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

1234579

Comments

  • edited November 2016 Posts: 11,189
    You must be about my age @tanaka123. I became a fan during the Brosnan era too and have always regarded GoldenEye as a personal favourite, eventhough now it is showing its age a bit. Nonetheless, that was undoubtedly a defining film in my youth and I'm not exaggerating when I say I saw it hundreds of times.

    I remember enjoying DAD at the time when I was 17. But even then I remember the special effects being crap.

    The thing with the Brosnan era is that you get the sense the films were targeted mainly towards people in the impressionable teenage market like myself. Money quickly became the driving factor rather than quality.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    That's because DAD foolishly tried to compete with the xXx movie, hence all that wave-surfing rubbish. Bond shouldn't have lowered it's standards to compete with Vin Diesel.

    However, yes, Bourne 1 and 2 embarrassed and I dare say immasculated what Bond had become at the time, forcing EoN to be influenced by and take cues from Bourne (there's no shame in that) and regain credibility haemorrhage from the Brosnan era. By the 3rd film, Bourne had unquestionably cemented itself as an authentic and legitimate spy thriller that maintained a level of excellent consistency which Bond unfortunately wasn't able to sustainable after CR; but in any case Bond never should have degraded itself to be competing with xXx in the first place.
  • To be fair to Die Another Day, it is leagues better than shite like xXx.

    I've developed a fondness for DAD. At the time it did seem fairly modern in the sense that it was definitely a dumb early 00s action film. Bond always follows trends, this was nothing new. The problem was that this trend died on its arse relatively quickly with Bourne, Batman Begins, etc.

    Anyway I used to despise it but over time I've started to enjoy it. It's definitely Roger Moore by way of The Fast and The Furious, but I do think it's important to take each Bond film for what it is rather than what it could have been. And once you get past the missed potential and dodgy CGI, what you're left with is a big, stupid but fun action film with some laugh out loud bad lines/scenes and a couple of genuinely great moments. It's colourful, well paced, Brosnan is on top form, and the action scenes that don't use an excessive amount of CGI are energetic and well directed. And the crap bits give it a certain charm. You can enjoy groaning at the cringey one liners and laughing at the tsunami surfing bit. It's one of the most fun, easily watchable Bond films imo, and I'd rather watch something stupid but highly enjoyable like this than something dull and forgettable.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    To be fair to Die Another Day, it is leagues better than shite like xXx.

    I've developed a fondness for DAD. At the time it did seem fairly modern in the sense that it was definitely a dumb early 00s action film. Bond always follows trends, this was nothing new. The problem was that this trend died on its arse relatively quickly with Bourne, Batman Begins, etc.

    Anyway I used to despise it but over time I've started to enjoy it. It's definitely Roger Moore by way of The Fast and The Furious, but I do think it's important to take each Bond film for what it is rather than what it could have been. And once you get past the missed potential and dodgy CGI, what you're left with is a big, stupid but fun action film with some laugh out loud bad lines/scenes and a couple of genuinely great moments. It's colourful, well paced, Brosnan is on top form, and the action scenes that don't use an excessive amount of CGI are energetic and well directed. And the crap bits give it a certain charm. You can enjoy groaning at the cringey one liners and laughing at the tsunami surfing bit. It's one of the most fun, easily watchable Bond films imo, and I'd rather watch something stupid but highly enjoyable like this than something dull and forgettable.

    +1, bang on.

    Bourne certainly gave Bond a kick up the arse but as the last Damon film proved, no franchise has legs like Bond does. Same goes for xXx, obviously!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    To be fair to Die Another Day, it is leagues better than shite like xXx.

    I've developed a fondness for DAD. At the time it did seem fairly modern in the sense that it was definitely a dumb early 00s action film. Bond always follows trends, this was nothing new. The problem was that this trend died on its arse relatively quickly with Bourne, Batman Begins, etc.

    Anyway I used to despise it but over time I've started to enjoy it. It's definitely Roger Moore by way of The Fast and The Furious, but I do think it's important to take each Bond film for what it is rather than what it could have been. And once you get past the missed potential and dodgy CGI, what you're left with is a big, stupid but fun action film with some laugh out loud bad lines/scenes and a couple of genuinely great moments. It's colourful, well paced, Brosnan is on top form, and the action scenes that don't use an excessive amount of CGI are energetic and well directed. And the crap bits give it a certain charm. You can enjoy groaning at the cringey one liners and laughing at the tsunami surfing bit. It's one of the most fun, easily watchable Bond films imo, and I'd rather watch something stupid but highly enjoyable like this than something dull and forgettable.
    Well said, sir!
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    Murdock wrote: »
    I just want a non dour Bond film where his superiors aren't questioning his trust every 5 minutes and villains that don't know who the hell Bond is and don't care about who he is and just want him dead for mucking up the works. That's classic Bond.

    The problem with a long series like this is that most of what we don't want in the modern era is probably present in the original era as well.
    LTK is the dourest of them all with M positively turning purple with indignation at Bond's actions.

    Everyone knew who Bond was in the old days. Even two bit smugglers like Tiffany Case knew who Bond was.
  • Posts: 11,189
    In the very first scene featuring Bond, he introduces himself using his real name in a crowded room of strangers.
  • Posts: 4,325
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    In the very first scene featuring Bond, he introduces himself using his real name in a crowded room of strangers.

    And this guy gets hired by MI6?!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Not me. All that stuff undercuts the films. None of the camp 007 films are any good. The camp really demeans the character, in my opinion. No more silliness, please.

    I like a bit a humour or suave one liners. But i agree the films in the spirit of Fleming are indeed the best ones.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Classic Bond for me is any kind of riffing on any of the first 6 films.
    Work with these templates and you can't go wrong
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    timmer wrote: »
    Classic Bond for me is any kind of riffing on any of the first 6 films.
    Work with these templates and you can't go wrong

    Bingo.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    Classic Bond for me is any kind of riffing on any of the first 6 films.
    Work with these templates and you can't go wrong

    Bingo.
    it's true. The trick is to do it in a way that's not obvious and tired.

    That becomes increasingly difficult as the series goes on because we've pretty much seen it all. What worked during Moore's turn for example, which borrowed from Connery but modified for his different temperament and style, likely won't work now unless it's tweaked sufficiently to differ from both Moore and Connery.

    Having said that, CR proved that it can be done. That film captured the essence of 60's Bond in many areas although it was a bit heavy in places. If they could fit the kind of quality characterizations that were in CR into a more traditional template, I think they'll have a sure fire winner. It just needs some enthused creative minds behind the wheel.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I fail to see any connection between the 60s era Bond films and CR, to be honest. CR is its own thing that was something completely new to the franchise.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I felt a return to 60's Bond in the characters. There was something refreshingly 'real' about the screenplay too. It felt genuine and not copied. Honest. Sort of like how Batman Begins felt genuine in comparison to some of the earlier films. Perhaps it was the removal of the tropes or how they poked fun at them. Perhaps it was the quality of the acting. Perhaps it was the glamour and style/elegance of it. Not sure.

    I'm not a fan of the last act (a bit of a downer - and I realize it's modified canon and all) but until then, it definitely has a vintage flavour to me.

    As I said, they'd have to fit that kind of rich characterization into a traditional template for it to work. It can be done. I just don't think they did it with SP (it felt overly predictable to me), whereas others do.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    SP was entirely predictable. A remake of all the first timeline (aka "Classic") Bond films.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2016 Posts: 7,969
    I think when they reach back and snatch imagery from the original films, that's what contributes to the pastiche feeling. I like the idea of Craig in a white dinner jacket, and Bond and a train, and Bond versus a silent henchman, but throw them all into the same scene and it just seems lazy and uninspired.

    I also think they have slightly lost the knack of writing that is suitably over the top, but still believable enough that it could feasible occur in some heightened reality. That's the sweet spot that I think Fleming and many of the older films resided in. And that is what I think is missing at the moment. It's maintaining that tightrope act for a full 2hrs plus. Scaramangas island, the golden gun, NicNac are all fine. The flying car and the ninja schoolgirl twins aren't.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think when they reach back and snatch imagery from the original films, that's what contributes to the pastiche feeling. I like the idea of Craig in a white dinner jacket, and Bond and a train, and Bond versus a silent henchman, but throw them all into the same scene and it just seems lazy and uninspired.

    I also think they have slightly lost the knack of writing that is suitably over the top, but still believable enough that it could feasible occur in some heightened reality. That's the sweet spot that I think Fleming and many of the older films resided in. And that is what I think is missing at the moment. It's maintaining that tightrope act for a full 2hrs plus. Scaramangas island, the golden gun, NicNac are all fine. The flying car and the ninja schoolgirl twins aren't.
    Well said and agreed.
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 533
    What exactly is "classic" Bond? If you are talking about the movies from the 1960s, I have mixed feelings about them. Just as I have mixed feelings about the Bond films from each decade.

    I hate it when people start proclaiming that they want the old style back for any form of entertainment. I find this attitude archaic and crippling to any form of culture overall. Yes, I can admire certain forms of culture and entertainment from the past. But not all of it was perfect. And not all current forms of culture and entertainment are terrible. To me, it's a mixed bag overall
  • I think there's humor in all of the great Bond films, but it's funny without being at the expense of the tone of the greater story. When the humor crosses the line into camp, it just undercuts the entire reason for Bond to exist. Let's take Goldfinger for example. Some funny stuff there, but Oddjob is NEVER portrayed with the outright silliness that Jaws is given. He's an outright cartoon character. That's the stuff that I object to.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Jaws was great in TSWLM, but they screwed him up in MR.
  • edited November 2016 Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    I felt a return to 60's Bond in the characters. There was something refreshingly 'real' about the screenplay too. It felt genuine and not copied. Honest. Sort of like how Batman Begins felt genuine in comparison to some of the earlier films. Perhaps it was the removal of the tropes or how they poked fun at them. Perhaps it was the quality of the acting. Perhaps it was the glamour and style/elegance of it. Not sure.

    I'm not a fan of the last act (a bit of a downer - and I realize it's modified canon and all) but until then, it definitely has a vintage flavour to me.

    As I said, they'd have to fit that kind of rich characterization into a traditional template for it to work. It can be done. I just don't think they did it with SP (it felt overly predictable to me), whereas others do.

    I think I understand what you mean, even though I'm not a huge fan of CR (it's good but it feels too bloated for me to really enjoy, the whole Venice section just feels like a melodramatic slog and I'm not a fan of the reboot/origin story angle either).

    I think this is just comes down to originality. The 60s Bond films followed the books quite faithfully, and the only one that didn't (YOLT) was original in its own right because it was the first big epic blockbuster Bond film.

    Not long after that, they started to ignore, and run out of, the source material. As a result, the films basically became different writers trying to capture the spirit of either Fleming's stories or YOLT (or both). And they succeeded but it was never going to feel quite the same as the groundbreaking originals.

    With CR they had a Fleming story to work off again. Which could be why it feels like the 60s films, maybe to you it feels more authentic in that way? They could actually do this for the next one to be fair. Moonraker could easily be modernised in the same way that CR was (I'd change the title and Drax's name though though, to avoid any confusion).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I felt a return to 60's Bond in the characters. There was something refreshingly 'real' about the screenplay too. It felt genuine and not copied. Honest. Sort of like how Batman Begins felt genuine in comparison to some of the earlier films. Perhaps it was the removal of the tropes or how they poked fun at them. Perhaps it was the quality of the acting. Perhaps it was the glamour and style/elegance of it. Not sure.

    I'm not a fan of the last act (a bit of a downer - and I realize it's modified canon and all) but until then, it definitely has a vintage flavour to me.

    As I said, they'd have to fit that kind of rich characterization into a traditional template for it to work. It can be done. I just don't think they did it with SP (it felt overly predictable to me), whereas others do.

    I think I understand what you mean, even though I'm not a huge fan of CR (it's good but it feels too bloated for me to really enjoy, the whole Venice section just feels like a melodramatic slog and I'm not a fan of the reboot/origin story angle either).

    I think this is just comes down to originality. The 60s Bond films followed the books quite faithfully, and the only one that didn't (YOLT) was original in its own right because it was the first big epic blockbuster Bond film.

    Not long after that, they started to ignore, and run out of, the source material. As a result, the films basically became different writers trying to capture the spirit of either Fleming's stories or YOLT (or both). And they succeeded but it was never going to feel quite the same as the groundbreaking originals.

    With CR they had a Fleming story to work off again. Which could be why it feels like the 60s films, maybe to you it feels more authentic in that way? They could actually do this for the next one to be fair. Moonraker could easily be modernised in the same way that CR was (I'd change the title and Drax's name though though, to avoid any confusion).
    It could very well be that. I've read CR many years ago (don't remember it all that much but I thought the film was reasonably faithful on the big themes).

    While I'm certainly open to faithful adaptations of some of the novels (perhaps with different titles so as not confuse the filmgoers), I don't think that's necessarily required in order to imbue the 60's flavour. As you said, it's more a question of being 'original' with the plot and also faithful to the essence of the character in my view. When I saw CR for the first time I didn't feel that it was a throwback to earlier times necessarily because it was faithful to Fleming in terms of plot - but more in terms of character and style. They brought back the old school glamour and class and let the plot breathe. They trimmed down the action, but what little they gave us on that front was very memorable and of high quality. They also upped the standards on dialogue. It was sharp and witty in a retro way and also paced in a manner that recalled earlier times.

    I felt a lot of this was in SF too, but it was a very different film.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    I find that the style of a particular film should be natural and that it is not a very good idea to push a modern story into a film that has the style of the 60s. Bond films have always been a part of a particular era and shouls only include a particular set of timeless Bondian elements.

    In SP they really tried to make a "classic" Bond film. Therefore they brought back the gadgets, the glamour, the henchman, the globe trotting and a certain 60s style. They even copied much from older Bond films. This ist most obvious in the train sequence. I actually don't like all the train sequneces in the Bond franchise which only tried to recycle the great train sequnece from FRWL. Why should Bond today go to some place in the desert in Marocco by train? It makes absolutely zero sense. It's just for the sake of tradition but completely takes me out of the story. I wish the producers would care more about good plots, interesting characters and great dialouges. All of this was hardly found in many of the last eight Bond films.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    In the Moroccan desert, train is the way you travel. Unless you ride a camel.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    In the Moroccan desert, train is the way you travel. Unless you ride a camel.

    I know that there is some kind of train for tourists (oriental desert express). However, it feels completely strange that a super spy should go to the crater by a train and everything there seems as glamorous as on the real orient express in the 30s. I mean what does Bond expect? That the crater has an own station? He could go there by car, helicopter or whatever. This however would not have fit to the more glamorous 60s style.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I have taken the train through the Moroccan desert myself. The train was very, very old and there was only one other tourist besides myself. The rest were Moroccans on their way from A to B.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I have taken the train through the Moroccan desert myself. The train was very, very old and there was only one other tourist besides myself.
    Ah, so that explains the emptiness of the posh dining car in the film then. Now it makes sense.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    Ok, but don't you also think that the scene is extremely forced in order to bring in some glamour and another train fight (which btw. also comes out of nowhere)? It feels so unnatural to me that Bond uses that train as a mode of transport and their glamourous outfits do also not really fit to the dangerous situation they are in.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    I have taken the train through the Moroccan desert myself. The train was very, very old and there was only one other tourist besides myself.
    Ah, so that explains the emptiness of the posh dining car in the film then. Now it makes sense.

    It certainly does. The Moroccans don t eat there. They eat in the regular carriages.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    And don't get me wrong, I like glamour in Bond films. Typical timeless Bondian moments are Casino, Restaurant or Opera scenes. The glamour makes sense in these situations and feels natural.
Sign In or Register to comment.