Spectre (2015)

Aaron

Aaron

Goonsquad Officer
<Bronze Donator>
8,100
17,883
Glad I'm not the only one who both recognises the difference and also likes the old ones better. Just before I read Spronk's post I thought of the Austin Powers films and how they would never have been made if all the Bond films had been as dark and gritty as the Craig ones are. Will be interesting if what is said here are true that the next film will be a bit more like the classics.

The thing about Bond films is that they are not meant to be generic spy flicks. And what differentiates a Bond flick from a generic spy flick is not just the Martini, shaken not stirred, hitting on Moneypenny, and some gambling. The films are formulated feel-good films. When you start watching a Bond films you've never seen before you know beforehand that Bond's going to win, the bad guy will loose and Bond will get the girl. The best Bond villains have been those that no-one would believe exist in real. Eccentric, rich, psychopaths who live on their own fortress island/submarine base/space ship, have their own private army and dream of world domination/destruction.

The only Bond film I haven't seen is Quantum of Solace, and from all I've heard of it it's regarded pretty poorly, mostly for the plot (some corporate big-wig want's to privatise the watersupply in some South American shithole so he can reap more profits IIRC). Wtf is that? The news at 10?

I think Bond films are a lot like superhero films. No-one is supposed to believe that this is real. It's not as if you walk out of a Batman film thinking Bill Gates must done a cape and fight crime in Seattle in his spare time. Doesn't make superhero films any less good (if they are well made). Same with Bond. Give me the cheesy one liners, the over the top Q gadgets, the extravagant villain and the world domination plot that only Bond can stop, the fast cars and faster women, and the tongue in cheek humour and you've got yourself a good Bond film.
 
Siliconemelons

Siliconemelons

Avatar of War Slayer
10,791
15,135
aaron_sl said:
Glad I'm not the only one who both recognises the difference and also likes the old ones better. Just before I read Spronk's post I thought of the Austin Powers films and how they would never have been made if all the Bond films had been as dark and gritty as the Craig ones are. Will be interesting if what is said here are true that the next film will be a bit more like the classics.

The thing about Bond films is that they are not meant to be generic spy flicks. And what differentiates a Bond flick from a generic spy flick is not just the Martini, shaken not stirred, hitting on Moneypenny, and some gambling. The films are formulated feel-good films. When you start watching a Bond films you've never seen before you know beforehand that Bond's going to win, the bad guy will loose and Bond will get the girl. The best Bond villains have been those that no-one would believe exist in real. Eccentric, rich, psychopaths who live on their own fortress island/submarine base/space ship, have their own private army and dream of world domination/destruction.

The only Bond film I haven't seen is Quantum of Solace, and from all I've heard of it it's regarded pretty poorly, mostly for the plot (some corporate big-wig want's to privatise the watersupply in some South American shithole so he can reap more profits IIRC). Wtf is that? The news at 10?

I think Bond films are a lot like superhero films. No-one is supposed to believe that this is real. It's not as if you walk out of a Batman film thinking Bill Gates must done a cape and fight crime in Seattle in his spare time. Doesn't make superhero films any less good (if they are well made). Same with Bond. Give me the cheesy one liners, the over the top Q gadgets, the extravagant villain and the world domination plot that only Bond can stop, the fast cars and faster women, and the tongue in cheek humour and you've got yourself a good Bond film.
Click to expand...
Ehhhh... I have to kinda say that its not to unrealistic but- unknown... now days no one really has a "vision" of the future that is beyond your standard "sci-fi" tech...we are kind of stuck... go back to the 70's and look at all the stuff on what the perceivable future is and there are as many takes on it as there are movies or books about it- now days there is a fairly limited outlook on tech and either dystopian or utopian... the orig bonds where mean to be... your cops and standard army are operating at "modern" levels- weapons, tactics etc... but there are these "super secret" agency's around the world that have "the future, now!" and are fighting in secret the evil that have equivalent stuff that actually could- if carried out- overthrow the modern army/police etc. and take over the world. It became "campy" because of limitations of effects etc.

Take for example what is argued as one of /the/ most campy of the bond films- Moonraker... if what they showed did exist and this secret organization happened to develop it, steal it etc... the results could be devastating... but it came off as campy... I think actual modern technology and war-game gadgetry has 1) advanced to the point and beyond the conjectures of the old movies and source material and 2) the once more hidden actual military advances etc. are more exposed and public knowledge... this has lead to the changing of what bond is, and is more of a fighting what we know could exist/happen rather than fighting vs something that is way out there but "does!" exist in secret that bond is protecting us from so we can live our simple lives.
 
The Edge

The Edge

Lord Nagafen Raider
763
262
What makes a good Bond movie is one that piques the imagination, exposes secrets (organizations/technology/etc), takes you to exotic locations, and lets you live vicariously through Bond.

I like most Bond movies, with Goldeneye and Casino Royale being at the top of my list. I was a Pierce Brosnan fanboy that didn't want to see anyone else take over the role, but Daniel Craig has done a very nice job. Different styles, but I appreciate both.
 
spronk

spronk

FPS noob
22,597
25,648
the next james bond movie will involve him fighting Super PACs and the Pepsi Brothers, who want to bring legislation that bans premarital sex and redraws congressional districts to favor coffee-party candidates

the one with pierce brosnan fighting basically rupert murdoch + steve jobs was pretty funny/dumb, that was a really terrible bond villain. "no mr bond, I expect you to watch this giant flat screen TV behind me."
 
T

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
That one was awful. The older woman from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon does not a sexy Bond girl make.

Oh I guess Teri Hatcher was in it too, she must've been pushing 40 at the time also.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
18,206
-337
I want Blofeld to have a secret hollowed out volcano base again, that was FUCKING AWESOME and possibly the greatest thing in a movie EVER since it had a spaceship eating spaceship inside it.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,381
33,486
I'm OK with dialing back the grimdark and going back to some 60s spy vibe EXCEPT:

1) no introducing fucking inventions that have NO logical purpose except when Bond finds himself in a plot situation where the outlandish invention miraculously is the exact solution to overcome the issue.
2) Bond needs to still be a brutal fighter. He's an Ex-SAS character, the Pierce Brosnan one was just too over the top aristocrat bullshit Bond. He needs to still dish out the hurt and shoot to kill, not get dragged around like a tool until tricking the villian into dying.
 
Kaige

Kaige

ReRefugee
<WoW Guild Officer>
5,427
12,259
I like each Bond in their own style of their movies. Each actor has brought a series of his own, and you can at least appreciate that.

I think if all the Bonds and their movies were the same, the series would've died out years ago and anything made after Connery would be getting the "played out" tag stamped all over it.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,318
148,182
aaron_sl said:
I know I'm probably in a minority here, but I've never been a fan of the newer bond films. For me, Goldeneye was the last good one. What I loved about the old films is that they (mostly) didn't take themselves too seriously, and had a lot of tongue in cheek humour. Starting with Pierce Brosnan (after Goldeneye) and especially with Daniel Craige, the films seem to have taken on a tone of "serious business!" that makes them even more unbelievable than before, and far less fun.
Click to expand...
If you're looking for a spy franchise that doesnt take itself seriously and has a lot of tongue in cheek humour, then you have not been forgotten.

austinpowers.jpg

The rest of us want to see a serious Bond as he was originally written before they turned him into Adam West style campiness.
 
Intrinsic

Intrinsic

Person of Whiteness
<Gold Donor>
14,241
11,683
Closest we'd probably get to that is woodrocket.com (nsfw) doing a porn spoof since they seem willing to tackle the real tough stuff, like Bob's Burgers and Dr. Who.
 
Chanur

Chanur

Shit Posting Professional
<Gold Donor>
26,612
38,764
No one wants campy spy movies. That is the whole reason the franchise kind of died and went to the more serious tone. Craig's Casino Royale was probably my favorite bond film ever. I enjoyed the original films for what they were but most of them are fairly hard to watch now days.
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,107
30,198
Most one shot campy spy movies have more or less crashed and burned over the last decade or so. Avengers (Uma, Fiennes), Knight and Day, and This means War all tanked pretty hard at the box office, just to name a few. Really, True Lies and Mr and Ms Smith are the last two campy spy movies to pull in good bank that I can even recall, but both of those were really RomComs disguised as spy movies.
 
Xarpolis

Xarpolis

Life's a Dream
14,107
15,613
I actually enjoyed Knight and Day. Yes, it was absolutely campy, but I liked the movie as a whole.
 
Foggy

Foggy

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,236
4,809
I enjoyed Knight and Day because it didn't take itself serious and had some solid action.
 
R

Rais

Trakanon Raider
1,281
637
In the Sony emails that were released, they were talking about finding a way to bring this movie's budget down from the 300 million range. I loved all the new Bond movies, but 300+ million? Someone is being over paid or those porta johns are made of gold. Looking at the numbers for the last three is crazy. I think Casino was the best one, yet cost the least of the last 2 by half the budget. Skyfall made over a billion and cost 200 million to make.

MGM president Jonathan Glickman sent emails in early November explaining how the studio is scrambling to cut costs.

He says the current budget "sits in the mid $300Ms," but the studio has to drastically cut back to $250 million. And the shooting period already costs $50 million more than the previous film, "Skyfall."
Click to expand...
rrr_img_84889.jpg
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
42,369
50,406
They're going to destroy the franchise again if they don't get that shit under control. Even 250 million sounds absolutely fucking ridiculous for a Bond movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.