Out with the old, or will we return?

jolearon

I'd like to start this thread as a debate for in short "old vs new". I'm referring to several aspects of the Bond movies prior to Daniel Craig. The type of humor, one liners, wacky gadgets most of us grew to love about the Bond franchise.

To be clear, I'm enjoying Daniel Craig's contribution to the Bond franchise and I look forward to see him do a few more films. It's a very modern take to the Bond world we all know. We've had ups and downs over the years debating the ideas of what seems like the reinvention on Bond. (Especially in a post-911/post Jason Bourne world)

I'm wondering will we ever be able to go back to the old humor, one liners, and wacky gadgets without seeming like a parody of a past Bond film? Will it be too campy to revisit the style of the Connery/Moore/Brosnan types of Bond films?

I for one see how difficult it could be, but with the right actor and story, I'm sure it could be pulled off. And on top of that, I can see history repeating it's self out of reinvention for the next generation. Thoughts?

Murdock

It's certainly in the realm of possibility. When this era of Gritty reboots and remakes come to pass we might see the return of camp Bond.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

If we never see the old Bond again (one-liners all over the place, gadgets), I won't have a care in the world. I love the Craig era because I feel like the films are portraying Bond the way he should be depicted, and has been before to great effect. While the great films of the Connery era no doubt had moments of levity, they were brilliant, tense and very hard-edged as well (like OHMSS was later as well). They were classic Cold War espionage thrillers that made you feel the suspense. In the Dalton era things got even darker, and possibly the darkest the series has been in LTK, with scenes involving an exploding head, references to rape, and other moments of extremely intense violence on another level than we'd seen before. Those kinds of hard edged elements, like the brutal violence and dangerous espionage are right at home with the Bond I imagine in my head. When I think of Bond as a character I don't connect him to the lighter adventures of his old days, but the more earnest and dark films we have seen him in that really developed his character beyond the stupid one-liners and gadgets that often become too much to handle in his earlier years. I love where the series has returned to with Dan, and hope that it continues on this more serious path, cutting out as many unnecessary moments of levity as possible.

jolearon

@Murdock "Gritty reboots", perfectly describes it.

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Here is where we differ, as you are going to the source of how he James Bond was to be portrayed, I'm going from what allured me in to the Bond franchise in the first place, the past films.

I described them as a bit campy for our current definition of their humor from as compared to our film culture today. And just as our modern Daniel Craig films are to us, perhaps the previous Bond films were just as real at the time. The difference is we have the history to reflect back on and make the necessary adjustments, not only from Bond history, but film culture (including parodies), and the ever changing world around us.

I'm more interested in seeing the new-fangled gadgets, wacky or not. I would love to see the essentials in what most people consider a true Bond film. Gadgets. Cars. Women. -- I'm happy to have 2 out of three, but I'm curious if it will always be a never-ending "real" vs "more real" from hear on out.

Another way to put it is, wondering if were going to have this dark Bond for good?
Just as we had Dalton, which was too dark for it's time (which I was a fan of), I wonder if we'll have another Brosnan (charm, fun wit), rather than a hungover, gritty feeling Bond. Looking back I believe Brosnan was pretty close to taming the campy humor of Moore, yet having the feel of the previous Bonds altogether. (Which was thoroughly enjoyed.) -- Again, I like seeing this very different grunge, modern Bond, but I would hope to see something familiar to the Bond franchise in the next 10 years at least.

As I re-read my last sentence above, I just realized with Daniel Craig's Bond series going on for so long, he is re-defining the Bond franchise, so my argument could become invalid if he ends up making more films than Moore. Yet, I'll stick to my guns and say, "In my generation"...

I would be disappointed to not revisit the campy humor, even if it was a modern version of it. Gadgets, etc. -- In fact, I may not even have the same question, if we had a slightly lighter mood and a few gadgets.

MayDayDiVicenzo

If the films were to go down this line, then it should only goes as far as , let's say, Dalton's films. They both had their fair share of gadgets, women (I absolutely love Pam) and cars, and an ambitious villain in Sanchez. However, Dalton's films managed to maintain grittiness, it managed to find a balance. Personally, I'm not too fussed about one-liners; they are still present in the Craig films, without going overboard.

But there is one thing I would like too see again; an ambitious plot- not on the scale of YOLT or MR, but perhaps GoldenEye or Thunderball?

delfloria

I'd love to see Craig do a Thunderball styled film.

QBranch

^ Yes please! We could do without the convenient coincidences though.

RogueAgent

I think the producers will reflect the mood of the times as and when Craig steps away from the role, to see where they take it next?

Creasy47

I'm really not bothered that the gadgets were gone, as they ended up being borderline goofy at times and they seemed so coincidental, it was annoying.

thelivingroyale

I think they found a good balance between humour and drama with Skyfall but I do miss the gadgets. I don't want another invisible car but I actually liked the exploding pens and laser watches.

Creasy47

@thelivingroyale, see, those were the gadgets that I loved, the multi-purpose ones. Some of them seemed so bizarre and unique that they would only fit into one key scenario that Bond almost always found himself in.

Murdock

Can we get the remote mines back? (Sorry shameless self promotion. ;) )

QBranch

thelivingroyale wrote:

I think they found a good balance between humour and drama with Skyfall but I do miss the gadgets. I don't want another invisible car but I actually liked the exploding pens and laser watches.

I like my gadgets too, if my username is any giveaway. I'd like to see a return of the watch gadget. Just that one gadget in the film would be fine. My fan fiction features a watch that emits an EMP, and you control the size of the blast radius by turning the bezel. I think something like that would be great to see.

jolearon

I'm not saying we need a electro-suit and invisible cars, just the fun gadgets that were alot of fun to watch. In the old films they even covered gadgets Bond didn't even use, just walking though the gadget ward was just a highlight to the films for me.


The gadgets are a big part I'd like to see come back, but the humor as well.

jolearon

What's Bond without the gadgets?

It was nice seeing a gritty-grunge Bond for a change, now please bring us back to what we loved about Bond films the most.

Samuel001

I never really like the gadgets and don't see them as necessary. To say these elements are "what we loved about Bond films the most" is a bold statement.

Creasy47

Samuel001 wrote:

I never really like the gadgets and don't see them as necessary. To say these elements are "what we loved about Bond films the most" is a bold statement.

I don't mind if gadgets are there as long as they're grounded and have a multi-purpose or extremely valuable use, not something that would only come in handy in some rare, incredibly unique situation.

chrisisall

Creasy47 wrote:

I don't mind if gadgets are there as long as they're grounded and have a multi-purpose or extremely valuable use, not something that would only come in handy in some rare, incredibly unique situation.

It's all a high wire act. No gadgets and it's simply a faux-serious spy drama. Silly gadgets and it's spoof time.
The right blend, like a good Martini, is glorious.

Creasy47

chrisisall wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

I don't mind if gadgets are there as long as they're grounded and have a multi-purpose or extremely valuable use, not something that would only come in handy in some rare, incredibly unique situation.

It's all a high wire act. No gadgets and it's simply a faux-serious spy drama. Silly gadgets and it's spoof time.
The right blend, like a good Martini, is glorious.

Absolutely, totally in agreement with you. I wonder what they'll do gadget-wise come B24 now that Q is back in the picture.

OHMSS69

Samuel001 wrote:

I never really like the gadgets and don't see them as necessary. To say these elements are "what we loved about Bond films the most" is a bold statement.

You are spot on!
Gadgets in FRWL and GF were actually quite believable and we never felt they were the main attraction. Dalton's "toys" were also decent simple and well grounded in reality. The opening scene in OHMSS when Q tells M about radioactive lint was Peter Hunt's way of giving the finger to gadgetry.

The cutesy, overly convenient gadgets started with TB and would continue to pop up (or poop up whichever you prefer) through out the series well into Brosnan's final film.
And I just never cared for any of it.

Dragonpol

OHMSS69 wrote:

Samuel001 wrote:

I never really like the gadgets and don't see them as necessary. To say these elements are "what we loved about Bond films the most" is a bold statement.

You are spot on!
Gadgets in FRWL and GF were actually quite believable and we never felt they were the main attraction. Dalton's "toys" were also decent simple and well grounded in reality. The opening scene in OHMSS when Q tells M about radioactive lint was Peter Hunt's way of giving the finger to gadgetry.

The cutesy, overly convenient gadgets started with TB and would continue to pop up (or poop up whichever you prefer) through out the series well into Brosnan's final film.
And I just never cared for any of it.

Well said and I concur.

Soundofthesinners

They almost certainly will, the Bond series being what it is. This is the series that went from Moonraker to For Your Eyes Only and from Licence to Kill to GoldenEye in consecutive films. It's the nature of the series to reinvent itself and find new ways to tackle the same basic concept. Not everyone will like every incarnation, as the debates here well show, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but there's something for just about everyone, and that's a large part of what makes this series so great.

Creasy47

Now I really wonder if, after the massive success and money that Craig has brought to the series, if we'll have a Craig-type of clone/actor once he steps down, or if they really will go for something brand new/different once more.

Soundofthesinners

Creasy47 wrote:

Now I really wonder if, after the massive success and money that Craig has brought to the series, if we'll have a Craig-type of clone/actor once he steps down, or if they really will go for something brand new/different once more.

It's tough to say, this far out, but I'd guess, nothing more than speculation, but still, that if they go for a Craig clone it won't work. It's possible that they try an OTT film with Craig, but it's a mess, and they have to try to recombine what they want OTT and what they want down to earth and that's how the series changes.

Creasy47

I hope they don't send Craig out on a terrible note like they did with Brosnan.

Soundofthesinners

Creasy47 wrote:

I hope they don't send Craig out on a terrible note like they did with Brosnan.

Well, thus far the three long-term Bonds have all ended on downers (DAF, AVTAK, DAD). It's not looking too good for Craig.

Creasy47

I love AVTAK, but I can accept that the general consensus is that it's a very low note. But, just because it's happened before needn't mean it'll happen again.

chrisisall

Creasy47 wrote:

I love AVTAK, but I can accept that the general consensus is that it's a very low note. But, just because it's happened before needn't mean it'll happen again.

I see Craig going out on a TND-like note; reasonably OTT, but not daft like DAD.

Creasy47

chrisisall wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

I love AVTAK, but I can accept that the general consensus is that it's a very low note. But, just because it's happened before needn't mean it'll happen again.

I see Craig going out on a TND-like note; reasonably OTT, but not daft like DAD.

I can't even begin to start thinking that far ahead. I'm just excited for B24 right now.

PanchitoPistoles

A gun and a radio. No need for more gadgets. :bz

Murdock

PanchitoPistoles wrote:

A gun and a radio. No need for more gadgets. :bz

Are these okay? ;) (Sorry more self promotion. :P)