I‘m saying that the idea of changing writers and suddenly Bond films will be exactly as one wishes is absurd.
EON has been the best custodian of these films imaginable, and they should never leave Bond to others.
As Orion points out the change in the upstairs-money-department will be the biggest challenge EON has to face now, and they will handle this as spectacularly as they did with the previous studio executives.
But what I would like to stress is this: Bond films have to satisfy a mass audience and their expectations. This will always leave some fans frustrated.
Changing the writers will not change anything.
But even after laying out the lack of influence writers actually have (I‘m a broken record here), MaxZorin again says: oh, if only the writers were exchanged…
Keep the writers, change the writers, I don’t mind. But I’d quite like a change in the writing.
I’m drawn to films where the story carries you along. Where the plot unfolds at the right pace and holds your attention from beginning to end.
It’s a bit of a cliché to describe Bond films as a series of action sequences strung together by an overly convoluted or nonsensical thread. Unfortunately, more often than not, it’s how I’ve felt when (or after) watching them.
There’s still lots that I love about the films (obviously). But, too often, a strong plot has felt like an ingredient that I’ve had to do without.
I do understand the commercial imperatives, but I just feel there’s room for improvement. There’s so much incredible writing in TV and film these days. It’s possible.
I don’t know if the problem is too many cooks, too much small-c conservatism when faced with a franchise as huge and lucrative as Bond… but that’s where, I think, the desire for different writers is coming from, irrespective of whether or not changing the personnel would actually achieve that.
I’d like the films to feel fresh in a way that goes deeper than casting a fresh face.
Examples, please, and then consider how those actually could be applied to Bond.
So, the desire to change writers is enough, even if it changes nothing in the end?
All discontent with the films is rooted in the mistaken belief that the writers (which we know of because they are credited) are the cause and only obstacle on the way to a better Bond film.
Fortunately, posting opinions on a discussion forum ain’t the same as angrily shouting ‘HOW DARE THEY’.
Inevitably, people’s opinions will differ. One forum member’s view will contradict another forum member’s view. And, with the utmost respect, I’m not sure Socrates needs to be invoked here, since no-one is pretending EON would be or should be capable of satisfying everyone. We all know that’s daft. Well, most of us do. (We’ll ignore that one over-entitled negative nellie who periodically drifts in…)
You’re asking a non-writer to assess how a particular example of writing could be applied to Bond? No, I can’t do that. I lack the vocabulary and the technical understanding of the writing process. The best I’m able to do is point to other action franchises (which - and apologies for being unimaginative - do include the Damon and Cruise ones) and tell you that their stories have just felt better paced and pulled me along in a way that the plots in Bond films unfortunately haven’t. That’s what leads me to think change must be possible.
No. That’s not what I said. I’m saying I think I understand where the desire [for different writers] is coming from. That doesn’t mean that I believe switching writers is necessarily the solution.
No. That’s a mischaracterisation of what I wrote. Indeed I specifically suggested ‘too many cooks’ and ‘small c conservatism’ (which can be from the producers and funders as much as anyone) as possible reasons.
For the avoidance of doubt and unfounded assumptions: I don’t underestimate the challenges faced by everyone involved. I fully appreciate that the finished product isn’t the pure unadulterated creative output of one writer (or writing partnership) and that it’s changed by multiple parties for multiple reasons along the way. As one type of creative myself, of course I understand and sympathise with writers, and especially with them being the visible lightning rod for discontent with the finished product.
And like I said, there are plenty of things I love about Bond films that more than compensate. Including the dialogue, as it happens.
After watching Batman Begins in theaters in 2005, I recall having a sense of the kind of movie Casino Royale would be (serious, more “realistic” compared to earlier fare), before knowing much at all about the film. The style just seemed to be in the air (I was also very young at the time, so perhaps my impression of this inevitability is not accurate).
With that in mind, I now have absolutely no sense of what kind of film 26 will be. The style of the Craig films is still somewhat is vogue, but I have the sense they’ll try to steer clear of it as much as possible. I also can’t see other elements of the zeitgeist (e.g. Marvel) working for Bond.
First: thank you for participating in this conversation. We´re all friends here, and I apologize if my ranting sometimes gets out of hand.
But I would like to use this quote of yours to illustrate my point further.
You prefer the “Bourne” and the “M:I”-narratives and cite them as examples how the Bond films could be improved.
This is exactly what one should keep in mind: all of this is subjective. I don’t think both of these franchises tell better stories. I think they are actually less involving narratively, even if they offer great stunt sequences (I prefer “M:I” vastly to “Bourne” which got stale for me pretty quickly).
Now, do I think that P&W are the best writers for Bond?
No. (Shock!)
But I do think they have amassed the knowledge needed to write a Bond film, first of all. Something which is not easy and cannot be done by many writers.
Would it be impossible to replace them? Of course, not, everybody is replaceable.
Would it help to replace them? I don’t think so. It´s like replacing BB or MGW. You can do it. But would Bond films be better without those who have experience how to make them?
That’s like saying: oh, get rid of the experts and try your luck with someone who is supposed to be good or has done something else quite well.
I hope that EON will stick to Bond as long as possible, and continue to bring in writers who add to P&W, maybe finding writers who can also do their solid groundwork, in order to replace them at some time, without doing the damage which could be done by writers who come in and say: nah, I will do everything differently.
EON kind of copied Marvel with Spectre. Connecting everything together. I don’t think EON will copy Marvel with its humor. Some of their humor filled films make RM’s Bond movies look as serious as TD’s or DC’s.
If you look at the highest grossing films (or at least English language films) the common thread is that that they’re all established brands. Whether they be legacy sequel (Top Gun: Maverick), series (Jurassic World, Minions), shared universe (all MCU entries) or reboot (The Batman) the biggest ticket in Hollywood is the franchise, a name people know and already have a connection to. Nostalgia more than ever is what’s driving films.
The optimistic side of me says that Bond already has the name recognition and connection with audiences. Therefore as long as the next Bond film is good people will turn out for it.
The pessimistic side of me thinks they’re going to lean more heavily into nostalgia and the future will involve more reinvented versions of classic characters; Goldfinger, Jaws etc.
I think Brosnan - Craig had been constantly testing the balance between nostalgia and new. The attitude with QOS (which leans harder towards new) and Spectre (which leant harder towards nostalgia) would say the Craig era displayed the middle ground is what is wanted given the success of the other 3 over those 2. Brosnan’s run proved the opposite with extreme nostalgia winning over change* or even balanced.
DAD doesn’t count, the weird nostalgia to Moonraker seemed to be a misunderstanding with the script wanting the book, the director wanting the film. I do note I like that film, it’s not my favourite, but I do like it.
The Craig era delivered quite a lot of what I love most about the films, and it’s what I want to see more of in the future. SPECTRE’s crater base arrival is vintage Bond, dating right back to 1962 with the hero being politely welcomed into the villain’s abode. I like what they did with Safin’s island too. That had a nice balance between Bond being on his own but also communicating with head office. He’s waiting for the cavalry to arrive and still needing to deal with the immediate situation himself.
The Cuba sequence is as good as anything from the Connery or Moore era. NTTD’s global genocide plot has the higher stakes I enjoy. The Vesper arc was prominent across the movies, but it’s not like the fantastical or traditional elements were absent. I think the balance between old and new was commendable. I wouldn’t be disappointed if that general template continued, but with more humour.
Paraphrase Cubby “When in doubt go back to Fleming.”
A New Bond should be introduced as an established,experienced 007(Like Sir Sean in Dr. No)
Pay homage to the past(M,Q,Moneypenny,Walther PPK, Aston Martin) but accept the present.
MW & BB still run the family business keep it that way.
But with time passing and unreal expectations being recognized as silly, I have begun to really appreciate the film.
Happened before, when I suddenly got what makes TMWTGG interesting or TB majestic. Or AVTAK entertaining.
Sometimes Bond films just need the patina of time for me so I can discover what they actually achieved instead of being blindsided by my petty grievings.
I hope I remember that when the next guy takes over.
How about starting with that straight away rather than a buildup? I have been reading through Dynamite’s Agent of SPECTRE again, and I think it could make for a decent debut film, even if the story most resembles Licence to Kill. Start a new timeline and tell the story of Blofeld regaining control of his organisation. Thematically following on from No Time To Die which left SPECTRE destroyed.
The difference is that Bond isn’t actually thought to be a rogue agent by MI6. The comic Blofeld seems alien to what we see in the films, even when you consider the more physical Savalas. But if you look at the Fleming description of Blofeld from Thunderball that’s effectively what we get. Physically big, previously being a champion weightlifter and sporting a crew cut. If Blofeld does ever return to the films I’m not against something like that.
I like the character of Blofeld a lot and the character should have been revisited before the Craig era - though I am aware of the legal issues and that the attempt to buy a stainless steal delicatessen did not settle the matter.
That said, I think Blofeld needs a rest and should not be touched upon in the next actor’s tenure given how a big of a role the character played in the last two films (even if screen time was limited). I personally, would not mind something along the lines SMERSH being brought back. Given the current climate, that might fit well with the times.
I can also see the merit in a substitute. I really liked the idea of Quantum in 2008, with it being a brand new organisation for a new era. Similar to what Benson did with The Union.
Do people really want Blofeld and SPECTRE back? Blofeld is the most quintessentially 60’s villain out there and that’s where he should stay. Returning to that well again would feel like an admission that there is nowhere else to take Bond. Too many of today’s big franchises are backwards facing and I’d hate to see Bond go down that route too.
A modern Bond needs modern villains. The villains of today aren’t there’s shady cabals, they’re public figures. Eccentric billionaire company owners exploiting their own people and our (un)elected leaders. They’re who Bond needs to go after right now.
accidentally proving Socrates argument against democracy
