No Time to Die production thread

15475485505525531208

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Minion wrote: »
    That’s like saying Star Wars isn’t Star Wars if there isn’t a lightsaber. Stories shouldn’t be bound by such surface level iconography. That line of thinking is precisely what compromised TWINE from reaching its full potential.

    Right, and we actually got great films in the franchise that downplayed gadgets. It’s not as essential as other factors that make a Bond film. Heck, the closest Bond has a gadget in DR. NO was a standard Geiger counter.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited December 2019 Posts: 1,165
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Minion

    That's a poor example, because if I remember correct there are lightsabers in every Star Wars movies. And I do believe in icons. That's why I loved the return of the Millenium Falcon in EP VII.
    That’s more a sign of an unwillingness to break from an established formula in the movies. In fact, lightsabers only appear in the most heavily criticized aspects of RO and Solo. There are Star Wars stories outside the films which do not feature lightsabers, Sith, or Jedi. The universe can and has expanded beyond the merchandising.

    Guess that was a rather decent example after all.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    I'm an advocate for the gadgets, setpieces and gunbarrel. The formula in general really. I don't want a Bond film that tries to throw out the formula in favor of something different. Some other franchise can fill the void for people who want a Bond movie to be something other than a Bond movie. Just my two cents.

    However that doesn't mean every movie needs to check every box or vice versa. As long as the producers do a good job of giving us all a bit of something we like.

    I'm happy we got Spectre because it hit a lot of the notes I wanted. If Craig's entire tenure was like CR and QOS then I'd be a very unhappy fan right now. Balance is everything. Not every entry can please everybody and that is okay.

    Just don't expect every one of these films to check all your boxes.
  • Posts: 17,241
    But gadgets are fun though, right? :-D

    ghetto%20blaster.gif
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Of course they are! I don't think anyone would argue they aren't. :)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    I guess I am the type of Bond fan who likes Bond front and center... The gadgets that appeal to me most are grounded in this spy-verse and are weaved into the story: the FRWL briefcase (hidden weaponry, believable), the breathing apparatus in TB (being in the Bahamas), the safe crackers from YOLT and OHMSS I can certainly buy-- (the larger safe-cracker needed in OHMSS is, to me, for a more sophisticated safe), the Walther WA2000 Sniper Rifle and infra-red goggles in TLD... Anything with a tracker system is great...

    I get turned off when the gadgets are a Deus Ex Machina device (and there's an argument to be had that James Bond's car in Casino Royale is loaded with a heart defibrillator; luckily this saves him from a very sticky situation; I have an argument for that, lol).

    It's tough for me to swallow that before each adventure, Q would know exactly what Bond would need at all times, and these gadgets became co-stars.

    If Bond has gadgets, I hope it is grounded in the spy-verse. In our world of advancing technology (where someone could build an explosive device from their I-phone), we are not impressed with toys anymore since the average person could buy these toys at the local shopping mall. Bond's gadgets must be grounded, yet something not yet available for us.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    peter wrote: »
    I guess I am the type of Bond fan who likes Bond front and center... The gadgets that appeal to me most are grounded in this spy-verse and are weaved into the story: the FRWL briefcase (hidden weaponry, believable), the breathing apparatus in TB (being in the Bahamas), the safe crackers from YOLT and OHMSS I can certainly buy-- (the larger safe-cracker needed in OHMSS is, to me, for a more sophisticated safe), the Walther WA2000 Sniper Rifle and infra-red goggles in TLD... Anything with a tracker system is great...

    I get turned off when the gadgets are a Deus Ex Machina device (and there's an argument to be had that James Bond's car in Casino Royale is loaded with a heart defibrillator; luckily this saves him from a very sticky situation; I have an argument for that, lol).

    It's tough for me to swallow that before each adventure, Q would know exactly what Bond would need at all times, and these gadgets became co-stars.

    If Bond has gadgets, I hope it is grounded in the spy-verse. In our world of advancing technology (where someone could build an explosive device from their I-phone), we are not impressed with toys anymore since the average person could buy these toys at the local shopping mall. Bond's gadgets must be grounded, yet something not yet available for us.

    +1.

    Nail on the head, @peter

    I've always enjoyed the gadgets that could have more than one use in any one scenario more than anything else.
  • Posts: 1,693
    Minion wrote: »
    That’s like saying Star Wars isn’t Star Wars if there isn’t a lightsaber. Stories shouldn’t be bound by such surface level iconography. That line of thinking is precisely what compromised TWINE from reaching its full potential.
    Did SOLO take a hit for not having light sabres???????????
  • Posts: 1,693
    Just as long as gadgets are not used like they were in YOLT.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I think the bravest move the franchise has ever made was casting Lazenby as Bond without the Gadgets(Except the safe cracker though).Since YOLT was well received with it's Gadgets. Or maybe they wanted OHMSS to be a more realistic Bond film....which was still a risk with Lazenby as Bond.
    One would have thought Lazenby was going to be armed with gadgets, so Connery's absence wouldn't be felt. Although they made attempts to convince audiences that this man is still James Bond. Taking the gunbarrel's opening to the style of DR.NO, showing his sniper rifle from FRWL, The 'This never happened to the other fella' line, playing underneath the mango tree & parts of from FRWL's theme, showing Grant's watch & Ryder's knife, the janitor whistling Goldfinger. Maybe Peter Hunt felt with the presence of all these things, audiences would connect with Lazenby's Bond at the very least.I also like my Bond films with Gadgets, as long as it doesn't ruin the plot. OHMSS's plot was so engaging and the pace was spot on, that I never felt the absence of the Gadgets. Hunt really captured the full Bond formula without Gadgets and presented a Human Bond. I guess that's how to make a Bond movie without the Gadgets.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 5,767
    Zekidk wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I´m having a real hard time imagining they have this fantastic new Q and don´t have him dish out some gadgets in the 25th Bond film.
    This fantastic new Q has over the course of two movies given us:
    - a signature gun
    - a radio transmitter
    - a watch
    - a car with some gadgets

    "An exploding pen. We don't really do that anymore."

    Well, please do. A wristdartgun, a ski-pole gun, X-ray polaroid. Anything! Has Q branch lost its ingenuity? I didn't notice one single gadget in the NTTD trailer, except the well-known DB5 guns. Maybe Bond will use acid cat litter picked up from Q's apartment or something, since the once and beloved Q-lab looks like a thing from the past.
    Well, since the M:I6 crew around Bond has turned into some kind of Scooby Gang, for better or worse, Q himself has become the gadget, doing superhuman and supercomputerish things such as detecting the DNA of people by putting a ring on a plate.
    Admittedly, this era´s gadget policy is a bit inconsistent. "We don´t go in for that anymore". Yeah, but we put machine guns in car fenders. Could of course be because it´s Bond´s private car, and Bond convinced Q that the company policy is boring.
    Part of it is that in this era, Bond is in a way treated a bit harsher. There is smart blood, but it´s used to control Bond (there was already something like that in CR). There is a new gadget car, but it´s not for him. On the other hand he has the human gadget Q, whom he can put in the right place to shut down the nine eyes programme. Relations have a bit shifted. I´m not saying I´m ready to dismiss the old times, I´m just detecting kind of a pattern.



    Zekidk wrote: »
    Actually for me... gadgets are. Because they define Bond. Bond without gadgets is like Indiana Jones without the whip.
    I must disagree, or my personal opinion must. I remember clearly when watching QoS I thought, this has nothing to do with Bond as we knew him from Connery to even Brosnan, but Craig owns this role so much he´s able to carry it nonetheless. The following films screwed that up a bit, but the basis still stands. For me that is.

    As for Bond being briefed by M in each film, this is essential not for nostalgic reasons, but for giving the film at all a reason to unfold. A secret agent with a license to kill must have a strong connection to the government. Not because the government is good, but because such a man acting completely on his own would be anarchy. Unless he is made into some kind of private investigator.
  • Posts: 3,160
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Minion

    That's a poor example, because if I remember correct there are lightsabers in every Star Wars movies. And I do believe in icons. That's why I loved the return of the Millenium Falcon in EP VII.
    That’s more a sign of an unwillingness to break from an established formula in the movies. In fact, lightsabers only appear in the most heavily criticized aspects of RO and Solo. There are Star Wars stories outside the films which do not feature lightsabers, Sith, or Jedi. The universe can and has expanded beyond the merchandising.

    Guess that was a rather decent example after all.
    Oh, so you were referring only to spin-offs, to prove your point? Does EP VII to IX feature lightsabers?
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 5,767
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Minion

    That's a poor example, because if I remember correct there are lightsabers in every Star Wars movies. And I do believe in icons. That's why I loved the return of the Millenium Falcon in EP VII.
    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.



    But gadgets are fun though, right? :-D

    ghetto%20blaster.gif
    I love the enthusiasm with which Q tells Bond, "we call it a ghetto blaster" :-)).





    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think the bravest move the franchise has ever made was casting Lazenby as Bond without the Gadgets(Except the safe cracker though).Since YOLT was well received with it's Gadgets. Or maybe they wanted OHMSS to be a more realistic Bond film....which was still a risk with Lazenby as Bond.
    One would have thought Lazenby was going to be armed with gadgets, so Connery's absence wouldn't be felt. Although they made attempts to convince audiences that this man is still James Bond. Taking the gunbarrel's opening to the style of DR.NO, showing his sniper rifle from FRWL, The 'This never happened to the other fella' line, playing underneath the mango tree & parts of from FRWL's theme, showing Grant's watch & Ryder's knife, the janitor whistling Goldfinger. Maybe Peter Hunt felt with the presence of all these things, audiences would connect with Lazenby's Bond at the very least.I also like my Bond films with Gadgets, as long as it doesn't ruin the plot. OHMSS's plot was so engaging and the pace was spot on, that I never felt the absence of the Gadgets. Hunt really captured the full Bond formula without Gadgets and presented a Human Bond. I guess that's how to make a Bond movie without the Gadgets.
    I think that´s one of the beautiful things of Bond films: They can work with the silliest gagdets, and they can work with hardly any gagdets at all. The franchise always did breathe. Soemtimes it got more outlandish, then it became more grounded again. Circle of life.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 2,436
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Minion

    That's a poor example, because if I remember correct there are lightsabers in every Star Wars movies. And I do believe in icons. That's why I loved the return of the Millenium Falcon in EP VII.
    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.



    But gadgets are fun though, right? :-D

    ghetto%20blaster.gif
    I love the enthusiasm with which Q tells Bond, "we call it a ghetto blaster" :-)).





    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think the bravest move the franchise has ever made was casting Lazenby as Bond without the Gadgets(Except the safe cracker though).Since YOLT was well received with it's Gadgets. Or maybe they wanted OHMSS to be a more realistic Bond film....which was still a risk with Lazenby as Bond.
    One would have thought Lazenby was going to be armed with gadgets, so Connery's absence wouldn't be felt. Although they made attempts to convince audiences that this man is still James Bond. Taking the gunbarrel's opening to the style of DR.NO, showing his sniper rifle from FRWL, The 'This never happened to the other fella' line, playing underneath the mango tree & parts of from FRWL's theme, showing Grant's watch & Ryder's knife, the janitor whistling Goldfinger. Maybe Peter Hunt felt with the presence of all these things, audiences would connect with Lazenby's Bond at the very least.I also like my Bond films with Gadgets, as long as it doesn't ruin the plot. OHMSS's plot was so engaging and the pace was spot on, that I never felt the absence of the Gadgets. Hunt really captured the full Bond formula without Gadgets and presented a Human Bond. I guess that's how to make a Bond movie without the Gadgets.
    I think that´s one of the beautiful things of Bond films: They can work with the silliest gagdets, and they can work with hardly any gagdets at all. The franchise always did breathe. Soemtimes it got more outlandish, then it became more grounded again. Circle of life.

    Even Fleming's novels do that pendulum swing between the outlandish and the realistic.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    peter wrote: »
    I guess I am the type of Bond fan who likes Bond front and center... The gadgets that appeal to me most are grounded in this spy-verse and are weaved into the story: the FRWL briefcase (hidden weaponry, believable), the breathing apparatus in TB (being in the Bahamas), the safe crackers from YOLT and OHMSS I can certainly buy-- (the larger safe-cracker needed in OHMSS is, to me, for a more sophisticated safe), the Walther WA2000 Sniper Rifle and infra-red goggles in TLD... Anything with a tracker system is great...

    I get turned off when the gadgets are a Deus Ex Machina device (and there's an argument to be had that James Bond's car in Casino Royale is loaded with a heart defibrillator; luckily this saves him from a very sticky situation; I have an argument for that, lol).

    It's tough for me to swallow that before each adventure, Q would know exactly what Bond would need at all times, and these gadgets became co-stars.

    If Bond has gadgets, I hope it is grounded in the spy-verse. In our world of advancing technology (where someone could build an explosive device from their I-phone), we are not impressed with toys anymore since the average person could buy these toys at the local shopping mall. Bond's gadgets must be grounded, yet something not yet available for us.

    +1.

    Nail on the head, @peter

    I've always enjoyed the gadgets that could have more than one use in any one scenario more than anything else.

    Yeah I like it when he uses it for an unexpected or unplanned use; like the fingerprint scanner in the phone in TND: he’s supposed to scan it and send it to base for an ID (which should have been in the dialogue really) but he just uses the display to open the safe. Or the sonic ring in DAD: it’s kind of nicely unexpected that he’d use that to shatter a floor.
    I think my favourite gadget has to be the LALD watch though. The magnet is such a good idea and useful in so many situations and it’s operated in such a cool way with the indices going red. I like it when the gadget use fits the design of the object, and having a rotating watch bezel that turns into a buzzsaw is just such a good, witty development of what’s already there: it’s not just a bomb or a laser stuck on. Best gadget ever! :)
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    boldfinger wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Ryan wrote: »
    I feel like "spy thriller" or "adventure" are better classifications for Bond. They've never been straight up action films. Touches of fantasy, drama, and comedy along the way too. Obviously there's lots of action in them and plenty of set pieces, but it's not like they're Stallone or Schwarzenegger in terms of being action driven.
    Walecs wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Bond should be filed under "actionmovies", not "drama."
    Which, ironically, would not be very Fleming.

    Most people here don't seem to understand Bond or even think they understand it better than its own creator. It doesn't surprise me, fans seem to do it with every property.

    Bingo

    Like THE JACKMAN IS TOO SMALL TO PLAY TEH WOLVERINE...
    He did rather well imho.
    to tall, not to small.

    But yes, he did very good.



    Zekidk wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    So, rolling back to your original argument, what about NTTD leads you to fear these elements won’t be present?

    I try not to worry too much and hope for the best. And all the elements are more or less there. Like they were there in SP. But still I found something missing there somehow. Judging from the trailer, my worry for NTTD is primarily that I think the action-scenes look like they could have been from any other big budget action-movie (except the clip with the DB5 guns). No new crazy gadgets helping him out of an impossible situation, no prototype vehicle from Q branch, no something outlandish as Bond trying to stear a snowplane on the ground towards two landrovers or driving a CAT on top of a moving train. NTTD looks more low-key to me. Bond drives a couple of cars and steals a bike. Well...okay.
    I´m having a real hard time imagining they have this fantastic new Q and don´t have him dish out some gadgets in the 25th Bond film, but a lot of Bond films did pretty well with not many gadgets. Anyhow, many times there´s just one action sequence where Bond uses all his gadgets, and the rest of the film he manages without.

    Right, sorry lol.

    Or TEH BATMAN DOES NOT COME OUT AT DAY

    TEH DENT MUST DIE LIKE IN THE COMICS

    I love comic books, but the fans can get a bit... noisy.
  • Posts: 3,160
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Minion

    That's a poor example, because if I remember correct there are lightsabers in every Star Wars movies. And I do believe in icons. That's why I loved the return of the Millenium Falcon in EP VII.
    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.
    Because he used other cars in between, like the DBS, the Mustang, the Lotus, the V8, the V12 etc.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,497
    Zekidk wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Minion

    That's a poor example, because if I remember correct there are lightsabers in every Star Wars movies. And I do believe in icons. That's why I loved the return of the Millenium Falcon in EP VII.
    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.
    Because he used other cars in between, like the DBS, the Mustang, the Lotus, the V8, the V12 etc.

    And yet most people seem to love the DB5. Nobody that I know who is a casual Bondfan has been complaining about it.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?
  • duke_togoduke_togo france
    Posts: 138
    NTTD seems to feature the best DB5 car chase of the franchise...For now .
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?

    It’s lazy. I can deal with it but much like the aforementioned Falcon it’s essentially a crutch. The AM thing has become silly now and isn’t at all exciting. The joy of growing up on the Sean/Rog/Tim films is that they were always switching up the vehicles. The positive of NTTD is that they’re at least going balls out with it.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @Minion

    That's a poor example, because if I remember correct there are lightsabers in every Star Wars movies. And I do believe in icons. That's why I loved the return of the Millenium Falcon in EP VII.
    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.



    But gadgets are fun though, right? :-D

    ghetto%20blaster.gif
    I love the enthusiasm with which Q tells Bond, "we call it a ghetto blaster" :-)).





    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think the bravest move the franchise has ever made was casting Lazenby as Bond without the Gadgets(Except the safe cracker though).Since YOLT was well received with it's Gadgets. Or maybe they wanted OHMSS to be a more realistic Bond film....which was still a risk with Lazenby as Bond.
    One would have thought Lazenby was going to be armed with gadgets, so Connery's absence wouldn't be felt. Although they made attempts to convince audiences that this man is still James Bond. Taking the gunbarrel's opening to the style of DR.NO, showing his sniper rifle from FRWL, The 'This never happened to the other fella' line, playing underneath the mango tree & parts of from FRWL's theme, showing Grant's watch & Ryder's knife, the janitor whistling Goldfinger. Maybe Peter Hunt felt with the presence of all these things, audiences would connect with Lazenby's Bond at the very least.I also like my Bond films with Gadgets, as long as it doesn't ruin the plot. OHMSS's plot was so engaging and the pace was spot on, that I never felt the absence of the Gadgets. Hunt really captured the full Bond formula without Gadgets and presented a Human Bond. I guess that's how to make a Bond movie without the Gadgets.
    I think that´s one of the beautiful things of Bond films: They can work with the silliest gagdets, and they can work with hardly any gagdets at all. The franchise always did breathe. Soemtimes it got more outlandish, then it became more grounded again. Circle of life.

    Yeah, true....the Bond franchise always had the luxury of not necessarily worrying about it's Box office outcome. It was more concern about it's relevance & how to attain critical success. So it could afford to present the character in any way it wanted....as long as he's still called JAMES BOND, audiences will always want to see what he's up to next. Coz people just can't get enough of James Bond.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t mind seeing the DB5 at all. It’s James Bond’s car- why not use it?

    It’s lazy. I can deal with it but much like the aforementioned Falcon it’s essentially a crutch. The AM thing has become silly now and isn’t at all exciting. The joy of growing up on the Sean/Rog/Tim films is that they were always switching up the vehicles. The positive of NTTD is that they’re at least going balls out with it.

    And they should sell the wreckages to fans. ;-)
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    boldfinger wrote: »

    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.
    *30 years...
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    imranbecks wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »

    The millenium falcon was integral to the story of the OT. Bringing it back in Ep. VII was changing the essence of it. Much like it happened with the DB5 in Bond films. Wasn´t there for 40 years, and Bond did extremely well without it.
    *30 years...

    1965-1995.

  • New Behind the scenes NTTD picture hidden in this collage from Universal:



    I’m loving the militaristic Bond in action.
  • Posts: 14,800
    peter wrote: »
    I guess I am the type of Bond fan who likes Bond front and center... The gadgets that appeal to me most are grounded in this spy-verse and are weaved into the story: the FRWL briefcase (hidden weaponry, believable), the breathing apparatus in TB (being in the Bahamas), the safe crackers from YOLT and OHMSS I can certainly buy-- (the larger safe-cracker needed in OHMSS is, to me, for a more sophisticated safe), the Walther WA2000 Sniper Rifle and infra-red goggles in TLD... Anything with a tracker system is great...

    I get turned off when the gadgets are a Deus Ex Machina device (and there's an argument to be had that James Bond's car in Casino Royale is loaded with a heart defibrillator; luckily this saves him from a very sticky situation; I have an argument for that, lol).

    It's tough for me to swallow that before each adventure, Q would know exactly what Bond would need at all times, and these gadgets became co-stars.

    If Bond has gadgets, I hope it is grounded in the spy-verse. In our world of advancing technology (where someone could build an explosive device from their I-phone), we are not impressed with toys anymore since the average person could buy these toys at the local shopping mall. Bond's gadgets must be grounded, yet something not yet available for us.

    +1.

    Nail on the head, @peter

    I've always enjoyed the gadgets that could have more than one use in any one scenario more than anything else.

    +2

    Also, why not reuse old gadgets instead of constantly making new ones? I'm all for an update of the briefcase from FRWL. Still the best gadget of the franchise imo.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,018
    New Behind the scenes NTTD picture hidden in this collage from Universal:



    I’m loving the militaristic Bond in action.

    Picture in the middle?
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,018
  • duke_togoduke_togo france
    Posts: 138
    Ludovico wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I guess I am the type of Bond fan who likes Bond front and center... The gadgets that appeal to me most are grounded in this spy-verse and are weaved into the story: the FRWL briefcase (hidden weaponry, believable), the breathing apparatus in TB (being in the Bahamas), the safe crackers from YOLT and OHMSS I can certainly buy-- (the larger safe-cracker needed in OHMSS is, to me, for a more sophisticated safe), the Walther WA2000 Sniper Rifle and infra-red goggles in TLD... Anything with a tracker system is great...

    I get turned off when the gadgets are a Deus Ex Machina device (and there's an argument to be had that James Bond's car in Casino Royale is loaded with a heart defibrillator; luckily this saves him from a very sticky situation; I have an argument for that, lol).

    It's tough for me to swallow that before each adventure, Q would know exactly what Bond would need at all times, and these gadgets became co-stars.

    If Bond has gadgets, I hope it is grounded in the spy-verse. In our world of advancing technology (where someone could build an explosive device from their I-phone), we are not impressed with toys anymore since the average person could buy these toys at the local shopping mall. Bond's gadgets must be grounded, yet something not yet available for us.

    +1.

    Nail on the head, @peter

    I've always enjoyed the gadgets that could have more than one use in any one scenario more than anything else.

    +2

    Also, why not reuse old gadgets instead of constantly making new ones? I'm all for an update of the briefcase from FRWL. Still the best gadget of the franchise imo.

    The jet pack is my favorite, weird that they didn't use it again...
Sign In or Register to comment.