Dirty Benny's Weekly Rant

[dirtybenny]

Rant 22

Alternate Universes

With the “reboot” of Bond EON has opened a Pandora’s Box of continuity within their films. Bond has always been a series of standalone films with a thin thread of continuity running through them to keep it all coherent. This I believe has contributed to Bond’s 50 years of success.

You could take each film individually without having seen the one before and still follow along and enjoy it, but small inclusions of references to previous films let you know you were watching the same character from the earlier adventures. (Lazenby playing with props from the Connery era, Moore visiting Tracy’s grave, etc.)

Bond’s strength was he just was. He just existed no beginning no end just Bond defending the faith of the free world from the tyranny of evil men. Now that we’ve broke the seal on the reboot bottle, Bond now has an origin or three, thanks to EON not knowing where to stop. That means Bond has entered the realm of Batman, Superman, et al. where you have different “Universes” where events of the past have no meaning. Each time the character is recast you must start over and reinvent the wheel as it were. That’s fine for something like Batman which existed in comic book form and on television in various forms for decades before being made in to a motion picture. In this style of film making only 3 or 4 films are made in a short period and then forgotten about for a decade until someone else wants to take a crack at it. Such as Burton’s take in 1989 compared to Nolan’s most recent reinvention, but if EON wants to churn out new Bonds every two years or so and keep the gravy train rolling it’s not going to work out so well. Audiences will be confused as Bond is splintered in to various different “timelines” where plots are done and undone, characters are killed and reanimated.

CR started out as simply an attempt to show where Bond started with promises of a return to normalcy after this sort of one off experiment. (A bad idea in it’s own right but we’ll pass that for now) EON has lost the plot as it were by trying to keep up with the joneses. They’ve taken a Nolan like approach by turning this all in to a story arc with a beginning and an end which will necessitate another reboot with the casting of the next Bond, now I will not argue that this is a good thing after watching with horror where they have taken Bond along this “trail of tears”, but where will it end? After the 7th Bond’s tenure is over what then? Another reboot? Then another? If it’s true Tanner commits suicide at the end of SP what does that mean for the earlier films in which he appears?

The audience at large doesn’t have the attention span to keep up with all these story arcs. Most viewers come and go to the franchise and will grow tired of continued trilogy’s and Tetralogies where they have to harken back six years to the first in the series to recall a plot point in the current film.

Of course we’re putting too much thought in to this according to EON, but I ask why aren’t you doing the same? It’s your franchise, and money in your pocket, you’re the ones who should be having these thoughts and asking yourselves these questions.

[mcbride007]

dirtybenny

If it’s true Tanner commits suicide at the end of SP what does that mean for the earlier films in which he appears?

Looks like it is not a prequel series anymore.

[John P. Drake]

dirtybenny

If it’s true Tanner commits suicide at the end of SP what does that mean for the earlier films in which he appears?

Looks like it is not a prequel series anymore.

It never was.

[okconnery]

on a yahoo news board someone (at least they also hated Skyfaux) tried to tell me it was not supposed to be the actual Goldfinger car brought back in Skyfaux (my rant being are they saying Craig is the same Bond who belittled the Beatles way back in the Goldfinger caper, if so either Craig needs to be as old as Connery or Moore unless Q Branch somehow discovered the Fountain of Youth as far as his appearance goes) but the Austin DB that Craig/Bond won from Demetrius in Casino Royale

while I think this is fair, there are numerous other problems

the car in Skyfaux has the same license plate number as the car Sean Connery poses with all the way back in 1964

it has at the very least submachines and an ejector seat

Dench/M so familiar with it she knows it has an ejector seat and/or recognizes the red button when Craig/Bond reveals it, without Bond ever saying it is an ejector button

we're supposed to believe that Q Branch (for whatever reason in such an old relic) would install submachine guns and ejector seat for Bond's use but nothing like GPS or internet the reason why Bond supposedly chooses the car so the villain can't immediately find them on their ludicrous trek to the countryside where M will be largely undefended, except there is also the line about using M as bait?

Just more proof that Skyfaux is the stupidest entry in the whole series

[John P. Drake]

I couldn't agree more, okconnery. Well put.

[dirtybenny]

dirtybenny

If it’s true Tanner commits suicide at the end of SP what does that mean for the earlier films in which he appears?

Looks like it is not a prequel series anymore.

It never was.

Actually John P. I think it was supposed to be at one point. I vividly remember Babs on T.V. during the lead up to CR spouting on and on about how this film was going to tell us "How Bond earned his 00 designation, why he likes his martinis shaken not stirred, and why he has an affinity for Aston Martins." To me that spells a "prequel" rather than a start from scratch.


Well said OKConnery, of course we know why the DB5 was shoehorned in to SF. It was another cheap attempt at an homage (read unoriginal rip off) to the series' history, and in doing so opened a Pandora's box of continuity issues. Which is the problem when you start building on from one film to another sequel style, rather than as I said in the rant a series of unrelated films with a thin line of continuity. You can also tack on the fact that Bond is supposed to be an old worn out Agent in that film, despite only going on two missions (actually 1 and 1/2 since QOS is a continuation of CR)

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

It was definetley a prequel with a young Bond. But the reboot was so popular that they are just creating a new series and timeline now. Spectre is essentially Casino Royale IV.

[Blowfeld]

I never believed the prequel pablum fed to the masses. So I'm not disappointed or shocked by EON departure from their earlier promises.

However I am surprised they would so blatantly cross the time lines. The poor fans already had trouble reconciling the 40 years of one series and the hiccups there in. Stoping only shy of remaking a classic story is not going to keep the fanboy meltdown from happening.

The Craig reboot was so haphazard, they more then likely will need to chuck it and start a proper reboot, and/or pick up from DAD as if the Craig era never happened.

They might keep going after Daniel leaves as if nothing happened, I am not sure they can. They compromised so much I don't think the Craig arc had enough stability to last another ten years let alone forty.

[John P. Drake]

Sorry for my late response, Benny. But I disagree. I think I do remember one of them saying "Forget what you knew about Bond...", think it was Michael G. Wilson. In anyways, logically, like Blowfeld says, the series since the reboot feels like its own arc and franchise, and by any means does not reference or connect to the previous movies that were "supposed to be sequels". This is pretty much a brand new arc, and very tiresome one at that.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

The Craig reboot was so haphazard, they more then likely will need to chuck it and start a proper reboot, and/or pick up from DAD as if the Craig era never happened.

This is the way I want the next era to play out. Pick up from Brosnan/DAD but set in the present day.

[dirtybenny]

Sorry for my late response, Benny. But I disagree. I think I do remember one of them saying "Forget what you knew about Bond...", think it was Michael G. Wilson. In anyways, logically, like Blowfeld says, the series since the reboot feels like its own arc and franchise, and by any means does not reference or connect to the previous movies that were "supposed to be sequels". This is pretty much a brand new arc, and very tiresome one at that.

I very much agree with you that the films have become their own "arc" especially considering the fact all three previous plots are being shoehorned in to the story line of SP. The question as to whether CR and by extension QOS were meant to be prequels or a "start from scratch" as it were, can be debated till the end of time and never reach a consensus, especially as I suspect EON didn't know what they were trying to achieve themselves. So I guess we can chalk that up to one of life's great mysteries.

[dirtybenny]

The Craig reboot was so haphazard, they more then likely will need to chuck it and start a proper reboot, and/or pick up from DAD as if the Craig era never happened.

This is the way I want the next era to play out. Pick up from Brosnan/DAD but set in the present day.

I hope against hope this is the case, but I think we all know it's just a pipe dream.

[dirtybenny]

Rant 23

All the Wrong Bond

EON has stated the need to strip away the Bond formula to keep the franchise fresh. And they certainly did! But since CR they have been attempting to reintroduce some of the “old irony” as Craig put it back into the films. However they have turned it all in to cocked hat, think Downton Abby meets Rambo. Rather than bring back light hearted fun and adventure they give us dark gloomy melodramas with “homages” to earlier, better films.

When they do attempt to bring back the glory of old, it’s stilted, forced and corny. Nowhere is this better exhibited than SF. Bond adjusts his cuff-links after dropping in to a rail car despite having a bullet in his chest, a homoerotic one liner to Silva, the DB5 coming out of nowhere, the list is long and tiresome, much like these films have become. Bond is supposed to be classy, a wink and a nod, not some barbaric over blown gorilla smashing his way across the globe leaving a trail of bad puns and door knobs in his wake, while taking us on a tear jerking melodramatic joy kill ride. I want to come out of the theater on a natural high uplifted by the spectacle I just witnessed. Not scratching my head asking “What the hell was that all about?”

I came up with this analogy the other day, I hope it isn't too tiresome. Bond always has and always should be “junk Food” now I don’t mean the cheap freeze dried microwaved garbage one finds at places like McDonald’s. I’m talking about quality hand crafted cheeseburgers. Think of that one place you go to get your favorite burger, thick juicy beef patty, cheese dripping of the side, onion grilled and caramelized to perfection, a burger that can rival filet mignon, that is what Bond is, and the toppings are the “Bond Elements” the crisp emerald green lettuce is “Bond, James Bond”, the ruby red tomato is “Shaken not shirred” and a gadget laden car is sautéed mushrooms, you get the idea. You don’t need nor should you have every topping, otherwise it can get messy, but under whatever toppings you choose is still a beef patty between fresh baked buns i.e. a light hearted adventure film. Now imagine you go to this burger stand, order your favorite sandwich and instead get served a plain boiled lobster tail. No butter, no sauces just a dry lobster tail, but still called a cheeseburger. That’s what Cafe EON did, replaced their burger with lobster in an attempt to reinvent themselves. Unfortunately while many view lobster as classy mostly because of it’s absorbent price, on it’s own it lacks any real flavor. So to fix this EON is now smearing on burger toppings, throwing mustard and pickles on top of the lobster thus not giving anyone what they want. Us classic fans (burger lovers) are not swayed by a melodrama with some cheap nods to the past, and the “Neo Bond” fans (dry lobster eaters) are turned off by the inclusion of mustard and relish on their boiled crustacean. EON is running a real risk of alienating their new fans just as they did to us classics by trying in vain to woo us back. The real joke is if they did it the opposite way, giving us an adventure film without trying too hard to “Recapture the old irony” everyone would be happy.

[The Saint 007]

Your analogy is a good way of summarizing the current state of the series. With the classic Bond films, the focus was more about giving the audience an enjoyable Bond experience than pandering to the critics and trying to win Oscars. These new Bond films require more time and money than they did before, and they really haven't been anything all that special, in my opinion. How many times are we going to see Bond leaving the service to go on emotional journeys? From Connery to Brosnan, the series held my interest. I had my favourites, of course, but the films kept me entertained for the most part. Now I have no interest/excitement to see the Bond films. God knows how long I have to wait before the filmmakers make another Bond film that I can honestly say I enjoyed again.

These teasing endings also have to stop. Fans that are looking forward to a standard mission/adventure Bond film get excited, only to go to the theatre and be disappointed once again. It's better to just give us a depressing ending instead of lying to the fans.

[Count_Lippe]

When they do attempt to bring back the glory of old, it’s stilted, forced and corny.

I think even the Brosnan films were many times rather stilted, forced and corny as well though.

In some ways the modern Bond films must be updated, you can't have Bond like he was in the 1960s these days. I think Dalton was a good mixture of classic Bond and also breaking some new ground, and this almost 30 years ago.

The 1970s/1980s Moore era also had it's own style, parodic with over the top humour (that was highly criticized by "real" Bond fans at the time).

To be honest I have no idea how true James Bond films of today should be like.

There was the classic Sean Connery era of the 1960s, the parodic Roger Moore era, Timothy Dalton doing a very Flemingesque 007, the retro Pierce Brosnan era (that didn't work very well), and todays reboot Daniel Craig (that still tries to link back to the old 007 in a stilted, forced and corny manner).

What's next?

[dirtybenny]

Point well taken Count, let's remember Brosnan's films were made by the same bunch who are giving us Craig's dark melodramas, so to me it's simply more evidence they're in over their head.

That being said for all their faults Brosnan's and Moore's films are what Bond should be, fun escapist adventure pictures. (I know I run the risk of sounding like a broken record here) Even LTK which was the "darkest" movie of the "classic series" was far more light hearted and fun than these last 3 films.

As to what Bond should be and where to go with it, to me it's quite simple, omit the conflicted "blunt instrument", incestual psycho-babel, and the Dark Knight/Bourne gloom and doom and give us an adventure we ourselves would fantasize about going on.

[bjmdds]

Bond=FUN, not Freudian melodramas.

[Kristatos]

Bond=FUN, not Freudian melodramas.

"*sniff* How tewwibly vulgar" - all Craigskis.

[Barry Niven]

Re. Count Lippe's observation of the Brosnan films (as well as your junk food analogy, dirtybenny) I'm stunned to admit that I completely agree, because despite how much I wanted to like those Modern Bond movies from Goldeneye to Die Another Day, I never did. And I think I understand why.

As far as its infamy as the "Retro" era, I personally believe that had more to do with control of the series passing onto the Wilsons, Mother Dana and Son Michael G. (remember his father was Dana's previous husband, some guy who played Batman in a 1940s serial), as Old Man Cubby was ailing and already on the way out by GE while Babsy got promoted to full co-producer as the public "passing of the torch to the new generation" that was cemented upon Cubby's passing. Since then, ownership and thus control of EON fell to Widow Dana with MGW now doing her bidding to Stay the Course and Not Rock The Boat as he'd previously done under Cubby in the conservative 1980s, with Babsy now in "junior partner"-mode. As for the (re)hiring of Pierce Brosnan, that was just completing Cubby's unfinished business of correcting the mistake made in rejecting him over the Remington Steele debacle, but after that there was NO effort made to give him anything to work with beyond doing what was expected of him. Like reaching the top of the mountain and deciding they didn't have to DO anything to stay there.

Looking back now, this explains why Brosnan's run could be considered the Placeholder period. It was "safe", yet bloated with its over-saturated excess of all the tried and true Bond tropes with More Gunfire, Explosions and Destruction because That's What Was Expected Out From Them, only with less imagination and confidence in the absence of any regular writers & directors to replace the departed long-timers (Richard Maibaum, John Glen) who had the proper Old-School "feel" for Bond vs. the erratic offerings of one-timers who were either disinterested in the long-term commitment (Campbell after GE, then AGAIN after CR) or found themselves overwhelmed by the turmoil (Spottiswoode & Feirstein on TND). It was when Babsy ached to get more involved with the creative aspects that the series' got soiled by the hiring of fanboy kiss-ass hacks Purvis & Wade to play out her "Daddy-Issues" rubbish that made both TWINE's drama-queen oil-heiress Elektra and DAD's Insidious-North-Korean-turned-sneering-Rich-White-Boy into such painful embarrassments. It's all there to see if one can get past the explosions and excess, and it ain't pretty.

Of course, the crunch came when Widow/Mother Dana passed away, bequeathing total control of EON onto BABSY as was her Rightful Inheritance as Cubby and Dana's Daughter, reducing MGW to her facilitator/enabler of Babsy's "Bold New Vision" of James Bond. And that didn't include Brosnan, who was not only a "relic" of the old Placeholder period retained only by the grace of Cubby (& Dana's) wishes, but made the grievous sin of publicly criticizing the producers' "creative paralysis" in 2004 while making his own suggestions on how to improve his potential 5th outing as 007 (scale back the excess, hire Tarantino to direct, etc.). So to prove that SHE was in charge and not some actor, Babsy got rid of him for a replacement more to her liking who would Do What He's Told and Know His Place.

The result: Pretentious, derivative, hyper-edited, nausea-inducing melodrama starring an ugly, jug-eared, duckfaced pouting poser who can only mumble on about how he's "MO-tuh-VAY-tud bye mye DU-tee" or whatever passes for "Rich" dialogue courtesy of the same duo of fanboy hacks, only now "polished" by come-lately diletantes called Haggis, Logan, and Mendes for the "Serious Art" stamp of approval that Babsy so desperately craves.

So while I admit that this ongoing nightmare of Craggy's "Bond" is definitely the worst period in the series, that doesn't necessarily make Brosnan's run good by default. Better, sure, but better doesn't always mean good, anymore than declaring Demi Moore a "better" actress than Melanie Griffith absolves both of them for being terrible. Pretty depressing when you think about it.

[dirtybenny]

I couldn't have said it better myself Barry, particularly your take on the lack of consistency the series has had over the last 20 years. Without a steady hand on the tiller the ship has gone erratically adrift.

Speaking of Pervis and Wade I don't know if you read Rant #2 but I certainly share your contempt.