I would imagine this news item to get the casual Bond fan all worked up. You know, the fans that swear the series should have ended with Connery (but admit that Pierce Bronson [sic] was almost adequate). Of course, they've never seen more than snippets of the other Bonds.
Enough ranting there...Point is, I imagine they'd be the ones to think any of this "Shaken...not Stirred" nonsense is actually blasphemous. Those of us who choose to stick with Bond realize that a couple of catchphrases do not a secret agent make.
Personally, I'd rather Bond not introduce himself in his typical fashion; especially if he does it like people should recognize him as a celebrity (as Brosnan did).
This news doesn't thrill me much at all. True, it won't affect whether I see the film or not, but I do apppreciate these two lines and it should be pointed out that my favourite scene in CR was the last scene when Bond uttered the line (although, to be fair, it was just as much the scene itself as the fact that Bond uttered that particular line.)
Anyway, so I guess you could say that I'm disappointed but not outraged. I would be outraged if these lines (which are more than mere catchprases) were never to be uttered again, but considering that Craig's tenure is, for lack of a better word, unique , and since there's no indication that they won't be in the next film, I'll hold off on the protests for now.
I would imagine this news item to get the casual Bond fan all worked up. You know, the fans that swear the series should have ended with Connery (but admit that Pierce Bronson [sic] was almost adequate). Of course, they've never seen more than snippets of the other Bonds.
Enough ranting there...Point is, I imagine they'd be the ones to think any of this "Shaken...not Stirred" nonsense is actually blasphemous. Those of us who choose to stick with Bond realize that a couple of catchphrases do not a secret agent make.
I don't think that you can make a generalisation like that. I'm no casual fan, but I would consider it blasphemous if these 'catchphrases' were to never be spoken of again.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
This news doesn't thrill me much at all. True, it won't affect whether I see the film or not, but I do apppreciate these two lines and it should be pointed out that my favourite scene in CR was the last scene when Bond uttered the line (although, to be fair, it was just as much the scene itself as the fact that Bond uttered that particular line.)
Anyway, so I guess you could say that I'm disappointed but not outraged. I would be outraged if these lines (which are more than mere catchprases) were never to be uttered again, but considering that Craig's tenure is, for lack of a better word, unique , and since there's no indication that they won't be in the next film, I'll hold off on the protests for now.
I would imagine this news item to get the casual Bond fan all worked up. You know, the fans that swear the series should have ended with Connery (but admit that Pierce Bronson [sic] was almost adequate). Of course, they've never seen more than snippets of the other Bonds.
Enough ranting there...Point is, I imagine they'd be the ones to think any of this "Shaken...not Stirred" nonsense is actually blasphemous. Those of us who choose to stick with Bond realize that a couple of catchphrases do not a secret agent make.
I don't think that you can make a generalisation like that. I'm no casual fan, but I would consider it blasphemous if these 'catchphrases' were to never be spoken of again.
But surely you realize, as I stated, that the character of Bond isn't built solely upon the delivery of a couple of lines.
But surely you realize, as I stated, that the character of Bond isn't built solely upon the delivery of a couple of lines.
No, of course not, but I do think it is important. Bond would still exist without them, but IMO he would be much lessened for it.
Sir Miles, I was really reacting to your generalisation about casual fans versus non-casual fans, which in part due to some prior experiences and also because I don't like generalisations, I didn't really appreciate.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
But surely you realize, as I stated, that the character of Bond isn't built solely upon the delivery of a couple of lines.
No, of course not, but I do think it is important. Bond would still exist without them, but IMO he would be much lessened for it.
Sir Miles, I was really reacting to your generalisation about casual fans versus non-casual fans, which in part due to some prior experiences and also because I don't like generalisations, I didn't really appreciate.
Understood. I was just trying to make the point that I think those of us that generally stick with Bond won't get too hung up over what is or isn't in one particular film. Of course these lines and characters like Moneypenny and Q are things we have come to love over the years. I certainly get excited while watching the end of CR and Craig delivers THE line.
I was merely offering my speculation on what reactions will be based on my experiences.
Understood. I was just trying to make the point that I think those of us that generally stick with Bond won't get too hung up over what is or isn't in one particular film. Of course these lines and characters like Moneypenny and Q are things we have come to love over the years. I certainly get excited while watching the end of CR and Craig delivers THE line.
I was merely offering my speculation on what reactions will be based on my experiences.
-{
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Of course, no long-time Bond fan would think it "blasphemous" that he didn't deliver a couple of catch phrases in a movie. I've personally stuck with Bond through almost 3 decades, and I'm not about to let this piece of news make me not see the film, for example.
It's just that the omissions of these lines are just the latest in a (IMO) trend to strip away elements of what some mockingly refer to as the Precious Classic Formula for the sake of "keeping it real". What might be taken away next time? At what point will so many omissions be made that a Bond film is no longer a Bond film, and merely a film about a badass Brit who is really good at killing people? If we take the Batmobile and Bat suit away from Bruce Wayne, will he still be Batman, or just a rich guy with a good home gym, a sleeping problem and too much time on his hands? If we take the iron armor away from Iron Man, will he still be Iron Man or just another rich, crime-fighting dude with bad facial hair? I'm not implying that Bond is a comic-book hero. All I'm saying is that a lot of Bond's accoutrements, personal habits, and the team of people that he works and interacts with, make up who the character of Bond is. A lot of things in the so-called formula are in fact redundant in terms of what a real secret agent would need to have, or do, to be an effective agent. Does he need to drink vodka martinis, drive nice cars, dress in custom-tailored suits? No, no, and no. Does he need to announce his real name to everybody who asks? Of course not. These are not necessities; they are eccentricities. However, they are Bond's eccentricities. Take them all away, and will we still have Bond, or just another action hero? Take away enough from the character and eventually you might as well rename him as some generic secret agent, not Bond (how about Nigel Slickfinger, appearing in "At Her Majesty's Command"? )
Does he need to drink vodka martinis, drive nice cars, dress in custom-tailored suits? No, no, and no. Does he need to announce his real name to everybody who asks? Of course not. These are not necessities; they are eccentricities. However, they are Bond's eccentricities. Take them all away, and will we still have Bond, or just another action hero?
Maybe it's just me, but I was hoping to hear "Bond. James Bond." HOWEVER, not in the over-the-top way they did with Brosnan but maybe a more subtle way like Dalton did in TLD. Craig's pronouncement at the end was a little dramatic and I was hoping he'd get to utter the line to someone during a quick conversation or so quick and subtle you almost miss it. I think that would fit Craig's Bond, much like it did Dalton's.
And to the person who said Brosnan said the line like he was a celebrity, I always thought it was just the arrogance he brought to the films. He wasn't saying his name because he expected people to know him, after all, nobody knows him from the next guy...but as a way of being very smug.
Well, the vodka martini and his introducing himself as "Bond, James Bond" have gone away, at least for this film. Q and Moneypenny were taken away since CR. As to who has taken them away, your guess is as good as mine (the producers, the writers...?)
Un-traditional excites me. Why? Because it is going to offer something fresh and exciting. Not some rehash of the past that has already been done well.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Un-traditional excites me. Why? Because it is going to offer something fresh and exciting. Not some rehash of the past that has already been done well.
That's what I'm loving about this particular era, sharp---seems anything could happen. Now, if they'd just assassinate M :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Un-traditional excites me. Why? Because it is going to offer something fresh and exciting. Not some rehash of the past that has already been done well.
That's what I'm loving about this particular era, sharp---seems anything could happen. Now, if they'd just assassinate M :v
You nailed it. The unpredictability makes Bond fresh once again. He's definitely going to ultimately succeed, but he's going to bleed in the process. He might not be able to save the girl, and he might even occasionally need rescued.
Craig's Bond isn't an indestructible man that never gets knocked down; he's an unstoppable force that always gets back up.
I don;t disapprove of the decision yo not include the 'Bond, James Bond and the Vodka Martini's' but after I read that Marc Foster said that it just didn't sound right when Craig was saying the line it kind of made me more pessamistic of Daniel.
For me QoS was going to be the final deciding factor of whether I like him in the role, don't get me wrong, I loved CR but wasn't sure about the whole reboot 'Bond Begins - When James Became Bond' thing so after hearing this recent news I've started thinking they are changing too much, I mean in Bond 23 are they going to be axing more of the Bond forumla?
I just hope they don't go overboard with it and start making bad decisions, after all, none of us want to see the series run into the gorund.
Im okay with all the changes. After all, Connery had two movies where he didnt say "Bond, James Bond." Is From Russia with Love any less a Bond movie because he never said "Bond James Bond?"
Or is Roger Moore any less of a Bond because he never says "shaken not stirred?" Is the Spy Who Loved me any less of a bond movie because he didnt say "shaken not stirred?"
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
FROM THE DESK OF TEE HEE, CHAIRMAN OF THE CINEMATIC BOND TRADITIONALIST PARTY OF ABSOLUTELY JAMES BOND:
Just when you think Bond's DNA has been diluted enough, EON adds more water...
Bond has been slowly, but surely, losing his identity since 2006. All I can say is what's next to go?
I thought we had no place to go but up after CR...
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
Im okay with all the changes. After all, Connery had two movies where he didnt say "Bond, James Bond." Is From Russia with Love any less a Bond movie because he never said "Bond James Bond?"
Or is Roger Moore any less of a Bond because he never says "shaken not stirred?" Is the Spy Who Loved me any less of a bond movie because he didnt say "shaken not stirred?"
...but he seems to have held up okay over the years.
He has (you can't help but love the guy)...and so has Bond.
This franchise adapts and evolves, like any living thing that survives over the long haul. The History of Official Cinematic Bond spans six actors (to date). Roger Moore is one of them...and so is Daniel Craig. Nothing can change that.
I was (and am) a Moore-as-Bond detractor; his era's variations on (and liberties with) the Precious Classic FormulaTM chafed me for more than a decade; he never was (and will never be) my own personal vision of James Bond...but he kept the ship afloat, and he was wildly popular. Even as a portion of the fanbase was alienated, new fans were created.
Sounds familiar... :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Again, the omission of these things doesn't bother me too much as they're not key to setting the tone overall.
As has been pointed out, they've taken a brief break from the franchise at various points over the years anyway.
However, the PTS and gunbarrel must always remain if the film is to keep its identity. A reboot is fine - and thoroughly welcomed to be honest - but only a reboot it should be, not a reinvention.
I don't mind missing the cliches, as long as the defined character of Bond they represent remains.................
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Okay, I'm surprised---and slightly annoyed---that the theme music is apparently minimalized in the score once again. And I'm perplexed by---but interested in---what they're doing with the gunbarrel sequence. The end of the film?
They continue to shake things up, that much is certain...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2008
A very interesting article from The Scotsman, entitled: "Is Bond for ever?"
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Okay, I'm surprised---and slightly annoyed---that the theme music is apparently minimalized in the score once again. And I'm perplexed by---but interested in---what they're doing with the gunbarrel sequence. The end of the film?
I'm using slightly stronger adjectives to describe my feelings on both of the above.
Well, I too love the iconic Bond stuff. But if QOS is a good "Bond" film, I don't think I'll miss it. Actually, it seems that the iconic stuff will get in there, but in a much more subtle, less cliched way. As was previously pointed out in this thread, not every previous Bond film had every iconic moment. The Brosnan films (and I don't mean to pick on them...I like most of them and I am a big fan of Brosnan as Bond)had lazy scripts where Purvis and Wade seemed to say "OK, can't think of anything interesting, let's throw in a "Bond, James Bond" or a "Shaken, Not Stirred". Those scripts reduced the performance of a decent actor who could have done so much more as Bond into a characature. As far as Craig not being capable of a good "Bond, James Bond" that's rediculous. I just don't think they want to force that kind of stuff into the films.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I think what Eon are trying to avoid is stagnation, which arguably is where the series was at after twenty pictures. By removing a couple of the game pieces and rearranging the others on the board, it seems they've cleared the way for 007 to spread his wings a bit.
Now, if they'd only kill M... :v
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
FROM THE DESK OF TEE HEE, CHAIRMAN OF THE CINEMATIC BOND TRADITIONALIST PARTY OF ABSOLUTELY JAMES BOND:
Just when you think Bond's DNA has been diluted enough, EON adds more water...
Bond has been slowly, but surely, losing his identity since 2006. All I can say is what's next to go?
I thought we had no place to go but up after CR...
I had no idea you were the President of our party, Tee Hee. Congrats. Do you need a running mate?
I have said over and over again that unnecessary changes or "shake-ups" have nothing to do with the other changes that are good. I have always been for better writing and less cliched moments. DAD went overboard with a lot of things and CR brought back a lot of elements that made the series great back in the day.
The iconic institutions like the "Bond, James Bond" quote, the "shaken not stirred" quote, the James Bond theme, the opening gunbarrel and even Q and Moneypenny were never a problem with any films the franchise. These things NEVER became tired or cliched at all in my opinion. I am always interested to see how they might change each of them up a bit. Yes, all of these elements are not required to be in every single film, but a good deal of them are.
Here are some changes and "shake-ups" I like with Craig's films. The "Do I look like I give a damn" quote was nice. I love the version of the Bond theme in the trailers with the Latin chorus singing the theme very fast. I think that version would go awesome in the actual film to accompany a great action scene. But apparently the producers feel differently. So I think it is ok to change up a few things as long as other things are still present in their original form. The gunbarrel is included in this. Putting it at the end is an example of bad change.
People that liked CR and Craig's new twist on the character are coming out of the theater praising his intense performance and the intriguing story. The overall tone and clever writing is what impressed them. However, I do not think that many people will come out of QoS saying that putting the gunbarrel last made the film better. No one will say that they are glad they did not hear the James Bond Theme a lot in the film because it got old. If it lasted for twenty movies without anyone complaining about it then why take it out? Change it up if you want like in the trailer.
I don't know how many times these topics will come up, but I assure you I will represent my party well in taking up for the timeless traditions and institutions in this franchise that have no correlation with the change in tone from DAD to Craig's films. They can go inside Bond's mind and try many new things with the franchise all while keeping James Bond's identity.
I don't know how many times these topics will come up, but I assure you I will represent my party well in taking up for the timeless traditions and institutions in this franchise that have no correlation with the change in tone from DAD to Craig's films. They can go inside Bond's mind and try many new things with the franchise all while keeping James Bond's identity.
Very well said, sir. I fully agree {[]
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Which is the crux of the matter, of course. Personally, I don't think that Bond's identity is in any danger of being lost.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Enough ranting there...Point is, I imagine they'd be the ones to think any of this "Shaken...not Stirred" nonsense is actually blasphemous. Those of us who choose to stick with Bond realize that a couple of catchphrases do not a secret agent make.
Personally, I'd rather Bond not introduce himself in his typical fashion; especially if he does it like people should recognize him as a celebrity (as Brosnan did).
Anyway, so I guess you could say that I'm disappointed but not outraged. I would be outraged if these lines (which are more than mere catchprases) were never to be uttered again, but considering that Craig's tenure is, for lack of a better word, unique
I don't think that you can make a generalisation like that. I'm no casual fan, but I would consider it blasphemous if these 'catchphrases' were to never be spoken of again.
But surely you realize, as I stated, that the character of Bond isn't built solely upon the delivery of a couple of lines.
Sir Miles, I was really reacting to your generalisation about casual fans versus non-casual fans, which in part due to some prior experiences and also because I don't like generalisations, I didn't really appreciate.
Understood. I was just trying to make the point that I think those of us that generally stick with Bond won't get too hung up over what is or isn't in one particular film. Of course these lines and characters like Moneypenny and Q are things we have come to love over the years. I certainly get excited while watching the end of CR and Craig delivers THE line.
I was merely offering my speculation on what reactions will be based on my experiences.
It's just that the omissions of these lines are just the latest in a (IMO) trend to strip away elements of what some mockingly refer to as the Precious Classic Formula for the sake of "keeping it real". What might be taken away next time? At what point will so many omissions be made that a Bond film is no longer a Bond film, and merely a film about a badass Brit who is really good at killing people? If we take the Batmobile and Bat suit away from Bruce Wayne, will he still be Batman, or just a rich guy with a good home gym, a sleeping problem and too much time on his hands? If we take the iron armor away from Iron Man, will he still be Iron Man or just another rich, crime-fighting dude with bad facial hair? I'm not implying that Bond is a comic-book hero. All I'm saying is that a lot of Bond's accoutrements, personal habits, and the team of people that he works and interacts with, make up who the character of Bond is. A lot of things in the so-called formula are in fact redundant in terms of what a real secret agent would need to have, or do, to be an effective agent. Does he need to drink vodka martinis, drive nice cars, dress in custom-tailored suits? No, no, and no. Does he need to announce his real name to everybody who asks? Of course not. These are not necessities; they are eccentricities. However, they are Bond's eccentricities. Take them all away, and will we still have Bond, or just another action hero? Take away enough from the character and eventually you might as well rename him as some generic secret agent, not Bond (how about Nigel Slickfinger, appearing in "At Her Majesty's Command"?
M should stay behind her desk.
Who's taken any of those things away?
And to the person who said Brosnan said the line like he was a celebrity, I always thought it was just the arrogance he brought to the films. He wasn't saying his name because he expected people to know him, after all, nobody knows him from the next guy...but as a way of being very smug.
Well, the vodka martini and his introducing himself as "Bond, James Bond" have gone away, at least for this film. Q and Moneypenny were taken away since CR. As to who has taken them away, your guess is as good as mine (the producers, the writers...?)
That's what I'm loving about this particular era, sharp---seems anything could happen. Now, if they'd just assassinate M :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You nailed it. The unpredictability makes Bond fresh once again. He's definitely going to ultimately succeed, but he's going to bleed in the process. He might not be able to save the girl, and he might even occasionally need rescued.
Craig's Bond isn't an indestructible man that never gets knocked down; he's an unstoppable force that always gets back up.
For me QoS was going to be the final deciding factor of whether I like him in the role, don't get me wrong, I loved CR but wasn't sure about the whole reboot 'Bond Begins - When James Became Bond' thing so after hearing this recent news I've started thinking they are changing too much, I mean in Bond 23 are they going to be axing more of the Bond forumla?
I just hope they don't go overboard with it and start making bad decisions, after all, none of us want to see the series run into the gorund.
Or is Roger Moore any less of a Bond because he never says "shaken not stirred?" Is the Spy Who Loved me any less of a bond movie because he didnt say "shaken not stirred?"
Just when you think Bond's DNA has been diluted enough, EON adds more water...
Bond has been slowly, but surely, losing his identity since 2006. All I can say is what's next to go?
I thought we had no place to go but up after CR...
-Roger Moore
Yeah - that surfing the ice wave in 2002 was a high point of the old bond formula.
People probably said when Roger took over that he was diluting the Bond DNA but he seems to have held up okay over the years.
He was. :v
He has (you can't help but love the guy)...and so has Bond.
This franchise adapts and evolves, like any living thing that survives over the long haul. The History of Official Cinematic Bond spans six actors (to date). Roger Moore is one of them...and so is Daniel Craig. Nothing can change that.
I was (and am) a Moore-as-Bond detractor; his era's variations on (and liberties with) the Precious Classic FormulaTM chafed me for more than a decade; he never was (and will never be) my own personal vision of James Bond...but he kept the ship afloat, and he was wildly popular. Even as a portion of the fanbase was alienated, new fans were created.
Sounds familiar... :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As has been pointed out, they've taken a brief break from the franchise at various points over the years anyway.
However, the PTS and gunbarrel must always remain if the film is to keep its identity. A reboot is fine - and thoroughly welcomed to be honest - but only a reboot it should be, not a reinvention.
They continue to shake things up, that much is certain...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/-Is-Bond-for-ever.4611120.jp
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm using slightly stronger adjectives to describe my feelings on both of the above.
Now, if they'd only kill M... :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I have said over and over again that unnecessary changes or "shake-ups" have nothing to do with the other changes that are good. I have always been for better writing and less cliched moments. DAD went overboard with a lot of things and CR brought back a lot of elements that made the series great back in the day.
The iconic institutions like the "Bond, James Bond" quote, the "shaken not stirred" quote, the James Bond theme, the opening gunbarrel and even Q and Moneypenny were never a problem with any films the franchise. These things NEVER became tired or cliched at all in my opinion. I am always interested to see how they might change each of them up a bit. Yes, all of these elements are not required to be in every single film, but a good deal of them are.
Here are some changes and "shake-ups" I like with Craig's films. The "Do I look like I give a damn" quote was nice. I love the version of the Bond theme in the trailers with the Latin chorus singing the theme very fast. I think that version would go awesome in the actual film to accompany a great action scene. But apparently the producers feel differently. So I think it is ok to change up a few things as long as other things are still present in their original form. The gunbarrel is included in this. Putting it at the end is an example of bad change.
People that liked CR and Craig's new twist on the character are coming out of the theater praising his intense performance and the intriguing story. The overall tone and clever writing is what impressed them. However, I do not think that many people will come out of QoS saying that putting the gunbarrel last made the film better. No one will say that they are glad they did not hear the James Bond Theme a lot in the film because it got old. If it lasted for twenty movies without anyone complaining about it then why take it out? Change it up if you want like in the trailer.
I don't know how many times these topics will come up, but I assure you I will represent my party well in taking up for the timeless traditions and institutions in this franchise that have no correlation with the change in tone from DAD to Craig's films. They can go inside Bond's mind and try many new things with the franchise all while keeping James Bond's identity.
Very well said, sir. I fully agree {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM