Would you rather watch a more romantic Bond film OR a more action based Bond film?

1196197198199200202»

Comments

  • I'll take an established Bond. We've already had one origin for the character with Craig's Casino Royale, and 007 - First Light is already presenting another one.
  • Posts: 2,219
    Let's go with a "this never happened to the other fellow" opening. I don't need to see a stumbling, bumbling Bond learning the ropes to eventually become head of the spy class. Young, but experienced is just fine.
  • Posts: 12,827
    "Bond is Bond" please.
  • The thing is there isn't really an origin story per se. Bond kills two chaps and gets his number, that's it. Before killing those chaps he still had a lot of experience in his job. A true origin story would mean teenage Bond, and that's a whole other story.

    Bond should never be "rookie." He may learn things (and probably should), but even if there is an "origin story" (first gadgets or first martini or whatever) we should never doubt Bond's capabilities and rarely doubt his judgement.

    What I'm trying to say is, I'd prefer Bond is Bond, but if there's an origin story, Bond should still be Bond.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,396
    Since First Light is going to be an origin story for Bond, I would prefer Bond 26 have Bond established, perhaps early in his career by 2 or 3 years but not a rookie. I would also like it if M has her or his full trust in Bond as well.
  • Posts: 16,617
    Bond is Bond. He's ageless, timeless and I don't even want to pinpoint how many years he's been a double O. He just is. The entire Craig era was a pretty much an origin story with a final conclusion.
    TBH, I'm rarely ever in the mood to watch any of those films. :(
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited August 9 Posts: 4,648
    None of the two and inspecialy not Bond origin.

    I whant a Bond save the world mission with depth and growing in being Bond. Shaken Not Stirred, Distraction for an hour or two, Role of Honour, Commander Bond, Risico.
    We know who traters are from the start. The villian takes a lot of people in his plan /falling for a lie.
    Group vibe like Quantum. No more for play/pre production, but Greene (QOS) / Maxwell Tarn (Seafire from John Gardner) and Carver, Zorin, Goldfinger is big.

    So disappointed in NTTD killing of Felix that soon, because he and Tanner should have been there on the atack on the island with suprise comeback of Paloma. In between we should have seen people who take action against Judi Dench M (court) should have Ralph Fiennes M arrest. Something that Tanner is told but deside to go a way (His way of saying No to ''When the storm arrives would you be seen with me'') and Moneypenny takes honours as M.
  • Posts: 2,308
    Bond is Bond, but with a young actor. Not one who'll be an old man by the third film.
  • Posts: 5,729
    The thing is there isn't really an origin story per se. Bond kills two chaps and gets his number, that's it. Before killing those chaps he still had a lot of experience in his job. A true origin story would mean teenage Bond, and that's a whole other story.

    Bond should never be "rookie." He may learn things (and probably should), but even if there is an "origin story" (first gadgets or first martini or whatever) we should never doubt Bond's capabilities and rarely doubt his judgement.

    What I'm trying to say is, I'd prefer Bond is Bond, but if there's an origin story, Bond should still be Bond.

    Yeah, agreed with all this.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 9 Posts: 18,774
    I don't think there's anything wrong with doubting Bond's capabilities or judgement; he's a character, not a flawless superhero. He's always got things wrong here and there, trusted the wrong person, got bonked on the head; in LTK he messes up a big undercover op, for example. What makes Bond Bond is that he almost never doubts himself.
    I'm not desperate to see him as a rookie per se, but that doesn't mean that we can't see him put into a new situation and change from there.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,285
    Definitely Bond is an established agent. I'd only be interested in an origin story if at some point in the future they decide to do them all as period pieces set from the 1920s through the 1960s.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited August 10 Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    Honestly, I lean towards origin. Or some version of origin; there is no 'bitten by a radioactive spider' established origin for Bond, so I think it's fine to get a new version in some way or form. It's a story, I'm happy to see the characters come together and meet and progress over time. Lots of fans say they don't want an origin, and yet there's been such a positive reception to the First Light trailer. And before that, Forever And A Day went down well too. If it's a new Bond, let's have a beginning for him I say.

    How about a bit of both, a variation that kicks off with Bond being Bond, but also construct the story in such a way as to later include flashback sequences that are both relevant to the current mission and yet also serve to reveal the new Bond's backstory / origin (a la Godfather 2 / The Shawshank Redemption / The Usual Suspects / Memento)

    It's a technique which I think might have helped to make SP, with it's Brofeld theme, work better as a story.

    I think the audience will be impatient for an immediate "fix" of the new Bond, after 6 or 7 years of cold turkey, and rather not have to wait through an hour or so of origin story build up at the front end.

    But having got that "at long last" / reunion release of emotion out of the way, then could be the time delve into what the what makes the new Bond tick?
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 737
    The thing is there isn't really an origin story per se. Bond kills two chaps and gets his number, that's it. Before killing those chaps he still had a lot of experience in his job. A true origin story would mean teenage Bond, and that's a whole other story.

    Bond should never be "rookie." He may learn things (and probably should), but even if there is an "origin story" (first gadgets or first martini or whatever) we should never doubt Bond's capabilities and rarely doubt his judgement.

    What I'm trying to say is, I'd prefer Bond is Bond, but if there's an origin story, Bond should still be Bond.

    That's right, killing two people in monochrome hardly makes CR an "origin story"

    CR the book was an "introduction" to the character, not an "origin story"

    In both cases Bond is already a secret agent when the story begins and it is not explained why he became one
  • Two or 3 years in would be ideal. I feel like OHMSS did a good job of having a younger actor play a Bond who did feel young, but was also experienced, mature and didn’t come off as a rookie. Obviously I’d like a better actor and wouldn’t want to repeat the story beats of OHMSS so soon after SP and NTTD, but they vibe would be great.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,032
    Sorry if my use of an origin story is confusing things. I meant that we see Bond become Bond. Not that we see his parents death, how he was raised by an Aunt, etc. Rather that he is newly promoted and a rookie double-o.

    Connery taking the role back in 62 I can't think of a time where he was portrayed as a rookie. Though he did throw up after the spider attack, and when Honey confides to being nervous at the end, he shares he is too. But there was nothing overt in saying he was a rookie. Until Craig we never saw him take the double-o-7 number, deal with being a new agent, etc.

    I do think there is more to mine if they go in that direction. Though I wonder with Denis calling out the Connery films in his Press Release I have wondered if they will go the Connery route and not do anything overt to say he's a new double-o agent.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,731
    Very very very much a Bond is Bond. I'm absolutely 100% against a Bond Begins. One of the few things I did not like about CR was the Bond Begins angle, I don't need Bond's path before the current mission being spelled out to the detail, I like 007 to be somewhat of a mystery. Moreover, origin stories are too 'general audience'-appeal. I wish they left Bond's beginnings in obscurity.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited 3:16pm Posts: 6,032
    Excellent points raised for both. I am more of a traditionalist and hope we get something like DN in terms of Bond character. An agent with confidence who is used to the dangers of the job with some slight humanity.

    On to another question this one more general in nature.

    Would you rather watch a more romantic Bond movie OR a more adventurous Bond movie?

    I think back to the series and we have some great films where our man is in love or at least the romance is played up. I think of FRWL, TLD, OHMSS, and perhaps CR. The story dictates romance either due to the story or the time the film was released.

    Then we have the more action heavy films where the romance is not front and centre. I think of TND, QOS, GE, FYEO, LALD, GF. These films still feature lovely ladies aiding Bond but their romance doesn't feed into the story.

    If you have a choice are you throwing in a more romantic Bond film or one that downplays the romance but brings on the action.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited 4:09pm Posts: 4,083
    Actually, you could include TWINE in the romance section.

    Well, the romance bit was overplayed too much in SP and NTTD, it's time to give that a rest, the thing with romance in the last two films are a rehash of the Classic Bond romances (the train scene in CR, Madeleine challenging Bond's beliefs as how Natalya did to Bond, and their relationship which was very OHMSS).

    Even the casual audiences for sure got tired of Bond falling in love (I know it happened in Fleming Books many times, but film is a different medium, it's not just meant for us who accept the character's emotions, it's meant to be watched by the people who haven't read the books).

    I think they've overplayed it in the last two films, and it's time for a fresh air, so Adventurous Bond Movie, a good thing for the introduction of the New James Bond.

    Like the common hopes: Stop the personal dramas a bit, and have Bond be fun and focus on the mission again, the next Bond needs to break from the Craig Era.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,320
    I'm definitely here for a big adventure, but a little romance along the way always enhances it. A Bond film, to me, should elicit the feeling of a holiday romance.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,032
    I was tempted to put TWINE into the romance category but then decided against it as that film seems to be polarizing around here. I hadn't even considered SP to fit romance as to me it was done without care in the script.
  • Posts: 12,827
    More adventurous / action-packed. Between Vesper and Madeleine, the Craig era leaned hard into the romance angle, and I'd like for Bond to go an era without a super serious love interest again like Connery or Moore.
Sign In or Register to comment.