Who should/could be a Bond actor? *SPOILERS*

1805806808810811851

Comments

  • Posts: 2,513
    mtm wrote: »

    They're not playing a character written in the 50s any more though. If it were set in the 50s, sure that would be a bigger issue. Is there much 'colonial' about Craig's Bond? Or Brosnan's? Fleming's Bond fought in WW2 and battled the Russians in the Cold War- is it really Bond if he doesn't do that?

    Yes but any of the previous actors that played Bond, you could suddenly plonk them in a Fleming period piece set in the 1950's, and they would all fit in seamlessly. There would be nothing jarring about it.

    You could believe any of those actors could be a 1950's Bond from the character that Fleming wrote about, if the script allowed it (even Moore and Brozza). ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 13 Posts: 8,784
    mtm wrote: »

    They're not playing a character written in the 50s any more though. If it were set in the 50s, sure that would be a bigger issue. Is there much 'colonial' about Craig's Bond? Or Brosnan's? Fleming's Bond fought in WW2 and battled the Russians in the Cold War- is it really Bond if he doesn't do that?

    Yes but any of the previous actors that played Bond, you could suddenly plonk them in a Fleming period piece set in the 1950's, and they would all fit in seamlessly. There would be nothing jarring about it.

    You could believe any of those actors could be a 1950's Bond from the character that Fleming wrote about, if the script allowed it (even Moore and Brozza). ;)

    I don’t think that’s true (Craig especially isn’t a 50s guy. Would Fleming’s Bond have wept over a computer monitor showing an image of a strange woman like Brosnan’s did?) but even if it were, so what? It’s not a period piece, it’s an adaptation.
    Why is it relevant to say they could be plonked into the 50s when that’s not what is happening? The films are set in the present day.
  • edited August 14 Posts: 2,361
    Different skin colour and background origin takes on whole new level in adapting and modernising a colonial white old-fashioned British character written in the 1950's. If we eradicate that part too, is this really Ian Fleming's James Bond anymore, or just another modern action superspy?

    It's not a "one or the other" question though. The Bond of the modern James Bond movies didn't have a background origin until 2012 and his skin color hasn't been relevant. In today's climate there's no way a modern Bond film would touch on racial issues or colonialism. It's not as if they'll be faithfully adapting Fleming's Live and Let Die anytime soon. Modern Bond is not a chain-smoking Imperialist who thinks female spies should go back to the kitchen and mind the pots and pans.

    And no, we've never had a fully Fleming Bond onscreen. You can look at each Bond actor and come up with a list of reasons why he doesn't match Fleming's original, starting with that working class "overgrown stuntman" Connery, moving on to cocky Ozzy Lazenby, blonde toff lightweight Moore, etc. Fleming would have taken one look at Daniel Craig and assumed he was playing Red Grant.

    At their best the movies have deftly translated Fleming to the screen, but they will always be a separate entity. And Fleming would have wept to see the films of YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, etc. If there's an essence of Fleming's character in a film like MR, it's pretty vaporous. The films quickly turned into self-parodies and Bond became a smirky know-it-all travesty of Fleming's version.

    Whether or not a Bond actor has black hair or blue eyes is no longer important. And in a 21st century franchise skin color might not be important either. It's more important for a Bond actor to be someone who's handsome and British and looks equally good in a tuxedo and a street fight. No single Bond actor ever fully matched the physical characteristics of Fleming's original. And doing so would only match the letter, and not necessarily the spirit, of the character. The films in general frequently failed to give us the letter of the books, but on several occasions they've given us the spirit.

    A 21st century Bond simply isn't going to conform to the letter of Fleming's original. He's not going to openly pine for the return of the British Empire, regret the emergence of sex equality, call Koreans apes, etc. With luck he'll still be strong and handsome and will gamble, drink, womanize, be prepared to undergo torture, hardship or death for the UK, and present himself with a blend of savoir faire, wit and toughness. That's still the essence of Fleming's Bond, even if many other characteristics have been left by the wayside over the years.

    I'm not one of those woke twerps who thinks the next Bond must be non-white. But if Elba was 15 years younger I think he would definitely have to be seriously considered for the part.
  • Posts: 2,513
    Revelator wrote: »
    Different skin colour and background origin takes on whole new level in adapting and modernising a colonial white old-fashioned British character written in the 1950's. If we eradicate that part too, is this really Ian Fleming's James Bond anymore, or just another modern action superspy?

    It's not a "one or the other" question though. The Bond of the modern James Bond movies didn't have a background origin until 2012 and his skin color hasn't been relevant. In today's climate there's no way a modern Bond film would touch on racial issues or colonialism. It's not as if they'll be faithfully adapting Fleming's Live and Let Die anytime soon. Modern Bond is not a chain-smoking Imperialist who thinks female spies should go back to the kitchen and mind the pots and pans.

    And no, we've never had a fully Fleming Bond onscreen. You can look at each Bond actor and come up with a list of reasons why he doesn't match Fleming's original, starting with that working class "overgrown stuntman" Connery, moving on to cocky Ozzy Lazenby, blonde toff lightweight Moore, etc. Fleming would have taken one look at Daniel Craig and assumed he was playing Red Grant.

    At their best the movies have deftly translated Fleming to the screen, but they will always be a separate entity. And Fleming would have wept to see the films of YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, etc. If there's an essence of Fleming's character in a film like MR, it's pretty vaporous. The films quickly turned into self-parodies and Bond became a smirky know-it-all travesty of Fleming's version.

    Whether or not a Bond actor has black hair or blue eyes is no longer important. And in a 21st century franchise skin color might not be important either. It's more important for a Bond actor to be someone who's handsome and British and looks equally good in a tuxedo and a street fight. No single Bond actor ever fully matched the physical characteristics of Fleming's original. And doing so would only match the letter, and not necessarily the spirit, of the character. The films in general frequently failed to give us the letter of the books, but on several occasions they've given us the spirit.

    A 21st century Bond simply isn't going to conform to the letter of Fleming's original. He's not going to openly pine for the return of the British Empire, regret the emergence of sex equality, call Koreans apes, etc. With luck he'll still be strong and handsome and will gamble, drink, womanize, be prepared to undergo torture, hardship or death for the UK, and present himself with a blend of savoir faire, wit and toughness. That's still the essence of Fleming's Bond, even if many other characteristics have been left by the wayside over the years.

    I'm not one of those woke twerps who thinks the next Bond must be non-white. But if Elba was 15 years younger I think he would definitely have to be seriously considered for the part.

    I would argue that we have had an actor that nailed Fleming's Bond, and that was Timothy Dalton, both in looks and character.

    With regards your other points, yes Bond doesn't need to tie in with Fleming's description anymore to still make the bucks at the box office. But I would prefer it if the actor did have a striking resemblance in both looks and spirit to the character Fleming wrote about. I couldn't care less if this upsets any woke brigade.
  • Posts: 2,513
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    They're not playing a character written in the 50s any more though. If it were set in the 50s, sure that would be a bigger issue. Is there much 'colonial' about Craig's Bond? Or Brosnan's? Fleming's Bond fought in WW2 and battled the Russians in the Cold War- is it really Bond if he doesn't do that?

    Yes but any of the previous actors that played Bond, you could suddenly plonk them in a Fleming period piece set in the 1950's, and they would all fit in seamlessly. There would be nothing jarring about it.

    You could believe any of those actors could be a 1950's Bond from the character that Fleming wrote about, if the script allowed it (even Moore and Brozza). ;)

    I don’t think that’s true (Craig especially isn’t a 50s guy. Would Fleming’s Bond have wept over a computer monitor showing an image of a strange woman like Brosnan’s did?) but even if it were, so what? It’s not a period piece, it’s an adaptation.
    Why is it relevant to say they could be plonked into the 50s when that’s not what is happening? The films are set in the present day.

    I'm not talking about the characters the actors played in their films. I'm purely talking about if they physically played the role in a 50's period scripted film. Where would a Fleming 1950's script allow a scene with Bond weeping over a computer screen? I think you lost the point I was trying to make.

    You could plonk any of the previous actors in, say Casino Royale (set in 1953), and I think all of the actors would work in that period piece film.

    And yes, the films are set in present day, and yes maybe Fleming description of the original Bond isn't relevant anymore for modern audiences, in both looks and spirit. It doesn't mean I can't state an opinion though about what I prefer, does it?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 14 Posts: 8,784
    Revelator wrote: »
    Different skin colour and background origin takes on whole new level in adapting and modernising a colonial white old-fashioned British character written in the 1950's. If we eradicate that part too, is this really Ian Fleming's James Bond anymore, or just another modern action superspy?

    It's not a "one or the other" question though. The Bond of the modern James Bond movies didn't have a background origin until 2012 and his skin color hasn't been relevant. In today's climate there's no way a modern Bond film would touch on racial issues or colonialism. It's not as if they'll be faithfully adapting Fleming's Live and Let Die anytime soon. Modern Bond is not a chain-smoking Imperialist who thinks female spies should go back to the kitchen and mind the pots and pans.

    And no, we've never had a fully Fleming Bond onscreen. You can look at each Bond actor and come up with a list of reasons why he doesn't match Fleming's original, starting with that working class "overgrown stuntman" Connery, moving on to cocky Ozzy Lazenby, blonde toff lightweight Moore, etc. Fleming would have taken one look at Daniel Craig and assumed he was playing Red Grant.

    At their best the movies have deftly translated Fleming to the screen, but they will always be a separate entity. And Fleming would have wept to see the films of YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, etc. If there's an essence of Fleming's character in a film like MR, it's pretty vaporous. The films quickly turned into self-parodies and Bond became a smirky know-it-all travesty of Fleming's version.

    Whether or not a Bond actor has black hair or blue eyes is no longer important. And in a 21st century franchise skin color might not be important either. It's more important for a Bond actor to be someone who's handsome and British and looks equally good in a tuxedo and a street fight. No single Bond actor ever fully matched the physical characteristics of Fleming's original. And doing so would only match the letter, and not necessarily the spirit, of the character. The films in general frequently failed to give us the letter of the books, but on several occasions they've given us the spirit.

    A 21st century Bond simply isn't going to conform to the letter of Fleming's original. He's not going to openly pine for the return of the British Empire, regret the emergence of sex equality, call Koreans apes, etc. With luck he'll still be strong and handsome and will gamble, drink, womanize, be prepared to undergo torture, hardship or death for the UK, and present himself with a blend of savoir faire, wit and toughness. That's still the essence of Fleming's Bond, even if many other characteristics have been left by the wayside over the years.

    I'm not one of those woke twerps who thinks the next Bond must be non-white. But if Elba was 15 years younger I think he would definitely have to be seriously considered for the part.

    Thank you, yes; excellent post.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Different skin colour and background origin takes on whole new level in adapting and modernising a colonial white old-fashioned British character written in the 1950's. If we eradicate that part too, is this really Ian Fleming's James Bond anymore, or just another modern action superspy?

    It's not a "one or the other" question though. The Bond of the modern James Bond movies didn't have a background origin until 2012 and his skin color hasn't been relevant. In today's climate there's no way a modern Bond film would touch on racial issues or colonialism. It's not as if they'll be faithfully adapting Fleming's Live and Let Die anytime soon. Modern Bond is not a chain-smoking Imperialist who thinks female spies should go back to the kitchen and mind the pots and pans.

    And no, we've never had a fully Fleming Bond onscreen. You can look at each Bond actor and come up with a list of reasons why he doesn't match Fleming's original, starting with that working class "overgrown stuntman" Connery, moving on to cocky Ozzy Lazenby, blonde toff lightweight Moore, etc. Fleming would have taken one look at Daniel Craig and assumed he was playing Red Grant.

    At their best the movies have deftly translated Fleming to the screen, but they will always be a separate entity. And Fleming would have wept to see the films of YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, etc. If there's an essence of Fleming's character in a film like MR, it's pretty vaporous. The films quickly turned into self-parodies and Bond became a smirky know-it-all travesty of Fleming's version.

    Whether or not a Bond actor has black hair or blue eyes is no longer important. And in a 21st century franchise skin color might not be important either. It's more important for a Bond actor to be someone who's handsome and British and looks equally good in a tuxedo and a street fight. No single Bond actor ever fully matched the physical characteristics of Fleming's original. And doing so would only match the letter, and not necessarily the spirit, of the character. The films in general frequently failed to give us the letter of the books, but on several occasions they've given us the spirit.

    A 21st century Bond simply isn't going to conform to the letter of Fleming's original. He's not going to openly pine for the return of the British Empire, regret the emergence of sex equality, call Koreans apes, etc. With luck he'll still be strong and handsome and will gamble, drink, womanize, be prepared to undergo torture, hardship or death for the UK, and present himself with a blend of savoir faire, wit and toughness. That's still the essence of Fleming's Bond, even if many other characteristics have been left by the wayside over the years.

    I'm not one of those woke twerps who thinks the next Bond must be non-white. But if Elba was 15 years younger I think he would definitely have to be seriously considered for the part.

    I would argue that we have had an actor that nailed Fleming's Bond, and that was Timothy Dalton, both in looks and character.

    With regards your other points, yes Bond doesn't need to tie in with Fleming's description anymore to still make the bucks at the box office. But I would prefer it if the actor did have a striking resemblance in both looks and spirit to the character Fleming wrote about. I couldn't care less if this upsets any woke brigade.

    Where did that last random comment come from? Surely the only person who stated a preference and hence would be upset about being disappointed would be yourself, not some imagined enemy ‘brigade’.

    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    They're not playing a character written in the 50s any more though. If it were set in the 50s, sure that would be a bigger issue. Is there much 'colonial' about Craig's Bond? Or Brosnan's? Fleming's Bond fought in WW2 and battled the Russians in the Cold War- is it really Bond if he doesn't do that?

    Yes but any of the previous actors that played Bond, you could suddenly plonk them in a Fleming period piece set in the 1950's, and they would all fit in seamlessly. There would be nothing jarring about it.

    You could believe any of those actors could be a 1950's Bond from the character that Fleming wrote about, if the script allowed it (even Moore and Brozza). ;)

    I don’t think that’s true (Craig especially isn’t a 50s guy. Would Fleming’s Bond have wept over a computer monitor showing an image of a strange woman like Brosnan’s did?) but even if it were, so what? It’s not a period piece, it’s an adaptation.
    Why is it relevant to say they could be plonked into the 50s when that’s not what is happening? The films are set in the present day.

    I'm not talking about the characters the actors played in their films. I'm purely talking about if they physically played the role in a 50's period scripted film. Where would a Fleming 1950's script allow a scene with Bond weeping over a computer screen? I think you lost the point I was trying to make.

    You could plonk any of the previous actors in, say Casino Royale (set in 1953), and I think all of the actors would work in that period piece film.

    And yes, the films are set in present day, and yes maybe Fleming description of the original Bond isn't relevant anymore for modern audiences, in both looks and spirit. It doesn't mean I can't state an opinion though about what I prefer, does it?

    It seems odd and slightly pointless to me to have a preference to have actors who could play a particular role in a completely different period movie when they’re not and never will be in that movie. I certainly didn’t lose what you were saying, my next comment was “ Why is it relevant to say they could be plonked into the 50s when that’s not what is happening?” It’s just so you can imagine them in something else? Obviously you can state your opinion, no one said you can’t, and I’m equally allowed to state my reaction to it.
    Personally I think it’s better to choose the actors for the film they’re actually appearing in.
  • edited August 14 Posts: 2,513
    mtm wrote: »

    It seems odd and slightly pointless to me to have a preference to have actors who could play a particular role in a completely different period movie when they’re not and never will be in that movie. I certainly didn’t lose what you were saying, my next comment was “ Why is it relevant to say they could be plonked into the 50s when that’s not what is happening?” It’s just so you can imagine them in something else? Obviously you can state your opinion, no one said you can’t, and I’m equally allowed to state my reaction to it.
    Personally I think it’s better to choose the actors for the film they’re actually appearing in.
    The point I was trying to make with regards setting any of the previous actors in a Fleming period piece was that they all would work, and be faithful to Fleming's original vision, no matter what type of Bond film the actors have appeared in during their own reign.

    If EON decides to now cast, say a black actor, or an Indian, or a Chinese, or a female in the role, then this wouldn't work anymore with Fleming's original vision of the character, and it would be proved so if you tried to stick them in a faithfully adapted 1953 period piece. That's the only point I was trying to make, which may seem trivial, pointless or irrelevant to you.

    But I know I'm wasting my breath here and its falling on deaf ears, so I give up. Thankfully no one here has yet screamed `racist!' or `sexist!' at me yet for such a radical, wild, outrageous opinion, so maybe you are right that I haven't managed to offend any woke brigade (at least not on here).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 14 Posts: 8,784
    I’m really baffled as to why you keep talking about the ‘woke brigade’. As you say, no-one thinks you’re being racist (and certainly not sexist as gender isn’t part of this conversation), there’s no need to try and start a fight with people who don’t exist. A lot of people who talk about ‘woke’ seem to act the same way, I’ve noticed, it’s very strange.

    And yes, I’m afraid that to me the idea of casting an actor for a film that they’ll never appear in is a bit of a pointless one. And it really depends on how you define ‘Fleming’s original vision’ anyway: as to how rigidly you observe the exact letter of that, because clearly several of the past actors do not conform to that. What you have to remember is that these are adaptations: they literally adapt the material for a new medium, which means that they change it to suit. They don’t and can’t just take the book and stick it on the screen, and Bond has long moved beyond the books anyway.
  • Posts: 2,513
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m really baffled as to why you keep talking about the ‘woke brigade’. As you say, no-one thinks you’re being racist, there’s no need to try and start a fight with people who don’t exist. A lot of people who talk about ‘woke’ seem to act the same way, I’ve noticed, it’s very strange.
    It was only a few years ago that on here similar opinions about not casting a black actor in the role were met with a barrage of `that's racist!' remarks, which is why I may be oversensitive now when dabbling in this particular area of opinion, and pre-empting any strikes before they arrive, which they haven't, so yes, I'm being over sensitive. Had I dared to share this opinion on the likes of Twitter, then maybe I could expect a more hostile response.
    mtm wrote: »
    And yes, I’m afraid that to me the idea of casting an actor for a film that they’ll never appear in is a bit of a pointless one. And it really depends on how you define ‘Fleming’s original vision’ anyway: as to how rigidly you observe the exact letter of that, because clearly several of the past actors do not conform to that. What you have to remember is that these are adaptations: they literally adapt the material for a new medium, which means that they change it to suit. They don’t and can’t just take the book and stick it on the screen, and Bond has long moved beyond the books anyway.

    Bond has moved beyond the books, but I would still prefer an actor that closely resembled the original character Fleming wrote about. That may seem a strange opinion to some, but that's how I feel.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,784
    Personally I can’t get too hung up on exactly how a guy looks, it’s whether he can play it that matters to me. Which means he’s got to be able to star in a movie and has great charisma and presence, can handle jokes and drama, is handsome and has believable sex appeal in an alpha male kind of way, can play tough as well as suave and refined, and can play it as British with a hint of poshness. Hitting those is more important to me than a black comma of hair or a thin, cruel lip.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 576
    If I could ban one modern word from the English language it would be 'Woke'. It muddys! the water of every conversation very quickly, gets people's back's up and in all probability gives people reading it the wrong impression of the writer.
    I posted a rant about this a few pages back so won't wasn't your time repeating myself.
    The only time the word should be used in my humble opinion is when describing what you do after sleeping.
  • Posts: 2,513
    mtm wrote: »
    Personally I can’t get too hung up on exactly how a guy looks, it’s whether he can play it that matters to me. Which means he’s got to be able to star in a movie and has great charisma and presence, can handle jokes and drama, is handsome and has believable sex appeal in an alpha male kind of way, can play tough as well as suave and refined, and can play it as British with a hint of poshness. Hitting those is more important to me than a black comma of hair or a thin, cruel lip.

    I agree with all what you mentioned above - PLUS the black comma of hair or a thin, cruel lip. ;)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited August 14 Posts: 4,667
    I think another thing to remember is that as we move on further and further through the years, we're getting further and further away from the foundations that the character was built on. We may be getting a James Bond who was born in the 90s for Bond 26, and eventually someone born in the 2000s, and that will have to reflect in their writing of the character.

    We can't keep talking about a "relic from the Cold War" if our Bond wasn't around.
  • edited August 14 Posts: 2,361
    Yes, there's a Faustian bargain involved in keeping a character going so many decades after his heyday, especially if he's presented as contemporary, rather than a period piece. It really is true that a character has to change with the times to survive, often in ways that might feel like a betrayal of the original version of the character. I think many first-generation Fleming fans must have felt betrayed at how the Bond films changed on multiple occasions. But the producers could argue that changes were necessary for the character to survive.

    If we want to see Bond films made in the present day that present Bond as a modern character, we have to accept that they will in several ways move further away from certain parts of the character's original conception and foundation. I doubt there will be a Fleming period piece film anytime soon, thanks to the magic of copyright extensions and the commercial limitations of such a project.
  • edited August 14 Posts: 5,731
    I get all of that changing with the times stuff, but James Bond had always a trait, a particular one that defined his character, even with the latest iteration. He's old school, his mind set is always set decades before the present.

    In the 50s, he had a 30s car, and sort of an imperialistic government workforce mindset. In the 60s, in the films, he was clearly a 40s and 50s man with a 60s sex drive. In the 70s and 80s, he was outdated by everything that surrounded him, and that was the appeal. He used modern gadgets with a bit of contempt for them. In the 90s, he was a relic of the cold war. And in the 2000s, he liked things the "old way", as Craig put it in SF, and drove a 64 Aston Martin, and still used a PPK.

    So, there'll always be something from the past deeply rooted in the man. He should never be a product of his time, he should be a product of old reacting to his time, that is and always will be part of the appeal and exoticism.

    Right?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 14 Posts: 8,784
    cwl007 wrote: »
    If I could ban one modern word from the English language it would be 'Woke'. It muddys! the water of every conversation very quickly, gets people's back's up and in all probability gives people reading it the wrong impression of the writer.
    I posted a rant about this a few pages back so won't wasn't your time repeating myself.
    The only time the word should be used in my humble opinion is when describing what you do after sleeping.

    Yes indeed, it's mostly nonsense.
    mtm wrote: »
    Personally I can’t get too hung up on exactly how a guy looks, it’s whether he can play it that matters to me. Which means he’s got to be able to star in a movie and has great charisma and presence, can handle jokes and drama, is handsome and has believable sex appeal in an alpha male kind of way, can play tough as well as suave and refined, and can play it as British with a hint of poshness. Hitting those is more important to me than a black comma of hair or a thin, cruel lip.

    I agree with all what you mentioned above - PLUS the black comma of hair or a thin, cruel lip. ;)

    Yes, IF they can find a guy who hits all of those as well as looking exactly like Fleming's description of Bond then great, but there aren't many perfect candidates out there and the priority for me is hitting the movie star requirements first and foremost. Hugh Jackman isn't exactly a great physical match for the Wolverine of the comic books- he's a tall thin guy and not a short stocky, hairy type; but everyone agrees he was perfect playing the role and made it his own. The acting is the main thing. (He'd have been an amazing Bond of course)
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I think another thing to remember is that as we move on further and further through the years, we're getting further and further away from the foundations that the character was built on. We may be getting a James Bond who was born in the 90s for Bond 26, and eventually someone born in the 2000s, and that will have to reflect in their writing of the character.

    We can't keep talking about a "relic from the Cold War" if our Bond wasn't around.

    It's a great point. The Bond who played a role in the cold war is in his 60s now. James Bond living in the 2020s would be a slightly different guy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 14 Posts: 8,784
    Univex wrote: »
    I get all of that changing with the times stuff, but James Bond had always a trait, a particular one that defined his character, even with the latest iteration. He's old school, his mind set is always set decades before the present.

    In the 50s, he had a 30s car, and sort of an imperialistic government workforce mindset. In the 60s, in the films, he was clearly a 40s and 50s man with a 60s sex drive. In the 70s and 80s, he was outdated by everything that surrounded him, and that was the appeal. He used modern gadgets with a bit of contempt for them. In the 90s, he was a relic of the cold war. And in the 2000s, he liked things the "old way", as Craig put it in SF, and drove a 64 Aston Martin, and still used a PPK.

    So, there'll always be something from the past deeply rooted in the man. He should never be a product of his time, he should be a product of old reacting to his time, that is and always will be part of the appeal and exoticism.

    Right?

    Yeah Bond has always been the old fighting the new: he works for an old guy in a stuffy oak-panelled office, lives in a sort of faux-Regency nightmare, wears very classical suits, drives old British cars and fights to keep the status quo etc. whereas his opponents live in the most modern and futuristic modernist lairs, wear clean-lined nehru collared suits and often have ideas to change the whole path of the human race. Forward-thinking is represented as something to be stopped in the Bond movies. And it's from the books too: don't forget that Goldfinger was named after the famous modernist architect whose work Fleming despised. Even Bond's gadgets -his one concession to the modern world- are designed by an elderly old inventor, a very classical model of the idea of the quaint British eccentric. Funnily enough Roger was the only Bond who really seemed to be slightly more in tune with the modern world, with his fashionable flares and his very modern Lotus Esprit. In comes Tim and he's back smoking, wearing tweed and driving a big, old Aston.
    So yes, Bond has to be old-fashioned, but that won't really have much of an impact on his casting because anyone can have an old-fashioned mindset.
  • Posts: 2,513
    Univex wrote: »
    I get all of that changing with the times stuff, but James Bond had always a trait, a particular one that defined his character, even with the latest iteration. He's old school, his mind set is always set decades before the present.

    In the 50s, he had a 30s car, and sort of an imperialistic government workforce mindset. In the 60s, in the films, he was clearly a 40s and 50s man with a 60s sex drive. In the 70s and 80s, he was outdated by everything that surrounded him, and that was the appeal. He used modern gadgets with a bit of contempt for them. In the 90s, he was a relic of the cold war. And in the 2000s, he liked things the "old way", as Craig put it in SF, and drove a 64 Aston Martin, and still used a PPK.

    So, there'll always be something from the past deeply rooted in the man. He should never be a product of his time, he should be a product of old reacting to his time, that is and always will be part of the appeal and exoticism.

    Right?

    Well said! Post of the week! =D>
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,152
    Univex wrote: »
    I get all of that changing with the times stuff, but James Bond had always a trait, a particular one that defined his character, even with the latest iteration. He's old school, his mind set is always set decades before the present.

    In the 50s, he had a 30s car, and sort of an imperialistic government workforce mindset. In the 60s, in the films, he was clearly a 40s and 50s man with a 60s sex drive. In the 70s and 80s, he was outdated by everything that surrounded him, and that was the appeal. He used modern gadgets with a bit of contempt for them. In the 90s, he was a relic of the cold war. And in the 2000s, he liked things the "old way", as Craig put it in SF, and drove a 64 Aston Martin, and still used a PPK.

    So, there'll always be something from the past deeply rooted in the man. He should never be a product of his time, he should be a product of old reacting to his time, that is and always will be part of the appeal and exoticism.

    Right?
    Bravo, and beautifully written.

    The problem is that never in the history of Bond has there been such an aggressive agenda to delegitimize, demonize and ultimately render irrelevant every that James Bond represents and stands for.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 14 Posts: 8,784
    Bond has always been a bit stuffy and old though, as Univex said. There's always been an 'agenda' for the world to move on: that's how the world, y'know, moves on :D
    Bond has moved on too, just keeping 20 years behind the present day. I'm not sure what you think is being demonised about what he stands for.

    Part of the appeal right from the start of Bond in the cinema is that wonderful and energising dichotomy that the audience think of Bond as being supercool and yet also at the same time, a bit of a dick. We don't actually want to see him cut down to size for his arrogance, but we perversely enjoy seeing him getting away with being a dick in situations which we would never get into. It's a massive part of the appeal of watching him.

    a7c4b3d5aa1c118acad5967ea22eccba.gif
    Univex wrote: »
    I get all of that changing with the times stuff, but James Bond had always a trait, a particular one that defined his character, even with the latest iteration. He's old school, his mind set is always set decades before the present.

    In the 50s, he had a 30s car, and sort of an imperialistic government workforce mindset. In the 60s, in the films, he was clearly a 40s and 50s man with a 60s sex drive. In the 70s and 80s, he was outdated by everything that surrounded him, and that was the appeal. He used modern gadgets with a bit of contempt for them. In the 90s, he was a relic of the cold war. And in the 2000s, he liked things the "old way", as Craig put it in SF, and drove a 64 Aston Martin, and still used a PPK.

    So, there'll always be something from the past deeply rooted in the man. He should never be a product of his time, he should be a product of old reacting to his time, that is and always will be part of the appeal and exoticism.

    Right?

    Well said! Post of the week! =D>


    Nah that's still Revelator's for my money: they hit the nail on the head.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited August 14 Posts: 736
    Bond was correctly rebooted in CR, he wasn’t a relic, he knew technology and could hack M and track people, and had a personality that thought of women as disposable pleasures which isn’t past or present, its a trait, but then of course with Mendes and Sf, EON fell back into their pattern of lack of confidence in the character and trying to make him relevant and could only define him as a relic, out of step, entrenched in old ways… it was lame and a mistake.
  • edited August 15 Posts: 2,513
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has always been a bit stuffy and old though, as Univex said. There's always been an 'agenda' for the world to move on: that's how the world, y'know, moves on :D
    Bond has moved on too, just keeping 20 years behind the present day. I'm not sure what you think is being demonised about what he stands for.

    Part of the appeal right from the start of Bond in the cinema is that wonderful and energising dichotomy that the audience think of Bond as being supercool and yet also at the same time, a bit of a dick. We don't actually want to see him cut down to size for his arrogance, but we perversely enjoy seeing him getting away with being a dick in situations which we would never get into. It's a massive part of the appeal of watching him.

    a7c4b3d5aa1c118acad5967ea22eccba.gif
    Univex wrote: »
    I get all of that changing with the times stuff, but James Bond had always a trait, a particular one that defined his character, even with the latest iteration. He's old school, his mind set is always set decades before the present.

    In the 50s, he had a 30s car, and sort of an imperialistic government workforce mindset. In the 60s, in the films, he was clearly a 40s and 50s man with a 60s sex drive. In the 70s and 80s, he was outdated by everything that surrounded him, and that was the appeal. He used modern gadgets with a bit of contempt for them. In the 90s, he was a relic of the cold war. And in the 2000s, he liked things the "old way", as Craig put it in SF, and drove a 64 Aston Martin, and still used a PPK.

    So, there'll always be something from the past deeply rooted in the man. He should never be a product of his time, he should be a product of old reacting to his time, that is and always will be part of the appeal and exoticism.

    Right?

    Well said! Post of the week! =D>


    Nah that's still Revelator's for my money: they hit the nail on the head.

    And there I was hoping you would choose one of my posts.
    mtm wrote: »
    Where did that last random comment come from? Surely the only person who stated a preference and hence would be upset about being disappointed would be yourself, not some imagined enemy ‘brigade’.

    BTW, that `random' comment was actually in direct response to the `woke twerp' reference found in your post of the week.... ;)

    Funny enough, Revelator managed to escape any such harsh, daily mtm criticism on daring to mention the dreaded term `woke', and gets heaped with lots of praise from yourself instead. Some guys have all the luck.
  • edited August 15 Posts: 2,513
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Bond was correctly rebooted in CR, he wasn’t a relic, he knew technology and could hack M and track people, and had a personality that thought of women as disposable pleasures which isn’t past or present, its a trait, but then of course with Mendes and Sf, EON fell back into their pattern of lack of confidence in the character and trying to make him relevant and could only define him as a relic, out of step, entrenched in old ways… it was lame and a mistake.

    With CR we have to take exception of the Bond character, as this was supposed to be a reboot - Bond Begins. So he needed some youthfulness and naivety to reflect Bond at the beginning of his career.

    QoS didn't really go too far exploring any of Bond's old ways, as it was supposed to be continuing on from where CR left off - Bond still at the beginning, but now also hell bent on revenge too.

    I don't think it was too much of a mistake in what Mendes was trying to explore in SF, although it would have made more sense if SF had come at the very end of Craig's tenure, as it clearly shows Bond burnt out and nearing the end of his career, when it only just got started with the 2 films before.

    Having said all that, TLD was Dalton's first outing, and there were signs of fatigue and being burnt out in that movie too, and that was almost a reboot - a different Bond starting out again.
  • edited August 15 Posts: 2,513
    edit - repost

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 736
    I don’t really agree, @jetsetwilly. It was a mistake of timing for sure to go from new to old with Mendes middle age thematic exploration that no one was asking for. We never got Craig in his dick swinging prime because EON lack confidence and direction in the character. But CR pointed the way (as do the books they hold the rights too). And while Dalton showed signs of fatigue he wasn’t emotionally paralyzed and listless through the movie, which I think SF was… Bond should never be boring. He’s not a LeCarre character which Haggis correctly pointed out in CR documentary.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,033
    I see Henry Cavill is back as one of the bookies favourites.
    Nothing against Cavill personally but that would be such a step down in the calibre of the leading man. He's got charisma but he's wooden in everything I've seen him in
  • Posts: 13,329
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    I don’t really agree, @jetsetwilly. It was a mistake of timing for sure to go from new to old with Mendes middle age thematic exploration that no one was asking for. We never got Craig in his dick swinging prime because EON lack confidence and direction in the character. But CR pointed the way (as do the books they hold the rights too). And while Dalton showed signs of fatigue he wasn’t emotionally paralyzed and listless through the movie, which I think SF was… Bond should never be boring. He’s not a LeCarre character which Haggis correctly pointed out in CR documentary.

    Nobody asked for it... and yet SF is one of the most successful Bond movie, both critically and commercially.
  • edited August 15 Posts: 2,513
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    I don’t really agree, @jetsetwilly. It was a mistake of timing for sure to go from new to old with Mendes middle age thematic exploration that no one was asking for. We never got Craig in his dick swinging prime because EON lack confidence and direction in the character. But CR pointed the way (as do the books they hold the rights too). And while Dalton showed signs of fatigue he wasn’t emotionally paralyzed and listless through the movie, which I think SF was… Bond should never be boring. He’s not a LeCarre character which Haggis correctly pointed out in CR documentary.

    Yes, I would like to see Bond with a bit more carefree Connery swagger, and a bit more happy-go-lucky at times. We have never really got much of this during the Craig era.

    Think Dalton laughing to himself in TLK after throwing the guy off the plane and then chucking all the money out too, or Connery naturally smiling during the belly dance in FRWL. We need a bit more joy bringing back to the franchise maybe (but not at the expense of losing the harder edged tone!)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,784
    Oh I think Craig’s Bond rather clearly enjoys himself where he can: he does quite a lot light stuff in Spectre, but stealing the Aston, bedding the widow etc. he’s indulging himself.
  • Posts: 2,513
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh I think Craig’s Bond rather clearly enjoys himself where he can: he does quite a lot light stuff in Spectre, but stealing the Aston, bedding the widow etc. he’s indulging himself.

    He does a few light things in QoS too. Dismissing one hotel to go to a better one, claiming he won the lottery springs to mind.

    But it would be nice if he did a bit more of this with a smile or laugh on his face when he is indulging himself. Who knows, maybe we get more of this in NTTD.
Sign In or Register to comment.