›

Out with the old, or will we return?

2»

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,695
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    A gun and a radio. No need for more gadgets. :bz
    It's nice to live in the 20th Century....

    :))
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,280
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    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.

    Dark
    Realism
    Originality
    Credible and gadget-less

    All the way!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited March 2014 Posts: 14,021
    A Bond film without gadgets is by no means a deal-breaker, but I'd be happy with a couple of low key gadgets like in SF, or just one gadget watch. None of the gadgets excite me more than the watches. Let's see Bond's Planet Ocean 'repaired' by his new Quartermaster. It's time for a return.
    11882507464_fc6de97540_o.png
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,547
    What would be a deal-breaker to some of you for a Bond film? What would it have to add or lack for you not to consider it a true Bond film?
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,280
    One liners, tons of explojans. OTT gadgets, formula women, predictable outcomes, having to save so much that a single person could not do....hell no!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,852
    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. Real-world gadgets in Bond films and novels are all I can stomach, really.
  • jolearonjolearon
    Posts: 645
    This thread is VERY surprising to me. As a Bond fan I was attracted to the silly Moore, and harsh Dalton flicks growing up in the 80s. I enjoyed the silly Q Branch invention gadgets and that was my favorite part of the films, to wait and see whats new in the Q Branch. As I grew up I was more interested in the bond girls (obviously) and the action in most of the Bond films. Time went by and then Pierce came along and I wasn't really hyped until TND came out, then it brought new light to the Bond world to me, and I began watching the films all over again. (At this time I was still playing the Goldeneye 007 on N64 as well, which was alot of fun.)

    Everyone I know has a very similar opinion to mine except when I'm on this thread as I'm seeing now... (for more on my opinion, see beginning of thread) I don't know if perhaps it's an American view type-of-thing, age groups or the fact that I may be talking to the most die hard Bond fans that look past the films and think of the Books before anything else, but it only makes me curious to what created an interest into Bond movies for yourselves?

    At what age, or how did Bond make such an impression that you were interested in watching more? What features of the movies, if not the gadgets, women and action?

    And second, I see many people loving the new dark, lack of gadgets, real-life films, but what was your opinion before DC came along?

    Also to note: When I say I enjoyed the campy jokes and gadgets, I do have my limits, and DAD was over the line.

    PS: Thanks for all of your input everyone.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,547
    We already have a thread on our Bond introduction:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/3363/how-old-are-you-at-what-age-did-you-first-encounter-bond/p1

    As for DC, all I saw him in pre-CR was 'Munich' and 'Layer Cake,' and I loved him in both, so I was very optimistic.
  • jolearonjolearon
    Posts: 645
    @Creasy47 Thanks for the link to the Bond introduction, that's a great thread. It gives some great insight to the age and movie that fans began watching, but I'm curious of what was the allure that reeled people in. (I'm sure there are some in there, I'll look it over more) - (And in this case I was referring to my question above, wondering why people are preferring the current DC Bond world, with less gadgets, and more grunge/more realistic and dark films.)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,547
    Well we got a slight taste of grittiness with Dalton's films, only to receive two and have a six-year gap. You know where I stand on Brosnan's films, but a lot of people found them to be really light-hearted, lacking in danger or suspense, and just not containing much realism, and Craig's films seem to give off the complete opposite of that, which is fitting the 21st Century films we're getting now, with more grounded/gritty superhero films and the like. Personally, I love his take on it and I love what they've done with this sort of reimagining.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,695
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Personally, I love his take on it and I love what they've done with this sort of reimagining.

    Well, I had Dalton & Brosnan, so it's only fair that people who love Craig have him now. He's great at what he does.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,547
    @chrisisall, Brosnan is my favorite and always will be, and I was very happy to have him as part of the series as I grew up with him. For those who are in love with Craig, I hope they enjoy him now, as well, as I did with Brosnan. I love Craig - SF still leaves me displeased at times, though - and will hopefully continue to enjoy his Bond films until his time expires in the series.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,695
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @chrisisall, Brosnan is my favorite and always will be.
    Back in the 90's I would have agreed 100%. But now I have him equally placed with Dalton and Connery. Then Craig, Moore & Lazenby on more or less equal footing.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    After CR and QOS came out, many people loved the new approach, but I heard a lot of people say that those were marvelous action films, but they were "not James Bond films". Those are the people who want his hairdo and tuxedo to be untainted by fights and explosions, saving the world with gun in one hand and martini in the other, and women dropping their dress at the raise of an eyebrow. You can never please them all, can you?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,695
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    You can never please them all, can you?

    I was one of the few back in '77 that said yeah, TSWLM was entertaining, but it just went a little too silly for me. Today I am one of the few saying of SF that yeah, it's entertaining, but it just went a little too silly for me...

    You are correct sir!
Sign In or Register to comment.