Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mi6
As for the Bond franchise, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Brosnan is not the name that needs to be removed from the marquee. No, that dishonor should befall on Barbara Broccoli and (especially) Michael G. Wilson. Broccoli is still paralyzed by Cubby's last words ("Don't screw it up,") and Wilson is a tired old man who seems to view the Bond films not as spy adventures to thrill audiences...but as little more than his trusty pension.
It's a shame that one of the all-time best Bonds (Brosnan) got saddled with a few of the all-time worst Bond films. As the films have become more and more silly in a world that becomes more and more dangerous, I often wonder if EON should embrace the new post-9/11 world in the Bond films. The old Bond films benefitted from the Cold War, using the Soviets as villains. Perhaps it's time to send Bond into the war on terror, so that he can save a world we actually care about. No more giant space lasers aimed at cities. No more super-villains with massive secret lairs. I think it's time for Bond to do some on-screen good that audiences can actually value and enjoy..
|
Very few Bond films actually used the Soviets as villians. Generally where the Soviets where involved in the story, they were either competing to complete the same mission (the Spy Who Loved Me for instance) or were tolerated, with a definate mistrust but on the same side.
I think the problem the Bond films have is that they have always (particularly recently) gone for the big scenes, big explosions etc and people expect them to keep doing so.
I saw an interview with David Arnold (currently composes music for the Bond films), and he said that it is incredibly hard to compose music for the films, as people have a very set idea on what it should sound like, but expect it to be different. I think the same applies to the films. People have a set idea on how the film should be, but expect something different.