I Think Bond as We Know It is Over

2

Comments

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I thought the Brosnan era was like watching a Bond tribute act, they threw so much of what was associated with the series at those films, I don't like GE at all but it did seem they were looking to change things a little but once we got to TND it was like watching an RM film but lacking the charm.

    Having said that from MR onwards with maybe FYEO as an exception the series had become a joke, TLD & LTK tried to reign it in but due to the supposed failure of Dalton's era PB's film went back to the check list approach.

    The point being that for me PB may well have had the music, the gadgets and all the ingredients but they didn't feel like Bond films just generic action flicks.

    CR grabbed some of that Bond class back and by concentrating on the character like no other entry had created something compelling and made Bond compelling again. I still think QOS PTS is one of the series best and the Opera sequence was pure class and the dialogue although a little brief hinted at things weren't entirely lost although it still just doesn't quite sit comfortably like CR does. Although from this point onwards it will get watched over most of the series as I feel some of those entries which are just plain embarassing save Barry's score and I can always stick those on the turntable and savour the brilliance, yes there are other elements like Adam's sets etc but my life has been devoted enough to those films for me to just want to watch them again.

    Bond 23 still looks like to me to be in unsure waters, if they choose to make the film more serious and more grounded then they must stick to it and throwing in utter nonsence like the free fall sequence from QOS will just jar with the tone. It's a hard one how to make Bond relevant break new ground but still deliver a hugely entertaining
    blockbuster that will be a success.

    It's almost a guarantee that many here will not be happy with the finished product and this may include myself come next November. These films aren't made for niche groups who devote themselves to the series, they are made for mass audiences and despite QOS having had a mixed reception it still wasn't anywhere a flop. My view of Mendes directing is mixed, I only outright American Beauty and watching that recently on BR I found it was allot more quaint and gentle in the light of what followed.

    I put my faith in Forster and at that point had only seen Finding Neverland but thought his appointment was an interesting choice but his lack of blockbuster film making and having never attempted an action thriller proved to me as not such a wise one in hindsight, Mendes with his track record doesn't seem a great deal different.

    To be honest Fincher's Dragon Tattoo has me more excited as far as Craig goes, I see him finally showing the world outside of Bond what a gifted and talented actor he can be, something none of his outside work since his appointment as really shown. Plus thought of Fincher & Craig together gives me goosebumps!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    Personally I think the series will never grow up. Like a teenager, it's constantly trying out a new style, new fashion, new behaviour. Elements that were introduced in the 60s lay scattered randomly over the other four decades. There's a bit of Leiter here and there, a bit of megalomania, a bit of seriousness and grittiness... Each film tries hard to strike a balance between something old and something new, something different and something familiar, something timeless and something contemporary. Exactly that fascinates me about the Bonds, that no two of them - with perhaps the sole exception of MR and TSWLM - are entirely the same. Looking back no more than five years, I can only conclude that Bond is still Bond. Whatever changes the series has chosen to inflict upon itself in recent times, they may in due course be rendered undone. The interesting Bonds, for me, are the ones that take a few steps backwards and a few steps forward simultaneously. I don't want Bond to break with the past - his past - entirely but I don't want a full retro Bond either.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2011 Posts: 15,712
    IMO, I just don't see the franchise going on for another 50 years, atleast not in it's present form. There will come a time when it'll be either calling it quits, or completely breaking with the past, which will draw many fans away. I would love to grow up watching the newest outings, but I fear I became a Bond fan too late in time to see it continue until the rest of my life. Once a past Bond will die, that will be the end of the franchise for me. For one, I will most certainly not be able to appreciate a Connery or Moore outing knowing that they are dead, and it would put me off the future outings. The link that links the whole franchise are the Bond actors. They are still here, commenting on the franchise. Once of them will pass away, sadly this will be the end of my Bond fandom.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    Quoting DaltonCraig007: Once a past Bond will die, that will be the end of the franchise for me. For one, I will most certainly not be able to appreciate a Connery or Moore outing knowing that they are dead, and it would put me off the future outings. The link that links the whole franchise are the Bond actors. They are still here, commenting on the franchise. Once of them will pass away, sadly this will be the end of my Bond fandom.
    Wow, that's a tough statement you've got there, DC, my good man. I don't think I'll have those concerns when I watch the Bonds after said actors have passed away. Barry's no longer among us but I haven't changed the way I feel about the man's musical legacy. And as for people like Cubby, Meddings and Mankiewitcz, I continue to honour them in my hart as I work my way through the Bonds. Furthermore, I don't think it's the actors that tie the films together as much as it is the character of Bond.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    Well, Dimi, I honestly believe I won't be able to enjoy MR, TMWTGG, OP, GF, TB, DAF, knowing that Connery and/or Moore won't be alive anymore. My enjoyement of these outings will be severly tainted by the sadness of the thought of them not being alive anymore. James Bond is my favorite character of all time, and I honestly can't envision enjoying, let alone watching a Bond film featuring a dead Bond actor. Mankiewiecz's, Barry's death really shocked me, but they haven't stopped my enjoyement of their respective outings. With Moore, Connery and the other 4 Bond's, I don't think I'll be able to surpass their death.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I'll think with time you would get over and still be able to enjoy the films. Wait and see.
  • Posts: 3
    the James bond we know is over unfortunately,,,he lives in deep sorrow and sadness,no more a bit humor like the old movies....
    removing Q is really a bad idea! and where is money penny ? is she coming back soon or what? it just going to be just like any action movie, no story just blowing up cars and places with no purposes! and don't get me started on Daniel Craige! he is nothing like James bond and will never be!!!
  • edited April 2011 Posts: 638
    Quoting OmarH: it just going to be just like any action movie, no story just blowing up cars and places with no purposes!
    That sounds more like one of the Pierce Brosnan films, CR had more story than any Bond movie since OHMSS.

    Moneypenny has pretty much been a useless character since Lois Maxwell retired after AVTAK. I felt Neither Bliss or Bond were worthy successors had had little chemistry with their Bond actors.
  • Posts: 503
    Quoting Shardlake: These films aren't made for niche groups who devote themselves to the series, they are made for mass audiences
    Good post, nice read, and this quoted part is especially true.

    Modern films are all about money, and with MGM in such financial trouble they will be sure to make Bond 23 as widely appealing as possible.
  • Posts: 76
    You Know Nothing about BOND.
    I was 13 When We Saw the Dr. No.
    BOND is the SPIRIT OF THE UK AND USA rolled into ONE.
    In 1782 the UK and USA signed the TREATY OF PARIS.
    The USA and UK Reconciled the War of American INDEPENDENCE.
    We have been JOINED AT THE HIP Every Since.
    Just Listen to the CD "BOND THEMES".
    That is BOND.
    Did you ever hear of the GIRLS OF BORNE ULTIMATUM?
    NO.
    BOND, BOND GIRLS, BOND THEMES.
    If you Don't Get It.
    You Don't Get It.
  • edited April 2011 Posts: 107
    Quoting JB007LTK:
    In 1782 the UK and USA signed the TREATY OF PARIS. The USA and UK Reconciled the War of American INDEPENDENCE. We have been JOINED AT THE HIP Every Since.
    The War of 1812 has some choice words for you, sir.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Quoting JB007LTK:
    You Know Nothing about BOND.
    I was 13 When We Saw the Dr.
    No.
    BOND is the SPIRIT OF THE UK AND USA rolled into ONE.
    In 1782 the UK
    and USA signed the TREATY OF PARIS.
    The USA and UK Reconciled the War of
    American INDEPENDENCE.
    We have been JOINED AT THE HIP Every Since.
    Just
    Listen to the CD "BOND THEMES".
    That is BOND.
    Did you ever hear of the
    GIRLS OF BORNE ULTIMATUM?
    NO.
    BOND, BOND GIRLS, BOND THEMES.
    If you
    Don't Get It.
    You Don't Get It.
    Uh, o... k.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    8->
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Quoting JB007LTK: If you Don't Get It.
    You Don't Get It.
    I don't get it!
  • nick_007nick_007 Ville Marie
    edited April 2011 Posts: 443
    Quoting OmarH: no story just blowing up cars and places with no purposes!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma5TZxDzqVc

    Yes, I'd hate to go in that direction
    Quoting OmarH: and don't get me started on Daniel Craige! he is nothing like James bond and will never be!!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2P9mTmpZ7s&feature=related
    Brosnan, especially in this scene, puts Craige to shame!
    "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our Bond"
    Quoting NicNac:
    Quoting JB007LTK: If you Don't Get It.

    You Don't Get It.


    I don't get it!
    Well then you just don't get it!
  • Posts: 1,092
    X_X
  • if they bring the gunbarrel back to normal include more of the bond theme and bring q back, bond will be bond again and thats what i want what do you lot reckon?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Just putting the gun barrel back where it usually is and having the JB theme blaring will not make it a Bond film, not in my view at least.

    This the trap we got into with the PB era, ticking the boxes etc. Yes I'd like to see the GB back at the start and at least have Craig get a full on JB theme moment, preferably the PTS. I think for the benefit of the mainstream audience Bond 23 will need to kick off with a fun PTS.

    Meaning that the dour feel of QOS needs to be left behind at least for start of the film, it seems decades since we've had an unrelated PTS, infact the whole PTS myth is an interesting one.

    Many people seem to think that most Bond films have one but to be honest it's only actually, GF, MR, FYEO, OP are the only real examples.

    You could say TB but that is not entirely unrelated as the SPECTRE agent concerned is mentioned after the main title credits. SWLM is interesting as it would be seem as an obvious candidate but the fact XXX boyfriend is one of Bond's pursuers and the actions of that PTS figure as part of Spy's climax then I would argue that it isn't.

    None of Dalton's or Brosnan's are, yes I suppose CR does but that to me feels related as this an origin story. I would like to see Craig get something like GF's, while I'm no fan of Bond 3, there is no denying that PTS is one of the series best, pity the rest of the film never recovers from ( a peronal view)

    Bond 23 will be indeed a watermark moment for the series, CR threw a spot light on 007 not seen since GE was released and CR's was even bigger. QOS while from a personal stand point was no where near the worst Bond film, did not live up to the promise that CR hinted at.

    We can all suggest our peronal wish list for the next film but as I said before these films are not made for Bond geeks they are made for mainstream audiences and the success of the series entirely rests on this fact not some little niche group that wants to see Bond making scramble eggs in his flat.

    I've become more distanced from Bond as I've got older and try to look at it from a more objective vantage point, we aren't going to get Fleming wet dreams as much as some of us want it, I enjoyed CR immensely more than any Bond film in years and alongside OHMSS it's my favourite film.

    I am of no illusions that we are going to get a film like DN or FRWL again despite the hankering for this, Bond has from LALD borrowed from other films and genres, yes the borrowing from the Bourne films for QOS was for many a step too far but I wouldn't ever expect Bond to re-invent the wheel, it would be nice but the fact these need to make big bucks it won't happen.

    I don't what we are going to get next November, Mendes doesn't make me think everything is hunky dory, Mendes isn't a great deal different from Forster in my view and all this talk of taking influence from Le Carre that he went on about seemed totally void in the finished product. It has been said that Mendes is looking to present a new type of Bond film but making the character too serious may well be it's undoing, Bond is Bond and gritty spy thrillers they are not, we need to see a balance that personally I am dubious EON is likely to achieve although I'm happy to be proved wrong.





  • Or, more closely related in the timeline, try comparing A View to a Kill with Licence to Kill. Both have M, Q, Moneypenny, Bond and the same writers/director but they may as well be from two different film series. And just 4 years separate them. It was easy to think in '89 that Bond had changed permanently, which of course, he hadn't. Cinema had, sure. Audience's taste had, perhaps.
    Don't worry, OP, Bond will be back one day, however you like him.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited April 2011 Posts: 7,582
    Quoting Shardlake: it seems decades since we've had an unrelated PTS, infact the whole PTS myth is
    an interesting one.

    Many people seem to think that most Bond films have
    one but to be honest it's only actually, GF, MR, FYEO, OP are the only real
    examples.

    That's an interesting observation @Shardlake. It never struck me before how few of the films have unrelated PTS
  • edited April 2011 Posts: 30
    I think that Casino Royale is closer in feel to a modern day Thunderball or From Russia With Love than anything in the Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan eras. Honestly, Connery's (and Lazenby's) films have always been the only "traditional" ones in my opinion, and the cliche-filled movies that followed them were gaudy and overcooked.

    Moore was a wise guy, not a smart guy. Dalton was a rogue, not a loyalist. Brosnan was a fashion model, not an intelligence asset.

    Q and Moneypenny were funny, but would be unrealistic in the current Bond atmosphere. I would love to see the characters mentioned, or receive a cameo, but not return as integral parts of the "formula."

    But truly, this has all been argued repetitively since there was any perceived change in the "formula" of EON's Bond films. I'm sure a similar argument occurred between fans even when Lazenby's Bond broke the fourth wall and made a comment about Connery's Bond. Isn't it getting tiresome?

    The series is continuously changing, and it will assuredly swing back in the other direction at some point. If the "traditional" Bond is dead, then so will be the unorthodox, eventually.
  • Posts: 1,497
    Look, at the end of the day as long as there's a good script, solid direction and the principal actors do the job, then that's all we need. Shake things up a bit I say. I think this was achieved well with CR. We've already had so many Bond films to follow the formula and the Fleming well has (almost) been tapped, so I don't see the need to traverse the same old waters over and over. But the enthusiasm and zeal for the series; for James Bond is arguably at it's highest since the 60's. The likes of Christopher Nolan and Javier Bardem speak highly of the series. Bond has the luxury now to pool from A-list talent. I'd say the series as a whole is in good shape and a little change and growth won't hurt the legacy of Bond, but rather, keep it interesting and relevant.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I think a small part of the Bond we knew will return. Even in Ian Flemings books they had Moneypenny and Q Branch. The first two movies were just learning Bonds origins without adding Moneypenny and Q.
  • Posts: 1,092
    My question to JBFan626 and sHell_Is_Here is simple: what makes this character James Bond? Craig in QoS could have been any random agent working for England. For real. What made him Bond? Besides being named James Bond of course.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2011 Posts: 15,712
    I know Bond must evolve, but how much can they take away before the movies become unrecognizable from other action films?

    I know I will be insulted for this, but as bad as they were, the Brosnan movies are more Bondian than the Craig movies. Sure, the Brosnan outings were cliche ridden, and the Bond elements were horribly written, but atleast I felt like I was watching a Bond films. Q, Moneypenny, the Bond theme full blast in action scenes, gadgets, witty one liners whenever Bond disposes of someone... all were there in the movies

    With Craig, I don't feel like watching a Bond film. OK, maybe CR is an adaptation of the '53 novel, but if I want that I'll much prefer the actual novel, and that the movies stay close to the cinematographic Bond we've been used too. CR 2006 didn't feel Bondian at all. The 'effets de style' they made (no Bond theme until the end, no Q, no Moneypenny) actually do a round-the-house kick back to EON, as they end up dimishing the Bondness of the films, which I hope wasn't the original intent.

    I mean, look at Dalton. As close, if not closer to Fleming's Bond than Craig, but all the familiar Bondian elements (Q, Moneypenny, gadgets...) are there. Hell, the most serious Bond of them all, LTK, has the biggest screentime for Q, Moneypenny is there, the gadgets, witty one liners, the Bond theme...

    With QOS, they tried to make Bond more serious. I respect that as I loved Dalton. But when you take away the familiar Bond elements, you end of with a cold, colourless film, miles away from what Bond is.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with DC007. What's this world coming to? ^#(^
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    Quoting DaltonCraig007:
    With QOS, they tried to make Bond more serious. I respect that as I loved Dalton. But when you take away the familiar Bond elements, you end of with a cold, colourless film, miles away from what Bond is.
    I agree, DC! I feel QOS is an action flick with Bond in it, more so than a Bond film with action in it. Bond fights red tape the way Jack Bauer does in nearly all seasons of 24. They took modern and most familiar mainstream elements and threw Bond in the equation. That's not how you make a great Bond film though. You need to sit down and build a Bond film from scratch. You needn't worry about mimicking other films but rather about other films mimicking you because you'll give them something that puts them to shame. Bond is now at best on the same level of the average spy/action flick. That's not how things were in the 60s or even in the 70s and 80s. Bond was always Bond, doing his own thing that proved intangible for others. Sure, Star Wars was "bigger" but Star Wars wasn't Bond. In QOS, however, Bond is Jason Bauer or Jack Bourne (at least he's still a JB) and above all I can't imagine other filmmakers thinking 'Wow, if only I could make a Bond film!' because the way Bond is shaped today it looks quite easy to make a "Bond film." I yearn for the days when Bond broke the rules and raised new standards. It's time for Bond to stop simply obeying the rules and live by the existing standards, established by far lesser franchises. That, and the PC thing, need to stop, and fast.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    What differenciates QOS from Taken? Both have proven dramatic actors as leads, both have wall-to-wall action, both don't feature Q or Moneypenny...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    Quoting DaltonCraig007: What differenciates QOS from Taken?
    Women as sex toys? Babs wouldn't like that. ;;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    If QOS had to be wall-to-wall action, so be it. But if they had added a full blast Bond theme to make us think Bond instead of Statham, add 5 mins of screentime and put Q and Moneypenny in, spent a few more days thinking of one-liners for Bond when he disposes of Mitchell and Slate... I wouldn't have been so disapointed with the film.
Sign In or Register to comment.