MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > The Game of Thrones controversy proves h...

The Game of Thrones controversy proves how futile episodic series with strict continuity are

posted 6 years ago by TreeShaman (806)
16 replies | jump to latest

Bond is the most successful movie franchise of all time fundamentally for one reason: you have an established character and formula that can be molded into something new every few years. Until this current crappy Daniel Craig era, you could watch any Bond movie in any order. When I was first allowed to watch Bond movies, my dad would take me to the video store and then I would just randomly choose which Bond movie I wanted to watch based on the dvd cover. I saw For Your Eyes Only before any of the Connery films, so I didn't even know that the guy in the wheelchair in the opening scene was Blofeld on my first watch. That's seemingly an important detail, and yet it didn't matter at all. For Your Eyes Only is a complete film with a beginning, middle, and end that doesn't require you to have ever watched any other Bond movie to understand. This is something rare and special in any entertainment medium.

The Bond formula is a safeguard against all of the problems that most other series face. It used to be that if EON made a crappy Bond movie, then all the fans would have to do is wait another two years or so for the next one which would be a fresh start. The events of the previous film wouldn't have any bearing on the new release. This constantly kept the series fresh and it allowed for seamless changes in the casting of Bond and other supporting characters. Other series have a very hard time getting away with major casting changes unless it is a reboot or remake many years after the previous version.

So look at all these other series that have the inevitable crappy ending. I've never watched GOT, but now I see that after so many years of this show being popular to a level that has never been seen in television, fans are petitioning for the latest season to be remade. All those years of dedication have been flushed right down the toilet because the current season has retroactively made every previous season and episode worse. The same thing happened with the Bond series in SPECTRE. Casino Royale and (the inexplicably exclaimed) Skyfall may have been wildly popular, but now they are retroactively much worse than they were on release day because of the events of SPECTRE. None of these films can be enjoyed in isolation anymore. There are so many other examples of this. Look at the Harry Potter books. A lot of fans didn't like book #7 but tolerated it, and now the Cured Child play is apparently so bad that most fans consider it to be glorified fan fiction. What about Star Wars? The new trilogy has been poorly received, and that's a problem because it is a direct sequel to the beloved original trilogy and has harmed the appeal of even main characters like Luke Skywalker. I have even heard that a lot of fans are unhappy with the new Avengers: Endgame movie. So all those dozens of hours of investment into the MCU have been retroactively ruined by the latest entry. I remember reading an article that said you would have to watch something like 40 hours of MCU movies to catch up to the events of Endgame. Imagine wasting your time on all that just to get a crappy conclusion.

When has this trend ever been avoided in an episodic series? Lord of the Rings is the only book/movie I can think of where most fans are are satisfied with the ending. What else? This is exactly the trap that every series falls into.

Think about this for a second. I know it's been about five years, so you've probably forgotten (and most people probably forgot about SPECTRE a few hours after watching it), but James Bond and Ernst Stravo Blofeld are brothers. Take a few moments to actually reflect on that and think of what the implications are because this is a detail that seems to have been completely overlooked. James Bond and the main villain in the whole series, the crazy guy who runs a criminal organization known as SPECTRE and is constantly plotting to take over the world, Ernst Stravo Blofeld are brothers. How is this ever going to be salvaged? EON can either spend the next ten or more films trying to somehow salvage this mistake, or they could just scrap it, pretend it didn't happen, never acknowledge the events of SPECTRE, and move back to the tried and tested Bond formula. That's what they should do, but I wouldn't count on it.

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 6 years ago

I have argued so many times they need to go back to the tried and tested, Bond standalone film route. I'm hoping they will just go back to that formula for the new Bond, and just ignore the Craig reboot arc. We don't need to reboot again with new take on Bond's beginning, Spectre, Blofeld, etc. Just throw in into a new mission every movie with the established characters of M, Q, Moneypenny, etc.

[–] TreeShaman (806) 6 years ago

I don't think we will see a return to the Bond formula until someone other Barbara Broccoli is in charge of the series.

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 6 years ago

Agree, the movie needs to flop hard and not just this one but the next (Cause that will be super woke too), until they get someone who respects the source material and also the original movies these movies will carry on regardless.

[–] TandyMan (11214) 6 years ago

I believe they'll go back to formula with the next era Bond. Assuming they stick to traditional Bond at all. Craig's whole run was something of an experiment and I don't connect it with the rest of the Bond film run. I find it interesting more than I do entertaining. Even think it's a worthy experiment that should have been attempted. What's the point of having something around for 50 years if you don't start to deconstruct it and tinker with it a bit? I think they'll go back to basics and just try to put up a good Bond adventure, by the numbers. (cause whatever this last Craig film is, i don't think it's going to be well received. they're either gonna keep going the direction they have been as a serialized soap opera, or they're gonna shake everything on its ear so it's not even similiar to Craig's other films, or they're going to kill Bond. none of that stuff is gonna make traditional Bond fans happy.) And I don't think any story elements introduced in these recent outings will ever be addressed again. Especially brother Blofeld.

[–] TreeShaman (806) 6 years ago

Well, they definitely are continuing in the soap opera direction because otherwise there would be no reason for Lea Seydoux to be returning. And we've already seen the leaked footage of the young blonde girl getting chased by fake Rami Malek with a mask, so yeah they are totally doubling down on the events of SPECTRE.

I don't think that this was a worthy experiment. I was fine with CR and QoS, but everything after that was not worth it. And none of this was planned out in advance anyway. Skyfall was supposed to be something of a return to the formula. Go back and look up interviews and media reports from that time. Craig et. al were saying that Skyfall is a departure from the events of CR and QoS, and that that Quantum and Mr. White and everything like that is something that could be returned to later if they want to. And then what happened after Skyfall? They got the rights to the Blofeld character again. So everything in SPECTRE was no in any way planned back before CR was made, and even up until after the release of Skyfall. Quantum was never supposed to be a front for SPECTRE. Mr. White was never supposed to work for Blofeld. Silva was only supposed to be a former agent who wanted revenge; he was not intended to be part of Quantum or SPECTRE or have any dealings with Le Chiffre, Dominic Greene, Mr. White, or Blofeld himself. All of this was made up on a whim because of the acquisition of the rights to the Blofeld character, and now every single film in the Craig era is retroactively worse because of this new creative direction. So perhaps if all of this was planned out back when Craig was first cast in 2005 then I might agree it was worth a try and it just unfortunately didn't work out, but instead I have to say that this continuity is not only bad and poorly thought out, but unacceptable.

[–] FootOfDavros (8465) 6 years ago

OHMSS:-
Bond : "Unusually small for a Nymphalis polychloros."

M : "I wasn't aware that your expertise included lepidoptery."

Brilliant. Makes me laugh every time.

Man with the Golden Gun:-
M: "What do you know about a man called Scaramanga, 007?"
Bond: "Scaramanga?". Pauses for a second as if he know nothing before, "Oh yes..." and going off on a full in-depth bio of the guy 😆

And that's just a couple of examples of the brilliance and fun that was at play within the formula of Bond Movies, and in particular the meeting M scene.

You could look forward to being wowed with the stunt at the beginning, a classic song, the M scene, a crazy villain hellbent on taking over the world with some fantastical scheme, fun henchmen who were actually characters, the beautiful women, villain's layer, etc.

Why they decided to to chase becoming sub-Borne rather than being Bond is anyone's guess but I don't think we'll ever see a real Bond film released ever again. And I don't buy the "time's change" argument either. Time changed several times from the sixties through to the nineties but they largely managed to retain what a Bond film was supposed to be throughout that time period. I blame Barbara Broccoli and the clowns Purvis and Wade who should never have been allowed anywhere near the franchise.

The formula should be celebrated and adhered to. The fun was seeing the creativity they could come up with within the framework (like the examples) I gave.

[–] TreeShaman (806) 6 years ago

It's almost as if they are embarrassed of the formula and other tropes of the series. I have only ever watched Skyfall once because I hated it so much, but I remember there was a scene with the new Q (who I despise) where he not so subtlety dissed Pierce Brosnan and his exploding pen from GoldenEye. I really think that line was put in there to make fun of former actors in the series and classic Bond tropes rather than to develop the new Q's character.

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 6 years ago

The new Q sucks. I like M and Moneypenny, but Q is awful. The part should be played by a person older than Bond, someone Bond can banter with that is his elder.

[–] TreeShaman (806) 6 years ago

I really dislike the new Moneypenny. I don't care what race supporting characters are or anything like that, but I think it was ridiculous to make her a field agent as they did in Skyfall. That was a totally bizarre decision that is completely out of place in the series. I also thought her scenes in SPECTRE were pure cringe, especially during the Rome car chase scene where Bond is calling her while she has some lover boy over at her apartment and Bond is scolding her for it (because he's jealous? I don't know). It's that terrible slapstick style of humour that's in every movie regardless of genre these days.

[–] FFNogoodnik (776) 6 years ago

James Bond and the main villain in the whole series, the crazy guy who runs a criminal organization known as SPECTRE and is constantly plotting to take over the world, Ernst Stravo Blofeld are brothers.

While I generally agree with your post this is incorrect in that as "Casino Royale" was a reboot of the series so this does not apply to all of the Bond films but only the Craig films.

[–] ebhaynz (3732) 6 years ago

I think this is a great post, getting to the heart of why Bond has been such a successful series. What's weird to me is that Goldeneye and Casino Royale are great but what else is great since 1995? Still, they know how to make money, even if it's Skyfall or Die Another Day and I think what it comes down to is when people get off work on a Friday night they're bored and they know if they see a Bond movie it will almost certainly cure that boredom. The production quality is nearly always top notch.

[–] LTUM (1053) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I agree. Lord of the Rings was somewhat mauled by the Hobbit, unless you omit it in it's entirety (like I chose to do before watching it(

[–] TreeShaman (806) 6 years ago

I watched the first half of a fan edit of The Hobbit (I think it was the Maple Pictures edit) and it was actually very good, and I'll have to watch the second half soon.

With the Bond films, I don't acknowledge that any have been made since QoS in 2008. As far as I'm concerned, it's been 11 years since we've seen Bond in the cinema. I refuse to acknowledge the events of SF and Spectre. I don't accept that Bond and Blofeld are brothers. Nor will I accept that this woman in Bond 25 was given the code number 007. None of it happened.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Ah yes. I wanted to do that someday but it still feels unnecessary.
As for Bond: I don't care if they use a woman or not, only if the film is good or not.

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 6 years ago

James Bond is a man, always will be