Where does Bond go after Craig?

1228229231233234512

Comments

  • edited February 2023 Posts: 3,273
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 2,750
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.

    I wouldn’t say that’s wholly accurate to the literary Bond. He knows what he likes and has specific tastes in food, drink and clothes. He also knows that he might not come back from one of his missions so has a tendency to indulge (and certainly exploit the MI6 account when abroad). But compare these ins and outs to the film Bonds - the man seems to only have two dark blue suits cut in a more frugal fashion for the time. He wears a battered old jacket for golf. It’s a far cry from the various Saville Row or Tom Ford suits film Bond wears. When not on assignment he has a pretty simple diet. In GF he at one point becomes outright disgusted by the garish luxury of DuPont’s restaurant. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he simply enjoys extreme luxury, again it’s just that he has very particular preferences and interests. A lot of the time it’s actually the villains who live that life of luxury and wealth.

    He has what would have been called patriotic values of the time (so relatively nostalgic about the Empire, although he has his cynical moments) and a sense of duty, but not necessarily simply upper class values. Some (and yes, his background is at the very least upper middle class) but remember he’s by his own description a ‘Scottish peasant’ - someone who fights for England and yet is still paradoxically a stranger within it. Even in Blades Fleming makes clear he’s a man who stands out compared to the back slapping rich types.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that Fleming’s Bond is a distinctly human character - again just a man at the end of the day - who just has an extraordinary job and is heroic because of a limited number of virtues. He’s not an ‘everyman’ character by any means but he’s still multifaceted.
  • Posts: 1,545
    mtm wrote: »
    Brosnan does his weird choppy hands thing; like most things he's does, it's a little affected.
    I'm sure I heard an actor saying recently how there is such a thing as 'movie running': you've got to alter your style a bit to look good onscreen. Cruise has, of course, perfected that.

    Acting while running ! That's a lot going on at once. I'd like to see a brief demonstration of th
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't want any long term plans. I'd like to go back to independent entries with the vaguest of tendrils connecting them.

    I prefer standalone films. More plausible fiction rather than science fiction.

    No more villains building giant facilities in volcanoes, underwater, and in space without attracting attention. Surely someone somewhere said, "Who's renting and buying all this equipment?" Did anyone ever question how all that cement was delivered to the volcano?



    One thing I would actually like to see more of in the films is an attempt to ‘world build’ in regards to the villains and, by extension, their lairs. Not saying they can’t be fantastical, but look at how the novel goes into detail about Dr. No’s hide out/why he’s set up this strange hotel/clinic thing. It makes what is otherwise an absurd concept grounded and a bit more sinister.

    I mean, I feel NTTD would have benefitted from this in some form:. How exactly was Safin able to set up this elaborate nanobot factory? Who are these men working for him? I remember a user on these forums (apologies as I can’t remember who it was but I love the idea) suggesting an alternative version where Safin either ‘inherited’ SPECTRE’s remaining goons, or possibly even got them to work for him by threatening to kill them or their families with the nanobots. Heck, it might have been interesting if it’d been established that Safin perhaps hijacked one of SPECTRE’s bases/transported his family’s garden plants into it or something. Just little touches like that which give these villains a bit more dimension.

    I think he didn't have to do much other than offer them health and dental insurance. Of course, he's evil, so he didn't follow through. Mwah-ha-ha !
  • Posts: 3,273
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.

    I wouldn’t say that’s wholly accurate to the literary Bond. He knows what he likes and has specific tastes in food, drink and clothes. He also knows that he might not come back from one of his missions so has a tendency to indulge (and certainly exploit the MI6 account when abroad). But compare these ins and outs to the film Bonds - the man seems to only have two dark blue suits cut in a more frugal fashion for the time. He wears a battered old jacket for golf. It’s a far cry from the various Saville Row or Tom Ford suits film Bond wears. When not on assignment he has a pretty simple diet. In GF he at one point becomes outright disgusted by the garish luxury of DuPont’s restaurant. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he simply enjoys extreme luxury, again it’s just that he has very particular preferences and interests. A lot of the time it’s actually the villains who live that life of luxury and wealth.

    He has what would have been called patriotic values of the time (so relatively nostalgic about the Empire, although he has his cynical moments) and a sense of duty, but not necessarily simply upper class values. Some (and yes, his background is at the very least upper middle class) but remember he’s by his own description a ‘Scottish peasant’ - someone who fights for England and yet is still paradoxically a stranger within it. Even in Blades Fleming makes clear he’s a man who stands out compared to the back slapping rich types.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that Fleming’s Bond is a distinctly human character - again just a man at the end of the day - who just has an extraordinary job and is heroic because of a limited number of virtues. He’s not an ‘everyman’ character by any means but he’s still multifaceted.

    Yes I agree with this.
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 2,750
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.

    I wouldn’t say that’s wholly accurate to the literary Bond. He knows what he likes and has specific tastes in food, drink and clothes. He also knows that he might not come back from one of his missions so has a tendency to indulge (and certainly exploit the MI6 account when abroad). But compare these ins and outs to the film Bonds - the man seems to only have two dark blue suits cut in a more frugal fashion for the time. He wears a battered old jacket for golf. It’s a far cry from the various Saville Row or Tom Ford suits film Bond wears. When not on assignment he has a pretty simple diet. In GF he at one point becomes outright disgusted by the garish luxury of DuPont’s restaurant. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he simply enjoys extreme luxury, again it’s just that he has very particular preferences and interests. A lot of the time it’s actually the villains who live that life of luxury and wealth.

    He has what would have been called patriotic values of the time (so relatively nostalgic about the Empire, although he has his cynical moments) and a sense of duty, but not necessarily simply upper class values. Some (and yes, his background is at the very least upper middle class) but remember he’s by his own description a ‘Scottish peasant’ - someone who fights for England and yet is still paradoxically a stranger within it. Even in Blades Fleming makes clear he’s a man who stands out compared to the back slapping rich types.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that Fleming’s Bond is a distinctly human character - again just a man at the end of the day - who just has an extraordinary job and is heroic because of a limited number of virtues. He’s not an ‘everyman’ character by any means but he’s still multifaceted.

    Yes I agree with this.

    Fair. They’re great novels - very escapist and even pulpy at times - and indeed they certainly have their dated qualities - but the same can be said for the works of Dickens and Shakespeare. I personally don’t think any of the films have ever been able to 100% nail the character of Bond in a way that’s truly evocative of those fundamental Fleming qualities I wrote about.

    That said I do think SF got the character close in many ways (can’t necessarily say the same about the rest of Craig’s films) so I have hope they’ll return to the novels and try to adapt the character again for the 21st century.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    QBranch wrote: »
    I wouldn't want to know all the future titles planned. Speculation and surprise is part of the journey.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'd instantly not buy it cause there's no way they'd ever return to spitting these out every other year. A man can dream though.

    I don't want any long term plans. I'd like to go back to independent entries with the vaguest of tendrils connecting them. And Cavill is a big no for me.

    Agreed. If the films have to be connected, I’d be fine if they went the way the Connery films did where they were more loosely connected than interconnected. Craig’s films were somewhere in between that was kind of muddled, not a happy median.

    That Craig films should have been more like Connery’s in terms of loose continuity (Bond making his way through SPECTRE operatives before finally meeting the head of it). Have QOS be about Bond’s next encounter with the organization from CR, but drop the Vesper element. If anything, let that be more subtextual which would have made it feel more rich than on the nose. SF could then be as it is, and I’d actually keep most of SP as it is but drop the foster brother element entirely. That can still work as Bond making his way to the top of SPECTRE, the culmination of his previous adventures without being too referential.
  • Posts: 3,273
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.

    I wouldn’t say that’s wholly accurate to the literary Bond. He knows what he likes and has specific tastes in food, drink and clothes. He also knows that he might not come back from one of his missions so has a tendency to indulge (and certainly exploit the MI6 account when abroad). But compare these ins and outs to the film Bonds - the man seems to only have two dark blue suits cut in a more frugal fashion for the time. He wears a battered old jacket for golf. It’s a far cry from the various Saville Row or Tom Ford suits film Bond wears. When not on assignment he has a pretty simple diet. In GF he at one point becomes outright disgusted by the garish luxury of DuPont’s restaurant. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he simply enjoys extreme luxury, again it’s just that he has very particular preferences and interests. A lot of the time it’s actually the villains who live that life of luxury and wealth.

    He has what would have been called patriotic values of the time (so relatively nostalgic about the Empire, although he has his cynical moments) and a sense of duty, but not necessarily simply upper class values. Some (and yes, his background is at the very least upper middle class) but remember he’s by his own description a ‘Scottish peasant’ - someone who fights for England and yet is still paradoxically a stranger within it. Even in Blades Fleming makes clear he’s a man who stands out compared to the back slapping rich types.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that Fleming’s Bond is a distinctly human character - again just a man at the end of the day - who just has an extraordinary job and is heroic because of a limited number of virtues. He’s not an ‘everyman’ character by any means but he’s still multifaceted.

    Yes I agree with this.

    Fair. They’re great novels - very escapist and even pulpy at times - and indeed they certainly have their dated qualities - but the same can be said for the works of Dickens and Shakespeare. I personally don’t think any of the films have ever been able to 100% nail the character of Bond in a way that’s truly evocative of those fundamental Fleming qualities I wrote about.

    That said I do think SF got the character close in many ways (can’t necessarily say the same about the rest of Craig’s films) so I have hope they’ll return to the novels and try to adapt the character again for the 21st century.

    I think Craig came closer in CR, but for me the closest we have seen to Fleming Bond on screen is Dalton.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited February 2023 Posts: 3,382
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.

    I wouldn’t say that’s wholly accurate to the literary Bond. He knows what he likes and has specific tastes in food, drink and clothes. He also knows that he might not come back from one of his missions so has a tendency to indulge (and certainly exploit the MI6 account when abroad). But compare these ins and outs to the film Bonds - the man seems to only have two dark blue suits cut in a more frugal fashion for the time. He wears a battered old jacket for golf. It’s a far cry from the various Saville Row or Tom Ford suits film Bond wears. When not on assignment he has a pretty simple diet. In GF he at one point becomes outright disgusted by the garish luxury of DuPont’s restaurant. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he simply enjoys extreme luxury, again it’s just that he has very particular preferences and interests. A lot of the time it’s actually the villains who live that life of luxury and wealth.

    He has what would have been called patriotic values of the time (so relatively nostalgic about the Empire, although he has his cynical moments) and a sense of duty, but not necessarily simply upper class values. Some (and yes, his background is at the very least upper middle class) but remember he’s by his own description a ‘Scottish peasant’ - someone who fights for England and yet is still paradoxically a stranger within it. Even in Blades Fleming makes clear he’s a man who stands out compared to the back slapping rich types.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that Fleming’s Bond is a distinctly human character - again just a man at the end of the day - who just has an extraordinary job and is heroic because of a limited number of virtues. He’s not an ‘everyman’ character by any means but he’s still multifaceted.

    Yes I agree with this.

    Fair. They’re great novels - very escapist and even pulpy at times - and indeed they certainly have their dated qualities - but the same can be said for the works of Dickens and Shakespeare. I personally don’t think any of the films have ever been able to 100% nail the character of Bond in a way that’s truly evocative of those fundamental Fleming qualities I wrote about.

    That said I do think SF got the character close in many ways (can’t necessarily say the same about the rest of Craig’s films) so I have hope they’ll return to the novels and try to adapt the character again for the 21st century.

    I think Craig came closer in CR, but for me the closest we have seen to Fleming Bond on screen is Dalton.


    To be honest, for me, none of them are the closest.

    And is it me or the way Bond acted and talked in the novels was more like he's a bit naive and childish?
    Like he's a bit stubborn, he's always in a self doubt.

    And think of this passage in Moonraker novel while he's talking with Gala Brand:
    Chapter 16: A Golden Day)

    Triumphantly she found a bee orchis and picked it.

    “You wouldn’t do that if you knew that flowers scream when they are picked,” said Bond.

    Gala looked at him. “What do you mean?” she asked, suspecting a joke.

    “Didn’t you know?” He smiled at her reaction. “There’s an Indian called Professor Bhose, who’s written a treatise on the nervous system of flowers.

    He measured their reaction to pain. He even recorded the scream of a rose being picked. It must be one of the most heartrending sounds in the world. I heard something like it as you picked that flower.”

    “I don’t believe it,” she said, looking suspiciously at the torn root.

    “Anyway,” she said maliciously, “I wouldn’t have thought you were a person to get sentimental. Don’t people in your section of the Service make a business of killing? And not just flowers either. People.”

    “Flowers can’t shoot back,” said Bond.

    She looked at the orchis. “Now you’ve made me feel like a murderer. It’s very unkind of you. But,” she admitted reluctantly, “I shall have to find out about this Indian and if you’re right I shall never pick a flower again as long as I live. What am I to going to do with this one? You make me feel it’s bleeding all over my hands.”

    “Give it to me,” said Bond. “According to you, my hands are dripping with blood already. A little more won’t hurt.”

    She handed it to him and their hands touched. “You can stick it in the muzzle of your revolver,” she said to cover the flash of contact.

    Bond laughed. “So the eyes aren’t only for decoration,” he said.

    Then of course the way he interacted with Tiger Tanaka in You Only Live Twice about learning the Japanese culture.
    Bond took a deep drink of saké and said, “My dear Tiger, I would hate to put you to the inconvenience of having to remove me from the face of the earth. You mean that this time the cedar may not bow before the typhoon?
    So be it. This time you have my very topmost word of honour.”

    Another example:
    You will not be going back to
    your hotel. You will not be seeing Dikko. From now on you are under my
    personal orders.” The voice went very quiet and velvety. “Is that understood?”
    Bond sat up as if he had been stung. “What in God’s name are you talking about, Tiger?”

    Then.....
    “Come on, Tiger,” said Bond impatiently. “Cut the cackle. What is it you want me to do?”

    And.....
    Bond said angrily, “Balls to you, Tiger! And balls again! Just because you’re a pack of militant potential murderers here, longing to get rid of your American masters and play at being samurai again, snarling behind your subservient smiles, you only judge people by your own jungle standards. Let me tell you this, my fine friend. England may have been bled pretty thin by a couple of world wars, our welfare-state politics may have made us expect too much for free, and the liberation of our colonies may have gone too fast, but we still climb Everest and beat plenty of the world at plenty of sports and win Nobel Prizes. Our politicians may be a feather-pated bunch, but I expect yours are, too. All politicians are. But there’s nothing wrong with the British people—although there are only fifty million of them.”

    Here's another one passage in Goldfinger, Chapter 15: The Pressure Room
    'Goldfinger, there is nothing more to tell because there is nothing. If you will not accept my first bargain I will make you another. The girl and I will work for you. How about that? We are capable people. You could put us to good use.'

    'And get a knife, two knives in my back? Thank you no, Mr Bond.'

    Bond decided it was time to stop talking. It was time to start winding up the mainspring of will-power that must not run down again until he was dead. Bond said politely, 'Then you can go and —— yourself.' He expelled all the breath from his lungs and closed his eyes.

    I don't see any of the actors saying these lines, to be honest. 😅
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    I love the Moonraker novel, that passage in particular is brilliant, it says so much about Bond's character. I can see a slight nod to it in the shower scene in Casino.

    Regardless of who they cast as Bond #7, I hope they don't lose that depth they rediscovered during the Craig era
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 2,750
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.

    I wouldn’t say that’s wholly accurate to the literary Bond. He knows what he likes and has specific tastes in food, drink and clothes. He also knows that he might not come back from one of his missions so has a tendency to indulge (and certainly exploit the MI6 account when abroad). But compare these ins and outs to the film Bonds - the man seems to only have two dark blue suits cut in a more frugal fashion for the time. He wears a battered old jacket for golf. It’s a far cry from the various Saville Row or Tom Ford suits film Bond wears. When not on assignment he has a pretty simple diet. In GF he at one point becomes outright disgusted by the garish luxury of DuPont’s restaurant. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he simply enjoys extreme luxury, again it’s just that he has very particular preferences and interests. A lot of the time it’s actually the villains who live that life of luxury and wealth.

    He has what would have been called patriotic values of the time (so relatively nostalgic about the Empire, although he has his cynical moments) and a sense of duty, but not necessarily simply upper class values. Some (and yes, his background is at the very least upper middle class) but remember he’s by his own description a ‘Scottish peasant’ - someone who fights for England and yet is still paradoxically a stranger within it. Even in Blades Fleming makes clear he’s a man who stands out compared to the back slapping rich types.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that Fleming’s Bond is a distinctly human character - again just a man at the end of the day - who just has an extraordinary job and is heroic because of a limited number of virtues. He’s not an ‘everyman’ character by any means but he’s still multifaceted.

    Yes I agree with this.

    Fair. They’re great novels - very escapist and even pulpy at times - and indeed they certainly have their dated qualities - but the same can be said for the works of Dickens and Shakespeare. I personally don’t think any of the films have ever been able to 100% nail the character of Bond in a way that’s truly evocative of those fundamental Fleming qualities I wrote about.

    That said I do think SF got the character close in many ways (can’t necessarily say the same about the rest of Craig’s films) so I have hope they’ll return to the novels and try to adapt the character again for the 21st century.

    I think Craig came closer in CR, but for me the closest we have seen to Fleming Bond on screen is Dalton.

    Might just be me, but I’ve always had a hard time seeing the literary Bond breaking into any incarnation of M’s flat. I do think Craig’s Bond was less of a blunt instrument too and more of a ‘for the greater good’ guy (which isn’t necessarily bad, just different). For me it’s SF that gets the closest to novel Bond in many areas - his dissatisfaction with his job, his cynicism, the idea that if Bond didn’t have that sense of duty to his country and bravery he could just as easily have ended up another version of Silva etc.

    Dalton certainly tried to consciously evoke the literary Bond in his performance, which was cool. I’m a fan of his Bond. For me he doesn’t quite have the humour of the literary Bond (despite what some say I do think Fleming’s Bond has a sense of humour, it was just less quippy and more gallows humour than the cinematic versions) but he nailed the darker, more cynical side.


    @MI6HQ Haha, yes I get what you mean. That said I do genuinely love that exchange about the flowers in MR and think says a lot about the character. It’d be nice to see it adapted.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2023 Posts: 2,895
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Regardless of who they cast as Bond #7, I hope they don't lose that depth they rediscovered during the Craig era
    Agreed, Jordo. It'd be a mistake to drop that aspect, I think. Agree with 007HallY about the gallows humour and the darker, more cynical side of Bond too.

  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 648
    I'm very skeptical about the future of this series. I don't want more reboots, re-imaginings, subversions, alternate takes, "explorations," and such nonsense. Bond 26 should just pick up where DAD left off; everyone knows who Bond is, there's no need to reintroduce him, so just make a normal Bond movie that's not trying to be something else like Batman and Bourne. Don't bother with a reboot/new continuity, just pretend that the Craig era didn't happen. I don't see what else they can do. If they go for continuity/arching narrative again it's just going to turn into a second Craig era with a whole bunch of retcons and narrative beats that don't add up, not to mention piggy-backing off of other franchises.
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 988
    Completely agree with all that.
  • Posts: 1,478
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I'm very skeptical about the future of this series. I don't want more reboots, re-imaginings, subversions, alternate takes, "explorations," and such nonsense. Bond 26 should just pick up where DAD left off; everyone knows who Bond is, there's no need to reintroduce him, so just make a normal Bond movie that's not trying to be something else like Batman and Bourne. Don't bother with a reboot/new continuity, just pretend that the Craig era didn't happen. I don't see what else they can do. If they go for continuity/arching narrative again it's just going to turn into a second Craig era with a whole bunch of retcons and narrative beats that don't add up, not to mention piggy-backing off of other franchises.

    But, but, but what about Gen X, Y, Z, 1, 2, 3? How to attract younger viewers? How to appeal to everyone and every agenda?

    The Craig era began well. In a universe where time had no meaning, one could almost imagine CR having taken place before DN. But that opportunity was squandered with Craig's Bond a parallel universe or some such nonsense.

    I quite agree. Go full on Dallas and pretend DC's era didn't happen. If he has to be younger, fine. Pick up and go with it. Make a damn fine film and it will take care of itself.



  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.

    I wouldn’t say that’s wholly accurate to the literary Bond. He knows what he likes and has specific tastes in food, drink and clothes. He also knows that he might not come back from one of his missions so has a tendency to indulge (and certainly exploit the MI6 account when abroad). But compare these ins and outs to the film Bonds - the man seems to only have two dark blue suits cut in a more frugal fashion for the time. He wears a battered old jacket for golf. It’s a far cry from the various Saville Row or Tom Ford suits film Bond wears. When not on assignment he has a pretty simple diet. In GF he at one point becomes outright disgusted by the garish luxury of DuPont’s restaurant. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he simply enjoys extreme luxury, again it’s just that he has very particular preferences and interests. A lot of the time it’s actually the villains who live that life of luxury and wealth.

    He has what would have been called patriotic values of the time (so relatively nostalgic about the Empire, although he has his cynical moments) and a sense of duty, but not necessarily simply upper class values. Some (and yes, his background is at the very least upper middle class) but remember he’s by his own description a ‘Scottish peasant’ - someone who fights for England and yet is still paradoxically a stranger within it. Even in Blades Fleming makes clear he’s a man who stands out compared to the back slapping rich types.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that Fleming’s Bond is a distinctly human character - again just a man at the end of the day - who just has an extraordinary job and is heroic because of a limited number of virtues. He’s not an ‘everyman’ character by any means but he’s still multifaceted.

    Great post. I'm very interested in what you thought of Bond's portrayal in SF. To me (as an American) the character felt like it was more Mendes than Bond, more upper class than I expected Bond to be, somehow. Did I expect the literary Bond to have inherited an estate from his family? Not really.

    But I could be wrong. I didn't grow up in that class system.
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 2,750
    echo wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    As someone who has only read one Fleming 007 novel I’m somewhat in the dark about this stuff. Can anyone tell me what are the essential Fleming qualities (in their opinion, of course), and what (if any) things that the films have made synonymous with Bond that perhaps should be dropped or minimised?

    That’s an interesting question, and I suspect there’ll be many different answers. Personally speaking the broad Fleming (or more accurately ‘Bondian’) qualities have always been kept intact from page to screen - this womanising British secret agent named James Bond, the cars, villains, even the basic stories.

    Where I personally think the film and book versions of Bond differ - and where I wouldn’t mind seeing the films go - is a bit more philosophical. In the films Bond is an extraordinary man. Again, he’s a secret agent - a man who gambles, seduces women, dresses in stylish clothes and travels to exotic locations. Even in the Craig era he’s framed this way. In the novels Bond is fundamentally an ordinary man whose profession gets him into extraordinary situations. He has his vices - women, gambling, cars, alcohol, and even the danger of his job all being there in equal measure - but he’s simply a man at the end of the day. He’s prone to bouts of melancholy, self doubt, and indeed falling in love. His profession is actually rather dirty and involves stuff he hates (killing in cold blood being one of them). Despite this he’s heroic simply because of his bravery and sense of duty. But not because he’s inherently a virtuous person.

    But what you also miss is the Fleming Bond tastes, with upper class values and traits. He enjoys extreme luxury, whether it's food, drink, custom made cigarettes, cars, travel or clothes.

    How many men do you know that drive around in Bentleys and Aston Martins, wear sea island cotton pants (have you seen how much they cost?) and sea island cotton shirts.

    His MI6 expense account saw that he held a lavish lifestyle that most can only dream about, so I wouldn't define him as an ordinary man.

    I wouldn’t say that’s wholly accurate to the literary Bond. He knows what he likes and has specific tastes in food, drink and clothes. He also knows that he might not come back from one of his missions so has a tendency to indulge (and certainly exploit the MI6 account when abroad). But compare these ins and outs to the film Bonds - the man seems to only have two dark blue suits cut in a more frugal fashion for the time. He wears a battered old jacket for golf. It’s a far cry from the various Saville Row or Tom Ford suits film Bond wears. When not on assignment he has a pretty simple diet. In GF he at one point becomes outright disgusted by the garish luxury of DuPont’s restaurant. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he simply enjoys extreme luxury, again it’s just that he has very particular preferences and interests. A lot of the time it’s actually the villains who live that life of luxury and wealth.

    He has what would have been called patriotic values of the time (so relatively nostalgic about the Empire, although he has his cynical moments) and a sense of duty, but not necessarily simply upper class values. Some (and yes, his background is at the very least upper middle class) but remember he’s by his own description a ‘Scottish peasant’ - someone who fights for England and yet is still paradoxically a stranger within it. Even in Blades Fleming makes clear he’s a man who stands out compared to the back slapping rich types.

    I think what I was trying to get at is that Fleming’s Bond is a distinctly human character - again just a man at the end of the day - who just has an extraordinary job and is heroic because of a limited number of virtues. He’s not an ‘everyman’ character by any means but he’s still multifaceted.

    Great post. I'm very interested in what you thought of Bond's portrayal in SF. To me (as an American) the character felt like it was more Mendes than Bond, more upper class than I expected Bond to be, somehow. Did I expect the literary Bond to have inherited an estate from his family? Not really.

    But I could be wrong. I didn't grow up in that class system.

    I liked what they did with Bond’s past. Craig’s version of Bond always struck me as rather tragic, a man who was fundamentally good, but essentially got dealt awful hands in life. The Skyfall manor is, lets be honest, this rather Gothic and even hideous looking house in a very isolated part of Scotland. I can imagine him having a rather lonely childhood even before his parents died.

    It’s not completely evocative of the literary Bond (from what I gather Fleming’s Bond grew up in various European countries until his parents death, and seemed more what we’d call ‘upper middle class’ than necessarily from an aristocratic family, although his Father did attend Fettes and this seems to be the reason he got into that school) but symbolically it works. It made sense for the film.

    CrabKey wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I'm very skeptical about the future of this series. I don't want more reboots, re-imaginings, subversions, alternate takes, "explorations," and such nonsense. Bond 26 should just pick up where DAD left off; everyone knows who Bond is, there's no need to reintroduce him, so just make a normal Bond movie that's not trying to be something else like Batman and Bourne. Don't bother with a reboot/new continuity, just pretend that the Craig era didn't happen. I don't see what else they can do. If they go for continuity/arching narrative again it's just going to turn into a second Craig era with a whole bunch of retcons and narrative beats that don't add up, not to mention piggy-backing off of other franchises.

    But, but, but what about Gen X, Y, Z, 1, 2, 3? How to attract younger viewers? How to appeal to everyone and every agenda?

    The Craig era began well. In a universe where time had no meaning, one could almost imagine CR having taken place before DN. But that opportunity was squandered with Craig's Bond a parallel universe or some such nonsense.

    I quite agree. Go full on Dallas and pretend DC's era didn't happen. If he has to be younger, fine. Pick up and go with it. Make a damn fine film and it will take care of itself.



    But what exactly does a damn fine Bond film look like is the question.
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 1,215
    I feel like Craig was at his most Flemingesque in CR and NTTD, particularly the latter. Skyfall is Flemingesque as far as his personal story and arc, but the performance itself was way too silent and subdued to feel Fleming to me, Bond really doesn’t SAY a whole lot in that film. One of the biggest distinctions between the cinematic and literary Bond, for me, is that the cinematic Bond (especially Craig’s) doesn’t say a whole lot about what is on his mind. There’s insinuations and subtle touches here and there in the performance, but it’s really up to the audience to read between the lines. Literary Bond has the benefit of having his internal monologues captured in writing, but he’s also quite opinionated and speaks his mind frequently, often unprovoked. We’re also given a lot more about Bond’s life off-duty, which we’ve BARELY seen in the films too.

    I’d like to lean a bit more into the more communicative and opinionated side of the character with Bond #7. I believe Bond can speak his mind and be a little more expressive without completely demystifying the character or taking away his edge. It’ll take the right actor and writer to pull it off, but we can keep Bond dark, complex, human, etc. without repeating DC’s characterization. When I look at it from that perspective, someone like ATJ makes a lot of sense as opposed to someone like Sope Dirisu (who is my personal favourite) but is very much of a similar mould to Craig.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I'm very skeptical about the future of this series. I don't want more reboots, re-imaginings, subversions, alternate takes, "explorations," and such nonsense. Bond 26 should just pick up where DAD left off; everyone knows who Bond is, there's no need to reintroduce him, so just make a normal Bond movie that's not trying to be something else like Batman and Bourne. Don't bother with a reboot/new continuity, just pretend that the Craig era didn't happen. I don't see what else they can do. If they go for continuity/arching narrative again it's just going to turn into a second Craig era with a whole bunch of retcons and narrative beats that don't add up, not to mention piggy-backing off of other franchises.

    You don’t want continuity, yet you think they should pick up where DAD left off? That makes no sense.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2023 Posts: 23,449
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I'm very skeptical about the future of this series. I don't want more reboots, re-imaginings, subversions, alternate takes, "explorations," and such nonsense. Bond 26 should just pick up where DAD left off; everyone knows who Bond is, there's no need to reintroduce him, so just make a normal Bond movie that's not trying to be something else like Batman and Bourne. Don't bother with a reboot/new continuity, just pretend that the Craig era didn't happen. I don't see what else they can do. If they go for continuity/arching narrative again it's just going to turn into a second Craig era with a whole bunch of retcons and narrative beats that don't add up, not to mention piggy-backing off of other franchises.

    You don’t want continuity, yet you think they should pick up where DAD left off? That makes no sense.

    An odd thing to say indeed.

    Also, "piggy-backing off of other franchises"? First of all, I just don't get it why people love to use that word "franchise" so much, especially when they're not talking about franchises but about film series. Ah well.

    Secondly, I'm a little tired of the whole "Bond Begins", "The Bond Identity" and "Bond is just doing Marvel now" sentiment. Let EON produce a Bond film that defies every hot trend of the day. Let them produce a film that takes it slow (or else it's like Bourne), unpersonal (or else it's like "everything else"), without a team (or else it's like Mission : Impossible), without a character evolution (or else it's like Batman Begins), and without a clean slate (or else it's a reboot, out of continuity, ...). Let them. You may end up with a film that sets our traditional, Flemingian fan hearts on fire, makes a little money and puts James Bond in the freezer for years.
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 2,750
    I feel like Craig was at his most Flemingesque in CR and NTTD, particularly the latter. Skyfall is Flemingesque as far as his personal story and arc, but the performance itself was way too silent and subdued to feel Fleming to me, Bond really doesn’t SAY a whole lot in that film. One of the biggest distinctions between the cinematic and literary Bond, for me, is that the cinematic Bond (especially Craig’s) doesn’t say a whole lot about what is on his mind. There’s insinuations and subtle touches here and there in the performance, but it’s really up to the audience to read between the lines. Literary Bond has the benefit of having his internal monologues captured in writing, but he’s also quite opinionated and speaks his mind frequently, often unprovoked. We’re also given a lot more about Bond’s life off-duty, which we’ve BARELY seen in the films too.

    I’d like to lean a bit more into the more communicative and opinionated side of the character with Bond #7. I believe Bond can speak his mind and be a little more expressive without completely demystifying the character or taking away his edge. It’ll take the right actor and writer to pull it off, but we can keep Bond dark, complex, human, etc. without repeating DC’s characterization. When I look at it from that perspective, someone like ATJ makes a lot of sense as opposed to someone like Sope Dirisu (who is my personal favourite) but is very much of a similar mould to Craig.

    To be completely fair much of it comes down to book and film simply being different mediums. So the James Bond of a film will always be more quiet than the literary Bond for the reasons you pointed out.

    That said I agree, they could go a slightly different route with Bond 7 and incorporate some of his opinions/interests from the novels. We could be introduced to the next Bond as that more quiet, ruthless agent we've seen in other incarnations, but perhaps when he gets to know the main Bond girl we could get some glimpses into this side of his character just through them speaking in a more quiet scene. Could be anything - him enthusiastically giving details or opinions on a specific topic of his interest that is relevant (food, cars, countries he's visited etc.). Could even be that section in MR about the flowers. I certainly can't imagine Craig's Bond ever saying those lines. It could really humanise the next Bond in a more subtle way, simply knowing that this hardened professional is also a man who has these thoughts/deep interests and knowledge, even indulging in them because he knows he might not return from one of his missions.
  • Posts: 1,478
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.
  • edited February 2023 Posts: 2,750
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    Wouldn't it then basically just be a new continuity anyway? Like, they'll have a completely new cast compared to the DAD era, the feel of the films will be different (insofar as each film could be very different from the previous one anyway), and even the set design might be different etc. Like every other actor's first Bond film they'll have to reintroduce the character in some form anyway, differentiate them from the previous Bond and set the tone for the film/story. The only thing that could potentially connect stand alone films (and keep in mind even in the old series you had recurring characters and ideas) to the '62 to '02 one would be references to previous gadgets from the early films, vague references to perhaps Tracy etc. Apart from that it's always going to be a new Bond era anyway.
  • Posts: 1,478
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    Wouldn't it then basically just be a new continuity anyway?

    No.

  • Posts: 2,750
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    Wouldn't it then basically just be a new continuity anyway?

    No.

    Oh well. Suppose we'll just have to see what they do with it then.
  • Posts: 1,478
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    Wouldn't it then basically just be a new continuity anyway?

    No.

    Oh well. Suppose we'll just have to see what they do with it then.

    In looking at the series as a whole, I see returning to standalone films, i.e. DAD, as a continuation of that practice, not continuity of casting and story.

    For me the question always come down to is this supposed to be the same James Bond we first saw introduced in Dr. No?



  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    I did as well.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited February 2023 Posts: 1,419
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    Wouldn't it then basically just be a new continuity anyway?

    No.

    Oh well. Suppose we'll just have to see what they do with it then.

    In looking at the series as a whole, I see returning to standalone films, i.e. DAD, as a continuation of that practice, not continuity of casting and story.

    For me the question always come down to is this supposed to be the same James Bond we first saw introduced in Dr. No?



    For me, as soon as one Bond movie ends, the next one is a fresh start, regardless of actor or unless it's meant to be a direct sequel like QOS and NTTD. I clear my head of any continuity because it clearly doesn't matter to the filmmakers. Returning to the "DAD" timeline doesn't make sense to me. DAD exists on its own, it happens to be the fourth movie with the same actor playing the same role.

    I do the same with Fleming's and the continuation novels. I simply don't expect them to carry on what came before. I expect another thrilling story with certain themes and elements, sure, but imo the best Bond stories are made to exist in isolation.

    I've never understood the public and fandom's obsession with making up a continuity that even the filmmakers never acknowledge outside of their direct sequels. The Tracy stuff is to give the character moments of depth, but you can't say they took it that seriously in the Moore era. They pick and choose continuity where they please, and don't bother having it makes sense. Moore's and Dalton's Tracy references are winks to the fans, don't take it too seriously.
  • Posts: 2,750
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    Wouldn't it then basically just be a new continuity anyway?

    No.

    Oh well. Suppose we'll just have to see what they do with it then.

    In looking at the series as a whole, I see returning to standalone films, i.e. DAD, as a continuation of that practice, not continuity of casting and story.

    For me the question always come down to is this supposed to be the same James Bond we first saw introduced in Dr. No?



    Logically it can’t be as it takes place in completely time frames.

    But the old Bond series has a funny relationship with continuity anyway (as does the new ones with the inclusion of Dench/callbacks from the classic films). It’s not necessarily a stretch to say one views, say, Dalton’s Bond as being a different version to Moore’s Bond.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    I think they'd do themselves a favor by returning to the standalone experiences again in the next era. That way, they don't back themselves into a corner or feel obligated to keep a storyline going (or make it conclude so bluntly).

    If they do want to continue going in that direction, then I really would prefer they get a good outline of where they want it all to start and end this time around: don't introduce the big bad in the penultimate film, don't make Bond "past his prime" when he's still going to be in two more installments over an almost 10 year extra stretch, etc.
  • Posts: 1,478
    LucknFate wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    Wouldn't it then basically just be a new continuity anyway?

    No.

    Oh well. Suppose we'll just have to see what they do with it then.

    In looking at the series as a whole, I see returning to standalone films, i.e. DAD, as a continuation of that practice, not continuity of casting and story.

    For me the question always come down to is this supposed to be the same James Bond we first saw introduced in Dr. No?



    For me, as soon as one Bond movie ends, the next one is a fresh start, regardless of actor or unless it's meant to be a direct sequel like QOS and NTTD. I clear my head of any continuity because it clearly doesn't matter to the filmmakers. Returning to the "DAD" timeline doesn't make sense to me. DAD exists on its own, it happens to be the fourth movie with the same actor playing the same role.

    I do the same with Fleming's and the continuation novels. I simply don't expect them to carry on what came before. I expect another thrilling story with certain themes and elements, sure, but imo the best Bond stories are made to exist in isolation.

    I've never understood the public and fandom's obsession with making up a continuity that even the filmmakers never acknowledge outside of their direct sequels. The Tracy stuff is to give the character moments of depth, but you can't say they took it that seriously in the Moore era. They pick and choose continuity where they please, and don't bother having it makes sense. Moore's and Dalton's Tracy references are winks to the fans, don't take it too seriously.

    It will be interesting to see if the next Bond series features any callbacks and to whom.
Sign In or Register to comment.