With 22, I think they need steer the ship a little bit back to center.
I really think they will. From here, we're going to add Moneypenny, Q, etc., and let the pendulum drift back.
But this, to me---jarring though it is---is the stuff of Classic Bond...and I have a stubbornly persistent belief that it will be remembered as such.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
With 22, I think they need steer the ship a little bit back to center.
I really think they will. From here, we're going to add Moneypenny, Q, etc., and let the pendulum drift back.
Do you think? Sort of feels like (but not exactly the same as) the sequels further down the line to Batman Begins turning into the Adam West TV show. Does anyone really want to see Nolan's take on Robin? I just think if you're starting down a road you should stick to your guns. If it proves successful, of course!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
With 22, I think they need steer the ship a little bit back to center.
I really think they will. From here, we're going to add Moneypenny, Q, etc., and let the pendulum drift back.
Do you think? Sort of feels like (but not exactly the same as) the sequels further down the line to Batman Begins turning into the Adam West TV show. Does anyone really want to see Nolan's take on Robin? I just think if you're starting down a road you should stick to your guns. If it proves successful, of course!
Absolutely. I've a feeling it will be different during the Craig arc, but it will be all about getting Bond to where he's best known---and most successful. Bond has more seasons than Batman, I think; more room for ebbs and flows.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
...I also expect (and hope) that it will return to some bigger and wilder action and incorporate some Bondian flash and gadgetry. If Wilson writes LTK 2, I will again predict bad things.
I want Craig to finish his Bond arc on the Moon. Take that, MR fans! {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Oh yeah, I would. Preferably over five pictures or so, but I can definitely see it---a more 'Apollo 13' approach; not all 'Star Wars'...absolutely.
Eon: PM me. :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I really think they will. From here, we're going to add Moneypenny, Q, etc., and let the pendulum drift back.
Do you think? Sort of feels like (but not exactly the same as) the sequels further down the line to Batman Begins turning into the Adam West TV show. Does anyone really want to see Nolan's take on Robin? I just think if you're starting down a road you should stick to your guns. If it proves successful, of course!
I don't see that comparison at all. For starters, Campbell is not coming back for 22 so it's not about one director's vision or tone. Secondly, Bond has never crashed like the Batman series, it's formula financially successful all the way up to DAD.
Those don't really have anything to do with anything; I'm just talking about a series starting out on a new tougher route and going back to the jokey way of old. It'd be as disappointing as Batman going 'funny' again.
But more importantly, while I think darker and grittier is a nice novelty for one Bond film, I don't think it would work film after film. It would sap the joy from the series. These films are STILL supposed to be fun. I expect that they will keep it fairly "real" in the next one, not go outlandish - but I also expect (and hope) that it will return to some bigger and wilder action and incorporate some Bondian flash and gadgetry.
I don't see why the joy would go- it's not entirely lacking from this one, is it? The action's still wild, the gadgets are still there (that Sony advert showed plenty of technology on show; not all of it terribly realistic). I'm sure they'll stay on this side of outlandish, as you say; but they should stay true to the path they're setting out on. Did The Bourne Supremacy suddenly go all for laughs? It's still fun as it's all still silly; just played with a slightly straighter face and with some more believable characters. It's not mutually exclusive to have characters and fun at the same time.
But bringing back Moneypenny just seems like a signpost to say 'we're going back to exactly how they were before; formulaic "comedy" secretary and all'. Much as like everyone would fret if we heard that 'The Dark Knight' will co-star Robin.
The director of the movie hasn't "anything to do with anything"?? Since when? The tone is very much the product of the director. Schumacher and Burton are perfect examples - though I didn't like EITHER of their takes on Batman. Nolan has a great tone and I think he'll keep it going. Bond 22 will be directed by someone other than Campbell and will have it's own tone.
Oh come on; pay attention to what I'm saying. Nolan's take on Batman is interesting, but any director worth his salt could follow up in the same vein- see the Superman movies- are Supes 1 & 2 so different? See the Bond movies- could you really tell the last four had different directors? See the Bourne movies- does the tone differ drastically? Just because Campbell won't be back doesn't mean they should reboot the thing again.
Getting one's balls whomped is not a lot of people's idea of "fun".
See also: shooting lover dead in cold blood; being tortured to the point of gaining an erection; hitting women; kissing corpses; being threatened with genital torture; slow strangulation by the hero etc. None of these sound fun, but they're all in Bond movies; and much more.
It fits in the context of this story, but they can't repeat that kind of thing over and over in each film. Make a torture du jour. Or have Bond really fall in love, his friends and lovers all die terrible deaths... It would get very very old very fast.
Because Bond movies have never been repetative before?
Seriously though- just following a similar tone doesn't mean the same events happen every movie. It just means that comedy characters don't start popping up, because that's a different tone.
These are ACTION movies. You want to change it up, I agree, and give each one a distinctive flavor and the most substance you can, but you also have to deliver the thrills.
I think we're talking semantics again. I didn't say things would suddenly go Moonraker on us. But no, the action is not 'wild' this time, it's very down-to-earth.
Well, it's not though; is it? Down to earth relative to some of the whackier Bond films, but comparing to our favourite down-to-earth spy: would Jason Bourne leap from crane to crane and have a free-running chase through a building site, shooting up on ropes and driving bulldozers through slabs? Or would he have a nasty fight in a dining room of a suburban house? Would he spectacularly crash his Aston Martin at 80 miles an hour or would he slam his stolen Volga taxi into a wall? Would he spend the end of his film in a picturesuqe Venician town house collapsing into the canals or in a dingy tower block in Moscow that goes nowhere? And the Bourne films are pretty silly already- Bond, even in Casino Royale, is always silly and fun.
And the gadgetry is also played down. I think they will bring a few more into 22. It's all a matter of degrees. I want them to THINK before coming up with a gadget, make it useful and cool, not just silly.
Yeah; I'd agree with that. Perhaps we'll be surprised when we see it- I get the feeling there's more in the film than the script. Watching TLD the Aston Martin (although I love it) does annoy me slightly as it's so out of touch with the rest of the film. Hopefully Bond can have some sensible gadgets.
But I think almost everyone wants Q to come back - albeit, I'm guessing, younger and with a slightly different relationship to Bond. And the same is true with Moneypenny. The tone of each character can be updated, but these are all the chess pieces that 99.9% of moviegoers WANT to see in a Bond film.
If Q was very different (ideally with no crappy jokes- we've done the 'annoyed at Bond' gag now) I could understand why he's there; although it's quite an unimaginative way to show these gadgets- may as well just have a conveyor belt with Bond's stuff on with big annontations onscreen.
As for Moneypenny- well her sole reason for existing is for the 'I fancy him' gags; and forty years in I'm willing to dump that. It's, again, too formulaic; may as well have a big 'COMEDY SCENE APPRAOCHING' sign onscreen, and I'd rather have more intelligent humour than that; with it's tightly defined borders and characters. I'd bet you 99.9% of moviegoers don't even notice she's gone.
Oh come on yourself. I am paying attention to what you're saying and DISAGREEING.
No- was talking about a shift in tone; regardless of the directors. You got hung up my Batman example and I was trying to make my point fit your argument. Imagine if The Dark Knight became jokey in the tone of the TV series, regardless of whether it was Nolan directing it or not (and yes, he could quite easily choose to do that- he's a talented director capable of more than one approach). Would it be a fitting sequel to Batman Begins? That's all I'm saying. You appear to be saying that because Campbell won't be directing B22 it must be utterly different to CR in tone; which obviously isn't the case. You don't have to ape a previous director's work for it to be a fitting sequel.
Your example is unfortunately extremely uninformed. Superman 1 and 2 were both directed by Richard Donner - Richard Lester was only brought in towards the end to fill in when the Salkinds deemed Donner too indulgent and expensive. So that's the reason that the sequel has about 75% the same mood and tone.
Of course I know about that- it's on preorder. But all the Superman movies are the same tone. Different flavours slightly, but they're all interchangable. Even Bryan Singer's film is noticably following Donner's lead, whilst still adding the advantages of being a Singer film.
And yes, Greengrass brought his trademark "shaky-cam" to The Bourne Supremacy so it has his fingerprints all over it.
Shakey camera. Is that it? I do think Supremacy was much better directed than Identity, but are you really saying it's a completely different film to Identity? that it's not a sequel in tone, character etc.? Are you saying that the directors are so different it's impossible to see it as a sequel? Greengrass undoubtably brought his own talent to the table, but the table was already there. His job was to ensure fans of the first film went home happy. (and there's much more to directing than camerawork).
Try the Harry Potter films. All different directors; different films as a result. But still a cohesive series. No huge veering in tone.
All I'm saying is that the sequel to CR should stay faithful to its example. Obviously a new director would bring his or her talent to the table, but not so as to turn it into a whole different series. And honestly, all the Moneypenny jokiness is another series.
Anyway, we're not even that far apart - this really is just quibbling.
Yes you're right. Perhaps they will be able to bring back Moneypenny without it being offensive to the new style they've created- I can't pretend to be a film director or producer so I'm sure they'll have some clever way of making it fresh again. I'll just be worried if I hear about her coming back- in much the same way that many fans are worried about hearing of this new avenue they're pursuing at the moment.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
I personally think (hope) that the films could get bigger in scale and villain scope---to include the flashy, larger-than-life production design that Ken Adam did so well, without going all jokey and 'wink and a nod' once again. Wit and humour need not beget self-parody.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
I really think they will. From here, we're going to add Moneypenny, Q, etc., and let the pendulum drift back.
But this, to me---jarring though it is---is the stuff of Classic Bond...and I have a stubbornly persistent belief that it will be remembered as such.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Do you think? Sort of feels like (but not exactly the same as) the sequels further down the line to Batman Begins turning into the Adam West TV show. Does anyone really want to see Nolan's take on Robin? I just think if you're starting down a road you should stick to your guns. If it proves successful, of course!
Absolutely. I've a feeling it will be different during the Craig arc, but it will be all about getting Bond to where he's best known---and most successful. Bond has more seasons than Batman, I think; more room for ebbs and flows.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I want Craig to finish his Bond arc on the Moon. Take that, MR fans! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Oh yeah, I would. Preferably over five pictures or so, but I can definitely see it---a more 'Apollo 13' approach; not all 'Star Wars'...absolutely.
Eon: PM me. :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Those don't really have anything to do with anything; I'm just talking about a series starting out on a new tougher route and going back to the jokey way of old. It'd be as disappointing as Batman going 'funny' again.
I don't see why the joy would go- it's not entirely lacking from this one, is it? The action's still wild, the gadgets are still there (that Sony advert showed plenty of technology on show; not all of it terribly realistic). I'm sure they'll stay on this side of outlandish, as you say; but they should stay true to the path they're setting out on. Did The Bourne Supremacy suddenly go all for laughs? It's still fun as it's all still silly; just played with a slightly straighter face and with some more believable characters. It's not mutually exclusive to have characters and fun at the same time.
But bringing back Moneypenny just seems like a signpost to say 'we're going back to exactly how they were before; formulaic "comedy" secretary and all'. Much as like everyone would fret if we heard that 'The Dark Knight' will co-star Robin.
Oh come on; pay attention to what I'm saying. Nolan's take on Batman is interesting, but any director worth his salt could follow up in the same vein- see the Superman movies- are Supes 1 & 2 so different? See the Bond movies- could you really tell the last four had different directors? See the Bourne movies- does the tone differ drastically? Just because Campbell won't be back doesn't mean they should reboot the thing again.
See also: shooting lover dead in cold blood; being tortured to the point of gaining an erection; hitting women; kissing corpses; being threatened with genital torture; slow strangulation by the hero etc. None of these sound fun, but they're all in Bond movies; and much more.
Because Bond movies have never been repetative before?
Seriously though- just following a similar tone doesn't mean the same events happen every movie. It just means that comedy characters don't start popping up, because that's a different tone.
They're still there.
Well, it's not though; is it? Down to earth relative to some of the whackier Bond films, but comparing to our favourite down-to-earth spy: would Jason Bourne leap from crane to crane and have a free-running chase through a building site, shooting up on ropes and driving bulldozers through slabs? Or would he have a nasty fight in a dining room of a suburban house? Would he spectacularly crash his Aston Martin at 80 miles an hour or would he slam his stolen Volga taxi into a wall? Would he spend the end of his film in a picturesuqe Venician town house collapsing into the canals or in a dingy tower block in Moscow that goes nowhere? And the Bourne films are pretty silly already- Bond, even in Casino Royale, is always silly and fun.
Yeah; I'd agree with that. Perhaps we'll be surprised when we see it- I get the feeling there's more in the film than the script. Watching TLD the Aston Martin (although I love it) does annoy me slightly as it's so out of touch with the rest of the film. Hopefully Bond can have some sensible gadgets.
If Q was very different (ideally with no crappy jokes- we've done the 'annoyed at Bond' gag now) I could understand why he's there; although it's quite an unimaginative way to show these gadgets- may as well just have a conveyor belt with Bond's stuff on with big annontations onscreen.
As for Moneypenny- well her sole reason for existing is for the 'I fancy him' gags; and forty years in I'm willing to dump that. It's, again, too formulaic; may as well have a big 'COMEDY SCENE APPRAOCHING' sign onscreen, and I'd rather have more intelligent humour than that; with it's tightly defined borders and characters. I'd bet you 99.9% of moviegoers don't even notice she's gone.
No- was talking about a shift in tone; regardless of the directors. You got hung up my Batman example and I was trying to make my point fit your argument. Imagine if The Dark Knight became jokey in the tone of the TV series, regardless of whether it was Nolan directing it or not (and yes, he could quite easily choose to do that- he's a talented director capable of more than one approach). Would it be a fitting sequel to Batman Begins? That's all I'm saying. You appear to be saying that because Campbell won't be directing B22 it must be utterly different to CR in tone; which obviously isn't the case. You don't have to ape a previous director's work for it to be a fitting sequel.
Of course I know about that- it's on preorder. But all the Superman movies are the same tone. Different flavours slightly, but they're all interchangable. Even Bryan Singer's film is noticably following Donner's lead, whilst still adding the advantages of being a Singer film.
Shakey camera. Is that it? I do think Supremacy was much better directed than Identity, but are you really saying it's a completely different film to Identity? that it's not a sequel in tone, character etc.? Are you saying that the directors are so different it's impossible to see it as a sequel? Greengrass undoubtably brought his own talent to the table, but the table was already there. His job was to ensure fans of the first film went home happy. (and there's much more to directing than camerawork).
Try the Harry Potter films. All different directors; different films as a result. But still a cohesive series. No huge veering in tone.
All I'm saying is that the sequel to CR should stay faithful to its example. Obviously a new director would bring his or her talent to the table, but not so as to turn it into a whole different series. And honestly, all the Moneypenny jokiness is another series.
Yes you're right. Perhaps they will be able to bring back Moneypenny without it being offensive to the new style they've created- I can't pretend to be a film director or producer so I'm sure they'll have some clever way of making it fresh again. I'll just be worried if I hear about her coming back- in much the same way that many fans are worried about hearing of this new avenue they're pursuing at the moment.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM