Those who dislike SKYFALL - How do you want Bond 24 to be?

I'm directing this question at Manhunter, trevanian, j7wild, saint mark, M_Balje, possibly Loomis (though he seems to change opinions with each viewing), Louis Armstrong and hegottheboot.

The one condition here is that Craig remains as Bond (sorry, trev). Everything else is up to you.

Go ahead. Throw suggestions.

Excellent topic, Shark. And I eagerly anticipate Tiffy's response as well.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Excellent topic, Shark. And I eagerly anticipate Tiffy's response as well.

After his many posts about goons in jumpsuits, Bond girls with sassiness running around in bikinis, larger than life villains, a Bond film without melodramatic inclinations... I'm sure we could all write Tiffy's responses on his behalf. ;)

No suggestions.

Typical.

NO personal shit, just an arrogant snotty English secret agent annoying the bejesus out of a baddie because the man does his job and refuses to die at every attempt to kill him. 007 as a force of nature.

And some sexy wenches thrown in for good measure.

Q being the usual tool.

Moneypenny full of innuendo

M cold distant and business like.

How do I want BOND 24 to be? Well, basically, I want BOND 24 to be free from the flaws I find in SKYFALL. Incidentally, I have no issue with Craig as Bond (not that you're saying I have, Sharky, but I'd just like to point out that I'm a huge admirer of Craig and consider his performance in CASINO ROYALE to be by some distance the best ever performance as Bond, or at least the best since Connery first burst onto the scene).

If BOND 24 aspires to be - so to speak - a "serious", "dramatic" and "thinking person's" Bond film, one that peels back the layers of 007, etc., etc. and offers not just mindless explosions but also some artistic merit, then that's all well and good but it needs to have things like genuinely rounded and engaging characterisation, dialogue and situations that aren't mired in cliché, and a script that doesn't have as many holes in it as that of A VIEW TO A KILL. If the aim is to make a Bond film for intelligent and discerning audiences (and that doesn't have to be the aim, necessarily, but let's say for the sake of discussion that it is the aim), then the film must deliver on its high-minded ideals. The story holes and hackneyed elements of SKYFALL have been discussed to death, so I don't propose to go over them again here, but suffice it to say that I expected much better of Mendes and co. and do not feel that SKYFALL is the film that many people make it out to be (although Mendes and co. are not, of course, responsible for people's overpraising SKYFALL).

Another issue that I have with SKYFALL is that I feel it to be poorly paced. There's far too much preamble in London before Bond goes off to Shanghai and the film almost seems to grind to a halt in places. For much of the time, SKYFALL is also a bit.... joyless. A bit too po-faced and lacking in, well, good old-fashioned fun. Of course, this is the case not only with SKYFALL but most other recent Bond outings as well, notably QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Of course, one could argue that the storylines of these films dictate a more sombre tone than was the case in the pre-Dalton era - if you're making a film about Bond avenging his best friend Felix or Vesper, the love of his life, then a breezy, campy approach would seem to be uncalled for. Still, I think it's way past time for a change of direction away from all these "personal" missions for our hero, and many Bond fans have been saying as much for many years. Or, as I suggest in the paragraph above this one, let BOND 24 be another foray into would-be serious drama, but in that case let's make sure that all the silliness is truly taken out of the script this time round.

What else? I suppose it's now obligatory for a Bond film to include a row between Bond and M. Perhaps BOND 24 will feature Bond breaking into Mallory's flat for this time-honoured confrontation, at which point the latter will declare our hero to be a clapped-out old dinosaur or words to that effect and that he would like to see him in the gutter. Maybe Bond and Mallory will actually come to blows - Mallory was in the SAS so could probably give a good account of himself in a fistfight with Bond. Of course, the brawl would result in a draw and the next scene would see Bond and Mallory sitting together and nursing their bruises while sipping whisky from cut-glass tumblers, their little scrap having increased their respect for one another.

It's pretty easy to imagine such a moment in a Craig Bond film, but given that it's pretty easy to imagine I'd sooner that BOND 24 didn't include it. In fact, I'd be happy with Fiennes having just one or two short scenes (watching GOLDENEYE again recently I was rather amazed by how little screentime Judi Dench has in that film - she has just one or two scenes and is onscreen for just a few minutes, which almost seems remarkable by today's standards). All he needs to do is give Bond his orders at the start of the film and, well, that's really about it. Similarly, in his SKYFALL commentary Mendes says something to the effect that Rory Kinnear's Tanner could really go places in future films, but I'm not keen on this idea myself (especially as QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL give very little sense of Bond and Tanner being good friends - Kinnear's Tanner doesn't strike me as Fleming's Tanner). Call me boring, but I'd like the next Bond film to focus on.... Bond. Just send him out on an exciting, globetrotting mission like back in the good old days, a mission in which he has no personal stake beyond - to echo saint mark's point - a desire to do his job and to survive the experience.

Oh, and talking of globetrotting, let's bring back the travelogue aspect and the sense of Bond exploring a foreign culture. This is something that's been sorely missing from the series for decades.

And just one other thing: there's this great little tune called the James Bond Theme. I'd like to hear it every so often in BOND 24, not just over the closing credits.

Loomis wrote:

And just one other thing: there's this great little tune called the James Bond Theme. I'd like to hear it every so often in BOND 24, not just over the closing credits.

To be fair, the Bond Theme did make a number of appearances. In bits and pieces here and there until it came out in all its glory when the DB5 was revealed. SF's usage of the theme is no more sparse than is the case with other post-Connery films (TND aside).

Bond theme appearances not included in that Youtube video.

FieldsMan wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Excellent topic, Shark. And I eagerly anticipate Tiffy's response as well.

After his many posts about goons in jumpsuits, Bond girls with sassiness running around in bikinis, larger than life villains, a Bond film without melodramatic inclinations... I'm sure we could all write Tiffy's responses on his behalf. ;)

Thanks Fields!! That's about right! Very good. Serve up a new version of any of the Gilbert films and I'll be skipping out of the theatre, only to buy another ticket, and go right back in, with a fresh tub of popcorn,gripping a Big Gulp re-fill (slurp your heart out Bloomberg). You'd never get me out of the theatre.
A new young tough Bond in the Connery/ Laz mold, age 28-31, with the correct height and look, would be nice too.
Re-cast Craig as a villain henchman.
Carry on!
What St. Mark said works too.
And yes blast the hell ouf of the Bond theme, like in the good ole days, like in OHMSS and all the Sean and Rog films. I want it dancing in my head as I leave the theatre. I don't want to have to consult a You-Tube video to learn where I heard it.

...realistically B24 will serve up more of the Craig-era template. Meldodrama and more melodrama with requisite action, the mimimal Bond-girl quotient and just enough nods to established Bond tropes, so that we know it's a Bond film we are watching but just barely. Gun barrel at end of course! Nothing will change till Craig is gone.

The modern equivalent of Lewis Gilbert is Michael Bay. I'm not even saying that derisively or ironically. Big, loud, action movies with lots of explosions, huge climaxes, nonsense plots and not designed to be taken too seriously. Difference is Gilbert had Ken Adams and there was no such thing as "MTV editing" yet.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The modern equivalent of Lewis Gilbert is Michael Bay. I'm not even saying that derisively or ironically. Big, loud, action movies with lots of explosions, huge climaxes, nonsense plots and not designed to be taken too seriously. Difference is Gilbert had Ken Adams and there was no such thing as "MTV editing" yet.

right you need a ken adam too. Great escapist set pieces helped distinguish the Gilbert films. Finding a Ken Adam shouldn't be that hard, but there has to be a will of course, and there isn't right now. Meanwhile I thought X-Men First Class did a nice job homaging Adam. Where there is a will there is a way.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The modern equivalent of Lewis Gilbert is Michael Bay. I'm not even saying that derisively or ironically. Big, loud, action movies with lots of explosions, huge climaxes, nonsense plots and not designed to be taken too seriously. Difference is Gilbert had Ken Adams and there was no such thing as "MTV editing" yet.

Yup. Big dumb popcorn films haven't changed much. I can imagine how disheartening it must have been as a Bond fan to see the franchise start from the very cool and adult Dr. No and then watch it descend to the gimmicky and childish You Only Live Twice.

Python wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The modern equivalent of Lewis Gilbert is Michael Bay. I'm not even saying that derisively or ironically. Big, loud, action movies with lots of explosions, huge climaxes, nonsense plots and not designed to be taken too seriously. Difference is Gilbert had Ken Adams and there was no such thing as "MTV editing" yet.

Yup. Big dumb popcorn films haven't changed much. I can imagine how disheartening it must have been as a Bond fan to see
the franchise start from the very cool and adult Dr. No and then watch it descend to the gimmicky and childish You Only Live Twice.

Oh yea, real disheartening. I've suffered through each of the 50 or so viewings of YOLT I've endured. :roll:

tiffanywint wrote:

Python wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The modern equivalent of Lewis Gilbert is Michael Bay. I'm not even saying that derisively or ironically. Big, loud, action movies with lots of explosions, huge climaxes, nonsense plots and not designed to be taken too seriously. Difference is Gilbert had Ken Adams and there was no such thing as "MTV editing" yet.

Yup. Big dumb popcorn films haven't changed much. I can imagine how disheartening it must have been as a Bond fan to see
the franchise start from the very cool and adult Dr. No and then watch it descend to the gimmicky and childish You Only Live Twice.

Oh yea, real disheartening. I've suffered through each of the 50 or so viewings of YOLT I've endured. :roll:

As great as the score, sets and cinematography is, YOLT is just a bore with one dimensional characters, nonsensical plot and tired gimmicks. Easily Connery's worst Bond film. If that's your bag, fine.

Yup that's my bag and several bags full, thanks! :*sm*:

Python wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Python wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The modern equivalent of Lewis Gilbert is Michael Bay. I'm not even saying that derisively or ironically. Big, loud, action movies with lots of explosions, huge climaxes, nonsense plots and not designed to be taken too seriously. Difference is Gilbert had Ken Adams and there was no such thing as "MTV editing" yet.

Yup. Big dumb popcorn films haven't changed much. I can imagine how disheartening it must have been as a Bond fan to see
the franchise start from the very cool and adult Dr. No and then watch it descend to the gimmicky and childish You Only Live Twice.

Oh yea, real disheartening. I've suffered through each of the 50 or so viewings of YOLT I've endured. :roll:

As great as the score, sets and cinematography is, YOLT is just a bore with one dimensional characters, nonsensical plot and tired gimmicks. Easily Connery's worst Bond film. If that's your bag, fine.

Yeah, I recently did a marathon run through Connery's films, and while I knew YOLT was OTT and silly, I had fond memories of it. This time, the drop in quality from TB was massively perceptable. The plotting just doesn't make sense and the whole thing just feels like ludicrous situations on auto-pilot.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Yeah, I recently did a marathon run through Connery's films

That is a worthy exercise! I try to do same as often as I can.

Enough of the Bullshit Melodrama.

We get it! We get it!

Bond is Human!

The reboot is over!

Let's go back to what made Bond films fun:

suspense, big stunts, big action sequences, sly humour, exotic locations, gadgets, hot women (more than 2, not just one good one and one bad one and Bond tries to sleep and court all of them), naked women in the credit sequence, blonde women (Bond hasn't had a blonde Bond Girl since The Living Daylights).

Also, let's get rid of the annoying, shaky Jason Bourne MTV action cinematography and CGI assisted green screen stunts and sets and go back to good old school movie making.

While we are at it, get rid of Political Correctness too.

That's the only reason they made Moneypenny Black.

What's next: a Black Bond? A Gay Bond?

Absurd!

The screenwriter or screenwriters for the next Bond film needs to watch the following:

On Her Majesty's Secret Service
From Russia With Love
For Your Eyes Only
The Spy Who Loved Me
The Living Daylights
Goldeneye

j7wild wrote:

Also, let's get rid of the annoying, shaky Jason Bourne MTV action cinematography

I thought they had got rid of that in SF. For example, the second fight between and Patrice is all in one master shot. The only camera movement is it slowly tracking in, then pushing over the edge.

Re: cinematography, I have no particular problem with the compositions in SKYFALL, a film that features some striking shots. However, I hope (but don't expect) that BOND 24 will ditch the digital format and go back to good old-fashioned celluloid.

I liked the echoes of DAF in Skyfall. Both films feature Bonds that are somewhat out of place with the brutality and vulgarity of the modern world.

I'd like that 'old vs new' subtext to continue in B24.

There's some interesting parallels to be drawn between SF's portrayal of Shanghai and Las Vegas in DAF. In the obvious sense, they're both littered with neon lights - but while one's an emerging power advancing at an unnerving rate, the others a city in its twilight. Seedy and zombified.

I'm sure if Fleming was alive today, he'd include Shanghai in Thrilling Cities, Fifth Edition.

Let's have some real world film shooting.

No more shooting in the day light and then use digital effects to make it look like night time.

No more shooting in warm weather and then use digital effects to make it look like it's freezing outside.

I watch a great many old movies from the 60's and 70's and back then, if it was cold or rainy outside, they still filmed.

Now it seems that actors are reluctant to film in cold weather or rainy weather and CGI is used to simulate cold and wet enviroment.

Back then in those days, when you see a movie character outside in the cold weather and the breath coming out from their mouth, that was real.

Now you can tell many times it's CGI.

Why is that?

Are actors just wimpier now? Is it because their insurance won't cover filming in foul weather?

Or are the actors just more demanding now and it's written in their contract they won't work in adverse weather?

But we saw much more of Vegas and environs in DAF than we did Shanghai in SF. I really got the flavor of Vegas, only got a small taste of Shanghai.