the Producers seem to have found a new
Enthusiasm for the franchise.
I'm not a fan of remakes, but I would be more keen on the "reboot" if they started with Casino Royale and then made the next 3 Fleming novels in order: LALD, MR, and DAF. Otherwise, what's the point?
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Only my opinion, but they've made those films, No remakes for me, sorry.
I want new villains and new stories. -{
Then why did we need a reboot? The only way I could justify "starting from scratch" would be going back to Fleming and faithfully recreating some of his earliest novels. Re-title them as Undertaker's Wind, Drax's Gambit, and Nothing Propinks Like Propinquity.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
They did go back to Fleming, his Character, The Bond on screen now is the
Bond of the novels. A man with doubts and inner demons, not a comic book
Super hero.
As for the stories, once again sorry they have been done and will not be
Bettered, OHMSS, GF, TB. I'm sure they will use whatever of the unused
Fleming ideas as they can in future films, but the most important thing for
Me is that we now have Fleming's Bond on screen. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
They did go back to Fleming, his Character, The Bond on screen now is the
Bond of the novels. A man with doubts and inner demons, not a comic book
Super hero.
-{
They might as well have used Jason Statham...oh wait, they did! )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
) Thankfully on AJB ,we can have different opinions and still be friends. {[]
I think the key to staying friends here is lack of vitriol. We can say a Bond film let us down without it being an attack upon them do not find it so for them.
And the same in reverse.
I think a real Bond fan can look at a movie (take MR in my case) and say, "I didn't like it" instead of "It sucks, and you're an idiot if you dare disagree."
AJB has been a rare place where we can disagree, yet still laugh about it!
They did go back to Fleming, his Character, The Bond on screen now is the
Bond of the novels. A man with doubts and inner demons, not a comic book
Super hero.
-{
They might as well have used Jason Statham...oh wait, they did! )
I get the decisions EON made when they brought Bond back after being gone for 6 years. They wanted to give audiences what they missed and remembered about Bond, hence the paint-by-numbers, best-of-Bond strategy...I get it. I understand too how reverting to what was a known, sure-fire success, e.g., the Bond formula, was tempting and comfortable because of the older production team members no longer being there, including Cubby who at that point was just a figurehead. But two glaring things didn't sit well with me: (1) I hate how EON (BB and MW) fabricated this desperate narrative about their creative stagnation, framing this into some abstract boogey man that they needed to exorcise; it seemed to me that they did it in such a way that they deflected blame for the past 4 movies as if someone else was responsible for production and the creative direction of the PB movies...I hate how it seemed like they washed their hands of the monstrosity of a PB Bond, as it it was all Brosnan's fault. (2) I really hate how they totally took a deconstructive approach to the reboot, totally trashing the staple qualities of both cinematic and literary Bond. The most concise parallel I can bring up is the casting of Keaton for Batman; sure it was good and it worked, while at the same time, it was not Batman, judging even by how he's been portrayed in every animated version since the 90s and even in the Nolan trilogy.
Agree. Deflecting blame was exactly what they were doing. In regards to the Batman/Keaton comparison I think personally it compares more with TLD. Tim Burton seems to like the humor and silliness of the Adam West series (which is why Nicholson's Joker seems closer to Cesar Romero and light years form Ledger's character) but tried to inject more drama and the personal struggle of the Dark Knight character. It's an entertaining film but seems out of balance. This is how I feel about the Dalton entries.
For me, the reboot approach seems more like the Nolan entries - making the character into a real individual (and even explaining the more real origins of Batman's togs and equipment). As far as trashing the qualities - which ones do you refer to?
Good points, which I agree with when looking at the franchise parallels in terms of seriousness vs. campiness. Yes, like with Nolan's Batman, the reboot attempted to show a realistic perspective on the Bond world, though I would stop there and not automatically equate this version as being the most "literary Bond." What I want to single out in my comparison is that with the Burton Batman, he threw out the more staple traits of the Batman. I've read the comics since the early 70s and got to appreciate the darkness of the character and his world, but I also liked the contrast in how Bruce Wayne was portrayed as a Bond like playboy, with his looks and lifestyle; Burton however portrayed Bruce Wayne as eccentric, and quite frankly against type, which he explained as a conscious decision based on his own experiences and outlook in life. He opted for Michael Keaton because he gave off an internalized vibe of the character's darkness, without letting any overwhelming tall, dark and handsome qualities getting in the way of that.
I liken a similar approach with the Bond reboot, though I don't think it went through the same genesis process as Burton took in his personal vision. Apart from the obvious formula window dressing that were intentionally and obviously missing, e.g., the gunbarrel, placement of Bond theme Q, Moneypenny, the casting of Craig because of his contra-Bond physical attributes, was also obviously meant as invasive palate cleanser for audiences. Was it necessary? Part of me wants to say, "Sure it was," for the sake of the big picture for the franchise and its following, but as a Bond fan, I feel it bordered on a serious violation of the very nature and foundation of the character and this is where I make a solid connection between that and what was done with Burton’s Batman. Another recent example is Robert Downey, Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes, since his version retains the original setting of the original stories.
Ohhhhhhh....Downey...Holmes.
When I saw it I had two viewpoints. My first was, wow, what great graphics and effects and staging. Being a graphic designer I was enamored of the credit sequence. They also did a great job reproducing the gritty, coal smudged atmosphere of London in that period.
My Conan Doyle fan side was greatly disappointed. Not only because Downey was totally miscast physically but between that and the attempt at making a Holmes based story into another supernatural action piece on a graphic comics level as opposed to the murder mystery-melodramas I was used to growing up made me sad to think that there were droves of audiences not familiar with the Doyle canon who saw this and thought they were seeing an authentic recreation. This did cross the "border violation" for me. Yes, the Bond reboot has skated near it for me, but has yet to cross it yet. To me that had already been done by EON when they came up with a hollow volcano, Blofeld cross dressing and Moore smoking cigars and wearing safari suits.
) Thankfully on AJB ,we can have different opinions and still be friends. {[]
I think the key to staying friends here is lack of vitriol. We can say a Bond film let us down without it being an attack upon them do not find it so for them.
And the same in reverse.
I think a real Bond fan can look at a movie (take MR in my case) and say, "I didn't like it" instead of "It sucks, and you're an idiot if you dare disagree."
AJB has been a rare place where we can disagree, yet still laugh about it!
{[]
The films and novels are pieces of art. It's in the eye of the beholder as the saying goes. Art is one of the most important virtues of the human race for me (though as a professional artist I may be biased in that view).
My wife hates the violence in films because she is an RN (and was a cancer RN most of her career) and seen many die slow pointless deaths and dealt with grief and suffering and ER victims of multiple accidents. She believes the over stylized violence in film/tv either denigrates real violence and how destructive it is or (in the case of films like Private Ryan) shows it so real that it traumatizes audiences who otherwise may never have experience that type of trauma in their life.
I understand her POV very well and agree with her. I've suffered through several incidents of physical trauma myself and can attest to how incredibly ridiculous the way
it is portrayed in fiction films. On the other hand, I can still watch films like the Bond series and appreciate them as a piece of art.
My point is everyone has a different take when it comes to how they like/dislike a film and as much as I consider this art form a great testament to the creative side of our humanity, I also know it is still only art and should not be taken as seriously or personally as our moral behaviours. Personally attacking someone because of a moral or social injustice is one thing, doing the same over a piece of art is to me just bad manners. I may dislike a particular piece of art, but I appreciate the effort put into it and if someone else is enamored of it I say I'm glad the artists are appreciated.
My Conan Doyle fan side was greatly disappointed. Not only because Downey was totally miscast physically but between that and the attempt at making a Holmes based story into another supernatural action piece on a graphic comics level as opposed to the murder mystery-melodramas I was used to growing up made me sad to think that there were droves of audiences not familiar with the Doyle canon who saw this and thought they were seeing an authentic recreation. This did cross the "border violation" for me. Yes, the Bond reboot has skated near it for me, but has yet to cross it yet. To me that had already been done by EON when they came up with a hollow volcano, Blofeld cross dressing and Moore smoking cigars and wearing safari suits.
True, that border, the outermost one where shots are fired, hasn't been crossed by EON, but IMO they did dangerously come close to Guy Ritchie gangster territory, ironically since we're discussing Sherlock Holmes. The CR PTS for example with Bond's deathknell grimmace, for me came really close though for the most part DC has managed to keep himself classy.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Goldeneye was Pierce Brosnan's gem. Goldeneye was a perfect film, and had some of the coolest characters. Everything about Goldeneye was perfect. In my opinion it featured one of the coolest Bond and girl duos. Bond and Natalya Simonova were great. Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough seem similar, and Die Another Day was way different than Brosnan's previous three. After Die Another Day the series changed a lot.
The way I see it is that it's like rock and roll music. Led Zeppelin and AC/DC used to be really cool and rebellious. Motorcycles, tattoos, smoking cigarettes, etc. But now seeing a 50 year old conservative family-man watering his lawn and waxing his car with faded tattoos, gray hair, a pot belly, while listening to AC/DC on his radio from 1985 just doesn't seem rebellious anymore.
That's what I think happened with Brosnan's Bond. The Bond film series was born in challenging people's tastes. It was criticized on debut for having too much violence and nudity. Moore, of course, did his own thing and made Bond survive in the hippie era. And Dalton, energized the role. But Brosnan was the point where he solidified Bond as a long-standing cultural icon. Kind of like how grade-school teachers went from scoffing at Facebook to incorporating it in their lesson plans to teach young kids, Brosnan became the establishment.
I was thinking after LTK was a bit of an unsuccessful Bond film, so
Far as Box office goes, I think the Production team decided to play
It safe. By getting P Brosnan, a well known TV star, who perfectly
Fitted the bill as 007. Although his films were enjoyable , they have
The feeling of reusing ideas from older Bonds, and not taking any
Chances.
?
Thats exactly what they were. The character didn't progress. We went backwards compared with the Dalton years
The constant change of spazzy directors didn't help..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Comments
I'm not a fan of remakes, but I would be more keen on the "reboot" if they started with Casino Royale and then made the next 3 Fleming novels in order: LALD, MR, and DAF. Otherwise, what's the point?
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I want new villains and new stories. -{
Then why did we need a reboot? The only way I could justify "starting from scratch" would be going back to Fleming and faithfully recreating some of his earliest novels. Re-title them as Undertaker's Wind, Drax's Gambit, and Nothing Propinks Like Propinquity.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Bond of the novels. A man with doubts and inner demons, not a comic book
Super hero.
As for the stories, once again sorry they have been done and will not be
Bettered, OHMSS, GF, TB. I'm sure they will use whatever of the unused
Fleming ideas as they can in future films, but the most important thing for
Me is that we now have Fleming's Bond on screen. -{
Our literary man Superado seems to disagree ? ?:)
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
They might as well have used Jason Statham...oh wait, they did!
And mine is the same as yours on this issue. -{
And the same in reverse.
I think a real Bond fan can look at a movie (take MR in my case) and say, "I didn't like it" instead of "It sucks, and you're an idiot if you dare disagree."
AJB has been a rare place where we can disagree, yet still laugh about it!
{[]
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
+1.
No?
I may have the same opinion on some details, but still don't want to be your friend
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I keep on telling everyone how unique I am
They usually reply by replacing "unique" with "annoying"
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Ohhhhhhh....Downey...Holmes.
When I saw it I had two viewpoints. My first was, wow, what great graphics and effects and staging. Being a graphic designer I was enamored of the credit sequence. They also did a great job reproducing the gritty, coal smudged atmosphere of London in that period.
My Conan Doyle fan side was greatly disappointed. Not only because Downey was totally miscast physically but between that and the attempt at making a Holmes based story into another supernatural action piece on a graphic comics level as opposed to the murder mystery-melodramas I was used to growing up made me sad to think that there were droves of audiences not familiar with the Doyle canon who saw this and thought they were seeing an authentic recreation. This did cross the "border violation" for me. Yes, the Bond reboot has skated near it for me, but has yet to cross it yet. To me that had already been done by EON when they came up with a hollow volcano, Blofeld cross dressing and Moore smoking cigars and wearing safari suits.
Hey!!! Leave my beloved YOLT out of this!
The films and novels are pieces of art. It's in the eye of the beholder as the saying goes. Art is one of the most important virtues of the human race for me (though as a professional artist I may be biased in that view).
My wife hates the violence in films because she is an RN (and was a cancer RN most of her career) and seen many die slow pointless deaths and dealt with grief and suffering and ER victims of multiple accidents. She believes the over stylized violence in film/tv either denigrates real violence and how destructive it is or (in the case of films like Private Ryan) shows it so real that it traumatizes audiences who otherwise may never have experience that type of trauma in their life.
I understand her POV very well and agree with her. I've suffered through several incidents of physical trauma myself and can attest to how incredibly ridiculous the way
it is portrayed in fiction films. On the other hand, I can still watch films like the Bond series and appreciate them as a piece of art.
My point is everyone has a different take when it comes to how they like/dislike a film and as much as I consider this art form a great testament to the creative side of our humanity, I also know it is still only art and should not be taken as seriously or personally as our moral behaviours. Personally attacking someone because of a moral or social injustice is one thing, doing the same over a piece of art is to me just bad manners. I may dislike a particular piece of art, but I appreciate the effort put into it and if someone else is enamored of it I say I'm glad the artists are appreciated.
Agree! {[]
True, that border, the outermost one where shots are fired, hasn't been crossed by EON, but IMO they did dangerously come close to Guy Ritchie gangster territory, ironically since we're discussing Sherlock Holmes. The CR PTS for example with Bond's deathknell grimmace, for me came really close though for the most part DC has managed to keep himself classy.
Been thinking about this. Yes, they were playing safe. We went backwards. The number of **** directors didn't help.
They seemed to discover what they were doing with CR.
That's what I think happened with Brosnan's Bond. The Bond film series was born in challenging people's tastes. It was criticized on debut for having too much violence and nudity. Moore, of course, did his own thing and made Bond survive in the hippie era. And Dalton, energized the role. But Brosnan was the point where he solidified Bond as a long-standing cultural icon. Kind of like how grade-school teachers went from scoffing at Facebook to incorporating it in their lesson plans to teach young kids, Brosnan became the establishment.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Thats exactly what they were. The character didn't progress. We went backwards compared with the Dalton years
The constant change of spazzy directors didn't help..