Additional thought:
In a piece in The New York Times today on Conan O’Brien, there was this offhand comment: “online virality matters more than a network spot.”
Maybe that is the change: we now have to think about the virality of an artwork/object, rather than its permanence. The relationship has fundamentally changed between art and its appreciators, resulting in myriad, poorly understood, consequences.
Hamilton agrees with you.
Fully agreed.
But I believe that the obsession with followers (actors are cast not for their abilities but their popularity on social media) and online virality is a self-imposed prison sentence which is just as reliable as tracking or test screenings.
Yet, it’s the dreaded quantification which appears to be the guarantee or defense studio people are always looking for.
Still, how can Bond use this? By casting some young guy who is internet popular (if Chalamet were British they would already be all over him) and by making outrageous stunts you can cut up into TikTok clips.
Ain‘t that wonderful?
Maybe he’s going to write a book about it?
There´s almost no way they can screw up the next Bond film, the only thing that could be a problem is the budget. Budget killed Indy, Marvel, DC and almost MI: 7. So keep the budget as low as possible for a Bond film and everything is fine…
I don’t have any doubts nor have expressed any doubts that the next film will be successful. If anything, I’ve strangely been one of the most positive about its prospects for success if/when it does arrive.
Though, there are, creatively speaking anyway, plenty of ways that they could screw it up. Spectre and No Time to Die are proof positive of that.
Wherever it goes, it is time to stop the Purvis & Wade obsession with parental legacy issues. Perhaps it’s all encouraged as psychological insight into the mind of the current producers and their struggle with the legacy. Perhaps it’s just dramatically cheap. Don’t know, don’t care.
The World is Not Enough - villain has massive Daddy issues.
Die Another Day - villain has massive Daddy issues. Film is called DAD.
Casino Royale - Mummy issues for Bond
Quantum of Solace - Mummy issues for Bond, Daddy issues for the girl.
Skyfall - the mother of all Mummy issues.
Spectre -Daddy issues, albeit ones not worth exploring.
No Time to Die - Bond himself is the Daddy issue; that little girl’s going to be so mucked up, especially given the last paragraph of dialogue.
Please make it stop.
Both. You’re spot on.
They’ve been using the trust issues, rogue elements, and so on for long enough now that’s just pretty much what the James Bond films are now. It’s been said over and over again that we can’t have a “James Bond Film” without Q, Moneypenny, and all of these other things not called “James Bond”, but we’re also at that same point now where, based on that same theory, we can’t really have a “James Bond Film” without trust issues or parental issues or Bond going rogue. At this point, he’s spent almost as much time going rogue as he has actually working for the British government.
It is kinda funny that LTK was introducing the rogue element as a necessary element, with the audience rejecting the film.
And then the Craig era elevated it to a celebrated motor for its success.
Zeitgeist, I know.
And, sadly, one has to travel all the way back to 1989 to find a time when the Bond going rogue bit was actually “fresh” and was actually appropriate for the plot.
It is beyond stale now.
And, at least, whatever they do with the next one, as long as they don’t copy anything from Austin Powers, they’ll already be ahead of their last two films.
Also interesting that OHMSS is the first real appearance of rogue Bond in the films. Enlisting Draco to attack Piz Gloria and rescue Tracy without M’s authorisation. He also fully intended to resign earlier in the film before Moneypenny changes it to a leave request.
I forgot about that!
What that also shows is that the current leadership at EON has seized upon an element that had only, at that point, appeared in two of the more unpopular entries with the general public (OHMSS and LTK) and made that a centerpiece of the franchise for the past two-plus decades.
Interesting question: why did they do that?
Usually, elements which are not successful will not get re-used. But it seems that the mood at that time would be favoring the lone wolf and the “me against the world”-mindset.
Which stands in sharp contrast to LTK´s clearly motivated (“I owe it to Leiter.”) revenge plan. In the Craig era, I don’t see such a detectable motivation:
CR: Bond just being unrefined, despite his navy background he does not seem to care about being chosen for Mi6, just following his own instincts like a moody teenager rebelling against m(other).
QOS: Yes, revenge - but not for the horrid death and torture of two people who were close to his heart as in LTK; instead Bond seems to be filled with rage because someone manipulated HIM. Again, more ego-concentrated. And instead of working with Mi6 he is working against everyone in his way.
SF: The least rogue motivation of the era, thankfully.
SP: Suddenly, he again dislikes authority and tries to revenge the Dench. Then that is forgotten because it´s all about the stepbrother and a sudden love for the daughter of a guy who was gleefully ruining his life. And at the end there is only a choice between killing Oberhauser or quitting the service for Madeleine? Why not giving Oberhauser to the authorities, showing Madeleine that he is not a mindless killing machine - but still remaining in the service? This way it seems Bond actually never was committed to be a 00-agent after SF anyway.
NTTD: Just in it for himself, even Leiter’s death is only an episode, quickly forgotten as a revenge motivator. Bond suddenly can be easily provoked by Oberhauser again. Then he finds out he’s a father, and he is only motivated by that. He is not 007 in this film, he is an independent contractor at best, disregarding everything if it does not fit his own agenda.
I think for this instance, some of those elements may have been left over from when they were looking at younger actors (i.e. Cavill and Rupert Friend) to take on the part of Bond, where perhaps the maternal angle with M might have made a bit more sense, even if still somewhat misguided. These elements look even worse when you have a man pushing 40 carrying them out. It is one aspect of Casino Royale that could use a bit more work, but I think they did manage to burry it enough within the aspects of the script that appear to have been more tailored to Craig that it doesn’t detract from the proceedings as much as it could have.
I’ve always looked at this a different way. I think this was an instance where they turned the whole rogue thing on its head and did something a bit different with it. I don’t really feel as though Bond every really went rogue in this one, but our expectations for him to do so, given the plot and the fact that it was beginning to become somewhat of a staple of the franchise at that point given that it had appeared in three straight films, was instead projected onto all of the supporting characters in Bond’s orbit. They all, much like the audience, think Bond is going rogue, but his actions in the film are generally tailored towards finding out what Greene is up to and putting a stop to it. Of course, he’s not against getting some payback for what happened to him and Vesper along the way if the opportunity presents itself, but I always found him to be focused on the mission first and foremost, which he displays when he comes back to speak with M in the hotel after having a capture or kill order put out on him as well as his declaration of “I never left” at the end of the film. Everyone in the film thinks that Bond has gone rogue and needs to be reigned in, but the competing interests of Bond’s primary supporting characters and those of their superiors (i.e. the oil subplot) cause everyone around Bond to think that he is no longer working in their interests while, all he’s actually doing, is taking the fight to Greene and trying to figure out what his plans are as well as beginning to peel back the layers of this new organization that they have stumbled upon.
This one still feels pretty rogue-ish. Bond “retires” for a while after being shot and then comes back and kidnaps his boss and dangles her as bait for the villain.
Well, he does it because she wants it - so he is actually carrying out her orders. She herself isn’t really going rogue either because the new M tacitly okays it.
Fair enough, although Mallory only really okays it once Q and Tanner appear to be too far into the process to really stop it. The whole of the Double-oh section (or at least M, Tanner, Bond, Q, and so on) all collectively go a bit rogue in this instance, at least in so much that they are clearly pulling in a different direction than the civilian oversight in the film would like them to be, what with going off grid to take on Silva.
https://x.com/TheInSneider/status/1807925934256971863
A possible chance at movie news? Is PWB writing again?
World of Reel is hit or miss as a source. They keep saying that the Rey Star Wars movie will film this year or not. Constantly rewriting the script. So if the usual big sources report on it, then there’s a chance it’s real.
At any rate they should be certainly sounding out potential directors right now. Even if actual production is still some time away, it’s got to be going on now.