Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,824

    Default Should the next Bond films be more self-contained?

    As I said in my other thread, pretty much all the Craig films are connected. "Skyfall" seemed to be self-contained plot wise but SPECTRE pretty much stated that Silva was working in some capacity for SPECTRE in addition to his own vendetta, and that one of M's last acts before her death was to finally figure out what the organization was really up to, and M's death also is a plot point in some other parts of SPECTRE as well.

    Before Craig the Bond films were generally more self-contained, with some exceptions such as SPECTRE being a threat throughout the sixties (outside of GOLDFINGER), some nods to old gadgets, and later on some references to Bond's short, tragic marriage. The films of course featured recurring 'support' characters (M, Q, Moneypenny, Felix), and this grew somewhat during the Roger Moore era with the introduction of Defense Minister Grey and KGB head Gogol (Also the Brosnan era with Jack Wade and Valentin), but pretty much each film could be enjoyed as it's "own thing" without having to watch the others to understand what's going on).

    The Craig films sort of became a saga of sorts (Given his connection to everything in a sense, plus Madeline, one might even call it the Mr. White saga) but is it time for a Bond that isn't so serialized? Or given that the MCU's format, constantly setting up the next step, still seems to be working, is that a thing of the past?
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  2. #2
    Astonishing Member thwhtGuardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisIII View Post
    As I said in my other thread, pretty much all the Craig films are connected. "Skyfall" seemed to be self-contained plot wise but SPECTRE pretty much stated that Silva was working in some capacity for SPECTRE in addition to his own vendetta, and that one of M's last acts before her death was to finally figure out what the organization was really up to, and M's death also is a plot point in some other parts of SPECTRE as well.

    Before Craig the Bond films were generally more self-contained, with some exceptions such as SPECTRE being a threat throughout the sixties (outside of GOLDFINGER), some nods to old gadgets, and later on some references to Bond's short, tragic marriage. The films of course featured recurring 'support' characters (M, Q, Moneypenny, Felix), and this grew somewhat during the Roger Moore era with the introduction of Defense Minister Grey and KGB head Gogol (Also the Brosnan era with Jack Wade and Valentin), but pretty much each film could be enjoyed as it's "own thing" without having to watch the others to understand what's going on).

    The Craig films sort of became a saga of sorts (Given his connection to everything in a sense, plus Madeline, one might even call it the Mr. White saga) but is it time for a Bond that isn't so serialized? Or given that the MCU's format, constantly setting up the next step, still seems to be working, is that a thing of the past?
    It makes sense for it to feel serialized in my mind, even if the previous films never were the books were and it made them read better.
    Looking for a friendly place to discuss comic books? Try The Classic Comics Forum!

  3. #3
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,291

    Default

    While I didn't love every Craig movie, I do like the idea of every time a new actor takes the role, he's essentially his own Bond, separated from the rest before and after. I like that we saw the beginning of Bond's career as 007 to the very end of it. I'm not saying at the end of every actor's tenure in the role he needs to die, but a nice little conclusion would be nice.
    "Overturn everything! Can't he just write an executive order that says: 'Everything Trump did is now overturned. F**k that guy.' signed, Joe Biden."

  4. #4
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,824

    Default

    I think in some cases the books were a bit more self-contained than even the Connery movies. SPECTRE doesn't show up until the later Fleming stuff (Something that of course led to several legal headaches on it's own) and the FWRL and Dr.NO novels have nothing to do with SPECTRE either-but, on the other hand, in DR.NO Bond is recovering from the poisoning he got from FWRL (He didn't miss the shoe in the novel) and part of the reason M assigns him is simply because he believes Strangways's disappearance was him eloping with his secretary and that it would be an easy one for the recently recovered Bond. (There's still traces of this in the movie adaptation, mainly M saying Bond needs a new gun because his last one failed).
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  5. #5
    Astonishing Member Frobisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    2,885

    Default

    Yeah, I think the loose, freestyle continuity is a massive strength of the series that's really helped it to keep going as long as it has. "This never happened to the other fella!". Bond doesn't really need story beats like other folk heroes because he's basically the guy from a Swiss watch advert animated by the spirit of a debonair serial killer.

  6. #6
    Swollen Member GOLGO 13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,939

    Default

    James Bond is now dead, yes?

  7. #7
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GOLGO 13 View Post
    James Bond is now dead, yes?
    James Bond will return.

  8. #8
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    With the Orishas
    Posts
    8,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GOLGO 13 View Post
    James Bond is now dead, yes?
    The "Daniel Craig as James Bond" saga is over.

    But at the end of the last film it said what it always- James Bond will return.

  9. #9
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    12,613

    Default

    It comes down to execution for me.

    I really, really enjoyed the Craig films and the interconnections.

    It made want to see his daughter grow up and avenge him in some manner. It made me want to see the 007 codename live on. I wanted more Felix. I wanted more at the end of each film in the series.

    There are Bond movies I skip but not Craigs' so to me ... it comes down to execution.

    If they are loosely connected or even just one-offs, fine by me. If they want to be one giant series ... it better be something different than the Craig era.

    IMHO I would rather see Bond go streaming as a series with heavy continuity but each "season" is a new Bond, new supporting cast, in a new era. If they stay on film, I'd like to see a series of films that were "one-and-done" down to new casts for each.
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  10. #10
    Astonishing Member David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    It comes down to execution for me.

    I really, really enjoyed the Craig films and the interconnections.

    It made want to see his daughter grow up and avenge him in some manner. It made me want to see the 007 codename live on. I wanted more Felix. I wanted more at the end of each film in the series.

    There are Bond movies I skip but not Craigs' so to me ... it comes down to execution.

    If they are loosely connected or even just one-offs, fine by me. If they want to be one giant series ... it better be something different than the Craig era.

    IMHO I would rather see Bond go streaming as a series with heavy continuity but each "season" is a new Bond, new supporting cast, in a new era. If they stay on film, I'd like to see a series of films that were "one-and-done" down to new casts for each.
    The really clever thing about the ending of NTTD is spoilers:
    it gives a lot of room going forward. They can say Craig's Bond was entirely separate from whatever comes next, or they can have the new Bond wash up on a beach somewhere and tie it to the previous continuity. But the Craig Bond films would still be something relatively complete to themselves, because Bond can't be near Madelyn or his daughter for the foreseeable future. So you've got a subtle shift where Bond has worked through his issues with Vesper (and women in general) but he's still got this trauma that can't be resolved. And of course, they could play around with the possibility of finding an out for that too.
    end of spoilers

  11. #11
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    It comes down to execution for me.

    I really, really enjoyed the Craig films and the interconnections.

    It made want to see his daughter grow up and avenge him in some manner. It made me want to see the 007 codename live on. I wanted more Felix. I wanted more at the end of each film in the series.

    There are Bond movies I skip but not Craigs' so to me ... it comes down to execution.

    If they are loosely connected or even just one-offs, fine by me. If they want to be one giant series ... it better be something different than the Craig era.

    IMHO I would rather see Bond go streaming as a series with heavy continuity but each "season" is a new Bond, new supporting cast, in a new era. If they stay on film, I'd like to see a series of films that were "one-and-done" down to new casts for each.
    They probably can bring Felix back too. Wright's Felix is his own thing, especially considering what happened in LICENSE TO KILL. (In a way, Logan Ash is pretty much a reboot of Ed Killifer from that film).
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  12. #12
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisIII View Post

    Before Craig the Bond films were generally more self-contained, with some exceptions such as SPECTRE being a threat throughout the sixties
    I don't agree that the Bond films have been that standalone. 5 of the 6 Connery films are connected via SPECTRE, and OHMSS fits in there as well.

    So it isn't really until Moore that they become "self contained." But even then you get things like the annoying Sherriff in LaLD and MWtGG, or General Gogol throughout the later Moore films. The plots may not tie together directly, bit neither do Craig's films. QoS picks up right at the end of CR, but other than Mr. White the plot is totally unrelated. Same with SPECTRE and NTtD. Other than Blofeld being used as a justification for kickstarting threads. The plots don't share any elements meaningfully.

  13. #13
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,824

    Default

    True to a degree-it's even mentioned that in FWRL that part of SPECTRE's plot is not only to kill but humiliate Bond for the death of Dr.No. Bond in Goldfinger also seems to allude about Dr.No with the line about Jamaica (Also it seems to be some unseen scene where Leiter got close to women?).


    Part of NTTD's plot-especially the title sequence-seems to directly be based on a conversation Bond has with Madeline on the train in SPECTRE, although she leaves out the part about her mother.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  14. #14
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    513

    Default

    Quantum of Solace and No Time to Die are direct sequels to the movies that came before them. So much so that your really need to have seen the previous entry to get what they're about.

    I wouldn't do that again, at least not for a while. But I'm all for some references and loose continuity like Connery and Brosnan's movies had, even returning characters.

    I especially do not want to go back to the days of Felix Lieter getting recast in every damn appearance!
    Last edited by Jared; 10-25-2021 at 11:21 PM.

  15. #15
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Quantum of Solace and No Time to Die are direct sequels to the movies that came before them. So much so that your really need to have seen the previous entry to get what they're about.
    I don't agree with this in the slightest, either. I might be able to be talked in to giving you No Time to Die, but even that's a stretch. QoS doesn't actually require any knowledge of Casino Royale at all. The only plot point that matters is that Bond is right royally pissed at Mr. White, and the opening of the film lays that out plainly.

    Again, to draw a comparison to an older Bond, here it's Diamonds are Forever. DaF opens with Bond hunting Blofeld. The movie never explicitly tells you why, and it doesn't really matter. You just need to know that Bond is on a personal crusade against the villain, and the pre-credits sequence conveys that well enough. Maybe you get a little more from the story if you saw OHMSS, and frankly you should because OHMSS is one of the best Bond films of all time, but it's not required at all.

    Quantum is just a riff on the exact same idea. Personal vendetta leads to new mission, with new villian, new scheme and new girl. There's nothing substantive of Casino's plot to draw from, and you really don't need to know anything about it to get the plot.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •