What is your attitude to B23?

Jack Wade wrote:

However, I'm worried that it might try to be a little too bombastic. It's the 50th anniversary, and we all know what happened for the series' 40th. The cast is seemingly loaded and there's a lot of big-name talent rumored to be involved. Hopefully the script carries its weight.

They have everything to prove (sort of like they did with Moore in 1977)... which could be a blessing or a curse.

FieldsMan wrote:

Just remember that Mendes doesn't have a wife to polish the script. That could minimize the feminist angle....

I'm guessing you don't get laid much with that atitude.

One thing I am positive about is that I do think it will atleast be better than the Brosnan films. I love Craig's take on Bond and I was happy with the level of natural humour in QOS. I just wish they could return to an action/dialogue balance like we had in the pre Brosnan era. Even better - the Connery era! This would be hoping for too much though. On the commerce side of the coin Eon do a great job producing these films but they need to maintain more artistic integrity. I wish the films would get back to being action/thrillers instead of just full out action films.

I wish they could be adventure thrillers along the lines of FRWL, TB and OHMSS. CR had a whiff of this.

Yeah same. Can't see it ever happening though. The great glory days of the cinematic Bond have long gone. It's not like OHMSS is lacking action either. I certainly think it has enough to satisfy today's audiences. Personally, I just don't understand Eon's way of thinking.

Bounine wrote:

It's not like OHMSS is lacking action either. I certainly think it has enough to satisfy today's audiences.

I think getting rid of David Arnold would go a long way towards making the new films feel less like generic American action flicks.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Bounine wrote:

It's not like OHMSS is lacking action either. I certainly think it has enough to satisfy today's audiences.

I think getting rid of David Arnold would go a long way towards making the new films feel less like generic American action flicks.

Yep. Craig's more brutal moments aside, the last five films just by and large blur into each other. Five films in a row all scored by someone bringing no distinction and a lack of constant strong distinctive melodies is just way too much. And the "Bond sound" which Arnold so lazily relies on has become far too much the stuff of parody. Musically, the palette really needs freshening up and broadening at least to the point where, even if a new composer's score may hardly be a masterpiece, it could still at least enforce a fresher sense of ambience and atmosphere a la Serra's GE score. It makes no sense to me that the director can change with each new film, yet the composer remains solid as a rock in EON's eyes. As a supposed fan himself, even Arnold (in all honesty and paycheck aside) would probably welcome a change.

Ditch the politically correct nonsense, David Arnold, and the generic action sequences, and this series would be on the right track. Shorten the films, too; these only need to run for about an hour and a half or an hour and 45 minutes.

Also, it might be a good idea to write Bond as a man who enjoys sex (with women), liquor, and the finer things in life. I'd mention cigarettes, but that's never going to happen again, so there's no use harping on it anymore.

Enough of this effeminate thug.

Sharky wrote:

Cautiously pessimistic. The signs are all there (Mendes, Craig in drag, Logan etc...), we only need Charles Vine to do his prognostication.
I think this will be Craig's TWINE.

Lazenby. wrote:

Hmmm....
QOS was nowhere near as bad as many make out IMO, but it still should have been a whole lot better and was a bit of a waste of potential. And the Bourne and Transporter sh*t has to stop.
It's the direction Bond 23 seems to be headed in through appointments such as Mendes and Logan which make me fear a TWINE-style clusterf*ck. Couple those two with the woeful, somehow still employed writers and the sh*tting on the legacy composer and I can't really see how this film is gonna avoid very blatant flaws, inconsistencies and stupidities. I'm basically expecting a film which has ludicrous pretentions about BAFTAs, yet still wants to have stupid gimmicks and ridiculous CGI action setpieces at the same time. So yep, I'm expecting TWINE RELOADED, with the only real comfort being my knowledge that Craig's presence alone will at least make it better than the Brosnan films. I just hope they can enlarge Ian and Cubby's coffins before this film comes out, as it's really unfair to keep them rolling around this much.

GE = CR, knuckling down to achieve a return to form
TND = QOS, potentially interesting and topical concepts left underexplored in favour of all out action
TWINE = B23? Shakespearian (Brechtian?) aspirations
yes, I can see the parallels, it should be quite good then
then it will be time for Craig's DAD, my goodness, won't that be fun!

What B23 would truly need to succeed is a feeling that Bond is Bond again. No more of this "untested, young, rogue-ish" agent stuff - Craig is in his late forties by now after all, isn't he?

The problem is that the Bond films haven't been the innovators or the leaders in the spy genre for quite some time. The Brosnan films felt often times like they were attempting to be like the M:I movies, while the Craig films ape Bourne. Well, Bourne's been out of the box office longer than Bond has now -- hopefully with it's impressive crew and cast, B23 can find it's own style, a style uniquely Bond.

Lukewarm. I will see it but I have little hope for it being a Bond classic.

Mr. Brown wrote:

write Bond as a man who enjoys sex (with women)

No mean distinction in this day and age.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Ditch the politically correct nonsense, David Arnold, and the generic action sequences, and this series would be on the right track. Shorten the films, too; these only need to run for about an hour and a half or an hour and 45 minutes.

Also, it might be a good idea to write Bond as a man who enjoys sex (with women), liquor, and the finer things in life. I'd mention cigarettes, but that's never going to happen again, so there's no use harping on it anymore.

Enough of this effeminate thug.

Agreed on all accounts except the film length. QOS was 1:40 or so and felt extremely condensed, as if entire scenes were missing - the polar opposite of CR. Even the Brosnan films were more traditionally paced than those two. I've got a feeling (maybe because Logan's scripts are usually long) that Bond 23 will go into CR territory in length.

I think the films should atleast be 2 hours (if the films are to actually be good again otherwise I don't care) with an action to dialogue ratio of OHMSS. Perfectly realistic for today's audiences.

Oh yes, Arnold adds nothing to these films. He's a thorn in the Bond canon's side. I'm not sure if he'll ever leave as it's a regular pay cheque for him. I can't see Eon getting rid of him either. I prefer Eric Serra to Arnold.

It's a shame they no longer seem interested in all the other ingredients that made Bond good except for the action. CR is the exception but that seems to only be attributed to the fact that it was based on a full length Fleming novel. This film had one extra action scene too many aswell as does TLD but it is the one post Dalton era film I enjoy. This is a Bond film.

I can see them all sitting around the script writing table and Eon saying, "no, too much dialogue here, let's replace it with action...too much dialogue here, let's replace it with, hey, I know, another action scene... ! Eon only seem to want to appeal to action junkies now days who have no interest in seeing Bond doing some investigating, playing cards, having dinner with a woman or/and the villain, doing some scuba diving, driving his motor car through the lush, beautiful scenery without having people firing bullets at him.

Personally, I think it's about time May makes an appearance in these films! I would like to see Bond in his flat again.

It is strange how in 22 films we've only seen Bond's flat twice, and never seen May.

It would almost be weird to introduce her at this stage.

I look forward to it. Hugely.

Because, be it Connery's iconic coolness, Lazenby's 'Well, I gave it my best shot' one-time deal, Moore's louche irony, Dalton's furrowed-brow seriousness, Brosnan's 'Greatest Hits' approach, or Craig's 'gritty' reboot ... I honestly, genuinely find things to enjoy greatly in all their tenures.

No matter what else happens on this big, swirling round rock we're all clinging to, certain things remain brilliantly, comfortingly constant. And James Bond is one of those things.

The Aston Martins, the Vodka Martinis, the looking better in suits and tuxes than any of us could frankly hope for, the penchant for gambling and pretty girls, the globe-trotting, the dryly dark sense of humour, the licence to kill, doing 'the right thing' ... these things apply to all 6 Bonds. And will hopefully continue to do so.

James Bond Will Return. And thank Christ for that, frankly.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It is strange how in 22 films we've only seen Bond's flat twice, and never seen May.

It would almost be weird to introduce her at this stage.

Yeah, but it's a reboot so they can do anything. Felix is now black. Moneypenny hasn't even appeared yet.

Naomi Harris for May.

Lazenby. wrote:

I just hope they can enlarge Ian and Cubby's coffins before this film comes out, as it's really unfair to keep them rolling around this much.

I'd go to see Daniel, and that's it.

Aston_Martini wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Just remember that Mendes doesn't have a wife to polish the script. That could minimize the feminist angle....

I'm guessing you don't get laid much with that atitude.

Even feminists prefer real men. He'll do fine.

As for the film, much excellent and entertaining commentary above. I have nothing to add other than I have no expectations for it. If it bombs, Craig might go away for good.
If it doesn't really suck, then that's a big bonus. I might even pay twice.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Bounine wrote:

It's not like OHMSS is lacking action either. I certainly think it has enough to satisfy today's audiences.

I think getting rid of David Arnold would go a long way towards making the new films feel less like generic American action flicks.

Yes, that's a very good point but there's no denying the fact that these films also have way too much action now. Bond was always about alot more than this.

Bounine wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Bounine wrote:

It's not like OHMSS is lacking action either. I certainly think it has enough to satisfy today's audiences.

I think getting rid of David Arnold would go a long way towards making the new films feel less like generic American action flicks.

Yes, that's a very good point but there's no denying the fact that these films also have way too much action now.

Way too much music as well, though that's true for all modern blockbusters.

Sharky wrote:

Bounine wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Bounine wrote:

It's not like OHMSS is lacking action either. I certainly think it has enough to satisfy today's audiences.

I think getting rid of David Arnold would go a long way towards making the new films feel less like generic American action flicks.

Yes, that's a very good point but there's no denying the fact that these films also have way too much action now.

Way too much music as well, though that's true for all modern blockbusters.

music or muzak?

Sharky wrote:

Bounine wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Bounine wrote:

It's not like OHMSS is lacking action either. I certainly think it has enough to satisfy today's audiences.

I think getting rid of David Arnold would go a long way towards making the new films feel less like generic American action flicks.

Yes, that's a very good point but there's no denying the fact that these films also have way too much action now.

Way too much music as well, though that's true for all modern blockbusters.

This is unsurprising, considering the influence of music video directors and trailers.

I do eagerly anticipate Bond 23. I do plan on watching it at least 5 times in theatre. (there are only so many opportunities to watch Bond on the big screen these days) It is Bond after all.

That said, it is quite possible, even likely, that the combination of Babs, Mendes and Craig, based on their track records, will give me lots to complain about, but that's the game.

Bring it on!!! Even less-than-great Bond is still the hi-lite of the cinema year!