›

Are Gadgets needed to make a great Bond Film ?

2»

Comments

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    I think they are needed, but in moderation. They're an ingredient in the Bond formula, without them it's not the same, like moving the gunbarrel to stupid places in the films for equally stupid reasons.

    Although I don't think gadgets are always needed (although they should be used unless there's a good reason), I completely agree with you on the gunbarrel.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    I think now they have to be really thought through. But as we have seen recently they are not essential. However they are fun to see being deployed by Bond. :D
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,855
    No, they are not essential. Gadgets are a twisted road that were taken at some point. Sure, put them in when the plot requires it, but not for the sake of it. Don't turn them into deus ex machina. Have them malfunction or be useless sometimes. And don't try to create a new one for every movie: some can be reused in different ways.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    The bottom line is, gadgets would seem obselete from todays perspective. All Bond needs now is a cell phone with some fancy modifications or special functions, it would seem, and anything else goes by the wayside. The days of wolf whistle keyrings and explosive toothpaste are a thing of the past. Maybe it's not something everyone wants to see (now) , but we have to face facts

    When was the last time we had a really good gadget filled Bond adventure anyway. Damned if I can remember. That's how far back it goes

    Thank ducks for saved draft's also
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    In a word: no.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,855
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    The bottom line is, gadgets would seem obselete from todays perspective. All Bond needs now is a cell phone with some fancy modifications or special functions, it would seem, and anything else goes by the wayside. The days of wolf whistle keyrings and explosive toothpaste are a thing of the past. Maybe it's not something everyone wants to see (now) , but we have to face facts

    When was the last time we had a really good gadget filled Bond adventure anyway. Damned if I can remember. That's how far back it goes

    Thank ducks for saved draft's also

    Last time? Good question. Little Nellie in YOLT maybe? And I am not a fan of the movie. Problem with gadgets is that you end up having Bond pushing buttons for a whole movie. Not exactly exciting.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I never liked the little nellie helicopter. It was just silly above all else

    Gadgets do appear to be a bygone age now. Bond just doesn't need them now, in the simplest terms, although I'm all for a re-introduction, but I just don't think it will happen again any time soon
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    I don' think they're needed to make a good Bond film but probably sometimes required to make a popular Bond film. It's a good story with memorable developed characters and some nicely executed action on the side that makes a good Bond film.
  • Data_ThiefData_Thief Banned
    Posts: 75
    No they are not needed. Unless the producers want to turn the Bond franchise into a joke to sell tickets towards a youthful audience, which they've frequently done.

    The less gadgets the better, besides we are living in the year 2013. It would be most wise to issue Bond a high-tech smart phone. Besides they can do almost anything these days.
  • BounineBounine
    edited January 2013 Posts: 2,598
    Yeah I agree for the most part. A big part of the audience is the youth generation though which is why I said "popular".

    I didn't like how in Skyfall they implied that the DB5 has an ejector seat and showed it's machine guns. This is a reboot too. You can no longer say that Bond got this car from Q.
  • Data_ThiefData_Thief Banned
    Posts: 75
    I agree Bounine, the DB5 introduction with the gadgets showcased in skyfall really, really turned me off, so much I almost walked out of the theater. I know they did it for the old-school fans of the past, and because it was the 50th anniversary. But at the same time it just felt odd, very childish and out of place and most importantly, so unlike Daniel Craig's Bond.

    Just two Bond films ago Daniel Craig was portraying Bond as a ruthless killer in CR strangling a man in a bathroom stall, now just two films away from that gritty introduction I see Daniel Craig's Bond jumping into a machine gun equipped Aston Martin? Am I the only one here who is baffled at the extreme change of Craig's interpretation of Bond from just CR to SF? I feel as if the producers felt pressured into making skyfall a popcorn movie, dedicated to a casual audience ,rather than the purist fanbase that loved CR and somewhat of QoS.

  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I thought also, Craig had lost some of his ruthless agression in this years release
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Data_Thief wrote:
    I agree Bounine, the DB5 introduction with the gadgets showcased in skyfall really, really turned me off, so much I almost walked out of the theater. I know they did it for the old-school fans of the past, and because it was the 50th anniversary. But at the same time it just felt odd, very childish and out of place and most importantly, so unlike Daniel Craig's Bond.

    Just two Bond films ago Daniel Craig was portraying Bond as a ruthless killer in CR strangling a man in a bathroom stall, now just two films away from that gritty introduction I see Daniel Craig's Bond jumping into a machine gun equipped Aston Martin? Am I the only one here who is baffled at the extreme change of Craig's interpretation of Bond from just CR to SF? I feel as if the producers felt pressured into making skyfall a popcorn movie, dedicated to a casual audience ,rather than the purist fanbase that loved CR and somewhat of QoS.

    Oh please.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited January 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Data_Thief wrote:
    It would be most wise to issue Bond a high-tech smart phone.

    Hmm, @TouchMyButtons kept going on about that (giving Bond a smartphone instead of gadgets). Looking at your posts you seem to share his opinion of SF too.

    If you are him, piss off, we don't want you here.

    If you're not him then I'm sorry, welcome to the forums.
  • Data_ThiefData_Thief Banned
    Posts: 75
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Data_Thief wrote:
    It would be most wise to issue Bond a high-tech smart phone.

    Hmm, @TouchMyButtons kept going on about that (giving Bond a smartphone instead of gadgets). Looking at your posts you seem to share his opinion of SF too.

    If you are him, piss off, we don't want you here.

    If you're not him then I'm sorry, welcome to the forums.

    I'm a bit confused ? Can you please explain who exactly you are talking about ?
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Anyone who consider gadgets as a game-breaker when it comes to a Bond film can go enjoy the first 20 films, and kindly leave the quality work Eon has in store for us to those who understand who and what Bond is.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,855
    I am not sure if the Astin Martin was necessary in Skyfall, however I have to say, I really enjoyed to see it again, however gratuitious it may have been. Of all the Bond cars, it is by far the best and it remains the most believable and the only gadgeted car I wouldn't mind seeing again.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    Data_Thief wrote:
    I agree Bounine, the DB5 introduction with the gadgets showcased in skyfall really, really turned me off, so much I almost walked out of the theater. I know they did it for the old-school fans of the past, and because it was the 50th anniversary. But at the same time it just felt odd, very childish and out of place and most importantly, so unlike Daniel Craig's Bond.

    Just two Bond films ago Daniel Craig was portraying Bond as a ruthless killer in CR strangling a man in a bathroom stall, now just two films away from that gritty introduction I see Daniel Craig's Bond jumping into a machine gun equipped Aston Martin? Am I the only one here who is baffled at the extreme change of Craig's interpretation of Bond from just CR to SF? I feel as if the producers felt pressured into making skyfall a popcorn movie, dedicated to a casual audience ,rather than the purist fanbase that loved CR and somewhat of QoS.

    are you kidding me without the humour and the gadgets Skyfall wouldnt have been special...its part of The Bond films DNA (The Gadgets and humour) could you imagine that without them in The 50th Annavisary tons of fans would be pissed off completely

    and also you know that CR was set in the beginning (as Bond was a Thug Rookie) and with Skyfall its during the middle of his career (he is a vetran)

    as a Popcorn film as you described it just made over 1 Billion dollars at the box office
    it was a film for everyone to enjoy they shouldnt just cater to the "purist"

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Data_Thief wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Data_Thief wrote:
    It would be most wise to issue Bond a high-tech smart phone.

    Hmm, @TouchMyButtons kept going on about that (giving Bond a smartphone instead of gadgets). Looking at your posts you seem to share his opinion of SF too.

    If you are him, piss off, we don't want you here.

    If you're not him then I'm sorry, welcome to the forums.

    I'm a bit confused ? Can you please explain who exactly you are talking about ?

    An extremely annoying member who made multiple accounts who shared the same opinions as you.
Sign In or Register to comment.