.
I thought SP was good, until Blofeldâs lair, but then Iâve only seen it once as I knew it would be a long wait for the next one and I wanted to pace myself.
Iâd love it if the script was important, but itâs taken a backseat now. In fact, it probably isnât even in the car anymore.
I donât know why Eon are fixed on prestige, as itâs quite shallow to be so inclined. Compared to Fast and Furious, say, Bond is already quite classy.
I donât see there being any problem with it. Bond has typically stayed in its lane and done its own thing, but once you get the kind of filmmakers who can produce that kind of high quality fare interested in working with your character and franchise, why not take a shot at it and ride it wherever it takes you? Itâs not as though they canât go back to the more traditional way of doing things, which they most likely will after Craig is done.
Of course not, but if youâre able to get the type of people who regularly produce that kind of material, why not go out and get them, especially when your ability to acquire these peoplesâ talents has something of an expiration date to it. These people are there because they want to work with Daniel Craig. Once heâs gone, Broccoli and Wilson are most likely not going to be able to acquire this kind of talent (outside of someone like Nolan, who is a self-professed fan of the franchise.)
Forgive me, but Iâm unconvinced about that (for what itâs worth). Firstly, I think - irrespective of Craig - Bond has been a classy thing to be involved in since Judi Dench said âyesâ. I remember Samantha Bond saying how Denchâs involvement made these films acceptable to more serious actors (Iâm paraphasing). With the likes of Rory Kinear and, of course, Ralph Fiennes, thatâs the same now.
I think A-list directors may possibly produce less-than-stellar material, in the same way that editors of short story anthologies accept the contributions of big-name authors regardless of whether their respective story is worthy of inclusion on its own merits. I think Broccoli will accept whatever story Hodge turns in because that will secure Boyleâs involvement.
Also, non-A-listers can produce good material on a regular basis, not just those with the awards. Frankly, awards donât impress me one bit (again, for what thatâs worth).
It really comes down to rather or not EON wants Bond to be a director driven series or a producer driven series.
Iâve enjoyed the Craig era being more director driven but would like to see a return to a producer driven series for Bond #7. Much like Marvel EON should have a framework/forumla of what they want and expect and a director who can work within those perimeters. Marvel has shown with James Gunn, Taika Waititi, and Ryan Coogler that you can have a director bring their own personal flair and flavor to the proceedings while still remaining within the producers framework.
Even if they get Nolan I would want the current MI6 staff to remain. We donât need Micheal Cain as M and Cillian Murphy as Q when we already have Fiennes and Whishaw.
At the end of the day itâs very nice to get big names like Sam Mendes or Danny Boyle for Bond but Bond doesnât need them to be successful.
EONâs first forays into getting prestige directorsâMichael Apted, Marc Forsterâdidnât work out as well as hoped. For my money, they didnât match in house promotions like Peter Hunt or John Glen. Or reputable outside directorsâGuy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert, Terence Young.
Martin Campbell became a much better director after Bond (I mean, did you see No Escape?) But their other invitees didnât work out as well, except for Sam Mendes. The other one offs are somewhat curious (how did Lee Tamahori get the nod?).
Side note: while researching these directors on wikipedia, I was struck by how similar Roger Spotiswoode, Michael Apted, and Lee Tamahori all look. And Martin Campbel and Marc Forster both look like bald Blofelds, despite their age differences.
I guess the days of in-house promotions are gone. Iâm not against Nolan, nor do I have a preference for Boyle, Demange, of Villeneuve. But the track record suggests a non-prestige director can make as good a Bond film as the big names. In fact, the turkeys usually come from the big names. DC obviously has huge input, but Iâd rather get the production moving at this point.
Not just luck. After the Weinstein affair itâs clear that fame also depends upon whom youâre prepaired to service.
Sad for those that conceded to such demands, but perhaps even sadder for those that refused and missed a deserved break. Sure the headlines are all about the actors, but no doubt there were a few screenwriters that missed out and some that got the gig despite meagre talent (men and women both).
Absolutely! Thanks to what the team accomplished with CR âseriousâ directors saw the appeal of doing something dramatically interesting with the format, while satisfying fans. Most importantly there was suddenly a loud and influential voice in their corner in Craig.
Continuing to attract name directors depends 100% upon whom is cast as Bond 7. Eon will be aware that if they donât prioritise acting chops above all else then itâs back to jobbing directors and near zero critical appreciation.
NB: no disrespect to those that want a return to hard working, unpretentious action directors, but personally Iâm in the pretentious arty-farty camp
PS: in a perfect world the director can straddle both camps of visceral action storytelling and character development. The arty folk tend to underestimate the former (Forster) and the jobbing directorâs donât or canât do the latter.
Very few can do both - Martin Campbell could with a decent script and cast (CR, not so much GE). Die Hard director John McTiernan could do it with almost anything. The only current directors that come to mind who can do both machismo and heart/dramatic content are Shane Black and Nolan.
With both those examples they want to be involved on every level (former will only direct his own scripts, latter doesnât hire a second unit) - BB is certainly more open to that than her father, but to that extent? Nolan, maybe, but even then only because his go-to people (other than his brother, his wife and Hans Zimmer) are the same as EONâs anyway. I think Bond 25 will determine her openness for that. If goes well, more freedom for directors. Goes badly, return to very producer led approach.
Personally I wouldnât want it any other way. Both have more than proven themselves in script writing and action chops imo. Why on earth hire Black, one of action cinemas all time great screenwriter and not want him to write - anyone in their right minds would be begging him to write it.
And the action in Nolanâs films is superb - mainly because with Nolan calling those shots the characters and their motivation remain at the heart of the physicality, so the scenes retain their dramatic purpose instead of being the whiz-bang punch kick bits that wedge themselves in between the âtalky bitsâ in lessor directorâs hands.
But, yes Babs is less likely to hand over the keys to her Rolls to Black, than to Nolan (mores the pity). Having said that, if the Hodge/Boyle team come through with something good it certainly wonât hurt the chances of writer-directors like Black getting a pitch in for Bond 26.
For the future much indeed depends upon 25, but a poor reception will probably not deter Eon from its desire to make a more Worthy Bond movie than did the response to QoS.
I guess luck will play a huge part in terms of who, when the time comes is available and willing to direct and star.
Um⌠I like Black´s work but I would not call him great. He is good at what he does but kind of a one-trick-pony.
And Nolan´s action⌠He often relies on too close framing and quick editing instead of playing out the action in long shot. Also, characters and motivation are mostly one-dimensional and clichÊd with Nolan.
Neither would I - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was incredible, and Iron Man 3 is still one of my favourite MCU entries - both Shane Black movies through and through.
