Change of tack with this article – but yesterday’s exciting confirmation that ‘District 9’, ‘Elysium’ and ‘Chappie’ Direct Neill Blomkamp would be directing a new entry in the ‘Alien’ franchise got me thinking. There have been other long running Movie Franchises that have been marked by ill-considered decisions (usually at the behest of the Producers) leading to poorly received, and (in most cases) out-right poor movies. Sometimes franchises can simply run their course due to story reasons (such as Star Wars, until the Disney purchase of Lucasfilm), or because the creative talent behind it chooses to move on.
This article will outline each franchise, its entries, where
the dip in quality occurred, and who is viewed as responsible (and why) – and,
where this has been the case, how the franchise has got itself back on
track. Let’s start at the obvious place
first…
The ‘Alien’ Franchise
This on needs no introduction, but given the quality of the
first two entries in the franchise, it is staggering that since then it had –
until today – been allowed to decline in quality so badly. The first film is beyond iconic and
influential, due to H.R. Giger’s incredible and terrifying designs, Ridley Scott’s
career-making direction, and one of the most shocking scenes in the history of
cinema. Followed by one of the greatest
sequels of all time (and, in my humble opinion, possibly the greatest movie of
its decade), after these films there was so much to work from in terms of
setting, story-telling with substance, and great characters.
The Decline
The next two films sadly didn’t live up to their
predecessors – and even though both films have many fans quick to defend them,
even they would acknowledge this. ‘Alien
3’ is notorious for having one of the most troubled development periods of a
major movie, changing setting and characters many times. Even during production, director David Fincher was continuously being undermined by the studio, and the result is a
film that - despite having some good ideas, a striking visual style, and a
couple of interesting scenes – feels like it cheapens what has come before
slightly. Despite the apparent death of
Ripley at the end of this film, the studio went ahead 5 years later with ‘Alien:
Resurrection’ – and another production which saw the director (Jean-Pierre Jeunet) and screenwriter (a certain Joss Whedon) bemoaning studio
interference. It doesn’t help that the
design didn’t live up to previous efforts – even Giger himself stated the new
alien design ‘looked like shit’. Seemingly,
enough had been done to make the studio feel they had done enough with Ripley’s
story.
In a shocking move however, that wasn’t the nadir for the
franchise. The Alien films, as well as
the two entries in the Predator series, had inspired a series of Comics and acclaimed Video Games, in the form of ‘Aliens vs Predator’. Seeing an opportunity to carry on the
franchise but clearly not thinking it through, Fox went ahead and in 2004
released a Paul WS Anderson directed ‘Alien vs Predator’ movie. This film, bizarrely, discarded one of the
draws of the comics and video games – gone were the Colonial Marines that were
part of what made ‘Aliens’ so iconic, and the series’ future setting. This film took the dumb decision to use a
modern setting – and the even dumber decision to play down horror and gore to
get a lower Age Rating (in theory to get better box office). The result was something of a mess that
should be quickly forgotten by everyone who had the misfortune to waste 2 hours
of their lives watching it – but unbelievably, it got worse for the Alien series. Believing the lukewarm response to the first
AvP film was due to the lack of ‘R’ rated gore and horror, the studio enlisted
self-confessed Aliens and Predator fan boys The Brothers Strause. They vowed to put these elements back in –
sadly they also forgot to put in a decent story, characters, or effective film
making in any way, shape or form.
‘Aliens vs Predator: Requiem’ is rightly regarded as an abhorrent pile of trash, and was so bad that the franchise quickly even distanced itself from
it.
Turning the corner
The setting, imagery and mythology of the Alien franchise
was simply too good to be left alone, so the decision was made to go in a new
direction – to explore the background of the mysterious ‘Space Jockey’ whose
body is found in the Alien craft where Kane is ‘impregnated’ in the very first
film. Original director Ridley Scott
came back, promising to make a film that would go in a new direction and
explore bold themes about creation, gods and humanity’s place in the
universe. The final film - ‘Prometheus’,
though an infinite improvement in the previous franchise entries, was still
mixed – although visually impressive, it seemed unsure what it wanted to be – hard
sci-fi? Horror-sci-fi? Religious allegory?
Whilst this film also has its fans, it would be hard to fight the claim
that this film was ultimately unsatisfying due to it leaving so many questions
unanswered, and creating even more. The
future of the franchise still seemed uncertain until today’s confirmation of a
new entry, as Director Scott has been attached to a Prometheus sequel for some
time, with no news of any movement on the production.
Who was to blame?
Well, as stated, ‘Studio interference’ was cited as a
problem by the directors of Alien 3 and ‘Resurrection’; but some fault must lay
in the lap of the producers who chose to move forward with the two trashy AvP
films; it’s shocking that Walter Hill, who presided over the very first Alien
films, would allow his name to be associated with those entries. As for Prometheus, a lot of people cite
writer Damon Lindelof as the main culprit, who brought his ‘Lost’-style of
aimless, unresolved mystery for the sake of mystery, over Jon Spaihts’
apparently better one (which was more clear about its ties to the Alien
series).
…And the future?
Well, nothing is concrete, but following Blomkamp’s posting
of some concept art that depicted an Alien film carrying on the story of not
just Ripley, but surviving Marine Hicks from ‘Aliens’, there has been no small
amount of excitement on movie sites and social media. Whether or not the Studio will allow Blomkamp
to follow this initial vision is yet to be seen, but it is clear that the
Director wants to do something that is worthy of the first two films,
respectful of the characters, and to continue their story in a way that is more
satisfying than many of the franchise entries.
There is potential that this could be the film franchise fans have been
waiting for – if you don’t believe me, look at the concept art Blomkamp posted again…
The ‘X-Men’ Franchise
Released in 2000 and 2003 respectively, Bryan Singer’s first
two X-Men films were arguably the first comic book adaptations to treat the
setting and characters with the respect it deserved, as well as realise the
potential for action and visual spectacle effectively. ‘X2’ is widely regarded as one of the best
comic book movies ever made, and is in its own right a great sequel.
The Decline
After the critical and box-office success of ‘X2’ the Studio
quickly announced the release date of a third entry. The first bump in the production came when
Bryan Singer was tempted away by Warner Bros to direct their new Superman movie
(see below). Then there were various
names passed around to replace him, including Joss Whedon, before Matthew Vaughan signed on – however, he baulked at the short time allowed for production and post-production due to the Studio’s reluctance to move the
release date. Finally Brett Ratner
stepped in, and wasn’t entirely welcomed with warmth; although he had directed
a version of Hannibal Lector novel ‘Red Dragon’ in a manner that tried to match
the visual tone and style of ‘Silence of the Lambs’, he was best known for
buddy-action-comedies of the ‘Rush Hour’ series.
The resulting film, ‘X-Men The Last Stand’, although the (international) box office pinnacle of the series until last year, wasn’t as well received
critically or by fans. The film felt a
let-down compared to ‘X2’, not helped by cramming in too many new characters
and mishandling a beloved story from the comics (the ‘Dark Phoenix’ saga) in
order to tie up a ‘Trilogy’ of films.
This decision to approach the X-Men series with a ‘Trilogy’ mind-set was
later acknowledged by producers as a mistake, but even back then they realised
the X-Men license offered too many opportunities for bringing stories and
characters to film to stop there, so a prequel focusing on Wolverine (a fan
favourite, and thanks to Hugh Jackman’s charismatic performance, an essential
part of the franchise’s success) was put in to production. Sadly, none of the lessons about including
too many characters in ‘Last Stand’ had been heeded by the makers, and the
resulting film was a mess that somehow managed to make Wolverine’s origin story
uninvolving, and waste a number of potentially great characters (yes, Wade Wilson, that’s you I’m referring to).
Turning the corner
Box office takings for ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ were down on ‘Last
Stand’, and that combined with poor critical and fan response fortunately made
the series’ producers and Studio realise that they needed to change their
approach. Other prequels, including one
focusing on series villain Magneto, were quickly discarded in favour of a more
straight-forward prequel that showed how Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr would
form the first X-Men team – before quickly turning adversaries. Vaughan, returned to direct and Singer came
back on board as a producer, both clearly realising they had to atone for
jumping from ‘Last Stand’. The resulting
film, ‘X-Men First Class’, boasted an excellent cast, a fun use of period
setting, and began to restore the franchise to its previous levels of critical
and box office success. This was
followed by the solo Wolverine outing that Jackman and the fans had been
clamouring for years, based on the highly regarded Claremont/Miller comic series, and ‘The Wolverine’ continued the rebuilding success. And to top it all, Singer returned to adapt
an adaptation of one of the comic’s greatest stories for 2014’s ‘X-Men Days of
Future Past’, gaining ecstatic reviews and tremendous box office, in the US and
Internationally. It seems that all
involved had learnt a valuable lesson – to trust in the strength of the
characters and their best stories – and to bring together the best talent in
front of and behind the camera to realise them on the big screen.
Who was to blame?
Well, things started to look bad when Singer walked away
from ‘Last Stand’ – but fault must lie with the Studio for announcing a release
date even before work had started on the script. It’s inevitable that the story, and
production, suffered due to the pressure to meet that deadline. Also, although the Wolverine ‘Origins’ movie
had a pretty messy story, it seems that the production wasn’t easy for Director
Gavin Hood, who has since cited there was a great deal of Studio interference
during the production.
…And the future?
For the X-Men franchise, the future is looking rosy. The next film, currently about to start
filming, is ‘X-Men Apocalypse’, featuring one of the comic’s best villains, and
returning Singer and the ‘First Class’ cast to ‘complete’ the telling of the
establishment of the X-Men team. As well
as this, there will finally be a solo Deadpool film, satisfying his vociferous
fans, the ambitions of Ryan Reynolds, and everyone else that felt his treatment
in the Wolverine ‘Origins’ movie was generally terrible. Beyond this, there are still dozens of
memorable characters and storylines the producers and Studio can adapt - there
are talks of making a film based on the ‘X-Force’ run of comics, as well as
plans for a third solo Wolverine outing.
If they continue to treat the source material with the respect it
deserves, and putting the money and talent behind it, the X-Men franchise
should continue to go from strength to strength.
The ‘Spiderman’ Franchise
You’ll notice a pattern emerging here: two critically
acclaimed, fan-beloved, and financially successful entries established this
series. Sam Raimi’s love and respect for
the character was there to be seen on screen, and the films were well realised
thanks to a great cast, some fantastic action sequences, and a story that
showed a great appreciation of the characters.
The Decline
You’ll notice another recurring theme here – the critical
and box office success of sequel ‘Spider-Man 2’ buoyed the Studio so much they
very quickly announced the release date for another sequel, ‘Spider-Man
3’. Whereas this led to a lot of
problems for ‘Last Stand’ (see above), it seems the issue here was that this
was the point the Director and the Producers started to pull in different
directions. The focus of this was fan
favourite character Venom and many fan’s desire to see the ‘Black Suit’storyline from the comics realised on the big screen. Unfortunately, Sam Raimi made no secret that
he was not a fan of Venom, and wanted the film to be based on another of his
favourite Spidey villains, Sandman. The
Producers put their foot down on Venom but allowed Raimi to include Sandman.
It’s safe to say that the resulting film is not very highly
regarded. Although the franchise’s
pinnacle in terms of financial success, the ‘Spider-Man 3’ is regarded as a
major disappointment – something that even Raimi himself agrees with. Its flaws can be put down to a plot that
doesn’t do justice to either Sandman or Venom, whilst struggling to tie up the
ongoing Green Goblin/Harry Osborne arc at the same time; add in to that some
pretty abrupt and jarring changes in tone, and a general feeling that new
characters aren’t given enough space – there’s no doubt that this film was a
major let down compared to the films that preceded it.
This was only the start of Spiderman’s problems on
screen. For three years after the
release of ‘Spider-Man 3’ discussions went back and forth between Sam Raimi and
the producers about what they wanted to do with another sequel – then, finally,
in 2010 Sony announced that they were going to reboot the whole series. Gone would be Raimi and his regular cast, and
a new director and actor would be brought in.
The first eyebrows were raised when it became evident that reboot
literally meant starting from scratch – and that the new film would re-tell
Spiderman’s origin story; also, wising up to the success Marvel Studios were
having with their linked universe of characters, the producers decided it
should plant the seeds of an on-screen Spiderman universe. The resulting film, ‘The Amazing Spiderman’,
had a lukewarm reception critically and financially. Whilst the performances of Andrew Garfield as
Peter Parker and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey were rightly praised, the film was
at times a mess, with plot holes, unresolved story-lines and disappearing
characters.
When production started on ‘The Amazing Spiderman 2’, the
producers acknowledged the flaws with its predecessor, and also stated their
intent to set the foundations for future films in the Spiderman universe such
as ‘Sinister Six’ and ‘Venom’ spin-offs.
Clearly, they had no idea what they were talking about with the first
point, because that film ended up being an even bigger mess than ASM, wasting
not one but 3 villains, as well as yet more excellent work from Garfield and
Stone. Although the film took over $700
million internationally, in the US it had the lowest takings of all the
Spiderman movies. Safe to say, it didn’t
go down as well as hoped.
In the background, there were further problems for the
studio itself – there was the Hacking Scandal, and out of this it emerged that
Marvel Studios had approached them to negotiate Spiderman’s incorporation in
the Marvel Cinematic Universe…
Turning the Corner
It’s hard to say exactly what was the biggest factor – the
perceived failure of ASM2, the increasing fan demands it should happen, or
wider problems in the Studio – but earlier this month it was announced an
agreement had been reached to allow Spiderman in to the MCU. Sony would keep the rights, but crossovers
would feature in both series, and a new Spiderman would first appear in a
forthcoming Marvel Studios movie. What
is crucial about this is, firstly, Marvel Studio’s Head Kevin Feige having a
significant creative input in to future Spiderman movies. Secondly, the producers behind the previous
Spiderman movies would no longer be involved, and in my opinion, that was no
bad thing…
Who was to blame?
If you look at what started to go wrong with Spiderman from
‘Spider-Man 3’ through both ASM movies, a big, big amount of responsibility
should sit with Producers Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach. They oversaw production on these films, Arad pushed Venom on Raimi, and they both were involved in foisting the failed attempts at universe
building that, frankly, crapped over the solid work of Garfield & Stone and
the good intentions of Director Marc Webb.
To what extent these decisions were influenced by other producers and
head people at Sony has yet to be seen, but as they were the main people
overseeing these films, much of the blame lies with them.
…And the future?
Well, at this stage it’s difficult to see – however, with
Arad and Tolmach gone, and Feige replacing them to guide the creative direction
of new Spiderman movies, it’s easy to be more optimistic. Yes, it has to be acknowledged that the
disappointment of previous efforts is still fresh in everyone’s minds – but if
the writers, directors and acting talent working on the next Spidey film stick
to the character, and draw on his best stories, then there’s no reason this
franchise can’t get back on track.
The ‘Bourne’ Franchise
After a middling but modestly successful entry with ‘The
Bourne Identity’, this series kept going from strength to strength under the
direction of Paul Greengrass with the next two films, ‘Supremacy’ and ‘Ultimatum’. Although this third film was intended by
Greengrass to complete a trilogy, the story didn’t feel as though it had really
ended in a definitive way. However,
Greengrass stated he had done all he wanted with Bourne, and star Matt Damon
said he’d only return to the role if Greengrass directed – so it seemed that
that was the end for the Bourne series.
The Decline
But, as these films had been a box office success for
Universal Studios they couldn’t leave the franchise when the potential to carry
on making money was still there – but without Damon & Greengrass, they
couldn’t continue Jason Bourne’s story.
So they decided to take a side-step, and make ‘The Bourne Legacy - a story suggesting that the CIA had other
covert programmes to make ‘super-spies’ like Bourne. They assembled a solid cast – Jeremy Renner,
Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton – and brought back some from the previous films,
such as Joan Allen and David Strathairn.
Sadly, the finished result showed
that the idea wasn’t actually that strong – and continuing to mention Jason
Bourne just made you miss the character, and the opportunity to see his story
properly concluded, even more. Despite
their efforts, the film felt a bit pointless – it merely existed as an
opportunity to make money above all else.
The film was a modest success at the Box Office, enough to ensure a
sequel was greenlit – but since then it has all gone quiet, as though the Studio
were aware that the new direction wasn’t working as intended…
Turning the Corner
Acknowledgement that ‘Legacy’ was a bit of a misfire seemed
to be more apparent with reports that Universal were trying to woo Greengrass
and Damon back to the franchise – and a few months back it was announced they had finally succeeded in persuading them to return. Apparently a story idea had been proposed
that Greengrass felt happy to direct, and with him back Damon felt he could
return. Greengrass’ work on ‘Supermacy’ and
‘Legacy’ showed that he was the right person for this franchise, so bringing
him and the actual star back is good news.
Who’s to blame?
You can tell that all involved gave ‘Legacy’ a really good
go – but without Jason Bourne himself, it’s just hard to justify a wider
franchise. So you could argue this is
down to the Studio really, wanting to carry on making money from the ‘Bourne’
name.
…And the Future?
Well, there are no details on what the story for the next
Bourne film is, or when production will begin.
But it feels to be back in the right hands with Greengrass at the helm, and
might be the chance to tie up the Jason Bourne story in a definitive and
satisfying manner (or carry on his adventures) is arguably the best direction
for the franchise. However, the sequel
to ‘Legacy’ is still on the cards, so there is a danger the franchise could yet
be further weakened if it feels as unnecessary as the last one. We’ll have to see how this one turns out…
The ‘Superman’ Franchise
The first comic-book superhero movie that effectively and
faithfully brought a beloved character to the big-screen, ‘Superman’ is also
possibly the most influential in the genre.
It was followed by a sequel that was just as good, and upped the action whilst
still treating the character with respect and care. However, starting a trend in comic-book
movies that would continue for 30 years, things went downhill from there…
The Decline
‘Superman 3’ is considered a disappointing sequel, largely
because it is, well, pretty silly. Some
of the special effects weren’t particularly great for that era either. It was considered enough of a disappointment
that Warner Bros let the rights slip, allowing an upstart Studio called Cannon –
known for their low-budget action flicks and thrillers – to pick it up. They lured Christopher Reeve back to the role
of Superman, promising to allow him more of a say in the character’s direction
and portrayal in the sequel. However, at
that time Cannon were playing fast and loose with their finances, and had
gambled on some bigger budget films that didn’t work out. As a result the budget for ‘Superman 4: The
Quest for Peace’ was slashed by almost half, and the resulting film looked
cheap (Milton Keynes standing in as New York?!?), including shoddy special
effects. That seemed to be it for
Superman.
But Warners regained the rights, and in the 1990’s tasked
Tim Burton with bringing a new Superman film to the screen. ‘Superman Lives’, which was to star Nicolas Cage in the title role, never got beyond development. Then another new version, known as ‘Superman:
Flyby’, was out in to development, with names such as J.J. Abrams and Brett
Ratner attached at various points. Finally, in 2003, the
studio decided to move ahead with a film that would keep the continuity of the
superior first films – and they brought Bryan Singer in to make, for him, a
dream project: a loving tribute to one of his favourite films. ‘Superman Returns’ was considered one of the
most expensive films of all time when it was released – it just about made a
profit, but reaction was largely negative.
Although many critics warmed to Singer’s ability to lovingly evoke the very
first Superman film, most of the criticisms were aimed at a lack of action, and
of some weak casting choices (Kate Bosworth especially seemed miscast as Lois
Lane). Again, hopes for a sequel were
dashed – and Warners hit the reboot button.
But it took some encouragement from a certain Christopher Nolan, who at
the time was completing a trilogy of films featuring a certain Dark Knight,
before it took off (no pun intended)…
Turning the Corner
In 2013 Warners released the Nolan Produced, David Goyer (co-writer
of the ‘Dark Knight’ Trilogy) penned ‘Man of Steel’, starring Henry Cavill as
Kal El/Clark Kent. The film, though
divisive*, was considered a box office success, and plans were put in place for
a sequel. Obviously witnessing the
success Marvel Studios has had with their MCU, and rather fortuitously holding the
rights to EVERY DC Comics Character, Warner have seized upon the opportunity to
make ‘Man of Steel’s sequel the foundation of their DC Cinematic Universe –
introducing a new Batman, Wonder Woman, and a host of other characters. Exciting times for comic fans!
* If you asked my opinion, I’d say ‘Man of Steel’ is about
2/3 successful – Cavill is very good at Kal/Clark, and does a good job of
showing him wrestling with his dual identity and whether he should reveal
himself to the world. I think the film
shoots itself in the foot with the level of destruction in the final act;
personally, I’d have saved Zod for the sequel, but instead have Superman reveal
himself as he tries to avert another (possibly man-made) disaster. Still, what’s done is done, and the ‘Batman v
Superman’ film promises to explore the implications and fall out of the end of ‘Man
of Steel’, so it may redeem those story-telling decisions yet.
Who’s to Blame?
Superman’s cinematic journey has had so many twists and
turns that there isn’t anyone culprit to blame.
Whoever came up with the story for ‘Superman 3’, and decided that a
Superman film needed a comedic turn from Richard Pryor; Cannon for mishandling
their own finances and trying to make a Superman film on the cheap; the writers
of ‘Superman Returns’ for, err, not putting enough action in, I guess?
…And the Future?
Superman will be returning to the big screen 3 times before
the end of this decade, and if ‘Batman v Superman’ and a two-part ‘Justice-League’
film are the successes Warner Bros, and comic fans, want, then there’ll
definitely be more Superman movies. Cavill
himself has said he wants to play the role for as long as he can. It seems that only if these three films turn
out to be disasters, there’ll be a lot more of Superman coming to cinemas.
The James Bond Franchise
Ahh, Bond – the story of this franchise is one packed with
almost as many twists and last-minute escapes from a fate worse than death than
the adventures the spy himself has had! It
has survived the role being recast, changes in tone, disappointing entries, and
continues to be one of the best loved franchises – with each new entry
garnering a huge amount of excited anticipation.
The Decline
With Bond, it’s possible to point a number of times where the
series hasn’t done as well as hoped – either at the box office, or through
overall reception – and there have been some changes made. The first came in the 1970’s, as the series
started to base itself on an archly knowing feel, as if prompted by Roger Moore’s
suggestive eyebrow, and Bond’s adventures became more and more outlandish:
stopping a villain in their sub-aquatic lair in ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’, before
taking to space in ‘Moonraker’ to prevent a villain launching biological Armageddon
on the world. The producers realised things
were getting too silly, and in 1980 brought back a more grounded espionage tale
in ‘Fore Your Eyes Only’.
As that decade came to an end, Moore had been replaced with
Timothy Dalton, and the series went in its most gritty direction yet – sending Bond
on a personal revenge vendetta in ‘License to Kill’. At the time it was considered a
disappointment, although now it is looked back as one of the series’ most
underrated entries. However it the
reception was lukewarm enough that it would be Dalton’s final film in the role,
and it was 6 years before Bond would be back.
1995’s GoldenEye was Pierce Brosnan’s first film in the role (he’d play
Bond another 3 times), and the result was a critical and box office smash.
Things started to go the other way in 2002 when Brosnan’s
final film in the role was released. ‘Die
Another Day’, though another Box Office success, was derided for some daft
story-telling choices, and some pretty poor special effects. As a result, the decision was made to re-cast
and take the series back to more grounded and gritty adventures for Bond. When Daniel Craig was cast there were a few
raised eyebrows, but any critics were silenced by his intense and driven performance
in ‘Casino Royal’. Bond was apparently
back on form, and what could stop him now?
A Writer’s Strike, that’s what. The sequel ‘Quantum of Solace’ was put in to
production just as the Writer’s Strike of 2007 happened, meaning that no one
could make any amendments to the script because of the strike. The script had been rushed to beat the
strike, and during the production Director Marc Forster and star Craig
apparently became frustrated as they became aware of flaws with the story and
script, and couldn’t make any improvements or amendments to it (mind you,
Forster’s decision to film action sequences in annoying shaky cam didn’t help,
either…). When it was released in 2008
it was considered a massive disappointment following ‘Casino’, but still did
well enough at the Box Office to guarantee another Bond.
And, just as in the films, Bond was not to be defeated – he bounced
back 4 years later with ‘Skyfall’.
Although I’m not a fan, it was a massive, massive success (the biggest
of the franchise), and fans delighted in the return of franchise stalwarts such
as Q and Miss Moneypenny. The next Bond
film, ‘SPECTRE’, is currently in production, and boasts an impressive cast – as
well as the return of some classic villains from the early films in the series.
Turning the Corner
I guess the secret to Bond’s longevity is how the producers
can keep the character fresh by recasting every so often, and shape each new
entry based upon what worked well (and what didn’t) from previous films. Bond is an institution, beloved by a legion
of fans, and it’d take some shocking mishandling of the franchise to kill it
entirely.
Who’s to Blame?
I’m going to be very controversial and say that a lot of
Bond’s problems have been caused by the audience/fans.
For every group that says they want his films to be grounded, gritty,
and to probe the psychology of the character, there are as many who say they
want fun, silliness, one-liners, Bond-girls and Gadgets. I can remember seeing Daniel Craig being
interviewed at the release of ‘Quantum of Solace’, and looking absolutely
exasperated when asked about when the Bond-girls and gadgets would be brought
back to the series. After all, it was
the audience reception that made ‘License to Kill’ seem like a failure – when it’s
now regarded as one of the series’ best entries. Having said that, the producers have tried to
follow audiences and fans’ demands by lurching from extremes to seriousness –
Bond works best when someone can get the right tone for him.
…And the Future?
Well, the new film is out in November this year – if Director
Sam Mendes can balance the ‘classic’ Bond feel with a better story, and without
overshadowing Craig’s brilliant performance as Bond, then this one should be
another solid entry for the franchise.
Either way, anticipation for it is huge, showing that – just like in his
movies – however many times Bond gets knocked back, he always carries on and
does his job!
Well, that was a bit of an Epic article, but I hope you’ve
enjoyed it. If you want to discuss any
other Franchises that have overcome dips in quality, then please leave a
comment below. Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment