Which Bond film best captures Ian Fleming’s literary Bond?

13

Comments

  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    What about QOS? He was ice cold, drank heavily, inner-torment and doubt. The way he dumped Mathis in the garbage. The stairwell scene (you can’t get any more Bond than that). This is very close to Fleming’s Bond imo. And his cool factor was off the charts here.
  • Posts: 7,500
    I really struggle to see how TMWTGG is a strong, Flemingesque performance. Maybe my opinion is bloated by the fact that Bond is so unlikeable in it and by some of the very "un-Fleming" scenarioes he's in during the film. I will try to keep an open mind on next viewing, but currently I consider it one of the weakest Bond iterations in the series.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    jobo wrote: »
    I really struggle to see how TMWTGG is a strong, Flemingesque performance. Maybe my opinion is bloated by the fact that Bond is so unlikeable in it and by some of the very "un-Fleming" scenarioes he's in during the film. I will try to keep an open mind on next viewing, but currently I consider it one of the weakest Bond iterations in the series.

    I think his cold and serious tone is throwing you off. He’s being hunted by one of the most deadly assassins , maybe the most, in the world. He’s in predator mode. That’s where I see Sir Roger portraying Fleming’s Bond. Which I greatly enjoyed. And how can you not like that theme song? B-)
  • Posts: 7,500
    jobo wrote: »
    I really struggle to see how TMWTGG is a strong, Flemingesque performance. Maybe my opinion is bloated by the fact that Bond is so unlikeable in it and by some of the very "un-Fleming" scenarioes he's in during the film. I will try to keep an open mind on next viewing, but currently I consider it one of the weakest Bond iterations in the series.

    I think his cold and serious tone is throwing you off. He’s being hunted by one of the most deadly assassins , maybe the most, in the world. He’s in predator mode. That’s where I see Sir Roger portraying Fleming’s Bond. Which I greatly enjoyed. And how can you not like that theme song? B-)


    Perhaps. Usually though, I do prefer the colder versions of the character. Craig and Dalton are my favorite Bonds together with Connery. But however cold Bond is, he is not a total dick. He cares about people and wants to do the right thing. At times in TMWTGG, he does come across as a total dick.
  • Posts: 526
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I really struggle to see how TMWTGG is a strong, Flemingesque performance. Maybe my opinion is bloated by the fact that Bond is so unlikeable in it and by some of the very "un-Fleming" scenarioes he's in during the film. I will try to keep an open mind on next viewing, but currently I consider it one of the weakest Bond iterations in the series.

    I think his cold and serious tone is throwing you off. He’s being hunted by one of the most deadly assassins , maybe the most, in the world. He’s in predator mode. That’s where I see Sir Roger portraying Fleming’s Bond. Which I greatly enjoyed. And how can you not like that theme song? B-)


    Perhaps. Usually though, I do prefer the colder versions of the character. Craig and Dalton are my favorite Bonds together with Connery. But however cold Bond is, he is not a total dick. He cares about people and wants to do the right thing. At times in TMWTGG, he does come across as a total dick.

    Craig and Dalton are my favorites as well. Yeah, I agree, he’s pretty surly in TMWTGG. I just thought of this last night: The Man With The Golden Gun is the longest Bond title. Six words is a little too long imo. Anyway, I am gonna watch MWTGG this week. Been a while since I’ve seen it. But again, I agree with your point.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,730
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I really struggle to see how TMWTGG is a strong, Flemingesque performance. Maybe my opinion is bloated by the fact that Bond is so unlikeable in it and by some of the very "un-Fleming" scenarioes he's in during the film. I will try to keep an open mind on next viewing, but currently I consider it one of the weakest Bond iterations in the series.

    I think his cold and serious tone is throwing you off. He’s being hunted by one of the most deadly assassins , maybe the most, in the world. He’s in predator mode. That’s where I see Sir Roger portraying Fleming’s Bond. Which I greatly enjoyed. And how can you not like that theme song? B-)


    Perhaps. Usually though, I do prefer the colder versions of the character. Craig and Dalton are my favorite Bonds together with Connery. But however cold Bond is, he is not a total dick. He cares about people and wants to do the right thing. At times in TMWTGG, he does come across as a total dick.

    Craig and Dalton are my favorites as well. Yeah, I agree, he’s pretty surly in TMWTGG. I just thought of this last night: The Man With The Golden Gun is the longest Bond title. Six words is a little too long imo. Anyway, I am gonna watch MWTGG this week. Been a while since I’ve seen it. But again, I agree with your point.

    That's a good observation. I like the simplicity of it for a change. It's nice to have a bit of variance in Bond novel and film titles. It helps keep it from becoming stale. Fleming originally intended to call it simply The Golden Gun but then decided to bulk it out to the villain's full title. I, for one, am glad that he did.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,161
    I love that title. In fact I dig every Fleming title with the exception of OCTOPUSSY, which was funny to hear for the first time (then again, I was only about 12 when I first saw that title in a Fleming bibliography) but too crass to have any legs. I really never thought it would actually be used as a film title (though I'm glad they did, being a completist).
  • Posts: 2,400
    Moore in TMWTGG rubs me the wrong way. It's not that Moore's acting is bad (the "A GREEEEEEEN! ROOOOOOOOLS! ROOOOYCE!" scene aside), I actually think he handles the scenes at the boxing match and at lunch with Scaramanga particularly well; it's that he's being directed to "do Connery" rather than being allowed to "find" the Flemingesque stuff himself, which I think he's given more freedom to do particularly in TSWLM and OP, which in turn are performances I vastly prefer.
  • Moore in TMWTGG rubs me the wrong way. It's not that Moore's acting is bad (the "A GREEEEEEEN! ROOOOOOOOLS! ROOOOYCE!" scene aside), I actually think he handles the scenes at the boxing match and at lunch with Scaramanga particularly well; it's that he's being directed to "do Connery" rather than being allowed to "find" the Flemingesque stuff himself, which I think he's given more freedom to do particularly in TSWLM and OP, which in turn are performances I vastly prefer.

    Agreed, and nothing confirms that for me more than when Maud Adams talked about that scene in the Everything or Nothing documentary, where she mentioned that they practically tried to make Moore look like Connery.
  • Posts: 526
    Moore in TMWTGG rubs me the wrong way. It's not that Moore's acting is bad (the "A GREEEEEEEN! ROOOOOOOOLS! ROOOOYCE!" scene aside), I actually think he handles the scenes at the boxing match and at lunch with Scaramanga particularly well; it's that he's being directed to "do Connery" rather than being allowed to "find" the Flemingesque stuff himself, which I think he's given more freedom to do particularly in TSWLM and OP, which in turn are performances I vastly prefer.

    Agreed, and nothing confirms that for me more than when Maud Adams talked about that scene in the Everything or Nothing documentary, where she mentioned that they practically tried to make Moore look like Connery.

    I never really thought about it before. Watched it last night. One can definitely see the Connery in Moore during TMWTGG. But honestly, I’m not so sure that was a bad thing. I really enjoy TMWTGG. My second or third favorite , probably second, Moore Bond film.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 2,010
    Moore in TMWTGG rubs me the wrong way. It's not that Moore's acting is bad (the "A GREEEEEEEN! ROOOOOOOOLS! ROOOOYCE!" scene aside), I actually think he handles the scenes at the boxing match and at lunch with Scaramanga particularly well; it's that he's being directed to "do Connery" rather than being allowed to "find" the Flemingesque stuff himself, which I think he's given more freedom to do particularly in TSWLM and OP, which in turn are performances I vastly prefer.

    Agreed, and nothing confirms that for me more than when Maud Adams talked about that scene in the Everything or Nothing documentary, where she mentioned that they practically tried to make Moore look like Connery.

    I never really thought about it before. Watched it last night. One can definitely see the Connery in Moore during TMWTGG. But honestly, I’m not so sure that was a bad thing. I really enjoy TMWTGG. My second or third favorite , probably second, Moore Bond film.

    I enjoy TMWTGG as well, even if I prefer some of Moore’s other films to it, it just still feels like they’re writing Bond and having Bond as a character act as if he’s still Sean Connery. I just wish they’d have toned it down on how much of a Bastard to try to make Moore during the film. His performance in LALD was superb, but its like they weren’t confident in Moore’s abilities to bring his own elements to the role that (on the surface) some scenes just feel like Guy Hamilton or the producers telling him to act like Connery, hence the scene where he beats Maud Adams.
  • Posts: 526
    Moore in TMWTGG rubs me the wrong way. It's not that Moore's acting is bad (the "A GREEEEEEEN! ROOOOOOOOLS! ROOOOYCE!" scene aside), I actually think he handles the scenes at the boxing match and at lunch with Scaramanga particularly well; it's that he's being directed to "do Connery" rather than being allowed to "find" the Flemingesque stuff himself, which I think he's given more freedom to do particularly in TSWLM and OP, which in turn are performances I vastly prefer.

    Agreed, and nothing confirms that for me more than when Maud Adams talked about that scene in the Everything or Nothing documentary, where she mentioned that they practically tried to make Moore look like Connery.

    I never really thought about it before. Watched it last night. One can definitely see the Connery in Moore during TMWTGG. But honestly, I’m not so sure that was a bad thing. I really enjoy TMWTGG. My second or third favorite , probably second, Moore Bond film.

    I enjoy TMWTGG as well, even if I prefer some of Moore’s other films to it, it just still feels like they’re writing Bond and having Bond as a character act as if he’s still Sean Connery. I just wish they’d have toned it down on how much of a Bastard to try to make Moore during the film. His performance in LALD was superb, but its like they weren’t confident in Moore’s abilities to bring his own elements to the role that (on the surface) some scenes just feel like Guy Hamilton or the producers telling him to act like Connery, hence the scene where he beats Maud Adams.

    Understand where you’re coming from. Had to be hard on Moore, especially early on, to follow Connery. Those were big shoes to fill.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 2,010
    Moore in TMWTGG rubs me the wrong way. It's not that Moore's acting is bad (the "A GREEEEEEEN! ROOOOOOOOLS! ROOOOYCE!" scene aside), I actually think he handles the scenes at the boxing match and at lunch with Scaramanga particularly well; it's that he's being directed to "do Connery" rather than being allowed to "find" the Flemingesque stuff himself, which I think he's given more freedom to do particularly in TSWLM and OP, which in turn are performances I vastly prefer.

    Agreed, and nothing confirms that for me more than when Maud Adams talked about that scene in the Everything or Nothing documentary, where she mentioned that they practically tried to make Moore look like Connery.

    I never really thought about it before. Watched it last night. One can definitely see the Connery in Moore during TMWTGG. But honestly, I’m not so sure that was a bad thing. I really enjoy TMWTGG. My second or third favorite , probably second, Moore Bond film.

    I enjoy TMWTGG as well, even if I prefer some of Moore’s other films to it, it just still feels like they’re writing Bond and having Bond as a character act as if he’s still Sean Connery. I just wish they’d have toned it down on how much of a Bastard to try to make Moore during the film. His performance in LALD was superb, but its like they weren’t confident in Moore’s abilities to bring his own elements to the role that (on the surface) some scenes just feel like Guy Hamilton or the producers telling him to act like Connery, hence the scene where he beats Maud Adams.

    Understand where you’re coming from. Had to be hard on Moore, especially early on, to follow Connery. Those were big shoes to fill.

    It was, and probably twice as hard on Lazenby coming immediately after Connery. Moore acknowledged that Lazenby deserves tons of credit for taking the role after Connery, and in a way paving the way for Moore and the others to take the role. But when you look at Moore in LALD, it’s at least a clear attempt to differentiate the character from the way Connery portrayed him, which was a lesson they learned from OHMSS, and it’s deliberate attempts to enforce that Connery and Lazenby are the same Bond, right down to the same qualities.
  • Posts: 526
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.
  • Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    I always put the lack of Flemingesque moments throughout the Brosnan years down to writing, and perhaps the inability to adapt what’s on page to the screen. Despite my love for the films of his era, the Brosnan films struggled between wanting to stick to series traditions, while moving the series forward in new and exciting ways. This is where Goldeneye succeeded, and where the Craig era largely learned from the lessons of the Brosnan era, and I say this as somebody who has both TND and TWINE in my top 10. As for Brosnan himself, I think scenes like the confrontation with Dr. Kaufman from TND, as well as the hotel drinking scene following Carver’s party show Brosnan at his most Fleming, but the lack of Fleming moments doesn’t drag down Pierce for me at all, I think he did a marvelous job of modernizing the character for the 90’s, and updating Bond to where he could survive beyond the Cold War. He pays tribute to his predecessors while bringing his own sensibilities and talents as an actor, he’s the perfect Bond for those who prefer the Cinematic character that Connery and Moore portrayed so well, as opposed to those who prefer the more Fleming driven performances of both Dalton and Craig.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,161
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    For the most part, but the Brosnan Era did manage to sneak in some Fleming touches here and there. I was very disappointed when he got the role, then excited when he “ungot” the role, then sad when he got it again. So I went into GoldenEye with a very bad attitude. But I was surprised how well he did, expecting so little after that dopey television show he was on.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 526
    @007ClassicBondFan , those are Brosnan’s two best scenes that you mentioned, for me. Those and , “I never miss.” That was icy as ***. Wish we could have seen more of that from Brosnan. Of course, it was in the hands of others (as to what he did). @Birdleson, who did you want to see instead of Brosnan? I used to be a big Brosnan as Bond fan. Saw all of them at the theatre, and owned them on vhs and then dvd. My friend hated Brosnan, and constantly ran him down...I tried to stick up for him. What really changed my view of him was DAD. I really wanted to walk out of that movie. I had just finished reading Casino Royale about 2 months before the release of DAD. When I read more Fleming novels, the more I disliked Brosnan’s movies. When Casino Royale came out, I was blown away. Became my favorite movie ever, and Daniel Craig became my favorite actor. Could not get enough of that movie. I think the show was Remington Steele. And yes, it was horrific.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    I had no one in mind, like now, I’ve always kind of wanted to be surprised and, hopefully, barely familiar with the choice. I had long been a fan of Dalton, due to his performance in THE LION IN WINTER. I was too young to care at all about seeing it in the theatre, but I finally caught it on the big screen in the early ‘80s, so the timing was perfect for me.
  • Posts: 3,275
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    For the most part, but the Brosnan Era did manage to sneak in some Fleming touches here and there. I was very disappointed when he got the role, then excited when he “ungot” the role, then sad when he got it again. So I went into GoldenEye with a very bad attitude. But I was surprised how well he did, expecting so little after that dopey television show he was on.

    It does make you wonder how different Goldeneye would have been with Dalton still in the role though. If Dalton had pushed and insisted on Fleming moments, maybe this would have forced the script to accommodate it as such, instead of the blank canvas reboot feeling that comes from GE with Brozza in it.

    This is what I really hope for with the next actor. Someone who goes back to the novels and insists on bringing in as much Fleming as they can, like Dalton did.

    My worst nightmare would be a young actor who ends up in the role, knows nothing of the books, and looks only at Craig's interpretation for inspiration. Then we are in for more of the same.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    For the most part, but the Brosnan Era did manage to sneak in some Fleming touches here and there. I was very disappointed when he got the role, then excited when he “ungot” the role, then sad when he got it again. So I went into GoldenEye with a very bad attitude. But I was surprised how well he did, expecting so little after that dopey television show he was on.

    It does make you wonder how different Goldeneye would have been with Dalton still in the role though. If Dalton had pushed and insisted on Fleming moments, maybe this would have forced the script to accommodate it as such, instead of the blank canvas reboot feeling that comes from GE with Brozza in it.

    This is what I really hope for with the next actor. Someone who goes back to the novels and insists on bringing in as much Fleming as they can, like Dalton did.

    My worst nightmare would be a young actor who ends up in the role, knows nothing of the books, and looks only at Craig's interpretation for inspiration. Then we are in for more of the same.

    Start the push for me as Bond, then! ;)

    While I can't pretend I wouldn't be influenced by Craig and Dalton primarily, a large part of *why* that would be the case is because I *have* read the novels and consider them something of a Bible for Bond.
  • Posts: 3,275
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    For the most part, but the Brosnan Era did manage to sneak in some Fleming touches here and there. I was very disappointed when he got the role, then excited when he “ungot” the role, then sad when he got it again. So I went into GoldenEye with a very bad attitude. But I was surprised how well he did, expecting so little after that dopey television show he was on.

    It does make you wonder how different Goldeneye would have been with Dalton still in the role though. If Dalton had pushed and insisted on Fleming moments, maybe this would have forced the script to accommodate it as such, instead of the blank canvas reboot feeling that comes from GE with Brozza in it.

    This is what I really hope for with the next actor. Someone who goes back to the novels and insists on bringing in as much Fleming as they can, like Dalton did.

    My worst nightmare would be a young actor who ends up in the role, knows nothing of the books, and looks only at Craig's interpretation for inspiration. Then we are in for more of the same.

    Start the push for me as Bond, then! ;)

    While I can't pretend I wouldn't be influenced by Craig and Dalton primarily, a large part of *why* that would be the case is because I *have* read the novels and consider them something of a Bible for Bond.

    Join the queue. I'm first! ;)

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    For the most part, but the Brosnan Era did manage to sneak in some Fleming touches here and there. I was very disappointed when he got the role, then excited when he “ungot” the role, then sad when he got it again. So I went into GoldenEye with a very bad attitude. But I was surprised how well he did, expecting so little after that dopey television show he was on.

    It does make you wonder how different Goldeneye would have been with Dalton still in the role though. If Dalton had pushed and insisted on Fleming moments, maybe this would have forced the script to accommodate it as such, instead of the blank canvas reboot feeling that comes from GE with Brozza in it.

    This is what I really hope for with the next actor. Someone who goes back to the novels and insists on bringing in as much Fleming as they can, like Dalton did.

    My worst nightmare would be a young actor who ends up in the role, knows nothing of the books, and looks only at Craig's interpretation for inspiration. Then we are in for more of the same.

    X_X you just ruined my morning.... I hadn't even considered that, but it may actually be a v real possibility.
    That both EoN and the 007 successor base themselves entirely on the last 15 years going forward...
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 3,275
    AceHole wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    For the most part, but the Brosnan Era did manage to sneak in some Fleming touches here and there. I was very disappointed when he got the role, then excited when he “ungot” the role, then sad when he got it again. So I went into GoldenEye with a very bad attitude. But I was surprised how well he did, expecting so little after that dopey television show he was on.

    It does make you wonder how different Goldeneye would have been with Dalton still in the role though. If Dalton had pushed and insisted on Fleming moments, maybe this would have forced the script to accommodate it as such, instead of the blank canvas reboot feeling that comes from GE with Brozza in it.

    This is what I really hope for with the next actor. Someone who goes back to the novels and insists on bringing in as much Fleming as they can, like Dalton did.

    My worst nightmare would be a young actor who ends up in the role, knows nothing of the books, and looks only at Craig's interpretation for inspiration. Then we are in for more of the same.

    X_X you just ruined my morning.... I hadn't even considered that, but it may actually be a v real possibility.
    That both EoN and the 007 successor base themselves entirely on the last 15 years going forward...

    giphy.gif
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    AceHole wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    For the most part, but the Brosnan Era did manage to sneak in some Fleming touches here and there. I was very disappointed when he got the role, then excited when he “ungot” the role, then sad when he got it again. So I went into GoldenEye with a very bad attitude. But I was surprised how well he did, expecting so little after that dopey television show he was on.

    It does make you wonder how different Goldeneye would have been with Dalton still in the role though. If Dalton had pushed and insisted on Fleming moments, maybe this would have forced the script to accommodate it as such, instead of the blank canvas reboot feeling that comes from GE with Brozza in it.

    This is what I really hope for with the next actor. Someone who goes back to the novels and insists on bringing in as much Fleming as they can, like Dalton did.

    My worst nightmare would be a young actor who ends up in the role, knows nothing of the books, and looks only at Craig's interpretation for inspiration. Then we are in for more of the same.

    X_X you just ruined my morning.... I hadn't even considered that, but it may actually be a v real possibility.
    That both EoN and the 007 successor base themselves entirely on the last 15 years going forward...

    giphy.gif

    Then again... EoN may just as well shake things up and do a 180 degree turn as in 2006, just changing the universe completely. Which I also think is likely.
    Question is - what constitutes a 180* that Babs & co. would consider commercially viable and in-keeping with the times ..?

    What are the chances of them going full out traditionalist - ie. a 007 in mid 30's, standalone missions, M and Q setup etc... I think this is very, very unlikely.

    More chance of it being a 20-something actor with high focus on the relationships to reel in the younger audiences.

    What cinematic 'trends' other than the Marvel-universe are making waves right now??!
    - this is probably what we should be looking at to discern which path EoN will follow in 2-3 yrs time


  • Posts: 2,400
    AceHole wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Good points and makes sense. Lazenby was the “sacrificial lamb”, so to speak. I still can’t believe he passed on a 7 film deal. I think the Bond that changed the least, was the least Fleming Bond of all, Brosnan. Just my opinion.

    For the most part, but the Brosnan Era did manage to sneak in some Fleming touches here and there. I was very disappointed when he got the role, then excited when he “ungot” the role, then sad when he got it again. So I went into GoldenEye with a very bad attitude. But I was surprised how well he did, expecting so little after that dopey television show he was on.

    It does make you wonder how different Goldeneye would have been with Dalton still in the role though. If Dalton had pushed and insisted on Fleming moments, maybe this would have forced the script to accommodate it as such, instead of the blank canvas reboot feeling that comes from GE with Brozza in it.

    This is what I really hope for with the next actor. Someone who goes back to the novels and insists on bringing in as much Fleming as they can, like Dalton did.

    My worst nightmare would be a young actor who ends up in the role, knows nothing of the books, and looks only at Craig's interpretation for inspiration. Then we are in for more of the same.

    X_X you just ruined my morning.... I hadn't even considered that, but it may actually be a v real possibility.
    That both EoN and the 007 successor base themselves entirely on the last 15 years going forward...

    giphy.gif

    Then again... EoN may just as well shake things up and do a 180 degree turn as in 2006, just changing the universe completely. Which I also think is likely.
    Question is - what constitutes a 180* that Babs & co. would consider commercially viable and in-keeping with the times ..?

    What are the chances of them going full out traditionalist - ie. a 007 in mid 30's, standalone missions, M and Q setup etc... I think this is very, very unlikely.

    More chance of it being a 20-something actor with high focus on the relationships to reel in the younger audiences.

    What cinematic 'trends' other than the Marvel-universe are making waves right now??!
    - this is probably what we should be looking at to discern which path EoN will follow in 2-3 yrs time


    Monochrome film has made a comeback, granted not really in blockbuster cinema, but in some pretty major films as of late, and in fact we've actually gotten a LOT of "special editions" of blockbuster films (Logan, Fury Road) that are monochrome. I doubt we'd ever get a black-and-white Bond film - I feel that would've happened at the very beginning if it had ever happened - but I also think the chances of it happening are higher than 0%.
  • KenAustinKenAustin United States
    Posts: 226
    Goldeneye, Die Another Day, Casino Royale, and Skyfall...I couldn't pick just one, these ones I feel recently really nail the Bond character.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited January 2022 Posts: 2,161
    KenAustin wrote: »
    Goldeneye, Die Another Day, Casino Royale, and Skyfall...I couldn't pick just one, these ones I feel recently really nail the Bond character.

    Thinking about this, I’d probably agree, if we’re confining this to the Modern Era. I’d most likely add QOS.
  • edited January 2022 Posts: 12,243
    OHMSS is #1. Honorable mentions: DN, FRWL, TB, FYEO, TLD, LTK, CR, QOS, NTTD.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    FoxRox wrote: »
    OHMSS is #1. Honorable mentions: DN, FRWL, TB, FYEO, TLD, CR, QOS, NTTD.

    No LTK? Shame on you!
  • Posts: 12,243
    chrisisall wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    OHMSS is #1. Honorable mentions: DN, FRWL, TB, FYEO, TLD, CR, QOS, NTTD.

    No LTK? Shame on you!

    I probably should include yes haha, good point. I don't know how that was skipped over. Fried brain from work.
Sign In or Register to comment.