Paul Farquhar
Legend
The Craig films felt more like generic spy movies than Bond movies.
[James Bond] The next movie directed by Denis Villeneuve
- Thread starter The Soloist
- Start date
Clint_L
Legend
I would argue that the Craig films, while not featuring names as egregious as Pussy Galore, are still pretty sexist. Vesper Lynd is fridged in the first one to provide the basis for Bond’s entire emotional arc, and while a few women gradually gain more agency, particularly Nomi in the most recent film, they still mostly function as objects to be victimized, rescued, and/or seduced.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I mean, that's kind of always been true of Bond though, hasn't it? In part because Bond has tended to set what "generic spy movies" are doing at that time, and in part because Bond has continually updated and remade itself to "go with the times", which inevitably means it's going to incorporate some of the same elements as "generic spy movies". I mean, we almost have more "eras" of Bond than we have Bonds, even - Moore for example has basically two or maybe even three different eras of movies, style-wise.
I'd also say Craig's era has been slightly different to other contemporary spy movies in two ways, which whether they're good or bad is... uh... in the eye of the beholder:
1) They look and feel much more like adverts for luxury holidays and goods than most 2010s and 2020s spy movies do. MI treads some of the same ground, but most "CIA slop" as @Morrus puts it tends to be gritty and nasty and slightly to extremely fear-monger-y/racist in a way Bond has tended to eschew in the Craig era (even when earlier films were super-nuclear-racist, it tended to be in a more "exotic east" or "noble savage" and less the contemptuous "these brown people are basically subhuman barbarians/fanatics" way - with some exceptions, eh, Dr No?). There's more romanticism and expensive/luxury beauty in Craig Bond than other spy movies (indeed including earlier Bond movies, some of which had this, many of which didn't - they often had exoticism, but without the same element of "luxury you can aspire to" in the way it was shot).
2) The interesting decision, never seen in any earlier Bonds, to give Bond a deep backstory where he was an orphan (sigh) raised with Blofeld (sigh), and keep referencing his childhood and so on. In general the later Craig movies seemed to go into exploring people's pasts and origins (not just that of Bond) in a way that previous Bonds just at most mentioned in passing to set up a disability for Bond to exploit or w/e. This didn't feel like "generic spy movie" to me, but rather some entirely different genre, almost Harry Potter-esque or something. Some people were definitely into this, but I kind of doubt it'll be repeated for the next Bond.
Actually describing this makes me like the Craig Bond era a little better - I have zero time, even negative time for the backstory nonsense (the last thing I need is Bond's backstory, especially one which was basically telenovela grade imho) - but frankly Craig Bond was a lot better than gross CIA slop stuff, and cooler and weirder, even with the consumerist stuff. I don't think it was quite as fun as it could have been, but even then it had its moments.
Casting is going to be everything here. If they get some charmless smug oik, and that's at least 50% of the people reported to be in "serious consideration" for the part, it's going to be painful. Craig succeeded in huge part because he's rugged yet really good at being vulnerable.
trappedslider
Legend
Found it Who’s your vote for the next James Bond?
It's clear to me that what some people want is a spy film that isn't about Bond, yet somehow is a Bond film
Paul Farquhar
Legend
In the early days, it was the other movies that imitated Bond (and then mostly as parodies and spoofs), not the other way round. And we had gritty cynical Len Deighton and Le Carre adaptations along side Bond in the 60s and 70s. It's only really since Borne that Bond has seemed to be imitating the fashion.
Bond has always done that. North by Northwest of sometimes described as 'the first Bond film', Moonraker was a response to Star Wars, Live & Let Die was a response to the blaxploitation trend, Golden Gun followed the kung fu trend, Octopussy has an entire segment which you could easily mistake for Temple of Doom, Dalton's run was inspired by 80s action, Craig was influenced by Bourne. What Bond has always done is adapt to the trends of its time, and I imagine that it will continue to do that.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I mean, there's no question early Connery Bond established a lot of super-spy movie tropes, but I feel like after that, as soon as other people started making super-spy movies as a real genre (clearly distinct from the "serious" spy movies you reference), and indeed parodying super-spy movies, then you immediately started getting a sort of interchange between Bond and other movies of the eras - where Bond informs them but is also often itself informed by them - I think that's true from the late Connery era onwards (honestly I wouldn't even have opinions on a lot of this stuff if it wasn't for Kill James Bond making me re-watch and re-consider a lot of the older Bond movies). Indeed action/spectacle movies in general often inform Bond a bit more broadly - Moonraker wouldn't exist without Star Wars, for example (or would be very different and later in sequence), and there are specific elements in a lot of Moore/Dalton/Brosnan movies which clearly exist because of movies around that time. Like, I love Dalton, but his second movie is clearly a response to gritty/violent drug crime movies of that era (still rocks).
Re: Bourne, I mean, I think the major influence there was just how action is directed and that parkour exists. Brosnan-era Bond had been sort of locked into a rather behind-the-times take on action, and Bourne absolutely spin-kicked it in the face (not even very intentionally, just by doing its thing). And yeah, Craig Bond was like okay yeah we don't want to feel outdated, so let's incorporate these new elements, but I think it's still a very different take, romantic and flashy, compared to the quasi-realism and more icy, intimate, deeply paranoid style of Bourne. I mean, the closest to Bourne is probably Casino Royale, and that is, imho, easily the best Craig-era Bond (the only one, for my money, which felt like the movie overall was on-par the quality of the lead actor), but even then it has its own things going on and is not exactly close (like, even the "gritty" CBT scene is too overwrought for a Bourne movie, where more conventional and convenient torture would be used).
I'm not sure it'll happen but it'd be nice if Villeneuve could like, evolve the style further and maybe become more of a trend-setter. Action hasn't actually moved on all that far since the Bourne era, so there is room for innovation. I suspect he'll just be very competent though and not really evolve things. Still better him than say, Nolan (who might well innovate more, but probably in a really stupid cul-de-sac direction).
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Moonraker references Star Wars, but only by being the exact same Bond climactic battle as Thunderball, You only Live Twice OHMSS and The Spy Who Loved Me, only in space, with laser beams. It still a very generic Bond film, but with the last bit wearing a sci fi skin. It's narratively nothing like Star Wars, but it is narratively like most of the other Bond films before it. And the same goes for those others. Referencing current pop culture is not the same as imitating a current movie. Until Borne came out.
And North By Northwest isn't the first anything. It draws heavily on Hitchcock's own 39 Steps (itself a remake) for a start. That family of spy dramas (generally featuring wholesome everyman heroes) goes back to The Riddle of the Sands in 1903, and there are a whole bunch of (mostly British) movies from around the 1950s in that genre. Suffering the fate of the not-quite-as-good: being forgotten (you can find some if you plumb the depths of Amazon Prime though).
Ruin Explorer
Legend
To be clear, I agree with all of this, I don't think it really changes what I'm saying. I don't think Bond ever "imitated" Bourne beyond specific action elements which Bourne made common across almost all action movies (including superhero movies, and to this very day!) - I think even Casino Royale is very distinct from Bourne, and the inspiration is quite similar to how Star Wars inspired elements of Moonraker - i.e. it's mostly superficial and about the action, not the tone or style or message of the movie.
If they were imitating Bourne, we'd be looking a more intimate and paranoid spy movie, a more serious spy movie, where going rogue from MI6 wasn't a fun jape as it always, always is for Bond (even the Craig era), but a terrifying experience as MI6 death squads were sent to kill Bond and so on, where M was truly heartless and truly ruthless, rather pretending a bit at that and then emerging as Bond's kindly-if-snarky mother-figure.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
To be honest, what would make me happy is if the new Bond Movie imitated Slow Horses. Otherwise I'll probably stay home.
Similar Threads
