›

The Old and the New - Bond's direction then and now

w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
edited November 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 2,254
The old and new was the running theme throughout Skyfall - relevance of spies, MI6, technology. Yet we had seen it all before - in Goldeneye. Back then we got a new female M, quips about the cold war and sexist dinosaurs. In 1995, Bond again proved himself. Going "back in time", 1962-1989 was pretty standard affair. We got more of the same each year, except 'bigger' and 'better' than before as they always claim. So what about now?

We get a rebooted Bond ala Batman where almost all "traditional" element were stripped. And it has taken 3 (when it was "supposed" to be 2) movies for these elements to fall into place. In Craig's 3 movies, we get 3 dramatic U-turns in terms of direction - a classy reboot with a Fleming story, an artsy style with Bond as a thug, and a psych eval like Dark Knight Rises.

So, to the younger generation and new fans, what exactly is Bond? If I had started watching Bond at Casino Royale through Skyfall and then decided to flick through the back catalogue, I would be extremely confused. Right now James Bond feels like just another franchise about a man with a taste for martinis, women and fast cars and oh, a mother called M?

The discussion is this - the merits and pitfalls of the Bond "eras" which do you prefer and why. Should Bond deliver the same formulaic thing (1962-2002) or operate "independently" like new (2006-)?

Comments

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I don't agree with the con in the new series. Almost all the traditional elements are in SF, and a lot of them were present in both CR & QOS.

    I don't agree with too much cheese in the old series. The "fun & witty" Bondmovies are in the minority and should stay that.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    w2bond wrote:
    Cons - Does not feel familiar, "Bond elements" are being redefined.

    it does not feel familiar because it's not supposed to be... and you pretty much answer your own Con.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    It feels familiar enough. Some "fans" seem to have forgotten that there are a lot of differences in the movies of the old series, which is way it has survived for so long.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited November 2012 Posts: 2,254
    HASEROT wrote:
    w2bond wrote:
    Cons - Does not feel familiar, "Bond elements" are being redefined.

    it does not feel familiar because it's not supposed to be... and you pretty much answer your own Con.

    That's the point of this discussion - would you prefer Bond to order his martini "shaken not stirred" or would you prefer Bond to just get his damn martini, or damn the bloody martini he'll drink what he bloody well wants
    JamesCraig wrote:
    It feels familiar enough. Some "fans" seem to have forgotten that there are a lot of differences in the movies of the old series, which is way it has survived for so long.

    Lots of differences yes, but it used to be very formulaic

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2012 Posts: 4,399
    w2bond wrote:
    That's the point of this discussion - would you prefer Bond to order his martini "shaken not stirred" or would you prefer Bond to just get his damn martini, or damn the bloody martini he'll drink what he bloody well wants

    it really doesnt matter to me... i am not hung up on the superficial elements of the Bond movies like a lot of fans can be... some will say, "its not a Bond movie unless he does this this this and this." ..... i think people get too hung up on those sort of things - how many times did Connery say 'Bond James Bond."? or order his "Vodka Martini, shaken not stirred."? - in From Russia With Love and Thunderball.. he does neither in neither, and those are regarded as two of the best Bond films in the entire series.
  • LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
    Posts: 204
    Yeah, he didn't even say 'Shaken, not stirred' in Skyfall - the bar girl was shaking it, and he just said 'Perfect'. It's like "Beam me up Scotty' was never actually said in Star Trek, but that's what everyone goes around saying. I guess there's a general framework of what makes a Bond movie a Bond movie - some are less integral than others and can be left out or switched around or just nodded at.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    HASEROT wrote:
    w2bond wrote:
    That's the point of this discussion - would you prefer Bond to order his martini "shaken not stirred" or would you prefer Bond to just get his damn martini, or damn the bloody martini he'll drink what he bloody well wants

    it really doesnt matter to me... i am not hung up on the superficial elements of the Bond movies like a lot of fans can be... some will say, "its not a Bond movie unless he does this this this and this." ..... i think people get too hung up on those sort of things - how many times did Connery say 'Bond James Bond."? or order his "Vodka Martini, shaken not stirred."? - in From Russia With Love and Thunderball.. he does neither in neither, and those are regarded as two of the best Bond films in the entire series.

    I think exactly in the same way @haserot, when people hang too much on these things they will only be satisfied by a Bond by numbers.
    LicenceRevoked wrote:
    Yeah, he didn't even say 'Shaken, not stirred' in Skyfall - the bar girl was shaking it, and he just said 'Perfect'. It's like "Beam me up Scotty' was never actually said in Star Trek, but that's what everyone goes around saying. I guess there's a general framework of what makes a Bond movie a Bond movie - some are less integral than others and can be left out or switched around or just nodded at.

    Exactly. Another example is "Elementary, my dear Watson" that is never said in the novels but everybody seems to be expecting every time a new Sherlock Holmes film/series comes out.
Sign In or Register to comment.