Future of Bond movies: Optimistic or Pessimistic?

13

Comments

  • Posts: 686

    Yes. Especially since Bond is in his mid to 30s in Moonraker.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Fun (and related) bonus quiz: CR is one of only two Bond novels in which Bond doesn't kill someone. Can anyone name the other?
    It's got to be Thunderball!?

  • RecipeRecipe Banned
    Posts: 56
    Bond knife the diver in Thunderball. I suspect Moonraker. But does Bond set the gyros to oblitertrate Drax or is it Gala? I can't remember I was in a real rush when I read it.

    I posted this earlier today but it was deleted.

    I ask also: what book has Bond's highest body count? Hard to say I think he blow up some places and kills multiple people so how do one measure that? Come on now
  • Posts: 14,867
    Wasn't the diver killed by the barracuda? Bond kills indirectly in MR.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 686
    I am not sure how you define "kills indirectly". Is that answer? It would have to be MR or OHMSS. I remember getting caught up in the snowplow.
  • Posts: 14,867
    Perdogg wrote:
    I am not sure how you define "kills indirectly". Is that answer? It would have to be MR or OHMSS. I remember getting caught up in the snowplow.

    I mean he sends Drax and his whole crew to their death in MR.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Ludovico wrote:
    I mean he sends Drax and his whole crew to their death in MR.
    That's what I was thinking. By process of elimination, TB seemed to be the only film in which I couldn't readily conjure up a confirmed kill.
    However it could indeed be MR that @SirJames had in mind, as maybe Bond did take out a diver during underwater fighting in TB, while MR destruction of the sub occupants is considered an indirect kill.
    I await Sir James verdict being too lazy right now, to flip through the TB underwater battle scenes. :)
    re OHMSS, I could swear Bond took out at least one of Blofeld's pursuers in the escape from Piz Gloria, towards the end of the run, as he's exhausted and nearing the finish.

  • edited July 2013 Posts: 388
    Perdogg wrote:

    According to Goldfinger, CR takes place in 1951 (Goldfinger, p.19 FEL - Gildrose). The Japanese Cypher clerks could not have been in the US after 12/41. Bond has been an Double-O at least 9 years. I believe it was Moonraker.
    The problem with that is that we'd have to believe that Bond was a Double O for a decade before killing anyone (his next kill is in LALD which is set the February after CR.) I think it's far easier to believe that the Japanese cypher clerk was operating undercover in the late 40s.
    Ludovico wrote:
    And in YOLT didn't we learn that Bond joined the army during WWII at 17 by lying on his birth certificate? That would make him 27 during the events of CR. And didn't he join the secret services after the war? In any case, Fleming has been imprecise about specific dates in Bond's background.
    The problem is that the few times Fleming chooses to be precise, he contradicts himself. Bond is only 17 when he signs up for the service during the war but he buys his first Bentley in 1933
    timmer wrote:
    Fun (and related) bonus quiz: CR is one of only two Bond novels in which Bond doesn't kill someone. Can anyone name the other?
    It's got to be Thunderball!?
    Yup! That's the one. Bond has an underwater fight with one of the SPECTRE frogmen when he's casing the Disco Volante but the frogman is killed by a barracuda. He later manages to shoot another SPECTRE frogman and rip off his mask during the climactic underwater battle but the frogman swims for the surface and presumably survives.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Thanks @SirJames
    That is a useful piece of Bond trivia: CR and TB being the only two Fleming novels minus a confirmed kill by the featured double-0 agent.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 686
    think it's far easier to believe that the Japanese cypher clerk was operating undercover in the late 40s.


    How so and for whom? The war ended in 1945. There would have been no Japanese Diplomatic personnel in the US after Dec of 1941. The killing in Stockholm was after that. So We have two people killed long after the war was over.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Perdogg wrote:
    We have gone through 3 Bond movies with Craig and we still no absolutely nothing about Bond, other than some cherry picked backstory taken from the novel to make it look liked it was based on the novels. We don’t know for what Bond believes or stands. Why is he in the Double-O program?

    Bond has not enunciated any belief system, probably because either EON does not care about the character development or they feel that Craig is not credible enough to articulate any idea about Bond. Today, what is special about Bond other than his name? He is bland, sexless, and quite boring. Why would I want to be Bond – for his clothes and expensive car, so I can get beaten up and then kill someone? Kim Kardashian has expensive things, I don’t want to be Kim Kardashian.

    Taken the most outlandish Moore-Bond movie, this is not about Moore versus Craig or Dalton versus Craig, Moonraker. I am not interested in telling people that Moonraker was Fleming based, but if you remove all of the special effects – the story is essentially the same. It is about Good versus Evil. And Cubby was proud of this. Moore could articulate without killing someone what being good meant. We knew that Hugo Drax was evil. Did it get too comical – of course it! This was movie making. When you plopped down $3.00 to see a Bond movie in 1979, you knew who Bond was and why you were going.

    Moore could utter lines and Cubby was comfortable giving him lines other than an occasional grunt. Who is Craig-Bond?? Is he Batman or is he Bourne?? Is he Frank Martin? What am I paying for?? If I want to see a mishmash of MI and Transporter and Batman, I will go see those movies. If I want to see people in fancy clothes I don't need to go to the films to see them.

    Bond was also a man. He wanted women and was not ashamed of it. Bond liked to smoke and drink and gamble and was not ashamed of it. We got most of these qualities from Bronson-Bond in Goldeneye, not so much in Die Another Day.


    Yes, must be a troll b/c all the points here are 100% wrong. Craig is the most human of all the Bonds we've had and the best incarnation of what Fleming intended.
  • Posts: 140
    Didn't you say exactly the same thing a couple of pages back?

    Yes, Perdogg must be a troll because he obviously cares about the films and knows his stuff.

    What a site!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Grant wrote:
    Didn't you say exactly the same thing a couple of pages back?

    Yes, Perdogg must be a troll because he obviously cares about the films and knows his stuff.

    What a site!

    Not sure I can stretch to that.

    Shame I seem to have missed this first time round as I was on holiday. I would love to have refuted Perdogg's increasingly tedious and ill thought out rants against the Craig era (in addition to his even more tedious overuse of the word 'Manichean' - we get it you can read a dictionary) but its just too overwhelming as theres far too much material to know where to start.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,351
    Shame I seem to have missed this first time round as I was on holiday.

    It's all on page one and two of this thread, Wiz.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    edited September 2013 Posts: 403
    Not sure how SF was "formulaic"...
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    edited September 2013 Posts: 403
    Perdogg wrote:
    We have gone through 3 Bond movies with Craig and we still no absolutely nothing about Bond, other than some cherry picked backstory taken from the novel to make it look liked it was based on the novels. We don’t know for what Bond believes or stands. Why is he in the Double-O program?

    Bond has not enunciated any belief system, probably because either EON does not care about the character development or they feel that Craig is not credible enough to articulate any idea about Bond. Today, what is special about Bond other than his name? He is bland, sexless, and quite boring. Why would I want to be Bond – for his clothes and expensive car, so I can get beaten up and then kill someone? Kim Kardashian has expensive things, I don’t want to be Kim Kardashian.

    Taken the most outlandish Moore-Bond movie, this is not about Moore versus Craig or Dalton versus Craig, Moonraker. I am not interested in telling people that Moonraker was Fleming based, but if you remove all of the special effects – the story is essentially the same. It is about Good versus Evil. And Cubby was proud of this. Moore could articulate without killing someone what being good meant. We knew that Hugo Drax was evil. Did it get too comical – of course it! This was movie making. When you plopped down $3.00 to see a Bond movie in 1979, you knew who Bond was and why you were going.

    Moore could utter lines and Cubby was comfortable giving him lines other than an occasional grunt. Who is Craig-Bond?? Is he Batman or is he Bourne?? Is he Frank Martin? What am I paying for?? If I want to see a mishmash of MI and Transporter and Batman, I will go see those movies. If I want to see people in fancy clothes I don't need to go to the films to see them.

    Bond was also a man. He wanted women and was not ashamed of it. Bond liked to smoke and drink and gamble and was not ashamed of it. We got most of these qualities from Bronson-Bond in Goldeneye, not so much in Die Another Day.

    I don't even know where to start with this post...

    How exactly does MR flesh out the Bond character? I like Moore a lot, but he plays a complete caricature in that film and there is no hint of Bond being anything but a cardboard cutout in the film zipping from one action scene or locale top the next.

    I wouldn't want to be James Bond. He is a conflicted killer who has nice things on the outside but is still in a morally decisive profession. Craig is James Bond perhaps even more than Moore or Brosnan ever were. Craig isn't a rabbit sleeping with whatever moves, but more in key with Fleming's bastard womanizer who is morally questionable, but clearly good and just so charming.

    I'm overall optimistic and can't wait to see what they do with B24.
  • I got to be pessimistic about the future (of Bond) if being honest

    Craig is a very good Bond doubtless, best since Dalton, although that really isn't saying much, but in recent years things have got progressively out of hand with regards to more elaborate stunts, "Bond becoming more super-human or indestructable", and ridiculous set pieces that makes Moore's Saint Marks Square sequence in 1979, seem acceptable in comparison. Not only that, but there is constant talk of having a colored Bond at a future point in time, and maybe even having a female Bond of all things

    While we accept the latter is doomed to faliure, I can actually see the other occuring sooner or later. It's nothing racist of course, it's just that 99.9 per cent of people would never wish for such a thing, and I hope it never sees the light of day, but fearful sometimes this may actually occur. Add to that, there is talk also of having an american Bond, and sincerely hope commonsense prevails and they stick with how Bond should always be - portrayed by a British actor

    Craig can't go on forever. Will be a pity when he steps down, as he's done hitherto, a very good job of things, but I fear they could be looking at some kid to replace him, in that bringing in someone that was Lazenbys age in '69 to take over. Craig was a good debutant at 38 years of age in 2006 and don't think they should be looking for anyone younger

    We've moved on a great deal from the 'sensible' days of Bond when 007 would simply have a few gadgets at his disposal or use his greater cunning to overcome obstacles, whereas today it's all bangs and crashes and elaborate action 'Bourne' type sequences, getting progressively more absurd with each passing release. Maybe I'm more in favor of how Bond used to be, and simply don't recognize all that occurs now, but do have doubts about the future of the series sometimes
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    We've moved on a great deal from the 'sensible' days of Bond when 007 would simply have a few gadgets at his disposal or use his greater cunning to overcome obstacles, whereas today it's all bangs and crashes and elaborate action 'Bourne' type sequences, getting progressively more absurd with each passing release.
    How else is Bond to compete with the likes of Spider-man & Batman? By telling a good story & backing it up with nearly-but-not-quite OTT action?
    Please. Those days are done.
    Besides, Bond has a history of escalation.
    This is just escalation in the 21st Century.

    I miss the old days.
  • I fail to recognize Batman in any capacity

    Just of an age when I appreciated when Bond was sensible. No thrills, just got on with the job and it was a very decent strory with it. I think Bond today caters for the popcorn and soda army. Just sit back in your seat, and it doesn't matter how ridiculous it appears. All about age perspective I guess. Goodnight
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I got to be pessimistic about the future (of Bond) if being honest

    Craig is a very good Bond doubtless, best since Dalton, although that really isn't saying much, but in recent years things have got progressively out of hand with regards to more elaborate stunts, "Bond becoming more super-human or indestructable", and ridiculous set pieces that makes Moore's Saint Marks Square sequence in 1979, seem acceptable in comparison. Not only that, but there is constant talk of having a colored Bond at a future point in time, and maybe even having a female Bond of all things

    While we accept the latter is doomed to faliure, I can actually see the other occuring sooner or later. It's nothing racist of course, it's just that 99.9 per cent of people would never wish for such a thing, and I hope it never sees the light of day, but fearful sometimes this may actually occur. Add to that, there is talk also of having an american Bond, and sincerely hope commonsense prevails and they stick with how Bond should always be - portrayed by a British actor

    Craig can't go on forever. Will be a pity when he steps down, as he's done hitherto, a very good job of things, but I fear they could be looking at some kid to replace him, in that bringing in someone that was Lazenbys age in '69 to take over. Craig was a good debutant at 38 years of age in 2006 and don't think they should be looking for anyone younger

    We've moved on a great deal from the 'sensible' days of Bond when 007 would simply have a few gadgets at his disposal or use his greater cunning to overcome obstacles, whereas today it's all bangs and crashes and elaborate action 'Bourne' type sequences, getting progressively more absurd with each passing release. Maybe I'm more in favor of how Bond used to be, and simply don't recognize all that occurs now, but do have doubts about the future of the series sometimes

    Are you Perdogg in disguise?

    The Craig era really is awful isn't it? Pissing all over the legacy of the previous 40 odd years of small scale dramatic films with its 'elaborate stunts' and 'ridiculous set pieces'. I too yearn for the days of YOLT and TSWLM when Bond films were altogether more cerebral and bereft of any such frivolous annoyances.

    I'm also rather intrigued as to who it is doing all this 'constant talk' of black/female/gay/insert-your-own-minority-du-jour Bond as I haven't heard anything emanating from EON. Are you confusing the wittering of idiot fanboys on forums such as this and the gutter press with people who actually have any input into the direction the films should take?
    I fail to recognize Batman in any capacity

    Just of an age when I appreciated when Bond was sensible. No thrills, just got on with the job and it was a very decent strory with it. I think Bond today caters for the popcorn and soda army. Just sit back in your seat, and it doesn't matter how ridiculous it appears. All about age perspective I guess. Goodnight

    So apparently the Craig era is 'ridiculous' but a guy with a deadly hat trying to rob Fort Knox, jetpacks, hollowed out volcanoes, laser weapons in space, cars that turn into submarines, pitched space battles, more laser weapons in space and invisible cars are from a more 'sensible' era are they?

    Do the double take pigeon, Blofeld in drag and the slide whistle from TMWTGG also originate from this halcyon 'sensible' era when Bond films were intellectual indie movies for the arty crowd rather than the current 'soda and popcorn' blockbuster dross for the masses?

    I have to take my hat off to you - to have one post more ridiculous and bereft of logic than one of Perdogg's might be seen as unfortunate. To have two seems like insanity.
  • edited September 2013 Posts: 615
    IIRC, isn't Perdogg a fan of Sax Rohmer's Fu-Manchu books?

    First let me say that I'm a "Fu Fan", too. (Just finished reading #6, The Bride of Fu-Manchu. Great stuff.)

    Perdogg should consider this... There is more "character development" for Bond in, oh, any random twenty minutes' worth of Craig as 007 (in any of his three films to date) than Rohmer provides for his hero Commissioner Sir Denis Nayland-Smith over the course of six bloody novels!

    Nayland-Smith is a patriot, a decisive man of action, wise in the ways of the Orient and North Africa, who values honor, with the capacity to respect his enemies while at the same time relentlessly striving to track them down and stop them. He smokes a pipe incessantly, paces furiously while thinking, and has a habit of absent-mindedly tugging on his earlobe.

    THAT IS IT. NO OTHER CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER OVER THE SPAN OF SIX BOOKS (SO FAR).

    BTW... I am personally optimistic about the direction of the Bond Film franchise.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,335
    I'm very optimistic for the future of Bond.
  • edited September 2013 Posts: 97
    I'm also optimistic for Bond's future. In fact, most people agree that Craig's Bond movies are more sensible without the campiness and gadgetry of Moore and Brosnan. The Post-Craig movies will adopt the better part of the future ways of movie-making. Did people watching Dr. No imagine Mendes' beautiful technique in a Bond movie? What I don't get is the supposed lack of character development in Craig's Bond.

    Casino Royale: Newly promoted 00 who is naive, arrogant and reckless. He thought eliminating one bomb maker is significant, and beating Le Chiffre in a card game is a walk in the park . Add the fact that sore loser Bond tried to murder Le Chiffre with a dinner knife. He realized how complicated and dangerous spying is when Le Chiffre pounded his balls. Add the fact that he was betrayed by Vesper, a woman to whom he was willing to commit; the point we see the mistrustful Bond.

    QoS: Bond is vengeful, hurt and murder-happy, which is pretty logical considering what happened with Vesper in CR. He showed restraint when he didn't shoot Yussef, the honeypot, in the end so that he could be questioned. I guess. in the end of the movie, we saw a glimpse of Bond capable of judging dispassionately who is a far cry from that one in CR.

    Skyfall: I think we see a more mature Bond. In Shanghai, instead of letting Patrice just fall down, he held in a blackmailing way and asked him: "who are you working for?" Patrice decided to commit suicide so that he didn't have to answer Bond's question. It was M screwing up: she didn't trust Bond's ability while 007 was fighting on the train in Turkey. in the opening sequence, Bond showed professionalism when he abandoned the plan to give the shot agent first aid on M's order.

  • I'm fairly optimistic, in theory the next DC film should make a ton of money and then it will be interesting to see what happens with whoever becomes the next Bond and which direction they wish to take the character.

    I just wonder with all the talk about how wonderful the last few films have been, I ask the question would films like this be succesful without the Bond name and the history of outlandish plots that have laid the groundwork for 50 years?

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited September 2013 Posts: 17,698
    So apparently the Craig era is 'ridiculous' but a guy with a deadly hat trying to rob Fort Knox, jetpacks, hollowed out volcanoes, laser weapons in space, cars that turn into submarines, pitched space battles, more laser weapons in space and invisible cars are from a more 'sensible' era are they?
    I can't speak for Baltimore, but for ME, I'd rather see a human Bond in a ridiculous situation than a more super-human Bond in a more normal one.
    One thing that immediately turned me off during The Bourne Identity back in 2002 was how they ignored what is humanly possible in favour of near-super heroics. Then, BAM! Five months later I got to see it all again in DAD. Yes, the invisible car bugs the Hell out of me, but Jinx taking a backwards 200ft dive into unknown water depth? Bond swimming in ice-cold water for minutes and
    not suffering hydrothermia when emerging? Beaten/poisoned for months but a shave & a haircut makes it all better again? These things make the invisible car simple to swallow IMO.
    Then BAM! We get more in CR, even MORE in SF.

    I miss the days when Bond could feel a bullet graze in his ankle, making him limp a little....
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    chrisisall wrote:
    So apparently the Craig era is 'ridiculous' but a guy with a deadly hat trying to rob Fort Knox, jetpacks, hollowed out volcanoes, laser weapons in space, cars that turn into submarines, pitched space battles, more laser weapons in space and invisible cars are from a more 'sensible' era are they?
    I can't speak for Baltimore, but for ME, I'd rather see a human Bond in a ridiculous situation than a more super-human Bond in a more normal one.
    One thing that immediately turned me off during The Bourne Identity back in 2002 was how they ignored what is humanly possible in favour of near-super heroics. Then, BAM! Five months later I got to see it all again in DAD. Yes, the invisible car bugs the Hell out of me, but Jinx taking a backwards 200ft dive into unknown water depth? Bond swimming in ice-cold water for minutes and
    not suffering hydrothermal when emerging? Beaten/poisoned for months but a shave & a haircut makes it all better again? These things make the invisible car simple to swallow IMO.
    Then BAM! We get more in CR, even MORE in SF.

    I miss the days when Bond could feel a bullet graze in his ankle, making him limp a little....

    Did you miss the bits where BAM! Bond gets his face smashed in in the stairwell fight? Or BAM! Gets his bollocks pulped and spends weeks in hospital? Or BAM! Gets his arm sliced by Slate? Or BAM! Gets shot in SF?
    (Although I'll give you the bridge fall which is, if not impossible, then highly improbable to survive).

    Craig bleeds more than all the other Bonds put together in CR alone (and yes I'm including Sean's nasty nick on the ankle there).

    And for your passing information:
    1. The word you are presumably flailing for is hypothermia.
    2. Graves diamond mine takes advantage of Iceland's geothermal springs so Bond actually emerges in water that is as warm as a jacuzzi. 1 minute in ice cold water does not give you hypothermia.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    Did you miss the bits where BAM! Bond gets his face smashed in in the stairwell fight? Or BAM! Gets his bollocks pulped and spends weeks in hospital? Or BAM! Gets his arm sliced by Slate? Or BAM! Gets shot in SF?
    Yes, bleeding & pain is good, but for all that he's rather unstoppable as well. If instead of following the parkour dude all the way in CR (crashing through the dry wall was absolutely inspired though, good show there!) over the crane & back down to a roof, I'd have liked Bond to get to the top, give that "Oh, Hell NO!" look and simply shoot the guy in the leg, slowing him down enough to catch him or something. Not only funny, but it would have made him less Daredevil & more accessible for US, the audience that sometimes prefer to see Bond as occasionally doing things we could/would not, as opposed to him being someone who's nearly every move is well beyond our (or many Olympic athlete's) abilities, that's all.
    1. The word you are presumably flailing for is hypothermia.
    Thank you, I tend to type too fast.
    1 minute in ice cold water does not give you hypothermia.
    Have YOU ever spent 60 seconds in ice cold water? I have. You can DIE from cold shock in 2 minutes; one is enough to make your fingers numb... did he have gloves on? I don't remember...
    I might have to give it to you on that one, then.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    chrisisall wrote:
    Did you miss the bits where BAM! Bond gets his face smashed in in the stairwell fight? Or BAM! Gets his bollocks pulped and spends weeks in hospital? Or BAM! Gets his arm sliced by Slate? Or BAM! Gets shot in SF?
    Yes, bleeding & pain is good, but for all that he's rather unstoppable as well. If instead of following the parkour dude all the way in CR (crashing through the dry wall was absolutely inspired though, good show there!) over the crane & back down to a roof, I'd have liked Bond to get to the top, give that "Oh, Hell NO!" look and simply shoot the guy in the leg, slowing him down enough to catch him or something. Not only funny, but it would have made him less Daredevil & more accessible for US, the audience that sometimes prefer to see Bond as occasionally doing things we could/would not, as opposed to him being someone who's nearly every move is well beyond our (or many Olympic athlete's) abilities, that's all.

    Good point. This is certainly the key criteria I look for in a Bond film.
    chrisisall wrote:
    Have YOU ever spent 60 seconds in ice cold water? I have. You can DIE from cold shock in 2 minutes; one is enough to make your fingers numb... did he have gloves on? I don't remember...
    I might have to give it to you on that one, then.

    Only about 20 seconds alas and its not fun. I suppose the key question is where the geothermal water blends into the cold water. Obviously where he goes in must be cold given he cuts through 6 inches of ice. I have to say its a tad risky because if he cant find his way into the warm water after a minute he will indeed die.
    The whole thing is a bit suspect as if he can swim into the hot water stream so easily why does it only emerge inside the dome. Why doesnt it mix with the cold water and melt the ice lake?

    But hey this is DAD. Accurate depiction of fluid dynamics is pretty low down my list of gripes.
  • I was gonna say to both @chrisisall and @TheWiz that I really don't think that's the aspect of DAD you should be focusing on! ;-)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,698
    But hey this is DAD. Accurate depiction of fluid dynamics is pretty low down my list of gripes.

    Bwahahahaha! :))
Sign In or Register to comment.