I don’t think there’s rule of thumb with these things but there is a part of me that actually would prefer someone other than a self-professed “fan” to be at the helm.
There is an opportunity with a new creative team for the series to have somewhat of a rebirth and with that, an entirely “fresh” perspective in the director’s chair may not be a bad thing. Up to now, the series has so many tropes embedded in it, it’s been hard (CR/QoS excepted) for a Bond film to feel in any way “reinvented.”
And with the current Hollywood trend for nostalgia (Top Gun/Maverick etc) the odds of the series avoiding any of those are long indeed. Whether it’s Llewelyn or Whishaw, a first-act Q scene is still a first-act Q scene, and once the sheen has worn off we might still be left with an entry that slides neatly into the collection - lost in and surrounded by the 25 around it.
If nothing else a director (or scriptwriter) without any fan/insititutional memory might give us something for the next 50 years rather than their version of the last 50.
This is EXACTLY what I want from the next one. A creative team that doesn’t feel a sense of reverence for the other films would have a chance to create something new and exciting rather than something that is overstuffed with callbacks to a time when Bond was actually doing new and exciting things rather than following the trends.
I was just going to point out how difficult and unlikely such a ‘fresh’ perspective is when the Bond series as a whole serves to film students all around the world as the epitome of genre cinema. But looking at least at SKYFALL we’ve got an entry that’s often accused of not being a Bond film at all* and whose third act is closer to RIO BRAVO/EL DORADO than anything in the Bond series before and after. A Bond Western and entirely unexpected at that point in the series.
So who knows, Amazon might indeed come up with ideas that simply didn’t occur before because nobody thought of them as having potential for Bond.
*Did this occur to Mendes when he decided to rip continuity to shreds by giving Bond the GOLDFINGER car? That his film otherwise might not have the feel of a Bond film?
Agreed. A series, by its very nature, has parameters it must stay within, and no, I do not in any way believe it will be easy - if anything I’ve said in this thread that Amazon are to some extent in a no-win situation (creatively at least - in the end if the next films make a ton of money then it’s “job done”).
You talk about SF - I intentionally left that out in my earlier post as in that I do see signs (the Aston of course) of a entry that can’t quite fully commit to a new direction (unlike the 2 films prior). But SF is executed so well that it can bear the weight.
SP on the other hand, is a clear example of a film trying to break new ground (an examination of Bond) but weighed down by the usual selection of predictable props and the like (Astons, Q, “comedy” to mixed effect). For me, SP is less a poor follow-up to SF, more a pale imitator of GE. With its John Barry music in the trailer, to its posters evoking LALD, it is as its director said, overtly a “Bond-film” with, in various interviews, quotes from all that that’s what they wanted to do. Almost as if the success of the prior film was somehow a “fluke” in that in some quarters it wasn’t a Bond film.
Genre film-making is a challenge, and I’m not suggesting that the wheel needs to be reinvented. But as The Dark Knight showed, you can do an awful lot by spreading the focus, onto the villain, or three-dimensional supporting characters (I’m sorry, that’s not something I’m ever going to say about the MI6 gang).
Abrams sci-fi efforts are an interesting parallel - he admitted to loving Star Wars but was in no way a Trekkie. Yet I’d argue that his first Star Trek entry is better than both his Star Wars’ in feeling fresh and innovative.
The two prior entries are origin films (or origin film), so they had greater latitude to create/operate in. Once Craig Bond declares: “I never left,” he places himself in alignment with the Bonds who preceded him, alongside all of their props/tropes/colleagues.
Interesting perspective–I never thought of the film this way. Thank you.
Reflecting on your post, I agree that SP is trying something different, but regard the “predictable props” as spectral invocations of what has gone before. Being spectral, these meta- references balance the film, rather than weighing it down. In one way, what was “heavy” in previous Bond films (all the Bondian signifiers) is now spectral, and what was spectral (the reality of being a state-sanctioned assassin who dutifully follows orders) is now front-and-center–the (heavy) ground of the film.
I understand and applaud the hope for a fresh take.
But consider this:
Bezos bought Bond.
Not because he finally wanted a fresh start.
It is the IP that can and must be used to attract billions.
Audiences like the same old. These days more than ever. Just a fresh coat.
Now, how will that next Bond film turn out?
And before one can say „but Pascal and Heyman“…
Don’t forget that Pascal always was an inside player, searching for allies to advance herself, not creating anything. The same goes for Heyman (and did you like his „Fantastic Beasts“-franchise by the way because it made so good use of the IP?)
Of the names, Edgar Wright is my top choice, and has been since before the shortlist was compiled. I think he could bring a lighter touch, which I believe Bond needs right now.
Paul King has potential for similar reasons. It’s a bit different from what he’s done before, but I think he could work.
On the other end of the spectrum, I don’t see Jonathan Nolan as a viable choice. He’s primarily a writer with only a handful of TV episode directing credits. Bring him on as a writer by all means, and maybe Amazon will give him a call if they want to start developing spin-offs. But I don’t think Bond 26 should be anybody’s feature film debut.
However, I do wonder about the availability of this shortlist. According to IMDb, most have at least one high-profile project lined up already:
Edward Berger (Bourne)
Denis Villeneuve (Dune)
Edgar Wright (Barbarella is apparently still happening)
Paul King (Wonka)
Things can change, and schedules can be adjusted, but if Amazon wants to move forward on this, then it may depend on availability.
As for the nature of the director’s fandom…
We need a director who understands Bond, understands the character, and knows what is required from a Bond film. Given Bond’s pop-culture ubiquity, it’s going to be hard to do that without being a fan. However, the right creative mind wouldn’t be preoccupied with making references to the past and instead think of the unique contribution that they can make to the series.
Agreed, this film is the first Bond they’ve worked on for everyone except Amy Pascal at the moment. They’re going to want to show that they understand the nature of the character and what audiences expect. Its the second one when they can start rocking the boat.
Most of all: it will have to be instantly recognisable as a Bond film. A SKYFALL extravaganza with M as Bond ‘girl’ and the villain a former iteration of Bond, turning the finale on its head with a Western siege…not sure that would sit well with critics and audience for Amazon’s first entry.
They can - and will - try to put their own stamp on BOND 26, if only to show they can. But I doubt we’ll see daring experiments until the public has grown used and fond of the new guy. Once that is out of the way there’d be more leeway to lure audiences away from the traditional recipe.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Outside of the fandom, I doubt anyone really cares that one group of billionaires has taken over the franchise from a different group of people who are millionaires hundreds of times over. If they turn in a film that strikes a chord with audiences in the way that Skyfall obviously did, I just can’t see wide sections of the general audiences saying to themselves, “well, it was a good film, but I was looking for something more traditional because it’s Amazon’s first crack at it.”
I know they won’t do it, but my hope for this would be for Amazon to completely break the franchise and do it with a great film, thus redefining what a “BOND Movie” can be for mass audiences. It really should only take featuring a character named James Bond who bears some resemblance to the character that Ian Fleming put on the page. The franchise has been broken for a while now, and the Craig Era is the perfect encapsulation of that, ruining what started out as the most promising tenure for a Bond actor since Connery by retreating further and further towards what “Bond” is “supposed” to be. Not that Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace broke entirely from the formula either, but there was at least movement in that direction before they managed to sprint in the opposite direction, going so far that they managed to venture into Austin Powers territory with Spectre. Casino Royale was a hit and most of the middle section of that film sees Bond sitting on his ass playing cards and then the bad guy dies by someone else’s hand at the end of the second act. We go along with it because that’s the story that the Casino Royale novel tells, but the general audience member couldn’t care less about the novel and went along with it because it was a good story and was a well made film. They’ll go along with similar departures if they’re done well.
Spectre, Skyfall, and No Time to Die felt like they were driving while looking in the rearview mirror. Fewer throwbacks and less of the “hey, we’re still relevant” nods would be greatly appreciated.
I hope they’re bold enough to take a less beaten path.
A Donald-Judd-meets-Marie-Kondo cinematic approach.
It could work, and allow them to redefine how a state-sanctioned assassin works in the third decade of the 21st century (I write this after reading that the United States has entered a war once again without getting the required declaration from Congress).
But will fans wonder were M, Q, and Moneypenny are, especially if other purveyors of Bond IP are featuring them? As Dustin notes:
Does this happen along the Judd/Kondo route? If all the Bond armature is removed, what will be used to provide the impetus for his mission?
Orion provides another path, where they
Fan service, and all that. Even if they deviate within the first film, fealty will be expressed to what went before, requiring, as Vanya writes,
So is a fresh approach possible? Will Bond not doing as he has done before inevitably need to invoke those very things in order to luster the new offering?
The literary side of the franchise is such a non-entity when it comes to the general public that I don’t see this as an issue at all. Q and Moneypenny are unnecessary characters and have contributed to this Mission: Impossible-style of Bond filmmaking where Bond is now a part of a team in the field rather than the lone wolf that he should be. There’s a reason these are called “Bond Films” rather than “Q and Moneypenny Films”. A film without Q, Moneypenny, and Bond wearing an earpiece would be a welcome sight.
I agree with this - except Q and Moneypenny being unneccessary characters.
Like M they are part of the series and the homebase. Only making their roles bigger changed the dynamic.
A restart should reduce them to appear just in the first part exposition.
Taking them away completely would open a hole in the character construct. Moneypenny is Bond‘s private ally in M‘s office, and Q‘s hate/love relationship with Bond creates the sendoff needed for the mission.
No Moneypenny would pose the question: no staff in M‘s office? Just some nameless faces?
No Q would mean: no gadgets, and they are part of Bond. Take those away and you just have a Bourne like assassin.
Thing is, while many hope for a creative kick from Amazon’s control - after all, finally the series gets a different view by an entirely new team - I don’t think there’s overwhelming agreement as to what that kick ought to entail. Apparently the gamut runs from “completely breaking the franchise” to hopes for a much more traditional overhaul with a lighter, more escapist tone. Something like a modern day MOONRAKER perhaps, a big colourful treasure trove of adventure and thrills the new Bond can dive in.
As for what the audience accepts, it’s true CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE already went down that route - but I also remember the clamouring for ‘the Bond we all know and love’ right after CASINO ROYALE’s final frame. Yes, neither we as fans nor the media really represent the greater audience consensus. They will enjoy what entertains them and frequently ignore critics; at times even whole tabloid campaigns against an entertainment they deem particularly amusing. Good.
Amazon can - and will - now freely move in whichever direction they want with their property. Maybe there has been something Broccoli outright refused that Amazon absolutely had to have. Outlets allude to a preference for a certain actor; keeper of said preference and actor varying depending on whose agent it is that drops the hints.
But if that really was the case, wouldn’t they already be a bit more organised? Have a presentable director and perhaps name at least the head of their writing room? No, I really think Pascal and Heyman started from scratch when they came officially on board; in what, only last March?
Like so many of us, me included, I suppose Amazon knew pretty soon what they didn’t want - dealing with the most successful producer woman in the business on her terms - but will now take a bit to make up its mind what it is they do want. Creatively they have now full freedom. We’ll see how that translates onto the big screen.
