Reboot? Remake? Retro? Which direction should the series take next?

[David_M]

@MrKiddWint

The earlier Bond films were crafted to be centered on and carried by a star following the Classical Hollywood tradition. There was no interiority needed, since stars radiate outwards, and only rarely reveal their inner core (think of Connery’s superb pause when Moneypenny asks him about a diamond in a ring in DAF).

Indeed, and I think this is a key missing element for the films. If we’re going to be honest, as a character there isn’t much to James Bond, and a literal translation of Fleming’s works to screen would be as dull as dishwater. Onto the basic outline of “infallible hero does the impossible with elan” you can easily graft the mannerisms, affectations and schtick of whatever movie star you put in the tux. Roger Moore Bond is not Sean Connery Bond, but they’re still both Bond, as different as they are, because Bond is a nearly blank slate.

The main gripe critics and audiences had against Dalton, as I recall, was that he lacked the personality and charm of his predecessors. As an actor’s actor, he opted to disappear into the role so that Timothy Dalton became James Bond, rather than turning James Bond into Timothy Dalton. But guess what, Timothy Dalton is a three-dimensional human being and James Bond is as flat as cardboard. So not only did audiences not come away thinking, “Wow I never know Bond could be so interesting,” they actually thought, “Boy, that Dalton guy is dull.”

Similarly, I guess it’s interesting on some level that the Craig era opts to dig so deeply into Bond, but at the end of the day, the only thing you get when you dig into cardboard is a hole you can see all the way through. Pretty quickly you have to start grafting on more layers that may or may not fit the character at all.

I feel about Bond largely how I feel about Superman: he’s a wonderfully fun character, but the deeper you wander into “serious” or “relevant” storytelling, the more things fall apart. In spite of advances in comic book storytelling and my affection for the recent Superman & Lois TV show, the more you try to pull in themes like health scares, abuse, generational conflicts, political disagreements, financial hardships, etc, the more obvious and glaring is the crazy notion that this guy can fool his closest friends with a pair of glasses. Bond likewise works on a simplistic level, with one foot forever planted in the absurd, but the more you try to “humanize” him or “peel back the layers,” the more ridiculous and tedious things get.

I’m all for serious actors; yay for them. But if it’s your goal to be a serious actor, go act in a serious film and let Bond be Bond.

[David_M]

@MrKiddWint

Because Interior Bond is smaller than Star Bond. The question now is: how can (or should) Eon go back to making Bond films in the Connery/Moore mold, when actors are no longer formed by the tradition that made them? Acting schools/programs produce performers in the Craig mold.

You’ve got me, there. Another reason for me to enjoy this prolonged hiatus. Was it LALD where an entire section of the script said simply “Then there’s the greatest boat chase ever filmed”? I guess it won’t work to go into (the theoretical) Bond 26 with a similar plan of “Cast a charismatic movie star to make this all work,” when in fact there are none around.

[dalton]

@MrKiddWint

Maybe that is why SP is the only Craig Bond film I like, since it starts out with Bond only caring about following orders:

Not to be argumentative, but I’m not sure I see that in how SP unfolds at all. The opening of the film is precipitated by Bond going behind his boss’ back to track down someone his now-deceased former boss wanted tracked down. When he goes about destroying a whole city block of Mexico City, his actual boss suspends him indefinitely and orders him to submit to the Smart Blood tracking technology, which Bond immediately convinces Q to ignore for two days while he disobeys his suspension order to go out to Rome and continue on the mission for his former boss. He seems as though he’s doing basically the opposite of following orders, almost going in the complete opposite direction that Fiennes’ M wants him to go at just about every turn, at least for the first half of the film. Their missions eventually end up aligning somewhere in the second half of the film, but I never got the feeling that it started out with Bond following the orders he’s been given. It’s always felt to me as though SP was another in the long-line of post-Cubby films where Bond is going at least semi-rogue for a decent portion of the film.

[MrKiddWint]

@David_M

Similarly, I guess it’s interesting on some level that the Craig era opts to dig so deeply into Bond, but at the end of the day, the only thing you get when you dig into cardboard is a hole you can see all the way through.

As an actor, he had no other choice. A character’s backstory is the ground of his performances, so screenwriters need to provide a narrative that will allow their star to create the character history he needs. There is no need to go to Mike Leigh lengths, but there needs to be something. Connery’s and Moore’s charisma allowed them to face every Bond situation as stars, with star presence providing the ground for their performances.

@David_M

But if it’s your goal to be a serious actor, go act in a serious film and let Bond be Bond.

But letting Bond be Bond, without a star in the role, gets you Robot Bond in SP–a film with one foot in the absurd–empty Roman streets, etc., etc.–but which pleased few Bond fans (though it did gross $880 million).

@David_M

I guess it won’t work to go into (the theoretical) Bond 26 with a similar plan of “Cast a charismatic movie star to make this all work,” when in fact there are none around.

That is the problem. It used to be: “Star play Bond.” Now it is: “Character Actor form Bond.”

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

His star wattage, however, is of a different composition than that of Connery and Moore (Denzel Washington may be the last star/actor in the older tradition).

Yes, but I believe Washington is able to do both: deliver star charisma and show inner turmoil („The Equalizer“ is a perfect showcase for his portrayal of a taciturn anti-hero who has terrible demons within him yet remains incredibly charming, decent and intelligent, yearning for human connection while being aware of the danger he brings to others.)

This is where Craig for me is the lesser actor: Washington invites people into even his most subtle performances while Craig shows a surface which remains actorly in its intensity.

You compare him with Hoffman, and in a way I agree: you also always see Hoffman act. But I think Hoffman has a much wider arsenal of emotions he can put on display.

Even Dalton - so much less celebrated than Craig - is the better actor, and as Bond he showed more facets than Craig while acting „from the inside“ instead of creating only a surface.

If Eon could find someone with Washington‘s gifts that would be a perfect Bond for these times.

[dalton]

@David_M

I’m all for serious actors; yay for them. But if it’s your goal to be a serious actor, go act in a serious film and let Bond be Bond.

I think that both can be accomplished. It comes down, at least for me, more to the script than necessarily to the approach of the actor himself. Taking NTTD, for example, it’s the extreme focus on Bond’s personal relationships and his hangup on not being “007” anymore that feels odd, to say the least, especially when it’s being played against the backdrop of a villainous plan that could easily lead to an extremely massive global genocide. They spend the entire movie worrying about Bond and Madeleine’s relationship and then with him grappling with the concept of being a father, all while the characters in the film are largely ignoring the elephant in the room that is the larger threat that Heracles poses.

I would have to think it’s possible that they could craft a film where Bond can be played seriously in much the way that Craig is already playing him while shifting the focus of the film enough to have him lay down his life at the end of the film in a manner that shows him sacrificing himself to prevent a global disaster the likes of which the world has never seen while also making it a touching moment between Bond and Madeleine as well. It is possible to have both, I think, it’s just that the extreme focus on the seemingly less important of the two threats posed by Safin and Heracles makes for a rather odd film.

[David_M]

@MrKiddWint

Because Interior Bond is smaller than Star Bond.

I am so wishing I had the Photoshop skills to render a set of Russian nesting dolls with a little Craig inside a bigger Connery.

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

Connery’s and Moore’s charisma allowed them to face every Bond situation as stars, with star presence providing the ground for their performances.

Yes, but (again) I think their star qualities were put in service of their characterization of Bond (maybe less so in DAF because the whole film is based on concepts rather than storytelling).

Craig, I believe, already was also a star bigger than Bond in SP and NTTD to a degree that audiences did not watch Bond played by Craig but Craig as Bond. But his star turns as Bond consist of brute force, sardonic emotional distance and barely contained anger fueled by hurt.

This might have hit a nerve with a young male demographic at that time. And maybe it still would. It’s just a far cry from the times in which young males looked up to the effortlessly charming Bonds of Connery and Moore who had their anger in check.

[MrKiddWint]

@dalton

Not to be argumentative

You are not being argumentative at all. You have said before that my interpretation does not work for you. In the same way, I do not share your and others perspective about needing to see the people Bond is saving in the movie in which he is doing the saving.

@dalton

The opening of the film is precipitated by Bond going behind his boss’ back to track down someone his now-deceased former boss wanted tracked down.

He was programmed by his old boss to obey her, and, by jiminy, obey her he will.

@dalton

I never got the feeling that it started out with Bond following the orders he’s been given.

Understood. My argument would be that Bond follows the orders he has been given, and that being robotic about it, he is oblivious of the consequences of having done so. For me, there is an element of affectlessness in Craig’s performance at the beginning of the film–“Just following orders”–and the dogged way he goes about his tasks that points to Robot Bond more than Rogue Bond. For me, going rogue needs a personal/passionate reason. In SP, the only reason Bond has is an impersonal/cold one–he was told to do something.

@secretagentfan

This is where Craig for me is the lesser actor

I think they are actors who perform in different keys from different personal histories. I am looking forward to reading your (and others’) thoughts on his performance in QUEER.

@secretagentfan

If Eon could find someone with Washington‘s gifts that would be a perfect Bond for these times.

Washington is a once-in-a-generation talent.

@David_M

I am so wishing I had the Photoshop skills to render a set of Russian nesting dolls with a little Craig inside a bigger Connery.

You win the Internet this month, and it is only January 3rd.

[Dustin]

@MrKiddWint

My argument would be that Bond follows the orders he has been given, and that being robotic about it, he is oblivious of the consequences of having done so. For me, there is an element of affectlessness in Craig’s performance at the beginning of the film–“Just following orders”–and the dogged way he goes about his tasks that points to Robot Bond more than Rogue Bond. For me, going rogue needs a personal/passionate reason. In SP, the only reason Bond has is an impersonal/cold one–he was told to do something.

From my perspective it’s actually quite the opposite: everything Bond does in SPECTRE he does because he himself chooses to act in this way. Because he wants to act in this way. For me there’s nothing robotic about it because it’s all Bond’s personal preference: Mexico, Rome, Austria, all of it is his own operation.

When he finally meets Oberhauser he boldly states he’s there to kill him. Nobody gave him that order, it’s entirely egoistic wilfulness that makes Bond tick here, not some kind of programming. When he finally doesn’t kill Oberhauser on the bridge, Bond didn’t break out of his programming, he just changed his mind.

But he wasn’t forced to do what was shown during the 2.5 hours before, that was entirely his free will.

[MrKiddWint]

@Dustin

From my perspective it’s actually quite the opposite: everything Bond does in SPECTRE he does because he himself chooses to act in this way.

Understood. I do not experience the film that way.

@Dustin

Because he wants to act in this way. For me there’s nothing robotic about it because it’s all Bond’s personal preference

A personal preference engendered through indoctrination. Robot Bond’s preferences are those he was trained to have.

@Dustin

he just changed his mind.

Which he did not realize he could do until he shattered the programming.

Later Addition:

I finished the rewatch of SPECTRE I wrote about above, keeping your concept of Bond-as-Willful in the forefront of my mind. If I squinted I could see it, but Bond-as-Programmed kept nudging that vision aside.

One stumbling block I had was the conversation Bond has with Madeleine in the dining car. When she asks him "Is this really what you want?', he replies “I’m not sure I ever had a choice.” A person acting out of willfulness would respond :“Damn right it is!” (unless Bond is being super subtle, and camouflaging his willfulness with a pretense of vulnerability).

Then on the bridge at the the end, Bond seems to me to be faced with two options: the organization that programmed him (Mallory) or the possibility of autonomy (Madeleine). It could be argued that Bond is just shifting his willfulness from one arena to another, but neither the mise en scene nor the music support that reading for me.

Also, I saw for the first time people on some London bridge screaming as he old MI6 headquarters implode. A minimal representation of people who would be affected by the villain’s scheme, but at least there was an effort, though an anemic one.

[secretagentfan]

Again, you both are right.

Storywise in SP and NTTD Bond is motivated by personal revenge (the shadow of Vesper hangs over everything, M‘s death makes Bond betray his new M, and finally he wants to kill his brother as the author of all his pain).

But it is this anger fueled revenge motivation which turns Craig Bond into a robotic avenger, not the profession he has chosen or the system which exerts authority over him.

He doesn‘t know he has the choice not to revenge until Madeleine, the daughter of an assassin, offers him a way out into another life. And he has witnessed how Mr.White‘s life ended desastrously, so he can decide he does not want this. So he takes the leap (twice, even) to find out he can survive with Madeleine. (Maybe even three times, considering the brain torture threatening to take away his memory.)

However, CraigBond has become RobotBond only on his own account. In contrast to the other Bonds who deal with the system in an adult way, CraigBond just hates authority while craving authority‘s approval (Mother Dench), like any teenager. It takes a lot of time and victims until CraigBond sees how easily he can stop being RobotBond at the end of SP.

Unfortunately, a blast from the past (Vesper again) turns him into Robot Bond again, and Madeleine (one more narrative repetition) also shows him a way out again, taking over the role of Mother (literally) from Dench, and in the end CraigBond sacrifices himself because he could not picture a life with her and Mathilde (again, a perspective of an adolescent, not an adult).

Yes, the story demands that it is impossible, but only because they wished to make that point. However, in a narrative universe which bends everything to its needs, the film could have ended on Bond isolating himself while Q finds an antidote, or at least Bond‘s wish that this would happen.

[byline]

@MrKiddWint

The earlier Bond films were crafted to be centered on and carried by a star following the Classical Hollywood tradition. There was no interiority needed, since stars radiate outwards, and only rarely reveal their inner core (think of Connery’s superb pause when Moneypenny asks him about a diamond in a ring in DAF).

Which is, I think, precisely why so many people wanted Pierce Brosnan in the role. Personally, I prefer Daniel Craig’s style of acting, and the way the role was written to align with his style (similar to Timothy Dalton). But for folks who associate that star wattage with Bond, only someone like Brosnan will work.

[secretagentfan]

One more thing I would like to see next: an ending which has no tragic death or violence as problem solve mechanism.

FYEO offered that so courageously it does not get enough credit for it: Bond securing the ATAC only to get into a situation in which he has to hand it over to the Russians… and then destroying it for everybody, saying: „That’s detente!“

[Dustin]

That was pretty clever, agreed.

But it was never true: the ATAC was a British development - probably - lost in the Mediterranean. Havelock’s mission was to locate and salvage it; Bond’s to prevent it from falling into Russian hands.

But after destroying the device at St Cyril’s the Brits of course still had the technology. All Bond actually did was what the weapons systems officer couldn’t finish any more.

[secretagentfan]

„That‘s detente… NOT!“

[dalton]

@MrKiddWint

In the same way, I do not share your and others perspective about needing to see the people Bond is saving in the movie in which he is doing the saving.

I think it’s only partially about the concept of needing to see the people who would be the recipients of Bond’s help. That is a part of it, to a degree, but the other part of it, and I would say the larger part of the equation, is that seeing these people makes the world feel populated. The world of SP and NTTD does not feel populated in any way, especially NTTD, as the one time they come across a situation where it should have been fairly well populated (Cuba), the whole thing just screams “soundstage!”. The worlds of these two films feel fake to a degree, almost as if they’re high scale versions of little kids playing cops and robbers in the backyard, almost as though it’s a blank canvas of a world that exists only for the good guys and the bad guys to face off against each other in different locations rather than a world that resembles our own that is heavily populated.

[Double-OhAgent]

Additionally, in many of the Daniel Craig films, particularly from Skyfall on, there were hardly any allies to help James Bond other than his MI6 regular Scooby gang and hardly any henchmen for the villains.

In Skyfall, it’s Kincaid to help Bond and Patrice to fight Bond. The rest are unnamed Chimera sailors and Severine’s nameless “bodyguards.”

In SPECTRE, it’s White as an “ally” and virtually no one else other than said Scooby gang with Hinx, Marco Sciarra, and Max Denbigh as henchmen and a lot of nameless SPECTRE agents.

And in No Time To Die, Bond’s only ally is Nomi (plus the Scooby gang) and against him is Primo, Logan Ash and Valdo Obruchev with a bunch of nameless henchmen.

Compare that to previous eras where there would regularly be four to six allies AND henchmen in films helping to increase the adventures’ sense of scope and danger. This is one area where the Craig films definitely fall short in the series.

[MrKiddWint]

@secretagentfan

But it is this anger fueled revenge motivation which turns Craig Bond into a robotic avenger, not the profession he has chosen or the system which exerts authority over him.

We are both right. LOL.

The concept of Bond being roboticized by the desire for revenge is interesting. It could be argued that Craig’s affectless/cold performance is suited for a dish best served cold.

@secretagentfan

But it is this anger fueled revenge motivation which turns Craig Bond into a robotic avenger, not the profession he has chosen or the system which exerts authority over him.

But where is the anger? Anger-fueled revenge needs some display of anger, but it is not present in Craig’s performance. The film shows that Bond received a tape from Dench M instructing him to kill Sciarra, thereby positing it as Bond’s motivation–following instructions as he was indoctrinated to do.

@secretagentfan

However, CraigBond has become RobotBond only on his own account.

I disagree. Dench M in SF states that “orphans” are best, and the Orphan Trilogy is about the making of a state-sanctioned assassin who follows orders–a human drone. The training was designed to deprive the state assassin of his ability to do things on his own account. Mallory may offer the feeble assertion that a double 00 designation is also a license not to kill, but CraigBond was trained under Dench M, who demands that people take the shot, and makes brutal decisions that create Silvas.

@secretagentfan

And he has witnessed how Mr.White‘s life ended desastrously

White, who knows whereof speaks, says Bond is “a kite dancing in a hurricane.” Not exactly a description of an anger-fueled person making decisions about pursuing revenge, but rather a roboticized man controlled by other people’s directions and outside forces.

@secretagentfan

In contrast to the other Bonds who deal with the system in an adult way, CraigBond just hates authority while craving authority‘s approval (Mother Dench), like any teenager.

The other Bonds were portrayed post-indoctrination, and now function within systems (whose ethics they do not question) that desire and approve of their actions. In the worlds of the earlier films, ConneryBond raping Pussy Galore, and MooreBond’s assault of Andrea Anders and humiliation of Mary Goodnight are offered as narrative entertainment without negative commentary. These actions are depicted as acceptable adult male behavior.

Dench M telling BrosnanMoore that he is a “dinosaur” challenged that world. The question in the subsequent films of the Orphan Trilogy becomes how can a state create/deploy an assassin without simultaneously sanctioning the other behaviors that previous Bonds engaged in without qualm or question.

It is interesting that in the movie linked to by @David_M Moore agrees that his portrayal of Bond could be considered male chauvinist (the term of art at the time of the interview). He says that he suggested to Guy Hamilton that Bond seduce Anders for the information rather than assault her, but Hamilton said no. The ground started to shift in the Brosnan era, and continued to do so in Craig’s.

@secretagentfan

It takes a lot of time and victims until CraigBond sees how easily he can stop being RobotBond at the end of SP.

Which requires him to leave his job. Q says to him: “I thought you’d gone.” The choice on the bridge is between Mallory (his training/job) and Madeleine (his humanity). Mallory does not symbolize revenge-as-motivation as far as I can see.

@secretagentfan

Unfortunately, a blast from the past (Vesper again) turns him into Robot Bond again

I leave NTTD discussions to those who have studied it, but in my modest engagement with it, I did not see CraigBond as being RobotBond in that film.

@dalton

I would say the larger part of the equation, is that seeing these people makes the world feel populated.

Understood. This consideration is just not part of my aesthetic equation. The Mexico/London/Rome/Austria/Morocco of SP are fictional/stylized representations of real places. As such, I accept them to be as populated as the filmmakers desire them to be.

Should we knock Fellini as well for lack of populace?

Fellini Roma finale

[dalton]

@MrKiddWint

Should we bash Fellini as well for lack of populace?

Fellini Roma finale

To be fair, I can’t really comment on Fellini’s films. I haven’t seen them, although I do recognize from just knowing enough about film generally that he’s considered one of the best filmmakers that there ever was. Despite spending a potentially unhealthy amount of time on a board like this one, I can’t really claim to be anything beyond serviceable in any knowledge of films, how they’re made, structured, etc, which is why I tend to bow out of some of the more “in the weeds” discussions about filmmaking because I have little, if anything, to contribute to something like that.

The population, or lack thereof, issue was always something that bothered me for the last two films. Knowing nothing about the film itself, I would venture to guess it’s probably not a film that has an outcome that could be considered apocalyptic. For a film like a Bond film, especially one like NTTD where the probable outcome of the villain’s plan being successful is a mass casualty event that would number in the hundreds of millions if not even into the billions, just knowing that those people occupy the world in which the story is occurring helps the events of the film feel real as opposed to just some kind of cool action sequence that’s playing out on screen. My feeling on NTTD, and SP for that matter, is that it just would feel as though there is more at stake if the world that Bond and the rest of the cast are operating in actually looked like the world it is meant to be. I tend to subscribe to the “show, don’t tell” method of storytelling and, it seems to me that NTTD and SP do a lot of telling and not a lot of showing in the way that they tell their stories. We’re constantly told that this is going to happen or that is going to happen, but we see little if any of it actually happening or, for that matter, any part of the world in which the film takes place where it would seemingly make any impact, because it all feels so empty, whereas Craig’s first three films clearly take place in a world that is otherwise populated because we see countless examples of that being the case, with Bond being surrounded by so-called “real” people who aren’t caught up in his spy games.