I Think Bond as We Know It is Over

The_Reaper

Let me explain. I don't want this to be a negative discussion where everyone complains and argues. What I mean by the title is that I have this feeling the producers/writers/everyone involved with Bond these days has no intention to returning to elements of the franchise that have passed. It was something I think Bardem said in a interview about having read the script and what his potential part might be, something about "they are changing everything" or it's different or something to that effect, the way his villian would work in Bond.

I think Moneypenny is gone. So is Q, so are any gadgets, whatever we think of as being integrel to Bond. It's gone. It won't return. They used it up and dried it out during Brosnan's tenure and that's that. I don't know what it is but I get the feeling this is the future of the franchise and I don't know what it means. I don't know how I feel. Part of me is glad because we needed to purge some of the annoying cliche moments and both CR and QoS were a breath of much needed fresh air.

But how far is too far? How much of the familiar elements can they strip away before Bond ceases to be Bond? Thoughts?

haserot

Michael Wilson has stated that Bond 23, would be more of a traditional Bond film - now what exactly that means.. who knows.. only he knows..

But that Bardem quote is really stating nothing new at this point... it's obvious in both CR and QOS, that the tone of the Bond films have changed - drastically if you look at the recent Brosnan era... I think Bardem is reinforcing the fact that the producers seem to be more inclined to actually write fleshed out people in these films, rather than simple 2 dimensional caricatures... i think it also means that these villains aren't so "black and white" - there are elements to them that make them more human - again, more fleshed out... and also keeping things more grounded into a traditional action thriller type of movie, rather than an overblown CGI action extravaganza..

Michael and Babs have not denied nor confirmed reintroducing Moneypenny and Q... you have to remember, these last 2 films - were more about Bond the person, and exploring his character more than anything else.. now that we got his character pretty much reestablished, i think you'll start to see some more familiar elements creep back in..

jaguar007

Quoting haserot: Michael Wilson has stated that Bond 23, would be more of a traditional Bond film

Where did you hear that? THat is news to me.

As to the topic at hand, what is a traditional Bond film anymore? The Bond series has changed significantly over the years. The Bond films of the 70s bore little resemblance to the Bond films of the early 60s (the difference between FRWL and MR is about as far apart as you can get).

The_Reaper

A traditional Bond films has him being Bond. Flirting with MP, getting outfitted by Q, getting his mission briefing in M's office, drinking martinis that are shaken, not stirred, wearing a tux and gambling, etc.

That stuff is over.

DiscoVolante

Quoting The_Reaper: A traditional Bond films has him being Bond. Flirting with MP, getting outfitted by Q, getting his mission briefing in M's office, drinking martinis that are shaken, not stirred, wearing a tux and gambling, etc.

That stuff is over.

Sad but true.

I've had enough of Bond begins and revenge.

NicNac

Quoting The_Reaper: A traditional Bond films has him being Bond. Flirting with MP, getting outfitted
by Q, getting his mission briefing in M's office, drinking martinis that are
shaken, not stirred, wearing a tux and gambling, etc

You are correct to a point @The_Reaper but we must try to avoid Bond being stuck in cliche land.
For a start Bond din't wear a tux in YOLT, nor did he in LALD. He barely ever gambled in Roger Moore's time (or let's say he did so in about 2 films).
Q wasn't the man we knew until GF and didn't appear at all in LALD.

So from these 'important' elements Daniel Craig has already worn a tux twice in two films, gambled like a good un in CR, and drank martinis like a lush.

I do see your point, but these elements of Bond films became a bit predictable and 'by numbers' in the Brosnan era. Some of them need to be rested, or shook up a little.

Bond will take a step back in the future, and re-live those lovely moments when he flirts with Penny and picks up his jet pack or whatever, but for now it's good to rest them a while. Bond needs to change just a little.

DaltonCraig007

There is one thing, I don't know if it's really on-topic, but my Bond fandom will get a major hit when one of the past James Bond will die. I do not know if I will be able to watch MR, OP, TMWTGG when Moore will pass away. Same thing with Connery. I may watch them, but my enjoyment will be tainted by the thought of Moore, Connery not being alive anymore.

As for the future of the franchise, I do not know if I will want to watch Bond films without the traditions. I may be nostalgic, but what makes me love Bond more than other spy/action films, is precisely these elements. Without them, Bond films will be mundane, ordinary. 'James Bond', for me, is FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, FYEO, OP TLD, LTK. From 1995 onwards, I feel watching a pastiche of Bond (1995-2002), and 'Bond films' by name only (2006-2008).

Master_Dahark

Quoting DaltonCraig007: There is one thing, I don't know if it's really on-topic, but my Bond fandom will get a major hit when one of the past James Bond will die.

Aw I totally know what you mean! They're all still alive now- all the more reason for a 50th anniversary get-together!! I'd love a photo of everyone together, wouldn't you?
But yeah, not to sound morbid, but I'm preparing myself to click on the news one day and hearing about the passing of Moore, or Connery.... it's very sad to think about :(

jaguar007

Quoting The_Reaper: A traditional Bond films has him being Bond. Flirting with MP, getting outfitted by Q, getting his mission briefing in M's office, drinking martinis that are shaken, not stirred, wearing a tux and gambling, etc.

That stuff is over.

As Nic Nak pointed out earlier, Bond has worn a tux in the last several Bond films (the only ones he did not was YOLT and LALD), drank authentic Vespers, shaken not stirred, and of course CR had more gambling than any Bond film. Remember, Connery only said "Bond, James Bond" in 3 of his 6 EON films, and Moore never ordered a martini "shaken, not stirred". It is entirely possible Bond might get his assignment in M's office in Bond #23.

Who knows about Moneypenny and Q. I have said in other threads that I really don't care if we see them or not. MP and Boothroyd were very minor characters in Fleming's books, the reason people love them so much was because of Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewelyn. Neither Bliss, Bond or Cleese were able to bring back that chemistry to those characters. I say let them rest.

dragonsky

i dont want to be negative but i think the same.and you say there arent gadgets but gadgets came in Brosnan movies.really they are changing the movies.i think they are doing this cause they think that they won't make more money if they use classical Bond.they just want to do action movie this days they dont want to do James Bond movie

The_Reaper

As I have stated in Brosnan threads before, I don't want cliched Bond. But how far can they swing it the other way before it is unrecognizable as Bond?

Virage

Fact Check

The Whole "Traditional 23" means as before the out fitting etc. But there will be Q he won't have cars that turn into submarines with remote controls, We'll get something like the apache case, more down to earth. Why can't there be a money penny flirt? we will but it'll be tailored for Craig. the reason we had the striped down last 2 was because after DAD EON couldn't go down that road any longer it would be back to MR. We will see our favorites again, Hey we might even see blofeld, Just wait just under 247 days to go

haserot

Quoting jaguar007: Where did you hear that? THat is news to me.

i was referring to the article, in which Michael Wilson talked about the editing decisions on Quantum Of Solace... and i misquoted him.... the tone of the film won't be traditional Bond - but i think he was talking about the way it will be shot and edited - not so frenzied like QOS was..

it was posted on this website not more than a year ago..

The_Reaper

Virage, sorry but this ain't gonna happen. Traditional Bond is dead. Wish I was wrong. :O

Samuel001

If the world wants a more "traditional" Bond, it'll happen. The timing just has to be right. As of now, that may not be the case but to say "traditional Bond is dead" is a bit strong in my opinion. I'm sure many Fleming purists thought the same in the late 70's.

jaguar007

Quoting Samuel001: I'm sure many Fleming purists thought the same in the late 70's.

or even the early 70s.

As I said earlier, what is "the traditional Bond"? The Bond film series has gone through many incarnations and changes over the last 50 years. The Bond films of the early 60s and the late 70s could not be more different.

Virage

Quoting The_Reaper: Virage, sorry but this ain't gonna happen. Traditional Bond is dead. Wish I was wrong.

DO NOT STEP ON MY MOTIVATIONAL MOJO

saunders

The cinematic Bond will always evolve, but lets remember that the series is well known for it's repeating cycle of serious thriller (FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD) gradually over years turning to an excessive splurge of fantasy ( YOLT, MR, DAD) before reverting back to serious thriller again. Sadly then whilst we are enjoying a current revival of serious thriller with Daniel Craig at some stage the series will revert back to invisable sports cars and giant laser beams. the great thing about the series though is that with such a rich and diverse back catalogue you can easily find something to suit whatever type of Bond fan you happen to be.

jaguar007

Very well said Saunders

AlexanderWaverly

<<<As Nic Nak pointed out earlier, Bond has worn a tux in the last several Bond films (the only ones he did not was YOLT and LALD), >>

Technically, technically speaking, Bond didn't wear a tux in From Russia With Love, either. Bond's double did. But not Bond.

St_George

Quoting saunders: The cinematic Bond will always evolve, but lets remember that the series is well known for it's repeating cycle of serious thriller (FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD) gradually over years turning to an excessive splurge of fantasy ( YOLT, MR, DAD) before reverting back to serious thriller again. Sadly then whilst we are enjoying a current revival of serious thriller with Daniel Craig at some stage the series will revert back to invisable sports cars and giant laser beams. the great thing about the series though is that with such a rich and diverse back catalogue you can easily find something to suit whatever type of Bond fan you happen to be.

Yup, if anything is an example of the maxim what goes around comes around, then it's the Bond film series, all right...

The_Reaper

I really hope we get a more traditional Bond, more world domination plot, more humor, more characters and traditional element we all love but... I dunno. I have this powerful feeling they aren't doing it. The series has been rebooted. We are in uncharted territory at the moment. There might not be any turning back.

Mr_Sterling

Sorry Reaper but i think you're wrong.

I believe that everyone has a different opinion as to what makes Bond traditional. I for example, have always thought it was about the man himself and the gun in his hand. The rest is just window dressing.

I think everyone has a different opinion to me so therefore, as long as that is the case, Bond will never be over!

haserot

Quoting The_Reaper: I really hope we get a more traditional Bond, more world domination plot, more humor, more characters and traditional element we all love but... I dunno. I have this powerful feeling they aren't doing it. The series has been rebooted. We are in uncharted territory at the moment. There might not be any turning back.

I've got agree with what others have been saying on here as well..

After giving it some thought, what is Traditional Bond? - each actor brings his own portrayal to the character - so none of them are really carbon copies - and with them usually comes a change in style tone...

the change in style is almost a direct reflection on the current state of our world and social environment...

Quarterdeck

I don't buy the OP's argument at all. CR and QoS are every bit a part of the Bond tradition as any of the previous films. They feel completely like Bond movies to me (CR more and more so..it felt radical on first release but with each viewing feels more and more 'trad').

Most of the elements you are mourning the loss of are in actual fact present - Q and MP aside, who are largely creations of the film series rather than Fleming, though I wouldn't bet against their re-appearance in future movies - in the recent movies.

I think what you are really missing is the Moore/Brosnan approach?

NicNac

Quite agree @Quarterdeck . For some 'traditional' is Ian Fleming, for others it's early Connery and for some it's the Moore/Brosnan approach.
Basically Bond is all about where he is at any given moment in time. Bond is always about a smart, knowledgeable, tough British agent who takes on the bad guys, drinks a little, gambles a little and pulls the women with ease. And as @Mr_Sterling so succinctly put it 'the rest is window dressing'

The_Reaper

While I liked QoS a lot, I want to know what made it a Bond film. B/c the character's name was James Bond? I mean, really, it could have just as easily been any vanilla action movie, not even a spy film, just a regular action flick like anything else out there, if Daniel Craig didn't play the part and EON didn't produce it.

What made QoS a Bond film?

jaguar007

Quoting The_Reaper: While I liked QoS a lot, I want to know what made it a Bond film. B/c the character's name was James Bond? I mean, really, it could have just as easily been any vanilla action movie, not even a spy film, just a regular action flick like anything else out there, if Daniel Craig didn't play the part and EON didn't produce it.

Actually the same question can be asked of many Bond films. Having Q and MP are not really significant factors into making a James Bond movie.

nick_007

There is no such thing as a traditional Bond film.

Why?

Well, because the answer is different for each and every one of us. that's the beauty of having a series that is as dynamic such as this. Elements come, go, and return. It all depends on what the mood of the world seems to be.

Something very bold was done for CR and QoS, but it worked out well. We were showed that a good Bond story does not depend on Q, Moneypenny, or "Bond James Bond."

It doesn't mean they won't come back. At least now we know that they don't have to be there every time just for the fun of it. We're going to start appreciating those small little scenes a little more when they appear. They won't feel forced anymore.

It's going to be very refreshing.

Quoting saunders: The cinematic Bond will always evolve, but lets remember that the series is well known for it's repeating cycle of serious thriller (FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD) gradually over years turning to an excessive splurge of fantasy ( YOLT, MR, DAD) before reverting back to serious thriller again. Sadly then whilst we are enjoying a current revival of serious thriller with Daniel Craig at some stage the series will revert back to invisable sports cars and giant laser beams. the great thing about the series though is that with such a rich and diverse back catalogue you can easily find something to suit whatever type of Bond fan you happen to be.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Well said.

sohot2

...It has changed maybe it will get better....it reminds of Coca Cola...the new and improved Coca Cola is too watered down...its lost its flavor...

JamesCraig

I'm glad to read that there are people who realise that there isn't such a thing as "the James Bondmovie"...

Of course, I'd love to see Q & MP come back, but NOT like they were in the Brosnan-era and NOT just for the sake of pleasing "teh fans".

And think of this:

Compare FRWL with DAF...
Compare DR No with DAD...
Compare CR with YOLT...

;-)

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements