You forget, my dear Blackleiter, that I am a Fleming Purist, sir! No joke intended. Deadly serious on this side as a backwoodsman for the literary James Bond. -{ No monkeying with the James Bond character.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
SF is clearly the better film, I just enjoy DAF more. )
You loon! ) DAF is James Bond meets Warner Bros. Acme cartoon, but I do love Mr Wint and Mr Kidd - only good bits in the bloody thing. Make that the title of the thing as far as I'm concerned! )
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
But of course, good sir, I do recall your affinity for the more Flemingnesque Bonds. But even by that standard, aren't there several other Bond films that are arguably worse than YOLT (MR, AVTAK, TMWTGG???)
You forget, my dear Blacleiter, that I am a Fleming Purist, sir! No joke intended. Deadly serious on this side as a backwoodsman for the literary James Bond. -{ No monkeying with the James Bond character.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
But of course, good sir, I do recall your affinity for the more Flemingnesque Bonds. But even by that standard, aren't there several other Bond films that are arguably worse than YOLT (MR, AVTAK, TMWTGG???)
You Only Live Twice in the running for worst Bond film - joke, right? 8-)
You forget, my dear Blacleiter, that I am a Fleming Purist, sir! No joke intended. Deadly serious on this side as a backwoodsman for the literary James Bond. -{ No monkeying with the James Bond character.
I love TMWTGG. MR is silly but fun, unlike DAF. AVTAK I like too. So can't agree on that. Connery just sleepwalks through that YOLT and is silly in DAF.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Well then we'll just chalk this up to a very mature, reasoned difference of opinion between two very knowledgeable, dedicated fans of James Bond. (But a silly, sleepwalking Connery still runs rings around a huffing, puffing, stilted Roger Moore! Nah nah nah nah nah!!! )
But of course, good sir, I do recall your affinity for the more Flemingnesque Bonds. But even by that standard, aren't there several other Bond films that are arguably worse than YOLT (MR, AVTAK, TMWTGG???)
You forget, my dear Blacleiter, that I am a Fleming Purist, sir! No joke intended. Deadly serious on this side as a backwoodsman for the literary James Bond. -{ No monkeying with the James Bond character.
I love TMWTGG. MR is silly but fun, unlike DAF. AVTAK I like too. So can't agree on that. Connery just sleepwalks through that YOLT and is silly in DAF.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
You hurt the Roger Moore fan in me. Heck, let's call the whole thing off. I say POT-ATO, you say PO-TATTO etc. )
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
It hasn't been settled because logically there is no way to settle it. Any attempt to reconcile the current Bond with past Bonds is an exercise in futility in my opinion, so I don't even try. However, I realize that a number fans enjoy exploring the possibilities and picking apart the possible scenarios, and I'm not trying to put a damper on your fun, so have at it.
I know this has been touched upon before,but never really settled to my mind. Interested in your thoughts.
I really don't want to fall into a Rabbit hole and regard most of the timeline obsessing and plot loopholes as noise. This one question is for me different. If this is a new and different character how do we make judgements about him, how he behaves or his motivations ?
Can someone please Hurry up and close this thread. I'm sick of SF Bashing topics, Go complain about the double looking pigeon or the Delicatessen in stainless steal.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
If this is a new and different character how do we make judgements about him, how he behaves or his motivations ?
Subjectively. Is there another way? )
Or by comparison to the Fleming novels...
By reference to the traits and standards of the character ? This is what I'm driving at, if I don't know if it's the same dude how can I do that. Perhaps an example or two would help, take the infamous Mathis Dumpster or Severine death scene. These are jarring low points for me and a number of others as they seem out of character for Bond. However if it's a new Bond and a new character....
I get what Zaphod is saying. Much of the fun of the Bond films was feeling, for me at any rate, that this was the same guy who'd been in GF, TB and all those adventures. CR was a reboot; all very well but then what? It means that Craig's Bond has never had those moments, so he is a different guy. It's like remaking your lover using the same DNA and hoping she'll be the same, technically yeah, but without those shared past experienes, she can't be.
I like Bond, we all do, because of all his past glorious moments. Craig's Bond, by definition, has never had them. Yet of course, more than ever the series leans back to those moments, lots of needless homages in QoS, and things in SF too, a lot of the publicity harks back to Connery and the past, as if they can't really believe in existing in the present.
A similar thing happened in the new Trek film, you have Spock meeting his future self who assures him that he and Kirk will be great buddies. It's kind of horrible, because of course, if you know that, then free will goes out of the picture.
I get what Zaphod is saying. Much of the fun of the Bond films was feeling, for me at any rate, that this was the same guy who'd been in GF, TB and all those adventures. CR was a reboot; all very well but then what? It means that Craig's Bond has never had those moments, so he is a different guy. It's like remaking your lover using the same DNA and hoping she'll be the same, technically yeah, but without those shared past experienes, she can't be.
I like Bond, we all do, because of all his past glorious moments. Craig's Bond, by definition, has never had them. Yet of course, more than ever the series leans back to those moments, lots of needless homages in QoS, and things in SF too, a lot of the publicity harks back to Connery and the past, as if they can't really believe in existing in the present.
A similar thing happened in the new Trek film, you have Spock meeting his future self who assures him that he and Kirk will be great buddies. It's kind of horrible, because of course, if you know that, then free will goes out of the picture.
We are in Danger of getting into some deep and metaphysical water here. It is a philosophical question as to how much events shape character. I am comfortable with the new timeline meaning that Bond has not had certain experiences. What is at issue for me is more about consistency in terms of the character and how he reacts being internally consistent with that person, that he acts and reacts in a consistent manner with the one who was in OHMSS for example. Otherwise he is a different person with the same name.
I loved it. Look beneath the surface, yes there are a few things that could be construed as plot holes but I think with a tiny bit of thought you can just assume that Silva set the whole thing up even if it isn't explicitly said on screen. Such a great directed, acted and written Bond yarn. More like this, please!
I get what Zaphod is saying. Much of the fun of the Bond films was feeling, for me at any rate, that this was the same guy who'd been in GF, TB and all those adventures. CR was a reboot; all very well but then what? It means that Craig's Bond has never had those moments, so he is a different guy. It's like remaking your lover using the same DNA and hoping she'll be the same, technically yeah, but without those shared past experienes, she can't be.
I like Bond, we all do, because of all his past glorious moments. Craig's Bond, by definition, has never had them. Yet of course, more than ever the series leans back to those moments, lots of needless homages in QoS, and things in SF too, a lot of the publicity harks back to Connery and the past, as if they can't really believe in existing in the present.
A similar thing happened in the new Trek film, you have Spock meeting his future self who assures him that he and Kirk will be great buddies. It's kind of horrible, because of course, if you know that, then free will goes out of the picture.
We are in Danger of getting into some deep and metaphysical water here. It is a philosophical question as to how much events shape character. I am comfortable with the new timeline meaning that Bond has not had certain experiences. What is at issue for me is more about consistency in terms of the character and how he reacts being internally consistent with that person, that he acts and reacts in a consistent manner with the one who was in OHMSS for example. Otherwise he is a different person with the same name.
Oh, that's easy then. Craig's Bond an insenstive thug? It's all part of his learning curve, to be gradually eked out over a few films, to fit in with the new mode of scriptwriting: that the lead character must be different at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. Otherwise it's all a waste of time.
Even Fleming's Bond seemed a nicer bloke as he went on, far from the cold, rather ruthless fella of the novel Casino Royale.
I get what Zaphod is saying. Much of the fun of the Bond films was feeling, for me at any rate, that this was the same guy who'd been in GF, TB and all those adventures. CR was a reboot; all very well but then what? It means that Craig's Bond has never had those moments, so he is a different guy. It's like remaking your lover using the same DNA and hoping she'll be the same, technically yeah, but without those shared past experienes, she can't be.
I like Bond, we all do, because of all his past glorious moments. Craig's Bond, by definition, has never had them. Yet of course, more than ever the series leans back to those moments, lots of needless homages in QoS, and things in SF too, a lot of the publicity harks back to Connery and the past, as if they can't really believe in existing in the present.
A similar thing happened in the new Trek film, you have Spock meeting his future self who assures him that he and Kirk will be great buddies. It's kind of horrible, because of course, if you know that, then free will goes out of the picture.
We are in Danger of getting into some deep and metaphysical water here. It is a philosophical question as to how much events shape character. I am comfortable with the new timeline meaning that Bond has not had certain experiences. What is at issue for me is more about consistency in terms of the character and how he reacts being internally consistent with that person, that he acts and reacts in a consistent manner with the one who was in OHMSS for example. Otherwise he is a different person with the same name.
Oh, that's easy then. Craig's Bond an insenstive thug? It's all part of his learning curve, to be gradually eked out over a few films, to fit in with the new mode of scriptwriting: that the lead character must be different at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. Otherwise it's all a waste of time.
Even Fleming's Bond seemed a nicer bloke as he went on, far from the cold, rather ruthless fella of the novel Casino Royale.
I'm all for an evolving character arc, and you are right Fleming's Bond did become more rounded and less of a blunt instrument as time went on.
Ok I will admit I enjoyed the action of SF but when you peel away the action and look at the story; it makes no sense!
First of all the timeline is all out of date. Judi Dench should never have been in the reboot because she was Brosnans era. If CR, QOS and SF are meant to be before DN then surely in those times it would have been a male M? Why is Felix Lighter and Moneypenny now black/white/black? The Aston Martin in SF is similar to the one from GF but bond hasn't done that mission yet has he? Daniel Craig has done 4 missions as a 00 agent in QOS and now he is too old and past it. We haven't got started yet!
Second of all the plot makes no sense. Silva relies on sheer luck the whole film. He got an assassin to steal the hard drive (which we never heard about since) and then Bond got shot by Eve who apparently only had one bullet in her gun and no time to reload but enough time to stare at the assassin with guilt trip eyes. Then he assumed bond would find the assassin, take the chip, go to the casino, fight off the bodyguards and NOT DIE, win over his girlfriend, sneak on a boat, escape his trap and call for help. He then assumed Q would plug in the computer to MI6 and assume he would be kept in the same room they had when he was an agent! And in the end where the hell is this hard drive? It was never recovered. That plot was just binned after we find out he has vengance for M! How did Silva also know that M would have a court hearing that day and how could he plan guards being at the train station waiting for him? How did he escape his cell when 2 armed security guards were standing watching him 12 feet away? And the bomb in the train station was detonated when Bond nearly caught him. Did he know he would be nearly caught there? And where the hell does an ex sold out agent get money for super computers, henchmen, boats etc. Did he win the euro millions? It would have made more sense if Quantum funded him.
Thirdly why send Bond after Silva? He failed all his tests! He clearly wasn't fit enough and the whole nation was at stake. What if Bond failed? Was M thinking "I'm already screwed so why not eh?" She wouldn't be able to make decisions after the first mission failed she would be suspended posting an investigation would she not? Was 008 and 009 on holiday that week? M and 007 would not have a close trust relationship like she did with Brosnan because Craig is NEW. Just through the door agent who would not have had time (4 missions) to build a chemistry with M. But who knows when this film takes place in the Bond franchise!!! So when M is in danger is it not best to call in OTHER agents, SAS, the army? No let Bond kidnap her and effectively get her killed. Shouldn't he be punished for that? Two men, a woman and three guns against 30 henchmen. Bond can manage that any day if he has too but he never puts himself in those positions.
So the agents were leeked and killed, M died and Silva died. Who the hell won? Certainly not MI6 which is why Bond should be hung for what happened. Since Goldeneye (which was the last film Albert "Cubby" Broccoli had any influence over cause he died after it) there hasn't been a DECENT bond film. TND was ok but again it was a pointless plot. TWINE was a bit better but then DAD just ripped the utter crap out off bond. CR was a decent reboot if you look past the flaws in characters and then it was destroyed in credibility by its predecessor QOS. And who makes these? Barbara Broccoli. The one trying to melt the bond image down and mould it all from scratch with Michael Wilson. If Albert saw these films now I think he'd turn in his grave. So honestly I do not see what the big fuss is about this being the "best bond film yet" because as a BOND fan it does not fit the Bond franchise very well I feel.
Understand where you are coming from. When you peel away parts of Skyfall it doesn't stand up to much. HOWEVER, I still love it (mainly for Javier Bardem who is the best villain we've seen in my view) and that DC once again does Bond so well. Do I love it as much as CR & QoS? Probably not, but it's still a great film as Bond's go and as long as DC is holding the role, I doubt we'll see a bad Bond film.
"Thank you very much. I was just out walking my RAT and seem to have lost my way... "
Much of the fun of the Bond films was feeling, for me at any rate, that this was the same guy who'd been in GF, TB and all those adventures.
Yeah, but the other thing for me is, take LTK: the darkest & most violent Bond up to that point... a guy tries to kill Bond with a swordfish, Q shows up with a laser camera, a secret facility blows up, a semi does a wheelie...
What I'm saying is that for ME, Bond movies are about adventure and absurdity as much as espionage and violence.
The new rebooted Bond 'borrows' its general tone from the Bourne films, and adventure and absurdity has been drained off and replaced with more espionage (not really great espionage, btw) and violence. Where MR went too far with the silly family tone, Craig's films go just as far in the opposite direction.
The big problem for me is that Bond was never meant to be either Jason Bourne or Derek Flint. My bond is fantastic, not gritty or dopey.
"The big problem for me is that Bond was never meant to be either Jason Bourne or Derek Flint. My bond is fantastic, not gritty or dopey."
I'll try an offer a few answers to some of the problems members are having with the "timeline" and Craig's characterization.
First, as I stated in my previous comments, there can be no timeline. They were in the novels because they were written in a particular order year after year. The film series is just a totally different animal. Yes, it uses Fleming's character and the beginning of the series used his stories, but they shot them out of sequence and kept changing actors and writers and directors. If we wanted a real timeline with a genuine character arc the way Bond goes through in the novels, they would have to have been produced for television as a public tv series or a network series with one hour episodes with cliffhangers to carry the audience through to the next part of the story the following week. This way there would have been one actor and one director (though not always, as often series go through several directors normally) which would have maintained the continuity of Bond and the timeline of the novels.
Second, I understand the notion of Bond maintaining certain character traits no matter what film he is in or what actor is portraying him. The producers and writers have tried to do this in certain ways. All the actors using the "shaken, not stirred" line. They all gamble in casinos and wear tuxedos. They all used dark humorous lines "I think he got the point"...etc. They all had respect and loyalty to M and flirted with Moneypenny. They all got geared up by Q. Some of the actors played it straight but used the dark humor when called for. Moore played it straight sometimes but more often tried to keep the character more light and "above it all" no matter what was going on. The plots were always based in some reality and often had some fantasy element thrown in. Some had very little (FRWL, CR,) others so much it threw reality (and Fleming's character) out the window (YOLT, DAF, L&LD,MR, TSWLM). Some audiences prefer the former and others the latter.
Third and lastly, the reboot with Craig is an ambitious juggling act that is not going to satisfy everyone, but as far as the current producers are concerned, it is working fine as they just made the most profitable film.
There are some who will never like this reboot. They believe the writers and Craig should have kept in some of the traits from the older films - the almost winking at the audience at times, more lighter moments and puns, more fantasy and fantastic villains and or plots, etc., and much less of the gritty reality and Bond being, well, less affected by his missions and really, not even show his personal side. I understand this, but the problem is that as much as there are many who prefer this, it's not the reality now. Yes, they and Bond have become more realistic - some would say too real, and it doing so have removed the thing that set Bond apart from the average action films. However, I feel lucky in that I am not one of those. All of the past Craig films (except QOS, which I place at the bottom because of poor direction and writing) are still JB films to me and are still many notches above most action films because of the character and his background and his history. I particularly enjoyed CR because they showed Bond as a real person finally and not just a superhero in a tux who never gets hurt. I enjoyed SF because they showed him not only being more real but finally revealed some of his background. This trend may end with Craig, but I personally look forward to seeing more of this. I hope we'll get to see him playing golf again, perhaps with Tanner (as long as it's part of a plot of course) - if only for a few minutes. Would love to see him at his flat or with M at Blades. I will look forward to the next new Q gadget. Now that they have a new crew at HQ and Craig is in full character, perhaps they will go a bit lighter in the writing and have a villain like Goldfinger with some amazing
plot. Anyway, no matter what, Bond is still Bond to me. They may show him fight like Bourne instead of throwing punches like they did in the westerns and he may not look like a fashion model but he is still is the only action hero that lives a high lifestyle and is a British agent and has a license to kill. It's just a shame there's little of Fleming's actual writing they can use from now on.
However, I feel lucky in that I am not one of those. All of the past Craig films (except QOS, which I place at the bottom because of poor direction and writing) are still JB films to me and are still many notches above most action films because of the character and his background and his history.
2 things here: First, the writing on James Bond films has never been of the calibre of Carre' novels in terms of espionage; that's never been their strength. And after the Sixties, Bond movies were not the leader in amazing action. After Barry left, Bond movies no longer had that distinctive musical style that set them truly apart. Now take away the character look we are used to (tall, handsome, dark) and the movies have been deconstructed to the point where QOS is my favourite of Craig's three simply because he has the longest, darkest hair, Olga Kurylenko is on the short side making Dan appear taller, and the plot doesn't pretend to be "epic", rather it's a short high velocity trip that doesn't congratulate its own awesomeness with another 2.5+ hr running time. Second: a lot of fans will love this reboot because.... they have to. Well made & not silly, plus, it's all there is, Bond-wise.
If CR was the very first Bond movie ever made, beginning the Bond films now, TODAY, with NO heritage of Connery, Barry or two score films and three decades to connect to/fall back on, I believe Bond movies today would be in no real higher regard than the Bourne films. Wow, another violent government agent killing bad guys in style. 8-) Pretty good flick, definitely worth a rental, dude!
Thank you for providing the most cogent, well-thought out response yet to those nagging "timeline" and "reboot" questions. I often have some of the same impressions in mind as I read the comments of others who seem to be so puzzled and/or annoyed about how Craig's Bond films fit into the series, but I could never articulate those thoughts as well as you have. Despite the various complaints about the drastic change in Bond's looks, or the lack of humor and fantasy elements, I haven't had any problem identifying the character we see in CR, QOS and SF as our "James Bond", the cinematic superspy whose adventures we have come to enjoy over these past 50 years. Sure, Daniel Craig's take on Bond is different, but for the most part all of the actors have had a somewhat different spin on the character. Roger Moore's Bond is not Connery's Bond, and Brosnan plays 007 differently from Dalton in many ways, but to me they are all Bond. There are certain elements of the "classic" Bond's that I will probably always miss - Barry's music, Maxwell and Llewellyn as Moneypenny and Q, and SPECTRE, for example, but I realize that none of those things are coming back (although I suppose they could bring back SPECTRE, but I doubt they will). So I have turned the page and I'm all in on the new Bond and the new direction. It's still "The Adventures of 007" to me. Not Jason Bourne, not Ethan Hunt, not any other pretender. Just "Bond, James Bond." -{
"The big problem for me is that Bond was never meant to be either Jason Bourne or Derek Flint. My bond is fantastic, not gritty or dopey."
I'll try an offer a few answers to some of the problems members are having with the "timeline" and Craig's characterization.
First, as I stated in my previous comments, there can be no timeline. They were in the novels because they were written in a particular order year after year. The film series is just a totally different animal. Yes, it uses Fleming's character and the beginning of the series used his stories, but they shot them out of sequence and kept changing actors and writers and directors. If we wanted a real timeline with a genuine character arc the way Bond goes through in the novels, they would have to have been produced for television as a public tv series or a network series with one hour episodes with cliffhangers to carry the audience through to the next part of the story the following week. This way there would have been one actor and one director (though not always, as often series go through several directors normally) which would have maintained the continuity of Bond and the timeline of the novels.
Second, I understand the notion of Bond maintaining certain character traits no matter what film he is in or what actor is portraying him. The producers and writers have tried to do this in certain ways. All the actors using the "shaken, not stirred" line. They all gamble in casinos and wear tuxedos. They all used dark humorous lines "I think he got the point"...etc. They all had respect and loyalty to M and flirted with Moneypenny. They all got geared up by Q. Some of the actors played it straight but used the dark humor when called for. Moore played it straight sometimes but more often tried to keep the character more light and "above it all" no matter what was going on. The plots were always based in some reality and often had some fantasy element thrown in. Some had very little (FRWL, CR,) others so much it threw reality (and Fleming's character) out the window (YOLT, DAF, L&LD,MR, TSWLM). Some audiences prefer the former and others the latter.
Third and lastly, the reboot with Craig is an ambitious juggling act that is not going to satisfy everyone, but as far as the current producers are concerned, it is working fine as they just made the most profitable film.
There are some who will never like this reboot. They believe the writers and Craig should have kept in some of the traits from the older films - the almost winking at the audience at times, more lighter moments and puns, more fantasy and fantastic villains and or plots, etc., and much less of the gritty reality and Bond being, well, less affected by his missions and really, not even show his personal side. I understand this, but the problem is that as much as there are many who prefer this, it's not the reality now. Yes, they and Bond have become more realistic - some would say too real, and it doing so have removed the thing that set Bond apart from the average action films. However, I feel lucky in that I am not one of those. All of the past Craig films (except QOS, which I place at the bottom because of poor direction and writing) are still JB films to me and are still many notches above most action films because of the character and his background and his history. I particularly enjoyed CR because they showed Bond as a real person finally and not just a superhero in a tux who never gets hurt. I enjoyed SF because they showed him not only being more real but finally revealed some of his background. This trend may end with Craig, but I personally look forward to seeing more of this. I hope we'll get to see him playing golf again, perhaps with Tanner (as long as it's part of a plot of course) - if only for a few minutes. Would love to see him at his flat or with M at Blades. I will look forward to the next new Q gadget. Now that they have a new crew at HQ and Craig is in full character, perhaps they will go a bit lighter in the writing and have a villain like Goldfinger with some amazing
plot. Anyway, no matter what, Bond is still Bond to me. They may show him fight like Bourne instead of throwing punches like they did in the westerns and he may not look like a fashion model but he is still is the only action hero that lives a high lifestyle and is a British agent and has a license to kill. It's just a shame there's little of Fleming's actual writing they can use from now on.
Comments
You forget, my dear Blackleiter, that I am a Fleming Purist, sir! No joke intended. Deadly serious on this side as a backwoodsman for the literary James Bond.
You loon!
I love TMWTGG. MR is silly but fun, unlike DAF. AVTAK I like too. So can't agree on that. Connery just sleepwalks through that YOLT and is silly in DAF.
YOLT is grand fun in the same way TSWLM or TND is.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes, but I love MR for its silliness - the look on that Airport security guards face when Jaws smiles at him, then the double take.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
True. I stand corrected. MR is still way better than DAF, though. 8-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I really don't want to fall into a Rabbit hole and regard most of the timeline obsessing and plot loopholes as noise. This one question is for me different. If this is a new and different character how do we make judgements about him, how he behaves or his motivations ?
Or by comparison to the Fleming novels...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
By reference to the traits and standards of the character ? This is what I'm driving at, if I don't know if it's the same dude how can I do that. Perhaps an example or two would help, take the infamous Mathis Dumpster or Severine death scene. These are jarring low points for me and a number of others as they seem out of character for Bond. However if it's a new Bond and a new character....
I like Bond, we all do, because of all his past glorious moments. Craig's Bond, by definition, has never had them. Yet of course, more than ever the series leans back to those moments, lots of needless homages in QoS, and things in SF too, a lot of the publicity harks back to Connery and the past, as if they can't really believe in existing in the present.
A similar thing happened in the new Trek film, you have Spock meeting his future self who assures him that he and Kirk will be great buddies. It's kind of horrible, because of course, if you know that, then free will goes out of the picture.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
We are in Danger of getting into some deep and metaphysical water here. It is a philosophical question as to how much events shape character. I am comfortable with the new timeline meaning that Bond has not had certain experiences. What is at issue for me is more about consistency in terms of the character and how he reacts being internally consistent with that person, that he acts and reacts in a consistent manner with the one who was in OHMSS for example. Otherwise he is a different person with the same name.
Oh, that's easy then. Craig's Bond an insenstive thug? It's all part of his learning curve, to be gradually eked out over a few films, to fit in with the new mode of scriptwriting: that the lead character must be different at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. Otherwise it's all a waste of time.
Even Fleming's Bond seemed a nicer bloke as he went on, far from the cold, rather ruthless fella of the novel Casino Royale.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm all for an evolving character arc, and you are right Fleming's Bond did become more rounded and less of a blunt instrument as time went on.
Understand where you are coming from. When you peel away parts of Skyfall it doesn't stand up to much. HOWEVER, I still love it (mainly for Javier Bardem who is the best villain we've seen in my view) and that DC once again does Bond so well. Do I love it as much as CR & QoS? Probably not, but it's still a great film as Bond's go and as long as DC is holding the role, I doubt we'll see a bad Bond film.
What I'm saying is that for ME, Bond movies are about adventure and absurdity as much as espionage and violence.
The new rebooted Bond 'borrows' its general tone from the Bourne films, and adventure and absurdity has been drained off and replaced with more espionage (not really great espionage, btw) and violence. Where MR went too far with the silly family tone, Craig's films go just as far in the opposite direction.
The big problem for me is that Bond was never meant to be either Jason Bourne or Derek Flint. My bond is fantastic, not gritty or dopey.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I'll try an offer a few answers to some of the problems members are having with the "timeline" and Craig's characterization.
First, as I stated in my previous comments, there can be no timeline. They were in the novels because they were written in a particular order year after year. The film series is just a totally different animal. Yes, it uses Fleming's character and the beginning of the series used his stories, but they shot them out of sequence and kept changing actors and writers and directors. If we wanted a real timeline with a genuine character arc the way Bond goes through in the novels, they would have to have been produced for television as a public tv series or a network series with one hour episodes with cliffhangers to carry the audience through to the next part of the story the following week. This way there would have been one actor and one director (though not always, as often series go through several directors normally) which would have maintained the continuity of Bond and the timeline of the novels.
Second, I understand the notion of Bond maintaining certain character traits no matter what film he is in or what actor is portraying him. The producers and writers have tried to do this in certain ways. All the actors using the "shaken, not stirred" line. They all gamble in casinos and wear tuxedos. They all used dark humorous lines "I think he got the point"...etc. They all had respect and loyalty to M and flirted with Moneypenny. They all got geared up by Q. Some of the actors played it straight but used the dark humor when called for. Moore played it straight sometimes but more often tried to keep the character more light and "above it all" no matter what was going on. The plots were always based in some reality and often had some fantasy element thrown in. Some had very little (FRWL, CR,) others so much it threw reality (and Fleming's character) out the window (YOLT, DAF, L&LD,MR, TSWLM). Some audiences prefer the former and others the latter.
Third and lastly, the reboot with Craig is an ambitious juggling act that is not going to satisfy everyone, but as far as the current producers are concerned, it is working fine as they just made the most profitable film.
There are some who will never like this reboot. They believe the writers and Craig should have kept in some of the traits from the older films - the almost winking at the audience at times, more lighter moments and puns, more fantasy and fantastic villains and or plots, etc., and much less of the gritty reality and Bond being, well, less affected by his missions and really, not even show his personal side. I understand this, but the problem is that as much as there are many who prefer this, it's not the reality now. Yes, they and Bond have become more realistic - some would say too real, and it doing so have removed the thing that set Bond apart from the average action films. However, I feel lucky in that I am not one of those. All of the past Craig films (except QOS, which I place at the bottom because of poor direction and writing) are still JB films to me and are still many notches above most action films because of the character and his background and his history. I particularly enjoyed CR because they showed Bond as a real person finally and not just a superhero in a tux who never gets hurt. I enjoyed SF because they showed him not only being more real but finally revealed some of his background. This trend may end with Craig, but I personally look forward to seeing more of this. I hope we'll get to see him playing golf again, perhaps with Tanner (as long as it's part of a plot of course) - if only for a few minutes. Would love to see him at his flat or with M at Blades. I will look forward to the next new Q gadget. Now that they have a new crew at HQ and Craig is in full character, perhaps they will go a bit lighter in the writing and have a villain like Goldfinger with some amazing
plot. Anyway, no matter what, Bond is still Bond to me. They may show him fight like Bourne instead of throwing punches like they did in the westerns and he may not look like a fashion model but he is still is the only action hero that lives a high lifestyle and is a British agent and has a license to kill. It's just a shame there's little of Fleming's actual writing they can use from now on.
First, the writing on James Bond films has never been of the calibre of Carre' novels in terms of espionage; that's never been their strength. And after the Sixties, Bond movies were not the leader in amazing action. After Barry left, Bond movies no longer had that distinctive musical style that set them truly apart. Now take away the character look we are used to (tall, handsome, dark) and the movies have been deconstructed to the point where QOS is my favourite of Craig's three simply because he has the longest, darkest hair, Olga Kurylenko is on the short side making Dan appear taller, and the plot doesn't pretend to be "epic", rather it's a short high velocity trip that doesn't congratulate its own awesomeness with another 2.5+ hr running time.
Second: a lot of fans will love this reboot because.... they have to. Well made & not silly, plus, it's all there is, Bond-wise.
If CR was the very first Bond movie ever made, beginning the Bond films now, TODAY, with NO heritage of Connery, Barry or two score films and three decades to connect to/fall back on, I believe Bond movies today would be in no real higher regard than the Bourne films. Wow, another violent government agent killing bad guys in style. 8-) Pretty good flick, definitely worth a rental, dude!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS