• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What direction should Bond go in from here?

Direction of the Bond franchise post-QOS

  • Back to the gadgets and series cliches/staples

    Votes: 21 35.0%

  • Keep going in the new direction

    Votes: 39 65.0%
  • Total voters
    60
C

Chris227

Lieutenant Commander
It seems there's been a bit of a backlash towards Quantum of Solace because it doesn't really feel like a Bond movie to some since it lacks the gadgets (Save MI6's computers and the Univex tracking device card) and other staples of the franchise (Bond, James Bond/Martini/Q and Moneypenny etc.). Some also feel that the series is becoming too deriative of Bourne, 24, etc. However, others are enjoying the new direction which doesn't lie in the series cliches and see it as being fairly true to the Fleming novels, which didn't have a lot of the elements introduced in the films.

So should Bond stick to the old formula or the new look? Or try to find a balance in-between the two, like the Connery and Dalton films did?

I think Craig would work in both types of Bond film, personally.
 
Back to the gadgets, one of the things I liked about the Bond films. Also the double entendre and Miss Moneypenny and Q. Also, they need a lot more humour, the last two films had little humor, if any at all
 
I think they should tone down the action a tad in the next one. As Ebert said, Bond is not an action hero. He's the sort who is annoyed by having to get his hands dirty.

On the other hand, I say keep the gadgets out. Or at least, make sure any you put in are plausible and don't steal the show. Don't throw in Q or Moneypenny unless they make sense with the plot.

Don't tie the next one as close to its predecessors, but don't ditch them completely either. Keep in mind Bond is still relatively early in his career. And don't forget about Quantum. If it doesn't return, QoS was all for nothing.

Keep the plot engaging, yet straightforward. Don't muddle it up with too many tangents.

All in all, don't try to reinvent the wheel. Both movies did a lot of things right. There's not too much that needs revision, so don't go overboard.

Oh, and call the next one "Property of a Lady," please. It's the only good title left.
 
It's a movie title that hasn't been used. And they ditched it for a damned good reason. Sounds like a DMV instructional video.
 
Forget the gadgets and old baggage. Those staples were holding the franchise back...but Bond went to excess (and back) so many times, that it's inevitable that it gets over-the-top again someday.
 
Both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace have set the stage for a thinking man's Bond. The last several films were all gloss and gimmickry without ANY context i.e. reckless boozing, womanizing, and gadgets. This Bond is more believable in his motivations and why he IS James Bond. CR and QoS give us the reasons behind his behaviour while also indicating the man he will become, albiet a less characture-ish version.

Honestly, The Brosnan Bond was far more Austin Powers than anything. Just because it's James Bond, doesn't mean it has to be stupid and hammy. Both of the Craig films have proven that this is the case.
 
I miss the Brosnan era, sci-fi silliness and all. Bring it back! These new movies are nice and all but they're basically Bourne movies and not Bond movies. Bond should be charming and suave, not an Aryan bully.
 
Stay the course. Realistic. Instead of inventing gadgets, just enhance the gadgets we do have. The really cool gadget in QoS was his cell that immediately GPS-tracked the guy who called his "Universal Exports" number and the fact that the camera on the phone can create 3D renderings of Quantum members and beam the info back to 6 instantaneously. Stay away from show knives and invisible cars and we'll be good.

The only change is we should see a story where Bond doesn't have a personal stake in something. We don't need a revenge story, or a love story. He needs a mission that's more energetic. There's a balance between tortured soul and detached completely that should be found and zero'd in on.
 
Well, I loved Quantum of Solace, so I'm all for continuing the character in the direction he's been in. I think taking steps back away from formula is a great idea. I loved just how different and unique QoS felt from the other films, even including Casino Royale. It felt very modern but with a classic, timeless quality to it, almost a retro feel. I loved that.

I would suggest continuing to stay away from some the Bond archtypes (Moneypenny, Q, "Bond, James Bond" type cliches, gadgets) and focusing as much on character and thrills as possible.
 
A Bond with ethics (ew! gross! :rommie:) just isn't Bond. He shouldn't have a "one true love" to avenge. That implies he's capable of love in the first place, or capable of caring about anything beyond the manner in which his martinis are made.

Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer and even Chuck Bartowski have got the "spy with a soul" schitck thoroughly covered. James Bond is a male adolescent fantasy of power, violence and lust. Just leave it at that. It may not interest me, but at least it occupies its own space instead of a crowded territory.

I hate seeing unique things watered down just so they will appeal to more people or whatever the motive is here - was James Bond losing popularity? Why change it at all? What's wrong with having a thoroughly self-centered and nihilistic hero in one ongoing franchise? It's not like the type is so common.
 
KevasTrader said:
In the simplest terms possible:

Casino Royale works.

Quantum of Solace doesn't!
Click to expand...

I think that says it all. Casino Royale went in a new direction with an edgier Bond and no gadgets but it still felt like a Bond movie and it still worked. Quatum of Solace felt like a (mediocre) movie that just happened to have James Bond in it.

If TPTB are really happy with the non-effort they put out with this film, thie franchise is in a lot of trouble.
 
I think Bond is on an excellent course. CR and QoS both did an terrific job IMHO of setting up the character and his motivations, as hamudm points out.
For me CR and QoS work very well back-to-back because they're telling an ongoing story albeit it different parts of it. That's why I think it's perfectly ok for QoS to be somewhat heavier on action. CR does a lot of character work and allowed QoS to be pretty uncompromising and consequent.
I tend to agree with those who see this as the beginning and the middle part of a trilogy. I think that would work very well indeed since IMHO we need to find out more about Quantum, what they're really after and who's pulling the strings in the background.

So I think the next movie should really pick up where QoS left off. Bond just caused quite a stir in a in organization that seems pretty powerful. That's not going to be without consequence for long, I think.

I personally couldn't stand the direction Bond was been taken in with TWINE and DAD. They were seemed to be bent on exaggerating everything up to the point where it became a superhero movie or live-action cartoon. I also couldn't stand how the Bond girls regressed way back into the 60's with the stupid sexual innuendos and overboard flirting. For me, anyway, that just comes across as silly these days.
And it was very disappointing because Wei Lin was such a terrific Bond girl - attractive and sexy but also independent, intelligent and dignified. I'd have been very happy with the last two Brosnan Bonds had they kept that up.
As for Q and the gadgets, well, I loved Q just like any other Bond fan. But then Desmond Llewelyn isn't alive anymore so it probably wouldn't really be the same anyway, would it? And, honestly, it's something I'm not missing one bit so far.
However, I think with Bond taking on Quantum in the future (in the next movie, I'd guess) I could imagine they might start providing him with more equipment i.e. gadgets than before. I just hope they keep it within limits. No rotating knives below car emblems, please...
 
IJD GAF said:
It's a movie title that hasn't been used. And they ditched it for a damned good reason. Sounds like a DMV instructional video.
Click to expand...

That's not the reason, they ditched it because they thought the Americans would not know what the word Revoked meant. It is in the License To Kill DVD.
 
Mr Light said:
I miss the Brosnan era, sci-fi silliness and all. Bring it back! These new movies are nice and all but they're basically Bourne movies and not Bond movies. Bond should be charming and suave, not an Aryan bully.
Click to expand...

Exactly, The last two films aren't really Bond films. I miss the Brosnan era, they should have and could have had one more, Brosnan wanted to do one more like the Connery Bond movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top