Revolution Against Bourne! Who wants classic Bond back?!!

edited June 2011 in Skyfall Posts: 669
My friends, someone has to do something about this. The franchise won't survive if they stay giving those spoiled Jason Bourne styled Bond films. Where are the classic spy films with their coolest musical moments (the Bond style guitar strings, horns and brasses) and where are those crazy but lovely gadgets? I really miss the classic Bond. The James Bond character must be based on Connery's persona (full with sense of humour and suaveness) yet with Daniel Craig's melee master skills. The films should have brought Q and Moneypenny back, with the addition of those supervillains will real purposes to dominate the world... like Auric Goldfinger, Alec Trevelyan, Emilio Largo, Dr. No, Max Zorin, Elliot Carver, Renard, Gustav Graves, Carl Stromberg... Come on, we need the classic Bond back, not this Bourne-ified character and those Bourne-ified films. Someone has to do something about this. We have to re-awake the real 007 back. Think anything that could help this idea grow up, my colleagues.
«13456789

Comments

  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 6,814
    Well, I think what we have to do now is wait to see what happens with B23. No doubt the script has developed, the new director has formulated his ideas etc. Too late for any fan pressure to have any major effects on the product.

    These Bourne-type complaints have kicked around long enough for the producers to have picked up on it, so we shall see soon enough if the complainst from fans have been heeded.
  • Posts: 669
    I hope it does as soon as possible.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 13,610
    Totally agree @JamesBond !! :-bd
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 321
    I am definitely in agreement with @JamesBond. I hope that the the producers will have taken on board comments made regarding the last 2 movies and will look at bringing us a classic feel to the next Bond film. Gadgets, Girls, Q, Moneypenny, larger than life villains and their lairs and henchmen etc. Things like these are why I fell in love with the James Bond movies in the first place.
  • I'm assuming that this is a "stir the pot" type post meant to generate debate...

    "The franchise won't survive if they stay giving those spoiled Jason Bourne styled Bond films."

    The box office figures would disagree...

    But I also don't buy into the "Bond as Bourne" argument that many people make. Over 22 films and 50 years there have been a wide range of style of "Bond films" so other than the basic concept there isn't one true "type" to return to. There's also the fact that films evolve - think of how different DAF or LALD were from DN and that was only after ten years! Or even how different YOLT was from FRWL and that was even less time! Or FYEO from MR (or MR from FRWL). I could go on and on...

    As things have to constantly change to keep up with the times and also to keep things fresh I think that whatever Bond film opens ten years from now - and yes, there will be one - will be fairly different from QOS. How different? Who knows? But James Bond will return.

    As I said in another post the Bond film is a great core concept that can have the film around it tweaked or modified in several different ways while still being Bondian. I doubt Bond would have survived if we had had 22 films that were carbon copies of the original. There has to be *some* amount of change to keep things interesting as well as keeping up with the times.
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 6,814
    I'm assuming that this is a "stir the pot" type post meant to generate debate...

    "The franchise won't survive if they stay giving those spoiled Jason Bourne styled Bond films."

    The box office figures would disagree...

    But I also don't buy into the "Bond as Bourne" argument that many people make. Over 22 films and 50 years there have been a wide range of style of "Bond films" so other than the basic concept there isn't one true "type" to return to. There's also the fact that films evolve - think of how different DAF or LALD were from DN and that was only after ten years! Or even how different YOLT was from FRWL and that was even less time! Or FYEO from MR (or MR from FRWL). I could go on and on...

    As things have to constantly change to keep up with the times and also to keep things fresh I think that whatever Bond film opens ten years from now - and yes, there will be one - will be fairly different from QOS. How different? Who knows? But James Bond will return.

    As I said in another post the Bond film is a great core concept that can have the film around it tweaked or modified in several different ways while still being Bondian. I doubt Bond would have survived if we had had 22 films that were carbon copies of the original. There has to be *some* amount of change to keep things interesting as well as keeping up with the times.
    Yes, very good points there @thelordflasheart. This has been my stance as well over the years. The problem is everyone has their own opinions about how Bond could be better, but in reality MW and BB know what they are doing. They recognise trends, they know what to tweek when a film gets criticised. It isn't to everyone's tastes of course and this Bourne thing is the latest major criticism.

    But Bond evolves, changes, reflects the trends of the day and the movie making styles.

    Change is good.
  • Posts: 669
    With due respect, my friend, I would disagree with this. I know there have been several changes in the franchise but at least we had true Bond in every one of them. We had suave Bond in every film except CR and specially QOS. I would like to say something but I'm afraid it corrupts my future in this circle of friendship.
  • Posts: 251
    Bond has survived for so long because it has moved with the times. I agree with Nic Nac, MW and BB DO know what they are doing, despite some peoples anger towards them around here.
    For me, QOS was a step to Bourne, but who knows what will come next? Bourne is old now....and it will be a big gap between Bond 22 and 23......
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,215
    at least we had true Bond in every one of them. We had suave Bond in every film except CR and specially QOS.
    Again, I would say that is more down to the "style" of the film than anything else. Many of the gambling scenes and action scenes of the last two films have been very Bond in my opinion despite a more Bourne-led style of film.

    But as already said by others, Bond moves with the times and all signs point to the series doing so again with Bond 23 - what has been dubbed "the first of a new generation of Bond films" - let's see what happens next year. Bardem himself has talked of a "different dynamic" to the upcoming film and has also mentioned "everything is more nuanced. It's very intriguing."
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 251
    Who dubbed it "the first of a new generation of Bond films" ?There wasn`t much wrong with the old generation!
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,215
    "It’s the first of a new generation of Bond films, and the ideas Mendes has push the film into darker territory where the characters are modern, mature and challenging".

    Fiennes will play a part "of extreme complexity", a "darkly complex" character, due to him as an actor having "great ability and dexterity".

    See here: http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=9242
  • Posts: 251
    Oh boy......sounding like a total " luvvie fest. I really hope they don`t go down that road.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,215
    Oh boy......sounding like a total " luvvie fest. I really hope they don`t go down that road.
    It's something different though, yet people still complain. Can't we just see what they come up with first?
  • Posts: 251
    You`re right. Lets wait and see! Mendes, Craig and Dench and Fiennes sure does sound like luvvie heaven though, you canit deny that. I dislike the Craig and Dench scenes so far for this reason. It smells of theatre, and not "cool".
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,215
    You`re right. Lets wait and see! Mendes, Craig and Dench and Fiennes sure does sound like luvvie heaven though, you canit deny that. I dislike the Craig and Dench scenes so far for this reason. It smells of theatre, and not "cool".
    Well if we can get some scenes more akin to Bond integrating Puskin, I'm all for "theatre".

    The talent of the actors involved should also give hope that this one can't really go that wrong - if the people who have been linked to the film are cast, Bond 23 may have one of the best in any Bond film, due to Mendes' involvement, who Craig wanted on board after the split reaction to Quantum Of Solace.
  • Posts: 4,622
    My friends, someone has to do something about this. The franchise won't survive if they stay giving those spoiled Jason Bourne styled Bond films. Where are the classic spy films with their coolest musical moments (the Bond style guitar strings, horns and brasses) and where are those crazy but lovely gadgets? I really miss the classic Bond. The James Bond character must be based on Connery's persona (full with sense of humour and suaveness) yet with Daniel Craig's melee master skills. The films should have brought Q and Moneypenny back, with the addition of those supervillains will real purposes to dominate the world... like Auric Goldfinger, Alec Trevelyan, Emilio Largo, Dr. No, Max Zorin, Elliot Carver, Renard, Gustav Graves, Carl Stromberg... Come on, we need the classic Bond back, not this Bourne-ified character and those Bourne-ified films. Someone has to do something about this. We have to re-awake the real 007 back. Think anything that could help this idea grow up, my colleagues.
    I feel your pain. Until this Bond starts acting like the classic Bond, we're in a whole new Bourne influenced world.

  • edited June 2011 Posts: 5,325
    I don´t understand the fear of Bourne. Bond took always in influences from current fashions, and he always moved on.
    This Bond has to go on acting like he did in the last two films. He isn´t traditional Bond, but even more so he isn´t Bourne. He has to take the basis he established so far and develop from there. Maybe in more traditional directions, which anyhow seems logical after the events in CR and QOS, but for sure it would be utterly wrong to ignore the last two films and make something completely different in the coming one.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Well we won't know until he stops his moping and his boss stops haranguing him over trust. So far we are 0 for 2 in the wonderful re-boot era.
    It would have been quite easy to re-boot without all the drama, but no we had to have two films worth of As the Bond World Turns. Please let it be over. [-O<
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    Posts: 823
    Bourne is a Wimp! Bond will kick his Bum any day every day all year long!
  • Posts: 4,622
    Bourne is a Wimp! Bond will kick his Bum any day every day all year long!
    Yep Matt Damon as Bourne is a wimp. However the real Bourne as written by Ludlum is one scary dude. Easily the most dangerous man in the world, if you read the Ludlum originals.

  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    Posts: 823
    Bourne is a Wimp! Bond will kick his Bum any day every day all year long!
    Yep Matt Damon as Bourne is a wimp. However the real Bourne as written by Ludlum is one scary dude. Easily the most dangerous man in the world, if you read the Ludlum originals.

    I like the Richard Chamberlain Jason Bourne better!

    Just his face was scary!

  • Posts: 4,622
    Chamberlain was well cast, unlike the recent films.
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 6,814
    With due respect, my friend, I would disagree with this. I know there have been several changes in the franchise but at least we had true Bond in every one of them. We had suave Bond in every film except CR and specially QOS. I would like to say something but I'm afraid it corrupts my future in this circle of friendship.
    Don't be silly, disagree all you like. We don't all see these things the same way.

    And say what you think, it won't corrupt this circle of friends (unless we start throwing insults around, which won't happen I'm sure)

    ;-)

    Ok, I'm ready for it..... >:-)
  • edited June 2011 Posts: 11,168
    My personal opinion - the series needs to lighten up A BIT.

    There is some weight to the whole "Bond becoming Bourne" argument. What has set the James Bond series apart has been its indulgence and sense of fun. The stories themselves - going right back to Ian Fleming - were written with a certain...irony and wit, not to mention a very English style. They were fantasy and, although relitively down-to-earth compared to the films, weren't OVERLY serious. The readers relished in the larger-than-life escapides the "anonymous" hero went through.

    Royale struck a pretty good balance IMO. It mixed the contemporary with the traditional - as did GE. I'll admit that I wasn't overly keen on CR when I first saw it but since then I've seen the light. Solace was a step in the wrong direction.

    That is one reason LTK is so divisive amongst fans - there is little fantasy...and I say that as someone who likes the film.

    People can say what they like about Roger Moore as Bond but most of his films were at least "fun" to watch.
  • Posts: 2,411
    well we cant do nothing now.we should wait and see i have some feeling that B23 will have some classic Bond momments
    (hm i thought i already posted this)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 13,610
    I agree with BAIN123 - it's time for the series to lighten up BIG TIME. Enough cold, colorless, lifeless, moody psychological dramas a la CR and QOS... Bring in the glamour, epic scope, grand scale, fun, humour !! Meaning : The opposite of Bourne and CR/QOS. Bring back the traditional Bond aura !!
  • Posts: 669
    I agree with BAIN123 - it's time for the series to lighten up BIG TIME. Enough cold, colorless, lifeless, moody psychological dramas a la CR and QOS... Bring in the glamour, epic scope, grand scale, fun, humour !! Meaning : The opposite of Bourne and CR/QOS. Bring back the traditional Bond aura !!
    I totally agree with you, DaltonCraig007. You know what I was talking about. This damn new Bourne sucks! I mean Bourne was cool in the first three books, but in the films and starting from the Bourne Legacy, he turned himself upside down.
  • Posts: 4,732
    I agree with JamesBond! CR and QOS were really Bourne-ified. In Bond 23, we need to see the return of Q and Moneypenny, less nagging from M, the return of epic gadgets, and the farewell to fast-motion camera movements during the action sequences. During QOS, the action isn't even enjoyable because I can't tell what's going on. Also in agreement with JamesBond, we really need better villains. Dominic Greene was an epic fail, and had absolutely nothing unusual or stand-out about him. I mean, Dr. No had his metal hands, Emilio Largo had his eyepatch, Blofeld had his disguises, Scaramanga had the Golden Gun, and Max Zorin was a psychopath. Even the ridiculous Gustav Graves had that transformation! I just hope Bond 23 returns to the classic Bond.
  • I wouldn't hold my breath for a return of classic Bond. The decision to hire Sam Mendes to direct and the whole Peter Morgan fiasco (sending out a press release before Morgan had even done a treatment), I am guessing, mean Bond 23 won't stray from the Casino Royale-Quantum of Solace path.
  • Posts: 4,732
    If we don't get Moneypenny, Q, or the classic Bond formula back, then at least give us an epic, over-the-top, eccentric villain and cut the fast-motion camera work and return to the Sean Connery style fight scenes where we actually know what's going on.
Sign In or Register to comment.