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

FieldsMan wrote:

With M, it was never really an issue during Brosnan's era, save for TWINE, but she was emotionally involved in that, and Elektra called her out - Bond even asks what she's doing in the field.

Even though M is played by the same actor in the Age of Brosnan and the Age of Craig, I think it's really a different character between each of the eras.

Since asked, here is my bucket list for making a true Bond picture, what is necessary and what I would like to do the get the blood flowing once more.
1. 35mm production with processing by Technicolor who still maintains dye transfer processing (as evidenced by the temporary revival in the early 200's, such as the theatrical run of the putrid Redux cut of Apocalypse Now)
2. Flat non-scope cinematography. 1.66:1 ratio for aesthetic reasons, to bring 007 back to earth, for intricate detail, and to tie into the start of the series.
2. Mono audio. Yes, I am serious. Focus on the dialogue, the score, the usage of silence as an important medium.
3. Stop imitating and be the imitated once more.
4. A writer who understands how a film treatment works and how a plot has to get up off the ground and move. In other words someone who understands exactly how Dick Maibaum worked.
5. A crack editor who understands the need for constant plot flow and excitement maintained by editing rhythms yet without reducing oneself to the inane modern trends chiefly inspired by Bourne II and III. There is a reason why there was such a huge dropoff when Peter Hunt left the series.
6. Imagination. Something painfully missing since Harry had to sell his shares in 1975.
7. The gunbarrel at the opening, and for the first new picture, the original Bob Simmons one from Dr. No, complete with radio transmission noises and the title score being the theme unsused since 1969. People need to feel that excitement again. Not some techno remix or new riff on the theme , but the iconic life changing theme that makes our blood run cold. When this happens in the DN titles, that gunshot is a magical sign, the call to action that means the ride has begun.
8. Pick which route to go down, the fantasy or the realistic. It is either one or the other but you have to do whichever you choose correctly. Or perhaps effectively combine the fantasy with the real.
9. If Craig is mandatory, re-cast him as one of the other two 00's. If he follows the trend of usual death, oh well... :twisted:
10. A new 007 is needed, one who is tough yes, but he has to have a brain behind it all and maintain a connection with the audience. Remember there has to be a reason why we care for this guy.
11. Stop worrying about making Bond fit into the modern context of espionage and action thrillers. Bond is a separate entity and it degrades the character and the character's world by continually diluting 007 in this manner. There is a reason why Fleming is different from LeCarre, and that is because Fleming wrote action fantasies with perhaps the best realistic grounding ever utilized for a fictional escape.
12. Come up with some damn good snake pits!!!!
13. Do it with finesse and style, look back to the original films for inspiration and follow in their stead. Make a Bond film for a relative according budget.
14. ACTUAL EXOTIC LOCATIONS!
15. Bring back the adventure elements!
16. An actual score that isn't buried in the mix, techno infused, indistinguishable from other modern action scores, and uses the theme properly so that a Bond film sounds like a Bond film again. SF made Kamen's work on LTK look like a Barry score.
17. Last and perhaps most important is to have a director on-board who understands exactly who Bond is and how Bond's world works form the inside out. To be honest there hasn't been anyone who could do this since John Glen in the 80's. Despite his directorial shortcomings he understood how the films worked after working in second unit and editing several. The Bond director has two prime examples to follow; The Young methodology and the Hamilton methodology as these form the basis of the cinematic 007. A good director for the series should understand the way they worked and to a lesser extent how Gilbert, Glen and Hunt (Young follower) did.

These are just some of my suggestions, wishes and dream ideas for a new 007 and only off the top of my head. Admittedly some are pipe dreams, but all tie into the idea of rejuvenating the series and giving audiences what they want while not compromising character integrity. Bond 24 will be more traditional because the audiences are starting to turn away. SF may have had massive box office returns but the complaints of not being like the older films are still heavily present. Parents bring their children and no longer have a 007 that is relatable in character or story. Bond 24 will without a doubt retain some of the classic element in a modern 2013 context...in other words Craig will appear in Goldeneye II.

Quote :

7. The gunbarrel at the opening, and for the first new picture, the original Bob Simmons one from Dr. No, complete with radio transmission noises and the title score being the theme unsused since 1969. People need to feel that excitement again. Not some techno remix or new riff on the theme , but the iconic life changing theme that makes our blood run cold. When this happens in the DN titles, that gunshot is a magical sign, the call to action that means the ride has begun.

That would be utterly bizarre - comic almost. A 2014/15 Bond film using footage of a stuntman who died over 25 years ago, and that tinny, dated 62 Barry recording of the Bond theme (it was bad enough when it was lazily f*cking plastered into YOLT and OHMSS, but now?). That's the worse kind of fanboy conservatism - trying to recreate the feeling of excitement of the past, by literally recreating the past. It's like Scotty in VERTIGO.

I want to hear a swaggering new interpretation of the theme, that actually captures the Zeitgeist of Bond in the 2010s, and not the early '60s. If I wanted to watch the original 1962 gunbarrel, I'd put on DR. NO.

Bring on the techno. Embrace the future.

That's why I said some are pipe dreams. ;)
I still think the original theme should at least be used again.

With the 50th Anniversary, SKYFALL would have been the most logical place for it. I think that ship has sailed now.

Okay, you really dropped the ball this time. You forgot to include another important point that the filmmakers should only assemble composite effects work via optical printer instead of digitally with a computer.

Don't forget the dodgy back projection.

Python wrote:

Okay, you really dropped the ball this time. You forgot to include another important point that the filmmakers should only assemble composite effects work via optical printer instead of digitally with a computer.

I'd vote for doing it all in-camera myself. If you can't do your parasailing guy like Jonathan Pryce in BRAZIL, then you shouldn't do him at all.

I've actually finally reached a kind of peace over the Craig era. Last night I realized if Owen had done CR he wouldn't've done CHILDREN OF MEN, and honestly, that pic means more to me than most of the Bond films put together.

These pics (primarily CR and SF, since there are a few bits in QUANTUM I really like) are just not for me, same as the AbramsTrek, though not always for the same reasons.

Just by virtue of the fact the next one will be Logan, Craig and possibly Mendes, it isn't going to be for me either.

Well, I'm glad you're at peace, trev. No point is subjecting yourself to these films, hoping you'll have a eureka moment and fall in love with them.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Well, I'm glad you're at peace, trev. No point is subjecting yourself to these films, hoping you'll have a eureka moment and fall in love with them.

Sometimes it does take me awhile to come around on a pic. I mean, I saw ALIEN at least 8 or 10 times between 79 and 05 (mostly via a pricey laserdisc), but I didn't actually ever like it as a movie till 2005 (around the time I burned out on APOCALYPSE NOW, oddly enough, though I'd seen that 50 times easy.)

I could watch ALIEN for art direction or camera angles or this or that, but it just hadn't ever grabbed me. Then suddenly, it all worked. Have no idea why, but I guess persistence pays off (will have to try watching HEAT again ... have tried three times and never gotten past the first hour or so.)

Finaly saw Jarhead and it made it quistion Skyfall more then it already did before. The part before Bond 23 whas titled Skyfall and my expections be more a QOS setting.

My idea of Jardhead at the time whas this feeling, but expext a more boring movie and now i see the movie it confirmd this for me how much i whant to that QOS style return. Couple of things suprise me to see in Jarhead who also be in QOS and Skyfall. Something of those thing i earlier at to earlier Bond movies like CR/QOS then Mendes. How amazing it be if Bond 24 be QOS/Jarhead setting. Cinematopgraphy/production design is great, there take more time to tell in my eyes litle bit weak end. Jarhead have a more breath moment people said there missing in QOS and i mis in Skyfall. This from a point of view that Jarhead is not a Bond movie, because there enough moments where i think QOS is a better movie/have more breath moment. Humor and drama is subtil. Biggest problem of Jardhead be that that there not happend that much with those other good things. That's where i think Bond 24 can inprove. I think the waterstory/symbol can be in good hands of Mendes with a good writer. Something i hoped on before i saw Skyfall, now he only should make it true.

Of course i am stil worried about the rest. This is of course also because iam a big fan of Tomorrow Never Dies and case be that this is mixed very well with the above.

Name it a Kathryn Bigelow moment, but i think the agression/politic points in the beginning are simalar to the one in QOS. I own 2 movies of her who i bought for intrest when she whas remour to direct Bond 23.

Another thing, once you know the clue make it a less of movie you whant see a lot. To much of open end mabey for Jarhead, not in special a problem for Bond 24.

I was wondering the other day whether it might be possible to bring Blofeld back. I know people have talked it up a lot in the past, but after watching SKYFALL again, the thought occurred to me that now might be the perfect time to do it.

The way I see it, there are two big challenges a return of Blofeld poses: firstly, the unfinished Quantum storyline, and secondly, the temptation to keep using Blofeld in the future.

The first problem could be easily explained away: Blofeld is a member of Quantum's inner circle, and grows unhappy with their way of managing things, and so overthrows the leadership and consolidates the organisation into SPECTRE. Alternatively, Quantum may have collapsed after the incident in Bolivia, and Blofeld simply acquired their assets afterwards.

The bigger problem would be the temptation to keep using him. Fleming only had Blofeld appear in a few novels, but he was involved in most if the early films, and the character really jumped the shark when he tried to force peace upon the world in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. I think a better way to do it would be to have Blofeld appear in one or two films, get a definitive interpretation of the character down pat, and then kill him off so he can't be brought back and overstay his welcome.

I'd rather they steer clear of Blofeld altogether tbh, quite aside from the been there done that vibe the vast difference in the mood and perception of 'villainy' today means another name and another bias is much my preferred route. For that matter I would also be more than happy to see Quantum gone forever, it felt a half baked idea in the previous movies (which is par for the course for the post TWINE movies) - any resonance or threat it might have carried greatly diminished by the apparent passage of time that clearly separates QOS with SF.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Blofeld [snip] really jumped the shark when he tried to force peace upon the world in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.

Like fuck he does. You're confusing Blofeld with Dr Metz.

It didn't really matter anyway, 'cause then he disappeared offscreen for 10 years only to be dropped in a most undignified fashion down an industrial chimney on his reappearance (and he couldn't even be named, for fear of incurring the wrath of even bigger villains ... Kevin McClory and his lawyers).

Was McClory a villain? If so, why do you think Ian Fleming settled? It's absolutely clear that Fleming stole Thunderball. The only question is why Jack Whittingham didn't receive due credit.

Just kidding ... I have The Battle For Bond at home, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

There were rumours floating around that McClory had dirt on Fleming and his Old Etonian friend Ivar Bryce, such as this "transcript from part of a telephone conversation with Kevin McClory" on Cb.n:

Quote :

"Ian Fleming was not a dishonest man, simply an arrogant one. I am absolutely convinced that when he wrote the novel, 'THUNDERBALL', lifting all the best elements, characters and plot-points from my film script, he felt absolutely justified that what he was doing was his 'God-given-right. His enormous arrogance was in his 'not mentioning or acknowledging' Whittingham's and my contribution to the story. It was 'my film script.' Fleming wrote margin notes. Whittingham and I wrote the screenplay, based on my creations of 'Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the criminal organization, 'spectre', and the plotline of the stolen a-bombs." "To Fleming and Ivar Bryce, I was just some 'wild hooligan’, some Irish hayseed, full of blarney, but no money -- and no influence. They had forgotten I worked with John Huston, and later with Mike Todd. I had a very focused plan for 'Latitude 78 West', and I wasn't about to let these two steal it from me. It was a 'class' problem, with Fleming -- he, coming from a wealthy English banking family. This snobbish attitude on Fleming's part, his arrogance toward me, made me all the more determined to face-off with him in the British courts. It was very personal with me, but it was also business." “Fleming took the position he owned Bond, thus he owned my story. He, certainly, did not own my story. It was typical of his arrogance, especially after he and Bryce started talking about Alfred Hitchcock as the director and edging me out of the deal, a deal I walked into, again, in-good-faith. The only thing I did was take Fleming to court and reclaim my work, which he used without permission." "It is annoying to me to see on the Internet now that I stole ‘THUNDERBALL’ from Ian Fleming.

Those people who write that did not know Ian Fleming. They did not know Ivar Bryce, and they did not know what was in my contract with the production company we created for the production of 'Latitude 78 West.' Fleming knew what he was doing was unlawful. It was a direct copyright infringement of my script. His arrogance was in that he did not care and he lied to his own publisher, Jonathan Cape Ltd. about his total authorship. It is that simple." “Fleming's unlawful actions forced me to take him into court. He used the plot. He used the characters. He used everything and left me with nothing. He and Bryce were determined to ignore their responsibilities to our contract. In short, they thought they would give this Irishman their usual brush-off and I would go away with my tail-between-my-legs, never to be heard from again. I was determined not to let them get away with it, anymore than I would let two thieves get away with stealing my children. 'Latitude 78 West' was my child not Fleming's. In the process he lost his right to film that Bond story, thanks to the common sense of the British Courts." "When I learned that Broccoli & Saltzman were going to make ‘THUNDERBALL’ their first James Bond film I had no choice but to take Fleming to court to prevent it. My back was against the wall. If i didn't take Fleming to court, I had no one but myself to blame for losing those film rights. I wasn't about to let that happen. Never!" "I attempted to get an injunction to stop the publication of ‘THUNDERBALL’, but the courts ruled that the expense and costs of printing the first editions of ‘THUNDERBALL’, which included their advertising campaign, would cause a financial crisis for that firm. So, the publication went forward. ‘THUNDERBALL’ was published without any notice of my co-authorship, along with Jack Whittingham. I did not wish to cause any unnecessary hardship for Fleming's publisher. His publisher was not a collaborator with Fleming and Bryce. But, after I had officially won my rights to film the book, I insisted -- and the court agreed -- that the novel would henceforth in later printings read, 'based upon an original story by Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, and Ian Fleming’, which is what it says in the credits of both ‘THUNDERBALL’ and ‘Never Say Never Again’, and will say in the credits of 'Warhead’, when it goes before the cameras at the end of the year. 'Warhead', though it is a screenplay by Sean Connery, Len Deighton and myself, it is based upon the treatments created by 'Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming."

"I am not ashamed that I stood up for my rights. I protected my rights in ‘THUNDERBALL’ with the same guarded zealousness that Broccoli used during his career. My screen rights derive from Ian Fleming, not Danjaq, not MGM, not United Artists, not from anyone in the Broccoli family. Sony and John Calley have been smart enough to recognize this. I am vigorously protecting my rights in the ‘THUNDERBALL’ screenplay and treatments. I have the right to do a television series based upon these rights as well." "Danjaq, MGM and United Artists know that I own these rights. I own the copyright and that copyright is filed. The British courts recognize my deed of title to the scripts and treatments based upon 'Latitude 78 West.' Fleming and Bryce forfeited any rights to my story when Fleming unlawfully infringed upon my rights with the publication of ‘THUNDERBALL’”

"Sony's lawyers and mine are investigating infringements upon me, by Danjaq, MGM and United Artists, when Broccoli deliberately used elements and characters based upon my script in his first bond films, "Dr. No," "From Russia With Love," "You Only Live Twice," "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Diamonds Are Forever." I am entitled to payment for infringement by them of my rights, in the creation of the cinematic James Bond." “I am looking forward to a successful film of 'Warhead.' Regardless, of what should happen -- I have secreted away -- a number of letters and legal papers, protecting my rights. Copies are now with solicitors and colleagues in Amsterdam, Brussels, London, Paris, Dublin, Nassau and Gstaad. I have revealing letters between Ian Fleming and Ivar Bryce, which I am certain no one in their families would wish to see in print. I believe James Bond's image would be seen quite differently, if these letters were published. I do not have them for any purpose of blackmail, I simply have them." “As for legal papers regarding James Bond and the exclusive rights to make the films by MGM and United Artists, there are papers in locked boxes in those cities that will prove beyond a doubt that they do not. We will soon be going up against MGM and United Artists in the American courts, but America is not the only country with a system of justice or the only country that protects intellectual property rights. These papers, through instructions by me, will be made available '007' years after my death. The bombshell awaits, I suppose..."

He died in November '06, so I guess we won't have to wait too long to see if he was bullshitting or not.

Reading that transcript leads me to believe that Blofeld was partly inspired by McClory.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The first problem could be easily explained away: Blofeld is a member of Quantum's inner circle, and grows unhappy with their way of managing things, and so overthrows the leadership and consolidates the organisation into SPECTRE. Alternatively, Quantum may have collapsed after the incident in Bolivia, and Blofeld simply acquired their assets afterwards.

Hell, this would solve everything! Quantum's long absence and the end of their story arc, and the return of Blofeld and SPECTRE.

Well, that was intended to address the major problem with reviving SPECTRE: Quantum was never really shut down, so it would be ridiculous to suggest that there are two evil organisations out there and that one is completely igored. Quantum could simply be the latest name used by an organisation that periodically shuts itself down and reoganises itself. Every suspect or supposed organisation that has ever existed - the Phoebus Cartel, Majestic-12, the Trilateral Council, Ergenekon and so on - could actually be the same organisation, working under a diferent name. Their latest incarnation was Quantum, before they shut themselves down after the incident in Bolivia. Blofeld then revived Quantum, adopting the name SPECTRE, and starting over. BOND 24 could start with Bond investigating the death of Guy Haines, Special Envoy to the Prime Minister, and discovers that someone - Blofeld - is killing off the old Quantum members as part of his takeover.

Taken from Die hard thread:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Silva doesn't actually do that much "hacking". He sends M messages that are as cryptic as they are threatening, but Mendes is smart enough to show it all in a way that we don't actually see the act of "hacking", which creates this omnipotent, mysterious threat. A diagnosis of what happened and how it happened is only secondary.

Likewise the scene where Q inadvertently lets Silva access the MI6 servers. Instead of asking audiences to suspend their disbelief at the idea that Silva could know exactly where he would be imprisoned and open up that one door, the film has him opening every door, once again causing something tangible to happen that takes moment for all involved to figure out. And I liked the way Q was shown to be a little on the naive side, too engrossed in the puzzle to realise that it was a trap.

I think on the moment it self whas great, but iam disapointed we not later see how Silva does it. In specialy because the whole thing of the missing card is big flaw. Skyfall whas for a big part already spoiled for i have seen it, that is something there learn from for Bond 24.

The film makes it pretty clear that Silva's computer was rigged to access the MI6 servers as soon as Q connected to it. While Q was busy trying to access Silva's files, the computer was busy varying out a hidden program designed to unlock everything. So there was no need to show audiences how Silva did it - that's what the "NOT SUCH A CLEVER BOY" message us.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Was McClory a villain? If so, why do you think Ian Fleming settled? It's absolutely clear that Fleming stole Thunderball. The only question is why Jack Whittingham didn't receive due credit.

I think Fleming was used to getting away with it by that point. The Commander Jamaica series stories he came up with for that never-happened show formed the basis for DR NO, but I have no idea why the people who paid for that material didn't want a piece of the action when he transformed it into a Bond story. Some of the FYEO stories were for a never-made Bond TV series, but whoever commissioned those also didn't try to cash in when he recycled them.

I've always been on McClory's side with this and always will be. In fact, my adult-lifelong disgust with Cubby (mitigated ONLY by the casting of Dalton) relates directly to how he and UA kept throwing lawyers at McClory to keep WARHEAD and its variants from happening.